How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[ArmouredTopHat]

Just now, danfrodo said:

Good re-direct @ArmouredTopHat       Economic disruption may be what ends this awful war, as stated many times here on this thread.   interesting that RU talkers are concerned about Kursk economic issues due to, well, armed invasion.  Meanwhile, lots of other infrastructure getting destroyed every day.  The utter insanity when a country is ruled by one totalitarian psychopath -- no price is too high to keep the god-emperor's war going.  

Other item.  The Chieftain is the high priest of tanks stuff, to whom I pray often, knowing it's likely that our gods (tanks) are dying.  But we at least have the days of old, when armor ruled.  

Chieftains 'oh my god the tank is on fire' test should become a mandatory standard for vehicle design going forward.

On a more serious note, one can hope that the economic shock at Kursk might be a contributing factor to the Russian economy looking increasingly precarious. At least it means Russian villages getting blown to hell instead of Ukrainian ones. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

Back to tanks, an interesting couple of images came out recently showing the Arena system on the T-72B3, combined with some images of the T-90 turret onto a T-72 chassis. Curious hybridisation that might hint at production troubles.
 

Would be interesting if Arena actually makes it into combat. (I still have major doubts!)

Edited September 8 by ArmouredTopHat

[ArmouredTopHat]

In terms of weirdness, this one is curious from the last few days. Drone yoinking a dead Russian's AK. Doesn't look easy!

[Vet 0369]

8 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Armored officers thinking there is a robust future role for the tank: shocking. I know plenty of other officers who would disagree, including this retired one.

As to their attitude towards wargaming - not surprised there either. Of course simulation and wargaming are really the only way to determine a future role for the tank (or not) before the next war happens. Why would we ever want to explore that?

Congratulations on your retirement! With your military record, you definitely deserve to kick back in an easy chair, and down a case or two of Molson Golden Ale!

[Vet 0369]

8 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Armored officers thinking there is a robust future role for the tank: shocking. I know plenty of other officers who would disagree, including this retired one.

As to their attitude towards wargaming - not surprised there either. Of course simulation and wargaming are really the only way to determine a future role for the tank (or not) before the next war happens. Why would we ever want to explore that?

Congratulations on your retirement! With your military record, you definitely deserve to kick back in an easy chair, and down a case or two of Molson Golden Ale!

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:

Congratulations on your retirement! With your military record, you definitely deserve to kick back in an easy chair, and down a case or two of Molson Golden Ale!

Thank you very much. Been just over a month and it feels good. Left on a positive note and sentiment that I wish I could go back and do it all over again (both the good and bad).

But it was time to move onto other things while I still can. More on that as it develops.

[ArmouredTopHat]

The varying quality of the shells Russia sourced from various areas overseas continue to make it difficult to achieve accurate artillery fire missions. 

[Offshoot]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

I thought so too but some weird noises are being made out there:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/europe/french-army-soldiers-technology-ethics-scli-intl-scn/index.html

This just sounds like they are future proofing policy rather than there being research and development that would result in near- or medium-term products. Given the state of the science for implants and genetic engineering, I would guess that any augments would use the current pharmacopoeia rather than anything new for quite some time.

[sburke]

4 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

2. There is plenty that can be done to reduce costs of tanks (And weapon systems in general) The chief NATO issue is lack of widescale production.

question on this item as there appears to be somewhat of a contradiction.

You noted a few posts back about the UA using tanks essentially at most in pairs agreeing with @The_Capt at least on the lack of mass as relates to maneuver.  However in talking about reducing costs, you suggest widescale production.  So my question is, why would anyone go to widescale production for something that can't be deployed widescale?

The US has run into this very issue when producing M1s.  Once they get to a certain age you run into the modernization program which itself is very expensive so you now have

1. The upfront cost to produce

2. The ongoing cost to maintain and not having them become like the Russian tank boneyards of rotting seals and leaking lubricants

3. The future costs to keep the fleet up to modern standards

4 the administrative costs to keep a trained armored force as the tanks themselves are useless without trained crews

You can try to use the comparison to aircraft, but I think if you actually look at utilization, the US gets far more out of the aircraft fleet than they have from the tank fleet.  Hell did we even deploy any tanks to Afghanistan?  And in Iraq as I recall we dumped a lot of our tank fleet on the Iraqis just to keep from shipping them back to the US.  The aircraft aren't generally sitting in supply yards in the hopes that maybe they might find a buyer before they have to send them to the scrapyard.

