"The end of tanks" has been a common thing for somewhat informed military guys to say for almost a century now. They haven't been right yet. If anything this most recent conflict has shown that the Soviet tank concept was probably the right way to go.
The Soviets put the tanks in the center of their advancing force, with combined arms supporting them from all sides. More medium tanks that can be repaired quickly are better than a few heavy tanks that need specialized service facilities. Bypass towns that don't need to be taken instead of stopping to fight the enemy and giving the rest of their force time to regroup. Assume that the enemy has longer range and better guns than you do, but that that advantage will disappear if you get close enough (that doesn't mean run straight at them completely exposed, but it also means don't stop advancing if you can help it). Soviet doctrine gave junior officers a list of hard and fast rules of thumb and discouraged being too creative, based on the assumption that people aren't at their best mentally when under fire.
This was all based on their experiences fighting the Germans in WW2, and while details were updated over time as technology advanced and data came in from places like Korea and Vietnam about what did and didn't work, the general character never changed.
Smaller and cheaper is better. Your armor being enough to force the enemy to use heavy equipment to deal with it is about the right amount, being immune to heavy stuff doesn't matter if the heavy stuff isn't immune to you.
Western tanks focus on crew survivability to the point its like tankers are supposed to impossible to kill and combat isn't supposed to be at all dangerous to them. Even when that is to the detriment of the rest of the army.
I'm over-simplying and mostly talking about context for people unfamiliar with the topic. If you want the details look at the list of requirements the Soviets have their design bureaus vs the requirements Western countries gave to their contractors. And look at how they have been modernized.
Autonomous vehicles still require a bunch of nearby logistical support. Establishing a mobile base of operations means building a defensive perimeter and mobile artillery is critical in forming that perimeter. Enter the most effective form of mobile artillery in existence to date.
"The end of tanks" has been a common thing for somewhat informed military guys to say for almost a century now. They haven't been right yet. If anything this most recent conflict has shown that the Soviet tank concept was probably the right way to go.
I love the idea that, the day tanks were invented, some armchair general was like "is this the end of tanks?"
I mean Budyonny in 1939 when told to transition to tanks said
One day he will be vindicated
wow
deleted by creator
The Soviets put the tanks in the center of their advancing force, with combined arms supporting them from all sides. More medium tanks that can be repaired quickly are better than a few heavy tanks that need specialized service facilities. Bypass towns that don't need to be taken instead of stopping to fight the enemy and giving the rest of their force time to regroup. Assume that the enemy has longer range and better guns than you do, but that that advantage will disappear if you get close enough (that doesn't mean run straight at them completely exposed, but it also means don't stop advancing if you can help it). Soviet doctrine gave junior officers a list of hard and fast rules of thumb and discouraged being too creative, based on the assumption that people aren't at their best mentally when under fire.
This was all based on their experiences fighting the Germans in WW2, and while details were updated over time as technology advanced and data came in from places like Korea and Vietnam about what did and didn't work, the general character never changed.
Removed by mod
They weren't fighting against tanks, only apcs. The few times they did fight tanks they got completely fucked.
This. I don't think there were a lot of well equipped tank battalions fighting against ISIS for most of the war.
Smaller and cheaper is better. Your armor being enough to force the enemy to use heavy equipment to deal with it is about the right amount, being immune to heavy stuff doesn't matter if the heavy stuff isn't immune to you.
Western tanks focus on crew survivability to the point its like tankers are supposed to impossible to kill and combat isn't supposed to be at all dangerous to them. Even when that is to the detriment of the rest of the army.
I'm over-simplying and mostly talking about context for people unfamiliar with the topic. If you want the details look at the list of requirements the Soviets have their design bureaus vs the requirements Western countries gave to their contractors. And look at how they have been modernized.
semi-disposable/replaceable mass produced tanks? idk
Autonomous vehicles still require a bunch of nearby logistical support. Establishing a mobile base of operations means building a defensive perimeter and mobile artillery is critical in forming that perimeter. Enter the most effective form of mobile artillery in existence to date.