I remember one of the chinless British generals with four names bragging that the Russians would drop their guns and flee at the sight of a Challenger tank.
It seems that the UK never got the memo that they are now a third rate military power. Their ships can’t put to sea without needing major repairs and their army can’t deploy an entire infantry division without a major recruitment effort to fill the ranks first.
It seems the tank, like the surface warship, may well be obsolete. Missile technology has advanced to the point that no tank or ship can defend itself against the right missile, and missiles are FAR cheaper to design and build.
Which is exactly why the US military is working on a brand new shiny and unimaginably expensive battle tank.
I think the tank is going the way of the battleship. Of course it seems like the aircraft carrier might be as well. Revolutionary times for warfare. It takes a long time to develops new things now. This happened when battleships started to become a thing. By the time one was designed and built in any numbers they were almost obsolete. Crazy.
There are quite a few videos from Ukraine of circa-2010 generation tank armor on both sides surviving several hits, from the full range of weapons (short of guided artillery). But it's clearly not good enough, since new capabilities in drone-like munitions appear every 6-9 months.
Rapidly improving range/cost of the drones themselves, deployability via MLRS "cargo rounds", AI for target search, machine vision to guide final-approach, and jam proof comms via relay networks and directional tx/rx, are together a terrifying combination.
For the time being, no vehicle is safe in open ground, outside of a snowstorm or heavy rain.
The Christie reference could be supplemented with mention of the first truly modern tank: the Renault FT-17, introduced in 1917 and the first tank with its main armament in a rotating turret above the hull.
That was truly revolutionary compared with the first British and French tanks that look like small battleships on tracks, with guns protruding from all sides.
Didn't the Western media claim that the Leos and Abrams will be game-changers?
One clearly sees that Western equipment isn't any better than the Russian. I remember reading that for example the German Panzerhaubitze 2000 needed maintenance after 100 fired rounds. It shoots 6 rounds a minute. Good luck with that, in a high intensity warfare.
The question is if the cost of the tank is worth the cost of maintaining and defending it. You need a long complex supply train, and Abrams are not built for mud flats there will be extensive maintenance and the need to transport the tanks to the battlefield.
I think that the land battleship will have to go the way of the sea battleship. You end up with too much invested in a huge hunk of metal and make yourself vulnerable to asymmetric warfare.
In addendum both sides of the fence are sinking money into ground combat drones as populations become more casualty adverse going forward. The deeper you dig into the issue, the more nightmare fuel.
Just letting you all know, that video is footage of an ATGM knocking out an abrams, not a tank. I forget the name, but they are pretty common and are massive
Maybe the answer is not "more and better armour" but "less armour but more vehicles".
Both parties seem to discard their armour as soon as their objective is reached, leaving them out in the open to be destroyed.
The RAF also seems to be deploying quick-response or quick-attack quad based vehicles to get-in/strike/get-out before drones can be activated and directed to the focal point. (though it helps that the AFU has not that much artillery left).
Besides, a p2p war is almost 100% economics, and high value targets seem to become a liability.
Ok, you blew up an Abrams. I can’t show you the power point slides I had to make to put an operation involving the death of an insurgent to give the lawyers context. Without context, the statement is propaganda for the Eastern Europe crowd. More info please.
It’s seems to me that a whole new concept of warfare is needed. This looks like knights on horseback. Of course we could always just try peace.
I remember one of the chinless British generals with four names bragging that the Russians would drop their guns and flee at the sight of a Challenger tank.
It seems that the UK never got the memo that they are now a third rate military power. Their ships can’t put to sea without needing major repairs and their army can’t deploy an entire infantry division without a major recruitment effort to fill the ranks first.
It seems the tank, like the surface warship, may well be obsolete. Missile technology has advanced to the point that no tank or ship can defend itself against the right missile, and missiles are FAR cheaper to design and build.
Which is exactly why the US military is working on a brand new shiny and unimaginably expensive battle tank.
I think the tank is going the way of the battleship. Of course it seems like the aircraft carrier might be as well. Revolutionary times for warfare. It takes a long time to develops new things now. This happened when battleships started to become a thing. By the time one was designed and built in any numbers they were almost obsolete. Crazy.
There are quite a few videos from Ukraine of circa-2010 generation tank armor on both sides surviving several hits, from the full range of weapons (short of guided artillery). But it's clearly not good enough, since new capabilities in drone-like munitions appear every 6-9 months.
Rapidly improving range/cost of the drones themselves, deployability via MLRS "cargo rounds", AI for target search, machine vision to guide final-approach, and jam proof comms via relay networks and directional tx/rx, are together a terrifying combination.
For the time being, no vehicle is safe in open ground, outside of a snowstorm or heavy rain.
The Christie reference could be supplemented with mention of the first truly modern tank: the Renault FT-17, introduced in 1917 and the first tank with its main armament in a rotating turret above the hull.
That was truly revolutionary compared with the first British and French tanks that look like small battleships on tracks, with guns protruding from all sides.
Didn't the Western media claim that the Leos and Abrams will be game-changers?
One clearly sees that Western equipment isn't any better than the Russian. I remember reading that for example the German Panzerhaubitze 2000 needed maintenance after 100 fired rounds. It shoots 6 rounds a minute. Good luck with that, in a high intensity warfare.
The question is if the cost of the tank is worth the cost of maintaining and defending it. You need a long complex supply train, and Abrams are not built for mud flats there will be extensive maintenance and the need to transport the tanks to the battlefield.
I think that the land battleship will have to go the way of the sea battleship. You end up with too much invested in a huge hunk of metal and make yourself vulnerable to asymmetric warfare.
In addendum both sides of the fence are sinking money into ground combat drones as populations become more casualty adverse going forward. The deeper you dig into the issue, the more nightmare fuel.
Just letting you all know, that video is footage of an ATGM knocking out an abrams, not a tank. I forget the name, but they are pretty common and are massive
Edit: its a Kornet
Maybe the answer is not "more and better armour" but "less armour but more vehicles".
Both parties seem to discard their armour as soon as their objective is reached, leaving them out in the open to be destroyed.
The RAF also seems to be deploying quick-response or quick-attack quad based vehicles to get-in/strike/get-out before drones can be activated and directed to the focal point. (though it helps that the AFU has not that much artillery left).
Besides, a p2p war is almost 100% economics, and high value targets seem to become a liability.
Ok, you blew up an Abrams. I can’t show you the power point slides I had to make to put an operation involving the death of an insurgent to give the lawyers context. Without context, the statement is propaganda for the Eastern Europe crowd. More info please.