Interesting article on how the US army see's future US armour use

[TrustMe]

From the Army university press ..

 

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2025-OLE/The-Coming-Blitzkrieg/

[Stuart Galbraith]

46 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

From the Army university press ..

 

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2025-OLE/The-Coming-Blitzkrieg/

The key takeway from that for me is this comment.

Precision strike has replaced direct fire as the principal form of lethality in close combat.

If thats true, it does really leave the tank in a bit of a pickle, because you are essentially saying that its primary means of delivering firing to the enemy is obsolete.

 

 

[Dawes]

I can recall when the Army was pursuing the abortive Future Combat Systems program. The Abrams replacement tank under that concept was much more mobile and lightly armored than the M1A1/A2. It was supposed to survive not by heavy armor, but by using it's superior situational awareness and agility to avoid being hit in the first place. Then Iraq and Afghanistan happened and the value of heavy armor was seen in a different light. 

[Manic Moran]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The key takeway from that for me is this comment.

Precision strike has replaced direct fire as the principal form of lethality in close combat.

If thats true, it does really leave the tank in a bit of a pickle, because you are essentially saying that its primary means of delivering firing to the enemy is obsolete.

 

 

It's a big 'if'. Its justification is a sample size of '1'. One current conflict, with one current balance of capabilities, which says little about what the situation is going to be next year in central Africa, or even tomorrow in Thailand/Camobidia.

[Ssnake]

Without adequate air defense/hardkill systems in the near-ground airspace, even smaller nations can now threaten the heavy components of advanced armies (and they will).

"Central Africa" (as a stand-in for "wherever"), if in conflict with the US or a European nation, would receive assistance from Russia and/or China as payback. If in conflict with Russia, Ukraine might render technological and tactical assistance, as payback. Either way, what's currently in use in Ukraine can be expected to find its way into the next conflicts, especially if one or both parties cannot adequately protect the near-ground airspace.

 

I don't advocate abandoning the MBT and mech force, nor do I suggest to abandon hope. I do however suggest to invest in low-level air defense.

[lucklucky]

I arrived first!!! but some disagree as expected.

Does have also the comparison with the battleship.

Edited January 10 by lucklucky

[Mike1158]

Merely a continuation of the old situation, defence versus offence.  Knee jerk reaction basically situation normal but tbh the situation has to be allowed to level off and for counter strategies to come into play.

 

Nothing new under the sun.

[MiGG0]

1 hour ago, Mike1158 said:

Merely a continuation of the old situation, defence versus offence.  Knee jerk reaction basically situation normal but tbh the situation has to be allowed to level off and for counter strategies to come into play.

 

Nothing new under the sun.

No it is not. Unless you combare how battleships came obsolete. Now you have way cheaper alternative that can do MBTs job. It is not just defence vs offence comparison (in which Drones wins also as they are so cheap).

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

It's a big 'if'. Its justification is a sample size of '1'. One current conflict, with one current balance of capabilities, which says little about what the situation is going to be next year in central Africa, or even tomorrow in Thailand/Camobidia.

Yes, but the development of AFV's was also based on a sample size of 1, albeit a ruddy great big 1. Ditto the fighter aircraft, bomber, submarine.  Whilst I know there was a large tranche of the British Army eager to abandon tank production in 1917 because they saw absolutely no use for them when the war was over,  happily their reluctantance turned to conviction. Among the losers there was absolutely no doubt. 

Besides, there was also a large amount of them used in Armenia/Azerbaijan war. Yes, with the backing of mechanized forces as exploitation forces, but that was with Armenia having limited if any drones at all. If they had, there is every reason to suppose that war might have turned out like Ukraine.

[Mighty_Zuk]

18 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If thats true, it does really leave the tank in a bit of a pickle, because you are essentially saying that its primary means of delivering firing to the enemy is obsolete.

No it just means it has become secondary, not obsolete. 

If every armed force would abandon every capability considered in some form secondary, they'd have only maybe 5% of total capability left.

Also if you keep reading you'll see that he actually makes the case for the persistence of soldiers and MBTs.

15 hours ago, Dawes said:

I can recall when the Army was pursuing the abortive Future Combat Systems program. The Abrams replacement tank under that concept was much more mobile and lightly armored than the M1A1/A2. It was supposed to survive not by heavy armor, but by using it's superior situational awareness and agility to avoid being hit in the first place. Then Iraq and Afghanistan happened and the value of heavy armor was seen in a different light. 

