TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Which is kinda my point. You need all the arms not one or two. And the better each arm it the better the overall whole. Raw numbers can still be mitigated by top gear and good training.Those branches of the armed forces may not hold ground but they can devastate ground forces if not challenged. The priority when faced with a more advanced opponent (in these fields) is to make efforts in negating their advantages and even matching and exceeding them in the long term. Developing these technologies is far more important than fielding small numbers of super expensive new tanks that can easily get knocked out because you lose air superiority etc.
A Tank that can kill another a 3Km vs a Tank that cannot will be at an advantage and one for the overall whole. IE If I can kill you on my own and you cannot kill me at the same then, I don't need to call in an Air strike to kill you at a distance well you do. And by calling in that air strike you rob that aircraft from Air superiority. And open it up for a fight against my protective air cover. Well I having that ability can knock out your tanks at my leisure. That played out in the Gulf war where Modern MBT easily killed Iraqi T55 tanks like that.So pure numbers will be a more important quality than having an advanced tank that can lob a sabot accurately to 3km etc.
That said All Third Gens can fire out to that range.
This is mostly because there is no One wonder tech that can be built into a Armored vehicle that can practically render Armor Impervious to attack in urban well retaining a realistic weight and size.These approaches are different and often don't overlap, but it seems like western militaries are adapting to modern warfare, especially urban warfare by avoiding the path of developing new MBTs to meet new requirements
Besides that the better options are how the tank is employed vs what it's built with. Sure some tech can help Hardkill APS against ATGM and RPG's adding additional armor but that's the last line of defense.
but In the End it's more about preventing the baddies from getting that close.
I Doubt it. Those are either going to try and stand in for the tank, yet be just as susceptible to the same attacks or trying to assist and pushing back the potential attackers.Emerging technologies like drones and remotely controlled vehicles will eventually become mature enough to meet these new urban challenges without the need to redevelop current generation MBTs.
MBT are upgraded and updated all the time most of it is just that people don't see the changes because it keeps the same name.I'm not saying MBTs are obsolete now or even in near future, but common sense on budgeting needs to be considered when MBTs are considered.
Replacing parts updated computers add on parts. armor upgrades. Compared to Fighters though Tanks are Cheap. 9.1 million for a top of the line M1A2 SEP2 Abrams compared to 5 times that for a F16 or over a hundred times that for an Aircraft carrier.
The PLA approach is not unique, It's more or less the same the Russians and Soviets used. Elite units with top of the line tanks and most of the main force with knocked down Tanks. In Russia today this would be T90(or T80 or T14) and T72 in The PRC this is ZTZ99 and ZTZ96. It's cheaper to be sure but has it's own issues.All in all I think PLA's approach with numerous cheap upgraded Type 96s is quite appropriate given the potential wars and opponents it could be fighting.
The tiered approach has a issue that being logistics. If you have two grades of tank you have to support them no matter what happens and if the unit of action pulls in to a forward base for repairs on there ZTZ99's but finds only parts for ZTZ96 they are not going to be getting back in the fight. That said they will have an easier time than the Russians did when they had 5 MBT in service then had a war on there hands.