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.

 

[Ainen]

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.

"maneuver" =/= "movement"! Positional warfare is full of movement. Just not the one tanks are meant for, aka, (offensive)maneuver.
And since MBTs now can't bring maneuver - they're redundant. In retrospect, they really only could do so during a relatively short period until the peace dividend, and got fossilized as a result. But so did much of the rest of land warfare, so it got unnoticed; Iraq wars reinforced wrong lessons.
Right now, tanks are needed, probably more than ever. But primary and predominant obstacles to offensive maneuver are completely different than before - and, as such, current system of ground fires(which MBT is a key part of) can't breach them effectively.

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.

It didn't succeed with much maneuver, despite honestly pitiful level of opponents. Successful maneuver in either of the wars wold've brought them to conclusion long ago. And it did so in the past, many times. Last time was 1982, which is well before many of us on this forum were even born.
The heavier the tank force(as MBT force), nowadays, the louder it'll fall. Hopefully it'll happen without dragging down states with it.

 

[MadRat]

If by a water source I could see them using water cannons against drones. It would be a relative cheap addition to a vehicle.

 

[Big_Zukini]

And since MBTs now can't bring maneuver - they're redundant.

If Lebanon is an example of maneuver, how can we assume MBTs cannot bring maneuver?

"maneuver" =/= "movement"! Positional warfare is full of movement. Just not the one tanks are meant for, aka, (offensive)maneuver.

That's why I said maneuver and not positional warfare. And why I specifically referenced Lebanon and Gaza and not Ukraine.

It didn't succeed with much maneuver, despite honestly pitiful level of opponents.

Then why did it succeed nonetheless?

Successful maneuver in either of the wars wold've brought them to conclusion long ago.

No, that's not true.

The heavier the tank force(as MBT force), nowadays, the louder it'll fall. Hopefully it'll happen without dragging down states with it.

Then why did maneuver succeed in Lebanon and Gaza far more than it did in Ukraine-Russia despite larger share of MBTs in the IDF?

 

[Avimimus]

It seems a lot has happened in this thread since I fell asleep!

Manoeuvre warfare requires an ability to concentrate forces (hampered by improved sensors), and stable logistics (hampered by anti-logistic/interdiction drones).

There may also be issues with mobilisations simply not being large enough (especially considering the amount of production that has to be mobilised) to sustain a breakthrough.

Returning to the theme of the original post, this does suggest a couple of things:
- Hybrid drives
- Higher fuel fractions/ranges for vehicles (at the expense of ammunition)
- Improved crew comfort (e.g. at least three crew, one of which is provided with a cot where they can take shifts sleeping within the vehicle).

 

[Ainen]

If Lebanon is an example of maneuver, how can we assume MBTs cannot bring maneuver?

Lebanon is not an example of maneuver, forces are completely stuck. Which is all the more damning, as Lebanon(much less Gaza) is absolutely diminutive in size. Both, furthermore, are blockaded.
The only recent example of such in the immediate neighborhood recently is the collapse of Assad... which was done not by Israel, and by large, not really by tanks(if anything, the heavier force got crushed).

Manoeuvre warfare requires an ability to concentrate forces (hampered by improved sensors), and stable logistics (hampered by anti-logistic/interdiction drones).

And many more, as change to positional character apparently happened before attack drones became a thing.
It means indeed that the informational layer is the problem, not the thick composite protection of enemy AFVs.
I.e. tanks basically should now be SPAAGs first and foremost, and kind of SPAAGs capable of removing observation(drones) from significant distances.

It helps that this kind of AA weapons(guns or missiles doesn't matter) is also capable enough of removing traditional obstacles to advance, too.

 

[MadRat]

If Lebanon is an example of maneuver, how can we assume MBTs cannot bring maneuver

Maneuver is about a lot more than position changes. An armored unit combines command, communication, firepower, cover, observation, etc. It can be the rally point or the pivot point. It is better to have than go without. And armor destroyed is often armor rebirthed, which recovery is important. Israel is better to fight in Lebanon than at home.

The only recent example of such in the immediate neighborhood recently is the collapse of Assad... which was done not by Israel, and by large, not really by tanks(if anything, the heavier force got crushed).