The true balance was in the middle. Top of the line situational awareness, with active protection and diversified fires, on a platform that can take a few punches all on its own, is the current way to go.

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, but the development of AFV's was also based on a sample size of 1, albeit a ruddy great big 1. Ditto the fighter aircraft, bomber, submarine.  Whilst I know there was a large tranche of the British Army eager to abandon tank production in 1917 because they saw absolutely no use for them when the war was over,  happily their reluctantance turned to conviction. Among the losers there was absolutely no doubt. 

Which is actually a very big issue. We can see that countries who only fight very infrequently, or against only one threat type, end up with a very unbalanced or ill prepared force that is doomed to "learn a lot of lessons" or "we'll be more prepared next time" type of reflections, after taking excessive and avoidable losses.

More or less all European tank development until very recently was all about getting that longer gun to squeeze out more penetration, and a bit more frontal armor. Most European AFVs don't have an APS. Maybe <5% have.

Saying "but they also made that mistake" isn't a good argument for why it isn't a mistake now as well.

Edited January 10 by Mighty_Zuk

[Stuart Galbraith]

30 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

No it just means it has become secondary, not obsolete. 

If every armed force would abandon every capability considered in some form secondary, they'd have only maybe 5% of total capability left.

Also if you keep reading you'll see that he actually makes the case for the persistence of soldiers and MBTs.

The true balance was in the middle. Top of the line situational awareness, with active protection and diversified fires, on a platform that can take a few punches all on its own, is the current way to go.

Which is actually a very big issue. We can see that countries who only fight very infrequently, or against only one threat type, end up with a very unbalanced or ill prepared force that is doomed to "learn a lot of lessons" or "we'll be more prepared next time" type of reflections, after taking excessive and avoidable losses.

More or less all European tank development until very recently was all about getting that longer gun to squeeze out more penetration, and a bit more frontal armor. Most European AFVs don't have an APS. Maybe <5% have.

Saying "but they also made that mistake" isn't a good argument for why it isn't a mistake now as well.

Alright, Ill grant you that. Obsolecent might have been a kinder word.

No, no nation is going to abandon that capablity overnight. But equally It doesnt mean they are going to go developing a 5th generation tank for such marginal utility. 

Yes, European tank development was about getting more tank penetration. Ironically (and this is somewhat hilarious) its starting to look as if rifled guns might have been the better path, because at least that means you can take advantage of drones and use tanks as SPH. Somewhat beneath them I grant you, but perhaps rather better than sitting on the sidelines waiting for Tank V Tank combat which seems increasingly unlikely to be forthcoming.

[Mighty_Zuk]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, no nation is going to abandon that capablity overnight. But equally It doesnt mean they are going to go developing a 5th generation tank for such marginal utility. 

"Marginal utility" is an ill thought description for previous generation. Is it not worth manufacturing 5th gen fighters because early 4th gens struggle with a modern IAMD? 

That's a very backwards logic.

Would you refuse medical treatment because the treatment wouldn't exist if the disease was cured?

18 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, European tank development was about getting more tank penetration. Ironically (and this is somewhat hilarious) its starting to look as if rifled guns might have been the better path, because at least that means you can take advantage of drones and use tanks as SPH.

The vast majority of artillery focused tanks already have rifled guns. Only a very small minority, primarily in Russia, have smoothbore.

18 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Somewhat beneath them I grant you, but perhaps rather better than sitting on the sidelines waiting for Tank V Tank combat which seems increasingly unlikely to be forthcoming.

Tanks are already packed with missions. Why would you try to cram tank v tank combat into it?

[bojan]

On 1/10/2026 at 8:53 AM, MiGG0 said:

...Unless you combare how battleships came obsolete...

Because other weapons system (carriers and it's aviation) could do same job (fire support and attack on enemy ships) more efficiently.

ATM drones can stop tanks from doing their job, but still can not do what tanks can. Hence, if we keep battleship/carrier idea... we are in the 1920s era, where carriers/aviation are promising, but still not decisive weapon that can replace battleships.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 Drones are still gen 1. They are kind of like fighters or bombers in WW1. The idea is there but the technology isnt fully developed yet. But unlike them, I think this technology is going to be developed much more in peacetime, simply because there are so many civil applications. Fighters didnt develop much, because whom needed a 300mph combat aircraft? Thats the reason why the Schenider trophy aircraft and the GeeBee racer in America became so important. Drones can be used by everything, from Amazon, emergency services, police, even electrical companies wanting to check lines. And so this technology I think is going to develop very quickly. But even now, it can still have decisive effects on the Ukraine battlefield. I think many armies are very slow to grasp what this all implies. 

Drones are currently rather like submarines (or minefields) in that they deny the enemy the ability to use his forces as he would wish. But they can do that role through out the enemy defensive position right now, with more expensive ones able to do it right into the enemy rear areas. It can enable longer range systems, like rocket artillery, artillery, airstrikes, making them far more accurate than ever before, to the point where they cannot undertake basic defensive tasks. It basically makes most ground recce somewhat obsolecent (presumably route recce will still require vehicles) And if you can destroy your enemy before you even encounter him, you dont really need much more than an APC to occupy a position. You certainly dont need a tank in direct fire support, because you have already suppressed the defensive position, and can continue to do so right up to the assault with indirect fires, maybe even 120mm sp mortars. I understand both sides now in Ukraine have a 15KM zone where EVERYTHING is observe. Everything. Its only going to be a matter of time before short range indirect weapons are developed that specifically go after infantry so the drones dont actually have to drop bombs on them. That may be the only conceivable use of future manoeuvre forces, to bring them to better positions where they can engage with indirect fire, not direct fire attacks.

Yes, there will always be someone that survives. In the next decade or more, I can see current tanks surviving simply because the drones are imperfect, or they get shot down, or they are for one reason or another ineffective. In that case the tanks or IFVs will have to employ direct fire support. Perhaps you always WILL need direct fire support, for contingencies if nothing else. But its difficult to conceive you really need to go to the expense of building a 24 million dollar fighting machine just on the off chance someone comes out of a hole with an RPG. I think, this is a personal view, the tank can survive. But it may well end up a lot smaller and as a drone vehicle. Something the size of a Scorpion I think is plenty. Send it back to the original role, infantry bully, and it doesnt really need to be much else.

If tanks survive, and continue to be viable as a platform, they need to be a lot cheaper, a lot lighter, and likely dont really need a gun as big as a 120mm. In most circumstances, I suspect an IFV is going to be the prefered platform, just because they can lug an infantry squad around with them. 

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

36 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Drones are still gen 1. They are kind of like fighters or bombers in WW1. The idea is there but the technology isnt fully developed yet. But unlike them, I think this technology is going to be developed much more in peacetime, simply because there are so many civil applications.

Drones are mass used since the 80's, with their early history much earlier than that. By 2022 they were very old tech. What advanced in the meantime is the peripherals.

Not surprisingly, today's FPV drones are increasingly adopting the peripherals developed for other munitions and systems decades ago.

The only thing setting apart different drones, and drones from non-drones, is propulsion. There are propellers, large and small ones. Fixed or biaxial ones. Wings of different sizes and shapes. But the peripherals are the same. Same comms, same nav, same OS, same warheads and effectors, same sensors.

The pace of development of drones therefore entirely depends on the pace of peripherals development.

Because commercial drones with automated flight control became so widely available at once, the "fast development" you've seen is just integration of existing components to drones. And it varied a lot because some drones were very cheap, and some are as expensive as a Javelin. But peripherals are developed slowly. No major breakthrough occurred to change that in decades.

46 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You certainly dont need a tank in direct fire support, because you have already suppressed the defensive position, and can continue to do so right up to the assault with indirect fires, maybe even 120mm sp mortars.

If one side can deploy drones, so can the other. And the side that has both drones and tanks will have the advantage.

Because you can shoot down a drone with just a rifle. You need much more serious firepower to disable a tank.

47 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I understand both sides now in Ukraine have a 15KM zone where EVERYTHING is observe. Everything.

You understand wrong. There are constant reports of small units bypassing defenses because of observational gaps.

49 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its only going to be a matter of time before short range indirect weapons are developed that specifically go after infantry so the drones dont actually have to drop bombs on them

"Going to" is future tense. These weapons have existed for decades.

51 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But its difficult to conceive you really need to go to the expense of building a 24 million dollar fighting machine just on the off chance someone comes out of a hole with an RPG.

In what universe does a tank cost $24 million?

52 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If tanks survive, and continue to be viable as a platform, they need to be a lot cheaper, a lot lighter, and likely dont really need a gun as big as a 120mm. In most circumstances, I suspect an IFV is going to be the prefered platform, just because they can lug an infantry squad around with them

It's amazing how every armed force that studied the Ukraine war has reached the exact opposite conclusion. 

[MiGG0]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Because other weapons system (carriers and it's aviation) could do same job (fire support and attack on enemy ships) more efficiently.

ATM drones can stop tanks from doing their job, but still can not do what tanks can. Hence, if we keep battleship/carrier idea... we are in the 1920s era, where carriers/aviation are promising, but still not decisive weapon that can replace carriers.

 

Like what they cannot do ATM what MBT do?

[Mike1158]

5 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

No it is not. Unless you combare how battleships came obsolete. Now you have way cheaper alternative that can do MBTs job. It is not just defence vs offence comparison (in which Drones wins also as they are so cheap).

OK, playground logic it is then.

 

OH, yes it is!

[Mike1158]

History of unmanned aerial vehicles - Wikipedia

 

Drones have been around in many forms for a LONG time.  All technology develops, not just drones.  Military tactics and preparation will develop to deal with drones and whatever the next big thing is.  Offence and Defence is a vey old 'thing'.

[MiGG0]

14 minutes ago, Mike1158 said:

OK, playground logic it is then.

 

OH, yes it is!

Same question to you as to Bojan. What MBT role current drones cannot do in your mind?

Edited January 10 by MiGG0

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

ATM drones can stop tanks from doing their job, but still can not do what tanks can.

It'll be a good start if you can stick 2 guys, a 5 meter 120mm cannon, and a dozen shells in a drone.

[MiGG0]

1 minute ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

It'll be a good start if you can stick 2 guys, a 5 meter 120mm cannon, and a dozen shells in a drone.

Why would they need any of those? Drones itself can be ammunition with bigger bang than 120mm cannon shell, while still being cheaper than 155mm artillery ammo.

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

In what universe does a tank cost $24 million?

Our M1A2 contract was around $19 million per tank, first K2 contract* was almost that too. Leo2s might be more expensive than what the Americans and Worst Koreans offer.

Obviously, the contracts aren't about tanks alone, there are spares, often ammunition and other shit, but you wouldn't need it if you didn't operate tanks, so imho it counts. 

*first contract for 180 K2s was $3.37 billion, so almost 19 million per tank too, second contract for 180 tanks (including 60 modernised K2PL) is worth twice that ($6.7 billion), but it includes 80 additional support vehicles (ARVs, engineering and command vehicles etc.), partial licensed production, ToT and so on. 

 

And no, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be buying tanks and get infected by extreme case of dronosis instead.

[Mighty_Zuk]

33 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Our M1A2 contract was around $19 million per tank, first K2 contract* was almost that too. Leo2s might be more expensive than what the Americans and Worst Koreans offer.

Obviously, the contracts aren't about tanks alone, there are spares, often ammunition and other shit, but you wouldn't need it if you didn't operate tanks, so imho it counts. 

*first contract for 180 K2s was $3.37 billion, so almost 19 million per tank too, second contract for 180 tanks (including 60 modernised K2PL) is worth twice that ($6.7 billion), but it includes 80 additional support vehicles (ARVs, engineering and command vehicles etc.), partial licensed production, ToT and so on. 

 

And no, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be buying tanks and get infected by extreme case of dronosis instead.

Most of that is premiums for keeping the business private. The real material cost, which you'll be paying if you temporarily "nationalize" production, is much lower. Most just keep paying more because they don't want the headache of managing a DIB.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Drones are mass used since the 80's, with their early history much earlier than that. By 2022 they were very old tech. What advanced in the meantime is the peripherals.

Quote

Now thats just silliness. You know full well those drones were 'just' for artillery to find targets, with some very limited versions (such as the Ryan Firebee) were just used for recce in high threat areas. They were not combat drones by any measure. In many cases (BAOR was a case in point) they very rarely ever used them because of the sheer cost of flying the damn things.

Not surprisingly, today's FPV drones are increasingly adopting the peripherals developed for other munitions and systems decades ago.

Quote

Yeeeesssss.... And the original tanks adopted 6 pdr guns from Royal Navy stocks. Just because the components of a system are not innovative, the configuration in which you put them together certainly can be.

The only thing setting apart different drones, and drones from non-drones, is propulsion. There are propellers, large and small ones. Fixed or biaxial ones. Wings of different sizes and shapes. But the peripherals are the same. Same comms, same nav, same OS, same warheads and effectors, same sensors.

Quote

Yet variation can happen. I know full well there are minature jet engines that havee been used in model aircraft for the last 20 years. Only a matter of time before some onethinks to employ those in combat drones.

 

Not I grant you something you want to throw away at that price, but I can see utility for such a system for recce.

