The Russians, it is reported, adapted in Syria with three new tactics:
- tank carousel;
- tank trousers;
- syrian shaft
[A ]“tank carousel” ... is Non-stop shooting, when three, six, nine or more tanks move uninterrupted in a circular motion, one pummeling the enemy, the other moving to the rear and reloading, the third preparing to enter firing position, and so on.
Why? If the enemy has anti-tank missiles or tanks, that circular movement isn't going to throw them off. And if they don't have anti-tank missiles, just sit there and shoot while out of range.
And this might be done with three tanks? Oh good grief:
Even if the tactic works, three tanks is kind of pointless.
This is just an old cavalry tactic--which made sense at the time--pointlessly revived. Just shoot your damned weapons, if the enemy has nothing to reach you, with other tanks in overwatch just in case to shoot at anything that does shoot at your tanks.
And that's if you don't have indirect fire to let you keep your tanks safely out of the line of fire.
This is possible for a static line with long fields of fire against enemies without the means to shoot at tanks. But it is ludicrous.
Next up:
[“Tank] trousers” ... involves tanks alternating fire between two trenches, without staying in one position for more than a few seconds. The tank enters the trench, fires, kicks into reverse and moves to the next. Enemy anti-tank weapons don’t have time to react.
This is nothing more than having alternate firing positions and I'm reasonably sure I read about that in US Army practice in the 1970s. Certainly, there is nothing new about digging in tanks for a "hull down" position.
And again, if the enemy has anti-tank weapons they will notice the big loud cloud-spewing tank entering and leaving the trench with plenty of time to shoot it--especially as it exposes more vulnerable top armor as it enters and leaves the trench.
Again, this is something possible for a static line against enemies without the ability to shoot at your tanks. And if that is the case, why bother moving?
And finally, although it is unnamed it must be the "syrian shaft":
In Syria, mounds and bench terrace began to be used in tactics on the use of armor on the battlefield. Here, tanks can move along the parapet and, when they reach an opening, shoot, quickly concealing themselves back behind the embankment. So long as they remain in constant motion, it becomes almost impossible to aim at or hit them.
If the tanks are in constant motion, how do they aim?
But never mind. So tanks are tied to long walls that provide cover and concealment from enemies, with gaps so the tank can drive into the opening and fire its weapons.
Congratulations, the Russians invented the battlement. For tanks.
Good Lord, if the Russians want to use their tanks as artillery to bombard, do what America did in the Korean War when the front was static and the enemy lacked armor:
This at least keeps the tanks safely away from enemy direct fire weapons.
And for added insults to the reader's intelligence, after detailing silly tactics that require a static frontline to use, the author concludes:
In an era of local conflicts without clear front lines, the idea of large tank armies facing off along vast fronts has become a thing of the past.
I don't know if this article is stupidity by some breathless Putin fanboy or disinformation because the Russians damn well know that the most important weapon of the tank is its engine, making it a mobile, protected, cannon.
Tying tanks to static positions is surely an acceptable adaptation for Russian tactics of bombarding enemies on static front lines. But the glorious tactics discovered by Putin's minions in Syria seem pretty darned stupid and in no way reflect how Russia would use massed armor on a modern battlefield.