Backed by a third eye much more potent than Assad's army

 

[Big_Zukini]

Lebanon is not an example of maneuver, forces are completely stuck.

What makes you think the forces are stuck? The ceasefire? Ceasefires tend to do that. But of course, you are obviously very wrong. There was maneuver in Lebanon until the ceasefire, and some operations are still ongoing albeit at low intensity.

Which is all the more damning, as Lebanon(much less Gaza) is absolutely diminutive in size.

I see the straws have been grasped.

Both, furthermore, are blockaded.

Who is blockading Lebanon and Gaza?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I.e. tanks basically should now be SPAAGs first and foremost, and kind of SPAAGs capable of removing observation(drones) from significant distances.

It helps that this kind of AA weapons(guns or missiles doesn't matter) is also capable enough of removing traditional obstacles to advance, too.

Gun launched fast ATGM, something faster than 500m/s. with a frag sleeve and a proximity fuze.

I'm assuming that APS radars are good enough to track drones, just need to push that radar data to the FCS to tell the gun where to point before the missile takes over.

 

[Ainen]

What makes you think the forces are stuck? The ceasefire? Ceasefires tend to do that. But of course, you are obviously very wrong. There was maneuver in Lebanon until the ceasefire, and some operations are still ongoing albeit at low intensity.

You keep confusing movement and maneuver.

Who is blockading Lebanon and Gaza?

Gaza - Israel, Egypt. Lebanon(Hezbollah to be exact) - Israel, Syria, to a degree Lebanon itself.

Gun launched fast ATGM, something faster than 500m/s. with a frag sleeve and a proximity fuze.

I'm assuming that APS radars are good enough to track drones, just need to push that radar data to the FCS to tell the gun where to point before the missile takes over.

I think it can be done, but those are big. I.e. how many GLATGM will you have, 40 at most? This is not enough by modern standards to even reach the frontline.
I think we need a ~3-3.5“ autoomatic gun(76-90mm), preferably with trunnions moved as much back as possible (to make it less inert), with onboard ammo at least >100 shots per vehicle. It should be able to engage FPVs as they approach, but it also should be able to shut down at least tactical observation (fixed-wing or big-camera rotary-wing drones).
This is in addition to, rather than instead of, APS.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think it can be done, but those are big. I.e. how many GLATGM will you have, 40 at most? This is not enough by modern standards to even reach the frontline.

Probably more like 15 or so, since you're not packing the entire ready rack with those. But yes, roughly 40-50 rounds of 120mm in a modern tank.

I think we need a ~3-3.5“ autoomatic gun(76-90mm), preferably with trunnions moved as much back as possible (to make it less inert), with onboard ammo at least >100 shots per vehicle. This is in addition to, rather than instead of, APS.

I mean, you can get away with unbalancing the gun with modern servos, they're strong enough. Most engineers would not like doing that, because a balanced gun mount takes much less power to move and is faster to move when it is balanced.

Now, you could do some serious shenanigans to move those trunnions back without unbalancing the weapon, but that will add significant weight.

 

[Avimimus]

By the mid-century drones will have a remarkable capability for terminal evasive manoeuvres (much moreso than conventional missiles). I suspect any turret mounted weapon (even a fast traverse RWS) will be most effective if used against a target in the acquisition phase, but the terminal homing phase will require a fallback to a close APS of some sort in many cases.

Israel is better to fight in Lebanon than at home.

This thread wasn't intended for such discussions. It was intended to look towards the 2050s, 2070s, and 2090s considering potential trends towards greater automation and greater sensor proliferation.

 

[Big_Zukini]

You keep confusing movement and maneuver.

No, I explicitly called it maneuver. You are the one who admittedly wrongly said there was never any maneuver in Lebanon.
The IDF call it maneuver. Hezbollah call it a maneuver. I have 2 eyes and can see it's a maneuver. Why should I believe everyone lies about it?

Gaza - Israel, Egypt. Lebanon(Hezbollah to be exact) - Israel, Syria, to a degree Lebanon itself.

Great. Now aside from being wrong (Lebanon is not under Syrian blockade), what does it have to do with anything?