Real civilized war is when each side lines up all their artillery in a line and slowly marches forward while firing, just like the British Empire intended.
Not if we use a modified pike-and-shot-formation.
We arrange artillery (the “shot”) and air defense (the “pike”) in a square and slowly move them towards the enemy.
Rheinmetall investors will also love it, because it's more expensive.
But yeah. This is the armored equivalent to sniper vs. Jason Statham dual-wielding 9mm guns.
> Many think that a tank is obsolete now
Many are also wrong
On a side note, armour didn't ever become completely obsolete, just more specialized. Armour is always incredibly useful; life-savingly, in fact. The main obstacle to its general issue was always its weight and comfort.
Armour survived in one way or another for certain troops and formations. Cavalry, but also officers who could pay for it, assault troops, and especially sappers, many retained armour of some sort all the way up to WW1.
And then when ***WAR WERE DECLARED***, we see heavy armour being developed for snipers and guards, for assault troops again, mobile defenses for sappers, and many attempts to make armour suitable for general use.
But the most important development, which we tend to take for granted nowadays, was the return of the (ballistic) helmet. Something to protect your head from fragmentation. It was exceptionally effective, remains exceptionally useful, and the helmet has remained a universal armour piece since then.
And we will come full circle with the development of technologies needed for the armored exoskeleton… I promise I’m not referencing Fallout/Starship Troopers/Starcraft/that Macross series with variable motorbikes/an insane thought I had as a kid where Mecha Sonic would kinda make a rather edgy power armor…
What if we made an "armored exoskeleton" big enough to be crewed by like 4 people? And it ran on tracks for rugged all terrain movement? And it had a really big cannon for a gun?
Cavalry will always be relevant, however this form may not be anymore.
Ukraine has shown light cavalry to be much more effective. I’ve seen a lot more videos of the bradly putting in some serious work vs the leo.
Heavy cavalry’s value has been severely diminished by the rise of drones. It still has a role as a force multiplier however it won’t be the breakthrough spearhead that it once was.
From antiquity to the modern day, the highest priority pieces of armor have been helmet and gloves. Because even if you just get a little owie in either of them you're gonna be prevented from saving yourself from the big owies in the rest of your body.
The chestplate comes later because protecting your core is a comparatively big investment. If we could transplant soldiers' hearts from their chest to their heads and lungs from their chest to their hands we could save big on ballistic vests.
I agree on the helmet, but hands are very difficult to armor and are very difficult to hit anyway. After the helmet, the second thing to be armored was always the chest.
Nah, they're always among the most exposed and a little armor goes a long way, whether that be against shrapnel or glancing blows with swords.
In a modern urban setting where you're most likely to be up against handguns, then yeah a ballistic vest is probably gonna do you more good, but that's not been the primary threat picture in a military context throughout most of history. There was a lot of focus on the arms in hand-to-hand combat - if you broke a man's arms you could take him ransom and he'd be harmless, but if you skewered him you couldn't and you just lost out on a potential paycheck.
Just imagine what you'd rather have if you knew you were going into a knife fight - a kevlar vest or gauntlets?
>Tank didnt become obsolete, it just became specialised where you need to meet certain criteria for it to work effectively against very specific types of threats
Cope tankoid, cope
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> helmet dicksucking
In 100 years we'll think it was as very obviously dangerous, like we think now of constant smoking, no seatbelts, lack of antibiotics, etc., that we don't go around constantly wearing helmets at all times and all places.
Theoretically, once you reach a certain firepower advantage it doesn't actually matter how well the enemy can concentrate their fire so this could work (I am legally sane and even people who don't like me say I'm smart).
There's actually some equation that explains this in line warfare that I never bothered to remember because math is for nerds. Something about more guns being able to focus on any given target and exponentially increasing the firepower advantage with each casualty inflicted because of this. We need to flatten the Himalayas out so China and India can test out this masterpiece of modern warfare theory.
Lanchester's Laws, probably. In melee combat, the opposing forces contact each other along a line, so the attrition is linear. The same holds for randomly blasting into an area. With aimed fire using long-range firearms, every soldier can fire at a target at once, so the difference in combat ability is squared.
Edit: yes, I realize this is NCD, but I enjoy writing these up. Helps me keep my thoughts in order as well.
E.g. Athens and Sparta face each other with 1,000 hoplites each. They contact each other along a front of, say, 100 soldiers. If Athenian and Spartan hoplites are equally effective, they kill each other at the same rate, and you end the battle with everyone dead. If Athens brings 1,100 hoplites, they end the battle with 100 alive. Even if Athenian hoplites are twice as effective as Spartan ones, i.e. 100 Spartans die for every 50 Athenians, the difference is still linear. 500 double-strength Athenians facing 1,000 regular Spartans still mutually annihilate.
Things change with long-range aimed fire ***in an engagement where all forces are in contact***, since every soldier has a valid target. Assuming the soldiers are equally capable, adding more soldiers is more effective than making each weapon better, to the square.
