Don't know much about the Chinese organization at the brigade and below level but as for the Russians, do not forget that in general their manoeuvre battalions are significantly smaller than ours while their fire support is significantly larger.
Tank battalions are 31 tanks (10 per coy) with only some 151 personnel. Same for infantry battalions which also have only 37 IFVs (10 per coy) and 461 pers (including their mortar battery and weapons pl.
On the other hand a brigade's one tank battalion and three rifle battalions are supported by 2 x SP artillery battalions (36 tubes) ; 1 x rocket battalion ( 18 launchers); 1 x Anti-tank battalion ( 36 systems); and 2 x AD missile battalions (6 x SA 13; 6 x SA-19; 12x SA 15; 27 x SA-18 Manpads)
That should give folks a hint.
Hypothetical answer.
If a manned tank is too expensive then conceivably so would be a remotely controlled or autonomous "tank" -- unless we use a small, lightly armoured chassis and built very cheaply as a multiple-shot but one-use expendable weapon system. In other words they are closer in concept to expendable munitions rather than reusable fighting vehicles.
Such systems would require less PYs to operate thereby greatly reducing recurring annual costs for a full unit. Maintenance and recovery and administrative support would also be greatly reduced on an annual basis and in combat. Effectively a unit operating such vehicles would be issued fully armoured and fueled (maybe even electric) replacement vehicles (perhaps in containers) the way that fuel and ammunition is supplied now.
There would need to be a limited form of replenishment to keep vehicles fueled, armed and serviced during non combat phases and to rearm and refuel those that do not end up being destroyed in a given engagement (such vehicles could be programmed to navigate themselves to a replenishment point when all ammo is expended). To reduce size and weight missiles would probably be the best form of armament although some might be armed with a suite of anti-personnel weapons such as grenade launchers and/or machine guns. (I prefer an either/or mixed fleet of anti-armour and anti-personnel rather than an all-singing and dancing single vehicle so as to keep the vehicles as small and uncomplicated as possible)
Such units would need to be tied in to existing UAV sensor systems and would probably also need to run their own UAV "eyes" probably mixed in with a suite of light to medium UAVs and loitering munitions. Targeting is remote controlled or AI once mature.
I still have some doubts as to offensive operations. It's one thing to engage and defeat enemy equipment, it's quite another to seize key terrain. Offensive ops will require combined arms operations with a robust infantry component. Until such time as we deploy robot-grunts, that means people in heavily armoured carriers/fighting vehicles to minimize casualties. Those have both a heavy maintenance burden as well as significant recurring annual costs which are difficult to avoid. Some of the vehicles within that organization should also be "tanks" to provide the traditional shock value and intimate direct fire support as well as the psychological element for our own troops and the enemy's. Using a common chassis for the "tank" and IFV would lessen the maintenance burden.
This type of more traditional combined arms unit would also be heavily supported during an attack by the expendable weapon systems described above so that fewer of the traditional "tanks" are needed.
I'll leave aside the need for massive indirect fire support because I know most of you infantry and tank types would rather not think about that.
More importantly, that wasn't the question.
Hypothetically
We used to disparage the Russian system because it was all teeth and no tail. Their troops, in our view, were designed to be consumed. Use the company, battalion, regiment, division until it needed to be replaced. On the other hand our large divisions were supposed to be sustainable in the field. But I doubt that anybody really thought of a Division lasting more than a couple of weeks in a high intensity environment without having to be withdrawn and rebuilt.
Somewhere along the line though, we stopped laughing at the Division supplying Pizzas and Coke machines like the Americans and started expecting that.
It the Russians were all teeth and no tail we seem to have shifted to all tail and no teeth.
WRT Technology
Technology in some fields, like UAVs, is mature enough to have an impact on the battlefield. In my view that impact is to continue the drive to dispersion. That dispersion makes it harder to deploy and support and create effects from heavy forces. Which, in turn, makes it harder to generate an offence.
For reference I don't see the difference between a smart munition and a UAV regardless of the means of launching. The Air Domain is the most easily exploited and the easiest one for "robots" to "navigate" and it is "universal". It has application in the Ground, Marine and Space Domains.
Submarine robots are not dissimilar to aerial robots except for the major issue of the communications barrier. That drives a move towards more autonomy. On the other hand, given that comms in the Air Domain are not guaranteed then the autonomy required in the Submarine Domain would probably serve the Air Domain equally well.
For the Land Domain, I don't see Isaac Asimov Robots, or even Ripley Exoskeletons and Heinlein Drop Pods anywhere on the horizon. I do see vehicles with reduced crewing requirements. But those vehicles need to be cheap, provide long range situational awareness to the crew and their team-mates, be able to communicate node to node and be designed to focus the protection on the crew and not the weapon.
I still have some doubts as to offensive operations. It's one thing to engage and defeat enemy equipment, it's quite another to seize key terrain. Offensive ops will require combined arms operations with a robust infantry component. Until such time as we deploy robot-grunts, that means people in heavily armoured carriers/fighting vehicles to minimize casualties. Those have both a heavy maintenance burden as well as significant recurring annual costs which are difficult to avoid. Some of the vehicles within that organization should also be "tanks" to provide the traditional shock value and intimate direct fire support as well as the psychological element for our own troops and the enemy's. Using a common chassis for the "tank" and IFV would lessen the maintenance burden.
I think you are right about offensive actions and the need for heavy forces. But CBH99 is also right about the ability to deploy them in a timely fashion.
So the first element, surely must be to buy time to deploy the heavies by creating the siege conditions they are designed to break?
That means we assume the enemy, being the aggressor, has the element of surprise on their side when launching an offense. So our first imperative is to stall and/or break that offence. That means delivering munitions rapidly, over long distances, to defeat the elements around which the offence is built. Currently we are concerned about Russian tanks being massed and countering them. Smart Munitions and UAVs seem to be a viable combination.
That same combination will make it hard for our own troops to manoeuver once the enemy force is stalled, the siege is established and our own heavies are deployed and concentrated. That suggests to me that our APCs need to be heavily armoured and protected by a light, radar guided gun with a rapid slew rate and lots of ammunition. I don't think a 33/35/40/57 mm gun to defeat similarly armed is the requirement for an infantry transporter. I think a rapid slew ROWS with a 5.56 Minitat for knocking down munitions at the last minute (Phalanx, Trophy, CRAM) has more value in creating space for the deployment of own troops.
Keep the big gun vehicles separate from the infantry carrying vehicles and minimize their crews. If a 1-2 man 155mm SPH, or MRLS is possible then a 1-2 man 35-120mm DFS vehicle with onboard ATGMs must be possible.
And yes by all means - massive indirect fire support (and ground based air defence)
But that means wise use of available PYs.
M777s with 10 man crews are not wise.
Each 10 man crew could field:
An Archer/Rheinmetall style 155mm SPH with a two man crew
A HIMARS with a two man crew
A Wiesel style 120mm mortar with a three man crew
A FOO team with a three man crew
The HIMARS and the SPHs are big enough that they can accommodate their own MRT teams and tools.
And for GBAD?
NASAMS and SkyShield - 13 PYs = 1x M777 and a Command Team.
And GR66 has it right for me, wrt small companies. By all means retain the conventional configuration in the symmetric brigades. (1x Arty, 1x Combined Arms, 2x LAV)
But leave the 3rd Battalions open for experimentation - for rapid deployment on the dispersed battle field - something between the conventional force and the special force but equipped to stall an enemy advance and establish the siege.
For me that means lots of smart munitions capable of taking out lots of ground vehicles. Yes, lots of ATGMs, but equally lots of laser designators to direct munitions launched by other partners.