 

One side note when we talk about military forces acquiring tanks as some kind of proof they still have value - The USMC decided to get rid of theirs.  Granted they are somewhat of a unique force mix but the Marine corp did supply a major component of the US forces in Iraq and is a larger active force than I think almost anyone in Europe maintains.

[The_Capt]

43 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

This just sounds like they are future proofing policy rather than there being research and development that would result in near- or medium-term products. Given the state of the science for implants and genetic engineering, I would guess that any augments would use the current pharmacopoeia rather than anything new for quite some time.

Could be. I am no expert on these things. But in my experience we rarely future-proof policy, we usually play catchup. No idea what the state of these techs are or are not, and we won’t until they are pretty much out there. To my mind this and nano are the next tech. Who knows on the timelines.

[zinz]

 

Russian manpower problems 

[FancyCat]

Quote

Visualization of the rapid proliferation of thermite FPV drones across the front over the past week

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

57 minutes ago, sburke said:

You noted a few posts back about the UA using tanks essentially at most in pairs agreeing with @The_Capt at least on the lack of mass as relates to maneuver.  However in talking about reducing costs, you suggest widescale production.  So my question is, why would anyone go to widescale production for something that can't be deployed widescale?

You would still obviously employ the armour in small groups, it just means there are more of those small groups to go around. A thousand tanks across a front as big as Ukraine makes for what, a few tanks every double digit figure of miles? We would need to know more about the average strength of AFU tank brigades before getting an idea of just how concentrated / dispersed armour needs to be for effective employment. We only know that the AFU typically operate their tanks in single units or pairs. I dont think we have seen any actual concentration deeper than that (at least in the same video screen frame) 

The increased production also means more in reserve and spares, not necessarily all the tanks operating on the front. I apologise for the confusion. The overall point is production runs measured in the higher hundreds instead of the lower hundreds we have at the moment that would go a long way to reducing unit cost. In an ideal world NATO would operate a far more tightly grouped array of vehicles to allow a concentrated production of said vehicles (which would n theory make them cheaper for any making them) 
 

1 hour ago, sburke said:

You can try to use the comparison to aircraft, but I think if you actually look at utilization, the US gets far more out of the aircraft fleet than they have from the tank fleet.  Hell did we even deploy any tanks to Afghanistan?  And in Iraq as I recall we dumped a lot of our tank fleet on the Iraqis just to keep from shipping them back to the US.  The aircraft aren't generally sitting in supply yards in the hopes that maybe they might find a buyer before they have to send them to the scrapyard.

 

USMC deployed a small number of tanks into Afghanistan,  though its really not a very tank (or vehicle suited in general) country to operate such machines in. As for utilisation, I am not so sure. You could argue that 4th gens are effectively useless in a high AD environment (which is why 5ths are so important) yet the USA primarily operates 4th gen platforms like F-16. Its safe to say things are little more complicated than that, which is really what the situation is for tanks. 

 

 

1 hour ago, sburke said:

One side note when we talk about military forces acquiring tanks as some kind of proof they still have value - The USMC decided to get rid of theirs.  Granted they are somewhat of a unique force mix but the Marine corp did supply a major component of the US forces in Iraq and is a larger active force than I think almost anyone in Europe maintains.

I mean, this is a fair point but its not because they decided tanks were useless one day, but instead because the USMC was effectively retasked to what it should have been doing and focussing on in the first place: specifically littoral operations with an emphasis on the pacific, something they really do not need MBTs for. There was quite a bit of overlap with the US army which was perhaps considered wasteful. 

[Offshoot]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Could be. I am no expert on these things. But in my experience we rarely future-proof policy, we usually play catchup. No idea what the state of these techs are or are not, and we won’t until they are pretty much out there. To my mind this and nano are the next tech. Who knows on the timelines.

From the article it does sound like they are playing catch up, not with the science but with China, which does not have the same ethical limitations. This was a report from an ethics committee  rather than a scientific committee and apparently just gives permission to use treatments on human subjects (it isn't clear from the article if this is just an opinion or an actual policy implementation).

I'm not an expert on human augmentation either but base my guess on the basic science and how limited our knowledge still is.

