NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Why are we fighting over the proverbial Olympus Mons?

[Triplebaconation]

There are no proper roads below the rim of the National Monument section of the Grand Canyon because it's a...National Monument. The trails there aren't natural formations. They were constructed with dynamite and road-building equipment. They purposely weren't built for automobiles because that would destroy the scenic character of the park, which has been recognized as its main value since before automobiles were even invented.

In fact many of the more obtrusive trails which once existed were obliterated by CCC work crews.

Again, horses and mules can be useful in the right circumstances. One shouldn't overestimate their capabilities (especially to a ridiculous degree) or ignore their considerable drawbacks or the skills and preparation required to use them. Tier One operators charging into combat on a horse has a certain glamor, I suppose, but the reality of dealing with animals is closer to this:



The original question concerned horse-drawn artillery, which has no advantage at all over motorized artillery tractors.

[Theodosiya]

Pure light infantry vs light infantry on trucks and wheels (a.k.a Light Motorized Infantry)? I asked this because Gallia mentioned the superiority of light infantry. Why not give them land transport means?

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

Random question. If you took an infantry mortar like a 82mm or one of the serious 6cm (so not a knee mortar sort of thing but a big 6cm) and you were to man pack and fire it what would happen to you?

You miss.

do not read this post as meaning tanks shouldn't exist

NOOOO YOU CANT JUST REPLACE TANKERINOS WITH ATGW AND DISPERSED LAUNCH SITES OF LONG RANGE ARTILLERY YOU WILL LOSERINO THE WARNERINO AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Listen here Jack how do I march 30 miles a day on a bicycle?

To say what Kester means: Tanks are fine but they're not great for attacking well dug, well equipped troops with a strong anti-tank defense belt. Since anti-tank defense was the prime consideration of military R&D spending for the past 100 years it's not surprising that anti-infantry weapons have suffered. If we had some sort of weapon that could be equivalent to a FOG or a Javelin, but killed a dozen dudes, then yes the infantry attack would be pretty easy to defeat. But we don't. The closest you get are VT fuzed howitzer and mortar rounds and they are not serious defensive weapons since they'll just be suppressed by counter battery fire from rocket launchers prior to the assault.

Can you think of anything a PMT nation could deploy to shift the balance back in favor of the tank? Aside from mounting grenade launchers on just about everything, I'm already doing that, and I'm not sure it'll be enough.

[Purpelia]

Can you think of anything a PMT nation could deploy to shift the balance back in favor of the tank? Aside from mounting grenade launchers on just about everything, I'm already doing that, and I'm not sure it'll be enough.

Actually yes. It's called combined arms warfare and was pretty much figured out by 1918.

[Gallia-]

Attacking is hard in general now.

Tanks are fine when you need a bulletproof field gun. Which is usually the same time you need a field gun, due to preponderance of machine guns these days.

Finding a way to neutralize things that kill tanks easily: GMTI radars, long range missiles, most forms of ICM and EFP top attack weapons, and hypervelocity cannons would be fine. Most tanks at best only do one or two of these things though. The Russians Belarussians have a GMTI radar jammer on some Obr 2016s dank PDFs. Most tanks try to be protected against HV cannon rounds. ICM/EFP protection exists on ultra-modern vehicles of the 1990s like Strv 122 and Merkava IV. Long range missile protection hasn't quite come into vogue yet, but it could be subsumed under short range air defense, or a general APS that can attack top attack weapons. Radar jammers can be used in an area defense role as well, perhaps on a company command tank like a T-80UK or something. All the pieces are there but no one has yet to produce a tank in volume, invest in the production capabilities, or bother combining all the requisite capabilities together. Then the tank will become a viable attack weapon again. No one knows what it would really look like, though.

Nor does anyone know how much it would cost, but given the price of something that even approaches these capabilities (T-14) is about twice the cost of a "traditional" Cold War MBT, and the production rate of such vehicles is less than a quarter what more common vehicles can be produced at, we can assume these vehicles would be extremely rare and expensive. Light infantry wouldn't really be able to compete at this point because it's a bit difficult to put area air defense systems, radar jammers, and anti-missile systems on ground troops.

