dan/california

Gotta admit I have seen some of his stuff when he was still sane, and some of it is very good.  It is real shame he has been publicly stuffing his head up his own butt with respect to this war for two years now.

If I may offer, I think you are at risk of over situating here.  As Steve has put up most UGVs being fielded for tactical combat are not aiming to be a “new tank”.  They are carrying next-gen ATGMs.  They are part of the “let’s make tanks go bye bye” effort that every modern military appears intent on, while also hanging onto their own tanks - which is kinda crazy.
The sign of an effective UGV will not be an uncrewed light tank, it will be a cheap and mass produced vehicle with an ability to move and deliver firepower with precision. How that firepower is generated may very well be by UAS, ATGMs or other long range strike munitions.  I think they are more than capable en masse of generating sufficient firepower albeit via other means and ways.
Why do we want this?  It is synthetic mass. We do not need to worry about medical, food, water, pensions, divorces, and all the messy people issues that come with KIAs. We will still have humans, but I am thinking more JTACs than grunts.  We have already seen a video of an FPV squad in Ukraine that I think is the future as humans take on more battlefield management and less pointing stuff that goes boom boom.
How long/when?  Very debatable point.  At old trajectories it may have been a couple decades, but after everyone has seen what unmanned can do in Ukraine, I think we are going to see a lot of heavy investments which will accelerate things.

Carry on, General Martel!
(Understanding that this piece dates from May 2022, England's deep strike apostles *might* have selected a better patron saint. But then again, Liddell Hart, ahem....)
The Reconnaissance Strike Group imagined and championed by retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor remains, in my opinion, the most promising force structure to face the current challenges of land warfare.

I have deliberately been avoiding actual sizes because I didn't do the detailed study. But the THeMIS is the size and weight of a smart car and 2/3ds of a WW2 universal carrier so I would put it as borderline tankette territory 😉

Fortunately private industry (and civic minded investment funds, especially the Saudis) have poured well over 100 billion dollars over the last 2-3 decades to make self-driving cars a reality.
Remember who kicked a lot of this off… this technology was something desired by military planners in the US enough that 20 years ago that they even had a big competition!

That's because the role for which the tank was invented- breakthrough of a fixed front - is not the one it excels at. It has been quickly discovered, that breakthrough can be obtained by other means. However, the problem is what next. Once you are out of the enemy reserve trench and want to make ground, it really does not do to slow down to a crawl each time a HMG starts shooting in the vicinity. Serendipitously, the tank has turned out to be the thing that could reliably go forward in such circumstances. It was invulnerable/less vulnerable to the things that kill mobility of soldiers on foot or horseback- HMGs and indirect HE artillery fire, later also aircraft strafing and bombing (particularly deadly against cavalry). And (mines excepted) it could be destroyed only by things it could itself outfight, numbers permitting, and then continue on its merry rampage through the enemy rear. It made the exploitation possible again .
In that sense, it is less important whether we are talking strictly about tanks, IFVs or armoured cars. Functionally, tank had the role of the vehicle which can reasonably well shrug off indirect and machine gun fire,  move forward over lightly contested ground at speeds significantly higher than walking, and overcome moderate enemy resistance by the onboard weapons of itself and others inj its unit before moving again. Now there is no way to be reasonably protected from indirect fire because of the anti tank drones, while their reconnaissance cousins also improve the accuracy of artillery fire to the point that even ordinary HE can obtain direct hits. Also it is questionable if tanks alone can outfight any enemy, since even basic infantry platoons have several moderate-range, high-PK missiles each .
There is no vehicle currently which would fulfill the above described role. During the Kharkiv offensive, Ukrainians were exploiting the breaktrough in pick-ups, on quads and buggies. Not that they were the better vehicles for it it than tanks. But the additional level of safety that the tanks provided was not so much higher to warrant their enormous price tag.

A decade is a single institutional bound in defence.  It means investment decision on what we have in a decade are being made today.  A decade is very close…is my point.