The first complete human genome sequence was only finished a couple of years ago after over 20 years of work ( https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/first-complete-sequence-human-genome ) but we still don't know what every part of that sequence does - which is a gene and if so what does it encode, which is regulatory, which is epigenetic, which truly has no function? Genetic editing to fix a single mutation in a gene known to encode a protein associated with a specific disease is a far cry from trying to manipulate something as genetically diffuse as strength or stamina.

The first human brain chip was implanted in 2004 but we are still only at the point where they can control a PC cursor with thoughts ( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuralinks-first-user-describes-life-with-elon-musks-brain-chip/ ), not enough to even control the basic flight functions of a drone. When you consider that the most complex organism for which we have a compete brain map is the fruit fly ( https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00771-1 ; 3,016 neurons and 548,000 connecting synapses versus 100 billion neurons and over 100 trillion synaptic connections in the human brain), we have a long way to go before implants are safe and functionally valuable in a military setting.

Pharmaceuticals are the most likely to yield short-term results, especially in countries with fewer ethical constraints, but can still take a long time to go from initial discovery to market (around 10-15 years in countries with strong regulatory frameworks). But perhaps even western militaries aren't subject to oversight by authorities such as the FDA ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSq_qt5zy6I ).

To make this post vaguely on topic, was it ever revealed what Wagner was feeding their zombie troops back in the Bakhmut days?

[MikeyD]

I've been thinking, the current battlefield shaped by the drone threat has had an unintended effect of also minimizing Putin's threats to introduce theater tactical nukes. A battlefield composed of  small packets of widely dispersed, deeply dug-in units would be a decent countermeasure to nukes as well as drones. Yes, I pity the poor sods directly beneath the blast but if everyone in the surrounding area is dug-in and avoiding (drone) exposure the casualties would be greatly diminished. I have the very vague (and perhaps faulty) recollection of a Pentagon study that concluded a theater tactical nuke wouldn't really be the game changer we imagine. Ach, I wish I could remember the details of the study.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

USMC deployed a small number of tanks into Afghanistan,  though its really not a very tank (or vehicle suited in general) country to operate such machines in. As for utilisation, I am not so sure. You could argue that 4th gens are effectively useless in a high AD environment (which is why 5ths are so important) yet the USA primarily operates 4th gen platforms like F-16. Its safe to say things are little more complicated than that, which is really what the situation is for tanks. 

I get that, but it wasn't my point.  

Let me put it another way.  If NATO were to go to war with Russia, how important do you think tanks would be in that equation?   It is the only combat scenario I can think of where NATO or even just the US is going to engage in combat with a near peer adversary (though calling Russia near peer is a huge stretch these days) where tanks would even be on the menu.  Do you think tanks from the Netherlands would ever see combat if Russia were to push into the Baltics? Unless your answer is yes which I think is a pipe dream, then this tank force isn't much more than a parade ground unit to have on national holidays.

[ArmouredTopHat]

55 minutes ago, sburke said:

I get that, but it wasn't my point.  

Let me put it another way.  If NATO were to go to war with Russia, how important do you think tanks would be in that equation?   It is the only combat scenario I can think of where NATO or even just the US is going to engage in combat with a near peer adversary (though calling Russia near peer is a huge stretch these days) where tanks would even be on the menu.  Do you think tanks from the Netherlands would ever see combat if Russia were to push into the Baltics? Unless your answer is yes which I think is a pipe dream, then this tank force isn't much more than a parade ground unit to have on national holidays.

Ok, so its a little difficult to answer, but Ill do my best.

I think its better to answer the question in terms of what actually works best for the Netherlands when it comes to security.

The situation overall is rather tense, we have a nerve wracking US election coming up, we have growing threat of conflict that may or may not involve NATO elements, which presumably would draw in the Netherlands should it come to that. While a conflict with Russia is unlikely (and Russia would lose it hard) It could still end up with Dutch units on the line in any resulting campaign if the fighting lasts long enough. Presumably the Dutch Mod took this into account and decided their units needed more firepower. 

I see the reacquisition of tanks by the Dutch to be both an assurance that their mechanised units have the firepower they need  in the event that they are drawn into combat while also at the same time being an act that improves their security in the event that a certain united states decides to leave NATO (a very very unlikely situation, but a trump presidency is unpredictable. Europe in general has been quite alarmed by the potential from the USA to bail on them, so its understandable that countries are looking to be a bit more self sufficient should the Americans with their thousands of M1s decide not to get involved with future European conflicts. This is all the more relevant given the Dutch have a particular axe to grind with the Russians regarding a certain aircraft that was shot down. 

