NATO return to Cold War force structure

[urbanoid]

15 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Which does nothing for the low altitude battlespace, as both the Russian nor Ukrainian forces have been able to impose control of drones in 3 years of war. Even the much bigger shaheeds can still get through by force of numbers. And does it really commend expending an expensive amraam on a cheap drone anyway? Even a lost drone is a win, with the small weapons stockpiles across the west.

And if you are Russia, doesn't that commend moving away from a historical type mechanised force which it was developed to beat, towards a more decentralised, cheap, highly dispersed drone force? Not least because they burned through most of those legacy forces, and their ability to replace it is severely limited.

Yes, break the drone stalemate you can use mechanised forces, at the end of a long and protracted drone campaign. But that historical model is eerily similar to WW1 cavalry horses. History doesn't repeat itself, but it does give strong indications. 

I dont like thinking this, anymore than I like Darwinism. But it has its own internal logic, and its foolhardy to ignore it.

No, the air force has its own tasks and enemy drones are not one of the primary ones, that would be drilling the enemy a new asshole in the rear, crippling logistics, HVTs etc. I thought you'd get what I meant based on the example I used. 

And no, you don't need AMRAAMS against drones, you need cheap means of destroying them, both land and air-based in sufficient (i.e. massive) quantities. On land that would be going back to mass deployment of AA guns, think Gepards but more modern, also the systems we mentioned for AFVs, on top of the APS. In the air it could be cheapo missiles like APKWS, on either manned or unmanned aircraft. 

The goal of defeating said drone waves would have been way easier when having a proper airforce doing what I mentioned. 

[Josh]

It is important to note that munitions that are completely unjammable - be that fiber optic control or full automated target recognition - will almost certainly be the norm long before the west introduces a new ground up MBT. So that is the environment to prepare for, not the current one.

[seahawk]

9 hours ago, urbanoid said:

NATO has something that neither Russia nor Ukraine has - actually capable air force. 

 

Against the Russian S400 - no. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, urbanoid said:

No, the air force has its own tasks and enemy drones are not one of the primary ones, that would be drilling the enemy a new asshole in the rear, crippling logistics, HVTs etc. I thought you'd get what I meant based on the example I used. 

And no, you don't need AMRAAMS against drones, you need cheap means of destroying them, both land and air-based in sufficient (i.e. massive) quantities. On land that would be going back to mass deployment of AA guns, think Gepards but more modern, also the systems we mentioned for AFVs, on top of the APS. In the air it could be cheapo missiles like APKWS, on either manned or unmanned aircraft. 

The goal of defeating said drone waves would have been way easier when having a proper airforce doing what I mentioned. 

The way NATO seems to be moving is towards distributed sensor platforms and long range strikes. Yes, you can use a combat aircraft to do long range logistic strike, though you are setting them up to get shot at if you do. With Britain, Germany and (though ive not recently checked) Im guessing the French, and the Americans with their long range stand off weapons, there is increasingly little reason to send a manned aircraft behind enemy lines if you can engage the target with a long range missile. Everyone is trying to max out their TLAM stockpiles, Britain has embarked on building more Stormshadow. Everyone seems to be expanding their MLRS stockpiles.  Its the old adage, why send a man when you can send a bullet?

And if those aircraft are going around plinking drones in the FEBA, they are going to get shot at by manpads. Granted the Ukrainians seem fine hunting down shaheeds in the rear areas that way, though they have not, so far as Im aware, use the 2.75 guided FFAR rockets that were being developed for the purposes. Mainly they still prefer to use sidewinders. And NATO was using AMRAAMS on the drones over your country. There are great limitations on using airpower against drones, firstly they arent doing something else (though when we get long range strikes that will be less of an issue) and secondly the great cost of the weapons expended on really cheap ones. 

The point is, nobody is using airpower to shoot down quadcopters, and right now, its the quadcopters that are reigning supreme. Even Lancet, whilst we have had one reported interception, seems to be really difficult to shoot down.

Well, lets see it. Because NATO, which I would suggest is supposed to be the world leader, only got 4 out of 19 drones that flew over Poland In fact at least one went astray and nobody knew anything about it till a month later when they found it. We have real problems in low level air defence, and swanking it wont solve the problem. 

[seahawk]

Intercepting drones in peacetime over inhabited terrain is a difficult choice. 

AIM-120 has a large warhead so the chance that the debris is smaller is positive.

Groundbased 30/35mm kinetic energy time fuzed ammunition would be best, as the debris is light. 

