Global military buildup

[Zoupa]

Seems pretty clear Ukrainians are the subject matter experts when it comes to fighting Russians.

If they say "we need more tanks", we should probably listen.

What a wonderful idea. 

So apart from the snarky one-liners, you mind expanding a bit on "I think the tank no longer belongs on the modern battlefield."

[Admiral Yi]

So apart from the snarky one-liners, you mind expanding a bit on "I think the tank no longer belongs on the modern battlefield."

Since you asked, I do mind.  I made a purely academic statement and your responded as if I had insulted your mother.  It was bizarre.  What kind of person responds to a statement about the place of the tank on the modern battlefield as if it's a personal matter?

[grumbler]

Military procurement seems to lead to over-engineered, very expensive, but also extremely capable systems that have very long lead times in production and training.

I wonder if in an all-out war, quantity is not more important than quality. So maybe military design in the future should not emphasize getting the last bit of capability out of small numbers of equipment, but rather focus on simple production and logistics so that it is possible to make and use a lot of it?

Maybe not for the US with its huge budget as they can actually afford the super-duper solutions in sufficient quantities, but for the rest of the world.

Think Bayraktar versus the more advanced US drones.

This has long been a debate in military (and naval) services.  If you have the manpower, lots of good enough systems are good enough.  A classic example of this was the US debate ion WW2 over whether to replace the M4 Sherman tank with the T26/M26 with its better armor and much more powerful gun.  The decision was made to stick with the less powerful Sherman because they had had all the production bugs worked out and many more could be made and shipped than the M-26.  A big part of that was the realization that tanks actually seldom fought tanks, and in all other missions the M4 was as good as a tank needed to be.  More tankers were lost than would have been the case with better tanks, but the increased combat capabilities were seen as worth it.

The US Navy wants to build a lot of lower-capability more expendable ships with lower manning, but has generally ended up with over-designed, overly-expensive ships that are not, in fact, expendable.

"Quantity has a quality all it's own," as Uncle Joe is supposed to have said.

[Berkut]

"Getting the bugs worked out" has incredible value, especially in the middle of a war.

[Berkut]

I think tanks still belong on the modern battlefield, but I don't think they are the dominant weapons system anymore. 

I am not sure, but I think it has shifted back to the infantryman again.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Area denial.  Mines.

[Tamas]

It is an interesting question though.

For a lot of countries that have let their military deteriorate to nearly nothing, what is the right way to build it back up?

What should they spend on, assuming they are starting from nearly scratch?

Nukes.

[The Larch]

I think tanks still belong on the modern battlefield, but I don't think they are the dominant weapons system anymore.

I am not sure, but I think it has shifted back to the infantryman again.

I think about the same, tanks will have a role but they won't be the kings of the battlefield anymore. I doubt that having loads of them will make much sense anymore. I'd say that light infantry coordinated with drones and artillery could be a winning combination, as well as relatively inexpensive.

[Zoupa]

So apart from the snarky one-liners, you mind expanding a bit on "I think the tank no longer belongs on the modern battlefield."

Since you asked, I do mind.  I made a purely academic statement and your responded as if I had insulted your mother.  It was bizarre.  What kind of person responds to a statement about the place of the tank on the modern battlefield as if it's a personal matter?

Wtf are you going on about? I said the Ukrainians are in a better position than us (NATO) to know how to beat Russia.

Not sure how that qualifies as me responding as if you insulted my mother...

Whatever. Carry on.

[Razgovory]

I would be wary about drawing to many conclusions about Russian-Ukrainian equipment.  The tanks getting blown up are outdated, manned by poorly trained crews guided by defective doctrines.  Tanks were dismissed in the 1930's based on the Italian experiences in Spain.  The correct interpretation was not that the tanks weren't a decisive arm of the military but that the Italians were incompetent. 

[alfred russel]

Why should there be a military buildup? Do we think we need more fancy toys to stand up to Russia for some reason?

[Admiral Yi]

Wtf are you going on about? I said the Ukrainians are in a better position than us (NATO) to know how to beat Russia.

Not sure how that qualifies as me responding as if you insulted my mother...

Whatever. Carry on.

