Main Battle Tank

In 1987, the US Army was just beginning to unlock the power of what would later become the Army's command philosophy of Mission Command. In 1987, this was know as mission tactics. Mission tactics is a concept that seeks fast, decentralized decision making. It is an important concept to the success of the AirLand Battle and must have immediate emphasis in all our tactical training. We desperately need leaders who can operate decisively with minimum guid-ance. These leaders are our greatest combat multiplier. The concept of Auftragstaktik or “mission tactics”is not new to war- fare.The Prussians in the mid-19th century adopted “mission tactics” as the logical method to control the decentralization of the battlefield...

Tanks and armored vehicles are essential to conducting combined arms operations, even in an era where the increasing effectiveness of Long Range Precision Firers (LRPF), combined with multi-domain sensor networks, are making the battlespace extremely lethal. The old designs of most legacy armored vehicles, with their limited SA, restricted connectivity, and the inability to mask from enemy sensor networks, are increasingly making those vehicles irrelevant. Upgrading existing platforms with enhanced SA derived from see-through-armor systems is a promising first step to address this challenge. As AI assisted sensor-shooter neural networks evolve in the next decade, transparent armor will become essential. The ability to have crew members operate inside the protection of the vehicle’s hull, where the armor is strongest, will become essential. The vehicle commander’s ability to see and understand his surroundings and the key objects in his battlespace, will make the difference between being the hunter or becoming the hunted. As these technologies mature, the role of armored vehicles in future wars will be enhanced. In peer- on-peer combat, rather than becoming obsolete in the battlespace of 2030 and beyond, MBTs and IFVs will become essential fighting components and nodes in an increasing powerful kill-web, but only if new, clean-slate designed systems are developed.
The new era of enhanced armored vehicle SA is just beginning. The next step in armored SA will be to see both near and far, connect with every intelligent weapon system within range, visualize a holistic view of the battlespace in real-time, and do all this without increasing the cognitive load on the vehicle commander and crew. Combining the recent advancements in SA, with improved battlefield connectivity and intelligent weapons lays the foundation for a major shift in warfighting. The armored vehicle SA systems described above are the genesis of the cognitive enhanced systems that will lead the way to redefine the future of armored warfare and multi- domain operations.

Main battle tanks (MBTs) have always been in the heart of all military campaigns and have enabled armies to fight across the full spectrum of war. Countries need to consider the complex interactions between subsystems of MBTs in the decision phase of a design process or MBT acquisition. In order to define the interaction among the subsystems of ‘system of systems’, which is MBT system for this case, this study aims to determine the criteria and their sub criteria affecting MBT selection problem and to analyse the cause and effect relations among these criteria. The criteria and the complex interaction among them have been determined by consulting a group of experts. Because of multiple complex criteria interactions in MBT selection problem, decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method is used as a multiple criteria decision making method. DEMATEL method is applied on the main and the sub criteria separately to understand the cause and effect relations. The result...

Every major military force in the world today is maintaining and upgrading its tanks. Tanks provide protected, mobile striking power that has been the centerpiece of modern ground combat since WWI. There is a famous saying: "The only thing better than a tank is two tanks." If you look at the tank inventories around the world, you understand the truth of this maxim. Russia maintains around 20,216 tanks. China boasts about 6,457. North Korea reportedly has 5,025. The US has approximately 5,884. Israel has 2,620.

With the exponential growth of technological change accelerating, it is
imperative to understand these disruptive trends. The focused examination of future possibilities is the first step to developing credible solutions. Some optimists say that major wars will never occur because the thought of war with these new technologies is too terrible to contemplate. Besides, they add, people today are much more sophisticated and intelligent than in past generations. This is the flawed view of almost every new generation. The best and brightest minds of 1914 thought the same thing in their time, and the unthinkable occurred in spite of their best wishes. Others may argue that war never solves anything, that the futility of conflict is apparent, and that we live in an unprecedented era of peace and progress that makes major power conflict very unlikely. This is another fallacy. Ask the descendant of a Carthaginian the question of whether war ever solves anything — but of course, you will not be able to, as Rome completely destroyed Carthage, the culture, and the people. The Carthaginians hoped for peace
as the Romans prepared and executed war. There is an important lesson in both of these examples. “Tripwire” forces will no longer deter an aggressor determined to change the calculus of world power in its favor. Only combat credible forces in range, ready, and capable of striking the adversary after a first strike, will offer any tenable deterrent. The likelihood of future wars between major powers and the ever-developing technologies of war must be studied and understood if war is to be averted. It is possible to examine current technological trends to mentally project alternative concepts to gain an insight into the future. Contemplating the battlefield of 2035, therefore, should be a serious effort to create awareness today that could
generate tomorrow’s deterrence.