Edited October 15, 2025 by seahawk

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, Josh said:

It is important to note that munitions that are completely unjammable - be that fiber optic control or full automated target recognition - will almost certainly be the norm long before the west introduces a new ground up MBT. So that is the environment to prepare for, not the current one.

Sure, and the battlefield seems increasingly moving towards fibre optic drones, if photos of the fire strands across Ukrainian battlefields are any guide.

As one British Army general defined it, the purpose of the tank is to go foward  in the face of the enemy. The question everyone should ask themselves is, if a drone can do precisely that job, cheaper, with far less risk to its operators than a tank (which has a significant logistical burden of fuel, logistics, bridging), then the tank probably sooner or later will go away. Far more radical and less logical transitions have already happened in military affairs, and in the end, it comes down to how much firepower you can buy for your buck and nothing else.

It doesnt mean the tank is going to immediately disappear. They have been bought and paid for after all. But you ask yourself, if you can take infantry forward in an APC or IFV to hold a position, then isnt that enough? The offensive doesnt have to be a force physically on the ground, so long as its strong enough to dominate any force present, so your own force (whether its guys on motorbikes or in a Stryker APC) are able to take it and hold it.  Id like to think there is some vestigial role here, defence perhaps, where tanks can still prove useful. Increasingly Im thinking its not really going to offer so much an APC or IFV cant do with an infantry platoon with a couple of Javelins or spike launchers, and maybe drones. And of course those are a lot more flexible, cheaper, and logistically easier to support.

 id really like to be convinced im utterly wrong here. I frankly hate this form of combat, its more like a game of chess or draughts than combat. But then Cavalrymen hated tanks, and I daresay longbowmen hated crossbowmen and musketeers. Perhaps the Principe hated the post Marian reforms. It hardly matters, the world changed, and no matter how much we hate it, if its has an internal logic and you can get fires quicker and cheaper on target than what we have, the battlefield will change. Arguably it already has.

 

 

 

[seahawk]

Well, a APC with a 30mm and ATGMs seems to be better suited for operation in a drone environment than a tank, especially if the 30mm is equipped to do AA work. 

 

[urbanoid]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The way NATO seems to be moving is towards distributed sensor platforms and long range strikes. Yes, you can use a combat aircraft to do long range logistic strike, though you are setting them up to get shot at if you do. With Britain, Germany and (though ive not recently checked) Im guessing the French, and the Americans with their long range stand off weapons, there is increasingly little reason to send a manned aircraft behind enemy lines if you can engage the target with a long range missile. Everyone is trying to max out their TLAM stockpiles, Britain has embarked on building more Stormshadow. Everyone seems to be expanding their MLRS stockpiles.  Its the old adage, why send a man when you can send a bullet?

And if those aircraft are going around plinking drones in the FEBA, they are going to get shot at by manpads. Granted the Ukrainians seem fine hunting down shaheeds in the rear areas that way, though they have not, so far as Im aware, use the 2.75 guided FFAR rockets that were being developed for the purposes. Mainly they still prefer to use sidewinders. And NATO was using AMRAAMS on the drones over your country. There are great limitations on using airpower against drones, firstly they arent doing something else (though when we get long range strikes that will be less of an issue) and secondly the great cost of the weapons expended on really cheap ones. 

The point is, nobody is using airpower to shoot down quadcopters, and right now, its the quadcopters that are reigning supreme. Even Lancet, whilst we have had one reported interception, seems to be really difficult to shoot down.

Well, lets see it. Because NATO, which I would suggest is supposed to be the world leader, only got 4 out of 19 drones that flew over Poland In fact at least one went astray and nobody knew anything about it till a month later when they found it. We have real problems in low level air defence, and swanking it wont solve the problem. 

Yes, you should use stand-off weapons from your aircraft if possible, I thought that's obvious. Still, the Ukrainians aren't able to do all that much about Russian AD, while NATO would be able to degrade it, which in turn would further bolster the effectiveness of the air force, which would have a significant impact on enemy's land forces, including the drone threat they present.

Good luck with stocking up on TLAM, with the annual production of 60 to 90 units. 

The '2.75 guided FFAR rockets' are the APKWS that I mentioned.

Using an AMRAAM or two in a limited engagement like the recent one is fine, using it in a proper war isn't - there aren't enough AMRAAMs and there won't be. 

