ArmouredTopHat

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. 

Accuse others of what you are guilty of really does ring true here. 

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. 

Trophy specifically has top attack countering ability. Not sure about Iron fist. The reality is also that we will see a lot more APS going forward. British Chally 3s are slated to either have them or the capability of mounting them for instance. Tank design has been a little stagnant since the end of the cold war but I expect this conflict has served as a wakeup call for redesign and modification of in service platforms. 
 
Pointing out that tanks have in fact survived numerous battlefield changes remains a valid argument. The battleship saw one major change at sea and became obsolete, the two are really not comparable. This war has shown that tanks from the cold war era of design are increasingly vulnerable and should be redesigned to reflect that. No one is -really- suggesting that tanks are useless, neither combatant is and several NATO countries are actively expanding their tank fleets. You talk about past performance but this is literally active and future plans in motion.

In short, its clear both combatants would much rather have tanks than not. That alone implies value. Until you come up with something that replaces the desired role that a tank provides on the battlefield I do not see that changing. 

That's exactly what happened. Russian units were going forward with a fraction of the infantry they were supposed to have due to not calling up the conscripts who were supposed to fill out the infantry roles.
So you had motor rifle platoons which had maybe 2 dismounts per APC/IFV, tank regiments that had to share a company of infantry when they should have had a battalion, etc.
Russia didn't have a combined arms force - they had a ton of armoured vehicles, and a profound lack of infantry.
Mike Kofman goes into it in this article: https://warontherocks.com/2022/06/not-built-for-purpose-the-russian-militarys-ill-fated-force-design/

The tank has survived several numerous generations of the ATGM, including attempts to convert tanks entirely to missile gun platforms that proved to be a disappointment at best and abject failures at worst. MBT-70 for instance. Every time a new innovation allowed tanks a means of dealing or surpassing the problem at hand. I dont see why we should conclude so swiftly that this time is different with the conflict still on going. 

All I know is that tanks suddenly become extremely useful the moment you need any kind of mobility and firepower, they are actively used on the front now and will be used should there be a collapse even operationally on any sector of front. To decry tanks as obsolete when we are not exactly seeing the best examples of tanks on the whole is a bit of a reach, especially a lot of more recent developments are entirely absent such as aps, which is now a proven concept. There are plenty of things tanks can do even without such fancy protections to avoid ATGMs in addition. The whole NATO concept of approaching into hull down to fire rounds before withdrawing among other things allows a tank to engage with several rounds and be out of line of sight well before an ATGM hit. Things a little more nuanced than they might seem. 

I personally would be asking the Ukrainian tankers the question, they certainly seem to think they have a role on the battlefield, even with major constraints. It personally says a lot to me that even decade old platforms are considered useful on the battlefield in Ukraine despite all the new operational difficulties of using them. Certainly Ukrainian infantry seem to like having them around too, though I guess it makes sense when you have something that can deliver pinpoint explosives onto your problem area. 

The point I am trying to make is I rarely see stuff from the Ukrainians along the lines of 'our tanks are useless' on telegrams, and they usually get pretty vocal about things that are downright getting people killed for no good reason. They seem to view them as a pretty important aspect of the battlefield, if for nothing other than a quick response that can take the odd hit and leverage direct or indirect firepower onto target. The nature of the conflict is perhaps less friendly to tanks than ideal currently, namely one side loves to use theirs like a blunt instrument and lose dozens of them while the other has far less resources to attack to begin with and is simply not in a position to attack right now. 

Does it come with a can of silver spraypaint?
WITNESS MEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!

While autocannons are pretty lethal as a weapon system, a 125 /120mm gun is really the final word in terms of direct fire capability. You can erase anything on the battlefield with it quickly and efficiently. Tanks function at least in theory as an apex predator for vehicles, nothing really wants to fight them head to head, even if they are equipped for it. Its the reason why that footage of a T-90M being bullied by Bradleys was so insane, that is an situation any IFV wants to avoid at all costs. Certainly can imagine what a Sabot or even heat round can do to a Brad. Its fortunate that the Bradley crews reacted as well as they did, and the Russian tankers ballsed up what should be a straight murder session. 

Tanks also by nature are simply more heavily protected, we see even now with tanks not at all really suitable for this war at least being able to shrug off hits that would more easily destroy more lightly armed vehicles. That level of protection is very valuable, especially with anti vehicle options ever more frequent. 

The problem with relying on other means to get firing solutions is then you become little more than short ranged artillery, at that point you might as well use a howitzer. Part of the reason tanks have their role is that they can perform their role without too much reliance on others. They can see, acquire, engage and level the target quickly and efficiently (though having someone spot for you helps a lot!)

Its that high tech sensor package that makes tanks so deadly on the battlefield with regards to thermals and the like, or the fact they can do all of that while moving a top speed. 

There are a host of ways to make tanks cheaper, from going with an autoloader (one less person means less training costs for a crew and a more space efficient design. Smaller size means less costs to protect the thing properly) to keeping to a core feature focus. This is partly why I am not sure making tanks EWAR platforms might be viable, its a lot of extra cost on something that should be focussed on shooting things. Tanks should not be platforms capable of 'doing it all' so to speak. 

South Korea has proven that modern tanks can be made in pretty sizable numbers, its not just about unit cost but having the streamlined production capability to do so. I think that is why Western tanks struggle a bit with production numbers due to the strangling of domestic tank industries (And vehicles in general) for the most part. In essence we need to learn how to build vehicles in sizable quantities again outside of America. 

Though its failed in the past, a multinational Euro tank project might be the solution to cut costs, something akin to F-35 but for an AFV. In theory provided everyone can agree on what the thing is supposed to be, it cuts costs dramatically while also being so much better logistically than everyone having their own unique MBT, especially when its increasingly non viable to do so cost wise. Its an area where NATO could really do more to push for having less unnecessary diversity in vehicles. Though that relies on a lot of military procurement groups agreeing which might happen when pigs fly.