Rethinking the Tank - Al Khalid 2 & the Future

[HRK]

2. Lightly spaced armor with foam / absorbant material to slow down the hypersonic projectile. Over which:

Spaced Armour

1-Abrams turret sides Spaced Armour

Al-Zarrar Turret Spaced Armour

The cut-out section of a Leopard-1 turret side wall shows the spaced armor

Leo2A4 Turret

Leo2a6 spaced applique armor-1

 

[Trango Towers]

Tanks have been around since WWI, and have increased in importance, peaking in their importance during WWII. They evolved over time, with different design choices. Russians chose a simple mass production philosophy, which created the T-34, one of the single most important weapons to win WW2.

The Germans, and later the West, went another way. They wanted heavy, sophisticated tanks. Past WW2, things began to change as technology evolved, particularly, lethality of guided missile systems. The RPG and ATGMs began to encroach upon the central importance of tanks.

In most recent years, we have seen even highly expensive and sophisticated tanks like the German Leopard tanks, being blown up in Syria, showing how a simple weapon could take out a 10 million dollar tank.

The problem is that guided munitions have changed the battlefield, and tanks never truly adapted. Tanks are still basically designed the way they always where - with mainly rolled steel armor designed to defeat other tank guns.

There is yet to be a tank to be designed from the ground up to be able to deal with ATGMs as their primary design point.

Everybody talks about straping on cage armor, slat armor, reactive armor, etc. But these are bandaid solutions. Designing a tank from the ground up to deal with modern ATGMs would be a more meaningful way to react to the main cause of tank death in the last 40 years - ATGMs and RPGs.

How would one go about building such a tank?

The main threat of an ATGM is a HEAT round, which, on impact, destroys a tank using primarily kinetic and secondarily thermal force. On impact, a shaped charge is triggered that causes the ATGM warhead to go hypersonic. The ways to deal with this are:

1. The further away the ATGM is triggered, the better, generally speaking.
2. Reactive armor counters this force by pushing away the projectile by an equivalent force.
3. Active protection systems

Problem is, MBTs today are not designed with #1 in mind. They are still living in an older era. Secondly, reactive armor presently is highly damaging to own infantry that would be working closely with the tank. They can also be triggered by small arms fire, like sniper fire, or 0.5 caliber weapons. Again, tanks are not designed today to deal with this reactive armor problem.

Active counter measures, while working great on paper and at test ranges, seldom work as advertised in real world conditions. As many projectiles are constantly flying and a sensitive trigger would start blowing up own forces, such as soldiers, working alongside the tanks.

So what is a possible solution?

The solution is to create a tank from the ground up, to incorporate changes that would solve the ATGM / RPG problem. A tank with layered armor, a kind of layering yet to be designed and incorporated. For instance, A lighter conventional layered armor, over which you would have:

1. Reactive armor with an extended trigger. Over which:
2. Lightly spaced armor with foam / absorbant material to slow down the hypersonic projectile. Over which:
3. Light armor, to keep out up til 12.7 calibre weapons.

With this solution, small arms fire / snipers / HMGs won't penetrate and impact the tank beyond the outer skin.

ATGMs would penetrate, get slowed down and then hit reactive armor, being neutralized. Since the reactive armor is boxed and layered inside absorbant and spaced section, and protected by a light outer armor, the reactive armor would not impact surrounding friendly forces.

Such solutions would give a "bloated" looking tank. But a tank that would be effective against ATGM fire and would be more meaningful in the modern battlefield.

Agree? Disagree?

Pros and cons to your argument.

I agree the design has to be looked at.
Having reactive armour as an inner membrane also poses a problem....When activated it will take out the external layer of protection.. reactive armour plates on the surface are easily replaced. When sandwiched not so easy. Perhaps your idea is good but needs further thought

 

[MiG-35-BD]

These are all ad hoc solutions so far - all the pictures are of "bolt on" type solutions to tank designs that were not designed to incorporate these.

Regarding ERA as an internal membrane - remember, each block in modern ERA is quite small. A penetrating projectile will already blow open the outer membrane, meaning the ERA will not damage the outer membrane excessively.

Sir if I am not getting your idea wrong your are suggesting the multi-layering of Armour and ERA this concept is not new and already in use by many armies of the world, one such example is US Abraham Tank

in this video you can see there is at least two layer of light armour with ERA blocks in between them is being installed on the main armour of the tank

Thanks HRK, yes something similar but built from the ground up for an optimized solution. Brilliant find, interesting to see this. Thank you.

