7 ms·

Difficult to see where tanks go forward from today. Still defeated by these basic WW2 obstacles, and currently completely overmatched by anti-tank weapons. The

Difficult to see where tanks go forward from today. Still defeated by these basic WW2 obstacles, and currently completely overmatched by anti-tank weapons. The best chance of active protection systems from here rely on always-on active radar which means you're lighting yourself up.

dr-detroit 4y ago
Kaibeezy 4y ago
The only defense I could find was to plow soil up onto them. Still a slowdown and vulnerability.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  You always try to cover an obstacle with fire, so the idea is while they're milling around slowly piling up soil they're vulnerable to fire. You can see in some of the photos the troops looking down on the obstacle from I presume potential fire positions.
  - mellavora 4y ago
    > You always try to cover an obstacle with fire, I misread your comment to mean flames/burning stuff (not weapons fire), and wanted to pause for a moment to admire your approach to life. :)
jcranmer 4y ago
Difficult to see where infantry can still be useful. Still defeated by basic Napoleonic-era weapons, and completely overmatched by... almost everything. Yet no one seriously proposes to eliminate infantry battalions, whereas people constantly do the same for things like tanks and aircraft carriers. Weapon systems are not obsolete just because they can be defeated--warfare is not a case where one weapon system just totally creams everything else, but closer to a rock-paper-scissors scenario where nothing is truly dominant. Tanks are not useless because they are easily defeated in some scenarios, but rather, tanks are useful as "part of the complete package". For example, tanks proved to be a critical component to the successful Ukrainian operation that led to the Russian rout in Kherson Oblast a few months ago.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > Difficult to see where infantry can still be useful. Infantry can disperse to defeat the weapon systems you're thinking about. That's where tanks currently really struggle. Tanks have been overmatched for some time both in the open, and in the close, in both conventional and unconventional conflicts, and we don't really seem to have major ideas to solve that (with the exception of active protection, which only works against an unsophisticated enemy as you're broadcasting your position.) Also - I said 'where they go forward from today' - I didn't say they were useless.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    >(with the exception of active protection, which only works against an unsophisticated enemy as you're broadcasting your position.) Modern war (what NATO does, not what Russia does) has radar sharing, so one radar behind the lines, or in an airplane well behind the lines - shares the information to everyone. Just a few well hardened/defended radars it all you need, nobody else is using active radar.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > Just a few well hardened/defended radars it all you need No, these systems have vehicle mounted radars. You can't network that - they are responding in sub-millisecond times. > nobody else is using active radar. You're bonkers. Trophy. Arena. Quick Kill. All active radar.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Where we go forward today is that tanks will evolve along the same lines as naval surface combatants (frigates / destroyers / cruisers) have, just a few decades later. Warships used to primarily rely on cannons for offense (with large gun crews) and armor for defense, but the advent of strike aircraft and then guided missiles made those designs obsolete. Now surface ships have minimal gun armaments and little or no armor. Instead they rely on their own guided missiles and aircraft (helicopters and drones) for offense, and speed plus active measures (interceptor missiles, EW, decoys) for defense. I predict that the "tank" of the future will have a smaller main gun and thinner armor. Instead of slugging it out toe-to-toe with enemy armored vehicles and fortifications it will hang back and locate targets using it's own drones plus data links from other platforms. Then attack those targets using indirect fire missiles and suicide drones. Crews will be smaller, probably just two, with the option to operate temporarily uncrewed under remote control or with some limited autonomy. Survivability will be provided through high mobility, some low-observability (stealth) technology, EW, and updated active protection systems. Think of a mini "frigate" driving around on land.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mellavora 4y ago