This is a 1990 article, written before Operation Desert Strom, with the intent to provide readers with an understanding of the Iraqi Army they were about to fight. The analysis of this article concluded: "The Iraqis, no matter how good they look on paper, have critical tactical vulnerabilities that can be exploited. How well the Iraqis will hold up against a modern combined arms force, equipped with close air support, remains to be seen."  As we know now -- but could not know when I wrote this article -- Desert Storm lasted only 100 hours and resulted in the complete defeat of the Iraqi Army.

Excellence is not an art, it is a habit. To achieve excellence in preparing for combat, modern military forces train in a Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) training environments to create maximum return on training resources. Live training involves people operating real systems on real terrain. Virtual training involves people operating synthetic systems over digitized terrain. Constructive training has synthetic forces operating synthetic systems. Live training at the CTCs is still the most effective training for military units. It is RED TEAMING on a massive scale.

For the past 17 years the US Army has focussed on fighting counterinsurgency operations. With the growing threat looming in eastern Europe, the Army has shifted to high-intensity combat training to exercise rotational units against a near-peer opponent. The NTC is a cutting-edge CTC that has revolutionized how combat forces are trained and prepared for combat and is a model for what a CTC should be. Established in 1979, the NTC is the major training area for the United States military and is under the command of US Army Forces
Command (FORSCOM). The NTC provides over 1,000 square miles (2,600 km2) for maneuver and ranges, and is the ideal site to conduct high-intensity combat training that pit incoming Blue Forces — Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) and Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) — against “Red Force” or Opposing Forces (OPFOR) units in the most realistic live training available anywhere.

The Battle of Chipyong-ni in February 1951 was considered the Gettysburg of the Korean War and a decisive turning point in the conflict. This chapter in the anthology "The Wrath of Achilles Essays on Command in Battle" tells the story from the American perspective and provides insights into command, decision-making, and leadership.

For the past 17 years the US Army has focussed on fighting counterinsurgency operations. With the growing threat looming in eastern Europe, the Army has shifted to high-intensity combat training to exercise rotational units against a near-peer opponent. The NTC is a cutting-edge CTC that has revolutionized how combat forces are trained and prepared for combat and is a model for what a CTC should be. Established in 1979, the NTC is the major training area for the United States military and is under the command of US Army Forces
Command (FORSCOM). The NTC provides over 1,000 square miles (2,600 km2) for maneuver and ranges, and is the ideal site to conduct high-intensity combat training that pit incoming Blue Forces — Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) and Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) — against “Red Force” or Opposing Forces (OPFOR) units in the most realistic live training available anywhere.

General John Yeosock was a leader of singular ability and dedication who served with remarkable distinction as a soldier.  For the better part of four decades, he led America’s soldiers in peace and war, commanding with consummate skill and ability.  I first met John Yeosock when we were both lieutenants in the Brave Rifles--the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment.  Throughout our years of close friendship, I have always marveled at his skill and sensitivity as a commander.  Even in those early days, he possessed that vital yet undefineable quality of leadership that drew his soldiers to him.  He inspired every soldier with whom he served to reach his or her full potential.  He understood soldiers, and he loved them.

John Yeosock’s contributions to the Army and to the Nation reached beyond his role as a commander.  He was as much at home in the halls of the Pentagon and the inner circles of national level decision-making as he was in the mud with his soldiers.  He was at once a strategic visionary, a pragmatic leader, and a man of uncompromising integrity, and he brought this unique combination of talents to bear in some of the thorniest challenges the Army confronted.

Perhaps at no time were his abilities more evident than during the Gulf War.  In a complex joint and combined organization, John Yeosock commanded Third U.S. Army--and all the U.S. Army land combat elements in the war.  Executing with operational agility and skill, General Yeosock moved two heavy corps--some eight divisions in all--across the Saudi desert to strike at the Iraqi Army where it least expected it.  As a result, the United States and the Coalition won a victory of historic proportions.

At the same time he was preparing his soldiers for battle, John Yeosock was also the primary coordinator of all support operations in the theater.  Without losing focus on the battle at hand, he insured that U.S. and coalition forces received the full measure of support they required--at the right place and the right time.

It was no accident that General Yeosock performed with such singular skill and ability in the Gulf.  He had been honing his tactical and technical proficiency over an entire career of service to the nation.  The history of John Yeosock is the history of the American leader--and he stands as a model for generations of commanders who will take their places in the defense of the nation., Carl E. Vuono, General, US Army [Ret], 27 March 1998

Main battle tanks (MBTs) have always been in the heart of all military campaigns and have enabled armies to fight across the full spectrum of war. Countries need to consider the complex interactions between subsystems of MBTs in the decision phase of a design process or MBT acquisition. In order to define the interaction among the subsystems of ‘system of systems’, which is MBT system for this case, this study aims to determine the criteria and their sub criteria affecting MBT selection problem and to analyse the cause and effect relations among these criteria. The criteria and the complex interaction among them have been determined by consulting a group of experts. Because of multiple complex criteria interactions in MBT selection problem, decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method is used as a multiple criteria decision making method. DEMATEL method is applied on the main and the sub criteria separately to understand the cause and effect relations. The result...