When I first read your post, I took it to mean the Ukrainians know better than me, which sounded sarcastic, and I responded in kind.  Since you've clarified, I will answer your question as to why I think the tank doesn't belong on the battlefield.

Indications are that modern ATGMs have a very high kill rate.  By modern ATGMs I mean the Javelin and the NLAW, the kind that hit the top of the turret.  IIRC the Javelin has a range of 2,000 meters and the NLAW 600.  That means you have to have information about enemy positions that far out in front of you to ensure any kind of tank survivability, either visually or some other kind of intel, like heat or camera, or whatever, so you can avoid, suppress, or kill any ATGM teams.  If you need to maintain a screen of dismounted infantry 2,000 meters in front of any of your tanks, that reduces the ability of the tank to place fire on enemy positions or vehicles.  Ergo, the tank is becoming useless.

[Eddie Teach]

Why should there be a military buildup? Do we think we need more fancy toys to stand up to Russia for some reason?

I think it's so Europe can act independently. There's no need for us to spend more on the military.

[Jacob]

When I first read your post, I took it to mean the Ukrainians know better than me, which sounded sarcastic, and I responded in kind.  Since you've clarified, I will answer your question as to why I think the tank doesn't belong on the battlefield.

Indications are that modern ATGMs have a very high kill rate.  By modern ATGMs I mean the Javelin and the NLAW, the kind that hit the top of the turret.  IIRC the Javelin has a range of 2,000 meters and the NLAW 600.  That means you have to have information about enemy positions that far out in front of you to ensure any kind of tank survivability, either visually or some other kind of intel, like heat or camera, or whatever, so you can avoid, suppress, or kill any ATGM teams.  If you need to maintain a screen of dismounted infantry 2,000 meters in front of any of your tanks, that reduces the ability of the tank to place fire on enemy positions or vehicles.  Ergo, the tank is becoming useless.

I would think that the advances of man-portable anti-tank weapons means that additional care and thinking has to go into the combined arms tactics with tanks, rather than outright render tanks obsolete. I mean, there are many man-portable anti-aircraft weapons as well, with great range, and that doesn't mean that fixed wing aircraft and helicopters are obsolete... right?

I'd expect that tanks will remain useful in situations where bringing maneuverable heavy guns to bear quickly is worthwhile. There might still be applications like that in all the different permutations of modern warfare.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't think Europe meaningfully needs to spend more simply for self-defense. But if they want to try and improve, I think the foundation would be a shift to a more professional, career, full time military. It is a good move that most NATO member countries have ended conscription and universal male service--I spent time in Europe when I was in the Army and every officer I've ever discussed it with has agreed that the general quality of European conscript soldiers was absolutely atrocious.

That being said, several significant NATO member countries--Germany in particular, while no longer reliant on conscripts, is overly reliant on people who can serve as short as a 7 month enlistment contract with many serving between 7 months and 23 months. The average length of enlistment in the U.S. military across the non-Coast Guard branches is 15 years--this is the sign of a military with a lot of guys and gals joining to make a career of it.

This is important because of many of the things we're seeing right now in Ukraine--chaff soldiers do horribly on a modern battlefield which is filled with very portable, very lethal munitions and in which small unit discipline, NCO professionalism and skill etc are paramount.

Layering on top of that, major efforts, including developing more robust war college type programs for them, needs to go into beefing up the career NCO corps--in small unit warfare these are the guys who are largely responsible for success or failure.

Mass manpower wars of the second World War and to some degree I think how we often imagined a Great Power war might look for the entirety of the Cold War, things were different, you needed a lot of meat. I think the ability to rain destruction down through a number of delivery modes on large unit formations means there may just be very few scenarios in a great power war where a great power can even leverage a mass man formation akin to the huge offensive fronts of WW2. There's just too many ways to kill too many guys at once.

Drones, missiles, and other long range weaponry effectively neutralize large manpower buildups. At the same time, where infantry are still important, they are better served by being dynamic, independent, and able to operate effectively in a variety of conditions under limited supervision.

A robust special forces element can serve as sort of a beating heart of the ethos you want all of your infantryman to possess.

TLDR:

- Professionalize
- Beef up NCO training/education
- Buy/build a fuckton of missiles of all delivery modes
- Invest heavily in drones

For Europe, the Naval question really depends on what they're talking about doing.