 

[CriticalThought]

These are all ad hoc solutions so far - all the pictures are of "bolt on" type solutions to tank designs that were not designed to incorporate these.

Regarding ERA as an internal membrane - remember, each block in modern ERA is quite small. A penetrating projectile will already blow open the outer membrane, meaning the ERA will not damage the outer membrane excessively.



Thanks HRK, yes something similar but built from the ground up for an optimized solution. Brilliant find, interesting to see this. Thank you.

Given that threats are constantly evolving, it doesn't make sense to create a dedicated design based on one solution. The best platform is modular that allows mixing and matching as needed. And even that is not guaranteed a huge success if threats change more rapidly than armor.

 

[Signalian]

So what is a possible solution?

Combined arms warfare. Armor, Mechanised infantry, Artillery, armed with related sensory and intel equipment. Possibly Aviation and SF.

No matter how perfectly a machine is made, its not invincible. One type of weapon cannot win all wars. Its the tactics and strategies that win battles and wars.

Tanks are still basically designed the way they always where - with mainly rolled steel armor designed to defeat other tank guns.

Designed to flank- out flank, attack -counter attack, exploit weak points in enemy positions, run through enemy lines, disrupt supply convoys etc. and have the capability to engage enemy armoured vehicles.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

I think its smart to see that tanks are being taken out by RPGs and ATGMs, that cost a tiny amount. It's the big elephant in the room that somehow we must stop avoiding.

And build a tank that has effective defense against them. Of course there will be nay sayers, there always are.

 

[CriticalThought]

I think its smart to see that tanks are being taken out by RPGs and ATGMs, that cost a tiny amount. It's the big elephant in the room that somehow we must stop avoiding.

And build a tank that has effective defense against them. Of course there will be nay sayers, there always are.

Or rethink your war fighting strategy so it doesn't rely on Tanks so much. Or take out enemy helis and ATGM launchers before they come near your tank. The world isn't perfect. Winners are those who learn to succeed in an imperfect world.

 

[Arsalan]

Ok @pla-mkii i rated your post positive to appreciate your out of box thinking and the effort you share it all in that opening post. Much appreciated. It is presenting such ideas and then brain storming those ideas like this that lay foundations of a positive constructive debate on a public forum like ours. That is what we should all appreciate.

Now that said, there are MANY key points that you have missed or dare i say, got wrong in that post.

To begin with, it is not a new idea at all. Spaced armour and layered armour have been around for decades and have been used with a varying degree of success. Plus the thing that you have specifically mentioned, an inner armour to give protection covered with ERA which then have an exoskeleton so that the shrapnel from ERA triggering do not affect the friendlies nearby have two basic issues that need consideration.

Firstly, the weight of the machine. Tanks today form the spearhead of the attacking corps and are no longer fortified pickets that can move at snail’s pace. The modern tank formations will always be used to penetrate enemy defenses and lead the assault into enemy territories. In today’s modern warfare where surprise and speed are name of the game, you main striking forces need to be agile, fast moving, able to take a punch and still have enough left in it to strike back. Keeping all this in mind, 4-5 HEAVY layers of armour won’t be an ideal situation as it will make the tank too bulk and too heavy for sure. Talking about Pakistan specifically, we have a certain none declared weight limit when It comes to our tanks and we have seen some good systems not being considered jut because of their weight.

Second problem in this approach is related to ERA and for better and easier understanding I will further split it into parts.

1. The ERA bricks are usually installed as add-on that can be put on easily and therefore, replaced swiftly in war zone once some of them have been triggered. Having them enclosed will create a maintenance nightmare as it will be impossible to access them in war zone (they will be covered by two layers of foam/absorbent material and an outer armour)
2. The advantage of ERA add-on bricks in not just ease of maintenance, for a country like ours (and MANY others) the additional ERA bricks give a cost advantage as one can chose to install or leave it on some of the vehicles as per requirement. Having them boxed inside means they roll out of factory like this, each one of them. The cost goes up.
3. The bricks, since individual blocks, can be replaced if some of these are used/damaged. It won’t be possible if these are boxed in an outer shell.
4. The worst of it, once triggered, the ERA will explode. Since they are now in a closed space, covered by hard outer layers, the blast of ERA will make big chunk of that body armour (outer) flying (blast wave). Virtually destroying the outer surface, damaging any accessories installed on that part and posing threat to nearby infantry.

These are a few key disadvantages that one will have to consider and work a way around it while trying to follow what you have suggested.

