European MGCS ( Main Ground Combat System)

[shin_getter]

I would disagree. The current calibers didn't only get so large just because of AT capabilities but also because it brought the needed HE firepower for direct fire. The purpose of an MBT shouldn't be that of an SPAA.

Do you need HE firepower in the form of a tank?

Flying Drone can carry HE, artillery can send HE (including fire on the move gun mortars and modern 155), but more importantly in the direct fire niche, cheap UGVs can fire HE rockets or use low velocity guns.

You actually need expensive vehicle with powerful sensors and FCS for AA, and the expense of the system justify investing in armor and APS for it. If you just want to throw HE at holes that don't move at high subsonic speeds, you don't really need all that.

Given that in open terrain, long range indirect fire is effective, direct fire is most necessary in complex terrain with short sightlines, and vehicles may simply be extremely hard to protect as APS lack distance to react and threats like mines and EFP also bypasses active defenses.

 

[kqcke for you]

Do you need HE firepower in the form of a tank?

That is a very good question and my guess would be yes.

Flying Drone can carry HE, artillery can send HE (including fire on the move gun mortars and modern 155), but more importantly in the direct fire niche, cheap UGVs can fire HE rockets or use low velocity guns.

Yet as before theres still a percieved need by every nation capable of developing there own tanks for it. This will only be strengthed by becoming even more networked together.

You actually need expensive vehicle with powerful sensors and FCS for AA, and the expense of the system justify investing in armor and APS for it. If you just want to throw HE at holes that don't move at high subsonic speeds, you don't really need all that.

I don't argue that there isn't a reason for developing protected AA vehicles yet as of right now the need is there for every vehicle.

Given that in open terrain, long range indirect fire is effective, direct fire is most necessary in complex terrain with short sightlines, and vehicles may simply be extremely hard to protect as APS lack distance

Which is why the 30mm and other solution like counter drones find there way into modern tanks.

to react and threats like mines and EFP also bypasses active defenses.

Those threats where there before and while we have developted quite some protection against them the easy answer is that we end there where we began in combined arms combat. Even without modern mbts your need for Armoured Breaching Vehicle will still exist.

 

[shin_getter]

Yet as before theres still a percieved need by every nation capable of developing there own tanks for it. This will only be strengthed by becoming even more networked together.

The tank military industrial complex would obviously want to sell what they make, but it doesn't seem to make too much sense. The big question is why have it crewed and see explosion in cost and mass to protect the human.

Which is why the 30mm and other solution like counter drones find there way into modern tanks.

APS equipped tanks are attacked at under minimum range in urban (and likely other complex terrain) settings, autocannon don't prevent that because detection is the issue. While this is generally suicidal for infantry to attempt, for a UGV or off route mine it is no big problem.

Those threats where there before and while we have developted quite some protection against them the easy answer is that we end there where we began in combined arms combat. Even without modern mbts your need for Armoured Breaching Vehicle will still exist.

The combined arms team for killing tanks is better than the combined arms team for keeping tanks alive, that is why tanks are what it is now.

You basically need superiority in other domains to keep the tanks alive. At some point one can simply use the disposable strategy for completing the mission and that frees up immense resources in keeping the tanks alive.

 

[kqcke for you]

The tank military industrial complex would obviously want to sell what they make, but it doesn't seem to make too much sense.

Yet if every nation who can buy/develop an alternative product does want a tank then maybe a tank is still relevant....

The big question is why have it crewed and see explosion in cost and mass to protect the human.

Because autonomous vehicles are just at there beginning and very new lands for everyone involved with them. There still a lot of issued and challenges involved with them.

APS equipped tanks are attacked at under minimum range in urban (and likely other complex terrain) settings, autocannon don't prevent that because detection is the issue.

Which people try to solve within the limits they have. But this is also a very complex new territory for them. We see similiar developments too ships and aircraft about signatur managment etc.

While this is generally suicidal for infantry to attempt, for a UGV or off route mine it is no big problem.

To destroy a tank? Sorry but i don't get what you want to say here with this sentence.

The combined arms team for killing tanks is better than the combined arms team for keeping tanks alive, that is why tanks are what it is now.

Thats because we have seen a disproportional development between the two sides.

You basically need superiority in other domains to keep the tanks alive.

Or anything that has people in it for that matter...

At some point one can simply use the disposable strategy for completing the mission and that frees up immense resources in keeping the tanks alive.

Until your disposable assets are becoming more costly

 

[Big_Zukini]

Do you need HE firepower in the form of a tank?

Yes.

Flying Drone can carry HE, artillery can send HE (including fire on the move gun mortars and modern 155), but more importantly in the direct fire niche, cheap UGVs can fire HE rockets or use low velocity guns.

The HE-firing MBT isn't for the purpose of the HE, but the purpose of delivering HE at the minimal possible time.
From the moment of spotting and ID'ing a target, a tank's response is measured in seconds.
A drone or artillery shell are measured in minutes. If you're dealing with availability or coordination issues then a fire mission could take hours.
The time difference between the seconds a tank can do it and the minutes-hours indirect assets can do it, is the time the enemy at that location can keep operating against you. And eventually even relocate and make the indirect fire mission ineffective.
If we teach concealment and movement then we shouldn't assume others don't either.

Given that in open terrain, long range indirect fire is effective, direct fire is most necessary in complex terrain with short sightlines, and vehicles may simply be extremely hard to protect as APS lack distance to react and threats like mines and EFP also bypasses active defenses.

If we disregard nuance like technological disparity, then in Ukraine's open terrain AFVs are extremely vulnerable, and in Gaza's urban terrain with a subterrannean layer AFVs have proven remarkably resilient.
If we apply nuance, we can quickly conclude that the situation can also be reversed.
Hence there is no direct correlation between type of terrain and AFV relevance.

If we again look at Gaza specifically, then we can see that Hamas distributed informational flyers where they instruct to fire at Trophy-equipped vehicles from less than 50m. Turns out even below that Trophy worked fine, and they had to resort to running up to tanks and laying EFPs right on them.
Hence the anti-magnetic stripes you saw on tanks there.

The tank military industrial complex would obviously want to sell what they make, but it doesn't seem to make too much sense. The big question is why have it crewed and see explosion in cost and mass to protect the human.

Cost of protecting humans always increases. Because we have ever more resources, enemies put more resources into lethality, and humans also fill up ever more important roles.

APS equipped tanks are attacked at under minimum range in urban (and likely other complex terrain) settings, autocannon don't prevent that because detection is the issue. While this is generally suicidal for infantry to attempt, for a UGV or off route mine it is no big problem.

APS minimal distance has further shortened with EO sensors.

The combined arms team for killing tanks is better than the combined arms team for keeping tanks alive, that is why tanks are what it is now.

Force protection saw more relative evolution in the last decade than any organization's lethality.

You basically need superiority in other domains to keep the tanks alive. At some point one can simply use the disposable strategy for completing the mission and that frees up immense resources in keeping the tanks alive.

You need superiority in other domains to keep anything alive. That's a major argument against drone-centricity. That you can't abandon all to focus on one aspect (FPV drones), instead you need to maintain conventional superiorities - ground included.

 

[shin_getter]

The HE-firing MBT isn't for the purpose of the HE, but the purpose of delivering HE at the minimal possible time.
From the moment of spotting and ID'ing a target, a tank's response is measured in seconds.

