How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, Letter from Prague said:

So when talking about capabilities tanks provide and nothing else does - what does a tank have that something like Bradley don't? It probably can't fight tanks, but it can fight other IFVs and provide support - and some claim that autocannon does that better than a tank gun, because it can just keep firing and other than heavy fortifications it's powerful enough. It can also carry troops.

Looking at it from the other angle, if the consensus is that future military needs to be tankless but infantry and fires- and drones-heavy, how does the infantry get around? Are IFVs as dead as tanks and soldiers use Toyota Hilux now because you can fit many drones into the truck bed?

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. 

[dan/california]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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

Sadly there are lot of people that ought to see the inside of a prison cell forever, b ut probably won't

10 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I'm a little hesitant with regards to smart fires being a given thing, given we know that the Ukrainians are reporting some issues with Excalibur due to jamming and have largely moved elsewhere with regards to munitions from their NATO guns. (Is this something that can be compensated for? Does AI correction even exist for artillery rounds? GPS clearly cannot be relied on) Regular NATO 155 is not exactly inaccurate but its still a case of needing several rounds on target, less so if cluster is used. 

In the short to medium term I think smart fires are going to move away from GPS. Either laser designation from drones. Or smart submunitions with infrared sensors like the Smart/Bonus rounds.

Quote

 

https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/155-bonus

BONUS is an artillery-launched, fire-and-forget munition capable of successfully combating any armored vehicle. Compatible with the majority of existing artillery guns, BONUS is handled just like a conventional shell. When launched from any 155mm artillery system, the BONUS carrier shell separates to deploy two sensor-fuzed munitions that then search for targets within a given footprint, up to 32,000 square meters.

 

This type of submunition is going to get put on ATACMS, HIMARS, and similar as well. There is also no reason you couldn't do a fragmentation version for infantry and light vehicles.

[ArmouredTopHat]

10 minutes ago, dan/california said:

This type of submunition is going to get put on ATACMS, HIMARS, and similar as well. There is also no reason you couldn't do a fragmentation version for infantry and light vehicles.

I recall Chieftain talking about BONUS type shells and saying that as a tanker nothing scared him more as an idea. Certainly tells me that mobility will be key to avoid such munitions. How expensive are such shells in comparison to others? I imagine they are probably up there, though we know based on the few clips of them in action in Ukraine that they seem to work well. 

Edited Tuesday at 09:45 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[kimbosbread]

2 hours ago, holoween said:

Probably the single biggest point in favour of AFVs is that they can serve as the core nodes of a combat cloud.

They can easily carry the computing power, communications and power generation to keep it running for long times. They can also carry higher quality sensors and stronger weapons than any other platform.

You know, I could think of a lot lighter, smaller weighs to a bunch of computers in the field than an AFV. Same with power generation. You are schlepping around so much armor and fuel that it just becomes a snowball of logistic nightmares.

You don’t want to couple sensors to this big heavy noisy thing, because you lose it you lose your eyes. Sensors should be on all the small platforms. And then there’s the whole rub of this- why do you need a big node on the ground? You’ll have LOS issues with radio signals, so you’ll need a repeater drone or an antenna on a big *** pole.

What about distributing the nodes as cheapo disposable things you can just drop on the battlefield? Like mines, but for information. Why not just have the compute on a drone that has no LOS issues?  And if you go that far, why not just beam it up to a satellite where you can have more or less infinite compute on tap?

19 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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.

Wrong. You can’t eliminate small stuff smart mines or drones or sensors. You can’t take out flying stuff. It’s not even that good for infantry unless you have HE or flechette shells.

EDIT: To be clear, I think the future battlefield will have many smaller, distributed systems that are better served with autocannon fire.

Edited Tuesday at 09:49 PM by kimbosbread

[ArmouredTopHat]

7 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Wrong. You can’t eliminate small stuff smart mines or drones or sensors. You can’t take out flying stuff. It’s not even that good for infantry unless you have HE or flechette shells.

EDIT: To be clear, I think the future battlefield will have many smaller, distributed systems that are better served with autocannon fire.

Fair point, though I was more referring to other vehicles, emplacements and infantry. 

I would say that based on footage and testimony, tank fire is pretty horrifyingly effective against infantry, especially the soviet frag rounds.  

[Vanir Ausf B]

The reason tanks sport large caliber cannons is to kill other tanks. As with think frontal armor, that may be a rarely-needed feature that will be sacrificed to save weight.

[hcrof]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

With regards to the light tank idea, we know from previous attempts that light tanks simply lack the protection that makes tanks durable on the field. I suspect we will head towards the 40-60 tonne range on MBTs going forward however. Modularity could work but it can also complicate a project. (Armata project for example)
 

Small doesn't have to be light! Im Not sure it is optimal but a vehicle can have the firepower and protection of a CV90 or Bradley while staying maybe 10tonnes or so if you had zero people inside rather than 9-11 people. 

