Tanks are generally disposable items in high intensity combat and need to be simple, reliable, interchangeable (parts and mission) and FIT FOR PURPOSE. They also have to fit the operational doctrine and tactics -- not sure Ukraine has any of it anymore with all the advice, pressure and "training" they are getting from NATO. I think they are desperately plugging holes, which really shows now.
The idea that Western tanks will do well in Ukraine was spun by idiots in Kiev, who quickly ran out of 2000 Soviet tanks (plus whatever old Warsaw pact donations they got). Since the West could not find more old Soviet tanks, this decision was the last resort...
The western Leopards, Abrams, Challengers were designed for a different environment and purpose and, in the right application, are decent (not brilliant) machines. All tanks have strong and weak points.
I can see nothing but disadvantages of giving Ukraine these western tanks:
1) very heavy for the environment (>60-70 tons vs Soviet/Russian tanks in 40-50 range), which affects their logistics and ability to navigate mud. On top of that they have higher profiles making them better targets.
2) complex and high cost to operate and to train (a lot higher initial cost - 3-4X of Soviet/Russian tanks)
3) Maintenance/logistics due to differences in ammo, spare parts, training are not trivial
4) A few unique items, just to highlight these machines are not all that:
a) Leopards have weak protection from mines
b) Abrams are fuel guzzlers (jet fuel, mind you) and have a terrific heat signature
c) Challenger is just overhyped, technologically its gun, sights, armor are old. Vulnerable to its ammo ignition due to the layout
In high intensity conflict, logistics is everything... I don't see how any of the above helped on the battlefield. As a moral booster or a very expensive gift to Zelensky that worked.
By the way, F-16s, if they make it to Ukraine, will be even a bigger fiasco!
Tanks produced by our corrupt and incompetent U.S. military industrial complex are multi-million dollar fighter jets with treads. That's what makes them money.
According to manuals, they should be treated like racehorses. Like Italian sports cars. They belong in the garage, until they can go out and do their thing.
And what is the one thing they can do? Race across a smooth desert for four to five hours and shoot up WWII-era equipment manned by Third World armies with no training while protected by total air superiority, GPS, and total satellite oversite.
All I know about warfare and tactics and strategy comes from a lifetime of reading history ( plus three years in the third armored division in Germany in the 1960’s). I have to wonder if the day of the tank is over. Is anyone seriously thinking about future warfare without tanks? Churchill invented them. They’ve had a good run but technology looks like it’s about to put them out to pasture.
I think of the history of the English Long bow. At one time it was the greatest invention in warfare until it wasn’t. For all things there is a season.
There are a lot of vested interests in tank warfare. Whether tanks can be made survivable is the main issue. We are already seeing in Ukraine tactics where tanks are not used so much on the front line. That's for two reasons" they are too often destroyed and soldiers don't want to crew them. It may be more and more difficult to recruit tank crew in future.
You’re a strategic thinker. I’m asking what would replace them totally as a way of conducting warfare? What would you see a battle field look like without tanks? Is anyone thinking that way or is the old army syndrome of constantly fighting the last war firmly in place throughout the government?
The question is how do you move an army forward without armor protection? If not manned tanks the future may be unmanned machines emulating the firepower of tanks which also can shelter infantry. While there is talk about unmanned land vehicles, so far at least they don't seem to be aimed at emulating tanks. Unless you can protect and move infantry, maybe you can do defense, but not attack.
Drone swarms make tanks unneccessary. As long as you have persistent surveillance in theater, tanks can't be brought up to the front. They are effective as highly mobile artillery though. But you don't need heavy tanks like the Abrams to do that.
Russia has thousands of the right kind of tank lying around.
I'm thinking that new armoured vehicles will have plenty of protection; at the cut of mobility. Maybe a 105mm or 120mm gun(or some new calibre) that mostly fires HE or HESH or HEAT, and if required APDSFS for engaging other armoured vehicles. If somehow they can carry 4-6 Infantrymen/dismounts that would be even better. Or maybe they can design a new sized main armament.