The tank is no long the primary, or secondary sensor on the battlefield. It could be in the era of scout tanks where recon aircraft costs far more to bring a part of vulnerable eyeball mk1 for short period of time. Today, clouds of drones spot and ID things at far beyond tank weapon range, and while artillery, drones and missile shooters are dueling the tank is doing nothing. (except acting as a poor artillery, perhaps) Perhaps after attrition both sides can still desire to close for a pitched battle, but in almost all cases one side would find engagement disadvantageous and hide behind defenses. (This is why tank on tank is so rare despite usage is not that rare)

So, what if you don't rely on other sensors and just send in the tanks as the primary sensor? Well they get spotted by everything at range while spotting almost nothing in return as tanks have large signature and no means to look beyond the horizon, and get ambushed in every possible way due to having no situation awareness.

So what if you have horizon to horizon deathbeam that kills all beyond the horizon spotters? Well, a topological map and some triangulation enables a pretty good track of the killbeam shooter, simply by looking at what survives. What is needed is a cloaking field that can only be countered by a tank-like vehicle, otherwise the cat's out the bag and long range sensing and targeting is just here.....
------
So what about opponent forces the are stealthy and hidden until close range? Well for one, such forces chooses when to reveal themselves, and can choose simply do not do so against tanks unless they have effective anti-tank weapons or forced by other forces. Getting surprised by tanks is in theory possible, but not likely with poor stealth of tanks.

So the tanks plus combined arms can potentially put opponent in a dilemma (no at-hide from tank, vulnerable to other forces), especially if the opponent is limited to line of sight weapons. If the opponent is spamming drones, not-a-spike, mine warfare, and utilizing other indirect fire weapons, the forcing function of the tank isn't very relevant.

But lets say in a particular tactical situation the opponent need line of sight. With the opponent revealing themselves to be spotted, they are out of cover. There are no existing infantry or robot that can face tank 30/40/50/57/76mm apds or generally resist 50mm++ airburst. There is also no common structure/cover that can resist the above amount of firepower, and non-tunnel structures that can resist such fire power are quite large and visible and can be planned around like with planned fire. For tunnel structures, even large bombs can get resisted and shooting the opponent before the opponent take cover is what works. An AA based turret design for fast rotation and tracking rate is generally much better than MBT turrets with 10 tons of armor in front, and 10 ton gun/ammo/etc for max sabot velocity that is irrelevant here. Also, just about any vehicle can carry a missile launcher packing warhead in the 155mm class and missile velocity can be made fast if necessary (up to hypervelocity), the only issue is slightly higher cost/mass per shot relative to a shell. Short of Syrian Arab Army style leveling entire cities with tank fire war plan, it should be quite sufficient.

And relocation is a limited form of defense when sensors and munitions can track. Without going under ground/under top cover, movement does little when munitions can follow. With drones flying under tree canopies, only urban and prepared tunnels is relevant. For most nations, such fights can be converted into seiges (or ignored as not being part of war plans) and only a subset of nations needs to clear such areas. For nations that needs to clear such areas, munitions that go inside tunnels is far more useful than trying to hit the entrance with a bigger gun.

A drone or artillery shell are measured in minutes. If you're dealing with availability or coordination issues then a fire mission could take hours.

Support arms have reaction times when they are supporting a wide front and need to process new tactical information. When fires are preplanned it takes basically no time. In any case information systems is quickly converging time to turret rotation and project flight.

A tank parked on the zero line can maybe shoot directly, but no tank in a peer fight can survive artillery and other fires parked at the zero line. So tanks are generally parked beyond artillery range, and when the shooting begins they have to move into position by.....driving

Driving is no match for flying if not super sonic projectile in helping things.

If we disregard nuance like technological disparity, then in Ukraine's open terrain AFVs are extremely vulnerable, and in Gaza's urban terrain with a subterrannean layer AFVs have proven remarkably resilient.

Hamas is not a state actor and have no industry or technological capability.

In any case, using short range weapons in long range fight is the definition of vulnerability. Vehicles like HIMARS are extremely successful with low loss rates.

Force protection saw more relative evolution in the last decade than any organization's lethality.

Anti-aircraft guns saw more evolution than ever in the 1940s....which says something~

You need superiority in other domains to keep anything alive. That's a major argument against drone-centricity. That you can't abandon all to focus on one aspect (FPV drones), instead you need to maintain conventional superiorities - ground included.

Robust weapon systems works independently.

Submarines fight their own wars without support from other arms
Fighter bombers do it all as long as it get into the air
Raiding Ships that "outrun anything it cant outfight" manage to operate on the high seas independently before airpower
Tunnel networks with missiles and protected by infantry can deter superpowers with vast superiority in all arms.

Even the tank, in its ww2 armored division form is extremely difficult to counter
1. Tank mobility and armor protects from ranged fire from artillery and airpower
2. Tanks out range infantry AT weapons, tanks supported by infantry out fights straight infantry in open terrain
3. Tanks out maneuver and out mass towed anti-tank guns. In any case mass towed guns are easy picking by artillery.
It is due to sheer robustness of ww2 armored forces that Rommel can get lost doing bullshit dashes and pull victory out of a hat.

It is due to vulnerability an brittleness of modern armor concept that more layers of joint-ness upon joint-ness is demanded, with other branches bending backwards to fulfill the armored operating concept.

Certainly, wide spectrum capability is useful for different situations and conflicts, but training spearman because of a chance of getting stone-aged is not a good idea.

 

[Big_Zukini]

The tank is no long the primary, or secondary sensor on the battlefield. It could be in the era of scout tanks where recon aircraft costs far more to bring a part of vulnerable eyeball mk1 for short period of time.

It never was.

Today, clouds of drones spot and ID things at far beyond tank weapon range, and while artillery, drones and missile shooters are dueling the tank is doing nothing.

Drones may spot a larger volume of targets, but they are not spotting the same targets and objects as MBTs do. Hence they are not comparable.
Like planes have not made the bus obsolete.
Why? Because a tank will usually spot the targets that are exposing themselves to it. To observe it, to fire upon it, and it also spots things from a different perspective.
A mechanized unit also brings with it a lot of EO, EM, acoustic sensors (and others) as well as effectors in a density that air power cannot match locally.

One of the MBT's tasks is to close unique OODA loops as fast as possible.

Perhaps after attrition both sides can still desire to close for a pitched battle, but in almost all cases one side would find engagement disadvantageous and hide behind defenses. (This is why tank on tank is so rare despite usage is not that rare)

That is not how real life battles are done and it is not the reason why tank on tank combat is rare.

So, what if you don't rely on other sensors and just send in the tanks as the primary sensor?

You can't send in a mechanized force without the proper envelope and expect result. That is a false hypothetical.

Well they get spotted by everything at range while spotting almost nothing in return as tanks have large signature and no means to look beyond the horizon, and get ambushed in every possible way due to having no situation awareness.

Tanks are LoS assets. I think you confused them for artillery. These are not the same.

So what if you have horizon to horizon deathbeam that kills all beyond the horizon spotters? Well, a topological map and some triangulation enables a pretty good track of the killbeam shooter, simply by looking at what survives. What is needed is a cloaking field that can only be countered by a tank-like vehicle, otherwise the cat's out the bag and long range sensing and targeting is just here.....
------

What?