In addition, it serves as a deterrent together with the actions of other NATO partners that they really should not be messed with:

“because, after a long period of peace in Europe, the Netherlands must actively contribute to deterring adversaries in order to prevent armed conflict.”

“Russia’s unbridled aggression in Ukraine shows that an attack on the NATO alliance is no longer inconceivable,” the White Paper states, quoting Minister of Defense Ruben Brekelmans. “Such an attack would have a major impact on the security and prosperity of the Netherlands. Together with our allies, we must therefore make every effort to prevent such an attack.”

This battalion will help meet what the White Paper describes as a need for “heavier combat capabilities for land operations.”

Essentially the Dutch Mod looked at the situation and thought: right, we need something now. Tanks were a pretty obvious thing to get into the equation as they lacked them outside of the special brigade with Germany, so they had a requirement for more firepower in their own brigades that tanks could fill (while also handily meaning they still have the expertise and trained personnel involved with said brigade to operate their own tanks despite not officially having any officially). Considering they are all but certain to order Leopard 2A7s or 2A8s, they are familiar with the basic vehicle and probably have a fair bit of their support apparatus already in existence. Its not like they are starting from scratch. 

We should bear in mind that the Dutch will still be operating considerably fewer tanks in the future than they did in the cold war. (The Fins got quite a few of the leopard 2s when they got sold off) Its far from going back to what they used to have, but presumably the Dutch government and military feel they need at least some sort of heavy firepower component as they looked to budgeting their armed forces. Considering the billions more they are invested into the armed forces, its really not that huge of a chunk from the overall funding change. From what I gather the Dutch also have a bit of a problem with recruiting, so I imagine its a lot easier for them to recruit for 50 tanks than it is for hundreds of extra IFVs and their infantry complements. 

All in all, I think its quite a reasonable and expected decision. 

Edited September 9 by ArmouredTopHat

[chuckdyke]

The Dutch had a conscription model on steroids during the Cold War. The abbreviation was KVV (Kort Verstands Verbijstering) Short Cognitive Bewilderment the other conscripts used to call it. I think the voters will be less than enthusiastic about it. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

11 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

The Dutch had a conscription model on steroids during the Cold War. The abbreviation was KVV (Kort Verstands Verbijstering) Short Cognitive Bewilderment the other conscripts used to call it. I think the voters will be less than enthusiastic about it. 

Quite so:

As well as new equipment, the Dutch Ministry of Defense aims to address personnel requirements, creating what it terms a “scalable military; one that can grow or shrink in terms of personnel depending on the threat it faces.” This will be partly achieved by recruiting more reservists who will be deployed as full-fledged military personnel in permanent and scalable units. A return to the Cold War-era conscription model has been ruled out, for the time being.

 

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

A return to the Cold War-era conscription model has been ruled out, for the time being.

Scalable Military comes close to the 'KVV' concept which was in place during the Cold War. The professional army offered a contract for 6 years the KVV'ers were offered a contract for 4 years. IMHO it will be a useful reserve in the case of hostilities. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

This crap still boils my blood that we still do not have a cohesive plan 2 years in aimed at resolving the conflict, despite Ukraine pushing for one since the start. 

[Battlefront.com]

8 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

If someone is going to call me a tankie, a stooge / idiot and a literal 'agent' of the tank agenda in military circles (Whatever the frick that means, his words) just because I have a different opinion to him that is really not unreasonable, then they lose all courtesy from me. Said clown decided to escalate to that level and until I get an apology from someone who should really know better at their age, I will not be especially inclined to treat them with the same courtesy everyone else gives one another here. I have nothing against them but when they continue to refer to me indirectly and tell others 'not to bother' with anything I have to say, I get a little miffed. This is literally some playground scuffle rubbish. A grown man in their elder years should know better, but that's his call to make. I simply expected better from someone who has a lot to contribute here.

Take a look in the mirror.  If you think you didn't contribute to where we're at now, you aren't looking hard enough.

Also note that I'm one of the people that has become extremely frustrated with how you conduct yourself.  You move goalposts, you dodge directly addressing issues, you use double sided logic, you use double standards for establishing points, you have difficulty differentiating anecdotal and statistic evidence, experts that agree with you are sacrosanct and the rest "don't get it", and overall seem to be dead set on protecting your world view instead of questioning it.