If the fire control system, FCS, can also include indirect fire capabilities than even better. Back in my time we had Gun Laying Instruments on our Leopard C1s in Canada. Which meant we had a traverse indicator to adjust in azimuth. And a gun klinometer to be able to adjust in elevation. We were trained on how to engage targets over 4,000 metres. But it would be terribly inaccurate (although sometimes that is best for indirect fire) and the ability to correct on specific targets very weak.
So maybe they can create one new vehicle that can be multi use in nature. I'm sure history is full with inventions that failed to incorporate many different uses and tasks. But maybe they can. Having a shared hull and suspension would benefit any army, in both repair and sustainment.
So an Army equipped with such a hybrid system could work. Maybe one system might include a larger Artillery gun of 155mm.
So anyways - I think if countries can delevop a family of armoured vehicles that shared plenty of parts would be the way to go forward.
155 is way to big a gun for a tank. The British are looking at a 130mm Rheinmetall smooth bore for their Challenger !!!, but I doubt they will adopt it since it requires a new and bigger turret, just what you don't want. Still there remains the issue of tank survivability. One direction is active protection; another are sensors that can detect incoming artillery and automatically make course corrections. Bottom side mine protection also is needed. Tank design is a big problem. I think the trend will be to unmanned autonomous tanks with respectable gun and rocked systems.
I was thinking of a whole new vehicle system with a common hull and various turret configurations. Although I imagine it would take a lot of work and time to incorporate them into an Army.
Which country develops what and how, and of course how quickly, will usually be decided by the number and quality of existing and future engineers coming from schools. For this, it is enough to look at how many engineers are produced in the USA or Western countries and how many in Russia, China and not least in India ! Naturally, we know that this image is not favorable to the USA or the West ! If we look at the fact that in a higher level international mathematics competition, the USA only achieves a few places if the competitor is of Chinese or Indian, rather Japanese origin. There is no need to inform anyone about that, when it comes to world chess champions, the champions always come from the former member republics of the former Soviet Union, or from Israel, and those who immigrated from Russia anyway ! While the universities of the USA or the West are busy with gender education and how they can favor certain races against whites, the Russian, Chinese, or Indian ones are busy learning the real studies ! With the above, I just wanted to point out that while the USA is busy developing another (overpriced piece of sh.... / metal), the Russians will not be idle either ! See hypersonic missiles ! Oh, and all this was developed by a country that looks like a gas station ! :)
When will the USA have a working hypersonic weapon ?
His argument is that Prigozhin was causing trouble across the border in Poland and in the Baltic states. There is very little evidence to support this thesis. The only report I know of was a Polish complain that Wagner forces were operating close to the border but within Belarus. I don't think this accounts for Prigozhin's elimination, although it is anyone's guess at this point. My own thought is that the GRU got rid of him and didn't ask Putin, who probably winked.
It is a myth that we Americans are more solicitous of our soldiers lives. One example of the myth is the Mass production of the Sherman tank in WWII. It was a moving fire pit. It was typical of the American idea of numbers over quality and lives be damned. We always seem to be behind the times in Tank survivability. When i was the attache in Jordan in 1971 I saw our m-60’s knocked out by RPG 7s. Im an artilleryman but spending many years in the ME always interested in the armor factor.
The T-34 suspension system, sloped armor, and other features were designed by J. William Christie. Its early powerplant was from Ford. Most of Russia's tanks are evolutions of the T-34. As for tank destroyers, in WW2 the early tank destroyers were open on top and were death traps. Later in the war the were put on a Sherman M-4 chassis (called M10). These were far better and by the end of the war had a 105mm gun, but most of them only go upgraded to 90mm.. My wife's father commanded one of them, having been twice wounded in the earlier model tank destroyers (once in North Africa and once at Anzio).
Tanks are generally disposable items in high intensity combat and need to be simple, reliable, interchangeable (parts and mission) and FIT FOR PURPOSE. They also have to fit the operational doctrine and tactics -- not sure Ukraine has any of it anymore with all the advice, pressure and "training" they are getting from NATO. I think they are desperately plugging holes, which really shows now.
