Canada's tanks

[KevinB]

As I asked elsewhere, given the number of actual tank vs tank engagements in the latest peer-peer conflict, is there any driving need for this upgrade? I think the weight involved could be better used to protect tanks from other threats.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine isn't necessarily a good example to follow.

Lack of AirPower, lack of Bde+ co-ordination and logistics issues in that theatre aren't necessarily a good example of what the needs of a Western tank are.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Where else are you going to get a major tank vs tank engagement? Fighting the Chinese is also going to result in very low numbers of tank vs tank engagements, as likley the conflict points will be on islands.

 

[KevinB]

Where else are you going to get a major tank vs tank engagement? Fighting the Chinese is also going to result in very low numbers of tank vs tank engagements, as likley the conflict points will be on islands.

The Chinese have 4,700 MBT's, and another ~1,300 Light tanks.
They are also actively modernizing their armor fleets.

China's easiest areas of expansion are into Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Bhutan, Nepal, and Bangladesh - all on the Asians mainland.

 

[suffolkowner]

The Chinese have 4,700 MBT's, and another ~1,300 Light tanks.
They are also actively modernizing their armor fleets.

China's easiest areas of expansion are into Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Bhutan, Nepal, and Bangladesh - all on the Asians mainland.

Mongolia?

 

[Kirkhill]

The Russian invasion of Ukraine isn't necessarily a good example to follow.

Lack of AirPower, lack of Bde+ co-ordination and logistics issues in that theatre aren't necessarily a good example of what the needs of a Western tank are.

Previous generations of armour were not defeated by meeting them force-on-force but assymetrically. They were defeated by arrows, balls and bullets deivered by bows, muskets, cannons, rifles and machine guns.

Force-on-force engagements were arranged for the viewing and betting pleasure of the aristocracy in the lists.

Those that argue that the Ukrainians are only using UAVs because they can afford no other are only partially right. The Ukrainians need more UAVs that are faster, more effective and more autonomous.

In short they need more Javelins, more Strixs, more Brimstones, more ISR UAVs and more LAMs ... and more APKWS missiles. UAVs by any other name.

Those are the Assault Breakers that will defeat China's tanks. We want to protect our tank force so that they are the last tanks standing and available to do their primary job, support the assault.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Chinese have 4,700 MBT's, and another ~1,300 Light tanks.
They are also actively modernizing their armor fleets.

China's easiest areas of expansion are into Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Bhutan, Nepal, and Bangladesh - all on the Asians mainland.

Yet how much of that is tank country and is going to have long range engagements? My guess is that the majority of moves by China for territory, is either high Alpine or grabbing island chains, which will involve their light amphibious tanks for the islands and regular light tanks for the mountains.
I see their MBT's more for the defense of the Chinese mainland, which no one has much interest in.

 

[markppcli]

Where else are you going to get a major tank vs tank engagement? Fighting the Chinese is also going to result in very low numbers of tank vs tank engagements, as likley the conflict points will be on islands.

It’s less a factor of the terrain. It’s more a factor of how that war has been fought resulting in highly positional warfare promoting an abundance of long range precision fires isn’t necessarily going to be universal.


The Chinese marines and army amphibious Bdes are heavily armoured for the record. There’s a reason Taiwan has a a little over 700 tanks.

 

[KevinB]

Previous generations of armour were not defeated by meeting them force-on-force but assymetrically. They were defeated by arrows, balls and bullets deivered by bows, muskets, cannons, rifles and machine guns.

Force-on-force engagements were arranged for the viewing and betting pleasure of the aristocracy in the lists.

I think your missing the last century of warfare.

Those that argue that the Ukrainians are only using UAVs because they can afford no other are only partially right. The Ukrainians need more UAVs that are faster, more effective and more autonomous.

Their Military, Intelligence and Government have all said they are using what they can, because they dont have what they want or need.

In short they need more Javelins, more Strixs, more Brimstones, more ISR UAVs and more LAMs ... and more APKWS missiles. UAVs by any other name.

You are grossly misinterpreting what a UAS is in that statement.

Those are the Assault Breakers that will defeat China's tanks. We want to protect our tank force so that they are the last tanks standing and available to do their primary job, support the assault.

Not discounting what Missiles and Artillery will do, but Tanks are an important part of both the defense, and the armored first of the attack. Realistically Infantry support the tanks on the assault, not the other way around.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think your missing the last century of warfare.

You are right. I forgot HESH and HEAT.

