Weapon systems are not obsolete just because they can be defeated--warfare is not a case where one weapon system just totally creams everything else, but closer to a rock-paper-scissors scenario where nothing is truly dominant. Tanks are not useless because they are easily defeated in some scenarios, but rather, tanks are useful as "part of the complete package". For example, tanks proved to be a critical component to the successful Ukrainian operation that led to the Russian rout in Kherson Oblast a few months ago.
Infantry can disperse to defeat the weapon systems you're thinking about. That's where tanks currently really struggle.
Tanks have been overmatched for some time both in the open, and in the close, in both conventional and unconventional conflicts, and we don't really seem to have major ideas to solve that (with the exception of active protection, which only works against an unsophisticated enemy as you're broadcasting your position.)
Also - I said 'where they go forward from today' - I didn't say they were useless.
Modern war (what NATO does, not what Russia does) has radar sharing, so one radar behind the lines, or in an airplane well behind the lines - shares the information to everyone. Just a few well hardened/defended radars it all you need, nobody else is using active radar.
No, these systems have vehicle mounted radars. You can't network that - they are responding in sub-millisecond times.
> nobody else is using active radar.
You're bonkers. Trophy. Arena. Quick Kill. All active radar.
I predict that the "tank" of the future will have a smaller main gun and thinner armor. Instead of slugging it out toe-to-toe with enemy armored vehicles and fortifications it will hang back and locate targets using it's own drones plus data links from other platforms. Then attack those targets using indirect fire missiles and suicide drones. Crews will be smaller, probably just two, with the option to operate temporarily uncrewed under remote control or with some limited autonomy. Survivability will be provided through high mobility, some low-observability (stealth) technology, EW, and updated active protection systems. Think of a mini "frigate" driving around on land.
Right - at which point it's not really a tank and is more of a normal AFV.
Missiles on tanks have been a thing for decades and really don't add much value. Main gun rounds are much cheaper, and you'll always need something that can blow up fortifications. And crew size can't really get much lower than 3 (four is really optimal) because of pulling guard duty, maintenance etc. Replacing a tread with two guys leaves no one to pull security watch.
Modern top-attack ATGMs have become so lethal that no amount of armor is going to be effective. So if tanks are going to continue having a role in high-intensity conflicts then they need to avoid getting hit. That means hanging back and using off-board sensors and stand-off weapons instead of direct fire cannons. This will be tremendously expensive, but still cheaper than the alternative. Again mimicking the evolution of surface warships.
Future armored units are going to contain a mix of manned and unmanned combat vehicles. So they're going to have to figure out a way to do maintenance on vehicles with zero crew. Probably by having extra maintainers follow behind in transport and engineering vehicles. Sure this will slow down some work, but what's the alternative?
And you can't wave away the flaws of the Leo 1 as being too early for its time. The trend has been 180º in the opposite direction.
Focusing on top attack weapons is missing the forest for the trees. There are numerous weapons that can destroy a tank:
- Mines - Artillery, both unguided and guided - ATGMs, whether top attack or side. All can penetrate most armor if they hit. - SMAW/RPG etc - Air launched unguided rockets - Anti-tank grenades dropped by COTS drones - Ad infinitum
Yet no military (including Ukraine) is saying they don't want tanks, only armchair generals who see another RMA in the mist. There's a saying "Ships are safe in a harbor, but that's not what ships are for." Trying to make sure a tank is invulnerable ends up being a fool's errand. Use them appropriately, and they'll be fine.
Not really. War is unbalanced and the metagame is strict. Weapon systems do get obsoleted if they can be defeated cheaply and easily. But, when you have weapons, you tend to use them. The Russian meta is to hide behind a wall of meat shields and blow shit up with artillery from further back. The Ukranian meta is to... blow shit up with longer range artillery and then when the enemy is so weakened, demoralized, underequipped, and dead; rush them with vehicles and artillery.
