Future Armour

[Kirkhill]

They are ‘A’ tool, not ‘THE’ tool. They have zero ability to stop an armored first rolling them, that is supported with artillery.

Progress.

You now allow that they are a tool...

 

[FJAG]

What does it offer that the drone itself doesn't offer?

I don't like Elon's various offerings. I do not mind a ground-based vehicle. Primarily because it can carry stuff and sit still and hide. I'm still not a fan of uncrewed vehicles. People add a dimension, if nothing else than to string out the cam netting and fix the little glitches that inevitably happen to equipment that is ridden hard or when the data link goes down. We're a few years away from Terminator-level power packs and AI.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't like Elon's various offerings. I do not mind a ground-based vehicle. Primarily because it can carry stuff and sit still and hide. I'm still not a fan of uncrewed vehicles. People add a dimension, if nothing else than to string out the cam netting and fix the little glitches that inevitably happen to equipment that is ridden hard or when the data link goes down. We're a few years away from Terminator-level power packs and AI.

I am asking why use a ground vehicle at all. Why not just sit back at a safe distance and send lots of drones?

 

[FJAG]

I am asking why use a ground vehicle at all. Why not just sit back at a safe distance and send lots of drones?

Drones do not hold ground. Ever. Ground matters. Not just tactically, but strategically. See Ukraine as an example.

I like drones. I particulalry like cheap OWUAVs. We should have lots - and our own factories to build them. It seems like it should be a no-brainers to create industries to do that. It's well within our level of expertise and manufacturing scale.

I'd give up a brigade's worth of PYs and an equivalent number (or more) of above brigade HQ folks to fund an armament industry.

 

[ueo]

Progress.

You now allow that they are a tool...

"Tool" simpest thing known to man, WEDGE!

 

[Kirkhill]

Drones do not hold ground. Ever. Ground matters. Not just tactically, but strategically. See Ukraine as an example.

I like drones. I particulalry like cheap OWUAVs. We should have lots - and our own factories to build them. It seems like it should be a no-brainers to create industries to do that. It's well within our level of expertise and manufacturing scale.

I'd give up a brigade's worth of PYs and an equivalent number (or more) of above brigade HQ folks to fund an armament industry.

Why is it important to hold ground?

I would suggest that it is important to hold ground because we are terrestrial creatures. We live on the ground. We move on the ground. We feed from the ground. We need our ground. Without our ground we cease to exist.

Equally though, if we die while attempting to hold ground, we cease to exist.

If we are reduced to tooth and claw and sharp pointy sticks then the odds do not favour our continued existence.

Far better to kill the other before they can close and destroy. And that means chucking things at them. In mass quantities and at the longest range possible to the greatest conceivable effect.

Sticks, stones, arrows, pellets, bullets, shells....delivered by muscle power, springs, gravity .... any form of energy at all.

....

I say "drone" and I discover that @dimsum has been right all along. Language matters.

I say "drone" and others seem to see Ahnuld.

I say "drone" and I mean a "Mavik", a "LAM", a "UAV", a "CCA", a "Loyal Wingman", an "RPAS".

I mean anything that I can chuck in the direction of the other and kill them at great distance to great effect before they have a chance to close with me and threaten my hold on the ground that is necessary for the continued existence of my family. And do this without risking my people directly, because every person that dies closing with the enemy diminishes my ability to hold my own ground.

These days I find the difference between a smart shell delivered from a tube, an intelligent guided rocket, a jet propelled UAV, or an electrically driven one vanishingly small. As far as I am concerned all of them are things I can chuck at the enemy to destroy them at distance and not risk my people.

With enough of those things I will cheerfully hold my ground and chuck things at them for as long as I have them available to me. The day that I run out of things to chuck is the day that I am over run.

Unlike the Guns, when they run out of things to chuck, I have no place to retire to.

....

Shell or drone, bullet or missile or CCAs --- all just things to chuck, all just OWUAVs.

And we need lots of them. To allow us to hold ground.

And there, I think, we agree.

 

[KevinB]

Why is it important to hold ground?

I would suggest that it is important to hold ground because we are terrestrial creatures. We live on the ground. We move on the ground. We feed from the ground. We need our ground. Without our ground we cease to exist.

Equally though, if we die while attempting to hold ground, we cease to exist.

If we are reduced to tooth and claw and sharp pointy sticks then the odds do not favour our continued existence.

Far better to kill the other before they can close and destroy. And that means chucking things at them. In mass quantities and at the longest range possible to the greatest conceivable effect.

Agreed, but it’s not just an either/or option.

You need Armor, you need Troops to occupy the ground to give your depth attacks space so they don’t get destroyed in advance.