The potential for evolution in drones is considerably greater than exists in Tanks, which have utilized the basic configuration of the Renault 17 light tank for some 110 years.  An MBT today would take at least 10 years to get into service if it was an entirely new design. By contrast, If you get a dud drone design, build a new one. And thats how rapidly the technology will evolve in in contrast to the systems that have to defend against it.

The pace of development of drones therefore entirely depends on the pace of peripherals development.

Quote

I think we are sticking in the mud here. This is like saying that since all tanks require tracks and an engine, they all go at the same speed.

Because commercial drones with automated flight control became so widely available at once, the "fast development" you've seen is just integration of existing components to drones. And it varied a lot because some drones were very cheap, and some are as expensive as a Javelin. But peripherals are developed slowly. No major breakthrough occurred to change that in decades.

Quote

Ive seen developments in just the last 25 years. I build model tanks as a hobby. Ive gone from a 2 channel, to a 4 channel to an 11 channel radio. If you are willing to pay, you can have a 32 channel radio today. The former were utterly unprogammable, the flysky 10 I have has untold programable options and even a nice internal computer and management system to track them all. 

I cant know if this management capablity has much effect on flying drones (It sure does on driven ones!) , but just saying that nothing changes overlooks that drones were unwieldy and unusable just 10 years ago, and now are everywhere. And it takes a real luddite not to notice this, or recognise what it means.

If one side can deploy drones, so can the other. And the side that has both drones and tanks will have the advantage.

Quote

Absolutely.

And if you are a first rate military with tanks, attack helicopters and mach 2 fighter aircraft, that your advance can possibly be brought to a halt by a bunch of guys that live in a hole in the ground and have a shitload of drones is a real leveller. Someone called it the democratization of close air support, which overlooking the guys whom will be using it in Africa and the middle east are not exactly Democrats, but  is probably accurate enough.

Because you can shoot down a drone with just a rifle. You need much more serious firepower to disable a tank.

Quote

 

You understand wrong. There are constant reports of small units bypassing defenses because of observational gaps.

Quote

And yet, somehow the Russian Army is now throwing companies of tanks and AFVs at the Ukrainian line, and still failing. Ok, a group of guys get through the front line on a quad bike or sometimes even on horseback. And what does he do when he gets there, but plead for drone support? He cant do anything useful to break the line, because there is no mass there. A squad of infantry could fly through the line in a helicopter if they pick the right spot, but are they going to launch an offensive on their own? Of course not.

The modern battlefield has far more in common with PKD's Second Variety (you might know it better as Screamers) than it does the battlefield of Cambrai or Prokorovka. There was some better links from the economist on how the battlefield now looks, but they are behind a paywall, so you will have to make do with BBC. This is from 2 years ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65028217

"Going to" is future tense. These weapons have existed for decades.

Quote

Yes, you keep saying that, but its not actually true. Alright, the Americans had combat drones in 1945, but they were 2 engined aircraft that didnt have a pilot in them, or Aphrodite, a retired B17 controlled by RC to fly into a target (a near complete failure). Then there was Ryan Firebees in vietnam, but they were just recce assets, but they worked well enough.  I wouldnt be so rash as to hazard a guess as when quadcopters became a battlefield asset, but Id be surprised if its more than 10 years. That people are still discovering new things to do with them, illustrates this is new technology.

The idea is relatively old. You can see the first concepts of combat quadcopters in Terminator. A British scientist called Frank Barnaby envisaged combat drones as long ago as 1986. But the cold war ended and nobody built them. 

In what universe does a tank cost $24 million?

Quote

Already discussed this. If you have a more accurate costing, im happy to accept it. Its no secret that a tank costs an awful lot more than the drones required to kill it. Thats probably been true one way or another since the ATGM. The difference is now they can attack from any angle and at any point within 12 km, without the tank being able to respond. And thats a problem.

It's amazing how every armed force that studied the Ukraine war has reached the exact opposite conclusion. 

The British army has gone with a 20/40/40 mix.  And they have a far closer relationship with the Ukrainian Army (and therefore willing to accept their lessons)  far more so than most.

https://www.forcesnews.com/services/army/explainer-what-20-40-40-and-how-will-it-transform-battlefield

 

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The British army has gone with a 20/40/40 mix.  And they have a far closer relationship with the Ukrainian Army (and therefore willing to accept their lessons)  far more so than most.

https://www.forcesnews.com/services/army/explainer-what-20-40-40-and-how-will-it-transform-battlefield

 

 

Did you seriously put everything in nested quotes inside mine just so I can't quote you?