The idea that Western tanks will do well in Ukraine was spun by idiots in Kiev, who quickly ran out of 2000 Soviet tanks (plus whatever old Warsaw pact donations they got). Since the West could not find more old Soviet tanks, this decision was the last resort...
The western Leopards, Abrams, Challengers were designed for a different environment and purpose and, in the right application, are decent (not brilliant) machines. All tanks have strong and weak points.
I can see nothing but disadvantages of giving Ukraine these western tanks:
1) very heavy for the environment (>60-70 tons vs Soviet/Russian tanks in 40-50 range), which affects their logistics and ability to navigate mud. On top of that they have higher profiles making them better targets.
2) complex and high cost to operate and to train (a lot higher initial cost - 3-4X of Soviet/Russian tanks)
3) Maintenance/logistics due to differences in ammo, spare parts, training are not trivial
4) A few unique items, just to highlight these machines are not all that:
a) Leopards have weak protection from mines
b) Abrams are fuel guzzlers (jet fuel, mind you) and have a terrific heat signature
c) Challenger is just overhyped, technologically its gun, sights, armor are old. Vulnerable to its ammo ignition due to the layout
In high intensity conflict, logistics is everything... I don't see how any of the above helped on the battlefield. As a moral booster or a very expensive gift to Zelensky that worked.
By the way, F-16s, if they make it to Ukraine, will be even a bigger fiasco!
Tanks produced by our corrupt and incompetent U.S. military industrial complex are multi-million dollar fighter jets with treads. That's what makes them money.
According to manuals, they should be treated like racehorses. Like Italian sports cars. They belong in the garage, until they can go out and do their thing.
And what is the one thing they can do? Race across a smooth desert for four to five hours and shoot up WWII-era equipment manned by Third World armies with no training while protected by total air superiority, GPS, and total satellite oversite.
The Abrams is a joke.
All I know about warfare and tactics and strategy comes from a lifetime of reading history ( plus three years in the third armored division in Germany in the 1960’s). I have to wonder if the day of the tank is over. Is anyone seriously thinking about future warfare without tanks? Churchill invented them. They’ve had a good run but technology looks like it’s about to put them out to pasture.
I think of the history of the English Long bow. At one time it was the greatest invention in warfare until it wasn’t. For all things there is a season.
There are a lot of vested interests in tank warfare. Whether tanks can be made survivable is the main issue. We are already seeing in Ukraine tactics where tanks are not used so much on the front line. That's for two reasons" they are too often destroyed and soldiers don't want to crew them. It may be more and more difficult to recruit tank crew in future.
You’re a strategic thinker. I’m asking what would replace them totally as a way of conducting warfare? What would you see a battle field look like without tanks? Is anyone thinking that way or is the old army syndrome of constantly fighting the last war firmly in place throughout the government?
The question is how do you move an army forward without armor protection? If not manned tanks the future may be unmanned machines emulating the firepower of tanks which also can shelter infantry. While there is talk about unmanned land vehicles, so far at least they don't seem to be aimed at emulating tanks. Unless you can protect and move infantry, maybe you can do defense, but not attack.
Drone swarms make tanks unneccessary. As long as you have persistent surveillance in theater, tanks can't be brought up to the front. They are effective as highly mobile artillery though. But you don't need heavy tanks like the Abrams to do that.
Russia has thousands of the right kind of tank lying around.
I'm thinking that new armoured vehicles will have plenty of protection; at the cut of mobility. Maybe a 105mm or 120mm gun(or some new calibre) that mostly fires HE or HESH or HEAT, and if required APDSFS for engaging other armoured vehicles. If somehow they can carry 4-6 Infantrymen/dismounts that would be even better. Or maybe they can design a new sized main armament.
If the fire control system, FCS, can also include indirect fire capabilities than even better. Back in my time we had Gun Laying Instruments on our Leopard C1s in Canada. Which meant we had a traverse indicator to adjust in azimuth. And a gun klinometer to be able to adjust in elevation. We were trained on how to engage targets over 4,000 metres. But it would be terribly inaccurate (although sometimes that is best for indirect fire) and the ability to correct on specific targets very weak.