I've not accused you of being a tankie, but I have debated many over the years and I find the experience similar.  Which is disappointing because you clearly are intelligent and well read.

8 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Okay, allow me to go through the numerous points that I have brought up in the past regarding the issue of cost to settle this properly then.

I appreciate that.  However, we've been down this road before where you are pretty comfortable making statements as if they are fact, not so good at successfully debating the challenges that come after.  Let's see how this goes.

8 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

1. Tanks as a weapon system are expensive, but much like how a fighter jet is expensive, you are paying for capability that you otherwise would not have. Again the core argument is that a tank provides something that other things cannot. A bunch of FPV strikes does not provide the same capability as a tank, it is literally a munition with different methods of employment.

The overwhelming evidence from this war is that the unique capabilities that a MBT provides has shrunk considerably while the costs for keeping them relevant in the future are only going to go up.

So I'll grant you that there are still some things a tank can do that other systems can't, but I don't see that capability as being so important and so irreplaceable that it is worth the investment.  Especially because putting those resources into MBTs takes resources away from potentially better alternatives.

8 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

2. There is plenty that can be done to reduce costs of tanks (And weapon systems in general) The chief NATO issue is lack of widescale production. In the past we had little issue producing shed loads of tanks that were for their time top of the line, a lot of reasons for that include production of scale. Much like how F-35 is surprisingly cheap despite its capability due to scaling. An approach for a tank platform would work the same way and in my view this is required given your very true concerns about deep stock reserves. High intensity warfare very much eats up stocks quickly.

This is pure fantasy.  At best it is pure speculation.  It is also very poorly applied logic.

If what you say is true, then why have the costs of making tanks not been going down over the years?  Russia has it's tank production cranked way up and I don't see any evidence that they are getting significantly less expensive.

Putting that aside, the logic flaw is that what you're claiming could happen applies equally to other expensive systems that already offer better bang for the buck.  IFVs, for example, start this race 1/2 as expensive as MBTs and MRAPs about 1/4.  Even if the cost of MBTs could magically come down AND it come down proportionally further than an IFV the IFV will still be wildly less expensive.  On top of that, you have repeatedly admitted that lots of expensive stuff needs to be ADDED to MBTs to keep them functioning in their reduced role, so are you saying they can bring the costs down from today's prices even with all this extra stuff bolted on?

OK, so now... how much upfront investment would NATO countries have to make to see this cost reduction?  Any signs that any country is willing to pony up for that amount?  No.  So this is why it's pure fantasy.

8 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

3. Costs of tank platforms can be cut. Reducing the overall size of the vehicle by removing a crewmen in place of an autoloader cuts both training costs by 25% as well as reducing the size of the tank in question, which means a cheaper protection scheme with less surface area to cover. There is absolutely a lot that can be done to reduce tank costs that should be considered.

I question your autoloader claims, but I'll skip that.  What you're now talking about is, basically, reducing one of the MBT's surviving advantages as seen in this war -> level of protection.  So sure, the cost could be reduced by making less capable end product, but then it becomes less distinguishable from it's nearest competitor; the IFV.

8 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

4. A broad look at vehicle costs overall points to the fact that tanks are really not all that more significantly expensive than other assets. CV90s are around 9 mil per unit according to this. Military equipment is expensive and complicated but this does not change the value that they provide on the battlefield. If its more cost efficient to go nothing but drones, why has no country done so? Why cant they do both? Cost is not the only concern when it comes to capability or effectiveness on the battlefield.

Putting aside the flawed argument at the end of this paragraph for now (see further below for that), you just said a bunch of nothing.  Yes, the CV-90 is expensive, but it is at least 1/2 as expensive as a Western MBT.  This matters, especially because the amount of difference per unit is massive in real terms.

There's also more studies than I can shake a stick at that shows MBTs are the single most expensive vehicles to support long term.  They are also the most logistically expensive to support in the field.  They are also the most expensive to upgrade.  It's tortured arguments like this that indicate you're more interested in maintaining your position than examining it honestly.

(BTW, I think IFVs are also of questionable value.  Just not nearly as questionable as MBTs)

8 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

5. You get what you pay for. Sure, a western MBT is expensive, but its also more survivable, more effective and has a better chance of keeping the even more valuable crew alive when the vehicle takes a hit. We know this from Ukrainian sources that western vehicles are far more survivable both for the platform itself and for the people inside, which to me is a perfect justification of cost. It is -worth- paying that price if it means more people are coming home to fight another day. The alternative is whatever the hell Russia is doing.

