# Tanks post-2022: what now?



## tomo pauk (Mar 19, 2022)

Two basic questions: 
- are the tanks still a must for a modern army?(I's say 'yes')
- what the modern post-2022 tank should look like? (I'd say 'not like a T-72/-80/-90')

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 19, 2022)

Tanks are still important as is their proper use.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 19, 2022)

MBTs still have their place, if used properly.

The Guderian/Patton doctrine of armor supported by infantry/panzer grenadiers along with air support is as important today as it was 80 years ago.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PFVA63 (Mar 19, 2022)

Hi,
I suspect that something very tank like is still likely to be required for some time. I think an issue that some "military think tanks" (and similar type people) might get caught upon is a) what is a "tank" in modern usage (ie, are we talking about what we would normally consider a Main Battle Tank (MBT) or are we including other vehicles as well), and b) do things like increased automation, improved active defenses, and other stuff mean that the newer vehicle is in some substantial way different than an existing MBT. In particular I could see that even if you build a new vehicle with heavy automation and advanced active defenses, at the expense of passive systems (especially heavy armor) some of these "think tank" types might argue that you are no longer building an MBT but instead something more akin to a modern Tank Destroyer or a Motor Gun Carriage, etc.

Pat


----------



## Greg Boeser (Mar 19, 2022)

That's why we we will use the acronym AFV.
An armored fighting vehicle (Panzerkampfwagen) can take many forms.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 19, 2022)

"Proper use" is the key. My comments "All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." apply in that regard. 

Even the Russian tanks, despite their many flaws, can be effective if supported and used correctly. Vehicles like the Leo 2, Challenger 2, Abrahms, & Leclerc will have fewer issues but unsupported or improperly used are just another coffin. 

Wheeled light armored vehicles are death traps in anything more than Low Intensity Conflict.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 19, 2022)

wlewisiii said:


> "Proper use" is the key. My comments "All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." apply in that regard.
> 
> Even the Russian tanks, despite their many flaws, can be effective if supported and used correctly. Vehicles like the Leo 2, Challenger 2, Abrahms, & Leclerc will have fewer issues but unsupported or improperly used are just another coffin.
> 
> Wheeled light armored vehicles are death traps in anything more than Low Intensity Conflict.


Agreed about wheeled light armor - you may recall the video of the Ukranian BMP engaging the Russian AFV and lit it up with it's 30mm cannon.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 19, 2022)

Tanks are still very relevant in ground war. Of course they need support, and 

 wlewisiii
laid out a great summary in the thread linked above.

Light wheeled armor has always had its uses, and with advanced electronics and optics may still be a usable recon platform.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 19, 2022)

Light wheeled armor has always looked cool. Just sayin'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 19, 2022)

The biggest problem with light wheeled armor is that all too often they are used as surrogate tanks. As a "battle taxi" or a recon vehicle with a squad and a .50 class machine gun or light canon ( 30mm or less) they can have their uses. In addition the level of enemy activity is a critical consideration. If you are battling an insurgency with limited anti-armor weapons (recent US actions in Iraq & Afghanistan) a vehicle like the Stryker can be employed with reasonable success. 

But in a classic conventional operation such as Ukraine, ATGMs & opposing tracked armor units (IFVs & tanks) are significantly more capable and able to operate off road better than wheeled vehicles, then vehicles like the BTR-80 suffer tremendously. 

Personally, I'm just glad they didn't buy the Strykers till after my time in the service

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 21, 2022)

Tracked AFVs were every bit as much as fair game as are the wheeled AFVs for the infatrymen AT weapons, as it is shown recently.

Back on the tanks of near future - how much is likely that we'd see a further proliferation of tanks with the uncrewed turrets, like it is the case with T-14 or the Jordanian Tariq 2? A firm separation between the cannon's ammo and crew is certainly a must, a thing the M1 Abrams had 40 years ago.
Upgrading of the tanks weapon systems is also needed, whether it is about the wider introduction of guided missiles as part of the cannon's ammo, bigger cal auxiliary wepons (.50 up to 30 mm cannons?, or the internal mortar or grenade launcher?)? Remote controlled HMG station for the commander?


