I guess I should add that my only expertise in this area is two years in Germany in the 3 rd AD (spearhead) where I was a medic with the 23rd engns and an enlisted aide and driver with the one star assistant div comdr. One day in 1966 I had the honor of driving General Abrams on his tour of the division. He was a very nice man. Good to his troops. We had a good conversation.
The guy on the right in Stephen's picture is wearing jodhpurs, though his horse is outside the frame - unless that's his new cavalry mount with the useful heavily arrmoured headlights.
And maybe tank commanders should follow Christie's example of wing collar and waistcoat, along with real wheels - that would give them great self-confidence, against poorly-dressed opponents without wheels or headlights.
Or maybe just rediscover horse-drawn chariots, which made such a difference in the early Iron Age?
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.
it isn't clear what the Pentagon has in mind. The Germans want to increase the gun size to 130mm and make other improvements, but what they are isn't known.
The only thing the Pentagon has clearly in mind is another project to feed the MIC grifting machine. Everything else, including national security, is secondary.
We're as corrupt as the late Roman Empire, man. Maybe more so.
What the Pentagon has in mind has absolutely nothing to do with what will actually work. They only care about massive cost over runs, obscene profit margins, and unlimited taxpayer funds filling the pockets of company execs. and politicians
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.
Amphibious landings. Calvary. Please note that torpedo boats were going to make battleships obsolete in the 1880s. The Yom Kippur War "showed" tanks were useless in a future conflict.
A modern battleship is possible. Load with VLS cells for air defense, go with single gun turrents, it would be great for NGFS; but the attitude would be we can buy a couple Burke for the same money. Aircraft carrier obsolescence is based on hysteria about ASMs, without acknowledging advances in defensive measures to protect CBGs. Likewise, APS will keep tanks and IFVs around.
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.
Good point. The Renault turret sat on a ball bearing base and was pushed around by the gunner. It had a handbrake to lock it down so it would not move when the gun was fired. It either featured a machine gun or a 37mm cannon.
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.
I did not blow up an Abrams. I clearly pointed out the Russians' claim they blew up an Abrams with a single shot. I am ignoring your other comments which are insulting and misdirected.
Ok Steve, point. My opinion revolves around the fact that we don’t know the whole story. How are the Abrams being used? How many resources were expended to smoke an American tank.
LOL, I love it. Are your feelings hurt ?? Your undying love for the people that have robbed our nation of generations of wealth would never build something that backward Russians can destroy easily. Is that your thought process?? An American tank is just another bottomless pit of corruption along with ALL of our military projects
The yin-yang of armor v weapons has been going on for a while. It is generally understood that the tanks sent to Ukraine are not the top of the line. ION tanks are expensive, and add another $2 million and benifits to the families when the crew gets KIA. INHO tanks can go into two directions, bigger and more expensive or smaller and cheaper. The third option is unmanned ground combat drones weighing in at 10-15 with an ability to be massed produced. Drones follow order and don’t balk when shit goes sideways. Look at the amount of meat sacks ready to “join” our military and how force structure has been reshaped around that problem. From a standpoint of time and effort to train an effective fighting force compared to building one… I can build more. Add an autonomous function with Artificial Intellegence and you have supercharged nightmare fuel.
The Russian military shot down another Abrams tank from the first shot, said the commander of one of the units of the armed forces performing tasks in the Avdiivka direction.
According to him, during the tank duel, the crew of the T-72B3 tank destroyed the American Abrams tank with the first shot, reports TASS.
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.
A worthy thought. I am not at all sure about the future of the main battle tank as a manned system on tracks.
I guess I should add that my only expertise in this area is two years in Germany in the 3 rd AD (spearhead) where I was a medic with the 23rd engns and an enlisted aide and driver with the one star assistant div comdr. One day in 1966 I had the honor of driving General Abrams on his tour of the division. He was a very nice man. Good to his troops. We had a good conversation.
"Of course we could always just try peace."
