A discussion about the future of war

[johndramey]

Well, xdesperado, pendell, and I were having a fun little discussion about what the future of war could look like. Unfortunately, we were having it in pendell's really awesome information thread giving info on all the kinds of enemies you can run into in BF.

So, I decided to make a thread here for us to continue our discussion, as well as maybe give others a chance to pop in and voice their opinion.

Basically, we're discussing what a battlefield will look like. My theory is that main battle tanks (MBTs) like the M1 Abrams will be relegated to secondary roles, and lighter vehicles, aircraft, and most importantly infantry will be the forefront.

Feel free to disagree with me all you want!

I'm going to go ahead and reply to xdesperado's last post here, so we can carry on our discussion.

Jan 26, 2016 21:16:57 GMT -5 xdesperado said:

Remember basic combat load for a foot soldier runs 45-60 pounds and that's assuming only a rifle and minimum field duration without support.

Your missile adds 25-40 pounds to each persons payload so the gunner can have more than 1 shot and the gunner is likely armed with only a pistol at best so outside of the armor/aircraft/hardened defensive position he is geared to engage he doesn't add much to the units fighting ability.

Also if you haven't read David Drake's Hammers Slammers I suggest you do so.
He served in an armored unit in Vietnam and used his experiences there as reference point for his sci-fi. The argument you make about energy weapons/rail guns/gauss weapons is actually why he sees and I agree with the idea that the idea of air superiority may be fairly short lived.
How long can you support airborne platforms when someone can detect them and fire on them with pinpoint accuracy from miles away with an energy beam or projectile that moves at hypersonic (mach 5 plus is current accepted definition) speeds?

Also for those energy weapons and rail guns etc. You have to have a lot of power generated in short amount of time. Nuclear powered ships about the only vehicles currently that can supply that sort of energy. Creating a man portable weapon and nuclear reactor is going to take some serious doing.

Basic combat loads are insane, I know this. I'll come out and say it now, since it is something worth knowing, but I have not served in the armed force, so I have no true first hand experience. That being said, IFVs (Infantry fighting vehicle) like the Bradley and ICVs (Infantry carrier varient) like the M1126 provide the backbone to support infantry while being more maneuverable, cheaper, faster, and easier to mobilize than MBTs.

Sure, a missile weighs a ton, the Javelin platform weighs 50lbs and that is just with a single missile. I can't find the weight of a missile, but let's just ballpark it at ~15lbs a pop. That means you'd need some help ferrying around all that crap. However, load those badboys up on a light vehicle, and you have a mobile supply platform.

Talking about the ease of knocking out air assets, I'd say the same holds true for armor assets. A stinger or a javelin, both will do the job and are man-portable. Air assets have mobility to a much, much higher degree though, so at least they can hope to avoid threats. MBTs, while being much more mobile than infantry on foot, are no match for a light vehicle, a helicopter, a missile, etc.

Rail guns/energy weapons have absolutely astronomical requirements for energy, but that's something that is solvable. Right now they require huge powerplants to put out anything close to damaging amounts of velocity/coherency, so much so in fact that good old fashioned slug throwers are much more economically feasible, but its not inconceivable that some form of energy production/storage will come along in our life times that can solve that issue.

Have I heard of David Drake? Have I heard of David Drake?! I love the Slammers, own all of 'em that I can get my hands on. They are such good books, and definitely not out of the realm of possibility. I just tend to have a slightly different take on the future than Mr. Drake.

[ntsheep]

Proof that I'm not the only one that derails threads

[xdesperado]

The M1 is an amazing tank and I'll be the first to admit it's days are numbered, that said the latest M1 varients can easily keep up with Bradley's and other vehicles on the battlefield. Furthermore their armor makes them much less vulnerable to enemy fire than lighter vehicles and their main guns can accurately target and hit enemies over a mile away while the tank is going in excess of 60mph over the roughest terrain.
The biggest problem with them at present is their shear size and honestly the Bradley isn't much better with its high profile.

Part of reason I said Mechs weren't the future was because they stand up too high presenting more target area.

The latest British and German MBTs are starting to address that issue by designing them with lower overall profiles.
The issue with airborne assets regardless of maneuverability and speed is simply that the further up you get the farther away I can start targeting you. Unless your fighting on a perfectly flat featureless battlefield something ground based can find cover or concealment.