NATO got 4 out of 19 drones because those four were actual drones and not decoys that were ignored - the systems weer able to differentiate between those. And then again we're hardly in 'combat mode', because we're not in a war. And yes, even this limited engagement sparked the discussion about the low level anti-drone defense and possible solutions - and those already exist, plenty of countries have developed or are in process of developing new C-UAS systems, some are even being deployed already - e.g Sweden sent some of theirs to Poland. It's relatively simple stuff really, we have all the elements in place, many countries have already integrated them to create viable systems, now we need the numbers.

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Intercepting drones in peacetime over inhabited terrain is a difficult choice. 

AIM-120 has a large warhead so the change that the debris is smaller is positive.

Groundbased 30/35mm kinetic energy time fuzed ammunition would be best, as the debris is light. 

So then you have the choice 'Do I have my aircraft loaded for bear, so I can kill enemy bombers' or 'Do I hang multiple 2.75 rocket pods on my aircraft to plink drones?' And the answer is 'yes.'

To me, the best choice is to get a nations jet trainer force fitted out for the anti drone mission in the rear areas. Although, as in the UK, many of those are in as much of a mess as the figher force, and there just isnt enough (particularly post privatizations) to fulfill the role. You certainly arent going to be using them on the FEBA, because they have zero defence suites on them. I struggle to believe a mach 2 fighter is going to have the sensor suite or the weapons to make any kind of worthwhile contribution to the drone battle on the frontline. I think like most weapons, the best anti drone weapon is likely to be a drone.

Well, guns for long range kamikaze drones are right now the best solution, though you will need a hell of a lot of them. Reservists with Guntrucks might be a wise investment. Though I notice the LMM as the British supplied to the Ukrainians seems to have had some success, im not quite clear how much. It seems unlikely to me you can build a  manpad cheaper than the drone you are killing.

There was a recent report of a newly developed drone interceptor that reportedly killed a lancet. That might be promising, if you can build it cheap enough.

https://defence-blog.com/ukrainian-troops-shoot-down-lancet-suicide-drone/

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Well, a APC with a 30mm and ATGMs seems to be better suited for operation in a drone environment than a tank, especially if the 30mm is equipped to do AA work. 

 

Well BTR4 was ridiculed prewar, yet, from footage we have seen, seems to have been strangely successful in many of its engagements. Bradley I think has proven yet again it was a solid design.

Maybe we will just content ourselves to put more armour on IFV's and call them 'tanks' to keep the name alive. Id be perfectly ok with that. But I think the main battle tanks days are done, simply because it was specialised to kill other tanks, and we can see from this war, tank on tank combat is remarkably rare.

The British are talking about developing Ajax into an IFV, though whether the funds exist to procure it in numbers is another matter. The airburst mode on the 40mm does not seem to have been developed with the anti drone mission in mind. But I dont really see why a round just for that kind of operation couldnt be made to happen. Once again though, you have a 2 man turret, and a crew watching horizon to horizon isnt doing basic stuff like fire support. Which Is why I still think a front line anti drone vehicle is going to be required, just so everyone has a basic mission and can concentrate on it. No reason of course you couldnt have significant commonality with other vehicles.

Edited October 15, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

16 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Yes, you should use stand-off weapons from your aircraft if possible, I thought that's obvious. Still, the Ukrainians aren't able to do all that much about Russian AD, while NATO would be able to degrade it, which in turn would further bolster the effectiveness of the air force, which would have a significant impact on enemy's land forces, including the drone threat they present.

Good luck with stocking up on TLAM, with the annual production of 60 to 90 units. 

The '2.75 guided FFAR rockets' are the APKWS that I mentioned.

Using an AMRAAM or two in a limited engagement like the recent one is fine, using it in a proper war isn't - there aren't enough AMRAAMs and there won't be. 

NATO got 4 out of 19 drones because those four were actual drones and not decoys that were ignored - the systems weer able to differentiate between those. And then again we're hardly in 'combat mode', because we're not in a war. And yes, even this limited engagement sparked the discussion about the low level anti-drone defense and possible solutions - and those already exist, plenty of countries have developed or are in process of developing new C-UAS systems, some are even being deployed already - e.g Sweden sent some of theirs to Poland. It's relatively simple stuff really, we have all the elements in place, many countries have already integrated them to create viable systems, now we need the numbers.

Considering the remarkable lack of investment in ARM's across NATO, im really not sure thats the case. The British once had a superb loiter weapon called ALARM that we developed, largely expended in the Gulf War, and allowed to go out the inventory without any kind of replacement.  SPEAR3 will be able to undertake that mission, but its not really an Anti Radiation Missile, and ive my doubts how useful it will be in that mission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARM

The Germans are better off with Tornado ECR. Everyone else? Not so much.