[panzermartin]

Tank will soon be obsolete like the battleship became obsolete after WW2. Practically it's the same logic. Big armor, Big guns. A rather dumb macho platform. 

New lighter platforms with smart weapons and smart protection will emerge. 

[panzermartin]

53 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Sadly there are lot of people that ought to see the inside of a prison cell forever, b ut probably won't

In the short to medium term I think smart fires are going to move away from GPS. Either laser designation from drones. Or smart submunitions with infrared sensors like the Smart/Bonus rounds.

This type of submunition is going to get put on ATACMS, HIMARS, and similar as well. There is also no reason you couldn't do a fragmentation version for infantry and light vehicles.

The burning of books is so 40s obsolete in the era of internet. 

[LongLeftFlank]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I mean we get all up in arms over the vehicles, but really the question is "what is infantry doing in the future?"  Do we need to carry 12 guys to a trench anymore if both sides build an unmanned forward edge?  I suspect the answer is yes, but how often/much?  ... What happens when UGVs can do that job better and cheaper.  

In 10 years my battle taxis may be carrying smaller unmanned systems and maybe a small human team to manage them.

Carrying technicians/pioneers and tookits, to service or retrieve/replace those unmanned systems, under fire?

....Until such time as UGV-bots can do that too, with or without human control.

[ArmouredTopHat]

5 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The reason tanks sport large caliber cannons is to kill other tanks. As with think frontal armor, that may be a rarely-needed feature that will be sacrificed to save weight.

Its possible that we could see a sized down gun, I certainly dont see them going any heaver. 140mm is absurdly overkill. I also do wonder if the frontal armoured emphasis will change to allow for a lighter platform or more all around protection. 
 

8 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Tank will soon be obsolete like the battleship became obsolete after WW2. Practically it's the same logic. Big armor, Big guns. A rather dumb macho platform. 

New lighter platforms with smart weapons and smart protection will emerge

Okay, so what fills the role that a tank provides on the battlefield right now? Name a system that has the same staying power, armour, firepower and mobility. 

[LongLeftFlank]

3 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Okay, so what fills the role that a tank provides on the battlefield right now? Name a system that has the same staying power, armour, firepower and mobility. 

Does it absolutely need to be one system or platform?

Because as late as 1941, you could ask the very same question about battleships.

P.S. Ref earlier comments about 'modularity' in a future AFV, wasn't part of the selling point of the infamous 'Little Crappy Ships' that the various ''modules" would decline in price, as manufacturing, technologies etc. improved?

(...I hear that frequently is a thing in defence procurement.)

Edited Tuesday at 10:40 PM by LongLeftFlank

[Fenris]

9 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Tank will soon be obsolete like the battleship became obsolete after WW2. Practically it's the same logic. Big armor, Big guns. A rather dumb macho platform. 

New lighter platforms with smart weapons and smart protection will emerge. 

I think this analogy is pretty spot on, same deal on a smaller scale.  Drones are now the SBD's and TBF's that proved the point in that arms race 80 years ago.

[Fenris]

Russian ingenuity.  One for the camera's.

Quote

The ZVeraBoy anti-drone buggy has two turrets, a six-barrel shotgun, and six pellet ejection charges around the perimeter of the vehicle

 

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/technology/ukraine-war-ai-weapons.html

Until recently, a human would have piloted the quadcopter. No longer. Instead, after the drone locked onto its target — Mr. Babenko — it flew itself, guided by software that used the machine’s camera to track him.

 

I am guessing we will see large scale use by fall. This horse has left the barn, the farm, and the county.

 

[LongLeftFlank]

1 minute ago, Fenris said:

Russian ingenuity.  One for the camera's.

 

Does it come with a can of silver spraypaint?

WITNESS MEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!

[MikeyD]

In 2021 the Pentagon drafted a proposal for a replacement for the 50+ year old TOW. They're hoping for 10+km range, non-LOS launch and 'cooperative engagement' (whatever that means). Their specs seemed futuristic at the time, now it just sounds like a bog standard suicide drone. But fired out of a TOW launch tube (their mandated specs.)

[panzermartin]

3 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Its possible that we could see a sized down gun, I certainly dont see them going any heaver. 140mm is absurdly overkill. I also do wonder if the frontal armoured emphasis will change to allow for a lighter platform or more all around protection. 
 

Okay, so what fills the role that a tank provides on the battlefield right now? Name a system that has the same staying power, armour, firepower and mobility. 

Remember how well the ukrainian offensive went? Yes they were betting on their Leopards 2s. It was funny because they had seen how bad the T72s, T80s and T90s performed in similar attacking roles. 

Maybe ultrafast remote controlled autocannons/missile tracked platforms will be the next "tank" 

Or maybe shape the battlegroup like a naval taskforce with layers of defensive vehicles protecting your carriers /battleships. A lonely tank is a dead tank nowadays. 