Sticks, stones, arrows, pellets, bullets, shells....delivered by muscle power, springs, gravity .... any form of energy at all.

And enemy with more options will use those options to best avail, and attempt to negate your options if you can’t counter theirs.

....

I say "drone" and I discover that @dimsum has been right all along. Language matters.

I say "drone" and others seem to see Ahnuld.

I say "drone" and I mean a "Mavik", a "LAM", a "UAV", a "CCA", a "Loyal Wingman", an "RPAS".

I mean anything that I can chuck in the direction of the other and kill them at great distance to great effect before they have a chance to close with me and threaten my hold on the ground that is necessary for the continued existence of my family. And do this without risking my people directly, because every person that dies closing with the enemy diminishes my ability to hold my own ground.

You’re making the mistake that you can conduct attrition and the enemy can’t.

These days I find the difference between a smart shell delivered from a tube, an intelligent guided rocket, a jet propelled UAV, or an electrically driven one vanishingly small. As far as I am concerned all of them are things I can chuck at the enemy to destroy them at distance and not risk my people.

What gives you that space?

With enough of those things I will cheerfully hold my ground and chuck things at them for as long as I have them available to me. The day that I run out of things to chuck is the day that I am over run.

Unlike the Guns, when they run out of things to chuck, I have no place to retire to.

....

Shell or drone, bullet or missile or CCAs --- all just things to chuck, all just OWUAVs.

And we need lots of them. To allow us to hold ground.

And there, I think, we agree.

At the end of the day you want overmatch, and to add another buzzword, decision dominance to make actions inside the enemies OODA loop.

LRF/LRPF are great, but they are not the only tool available. Simply because the world isn’t black and white and lines on a map aren’t always clearly defined.

You need Light Forces, you need Heavy Forces, you need SOF, you need aviation, you need LRF, because together they give you the options to seize and hold ground and separate and protect a population from enemies (from little green men, to armored corps) and conduct the fight on your terms.

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed, but it’s not just an either/or option.

Agreed

You need Armor, you need Troops to occupy the ground to give your depth attacks space so they don’t get destroyed in advance.

Agreed
But all the ground between here and there, wherever that is, is occupied by other people. Those people supply strategic depth between me and the other. Who do they prefer? Me? Or the Other? Are they opposed to me? Are they my enemy? Or are they opposed to my Other? Are they my ally? They don't have to be my friend but I would prefer that they were my ally.

And enemy with more options will use those options to best avail, and attempt to negate your options if you can’t counter theirs.

Absolutely.

You’re making the mistake that you can conduct attrition and the enemy can’t.

Nope. Explicitly I am not saying that.
I am saying that I want lots of things to chuck at the enemy and I want to be able to keep chucking them longer than the enemy can.
I want them to run out of bullets, and clay and money first.

What gives you that space?

See above.

At the end of the day you want overmatch, and to add another buzzword, decision dominance to make actions inside the enemies OODA loop.

Accepted.

LRF/LRPF are great, but they are not the only tool available. Simply because the world isn’t black and white and lines on a map aren’t always clearly defined.

Stop that. Stop assuming that just because I address one possibility it means that other possibilities are not viable.
As I keep saying, over and over, there is a need for balance. There is utility in sword, shield and bow. William Blake had it right.

Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:

You need Light Forces, you need Heavy Forces, you need SOF, you need aviation, you need LRF, because together they give you the options to seize and hold ground and separate and protect a population from enemies (from little green men, to armored corps) and conduct the fight on your terms.

Agreed
No dispute.

All I am saying is that lots of artillery, lots of air force, lots of space force, lots of navy means that you can preserve those highly valuable close combat forces for as long as possible and ensure that they are on hand when you really need them.

A lack of shells in 1915 coincided with the lack of quality close combat forces because all the trained effectives of the British Expeditionary Force had died on the retreat from Mons.

 

[Kirkhill]

"The British Army should be a projectile to be fired by the British Navy." Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon

Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon, KG, PC, DL, FZS (25 April 1862 – 7 September 1933), better known as Sir Edward Grey, was a British Liberal statesman and the main force behind British foreign policy in the era of the First World War.

(Not the Grey of the Grey Cup)

Canada doesn't have a projectile so much as it has three pre-fragmented submunitions. And it lacks a suitable launcher.