So what is the solution, well there might be many and coming years will reveal them gradually. I am of the view that tanks are here to stay for foreseeable future and will keep being utilized as the spearhead of any striking force. One solutions coming out is in shape of APS and it is not just the hard-kill approach. The soft kill approach will keep on getting refined and more mature as time passes. Yes the threat level will also reach new highs but the defense mechanism won’t be far behind. The hard-kill mechanism have been proven quite effective with Israel already and again, will keep on moving on their development track (and are on right track as far as I can see). Electronic warfare will also be playing a key role in coming years and i think soft-kill APS will form the main line of defense, specially for dumb attack munitions.

A very basic relatively simple solution or risk reducing action might be something from the history books, an infantry square formation BUT with roles reversed:

Rather than having the infantry forming a parameter around cavalry to protect them, we will have cavalry forming the outer parameter of forward moving formation with soft vehicles and infantry moving inside.

The outer perimeter formed of APS equipped tanks will give a decent level of protection against any guided or dumb projectiles and with the modern electronic equipment and radars/sensor, the effectiveness of hard-kill APS will surely increase. Also since they will be forming outer layer, there will be minimum risk of flying shrapnel or kill explosion damaging own friendly forces since they will be on the inside of the formation.
@gambit @Rashid Mahmood @Quwa @Gufi

 

[Signalian]

Ok @pla-mkii i rated your post positive to appreciate your out of box thinking and the effort you share it all in that opening post. Much appreciated. It is presenting such ideas and then brain storming those ideas like this that lay foundations of a positive constructive debate on a public forum like ours. That is what we should all appreciate.

Now that said, there are MANY key points that you have missed or dare i say, got wrong in that post.

To begin with, it is not a new idea at all. Spaced armour and layered armour have been around for decades and have been used with a varying degree of success. Plus the thing that you have specifically mentioned, an inner armour to give protection covered with ERA which then have an exoskeleton so that the shrapnel from ERA triggering do not affect the friendlies nearby have two basic issues that need consideration.

Firstly, the weight of the machine. Tanks today form the spearhead of the attacking corps and are no longer fortified pickets that can move at snail’s pace. The modern tank formations will always be used to penetrate enemy defenses and lead the assault into enemy territories. In today’s modern warfare where surprise and speed are name of the game, you main striking forces need to be agile, fast moving, able to take a punch and still have enough left in it to strike back. Keeping all this in mind, 4-5 HEAVY layers of armour won’t be an ideal situation as it will make the tank too bulk and too heavy for sure. Talking about Pakistan specifically, we have a certain none declared weight limit when It comes to our tanks and we have seen some good systems not being considered jut because of their weight.

Second problem in this approach is related to ERA and for better and easier understanding I will further split it into parts.

1. The ERA bricks are usually installed as add-on that can be put on easily and therefore, replaced swiftly in war zone once some of them have been triggered. Having them enclosed will create a maintenance nightmare as it will be impossible to access them in war zone (they will be covered by two layers of foam/absorbent material and an outer armour)
2. The advantage of ERA add-on bricks in not just ease of maintenance, for a country like ours (and MANY others) the additional ERA bricks give a cost advantage as one can chose to install or leave it on some of the vehicles as per requirement. Having them boxed inside means they roll out of factory like this, each one of them. The cost goes up.
3. The bricks, since individual blocks, can be replaced if some of these are used/damaged. It won’t be possible if these are boxed in an outer shell.
4. The worst of it, once triggered, the ERA will explode. Since they are now in a closed space, covered by hard outer layers, the blast of ERA will make big chunk of that body armour (outer) flying (blast wave). Virtually destroying the outer surface, damaging any accessories installed on that part and posing threat to nearby infantry.

These are a few key disadvantages that one will have to consider and work a way around it while trying to follow what you have suggested.

So what is the solution, well there might be many and coming years will reveal them gradually. I am of the view that tanks are here to stay for foreseeable future and will keep being utilized as the spearhead of any striking force. One solutions coming out is in shape of APS and it is not just the hard-kill approach. The soft kill approach will keep on getting refined and more mature as time passes. Yes the threat level will also reach new highs but the defense mechanism won’t be far behind. The hard-kill mechanism have been proven quite effective with Israel already and again, will keep on moving on their development track (and are on right track as far as I can see). Electronic warfare will also be playing a key role in coming years and i think soft-kill APS will form the main line of defense, specially for dumb attack munitions.