So what about opponent forces the are stealthy and hidden until close range? Well for one, such forces chooses when to reveal themselves, and can choose simply do not do so against tanks unless they have effective anti-tank weapons or forced by other forces. Getting surprised by tanks is in theory possible, but not likely with poor stealth of tanks.

Signature management for AFVs is a real thing and you should get acquainted with it.

So the tanks plus combined arms can potentially put opponent in a dilemma (no at-hide from tank, vulnerable to other forces), especially if the opponent is limited to line of sight weapons. If the opponent is spamming drones, not-a-spike, mine warfare, and utilizing other indirect fire weapons, the forcing function of the tank isn't very relevant.

It actually becomes quite relevant in that scenario.

But lets say in a particular tactical situation the opponent need line of sight. With the opponent revealing themselves to be spotted, they are out of cover. There are no existing infantry or robot that can face tank 30/40/50/57/76mm apds or generally resist 50mm++ airburst. There is also no common structure/cover that can resist the above amount of firepower, and non-tunnel structures that can resist such fire power are quite large and visible and can be planned around like with planned fire. For tunnel structures, even large bombs can get resisted and shooting the opponent before the opponent take cover is what works. An AA based turret design for fast rotation and tracking rate is generally much better than MBT turrets with 10 tons of armor in front, and 10 ton gun/ammo/etc for max sabot velocity that is irrelevant here. Also, just about any vehicle can carry a missile launcher packing warhead in the 155mm class and missile velocity can be made fast if necessary (up to hypervelocity), the only issue is slightly higher cost/mass per shot relative to a shell. Short of Syrian Arab Army style leveling entire cities with tank fire war plan, it should be quite sufficient.

A 120mm shell is very useful for a lot of things other than armor defeat.
The bigger shell and explosive mass are very useful.

And relocation is a limited form of defense when sensors and munitions can track. Without going under ground/under top cover, movement does little when munitions can follow. With drones flying under tree canopies, only urban and prepared tunnels is relevant. For most nations, such fights can be converted into seiges (or ignored as not being part of war plans) and only a subset of nations needs to clear such areas. For nations that needs to clear such areas, munitions that go inside tunnels is far more useful than trying to hit the entrance with a bigger gun.

You appear to be confusing several unrelated things.
But also generally it seems you believe reconnaissance is should be taken for granted as something omni-present and omni-capable.
That is very far from true.
Even in 2026, intelligence is still more about catching glimpses rather than seeing all everywhere.

Support arms have reaction times when they are supporting a wide front and need to process new tactical information. When fires are preplanned it takes basically no time. In any case information systems is quickly converging time to turret rotation and project flight.

Not true. There is time, and it is in several orders of magnitude higher than an AFV.

A tank parked on the zero line can maybe shoot directly, but no tank in a peer fight can survive artillery and other fires parked at the zero line. So tanks are generally parked beyond artillery range, and when the shooting begins they have to move into position by.....driving

Do not park vehicles inside a battlefield during the battle.
If you have to, at least take some measures.

Driving is no match for flying if not super sonic projectile in helping things.

If you own a car, ride the bus or a bike or bicycle, or take the train, then you are a hypocrite.
Start flying everywhere.

Hamas is not a state actor and have no industry or technological capability.

Irrelevant and false.

In any case, using short range weapons in long range fight is the definition of vulnerability. Vehicles like HIMARS are extremely successful with low loss rates.

Why doesn't everyone just dismiss all soldiers and buy a bajillion HIMARS instead?

Submarines fight their own wars without support from other arms

Name 1 war fought by a submarine force with 0 involvement from any other branch or element.

Even the tank, in its ww2 armored division form is extremely difficult to counter
1. Tank mobility and armor protects from ranged fire from artillery and airpower
2. Tanks out range infantry AT weapons, tanks supported by infantry out fights straight infantry in open terrain
3. Tanks out maneuver and out mass towed anti-tank guns. In any case mass towed guns are easy picking by artillery.
It is due to sheer robustness of ww2 armored forces that Rommel can get lost doing bullshit dashes and pull victory out of a hat.

It is due to vulnerability an brittleness of modern armor concept that more layers of joint-ness upon joint-ness is demanded, with other branches bending backwards to fulfill the armored operating concept.

Certainly, wide spectrum capability is useful for different situations and conflicts, but training spearman because of a chance of getting stone-aged is not a good idea.

Tanks didn't lose durability since WW2. Threats changed and so did the methods of countering them. Technology allows AFVs to become increasingly survivable. Casualty analyses over the years show that per the same amount of battle damage, a tank crew will suffer fewer casualties over time.
Shoot a bunch of shells and missiles at a modern tank and it'll survive but its equipment will get so damaged it'll become combat ineffective.
But the WW2 tank started off as being individually less effective.
Hence today missions are completed and wars are won with fewer MBTs than in WW2.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Tanks didn't lose durability since WW2. Threats changed and so did the methods of countering them.

Have a modern "AT gun" (=ATGM) shoot at a WW2 heavy tank, same weight as a modern MBT, and you'll be looking at some modern art metal sculptures with a distinct smell of burned pork. Without getting into the more exotic multi-warhead and/or top-attack missiles.

Have a WW2 AT Gun like the 17pdr or 88mm shoot at a modern MBT head-on, the MBT crew is going to ask you to stop beating on their hull.

That said, an 88 or 90mm AT Gun to the side or rear of a modern MBT is likely to break something important. And really piss off the crew because you burned all their personal gear.

 

[helmutkohl]

140 mm guns on an armored vehicle is for shooting at tanks 1% of the time, if that.

I wonder if the push by some for 130 and 140mm guns is the right direction.
Or maybe what the Chinese are doing with the Type 100 ( a 105mm gun or 120mm gun with a much higher velocity), unmanned turret, active protection, for a much lighter weight, is more relevant for most countries in the future battlefield

 

[jsport]

Missiles r the future. Missiles need the boost a gun affords. 'Tank on tank' is the dumb drug resulting from video game addiction.
Stated way too many times, maneuver tanks to break thru. Use helicopters & ATGMs against adversary's tanks.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Or maybe what the Chinese are doing with the Type 100 ( a 105mm gun or 120mm gun with a much higher velocity), unmanned turret, active protection, for a much lighter weight, is more relevant for most countries in the future battlefield

That's certainly what the US was looking at in FCS.

 

[Ainen]

That said, an 88 or 90mm AT Gun to the side or rear of a modern MBT is likely to break something important. And really piss off the crew because you burned all their personal gear.

85-90 APCBC side shot will kill most, if not all, modern MBTs from most reasonable ranges.
With front armor, it depends; it would need a simulation.

 

[Desertfox]

I wonder if the push by some for 130 and 140mm guns is the right direction.
Or maybe what the Chinese are doing with the Type 100 ( a 105mm gun or 120mm gun with a much higher velocity), unmanned turret, active protection, for a much lighter weight, is more relevant for most countries in the future battlefield

I'd go one step further, drop down to a LV 90mm, add a 25-30mm auto cannon (or replace both with a 50mm autocannon), go with a three man crew in the hull, and dont bother with armoring against 120mm APFSDS. Use weight savings for all around auto-cannon and drone protection. Should end up with a much smaller, more maneuverable, infantry support vehicle. Maybe strap a couple of javelins in case you run into a tank.

 

[BonPlan2]

Missiles r the future. Missiles need the boost a gun affords. 'Tank on tank' is the dumb drug resulting from video game addiction.
Stated way too many times, maneuver tanks to break thru. Use helicopters & ATGMs against adversary's tanks.