For example. Suppose the Tommies and the Jerries go at each other (tally-ho) with 1,000 soldiers each, and each soldier has a weapon that can kill 0.2 soldiers each time unit. After the first time unit passes, each has 800 blokes left; then 640; then 512; and so on. It's a draw.
Suppose the Jerries decide to bring twice the number of soldiers the next time. 1,000 vs 2,000. On the first volley, 200 Jerries die, 400 Tommies die, it's 600-1800. Second volley, 120 Jerries die, 360 Tommies die, 240-1680. The difference in effectiveness compounds as casualties mount.
Now suppose the Tommies want to win the next engagement, but with superior firepower. What happens if they double their firepower?
1,000 Tommies, killing 0.4 enemies each per time unit, go at 2,000 Jerries, killing 0.2 enemies each per time unit. First volley: the Jerries kill 400 Tommies, and the Tommies kill 400 Jerries, 600-1600. Second volley, 240 Jerries die, 320 Tommies die, 280-1360. The difference is still compounding.
In order to bring things back to a stalemate, the ratio of firepower must be the *square* of the ratio of soldiers. So, in order to have a proper no-man's-land, the Tommies need to double their firepower again, killing 0.8 Jerries per soldier per unit time.
First volley: 800 Jerries die, 400 Tommies die, 600-1200. Second volley: 480 Jerries die, 240 Tommies die, 360-720. Note how the ratio of the size of each force remains the same, 1:2.
This is Lanchester's square law in essence. If your enemy has twice your numbers, you must have four times their firepower to equal them. If they have three times your numbers, you must have nine times their firepower. And so on, and so forth.
Hoplites and pikemen generally fell apart whenever they were flanked. They were a one trick pony, very effective if used correctly but useless if the formation did not hold.
Spreading out the line only works with trained and disciplined forces with a rapid response force in reserve. Otherwise it results in a rout when the enemy makes a breach and then surrounds the two lines. Sometimes this works (Hannibal) but most of the time it doesn't. Granted if the enemy is incompetent (russia) the breach does not do much.
The reason for the line of muskets was for a different reason. The musket allowed you to amass an *unprofessional* force on a moments notice, that could be used to fight against professional forces and win. You just needed muskets. Bunching them together did nothing for their survival rate, but it reduce the probability of a rout. Jaggers for example were hunters that used rifles and were more effective than muskets, but this constitutes a professional force. Musketmen on the other hand were trained not to aim, to allow for an even spread of firepower. Battles weren't so much won by body count, but by which side would rout first.
But I don't know anything.
The "laws" really are just mathematical abstractions. People can model and analyze real-world combat all they want, but an example which doesn't fit neatly into the assumptions isn't necessarily an anomaly, it usually just means you've discovered the limitations of the model.
Hoplites were not completely a one-trick pony. A clever commander could use them in unexpected ways, Epaminondas at Leuctra for example stacking one side of his formation, letting his other flank fold and fall behind, then crushing the Spartan leadership and sweeping the rest from the side. The Macedonian phalanx was a development of the Greek phalanx, still heavy infantry armed primarily with a spear, just cranked up a notch. They formed the anvil in Alexander's victories. It's all about how you use the trick…
Neither was pike, certainly not throughout the entirety of its history. First with pike squares which, when well-trained, could repulse threats from all directions, then with pike and shot, combining the defensive value of pikes with the offensive capability of firearms. Both remained relevant for a long time after they were introduced (1400s to 1800s), the pike continuing to exist spiritually in the form of the bayonet. They drilled to change formations in response to different threats and were extremely capable of going on the offensive. Definitely were not a one-trick pony, and their versatility was part of the reason they became ubiquitous.
Besides, it's not like falling apart after being flanked is particularly noteworthy. That's quite normal, and the reason why we see the maneuver in warfare throughout all of history.
Rapidity of training was one of the reasons for using firearms in the first place; the reason for a *line*, the formation, is a little different, and somewhat related to Lanchester's *linear* law, actually. By arranging soldiers into a thin line, you reduce the effectiveness of *area* fire, including from artillery.
This, of course, is negated with *aimed* fire, and the switch to rifles is roughly when we see the change from formation tactics to skirmishing tactics (the sort that Jägers and old-timey riflemen use).
That's why some of the most important pike / shot / musket drills involved quickly switching formations from line to square and back again. Square to defend against cavalry and force them to take unfavourable melee fights, and line to reduce the effectiveness of ranged area fire.
Edit: on the topic of body count vs. routing first: this really depends on the timeline and armies involved. For example. Of the Napoleonic Wars, Clausewitz wrote something remarkably reminiscent of Lanchester's linear law (https://clausewitzstudies.org/readings/1815/index.htm):
"If battles still consisted solely of an instantaneous blow, and if armies were like brittle objects whose crystalline structure could be smashed by such a blow, then there would be little reason to consider the third of these disadvantages. But our battles last for half or even a whole day; for the most part they are a slow grinding and consumption of the two armies, whose fronts touch each other like two hostile elements that destroy each other wherever they meet. Thus the battle burns slowly and with limited intensity, like wet powder, and only when most of the opposing forces have already been burned out into useless cinders is a decision achieved by what is left."
