Difficult to see where tanks go forward from today. Still 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.
Difficult to see where infantry can still be useful. Still defeated by basic Napoleonic-era weapons, and completely overmatched by... almost everything. Yet no one seriously proposes to eliminate infantry battalions, whereas people constantly do the same for things like tanks and aircraft carriers.
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.
> 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.
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.
"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"
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.
Truly modern, "Western-style" warfare is more about the pace of battle and maintaining consistency in the "information space" than anything else.
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.
> Difficult to see where infantry can still be useful.
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.
Where we go forward today is that tanks will evolve along the same lines as naval surface combatants (frigates / destroyers / cruisers) have, just a few decades later. Warships used to primarily rely on cannons for offense (with large gun crews) and armor for defense, but the advent of strike aircraft and then guided missiles made those designs obsolete. Now surface ships have minimal gun armaments and little or no armor. Instead they rely on their own guided missiles and aircraft (helicopters and drones) for offense, and speed plus active measures (interceptor missiles, EW, decoys) for defense.
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.
This was the thinking behind the Leopard 1. It had really thin armor compared to peers because it didn't think it mattered. Later upgrades added spaced armor etc to help with ATGMs, and the Leo 2 had Chobbham so it was kind of a rejection of that theory.
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.
The design philosophy behind the Leopard 1 wasn't necessarily wrong, just too early. Air-to-air missiles on aircraft were a thing for decades but didn't really add much value at first. Until around 1990 when the technology improved enough that they started working really well.
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?
Zero crew maintenance will never be effective. You'll just be doing what the Soviets are doing in Ukraine; abandoning $25M tanks when they throw a track. Or you'll be dooming maintenance crews to a quick death.
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.
I'm thinking of a "tank" more in terms of some continuity with the current concept of operations regardless of the exact hardware. Navy destroyers look completely different today than they did during WW2 but still perform the same missions. This notional future tank will probably share some components with a family of other similar AFVs, but will be optimized for striking hard targets rather than for troop transport, air defense, or whatever other AFV roles are needed.
>(with the exception of active protection, which only works against an unsophisticated enemy as you're broadcasting your position.)
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.
That is a take I see often on Twitter and HN but actual military experts tend to disagree [0].
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.
Who uses small-arms fire against tanks? I'm sure tanks can withstand arrows and crossbow bolts too, but that won't help in an environment where the enemy has a healthy supply of Javelins.
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.
Nobody will use small-arms against a tank because it has no effect. That is the point.
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.
> 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
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?
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.
What critique of tanks on the modern battlefield doesn't also apply to any other armored vehicle? The same weaknesses and weapons apply to all of them, and the payloads, troop carrier, big gun, etc, can also be supplied by other means if that works out. So I can't see why distinguishing tanks, AFVs, and IFVs helps this discussion...
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.
Most AFV have some kind of integral infantry support (literally in the back) while a tank needs to be battle-teamed to do that. Battle-teaming is hard to do because inevitably the two vehicles don’t quite match capability.
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?
So when an AFV gets smacked by a Stugna/Javelin etc, the entire squad is killed?
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.
> So when an AFV gets smacked by a Stugna/Javelin etc, the entire squad is killed?
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!)
I'm just pointing out that IFVs have the exact same vulnerabilities as tanks, but no one seems to be saying get rid of them. Both are better than being WW1 foot soldiers.
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.
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.)
It's comparing like for like. You think tanks are obsolete for reasons XYZ, that all apply to all AFVs.
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!
To the extent you meant IFV, while they are largely impervious to small arms fire, they are susceptible to heavy machine gun fire (especially if directed at anything others than the front arc of the vehicle)…
...and several classes heavier, more expensive, harder to disperse, harder to hide...
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?
Actually, (comparing an M1 vs an M2 Bradley), IFVs are often equal or larger than tanks. Israeli IFVs are often built from Merkava chassis (into Namer). And in this day and age of surveillance, both vehicles are easily spotted by UAVs etc.
Most experts actually believe that tanks are still valuable and that Russia's army is using them like idiots.
They are valuable - but some people with a well-informed opinion like myself, are interested in how valuable they are and how they're going to stay valuable as a core part of a division.
Well obviously it's a matter for reasoned opinion, rather than a mathematical fact, and you'll find opinions both ways. I'm saying I'm currently struggling to see it the positive for the situations we think we're likely to face next.
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.
> rely on always-on active radar which means you're lighting yourself up.
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.
Yeah of course they try to reduce the emissions as much as they can within physics. But the appetite for any emissions is extremely low in a peer or near-peer fight.
You always try to cover an obstacle with fire, so the idea is while they're milling around slowly piling up soil they're vulnerable to fire. You can see in some of the photos the troops looking down on the obstacle from I presume potential fire positions.
