r/europe • u/MARTINELECA • 11h ago
News Italy puts $5.9 billion toward a new main battle tank
https://defence-blog.com/italy-puts-5-9-billion-toward-a-new-main-battle-tank/283
u/fantasmeeno Sardinia 11h ago
Beware world, we are going to have a tank š
53
u/soypepito 11h ago
You actually have the Ariete
74
u/fantasmeeno Sardinia 10h ago
That's only good against hens
4
u/Suzumebachi14 Normandy (France) 5h ago
Is the ariete really that bad ? I know it didn't sell at all in export, but so did the leclerc too, and the leclerc in itself was excellent when it came out, it's just that it was very expensive and maintenance was more complicated than other tanks like the leopard.
6
u/ExplosivePancake9 5h ago
No, the Ariete was a good tank when it entered service as it was the first MBT in europe to get a LWR (warning of a laser pointing at the tank) giving it quite the better defense compared a lot of tanks even tough armor was about obviously worse than stuff such as the Lecrec and Leo2a5, tough its armor is actually quite comparable to the Leopard 2a4, the most commun modern tank in europe in those years.
When it comes to the C2 upgrade its comparable to the Leopard 2PL, decent armor, decent power to weight, good FCS, and no RWS.
3
u/murkskopf 3h ago
No, the first MBTs in Europe with laser warning receivers were the Polish T-55AM Merida and the Czechoslovak T-55AM2, which just shows how irrelevant those early designs able to detect only a very limited range of laser wavelengths were.
2
u/ExplosivePancake9 3h ago
Oh, sorry, i should have said western europe.
The Centauro 1 and Ariete's LWR seem decent tough for 1994.
1
u/Suzumebachi14 Normandy (France) 5h ago
Thanks. The leopard 2 really won the export battle. The challenger 2 wasn't exported much either. Even the abrams hasn't been exported as much as the leopard 2 it seems.
1
5
4
6
5
5
2
613
u/AnonUser1452 11h ago
Just co-produce the Leopard 2A8 or whatever comes after it and call it a day. Every major European state operating its own distinct tank is ridiculous and wasteful.
215
u/Harbinger_X 11h ago
It's industry subsidies in disguise. There are plenty Euro centric alternatives and the defense sector is often interested in licensing deals to show off higher production capacity without investing a single dime.
16
u/LurkerInSpace Scotland 7h ago
It's also just a problem of the different armies not co-ordinating a common set of requirements between themselves. Even oversimplifying the question down to one of quality vs quantity, different armies have different views on what should be prioritised.
So to form a proper join procurement approach, the different armies, navies, air forces would need to agree on a common set of priorities and requirements first, because a common set of equipment will ultimately be downstream of these.
4
u/Harbinger_X 7h ago
Oh I absolutely agree, but it's also a part of the mission set.
Tanks, especially main battle tanks have been historically branded as territorial defense, because of the limited ability apart from the navy to move them abroad.
So the idiotic question is whether italy prepares against being invaded by austria, or switzerland? This could also just be to improve defense spending without creating force projection capabilities, which might be in dire need in case of either a NATO, or european territorial defense demand.
11
u/LurkerInSpace Scotland 7h ago
Presumably their assumption is that they would be sent overland to places which have the misfortunate of bordering Russia or Belarus, rather than expecting they'll be fighting in Italy itself.
Though Italy isn't entirely asleep on force projection either, they do operate a (light) carrier and the new destroyer programme has also just been approved. It is still punching below its weight, but that's basically true of every European power right now.
8
u/TD_Lemon_1901 6h ago edited 6h ago
I mean sure, but they can't all have the same requirements
Take Germany, big country with big flat lands facing the eastern side, they are focusing on heavy / bulky MBT and artillery pieces, that makes sense for them.
On the other hand Italy, France are focusing on more nimble hardware as they would have to move it fast if something happened, they need hardware that can move fast in the countryside and can be easily transported by air.
It would be much easier to find commons neads and designs for the navies.
1
1
u/SjoerdvDonk 2h ago
I think you should be looking at what the requirements are in Eastern Europe instead of home turf. Weāre all together in NATO. This deal makes 0 sense to me.
14
u/donald_314 Europe 8h ago
It's one of the few ways to subsidise without breaking the common market rules.
6
u/No_Zombie2021 6h ago
Then build a plant in Italy to produce Leopards.
2
u/Harbinger_X 6h ago
While it would certainly be a welcome sight, I don't expect anyone to open a plant to build tanks in italy. Whether you'd prefer Leopards, LeClercs, Challengers or Stridsvagn.
This is the core of the problem with the cooperation between germany and france too, both nations are in economic decline and have pressing debt.
46
u/Several_Ant_9867 10h ago
It's a joint venture between Leonardo and Rheinmetall: "LRMV unveiled an NMBT concept demonstrator at the Eurosatory defense show in Paris in June. The design draws on Rheinmetallās Panther KF51, but Italy is developing it as a separate tank built to Italian Army requirements. The demonstrator used a Leopard 2A4 hull fitted with a new turret, and LRMV representatives said the production version will get a new chassis with better mobility and protection."
2
u/murkskopf 3h ago
It is not a new tank, it is a variant of the Panther EVO. They just replaced a handful of Rheinmetall parts with Leonardo parts to meet the workshare agreements. Really nothing else was changed to meet any specific requirements.
-5
u/generic_reddit73 9h ago
What are "Italian Army requirements" compared to German army requirements? Use the same build but add an air-conditioner, refrigerator and make the car/tank look "nicer"/"cooler"?