> currently completely overmatched by anti-tank weapons The Chieftan disagrees with you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 I suspect he has more practical and theoretical knowledge on the topic than the sum total of all posters on this thread.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Well obviously it's a matter for reasoned opinion, rather than a mathematical fact, and you'll find opinions both ways. I'm saying I'm currently struggling to see it the positive for the situations we think we're likely to face next. Other weapon systems do go completely obsolete over time - it's not a truism that all claims of obsolesce are wrong. Also - I said 'where they go forward from today' - I didn't say they were obsolete.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  I'll submit Rob Lee's opinion, if you'd rather read than watch a video: https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/the-tank-is-not-obsolete-and-other-observations-about-the-future-of-combat/ https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/the-tank-is-not-obsolete-a...
- arethuza 4y ago
  I believe chrisseaton is actually in the British Army?
spywaregorilla 4y ago
Depends who you're fighting, where you're fighting, and how fast you need to win.
DeWilde 4y ago
That is a take I see often on Twitter and HN but actual military experts tend to disagree [0]. The truth is the tank was never meant to be invulnerable piece of military hardware but one that can withstand small and medium calibre arms and shrapnel/fragmentation while also delivering direct fire to a front line location. In that regard there is nothing that can replace it yet and will continue to be used. [0] https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/the-tank-is-not-obsolete-and-other-observations-about-the-future-of-combat/ https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/the-tank-is-not-obsolete-a...
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > can withstand small and medium calibre arms and shrapnel/fragmentation while also delivering direct fire to a front line location. In that regard there is nothing that can replace it yet But an AFV can do this.
  - gigaflop 4y ago
    A modern tank can measure its weapon range in kilometers, and explosive shells can be used to destroy buildings or other cover. In my opinion, AFVs are better suited for situations where speed is more important than the absolute firepower of a tank.
  - DeWilde 4y ago
    Its not comparable, a tanks armor and main gun are several classes above.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      ...and several classes heavier, more expensive, harder to disperse, harder to hide... I (like a lot of people) don't see it adding up at the moment and are interested where they'll have to develop to add up again. I don't think that's even a particularly controversial opinion amongst experts?
      - greedo 4y ago
jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
> rely on always-on active radar which means you're lighting yourself up. Because these systems have to work in formation without interfering with each other, they use pseudo random noise like signals and correlation based receivers. They're also mmw systems working at short range. It's not quite the suicidal beacon you're assuming, because it ends up the folks who design this stuff are in fact aware of the principle of emissions control.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Yeah of course they try to reduce the emissions as much as they can within physics. But the appetite for any emissions is extremely low in a peer or near-peer fight.

