Is The Tank Dead? What Is the Future of Armored Forces

[Simcoe]

This was an interesting topic that came up a few times in the Ukraine Conflict thread and the link below was a pretty good summary of the state of tanks after the outbreak of war in Ukraine.

Personally, I think the tank will be around for a long time but what will they look like ten years down the line? Do you focus on quality or quantity? How will remote controlled or AI controlled tanks change this equation?

 

[Grey_Fox]

When panzershreks and bazookas were clapping Shermans and Panthers, was the tank dead?

When Israeli tanks were being reamed by Egyptian ATGM teams in 1973, was the tank dead?

The "analysis" by a dude who mainly posts gaming footage seems to be you need to use modern equipment on the modern battlefield. Deep.

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Grey_Fox

[Bulletpoint]

59 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:

When Israeli tanks were being reamed by Egyptian ATGM teams in 1973, was the tank dead?

Yes, but nobody really noticed, I think. There haven't been many peer-level conflicts since then. Most wars have been between nation states and rebel groups armed with old RPGs.

The war in Syria actually showed how much damage modern ATGMs can do against tanks. Assad's tank forces got decimated and he would have lost if it had not been for Russia's airpower, as I understand it.

I think we'll continue to see armour on the battlefield in the future, but it will be much lighter and possibly remotely controlled.

There's a lot to be gained in giving up the heavy armour: Each vehicle can be much cheaper to produce, have better off-road capabilities, and be more fuel efficient.

[db_zero]

Given the advancements made in CAD design, microchips, algorithms and advanced manufacturing techniques it would be fairly easy to design and field a radical direct fire tank like vehicle that is small, light and could even be reconfigured into something like an AT gun that could be remotely controlled.

It all comes down to budgets and willingness to try something different. There’s a reason why the Marines have remotely controlled boats that can fire switchblades and use direct fire guns-the Navy controls the budget and boats move on the water.

Now that Germany is re-arming there is opportunities to do joint ventures and for Europe to flex its design and R&D muscles, but Germany now has a bigger energy issue to focus on.

I posted a article in the Ukraine thread that shows a Marine with a backpack mounted anti-drone device.

I have no doubt something similar and more powerful is already out there that can be mounted on a tank. They just don’t advertise it.

I also would not be surprised if there is already something out there to counter missiles like the Javelin that we haven’t been told about. 
 

If a Javelin cost $100,000 I would not be surprised if the true cost was $50,000 and $50,000 was used to research a counter measure to be used against a Javelin.

If you ever saw the movie “Contact” there is a scene where Hatten says something to the effect-first rule of government-Why build one when you can build 2 for twice the cost…

Keep an eye on Israel. They have a sizable mechanized force as well as an excellent tech industry. They have a vested interest in all of this and are keeping a keen eye on what’s going on in Ukraine.

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by db_zero

[Simcoe]

5 hours ago, db_zero said:

Given the advancements made in CAD design, microchips, algorithms and advanced manufacturing techniques it would be fairly easy to design and field a radical direct fire tank like vehicle that is small, light and could even be reconfigured into something like an AT gun that could be remotely controlled.

It all comes down to budgets and willingness to try something different. There’s a reason why the Marines have remotely controlled boats that can fire switchblades and use direct fire guns-the Navy controls the budget and boats move on the water.

Now that Germany is re-arming there is opportunities to do joint ventures and for Europe to flex its design and R&D muscles, but Germany now has a bigger energy issue to focus on.

I posted a article in the Ukraine thread that shows a Marine with a backpack mounted anti-drone device.

I have no doubt something similar and more powerful is already out there that can be mounted on a tank. They just don’t advertise it.

I also would not be surprised if there is already something out there to counter missiles like the Javelin that we haven’t been told about. 
 

If a Javelin cost $100,000 I would not be surprised if the true cost was $50,000 and $50,000 was used to research a counter measure to be used against a Javelin.

If you ever saw the movie “Contact” there is a scene where Hatten says something to the effect-first rule of government-Why build one when you can build 2 for twice the cost…

Keep an eye on Israel. They have a sizable mechanized force as well as an excellent tech industry. They have a vested interest in all of this and are keeping a keen eye on what’s going on in Ukraine.

 

Great discussion! 
 

with the proliferation of drones and handheld AT weapons, it seems like tanks will move to an assault gun role like the Stryker cannon variant. It will be used to provide direct fire support on suspected positions. Super tanks like the Abrams SEP3 would be inefficient and vulnerable. Better to have a company of smaller assault guns than a platoon of Abrams.