Not so sure.
Far harder to stop a sparrow flying at 1800m/s than a subsonic missile.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Missiles are more expensive as they also need a guidance and motor.
Less effective vs fleeting targets due to long flight time.
Poor capability at short ranges.
Per given size, they'll have smaller warhead.
Hence usually they're also larger diameter = fewer stowed rounds.
Lower velocity reduces concrete penetration capability and post-pen lethality in structures.
Also easier to intercept and defeat an ATGM than a standard HE shot.

I honestly can't think of a single advantage a missile provides.

 

[shin_getter]

Drones may spot a larger volume of targets, but they are not spotting the same targets and objects as MBTs do....
Why? Because a tank will usually spot the targets that are exposing themselves to it. To observe it, to fire upon it, and it also spots things from a different perspective.

Quadcopter Drones have longer spotting range on the tank than tanks anti-drone weapons range, and it is cheap and universally available, as such it would be tasked with tracking the tanks and its not much cost imposed destroying it. Every other case of opponent exposing themselves is when they have an advantage on the tank, forcing from other assets, or their own internal command and control error.

A large aircraft observing things at 20k feet or something certainly can't spot the same targets, however multicopters can very well hover at 2m and look into windows all the same. The multicopter and also fly into a window and scout out each room and into tunnels and be pretty much everywhere.

A mechanized unit also brings with it a lot of EO, EM, acoustic sensors (and others) as well as effectors in a density that air power cannot match locally.

One big advantage is that a mechanize unit can bring a lot of drones, recharge and rearm them while providing some communications support.

Sensors on big vehicles are just clumsy and only necessary if it needs to be that scale to be function, aka air defense radars and such. For vehicles where the sensor mass is not even 5%, the sensor can go on a dedicated platform optimize for the use of the sensor as opposed to being tied to weapons or cargo.

One of the MBT's tasks is to close unique OODA loops as fast as possible.

When off board sensors becomes viable thanks to networking, sensor shooter separation makes great sense because better placed sensor enables detection at an earlier point. Nothing wins the OODA than starting the loop minutes before the opponent.

Its like saying the fighter aircraft gun is important because it have shortest trigger to projectile acceleration time. It doesn't matter when missiles fights happen at envelopes far beyond the gun.

That is not how real life battles are done and it is not the reason why tank on tank combat is rare.

If the nations decided to send tanks against tanks, there'd be tank combat. As it happened, tanks attacks are stopped by other assets, and sensors networks means tanks don't blindly stumbled into each other much, and thus tank duels don't happen.

Tanks are LoS assets. I think you confused them for artillery. These are not the same.

LOS assets is niche in a world where even the infantryman have BLOS sensing and strike. Its bringing a spear to a musket fight.

Signature management for AFVs is a real thing and you should get acquainted with it.

Sensors benefit from decades of moore's law, AFV signature didn't get a stealth (for aircraft) revolution to keep up.

If a ground vehicle is designed to be signature optimized, it'd be very different from what a tank is like anyways.

A 120mm shell is very useful for a lot of things other than armor defeat.
The bigger shell and explosive mass are very useful.

If 120mm was enough, there'd be no Strumtiger with 380mm. Hell, why not look at the neighbouring "Golan-1000" with 500mm rockets?

The gun form factor just means little bang for big hull. Just look at what rocket propulsion can do with a 50ton hull.

If you just want "120mm" class firepower, some ATV scaled vehicle can do it

You appear to be confusing several unrelated things.
But also generally it seems you believe reconnaissance is should be taken for granted as something omni-present and omni-capable.
That is very far from true.
Even in 2026, intelligence is still more about catching glimpses rather than seeing all everywhere.

There is the transparent battlefield narrative.

And sensors that go everywhere are indeed hard to hide from, even infantry can't do it reliably. See huge losses in Russian infiltration attempts when faced with the drone wall, when there is not even a complete defense line on the ground but air recon have to cover all the gaps against the smallest known land maneuver unit of the individual human.

And tracking shoot and scoot is a well known thing, with numerous vids of air defense and artillery getting knocked out after drone tracks its shoot and scoot attempt and guide follow on munitions for a hit. Fleeing does little if one do not win the sensor war or have a tunnel to dive into.

The real limitation in sensors is range. Multicopters have like 15 minute endurance and can't search deep. Long range drones built for endurance not agility can't search like a tiny agile VTOL, making using cover as defense much more effective, while range also make the vehicle much more expensive and large and easy to detect and thus shoot down.

Ultimately safety is in distance.

Why doesn't everyone just dismiss all soldiers and buy a bajillion HIMARS instead?

Soldiers aren't suppose to do the killing. Soldiers are suppose to do the surviving, and by digging and hiding they do survive immense amounts of firepower. The human is still the most agile land platform for navigating complex terrain like forests, buildings and tunnels that is needed to hide from long range fires and can conduct a multitude of field engineering to improve positions that no vehicle or robot even attempts to replicate.

The tank do not survive the fire power and nor they do deliver or support it. Tanks have the signature of the largest land vehicles, without the defensive firepower of dedicated CRAM/AA vehicle, lacking actually effective passive protection against precision all aspect HEAT warheads available everywhere and lack effective weapon range to do much outside of the most permissive environment.

Tanks didn't lose durability since WW2. Threats changed and so did the methods of countering them. Technology allows AFVs to become increasingly survivable. Casualty analyses over the years show that per the same amount of battle damage, a tank crew will suffer fewer casualties over time.
Shoot a bunch of shells and missiles at a modern tank and it'll survive but its equipment will get so damaged it'll become combat ineffective.
But the WW2 tank started off as being individually less effective.
Hence today missions are completed and wars are won with fewer MBTs than in WW2.

Tanks certainly didn't lose durability or survivability, it is only that anti-tank weapons improved in performance and availability much faster.

A single Tiger or KV in the wrong spot was a "stop the battalion" event. Heavy tanks from KVs to Tigers even Malitidas also had overrun light formations with impractical to defeat all around protection.

That sort of thing is not even attempted in modern warfare.

 

[shin_getter]

Not so sure.
Far harder to stop a sparrow flying at 1800m/s than a subsonic missile.

Missile can be hypersonic if you make it so. Missiles and rockets regularly is used to reach orbital velocities while no gun is used for this.

Even without considering that, a slow accelerating missile can be packed with decoys, jammers, even dazzlers and other penetration aids limited only by imagination. A dart that have to survive maximum acceleration and maintain optimal physical integrity and projectile mass can not do that.

Missiles are more expensive as they also need a guidance and motor.
Less effective vs fleeting targets due to long flight time.
Poor capability at short ranges.
Per given size, they'll have smaller warhead.
Hence usually they're also larger diameter = fewer stowed rounds.
Lower velocity reduces concrete penetration capability and post-pen lethality in structures.
Also easier to intercept and defeat an ATGM than a standard HE shot.

I honestly can't think of a single advantage a missile provides.

Missiles is not reliant on large expensive and heavy launchers. A rail or cheap fiberglass tube is often sufficient.

In a world with high lethality, few shots are needed and platforms don't survive long to fire many shots (when shooting at each other). It is more efficient to shift cost from expensive launchers to slightly more expensive munitions as even expensive munition is still a lot cheaper than launchers. Pay a few thousand more per shot in a rocket, it'd still a lot of shots to make up millions it takes to buy a tank.