I think all NATO needs to develop the capablity to build TLAM, or certainly a TLAM equivalent which should be entirely within our technical abilities rather than relying on slow American procurement. Frankly I think we are long past the time when we should be dependent upon Americans to give us long range fires, particularly after the debacle of Stormshadow when they were calling the shots just because of a few American components.

Sure, and in theory its a good weapon. is it really going to make sense flying up and down the FEBA looking for drones to expend with it? Against Shaheeds in the rear area, sure, I can see the logic.

Quite agree with you. One more problem we need to address, the lack of production capacity. At the risk of swanking, I was arguing with Chris Werb about this nearly 10 years ago now.

The narrative is 'they shot down the drones that threatened urban areas.' Except, and I have to ask the honest question, how sure that is the truth, when at least one drone went missing till a month later? At least some of them then they didnt have the remotest handle upon. There has been no NATO exercises on this kind of threat, we have absolutely no idea how well we will do. In light of whats been happening over Denmark and Norway, I think the lesson so far is 'pretty fucking badly.'

 

Edited October 15, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith

[Martineleca]

22 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Except it wasn't very automated - a hand-operated autocannon, and no airburst option. In conclusion, neither ahead of it's time nor particularly promising in a drone environment.

It's likely the weapon could have been improved to enhance its lethality though the introduction of Gepard to every Panzer division may have negated the need for it to some extent, still the Kampfpanzer 70 story is one of the more interesting projects to ponder. For instance from what I've read it was originally only envisioned to replace the Pattons, yet in a US Congressional budget request from early 1969 the figure of an initial 8600 MBT 70 tanks needed for the US Army and common components for a further 3400 units for the West German Bundeswehr had been mentioned, but with no stated schedule for delivery. This corresponded well with fully supplanting all the Leopard 1 and M48 tanks in German service, but was that considered a realistic goal at the time?

[Josh]

TLAM is a high end solution. The future is low end stand off - smaller warheads on light 500-1000# missiles using commercial components off the shelf and cheap manufacturing techniques at the expense of extreme volume/mass efficiency of the individual weapon. ~40kg warheads that are enough for any mobile target. Costs are generally $200,000 and production rates in the thousands. There are any number of these already on the market: Zone5 Rusty Dagger, CoAspire RAACM, AndurilBaracuda, LM CMMT, L3 Red Wolf, and just today the Kratos Ragnarok.

The US is already committed to producing those first two for Ukraine as the ERAM program. Anduril has already tested a ground launched version of theirs and are in license d local production talks with Taiwan.

[Martineleca]

On 10/14/2025 at 7:17 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Alright, well what is the purposes a tank? To close with the enemy to destroy him with fire. You could do that with a mortar if its appropriately placed, still more so with a low flying drone carrying mortar bombs

The main issue is that unlike Ukraine's situation NATO would actually be expected to at some point reclaim all the territory it has lost in a hostile invasion and potentially establish a wide buffer zone on the other side, for that you need forces that can strike the enemy and also dislodge then drive him back. No alternative to mobile forces beefed up with tanks exists for accomplishing that mission, or is on the horizon...

[Josh]

I suppose an argument could be made that direct fire is no longer super relevant, even if infantry still are. But on the other hand, you probably do not want to be the side that lacks a high velocity anti tank/anti vehicle gun if you faced an enemy with a modestly effective anti drone defense.

[Stuart Galbraith]

18 hours ago, Josh said:

TLAM is a high end solution. The future is low end stand off - smaller warheads on light 500-1000# missiles using commercial components off the shelf and cheap manufacturing techniques at the expense of extreme volume/mass efficiency of the individual weapon. ~40kg warheads that are enough for any mobile target. Costs are generally $200,000 and production rates in the thousands. There are any number of these already on the market: Zone5 Rusty Dagger, CoAspire RAACM, AndurilBaracuda, LM CMMT, L3 Red Wolf, and just today the Kratos Ragnarok.

The US is already committed to producing those first two for Ukraine as the ERAM program. Anduril has already tested a ground launched version of theirs and are in license d local production talks with Taiwan.

I think there is room for both, but as far as the balance being cheaper weapons, I think you are likely right. The war has proven there is great value in cheap as chips weapons that can soak up an enemies air defence capablity. In fact in Desert Storm Drones were also extensively used, and almost entirely forgotten about in the revlation of the success of all the smart munitions.