A very basic relatively simple solution or risk reducing action might be something from the history books, an infantry square formation BUT with roles reversed:
View attachment 455431

Rather than having the infantry forming a parameter around cavalry to protect them, we will have cavalry forming the outer parameter of forward moving formation with soft vehicles and infantry moving inside.
View attachment 455439

The outer perimeter formed of APS equipped tanks will give a decent level of protection against any guided or dumb projectiles and with the modern electronic equipment and radars/sensor, the effectiveness of hard-kill APS will surely increase. Also since they will be forming outer layer, there will be minimum risk of flying shrapnel or kill explosion damaging own friendly forces since they will be on the inside of the formation.
@gambit @Rashid Mahmood @Quwa @Gufi

Why don't you just keep it simple

Start artillery bombardment at enemy positions
Let infantry dismount from APC and charge enemy positions with assault rifles, mortar fire, grenades, LMG and RPG.
MBT's sweep in from flanks and loop holes which have been softened by infantry.

It follows as, own artillery keeps enemy ATGM teams pinned down. Infantry reaches close to ATGM teams and takes them out. MBT's have have little or no resistance left from ATGM teams and trample enemy positions finishing off the battle. The load on infantry off-sets as soon as MBT's enter the theatre.

If there is air support, then use that to maximum effect with artillery.

Ok
A very basic relatively simple solution or risk reducing action might be something from the history books, an infantry square formation BUT with roles reversed:
[ATTACH=full]455431[/ATTACH]

Infantry takes the brunt of the attack and slows the down the enemy charge.

Cavalry is held back for:

1. Counter attack
2. Flanking enemy from his weaker side.
3. Charging at retreating enemy.
4. Harassing enemy reinforcements from a distance from reaching own positions.

The outer perimeter formed of APS equipped tanks will give a decent level of protection against any guided or dumb projectiles and with the modern electronic equipment and radars/sensor, the effectiveness of hard-kill APS will surely increase. Also since they will be forming outer layer, there will be minimum risk of flying shrapnel or kill explosion damaging own friendly forces since they will be on the inside of the formation.
@gambit @Rashid Mahmood @Quwa @Gufi

You are exposing your main offensive force (MBT + IFV) to the enemy from the outset. If you lose this force, your formation will remain defensive for the war until replacements arrive.

You are also using your offensive force to defend your infantry and slowing down your offensive force so infantry can keep up. The efficiency of your offensive force will be reduced.

You have also distributed your offensive force to all sides, instead of concentrating it at one point for maximum effect.

Your flanks will be vulnerable if one side of your offensive force will be taken out and your infantry will be easy targets concentrated in one location. One artillery round will take out 5-6 soldiers easily where as if they are spread apart and attacking , casualties will be reduced.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

Some interesting comments here, and I want to thank you all for them:

1. Suggestion that we should forget about tanks. I think that is throwing the baby out with the bath water personally.

2. ERA sandwiched will be maintenance issue. Actually not, as the spaced armor on top (among other things) can be made into blocks exactly the size and shape of the underneath ERA and can be bolted on as easily as the ERA.

Again the point is being missed, that a tank is not being designed from the ground up with HEAT ATGM / RPGs as a central problem to solve. We seem to be going into nitty gritties which obscures the main issue. And we are talking about things that are beyond our own technical capacities, including mine.

3. Some of the arguments seem to be - okay lets just have rolled, simple armor like before or lets not have tanks at all.

4. Combined arms operations... well of course that has been around a long time. Hasn't changed. What has changed? Highly effective and lethal ATGMs, RPGs. Often guided. Can destroy any known tank from 5 kms away. By a sandle wearing "warrior".

 

[Signalian]

4. Combined arms operations... well of course that has been around a long time. Hasn't changed. What has changed? Highly effective and lethal ATGMs, RPGs. Often guided. Can destroy any known tank from 5 kms away. By a sandle wearing "warrior".

Not when air assets detect him using IR and NV. Also when infantry is combing the area. When spotted, long range artillery can take him out. Otherwise infantry's mortar round range 6-8 km can take him out.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

sounds like a video game.

Reality is tanks are getting blown up all the time. 10-20 just in Euphrates Shield. Quite a few more since then (lost count in Olive Branch op). Even Israel got its tanks bloodied in the last misadventure into Lebanon.

Syria and Iraq right now blown up tank museums.

It's easy to make up fun stories about things. But unfortunate.

 

[Arsalan]

Why don't you just keep it simple

YOu ask it to be kept simple and then come up with this

Start artillery bombardment at enemy positions
Let infantry dismount from APC and charge enemy positions with assault rifles, mortar fire, grenades, LMG and RPG.
MBT's sweep in from flanks and loop holes which have been softened by infantry.

