holoween

The role of a tank is direct fire. Its essentially a great sensor with a 0 time delay precision artillery attached. And ukraine and russia are using them in the direct fire role. If they werent they wouldnt be asking for tanks but spgs which do the whole indirect fire far better.
were also seeing successful use of even just mraps for assaults and for the charkiv offensive they have been essential in quickly taking lots of ground once the line had been broken.
 
Tanks have always taken heavy casualties in combat. But the alternative to using them has been firing artillery shells in such quantities that it wasnt sustainable with even the entire worlds production capacity dedicated to war and still taking infantry casualties at a rate unsustanable for most modern developed nations.
 

I wholly disagree with this idea. Weve spend this ammount of money to be able to destroy as many tanks/IFVs as quickly as we can because that has been the primary threat since NATO exists.
The current MBT generation very well reflects that. They are for all intents and purposes tank destroyers and entirely optimized for that and in the 500m to 2500m range they are unparalelled in that task. For the longest time most didnt even have a proper HE round and the primary rounds were KE and HEAT. The IFVs were the ones doing the infantry support.
 
The core and unique selling point of a tank is if a tank moves somewhere and encounters an enemy no matter what it is a tank stands a good chance to take it out without being taken out in return.
That capability is so valuable that it will get continuously replicated and id argue its the essence of what makes a tank. What exact form this takes remains to be seen and it could very well eventually become unmanned and at some point most likely will have to be fully automated for short reaction times.

Giving current NATO doctrine an honest reality check is absolutely essential. But taking it as a starting point seems entirely reasonable.

I wholly disagree with this idea. Weve spend this ammount of money to be able to destroy as many tanks/IFVs as quickly as we can because that has been the primary threat since NATO exists.
The current MBT generation very well reflects that. They are for all intents and purposes tank destroyers and entirely optimized for that and in the 500m to 2500m range they are unparalelled in that task. For the longest time most didnt even have a proper HE round and the primary rounds were KE and HEAT. The IFVs were the ones doing the infantry support.
 
The core and unique selling point of a tank is if a tank moves somewhere and encounters an enemy no matter what it is a tank stands a good chance to take it out without being taken out in return.
That capability is so valuable that it will get continuously replicated and id argue its the essence of what makes a tank. What exact form this takes remains to be seen and it could very well eventually become unmanned and at some point most likely will have to be fully automated for short reaction times.

The length of early muskets has a lot more to do with getting velocity out of bad powder and bad barrel matallurgy.
smoothbore barrels dont stabilize the round so they cant gaign accuracy and rifling already wirks with very short barles (an inch is enough). But early musktes with shorter barrels would have even less range or would need far more powder and would still be as heavy to withstand the pressure anyways.
 

The length of early muskets has a lot more to do with getting velocity out of bad powder and bad barrel matallurgy.
smoothbore barrels dont stabilize the round so they cant gaign accuracy and rifling already wirks with very short barles (an inch is enough). But early musktes with shorter barrels would have even less range or would need far more powder and would still be as heavy to withstand the pressure anyways.
 

The role of a tank is direct fire. Its essentially a great sensor with a 0 time delay precision artillery attached. And ukraine and russia are using them in the direct fire role. If they werent they wouldnt be asking for tanks but spgs which do the whole indirect fire far better.
were also seeing successful use of even just mraps for assaults and for the charkiv offensive they have been essential in quickly taking lots of ground once the line had been broken.
 
Tanks have always taken heavy casualties in combat. But the alternative to using them has been firing artillery shells in such quantities that it wasnt sustainable with even the entire worlds production capacity dedicated to war and still taking infantry casualties at a rate unsustanable for most modern developed nations.
 

Not sure how other nations are doing it but the german trained and equiped units keep constant lines of communication back to the german army.
Ive seen it and it seems to me entirely a product of too short time to train and wrong expectations on what the trainees would be doing.
Usually if you train up units you go from simple to difficult. First you learn basic soldiering skills, then you learn your specific job, then you do defensive fighting then offensive fighting then delaying actions.
And i cant speak for whoever trained that bunch of ukrainians but i havent had an exercise since the war started where we didnt have drones overhead all the time.
 

No, they did not (there is a lot of myth around the Battle of Agincourt, but suffice it to say that the successful employment of archers against knights in one battle did not portend the successful employment of archers against knights in every subsequent battle). Granting it's a bit ambiguous when knights stopped being knights, but they were going strong for at least another century after Agincourt (if a "knight" is "a warrior in service to a lord", then it was the professionalization of armies that rendered knights obsolete), and expensive heavy cavalry of some kind continued to be in use right up to the beginning of the 20th century.
Sure, but it's also cheaper than a platoon of infantry. And the machine gun didn't stop cavalry from proving their worth in 1914. At least in the British army, which had a sensible doctrine for how to use cavalry in the early 20th century (they almost always fought dismounted, unless a particularly tempting target for a charge presented itself). The British retreat from Mons would have been a lot more difficult if they didn't have a cavalry rearguard. They were admittedly pretty useless during the static warfare phase from late 1914 to early 1918 (they could still fight just as effectively as infantry, but without contributing mobility they were basically just more expensive infantry). But they proved their value again when mobility was restored in 1918. What killed cavalry once and for all wasn't the machine gun, but the realization (in the interwar period) that mechanized units could perform every mission that a cavalry unit could perform, but better.
Pikes were used alongside muskets for centuries (the "pike and shot" era is a fascinating period). They ceased to be of any value when bayonets were invented. The bayonet essentially allowed every last soldier to be both a musketeer and a pikeman, eliminating the need to bifurcate the infantry into two roles. As a side note, though no one reputable has ever told me so, I strongly suspect this is why muskets are so absurdly long by the 18th century (with the butt on the ground, the muzzle will reach up to your shoulder, and with the bayonet attached it will be about as tall or taller than you are). They are specifically designed to be a hybrid firearm/polearm. They are far longer than it makes any sense for a firearm to be, while being well short of the optimal length for a polearm. But they are about the perfect compromise length between a firearm and a polearm.
 