[DerKommissar]

Has anyone tried putting a CWIS-like systems on AFVs?

Either on top of the turret, or in place of the turret?

[Erwin]

Battleships were made obsolete by carriers and no carriers may be about to be obsolete as they have to defend vs mass drones or multiple hypersonic missiles and as far as the Taiwan threat from China is concerned we belatedly discover that our carriers cannot project air power much over 300 miles due to aircraft range limitations and land-based missiles.  But, ships haven't disappeared, just evolved.  I imagine tanks as we know them will become obsolete, but something will evolve to replace them.  

Seems to me that some sort of remote control of cheap/replaceable vehicles may be useful when one needs to bring heavy firepower onto a specific heavily defended location.  Something heavier than what can be carried by drones?

[womble]

I think it comes down to what the "tank" is meant to achieve. The originals in WW1 were meant to be ways of bringing anti-infantry firepower close enough, in protected carriages, to break trench lines. That evolved into being the best thing to fight another tank with, as well as being a purveyor of HE and many rifle-calibre bullets, before and during WW2. Speeds increased as well, so that infantry needed a means of transport faster than Shank's Pony to keep up with their impervious friends. In the latter half of the C20th, tanks became more focused on their role in prevailing against the enemy's tanks. The need for good HE never went away, but the role that was most critical was "tungsten on target" and resistance to the enemy's APFSDS. Protection from other threats also increased as the ATGM threat became ever more potent.

Now, it's looking like the best thing to fight against a tank isn't necessarily "a better tank", but a smart, top-attack ATGM (preferably fired remotely by an operator in defilade from the target). And the UA are demonstrating that you don't (necessarily) need a tank for timely, 1st round pin-point HE delivery, if you have the drones and comms and (SP)A assets. So what remains for the tank to do?

I had thought that the "assault gun" role would be a reason for a tank to be on hand for the infantry who have to be there to take and hold the territory that's being fought over, but the developing evidence of the potency of expert use of 6"(approx)-plus arty combined with modern sensor platforms and comms is starting to make me think that role is mostly unnecessary in most combat situations if there's "enough" arty available to go around.

The infantry need some place to keep all their ATGMs and drones and other stuff, and keep the batteries charged, and a way to displace quickly. They could potentially need a mobile shelter from fragments that's tougher than an MRAP mount. Such a vehicle could carry comms nodes and information processing and display that would be awkward to tote around. It wouldn't be expected to enter direct combat, since any old Gropo could wax it with a shoulder-fired missile, but it might well be kept close enough to make it worth mounting AD with Starstreak-level reach for local AD from "just behind" where the grunts and drones are duking it out.

[Erwin]

So what may be useful are very heavily protected mobile bunkers in which inf can find temporary shelter from CBN attacks.  That assumes of course the inf has time to hide in one.  

Or... perhaps mobile AA platforms that can shoot down mass drone/missile attacks using lasers or EW etc.  However, not sure if we are anywhere near the technology to shoot down large caliber artillery rounds.  

[womble]

31 minutes ago, Erwin said:

So what may be useful are very heavily protected mobile bunkers in which inf can find temporary shelter from CBN attacks.  That assumes of course the inf has time to hide in one.  

Or... perhaps mobile AA platforms that can shoot down mass drone/missile attacks using lasers or EW etc.  However, not sure if we are anywhere near the technology to shoot down large caliber artillery rounds.  

I'm not sure the battlespace becomes significantly more poisonous and irradiated than currently. The downsides of those weapons on the battlefield remain, even with the advent of "cheap" effective smart ATGM.

The AD component of such a "bastion" could well involve longer ranged elements of anti-drone technology that probably needs to be developed if it isn't already. The grunts are going to need their own shorter-ranged versions. I think the best defense against incoming plunging fire is probably the bastion's mobility, combined, perhaps with the notional ability to take down the enemy's eyes-in-the-sky that could illuminate for guided munitions; we've seen accounts that static targets are vulnerable to dumb rounds, but a moving one would take a laser-homer to hit.