This becomes more pronounced the bigger things get. Tactical ballistic missile trucks is a common thing, while no one even attempt v3 scale weapon to get a gun to shoot similar distances. Also consider the 500mm projectile in the previous post....

 

[BonPlan2]

Missile can be hypersonic if you make it so. Missiles and rockets regularly is used to reach orbital velocities while no gun is used for this.

Even without considering that, a slow accelerating missile can be packed with decoys, jammers, even dazzlers and other penetration aids limited only by imagination. A dart that have to survive maximum acceleration and maintain optimal physical integrity and projectile mass can not do that.

The higher the speed of the missile is, the more complicated the seeker has to be.
And what about the cost of a missile compared to a sparrow? (even if you use for the maths the price of the gun and the optical systems)

 

[EmoBirb]

@helmutkohl could you perhaps split large parts of the last page(s) off? I think it's more so a general discussion about tanks/future tanks than related to MGCS in particular.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Quadcopter Drones have longer spotting range on the tank than tanks anti-drone weapons range, and it is cheap and universally available, as such it would be tasked with tracking the tanks and its not much cost imposed destroying it. Every other case of opponent exposing themselves is when they have an advantage on the tank, forcing from other assets, or their own internal command and control error.

A large aircraft observing things at 20k feet or something certainly can't spot the same targets, however multicopters can very well hover at 2m and look into windows all the same. The multicopter and also fly into a window and scout out each room and into tunnels and be pretty much everywhere.

Ok and?

One big advantage is that a mechanize unit can bring a lot of drones, recharge and rearm them while providing some communications support.

Sensors on big vehicles are just clumsy and only necessary if it needs to be that scale to be function, aka air defense radars and such. For vehicles where the sensor mass is not even 5%, the sensor can go on a dedicated platform optimize for the use of the sensor as opposed to being tied to weapons or cargo.

That'd be financially unreasonable.

When off board sensors becomes viable thanks to networking, sensor shooter separation makes great sense because better placed sensor enables detection at an earlier point.

That was viable decades ago. It wasn't done by choice.

Nothing wins the OODA than starting the loop minutes before the opponent.

Factually incorrect. If the loop has an average duration of seconds, it cannot be completed in negative time measured in minutes.
It can be stretched to minutes from start, but that's a downgrade in capability.
Why do in minutes what can be done in seconds?

Its like saying the fighter aircraft gun is important because it have shortest trigger to projectile acceleration time. It doesn't matter when missiles fights happen at envelopes far beyond the gun.

False comparison. The gun is not the manned platform. The aircraft is.
A more fitting comparison would be between a manned aircraft and its CCA.

If the nations decided to send tanks against tanks, there'd be tank combat. As it happened, tanks attacks are stopped by other assets, and sensors networks means tanks don't blindly stumbled into each other much, and thus tank duels don't happen.

Yes, nations do indeed try to avoid pitting quality units against quality units. Especially because a mechanized unit specialized in maneuver is better countered by a defensive unit, not another mechanized one.
Historically, and by that I mean thousands of years, whenever the intelligence permitted it, warring parties would attempt to strike an opponent where they are weaker, not where they are strongest. And indeed most battles across history were therefore very one sided.

LOS assets is niche in a world where even the infantryman have BLOS sensing and strike. Its bringing a spear to a musket fight.

Did you know musketmen typically carried swords because they did often reach the close range combat and the musket became useless at that point?

Also niche is not a curse word. It's amazing and every armed force should have niche items that allow it to gain an advantage in certain situations.
The difference between maintaining a balanced force ready for any contingency, and abandoning niches and going full hype, is what sets apart first rate war winning forces from 3rd rate losers.

Sensors benefit from decades of moore's law, AFV signature didn't get a stealth (for aircraft) revolution to keep up.

If a ground vehicle is designed to be signature optimized, it'd be very different from what a tank is like anyways.

Sensors are largely limited by the stagnation of physics and their improvement from increasing processing power is quite slow - again because improvements to the sensor itself are bottlenecked.

AFVs did get quite a lot of signature reducing tech recently.
Composite Rubber Tracks and hybrid drive reduce acoustic signature dramatically.
EO sensors on APS reduce EM signature drastically by allowing radars to be off most of the time.
Thermal management comes from structural changes as well as the CRTs and hybrid drive, as well as thermal covers.

If 120mm was enough, there'd be no Strumtiger with 380mm.

Case in point - there is no Sturmtiger with a 380mm in service anywhere.

Hell, why not look at the neighbouring "Golan-1000" with 500mm rockets?

That's artillery, not a tank.

If you just want "120mm" class firepower, some ATV scaled vehicle can do it

You keep missing the point. It's not about the 120mm. It's not about the hull. It's not about the crew inside that hull. It's about the combination of all these elements and more, within the combined arms force.

And sensors that go everywhere are indeed hard to hide from, even infantry can't do it reliably. See huge losses in Russian infiltration attempts when faced with the drone wall, when there is not even a complete defense line on the ground but air recon have to cover all the gaps against the smallest known land maneuver unit of the individual human.

True, if there was such thing as "sensors that go everywhere".
Work a day in a unit that actually sends these sensors places, and you'll see how manpower intensive it is, how much equipment they're losing even before it yields any intelligence, and how vulnerable they generally are.

Soldiers aren't suppose to do the killing. Soldiers are suppose to do the surviving

Why do they survive? For what purpose?

The tank do not survive the fire power and nor they do deliver or support it.

Patently false.

Tanks certainly didn't lose durability or survivability, it is only that anti-tank weapons improved in performance and availability much faster.

If the tank's durability and survivability relative to today's threat hasn't been lost, then the case for its existence is solid, and you have once again proven my point.

Missile can be hypersonic if you make it so. Missiles and rockets regularly is used to reach orbital velocities while no gun is used for this.

It can be hypersonic but it then cannot be maneuverable or effective in short range. Or it can be effective in short range and maneuverable but it cannot be hypersonic.

A dart that have to survive maximum acceleration and maintain optimal physical integrity and projectile mass can not do that.

Great because it doesn't need that.

Missiles is not reliant on large expensive and heavy launchers. A rail or cheap fiberglass tube is often sufficient.

Then a tank won't be firing it. An artillery asset would. In which case it's irrelevant to this discussion.

In a world with high lethality, few shots are needed and platforms don't survive long to fire many shots (when shooting at each other). It is more efficient to shift cost from expensive launchers to slightly more expensive munitions as even expensive munition is still a lot cheaper than launchers. Pay a few thousand more per shot in a rocket, it'd still a lot of shots to make up millions it takes to buy a tank.

Again patently false. If recent history taught us anything it's that MBTs are extremely resilient.

This becomes more pronounced the bigger things get. Tactical ballistic missile trucks is a common thing, while no one even attempt v3 scale weapon to get a gun to shoot similar distances. Also consider the 500mm projectile in the previous post....

If we look at recent conflicts, we see the use of MRBMs by one side and aircraft-launched ALBMs. Guess which side won and at lower price?

 

[jsport]

Not so sure.
Far harder to stop a sparrow flying at 1800m/s than a subsonic missile.

Even the latest TOW goes HV @ terminal rendering current APS less useful if not obsolete. The missile doesn't need to be HV the whole flight. Conventional direct fire is back up defense. The tank is offense or a wasted asset. KNDs has it correct using the ugv as the primary engagement implement. The problem is the ugv using un boosted missiles against tanks. Why not gun boosted missiles.