At the moment light infantry have the edge primarily because they are smaller signature than tanks. About all anyone can do right now is try to avoid the electronic eye and hope they aren't fighting someone with them. This is always true for defending, as well, so they will still be the supreme anti-armor obstacle even against a hypothetical giga tank.

[Purpelia]

When has attacking not been hard? Was it back in Napoleonic times when you had to march down a field strait toward people shooting at you whilst being unable to fire back and having cannons poor canister in your flanks? Or back before that when it involved charging at a giant hedgehog of pikes all aimed squarely at your face? Or back in the middle ages when it was a case of marching strait at a shield wall bristling with miscellaneous spiky bits whilst having spears and arrows lobed at you? You really have to go back to the era of sticks and stones before there is some sort of a balance. Except even than the guy defending his tree had a height advantage.

Bottom line here is that

[Gallia-]

When has attacking not been hard?

Pretty much the entire second half of the 20th century prior to the development of JSTARS.

[Austrasien]

Can you think of anything a PMT nation could deploy to shift the balance back in favor of the tank? Aside from mounting grenade launchers on just about everything, I'm already doing that, and I'm not sure it'll be enough.

Image wall within:

[Gallia-]

Pretty much.

e: The RUS and USA robots should be Big Head Gang tho.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

So I'm thinking of a 360x180 degree APS for protection against top attack weapons and ATGMs, a V-bottom hull for mine protection, and slapping a radar jammer on a UGV and sending one along with each tank platoon. Additionally, I have each pair of tank platoons cooperating with three mechanized infantry platoons in a combined arms company, with a battery of eight spg's or towed howitzers (depending on terrain and availability) and a dedicated attack helicopter supporting each company. So combined arms is a go. Would this at least mitigate some of the tank's vulnerabilities?

[Gallia-]

the attack helicopter is superfluous; theyre useless outside platoon-company strength

everything else is ok

[Austrasien]

So I'm thinking of a 360x180 degree APS for protection against top attack weapons and ATGMs,

Good.

a V-bottom hull for mine protection, and slapping a radar jammer on a UGV and sending one along with each tank platoon.

UGV's are the future but not quite the present. I would move the jammer to a high level, and perhaps airborne. FSU states have a tradition of putting powerful jammers on helicopters which is a compelling choice to me: A helicopter can move to locations on the front quickly and by varying altitude has a lot of control over far it will project its influence against both air and ground targets. Centralized EW systems also make it more practical to install higher power jammers, more sensitive receivers and rely on fewer trained specialists compared to decentralized jammers.

Though all this needs to be weighed against the heightened vulnerability of a rather pricey device.

Additionally, I have each pair of tank platoons cooperating with three mechanized infantry platoons in a combined arms company, with a battery of eight spg's or towed howitzers (depending on terrain and availability) and a dedicated attack helicopter supporting each company. So combined arms is a go. Would this at least mitigate some of the tank's vulnerabilities?

This is generally promising. Austrasian battalions mix balanced tank-mech combined arms companies and ultra-light motorcycle troops for an overall infantry-heavy combination. If anything you are going too far by placing artillery and helicopters in the company when it's not really necessary for them to be located there. The best place to focus is on making your fire support and close air support as efficient as possible.

One thing you might add though is engineers to clear mines/IEDs.

And generally emphasize camouflage, concealment and deception. The biggest metarisk for armour is that it will suffer unsustainable attrition from plinking by aircraft/drones/artillery-rockets-missiles and will never reach the actual combat areas in sufficient concentrations. It is one thing for a tank to be knocked out in the process of completing its battlefield mission. War entails losses. But if it never arrives at the front it would be better if it had never existed. Would have saved you some fuel at least.

