I don’t think the the utility of a tank is completely obviated. At a minimum, a heavy force needs them to assault and breach at speed under fire. The Russians are not exactly offering a tour de force in optimal support of their heavy armor. I will take their user error in favor of the good guys but don’t want to draw a broader lesson about the utility of the tank quite yet.
120mm cannon rounds are cheaper and more plentiful than guided missiles, which means a lot.
That said, it’s getting harder and harder to understand a scenario in which tanks can be employed successfully against a motivated, competent defender with plentiful ATGM and loitering munition stocks.
Acoup's trench warfare series(?) had an excellent note re: armored vehicles. That dug-in (non-mobile) infantry was extremely difficult to dislodge (in the strategic sense, even if employed as a defense in depth tactically) but infantry out in the open was much more vulnerable.
And by definition, infantry must be out in the open as it advances; distinct from when it defends.
Consequently, the purpose of armored vehicles (tanks, APCs/IFVs, SPGs) is not to trump infantry, but to provide the minimal survivable armor for the soldiers inside to allow them to advance.
And toss firepower on there, because why not, if you've already got an engine?
So, as ugly as the fact is, the important thing is a tank's utility to survive long enough to support an advance. Not survive against all odds.
And, just like how infantry have to use cover and concealment to move on the battlefield, tanks do as well. Tanks like to be in a position where they are well covered and only the turret is exposed, called the hull-down position: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull-down
The main reason you still need conventional armor instead of just EW is to protect against rounds from a tank, which an APS is unlikely to help against. I suppose you could try to use EW to try and blind a tanks sensors and cause them to miss a shot, but that seems risky and not scalable. Armor also protects against lighter anti-armor weapons like the NLAW. While the NLAW is certainly a potent weapon, it will not penetrate the frontal hull of a modern tank, APS or not.
Tactical mobility is a bit overrated, it's not like you can outrun an ATGM. Though a system with better operational and strategic mobility would certainly be valuable. Modern tanks can't cross a lot of bridges due to weight constraints, and can only be air transported in the largest aircraft. For reference: the C-5 galaxy, one of the largest cargo planes in existence, can carry 2 abrams tanks; the more common C-17 can carry 1; while the C-130 can't carry any (it could transport roughly 28% of an abrams). If you could get a decent armored fighting vehicle down to 20-30 tons that opens up a lot of operational and strategic transport options.
> Though a system with better operational and strategic mobility would certainly be valuable. Modern tanks can't cross a lot of bridges due to weight constraints,
specifically, the Abrams is getting real heavy these days with all the upgrades, to the extent that it's becoming an operational problem. They can't be towed by their recovery vehicle anymore. They're too heavy for their carrier trucks/trailers. They can't use landing craft or bailey bridges. A lot of constructed bridges in the expected area of operations can't support them.
> I don’t think the the utility of a tank is completely obviated.
The whole point of tank, as the word suggests, is to be able to survive enemy fire.
With proliferation of easy to carry weapons that can pierce any tank it is largely relegated to being heavy, costly and fragile mobile cannon that needs a lot of support to stay alive. There are much better devices that can fill those roles.
You should no longer assume that you can ambush anything with your tanks -- with live overhead feed it is easy to spot any tanks encroaching on your position and place any antitank in the right spot.
And then you have drones that you can basically point and shoot any tank from.
I am pretty sure this is the last war where we see large number of tanks involved. Every country that is watching this is click spamming to buy as many drones as possible.
Tanks have always co-evolved against their threats. The reason top armor is weak is because the primary threat when the bulk of these designs were originated (60s/70s) was from other tanks or direct-fire guns. Precision indirect fire munitions weren't yet a major threat.
So, when you're rearchitecting a tank today, you're going to protect it against the now-dominant threats.
At its base, a tank is a propulsion system, a gun, and a set of survivability options.
The first two are always going to be relatively expensive, in quantity. So the last gets defined and scaled to meet the expected threat.
I guess you can imagine similar evolution that a century ago drove invention of aircraft carriers. When it became clear that battleships would become too large, too heavy and too expensive to meet their primary goal of dominating the sea around them.
Ie mobile platforms that are essentially defenceless on their own but carry large armament of drones and other electronic devices inside enemy territory that is meant to quickly take over surrounding space (surface and overhead) and do quick job of neutralising various threats like enemy personnel, drones, etc.
But I am not sure about that. Planes require a landing strip to start from and large hangars to store them and that drove the basic form of aircraft carrier.
There is no such limitation for electronic equipment and small drone carriers travelling on land. And I think, rather than presenting a single high value target to the enemy, it makes sense to have a lot of specialised units functioning as one through information systems that cannot be disabled with a single successful strike.
See: GD's TRX concept w/ loitering munitions and a tethered surveillance UAV
> [vs distributed systems]
See: USAF / USN Next Generation Air Dominance programs, or the European Future Combat Air System, which are declared as "systems of systems" to get the desired capabilities. We'll see how far they ultimately lean into distributed though.
By the contrary, according to the article and the latest data, Tanks have the advantage. It's just, fortunately, Russian incompetence and Ukrainian combat skill we are seeing.
“Trophy exceeded our expectations,” said Col. Dean. “Unlike prior APS tests…we were shooting actual threats at actual vehicles. I’m happy to say I kept trying to kill an Abrams tank about 48 times and failed every time.”
I agree with the first paragraph’s notes on Russian incompetence and Ukrainian capability. I said as much.
APS is a must but it’s not a panacea. You need to emit, detect and survive a second or third shot. I expect loitering munitions are probably outside of most APS system’s velocity gates+engagement envelopes. I also wonder how survivable and jam resistant APS sensors are.
Finally the way this guy is talking about it…it sounds a little too good to be true.
Again, not discounting APS, the Israelis do this for real - APS makes the problem harder but not unsolvable.
Yeah a well employed heavy armor element, particularly supported by dismounted infantry and SHORAD is going to stomp an infantry element that has exhausted anti tank rocket/missile stocks. Not debating that for a second.
120mm cannon rounds are cheaper and more plentiful than guided missiles, which means a lot.
That said, it’s getting harder and harder to understand a scenario in which tanks can be employed successfully against a motivated, competent defender with plentiful ATGM and loitering munition stocks.