The Late 21st century AFV? Successors to the MBT?

[Ainen]

No it isn't. Are you misinformed or lying?

Unless you don't know how to count area, I wonder how could you come up with anything else.
Keep in mind that the true area is far less still, as "500km2" is gray+red(consolidated), not just red/blue as it was counted in the past. Mostly gray, in fact.
It's just that accounting methods have long since changed b/c old approaches are now meaningless.

If Ukraine is in stalemate and non-representative of maneuver, why are you using it as an example of maneuver?

B/c that's the representative conflict.
Otherwise you'll have to refer to Yemen, Sudan or Syria, which are entirely different in their nature.
You can of course throw someone trying to maneuver into a positional theater(like find a willing European army). Maybe they'll show those savages how to fight. More likely, they'll be slaughtered, over and over, until organizations will learn enough through a Darwinian cycle.
But, given the numbers and power of european AFV production lines, it'll mean stalemate.

It's not to conserve strength or reduce casualties. That's what happens when you only learn about a complex war through maybe one news headline a week.

It took this time to occupy the area(enter/clear fortifications/consolidate). Demolition may be a part of that, it can be done afterwards, but it doesn't matter, that's the time from first attacks to last known counterattacks.
Yes, it was fortified. In the past(before 2006) it wouldn't be a problem; now it is a problem, taking months/years, sometimes slower than besieging medieval castles.

 

[Big_Zukini]

It took this time to occupy the area(enter/clear fortifications/consolidate). Demolition may be a part of that, it can be done afterwards, but it doesn't matter, that's the time from first attacks to last known counterattacks.
Yes, it was fortified. In the past(before 2006) it wouldn't be a problem; now it is a problem, taking months/years, sometimes slower than besieging medieval castles.

So you agree that tanks maneuvered there successfully.

B/c that's the representative conflict.
Otherwise you'll have to refer to Yemen, Sudan or Syria, which are entirely different in their nature.
You can of course throw someone trying to maneuver into a positional theater(like find a willing European army). Maybe they'll show those savages how to fight. More likely, they'll be slaughtered, over and over, until organizations will learn enough through a Darwinian cycle.
But, given the numbers and power of european AFV production lines, it'll mean stalemate.

Then why did you mention Lebanon which is the opposite case where MBTs were crucial to maneuver success?

 

[Ainen]

So you agree that tanks maneuvered there successfully.

Tanks didn't participate in Vivaldi, almost at all. Ukraine did indeed use recently tanks, but that happened in a different part of the front, in very different circumstances, and frankly serves more as a reinforcement to the point that MBTs don't work the way they should.

Then why did you mention Lebanon which is the opposite case where MBTs were crucial to maneuver success?

It wasn't maneuver. And frankly all the same could be done without them altogether.
As I said above, you can, probably, make a force to make MBTs viable in current conditions. It's just more sensible to build force around achieving goals and not about MBTs.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Tanks didn't participate in Vivaldi, almost at all. Ukraine did indeed use recently tanks, but that happened in a different part of the front, in very different circumstances, and frankly serves more as a reinforcement to the point that MBTs don't work the way they should.

Tanks are a tool. They can choose whether or not to use a certain tool. You don't need a hammer to turn a screw.
They didn't use MBTs there but maneuver existed nonetheless, refuting the idea that movement is impossible.

It wasn't maneuver. And frankly all the same could be done without them altogether.

If it wasn't a maneuver, why did the IDF use a maneuver inside Lebanon? That's an oxymoron. How can something exist and not exist at the same time? You are not making any sense.

As I said above, you can, probably, make a force to make MBTs viable in current conditions. It's just more sensible to build force around achieving goals and not about MBTs.

There is no force that is built with the purpose of MBTs. There are forces built around a mission, and MBTs are a tool.
The IDF's ground branch is the most tank-heavy force on the planet. i.e. highest ratio of armor to infantry that exists. And it succeeded in maneuver in Lebanon and Gaza - two of the most hostile places in the world to armor - with very minimal losses to armor.

To your earlier point about time. Maneuver is not defined by time. It can be fast, it can be slow. What matters is the movement itself. Put yourself physically in a place of advantage, and deny such advantages to the enemy.
Maneuver is not the goal of an operation, but a tool as well. Its purpose is to support a larger goal of winning a war.