----------



## GTX (Mar 21, 2022)

I believe that the ideal future tank/heavy armoured fighting vehicle will be something akin to Israel's Carmel program. Basically a heavyish IFV but with weapons including 30 - 50mm main gun for taking out softer vehicles, IFVs and dealing with buildings/bunkers etc and missiles such as Spike/Javelin for heavier threats such as MBTs. Also give it some anti-drone/air defence weapons be these a combination of smart guided rounds from gun, guided rockets and/or SAMs. Of course drone jamming is a must. The platform will also allow troops to be carried when needed and also be highly integrated, probably controlling its own drones/robots.


----------



## WARSPITER (Mar 25, 2022)

The MBT is still more than relevant. Poor use of any equipment results in failure no matter what it is.

As a combined arms weapon the MBT is a mature and essential part of the equation.

It is difficult to replace the capabilities of an all terrain tracked vehicle that carries 40 to 50 rounds, is well armoured, and is capable of destroying
any other vehicle on the battlefield. Added to that is the ability to do what it is mainly intended for - support and protect other units.
MBT's can stand off and put rounds into enemy positions quickly and without having to be dug in or brought up - they are generally already where
the action is.

The Sheridan and other vehicles were attempts to differ from the norm with 6" or 152mm guns firing low velocity rounds or guided missiles from the
same platform. The gun rounds were great against enemy strong points but not against moving targets. The ATGM's were good for moving targets
but the vehicle must be in a position to guide them and again the velocity is not as good as a normal tank round so much slower. The other problem
with tis sort of hybrid is less gun rounds - around 20, and due to the bulk, a low number of ATGM - in the case of the Sheridan - about 8.

The latest Western tanks have detection systems capable of finding / tracking vehicles at over ten kilometres and then getting a very high hit ratio
at three plus.

As a balanced AFV the MBT is well sorted. Tracked / wheeled specialist vehicles generally accompany MBT's and carry out specific tasks such as
AA protection. The specialist vehicles in modern armies are generally well up to the tasks given leaving the MBT's to do what they do best.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## PFVA63 (Mar 25, 2022)

Hi, 
In looking around the internet it appears that alot of countries have either recently started production on or are currently working to develop a lot of tanks, or tank like vehicles (such as the Russian SPRUT-SD fully tracked tank destroyer, and the US Army Mobile Protected Firepower program). As such it appears that tracked tanks, and perhaps fully tracked lighter vehicles with tank like firepower but lighter "armor" may likely probably still be the norm for a while.

Pat

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 26, 2022)

wlewisiii said:


> Even the Russian tanks, despite their many flaws, can be effective if supported and used correctly.


Have postwar Russian tanks ever had success on the battlefield?


----------



## WARSPITER (Mar 26, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Have postwar Russian tanks ever had success on the battlefield?


Yes but only when used by Ukrainians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 26, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> Yes but only when used by Ukrainians.


Israeli use as well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 26, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> Yes but only when used by Ukrainians.


I share your sentiment, but where are the Ukrainian designed and produced T-64s and T-84s?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 26, 2022)

It’s a secret.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Mar 26, 2022)

Ukraine has lost around 62 T64 and replaced them with an upgrade to 119 T 72 thanks to Russian tankers having abandonment issues.
All in all, a good example of logistical replacement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 26, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> Ukraine has lost around 62 T64 and replaced them with an upgrade to 119 T 72 thanks to Russian tankers having *abandonment issues.*
> All in all, a good example of logistical replacement.



lol, you make it sound like mommy left them in front of a fire station.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Mar 26, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> lol, you make it sound like mommy left them in front of a fire station.


You are absolutely correct - they were on station but got fired at and ran home to mum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 26, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> lol, you make it sound like mommy left them in front of a fire station.


Well - not exactly...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 26, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> Ukraine has lost around 62 T64 and replaced them with an upgrade to 119 T 72 thanks to Russian tankers having abandonment issues.
> All in all, a good example of logistical replacement.


T64 maybe, but I wouldn’t want to swap a Ukie T-84 for an ex-Russian T-72. It’s amazing that Russia still depends on the T-72. Imagine if the US Army of 2022 was built around a fleet of ERA-updated M60 Patton tanks?