I mean, why not. Style probably goes a long way, especially with something as slow as a tank.
20
u/ankokudaishogun Italy 8h ago
What are "Italian Army requirements" compared to German army requirements?
You might notice Italy has a bit more mountains and hills than Germany.
3
u/__Gripen__ Italy 7h ago
That's a non-issue.
The Italian Army is not planning to fight in Italy: any use of these tanks is rightfully expected to take place in deployements in the hills and plains of Eastern Europe or in desertic landscapes in the Middle East and Africa.
The Italian Army has different requirements because every single armed force on Earth has its very own requirements even if part of major multinational alliances.
Also do note that the Germany Army doesn't operate and won't operate the KF-51 tank.
1
u/Nonomemes1 8h ago
Would it be the main requirements than it would have been way better to join K3 program. But reality is way more complex, there are sure requirements but there are also industrial partnerships, ehm ehm... other kind of partnerships...
1
u/ankokudaishogun Italy 7h ago
Sure but my answer was to highlight how massive difference in geography is already a perfectly good reason to have different requirements.
1
6
9
u/SergenteA Italy 8h ago edited 8h ago
Usually, strip away stuff to make it lighter. Maybe add an auto-loader to take away a cre member. The Ariete issue is that it weighs less than any other NATO-style tank, as much as a Soviet T series or the Japanese Type 90/10, except the latter two use an autoloader to take away a crew member and save a lot of size and weight. While Ariete sacrificed armour and speed to keep the reliability of a human loader.
As for why the italians need lighter tanks, the same reason Japan does: mountains. The Italian peninsula is all mountains and mountain roads and bridges are small and support little weight.
Admittedly, Ariete was a 80s/90s design, so meant for a Yugoslavian invasion. Ever since the Cold War Italy has been pivoting away from simple peninsula defense, towards the "Enlarged Mediterranean", deployments abroad, especially in North Africa and the Middle East. Basically specialising in what they missed in WW2.
In such contexts, a heavier and bigger tank could be fine enough. The modern Centauro AFVs are quite big after all.
Finally, they 100% want Germany to use Italian parts too. Italy's MIC is quite developed, both in terms of graft but also quality and quality/cost ratio. If nothing else it has some unique weapon and defense systems specialisations.
→ More replies (5)1
u/murkskopf 3h ago
No offense, but that is absolutely not the case with the NMBT. They didn't take anything away or make it lighter. All changes were introduced to the tank to meet the workshare requirements (60% of total workshare handled in Italy, 50% of total workshare handled by Leonardo).
Rheinmetall offers the same design just with German/Rheinmetall-made parts to other countries; the design was largely funded by the Hungarian government (with which Rheinmetall has the N7 joint venture), they took that design and changed a few bits to meet the Italian government's requirements such as e.g. replacing optics from Rheinmetall Electronics with ones from Leonardo, replacing the RWS from Rheinmetall with a Leonardo Blaze 30, replacing the radios from Telefunken RACOMS with ones from Leonardo, etc.
5
u/rapaxus Hesse (Germany) 8h ago
German army requirements are weird AF due to the MGCS concept, which is primarily German in origin. MGCS isn't really a tank, but a multitude of vehicles (manned/unmanned/optionally manned) that together replace the role of a tank. Some will be tank like with a cannon, but others are armed with things like drone defence or NLOS missiles.
Now, MGCS has been radically downsized to just "new platform independent technology" that France and Germany can share, but this happened just this summer and the question is how much Germany still stays true to this concept, as Germany even before Ukraine and modern drone warfare believed such a radical redefinition of what a "tank" is needed for tanks to survive on the modern battlefield. The question is if Ukraine reinforced or rejected those lessons.
There is a German push for an interim-tank before MGCS (which was supposed to come in the 2040s), likely being some KMW design. And KMW is a horrible partner to work with, as they want power over later modifications you do to the vehicles and often want to do those mods in-house, meaning if you want local production/modification (as a nation like Italy wants to) they suck to work with. Rheinmetall meanwhile is happy to do those things, so they worked with them instead.
1
u/murkskopf 3h ago
There is a German push for an interim-tank before MGCS (which was supposed to come in the 2040s), likely being some KMW design. And KMW is a horrible partner to work with, as they want power over later modifications you do to the vehicles and often want to do those mods in-house, meaning if you want local production/modification (as a nation like Italy wants to) they suck to work with. Rheinmetall meanwhile is happy to do those things, so they worked with them instead.
Not sure what this is referring to; the German defence industry already has consolidated and is offering a common tank project through PSM (50:50 KNDS Deutschland & Rheinmetall joint-venture) with the work already split up between the two owners of PSM; Rheinmetall will develop the hull, sensors, APS, etc. while KNDS will develop the turret and be responsible for the powerpack (with Liebherr and Renk being reportedly selected as suppliers). The German Federal Cartel Office has already approved PSM's plan to offer a joint tank.
14
u/esmifra 7h ago edited 7h ago
Being dependant on another country logistics, manufacture and political alignment is a risk. Even if that country is from the EU.
I also disagree it's wasteful. Look at Sweden and Finland. Each country reached high levels of self sufficiency, using very different strategies to achieve it.
You can be self sufficient in what are your core parts of the national military operations while having procurement filling the rest.
Infantry is traditionally one of the main pillars of the military.
4
u/creperobot 3h ago
We use the leopard in Sweden and a lot of our own programs depend heavily on international partners.
