Has armored/mechanized warfare really changed at all? Or has it really remained the same since the implementation of recoilless rifles during the Korean war? Sure, drones are a massive fuck you, but that's only because nobody has really fielded any purpose built anti drone in mass yet in any military. Especially with the coming of laser weapons for C-RAM and anti drone, I doubt drones will have the same level of impact in the near future as they have had recently.
Any experts on PrepHole that won't shit this thread up with Russian/Ukrainian propaganda? Would love to see a discussion going about the doctrine and tactics themselves along with the weapons and gear and vehicles. And where it is all heading for future combat.
Not really, but armored warfare is reliant on good support. With a decent enough support, you're essentially gods in the battlefield.
It hasn't changed appreciably. It still relies on maneuver warfare, which itself relies on combined arms. You're not conducting sweeping offensives without air and fire support
ATGMs are a problem, but as we've seen again and again, not an insurmountable one.
Everything short of a challenger 2 is hard countered by ATGMs
Weak bait.
cope
only western mbt to have been hit by multiple atgms and survived with no loss
Challenger is the only western tank frontally penned by an ATGM
Check the catalog dicklicker kek
It's changed, but more because it's gotten more complex. It's tough to speculate because Ukraine I'd say really isn't a very good example of proper armored/mechanized operations. It has happened there but the sample size is low. The issue is that desert storm skewed younger people's minds that armored attacks are swift and effective and if tank battles aren't decisively won 73 easting tier then it proves this or that is obsolete, which is deluded. At the same time there still hasn't been much of a peer vs. peer conflict to draw from either, Syria was far from it even with the various tank footage etc.
Ukraine is a great example of the evolution of infantry tactics with massed unmanned assets, it is evidence that networking and having the superior eyes and ears pays dividends, but examples of that paired with armored attacks to achieve decisive breakthroughs has really not materialized. Neither side has the ability to set the conditions to enable these kinds of attacks with acceptable losses.
Set the conditions is the key phrase, the armored doctrine itself has not changed much quite yet, but the laundry list of things to do prior to executing said doctrine has increased. The barrier to entry is now higher than it was, it's not enough to just have a shitload of IFV/APC/MBTs, you need anti-drone weapons, efficient counterbattery, infantry support, and excellent reconnaissance. To really underscore counterbattery and anti-drone capability too we have to remember the proliferation of FPV, drone dropped munitions', and extended fires ranges to 60-80km in the near future I expect when unmanned ground platforms begin to integrate with armor we may see a shift, but I doubt it'll be radical. MBTs will still be MBTs at the end of the day.
Although you can’t use Ukraine as an example for modern maneuver warfare as both sides are incapable of it for various reasons — it’s a fact that it’s become obsolete. PGMs have neutralized the armored fist of mobile forces. What Iraq showed us is that PGMs and the means to deploy them effectively across the theater is what wins war; the maneuver elements just does mop up. In today’s battlefield this will be drones doing targeting, loitering munitions, laser and GPS-guided munitions doing the effects. Ground elements are doing mop up, security and AD.
PGMs set the conditions for the successful armored attacks. See
you are example of people who think the concept is dead because they haven't seen it work in situations were no faction could enable it to. It's a flawed assessment based on limited knowledge. We've yet to see NATO style armored doctrine employed with all enablers and hopefully we won't ever.
modern CABTs were born out of lessons learned in WW2
WW2-era armored divisions were made up of regiments, who would be divided up until their individual battalion-sized elements and then combined to make task forces suited to the terrain, called combat commands
so the 3 rifle and 3 armored battalions would be grouped up into combat commands of 3 groups of 1 each, or 2 groups with 1:2 and 2:1 mixes to suit the mission
modern brigades are intended to act closer to how combat commands worked
each ABCT is made up of 3 mech rifle battalions and 3 tank battalions, that are formed into combined arms battalions composed of either 2:1 or 1:2 mixes in tactical situations
another tactical difference is how the infantry were used
armored infantry were essentially just regular riflemen who had a half-track assigned, so they would dismount a terrain feature away and march near the tanks in combat
mech infantry ride in bradleys, which means they can maneuver directly alongside the tanks they are supporting and only need to dismount when actively engaged or if defending complex terrain
My question is was there even any armored assaults or pushes even in WWII? It seems like especially now more than ever, infantry need to lead the way and comb the front since now even some insurgent far away from any major enemy concentrations can fuck up entire armored platoons with modern AT weaponry.