 

[jsport]

Missiles are more expensive as they also need a guidance and motor.

Every shot should be to maximize battlefield effect. Conventioal rds r carried as a defensive measure while the goal is battlefield maximized effect delivered at range. Missiles cost more so they can deliver max effect at max rng.

Less effective vs fleeting targets due to long flight time.

why would anyone fire at tgts not threatening them? The job is to break thru causing asymmetric damage to adversary's overall system. This is not a FPS

Poor capability at short ranges.

No one ever said rds aren't carried for defense, however placing ur tank in harms way by exposing it to other's tanks is proof you have already lost, if not at least lost the initiative.

Per given size, they'll have smaller warhead.
Hence usually they're also larger diameter = fewer stowed rounds.

Again, the goal is damage to the overall adversary system not a large boom. Video game sh. t Again. APDSFS involves no boom, & is still needed as defensive.

Lower velocity reduces concrete penetration capability and post-pen lethality in structures.

Missile attaining HV @ the terminal last few meters to destroy concrete/penetrate armor is necessary. However, flight to terminal doesn't require HV

Also easier to intercept and defeat an ATGM than a standard HE shot.

The whole reason the HV @ terminal is to defeat intercepting APS. The reason RTX developed the latest TOW.

I honestly can't think of a single advantage a missile provides.

That is because the art of strategic thinking has left the building like Elvis, & the KLF also known as The Ancients of MuMu, otherwise known as The Jams.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Even the latest TOW goes HV @ terminal

Which variant and what speed?

rendering current APS less useful if not obsolete.

Former APS maybe. I'm unfamiliar with any current APS that would become rendered, much less obsolete or useless, by a missile going a bit hypersonic.
Though I should stress the TOW only approaches hypersonic speeds, but is not truly hypersonic, missing about 1,500m/s to be truly hypersonic.

Conventional direct fire is back up defense.

No it is not. The main gun is called main gun because that gun is its main gun.

The tank is offense or a wasted asset.

Tanks are offensive by nature. If you feel offended by an MBT - that's intentional and tax money well spent. You shouldn't take it personally.
To assign a defensive role to an offensively oriented MBT is tankphobic.

KNDs has it correct using the ugv as the primary engagement implement.

But it doesn't.

The problem is the ugv using un boosted missiles against tanks. Why not gun boosted missiles.

That was done. See attached image.
Didn't go well.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Every shot should be to maximize battlefield effect. Conventioal rds r carried as a defensive measure while the goal is battlefield maximized effect delivered at range. Missiles cost more so they can deliver max effect at max rng.

There is no such thing as defensive or offensive really. It's a social construct. No need to get hung up on it.
The terrorist sniping your friendlies doesn't care if the 120mm HE-MP round that tore him apart and filled him with the warmth of a thousand fragments, is defensive or offensive. He doesn't care about much at all at that point.

Missiles do not provide more effect than direct fire rounds. Nor vice versa. That's because they do not fulfill the same mission.
Same for 155mm HE and 227mm GMLRS.
Same for a cruise missile and a JDAM. Of course you cannot compare them. You need both.

I go to work and I earn money there.
I cook food at home and it costs me money.
I conclude I would therefore save more money by only working and never eating.
Would you make that conclusion as well?

why would anyone fire at tgts not threatening them? The job is to break thru causing asymmetric damage to adversary's overall system. This is not a FPS

1. To get easy kills.
2. WTH is asymmetric damage and how different is it from square shaped, symmetric damage?

No one ever said rds aren't carried for defense, however placing ur tank in harms way by exposing it to other's tanks is proof you have already lost, if not at least lost the initiative.

What other tanks? Knowingly pitting a mechanized unit against another is foolish.

Again, the goal is damage to the overall adversary system not a large boom. Video game sh. t Again. APDSFS involves no boom, & is still needed as defensive.

Tell you what. Give me an analysis that shows how much boom is required to cause one unit of overall adversary system damage, and I'll concede.
Til then:

Missile attaining HV @ the terminal last few meters to destroy concrete/penetrate armor is necessary. However, flight to terminal doesn't require HV

Give me one example of such missile.

The whole reason the HV @ terminal is to defeat intercepting APS. The reason RTX developed the latest TOW.

What APS can be defeated by something flying at merely hypersonic speed?
Also please be aware that APS capable of defeating hypersonic objects have been in service for almost 20 years now.

That is because the art of strategic thinking has left the building like Elvis, & the KLF

I'm sure that even despite that you could think of one.

 

[jsport]

Former APS maybe. I'm unfamiliar with any current APS that would become rendered, much less obsolete or useless, by a missile going a bit hypersonic.
Though I should stress the TOW only approaches hypersonic speeds, but is not truly hypersonic, missing about 1,500m/s to be truly hypersonic.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8119956B2/en
Multistage from TOW launcher. Did only a cursory search so probably more patents. This problem has been known for a long long time since the cancellation of CKEM, LOSAT.

 

[Big_Zukini]

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8119956B2/en
Multistage from TOW launcher. Did only a cursory search so probably more patents. This problem has been known for a long long time since the cancellation of CKEM, LOSAT.

So we're back again into something completely irrelevant, that so obviously cannot replace an MBT or any other platform or munition anywhere.

 

[jsport]

There is no such thing as defensive or offensive really. It's a social construct. No need to get hung up on it.

The sword & shield has lasted from the ancient to way future. jeepers

The terrorist sniping your friendlies doesn't care if the 120mm HE-MP round that tore him apart and filled him with the warmth of a thousand fragments, is defensive or offensive. He doesn't care about much at all at that point.

Any killing terrorists w/ tks is embarrassing. Emotion driven operations r dangerous in so many ways.

Missiles do not provide more effect than direct fire rounds. Nor vice versa. That's because they do not fulfill the same mission.

Current & future energetics define this as a laughable statement.

Same for 155mm HE and 227mm GMLRS.
Same for a cruise missile and a JDAM. Of course you cannot compare them. You need both.

Obsession w/ munitions rather than effect is just what the Ukrs now know is backward. Now even the brits know "tgt, payload, platform". The desired effect is the start point.

I go to work and I earn money there.
I cook food at home and it costs me money.
I conclude I would therefore save more money by only working and never eating.
Would you make that conclusion as well?

What in Sam Hill does this have to do...?

1. To get easy kills.
2. WTH is asymmetric damage and how different is it from square shaped, symmetric damage?

What other tanks? Knowingly pitting a mechanized unit against another is foolish.
Phalanx

Again what is even being asked. What r we Roman Phalanx w/ pikes & axes.

Tell you what. Give me an analysis that shows how much boom is required to cause one unit of overall adversary system damage, and I'll concede.
Til then:

Who is after a consession? Just explaining a well accepted precept "effects based warfare".

Killing snipers w/ tanks guns speaks for itself.

Give me one example of such missile.

What APS can be defeated by something flying at merely hypersonic speed?

If so much energy is directed in last microseconds any opposing energy is going t meet much more resistance. Who knows how that plays out.

Also please be aware that APS capable of defeating hypersonic objects have been in service for almost 20 years now.

You can present a case. Hypersonic goes from Mach 5 to Machs in the 20s. Ur telling me an APS cant be overcome?

