Our friend Thermobaric pointed out to an excellent (excellent being a euphemism for exposing coping mechanisms among NATO forces) piece in 1945 about some Abrams X Tank which doesn't exists and will not exist. The title of the piece is Russia Is Freaked: Why the Army's Monstrous AbramsX Looks Unbeatable. The title immediately betrays the author's intent which has nothing to do with a professional review of actual weapon systems' design and integration and tactical and operational applications (and ramifications) but has everything to do with ... unbearable butthurt and professional envy which cannot be contained. The author is:
Dr. James Jay Carafano is a leading expert in national security and foreign policy affairs. Carafano previously served as the Vice President of Heritage Foundation’s Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy and served in the US Army for 25 years. He is an accomplished historian and teacher as well as a prolific writer and researcher.
Immediate Red Flag here is Heritage Foundation itself--a fraudulent pseudo-academic and pseudo-conservative "think-tank", whose warfare "expertise" is shaped, as it is true for the most US institutes dealing with war by fairy tales from Wehrmacht and SS, who settled in the West, as of lately by Kiev regime's propaganda. Generally, most US credentials in "strategy", "national security" et al when it comes to modern warfare and Russia are nothing more than diplomas issued by degree mills in "media" and similar "soft" degrees which require no serious STEM and military science background which is critical for grasping high tactical and operational level of warfare.
I don't know in what capacity James Carafano served in the US Army, but it is obvious that the writing of such profundity must invoke a number of questions about his qualifications as an officer.
Why AbramsX Could Be An Amazing Tank: Weapons of armed conflict are subject to different rules of obsolescence than other technologies. That is why decades-long predictions of the end of armor’s utility have passed out of favor while these metal monsters still prowl the battlefield. The US Army’s intent to develop a new generation of the long-serving heavy combat Abrams tanks makes sense if America plans to continue to field effective armed land power in the decades ahead.
First things first:
1. How does Mr. Carafano know that Russians are "freaked". Does Mr. Carafano have good level professional contacts and knows military-technological culture of the Russian Armed Forces? I can give you the answer immediately--he doesn't have, and he doesn't know. Russians are "freaked" by the US armor, alright. Freaked form recognizing and demonstrating its sheer inferiority to Russian even older armor, such as first versions of T-72s, in one-on-one scenarios, not to speak of actual armor operations on the modern battlefield where ALL of NATO's tanks proved dismal and not designed for the operations against peer (or better than peer). Abrams proved itself to be a very bad tank, no matter how much effort was put into covering up its dismal performance on the modern battlefield.
If Mr. Carafano thinks that he can do that against such an Army as Russian one:
2. The other takeaway is the term "could". Right! At least Brando's Terry Malloy was a real human:
Carafano talks here about something which doesn't exist and will not exist because I already can state what future NATO tanks lack and WILL want--yes, my friends, autoloader. Yes, this thingy which when all other capabilities such as armor and netcentricity with optronics match, makes all the difference, especially in intense tank combat. New US MBT if it ever materializes COULD be worth its weight in gold and that means that most likely it will not go beyond prototype of ... something resembling tank.3. But lastly--the key point is that the US Army has NO access to priceless data on the performance--no, not Abramses, that they do have--but of Russian armor in those most important tactical and technical aspects which are hidden from the media and constitute what really matters in battle and armor operations. How about statistics on targeting and target selection within tank platoon or company. How about performance of the ballistic computers, about optronics et al. Without it, you will not be able to understand how the modern armor force is done, and the US doesn't have this data. But the problem is deeper--Russians fight as a system, with the General Staff controlling everything from doctrinal development to military industry to operational control and it is the capability Pentagon simply is incapable of matching. That is why statements like these:
the multidimensional capabilities the US armed forces will field in the future will likely allow the Americans to deploy an extremely capable and effective armor force.