Their Military, Intelligence and Government have all said they are using what they can, because they dont have what they want or need.

Agreed. No argument. In fact that is what I said.

You are grossly misinterpreting what a UAS is in that statement.

They fly. They are powered. They are under control. There is no crew on board. They are of indeterminate weight and indeterminate range. Some of them have two-way comms.

t discounting what Missiles and Artillery will do, but Tanks are an important part of both the defense, and the armored first of the attack. Realistically Infantry support the tanks on the assault, not the other way around.

But there are other means of defending. Why wear them down in the defense when you will need them all in the assault when there are fewer good options available?

 

[GR66]

The Chinese have 4,700 MBT's, and another ~1,300 Light tanks.
They are also actively modernizing their armor fleets.

China's easiest areas of expansion are into Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Bhutan, Nepal, and Bangladesh - all on the Asians mainland.

Siberia?

 

[KevinB]

Siberia?

You said the quiet part outlaid

I used to think that was a viable option, but now China seems to have doubled down on helping Russia wrt Ukraine, from shipping drone parts and other military good in packages marked refrigerators. So I doubt they will do much to Russia unless something changes drastically.

 

[Kirkhill]

You said the quiet part outlaid

I used to think that was a viable option, but now China seems to have doubled down on helping Russia wrt Ukraine, from shipping drone parts and other military good in packages marked refrigerators. So I doubt they will do much to Russia unless something changes drastically.

Why fight them when you can buy them? It is cheaper.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It’s less a factor of the terrain. It’s more a factor of how that war has been fought resulting in highly positional warfare promoting an abundance of long range precision fires isn’t necessarily going to be universal.


The Chinese marines and army amphibious Bdes are heavily armoured for the record. There’s a reason Taiwan has a a little over 700 tanks.

But with western tanks pretty much at the weight limit, is the move to 130mm a good use of the very tight margin? Particularly as the threat to AFV's is changing to a more all round one.

 

[markppcli]

But with western tanks pretty much at the weight limit, is the move to 130mm a good use of the very tight margin? Particularly as the threat to AFV's is changing to a more all round one.

AFVs have been under threat from the air since the invention of air craft. FPV destruction of armoured vehicles is something we see images of a lot, but the facts paint a different picture in terms of how effective they really are.

Is 130mm really happening ? I can’t find details on Italy’s procurement but even the Hungarian KF51s will be 120mm.

 

[KevinB]

AFVs have been under threat from the air since the invention of air craft. FPV destruction of armoured vehicles is something we see images of a lot, but the facts paint a different picture in terms of how effective they really are.

Is 130mm really happening ? I can’t find details on Italy’s procurement but even the Hungarian KF51s will be 120mm.

130 and 140mm have been test bed concepts for decades.

Without a wholesale NATO switch, I don’t think anyone is going to do it.

 

[GR66]

130 and 140mm have been test bed concepts for decades.

Without a wholesale NATO US Military switch, I don’t think anyone is going to do it.

FTFY

Only the US has the volume to initiate a switch in basic weapon specs from existing NATO standards (e.g. 6.8mm rifle rounds).

Abrams X is still proposing a 120mm main gun and unless that changes I seriously doubt that any other nation will adopt a 130mm or 140mm gun on their tanks.

As far as the manual vs auto-loader question goes I think there are enough advantages with the auto-loader (unmanned turret, rate of fire, etc.) that they make sense. A penetrating turret hit that disables the auto loader would likely take out a live loader as well. There could be a mechanical failure of the auto-loader that takes the tank out of action but there are many other types of mechanical failures on a complex vehicle like a MBT that could equally take it out of action...that's why we need spares and robust support capabilities. As far as the crew strain/maintenance issues go those can be handled by changing TTP's and unit organization. Going to 3 crew per tank from 4 doesn't mean that the overall staffing of a tank Troop/Squadron/Regiment has to be reduced, the PY's just might be organized differently within the unit.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

AFVs have been under threat from the air since the invention of air craft. FPV destruction of armoured vehicles is something we see images of a lot, but the facts paint a different picture in terms of how effective they really are.

Is 130mm really happening ? I can’t find details on Italy’s procurement but even the Hungarian KF51s will be 120mm.

Earlier in the conflict, they were succeeding with FPV in mobility kills and in the case of the M1, the blow off panels on turret bustles. Physical counter measures, seemed to have reduced the latter and mainly in appears to be either mobility kills, or the destruction of AFV that have been abandoned. Fiberoptic FPV, seemed to have created an uptick in kills as final targeting is improved.