Oh, I suppose Lockheed Martin shareholders don't need to eat? /s/
The guy on the right in Stephen's picture is wearing jodhpurs, though his horse is outside the frame - unless that's his new cavalry mount with the useful heavily arrmoured headlights.
And maybe tank commanders should follow Christie's example of wing collar and waistcoat, along with real wheels - that would give them great self-confidence, against poorly-dressed opponents without wheels or headlights.
Or maybe just rediscover horse-drawn chariots, which made such a difference in the early Iron Age?
That's the French for 'tank' after all.
(Sorry, the picture seemed surreal :-)
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.
it isn't clear what the Pentagon has in mind. The Germans want to increase the gun size to 130mm and make other improvements, but what they are isn't known.
The only thing the Pentagon has clearly in mind is another project to feed the MIC grifting machine. Everything else, including national security, is secondary.
We're as corrupt as the late Roman Empire, man. Maybe more so.
exactly, it is obvious that national security does not matter. The corruption is beyond what most can even consider possible
What the Pentagon has in mind has absolutely nothing to do with what will actually work. They only care about massive cost over runs, obscene profit margins, and unlimited taxpayer funds filling the pockets of company execs. and politicians
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.
Declaring something obsolete is the first step in its revival.
How’d that work out for the battleship?
Matter of fact what’s obsolete that’s been revived?
Amphibious landings. Calvary. Please note that torpedo boats were going to make battleships obsolete in the 1880s. The Yom Kippur War "showed" tanks were useless in a future conflict.
A modern battleship is possible. Load with VLS cells for air defense, go with single gun turrents, it would be great for NGFS; but the attitude would be we can buy a couple Burke for the same money. Aircraft carrier obsolescence is based on hysteria about ASMs, without acknowledging advances in defensive measures to protect CBGs. Likewise, APS will keep tanks and IFVs around.
Yeah you read too many Tom Clancy novels. Lots of things are possible. Doesn’t mean they make sense.
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.
Good point. The Renault turret sat on a ball bearing base and was pushed around by the gunner. It had a handbrake to lock it down so it would not move when the gun was fired. It either featured a machine gun or a 37mm cannon.
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.
it seems all tanks fail to stand up to modern anti-tank weapons (of various types)
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.
all true
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.
I did not blow up an Abrams. I clearly pointed out the Russians' claim they blew up an Abrams with a single shot. I am ignoring your other comments which are insulting and misdirected.
Ok Steve, point. My opinion revolves around the fact that we don’t know the whole story. How are the Abrams being used? How many resources were expended to smoke an American tank.
LOL, I love it. Are your feelings hurt ?? Your undying love for the people that have robbed our nation of generations of wealth would never build something that backward Russians can destroy easily. Is that your thought process?? An American tank is just another bottomless pit of corruption along with ALL of our military projects
The yin-yang of armor v weapons has been going on for a while. It is generally understood that the tanks sent to Ukraine are not the top of the line. ION tanks are expensive, and add another $2 million and benifits to the families when the crew gets KIA. INHO tanks can go into two directions, bigger and more expensive or smaller and cheaper. The third option is unmanned ground combat drones weighing in at 10-15 with an ability to be massed produced. Drones follow order and don’t balk when shit goes sideways. Look at the amount of meat sacks ready to “join” our military and how force structure has been reshaped around that problem. From a standpoint of time and effort to train an effective fighting force compared to building one… I can build more. Add an autonomous function with Artificial Intellegence and you have supercharged nightmare fuel.
The Russian military shot down another Abrams tank from the first shot, said the commander of one of the units of the armed forces performing tasks in the Avdiivka direction.
According to him, during the tank duel, the crew of the T-72B3 tank destroyed the American Abrams tank with the first shot, reports TASS.
https://videon.img.ria.ru/O...
Recall that on Tuesday, Russian war correspondent Chingis Dambiev said that a third American Abrams tank was destroyed in the special operation zone.
https://vz.ru/news/2024/3/6...
(All footage geolocated)
Given that the MIC business model is built on replacement of things that blow up, what's not to like?
Ok, no context…