[pendell]

Okay, my turn.

I don't believe that tanks will disappear from the field of battle, but their use is becoming more and more situational. They are not such an "I win" button that you can afford to take them everywhere, to all times and all places.

Near-term:

For example, I don't think tanks will be disappearing from the Middle East anytime soon. From Cairo to Tel Aviv is a few hours' drive, perfect for an armored fist going in either direction. There is also all this wide open space which is the tankers' delight. So Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Egypt are all going to have tanks for the foreseeable future.

So will the Russians. Again, you've got those vast open steppe which is ideal tank country, and that beautiful road network in Europe.

Tanks will always have an advantage over foot, because that engine means you can mount an insane amount of firepower and armor that you can't manpack with the best of intentions.

A tank will have trouble against a guy with an ATGM -- but that's why you don't send tanks out unaccompanied, they have infantry who walk with them to find infantry, either killing them directly or pinpointing them for the tank to tear apart. That's also why IFVs exist, so the infantry can be carried along at the speed of a tank.

Will airpower replace tanks, make them obsolete?

Not in the short term, and not helicopters. Helicopters are limited by the fact that they have to be fairly lightweight to fly at all. Consider Kosovo and Iraq 2003: The helicopters did not cover themselves with glory, and in the first were mostly grounded due to concerns over AA fire.

Airpower dominated in Kosovo and both Iraqs, but this is a special case where a superpower with air dominance took on third world nations, demolished their IADS, then proceeded to destroy enemy forces at will, culminating in the so-called "highway of death" back in 1990.

Nonetheless, there aren't many countries that can afford to maintain such a large and powerful air force. Pacifists mock how the US military budget is so outsized compared to everywhere else in the world -- well, that's why. You don't maintain a force able to totally reduce a nation from the air, or field literally billion-dollar bombers (The B2), for free. There aren't many countries who could support that level of expenditure if they wanted to.

MOST countries will have a small air force consisting of Mig-21 equivalents, facing off with other countries with roughly the same air power, as in Iraq-Iran 1980-1988. Air power is so weak that it is ineffectual even if uncontested; further it is likely these very expensive aircraft (even discount fighters aren't cheap) will not be risked unnecessarily. The greatest danger to manned aircraft in the third world is not other aircraft, it is SAMS and AAA, especially the high-end versions the Russians sell to their clients.

In such an environment where air power is not a factor, tanks will flourish if the other conditions are right. Afghanistan will never have a large tank contingent, nor will Vietnam; the terrain hampers their efficient use. Also, tanks are at a serious disadvantage in close-quarters , such as urban or jungle environments. That's how nasty ambushes with RPGs happen. Case in point; First Grozny, 1990s.

The US, of course, will not make much use of tanks. I can't think of many potential enemies we have with such large tank formations that it would be worthwhile to station similar formations in-theater. For our requirement to intervene globally with little notice, I foresee further development of 'light' forces with less footprint; more helicopters, more air support vehicles such as the AC-130, more light armored vehicles, more light craft. More special ops teams deployed by air to identify ground targets to be pulverized by overwhelming air power in the support of indigenous forces. I further foresee movement towards drones and away from aircraft.

That's what we'll do because that is what our requirements are. Most other countries will not go for a huge tank fleet both because it is expensive and because the local terrain is inhospitable; but a very few (such as Isreal) will soldier on with tanks, since they have both the budget and the requirement to do so.

Medium-term:

I don't see this changing in terrestrial warfare unless someone puts "Thor's Hammer" in orbit-- thousands upon thousands of small metal objects about the size of a crowbar which could be de-orbited on a tank formation. That could effectively stop tanks -- but again, that would only benefit the Superpower which can maintain a space-based deterrents; brushfire third-world countries could still use tanks.

Actually, that orbital system would be of greatest use to a global government which forbade large-scale conventional battle, and so would have both a monopoly of spaceborne force and a reason to use it. THEN there would be no more tanks; locals would have to conduct irregular operations which are not easily visible to satellite surveillance; terrorism and assassination.

Long-term:

When the first interstellar colonies are built, I would actually suspect to see neither tanks nor aircraft. The reason being that I assume a planet is months or years away from earth; until factories can be stood up spare parts and fuel will be minimal to nonexistent. So if an orbital capability is maintained, I assume there would be light infantry in an orbital station which can be taken to troublespots by dropship, pretty much as I described in the other thread.

