modern tactics whit new tanks

[Trekker]

Hi.
Im still doing my Essay on active protection systems for tanks and IFV's..

A new question that my sick mind came up whit is, how would the tactics change when units
uses active protection? and how would the new tanks look like...

I know no one really knows right now, but feel free to tell me your version of the future.
Anything will help i promise, i can alone only come up whit so many changes in tactics... ;)

Thanks.. BMP..

[Ssnake]

Well, tactics largely depend on the actual capacity of a technology or a technical solution. I doubt that "active protection" can ever eliminate the need for decent passive protection (plain old armor), even if it may help to reduce the max weight.

The extent by which tactics can be shifted by technology depends on several variables, among them the capabilities of the enemy (which may vary), the reluctance of a more conservative officer corps to change established tactics, the reliability of the technology etc.
For example, the US Army fielded a "soft kill" solution to dazzle incoming missiles. A link recently posted here quoted the statement that this solution simply wasn't accepted by the units in the field because it requires the gunner to track the missile instead of going for the launching platform or the observer. Regardless of whether the system works as advertised or not, this solution puts the crews in a passive role and therefore doesn't find acceptance.

On the other hand, if explosively formed penetrator slugs and the aiming system work appropriately to achieve a high kill probability for top attack artillery munitions, this might massively change the employment rules for artillery. For the first time you could employ artillery for singular targets, or use long range rocket artillery for battlefield interception/deep strikes that were previously reserved to strike fighters and bomber jets.


To me, ATGM are direct fire weapons, so active missile protection means that you can hope to survive a missile that's being launched against you. Still, the best protection is not to get hit at all, not to make your survival depend on a technical system (that may fail). Therefore I would be reluctant to apply a tactic of "Hah! Those pesky missiles! Let's just ignore them, and drive by!"
You'd still try to eliminate the threat. Might be a good solution against fire and forget missiles like the Javelin, though.

[ShotMagnet]

Tactics, for tanks, depend on how and when and what the tank will be used, and how much time (which equals money) and material (which equals more money) you want to spend in order to make your tank 'safe'. Knowing that there isn't such a thing as an invulnerable vehicle, how much effort might one expend making one's tanks as 'safe' as possible?
Sometimes making the tank survivable isn't the most important question. If the goal is to mass-produce tanks, making them cheap and easy to use might be the most important consideration. That will affect how they're used, what tactics they'll employ, and so on.
For a vision of the future, and to see how some of the above might be put to use, think about this.
The tanks that you are able to make are very expensive, and they can't be depended on to stop incoming missile fire. You still have to have tanks, though, so maybe instead of depending on the tank's armor to shrug off the hit, you'll mount something one the outside of the turret like a claymore mine. It's rigged to a sort of primitive radar that can detect the incoming missile, and can fire off the mine when the missile is at the proper distance. The mine throws thousands of ball bearings at the missile, shredding it before it can hit the tank.
Or, instead of a mine, the tank carries a maser, which works by focusing a beam of microwaves on a target. Hit a missile with a maser and you'll likely fry the electronics guiding the missile, causing it to miss.
Practical considerations will likely keep both masers and claymore mines from being used as anti-ATGM weapons for at least a little while, but for a glimpse into the future they're something to think about.
Changes in tactics will depend on what the new weapons and new capabilities will allow.

Shot

[brazen]

its an interesting subject that is attracting a lot of controversy and not just in armoured warfare.

the airline industry has looked quite deeply into various systems for removing the threat of shoulder launched missiles, especially since the attack in kenya last year.

there is a proposed system(used in air force one) that works in a similar way to how i understand the dazzler to work. it optically confuses an incomming missile, and automatically follows its flight path maintaining the effect until the missile ceases to be a threat. i am not sure about the exact technology involved, but the controversy comes because once the system is installed, the pilot of the aircraft has no idea of its status. if a missile is engaged, the pilot never knows. the system would cost 10 billion dollars (us) to install in the american airlines fleet alone, a bill that the airline simply couldn't deal with. it is already installed in much of the israeli national carrier fleet.

a bit off topic... but if you are doing an essay comparative examples are always helpful... particullarly when you are looking at cost vs benifit. many amazing vehicles have never seen the light of day simply because of the cost of implimenting their advanced gizmos...

[Trekker]

As i said any remarks is appriciated. :) . And as you have said money counts, and adoption in both
technology and tactic is bound to follow the flow of money..

But what im really interested in knowing is if you think that the tactic todays tank plt/coy uses,
will they be the same when every vehicle is using active protection.

And will these systems be trusted?

[Ssnake]

But what im really interested in knowing is if you think that the tactic todays tank plt/coy uses,
will they be the same when every vehicle is using active protection.It's also a question of how exactly the system works...:
Does it require the crew to track an incoming missile? Apparently this solution is not well received.
Does it automatically swivel the turret into the direction of the incoming missile, and if so, can such a system be tricked by employing several (alternating) illumination/targeting lasers, or at which point gets the system saturated by more incoming missiles than it can handle?
Does it emit radiation, e.g. radar to detect and track incoming missiles, and would this radiation emission conflict with emission control orders (e.g. no radio activity until contact with the enemy has been made etc.) - would the radiation emission even work as a homing signal for new missile generations?
And will these systems be trusted? Trust builds on reputation. Such a protection system would require at least a couple of documented successful real life engagements.

[ShotMagnet]

...the tactic todays tank plt/coy uses, will they be the same when every vehicle is using active protection.

Probably not, even if everybody uses active protection, if by 'active protection' you mean reactive armor. First of all, not everyone will end up using active armor. Speed, for example, is the oldest of the passive defenses, and probably still the most effective. What you can't hit you can't kill. Second, reactive armor tends to be something used by tanks with less-sophisticated armor as a counter against HEAT warheads. When those tanks using reactive armor upgrade, as military vehicles always do, the upgrade will probably obviate the need to use RA. Third, there are viable alternatives available to using RA. Some of those alternatives come in the form of adjusted tactics, and some are tech fixes such as ATGM dazzlers, or smoke rounds/dischargers that make the target vehicle difficult or impossible to see in IR.
Even if everyone were to use RA, one particular set of tactics would not become the de facto standard. Cold War-era Soviet and NATO MBTs carried roughly similar armaments, and were approximately as fast as each other, but between the two were employed in different tactical paradigms. As mentioned before, tactics is as much a matter of how one wants to employ one's forces as it is a matter of the capability of those forces.

Shot

[brazen]

its kind of a continuation of an old cycle really... in the early middle ages, the mounted knight was supreme, then infantry developed the pike and the longbow did damage... then the knights dismounted...
.... then reactive armour became universal, then someone invented a round that cut through it like butter... then someone invented a new type of armour... for every battlefield advantage, there will be a something developed it to make it obsolite.

the combined arms approach of modern western forces seems to lend to the idea that they should be able to find ways of getting the job done without changing tactics much. they are already built with massive flexibility installed in their very structure.

for a simple example, if a tank can't take out a target the commander calls in air support in the form of helicopters or aircraft. i don't think this would have to change much at all. a modern combined forces infantry division such as the 3ID employed in iraq, combines all the elements it needs to wage a war against any probable foe.

historically, you could look at the german panzer divisions that invaded russia in 1941. when they started comming up against t-34's they had nothing that could compete tank wise, but the flexibility of their formations allowed them to use all the tools at their disposal and deal with the problem without major tactical change.

[dejawolf]

maybe this page will prove helpful:
http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html