For the part of the tank, the best that can be done to avoid this is to practice the strictest march and camouflage discipline + good traffic control: Tanks need to get on the road as quickly as possible when ordered, cover as much ground as they can each time and without fail disperse and camouflage at each halt. If they are going to halt for an extended period they need to either dig in and cover-up or hide in buildings. Decoys and decoy positions need to be used. Radio discipline needs to be unbreakable. And don't neglect traffic control.

Traffic kills.

[The Manticoran Empire]

So I'm thinking of a 360x180 degree APS for protection against top attack weapons and ATGMs, a V-bottom hull for mine protection, and slapping a radar jammer on a UGV and sending one along with each tank platoon. Additionally, I have each pair of tank platoons cooperating with three mechanized infantry platoons in a combined arms company, with a battery of eight spg's or towed howitzers (depending on terrain and availability) and a dedicated attack helicopter supporting each company. So combined arms is a go. Would this at least mitigate some of the tank's vulnerabilities?

Eh...a little much. That company has a Captain or First Lieutenant coordinating eight distinct assets: Headquarters Platoon, 2 Tank Platoons, 3 Infantry Platoons, an Artillery Company, and an Attack Helicopter. Combined arms is a good idea but there is a limit to how much one man can coordinate with any degree of accuracy. The larger a unit gets, the more delegation there must be. There is a reason why companies rarely get about 200 men and the company you propose has 24-32 men in the Tank Platoons, another 120 in the Mechanized Infantry Platoons, roughly 150 to 200 in the Artillery Battery, and then another 6 or 7 guys for the attack helicopter. So this Company is now 300 to 359 men, making it basically a battalion without the staff and services to actually function as a battalion. There are lots of ways to do combined arms. Combined Arms Companies are not good ideas. Now you could do it in a battalion with a Tank Company, an Infantry Company, and an Artillery Battery with a Service Company and Headquarters Company and then attaching attack helicopters from the Brigade or Division but the best way is probably to either combine the arms at the Brigade or Division level and construct battalion and company battle groups as the situation demands. For my own nation's army, I'm maintaining the same Divisional structure of the US Army from the 1970s as shown below.
This allows me to attach and detach battalions to and from my brigades as needed while maintaining dedicated support units to keep those battalions operational.

[United Earthlings]

The US military was so good at combined arms that the light infantry 3rd Marine Division outperformed and outpaced most armor regiments in Korea lol.

Considering the fact that neither the US 3rd Marine Division nor any US Armor Regiments ever deployed to Korea, that is indeed hilarious.

NV mentioned it has a propfan. Its basically an UAV.

Smart submunitions need to be placed within 100-200 m of targets to hit (SADARM for e.g. is 150 m). This is more difficult for a small or moving target (SADARM was for battalion+ size targets and counterbattery). Also, slowly descending is not loitering - if no target is found within 100-200 m by the time it hits the ground, its a miss.

A command-guided missile on the other hand only requires a rough knowledge of the enemy's location as it can acquire targets itself. If it loses its target it can stay in the air and attack again.

If it’s eventually confirmed said missile will use a propfan to achieve some endurance, then I look forward to reading to how that will work in practice. When it comes to defense procurement expectations rarely align with reality. Given weight and volume of space limitations, my hunch is that said weapons loiter endurance will not be that long.

In addition, since smart submunitions like SADARM are considered “fire and forget” weapons, it was my understanding that this was one of the reasons why these exact types of weapon were used against rough or suspected enemy locations. Yes, the slowly descending munition won’t achieve the same level of endurance, but depending on how the estimated endurance for the proposed weapon actually ends up being, if no target enters the limited scanning range of said weapon, once said weapons endurance ends, it’s also a miss.

Furthermore, considering it has been pointed out that the proposed weapon has been compared to an artillery type weapon, if that conclusion holds then logically shouldn’t the weapon then also be generally deployed against battalion plus sized targets?

Enemy, neutral, and friendly forces do not stay still while a weapon is in flight - this is the whole point of having a 'man-in-the-loop'. Smart submunitions cannot tell if a vehicle has already been knocked out, too.