I don't think I strongly disagree with anything in the rest of your post. I think we both agree that the tank isn't dead yet, but it's on the way out the door. I think it's further from the door than you do, and that it's on the way out for different reasons. 

They dont need to actually mass in the sense of more troops per km of frontline.
Take their current company attack occupying maybe 2km of frontline. now add another 2 on each flank. the overall attack now occupies 10 km.
You now have reduced the enemys guns able to react to each individual attack significantly. Same goes for the own firesupport but massing your own guns in such an area is far faster than the enemys reaction.
Couple the attack with strikes on the hqs and you also dramatically reduce the reaction times when it matters.
Have reserve forces ready to push further oncr the first wave has taken the forward lines.
You never have forces more densely packed than currently, can dilute the defenders support and potentially cause a catastrophic failure of the defense.
Maybe ukraine is already doing this and were just not hearing it or they arent for some reason.
And i would be cautious with assuming ukrainians are doing everything as they should from a nato perspective. I wasnt particularly impressed with the performance of the ukrainians we trained so im skeptical their officers are generally much better.

They dont need to actually mass in the sense of more troops per km of frontline.
Take their current company attack occupying maybe 2km of frontline. now add another 2 on each flank. the overall attack now occupies 10 km.
You now have reduced the enemys guns able to react to each individual attack significantly. Same goes for the own firesupport but massing your own guns in such an area is far faster than the enemys reaction.
Couple the attack with strikes on the hqs and you also dramatically reduce the reaction times when it matters.
Have reserve forces ready to push further oncr the first wave has taken the forward lines.
You never have forces more densely packed than currently, can dilute the defenders support and potentially cause a catastrophic failure of the defense.
Maybe ukraine is already doing this and were just not hearing it or they arent for some reason.
And i would be cautious with assuming ukrainians are doing everything as they should from a nato perspective. I wasnt particularly impressed with the performance of the ukrainians we trained so im skeptical their officers are generally much better.

These are simple canvas sheets for camoflage. They remove the obvious shaddow line at the front and below the vehicle. Its standard practice for all german combat vehicles. Though the ones pictured are otherwise really low on camoflage.

These are simple canvas sheets for camoflage. They remove the obvious shaddow line at the front and below the vehicle. Its standard practice for all german combat vehicles. Though the ones pictured are otherwise really low on camoflage.

These are simple canvas sheets for camoflage. They remove the obvious shaddow line at the front and below the vehicle. Its standard practice for all german combat vehicles. Though the ones pictured are otherwise really low on camoflage.

These are simple canvas sheets for camoflage. They remove the obvious shaddow line at the front and below the vehicle. Its standard practice for all german combat vehicles. Though the ones pictured are otherwise really low on camoflage.

These are simple canvas sheets for camoflage. They remove the obvious shaddow line at the front and below the vehicle. Its standard practice for all german combat vehicles. Though the ones pictured are otherwise really low on camoflage.

Or to put it simply: Whoever has more firepower measured by effect on target wins.

Noone disputes that but barely anyone can agree what that "lightest round possible" actually is.
 

Noone disputes that but barely anyone can agree what that "lightest round possible" actually is.
 

Noone disputes that but barely anyone can agree what that "lightest round possible" actually is.
 

Noone disputes that but barely anyone can agree what that "lightest round possible" actually is.
 

☝️
To give a rl example of an incident that happened early this year in a simulator exercise.
a company of l2a6 is defending. the far left platoon starts getting targets at 3500m and engages. suddenly one tank turns its turret and puts five rounds into a tank of the center platoon only barely being stopped before also shooting the company commanders tank.
The tc had seen a thermal signature and immediately brought the gun over without checking what he was looking at and the gunner didnt realize he was looking at a leo2 and fired even though he knew there were friendlies there, the tank was pointing and engaging in the wrong direction, only 1000m away and was in the open easily identifiable.
If this happened to anyone in cm theyd riot yet it happened irl.
So while cm has issues with the spotting model rl can be much weirder.

I think the reason is not "leftist education" but that Western European countries took very different lessons from the previous wars.
Ukraine (and Russia) suffered horribly during WW2, but after the war, this was turned into a hero story and a source for national pride. Same with the USA. Fighting the good fight and winning is a lot different from being the bad guys - and losing.
Also, I think a lot depends on what exact question was asked in the survey. "Would you fight to defend your own country against an all out invasion by Russia" is a lot different from "Would you be interested in signing a contract to go to Iraq or Afghanistan".
During the recent decades, this is what many young people in the West thought about when they heard the word "war": Going far away to fight for reasons you don't really understand.

From a7 on a camera block with thermal, day and night cameras is standard front and rear of the tank. Also has image overlay for thermal with day/night
They are at the edge of replacing but the tracks work just fine without rubber and generally actually have more grip.

From a7 on a camera block with thermal, day and night cameras is standard front and rear of the tank. Also has image overlay for thermal with day/night
They are at the edge of replacing but the tracks work just fine without rubber and generally actually have more grip.