[throw1234651234]

I am too lazy to write anything cohesive. Here is starting point on things that will make the tank more survivable and persist it as a heavy weapon platform.

1. Hard-kill APS - active protection systems - mm AESA (fast, high resolution) miniature radar detecting threats and sending munitions to intercept them. See Arena, Trophy. Eventually, laser counter-drone systems for small swarms (see Israeli developments)

2. Soft-kill APS - smarter/highly-automated smoke deployment, IR smoke, radar chaff. Directed radar / IR blinders. (See T-90 systems failing in Ukraine atm)

3. Passive - lower signatures.

4. Target detection and automatic turret queuing - tanks have a lot of space, they can have sophisticated optics and computers that find targets (including OTH data from tethered drones) or find launches against them and can fire on that launch. This is less effective against fire and forget systems ala Javelin or systems like Stunga where the launch platform is away from the guidance system.

5. Trench sweepers and coupled 30mm cannons - tanks can airburst and clear trenches / buildings better.

6. Operating in fully jammed environments. This has NOT happened in Ukraine at all. Wide-area signal suppression seems like a myth in the current war.

Anyway, this is just basic stuff to look into. The tanks remains a "go fast, penetrate stuff, maneuver" platform.

One thing most people also forget is the cost of the firepower that comes with the platform. Smart/loitering munitions are still expensive, and still have a high time-to-target than direct fire or dumb mortars.

[greedo]

Better combined arms tactics and road march protocols will reduce the losses from these attacks. It's like the Russians became stupid. No bounding overwatch, no artillery prep, no jamming as you said. No air support, dumb attack helicopter usage. No effective recon, no proper ambush engagement. It's like you gave a bunch of military gear to drunk conscripts who were poorly trained...

A cohesive BCT would be able to decimate light infantry. Yes, there will always be losses in war, but this shouldn't be an effective strategy. And I also think that the video coverage is making everyone think that ATGMs are winning the war. In the 2014-2016 Donbass, the UA lost over 400 tanks, the majority to artillery. Yet that isn't captured on video as easily unless there's a drone correcting the artillery's fall.

[golergka]

Army has been the most despised and low-status part of Russian society for the last 30 years, and mandatory service has been something that anybody with any means tried to avoid like he'll for even longer. The only people who go into an army career are those who don't have any means or talents for anything else.

[greedo]

That's what I've been reading. Kamil Galeev (@kamikazani) has done an excellent job of describing how the Army has been intentionally castrated.

[yurymik]

For anyone wondering, there's a missing 'l' in the handle. Correct one seems to be `@kamilkazani`

[greedo]

Thanks for the correction!

[AnimalMuppet]

Hmm. Intentionally? That would be beautifully ironic if Putin nerfed the army (judging a competent army as being a threat to his rule), and then he didn't have a working army when he wanted to invade Ukraine.

[golergka]

Of course. Most authoritarian regimes intentionally castrate their armies, kill promising generals and remove authority from officers, because otherwise they get military coups.

That's the secret power of a functional democracy: it can empower the military.

[greedo]

Yeah, a competent military would be a threat to the state. So keep it neutered, have an alternate state service that can blunt the threat of a coup, etc etc. Oh and use the military as a source of graft so you and your friends can benefit financially.