I think we will see UGVs used in roles that are very unfriendly to people first more than anything, demining seems one of those areas where its a no brainer. Being able to rapidly clear mines without risk to your soldiers seems a very real and in demand need as todays conflict shows. 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/what-happened-when-russia-tested-its-uran-9-robot-tank-syria-182143

https://www.researcher-app.com/paper/8517551

I also dug into the Uran 9 a bit more and the issues which I feared did crop up quite a bit. (OF course the factory making them claim it was really good!)
Signal issues seem to be frequent (Major concern when they were operating in Syria and not Ukraine with its plethora of interferences / EWAR) Terrain features messed with signals far more than flying drones. Buildings in particular seemed an issue. Control vehicle (Kamaz truck) had to get very close to maintain control (Not ideal in the Ukraine environment) remote control system only had effective range of 300-400 metres in most situations 'lag time' between inputs and actions was noted as a frequent issue even then. loss of control entirely was frequent (This one in particular seems especially not ideal for battlefield use. Lag in gaming is infuriating enough!) suspension issues on the chassis were also reported and limited operation time. problems acquiring and engaging targets at the specified range issues with the gun system. As I maintain, we really are a decade a way from these things becoming more practical. 
 

So UGV are definitely behind their air counter parts, but things are moving faster than I think we appreciate:
The Chinese in particular have invested a lot of money on UGVs.  Like UAS they will likely need human pairing and start in narrower force employment but they are coming…and fast.  To my mind the UGV that scares me is basically a cheap smart mine.  We know mines still work, but mines with legs that can even just move a few hundred meters make them a complete nightmare.  Our entire breaching doctrine is built on mines being static. Even mobility of a few meters can break that.
If I was put in charge of this, I would develop a simple chassis that could be strapped onto existing dumb mines.  A chassis that gave levels of mobility and networked communication between the mins and a controller.  I don’t need them to walk to Moscow, I need them to walk a few dozen feet.  So when a very expensive breach goes off, I can reseed while the breach is happening - right behind the breaching vehicles.  This alone would break things because minefields essentially become autonomous and unbreachable. Safe lanes become impossible.  And one could produce and mount these systems on hundreds of thousands of existing mines.
And this is not even fancy like EFP or off route systems.  Let alone mounting a Javelin on a system, or pairing an FPV with a ground system (GFPV?). So while the challenges are different, in reality the bar is lower, not higher for UGVs.  They do not have the same load capacity restrictions.  They do not have the same 3D problems (ie have to fly).  But like FPVs we only need HE in the right place and time, and that they can do.
I do not know if UGV will happen at scale in this war.  My sense is, no.  But in a decade?  All bets are off.

I was posting earlier about how I am skeptical about the utility of small UGVs and this video really makes my point:
 
The problem is not that Russian engineering sucks (well maybe a little bit), they are simply too small. Yes they might be able to hit maybe 30km/h on a road, but as soon as they hit rough terrain they move at a geriatric pace and get stuck on a knee-high fold of ground (and this is the promotional video they released to the internet).
If a UGV gets stuck, they don't have any way of extracting themselves. Because of this their off-road capability needs to be top notch so they can handle being driven badly over a crappy video link without bogging down.

