ArmouredTopHat

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. 
 
 

Some good news at least

A little unfair to imply that was all I was saying, but fair enough. I was getting fed up with the way some people were debating at this point anyway. 
 
In better news, the UK general election finally purged Galloway and his frankly disgusting views regarding Ukraine from sight. 

I thought the scooters were just a meme...

https://mastodon.social/@ChrisO_wiki/112715687961441423
After golf carts we are now at electric scooters... 

A little unfair to imply that was all I was saying, but fair enough. I was getting fed up with the way some people were debating at this point anyway. 
 
In better news, the UK general election finally purged Galloway and his frankly disgusting views regarding Ukraine from sight. 

This is the the most unequivocal case of a Russian agent getting caught. But there has been very little information since the initial report. I can't quite decide if that is because he didn't even know the name of the guy that paid him, or if has proven so valuable they are trying to make everybody forget about him. 

Some good news at least

I suppose it shows their desperation more than anything, that they are willing to expend their foreign agents in high risk sabotage operations to try and disrupt vital aid. Ill be curious what shadowy games are being played between the FSB and NATO intelligence services and if we will ever hear of them in our lifetimes. 

Do we know for certain that these are Russian sabotage operations? Its a little concerning if so how readily they are actively mucking around with our defence industries. Figured we need to really crack down on this before it enables worse flagrant violations. 

https://static.rusi.org/heavy-armoured-forces-in-future-warfare-occasional-paper-december-23.pdf

This is good for a bit more of an academic read for those interested. It goes over a lot of really well sourced stuff. It sadly does not include FPV drones but I will readily post such a report when it surfaces. Overall probably does a better job of explaining my viewpoint than others. 

Ouch

Nearly all the footage of bikes I have seen from the Russians has them dying in piles, its clearly an improvisation due to lack of actual vehicles and I cant imagine its much fun for the infantry in question. 

If you think its entirely down to a consistent effort from numerous defence industries and nations to preserve a status quo that are all in on it despite many being adversaries then at that point I have to wonder if you believe in conspiracy theories. 

Of course you think my arguments were trounced, you are arguing against them! That's not a refuting point at all. You could at the very least respect or concede I am making points at least valid enough to be used by the worlds militaries in this regard.  

I would view the decision from Lithuania to invest into tanks as one example here. The Baltics are pretty up there when it comes to innovation and support for Ukraine, their entire force structure was built around light infantry and surviving until the rest of NATO turns up to help them. They have been pretty big on the drone scene as well. The fact that Lithuania have now decided they need more hitting power despite their limited budgets tells me a lot about how important they view having tanks / armoured platforms. They would not be making such a hefty investment otherwise. 

How about Poland, who has decided that it wants to extensively expand its tank fleet and build towards a Polish version of a K2?

Finland has some pretty extreme terrain, yet continue to wield an armoured force that is pretty large for its size and budget. Are they wrong too?

Have China, Iran or Russia declared tanks to be useless despite their drone programs? Why is China actively seeking to increase its numbers of tanks and vehicles in general?

What about Ukraine? You would think the nation leading this FPV revolution would be happy to consign their tanks to the scrap heap if they are so useless and said FPVS can supposedly do their job. Yet they go to the trouble of making their own tanks, constantly ask for vehicles from NATO and actively repair and refurbish the ones they have. This is hardly supportive of the notion the tank has no purpose on the battlefield. They have more reason than anyone to be extremely careful about how they spend their resources, yet they choose to ensure they have tanks in the field. 

Its been two years of 'the tank is dead', you would expect to at least see some shift at this point. I think people here including you might be undervaluing vehicle based firepower a lot. Is your counter point against this simply that everyone is wrong?

 

While that is good, these people were not really significant for national policy.
We have to watch out for the USA, our newest monarchy in NATO, as well as the elections in France and Germany.
I heard some hope that LePen will undergo a "Melonisation" since the Italian prime minister has significantly mellowed after taking office and is supporting Ukraine both rethorically and with military supplies. There are some indications for this "softening" since LePen and Meloni refuse to work with the German AfD in the EU parliament, but the Rassemblement National could still delay French support for Ukraine via its parliamentary seats - and only some months after Macron and his team of advisors finally rediscovered Cold War diplomacy ("Pretend to carry a big stick and the will to use it instead of groveling in front of dictators at every verbal opportunity").
The AfD and the new stalinist/ strasserist BSW are very successful in some German states and are pushing really hard pro-Russia stances. By winning state elections they could influence German politics via the "Senate" equivalent in German legislation even if the main parliamentary elections are still some ways out.
However, the AfD is so radical that is  possible the party might face legal ramification for their unconstitutional policies. That would effectively destroy at least ten years of Russian funding and networking in the middle of Europe in one swipe. But such a legal process would also take years, since it is a very delicate constitutional matter to outlaw a political party.
The Ukrainian FPV manufacturing sector and their domestic weapons industry (with joint ventures with Western companies) would likely enable Ukraine to put up a fight, but especially US support drying up would make the life of Ukrainians much harder since Patriot interceptors and lots of general supplies come mainly from the US and won't be replaced by any European effort in a while, especially since the EU has to wrestle with the Hungarian veto at every corner.

A little unfair to imply that was all I was saying, but fair enough. I was getting fed up with the way some people were debating at this point anyway. 
 
In better news, the UK general election finally purged Galloway and his frankly disgusting views regarding Ukraine from sight. 

A little unfair to imply that was all I was saying, but fair enough. I was getting fed up with the way some people were debating at this point anyway. 
 
In better news, the UK general election finally purged Galloway and his frankly disgusting views regarding Ukraine from sight. 

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?