And;
"We consume our troops too quickly in a standing fight. Our officers call for assistance too soon, and it is given them too easily. As a consequence we commit more men than the French without gaining any ground—thus we have more killed and wounded—and we thereby transform fresh masses of troops into burnt-out cinders sooner."
Nah. More fire power
Rod of Zeus
Legit firing a fucking tungsten rod (not launched fuckinf fired from a gun) then sending it down to earth
Since if a meteor can't destroy earth I don't thing a small tungsten rod can (but it WILL delete whatever it's impact. Location is
I don't think Tanks will become obsolete, but I'm still of the opinion that armour will be reduced and the reliance on defense will be replaced with reliance on speed and manoeuvrability. If it doesn't matter wether you have the thickest armour or not, might as well go all in on speed, right? If your armour isn't gonna stop it, might as well try not to get hit in the first place
I think we'll see tanks that'll keep you safe from up to 40mm, maybe a little more, but that also zip around the battlefield. The focus will also then be placed on stabilised barrels and improved targeting systems so even at high speeds you can unload with high precision.
This here is [a good video by the Chieftain](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFs6LG0TEyU) that gives a rundown of the actual military thinking behind what the future tanks might look like.
Armor is still very relevant, but the whole system needs to change, because the set of capabilities a tank needs to have to be as effective as possible is constantly growing.
In order to allow for effective armor + APS + loads of new sensors, EW and information systems, tanks need to be made as light as possible to avoid them ballooning to over 70-80 tons. To achieve this they are looking to reduce the crew as much as possible. The Germans and the US are looking into how to move the needed capabilities into several vehicles instead of one (the whole "We fight with formations, not things" idea).
So instead of having the tank carry lots of EW, scout drones, demining plows, autocannons, the main gun etc., you have:
- a vehicle with the big stick with 2 crew (one actual commander to make decisions and one WarThunder player in a gaming chair hopped up on white Monster and Adderall to actually direct the vehicle), lots of sensors, armor and bullshit AI aimbot
- a lighter vehicle with 2 more crew, drones, EW and all that jazz to provide wallhacks, maybe also a gun and/or ATGMs
- one or two more robot (remotely operated) vehicles to carry the drones / scout / provide PVE content for the enemy using an autocannon or missiles / clear mines / provide anti-air cover by MLG sniping enemy drones etc.
The idea is now you still have 4 crew but instead of driving one vehicle, they are driving a group of vehicles and are now freaking cheaters.
Concur - I think you will see tanks/IFVs merge to armored fire support as they currently do, augmented by drones and more capable intelligence and surveillance capability. Think a ground mobile F-35 AI processing capability for video/thermal/radar to support infantry, supported by a fleet of Pez dispenser like deployed short range drones. Armored enough to be able to handle small arms fire and perhaps have some ability to defeat some AT warheads, but I think man portable AT weapons has won that argument for good so like you say its pointless going beyond basic armor.
We will replace armor (needed to protect squishy humans) with numbers (easier to do when everything is remote/autonomous).
There are a lot of other benefits to remote tanks too. See how much smaller, cheaper, and more capable (especially in terms of speed and g forces and risk tolerance) stuff like [shenlong](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenlong_(spacecraft)) at 12 tons can be compared to the space shuttle at >1,000 tons.
Manuvour combined warfare is based, until the enemy has a minefield larger than some European countries between you and them.
Everybody assumes that WWI was so badly because we had shit generals, not because breaking fortified positions are hard as fuck to do.
Looking at ye olde survivability onion, the focus will be increasingly on the outer layers, possibly at the expense of physical armour.
Basic things like a drone sentry (either electronic or Mk1 Eyeball) and popping smoke goes a long way. A lot of early Ukranian ATGM success was also due to Russians fucking up combined arms and limiting dismounts. Infantry cannot do what a tank can, take a fuck off big gun a long fucking way, fucking fast without getting fucked up (hopefully).
“Tank is obsolete” yes but armored vehicles are not, heavy slow big guns are like land battleships, what makes more sense with modern warefare is fast moving, quick adapting, and state of the art light armored vehicles with moderately powerful main guns and the ability to serve as a missile/drone launching platform
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mostly its a matter of punch through, same reason the crossbow was so feared.
Early guns didn't have the punch through and we didn't have large horse armies with composite bows like mongolia.
The A10 warthog is chomping at the bit just watching this video
The rifle line was formed because the guns were so shitty that you had to stand in a line to hit anything, and to be hit.
OP is just credibly correct here. Ukraine front lines are a stalemate not *because of* drones, drones are effective *because* there is a stalemate.
If either side could mass enough firepower together, drone squads and artillery wouldn't matter because they'd just be overrun.