It follows as, own artillery keeps enemy ATGM teams pinned down. Infantry reaches close to ATGM teams and takes them out. MBT's have have little or no resistance left from ATGM teams and trample enemy positions finishing off the battle. The load on infantry off-sets as soon as MBT's enter the theatre.

If there is air support, then use that to maximum effect with artillery.

That is MAJOR fire power sir, committing heavy resources to the strike corps. Moving the artillery along with the advancing strike forces and then spending resources to avoid sabotage attacks on these forces. Plus the infantry forces that will need to advance on to enemy ATGM position (and mind you, these wont be fixed position and many will be infantry men carrying shoulder fired ATGM) will face heavy causalities due to enemy fire and because of lack of cavalry support (the enemy will have tanks in their ranks). Sorry but this seems too much of a daring operation and if it goes wrong, then first you lose your infantry attacking enemy without heavy cavalry and then risk the heavy cavalry as well.

Infantry takes the brunt of the attack and slows the down the enemy charge.

Cavalry is held back for:

1. Counter attack
2. Flanking enemy from his weaker side.
3. Charging at retreating enemy.
4. Harassing enemy reinforcements from a distance from reaching own positions.

Agreed! All i am suggesting is having that infantry protected with heavy mechanized division with APS to give them some cover. Again, in today's combat environment and in future, the number of humans involved will decrease and technology will be tasked to protect the humans. It is already reversing, while in past we say infantry box formations and pike man squares to protect and defend artillery etc, today the tanks, IFVs and such machines are tasked to protect human life.

You are exposing your main offensive force (MBT + IFV) to the enemy from the outset. If you lose this force, your formation will remain defensive for the war until replacements arrive.

Perfect, was hoping someone will pick this up!
The outer layer of the formation is ONLY to give a solid APS cover to the forces moving on the inner sides. Now these can be infantry men, they can be other tanks and IFV without APS hard kill tech. The only reason for this is to avoid damage to friendly forces due to hard kill APS system.

You are also using your offensive force to defend your infantry and slowing down your offensive force so infantry can keep up. The efficiency of your offensive force will be reduced.

Sir the same happens if infantry is moving on the outside.

You have also distributed your offensive force to all sides, instead of concentrating it at one point for maximum effect.

Valid point. May be we can make multiple small forces like this?
Again, the problem we are discussing here is tank defense and APS hard-kill as a solution with a deficiency that the hard-kill projectile may become a problem for friendly forces. The formation proposed is only to minimize that. Rather than the boxed ERA as proposed in OP, a basic and simple solution may come in form of a special formation that keep the soft bodies out of APS harm's way.
What do you think?


@HRK @Dazzler @Joe Shearer @araz @Zaki

 

[HRK]

YOu ask it to be kept simple and then come up with this


That is MAJOR fire power sir, committing heavy resources to the strike corps. Moving the artillery along with the advancing strike forces and then spending resources to avoid sabotage attacks on these forces. Plus the infantry forces that will need to advance on to enemy ATGM position (and mind you, these wont be fixed position and many will be infantry men carrying shoulder fired ATGM) will face heavy causalities due to enemy fire and because of lack of cavalry support (the enemy will have tanks in their ranks). Sorry but this seems too much of a daring operation and if it goes wrong, then first you lose your infantry attacking enemy without heavy cavalry and then risk the heavy cavalry as well.



Agreed! All i am suggesting is having that infantry protected with heavy mechanized division with APS to give them some cover. Again, in today's combat environment and in future, the number of humans involved will decrease and technology will be tasked to protect the humans. It is already reversing, while in past we say infantry box formations and pike man squares to protect and defend artillery etc, today the tanks, IFVs and such machines are tasked to protect human life.


Perfect, was hoping someone will pick this up!
The outer layer of the formation is ONLY to give a solid APS cover to the forces moving on the inner sides. Now these can be infantry men, they can be other tanks and IFV without APS hard kill tech. The only reason for this is to avoid damage to friendly forces due to hard kill APS system.


Sir the same happens if infantry is moving on the outside.


Valid point. May be we can make multiple small forces like this?
Again, the problem we are discussing here is tank defense and APS hard-kill as a solution with a deficiency that the hard-kill projectile may become a problem for friendly forces. The formation proposed is only to minimize that. Rather than the boxed ERA as proposed in OP, a basic and simple solution may come in form of a special formation that keep the soft bodies out of APS harm's way.
What do you think?