dr-detroit 4y ago

Kaibeezy 4y ago

The only defense I could find was to plow soil up onto them. Still a slowdown and vulnerability.

chrisseaton 4y ago
You always try to cover an obstacle with fire, so the idea is while they're milling around slowly piling up soil they're vulnerable to fire. You can see in some of the photos the troops looking down on the obstacle from I presume potential fire positions.
- mellavora 4y ago
  > You always try to cover an obstacle with fire, I misread your comment to mean flames/burning stuff (not weapons fire), and wanted to pause for a moment to admire your approach to life. :)

jcranmer 4y ago

Difficult to see where infantry can still be useful. Still defeated by basic Napoleonic-era weapons, and completely overmatched by... almost everything. Yet no one seriously proposes to eliminate infantry battalions, whereas people constantly do the same for things like tanks and aircraft carriers. Weapon systems are not obsolete just because they can be defeated--warfare is not a case where one weapon system just totally creams everything else, but closer to a rock-paper-scissors scenario where nothing is truly dominant. Tanks are not useless because they are easily defeated in some scenarios, but rather, tanks are useful as "part of the complete package". For example, tanks proved to be a critical component to the successful Ukrainian operation that led to the Russian rout in Kherson Oblast a few months ago.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> Difficult to see where infantry can still be useful. Infantry can disperse to defeat the weapon systems you're thinking about. That's where tanks currently really struggle. Tanks have been overmatched for some time both in the open, and in the close, in both conventional and unconventional conflicts, and we don't really seem to have major ideas to solve that (with the exception of active protection, which only works against an unsophisticated enemy as you're broadcasting your position.) Also - I said 'where they go forward from today' - I didn't say they were useless.
- bluGill 4y ago
  >(with the exception of active protection, which only works against an unsophisticated enemy as you're broadcasting your position.) Modern war (what NATO does, not what Russia does) has radar sharing, so one radar behind the lines, or in an airplane well behind the lines - shares the information to everyone. Just a few well hardened/defended radars it all you need, nobody else is using active radar.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > Just a few well hardened/defended radars it all you need No, these systems have vehicle mounted radars. You can't network that - they are responding in sub-millisecond times. > nobody else is using active radar. You're bonkers. Trophy. Arena. Quick Kill. All active radar.
- nradov 4y ago
  Where we go forward today is that tanks will evolve along the same lines as naval surface combatants (frigates / destroyers / cruisers) have, just a few decades later. Warships used to primarily rely on cannons for offense (with large gun crews) and armor for defense, but the advent of strike aircraft and then guided missiles made those designs obsolete. Now surface ships have minimal gun armaments and little or no armor. Instead they rely on their own guided missiles and aircraft (helicopters and drones) for offense, and speed plus active measures (interceptor missiles, EW, decoys) for defense. I predict that the "tank" of the future will have a smaller main gun and thinner armor. Instead of slugging it out toe-to-toe with enemy armored vehicles and fortifications it will hang back and locate targets using it's own drones plus data links from other platforms. Then attack those targets using indirect fire missiles and suicide drones. Crews will be smaller, probably just two, with the option to operate temporarily uncrewed under remote control or with some limited autonomy. Survivability will be provided through high mobility, some low-observability (stealth) technology, EW, and updated active protection systems. Think of a mini "frigate" driving around on land.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mellavora 4y ago

> currently completely overmatched by anti-tank weapons The Chieftan disagrees with you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 I suspect he has more practical and theoretical knowledge on the topic than the sum total of all posters on this thread.

chrisseaton 4y ago
Well obviously it's a matter for reasoned opinion, rather than a mathematical fact, and you'll find opinions both ways. I'm saying I'm currently struggling to see it the positive for the situations we think we're likely to face next. Other weapon systems do go completely obsolete over time - it's not a truism that all claims of obsolesce are wrong. Also - I said 'where they go forward from today' - I didn't say they were obsolete.
jcranmer 4y ago
I'll submit Rob Lee's opinion, if you'd rather read than watch a video: https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/the-tank-is-not-obsolete-and-other-observations-about-the-future-of-combat/ https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/the-tank-is-not-obsolete-a...
arethuza 4y ago
I believe chrisseaton is actually in the British Army?

spywaregorilla 4y ago

Depends who you're fighting, where you're fighting, and how fast you need to win.

DeWilde 4y ago

That is a take I see often on Twitter and HN but actual military experts tend to disagree [0]. The truth is the tank was never meant to be invulnerable piece of military hardware but one that can withstand small and medium calibre arms and shrapnel/fragmentation while also delivering direct fire to a front line location. In that regard there is nothing that can replace it yet and will continue to be used. [0] https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/the-tank-is-not-obsolete-and-other-observations-about-the-future-of-combat/ https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/the-tank-is-not-obsolete-a...

chrisseaton 4y ago
> can withstand small and medium calibre arms and shrapnel/fragmentation while also delivering direct fire to a front line location. In that regard there is nothing that can replace it yet But an AFV can do this.
- gigaflop 4y ago
  A modern tank can measure its weapon range in kilometers, and explosive shells can be used to destroy buildings or other cover. In my opinion, AFVs are better suited for situations where speed is more important than the absolute firepower of a tank.
- DeWilde 4y ago
  Its not comparable, a tanks armor and main gun are several classes above.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    ...and several classes heavier, more expensive, harder to disperse, harder to hide... I (like a lot of people) don't see it adding up at the moment and are interested where they'll have to develop to add up again. I don't think that's even a particularly controversial opinion amongst experts?
    - greedo 4y ago

jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago

> rely on always-on active radar which means you're lighting yourself up. Because these systems have to work in formation without interfering with each other, they use pseudo random noise like signals and correlation based receivers. They're also mmw systems working at short range. It's not quite the suicidal beacon you're assuming, because it ends up the folks who design this stuff are in fact aware of the principle of emissions control.

chrisseaton 4y ago
Yeah of course they try to reduce the emissions as much as they can within physics. But the appetite for any emissions is extremely low in a peer or near-peer fight.