Science fiction novelist Patrick Tomlinson, who previously accused Tucker Carlson of being a Nazi recently suggested using water balloons to disable Russian tanks.
Tomlinson accused Carlson of being a Nazi back in April 2021 taking to Twitter to share a segment from Tuck Carlson Tonight on Twitter writing, “This is straight Nazi propaganda right from the taps.”
This is straight Nazi propaganda right from the taps. https://t.co/hOJKSoCkCw
— Patrick S. Tomlinson (@stealthygeek) April 13, 2021
He would also target Jordan B. Peterson writing, ‘Buddy when your ‘ideas’ seemlessly (sp?) plug-and-play with a Nazi super villain it’s time to have a seat and a long think.”
On February 25th, 2022 Tomlinson suggested using water balloons to disable Russian tanks.
He wrote, “Fun fact, #Ukraine: A water balloon filled with $1 of paint thrown at the periscopes can disable a tank as fast as a $150,000 Javelin missile.”
“Please do have fun,” he added.
In a subsequent tweet Tomlinson added, “Learn from us. Tanks are not assets in an urban environment. They are anchors.”
He attempted to explain, “Armored assets require a significant number of infantry to protect them. From you. Shoot out their scopes with rifles. Throw ‘cocktails’ into their engine decks.”
Finally, he concluded, “Turn them into ovens.”
The Modern War Institute at West Point which describes itself as a “national resource within the Department of Military Instruction that studies recent and ongoing conflicts to prepare present and future leaders to win in a complex world” provided a report on tactics used to defeat active protection systems (APS) in 2020.
APS are described as “systems designed to protect their armored vehicles from the most likely threats from infantry.” Specifically the systems “electronically sense incoming direct-fire ATGMs [antitank guided missiles] and . . . HEAT munitions, and they defeat the incoming munitions before they impact the vehicle.”
In order to defeat these systems, the Modern War Institute suggests four different tactics.
First, they suggest firing “a single missile as soon as the target enters the engagement area.” They explain, “A vehicle that has an APS might be defeated through the simple malfunctioning of its unit, and targeting it quickly would aim to induce such a malfunction. A keyhole shot from a fire-and-forget system can minimize the risk the commander would assume while potentially destroying the enemy vehicle.”
Next, they suggest overwhelming the system with multiple missiles. However, they note this tactic might not work depending on the APS deployed.
The Modern War Institute details, “Coordinating multiple antitank teams attacking the same target nearly simultaneously and from different angles is not an easy task. To defeat the Arena system, for example, a commander would have to coordinate multiple missiles arriving from different directions simultaneously. A multidirectional attack could also force the vehicle to expose the rear of the system to one of the antitank teams, enabling their missile to bypass the protection. The Arena has this rear vulnerability, but the Trophy and GL5 do not.”
The third tactic they suggest “is to use indirect fire to damage the system or trigger it to fire.”
“Accurate sustained fire from company 60-millimeter mortars or M320 grenade launchers, or calling for fire from higher echelons, could damage the system while preventing enemy direct-fire weapons from engaging. A well-constructed defense could also use preparatory fires to deteriorate APS capabilities before a tank enters the engagement area to such an extent that the “trial shot” can have a high chance of success,” they explain.
The fourth tactic they suggest “is to simply use munitions that are not countered by the APS to engage and damage it.”
The Modern War Institute explains, “A high-caliber machine gun could fired in an effort to destroy the munition casings or damage the sensors. A rocket could also be fired so that it explodes next to the vehicle instead of being directed at it. An APS might not deem this shot a threat, and a skilled shot—aimed at a nearby wall, for example—could potentially produce enough shrapnel to damage sensors or munition casings and be followed up by a shot that then has a higher probability of success.”
They also note, “Direct-fire degradation is a more risky option, but could be planned as a fallback tactic if indirect preparatory fires are not sufficient and the unit is unable to engage with enough simultaneous anti-tank munitions to overwhelm the system.”
What do you make of Tomlinson’s suggestions to disable Russian tanks?