@HRK @Dazzler @Joe Shearer @araz @Zaki

what we have seen in recent exercises & even in FATA that before to move infantry, Artillery and tanks (from safer distance) and aerial assets are used to soften the target than infantry moves followed by Armored formations

 

[Arsalan]

what we have seen in recent exercises & even in FATA that before to move infantry, Artillery and tanks (from safer distance) and aerial assets are used to soften the target than infantry moves followed by Armored formations

Agreed!
Aerial bombardment is also a tool utilized. The question is, WHY?? The answer is because, as i said earlier, VALUE of human life is more than the asset. That is why while we have infantry protecting artillery the roles have reversed.

Also what i suggest is simple to keep the infantry and soft vehicles on the inside, away from any APS hard kill blast zone.

Ok @pla-mkii i rated your post positive to appreciate your out of box thinking and the effort you share it all in that opening post. Much appreciated. It is presenting such ideas and then brain storming those ideas like this that lay foundations of a positive constructive debate on a public forum like ours. That is what we should all appreciate.

Now that said, there are MANY key points that you have missed or dare i say, got wrong in that post.

To begin with, it is not a new idea at all. Spaced armour and layered armour have been around for decades and have been used with a varying degree of success. Plus the thing that you have specifically mentioned, an inner armour to give protection covered with ERA which then have an exoskeleton so that the shrapnel from ERA triggering do not affect the friendlies nearby have two basic issues that need consideration.

Firstly, the weight of the machine. Tanks today form the spearhead of the attacking corps and are no longer fortified pickets that can move at snail’s pace. The modern tank formations will always be used to penetrate enemy defenses and lead the assault into enemy territories. In today’s modern warfare where surprise and speed are name of the game, you main striking forces need to be agile, fast moving, able to take a punch and still have enough left in it to strike back. Keeping all this in mind, 4-5 HEAVY layers of armour won’t be an ideal situation as it will make the tank too bulk and too heavy for sure. Talking about Pakistan specifically, we have a certain none declared weight limit when It comes to our tanks and we have seen some good systems not being considered jut because of their weight.

Second problem in this approach is related to ERA and for better and easier understanding I will further split it into parts.

1. The ERA bricks are usually installed as add-on that can be put on easily and therefore, replaced swiftly in war zone once some of them have been triggered. Having them enclosed will create a maintenance nightmare as it will be impossible to access them in war zone (they will be covered by two layers of foam/absorbent material and an outer armour)
2. The advantage of ERA add-on bricks in not just ease of maintenance, for a country like ours (and MANY others) the additional ERA bricks give a cost advantage as one can chose to install or leave it on some of the vehicles as per requirement. Having them boxed inside means they roll out of factory like this, each one of them. The cost goes up.
3. The bricks, since individual blocks, can be replaced if some of these are used/damaged. It won’t be possible if these are boxed in an outer shell.
4. The worst of it, once triggered, the ERA will explode. Since they are now in a closed space, covered by hard outer layers, the blast of ERA will make big chunk of that body armour (outer) flying (blast wave). Virtually destroying the outer surface, damaging any accessories installed on that part and posing threat to nearby infantry.

These are a few key disadvantages that one will have to consider and work a way around it while trying to follow what you have suggested.

So what is the solution, well there might be many and coming years will reveal them gradually. I am of the view that tanks are here to stay for foreseeable future and will keep being utilized as the spearhead of any striking force. One solutions coming out is in shape of APS and it is not just the hard-kill approach. The soft kill approach will keep on getting refined and more mature as time passes. Yes the threat level will also reach new highs but the defense mechanism won’t be far behind. The hard-kill mechanism have been proven quite effective with Israel already and again, will keep on moving on their development track (and are on right track as far as I can see). Electronic warfare will also be playing a key role in coming years and i think soft-kill APS will form the main line of defense, specially for dumb attack munitions.

A very basic relatively simple solution or risk reducing action might be something from the history books, an infantry square formation BUT with roles reversed:
View attachment 455431

Rather than having the infantry forming a parameter around cavalry to protect them, we will have cavalry forming the outer parameter of forward moving formation with soft vehicles and infantry moving inside.
View attachment 455439

The outer perimeter formed of APS equipped tanks will give a decent level of protection against any guided or dumb projectiles and with the modern electronic equipment and radars/sensor, the effectiveness of hard-kill APS will surely increase. Also since they will be forming outer layer, there will be minimum risk of flying shrapnel or kill explosion damaging own friendly forces since they will be on the inside of the formation.
@gambit @Rashid Mahmood @Quwa @Gufi