ArmouredTopHat

So why does no one cancel such procurement if the tank is dead? Why has no one done so?

M1E3 was literally announced last year, it did not exist prior. SepV4 was cancelled in favour of it 

https://www.army.mil/article/269706/army_announces_plans_for_m1e3_abrams_tank_modernization

Ouch

Ouch

There was similar goal post moving here about how FPVs were the reason tanks were not doing well at all...despite their introduction only relatively recently. There are others reasons for tanks suffering, some are old and familiar problems like mines, others are tied to the age of their current designs or poor tactical use. 

So why does no one cancel such procurement if the tank is dead? Why has no one done so?

M1E3 was literally announced last year, it did not exist prior. SepV4 was cancelled in favour of it 

https://www.army.mil/article/269706/army_announces_plans_for_m1e3_abrams_tank_modernization

Because they literally made thousands and are now waiting for the M1E3 specifications to outlined for full production. They still make other M1 types for expert pretty much all the time. A lot of countries in the middle east literally use M1s quite heavily. Egypt alone has over a -thousand- of them. 
 
Belgrano was not a battleship but a light cruiser. 
Because they insist on using them wastefully. Most of said tanks are literally refurbed cold war tanks that really should not be upheld as outstanding examples of good tanks. 
Did you not see the recent submitted requirements for M1E3? The US is literally going to be building a new generation of tank within a few years with a lot of changes reflective of recent experiences. UK is building Chally 3. Germany is building a new Leopard. I could go on. 

 

Where the hell did I say this?

The question you should be asking yourself is after taking in all the above, is it worth it? I would argue that it very much is if the vehicle is protected several times from a munition that would otherwise kill it. APS protects against one of the bigger threats of tanks right now, and has shown to have potential with other threats. I simply cannot see a better solution for a lot of a tanks problems than such a system. Being this dismissive of a first gen system with this much potential is like someone in the 60s declaring an ATGM is a waste of time.

If the assumption is that tanks are now worthless. What serves as a mobile direct fire capability that militaries want instead? Lighter vehicles are even more in peril from a wide variety of threats, and UGVs remain a theoretical but still not fully practical solution. What is the alternative? Does this spread over to other vehicles on the line of contact as well? 

Ouch

And in turn I told you that we are very much at the start of UGVs for combat use and there there are some real limitations to those vehicles that might explain why they have remained very much experimental until now. Ergo until they prove themselves more there is no real role replacement for tanks at least that exists, at least for something that can deliver that level of firepower and protection. 

I apologise if you feel like your spinning the same yarn here, I am still new here despite my lurking and I am simply giving you my thoughts on the subject. I'm no expert on the matter, but I do look closely into what militaries are procuring. I feel arm chairing it only gets you so far. 

I also feel that I do at least bring some new points to the table such as pointing out the active use of an APS in combat that did not exist prior to previous talks on the matter. But again if you feel like your going in circles then you should stop. 

You are the one winding yourself into knots about this to be honest. I'm simply providing a different opinion based on what is currently happening as of this moment. I am also juggling multiple different peoples posts and trying to respond to them when I can. Its a little stacked right now.

You make some very good points, I dont deny that. I just think your conclusion is premature, and seemingly most militaries also think so given their interest in both more tanks and systems like APS. I do think vehicle roles might need a look at with the evolving battlefield, but at the same time I am not seeing a lot of practical alternatives to replace a tanks role. You are welcome to suggest something that does replace a tanks role in combat, but everyone including the Ukrainians have been saying that drones and artillery are not the end all be all. 

Happy to leave it there. 

Ukrainian army is coming in zone of high risks of "revolutionary situation" by a classic "bottoms no more don't want to fight in old way, tops can't fight in new way"
After dismiss of general Sodol' it's an imagimation that pressure on the dam is growing more and more. In UKR social network during all war there were critical feedback about Soviet methods of troops control and resource managments. But now the voice of soldiers and authority commanders sounds threatingly. "Blood of Sodol' " has given of small hope, that it's possible to make high officers responsible for own incompetence and petty tyranny and to stop vicious practice, when high commander, who fail own task and "zeroed" whole battalions was "punished" by rising in rank and moving to highter duty or in worse case - to command of new formed units. 
Fuel to the fire added three strikes on UKR airfields, when Russian UAVs by hours hovered over them and was no reaction - as result several aircrafts were destroyed and damaged and after this Air Force Command came with "poker face"  - it's just a war, why so many negative? 
Maybe better to post google-translated today's post of Maryna Bezuhla, the member of National Defense and Securuty Committee of parliament. If recently after her sharp criticizm of Zaluzhnyi, many of serviceman considered she is "stupid girl, who is used just like a torpedo to sank Zaluzhnyi", now many of them after her articles about Sodol, Syrskiy, about idiotic resource managment in our army are changing of own point of view. 
Of course, obviously right those who say theese articles write not Bezuhla herself and many conspiracy about who is it. But maybe we on the edge of radical cleaning of army tops and Bezuhla with support of some authority officers, like "Azov" chief of the staff Krotevich, after whose FB post Sodol' was dismissed, just prepare public opinion to some radical things.  
So here is new post of Bezuhla and it not only about Sodol', but also about situation in our army in whole.
Just some issues of translation - "keep bare lanfings" = keep bare tree-plants, "cotton views" = vatnik moods