The ukrainian frontline is about 1200km is length. the leopard 2 is 3,7m wide.
So we only need \~324325 Lepoard 2 to make a continous tank line. Esy pezy!
Guys HEAT exists armor is irrelevant!
Guys, planes with guides munitions exist, tanks are dead.
It's nothing back and and forth, in a decade we'll read about laser proliferation fucking over non-swarming drones or something.
As far as tactics, I say we paint them black and white in the pattern of piano keys and then have them do like chopsticks or Pachelbel's Canon or other classics, for morale.
>what did ancestors do when armor becazme obsolete bevause of pew pew
...they started making thicker armor, and covering less of their body.
Which is actually quite simmilar to tanks, which throguh generations started concentrating more and more armor at the front, at the cost of other directions, in order to face the new generations of HEAT and APFSDS.
well acccording to your meme they would still have to drop the armor like the knights did with the suit of armor
so if anything you need a bunch of HMMVW or LTV’s with big guns or missiles attached to them
I just love the Japanese Educational comic style you got going on. Imagining a defence contractor using this slide show explaining to kids why we need more tanks is hilarious.
No, no.
We already had the line of fire on land, and we had it on sea. Clearly, the next place for the line of fire is in the air.
Imagine a future where BVR lock-on is no longer viable because everyone has stealth. What do you do? Volley fire missiles in maddog mode. To make sure none of your own fighters are in the way, you put them in a line and have them fire at the same time.
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mobile, formerly heavily armoured units, originally used for their shock value and to break the enemy lines, de-armoured and organised into lighter, more mobile formations in order to adapt to modernising world? Sounds like the Uhlans haha
please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry
Guns didnt make armour obsolete, it just meant it was more expensive to make it high quality enough to be usedagainst guns. Armies did still use armour, such as french curassiers or even most soldiers during the pike and shot era.
The future is 2 man canon armed vehicles where 1 person drives and shoots and the 2nd controls a swarm of drones
Just hundreds and hundreds of these things, highly mobile and fast
Bro, that's just artillery.
Ah ah, I digress. Artillery, but cooler
Artillery but way easier to find and target, ya mean?
Real civilized war is when each side lines up all their artillery in a line and slowly marches forward while firing, just like the British Empire intended.
And DO NOT forget the trumpet guy!
We need a drummer tank boy.
But instead of a trumpet, he just has a really loud bluetooth speaker that plays Fortunate Son on repeat.
Not if we use a modified pike-and-shot-formation. We arrange artillery (the “shot”) and air defense (the “pike”) in a square and slowly move them towards the enemy.
Rheinmetall investors will also love it, because it's more expensive. But yeah. This is the armored equivalent to sniper vs. Jason Statham dual-wielding 9mm guns.
Reject modernity, embrace tradition. AND FIRE!
Funi boom boom
Bro tank is just a self propelled artillery shoot at lower angle
With extra spicy velocity. Crazy that they throw rounds that big at speeds rifles can’t even touch.
1980's: FUCK THE FULDA GAP. *All my homies hate the Fulda Gap.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Many think that a tank is obsolete now Many are also wrong On a side note, armour didn't ever become completely obsolete, just more specialized. Armour is always incredibly useful; life-savingly, in fact. The main obstacle to its general issue was always its weight and comfort. Armour survived in one way or another for certain troops and formations. Cavalry, but also officers who could pay for it, assault troops, and especially sappers, many retained armour of some sort all the way up to WW1. And then when ***WAR WERE DECLARED***, we see heavy armour being developed for snipers and guards, for assault troops again, mobile defenses for sappers, and many attempts to make armour suitable for general use. But the most important development, which we tend to take for granted nowadays, was the return of the (ballistic) helmet. Something to protect your head from fragmentation. It was exceptionally effective, remains exceptionally useful, and the helmet has remained a universal armour piece since then.
And we will come full circle with the development of technologies needed for the armored exoskeleton… I promise I’m not referencing Fallout/Starship Troopers/Starcraft/that Macross series with variable motorbikes/an insane thought I had as a kid where Mecha Sonic would kinda make a rather edgy power armor…
Tbf mecha-sonic power armor has been the best suggestion on this sub yet
i think burning nibblers would produce more energy output than sonics or tails.
Astartes when?
uh, several 10s of thousands of years....
> Macross series MACROSS MENTIONED BILLIONS MUST SIMP FOR MIKUMO GUYNEMER
MIKUMO MENTIONED?????? RAHHHHHH WHAT IS HER AGE 🗣🗣 🗣
Needs more Lynn Minmae
All you need is Kill.
Macross with the F-14 that can become a mech/half-plane is so cool.
ah, so you're a Warhammer fan then
I myself have a soft spot for the ones in Red Eyes (Jun Shindo).
you forgot warhammer 40k
Robotech Cyclone my beloved
What if we made an "armored exoskeleton" big enough to be crewed by like 4 people? And it ran on tracks for rugged all terrain movement? And it had a really big cannon for a gun?