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 26, 2022)

Considering the way Russian armor has been used, uprated M60A3s might still be viable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 26, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Considering the way Russian armor has been used, uprated M60A3s might still be viable.


Agreed, but I’m not sure the British 105mm L7 is up to the task. That’s one of the reasons the Abrams switched ASAP to the 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 26, 2022)

I did not know that.


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 27, 2022)

Good explanation of WHY the FSU tanks are so "boom" prone. The graphics show what I've tried to explain.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 27, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Considering the way Russian armor has been used, uprated M60A3s might still be viable.


I loved my M-60A3 TTS tank. Tall as hell but that height allowed the use of terrain for cover and concealment better than any FSU tank can, the TTS on the A3 was the best in the world until the latest model of M1 came out, and NOTHING in the world of armor is more reliable than the old Patton chassis. 

Still, on the current battlefield? Needs the M256/RH-120 smoothbore 120mm gun retrofitted, good ERA and the Israeli Trophy active defense system. This would add a bunch of weight so an upgraded engine would be needed and probably an APU so you don't have the full loud diesel running all the time. 

Hmm sounds like essentially a brand-new tank. No wonder most users opt for new M1/Leopard2/etc instead.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 27, 2022)

wlewisiii said:


> I loved my M-60A3 TTS tank. Tall as hell but that height allowed the use of terrain for cover and concealment better than any FSU tank can, the TTS on the A3 was the best in the world until the latest model of M1 came out, and NOTHING in the world of armor is more reliable than the old Patton chassis.
> 
> Still, on the current battlefield? Needs the M256/RH-120 smoothbore 120mm gun retrofitted, good ERA and the Israeli Trophy active defense system. This would add a bunch of weight so an upgraded engine would be needed and probably an APU so you don't have the full loud diesel running all the time.
> 
> Hmm sounds like essentially a brand-new tank. No wonder most users opt for new M1/Leopard2/etc instead.


You forgot to add the M60A3 was super cool.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (Mar 27, 2022)

I am certainly no expert at tanks, or their armor e.g. Chopham or Sandwich-honeycomb armor or whatever is supposedly better. I can identify most of them and that's about it.

Having said that, 3 criteria come to my mind.
Human lives
$ And cents
Future technology in 15 years – which we "normal people" can't even think of or envision presently.

Human lives:
Especially the Western democratic world can't cope with human lives lost on the battlefield, and is even more reluctant to shed these for the sake of freedom for others.
A destroyed tank usually takes 4-5 human lives with it. As such an anti-tank weapon must ensure at minimum that no more than 1 live gets lost by its respective operator
which then would more or less already exclude using an own tank for that purpose.

$ and cents:
the presently most modern western tanks are holding a price tag of $ 20 Million+One can imagine how much the next generation and the following is going to cost in 15 years. Countries presently such as China, Russia and e.g. India, their top tanks are costing $4-5 Million. Maybe the kill ratio of a western tank is 5:1 but I wouldn't bet on that in 5 years
and more, to remain in that ratio.

Future technology:
e.g. drones in all kind of versions, to me it is amazing how drones have evolved in the past 15 years. I am not referring to the kind of MK-9 Reaper or Avenger by General Atomics
which are already having the same price tag as a modern MBT. No I am looking at the $500 kind that e.g. China is selling to the private and military market.

Is anyone familiar or remembers the 80's Bundeswehr Luftwaffe system – MW-1 Luftverlegesysteme (aerial mine dispenser system). Or similar the British system JP233 LAAAS
(Low-Altitude Airfield Attack System)? See photo of the MV-1 system.

Now just envision these mines replaced by independently operating mini attack drones, armed with explosive or respective tank, vehicle, infantry or building destruction devices.
And that kind of system could be deployed from any kind of launching device right down to a manpad system – not just restricted to an aircraft.

This is what the military future in 15 years would look like to me. And I don't think that one would then like to drive around in something big.
In the meantime keep upgrading the best modern tanks we presently have, with self-defense systems, ammunition and targeting technology we keep on developing anyway.

Regards
Jagdflieger

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 28, 2022)

wlewisiii said:


> Still, on the current battlefield? Needs the M256/RH-120 smoothbore 120mm gun retrofitted, good ERA and the Israeli Trophy active defense system.


