It is the year 2050. And again, war has broken out in the Middle East.US forces are backed by entire units of robot tanks and planes, which are controlled by human pilots from command vehicles near the front.Support stations further back are monitoring the battlefield situation.The human operator/commander gives the detachments of robots mission directives and the robots unleash hell — executing the directives autonomously.As the battle rages robots communicate with each other, and manned assets on the field, to coordinate their attack.I'm sure that all sounds futuristic and cool, but what is the situation with tanks today?The answer is, not very good. In fact, some are saying, the tank, as we know it, is dead. Deader than Julius Caesar.Ukraine is strewn with destroyed tanks from both sides.According to a report in RealClearDefence.These include the Russian T-90MS tank (worth about US $4.2 million) and the German Leopard 2A6 tank (about US$6.3 million). They are being hunted and killed by cheap Chinese drones and their local variants that can sell for as low as US$400.The FPV — or "first-person view" — drones used in such strikes are equipped with an onboard camera that enables operators to direct them to their target with pinpoint accuracy, according to Politico.Years ago a teen might hope to get one as a present. Now they are being used as agile weapons that can transform asymmetric battlefield outcomes..“It's hard to handle the emotion when a drone pilot hits a tank," Sergeant Yegor Firsov, deputy commander of a Ukrainian army strike drone unit, wrote in a Facebook post."The whole group and the whole platoon are happy like babies. Infantry units are rejoicing nearby. Everyone is screaming and hugging. Although they do not know the guy who gave them this happiness.” A typical drone can be bought or made. Ukraine uses microchips imported from China with other details bought right off AliExpress.A modified carbon frame is added, it is easily weaponized and batteries are from Tesla.Everything comes as cheap as borscht.The US has also supplied Ukraine with 155mm howitzer rounds known as Remote Anti-Armour Munitions (RAAM), RealClearDefence reported.Each shell scatters nine, 2.3kg magnetically activated mines.Russian tanks often hit these mines, damaging their tracks, making them sitting targets. They are all then finished off by precision artillery and antitank guided missiles.While there is no doubt that against lightly armed foes such as Hamas in Gaza, key objectives can be taken. Ukraine is a different ball-game.And the losses are nothing short of extraordinary.Moscow invaded Ukraine with an estimated fleet size of 3,417 main battle tanks, around three and a half times that of Ukraine.Russia lost roughly 60%, about 2,000 of these by mid-2023, The Moscow Times reported in July, citing the Kiel Institute’s Ukraine Support Tracker.They claim that Ukraine has lost the same number of tanks, but there is no source for that claim..Keep in mind, around Avdiivka alone, the Russians are losing 60 tanks a month. And that number could grow as the 239th Tank Regiment rolls into battle.Which begs the question, are any tanks performing well?The old 42-ton Ukrainian T-64 tanks (worth about US$1.12 million) are heavily armored and are performing well.But the state-of-the-art German Leopard 2A6 tank (62 tons) and the British Challenger II tank (64 tons) are both faster and far superior, according to RealClearDefence sources."They have better armor protection using advanced active protection systems, fire control, optics and munitions," Seth G. Jones, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) noted.Ironically, the beast of all beasts, the US-made M1 Abrams has not seen action. That's because at a massive 73 tons, it's too heavy for the muddy Ukrainian roads. It is also too expensive to maintain..At AUSA 2023 in October, which I attended, the Abrams could not be displayed at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, DC, because it was simply too heavy.Ironically, one of the best American tanks on the battlefield, is not actually a tank. It is a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (worth about US$2.4 million), RealClearDefence reported. The M3 Bradley (27.6 tons) equipped with BGM-71 TOW missiles is more than a match for any Russian tank.Originally developed as an infantry carrier, it has a V-shaped base and is very protective of its crew. And speaking of survival, death by tank is not a pretty way to go.Playing war on a video game may be fun, but in real life tank crews are burnt, injured, concussed and suffer long-term brain damage. Even worse — in Russian tanks the ammo is stored right next to the crew, so death is instantaneous.So, what is the future for the tank?Experts say that one day, tanks could be AI controlled and/or remotely controlled and crewless. The focus will be on light armor, mass production and low maintenance.In other words, AI equipped cannon fodder. Sent to the front to face the barrage. Cheap to build and maintain and built for attrition.The US Marine motto of nemo resideo, or “leave no one behind,” need not apply. Operators would be miles away, manning computers. Perhaps munching on some potato chips and well out of range.