Really weird font btw…painful to the eyes, in the same way that your clinging onto tanks argument is on the mind. We have heard this one before - tank is not dead because we still need a tank, tank is not dead because it was dead before, tank is not dead because nothing can replace tank - followed by a lot of historical (and hysterical) gymnastics of your own.  An old man clinging to his AOL account because it still works, while his dial up modem squeals in the distance.
The sacred trifecta of mobility, survivability and firepower upon which you have based your entire argument is not only self-serving (I need a rock because only a rock like qualities can be delivered by said rock), they completely miss the point.  A tank is a single platform within a capability - mechanized land forces - a capability that delivers effects: manoeuvre and fires.  Effects project consequences upon an opponent that upon accumulation can push us towards decisions.  Decisions in sequence (we call it campaigning) can create outcomes.  At a strategic level, those outcomes create or destroy options.  The Game of Strategic Options charts the course of a war - a violent collision of irreconcilable human certainty.  Finally, options are nothing more than the bricks upon which the Political story unfolds - that narrative is how we survive as a species.
So now back to your little tankie thingy - an iron box on treads with a long nose.  It is not a sacred horse that decides anything. No need to try and find the one or two times it showed up in the Falklands (really?) to justify its existence.  It is one tool within a massive tool box, within a game, within a long story.  So what?  Well as soon as something can deliver the same effects at a tank for less effort, evolution says that primates programmed for less effort are going to shift onto whatever that thing is - don’t argue with me, argue with a few million years of evolution.  So the effects we are looking for are supported by a system (remember the tank is but one component) that can deliver fires power and manoeuvre.  The consequences of those effects are shock, dislocation, disruption, favourable attrition/erosion and positioning reactions/advantage - these are the whole show (in a single domain mind you, doctrine says there are at least 4 others).
So in reality warfare could give two sweet fleshy figs about your trifecta - that was something zipperheads made up in the mess.  Warfare only cares about the consequences leading to decisions.  Now a few posts back you demonstrate quite pointedly the proof in the pudding that an emergent system of land warfare is delivering effects/consequences as well as the old system…under a specific set of conditions. 
Right now this weird C4ISR, unmanned, PGM and infantry in old basements system - along with things that really will endure such as dumb old mines and dumb old artillery - are able to deliver defensive consequences after four months of intense testing.  They did so without any real support from armor (as lack of everything was noted) and even did so as dumb old artillery went dry.  In reality they did a successful defence/denial without much of the old conventional land force capability at all.  Like most major inventions, necessity calved the little fella.
So this is not about “hey look tanks are getting killed again.”  Nor clinging to one’s fuzzy Leo teddy.  It is about a new land force capability system being tested in real time…and delivering…to a point.  I am less interested in the death of a giant hot steel box and more in whatever this weird Frankenstein’s monster that showed up and broke land warfare - hell it may have broken naval and air warfare too.
So while you are arguing about one screw driver…a shiny wondrous screw driver with so many good memories; I am looking a bunch of nano bots that just showed up and built us a f#cking table.  What baffles me is why a bunch of old men are holding up the screw driver and going “ya but!”  But it shouldn’t because as we have seen the history of war is full of such enlightened moments.

Jack Watling, and some special ops people on drones in Ukraine, and after Ukraine. 

Two things, 90 plus percent of the drones in Ukraine are just civilian grade stuff the has literally had an RPG warhead with a fiddled fuse taped to it. Spare a thought for the people doing that job. They cost a $1000 or less. If it takes twenty of them to kill an MBT, that is still a war winning exchange.
Secondly, the next generation of drones are not going to be hacktivists creative art projects. The are going to be murderous little kamikazes that are purpose built for the task, and have warheads that will punch through any armor that is ever going to move under its own power. Even if they come in a $5000, and takes five of them per tank, it is an exchange rate that will run heavy armor right off the battlefield.
 

It was truly infuriating to hear from frustrated Ukrainian artillery officers that the Russians were massing with near complacency across the border knowing that the systems with the range to hit them were not allowed to do so. All they could do was watch. A truly stupid restriction set by America that has cost Ukrainian lives for no good reason. Thankfully its been clarified at least. I imagine it wont be long until we see geolocated GMLRs rockets striking some juicy artillery targets inside Russia in due time. 

Good discussion started by ArmorTopHat.  I am heavily biased because tanks are god's chosen ones, obviously, but I still think TheCapt is right.  
This is great example of how to disagree and debate on a complex subject.  Well, done to both of you (and Steve also). 

