4 ms·

Yes and no. I'd argue that just because there are good counters to a particular weapon system doesn't necessarily mean the system is obsolete: jets aren't made

Yes and no. I'd argue that just because there are good counters to a particular weapon system doesn't necessarily mean the system is obsolete: jets aren't made obsolete by SAMs for example. It will change the dynamic, though. The US seems to bank on achieving air superiority, so the vast majority of helicopters or jets would be intercepted. The other option, favored by Soviet doctrine, is to have lots of short range air defense vehicles deployed alongside the tanks. As for infantry teams or ATGM-equipped vehicles, there are options. You've got active protection systems, which could develop all the way to some sort of mini-CIWS. But there's also a question of targeting. Sure, those ATGMs can engage tanks at 8+km, but you need to find and target the tank first. I think you'll start to see a cat-and-mouse game: vehicle stealth, better optics and sensors, active radar, ISR teams and drones, anti-UAV weapons, etc. I think tanks will still play a major role, but that role may shift and they will likely need to work in tandem with other vehicles. Actually, on that note I think in the next decade we'll see work on developing unmanned tanks, which I personally think will be a major game changer. A large portion of the internal volume of a tank is for the crew. Remove the crew and you can significantly reduce the volume of the tank, reducing the surface area, so you can provide the same amount of protection with much less armor by weight. You can get an unmanned vehicle with the same armor and firepower of a main battle tank with half the weight and significantly reduced size. There would be some trade offs (an unmanned system will necessarily have worse situational awareness, so the tank would probably need to operate alongside infantry teams or a manned vehicle) but I think that will help keep tanks on the battlefield for decades to come

zentiggr 7y ago
Keith Laumer did some interesting takes on this in his Bolo stories.
dexen 7y ago
>unmanned tanks The Russian T14 Armata[1] is a strong nod in that direction. The turret is unmanned and fully automatic; the crew of 3 is hosted in a well protected capsule in the front hull. This ensures both low top weight & visibility, just as well as improved survivability for the crew. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata
- openasocket 7y ago
  Very true, Soviet (and now Russian) doctrine has long prioritized a lower weight and size. The Soviets were (I believe) the first to use an automatic loader for the gun to reduce the crew size from 4 to 3, and thus reduce the tank's size and weight. Soviet tanks are consistently in the 45 ton range as a result, while Western tanks tend to be over 60 tons, and tend to lack autoloaders (a notable exception is the French Leclerc). Soviet doctrine called for tanks to be smaller to present a smaller target, and provide better operational mobility. For example, there were many bridges in Warsaw pact countries designed so that a T-72 tank could cross, but a heavier Western tank would cause the bridge to collapse. Western doctrine, on the other hand, tends to eschew the idea of an autoloader for a variety of reasons. Historically, the problems with an autoloader are reduced survivability (having all the tank rounds together in a carousel or conveyor system means if the tank is penetrated all the rounds could cook off and kill everyone) and I believe earlier autoloaders offered worse performance than a skilled human loaders. Autoloaders have since improved in performance and survivability, but the other reason Western doctrine has discouraged the idea of using an autoloader is the reduced situational awareness from losing a crew member. Whenever the loader isn't actually loading, they are an extra pair of eyes that can be looking for targets or potential threats. There's a decent explanation of all this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0x-8NheU1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0x-8NheU1E I think that will be the biggest challenge with unmanned armored vehicles, the reduced situational awareness. You can put all the cameras you want on the tops of the tank, a remote operator will have to deal with the limited bandwidth (can't have full 60fps 4K resolution in 360 degrees simultaneously on a satellite link) and increased latency. At first this can be helped by using it as a fire support vehicle for infantry, where the infantry can be their eyes and ears. Eventually there can be enhanced automation to help reduce the workload of remote operators (not automatically firing, but having the system continuously scan around it and tracking the movement of all visible people and vehicles so the operator doesn't have to) and fusing that data with that of other tanks and even UAVs overhead.
  - greedo 7y ago
    Swedish S tank had an autoloader, which came out a few years before the first T-72.

zentiggr 7y ago

Keith Laumer did some interesting takes on this in his Bolo stories.

dexen 7y ago

>unmanned tanks The Russian T14 Armata[1] is a strong nod in that direction. The turret is unmanned and fully automatic; the crew of 3 is hosted in a well protected capsule in the front hull. This ensures both low top weight & visibility, just as well as improved survivability for the crew. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata

openasocket 7y ago
Very true, Soviet (and now Russian) doctrine has long prioritized a lower weight and size. The Soviets were (I believe) the first to use an automatic loader for the gun to reduce the crew size from 4 to 3, and thus reduce the tank's size and weight. Soviet tanks are consistently in the 45 ton range as a result, while Western tanks tend to be over 60 tons, and tend to lack autoloaders (a notable exception is the French Leclerc). Soviet doctrine called for tanks to be smaller to present a smaller target, and provide better operational mobility. For example, there were many bridges in Warsaw pact countries designed so that a T-72 tank could cross, but a heavier Western tank would cause the bridge to collapse. Western doctrine, on the other hand, tends to eschew the idea of an autoloader for a variety of reasons. Historically, the problems with an autoloader are reduced survivability (having all the tank rounds together in a carousel or conveyor system means if the tank is penetrated all the rounds could cook off and kill everyone) and I believe earlier autoloaders offered worse performance than a skilled human loaders. Autoloaders have since improved in performance and survivability, but the other reason Western doctrine has discouraged the idea of using an autoloader is the reduced situational awareness from losing a crew member. Whenever the loader isn't actually loading, they are an extra pair of eyes that can be looking for targets or potential threats. There's a decent explanation of all this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0x-8NheU1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0x-8NheU1E I think that will be the biggest challenge with unmanned armored vehicles, the reduced situational awareness. You can put all the cameras you want on the tops of the tank, a remote operator will have to deal with the limited bandwidth (can't have full 60fps 4K resolution in 360 degrees simultaneously on a satellite link) and increased latency. At first this can be helped by using it as a fire support vehicle for infantry, where the infantry can be their eyes and ears. Eventually there can be enhanced automation to help reduce the workload of remote operators (not automatically firing, but having the system continuously scan around it and tracking the movement of all visible people and vehicles so the operator doesn't have to) and fusing that data with that of other tanks and even UAVs overhead.
- greedo 7y ago
  Swedish S tank had an autoloader, which came out a few years before the first T-72.