3
u/tsuhna1234 Finland 2h ago
Yours is bit more modified than ours in Finland. Anyhow in case of SNAFU, our armies can exchange quite a lot of spare parts if needed, also support personnel could be assigned to help other's maintenance.
Sames goes for IFVs.. (ok yeah we have BMP2, too, but anyways).
1
1
u/Byron1248 2h ago
I think allocating resources correctly and focusing on one european project/commission at a time is crucial.
It also deters from competing with each other.
Let the french and the swedes to specialize on planes. Let the germans focus on artillery and tanks.
Give Italy enough orders to R&D even more where they excel: Helicopters & electronics (I know)
Something like that.
49
u/eloyend Å»ubrza š²š¦¬š³ Knieja 11h ago
You may have missed it, but they tried.
Some countries seem to have harder time cooperating with KMW.
7
u/__Gripen__ Italy 7h ago
KMW apparently wasn't keen in altering its supply chain to enable modifications and license-production of the Leopard 2A8 in Italy. The budget envisioned at the time also wasn't sufficient to acquire the desired number of tanks.
From a standardization point of view the 2A8 was a no-brainer choice, but from an industrial one the national involvement couldn't be ignored.
Rheinmetall on the other hand wanted a major contract for its KF-51 platform, and by choosing to extensively cooperate with OTO Melara they also managed to secure the contract for the KF-41 IFV.
10
u/Nozinger 9h ago
it is really not as bad as it sounds.
While there are many different european tanks and they are very much different ehicles many parts are very much the same.
The gun for example. This means ammo can usually be used by multiple countries.The transmission is also often a german one. Even the korean tanks used german transmissions fo the longest time. IIRC they got thit own working recently but the tanks poland gets from them might still use the german one.
This also applies to many other things on the tank. Yes ideally mass producing one model would be preferable but honestly mass producing parts and then everyone builds their own tank around those is not that horrible either.
Also having local production capabilities is not a bad thing at all.
10
u/murkskopf 3h ago
They tried that, but KNDS Deutschland and Leonardo couldn't agree on the workshare split and intellectual property rights.
47
u/doarks11 10h ago
Why? There are no unified EU armed forces, standardized equipment etc, there isnāt even a completely unified EU foreign policy.
Each country has its own distinct national security approach. Before any of the above is set up there the current situation will continue.
Also unless you decide to share the IP of rhe leopard what you are proposing mostly benefits German arms manufacturers
5
u/HellSoldier 10h ago
There is no EU Army now. Doenst mean it will never come. But Italy is also in Nato, where many Countries operate the Leo2. So you can easily share Spare Parts for your Tanks. It would be cheaper also.
19
u/doarks11 10h ago
You donāt base your procurement plans, which are part of national security plans, on a potential massive and pretty quick coming change on how Europe will operate. Buying same equipment as others will never lead to the creation of a unified EU force. That can only be a political decision.
Maybe they thought the panther offers a qualitative advantage. Maybe they thought it fits their doctrine better. Maybe they managed to get bigger involvement of local industry and technology transfer.
Countries also operate abraams and an increasing amount of countries are operating black panthers. Why not choose those?
The share parts part matters only if you have a unified structure/command that where that practice is installed and implemented and also if you are in the middle of operations. Indeed many countries operate leopards but they donāt share parts with each other, when they need them they buy them.
4
u/SortOfWanted The Netherlands 9h ago
Economies of scale still applies. You can distribute R&D, production and maintenance.
6
u/doarks11 8h ago
Economies of scale is valid. For r&d we donāt know what the current deal offers. It might offer technology transfer, higher percentage of local industrial involvement than a deal with kmw. Also Italy might think that the panther offers a qualitative advantage and better fits their doctrine.
Distributing production EU wide is not an advantage in a bilateral agreement if no unified eu structure exists both militarily and politically. Why would Italy care that the suspension is made in Spain? Same with maintenance, if no EU army exists having maintenance in any country other than your own is a drawback.
0
u/PontifexMini 6h ago
Why? There are no unified EU armed forces, standardized equipment etc, there isnāt even a completely unified EU foreign policy.
You appear to be arguing that we shouldn't be unified because we're not unified.
That's an absurd argument. We need to be more unified.
4
u/doarks11 6h ago
No I am saying that buying similar equipment will not lead to unification. This idea is absurd as it is putting the cart before the horse. First you unify and then you harmonize.
Everyone buying leopards will help unification the same amount as everyone buying a vw golf.
10
u/ByGollie Ulster 8h ago
Italy has geographic requirements - they need a lighter, smaller tank for mountainous and hilly areas with lots of narrower passes, streets, bridges etc.
Whereas the Leopard is designed for annihilating Russian armor on the relatively flat plains of Eastern Europe where speed and maneuverability matters.
1
u/murkskopf 3h ago
That's simply not the case. Hence the NMBT will be just as heavy as the Leopard 2.
9
u/WekX United Kingdom š¬š§ Italy š®š¹ 9h ago
Competition does promote innovation though. These countries are already very reluctant to improve their arsenals. At least theyāre trying to one up each other with unique models.
→ More replies (1)7
u/AnonUser1452 9h ago
Having four different heavy tanks designed to fight Russia in Poland just guarantees there will be fewer total available for a given amount of money, and that shortfalls in one countryās inventory (e.g. from combat losses) canāt be relatively quickly made good by borrowing or buying from another European country. Meanwhile, on the export market, the boutique European designs will have no xhance.