 

 

 

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

22 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Remember how well the ukrainian offensive went? Yes they were betting on their Leopards 2s. It was funny because they had seen how bad the T72s, T80s and T90s performed in similar attacking roles. 

Maybe ultrafast remote controlled autocannons/missile tracked platforms will be the next "tank" 

Or maybe shape the battlegroup like a naval taskforce with layers of defensive vehicles protecting your carriers /battleships. A lonely tank is a dead tank nowadays. 

The Ukrainians did not 'bet' on their Leopard 2 doing everything. The Issues they faced are hardly the fault of tanks when all vehicles were getting caught on minefields and picked off by Russian attack helicopters. It was an extremely unfavourable situation. Those same Ukrainians actively praise western tanks as far better than what they were working with all the same. They asked for MORE. 

What I am asking is what replaces a tank when you need something that's tougher than an IFV and has greater firepower. 

Edited Tuesday at 11:13 PM by ArmouredTopHat

[Maciej Zwolinski]

57 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Okay, so what fills the role that a tank provides on the battlefield right now? Name a system that has the same staying power, armour, firepower and mobility. 

These are features of tank as a weapon. But what is more important are the effects and functions that the weapons gives you. If you can replace the effects and functions in your toolbox, you do not need to recreate the exact features mix.

IMO These features allowed the tank to fulfill 3 functions: 1) it could break through; 2) it could exploit; 3) it could fight other tanks. Function 3) is easily replaceable by NLOS ATGM and drones, in fact tank is not longer the best AT weapon. Function 1) is also replaceable, by application of sufficient amounts of artillery you can level the trench and bury the people in it. Same principles as Bruchmuller used, just substitute PGMs for gas shells. 

Where I see a problem is function 2). The tank allowed forward movement at vehicle speed and relative immunity from indirect HE and machine gun fire, i.e. the killers of extended advance on foot/horse. Tanks limited the threats to AT assets which, when they were AT guns and early ATGMS, could be overloaded and outshot by massing tanks against them, whereupon the advance would resume at tank speed. The enemy had to countermass vs your mass by creating a Pakfront, and a Pakfront usually could not be everywhere. Not anymore. The NLOS AT assets, drones and artillery PGMs can instantly be concentrated from a wide area,  without having to locate them physically close to one another. Having eliminated the tank from the equation how to transition from a breakthrough to an extended advance at vehicle speed? I don't know. In other words, the only advance possible looks like a constant series of breakthroughs with the enemy always able to retreat and recreate a new defence line in front of you, and you always frontally assaulting. Which seems a fair description of the Zaporozhe offensive 2023. In yet other words, over a 100 years of warfare has just been erased, and conceptually we are back at the Kaiserschlacht exactly. We are unable to recreate Amiens or any later battle of movement.

Edited Tuesday at 11:32 PM by Maciej Zwolinski

[ArmouredTopHat]

30 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

Function 3) is easily replaceable by NLOS ATGM and drones, in fact tank is not longer the best AT weapon.

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. 

Edited Wednesday at 12:01 AM by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

20 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

These are features of tank as a weapon. But what is more important are the effects and functions that the weapons gives you. If you can replace the effects and functions in your toolbox, you do not need to recreate the exact features mix.

Fully agreed, but I fail to see what currently replaces a tank in the roles it provides. We have seen plenty of experiments in lighter vehicles that suffered on protection for instance. 

[paxromana]

3 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

100% agree, I just touched upon it and I do not see an easy solution. 'Going around' is simply not an option when millions of mines get in the way. At minimum we need to really overhaul combat engineer capability in NATO forces and put a lot more emphasis on specialised vehicles for mine disposal. 

Which means these simply become primary targets for defensive fires ... drone swarms, smart rounds etc. And will possibly? probably? be more expensive than tanks and less easy to produce. Probably nowhere near being a 'magic bullet' ...

I suspect MICLICs, heck, even guys with handheld or close RC detectors and probes will be more effective ... though not for assaults.

[dan/california]

This is one of the more promising concepts I have seen. Although why the drones can't go in the back of a Toyota High Lux is beyond me. If you are carrying the drones on a UGV, you want the cheapest one possible unless I am missing something.

 

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, paxromana said:

Which means these simply become primary targets for defensive fires ... drone swarms, smart rounds etc. And will possibly? probably? be more expensive than tanks and less easy to produce. Probably nowhere near being a 'magic bullet' ...

I suspect MICLICs, heck, even guys with handheld or close RC detectors and probes will be more effective ... though not for assaults.

It was found pretty quickly that infantry sappers tend to get slaughtered clearing mines in front of defences, its why armoured solutions were devised in the first place. At least an AFV can survive a light bombardment. I think a mix of engineering vehicles and drones offers a solution that is both speedy and able to clear a path with minimal fuss. Not an easy answer though.