Absent an orbital capability, people will be back to basic infantry. Believe it or not, there might even be a revival of horses and mules for both military transport and for civilian work! Why? Because horses could be shipped as frozen ova and, once in place, can make more horses without needing a factory or a highly skilled industrial workforce. They require no spare parts, and can feed themselves. As a bonus, stablehand is one more punishment detail for screwups. SOMEONE has to clean all the stalls.

ETA:


Most of this, by the way, shows up in Jerry Pournelle's "Falkenberg's Legion", "King David's Spaceship" "War World" and related novels. He put a lot of thought into this sort of thing; when he co-writes with Larry Niven, they are fantastic in this field of military SF.  By all means, check out his There Will Be War , Volume X anthology. 

As far as mechs -- they're an anime fantasy.  Legs and so forth cost a great deal in complexity, moving parts, in exchange for -- what,exactly?  A raised  silhouette that is just begging to be shot?  It's a great deal of cost for not much benefit. Still makes for a fun game . 

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[dayan]

Modern thinking and spending concentrate on (usually terrible) attempts at do-it-all modular vehicle designs like the Striker. We'll probably see more of that, possibly partially autonimous vehicles as well. Russia has been pushing for large body automated combat vehicles lately as well- MUCH larger and ostensibly to counter the US SWORDS and TALON combat robots. They seem to mount Dushkas, ZSUs and banks of RPG-26 ATRs or IGLA/STRELA MANPADS. In Iraq, combat robots were used mainly as mobile static weapons platforms for filling holes in defensive perimeters.

The SWORDS in particular was designed as a combat-worthy entry team asset- but when the Army and particularly Marines switched from clearing structures to simply calling in fire missions on them, there was no need for them in that role. Obviously something similar could be used in lower intensity conflicts. Mass civil unrest, 'emergency' actions, ect.

[ntsheep]

War,,,war never changes

[AA]

I don't think tanks will ever disappear
I would explain why but... I'm really bad at explaining stuff like that

Edit
because war never changes

[resistor]

I think we will see more development of exoskeletons for infantry, (at least by the USA,) to help them carry heavier loads. Secondly, we likely won't see direct wars between countries with nukes until someone develops some kind of practical nuclear missile defence system that can be activated above cities, and even then someone could just smuggle bombs in.

Oh, and about mechs... they likely won't be very useful for most battlefields, but mechs might be more useful than tanks in urban environments, because turning around would be less of a hassle (I imagine) and their weapon systems having a height advantage seems like it would be more useful in the close confines of a city. This is just speculation, though.
I hear China seems to think legged attack machines would be useful in mountainous regions.

[johndramey]

Jan 26, 2016 23:06:50 GMT -5 xdesperado said:

The biggest problem with them (MBTs) at present is their shear size and honestly the Bradley isn't much better with its high profile.

Totally agree with you there, MBTs are too big. I'd actually be really curious to see the newest gen British and German tanks if they are designing them to be lower profile, those might be worth watching!

Part of reason I said Mechs weren't the future was because they stand up too high presenting more target area.

Most definitely. Mechs are sheer fantasy, too complicated and too big.

The issue with airborne assets regardless of maneuverability and speed is simply that the further up you get the farther away I can start targeting you. Unless your fighting on a perfectly flat featureless battlefield something ground based can find cover or concealment.

While that concept is true, my argument is that air craft will be moving into a support role. Helicopters and jets like the A10 (why, oh why did you phase that one out, US?) can fly low and slow in combat areas, evading most of the problems Drake brought up with hypervel rounds, but can also zip along at a fair clip in safer areas, allowing them fairly good mobility.

I actually agree with a lot of what pendell said in his post, and he put it much better than I. I'm not saying tanks are bad, they aren't. Tanks are badass. They are, however, an intermediary step between men booming on each other with bolt action rifles and men bombing each other. Fielding large formations of tanks just isn't that feasible most of the time, and when it is feasible there are usually other options that are available. The US is, thankfully enough, in a place where we don't have to worry about too much in the way of land borders. This has put the US, and I'll maintain that the US is still far, far and away the worlds #1 military power, in the situation where it can focus on other things. Those other things being mobility and support, men and bombs.