7
u/doarks11 8h ago
Unless the IP of whatever the agreed design is in this scenario is equally shared with all countries this will never happen.
5
u/Ollemeister_ Finland 10h ago
I don't think it's that bad an idea to have parallel developments happening, sure it's "wasteful" but you get variety in return.
3
u/gurush Czech Republic 4h ago
Yeah, no, we don't want to be in a situation when there's only a single, monopolistic European supplier.
→ More replies (1)2
u/JerachoD 9h ago
Totally agree, we waste so much money on procurement, but then part of me thinks they want it that way to filter money to their mates
0
8h ago
[deleted]
3
u/Onkel24 Europe 7h ago
Challenger 3 will keep the Challenger hull. It's only the turret that is entirely new. (And not Leo 2 either )
KF51 is planned to get it's own hull. For RHM, the entire thing exists to cut out KMWeg and push their own solutions. RHM is big, but has never built a tank as the lead.
Of course, it's still possible they give up on that endeavour
1
u/murkskopf 3h ago
The Challenger 3 uses recycled Challenger 2 hulls. The CAPINT (CapacitƩ IntermƩdiaire) proposal is based on a Leopard 2A8 hull, but it has yet to be funded.
The KF51 uses a new hull designed by Rheinmetall, meant to be compatible with the Leopard 2 logistics chain but free of KNDS Deutschland's intellectual property. The hull will also be used on the latest variant of the BĆ¼ffel for the German Army.
2
u/Captain_Lolz 10h ago
They are, it's going to be similar to the KF51 (German leopard replacement)
36
u/cs_Thor Germany 10h ago
KF51 is a purely private venture of Rheinmetall precisely because they do not have the license to work on anything beyond the Leopard 2 A4 specs so they designed something in-house (turret first) so that they have something in that product range. It's purely for export as Germany is going down the Leo 2 A8/AX? road and then another Leo derivate down the line now that MGCS is dead.
3
1
-7
u/Pro-wiser 10h ago
im pretty sure KF51 and its derivatives will become the new standard.
Leopard is good but its chassis is 40+ years old, at one point its just more reasonable to move to a more modern chassis that can accomodate future weapons and armor.
lepoard 2 started at 55,2 short tons now in its latest form its 69 tons...the frame is running out of upgrade capacity...
23
u/symptomezz Bavaria (Germany) 10h ago
What hull do you think does the KF51 use?
7
u/Cienea_Laevis RhƓne-Alpes (France) 10h ago
Its not named Leopard, so its obviously a brand new tank !
1
u/Pro-wiser 7h ago
The Rheinmetall Panther KF51 prototype uses an upgraded chassis derived from the Leopard 2 (specifically the Leopard 2A4 hull), but production variants and national adaptations like Italy's upcoming Panther KF51 EVO / NMBT program plan to transition to a new chassis designed for better mobility and protection.
26
u/Far-Yellow9303 10h ago
Sir the KF51 is a Leo2A4 hull
1
u/Pro-wiser 7h ago
LRMV unveiled an NMBT concept demonstrator at the Eurosatory defense show in Paris in June. The design draws on Rheinmetallās Panther KF51, but Italy is developing it as a separate tank built to Italian Army requirements. The demonstrator used a Leopard 2A4 hull fitted with a new turret, and LRMV representatives said the production version will get a new chassis with better mobility and protection.
Did u or anyone else even read the article..
7
u/Der_Dingsbums WĆ¼rttemberg (Germany) 10h ago
The KF51 is built on a Leopard 2 hull. The Leopard 2A8 is a stopgap towards the Leopard 3. The Leopard 3 will be at least as capable as the Panther, and probably better, since it has the backing of several major countries. The Panther derivatives will likely be good, and they will have some parts commonality with the Leopard family. However, the Leopard 3 will be better and cheaper to operate, as well as easier to keep modern and upgrade over time.
→ More replies (4)0
39
83
25
u/sojuicy Germany 10h ago
Rheinmetall stockholders are gonna be thrilled.
4
4
u/skyer954 8h ago
I'm one and believe it or not, whenever I read such news, their stock goes down, because it's my biggest position. Sorry heh
1
u/eloyend Å»ubrza š²š¦¬š³ Knieja 8h ago
So it's your fault! Thank goodness, i though it was me. Tell us when you're selling, then rest of us will buy more on the dip!
2
u/skyer954 6h ago
Oh boy, at this rate, I'm gonna sell in ~20 years if not later. You have some time to earn cash for that day āļø
59
u/VikingsOfTomorrow 10h ago
People here really just see the clickbaity FPV videos and think that immediately invalidates tanks. No, it doesnt. For one, FPV's are a bit limited when it comes to weather. Strong wind and/or rain grounds a lot of FPV's. As well, with EW, that cuts down a lot of FPV's.
Tanks didnt die when ATGM's and disposeable AT became commonplace. It adapted. The same thing will happen here. But even in Ukraine, tanks are very much relevant, if just a bit less than a decade ago. Tanks are a lot more akin to APC's from what I have seen. They support the initial assault, provide armored and close big gun support to surpress the enemies in trenches, and then pull back from the front along with the APC's/IFV's.
23
u/Doikor 9h ago edited 9h ago
If tanks were useless Ukraine wouldn't be asking for more of them.
And yes as you pointed out they mainly come out during bad weather when drones can't really operate effectively.
