"Is Russia About to Make Tanks (As We Know Them) Obsolete? " Topic

"Could the Russian Terminator series—also know as the Boyevaya Mashina Podderzhki Tankov—be the harbinger of future armored vehicle design?

Based on its experience in Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya and Afghanistan, the Russian military certain believes so according to Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Moscow-based Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST). As such, Russia is mulling over the possibility of ditching the traditional tank—as it is currently conceptualized—and considering adopting a machine that is much more capable of defending itself against missile-equipped infantry and engaging other vehicles at stand-off ranges with anti-tank missiles.

Particularly, Russian experiences in Ukraine—where both sides are using upgraded Soviet-built tanks and anti-tank weapons—have shown that despite the best active, reactive and passive armor available, a tank will eventually be penetrated. "We discovered that no matter how skillful the crew, the tank would get up to ten hits," Pukhov said during a luncheon at the Center for the National Interest in Washington, D.C.—which is the foreign policy think-tank that publishes The National Interest—on July 26. "Even if you have perfect armor—active, passive. In one case it will save you from one hit, in another case from two hits, but you'll still get five hits and you're done. That's why now you're supposed to have some kind of Tank 2.0."
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

So the OGRE tank will finally have its day!

While I'm sure there will be AI driven tanks someday in the future, I doubt that any country will be able to afford to field any in (most of) our lifetimes.

Tanks are ultimately, tractors with armor and big guns. Protect them as best we can,but quantity and leadership is more important. In event of full-scale war, we'll go back to this concept and pour them out using conscripted troops to man them.

Perhaps tanks are facing an obsolescence now like heavy armored cavalry once did in the face of infantry that could destroy it at a distance? This time it's missile weapons launched from afar by infantry or rapidly mobile or airborne vehicles.

There's been a claim about missiles making tanks obsolete since missiles became a thing. 1973 at the latest.

Missiles are expensive. Main gun shells are not necessarily expensive, but can be. Tanks need to be able to support infantry as well as kill tanks, and sometimes that means big HE, direct-fired.

I'm halfway expecting the replacement for the Bradley to be packing at least a 50mm chaingun, if not a 75mm. Infantry need their supporting vehicle to be able to destroy bunkers and other obstacles, and 25mm doesn't work too well for that. 35mm doesn't work too well, either.

For the foreseeable future infantry will be needed to hold ground. Everything else is there to support or remove said infantry.

As long as that is the case, there will be a need for some kind of mobile fort – both to provide defensive firepower or to support an attack. Long range missiles or gunfire just isn't enough.

So, tanks. Heavy armour, close support, able to absorb punishment, perhaps even to attract fire away from the infantry…

Nothing to say that said tank should be manned though.

For the foreseeable future infantry will be needed to hold ground. Everything else is there to support or remove said infantry.

And again many have tried to ring the death knell for the MBT before. But as we see … it has proved to be very much premature.

Also as we have seen before the Russians may be talking "Smack" and are no where near to producing somethings they "talk" about anytime soon. Or in numbers to be useful or effective.

Yep tanks were never meant to be invulnerable, just difficult to destroy. I think in WW2 German tanks were expected to last about 3 months.

"Even if you have perfect armor—active, passive. In one case it will save you from one hit, in another case from two hits, but you'll still get five hits and you're done

You're in big trouble regardless of your armor if you're taking multiple hits from enemy fire! Armor is good for shrugging off a couple of hits giving you time to get out of dodge and out of the enemy's line of fire. Sticking around for more than seconds is just dumb, dumb, dumb.

Also, just how many hits can a grunt in armor take? An air force jet? How about a warship? Are they obsolete too then???

As my Stryker-officer friend put it when I asked him about the ideal IFV/APC: If you're taking fire, you need to leave that position before someone hits you with something big enough to take you out.

I am more a fan of the BOLO series AI tanks as opposed to the OGRE.

Tanks aren't really meant to be invulnerable. Modern tank design has gone more in the direction of crew survivability rather than MBT survivability.

Having healthy crews able to fight again in a replacement (or recovered) tank is more important than saving the tank itself from destruction.

IIRC, in WWII, ace tank crews usually fought through the war in multiple tanks since they were often destroyed or immobilized in combat. The important thing was that the tanks protected the crews long enough for them to bail out and escape to safety.

Take your pick:

Mounted combat arm of decision or…..

Mobile gun platform.

As my Stryker-officer friend put it when I asked him about the ideal IFV/APC: If you're taking fire, you need to leave that position before someone hits you with something big enough to take you out.

Glad to see even after 30 + years after I was on active duty. They basically instruct and train the same in some respects. I posted this on another tread and said similar …

The ITOW is a real killer, I don't know how someone is going to beat that. Beside hiding behind very solid cover. And even that is not 100%. Few things are on the deadly modern battlefield.

Also as I noted on another threat. Like the M2 IFV's 25mm cannon. That should not be used to go after heavier AFVs. But does fine against lighter armor. It may make the heavier armor button up. Knock out some exposed systems, etc., … IFVs with cannons and AT missiles should not be used as an MBT. They just don't have the survivability, etc.,…

The AT missiles are there to get the IFV out of trouble with MBTs. Or maybe an AT Ambush. If there is no other choice. But in many cases it has to be a "Shoot & Scoot !". And use terrain to mask your egress. Don't think because you have all that firepower your going to go toe-to-toe with an MBT.

Back in the 101, '80-'83. We had an entire AT Company. With a TOW mounted on the old M151 Jeep. And there is a version of the HMMWV that mounts the TOW now. But an improved version of TOW/ITOW. Those Jeeps were good for an AT Ambush to Shoot & Scoot. Or to be well dug in for the defense. And the TOW could be dismounted if need be.

However, we fight by using the combined arms concept. Gunships, CAS, FA, etc. can take on AFVs too. So that can be used to add to you AT killing ability. One of the most powerful "asset" the combat leader has is a radio that can call-in all kinds of nasty firepower if need be. Gunships packing TOWs or Hellfires were designed to take on the massive WP armor formations flooding across the [inter]German border.

Also the light 25-35mm cannon and TOWs can do a lot of damage to most structures as well. Especially the mud brick structures we find in some locations in the current conflict areas. Also note an M2 .50cal will chew up most bricks like hard candy. And can take on most light armor, like a BMP/BMD. We'd practice with the .50 on plywood BMP flank aspects. Not to mention what is would do to a BMP/BMD with a rear shot.

Just to add more content to the discussion …