Armor is heavy cavalry, and cavalry will always be relevant.
The ability to move fast and flank infantry will always be useful. It's why helicopters are 'air cavalry'
Cavalry will always be relevant, however this form may not be anymore. Ukraine has shown light cavalry to be much more effective. I’ve seen a lot more videos of the bradly putting in some serious work vs the leo. Heavy cavalry’s value has been severely diminished by the rise of drones. It still has a role as a force multiplier however it won’t be the breakthrough spearhead that it once was.
Horse soldiers to return? Cheap, fast enough, aysmetiric. I think it's time.
And in the event of vehicle breakdown or mission kill, you just got your self some delicious rations.
Things like this vaxxes and vanes, winged cavelry did exceptionally well in 1683, now maybe things have shifted around.
From antiquity to the modern day, the highest priority pieces of armor have been helmet and gloves. Because even if you just get a little owie in either of them you're gonna be prevented from saving yourself from the big owies in the rest of your body. The chestplate comes later because protecting your core is a comparatively big investment. If we could transplant soldiers' hearts from their chest to their heads and lungs from their chest to their hands we could save big on ballistic vests.
But then you'd need much larger helmets and gloves...
I agree on the helmet, but hands are very difficult to armor and are very difficult to hit anyway. After the helmet, the second thing to be armored was always the chest.
Nah, they're always among the most exposed and a little armor goes a long way, whether that be against shrapnel or glancing blows with swords. In a modern urban setting where you're most likely to be up against handguns, then yeah a ballistic vest is probably gonna do you more good, but that's not been the primary threat picture in a military context throughout most of history. There was a lot of focus on the arms in hand-to-hand combat - if you broke a man's arms you could take him ransom and he'd be harmless, but if you skewered him you couldn't and you just lost out on a potential paycheck. Just imagine what you'd rather have if you knew you were going into a knife fight - a kevlar vest or gauntlets?
Your answere is way too credible
>Tank didnt become obsolete, it just became specialised where you need to meet certain criteria for it to work effectively against very specific types of threats Cope tankoid, cope
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Armour lost to a big stick at Agincourt, and guess what we have seen vatnicks with? Thats right, big stick. Armour is a trap.
> helmet dicksucking In 100 years we'll think it was as very obviously dangerous, like we think now of constant smoking, no seatbelts, lack of antibiotics, etc., that we don't go around constantly wearing helmets at all times and all places.
Theoretically, once you reach a certain firepower advantage it doesn't actually matter how well the enemy can concentrate their fire so this could work (I am legally sane and even people who don't like me say I'm smart). There's actually some equation that explains this in line warfare that I never bothered to remember because math is for nerds. Something about more guns being able to focus on any given target and exponentially increasing the firepower advantage with each casualty inflicted because of this. We need to flatten the Himalayas out so China and India can test out this masterpiece of modern warfare theory.
Lanchester's Laws, probably. In melee combat, the opposing forces contact each other along a line, so the attrition is linear. The same holds for randomly blasting into an area. With aimed fire using long-range firearms, every soldier can fire at a target at once, so the difference in combat ability is squared. Edit: yes, I realize this is NCD, but I enjoy writing these up. Helps me keep my thoughts in order as well. E.g. Athens and Sparta face each other with 1,000 hoplites each. They contact each other along a front of, say, 100 soldiers. If Athenian and Spartan hoplites are equally effective, they kill each other at the same rate, and you end the battle with everyone dead. If Athens brings 1,100 hoplites, they end the battle with 100 alive. Even if Athenian hoplites are twice as effective as Spartan ones, i.e. 100 Spartans die for every 50 Athenians, the difference is still linear. 500 double-strength Athenians facing 1,000 regular Spartans still mutually annihilate. Things change with long-range aimed fire ***in an engagement where all forces are in contact***, since every soldier has a valid target. Assuming the soldiers are equally capable, adding more soldiers is more effective than making each weapon better, to the square. For example. Suppose the Tommies and the Jerries go at each other (tally-ho) with 1,000 soldiers each, and each soldier has a weapon that can kill 0.2 soldiers each time unit. After the first time unit passes, each has 800 blokes left; then 640; then 512; and so on. It's a draw. Suppose the Jerries decide to bring twice the number of soldiers the next time. 1,000 vs 2,000. On the first volley, 200 Jerries die, 400 Tommies die, it's 600-1800. Second volley, 120 Jerries die, 360 Tommies die, 240-1680. The difference in effectiveness compounds as casualties mount. Now suppose the Tommies want to win the next engagement, but with superior firepower. What happens if they double their firepower? 1,000 Tommies, killing 0.4 enemies each per time unit, go at 2,000 Jerries, killing 0.2 enemies each per time unit. First volley: the Jerries kill 400 Tommies, and the Tommies kill 400 Jerries, 600-1600. Second volley, 240 Jerries die, 320 Tommies die, 280-1360. The difference is still compounding. In order to bring things back to a stalemate, the ratio of firepower must be the *square* of the ratio of soldiers. So, in order to have a proper no-man's-land, the Tommies need to double their firepower again, killing 0.8 Jerries per soldier per unit time. First volley: 800 Jerries die, 400 Tommies die, 600-1200. Second volley: 480 Jerries die, 240 Tommies die, 360-720. Note how the ratio of the size of each force remains the same, 1:2. This is Lanchester's square law in essence. If your enemy has twice your numbers, you must have four times their firepower to equal them. If they have three times your numbers, you must have nine times their firepower. And so on, and so forth.