Modern radio-controlled weapons are quite resistant to jamming - they frequency-hop and have a relatively wide bandwidth. A fiber-optic cable is unjammable.

The usage of “Fire and forget” weapons I believe addresses your man in the loop part, as for not telling if the vehicle has already been knocked out. That same problem still exists for said NVs proposed weapon, if no assets are being assigned to monitor the situation. Let’s not forget, there are various defensive countermeasures that can be deployed against said proposed loiter missile.

By jamming, fair enough, but I was thinking more along the lines of creating interference of what the seeker inside the missile can detect among one line of thought.

I didn't claim that it would be cheaper.

Anyway, seekers are the most expensive component of a PGM - once you start putting them in artillery shells, they won't be much cheaper than missiles.

I wasn’t specifically saying you were claiming it would be cheaper, only stating a general fact that the more complex a weapon system is, in general follows an increase in costs.

That depends; adding state of the art electronics always does in general make things more expensive, however even artillery shells with seeker warheads are usually by a wide margin cheaper than a missile, but there are always some exceptions.

Isn't Special forces are part of that organization ?
Not really. I mean, is a special forces unit really going to be engage enemies at greater ranges than regular infantry? They might be that far in front of the regular army sure, but they still won't be fighting over tens of kilometers.

From my perspective you are basically arguing for issuing each infantry platoon with an attached howitzer. As opposed to keeping those in an artillery battery to be used by commanders that actually see that far away and know what's happening that far away and are equipped to make decisions on how to deal with it.

For light infantry, this includes Special Forces, it’s always about weight. Ideally no light infantry forces at squad level would be issued with these proposed weapons, instead more than likely they would be assign to some type of dedicated weapons platoon or even weapons company like how it’s found in a Infantry brigade combat team [IBCT]. That's my thinking anyway.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

The US military was so good at combined arms that the light infantry 3rd Marine Division outperformed and outpaced most armor regiments in Korea lol.

Considering the fact that neither the US 3rd Marine Division nor any US Armor Regiments ever deployed to Korea, that is indeed hilarious.

Is Korea really suitable for armored forces?Or the armored forces of South Korea as a defensive force rather than an offensive force.Korea's terrain is complex and mountainous, and there is no great plain for the deployment of armored forces

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

7.62 mm Tokarev, 7.62 mm Russian, 7.7 mm Arisaka, 37 mm Japanese and 45 mm Russian, and artillery proof mobile machine gun and field gun bunkers are always useful everywhere. Especially for stopping the Chinese banzai charge.

[United Earthlings]

So I'm thinking of a 360x180 degree APS for protection against top attack weapons and ATGMs, a V-bottom hull for mine protection, and slapping a radar jammer on a UGV and sending one along with each tank platoon. Additionally, I have each pair of tank platoons cooperating with three mechanized infantry platoons in a combined arms company, with a battery of eight spg's or towed howitzers (depending on terrain and availability) and a dedicated attack helicopter supporting each company. So combined arms is a go. Would this at least mitigate some of the tank's vulnerabilities?

Just a few more suggested amendments to add to the list…which will still be incomplete btw.

1. If you haven’t already done so, make sure your tank has top armor levels that provide protection against likely enemy ATGMs you project it will encounter, and it should go without saying blow-out panels so in case there is a penetration the crew survives. And of course some NBC protection for just in case.
2. Good leaders and training can carry the day, especially if the units operating together have trained together. Never underestimate the value of good teamwork, at a critical moment it can make all the difference between victory and defeat.
3. Some MLRS and Ballistic Missile capability never hurts.
4. Combined Arms extends into the air and if you have the capability space and now cyber, helicopters are a good start, but fixed wing assets of all kinds can bring multiple types of force multipliers to a battlefield. If you can Integrate these various assets into one large operational joint command, do so.
5. Superior logistics wins wars, neglect this aspect at your own peril.
6. Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.

[The Manticoran Empire]

The US military was so good at combined arms that the light infantry 3rd Marine Division outperformed and outpaced most armor regiments in Korea lol.

Considering the fact that neither the US 3rd Marine Division nor any US Armor Regiments ever deployed to Korea, that is indeed hilarious.

Actually several Armor regiments served in the Korean War. The 66th and 70th Armor Regiments both had elements deployed in Korea. The 66th sent a detachment called the 6th Tank Battalion, which earned 7 Battle Streamers and a Korean Presidential Unit Citation. After the war, those honors were transferred to the 66th. The 70th was deployed as the 70th Heavy Tank Battalion in 1950, making use of M4A3E8 Sherman tanks and served from August 1950 to December 1951.

[New Vihenia]

Newest version of AESA radar calculator is now available :

DOWNLOAD

Given the issue of some people on mediafire service, i moved the file into google drive.

This newest version contains fixes and additional features and removal of some extraneous feature which doesnt seem anybody wants (e.g cooling capacity vs average power) Some of the fixes are :

1.Fixed the inconsisten units in determination of detectability factor
2.Target altitude now taken into account in calculation of atmospheric absorption coefficient. Good however only as high as Stratosphere. Ionosphere propagation has not yet taken into account so. Be cautious when using this for estimating performance of a Space based or ABM radar.

Additions of new feature :
1.Custom beam dwell time, now that user can now select and later specify the beam dwell time on his/her own accord.

2.Custom Detectability factor. Well if selected to "No" The user can now manually input the value of Detectability factor by themselves. This detectability factor is basically SNR BUT it also takes account of pulse integration, losses and target model. The value could be the same as SNR but it could be larger or smaller.

3.Addition of range dependent Radar response factor.
These factors are new addition for K.Barton's book "Equations for Modern Radar" To take account of more dynamics especially in today's phased arrays and high-medium PRF radars. Some of the factors however such as the beam dwell and STC (Sensitivity Time Control) Are set to unity as the former is absent in Phased arrays while the latter is bit of difficult to implement mainly because there are no firm definition of "how high is high or how low is low" PRF. STC is implemented on low PRF Radars such as ATC or Military early warning radar as a measure to eliminate unwanted clutter such as birds or flocks of insects at close ranges. When applied the STC will deny acquisition of target with RCS lower than threshold at the range when it's applied (e.g 0-40 km).

At the moment i am workin on the new tracking part.. mainly to allow the sheet to better approximate how many targets can be tracked in the specified capacity, then computational load, which can lead to approximation of power requirement for the electronics and later weight and cooling. On the bigger picture this can allow anyone wanting to make an AWACS or Fighter radars to have an idea how range could affect how big, how hot, how heavy and how much the cost of the radar.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Considering the fact that neither the US 3rd Marine Division nor any US Armor Regiments ever deployed to Korea, that is indeed hilarious.

Is Korea really suitable for armored forces?Or the armored forces of South Korea as a defensive force rather than an offensive force. Korea's terrain is complex and mountainous, and there is no great plain for the deployment of armored forces

Eh. While it is mountainous, you can use tanks. It's not what most would consider prime tank country but the mountains aren't overly impassable. However, it is also dangerous to use tanks in Korea offensively, since the terrain is, as you mentioned, complex and mountainous. This leaves them vulnerable to ambush. However, it is quite good for defensive employment of armor, since they can dig in on the high ground and have command views of valleys and nearby mountains and hills.
So it is suitable, just not in the traditional sense.

[Purpelia]

Considering the fact that neither the US 3rd Marine Division nor any US Armor Regiments ever deployed to Korea, that is indeed hilarious.

Is Korea really suitable for armored forces?Or the armored forces of South Korea as a defensive force rather than an offensive force.Korea's terrain is complex and mountainous, and there is no great plain for the deployment of armored forces

There is no place where man can thread and wishes to fight over that is not suited for armored forces. Tanks are always useful. You just have to adjust how you use them to the context they are used in. But they are always useful.

[Gallia-]

Considering the fact that neither the US 3rd Marine Division nor any US Armor Regiments ever deployed to Korea, that is indeed hilarious.

Is Korea really suitable for armored forces?

Yes.

The DPRK has one of the largest and most advanced tank armies of 1975.

The ROKA has more tanks than the U.S. Army.

Or the armored forces of South Korea as a defensive force rather than an offensive force.Korea's terrain is complex and mountainous, and there is no great plain for the deployment of armored forces

Good.

'ate plains
'uv mountains
simple as

Tanks are fine. The US Army probably lost Korea because it lacked panache and common sense since its battle experiences in WW2 were essentially seeing the enemy flee before it. Any time the Germans mustered a counter attack the Americans more often than not just collapsed. The fact that the PVA was able to muster oodles of counterattacks caught them off guard and they panicked until they could stabilize the front. But the Chinese are also good at general entrenchment so they probably couldn't bust the Chinese trench lines with gimmicks like battalion mass tac jumps without substantially higher force commitment from Europe, which they were unwilling to do in light of it being essentially a small war and having achieved status quo ante.

It says more about the US Army than it does about tanks. The fact that both Korean armies have huge tank fleets, both larger than the AD 2020 U.S. Army, is telling.

The US military was so good at combined arms that the light infantry 3rd Marine Division outperformed and outpaced most armor regiments in Korea lol.

Considering the fact that neither the US 3rd Marine Division nor any US Armor Regiments ever deployed to Korea, that is indeed hilarious.

The US Army didn't have "armor regiments" until around 1956 or so. What they had were separate tank battalions, but the regiments of CARS were produced by amalgamating under-strength battalions. So yeah, they sent plenty of armor regiments to Korea lol.

Following the outbreak of hostilities on the Korean peninsula, the 708th Amphibian Tank Battalion was subsequently restructured and re-designated the 89th Medium Tank Battalion. In November 1951, it was again reflagged the 89th Tank Battalion and assigned to the 25th Infantry Division. The unit's combat actions earned the Presidential Unit Citation and the Navy Unit Commendation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/69th_Armo ... Korean_War

At the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, the 70th Heavy Tank Battalion was still performing its duties as a support unit for the Armor School at Fort Knox. The 70th was alerted for movement to San Francisco on 8 July and began preparations for deployment to Korea. The unit was severely understrength, both in terms of personnel and equipment. Some 250 men had to be transferred to the unit from other units on Fort Knox, from Fort Campbell, Kentucky and Fort Meade, Maryland.[69] Additionally, the tanks underwent intensive maintenance and refit, receiving new track, replacement parts and, where parts could not be obtained normally, were even removed from display vehicles around the base.[69] Some relatively new M4A3E8 Sherman tanks were supplied from Rock Island Arsenal and eventually delivered to the battalion when they reached Korea.[69] Tactical training was conducted primarily at the platoon level, but still totaled only about 30 days by the time the battalion deployed.

The 70th Tank Battalion embarked by rail on 17 July from Fort Knox, arriving at Camp Stoneman, California on 20 July. The battalion boarded the USNS General A. W. Brewster at Fort Mason, California on 23 July, with their vehicles and equipment loaded on separate cargo transport. With very brief port calls at Yokohama and Sasebo, Japan, the ship arrived at the port of Pusan, Korea on 7 August 1950. Their equipment transport did not arrive until 9 August.[70] The battalion immediately set about unloading the tanks from the transport and reloading them on trains for Taegu. The 70th Heavy Tank Battalion was attached to the 1st Cavalry Division and elements of Company B first went into action near Waegwan, Korea on 15 August.[71] Their appearance, along with the 6th and 72nd Tank Battalions, on the front was welcome by the American units which had had no tanks with which to fight the North Koreans' T-34's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70th_Armo ... Korean_War

Inchon South Korea – Regimental tank companies 17th, 31st and 32nd (77th MTB) participated in Operation Chromite (UN Offensive campaign), Inchon-Seoul landings September 1950 supporting left flank of 1st Marines Division. Units advanced into the City of Seoul and south forward Pusan in heavy fighting. Hostilities for tankers ended by 30 September. By early October regimental tank units had redeployed for refitting and maintenance in the Pusan area.

Iwon-Hungnam North Korea – Tankers (77th MTB) participated Iwon-Hungnam Landings November 1950 during UN Offence campaign. Starting 9 November 17 and 32 Tankers (77th MBT) land at Iwon in support of infantry. Deployed north toward Cho-ri area on North Korean coast. November 32 Tank Company (77th MBT) supported infantry in campaign in Pujon (Fusen) Reservoir area. Battle of Kapsan – November 15 17th Tank Company (77th MTB) supported infantry crossing Ungi River. Attack in Kapsan area. 20 November reach Hyesanjin City on Yalu River along China's southern border with North Korea. November 31 Tank Company (Task Force Mclean/Fath) support infantry campaign in Changjin (Chosin) Reservoir area. Battles for Hill 1221 November. Night battle at Haguru-ri December. December 1950 – Chinese (CCF Intervention campaign) troops attacked across Yalu River. All tank companies with infantry redeploy to Hungnam for evacuation from North Korea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/77th_Armo ... at_history

The point is that a bunch of Chinese peasants armed with wooden rice bowls and chopsticks defeated the self-described "most mechanized freedom force" in the world, consistently, with tactics reminiscent of the Luddendorf offensive. Considering the failure of Cambrai and the inability of tanks to ever defeat a big trench line vice the Kaiser's ability to demolished and develop a massive salient against Allied trenches, I have my doubts that armored troops can actually crush large defense belts with anywhere near the same efficacy of a few men supported by large amounts of artillery (or airplanes) and armed with SMGs or something. The literal tankies themselves had to delude themselves into believing that proyryvs were somehow going to disappear in the future in order to justify mass mechanization, and even then they never quite did so since they retained a lot of light infantry troops.

Tanks are good at moving fast and avoiding relatively immobile trenches and hedgehogs, but they suffer problems very comparable to cavalrymen when faced with contiguous defense belts. This was before people even had the ability to attack tanks that they couldn't see, and they still kept losing. In an era where tanks can be defeated hundreds of miles away from the actual fight, the tank army is generally defeated before even the high command of the defending side knows what they've just done.

While contiguous defense belt is not much of an issue in real life unless you're the PLA or the Pakistani Army, the issue of being plinked by long range missiles and artillery is a relatively widespread problem for everyone, whether they recognize it or not.

So I'm thinking of a 360x180 degree APS for protection against top attack weapons and ATGMs,

Good.

a V-bottom hull for mine protection, and slapping a radar jammer on a UGV and sending one along with each tank platoon.

UGV's are the future but not quite the present. I would move the jammer to a high level, and perhaps airborne. FSU states have a tradition of putting powerful jammers on helicopters which is a compelling choice to me: A helicopter can move to locations on the front quickly and by varying altitude has a lot of control over far it will project its influence against both air and ground targets. Centralized EW systems also make it more practical to install higher power jammers, more sensitive receivers and rely on fewer trained specialists compared to decentralized jammers.

Though all this needs to be weighed against the heightened vulnerability of a rather pricey device.

Additionally, I have each pair of tank platoons cooperating with three mechanized infantry platoons in a combined arms company, with a battery of eight spg's or towed howitzers (depending on terrain and availability) and a dedicated attack helicopter supporting each company. So combined arms is a go. Would this at least mitigate some of the tank's vulnerabilities?

This is generally promising. Austrasian battalions mix balanced tank-mech combined arms companies and ultra-light motorcycle troops for an overall infantry-heavy combination. If anything you are going too far by placing artillery and helicopters in the company when it's not really necessary for them to be located there. The best place to focus is on making your fire support and close air support as efficient as possible.

One thing you might add though is engineers to clear mines/IEDs.

And generally emphasize camouflage, concealment and deception. The biggest metarisk for armour is that it will suffer unsustainable attrition from plinking by aircraft/drones/artillery-rockets-missiles and will never reach the actual combat areas in sufficient concentrations. It is one thing for a tank to be knocked out in the process of completing its battlefield mission. War entails losses. But if it never arrives at the front it would be better if it had never existed. Would have saved you some fuel at least.

For the part of the tank, the best that can be done to avoid this is to practice the strictest march and camouflage discipline + good traffic control: Tanks need to get on the road as quickly as possible when ordered, cover as much ground as they can each time and without fail disperse and camouflage at each halt. If they are going to halt for an extended period they need to either dig in and cover-up or hide in buildings. Decoys and decoy positions need to be used. Radio discipline needs to be unbreakable. And don't neglect traffic control.

Traffic kills.

Look at what you can accomplish if you don't vote for the Libertarian/No Roads party lmao.

[Gallia-]

7.62 mm Tokarev, 7.62 mm Russian, 7.7 mm Arisaka, 37 mm Japanese and 45 mm Russian, and artillery proof mobile machine gun and field gun bunkers are always useful everywhere. Especially for stopping the Chinese banzai charge.

It would be more useful to have something like the GENFORCE Machine Gun-Artillery Regiment.

Gorchak > Centurion.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Good.

'ate plains
'uv mountains
simple as

Tanks are fine. The US Army probably lost Korea because it lacked panache and common sense since its battle experiences in WW2 were essentially seeing the enemy flee before it. Any time the Germans mustered a counter attack the Americans more often than not just collapsed. The fact that the PVA was able to muster oodles of counterattacks caught them off guard and they panicked until they could stabilize the front. But the Chinese are also good at general entrenchment so they probably couldn't bust the Chinese trench lines with gimmicks like battalion mass tac jumps without substantially higher force commitment from Europe, which they were unwilling to do in light of it being essentially a small war and having achieved status quo ante.

It says more about the US Army than it does about tanks. The fact that both Korean armies have huge tank fleets, both larger than the AD 2020 U.S. Army, is telling.

The United States has the strongest armored force today. It has far more tanks than North Korea and South Korea.That's why I'm surprised that the United States didn't choose to deploy tanks in North Korea, while South Korea kept a large number of tanks.However, it is unrealistic to have a tank war on the Korean Peninsula, especially with the participation of China and the United States.Unless you let the two little brothers fight.

The point is that a bunch of Chinese peasants armed with wooden rice bowls and chopsticks defeated the self-described "most mechanized freedom force" in the world, consistently, with tactics reminiscent of the Luddendorf offensive. Considering the failure of Cambrai and the inability of tanks to ever defeat a big trench line vice the Kaiser's ability to demolished and develop a massive salient against Allied trenches, I have my doubts that armored troops can actually crush large defense belts with anywhere near the same efficacy of a few men supported by large amounts of artillery (or airplanes) and armed with SMGs or something. The literal tankies themselves had to delude themselves into believing that proyryvs were somehow going to disappear in the future in order to justify mass mechanization, and even then they never quite did so since they retained a lot of light infantry troops.

Tanks are good at moving fast and avoiding relatively immobile trenches and hedgehogs, but they suffer problems very comparable to cavalrymen when faced with contiguous defense belts. This was before people even had the ability to attack tanks that they couldn't see, and they still kept losing. In an era where tanks can be defeated hundreds of miles away from the actual fight, the tank army is generally defeated before even the high command of the defending side knows what they've just done.

I think the Chinese army at that time was the pinnacle of light infantry tactics.But after the Korean War, they may be fascinated by superior thermodynamics.They are crazy about developing a lot of Army heavy firepower equipment.I think it might be an armored force dedicated to the Soviet Union
Your description is more in line with the Soviet tank strategy.Think of tanks as an offensive force, focusing on strategic depth advances.Numerous armored regiments and frontline air forces assaulted Europe while bombing with nuclear bombs.The front can be advanced to Western Europe in Dozens of hours.Otherwise I can't find hundreds of miles of examples.Because large-scale armor cluster mobilization is time-consuming and easy to expose