What of the L7 105 mm gun? I’ve read that once it was tested against the latest Soviet tanks that NATO wasn’t at all pleased and rushed to replace it with the 120mm smoothbore, Chieftain and Chally excluded.


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 28, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Well - not exactly...
> 
> 
> View attachment 662630


They left them parked illegally and they got towed away.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Mar 29, 2022)

wlewisiii said:


> I loved my M-60A3 TTS tank. Tall as hell but that height allowed the use of terrain for cover and concealment better than any FSU tank can, the TTS on the A3 was the best in the world until the latest model of M1 came out, and NOTHING in the world of armor is more reliable than the old Patton chassis.
> 
> Still, on the current battlefield? Needs the M256/RH-120 smoothbore 120mm gun retrofitted, good ERA and the Israeli Trophy active defense system. This would add a bunch of weight so an upgraded engine would be needed and probably an APU so you don't have the full loud diesel running all the time.
> 
> Hmm sounds like essentially a brand-new tank. No wonder most users opt for new M1/Leopard2/etc instead.











Leonardo M60A3 Upgrade Solution - Tank Encyclopedia


Leonardo's upgrade solution for the M60A3 was presented at BIDEC 2017 as a means to keep the venerable M60 competitive in the modern era.




tanks-encyclopedia.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 29, 2022)

Way cool! Reduce, reuse, recycle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 29, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Agreed, but I’m not sure the British 105mm L7 is up to the task. That’s one of the reasons the Abrams switched ASAP to the 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore.


Once the M735 APFSDS was available the M-68(aka L7) rifle was able to keep up with the T-64 & T-72. It was stupid that we didn't field them till the late 70's despite knowing the inability of earlier HEAT & APDS rounds against them but that's water under the bridge since the big one didn't happen then. 

The military claimed that it and the M774 were not able to stop the T-74A and T-74B from the front but even if that were true (and I suspect not) the M833 DU round could easily stop them. 

No, the western militaries were in a "we need a bigger boom stick" mood and the RH120 made an excellent gun. 

Now we're hearing similar murmurings about how maybe the 120 isn't enough against the T-14 but 1) given the performance of ERA and Russian active defenses in Ukraine and 2) that a bankrupt Russia can't afford them, I'd say that the 120 will remain the most effective tank gun out there for the foreseeable future.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 12, 2022)




----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 16, 2022)



Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 16, 2022)

Seen it. Very enlightening vid.


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 16, 2022)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 16, 2022)

I plan on watching this later. I wouldn't watch the "tank is dead" videos by instant experts. The Chieftain seems pretty credible to me.


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 16, 2022)

It's good and he discusses the good points in a couple of the best other videos.


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 16, 2022)

Plus he has actual hands on experience about what he's talking about.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 16, 2022)

Tanks have always had vulnerabilities, and opposing forces have always had means and methods for dealing with them. They're still a vital part of combined arms, because tanks can do things no other systems can do.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 16, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Tanks have always had vulnerabilities, and opposing forces have always had means and methods for dealing with them. They're still a vital part of combined arms, because tanks can do things no other systems can do.


Once tanks have an active protection system they will be less vulnerable to MANPATS. That’s what will even the chances once more.









America's Killer M1 Abrams Tank Now Has Its Own Shields


The Trophy system is coming to one of America's most lethal weapons of war.




nationalinterest.org










Quick Kill - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 16, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Once tanks have an active protection system they will be less vulnerable to MANPATS. That’s what will even the chances once more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Cool article and thanks for posting. Just wait 'til lasers get more efficient and can be mounted on tanks.

Also from the article:



> The Russian armor had unwisely charged down confined city streets without adequate infantry protection.



Gosh, haven't they learnt a thing?


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 16, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Cool article and thanks for posting. Just wait 'til lasers get more efficient and can be mounted on tanks.
> 
> Also from the article:
> 
> ...


I hope not.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 16, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I hope not.



Clearly they haven't, still sending tanks into cities without an infantry skirt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 16, 2022)

The Soviets lost over 2,800 tanks during the battle of Berlin - most were due to Panzerfaust AT weapons during the street fighting.