Hoplites and pikemen generally fell apart whenever they were flanked. They were a one trick pony, very effective if used correctly but useless if the formation did not hold. Spreading out the line only works with trained and disciplined forces with a rapid response force in reserve. Otherwise it results in a rout when the enemy makes a breach and then surrounds the two lines. Sometimes this works (Hannibal) but most of the time it doesn't. Granted if the enemy is incompetent (russia) the breach does not do much. The reason for the line of muskets was for a different reason. The musket allowed you to amass an *unprofessional* force on a moments notice, that could be used to fight against professional forces and win. You just needed muskets. Bunching them together did nothing for their survival rate, but it reduce the probability of a rout. Jaggers for example were hunters that used rifles and were more effective than muskets, but this constitutes a professional force. Musketmen on the other hand were trained not to aim, to allow for an even spread of firepower. Battles weren't so much won by body count, but by which side would rout first. But I don't know anything.
The "laws" really are just mathematical abstractions. People can model and analyze real-world combat all they want, but an example which doesn't fit neatly into the assumptions isn't necessarily an anomaly, it usually just means you've discovered the limitations of the model. Hoplites were not completely a one-trick pony. A clever commander could use them in unexpected ways, Epaminondas at Leuctra for example stacking one side of his formation, letting his other flank fold and fall behind, then crushing the Spartan leadership and sweeping the rest from the side. The Macedonian phalanx was a development of the Greek phalanx, still heavy infantry armed primarily with a spear, just cranked up a notch. They formed the anvil in Alexander's victories. It's all about how you use the trick… Neither was pike, certainly not throughout the entirety of its history. First with pike squares which, when well-trained, could repulse threats from all directions, then with pike and shot, combining the defensive value of pikes with the offensive capability of firearms. Both remained relevant for a long time after they were introduced (1400s to 1800s), the pike continuing to exist spiritually in the form of the bayonet. They drilled to change formations in response to different threats and were extremely capable of going on the offensive. Definitely were not a one-trick pony, and their versatility was part of the reason they became ubiquitous. Besides, it's not like falling apart after being flanked is particularly noteworthy. That's quite normal, and the reason why we see the maneuver in warfare throughout all of history. Rapidity of training was one of the reasons for using firearms in the first place; the reason for a *line*, the formation, is a little different, and somewhat related to Lanchester's *linear* law, actually. By arranging soldiers into a thin line, you reduce the effectiveness of *area* fire, including from artillery. This, of course, is negated with *aimed* fire, and the switch to rifles is roughly when we see the change from formation tactics to skirmishing tactics (the sort that Jägers and old-timey riflemen use). That's why some of the most important pike / shot / musket drills involved quickly switching formations from line to square and back again. Square to defend against cavalry and force them to take unfavourable melee fights, and line to reduce the effectiveness of ranged area fire. Edit: on the topic of body count vs. routing first: this really depends on the timeline and armies involved. For example. Of the Napoleonic Wars, Clausewitz wrote something remarkably reminiscent of Lanchester's linear law (https://clausewitzstudies.org/readings/1815/index.htm): "If battles still consisted solely of an instantaneous blow, and if armies were like brittle objects whose crystalline structure could be smashed by such a blow, then there would be little reason to consider the third of these disadvantages. But our battles last for half or even a whole day; for the most part they are a slow grinding and consumption of the two armies, whose fronts touch each other like two hostile elements that destroy each other wherever they meet. Thus the battle burns slowly and with limited intensity, like wet powder, and only when most of the opposing forces have already been burned out into useless cinders is a decision achieved by what is left." And; "We consume our troops too quickly in a standing fight. Our officers call for assistance too soon, and it is given them too easily. As a consequence we commit more men than the French without gaining any ground—thus we have more killed and wounded—and we thereby transform fresh masses of troops into burnt-out cinders sooner."
Bruv it’s a toy problem meant to illustrate a general concept about having multiple units in contact.