In this war long range artillery is the thing that matters. In a war against the US, you would see a lot of elements downplayed simply due to a capable airforce.
Also I think you meant Kharkiv
Ah yes, I did mix up Kherson and Kharkiv.
That was the primary tactical doctrine in 1919. In fairness it started with "rush them with infantry", but that was countered with static defenses. Which was then countered with tanks (your statement). Which was countered with anti-tank weaponry. Which was countered with infantry. Which was countered with mechanized infantry. Which was countered with mobile artillery. Which was countered by aircraft. Which was countered with.. Seeing a pattern here?
As I understand it, this is not quite accurate. Trenches are pretty resilient to artillery fire. Especially shitty WWI artillery. Trench rushes tended to be pretty effective, but it was very difficult to solidify any gains because the enemy would always have a second line of trenches to quickly counterattack while you were inevitably overextended. The modern precise artillery and intel of the west at least is effective on an entirely different level where supply lines far behind the front are in danger.
> Seeing a pattern here?
That military tech evolves? I mean, yeah, obviously. The claim being addressed here is that things don't become obsolete. Many things do.
You do everything you can to make your troops as mobile and fast to respond as possible, then you keep moving around and probing until you find a place where the enemy isn't ready for you. Exploit that, then move the battle somewhere else while the enemy scrambles to adapt.
Ukraine has been doing exactly that in this war. Russia has enough trouble keeping their units supplied when they're in neat deployments - expecting them to be able to respond to multiple probing attacks along an extended front while maintaining force in all the areas not currently under attach is impossible for them.
The truth is the tank was never meant to be invulnerable piece of military hardware but one that can withstand small and medium calibre arms and shrapnel/fragmentation while also delivering direct fire to a front line location. In that regard there is nothing that can replace it yet and will continue to be used.
[0] https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/the-tank-is-not-obsolete-a...
But an AFV can do this.
In my opinion, AFVs are better suited for situations where speed is more important than the absolute firepower of a tank.
I (like a lot of people) don't see it adding up at the moment and are interested where they'll have to develop to add up again. I don't think that's even a particularly controversial opinion amongst experts?
Most experts actually believe that tanks are still valuable and that Russia's army is using them like idiots.
You may have meant an IFV, and in some cases those work. But that's like saying that a rifle and a machine gun both shoot bullets, so why would you want a machine gun?
https://www.forces.net/news/whats-difference-between-armoure...
Yeah many AFV are undergunned compared to a tank, and we can always want more firepower and more armour, but trade-off on support and things like that starts to break down.
The point is if you say you want ‘protected mobility and direct fire to support infantry’ then you don’t need a tank, you just need any AFV.
People normally want tanks for anti-tank - well that may well be better done by infantry for the foreseeable future - and for shock action, but that doesn’t seem to work brilliantly in the current environment either as in most environments it’s going to be the tank getting the shock not you.
Anti-tank can't be the only role for anti-tank, by the way, or they never would have been invented. I don't buy that line of argument at all.
I didn't say tanks only did anti-tank - I said they also do shock action. It's the only reason they exist in that it's the only thing that they are needed for that you couldn't do with another AFV.
> defeated by these basic WW2 obstacles, and currently completely overmatched by anti-tank weapons. The best chance of active protection systems from here rely on always-on active radar which means you're lighting yourself up.
does not apply equally well to AFVs? If the answer is "none", why are you talking about AFVs as if they're going to survive longer than tanks? Other vehicles than AFVs can be build to carry troops into battle, if it turns out armor is a bad tradeoff, just as surely as other machines could be designed to provide direct fire support. But a bunch of infantry in a can is always going to be a great target for a Javelin, right?
The reason the Russians are getting sandbagged is because they aren't doing combined arms; In some areas they have tanks, and infantry, but no artillery coordination. Arty is the best counter to ATGM teams, but you have to have the barrels, the field observers to aim it, all in coordination with the tanks and infantry (so you don't smack them). In other areas they have tons of infantry and artillery, but no tanks so they can't really advance.
