And by definition, infantry must be out in the open as it advances; distinct from when it defends.
Consequently, the purpose of armored vehicles (tanks, APCs/IFVs, SPGs) is not to trump infantry, but to provide the minimal survivable armor for the soldiers inside to allow them to advance.
And toss firepower on there, because why not, if you've already got an engine?
So, as ugly as the fact is, the important thing is a tank's utility to survive long enough to support an advance. Not survive against all odds.
Which is why "no armor" to "some armor" suddenly becomes non-negotiable, given shrapnel's lethal radius.
But maybe future armor looks more like minimal armor, maximum speed, and substantial EW countermeasures?
Tactical mobility is a bit overrated, it's not like you can outrun an ATGM. Though a system with better operational and strategic mobility would certainly be valuable. Modern tanks can't cross a lot of bridges due to weight constraints, and can only be air transported in the largest aircraft. For reference: the C-5 galaxy, one of the largest cargo planes in existence, can carry 2 abrams tanks; the more common C-17 can carry 1; while the C-130 can't carry any (it could transport roughly 28% of an abrams). If you could get a decent armored fighting vehicle down to 20-30 tons that opens up a lot of operational and strategic transport options.
specifically, the Abrams is getting real heavy these days with all the upgrades, to the extent that it's becoming an operational problem. They can't be towed by their recovery vehicle anymore. They're too heavy for their carrier trucks/trailers. They can't use landing craft or bailey bridges. A lot of constructed bridges in the expected area of operations can't support them.
https://www.defensedaily.com/80-ton-abrams-heavy-support-veh...
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-new-tanks-are-o...
The whole point of tank, as the word suggests, is to be able to survive enemy fire.
With proliferation of easy to carry weapons that can pierce any tank it is largely relegated to being heavy, costly and fragile mobile cannon that needs a lot of support to stay alive. There are much better devices that can fill those roles.
You should no longer assume that you can ambush anything with your tanks -- with live overhead feed it is easy to spot any tanks encroaching on your position and place any antitank in the right spot.
And then you have drones that you can basically point and shoot any tank from.
I am pretty sure this is the last war where we see large number of tanks involved. Every country that is watching this is click spamming to buy as many drones as possible.
So, when you're rearchitecting a tank today, you're going to protect it against the now-dominant threats.
At its base, a tank is a propulsion system, a gun, and a set of survivability options.
The first two are always going to be relatively expensive, in quantity. So the last gets defined and scaled to meet the expected threat.
Ie mobile platforms that are essentially defenceless on their own but carry large armament of drones and other electronic devices inside enemy territory that is meant to quickly take over surrounding space (surface and overhead) and do quick job of neutralising various threats like enemy personnel, drones, etc.
But I am not sure about that. Planes require a landing strip to start from and large hangars to store them and that drove the basic form of aircraft carrier.
There is no such limitation for electronic equipment and small drone carriers travelling on land. And I think, rather than presenting a single high value target to the enemy, it makes sense to have a lot of specialised units functioning as one through information systems that cannot be disabled with a single successful strike.
See: GD's TRX concept w/ loitering munitions and a tethered surveillance UAV
> [vs distributed systems]
See: USAF / USN Next Generation Air Dominance programs, or the European Future Combat Air System, which are declared as "systems of systems" to get the desired capabilities. We'll see how far they ultimately lean into distributed though.
“Trophy exceeded our expectations,” said Col. Dean. “Unlike prior APS tests…we were shooting actual threats at actual vehicles. I’m happy to say I kept trying to kill an Abrams tank about 48 times and failed every time.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/10/army-accelerates-armor-s...
APS is a must but it’s not a panacea. You need to emit, detect and survive a second or third shot. I expect loitering munitions are probably outside of most APS system’s velocity gates+engagement envelopes. I also wonder how survivable and jam resistant APS sensors are.
Finally the way this guy is talking about it…it sounds a little too good to be true.
Again, not discounting APS, the Israelis do this for real - APS makes the problem harder but not unsolvable.
If they are in force then you get rolled.
120mm cannon rounds are cheaper and more plentiful than guided missiles, which means a lot.
That said, it’s getting harder and harder to understand a scenario in which tanks can be employed successfully against a motivated, competent defender with plentiful ATGM and loitering munition stocks.