With new threats come new defenses, like the Wavebreaker anti-drone EW module on the latest T-80BVM seen at Army 2023 (see Hole's post in the relevant thread). Also, we haven't yet seen Russia deploy APS en masse on its tanks, so we don't know how effective that would be. Another advantage of the tank is of course its offensive power...that 125mm gun is nothing to sneeze at. The day when MBTs are obsolete will come, IMO, just as with horse cavalry, but it doesn't seem to be here yet.
That´s the point. Like Begome mentioned, the main gun of a tank is still the most potent direct firing weapon. At least from the cost-benefit point of view. So they will be around for a while, but more and more of them will be unmanned.
I remember in the 1980s they were saying the antitank guided missile and mines and attack helicopters made tanks totally obsolete so what to replace it with... well you still need a gun platform, but it would be useless if everything could kill it so it needs armour heavy enough to stop most things.... etc etc etc... and what they ended up with was normally too close to a T-90 for them to openly mention.
APS systems that can shoot down ATGMs could be adapted to detect and shoot down drones too... and for different targets it could be fitted with different munitions to respond to the threat, so a bounding mine type ARENA mine for some threats and rocket type DROZD type munitions for other threats and perhaps a heavy gauge shotgun type round to engage incoming drones... plus composite armour and special electric armour and and ERA and NERA and cages and slats and anything else that will help...
It is important to remember the battlefield has never been safe... you can talk about a Tiger or a KV-1 or whatever feeling safe but land mines and artillery and air power with heavy bombs could do them in if needed.
The age of the Battleship might have ended in WWII but it still took a fleet of ships and aircraft carriers to sink the Yamamoto... and look how much of the British fleet was tied up chasing the Bismark.
It is interesting that most of the targets getting hit by drones are on their own... how long before we get drones that hunt drone control centres and drone signals... what will that do to the number of enemy drones.
We are seeing new turrets to deal with drones... imagine new land dreadnoughts... Armata type vehicles with three or four or five turrets like the T-35 with a central turret with a gun like a 57mm gun mounted up raised above the hull with small turrets either side in front and behind with independent cannon or machine guns or lasers for dealing with drones... a big lidar system on the main turret scanning 360 degrees looking for threats and handing target information to the relevant turret... none of the turrets will need to be manned and could be automatically operated by AI to find and identify and engage drones and air threats... including incoming missiles... plus ERA and of course APS with MMW radar sensors and optics etc etc... and overwatch from a tethered drone flying directly above giving a god view of the situation.
At the end soldiers on foot survive much more than vehicles or soldier in vehicles. Even more if they know 1 thing or 2 about cammo and how to move without being hidden.
Atgm and suicide drones can take care of enemy vehicles fairly easily.
Remember of videos in NK where azeri and armenian soldiers got killed by artillery because they were walking in formation of tens of soldiers. Meanwhile if they were in woody area with 50m between them they would still be alive.
At the end of the day you need vehicles... going everywhere on foot slows your movement and limits your fire power and your endurance.
These problems Russia is having and the Ukrainians are having is nothing compared with problems HATO would be having because in comparison their air defence is patchy at best and the ability of an F-35 to detect and engage hand held drones would be zero.
Armor will never be made obsolete for the simple reason that the vast majority of enemy target detection and identification are generated by maneuver forces bumping and making contact with the enemy. The maneuver forces would then need to fix the enemy in position long enough for the artillery to do its job. For this most lethal phase of combat you need the most survivable elements possible that can maneuver over long distances far from resupply and bring with them enough firepower to be a credible threat to anything they can encounter on the battlefield without immediate firepower support. Anything else, lacks the survivability, the mobility or armor's unique ability to sustain prolonged independent combat.
TL;DR - MBTs are basically irreplaceable in modern warfare.
TL;DR - MBTs are basically irreplaceable in modern warfare.
Exactly... but they do need to adapt to new threats with new protection and defence and attack means.
The advantage the Russians and Soviets have had is that they treat their tanks the way the Americans treat their aircraft... upgrades and improvements and adaptations to different defence technologies for the Russian tanks led to all sorts of things being developed, including what are essentially an ESM suite of avionics (SHTORA/APS/etc etc).
GarryB wrote:Exactly... but they do need to adapt to new threats with new protection and defence and attack means.
All that they have developed is a roof top cage that can at best protect against a few types of air dropped bombs. Even top attack ATGMs will penetrate those cages.
On most occasions MBTs are a liability especially with ATGMs, Loitering munitions making such fast progress. All that an ATGM, LM operator need to do is aim for the main gun of the tank. With the main gun gone a MBT is just a piece of scrap.
GarryB wrote:The advantage the Russians and Soviets have had is that they treat their tanks the way the Americans treat their aircraft... upgrades and improvements and adaptations to different defence technologies for the Russian tanks led to all sorts of things being developed, including what are essentially an ESM suite of avionics (SHTORA/APS/etc etc).
