4 ms·

Difficult to see where infantry can still be useful. Still defeated by basic Napoleonic-era weapons, and completely overmatched by... almost everything. Yet no

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.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > I predict that the "tank" of the future will have a smaller main gun and thinner armor. Right - at which point it's not really a tank and is more of a normal AFV.
    - nradov 4y ago
      I'm thinking of a "tank" more in terms of some continuity with the current concept of operations regardless of the exact hardware. Navy destroyers look completely different today than they did during WW2 but still perform the same missions. This notional future tank will probably share some components with a family of other similar AFVs, but will be optimized for striking hard targets rather than for troop transport, air defense, or whatever other AFV roles are needed.
  - greedo 4y ago
    This was the thinking behind the Leopard 1. It had really thin armor compared to peers because it didn't think it mattered. Later upgrades added spaced armor etc to help with ATGMs, and the Leo 2 had Chobbham so it was kind of a rejection of that theory. Missiles on tanks have been a thing for decades and really don't add much value. Main gun rounds are much cheaper, and you'll always need something that can blow up fortifications. And crew size can't really get much lower than 3 (four is really optimal) because of pulling guard duty, maintenance etc. Replacing a tread with two guys leaves no one to pull security watch.
spywaregorilla 4y ago
> 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. Not really. War is unbalanced and the metagame is strict. Weapon systems do get obsoleted if they can be defeated cheaply and easily. But, when you have weapons, you tend to use them. The Russian meta is to hide behind a wall of meat shields and blow shit up with artillery from further back. The Ukranian meta is to... blow shit up with longer range artillery and then when the enemy is so weakened, demoralized, underequipped, and dead; rush them with vehicles and artillery. In this war long range artillery is the thing that matters. In a war against the US, you would see a lot of elements downplayed simply due to a capable airforce. Also I think you meant Kharkiv
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > Also I think you meant Kharkiv Ah yes, I did mix up Kherson and Kharkiv.
- rmah 4y ago
  "Blow shit up with longer range artillery and then when the enemy is so weakened, demoralized, underequipped, and dead; rush them with vehicles and artillery" That was the primary tactical doctrine in 1919. In fairness it started with "rush them with infantry", but that was countered with static defenses. Which was then countered with tanks (your statement). Which was countered with anti-tank weaponry. Which was countered with infantry. Which was countered with mechanized infantry. Which was countered with mobile artillery. Which was countered by aircraft. Which was countered with.. Seeing a pattern here?
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    > That was the primary tactical doctrine in 1919. As I understand it, this is not quite accurate. Trenches are pretty resilient to artillery fire. Especially shitty WWI artillery. Trench rushes tended to be pretty effective, but it was very difficult to solidify any gains because the enemy would always have a second line of trenches to quickly counterattack while you were inevitably overextended. The modern precise artillery and intel of the west at least is effective on an entirely different level where supply lines far behind the front are in danger. > Seeing a pattern here? That military tech evolves? I mean, yeah, obviously. The claim being addressed here is that things don't become obsolete. Many things do.
Ancapistani 4y ago
Truly modern, "Western-style" warfare is more about the pace of battle and maintaining consistency in the "information space" than anything else. You do everything you can to make your troops as mobile and fast to respond as possible, then you keep moving around and probing until you find a place where the enemy isn't ready for you. Exploit that, then move the battle somewhere else while the enemy scrambles to adapt. Ukraine has been doing exactly that in this war. Russia has enough trouble keeping their units supplied when they're in neat deployments - expecting them to be able to respond to multiple probing attacks along an extended front while maintaining force in all the areas not currently under attach is impossible for them.

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.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > I predict that the "tank" of the future will have a smaller main gun and thinner armor. Right - at which point it's not really a tank and is more of a normal AFV.
  - nradov 4y ago
    I'm thinking of a "tank" more in terms of some continuity with the current concept of operations regardless of the exact hardware. Navy destroyers look completely different today than they did during WW2 but still perform the same missions. This notional future tank will probably share some components with a family of other similar AFVs, but will be optimized for striking hard targets rather than for troop transport, air defense, or whatever other AFV roles are needed.
- greedo 4y ago
  This was the thinking behind the Leopard 1. It had really thin armor compared to peers because it didn't think it mattered. Later upgrades added spaced armor etc to help with ATGMs, and the Leo 2 had Chobbham so it was kind of a rejection of that theory. Missiles on tanks have been a thing for decades and really don't add much value. Main gun rounds are much cheaper, and you'll always need something that can blow up fortifications. And crew size can't really get much lower than 3 (four is really optimal) because of pulling guard duty, maintenance etc. Replacing a tread with two guys leaves no one to pull security watch.

spywaregorilla 4y ago

> 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. Not really. War is unbalanced and the metagame is strict. Weapon systems do get obsoleted if they can be defeated cheaply and easily. But, when you have weapons, you tend to use them. The Russian meta is to hide behind a wall of meat shields and blow shit up with artillery from further back. The Ukranian meta is to... blow shit up with longer range artillery and then when the enemy is so weakened, demoralized, underequipped, and dead; rush them with vehicles and artillery. In this war long range artillery is the thing that matters. In a war against the US, you would see a lot of elements downplayed simply due to a capable airforce. Also I think you meant Kharkiv

jcranmer 4y ago
> Also I think you meant Kharkiv Ah yes, I did mix up Kherson and Kharkiv.
rmah 4y ago
"Blow shit up with longer range artillery and then when the enemy is so weakened, demoralized, underequipped, and dead; rush them with vehicles and artillery" That was the primary tactical doctrine in 1919. In fairness it started with "rush them with infantry", but that was countered with static defenses. Which was then countered with tanks (your statement). Which was countered with anti-tank weaponry. Which was countered with infantry. Which was countered with mechanized infantry. Which was countered with mobile artillery. Which was countered by aircraft. Which was countered with.. Seeing a pattern here?
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  > That was the primary tactical doctrine in 1919. As I understand it, this is not quite accurate. Trenches are pretty resilient to artillery fire. Especially shitty WWI artillery. Trench rushes tended to be pretty effective, but it was very difficult to solidify any gains because the enemy would always have a second line of trenches to quickly counterattack while you were inevitably overextended. The modern precise artillery and intel of the west at least is effective on an entirely different level where supply lines far behind the front are in danger. > Seeing a pattern here? That military tech evolves? I mean, yeah, obviously. The claim being addressed here is that things don't become obsolete. Many things do.

Ancapistani 4y ago

Truly modern, "Western-style" warfare is more about the pace of battle and maintaining consistency in the "information space" than anything else. You do everything you can to make your troops as mobile and fast to respond as possible, then you keep moving around and probing until you find a place where the enemy isn't ready for you. Exploit that, then move the battle somewhere else while the enemy scrambles to adapt. Ukraine has been doing exactly that in this war. Russia has enough trouble keeping their units supplied when they're in neat deployments - expecting them to be able to respond to multiple probing attacks along an extended front while maintaining force in all the areas not currently under attach is impossible for them.