It is the year 2050. And again, war has broken out in the Middle East.US forces are backed by entire units of robot tanks and planes, which are controlled by human pilots from command vehicles near the front.Support stations further back are monitoring the battlefield situation.The human operator/commander gives the detachments of robots mission directives and the robots unleash hell — executing the directives autonomously.As the battle rages robots communicate with each other, and manned assets on the field, to coordinate their attack.I'm sure that all sounds futuristic and cool, but what is the situation with tanks today?The answer is, not very good. In fact, some are saying, the tank, as we know it, is dead. Deader than Julius Caesar.Ukraine is strewn with destroyed tanks from both sides.According to a report in RealClearDefence.These include the Russian T-90MS tank (worth about US $4.2 million) and the German Leopard 2A6 tank (about US$6.3 million). They are being hunted and killed by cheap Chinese drones and their local variants that can sell for as low as US$400.The FPV — or "first-person view" — drones used in such strikes are equipped with an onboard camera that enables operators to direct them to their target with pinpoint accuracy, according to Politico.Years ago a teen might hope to get one as a present. Now they are being used as agile weapons that can transform asymmetric battlefield outcomes..“It's hard to handle the emotion when a drone pilot hits a tank," Sergeant Yegor Firsov, deputy commander of a Ukrainian army strike drone unit, wrote in a Facebook post."The whole group and the whole platoon are happy like babies. Infantry units are rejoicing nearby. Everyone is screaming and hugging. Although they do not know the guy who gave them this happiness.” A typical drone can be bought or made. Ukraine uses microchips imported from China with other details bought right off AliExpress.A modified carbon frame is added, it is easily weaponized and batteries are from Tesla.Everything comes as cheap as borscht.The US has also supplied Ukraine with 155mm howitzer rounds known as Remote Anti-Armour Munitions (RAAM), RealClearDefence reported.Each shell scatters nine, 2.3kg magnetically activated mines.Russian tanks often hit these mines, damaging their tracks, making them sitting targets. They are all then finished off by precision artillery and antitank guided missiles.While there is no doubt that against lightly armed foes such as Hamas in Gaza, key objectives can be taken. Ukraine is a different ball-game.And the losses are nothing short of extraordinary.Moscow invaded Ukraine with an estimated fleet size of 3,417 main battle tanks, around three and a half times that of Ukraine.Russia lost roughly 60%, about 2,000 of these by mid-2023, The Moscow Times reported in July, citing the Kiel Institute’s Ukraine Support Tracker.They claim that Ukraine has lost the same number of tanks, but there is no source for that claim..Keep in mind, around Avdiivka alone, the Russians are losing 60 tanks a month. And that number could grow as the 239th Tank Regiment rolls into battle.Which begs the question, are any tanks performing well?The old 42-ton Ukrainian T-64 tanks (worth about US$1.12 million) are heavily armored and are performing well.But the state-of-the-art German Leopard 2A6 tank (62 tons) and the British Challenger II tank (64 tons) are both faster and far superior, according to RealClearDefence sources."They have better armor protection using advanced active protection systems, fire control, optics and munitions," Seth G. Jones, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) noted.Ironically, the beast of all beasts, the US-made M1 Abrams has not seen action. That's because at a massive 73 tons, it's too heavy for the muddy Ukrainian roads. It is also too expensive to maintain..At AUSA 2023 in October, which I attended, the Abrams could not be displayed at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, DC, because it was simply too heavy.Ironically, one of the best American tanks on the battlefield, is not actually a tank. It is a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (worth about US$2.4 million), RealClearDefence reported. The M3 Bradley (27.6 tons) equipped with BGM-71 TOW missiles is more than a match for any Russian tank.Originally developed as an infantry carrier, it has a V-shaped base and is very protective of its crew. And speaking of survival, death by tank is not a pretty way to go.Playing war on a video game may be fun, but in real life tank crews are burnt, injured, concussed and suffer long-term brain damage. Even worse — in Russian tanks the ammo is stored right next to the crew, so death is instantaneous.So, what is the future for the tank?Experts say that one day, tanks could be AI controlled and/or remotely controlled and crewless. The focus will be on light armor, mass production and low maintenance.In other words, AI equipped cannon fodder. Sent to the front to face the barrage. Cheap to build and maintain and built for attrition.The US Marine motto of nemo resideo, or “leave no one behind,” need not apply. Operators would be miles away, manning computers. Perhaps munching on some potato chips and well out of range.