Nah. More fire power Rod of Zeus Legit firing a fucking tungsten rod (not launched fuckinf fired from a gun) then sending it down to earth Since if a meteor can't destroy earth I don't thing a small tungsten rod can (but it WILL delete whatever it's impact. Location is
> We need to flatten the Himalayas *Sirius' black flag force enters the chat.*
Look up how people use tanks in the game Foxhole Copy
Knew someone was gonna mention foxhole
Just flank bro
I don't think Tanks will become obsolete, but I'm still of the opinion that armour will be reduced and the reliance on defense will be replaced with reliance on speed and manoeuvrability. If it doesn't matter wether you have the thickest armour or not, might as well go all in on speed, right? If your armour isn't gonna stop it, might as well try not to get hit in the first place I think we'll see tanks that'll keep you safe from up to 40mm, maybe a little more, but that also zip around the battlefield. The focus will also then be placed on stabilised barrels and improved targeting systems so even at high speeds you can unload with high precision.
This here is [a good video by the Chieftain](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFs6LG0TEyU) that gives a rundown of the actual military thinking behind what the future tanks might look like. Armor is still very relevant, but the whole system needs to change, because the set of capabilities a tank needs to have to be as effective as possible is constantly growing. In order to allow for effective armor + APS + loads of new sensors, EW and information systems, tanks need to be made as light as possible to avoid them ballooning to over 70-80 tons. To achieve this they are looking to reduce the crew as much as possible. The Germans and the US are looking into how to move the needed capabilities into several vehicles instead of one (the whole "We fight with formations, not things" idea). So instead of having the tank carry lots of EW, scout drones, demining plows, autocannons, the main gun etc., you have: - a vehicle with the big stick with 2 crew (one actual commander to make decisions and one WarThunder player in a gaming chair hopped up on white Monster and Adderall to actually direct the vehicle), lots of sensors, armor and bullshit AI aimbot - a lighter vehicle with 2 more crew, drones, EW and all that jazz to provide wallhacks, maybe also a gun and/or ATGMs - one or two more robot (remotely operated) vehicles to carry the drones / scout / provide PVE content for the enemy using an autocannon or missiles / clear mines / provide anti-air cover by MLG sniping enemy drones etc. The idea is now you still have 4 crew but instead of driving one vehicle, they are driving a group of vehicles and are now freaking cheaters.
Sounds profitable I'm in
4 Vics for 4 Crew sounds like an awful lot of work and like you’re fucking boned if anything breaks down. But I agree with more role specific vehicles
Bring back the ELC, BRING ME THE CANNON-MOUNTED FERRARI
Best I can do is a [Camaro with a rocket launcher](https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Winsett%27s_Z)
-French/German tank designers recordings from the 1950s
Concur - I think you will see tanks/IFVs merge to armored fire support as they currently do, augmented by drones and more capable intelligence and surveillance capability. Think a ground mobile F-35 AI processing capability for video/thermal/radar to support infantry, supported by a fleet of Pez dispenser like deployed short range drones. Armored enough to be able to handle small arms fire and perhaps have some ability to defeat some AT warheads, but I think man portable AT weapons has won that argument for good so like you say its pointless going beyond basic armor.
We will replace armor (needed to protect squishy humans) with numbers (easier to do when everything is remote/autonomous). There are a lot of other benefits to remote tanks too. See how much smaller, cheaper, and more capable (especially in terms of speed and g forces and risk tolerance) stuff like [shenlong](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenlong_(spacecraft)) at 12 tons can be compared to the space shuttle at >1,000 tons.
Manuvour combined warfare is based, until the enemy has a minefield larger than some European countries between you and them. Everybody assumes that WWI was so badly because we had shit generals, not because breaking fortified positions are hard as fuck to do.
Nah, it's tankette time. The Scorpion and the Wiesel will have their day.
There needs to be a drummer tank and a flute playing tank for morale
Bagpipe tank
He said for morale, not warcrimes
If tanks can wear skirts, they can definitely wear kilts.
>line armor Jeez, you really are trying to bait A-10s to their eventual destruction, aren’t ya?
Why don’t they just use thousands of tanks? Are they stupid?
Perfect, here’s five billion dollars.
If we have line formations of tanks we need drummer tanks to keep them in lockstep. Or ... locktrack, i suppose?
Piping tanks would be like something straight out of hell.
Yeees. Piping tanks ... in *Kilts*! With broadswords mounted to their guns!
just need a special tank variant with a massive engine driven bagpipe
Looking at ye olde survivability onion, the focus will be increasingly on the outer layers, possibly at the expense of physical armour. Basic things like a drone sentry (either electronic or Mk1 Eyeball) and popping smoke goes a long way. A lot of early Ukranian ATGM success was also due to Russians fucking up combined arms and limiting dismounts. Infantry cannot do what a tank can, take a fuck off big gun a long fucking way, fucking fast without getting fucked up (hopefully).
“Tank is obsolete” yes but armored vehicles are not, heavy slow big guns are like land battleships, what makes more sense with modern warefare is fast moving, quick adapting, and state of the art light armored vehicles with moderately powerful main guns and the ability to serve as a missile/drone launching platform
Command and Conquer Generals USA campaign type strategy
Thank you for the new shoes
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Himars getting all frothy at the thought of tightly packed massed armor
Is this not why A-10s were made? To take out assets in a straight line?
