Well,
We’re going to continue to disagree. My opinion is formed on the basis of 5 years as an Armor officer...so please take into account that I have a little bit of experience in this area.
Again, tanks are part of a land force - and the only reason for a land force is to hold ground. Ever since the advent of air power, there have been failed notions that air power alone can hold ground...it never does. So, if you want to hold ground, you need real live people there...and the tanks are just a means of protecting the people.
No need for people on the ground in a certain situation - aerial drones are the obvious choice.
You may not be completely aware of how often a tank breaks down - but it is often. Also, you may have noticed during the invasion of Iraq, there was footage of our tanks stopped, with the turrets turned sideways, during pauses in the advance. These were soldiers doing maintenance - checking fluids, and lifting out the v-pack air filters to blow the sand out of them. This can’t be accomplished without a crew. Bottom line, a drone aircraft gets to come back to home base every 24 hours or so - this would not be true with a tank, and it would be impossible to perform maintenance. That would be a real problem. Heck, in extreme cold, we would often have to ‘slave start’ each other’s tanks with giant jumper cables...yet another action that could not be accomplished without humans on board. The list of problems is endless.
As far as saving lives and using them as a ‘vanguard force’. First of all, it is difficult for me to paint a picture of how rough it is driving at full speed across terrain....and how the tank commander is constantly on edge, looking for obstacles and alerting the driver. You see, the driver can’t see much. The problem is partially because his vision is so low...but its also because he can only see through a ‘vision block’, which is really a periscope. He has zero peripheral vision, and a very limited field of view...just like driving remote control would be - with no TC up top to prevent accidents.
But beyond that, do we need to use a vanguard force to save lives? Last I checked, our M1 force hasn’t had one problem in tank on tank or tank on armor fighting. They won the initial fight in Iraq just fine. The destroyed tanks and deaths came later, when using the tank as a patrol vehicle, and mines get them. So, the notion of a battalion of tanks as the tip of the spear in an armored assault is frankly unnecessary. That’s the easy part.
And consider the good ole police bomb robot. You’ve seen these things on tv...and they’ve been around for decades now. Yet, if you watch one being operated, it is not a smooth thing to watch. The robot moves very slowly...usually stops before pivot steering...and they have to be extraordinarily careful if they are on anything but flat ground. That’s the leading edge technology for remote controlled track vehicles - and its not very impressive.
Finally, the original article called this an ‘armored vehicle’. And, I assure you that doesn’t mean tank. What it probably means is a remote controlled vehicle that can be used in police type actions in urban environments - like Israel would use to patrol the occupied territories. Looking at it, that is exactly what it is...lacking a gun anywhere close to qualifying it as a tank.
Back in the 1980’s Ft Carson was converted to an ‘all wheel’ division. No tracked vehicles. It was trendy, and everyone knew that all of our heavy divisions would be converted to fast and nimble wheeled vehicles. It didn’t happen.
A quarter century ago, I attended a briefing which described our capabilities and plans for anti-personnel lasers. We currently use alot of lasers for range finding; and, while they are dangerous, they are not deliberately used against people. Well, this briefing included prototypes of an M-16 with a laser, and other type equipment. The idea was (and its almost laughable) instead of killing the enemy with bullets, we would blind them with lasers. Somehow, this would be more readily acceptable to the American people and community of nations than killing people. I’m not kidding. This was a real live army project, with funding and prototypes and a plan to implement. Obviously, it went nowhere. Dozens of army projects go nowhere, for every one that finally gets a green light.
So trust me. Remote control tanks will not replace tanks. If any of the tank’s role is to be replaced, it will be replaced by a technology we already have - aerial drones.
One last thing - another temptation has always been to replace the tanks with tanks that use smaller crews, for all the logistical reasons you cited. The Soviets went to 3 man crews a long time ago - the history of Russian warfare is written around logistics and distance problems, so its very important to them. So, they replaced the human loader with an auto loader. Bad idea. First, the U.S. Army did inadvertant testing on 3 man crews after the first Gulf War. The ‘Peace Dividend’ meant we never had enough manpower, and much of our training was done with 3 man crews. It turned out that 3 man crews didn’t work well for taking shifts pulling nightitime security, or doing some major maintenance tasks which require 4 men. So, instead of operating 4 tanks with 3 men each, we tarped up a tank, and operated the remaining 3 with 4 man crews. Another vicious problem the Iraqis discovered in the first Gulf War - the autoloader requires the entire turret basket be surrounded with vertically stacked rounds. You may remember endless photos of tanks with their turrets flipped over, the result of being hit by a US round. That flipped turret - a direct result of that ammo configuration. So, the U.S. has stuck with 4 man crews by now....but guess what? Around 20-25 years ago, I went to another briefing. In this briefing, we were shown the tank of the future...which should have been deployed by now, if you were to believe the briefers. It was a 2 man tank, with an un-manned turret. The two men would be in the hull, and use screens to see, navigate, acquire targets, etc. It was supposed to risk less lives, and require less logistics. I’m not sure what ever happened to the tank of the future...but I assume testing showed it to be a terrible idea. Alas, another concept bit the dust.
Well, I respect your opinion but let me remind you that the admirals were opposed to the aircraft carrier in the 30’s because they were afraid it might obsolete their battleships and put themselves out of a job. Of course, history proved them wrong. The battleships were needed to protect the aircraft carriers.
The correct way to view this unmanned tank is that it’s really a new weapon, not simply a new version of the old weapon. If you need speed and fuel economy, then ditching the personnel, shrinking the size, and taking advantage of expendability and reduced profile to reduce the armor gets you a capability that you did not have before. You just need to figure out a way to use it to your best advantage. I think it could soften up the enemy’s defenses in advance of a manned tank advance. And moving a lot of small lightweight unmanned tanks around the world where they are needed would be a lot quicker and less expensive than the logistics of moving a manned tank battalion. Maybe you could even drop them in by parachute. You don’t need to feed, pay, uniform, train, or quarter computers. Your manpower limitations become less important. I am reminded of these totalitarian regimes who urge their population to have children so they can be conscripted. That’s so 20th Century.