I believe the Theatre level is where the other assets are held now for that.I also note that there are no bridging resources in the US Armored Division. These are all concentrated in the three Armored Divisions (Reinforced)
defence-blog.com
Whether you agree with that premise or not there are a couple of ideas in the article that are interesting
One commentators opinion on where tank design should be going...
Tanks at a crossroads: dead end or evolving labyrinth?
As the Russia-Ukraine war reshapes modern warfare, armored vehicle expert and lead analyst Serhiy Berezutskiy argues that the tank is not obsolete but stands at a crossroads requiring profound transformation to remain relevant in an age dominated by drones and precision weapons. “Throughout more...
His primary (and controversial) premise is:
I don't agree with his premise or the solutions he proposes.
www.the-sun.com
Layman's guess but having watched Russia's advances in Ukraine it appears that if you don't care about losses and you throw enough forward, eventually you will make land simply because those 23 million people have to reload sometime and you can't keep that volume of reloads in the immediate location of your artillery and I doubt if China worries about a few tens of thousands of casualties provided they succeed in establishing a beachhead. (just a guess)
www.theguardian.com
It's probably a good thing that aren't any major conflicts either happening or just over the horizon then. Right?
There are multitudes of small islands close to the Mainland that make up Taiwan, they will be able to attack those and although Taiwan will resist, they know that they are going to lose those islands.
I don't see tanks getting either heavier or much lighter, but the distribution and type of armour is definitely going to change.I don't agree with his premise or the solutions he proposes.
Many of the solutions are both possible and desirable, but as additional capabilities and not as the next generation of armour. His basic premise starts with the concept that UAVs make massing armour and massive breakthroughs impossible. That ignores the possibility for the development of new systems for defeating surveillance (including satellite surveillance) and swarming UAV attacks. It also ignores the fact that if you are wrong about that premise, then you have nothing to fall back on.
The type of roles that he proposes - dispersed, multiple run ups etc - were part of our NATO strategy in the 1970s with Active Defence. It was done by full-fledged tanks, in conjunction with the fledgeling anti-armour missiles systems of the day. All of those are better, but so is everything else and there always needs to be a capability for exploitation through rapid, violent counter-attack or else you relegate yourself to the meat grinder war going on now in Ukraine. Developing the technology to enable tanks to keep doing just that is paramount.
Many of his suggested future uses for tanks in their infantry support role, are better done by cheaper specialized vehicles in the field of anti-tank, air defence or engineering. Some may be on tank chassis, others on lighter vehicles. A lot of the ideas should be, and are being incorporated, into new models. There's no question that we need cheaper, lighter tanks but the core concept for armour is still required.
In true Chinese fashion, a very innovative and ambitious idea I have no doubt they'll successfully pull off...Plan B? Or Z? Ships on stilts to make a bridge over troubled waters? More useful targets.
View attachment 94605
China has debuted its new landing barges – what does this mean for Taiwan?
Sighting of Shuiqiao ships provides insight into China’s integration of its military, paramilitary and civilian operations – and its plans for a potential invasion
PGMs could deal with those I am thinking.
$3 per tank to unscrew the builder's plate, or whatever tanks have, remaining funds to replace tertiary, minor items like armour, power pack and drive train, tracks, electronics, and armament.
Basically how the US Navy survived from the end of the US civil war until end of the Spanish American war.
It sounds like a cost reflective of what the US does with their M1 referbs. Pull everything off the frame, clean everything, repaint everything, replace everything broken, add on new things that make sense including engines etc...
Reading between the lines on Noah's report- what is old is new again, and the continental RegF RCAC Regiments will be a homogenous fleet of Medium Calvary vehicles, with a training/European deployed stock of 74 completely refurbished tanks.
Absolutely brutal. Let's hope that is incorrect or at least the Canadian fleet is tracked too. It is completely different going from wheeled to tracked armoured warfare. The use of terrain and therefore positions of fire and observation are completely different.