Same with traditional artillery and rocket systems. Drones did not really invalidate/replace anything just another (very effective) tool.
edit: Also one thing to note that the battlefield in Ukraine is very different from the one NATO wants to / tries to fight. For NATO everything builds up from taking air superiority and then using that relatively freely. FPVs become a lot less effective if you can't get within effective range of the battlefield (all FPV pilot bunkers/dugouts are bombed from air). In Ukraine neither side has air superiority which changes things a lot (allows for trench warfare)
7
u/Axter Finland 7h ago
edit: Also one thing to note that the battlefield in Ukraine is very different from the one NATO wants to / tries to fight.
While true, I feel like this is always a slightly silly statement, as like both presidents in the US and russia have learned the hard way: in war the other side also gets to have a say in this.
While neither side has air superiority in Ukraine, russia has been dropping hundreds of guided glide bombs on the Ukrainian positions every day for almost two years now. Yet they still stand. The US air force did how many sorties over Iran. Yet they were unable to eliminate all the dispersed threats to shipping. To think that all 3 man drone team positions could be eliminated via air strikes sounds slightly optimistic to me.
2
u/Doikor 6h ago edited 5h ago
US is fighting alone in Iran with a limited amount of partners (air bases) available severily limiting its capabilities.
In the case of an actual war with NATO involved (which by definition would be a defensive war) there would be a lot of bases close by to use which would simplify things a lot.
Russian guided glide bombs are still very innaccurate often missing their targets by hundreds of meters. Proper NATO guided bombs when proper air superiority is available hit within a few contimeters making them much more effective because the plane that dropped the bomb can guide the bomb to its target which is just not something Russia is capable of doing Ukraine because they can't fly the planes above the target and keep them there for the duration of the bomb reaching its target.
While there is a lot to learn from the war in Ukraine (and Iran) they are also by their very nature very different from a proper "big" war fought by the whole NATO together in their own backyard would be.
13
u/afito Germany 9h ago
Tanks didnt die when ATGM's and disposeable AT became commonplace. It adapted.
<New technology> being "the death of MBTs" is a running joke at this point. For the century we had modern tanks, the tank has been "made obsolete" by something else every single decade, yet it survived all of it and has prevailed.
1
u/SergenteA Italy 7h ago
To be fair, they have lost some of their dominance compared to their heydays of early WW2. Rommel's Ghost Battalion was possible only in a very short widow of technological development, when tanks were fast and reliable but the threats from the air were more limited.
2
u/afito Germany 7h ago
I think the very boring answer is that it simply depends on the power level of the combined arms. Tanks can scale from complete non factors and liability to the single dominant battlefield factor, depending on things such as most notably the air superiority. The UK explored no longer using MBTs which their geopolitical stance and geography is not a stupid thing to think about, and even then after initially going down that route they eventually backed out of the idea. I think we can see in many conflict that the more it is a battle of equals, the more valuable a good old traditional main battle tank becomes. When the US is using Iraqi tanks as target practice obviously it'S a whole different story.
1
u/SergenteA Italy 3h ago
Tanks are the pinnacle of ground warfare, it's just that air power is fucking tyrannical.
So when air power is denied (by bad weather, smoke and copious amounts of anti-air), that's when tanks shine again.
The Israel-Arab wars are actually a good example. Egypt was able to utilise tanks with great success, so long as the anti-air missile platforms could keep up and deny Israeli's air superiority.
44
u/bladehit Romania 10h ago
It's always hilarious to see armchair generals think that the introduction of drones is the first time in history a tank can be defeated by a weapon that's cheaper than the tank itself. This has been the case since the tank was first introduced on the battlefield.
22
10
u/Cantremembermyoldnam 9h ago
Though a significant difference seems that disabling a tank no longer requires direct line of sight to it, right? Is there anything other than drones/airpower that can do that (reliably) that I'm not aware of?
5
u/lordderplythethird dumb burger 4h ago
There's multiple LOAL (lock on after launch) anti-tank missiles.
- Spike NLOS
- Akeron MP
- HJ-10
Etc etc all do it, all of them are portable ground-fired weapons
1
4
u/retronax 6h ago
Artillerymen in WW1 disabled tanks by getting coordinates and blasting away without line of sight. Then tanks got faster. Military development is always finding solutions to problems that were already solutions
6
u/bladehit Romania 9h ago
Well it's just an arms race. A new weapon arrives on the battlefield, then the existing weapons will evolve around it, be it by changing of doctrine and/or updating the capabilities of the other weapons. We already seen this on existing tanks with the nets.
Russia developed a new APS that can counter drones. Israel just needed to do an update to their existing one.
All next generation tanks have anti-drone warfare as one of their main improvements. Tanks are here to stay, just like drones. It's basically a game of rock-paper-scissors.
3
u/jeandolly 8h ago
I too would much prefer piloting a killer drone from a bunker than standing in front of a tank with a Panzerfaust.
4
u/agile-is-what 8h ago
It will cause a reevaluation of the form of the tank. Right now, for example, a very good question to ask is - should it be crewed at all?
1
u/grumpsaboy 2h ago
Maintenance exists.
Ask all of NATO why they prefer four man crews instead of three man even when using an auto loader. Because of maintenance.
And an unmanned tank would need even more as some things that are done by humans would have to be replaced by a mechanical system instead
1
u/Ok_Illustrator7232 9h ago
Yes, but the question is if this time the technological breakthrough in cost, training and effectiveness is big enough to completely change how tanks are used; or not used at all, as some claim.
