As was mentioned up thread, this line of thinking makes me think of ratios- specifically that of "Cavalry" + CS (as they become understood in the UAx era) vice traditional combined arms maneuver units. At what point does the stacking of the fires + sensors + C-UAS/C-RAM/SHORAD + Cavalry/dispersed force assets necessary to screen/guard the bubble and win the sensors + fires war become the formation, and the heavy combined arms unit(s) the the supporting attachment?
It is an interesting conundrum.
I've been doodling repeatedly in the past few months with various Divisional setups for 1) Europe 2) Pacific/SWA.
Why the Division? Well it is a maneuver unit, the largest tactical formation, as Corps, Army, and Theatre commands are no considered mobile.
It is also the smallest reasonable formation to have enablers that do not overly encumber the staff and commands.
I've totally given up on the Pacific/SWA theatre as I think realistically that is a Naval and Air issue primarily, and SOF. The USMC is doing what it can to be relevant, Canada doesn't have any sort of equivalent, but frankly any land war in Asia will primarily be an Army fight once a beachhead is made - or a breakout from SK.
So the European theater is my primary focus.
Various High Side Wargames have been fought out over and over again.
The key issue is what does competition and conflict look like?
Right now there is no denying that Russia and the supporting cast (I'll call it Russia Inc rather than list everyone repeatedly) are in a Hybrid war against the West.
From Cyber Attacks to Sabotage, Assassinations are more are conducted by Russian Inc in Western countries (and others as well who stray or attempting to stray from the Russian orbit). These attacks are far greater with less grey area than during the Cold War -- sure back then the USSR supported (weapons, ammo and training) Leftist Terrorist groups and Anarchists against the West - but the attacks where generally limited to Political or Military targets -- now commercial activities and civilians have been targeted, and with direct links to Russia.
SOF and the Intelligence Community are the best tools to conduct our own hybrid war against Russia, destabilizing Putin's allies, and eliminating key areas of support. SOF, the IC and LE are also the best tools for combating hybrid war against us -- conventional forces are not well suited for that purpose.
As NATO re-orients from years of neglect back to LSCO's the trades that got ignored during the GWOT years are being noticed again.
Air Defense: Zero air threat. 110% Air Supremacy for friendly forces
Artillery (and yes Artillery was used in Iraq and Afghanistan, but on a very limited basis compared to deployed Armor and Infantry forces, heck in Iraq there where several Artillery Brigades that had been temporarily "re-roled" to Infantry for the purposes of their deployment). While CB/CM Radar where used for C-RAM there wasn't a huge need and most fixed sites had remote systems linked not to Counter fire - but to warning sirens and CONEX Box CiWS systems used for C-RAM given the limited incoming (limited being relative - but 80-120 rounds per day on a bad day isn't nearly what LSCO would see)
Also NATO has been an airpower focused force for decades - with no enemy air, the Air Forces turned to ground pounding and trying to ensure Artillery didn't displace them for funding etc.
Engineers: While IED's were prevalent, and C-RCIED Teams popped up, there wasn't a massive requirement for Combat Engineers compared to Defensive and Offensive Operations in a LSCO. Bridging was not required (*okay a few bridges in Iraq got rebuilt - but not like a assault crossing) similarly pre-fab concrete T Walls, inverted U's and Hesco bastion where plentiful - but formation defense works relatively non existent.
Armor: Shy of the invasion of Iraq, and then retaking Fallujah most tanks sat as static pillboxes to entrances to secure zones. The TUSK was fitted to Abrams (Tank - Urban Survival Kit) and weights went up and up as mobility wasn't a challenge in either the urban or desert environments.
While everyone is probably tired of me blathering - I wanted to give some context for the next segment.
In other threads I gave some fairly detailed comments about my belief on what is needs for the Sensor War, and the various bands I see are.
I feel that every Division should have a Reconnaissance formation (previously I had called it a Brigade - but I'm unsure if that is too grandiose) - I do not want to call it Cav, as mainly the CAV Scout is a MOS down here from the Armor trade - not a crewman - but a separate field -- I honestly don't like the set-up as 19D's run M3 Bradley CFV's to Strykers, to Up-Armor Hummers and JLTV's depending on the Division they are in.
I got back and forth on the "optimal" formation - I started out with something like Dr Watling's concept - but quickly dropped the Mortar vehicles (he proposes something like the M1287 AMPV with NEMO turret, and while I like that vehicle - I don't like it in the Recce Formation).
The formation isn't really germane to the conversation at this point however, as up to armed conflict it really isn't being used* (more on that later).
Who does get used - Tanks, IFV's, and dismounted Dug in Infantry, Engineers (defensive positions, minefields, obstacles etc). The very visible deterrent of a combat force ready to repel any attackers, or go on the attack if the need arises.
Divisional Enablers are also working - but not at the forefront.
EW units passively collecting information
Artillery with pre-registered targets
Recce soft probing up to the LOE
AD Networks being interlaced from VSHORAD through THAAD.
As well as National Force assets gathering intel and perhaps more on the opposition.
All in all I do not see any lacking for Tanks.