 

[KevinB]

Earlier in the conflict, they were succeeding with FPV in mobility kills and in the case of the M1, the blow off panels on turret bustles. Physical counter measures, seemed to have reduced the latter and mainly in appears to be either mobility kills, or the destruction of AFV that have been abandoned. Fiberoptic FPV, seemed to have created an uptick in kills as final targeting is improved.

Almost all the click bait videos released are FPV videos "killing" abandoned vehicles.
Keep in mind the size of the UAS that where being used on the M1A1's where not ones typical FPV, as the 120mm is relatively insensitive to sympathetic detonation - so they needed a large warhead to blow the bustles.

FTFY

Only the US has the stupidity to initiate a switch in basic weapon specs from existing NATO standards (e.g. 6.8mm rifle rounds).

FIFY

Abrams X is still proposing a 120mm main gun and unless that changes I seriously doubt that any other nation will adopt a 130mm or 140mm gun on their tanks.

The original M1A3 concept was a 130mm, Abrams X was demonstrated with the 120mm at AUSA simply to get it there in time.
As I understand the M1A3 concept has taken a lot of Abrams X, and is still finalizing some details (the cannon being one).

As far as the manual vs auto-loader question goes I think there are enough advantages with the auto-loader (unmanned turret, rate of fire, etc.) that they make sense. A penetrating turret hit that disables the auto loader would likely take out a live loader as well. There could be a mechanical failure of the auto-loader that takes the tank out of action but there are many other types of mechanical failures on a complex vehicle like a MBT that could equally take it out of action...that's why we need spares and robust support capabilities. As far as the crew strain/maintenance issues go those can be handled by changing TTP's and unit organization. Going to 3 crew per tank from 4 doesn't mean that the overall staffing of a tank Troop/Squadron/Regiment has to be reduced, the PY's just might be organized differently within the unit.

The main issue with autoloaders has been the stigma from the USSR tanks (being crap and trying to load the gunners arm not really endearing folks to them). The 130mm and 140mm cannons where purpose built with the autoloader - with some varying methods to both offer improved loading speed, mechanical reliability, and a few of the concepts had the ability to change ammunition natures without having to fire the chambered round.
Some of the autoloader concepts don't reduce the crew, but change the loader, to a comms/data management type position who is the tank 2I/C that can keep the tank Commander in the loop while they fight the tank.

 

[markppcli]

Earlier in the conflict, they were succeeding with FPV in mobility kills and in the case of the M1, the blow off panels on turret bustles. Physical counter measures, seemed to have reduced the latter and mainly in appears to be either mobility kills, or the destruction of AFV that have been abandoned. Fiberoptic FPV, seemed to have created an uptick in kills as final targeting is improved.

Earlier in the conflict you saw videos of successful strikes. Not first strikes, not the 8 failed strikes before, etc. Ukrainian drones units are actively crowd sourcing for funding and propaganda’s like those kill videos is a huge part of how they do that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Earlier in the conflict you saw videos of successful strikes. Not first strikes, not the 8 failed strikes before, etc. Ukrainian drones units are actively crowd sourcing for funding and propaganda’s like those kill videos is a huge part of how they do that.

Is an 11% probability of a hit with a $1000 munition such a bad ratio?

And if it engages the enemy, has them runninng in circles, wasting ammunition, distracting them, aborting their action - harassing, suppressing and neutralizing them isn't that still contributing a useful effect to the battlespace?

Even if all it does is help 3 Ukrainians in a hole to hold a km of line and keep the otherside from advancing - holding them to a stalemate. That would seem to me to be enhancing economy of force efforts.

...

How many SAA rounds are put down range to achieve one hit?
Mortar rounds?
Grad rounds?
Even dumb artillery rounds and bombs.

....

To be clear, I will restate that I am not in favour of replacing conventional weapons with "drones". I do believe that "drones" will follow Moore's Law and get smaller, faster, cheaper and more effective and become a greater part of everyone's arsenal.

I also think that the new divisional structure is going to look a lot like the WW2 divisional sructure, particularly the inclusion of Light Anti-Aircraft Regiments (20mm and 40mm) and Anti-Tank Regiments (17 Pdr) with the Divisional Artillery

LAA becomes C-UAS (20 to 40 mm, SAMs, DE and EW)
AT becomes LRPF (Assault Breakers - LAMs, Brimstones and MFOM)