Our Warriors have ‘toilets’ too. It’s just a seat with a removable cushion hole that you can stick a wag bag in. I doubt the Russians have put anything more complex than that in theirs.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1ab719626.jpeg

If it’s a contested battle space then the tank probably has more chance of surviving than the loitering drone. Harder to camouflage a slow moving lawnmower in the sky.

We could go on and on but we’ll just end up arguing tactics, and as we all know those can’t be argued :8

We already have mobile phones that can be charged without being physically connected to the charger. Come the time where this technology, or something similar, will be able to charge, or discharge, over several miles.

A drone will then have no power or communication.

Possibly a manned fighter as well.

In an era of armed, cheap, autonomous, unmanned vehicles, be they land, air or sea based, I reckon all bets are off not only for tanks but also warships, subs, helis, even fast jets. You just can't compete with this level of technology.

Re warships and subs, in a few years I wouldn't be surprised there's a fleet of unmanned vessels (above and below the water) waiting in international waters offshore major bases to accompany any major vessels whenever they leave port. And not just of Chinese origin - western powers too.

Also, regarding MBTs and ACVs in general, recent events in both Syria and Turkey have shown them to be incredibly vulnerable to modern man portable anti-armour weapons and drones.

I guess you could do something with lasers or microwave.

https://www.army-technology.com/proj...t-vehicle-rcv/

Years and years ago, according to the legend, a mother dipped her boy called Achilles into the River Styx. This made him impenetrable to any swords or arrows at the time. She held him in the river by the heel, which is where a bloke called Paris shot him; fatally.

You can cover a remote fighting vehicle with armour but somewhere there is a point where the communication signal has to go in.

Track that and you have got it.

Trophy and Iron Fist
 

...

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/re...-2-tank-167592

Turkish Army lost several Leopards and Patton M-60s in Syria .. . ... While not arguing with any of the above posts ...

...... ............ Should have gone to Tank-Savers ... ... Trophy and or Iron Fist

...

If GPS spoofing etc becomes a more prominent threat then I think it will change the game. As much as professional Western militaries like to think they could go reversionary, it’s not trained for hard enough. In my opinion we are getting to the complacent stage.

Interesting times where we are between traditional/conventional and ‘future’ cyber/EW spectrum.

"You can cover a remote fighting vehicle with armour but somewhere there is a point where the communication signal has to go in."

That applies to a manned one as well of course....

Don't mention the tank telephone to the RAC or poor bl***y Infantry!

Of course, the real reason is that the Army are still welded to a Quadruped. As noted in a paper at Army Staff College by the original BomberH which had the following comment:

"The Army will only accept the Tank if it can eat hay and make noises like a horse",

Though some versions state the word "Defecate" in one of its forms for the later half of the above sentience.. .

ambidextrous
 

Move to a smaller, lighter, battle tank were you rotate the whole battle tank & not just the gun.- It's built in Sweden along with an excellent fighter and superior ball bearings!

If the tank is obsolete, so to is the APC presumably.
that might have more implications?

Oddball has the answer regarding tanks......me and Oddball have a lot in common I should add.

Not great if you were travelling down a lane and had to engage something on your flanks, also huge faff when hull-down (could it even do this?), also you'd have to keep the engine running the whole time, also...

Stridsvagn S103 "S Tank" has been out of production - and service - for some time (since the 1990s). Hull-down was never a problem with it's years-ahead-of-it's-time hydraulic suspension. Why would tanks need to keep engines running? - that's what the APU is for, or in the case of the S Tank a combination of petrol engine and turbine engine. Swedish terrain and tactics didn't call for much movement down narrow lanes. Bovington tried the S Tank and liked what they saw... and were surprised by how well the tank did in comparison with other vehicles of the era that were capable of firing on the move. The real end for the concept came with development of truly-effective main-gun stabilisation in turreted tanks.

"If the tank is obsolete, so to is the APC presumably."

Doubt it - the PBI will still need transporting about faster than they can walk and an APC is some protection against snipers, other infantry and (distant) shell explosions - they're buses not fighting vehicles at the the end of the day - and of course a LOT cheaper.............

Have you looked at the cost of the current generation of APCs? They match the cost of an MBT , thanks to the doctrine that the APC must carry at least a 40mm stabilized gun to fulfill its battle taxi role.
It does seem that all this gear is pricing itself out of the market, too expensive to buy, too complex to learn and too fragile to use.

This all reminds me of a scene in "To Hell and Back":
Audie Murphy makes some comment to the commander of a Sherman tank about his being protected - the tank commander scoffs and says something like 'this thing only has 2 inches of armor', so Audie Murphy fingers his cotton shirt...
They may not call them tanks, but so long as they value the lives of the soldiers, there will be armored vehicles.