Let’s not mention the funding
Let's actually mention the funding mechanism because it's central to the ecosystem.
In Israel, the MoD financially assists defense startups, funds R&D, and the 3 major defense companies (Elbit, Rafael, IAI), which themselves own many smaller subsidiaries, all receive guaranteed R&D projects and manufacturing contracts.
Affordability is also baked into the R&D process. If you can do it with fewer or less exquisite components and compensate with a cheaper upgrade then go for it.
Manufacturing contracts are typically structured for long term and continuous development of the product.
Meaning they do not rely entirely on export success, and have some assured work and income. This in turn greatly de-risks things and allows them to sell to the MoD at very low prices. And it also lets them make lower export offers, making them highly competitive.
In wartime the MoD even gets to buy at more or less manufacturing costs.
Additionally, the MoD buys a lot of components ahead of manufacturing, which provides extra safety against market fluctuations and supply disruptions.
All of which eventually compute to a very low acquisition cost when compared to the general western defense market.
The Russians, in one the Chechen wars, was suffering around 7 RPGs from multiple ambush directions at a time. Urban canopy/canyon can be expected to present clouds of RPGs. An RPG sponge is still necessary to survive an urban jungle. these 'sponges' will need as much APS as possible but be ready to absorb. 'Curtain' based APS are start but shots from above down on the vehicle may require more projectile based APS than will be available on the vehicle. This is why a most advanced and lightened GCV size vehicle deserves a relook as does a CATTB-like form factor for a Future MBT..
What you describe seems to be more of a problem for engineering and air force than armor. Their job is to make the environment more permissive for maneuver. And armor makes the maneuver.
Tall buildings are great military assets. And great threats. If you can afford to take it down - do it.
Tanks are not deployed at the zero line as it'd get detected and destroyed by ranged fires. As such, front line forces do not get the help of tanks unless it is preplanned, and support from tanks at minimum takes the amount of time to cross artillery range. And artillery range have been increasing from 20km to some large number with ramjets shells and likes.
Patton reinforcing the bulge in 48 hours was considered an amazing feat while airpower works on different timetables.
Also in practice, the front screen is suppose to absorb opponent attacks, provide early warning, stall of time and perhaps die in the process. Not having a screen result in things like the 1st French Armored Division getting destroyed by panzers as they were on the front line and surprised when attacks hit.
Real organic fires are disposable assets like small UGVs and missiles that can be dug in and hidden to survive fires for long periods of time, and effective support fires are long range artillery, rockets and missiles where a battery can cover a wide front and deliver effects within 2 minutes.
As for airpower, all formations above the squad now can have organic aircraft, and networked communications reduce friction down to organization issues. AI enabled munitions like brimestone can area fire, as can conventional artillery as forces in cover is highly resistant while mobile forces are not.
I honestly have no idea what you're saying, except contradicting yourself over and over.
The Imperial Japanese would benefit tremendously from M1A2 given it is 80 years more advanced. I wonder if they could win the war with it.
Nope.
So we can agree that Russians should not use armor because they are too "incompetent" for it
They do not have the opportunity to effectively use armor because the assets supposed to create said opportunities are severely under-developed.
In any case, tanks does nothing in the context of Ukraine armored attacks. The IFV/APCs provide protected mobility which naturally lowers casualties, however the tanks can not and do not engage the casualty inflicting arms that are, mines, artillery and drone forces. Currently there is no rifleman covering the front with huge gaps that you can walk through, it is all indirect except in complex cover where line of sight is grenade range and cover is tough enough to resist aircraft glide bombs and tanks do nothing.
Tanks assist in a breakthrough and are meant for maneuver warfare. There has been no maneuver warfare in Ukraine for at least the majority of the war. There have been only a few limited instances of it.
Yes, Kursk showed that even the nation with the most tanks in the world can not allocate armor to most of the fight, and instead motorized infantry is used to plug the gap, with the ultimate counter attack conducted by the likes of north korean light infantry. The shock of newly mass deployed fiber optics guided drones that cut logistics to the salient means Ukraine couldn't hold the position.
Here's a basic principle of warfare:
Light infantry do defense better.
Mechanized units (and armor) do offense better.
Deploying mostly light infantry to defend the border area of Kursk actually made sense.
The low utilization of tanks is predictable, as tanks are not strategically mobile and require tank transporters and rail to move significant distances, while wheeled forces that can road march with far less prep and various medium weight formations were based on this.
"It's predictable"
*proceeds to list something entirely irrelevant*
The criticality of logistics for holding territory is also known in the Kherson campaign, where TBMs cutting bridges decided the fight. Interdiction can take ground when it can be completed. This can also be seen in the Kharkiv campaign, where armor formations are neutralized by sheer logistics failure.
Oh wow Russia and Ukraine having shitty logistics? Who could have thunk?
We can agree that T-55 armor penetration capability is sufficient then.
You're agreeing with yourself?
Good sensors, bad sensors, the drone gets initial spot. No one would attempt turtle tanks if the force is relying on tank sensors.
A drone getting the first spot always, is such a ghetto concept of warfare.
Vehicles based on failed doctrine and obsolete concepts can't be fixed without discarding it completely.
Wrong.
I believe the Zulus need to be fought by spearman, none of this machinegun BS. I believe the indians need to be fought by bows, none of this rifle and revolvers BS leading to the bow gap. I believe the Polish cavalry need to be fought by a reformed order of teutonic knights and none of this using Panzers against them, fires can not generate the SHOCK effect of cold steel.
This unironically, is why you fail to grasp the concept of the tank. You prefer old technologies to fight new threats. I prefer new technologies. The tank represents the new technology.
You prefer whataboutism to real analysis.
Commenters have eluded to and this uninformed opinion agrees w that there is 3 t problem which would be that would be true for any army in the world. Not enough 1.time 2.troops or 3.tech to solve this particular problem any time soon.
The tunnel system in Gaza was ultimately countered with few casualties and while achieving combat objectives. I think this proves there is a solution, and its basis is taking it seriously, investing in R&D, and proper training.
Well, Ukraine tried to follow American doctrine in 2023...
View attachment 794436
...and found it to be unworkable, because American doctrine basically stated "you don't break defenses, you circumvent defenses" and did not have provisions for the cases of long solid trench lines, with no way to circumvent them.
I see a picture of old western AFVs. I don't see a western doctrine here.
A lot of offensives in Ukraine failed because neither side put in the effort to properly concentrate forces and assets before committing to an offensive.
The idea of circumventing a defense isn't to actually drive around the trench line. But to find the weakest viable spot, concentrate efforts and quickly exploit it.
The primary western method of fires is air power. Large payloads, large warheads, hard to intercept. They are a maneuver enabler. They break defenses.
Toying with 40 year old Leopards and Bradleys isn't western doctrine. It's LARP.