Now if you can make a decoy an actual weapon, you are getting more bang for the buck.

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, Martineleca said:

The main issue is that unlike Ukraine's situation NATO would actually be expected to at some point reclaim all the territory it has lost in a hostile invasion and potentially establish a wide buffer zone on the other side, for that you need forces that can strike the enemy and also dislodge then drive him back. No alternative to mobile forces beefed up with tanks exists for accomplishing that mission, or is on the horizon...

Well the British militaries doctrine seemingly is that we go all in with the drones, and a much smaller mechanised force when the enemies back is broken goes in and reclaims the territory. It may work like that, and tanks are likely still useful for that, if that eventuality occurs. But is it really viable to build a 60 ton behemoth for what you admit is something like the last 5 to 10 percent of the war? With the huge costs involved, I think it more likely people will say 'OK, so you have IFV's (or even, Lord help us, APC's) , why dont you make do with that? You only need an MG to make them surrender'

Infantry still has value, because you still need to backstop a defence, even if its against guys on motorbikes. Sure, you can use a tank for that too, if you still have them, and Ukraine successfully has. My point is, is it really worth developing a next generation of tanks, not to mention procuring them, for what may, if the pundits are right, turn out to be such a denuded role? I dont think most countries will go for that.  It doesnt mean throw away the tanks we have. But develop and build more, when we can put the money into IFV's or more artillery or sophisticated drones? Its a hard sell. 

A lot of this I admit is conjectural. But ive used a simulator of a drone, I know how quickly it can be on top of a tank and hit the soft areas. I can see how most tanks today are vulnerable to flying a drone into the engine deck. With the speed they arrive, the small size, the cheapness so there is a lot of them... Just because the threat of the ATGM didnt work out quite as the critics of the tank said, doesnt mean they arent right, that the tank, for all its extra armour and its firepower, its just as vulnerable as an IFV. So, buy the cheaper IFV I think may be the argument in future. 

In the end, why do you need tanks, if you can achieve the same firepower in support of mechanised forces with drones and artillery? As long as the 1980's there were top attack munitions you could fire out of a mortar tube. Imagine a heavy mortar vehicle 8 miles back from the line of contact with 120mm top attack mortar rounds, and with digital systems, you may be able to call for fire a hell of a lot quicker, perhaps even unrequested by the front line.

Do you really need a tank for direct fire support at that point? Not really, no. And such a weapon is likely going to be far more survivable than any tank, simply because its so far out of sight.

 

Edited October 16, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 hours ago, Josh said:

I suppose an argument could be made that direct fire is no longer super relevant, even if infantry still are. But on the other hand, you probably do not want to be the side that lacks a high velocity anti tank/anti vehicle gun if you faced an enemy with a modestly effective anti drone defense.

Absolutely. And Im fully able to concede that the boffins may indeed come up with systems that will make the present generation of drones useless, and the next gen too expensive to really threaten the place of the tank. That is of course still entirely possible.

Just a few months ago we saw this. If something like this proves viable, then yes, a lot of the present concerns about tactical immobility are going to go away, at least creating a bubble that the enemy cant see. The problem of course is, im assured that this system cannot work in the way its described it does. 

https://youtu.be/xqEhqaaUd_Q?si=RzDCdQNVeHSr6qkC

So whom to believe, the  salesmen, or the armchair experts? With so much riding on it, I think we need to be wary of the salesmans claims. Even if they do subsequently turn out to be correct, it may be so expensive to procure that we are not going to be able to do more than cover a couple of companies at a time.

[Josh]

Any effective anti UAV defense will be a mix of solutions that force them to be larger and more complex. EW to force wire communication or high automation, DEE to force higher shielding, thicker side and top armor to drive up warhead weight, time fused gun engagement to drive up speed and maneuverability, etc. there will be no single solution.

If there is an overall vulnerability, it is in the class 2-3 drones that provide ISR, not the class 1-2 that actually deliver munitions. It is the persistent, prolific ability of USVs to provide recon that forces units to disperse to prevent artillery strikes and allows FPVs, which are relatively slow compared to missiles and arty with high failure rates and  limited loiter times, to concentrate. Though keep in mind not every future opponent will rely on these for ISR: the U.S. and PRC have massive satellite constellations that the U.S., and presumably China as well, are attempting to turn into realtime tactical assets. As far back as Project Convergence 21 the Army experimented with using commercial satellite passes and target rec AI to generate fire missions in minutes to seconds. If your opponent has air superiority and extremely capable MALE/HALE UAVs or an extremely prolific satellite constellation, they may not need prolific low end UAVs to provide ISR.