 

[jsport]

So we're back again into something completely irrelevant, that so obviously cannot replace an MBT or any other platform or munition anywhere.

Who was talking replacing the MBT. Empower the MBT. jeepers

 

[Big_Zukini]

The sword & shield has lasted from the ancient to way future.

It's irrelevant today. Good "defensive" capabilities support and enable "offensive" ones and vice versa. They're part of one system and so it adds no value to assign a "defensive"/"offensive" role to a munition.

Any killing terrorists w/ tks is embarrassing. Emotion driven operations r dangerous in so many ways.

I do not know what tks is. How is a soldier's emotional response to being in combat relevant to this discussion?

Current & future energetics define this as a laughable statement.

Provide one example of a missile that fulfills the exact same set of missions as a 120mm shell.

Obsession w/ munitions rather than effect is just what the Ukrs now know is backward. Now even the brits know "tgt, payload, platform". The desired effect is the start point.

Are you contradicting yourself? You are proposing a missile to substitute a shell simply on the basis that it is "better", with no reference to how and why and what effect it can produce.

What in Sam Hill does this have to do...?

It is a logical path. A methodology. It can indicate if your conclusion is sound, or otherwise how to reach a better one.
Your claims do not stand the basic trial of reason. And when confronted about the "why", you refused to explain.

Again what is even being asked. What r we Roman Phalanx w/ pikes & axes.

You said a combat force should not engage targets that do not "threaten" them. I asked how this makes sense versus the conventional wisdom that an enemy force can threaten you and must therefore be engaged?

Who is after a consession? Just explaining a well accepted precept "effects based warfare".

Killing snipers w/ tanks guns speaks for itself.

What weapon would then be appropriate?

If so much energy is directed in last microseconds any opposing energy is going t meet much more resistance. Who knows how that plays out.

So for the record you can produce no example for something you said exists.

You can present a case. Hypersonic goes from Mach 5 to Machs in the 20s. Ur telling me an APS cant be overcome?

At 3:01
The APS defeats an APFSDS, which is a hypersonic munition. The APFSDS is then tilted, allowing the armor to easily absorb it.
Hence speed is not the critical factor, and alone is insufficient to defeat an APS.

Who was talking replacing the MBT. Empower the MBT.

Then what is your point about the missile to replace the main gun?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Soldiers aren't suppose to do the killing. Soldiers are suppose to do the surviving,

Yes, the soldier's job is to make the other guy die for his country. That doesn't mean it's a one-sided thing.

Tanks have the signature of the largest land vehicles, without the defensive firepower of dedicated CRAM/AA vehicle, lacking actually effective passive protection against precision all aspect HEAT warheads available everywhere and lack effective weapon range to do much outside of the most permissive environment.

At present, yes.

All of which can be corrected in the next design.

 

[Ainen]

At present, yes.

All of which can be corrected in the next design.

But designs shown above don't even try.
They are still by an large are preparing for Fulda bs, with a small rws signifying how drone mindful they are.
I like reenactment, but reenacting a war that didn't even happen is a bit overrated.

 

[kqcke for you]

Even the latest TOW goes HV @ terminal rendering current APS less useful if not obsolete.

What? Since when does a TOW go hypersonic?

The missile doesn't need to be HV the whole flight.

Not that you could do it...

Conventional direct fire is back up defense. The tank is offense or a wasted asset. KNDs has it correct using the ugv as the primary engagement implement.

You mean unmanned Systems becoming a main part of any force? Yes well that was like 50% the point of MGCS.

The problem is the ugv using un boosted missiles against tanks. Why not gun boosted missiles.

Gun boosted missiles are expensive, limited in capabilities and heavy.

 

[jsport]

It's irrelevant today. Good "defensive" capabilities support and enable "offensive" ones and vice versa. They're part of one system and so it adds no value to assign a "defensive"/"offensive" role to a munition.

To avoid cliche "cognitive dissonance" missions must kept separate. Can a munition be called "defensive"/"offensive" yes. Dual role what does that have to do w/ anything

Provide one example of a missile that fulfills the exact same set of missions as a 120mm shell.

This is becoming tedious. The deepest best effects a tank can provide is the reason to start its engine in the morning. Period.

Are you contradicting yourself? You are proposing a missile to substitute a shell simply on the basis that it is "better", with no reference to how and why and what effect it can produce.

The tank needs to defend itself however the reason the tank exists is deep effects best delivered by gun boosted missile.

U r on the wrong forum if I have to explain " battlefield effects". Officially, this has be tedious & stupid.

You said a combat force should not engage targets that do not "threaten" them. I asked how this makes sense versus the conventional wisdom that an enemy force can threaten you and must therefore be engaged?

The justification for deployment is to win battles/ wars by forcing capitulation ie "effect enemy collapse".

So for the record you can produce no example for something you said exists.

A gun boosted missile for longest rng...stated many moons ago.

The APS defeats an APFSDS, which is a hypersonic munition. The APFSDS is then tilted, allowing the armor to easily absorb it.

old news & equally irrelevant.

Hence speed is not the critical factor, and alone is insufficient to defeat an APS.

Energy over coming a countering energy is all that was ever discussed.

Then what is your point about the missile to replace the main gun?

This has become tedious & stupid.

 

[jsport]

What? Since when does a TOW go hypersonic?

the patent speaks for itself. likely classified & in storage.

Not that you could do it...

You mean unmanned Systems becoming a main part of any force? Yes well that was like 50% the point of MGCS.

If u watch the KNDS video you will see it explained that first engagement is via the UGV, Do ur homework.

Gun boosted missiles are expensive, limited in capabilities and heavy.

If one wants longest rng, & max effect, ie to prevail, it will weigh & cost. Capabilities r far from being defined.

 

[Big_Zukini]

To avoid cliche "cognitive dissonance" missions must kept separate. Can a munition be called "defensive"/"offensive" yes. Dual role what does that have to do w/ anything

So what's your point about the main gun being defensive?

This is becoming tedious. The deepest best effects a tank can provide is the reason to start its engine in the morning. Period.

I'll take that as another "I don't know".

The tank needs to defend itself however the reason the tank exists is deep effects best delivered by gun boosted missile.

Please elaborate on these deep effects and specifically on how a missile does it better.

U r on the wrong forum if I have to explain " battlefield effects". Officially, this has be tedious & stupid.

To the contrary. I think that this is a pretty good forum.

The justification for deployment is to win battles/ wars by forcing capitulation ie "effect enemy collapse".

If capitulation is not a viable objective, should the mission not be fulfilled then?
Can you also explain how a missile will deliver the effect of capitulation when employed within the same mission parameters as a 120mm shell, but a 120mm shell cannot?

A gun boosted missile for longest rng...stated many moons ago.

I didn't ask about RNG, nor is it relevant outside of video games like War Thunder.
A gun boosted missile, I assume you mean something like the MGM-51 Shillelagh, is a concept that seems to offer little advantages for the substantial disadvantages it has.
I listed the disadvantages several comments above. You conceded that these all exist. So I really see no point. Unless you can offer another example.

Energy over coming a countering energy is all that was ever discussed.

Not at all.

This has become tedious & stupid.

Yes but I have been very polite to you about it.

 

[jsport]

So what's your point about the main gun being defensive?

rds are defensive..Missile from gun r offensive. never a confusion.

I'll take that as another "I don't know".

