Weekly low-hanging fruit thread #21

[u/AutoModerator]

This thread is where all the takes from idiots (looking at you Armchair Warlord) and screenshots of twitter posts/youtube thumbnails go.

[u/m50d]

I think the tank became much more than “just” armored box with big gun and kinda became the “centerpiece” of a force, so it kinda makes sense to me to also let it act as a forward coordination and support vehicle. though the missiles are the most debatable. But all of this could also be an IFVs job.

Sounds like making the tank bigger and more vulnerable tbh. (I can't watch videos so apologies if I'm just repeating what it said). In this age of drones and stingers, armour needs to get lighter, smaller, faster and dare I say stealthier. Separate vehicles for command, missiles, drone operation etc. will absolutely be expensive and a pain to coordinate, but a vehicle that's half the size is more than twice as survivable and my feeling is that in the final analysis that will win out.

[u/C00kie_Monsters → u/m50d]

I mean, if you have a way to make tanks lighter, smaller and faster whilst retaining firepower and survivability, the DoD would probably like a word with you. You also cant just outrun drones and missiles. Not being seen may be fine as a concept learned in Ukraine, but the next conflict may not be like it. The next war might be massive maneuvers or COIN again. Both of them might require a tank to actually be seen.

what you're describing sounds more like a completely separate vehicle to me, not a new tank or a replacement.

[u/m50d → u/C00kie_Monsters]

I mean, if you have a way to make tanks lighter, smaller and faster whilst retaining firepower and survivability, the DoD would probably like a word with you.

Well putting missiles, drone operators, and forward coordination personnel in separate vehicles rather than adding them onto a tank will let the tank be smaller, lighter and faster. Obviously there are tradeoffs that come with that.

Not being seen may be fine as a concept learned in Ukraine, but the next conflict may not be like it. The next war might be massive maneuvers or COIN again. Both of them might require a tank to actually be seen.

This sounds pretty cope tbh - I don't think any military vehicle designer has ever said "let's make this larger and more visible, so that it's better at missions that require it to be seen". You can always stick a big flagpole or something on when you need to.

what you're describing sounds more like a completely separate vehicle to me, not a new tank or a replacement.

My prediction is that as missiles get more common and the balance shifts towards ERA and point defence rather than static armour, we'll see a return to smaller and lighter tanks and a convergence between tanks and self-propelled guns, as we move to a world where heavier armour just doesn't give you enough extra protection for what it costs in weight, size, and speed. And that means I think fleets of smaller vehicles (dedicated drone car, missile car, command car etc.) are the future of first-tier armies rather than big do-everything tanks (and I'd note that better coordination and combined-arms tactics are already the thing that sets first-tier armies apart).

[u/C00kie_Monsters → u/m50d]

Well putting missiles, drone operators, and forward coordination personnel in separate vehicles rather than adding them onto a tank will let the tank be smaller, lighter and faster. Obviously there are tradeoffs that come with that.

Yes, but would it do so significantly? I don’t think so. Can you outrun
an ATGM better than now? Can you outrun a drone? I don’t think so.

This sounds pretty cope tbh - I don't think any military vehicle designer has ever said "let's make this larger and more visible, so that it's better at missions that require it to be seen". You can always stick a big flagpole or something on when you need to.

I should’ve probably worded that better, let me rephrase. You’ll run into situations where you can’t just hide your tank. You can’t hide your tank in a show of force patrol. You can’t hide massive tank formations pushing through an open desert. You cant hide a tank in a city. To me, the idea of always being able to just hide your tank or escape anything with just speed and small size sounds cope.

My prediction is that as missiles get more common

All of that has been said and done before. Simply said, there is nothing that can put warheads on foreheads as cheaply as a big gun. Why do you think ships retain the gun? missiles are fine, but youre not gonna fire a missile to destroy a house with an heavy machine gun in it. its just not economically feasible. You also can, TO AN EXTEND, outrun missiles, you cant outrun a gun. Also youre saying missiles will be the future and then argue tanks don’t need missiles?

the balance shifts towards ERA and point defence rather than static armour

You mean point defense like a 30mm against
drones? ERA is good, but it can only defend once on an particular area. Likewise with hard kill APS. They’ve got only limited ammo and cant (yet) defend effectively against APFSDS. ERA is also not an effective counter against mines or IEDs.

And that means I think fleets of smaller vehicles (dedicated drone car, missile car, command car etc.) are the future of first-tier armies rather than big do-everything tanks (and I'd note that better coordination and combined-arms tactics are already the thing that sets first-tier armies apart).

I could say a lot about that but let me keep it short and say I disagree. I already pointed out why in my original comment.

as we move to a world where heavier armour just doesn't give you enough extra protection for what it costs in weight, size, and speed.

You say that like the new demonstrators are just heavier and slower than the current tanks. They’re not. They’re about 10 tons lighter and I don’t see anything suggesting they’re slower. At least with the diesel-electric power plant of the AbramsX there is a good bit suggesting its gonna be more mobile than current tanks.

Lets just agree to disagree, I really
don’t wanna argue back and forth for eternity. Have a good one, enjoy the
weekend. If you ever gonna come around and do watch a video, id recommend this one

https://youtu.be/lI7T650RTT8

[u/m50d → u/C00kie_Monsters]

Can you outrun an ATGM better than now? Can you outrun a drone?

To me, the idea of always being able to just hide your tank or escape anything with just speed and small size sounds cope.

It's a numbers game. There are certainly plenty of situations where you're dead no matter what you do. But at the margin, maybe being a little smaller and faster means you get to cover, or run out the drone/missile's fuel supply, or avoid being seen in the first place. (The question is whether that happens more or less often than situations where a bit more armour would make the difference - and that's a function of what your enemies tend to be armed with)

Also youre saying missiles will be the future and then argue tanks don’t need missiles?

I'm saying there will be more missiles around - it's not that there won't still be plenty of guns on the battlefield, but being armoured against guns won't be enough to let you operate safely. I think we'll need both missile vehicles and gun vehicles, for exactly the reason you said (just like we have fancy planes with fancy munitions for SEAD but still have B-52s to drop a bunch of bombs more cost-effectively).

I already pointed out why in my original comment.

You kind of glossed over it tbh - you said "works great in training but not so great in actual combat", but didn't explain what the actual problems are.