Edited October 16, 2025 by Josh

[bojan]

10 hours ago, Josh said:

I suppose an argument could be made that direct fire is no longer super relevant...

Direct fire was always and still is most effective one, no doubt about that, and will hence remain something that enables advance. Issue is not if direct firepower is needed (it is), but how to ensure that direct fire platform can do their mission in current threat environment.

PS. And no, drones can not replace direct fire, thing people are constantly forgetting when talking about it is reaction times. In terms of firepower drones are slow, way slower than ATGMs which are considered "too slow" for a lot of applications.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Reaction times are a problem, sure. Is it insurmountable? Not really, not when you have the ability to engage targets even before you get to the frontline (brimstone and HIMARs are a thing) And there will still be direct fire weapons such as Javelins or RPGs, and some infantry fighting vehicles equipped with missiles. Its hardly as if without tanks there will be a big hole without any means to provide direct fire support. After all, the US Marines seem to manage ok. So for that matter does the 101st Airborne, because they have their firepower delivered via other means.

it was great to have cruisers off the coast with big 8 inch guns for marines screaming for fire support, but they went away too, because there was cheaper systems that could do the job just as well. Even if the tank survives the current threats, Im still forced to the conclusion its looking a very expensive solution to a problem that in many cases could be dealt with by a guy with a launcher on his shoulder.

Its less the threat to its existence by weapons (though currently it is at risk), its the multitude of fire support options now that didnt exist before. Look at the drone page with that tail sitting drone. If thats viable and you can keep them in cabranks within range of the frontline, then you are looking at a delay in fire support of seconds, not minutes, meaning the actual phystical presence of a system on the ground is a bit moot. The only questions left are whether its cheaper than a tank with all the now required defence aids, and how reliable it is.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Direct fire was always and still is most effective one, no doubt about that, and will hence remain something that enables advance. Issue is not if direct firepower is needed (it is), but how to ensure that direct fire platform can do their mission in current threat environment.

PS. And no, drones can not replace direct fire, thing people are constantly forgetting when talking about it is reaction times. In terms of firepower drones are slow, way slower than ATGMs which are considered "too slow" for a lot of applications.

 

Direct fire is always a thing, sure, but I can see why some people would question whether it is worth dedicating a platform to large caliber, high velocity rounds. I think there is and will be, and that much like WW I a confluence of issues is driving the slow grinding trench warfare and making MBTs appear useless. But I can see how one might come to the conclusion advances will be done by infantry vehicles behind a swarm of drones. The tank is dead; long live the tank.

Edited October 16, 2025 by Josh

[Stuart Galbraith]

If you use a vehicle for direct fire, call it a tank. It doesnt have to have a 120mm gun, and 6 feet of Chobham armour on it. With a 40mm, you are pretty much at where tank guns were at the beginning of WW2 anyway.Fuller even conceived a 'floating tank' to be launched by submarines offshore, that sounds very like AAAV7 or LVT. if he can get away with being cavalier with the name, im sure we can too.

I can imagine someone in years hence painting on the side of an Ajax 'I identify as a tank.'

 

 

Edited October 16, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith

[seahawk]

3 hours ago, bojan said:

Direct fire was always and still is most effective one, no doubt about that, and will hence remain something that enables advance. Issue is not if direct firepower is needed (it is), but how to ensure that direct fire platform can do their mission in current threat environment.

PS. And no, drones can not replace direct fire, thing people are constantly forgetting when talking about it is reaction times. In terms of firepower drones are slow, way slower than ATGMs which are considered "too slow" for a lot of applications.

 

But drones increase the reaction time, because they provide early warning and a much better situational awareness. 

[Josh]

16 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If you use a vehicle for direct fire, call it a tank. It doesnt have to have a 120mm gun, and 6 feet of Chobham armour on it. With a 40mm, you are pretty much at where tank guns were at the beginning of WW2 anyway.Fuller even conceived a 'floating tank' to be launched by submarines offshore, that sounds very like AAAV7 or LVT. if he can get away with being cavalier with the name, im sure we can too.

I can imagine someone in years hence painting on the side of an Ajax 'I identify as a tank.'

 

 

At the very least MBTs will likely evolve to better all around protection schemes. But as soon as you create a dedicated direct fire system that is not an infantry carrier, then you are still in tankish land, and I would argue there is little reason to adopt a different armament other than a large caliber high velocity gun.