[Gary R Lukas]

I don't believe that the tanks are dead. The Russian Tanks are all road bound because of the soft ground and if they try to go cross country and get off of the roads they are getting stuck in the mud. I fear that once the ground starts to dry up, then the Russians can hit the Ukraine's from almost any direction just like the German Panzers and Russian Divisions did in WWII. Another fear that I have is once the ground hardens up, the Russians will be attacking from the north again. Kiev will still be the main target. Putin isn't finished, It may take another month or two, but {he will be back] I sure hope I'm wrong, but as this war progressed I called it almost perfectly. I know that the Ukraine's are receiving lots of Anti-Tank Missiles and Drones, but they are ambushing the Russian Armored columns in towns and on the roads, but once the Russians can start going cross country, the Ukraine's will be spread out, and only have a few Anti-Tank weapons per unit, but if the Russians hit them like the Armored Divisions did in WWII, then the Ukraine's will have no choice but to pull back. The Russians will lose some tanks and APC's, but they will still have enough armor and momentum to push the Ukraine's back towards their cities, then surround them. I sure Hope that I'm wrong, but Putin is determined to Kill every single Ukrainian person regardless of gender or age. To him every single Ukrainian is a so called Nazi and the Ukraine needs to be cleansed of these people. To me it's just a genocide of the Ukrainian People. I just saw on the news that a Russian Missile just hit a train station, killing an estimated 50 people, including 5 small children. The remains of this missile had writing on the side of it that read {FOR THE CHILDREN]!!!!!! This is BULL****!!!!

[db_zero]

While everyone is debating whether tanks are dead, the Ukrainians who started the question are asking the west for as many as they can send.

If they had the time to learn and absorb M1s they would gladly take and use them.

[Gary R Lukas]

Since this tread is talking about tanks, I'm curious if anybody here has seen the T-90's being used?? So far, I've have seen only two T-90's totally burned out, and only one that the Russians abandoned because it sank into the mud, and they couldn't free it. Out of the 100's of Russian Tanks I've seen destroyed, or abandoned were T-72's. What did the Russians do with their T-80's?? Did they just put them on the export market, or do they have them collecting dust and rust for their reserve units?? 

[db_zero]

From what I can tell it sounds like the T-90 was largely sent to Siberia and few in the Western region so it would make sense few have been seen so far.

A report that a call went out for older reservists to volunteer to go to Siberia, along with the call up of 60,000 reserves means they could be headed not to Ukraine but to Siberia.

The active Siberian troops along with their T-90s could then be sent to Ukraine. Since China and Russia are on good terms it would be a small risk to send regular Siberian troops already on active duty West.

Going to take a while to rail them West.

Edited April 9, 2022 by db_zero

[Gary R Lukas]

I agree, just like in WWII, when Stalin found out that the Japanese were not going to attack the Soviets in the east, he moved the Siberian forces from the east and sent them to Moscow where they blunted the German Forces and were a huge part of the Soviet's counterattack and defeat of the German units facing Moscow.

[Rooks And Kings]

On 4/8/2022 at 9:04 AM, womble said:

I think it comes down to what the "tank" is meant to achieve. The originals in WW1 were meant to be ways of bringing anti-infantry firepower close enough, in protected carriages, to break trench lines. That evolved into being the best thing to fight another tank with, as well as being a purveyor of HE and many rifle-calibre bullets, before and during WW2. Speeds increased as well, so that infantry needed a means of transport faster than Shank's Pony to keep up with their impervious friends. In the latter half of the C20th, tanks became more focused on their role in prevailing against the enemy's tanks. The need for good HE never went away, but the role that was most critical was "tungsten on target" and resistance to the enemy's APFSDS. Protection from other threats also increased as the ATGM threat became ever more potent.

Now, it's looking like the best thing to fight against a tank isn't necessarily "a better tank", but a smart, top-attack ATGM (preferably fired remotely by an operator in defilade from the target). And the UA are demonstrating that you don't (necessarily) need a tank for timely, 1st round pin-point HE delivery, if you have the drones and comms and (SP)A assets. So what remains for the tank to do?

I had thought that the "assault gun" role would be a reason for a tank to be on hand for the infantry who have to be there to take and hold the territory that's being fought over, but the developing evidence of the potency of expert use of 6"(approx)-plus arty combined with modern sensor platforms and comms is starting to make me think that role is mostly unnecessary in most combat situations if there's "enough" arty available to go around.

The infantry need some place to keep all their ATGMs and drones and other stuff, and keep the batteries charged, and a way to displace quickly. They could potentially need a mobile shelter from fragments that's tougher than an MRAP mount. Such a vehicle could carry comms nodes and information processing and display that would be awkward to tote around. It wouldn't be expected to enter direct combat, since any old Gropo could wax it with a shoulder-fired missile, but it might well be kept close enough to make it worth mounting AD with Starstreak-level reach for local AD from "just behind" where the grunts and drones are duking it out.

You just described mechanized light infantry essentially. 

[chuckdyke]

Any Javelin operator can be taken out by any rifle bullet. Is the Javelin obsolete? Combined arms are part of the high-tech battlefield. The tank on its own is vulnerable, join the club any other weapon is too. 