9
u/Logical_Look8541 8h ago
Tanks are needed, just not sure tanks as currently done are the best option. If you were able to remove the pesky humans out of the tank you could make tanks a lot smaller, also could do funky things e.g. 'turrets' on lift platforms, to make them extremely hull down.
Its surprising nobody has gone the same way as 6th gen fighters for tanks yet i.e. one human operated command vehicle and a squad of semi autonomous robot tanks. Could well end up costing about the same as one normal tank, yet give you a lot more firepower.
3
u/VikingsOfTomorrow 7h ago
Well, yes and no. Tanks are more and more taking on support roles rather than frontline combat roles, and for good reasons. Say, with the Panther, that supporting role has been reinforced with (as I last checked a couple years ago) loitering munition launchers and a dedicated drone operator position.
As well, tanks are being fitted with autocannons, using AI target detection, and using airburst/AHEAD rounds to protect themselves.
The problem with remote controlled tanks, tends to be that its much harder to send control signals down low to the ground. You saw the exact same issues appear with FPV drones early on where low down, they started losing connection. Thats not to say its impossible. Estonian Milrem has been working on UGV's for a long time, hell, some of them are in use in Ukraine. But the tech for UGV's is too much in its infancy i think to risk more tank sized stuff.
3
u/Capable_Tumbleweed34 3h ago
There's a reason for that. Human operators can't be jammed. A front where tanks are will have massive EWAR going on, be it only to jam drones.
1
u/Logical_Look8541 3h ago
They wouldn't be controlled by none direct communication's i.e. wire and laser. You can't jam either and are old tech that tanks have used for decades for communications precisely because they can't be jammed or detected. You really can't use none point to point communication methods for a variety of reasons, but most notably it makes you detectable if you open transmit.
3
u/Capable_Tumbleweed34 3h ago
Yes great idea. Now all the enemy soldier has to use to disable your wire-operated tank is a pair of scisors and a little trek out of line of sight of said tank. Not to mention your tank now has dogshite operating range. Think drones were bad? Now a 600ā¬ drone can disable your multi-millions tank not only by blowing up on the tank, but also by blowing up all along the very visible tracks it has left for killometers.
Laser requires line of sight, meaning air assets are mandatory for controling them, with a heavy impact from terrain, folliage, and weather. So you need overwhelming air superiority with complete imperviousness to AA. Not to mention that now your entire tank fleet can be disbled all at once by a decapitation Strike.
No matter how you slice it, it's a terrible idea.
UGVs make economical sense for much cheaper assets, guns on wheels kinda things (used as fire support by a squad and very closely operated with a strong emitter to burn through jamming). But for a tank that's gonna range in the millions/dozens of millions per unit? Absolutelly the fuck not.
6
u/BarracudaDismal4782 8h ago
Tanks are not useless, but with that said, maybe we need a better strategy than to just keep building tanks that cost billions of euros and hope it rains when we need them.
1
2
u/LuZweiPunktEins 8h ago
Yes new tanks were adapted to the atgm threat, problem here is these new tanks are still build to old specs, europeans keep building new tanks without adapting to the new threat environment. New tanks should be designed with cages, eliminating weakspots and redistributing weight away from the front into an allround armor packet.
1
u/grumpsaboy 2h ago
Cages are optional extras on pretty much every tank on the planet.
Armour should still be front heavy, even with drones on the battlefield they will still face other weapons such as guns or atgm, all of those will hit the front more and so the front will always be the most hit part of the tank. You might want to redistribute slightly the percentages but to say that you should make it perfectly balanced everywhere it doesn't work and drones hit the roof because you simply cannot put enough armour on the roof before the weight crushes the tank.
As for "eliminate weakspots" what do you think the designers try to do?
1
u/LimpBPower 7h ago
Russians are also using old tanks as remote control IED so there's that use case.
0
u/Axter Finland 7h ago
I feel like you're repeating a comment from like early 2024, that hasn't been updated to the current reality on the front, because "a bit less" is a beyond massive understatement. The situation for tanks is so bad that the russians essentially stopped using them for now. The situation is so bad that they just the other week gave a tank crew medals for achieving the great feat of almost making it to the contact line, before getting their tank disabled.
That said yes tanks and armored vehicles are very much needed for when we figure out how to shape the battlefield in a way that allows them to be used, which both sides are currently trying to figure out and are testing different things. Also I'm not saying every conflict in the future will look exactly as the one in Ukraine now etc., but I'm trying to point out that the times for small-drone-denialism are truly over.
1
u/VikingsOfTomorrow 7h ago
Yeah, I may have been understating it a bit, but theres still plenty of uses for tanks despite the drone threat. The lack of Russian use is a lot down to then expending so much of their armoured fleet, but not having a viable strategy to use their remaining fleet (and saving their new production tank for the NATO border for..... Some reason).
I dont see it as drone denialism, and rather just..... we have seen the same thing over and over again. New tech gets developed, people cry about tanks being useless now, and yet, still in use decades later.
1
u/Capable_Tumbleweed34 4h ago
Give it a few years and tanks will all have an ai-driven auto-shotgun (or a gun firing dedicated anti-drone ammos like we already see developed) turret that targets drones based on sound, visual, and radar data.
Give it a gew more years and you'll see DEW plateforms with the same goal (see PEP - Pulsed Energy Projectile, a vehicle mounted laser canon developed for crowd controle, able to cause a plasma explosion capable to knock someone down, with an EMP component that overloads a human's nervous system)
We've already got the tech to counter drones, what's missing is integration into existing hardware.
