Comments by "The Immortal" (@theimmortal4718) on "Covert Cabal"
channel.
-
98
-
65
-
20
-
17
-
9
-
8
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@mojothemigo
Yes, I agree. Heavy armored vehicles fighting right up on the frontline are going to have to be lighter and smaller. No more heavy MBTs. Fuel consumption is one of the largest concerns. Heavy armor guzzles fuel, so it makes them very dependent on refueler trucks not very far behind them
If APS ends up being as effective as predicted, the vehicle can afford to have less armor. In dropping weight, the large caliber tank gun might be phased out due to the huge firing signature vs other types of weapons.
Most tanks on the battlefield are destroyed by artillery and infantry, not by other tanks.
It's not necessary to field MBTs in order to be successful at defeating them.
With scout drones, armed drones, kamikaze drones, guided mortar and artillery rounds, and guided missiles at a western armies disposal, heavy armor can easily be hunted down and engaged at their assembly point, let alone their approach.
But in the end, it all comes down to a vehicles maintenance, ammo, fuel, commo, food, water, and medical support being constantly provided. The soft underbelly. If you are able to avoid a forces most fearsome weapons and hit their support, that inflicts long lasting damage. Most MBTs have to sit still most of the day because they would need to refuel twice a day if in constant fighting. That's it's Achilles Heel.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@verdebusterAP
That's not how the US military fights at all. At no time will you ever see american infantry pushed out kilometers forward of their armor. In fact, 99% of the time American armor is operating, it doesn't have any dismount support. The armor is used as spearheads, they aren't in the rear.
A dismount can't stop a missile launch from 2K away with a carbine with 300 meter range.
I've spent half my career in heavy brigades. I know very well the resistance of career armor soldiers to the concept that the days of the MBT are nearing, just as battleships were considered necessary in warfare before aircraft carriers and guided missiles.
There are just better tools for the job, now.
Guided artillery rounds and guided missiles have made the main gun irrelevant.
The first layer of the threat onion is "don't be seen". Just as in aviation, stealth has now become much more important than raw firepower. Since the second layer is "don't be aquired", camouflage and thermal masking are where vehicles will need to adapt the most. Armor will need to be low profile, masked, be lighter, and much faster.
1
-
@verdebusterAP
In FMs, yes. In practice, not so much.
The scouts end up staying in the Brads, fighting mounted. That's exactly what they did in OIF I.
In 2022, yes, scouting ahead of the armor is done with mostly UAVs. This greatly enables complexes and layered fires, which is the actual combat firepower. It's exactly the way we fought in Syria and the past few years in Afghanistan.The addition of loitering drones exacerbates this problem.
Because the armored force isn't the only ones possessing this technology,
Armored vehicles still have a place, for sure.
I'm saying the MBT doesn't.
The tank gun is no longer needed to effectively reduce fortifications or kill armor.
The fuel consumption is a massive liability.
Tanks are impossible to hide from aerial observation. As soon as they set into any kind of defense, they become huge immobile targets with big heat signatures.
The concept of the tank will have to be lighter, faster, burn less fuel and incorporate stealth. All of these criteria demand armored vehicles to be lighter. Focus more on the outer layers of the threat onion rather than protection.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1