I think we are sticking a toe over a red line in a gradual escalation.  Before we get to ho hum, we are talking about US weapons and targeting support, killing Russians…in Russia. In 2024. Wrapped your heads around that one and let it sink in.  Imagine for just a second if the roles were reversed…we would be looking at WW3.

In reality once you create the sanitized bubble with effective bridgehead it really does not matter how one clears the mines. At that point the clearance becomes about clearing a an LOC to sustain further expansion of that bubble.  Any number of systems can be employed, but as you note step one is to push a sanitizing bubble, likely 5km out past the obstacle, to keep enemy eyes and hands at a distance.  Using unmanned systems just makes sense to save lives.  Seriously c-bty will also still be needed, as well as deep strike to keep longer range enemy systems at bay.

Ooo baby, we got your unmanned on unmanned action right here folks. I think we might see more of this evolution in the next year.

New War 2024 Marches On
https://www.twz.com/news-features/russian-fpv-drone-seen-attacking-ukrainian-uncrewed-surface-vessel-for-the-first-time

We do get useful data points with Andrews regular loss identifications. FPV drones feature a lot, though about half of them are disabling knocked out / abandoned vehicles. The majority of tank hits via FPV drone are damaging and not destroying them. (remember this what gets uploaded, presumably there is a greater amount of footage not uploaded due to negligible impacts, misses ect) Ratios vary by day as well. 

Being able to deny recoverable vehicles is -very- tactically useful though, and no doubt exasperates heavy Russian equipment losses. This is obviously an area where FPV / drones shine. Blowing up an IFV or tank with a drone dropped grenade is up there when it comes to value trades. 

As a side note, I hope I am articulating myself reasonably well here. I am still somewhat new here despite having lurked for an ungodly amount of time on the forum. Its certainly lovely to discuss / talk to you all!


 

In this war that is August, if not sooner. 

Here's a CNN report from today detailing extensive Russian torture and sexual violence in occupied Ukrainian territories. It's not an easy read. This is what Ukrainians have to look forward to if they give up. This is what other Eastern Europeans have to look forward to if we do not stand strong with NATO.
Survivors say Russia is waging a war of sexual violence in occupied areas of Ukraine. Men are often the victims | CNN

I think that’s totally fair. FPV drones by their very nature are the most media-friendly weapon ever designed, and there’s certainly massive selection bias due to this. However, the reports you read from the front are that drones are a huge problem, and are forcing troops to walk to the front on both sides because vehicles have a high chance of getting destroyed because of the proliferation and range of the damn things.
There is some latency, but that’s honestly least concern because there always some to be another observation drone up in the sky, and that will let you see the vehicles approaching say 15 minutes before, and your drone latency is 5 minutes, and the vehicles will only be able to fire in the last 5 minutes LOS. Obviously that’s hand wavy, but ISR is what allows the drones to efficiently be dispatched, and ISR is the thing (to me) that makes the tank dead when combined with cheap weapons.
Yeah, but most FPV drones are COTS with an RPG warhead or a brick of HE. You start putting a Javelin warhead (ie Switchblade 600) and I suspect things look different. That said, plastering a robust vehicle with ERA is certainly a mitigation, and I think passive measures like these are much better bang for the buck than APS.
As I’ve almost certainly said in the last few hundred pages, I have two points of disagreement:
120mm gun with LOS Rapidly to position The former I think replaced with a NLOS option, say a breech-loading mortar or mini howizter is more flexible. You still get the direct fire option, but you also signficantly extend your range and use cases, particularly around quickly delivering precision munitions.
The latter is the real killer for all future weapons systems: What is the probability of survival while you get to position and deliver whatever effect you are trying to deliver? You have a big noisy hot target you need to get to within LOS of a target, and there is ISR everywhere.
EDIT: TLDR persistent ISR combined with cheap, flexible weapons makes tanks obsolete in terms of $$$ for boom

One big post-1973 war that involved thousands of tanks was the Iran-Iraq war. Does anyone know how tanks performed then? I know there was criticism that "they weren't using them right" but I just don't know the details.