Do you know what is more survivable from a Human perspective?  Unmanned systems, artillery, stand off ATGMs, and other things that cost a Hell of a lot less than a single MBT.

Aside from that, I reject the notion that no cost is too much to preserve a Human life.  Especially because nothing is for free and everything has a cost.  Putting mountains of money into MBTs comes at the expense of investments that could otherwise go into keeping dismounts safer, for example.  It also could be put into better educations for children or safer cars or tackling climate change or paying down our unsustainable national debts.  Most of those arguably have real costs to Human life as well, so it's all about choices and I don't think MBTs are a good choice.

Plus, let's look at the life saving possibilities.  50x Abrams keeps 200 men safe.  The same 200, BTW.  100x Bradleys keeps 300 crew safe and about 1600 dismounts from harm.  Moreover, Bradleys are designed to transport anybody so that means that 1600 dismounts is really much higher.  Possibly 10x higher.  So if the goal is to keep people safe, the Bradley wins by miles.

8 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

If this theory of how to proceed with regards to military approach is so infallible, why has no one pushed for it? We have numerous independent militaries who are actively expanding their arsenals do nothing of the sort. Are they all idiots? We talked about this before but to assume the military apparatus is all wrong and this armchair community is in fact right instead is perhaps a little arrogant no?

This is the other aspect you absolutely refuse to acknowledge.  And that is big organizations tend to be very, very slow to change.  It is absolutely crazy to think *ANY* military would look at this war and change 80 years worth of culture and habits overnight.  This has been pointed out to you every single time we've got this far in the discussion and you still insist on a massive strawman of your own creation.

Quite the contrary, there is a massive amount of discussion going on in professional circles that is questioning traditional spending priorities and force structures.  These are the same people that questioned the value of horse cavalry before WW1 and still had to fight to get rid of them after when they were proven completely ineffective.  Which is ironic because these were the people arguing in favor of tanks.  In other words, your mentality today is the same mentality used by people opposed to tanks in the early part of the 20th Century.

As for armchair arrogance... how are you exempt from that description?  Or are you an official spokesperson for the entire military and, therefore, beyond reproach?  And how about all the professionals who have, at a minimum, doubts about the continued value of MBTs?  What credentials do you have to dismiss them as having no value?

8 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I think the point of contention overall here is the assumption that because traditional methods of mechanised warfare are less practical on the whole (though not impossible as we see at Kursk at least in some rendition) this makes tanks and vehicles less useful. I disagree with this completely given the use of said vehicles regardless, and the attitudes from both sides regarding them. Again, none of you have pointed to a source in either military that has claimed its tanks are useless and that they should not bother. Instead both are actively clamouring to get as many tanks into their arsenals as possible. Tanks are used quite a bit differently, but their value is still very much there.

Again with the really poor understanding of how large organizations and, in particular militaries, work.  Past history has shown that the big organizations tend to be the last ones to change, very frequently long after they should have.  It's why IBM is not the #1 tech company nor is Intel the #1 chip manufacturer.  Those organizations didn't recognize the need to change when they should have and they suffered for it.

Large militaries are, today, still going on Cold War autopilot.  They are also continually failing to demonstrate an ability to fight the sorts of conflicts that are on the rise, such as what the Houthis and Hamas are fighting.  Trillions of USD were spent fighting the Taliban and that didn't work very well.  Or so I've read.

What's really troubling is that despite a very poor track record of winning wars, the Western militaries have stated that they were really geared up to fight a war like Ukraine is fighting.  Now it's not so clear that they are.  In fact, the evidence suggests that they very much are not.

Nope, sorry.  I will not pray blindly before the alter of the military industrial complex.  It is not worthy of such devotion.

8 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Ukraine is still making and refurbing tanks at great risk and cost (the recent Iskander strike on a tank plant actively in use proves that) even as they focus on making literally hundreds of thousands of FPV drones. Clearly they see value in the platform despite the utility of a drone. Why would they bother otherwise?

Very bad logic that has been challenged before.  Ukraine is still working with tanks because they have them to work with.  They need EVERYTHING they can to win against Russia.  Since MBTs have not been made completely useless (yet), Ukraine would be stupid to stop supporting tanks.  Especially because they do not yet have anything to replace them with.