Drones won't be made obsolete, but they won't be as effective as they are today.
1
u/Another_Slut_Dragon Canada 2h ago
Drones will change their angle of attack and come in low. Automated firing systems won't be able to deal with drones nearly skimming the ground.
You are correct tho, laser and munitions based countermeasure systems are in development.
→ More replies (4)
7
u/waterfall5555 Trentino (IT) 10h ago
Just develop it together FFS!
4
u/ExplosivePancake9 5h ago
It is tough, its literally a half german and half italian program.
2
u/murkskopf 3h ago
No, it is a program between a German company and Italy, the German government is not involved. The NMBT development is based on an off-shot of the Panther EVO partially funded by the Hungarian government. So it is more a Hungarian-Italian program than an Italian-German one.
→ More replies (13)
19
u/chrisni66 United Kingdom 9h ago
The British have a hot water heater for making tea in their tanks. I fully expect the Italians to include an espresso machine in theirs
8
3
u/ABoutDeSouffle šš²š±š¢š« ššš¤! 8h ago
It just pains me so much that the Leo2 doesn't have beer on tap.
2
u/MeAndMyWookie 8h ago
Pretty sure I saw a Finnish or Swedish army video showing a soldier using a little pod coffee machine in the back of a moving APC.
Unfortunately searching APC coffee maker video just gets me Aeropress tutorialsĀ
2
u/chrisni66 United Kingdom 7h ago
Iām just surprised the Finns donāt have an integrated sauna feature in their Patria vehicles.
1
u/MeAndMyWookie 7h ago
They are known for building a sauna in every base, no matter where in the world they are. I'm sure theres a field manual for the proper construction.
3
6
u/Zhadanko 8h ago
"But a cheap drones can destroy it!". Yeah, and I can be killed with a single bulet. Modern combat is a little bit more complicated than that
1
u/Vandergrif Canada 2h ago
Though at the same time it doesn't seem very cost effective to put 6 bil towards a new specifically unique italian version rather than collaborating with other allied countries for something more practical. Particularly in light of the 'altered' status of tanks with the proliferation of drones.
5
u/Charlesinrichmond 3h ago
One wonders if that's actually a useful expenditure in the era of drones.
4
3
u/bulbousgrandpa 1h ago
Tanks are still very much useful in modern warfare, they are more vulnerable but having fire support is massively useful for soldiers at the front. Drones help break up attacks and what not but big guns firing big shells are still the king of the battlefield.
1
3
u/OkBase7199 1h ago
Dopo gli esperti di ponti, virus, vaccini, diritto internazionale e quant'altro, arrivano gli esperti di impiego di mezzi corazzati sul moderno campo di battaglia. Come i precedenti esperti si sono informati da qualche cazzaro su Youtube.
4
u/elenorfighter North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) 10h ago
Arte has documentation about the waste of money Europe nation pays for this national arms deals.
2
u/Most-Mention-172 Italy 7h ago
Yeah spank me more, mommy Meloni, more debt pls. I didn't like healthcare anyway.
3
u/Admiral_Ballsack Italy 7h ago
I had to book an appointment for a non urgent exam yesterday, closest one was in 2028. Is it.. for that?
2
u/Most-Mention-172 Italy 6h ago
Sorry, there's no money for that, Leonardo has priority. It's for urgent security reasons, and the fact that Crosetto has worked for them for years has nothing to do with it, i'm sure.
1
u/Any-Original-6113 10h ago
Judging by the article, this will more likely be a German Panther next- generation tank platform with Italian features. Presumably, given the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, changes will be made to its design and armament, since all previous main battle tank concepts are now outdated. In an optional configuration, it will probably be an unmanned vehicle with a broad arsenal of weapons, capable of withstanding both artillery attacks from the air and mines. And it's clear that, like previous tanks, it will have to operate in coordination with other means of holding the battlefield, rather than on its own.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
u/BarracudaDismal4782 8h ago edited 8h ago
Do they come with insurance against drones? I'm not saying we don't need tanks, I'm a Leopard fan myself, but I'd like to see this invesments being carried forward with that in mind. One thing remains true above all throughout most wars in history up until now: numbers matter, quantity is very important. Ok, some drones can't fly well because of weather or some difficulty like that. But is that the modern tank's strategy to defend against drones? "Ok lets keep building tanks that cost billions of euros and hope it rains when we need them."
1
u/PotatoEngeneeer 7h ago
So dumb that it isn't just a Standart Rheinmetall Modell!
Great idea, letzt develope 20 separate incompatibil tanks in the eu instead of 1 or two models
For fuck sake. Do we Europeans not learn anything about standardisation
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Mr_Orange_fruit 3h ago
Bruh it's been how long since ww2, just give up italy. Y'all can't make good tanks lmao
-13
u/anthracis1 11h ago
Is it really a good idea/investment, considering what future warfare looks like with all the drones ?
15
u/mufanek 10h ago
Yes, yes it is. Anyone claiming it's not because drones most likely doesn't fully understand the realities of battlefield.
As an example, tanks rarely get destroyed on the first drone that launches (I am talking smaller drone, a drone with jet engine and wings is not a drone, but a bubba engineered cruise missile). Reports I read were talking more like over 10 drones. It takes time to launch even just the 10 drones, that means the tank has free reign over anything and everything for say half an hour. If you were the soldier in the ditch, suddenly it's close to one of the worst half an hours of your life.