 

[GR66]

Video reportedly showing successful engagement of a top-attack missile by an Israeli Trophy-equipped Merkava tank:

Israeli Merkava tank saved by Trophy system from Hezbollah missile

Iran-backed Hezbollah militants released a video claiming that it had successfully launched an Almas anti-tank missile at an Israeli Merkava tank. However, defense analysts and military experts quickly noted that the Merkava's Trophy Active Protection System (APS) effectively neutralized the...

defence-blog.com

It would seem pretty obvious that an APS system will be a "must have" for any new tank systems. The question is how far down the chain of armoured vehicles can these systems be deployed due to the weight of the systems? Trophy HV (Heavy Vehicle) weighs 820kg (1,810lbs) while the lighter Trophy VPS weighs 480kg (1,060lbs).

 

[daftandbarmy]

Video reportedly showing successful engagement of a top-attack missile by an Israeli Trophy-equipped Merkava tank:

Israeli Merkava tank saved by Trophy system from Hezbollah missile

Iran-backed Hezbollah militants released a video claiming that it had successfully launched an Almas anti-tank missile at an Israeli Merkava tank. However, defense analysts and military experts quickly noted that the Merkava's Trophy Active Protection System (APS) effectively neutralized the...

defence-blog.com

It would seem pretty obvious that an APS system will be a "must have" for any new tank systems. The question is how far down the chain of armoured vehicles can these systems be deployed due to the weight of the systems? Trophy HV (Heavy Vehicle) weighs 820kg (1,810lbs) while the lighter Trophy VPS weighs 480kg (1,060lbs).

Good tank/ vehicle cooperation with Infantry weighs nothing

 

[GR66]

Good tank/ vehicle cooperation with Infantry weighs nothing

True, but engaging the launch location of a fire-and-forget missiles AFTER you detect the launch signature doesn't help the tank much. Same for N-LOS launches.

 

[markppcli]

Good tank/ vehicle cooperation with Infantry weighs nothing

Fair, but if it’s a LOAL missile fired from defilade that doesn’t solve much.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Fair, but if it’s a LOAL missile fired from defilade that doesn’t solve much.

Indeed.

As per our good training, all arms cooperation is always the best first line of defense.

E.g., I don't know if these clips are doctored, but it doesn't make the Infantry look to good to the armoured corps I'm sure....

 

[PrairieFella]

A story as old as time. Tanks and infantry, name a more iconic duo haha. In terms of the weight comment further up, armour seems to be the less focused on aspect of the Iron Triangle in 21st century tank design. That makes sense because there's only so much armour will do against a top attack missile or a sabot dart coming at Mach stupid. As armour becomes lighter, these types of heavier APS systems will be mounted to tanks more frequently.

 

[Kirkhill]

A story as old as time. Tanks and infantry, name a more iconic duo haha. In terms of the weight comment further up, armour seems to be the less focused on aspect of the Iron Triangle in 21st century tank design. That makes sense because there's only so much armour will do against a top attack missile or a sabot dart coming at Mach stupid. As armour becomes lighter, these types of heavier APS systems will be mounted to tanks more frequently.

Or

Instead of piling a whole bunch of crap on to one increasingly heavy and complex vehicle the load is distributed over 3 or 4 light vehicles that work in close co-ordination with each other.

 

[PrairieFella]

Or

Instead of piling a whole bunch of crap on to one increasingly heavy and complex vehicle the load is distributed over 3 or 4 light vehicles that work in close co-ordination with each other.

But they won't be getting any heavier. The new leopard 2 design is less than 60 tons. The Panther (if ever built) is even lighter. Having 4 light vehicles and saying they're tanks is like taking 4 81mm mortars and calling them M777s. They have entirely different uses, lethality, mobility, etc. I do agree we desperately need a proper light/med cav vehicle along the lines of an Ajax/Bradley/EBRC jaguar, etc to fill that gap.

 

[markppcli]

Or

Instead of piling a whole bunch of crap on to one increasingly heavy and complex vehicle the load is distributed over 3 or 4 light vehicles that work in close co-ordination with each other.

At the end of the day, and this just as true in Ukraine as it was in Normandy, we have to punch through lines. That means we need armour to lead through those gaps where they will be taking direct fire, 4 15 ton vehicles simply aren’t going to be able to do what a single 60 lb tank can do.

 

[Kirkhill]

At the end of the day, and this just as true in Ukraine as it was in Normandy, we have to punch through lines. That means we need armour to lead through those gaps where they will be taking direct fire, 4 15 ton vehicles simply aren’t going to be able to do what a single 60 lb tank can do.

Even if you do need a heavy there is no reason why it cant have light escorts.

Talk to the Navy.

 

[PrairieFella]

Even if you do need a heavy there is no reason why it cant have light escorts.

Talk to the Navy.

Right - which is our doctrine, light/med cav forward shaping and fixing as well as on flank security. Still doesn't change the fact 21st century MBTs are getting lighter and that hard or soft kill APS are necessary in modernwar.