IDK what explained clearly/

Please elaborate on these deep effects and specifically on how a missile does it better.

To the contrary. I think that this is a pretty good forum.

Effects based warfare is pretty well taught & known ie everything Ive stated.

If capitulation is not a viable objective, should the mission not be fulfilled then?

a turn to the bizarre.

Can you also explain how a missile will deliver the effect of capitulation when employed within the same mission parameters as a 120mm shell, but a 120mm shell cannot?

Armor force deployment to effect. A 140mm carries more volumn for fuel &payload as repeatedly stated.

I didn't ask about RNG, nor is it relevant outside of video games like War Thunder.
A gun boosted missile, I assume you mean something like the MGM-51 Shillelagh, is a concept that seems to offer little advantages for the substantial disadvantages it has.

Old tech not worth discussing.

I listed the disadvantages several comments above. You conceded that these all exist. So I really see no point. Unless you can offer another example.

The gun boosted missile is yet to be developed as existing DF tech is old & Scott Kenny mentioned a a gun boosted being proposed.

https://news.ssbcrack.com/mbda-deve...ssile-for-tanks-to-enhance-combat-capability/

Not at all.

Yes but I have been very polite to you about it.

Hard to be polite w/ never ending stuborness.

 

[kqcke for you]

the patent speaks for itself. likely classified & in storage.

In short this is a may be thing but okay i can work with that.
The Argument of this whole missile is to take the gun out of the equation with a variable timed boosted KE projectile (KE-rod penetrators as the patent itself says). So how does this beat APS systems especially those designed to counter it? And by that i mean damaging the KE-rod penetrator so that the base armor can deal with it.

If u watch the KNDS video you will see it explained that first engagement is via the UGV, Do ur homework.

How is my statement wrong?
Not only are any modern forces looking at sutch loyal wingman teaming but this was also 50% of MGCS point because the capabilities requiered couldn't be mounted on just 1 vehicle but the armed forces don't have the budget to massively increase there numbers i.e. you end with unmanned systems.
So tell me where was my statement wrong because im pretty sure i did my homework.

If one wants longest rng, & max effect, ie to prevail, it will weigh & cost. Capabilities r far from being defined.

"Longest range & mac effect" for what? A gun? A rocket launching system? A Tank?

A normal missile will for a given effect allways be more economical than your gun based version but if you want to max the capabilities a tank gun can deliver then sure a missile can achieve more but it will be at a higher cost.

rds are defensive..Missile from gun r offensive. never a confusion.

Maybe im confused but shooting something at something i want to kill/ destroy is almost allways offensive in nature assuming your not reacting too sutch an offensive attack.

IDK what explained clearly/
Effects based warfare is pretty well taught & known ie everything Ive stated.
a turn to the bizarre.
Armor force deployment to effect.

Speaking out what you mean helps a lot just saying i stated point xy are well known or explained isn't helping this discussion as mutch as saying someone the needle your search is in that haystack.
How about showing him where you explained it or give a more deliberate explanation?
(This goes both ways of course)

A 140mm carries more volumn for fuel &payload as repeatedly stated.

At a higher cost (because more is more), lower munition count for the same volume and higher weight.

Old tech not worth discussing.

Wow.... So tell ous then when is something "old tech" so we can discuss things that "matter" .

The gun boosted missile is yet to be developed as existing DF tech is old & Scott Kenny mentioned a a gun boosted being proposed.
https://news.ssbcrack.com/mbda-deve...ssile-for-tanks-to-enhance-combat-capability/

I remember edr had some details on Akeron 120 MBT but the server seems to be down.


Edit 2:
Im probaly gonna step out of this discussion because for one where straying from this channels purpose but also because this seems like a futile discussion as i doubt we all achieve a consensus

 

[Big_Zukini]

rds are defensive..Missile from gun r offensive. never a confusion.

Why is it an important distinction?

Effects based warfare is pretty well taught & known ie everything Ive stated.

I'm listening.

Armor force deployment to effect. A 140mm carries more volumn for fuel &payload as repeatedly stated.

So tanks should have 140mm guns instead of 120mm? I personally disagree but let's agree for the sake of the argument.
How does it make a missile more effective within the given tasks?

Old tech not worth discussing

Alright so elaborate with either the LAHAT or Akeron 120mm or whatever other existing or notional design.

 

[jsport]

In short this is a may be thing but okay i can work with that.
The Argument of this whole missile is to take the gun out of the equation with a variable timed boosted KE projectile (KE-rod penetrators as the patent itself says). So how does this beat APS systems especially those designed to counter it? And by that i mean damaging the KE-rod penetrator so that the base armor can deal with it.

An APS designed to defeat it will defeat it...am not proposing tanks be replaced by TOW vehicles. TOW vehicles are for stopping tanks. Tanks r for break thrus/breech etc.

How is my statement wrong?
Not only are any modern forces looking at sutch loyal wingman teaming but this was also 50% of MGCS point because the capabilities requiered couldn't be mounted on just 1 vehicle but the armed forces don't have the budget to massively increase there numbers i.e. you end with unmanned systems.
So tell me where was my statement wrong because im pretty sure i did my homework.

The goal is all engagements offboard , especailly via UGV. The tank & its conventional rds are primarily the defensive bodyguard for remote controllers.

"Longest range & mac effect" for what? A gun? A rocket launching system? A Tank?

Effects based means engaging the High Value Tgts (HVTs) & High Payoff Tgts (HPTs) which r usually unarmored but deep ie out of tank rng.

A normal missile will for a given effect allways be more economical than your gun based version but if you want to max the capabilities a tank gun can deliver then sure a missile can achieve more but it will be at a higher cost.

Gun boosted missiles r protected inside the tank but acheive missile+ rngs & therefore cost more. more is expected for the cost.

Maybe im confused but shooting something at something i want to kill/ destroy is almost allways offensive in nature assuming your not reacting too sutch an offensive attack.urcle

Why not prempt an atk on ur vehicle. The Israelis had automation to even move the vehicle. Why not automate a premeptive defensive shot as well as manuever.

Speaking out what you mean helps ino just saying i started P are well known or explained is helping this discussion as mutch as saying someone the needle your search is in that haystack.
How about showing him where you explained it or give a more deliberate explanation?
(This goes both ways of course)

?

At a higher cost (because more is more), lower munition count for the same volume and higher weight.

Deeper, & valuable effects r worth the cost & volumn.. For instance, immediate tgting of opposing drone c2 nodes, logistics hubs, ammunition & fuel points. Armor & artillery meld as have argued many a time.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Effects based means engaging the High Value Tgts (HVTs) & High Payoff Tgts (HPTs) which r usually unarmored but deep ie out of tank rng.

If they're unarmored how will a KE projectile achieve lethality?
And if they're deep out of tank's range, why give this task to the tank and not an artillery system?

Why not prempt an atk on ur vehicle. The Israelis had automation to even move the vehicle. Why not automate a premeptive defensive shot as well as manuever. Still not sure if you take a sh

There is a mechanism in the Trophy system to Slew to Cue. This works on CLOS missiles where the average trajectory can point to the shooter.
But this fails if the CLOS missile is remotely launched (i.e. operator is far from launcher), or if it flies in some indirect path.
Even if the operator was outside line of sight and the tank has an NLOS munition, it'd still need to somehow locate the shooter - which it cannot.
More efficient is if something else, typically a UAS, detects the NLOS shooter and fires upon it.