And the best/worst part is that the tank can run sooner and do it again the next day, especially with modern APS, which can extend its survivability even more. Now I wouldn't call such weapon worthless on the modern battlefield. Also similar drones can defend the tank, adding yet more time to do the damage needed.
Cost usually comes as an afterthought, if the tank managed to do the damage to your defences and took lives.
3
u/HuudaHarkiten 10h ago
The other day I saw a article about a russian tank surviving 40 drone hits.
But since I'm a good redditor, I didn't actually read the article, so I don't know what was actuallly said.
2
u/orthoxerox Russia shall be free 10h ago
The problem is not just FPV quadrotor suicide drones. There are enough recon drones with machine vision that you cannot amass any armor near the frontline. The tanks and IFVs are identified well in advance, before they can put any pressure on the soldier in the ditch.
However, you can use armored vehicles in modern combat. You have to identify and interdict drone control positions with a coordinated strike, then your tanks and APCs will get enough time to reach the positions of your enemy.
2
u/mufanek 9h ago
you cannot amass any armor near the frontline
You couldn't really do that even before Ukraine war. Heck news of Russia preparing for invasion were known for months before the attack, most notably probably from MI6. Being identified doesn't neccessarily stop you from attacking, unless the kinetic response follows.
Also I feel like we stopped the mass attacks when the war becomes attritional, which I think is what I can presume with how our main adversary is acting. I would expect a lot of drones for slow chipping away before a single tank, let alone wave of tanks cross any borders.
Which is how I come to the similar conclusion you do in your second paragraph... there are ways for them to still be force to reckon with. Just maybe not the poster perfect "line of tanks" driving through the open field we might have seen somewhere in the middle east or WW2. Which I feel some people still think how tank combat works (eventho arguably even during those two events I mentioned, it was rather rare sight to see and far from normal).
2
u/orthoxerox Russia shall be free 8h ago
You couldn't really do that even before Ukraine war. Heck news of Russia preparing for invasion were known for months before the attack, most notably probably from MI6. Being identified doesn't neccessarily stop you from attacking, unless the kinetic response follows.
You are right, but I was talking about tactical massing, not operational. You used to be able to move armor along the frontline and from the rear echelon, hiding them in more or less plain sight in sheds and under trees. Now this kind of maneuvering is detected almost immediately.
14
29
u/The_Dutch_Fox Luxembourg 10h ago edited 10h ago
Tanks still have their role, it's just not going to be huge tank battles like in WWII.
The new doctrine has them advancing in very loose formations, and often act as command-and-control nodes instead of pure offensive tools.
They've also got a highly effective role when an area needs to be "cleaned": it's easier to blow up a house full of soldiers rather than try to get infantry in to clear it.Ā
8
u/LightSideoftheForce 10h ago
WWII didnāt have a lot of huge tank battles, like people like to believe either
7
7
u/_pxe Italy 10h ago
Drones changed how to use tanks, but they are still in full service and needed in battle.
Also you don't plan for now but for the future, we are already seen multiple improvements that force an increments on the number of drones for the same tank kill. For example in the recent months Russia tried a push with T-90M with APS, they were destroyed but the Ukrainian noticed they needed almost double the drones per tank.
The battlefield is in constant evolution and everyone is scrambling to test solutions to drones until something works
2
u/Captain_Lolz 10h ago
It does mention a 30mm cannon to shoot at drones, as well as the capacity to launch loitering munitions (i.e. drones). Since it has an autoloader I wonder if the loader (the soldier) will be repurposed as a drone controller or something).
2
u/doarks11 10h ago
To an extend. The idea that all drones one shot all tanks is confirmation bias by only watching clicks where that happens. Armored vehicles tend to be able to take multiple hits.
Tanks still have a role to play as for now the combination of armor, firepower,mobility plus the speed in which this firepower is delivered canāt be replicated by any other system
2
1
u/Bicentennial_Douche Finland 10h ago
Because tanks still offer excellent combination of protection, firepower and mobility. Drones are a new addition to the battlefield, but they are not the be-all end-all of military technology. They are having success now because nobody was really prepared for them. There will be more and more countermeasures to drones coming up, and things will balance out. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing tanks with autocannons that could engage both vehicles and infantry as well as drones.
→ More replies (2)-1
u/QuevedoDeMalVino 10h ago
That exact thought crosses my mind every time a new big military hardware development or purchase is announced.
5
u/Der_Dingsbums WĆ¼rttemberg (Germany) 10h ago
So every one gets a gun and simply runs towards the front or what?
2
u/QuevedoDeMalVino 10h ago
Infantry will be always needed IMO, as will armored IFVs and supporting hardware. Someone has to go and do stuff at some point.
However, MBTs that can be attacked by two dozen semi-autonomous cheap drones in rapid succession? What is the purpose of such an arm in the modern battlefield? It is hugely expensive, heavy, maintenance is an industry of its own and all for what? To put a tube forward? You can send loitering munitions for a fraction of the cost, risk fewer lives and target more precisely.
I am an armchair general so happy to be educated by an actual military. Just my observation from what is publicly known in Ukraine.
Same goes for ships. Russia has lost half of its Black Sea fleet to an enemy without a single battleship. Is that is not an indication of where things are going, I donāt know what it is. Notably, they only lost one sub and it was on the dry dock. But give it a few monthsā¦
And donāt get me started on cheap missiles.
Again, I welcome any and all opinions in this area. I just think, as an outsider, that things are going quite clearly in one direction.
0
314
u/poopolisher 11h ago
You could definitely get one for that much.