Militaries of most countries do that. There is nothing unique about Russia doing the same. They have not been able to install an effective APS on even their T-90s. proves that what they have is not effective at all.
lyle6 wrote:Armor will never be made obsolete for the simple reason that the vast majority of enemy target detection and identification are generated by maneuver forces bumping and making contact with the enemy. The maneuver forces would then need to fix the enemy in position long enough for the artillery to do its job. For this most lethal phase of combat you need the most survivable elements possible that can maneuver over long distances far from resupply and bring with them enough firepower to be a credible threat to anything they can encounter on the battlefield without immediate firepower support. Anything else, lacks the survivability, the mobility or armor's unique ability to sustain prolonged independent combat.
TL;DR - MBTs are basically irreplaceable in modern warfare.
All that they have developed is a roof top cage that can at best protect against a few types of air dropped bombs. Even top attack ATGMs will penetrate those cages.
A top attack weapon like Javelin that penetrates about 750mm of armour... now if that roof cage is ERA it will act like quite a few centimetres of armour and then a 1.5m air gap and then the ERA mounted on the roof of the turret, and then the turret top armour itself... it might stop it or it might not but the point is that Javelin is a heat seeker and the cage armour is cold so it wont get a lock... the operator will see the tank ahead of them and launch the Javelin which will climb up into the air and then look down and see the cold cage armour and not lock on to anything and miss.
Against HE and HEAT drones it creates a standoff effect to reduce penetration.
In hot places it keeps the sun off the crew and in cold places it keeps the rain and snow off.
Not bad for a few bucks of metal wielded on to their tanks.
On most occasions MBTs are a liability especially with ATGMs, Loitering munitions making such fast progress. All that an ATGM, LM operator need to do is aim for the main gun of the tank. With the main gun gone a MBT is just a piece of scrap.
They can aim for anything they please but what they actually hit seems to come down mostly to luck.
GarryB wrote: A top attack weapon like Javelin that penetrates about 750mm of armour... now if that roof cage is ERA it will act like quite a few centimetres of armour and then a 1.5m air gap and then the ERA mounted on the roof of the turret, and then the turret top armour itself... it might stop it or it might not but the point is that Javelin is a heat seeker and the cage armour is cold so it wont get a lock... the operator will see the tank ahead of them and launch the Javelin which will climb up into the air and then look down and see the cold cage armour and not lock on to anything and miss.
This discussion heavily relies on the Javelin missiles even making it to their target.
In reality, the Javelin missile's disposable thermal seekers have a very hard time spotting, let alone tracking and engaging even vehicle targets in Ukraine's heavily cluttered environs.
A problem not shared by the cooled 2nd gen thermals on modernized Russian AFVs.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1650935333670776832
So what we have here is a situation where the MBTs have no problems detecting and attacking infantry type targets anywhere within their gun range even through ground clutter - but the Javelin/NLAW/TOWs that are supposed to kill them can't even do the same beyond a mile or so.
Now you know why there is an almost deafening dearth of Javelin/NLOW/TOW videos when in other conflicts you never ran out of the stuff almost every week.
This is only bound to get worse with APS and multispectral camouflage, btw.
sepheronx, GarryB, Big_Gazza, kvs, Hole, Begome, Broski and Belisarius like this post
lyle6 wrote:I thought the drone nade drop put paid to the rooftop gunner in favor of robotic RWS but it seems some people just need to feel like rambo...
Its not even protected from the front lol.
They'll learn the hard way just like the soldiers that were sharing their location on social media and calling their friends and relatives from the frontlines, war is hell and you only get to f*ck up once.
I can imagine some people saying that wont stop a javelin or HIMARS rocket.
The point is that if those soldiers were walking the amount of ground they could cover in an hour and the amount of weight they could carry would be very very limited.
With these vehicles they can move much faster and carry around equipment and weapons and ammo and cover much greater distances in a much shorter time.
Imagine a machine gun team of three or four guys... one with the machine gun and two other guys with belted ammo and rifles.
That is the squads fire power for built up areas and other places where big heavy vehicles can't follow.
Instead of a PKM and say 700 rounds of ammo with that three man team... two belts each man plus one on the gun, you could have a Kord HMG on a pintle mount with large amounts of ammo in a mobile package that can move fast.
If you use a RWS mount you can add a stabiliser and all weather optics and you become rather more powerful for an extra cost.
Nothing on the battlefield is safe from ATGMs and drones, these vehicles would be vulnerable to small arms fire, but troops that are walking would be vulnerable to small arms fire too.
These light vehicles must be strictly for use in the rear. So such critics need to lay off the crack. DRGs can take them out, but total protection from them is unrealistic. DRGs require other measures to intercept and eliminate. But there will always be losses in war.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
lyle6