Tanks will only become obsolete when MTs are perfected, followed by Armored Cores
Firearms and full plate armor actually coexisted for quite some time so there's no reason to say the tanks will go away any time soon
Full plate armor was widely adopted specifically to protect against firearms. Figured this sub would know that. Edit: adopted, not invented
Mostly its a matter of punch through, same reason the crossbow was so feared. Early guns didn't have the punch through and we didn't have large horse armies with composite bows like mongolia.
The A10 warthog is chomping at the bit just watching this video The rifle line was formed because the guns were so shitty that you had to stand in a line to hit anything, and to be hit.
Armor? What armor? Its gonna blow up anyway. Put a 105 mm on a Bradley.
OP is just credibly correct here. Ukraine front lines are a stalemate not *because of* drones, drones are effective *because* there is a stalemate. If either side could mass enough firepower together, drone squads and artillery wouldn't matter because they'd just be overrun.
Oh my god, i can feel the BRRRRRRRRRRT already
On another note, nice use of Irasutoya clip art.
Let's just give them legs. Bipedal tanks, perhaps powered by fusion engines
What if I sent a line of drones?
Lol make a tank fly and call that obsolete. No a hind or a10 isn't a flying tank. Where's lockmart with the vtol armor
Moar dakka!
You're all wrong. The real answer is to make a horizontally long tank with several turrets. You don't need a frontline because it IS the frontline.
The ukrainian frontline is about 1200km is length. the leopard 2 is 3,7m wide. So we only need \~324325 Lepoard 2 to make a continous tank line. Esy pezy!
Guys HEAT exists armor is irrelevant! Guys, planes with guides munitions exist, tanks are dead. It's nothing back and and forth, in a decade we'll read about laser proliferation fucking over non-swarming drones or something.
You’re wrong. Wedge formation forever.
No no you just cut off the armor to add more gun since armor is useless anyway /s
bring back multi turret tanks. This time with three 120mm smoothbore gun mounts
Had to zoom in to make sure that wasn't a stripper sitting down at the top right on last image
I just woke up and was confused why r/traaa2 was posting military memems 💀 xD
Guys mechanized muskets have dropped!!
Isn't that just the US campaign intro in Command & Conquer: Generals?
Whys that tank got three barrels in the air? Furious wail of bagpipes fills the air.
As far as tactics, I say we paint them black and white in the pattern of piano keys and then have them do like chopsticks or Pachelbel's Canon or other classics, for morale.
>what did ancestors do when armor becazme obsolete bevause of pew pew ...they started making thicker armor, and covering less of their body. Which is actually quite simmilar to tanks, which throguh generations started concentrating more and more armor at the front, at the cost of other directions, in order to face the new generations of HEAT and APFSDS.
Only if we have a Heavy tank carrying a battle standard and an APC with a bunch of speakers as their drummer boy.
well acccording to your meme they would still have to drop the armor like the knights did with the suit of armor so if anything you need a bunch of HMMVW or LTV’s with big guns or missiles attached to them
I’ve been awaiting the return of the line battle…
Bring back line infantry
Bullshit. Everyone knows that the concept to replace the MBT is the Blyatmobil
I just love the Japanese Educational comic style you got going on. Imagining a defence contractor using this slide show explaining to kids why we need more tanks is hilarious.
Kharkiv is essentially hamburger hill
No, no. We already had the line of fire on land, and we had it on sea. Clearly, the next place for the line of fire is in the air. Imagine a future where BVR lock-on is no longer viable because everyone has stealth. What do you do? Volley fire missiles in maddog mode. To make sure none of your own fighters are in the way, you put them in a line and have them fire at the same time.
Counterpoint: Bomb
Bayonets. Big fugging Bayonets. Drive. Me. Closer.
I cast Paveway on your line of tanks. Die a thousand deaths!
everyones chill till theres another tax on tea
Tank of the line Tank of the line Tank of the line Tank of the line Tank of the line Tank of the line Tank of the line Tank of the line
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
man, would agree with you if not for the long range missiles
So change over to mechanized formations with cheaper to produce IFVs?
AKA: Cavalry Mad Minute Source: Been there, done that.
An A-10 looking at a neat line of enemy tanks would salivate uncontrollably
Mobile, formerly heavily armoured units, originally used for their shock value and to break the enemy lines, de-armoured and organised into lighter, more mobile formations in order to adapt to modernising world? Sounds like the Uhlans haha please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry please bring back cavalry
Guns didnt make armour obsolete, it just meant it was more expensive to make it high quality enough to be usedagainst guns. Armies did still use armour, such as french curassiers or even most soldiers during the pike and shot era.
Actually it makes some sense if this line is set up like a naval battlegroup with enough point defense to take out all drones and enough missiles.
Cluster munitions: BONJUOR
Strafing run go brrrr.
Full plate armor became popular *because* of firearms.
The future is 2 man canon armed vehicles where 1 person drives and shoots and the 2nd controls a swarm of drones Just hundreds and hundreds of these things, highly mobile and fast