So maybe they can create one new vehicle that can be multi use in nature. I'm sure history is full with inventions that failed to incorporate many different uses and tasks. But maybe they can. Having a shared hull and suspension would benefit any army, in both repair and sustainment.
So an Army equipped with such a hybrid system could work. Maybe one system might include a larger Artillery gun of 155mm.
So anyways - I think if countries can delevop a family of armoured vehicles that shared plenty of parts would be the way to go forward.
155 is way to big a gun for a tank. The British are looking at a 130mm Rheinmetall smooth bore for their Challenger !!!, but I doubt they will adopt it since it requires a new and bigger turret, just what you don't want. Still there remains the issue of tank survivability. One direction is active protection; another are sensors that can detect incoming artillery and automatically make course corrections. Bottom side mine protection also is needed. Tank design is a big problem. I think the trend will be to unmanned autonomous tanks with respectable gun and rocked systems.
Agreed.
I was thinking of a whole new vehicle system with a common hull and various turret configurations. Although I imagine it would take a lot of work and time to incorporate them into an Army.
Which country develops what and how, and of course how quickly, will usually be decided by the number and quality of existing and future engineers coming from schools. For this, it is enough to look at how many engineers are produced in the USA or Western countries and how many in Russia, China and not least in India ! Naturally, we know that this image is not favorable to the USA or the West ! If we look at the fact that in a higher level international mathematics competition, the USA only achieves a few places if the competitor is of Chinese or Indian, rather Japanese origin. There is no need to inform anyone about that, when it comes to world chess champions, the champions always come from the former member republics of the former Soviet Union, or from Israel, and those who immigrated from Russia anyway ! While the universities of the USA or the West are busy with gender education and how they can favor certain races against whites, the Russian, Chinese, or Indian ones are busy learning the real studies ! With the above, I just wanted to point out that while the USA is busy developing another (overpriced piece of sh.... / metal), the Russians will not be idle either ! See hypersonic missiles ! Oh, and all this was developed by a country that looks like a gas station ! :)
When will the USA have a working hypersonic weapon ?
In answer to your question, you can find some information here: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/these-are-ten-hypersonic-missiles-america-building-199423
Hypersonic Kool-Aid isn't good for defense budgets. Larger numbers of sub and supersonic missiles are the way to go.
As for education.... you're confusing the ability to teach useful subjects with the desire of colleges to maximize their student numbers.
Thank you for the update. Any thoughts on Seymour Hersh's article today about Putin and Prighozin?
His argument is that Prigozhin was causing trouble across the border in Poland and in the Baltic states. There is very little evidence to support this thesis. The only report I know of was a Polish complain that Wagner forces were operating close to the border but within Belarus. I don't think this accounts for Prigozhin's elimination, although it is anyone's guess at this point. My own thought is that the GRU got rid of him and didn't ask Putin, who probably winked.
It is a myth that we Americans are more solicitous of our soldiers lives. One example of the myth is the Mass production of the Sherman tank in WWII. It was a moving fire pit. It was typical of the American idea of numbers over quality and lives be damned. We always seem to be behind the times in Tank survivability. When i was the attache in Jordan in 1971 I saw our m-60’s knocked out by RPG 7s. Im an artilleryman but spending many years in the ME always interested in the armor factor.
The M-60 was extremely vulnerable to RPGs. I have a good friend in Israel whose brother was killed when his tank was hit by one.
The T-34 suspension system, sloped armor, and other features were designed by J. William Christie. Its early powerplant was from Ford. Most of Russia's tanks are evolutions of the T-34. As for tank destroyers, in WW2 the early tank destroyers were open on top and were death traps. Later in the war the were put on a Sherman M-4 chassis (called M10). These were far better and by the end of the war had a 105mm gun, but most of them only go upgraded to 90mm.. My wife's father commanded one of them, having been twice wounded in the earlier model tank destroyers (once in North Africa and once at Anzio).
agreed