  

I personally think that the tank is potentially replaceable, just that currently there isn't really something that can do so right now, for reasons I have explained earlier. Clearly the majority here think the tank is dead, that is fine and everyone is more than titled to their opinion of such. I dont mind playing devils advocate in that regard.

My counter point would be the points made previously, that and the continued investment into tanks by numerous countries. This all just rings eerily familiar with previous 'tank is dead' arguments and those did not exactly turn out to run their course. Time will tell and the battlefield and its equipment will continue to evolve. 


While its undeniable that FPVs play a major role in loss rates currently, I do find the fact that the majority of hits to vehicles are usually damage and not acute kills quite interesting. These snap shots of data also indicate the majority of FPV strikes are on abandoned vehicles, ie something else has knocked out the vehicle. 

We covered this before but the major undeniable advantage of drone / FPV has been the denial and destruction of armour that would otherwise be recovered. Though it looks like increasingly FPVs are now responsible for the majority of both kills and mission kills. This still could be survivorship bias at work but its clear they are doing some serious heavy lifting now. Bear in mind this is due to a pretty herculean effort on Ukraine's part, their production numbers are truly impressive at this point, though its hard to determine who exactly has more FPVs as both sides go between saying they are outnumbered by drones to outnumbering. I suppose its a factor of concentration. 

I just find it a little premature and odd to single out a particular weapon system and decry its obsolete based on the tactical usage from one country in one conflict (even if it is a pretty damn big one), especially when said conflict is evolving constantly. We are seeing snippets of drone counter UAS already, what happens when a battlespace is filled with drone interceptors that are denying both ISR and FPV strikes? We already know that a lot of FPVs miss for varying reasons, pretty wide range of hit %s based on who you ask. Things could very much change in ways we do not expect. Ukraine certainly seems to be pretty quick when adopting and using their drone arsenal. For all we know this could be a 'happy time' where FPV drones are enjoying an environment that might become much more constrained in the future.  

What is undeniable to me is that Ukraine have a very unique reason to go so hard into FPV drones, they lack the traditional parities in artillery, tanks and vehicles in general and so have levelled the playing field against a force that has pretty heavy advantages in the aforementioned areas. The cautionary note I point out is simply that what works for one country might not work for another when it comes to defence needs. This -could- mean that everyone needs to change radically, as seems to be the prevailing argument here. It could also mean a potentially more hybridised approach as I feel, with overhauls made to current and future vehicles to reflect the new environment and to try and maintain the possibility of mechanised warfare whilst also acknowledging the key role drone munitions now have on the battlefield, which clearly seems to be what NATO at least wants to go for overall. 

To surmise, I am not trying to decry what some people are suggesting here, I find people are making very good points that have certainly made me think things over. I am simply pointing out that everyone has not quite dropped all their vehicle priorities and gone into drones......yet. If countries start dropping tank numbers or tanks entirely then I would be happy to concede that it is indeed 'dead'. Given tanks are actively proliferating right now at least when it comes to NATO, I am not so certain. 
 
 

Its not a bother at all really! I'll do my best to explain at least my take on things. Dont treat it as gospel by any means. 

Your question is a good one that I suppose is rooted in historical doctrine. Broadly Yes, tanks are there for direct firepower. What makes them especially good at that compared to other platforms is varied. We have seen a lot of militaries try and squeeze that firepower onto a smaller frame / chassis, but then you sacrifice on protection and suffer accordingly. 