8 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Such as? We covered UGVs before (too premature to be a viable solution right now, not to mention there is nothing in development with actual heavy weaponry)

We have seen lighter vehicles attempted for support roles, but these come at the expense of protection and have thus never truly supplanted tanks in their primary roles and instead fill the void in areas where tanks are less suited (difficult terrain for instance)

Unmanned systems, in particular UGVs, are not yet able to replace MBTs.  True.  Nobody here has ever argued to the contrary.  What is being argued is that the principles and tech already developed, and in use within Ukraine (to larger or lessor extent), for unmanned systems show a path towards either replacing MBTs or removing their remaining advantages (two separate arguments).  A smart nation, doing smart forward thinking things, would ensure that development of unmanned systems would be going full speed ahead.  This is not happening yet because of the aforementioned institutional problems, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening at some level.

(as an aside, notice above you argued for lighter MBTs and then say lighter vehicles aren't useful).

In conclusion... MBTs are a bad investment.  While they are not totally pointless, they

[ArmouredTopHat]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Take a look in the mirror.  If you think you didn't contribute to where we're at now, you aren't looking hard enough.

*Entered too early, 1mo.

 

Edited September 9 by ArmouredTopHat

[sburke]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Ok, so its a little difficult to answer, but Ill do my best.

I think its better to answer the question in terms of what actually works best for the Netherlands when it comes to security.
 

let me see if I can boil that down into bullet points.. (yes LLF I spent time at McK - just be glad I am not attaching a powerpoint.)

• The Dutch feel a need to contribute to Europe's overall defense to deter a Russian threat they deem more likely than they used to.
• The war might last longer
• The Dutch have a recruiting problem so they will field tanks instead of additional infantry (I realize that is your suggestion and not necessarily their rationale)
• They feel the need for more firepower in their existing brigades
• The Dutch already have 1 company of tankers with the German army

Somehow after that I still see a parade ground unit that could never have any impact whatsoever on a future war in Europe.

Honestly I am having a hard time envisioning any ground troops being able to be deployed 1500 km away in time to contribute anything.  I don't see that as simply an issue for the Netherlands either.  I think Poland has got the right idea in foward basing US units.  That is a trip wire Russia cannot avoid. 

DVIDS - Images - The First Permanent U.S. Army Garrison is Established in Poland [Image 13 of 16] (dvidshub.net)

I think NATO has to look at its overall force composition as a body and start making decisions that fit well together overall.  Yeah I know a pipe dream with national defense industries all vying for a chunk of the taxpayer dollar.  However how you proceeded to answer is in my mind part of the problem.  What works best for the Netherlands, not what works best for NATO.  I know that is just not going to work but it is a huge flaw in how NATO approaches security.

The components that are having the biggest impact on this war need to be the ones at the forefront of everyone's thinking.  Even if you still consider the tank to be a priority component, they need to be factored into the overall plan.  The Dutch are able to make a better contribution to Europe's holistic defense than just ramping up another tank battalion that very well may end up with an undersized infantry support component.  As this tank battalion is going to be a Dutch national component I assume they will be standing up all the support apparatus as well.  I am guessing the staffing requirements for a tank battalion may erode some of that personnel "savings" once you start adding up all the logistical requirements.  Heavy movers, recovery vehicles, maintenance teams etc Fuel and ammo resupply.  It isn't like you can just staff for the tanks. 

Personally I don't find it reasonable.  I feel it is more that they fell it checked the box so they have what other people have versus looking at where things are going and how they could best contribute towards that.  Granted we haven't seen the full defense budget and what additional items might be included but I still do not see any value add.

Edited September 9 by sburke

[Battlefront.com]

10 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I mean sure, he absolutely is biased but I dont think they reduces the point he makes.

Correct.  The point he makes fails on its own merits.

10 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

He's pointed out plenty of tank flaws in the past but his overall reasoning for why tanks are around is pretty much on point.

Many Bible scholars will admit the flaws in the bible, such as the age of the Earth or the rotation of the universe around it, but still not be a good source to ask "does God exist".

10 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

As I said, the second a country decides to take a radical change in course regarding tanks I will be far more willing to acquiesce to the notion that a radical rethink is needed.

As I pointed out in my previous post, this is a terrible standard to adhere to.  "The only way to prove the stock market is headed down is when I've lost all my money".

10 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Who knows in a few decades though. 

A few decades?  Wow.  I'm beginning to wonder if we've been watching the same war.

Steve