The proposed tank would bridge the gap between the Leclerc and the delayed Franco-German Main Ground Combat System. The proposed main battle tank would bridge the gap between the Leclerc and the delayed Franco-German Main Ground Combat System.
Tanks won’t be dead until there is another system that can fullfil it’s role. It’s easy as that.
Everything else is just adaption to changing threat environments while doing it’s job on the battle field. Which specifically means more active defenses over passive armor, so soft- and hard-kill APS and probably an highly-automated small calibre remote weapon station.
Also, no matter how hard people try to delude themselves: The war in Ukraine is NOT a modern war shaping future combat. It’s primarily characterised by obsolete static and trench warfare with both sides severely lacking capable air defense and experience in proper combined arms warfare. Then Russia aggrevates that situation even further as “We can’t compete on the high-tech end of things so we drag everyone down to our level via a massive electronic warfare campaign” is part of their main strategy since the cold war.
That’s the reason drones are so successful there, because they perfectly exploit an existing gap of lacking air defenses and a very taxing environment that benefits cheap mass spam over electronically impaired high-precsion tech. That’s also the reason the Ukrainian side learning and adapting more quickly will win this.
The actual aspect of this war shaping future combat is detailed information on how to not make the same mistakes and close the existing gap cheap drones so perfectly fit into. So no, the tank isn’t even close to obsolete. The next generation will show APS alongside limited in-build anti-air capabilities (small calibre gun against small drones probably alongside a few missiles that can double against out of range/LOS ground targets) and be accompanied by more dedicated anti-air assets once again (see: how those old German Gepards that were designed for that support role back then performed in Ukraine against drones half a century more modern)… and by IFVs nearly as well protected and basically being their flanking protection against infantry/ATGMs (see: active and passive protection levels of modern IFVs and their precisely timed burst-capable auto-guns - basically oversized battle field shotguns to clear the flanks off mobile but fragile threats).
The war in Ukraine is NOT a modern war shaping future combat. It’s primarily characterised by obsolete static and trench warfare with both sides severely lacking capable air defense and experience in proper combined arms warfare.
It is a war shaping modern combat. In exercise with Ukraine NATO soldiers showed that they have serious issues dealing with drones. Also both Ukraine and Russia currently have some really strong air defence systems right now. The fact of the matter is that anti drone systems are too few in number to make armoured assaults possible. That is being worked on and would allow tanks to be much more useful again.
Also both Ukraine and Russia currently have some really strong air defence systems right now
Ukraine’s strongest air defense is new systems in very low amounts and short supply, Russia’s air defense is constantly failing to meet even a fraction of the capabilities they should have on paper.
In exercise with Ukraine NATO soldiers showed that they have serious issues dealing with drones.
But there is a massive difference between “the future of war is cheap mass produced drones” and “the future of war is closing the gap that cheap mass produced drones like to exploit”. The 'but tanks are obsolete"-opinion is very popular with clueless people arguing the former.
The war in Ukraine is NOT a modern war shaping future combat. It’s primarily characterised by obsolete static and trench warfare with both sides severely lacking capable air defense and experience in proper combined arms warfare. Then Russia aggrevates that situation even further as “We can’t compete on the high-tech end of things so we drag everyone down to our level via a massive electronic warfare campaign” is part of their main strategy since the cold war.
Politically, that situation is so insane though.
EU stockpiles and stockpiles high tech weapons for this exact situation. Including air defenses that could tip the scales, I presume. And when they get an honest to god Russian invasion at their doorstep, Europe… Lets them sit and wear away in storage?
Tanks won’t be dead until there is another system that can fullfil it’s role. It’s easy as that.
Everything else is just adaption to changing threat environments while doing it’s job on the battle field. Which specifically means more active defenses over passive armor, so soft- and hard-kill APS and probably an highly-automated small calibre remote weapon station.
Also, no matter how hard people try to delude themselves: The war in Ukraine is NOT a modern war shaping future combat. It’s primarily characterised by obsolete static and trench warfare with both sides severely lacking capable air defense and experience in proper combined arms warfare. Then Russia aggrevates that situation even further as “We can’t compete on the high-tech end of things so we drag everyone down to our level via a massive electronic warfare campaign” is part of their main strategy since the cold war.
That’s the reason drones are so successful there, because they perfectly exploit an existing gap of lacking air defenses and a very taxing environment that benefits cheap mass spam over electronically impaired high-precsion tech. That’s also the reason the Ukrainian side learning and adapting more quickly will win this.
The actual aspect of this war shaping future combat is detailed information on how to not make the same mistakes and close the existing gap cheap drones so perfectly fit into. So no, the tank isn’t even close to obsolete. The next generation will show APS alongside limited in-build anti-air capabilities (small calibre gun against small drones probably alongside a few missiles that can double against out of range/LOS ground targets) and be accompanied by more dedicated anti-air assets once again (see: how those old German Gepards that were designed for that support role back then performed in Ukraine against drones half a century more modern)… and by IFVs nearly as well protected and basically being their flanking protection against infantry/ATGMs (see: active and passive protection levels of modern IFVs and their precisely timed burst-capable auto-guns - basically oversized battle field shotguns to clear the flanks off mobile but fragile threats).
It is a war shaping modern combat. In exercise with Ukraine NATO soldiers showed that they have serious issues dealing with drones. Also both Ukraine and Russia currently have some really strong air defence systems right now. The fact of the matter is that anti drone systems are too few in number to make armoured assaults possible. That is being worked on and would allow tanks to be much more useful again.
Ukraine’s strongest air defense is new systems in very low amounts and short supply, Russia’s air defense is constantly failing to meet even a fraction of the capabilities they should have on paper.
But there is a massive difference between “the future of war is cheap mass produced drones” and “the future of war is closing the gap that cheap mass produced drones like to exploit”. The 'but tanks are obsolete"-opinion is very popular with clueless people arguing the former.
Politically, that situation is so insane though.
EU stockpiles and stockpiles high tech weapons for this exact situation. Including air defenses that could tip the scales, I presume. And when they get an honest to god Russian invasion at their doorstep, Europe… Lets them sit and wear away in storage?