>My question is was there even any armored assaults or pushes even in WWII?
a lot
armored divisions were the main offensive arm of the americans in normandy
and the russians used their tank divisions in a similar manner
> It seems like especially now more than ever, infantry need to lead the way
the above mentioned CABT is the main maneuver element
so tanks are still the primary fighting force
the lighter rifle brigades are used for local maneuver to shape the battlefield and test enemy response before committing the armored brigades into the fighting
>now even some insurgent far away from any major enemy concentrations can fuck up entire armored platoons with modern AT weaponry.
each brigade has its own artillery to defeat enemy ATGMs
the mech infantry are also directly maneuvering alongside the tanks
neither is forward the other, they are a single cohesive unit that flexibly responds with either infantry or tanks depending on the situation
though the 2 tanks : 1 infantry is usually held for offense and the 2 infantry formation for defense or offensive action in dense terrain
>each brigade has its own artillery to defeat enemy ATGMs
That's great if they're centralized, not so great if they are decentralized and ambushing you. Also, what do you do when you are not allowed, due to ROE, to fire DPICM directly into villages to suppress enemy insurgents?
Let’s pretend there’s a war in Taiwan.
Neither side can achieve air superiority due to AD and heavy air presence making defeating either side’s air defenses infeasible. So it’s a land-fighter’s ballgame. Now, with air superiority not possible how does the Army fight? There’s no CAS beyond low-flying helicopters and drones, and these have to stay at max range to evade SHORAD. Essentially, artillery is going to have to provide long- and medium-range fire support and armored vehicles will have to do short-range direct fire support. So how does this work out? Armored vehicles end up being destroyed on contact from top-attack and heavy ATGMs severely limiting their ability to assault. Artillery units will be constantly shifting about in counter-arty duels limiting how much can be devoted to fire support. So it looks like the battle will look like infantry creeping around under swarms of tactical drones trying to find the enemy and scrounging together whatever firepower is available at the moment to defeat it while dealing with enemy drones. Armor is usually stuck under cover away from the action due to their vulnerability at virtually every level. That seems like the fate of armor in a peer war scenario.
Why wouldn't SHORAD be protecting the armor as well?
>That seems like the fate of armor in a peer war scenario.
read the actual ABCT mission set
their artillery is mostly used for counter-battery and fixing enemy targets, while the armor then maneuvers to take advantage of the pinned enemy formation
Dealing with artillery must be the craziest thing to account for. Not only for counter battery and not getting countered yourself, but even if a tank platoon posts up in a SBF position for too long, they get blasted. Even if you take the objective and force the enemy out, you will inevitably get hit by the "fuck you" volley.
>I don't know what I'm talking about, the post
Armored warfare has changed, more importantly warfare in general has changed. The tank's role in general has shifted a lot more as air power has grown in importance. I would also not discount drones, the FPV shit has gotten a lot of attention but its the observer drones that are really having a bigger impact here by providing way better situational awareness than before across the board, for tankers, infantry, artillerymen etc. FPVs are a transitionary technology towards cheaper loitering ATGMs (to augment existing ATGMs, not supplant them) but as we've seen thus far the improved situational awareness greatly enhances the capabilities of existing threats to armor. Ukraine shouldn't be taken as necessarily being representative of future conflicts though. Both sides are severely lacking in materiel, particularly quality materiel. The lockdown of the airspace above the battlefields of Ukraine in particular has also gone a long way to shape how the war is progressing, with the focus shifting back to artillery and indirect fire. In that respect armored warfare hasn't changed, tanks are still getting shafted by arty as they always have.
>The tank's role in general has shifted a lot more as air power has grown in importance
not really
a modern armored division has much the same role as a WW2 armored division did
which is to create and exploit breakthroughs and then maneuver to control battle space, the ultimate goal being to defeat enemy maneuver elements
the main difference is that they are centered around brigades instead of regiments, since in practice divisions would re-organize their regiments into combined arms task forces that very much resemble a modern brigade, which has organic recon and artillery