If and when we start moving into extra-solar warfare, the focus will zero down more and more on mobility. First, because getting things off this rock takes a huge amount of doing, and second because, like it or not, everything is based on economics. Sure, fielding an airforce is expensive, but imagine the military budget that would be required to field armored divisions in the amounts necessary to cover the entire world. That's pretty much what the USAF, and to a lesser extent the USN, does at the moment.

dayan makes really good points as well, with the robotics and unmanned option. I think, however, that no one will really accept making large scale, autonomous weapons. I can see limited purview systems, such as basic hunter killers and sentries, but purely autonomous systems are a no go. We, as a species, just don't have the ability to put that much power out of our control. Drones and the like are something that will totally be used, but they'll always be backed up by human operators.

Leave it to the Russians to make big honking robots. Russia loves big things. I would love to see one of those bad boys in action, haha.

[ntsheep]

Tanks were once considered just a fantasy machine until someone built one and it worked great. Using airplanes for warfare was thought to be a bad idea. In fact the one guy in the army that said we needed to build an airforce was court martialed for it, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell . History shows that certain ideas stay fantasy until it becomes proven to work and then it takes off. Mechs will be the same way. The only reason they haven't been built now is the level of technology isn't there yet for it to be viable. If mechs sound like a fantasy idea then just read this little tidbit that almost became a weapon,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

[xdesperado]

Jan 27, 2016 1:00:02 GMT -5 ntsheep said:

Tanks were once considered just a fantasy machine until someone built one and it worked great. Using airplanes for warfare was thought to be a bad idea. In fact the one guy in the army that said we needed to build an airforce was court martialed for it, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell . History shows that certain ideas stay fantasy until it becomes proven to work and then it takes off. Mechs will be the same way. The only reason they haven't been built now is the level of technology isn't there yet for it to be viable. If mechs sound like a fantasy idea then just read this little tidbit that almost became a weapon,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

A roughly man sized exo skeleton/powered armor suit is a definite for the future. 10'+ humanoid robots on the other hand simply aren't practical for majority of military applications.
You don't need arms for weapons platforms, turrets and fixed mounts can easily give you 360° coverage of fire. Any terrain to rough/unstable for a tracked/wheeled vehicle to cross is unlikely to be overcome by a giant bipedal construct either.
The high profile means they are easily targeted, think of shooting at houses, which is one of the issues with modern main battle tanks.

For the record the US Military is already testing some exoskeleton designs with promising potential. These work to allow the soldiers to carry increased loads while reducing the individuals energy expenditure.
Largest hurdle at present is a power source that's good for more than an hour or two of operation.
Perhaps the push for electric cars and improving battery technology for that may produce cells small and powerful enough to be practical.

[ntsheep]

I saw a really cool documentary a few years ago that showed some of the exo suits that military is testing and they reminded me of the power loader from Aliens. I want one!

[wascalwywabbit]

Mech is shorthand for mechanized infantry.

Infantry is used everywhere tanks are used as well as places tanks can't go except water atm.

Tanks go where there is enough room on land for them to fit, and where they can bulldoze without too much damage to the tank or it's speed vs an air drop to new locals.

Swamps, mountains without passes and the dense urban and natural jungle/forest are off limits to most tank use but they will continue to operate as long as we have land wars where they are suited. Including as mobile armored infantry support within their firing range.

And yes pendell The US m1s use depleted uranium on their armor, but we did not sell those armor packs to the Iraqis - they were too scarce and valuable from a US strategic perspective. The article you linked in the other thread said that in not so many words.

Edit: from the article you linked, second paragraph...

"While they have new equipment to improve situational awareness, they do not have the depleted uranium amour package that increases protection over the tank's frontal arc."

Of course Iraqis training deficit is the real vulnerability... I do agree the M1 is overpriced, and overrated, but almost all US made or branded stuffs are, especially military tech. There are a few things Americans are really superb at tho...

[pendell]

There's a lot of good stuff which I can't reply to now, but I wanted to quickly note that I followed up on what wascalywywabbit said , and he is right; The M1A1 (and presumably subsequent models) do indeed use depleted uranium in their armor. link .

Also link 2 .

So I stand corrected in this regard.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[xdesperado]

Interesting reading on one of the newest MBT currently in service. Of special interest is the discussion regarding the active defense systems the tank employs.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther