APS changes everything!

[BlackAlpha]

Isn't decoys and swarming a logical answer to APS? It will make ATGMs more advanced, but with things like Javelin they're going that route anyway. A decent sized missile should be able to deploy some submunitions/decoys. Another possibility is jamming, but I don't know how feasible that is on such a small scale.

 

Anyway, they came up with a solution to reactive armour so I'm sure ATGM manufacturers will solve this too.

 

A solution yes, for now (firing two projectiles almost at the same time), but as you can see, missile based weapons become bigger and bigger to try to keep up with tank defenses. First they had to become bigger to be able to penetrate the armor. Then they had to become bigger to be able to do fancy maneuvers in the air. Now they become bigger to try to fire off more missiles at the same time. How much bigger can they still get? Not much. But in the future they will need to be able to do even more fancy stuff to be able to reliably bypass APS... As soon as APS acquires the ability to reliably destroy two incoming rockets/missiles, infantry based anti tank weapons will become near useless because you can't really improve them further - a person simply won't be able to carry it. Then, you'd have to use the really heavy missiles and fire them in volleys exactly at the same time. Meanwhile, vehicle mounted missiles will become much larger or they will have to fire bigger volleys to be able to penetrate APS defenses, which means they will be able to carry less ammo and reloading will become a huge pain in the butt.

Edited February 17, 2015 by BlackAlpha

[AttorneyAtWar]

Lets see APS systems stop this...

 

Edited February 17, 2015 by Raptorx7

[Melchior]

Well, if not a MBT, then what exactly? So, what's your idea on how the MBT will evolve?

 

 I think we'll probably see more emphasis on high-mobility infantry formations like the Stryker Brigades. I'm not certain though since i'm not in the military and all i'm basing this on historic trends that came before. In the Medieval era we essentially saw a situation very similar to the one that prevailed through most of the 20th century in warfare. Tough, mobile, and deadly core units screened by infantry. That system disappeared around the time of the Hundred Year War and it seems rather conspicuous to me that the musket happened to start showing up more and more around the same time. Granted correlation is not causation, social change probably played a big role in the decline of armored cavalry too.

 

I expect the tanks that are around will be pushed further into infantry support roles a-la 1917 while more nations turn to mechanized infantry for everything. 

 

I have to differ on the tank being on the way out.  There's not really a viable tank alternative, or a technology that tank alternatives can use, that tanks cannot. And there's no "musket" as much as ATGMs were supposed to herald the end of the tank (as were mobile AT guns in the 1930's) the two systems are very much locked in a evolutionary arm's race, but neither really claims a massive advantage.  

 

The problem with anti-tank guns is that they were usually either too heavy to be practical or too light to be useful. People saw this trend as far back as 1936 which is why everyone had started working on middle-caliber guns before the war even broke out. Once you get to around 75mm or so an anti-tank gun becomes so heavy it typically needs a vehicle to push it around. Any heavier and you need a dedicated prime-mover, an unarmed tank basically. At which point you might as well just build a tank. A "big gun" arms race always favors the heavyweight. That's why battleships were the apex predator of navies until the airplane. 

 

Now I agree everyone thought the ATGM was going to be end of the tank, then the attack chopper. All of these systems plus the above had a big limitation though, and it was that they were simply never very common. They were limited to dedicated formations or branches rather than made organic to Pvt. Redshirt. 

[Nerdwing]

I think tanks will remain around.  The methods of armor estimations will probably eventually become a new "RHA-equivalent" as the materials and alloys involved get funky enough that using rolled homagenous plate as an analogue is less and less relevant.  

 

APS seems to definitely be a thing.  It'll probably be more popular.  Its also pretty awesome.

[Apocal]

 I think we'll probably see more emphasis on high-mobility infantry formations like the Stryker Brigades. I'm not certain though since i'm not in the military and all i'm basing this on historic trends that came before. In the Medieval era we essentially saw a situation very similar to the one that prevailed through most of the 20th century in warfare. Tough, mobile, and deadly core units screened by infantry. That system disappeared around the time of the Hundred Year War and it seems rather conspicuous to me that the musket happened to start showing up more and more around the same time. Granted correlation is not causation, social change probably played a big role in the decline of armored cavalry too.

 

Heavy cavalry as the battlefield shock arm didn't disappear during or immediately after the Hundred Years War. The English at the time weren't exactly organized that way, but that was an attempt to wage war on the cheap rather than a trend towards cavalry's battlefield obsolesce. You'll note the French won that little scrap after creating their compagnies d'ordnance. Speaking more generally, heavy cavalry adapted to compensate for the technology of firearms by adopting firearms themselves, with riders adopting firelocks early but really hitting their stride with wheel-lock pistols; they'd wade into the melee with like a half dozen of the things. Alternatively, you could find the same with fortifications and artillery; while castles themselves were brushed aside, the solution wasn't no more fortifications once the artillery train became standard, it was building better fortifications (star forts) that were capable of resisting artillery. And those continued to be important in warfare for another four hundred years.

 

I just use this digression to say that the overlap between coexistence and obsolescence is generally a large one. And that is assuming someone (anyone) tells me how exactly the infantry lugging these super-ATGMs around are supposed to counter artillery and machine guns that ended their practical battlefield dominance a century ago...

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: AT Guns.

You're tying it to a war. All those 25, 37 and 40 mm guns were supposed to be the definitive infantry answer to armor circa 20s-30s. It lingered in some quarters a bit longer.

[Pelican Pal]

 I think we'll probably see more emphasis on high-mobility infantry formations like the Stryker Brigades.

 

My perceived issue with units like Stryker Brigades is that the vehicles are not capable of fighting on their own. The infantry have all of the punch and to engage effectively with their equipment you need to dismount and move relatively slowly. So you are trading a certain amount of speed in order for that force to work effectively against heavily armed enemies.

[BlackAlpha]

 I think we'll probably see more emphasis on high-mobility infantry formations like the Stryker Brigades....I expect the tanks that are around will be pushed further into infantry support roles a-la 1917 while more nations turn to mechanized infantry for everything. 

 

 

One thing to keep in mind is that in Iraq the Stryker brigades got their asses kicked when they ran into tanks and couldn't get out of the way fast enough. All the maneuverability and sensors won't save you when there's a tougher enemy standing right in front of you. And APS is not going to stop a 125mm shell coming your way.

Edited February 18, 2015 by BlackAlpha

[AttorneyAtWar]

 

 

 

One thing to keep in mind is that in Iraq the Stryker brigades got their asses kicked when they ran into tanks and couldn't get out of the way fast enough. All the maneuverability and sensors won't save you when there's a tougher enemy standing right in front of you. And APS is not going to stop a 125mm shell coming your way.

 

 

Do you have a source for Stryker brigades running into Iraqi tanks because I don't think I have ever heard of that happening.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Unlikely. The first Stryker brigade was deployed to Iraq in October of 2003, six months after Baghdad fell.

[AttorneyAtWar]

Unlikely. The first Stryker brigade was deployed to Iraq in October of 2003, six months after Baghdad fell.

 

Yeah, that's what I figured.

[DMS]

And imagine what if APS will be able to intercept top attack missiles...

[BlackAlpha]

Unlikely. The first Stryker brigade was deployed to Iraq in October of 2003, six months after Baghdad fell.

 

You're right. I'm probably misremembering it. But it was a lighter Brigade Combat Team of sorts.

[Melchior]

 

I just use this digression to say that the overlap between coexistence and obsolescence is generally a large one. And that is assuming someone (anyone) tells me how exactly the infantry lugging these super-ATGMs around are supposed to counter artillery and machine guns that ended their practical battlefield dominance a century ago...

 

Yes it was for thousands for of years. Things have changed very much though in the last 200 years or so where the coexistence/obsolescence cycle can now be measured in decades rather than hundreds of years. 

 

Again, artillery and the machine gun ended the dominance of *dismounted* infantry in lines bumrushing enemy positions. They have failed to make the rifleman disappear. 

 

Re: AT Guns.

You're tying it to a war. All those 25, 37 and 40 mm guns were supposed to be the definitive infantry answer to armor circa 20s-30s. It lingered in some quarters a bit longer.

 

True enough, but the thing is what people often *think* about the relationship weapons will have does not often stack up to reality. If you'd asked everyone how'd they use tanks in 1930 almost everyone except for Guderian and Liddel Hart would've give you the wrong answer. If the point you're making here was that the tank was dominant throughout the 20th century than I agree completely. Nothing was going to stop a Golden Horde of T-72s rushing through the Fulda Gap in 1970. Anti-tank weapons never stopped an attack ever, often inflicted casualties yes, but often ended up as casualties themselves. Simply too few of them covering battlefield arcs too narrowly. Infantry used to be unable to do much except point defense but now things are different because the anti-tank options infantry now have access to are just so much more lethal, common, and most importantly, can reach out at targets. No longer requiring specialized formations. 

 

 

 

One thing to keep in mind is that in Iraq the Stryker brigades got their asses kicked when they ran into tanks and couldn't get out of the way fast enough. All the maneuverability and sensors won't save you when there's a tougher enemy standing right in front of you. And APS is not going to stop a 125mm shell coming your way.

 

I don't expect infantry to stop tank attacks every time still, but now the question is can they inflict heavy casualties on armor reliably? If an SBCT did that as a screening arm then i'd think the solution would be to have more Stryker Brigades or just attach Abrams Companies to them if you think they're going to encounter armor. You need to reach a critical-mass point of inflicting enough casualties reliably enough to make the MBT a real question. I think we're reaching that point. 

 

 

And imagine what if APS will be able to intercept top attack missiles...

 

The thing to me about all these new intercept systems is that they don't seem weight intensive. I don't know for sure but how long until we start seeing intercept systems on Strykers? Yeah no intercept system will stop a 125mm round for sure that's why when something carrying a gun that big shows up, you dismount and grab the Javs. 

[dan/california]

Just to reiterate, against APS equipped Russian tanks, you have 120 mm APDS, Javelin, or nothing.  TOW counts as nothing. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

True enough, but the thing is what people often *think* about the relationship weapons will have does not often stack up to reality. If you'd asked everyone how'd they use tanks in 1930 almost everyone except for Guderian and Liddel Hart would've give you the wrong answer. If the point you're making here was that the tank was dominant throughout the 20th century than I agree completely. Nothing was going to stop a Golden Horde of T-72s rushing through the Fulda Gap in 1970. Anti-tank weapons never stopped an attack ever, often inflicted casualties yes, but often ended up as casualties themselves. Simply too few of them covering battlefield arcs too narrowly. Infantry used to be unable to do much except point defense but now things are different because the anti-tank options infantry now have access to are just so much more lethal, common, and most importantly, can reach out at targets. No longer requiring specialized formations. 

 

The mistake made in claiming the tank is dead is often the assumption of tank technology being static while anti-tank advances unchecked.  If there's a radical departure in technology (railguns with ranges of 11 KM, able to penetrate all known armor sort of radical change) then maybe, but mostly the cutting edge between tank and anti-tank is so impossibly narrow and interlinked that simply if you build a better ATGM at this point, someone is going to build a better APS.  

 

Panzerfausts, anti-tank rifles, and other infantry weapons were supposed to reign in the tank.  Instead it just made the tank bigger and angrier.  Javelins are lethal now simply because they are the abject cutting edge of AT systems.  Once there's the Russian/Chinese knockoff you can bet there will be some sort of overhead APS system that'll render high angle ATGMs as effective as conventional ones.

 

And then there will be a new ATGM that bypasses it all.  But it's a back and forth dance.  And there's no sign AT has outpaced armor enough to do it in for good.

 

RE: Strykers

 

Strykers are good for:

 

1. Being the "heavy" forces for rapid deployment/peace keeping missions.

 

2. Being the "light" forces for full spectrum warfare.

 

They've performed very poorly against armor in the open at NTC and other training venues.  Like massacred to a man level poorly, ATGM carriers just aren't that good, and armor mobility makes infantry ATGMs very reliant on already owning the terrain.  They do however offer good, high mobility infantry though, so using them to follow and assume bypassed urban or other complex terrain makes them a useful tool.

 

However for a good historical model of how light highly mobile formations handle conventional fights, look at how the 9th ID's experiments went.  They could leverage mobility and firepower to achieve local success against heavier forces the majority of the time.  However once the heavy forces caught them (and they always caught them) they were wiped out, and the heavy force was generally able to sustain and continued to fight through the damage the light force had inflicted. 

 

It's better to be able to close with an destroy the enemy instead of trying to peck him to death and hope you can stay out of his reach.  Tanks can do that.  FCS/Stryker model vehicles cannot.