I should’ve probably clarified that MBTs as we currently know them are being phased out for lighter armored tanks with capabilities from the designs of missile vehicles or personnel carries. But specifically the USMC are getting rid of their MBTs entirely to develop lightly armored rocket launchers like the HIMARS.
Also the US Army are still holding on to the Abrams, but they are also open about how future development is based on the principal that current MBTs have hit their weight limit. So in the next decade or so we’ll probably see Abrams variants with less armor but heavily incorporating some design of missile and rocket carriers.
(There’s also drones/unmanned vehicles, but I doubt we’ll see any concrete media about that for a while)
IDK if this has moved past the initial phase of development, but I know that one of the next vehicles the Marine Corps is looking at is a remote piloted HIMARS. The concept is that you have a command jeep that controls four to six of them at once.
Makes sense. We’re technologically at the point where armor can no longer keep up, so to be invulnerable you need to remove the only true vulnerability which is the human.
USMC are reorganizing their doctrine to be prepared for Pacific operations. Theres a lot to be said about red scare, racism, etc. but what use is a heavy armored tank on a beachfront?
Good point, but the beachfront is not the end of the operation. Pretty sure both USSR and USA had landing vessels (hovercraft?) that could transport tanks to the shore. Which suggests that the strategy people there had certain thoughts on the use.
The way I figure, it would have the same use as it did before - rapidly advance into breaches in defences (which are facilitated by artillery and aviation) and destroy support and logistics lines - fuel depots and such.
Now this, of course, is WW2 methods at best, I am not a military person, just a “sofa expert”. And nowadays such operations could likely be performed by different platforms, such as IFVs with high calibre guns. Something like a BMD-3 or one of those Italian things. But this is my take.
The US is not doctrinally representative of most militaries because it is almost exclusively focused on expeditionary fighting far away from its shores. The USMC is the most expeditionary arm of an expeditionary force so it is in particular a poor representative of world wide armored doctrine. Everything the USMC, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the US military, procures is expected to be transported by plane or ship to a warzone far away from the US.
If you look at land powers who actually expect to fight a serious peer-level land war, there is no overall discernable turn away from the MBT. Russia is still developing the Armata family (even if war time circumstances prevent Russia from adopting it), China has recently adopted the Type 15 light tank and is still allegedly working on upgrading the ZTZ-99A. India hasn’t abandoned the Arjun and has made no moves towards pivoting away from buying T-90s from Russia. Germany has (just last year) sold Leopard 2 upgrades to Sweden and Italy, and Rhinemetal has presented prototypes for upgunning the Leopard 2. Britain committed to upgrading about 150 Challenger 2s to Challenger 3s in 2021. Japan adopted the Type 10 in 2010. South Korea introduced the K2 in 2014 and is apparently selling them to Poland.
You might reasonably argue that many of the above pre-date the lessons of the Ukraine war, which is a fair point but none of these systems have been cancelled or further procurement delayed or replaced. Similarly, talk of missile based light vehicles to replace tanks have not really gone anywhere either so there’s not really any basis to say MBTs are becoming obsolete.
You might recall that there was a very similar debate during the Cold War which said that MBTs were obsolete because of ATGMs only for new composite armors, ERA and APS to significantly degrade ATGM performance.
I should’ve probably clarified that MBTs as we currently know them are being phased out for lighter armored tanks with capabilities from the designs of missile vehicles or personnel carries. But specifically the USMC are getting rid of their MBTs entirely to develop lightly armored rocket launchers like the HIMARS.
Also the US Army are still holding on to the Abrams, but they are also open about how future development is based on the principal that current MBTs have hit their weight limit. So in the next decade or so we’ll probably see Abrams variants with less armor but heavily incorporating some design of missile and rocket carriers.
(There’s also drones/unmanned vehicles, but I doubt we’ll see any concrete media about that for a while)
IDK if this has moved past the initial phase of development, but I know that one of the next vehicles the Marine Corps is looking at is a remote piloted HIMARS. The concept is that you have a command jeep that controls four to six of them at once.
Makes sense. We’re technologically at the point where armor can no longer keep up, so to be invulnerable you need to remove the only true vulnerability which is the human.
HIMARS is an MLRS, isn’t it? Like Grad and the like. I don’t really see how they could replace tanks in their original role
USMC are reorganizing their doctrine to be prepared for Pacific operations. Theres a lot to be said about red scare, racism, etc. but what use is a heavy armored tank on a beachfront?
Good point, but the beachfront is not the end of the operation. Pretty sure both USSR and USA had landing vessels (hovercraft?) that could transport tanks to the shore. Which suggests that the strategy people there had certain thoughts on the use.
The way I figure, it would have the same use as it did before - rapidly advance into breaches in defences (which are facilitated by artillery and aviation) and destroy support and logistics lines - fuel depots and such.
Now this, of course, is WW2 methods at best, I am not a military person, just a “sofa expert”. And nowadays such operations could likely be performed by different platforms, such as IFVs with high calibre guns. Something like a BMD-3 or one of those Italian things. But this is my take.
The US is not doctrinally representative of most militaries because it is almost exclusively focused on expeditionary fighting far away from its shores. The USMC is the most expeditionary arm of an expeditionary force so it is in particular a poor representative of world wide armored doctrine. Everything the USMC, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the US military, procures is expected to be transported by plane or ship to a warzone far away from the US.
If you look at land powers who actually expect to fight a serious peer-level land war, there is no overall discernable turn away from the MBT. Russia is still developing the Armata family (even if war time circumstances prevent Russia from adopting it), China has recently adopted the Type 15 light tank and is still allegedly working on upgrading the ZTZ-99A. India hasn’t abandoned the Arjun and has made no moves towards pivoting away from buying T-90s from Russia. Germany has (just last year) sold Leopard 2 upgrades to Sweden and Italy, and Rhinemetal has presented prototypes for upgunning the Leopard 2. Britain committed to upgrading about 150 Challenger 2s to Challenger 3s in 2021. Japan adopted the Type 10 in 2010. South Korea introduced the K2 in 2014 and is apparently selling them to Poland.
You might reasonably argue that many of the above pre-date the lessons of the Ukraine war, which is a fair point but none of these systems have been cancelled or further procurement delayed or replaced. Similarly, talk of missile based light vehicles to replace tanks have not really gone anywhere either so there’s not really any basis to say MBTs are becoming obsolete.
You might recall that there was a very similar debate during the Cold War which said that MBTs were obsolete because of ATGMs only for new composite armors, ERA and APS to significantly degrade ATGM performance.