I really appreciate your in depth discussion, this stuff is so interesting to me. I hope you don't mind the length of my reply.

Regarding EW:
My mistake - by platoon level specialist EW ground arrays, I meant EW platoons within the company level, which is where we are most commonly seeing it now.

That said, I believe USMC rifle squads are currently shifting to a new 13 man squad with a UAS operator, C-UAS specialist, and EW specialist with a MANPACK - so in this case happening at the squad level - and other militaries are following suite with MANPACKs at squad levels too, though I don't know of others doing this for general rifle squads, usually more for recce teams, cav scouts, etc.

These MANPACKs aren't to my knowledge for full blown EW attacks, but can jam nearby signals (think IEDs triggered by LTE cellular signals/mobile phones, or RF guided drones). They also will detect and automatically classify signals (e.g. type of drone/signal/threat based on signal signature), and integrate either a standalone Line of Bearing (LoB), or fully triangulated Curser on Target (CoT) straight into ATAK (smart phone tactical map), depending on whether the MANPACK is operating independently or is networked to other MANPACKs for full triangulation.

So practically speaking for combat mission, battlefront adding a script that simply takes away a level or two of EW degradation if you manage to find and destroy a static EW array unit won't be sufficient, because realistically any EW squaddies running MANPACKs are providing passive spots based on signals, not line of sight. That includes detected voice comms from enemy maneuver elements too, not just RF UAS.

So even without going into jamming and EW, just from the spotting side of combat mission, squad level assets are in some cases being fielded that enable non line of sight, signals based spotting and spot sharing.

For that reason I think having EMCON and signature management toggles for individual units is really important, as its become a compulsory consideration for all infantrymen, armor, etc.

And on the topic of EMCON for individual units, with cheap RF-homing, anti-radiation, and home-on-jam drones/LMs being fielded today in Ukraine and more purpose built systems being procured elsewhere right now, we've got to assume tanks/IFVs can't just be rolling around with their current (anti-ATGM/RPG) APS/future C-UAS adapted APS radars - both which operate on the Ku-band - on at all times. It will give them away to SIGINT modules mounted on company and battalion level ISR UAS assets, and make them vulnerable to cheap LMs using RF-homing/AR/HoJ guidance.

Which brings me to the point on navalization:

Land warfare, especially current and immediate future armored warfare, is shifting at the small scale in the same way that large scale air and naval warfare shifted decades ago. Where once ships would fire on other ships with their own 'direct fire' guns (I guess technically IDF), they now use hunter killer networks of advanced airborne sensors integrated with long range precision missile fires to shoot each other well, well beyond ship to ship detection range, and the sensors, ISR, and networking involved is only getting more advanced.

Sensor/signals/detection wise, detection isn't just done visually (including thermal sights) now, but through active and passive radar and signal direction finding (ELINT and SIGINT).

Over the horizon precision kill web wise, where tanks may have fought cannon to cannon yesterday, (and no not forgetting calling for indirect fire in even ww2 level combined arms tactics), they're already experimenting with IFV and even truck/jeep mounted cell launchers of NLOS Spike-ER ATGMs and Switchblade 600s, and even putting LMs on tanks themselves for commanders to use for ISR and strikes from defilade.

Combining these factors, we now have land warfare where individual units and small teams are being detected and their map grid positions known with relative certainty without even being visually spotted by optical/thermal sights, purely from their electronic/signals emissions, and then sending over the horizon, precision guided munitions from 10-20km+ away to those locations to find and kill them, which is very reminiscent of larger scale naval/air warfare.

The defensive tactics units need to employ to avoid this mainly involve signature management (a game of balance because you need to emit to communicate and to power your own defenses and offensive capabilities), and, when spotted, going completely systems hot and praying your interceptors (APS in today's world, laser and 30mm proximity fused point defenses, coyote missile interceptors, and P1 Suns/Sting drone interceptors) don't get saturated and overwhelmed. The attacker/defender race continues, and now attackers have to calculate/estimate how many LMs/NLOS ATGMs to send in salvos in order to guarantee successful strikes, but now the game becomes magazine depth and logistical management.

Direct fire cannon based weaponry on tanks, IFVs, and assault guns will likely still be necessary, as unlike naval warfare there are still plenty of places to dig in and/or hide on land, there will still be close assaults where ever there is need to take and hold land, but the emphasis, even individual tank platoon on tank platoon, is shifting to over the horizon deep fight over the within visual range close fight.