[Erwin]

The example is not comparable.

Stats do show that in battle it takes a lot of bullets (thousands?) per kill.   ATGM's like Javelins seem to be as depicted in CM to be close to 100% one Jav to one kill.  There is also an economic issue here.  The cost of one javelin vs the cost of one top of the line tank.  That needs to be compared to the cost of putting hundreds of troops in the field firing thousands of rounds to kill one person. 

What am not sure if anyone has commented on here as yet, but look how vulnerable the Moskva was to conventional anti-ship missiles.  Aren't modern ships supposed to have anti-missile capability?  Obviously in this instance completely ineffective.  What are the implications for the US Navy in a conflict with China over Taiwan or one of its small islands?  How are our ships' anti-missile defenses?

[womble]

14 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Any Javelin operator can be taken out by any rifle bullet. Is the Javelin obsolete? Combined arms are part of the high-tech battlefield. The tank on its own is vulnerable, join the club any other weapon is too. 

Not many rifles can reach out to 4km...  Not many tank rounds can hit a Stugna operator in full defilade. Having to put your infantry screen out far enough to keep your tanks safe from modern ATGMs means your tanks (as currently constituted) aren't able to support your infantry. Maybe tanks can adapt, maybe there's nothing can replace the things they can do, and the infantry battle to give your tanks space to operate (as opposed to the tank battle to give your infantry space to operate) will be the order of the future day.

The question is whether the 120mm high velocity boom stick in a turret on a heavily-armoured, tracked, 40-plus MPH on the road vehicle is worth having for the things it can do, compared to the cost of having it and the risk of losing it, relative to alternative systems. Currently, the alternative systems probably aren't capable enough, but the tech to make them competent exists; it just needs to be put together. In the future, there will be other options. Currently, the problem seems to be that tanks might help the grunts enough  to make them worth hanging onto for very many armed forces or in the quantity they're employed.

It will be fascinating to find out the proportion of kills of MBTs by different system types on each side when Ukraine is no longer undergoing invasion. It's not inconceivable that the war will still be under way once neither side have a significant number of tanks remaining operational.

[chuckdyke]

3 hours ago, womble said:

Not many rifles can reach out to 4km.

Ever heard of a patrolling program? The key task of the infantry. I am 72 now but I can imagine area of operations covering 36km² instead of a large CM Map which is 16km². The Challenger tank in the game detects a sniper in the building once the sniper fires. I thought it was a bug, it would be a bug in a WW2 game. It goes back to classical times. Greeks had the Phalanx formation the Romans countered it with the Pilum. Looking at the present situation in the Ukraine. We don't know what our friends are doing with their T72s, I would think twice to step into one. Would Leopards2, Challengers or Abrams do better? Probably they are all part of the formations of the country which manufactures them designed for their doctrine. I can't see much sense to export them to get the most out of them would take some time for training and exercises. 

[chuckdyke]

 

It becomes clear why exporting armor to the Ukraine is easier said than done.

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by chuckdyke

[womble]

11 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Ever heard of a patrolling program?

Sure. It's not like both sides can't do that. And the ATGM side only has to protect the area where the rifles can reach the ATGM, whereas the tank's little buddies have to cover, what? 64 times the area? (assuming effective rifle range is 500m and effective ATGM range is 4km; double the rifle and halve the ATGM, and it's "only" 4 times).

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, womble said:

double the rifle

You should consider FOW infantry are concealed a lot longer. WW2 Soviets were masters of infiltration. Their grandsons in the Ukraine on the Ukraine side show their pedigree. 

[slysniper]

Just re-phrase what is being said and it all makes sense.

The tank as we know it, is on the going to be dead list, if you cannot see it, that is your problem.

What is going to replace it.

Likely a smaller tracked platform that is remotely operated and it has nothing more than desired weaponry mounted on it. 

(at which point, can we call it a tank anymore, Maybe, but really it will not be a tank.)

 

I envision something much lighter, faster, likely caring something around a 40-45 mm caliber gun unit or missiles on it that can be fire at a very high speed of rate.

The crew will still be 3 or 4 men, but they will be detached either traveling with their own transport. they still need to do maintenance and all other general functions to the unit. But the whole point will be to use the gun platform to find and engage the enemy while the crew can hopefully stay secure to fight another day from a safer position.

 

But however you want to look at it, its not a tank as we know it today.

 

[chuckdyke]

All controlled from outer space we play Combat Mission. With real maps our units operate anywhere in the world with our true-to-life equipment and humanoid robotics.