Russia's BTG design isn't really around tanks, but instead AFVs. They use tanks as fire support for infantry, but the average battalion only started the war with around 10 tanks (vs 40 IFV). Of course some units were understrength, (and now much worse).
This makes the BTG very brittle when opposing forces have matching tanks and good ATGMs. Combine this with poorly trained infantry, and all those IFVs are just wasted.
Like what do you think they should do? Walk everywhere?
> Arty is the best counter to ATGM teams
I don't think so. These teams are tiny and dispersed. How would you find them, and how would you fix them, in order to bring on guns? Ability to FFS these teams is a major issue (also not solved well by tanks!)
Countering ATGM teams (whether crewed vehicles or dismounts) relies on scouting (both recon and UAV) to find them. That is hard. Often times you'll stumble into a cauldron where your advance turns into a reconnaissance by fire. Then you fix with artillery, and finally have your infantry kill them. This is hard when fighting a well-trained and well equipped opponent. But the Russians aren't even trying.
It's not like the Ukrainians have great gear. These are guys driving around in technicals and ATVs, lightly protected, and using ATGMs to great effect. They're not winning because they have great ATGMs, they're winning because they have the battlefield intelligence to be able to operate quickly and with less protection.
In areas where they have had less success (Kherson mostly until now) they've had trouble with scouting, and the Russians have been more fortified. As those defensive lines break down and they lose their LOCs, they become easier to exploit.
Ok.
But if you go back to the start of the thread I didn't say that and I'm not sure anyone else did either! I said 'interested to see where they go next'!
> It's not like the Ukrainians have great gear.
They do have Western MRAPP for example (saw a photo of an Ridgeback surviving a Russian ambush.)
Yes, the West has been slowly supplying vehicles[1], but most of the St. Javelin success was early during the assault on Kiev where TDF units crushed the Russian spearhead, riding in ATVs, trucks, whatever they could find. Since then they've been getting handmedowns from the West, which is glad to be rid of their MRAPPs due to high operating costs.
[1] The West has been terrible in general about supplying AFVs to Ukraine. Other than old M113 and ancient Soviet gear, they seem hesitant to supply anything remotely modern. Germany has even balked at supplying Leo 1s that have been outdated since the late 60's/early 70's.
Whoah there. That's not what I said. I don't think I've used that word once. I said I was interested in seeing where they go next.
The UK sent Ridgeback MRAPP, and Ukraine seem happy, based on Tweets, with the protection they're giving in practice. Yes they were sent as they were being withdrawn anyway due to restructuring, but they were only about ten years old!
When your weapon costs >10x more than the weapon needed to eliminate it with near-100% certainty, your weapon is obsolete. Tanks for the memories.
Humans are also vulnerable to bullets yet we still use them on the battlefield. Cost of bullet vs human is probably a bit more than 10x.
There are no perfect weapons, tanks are vulnerable to ATGMs but if used correctly will overrun an ATGM positions. Ita a game of rock papper sciscors but with more than three options :D.
There are cases within the the last few years such as the siege of Marawi where small arms attacking armoured vehicles sensors disabled the vehicles.
The Chieftan disagrees with you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8
I suspect he has more practical and theoretical knowledge on the topic than the sum total of all posters on this thread.
Other weapon systems do go completely obsolete over time - it's not a truism that all claims of obsolesce are wrong.
Also - I said 'where they go forward from today' - I didn't say they were obsolete.
Because these systems have to work in formation without interfering with each other, they use pseudo random noise like signals and correlation based receivers. They're also mmw systems working at short range. It's not quite the suicidal beacon you're assuming, because it ends up the folks who design this stuff are in fact aware of the principle of emissions control.
I misread your comment to mean flames/burning stuff (not weapons fire), and wanted to pause for a moment to admire your approach to life.
:)