Artillery can reach out further, but is subject to other elements working with it to achieve that effect. There is also the issue of dispersion as range grows and time on target, which can result in misses. Even accurate western systems take at least a few rounds on average to hit a target, and they are reliant on having a drone in the air to correct it. (This could be something that becomes far harder in the future if drone based interception becomes a thing, which to some degree we are already seeing in Ukraine)

What tanks deliver in turn is direct firepower that they are able to leverage themselves quickly and near instantly onto target without much external assistance. (Though they do benefit from drone spotting too for overall situation awareness) Tanks have the optics / thermals to do this at quite some range which is partly why they are so dangerous on the direct line of fire front. Western tanks in particular were designed with this in mind, having been made for the purpose of approaching a position in hull down in order to lay waste to vast amounts of soviet hardware advancing towards them before reversing back to avoid counter fire. 

As mentioned before, there are possible changes to be made with tank design to better optimise them for the role in question, I personally do not see that requirement of direct firepower going away for the future, though its a good question if tanks might remain the best way to deliver it. I personally think there is plenty of potential for them to do so, which is supported overall by the decisions of countries of late in tank procurement. 

 

Consensus reached at last.
/thread

In other news, the US navy madlads strapped this monster onto their Hornets. Im sure China might be sweating a little over this one. 
 

We can make a logical assumption based on its prior performances which clearly show that the Trophy system and its developers are not exactly fibbing about their capabilities. Unlike Russian arms development companies we can actually take their word for it. Certainly I would imagine Trophy would not be under such active consideration from numerous countries if it did not include top attack protection.

Why are we even arguing this? We dont doubt drone swarm capability being a potentially potent thing despite it never being used in reality. Is it really hard to imagine that Trophy has this capability despite being a living breathing system in active use? Are the Trophy designers just lying for funsies?
 
I view it like any other weapons development: If its something critical to perform the role then its needed. Its like taking a tank and going into combat without composite / ERA armour, you are just asking for trouble. APS is just one development among many that seek to protect vehicles and its getting tiring that we ignore all of these developments despite it literally being a natural progression. 

 

The counter point is that Ukraine did not have thousands upon thousands of long range anti tank weapons. Most of these ambushes were done at point blank range with things like NLAW or RPGs, which are very much on the shorter range end of things.

I personally find that we can deride the Russians further for failing to plan this properly. Saying that if they had more infantry they would of still failed is very much conjecture and also irrelevant. The point is they did not due to shoddy planning and preparation at a time when they should of had every advantage. That initial invasion window was the best point in time for true mechanised warfare and the Russians were simply incapable of waging it. That to me is the real failure. 

Trophys claimed effectiveness has held up so far with everything from RPG-7s to Kornets. The top attack defending capability is there but apparently classified so I cannot say with certainty if it can do so or not. But given its current track record I would say its pretty likely. This is a system that we have a lot of evidence to show works pretty consistently. Its not like top attack munitions travel any faster than say a Kornet. 

I dont understand this utter disgust of APS honestly. Its literally going to save peoples lives and works as intended. It certainly stands that it needs more development to become a cheaper prospect for sure, but its value is undeniable. 

You gave out that it was ridiculous to think that the Russians forgot how to do combined arms warfare. I'm pointing out that a force that has a profound shortage of infantry is missing a fundamental component in combined arms warfare.
 
I do, which is why I don't get it from wikipedia, and that's because...
 
...I can edit the articles so it aligns with my facts.

Mobile, direct firepower against a variety of ground targets, and being able to do so quickly and effectively with its own optics and stabilisation while also protected against a key range of threats. A key component of supporting infantry and other vehicles. 

 

Apologies for the double quote, on mobile and the forum isn't conducive to longer posts.
You gave a strawman about how the Russians totally didn't forget how to do combined arms warfare for 6 weeks from February 2022. When confronted with an article about how the Russians couldn't do combined arms warfare in spring 2022, you've shifted the goalposts to talking about the summer of 2022.

It's not though. The whole BTG concept was designed to allow brigades and regiments to at least be able to form at least one battalion capable of some level of combat for a short period of time. It's a peacetime formation borne from severe manning issues, and needed the conscripts to achieve full manning. Which they didn't have in spring and even summer of 2022.

Ah don't give me that. There's a difference between an army having less infantry than they think they might need, and a military being on the verge of not having any infantry at all.
Kofman's article gave examples of entire battalions that only had enough troops to crew the vehicles, and had zero dismounts. Other battalions demotorized in order to be able to provide at least some infantry presence.

Battleships were superseded in their role (Decisive battle) by other, more effective means. This has not happened to the tank for a variety of reasons. The two are simply not very comparable in terms of roles and usage, not to mention the adaptability difference. 
From what we have seen, even with the current constraints on tanks in Ukraine, they are still getting to where they need to be a lot of the time. They are certainly surviving to some degree despite such proliferation of drones. The key seems to be not to hang around an area for too long, hence the emphasis on mobility for future platforms.