It pays to read history books...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Apr 16, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The Soviets lost over 2,800 tanks during the battle of Berlin - most were due to Panzerfaust AT weapons during the street fighting.
> 
> It pays to read history books...


I think maybe the history books aren't written in Russian which could be a problem.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 16, 2022)

They had far more to spare and were willing to throw machines and tanks away in exchange for victory. They're trying the same now but the equation isn't coming out the same way this time...


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 16, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The Soviets lost over 2,800 tanks during the battle of Berlin - most were due to Panzerfaust AT weapons during the street fighting.
> 
> It pays to read history books...



It's not like tanks - infantry + cities = problems is a new equation.


----------



## WARSPITER (Apr 17, 2022)

Since WWII the USSR / Russia has had military operations which were limited to backing revolutions or rolling into places where the opposition was mainly
comprised of insurgent or militia groups.

This time they have come up against trained and ready combat forces with modern equipment who know how to fight. The results so far speak for themselves.

Even the cleverly bush cammo coloured JD4x4 tank snaffler brigade was not seen as a threat.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 17, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> Since WWII the USSR / Russia has had military operations which were limited to backing revolutions or rolling into places where the opposition was mainly
> comprised of insurgent or militia groups.
> 
> This time they have come up against trained and ready combat forces with modern equipment who know how to fight. The results so far speak for themselves.
> ...



Gave it a "funny" for your last line, but your point about facing a modern adversary is spot-on.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2022)

Even in Afghanistan, the Soviets got their ass handed to them by Muhajadein mostly armed with Stingers.

It boils down to Russia counting on their intimidating arm-waving and scary words.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2022)

wlewisiii said:


> They had far more to spare and were willing to throw machines and tanks away in exchange for victory. They're trying the same now but the equation isn't coming out the same way this time...


Going by memory, the Soviets had over 22,000 AFVs and the Germans had about 1,200 - the Red Army kept sending wave after wave against the Germans until the Germans were literally inundated with bodies and simply could not kill enough fast enough.


----------



## WARSPITER (Apr 17, 2022)

Yes. The T-34 tank is the second highest produced and during WWII there were 57000 made. It also has the dubious record of
the most losses for a tank type at 44900.


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 17, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> Yes. The T-34 tank is the second highest produced and during WWII there were 57000 made. It also has the dubious record of
> the most losses for a tank type at 44900.


Why is that "dubious"?

That the Sherman has a better loss/kill ratio then a T-34, is not because of being the better tank, but due to the resistance and quantity of arms brought forward by the Wehrmacht towards the Soviets and the tactics employed by the Soviets.

Any stats in regards to the Sherman's performance operated in Russia?

Regards
Jagdflieger


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 17, 2022)

The T-34 was one of the best tanks of WWII imo.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 17, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The T-34 was one of the best tanks of WWII imo.


Why would you think that? Just curious.


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 17, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> The T-34 was one of the best tanks of WWII imo.


Only once they added the three-man turret with the 85mm gun. Before that it was average to slightly below average for it's time. It's just that the rest of Soviet armor was so much worse. But the early two-man turret was a pig to fight - having the TC be gunner is always a bad idea - and negated most of the advantages of the rest of the design.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 17, 2022)

wlewisiii said:


> Only once they added the three-man turret with the 85mm gun. Before that it was average to slightly below average for it's time.



Right, I should have specified that version, which hit a great balance of mobility, armor, and firepower.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 17, 2022)

Snautzer01 said:


> Why would you think that? Just curious.



Sloped armor allowed for good protection without weighing it down. That allowed for good mobility, especially when combined with wide tracks and that 500hp aluminum-block diesel. Once the 85mm gun and 3-man turret came on, it carried a good gun that could be efficiently loaded and pointed. In short, it was a well-rounded tank.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 17, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Sloped armor allowed for good protection without weighing it down. That allowed for good mobility, especially when combined with wide tracks and that 500hp aluminum-block diesel. Once the 85mm gun and 3-man turret came on, it carried a good gun that could be efficiently loaded and pointed. In short, it was a well-rounded tank.


I see you added a bit . Now i see why you can think " best tank " take a look at

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 17, 2022)

Snautzer01 said:


> I see you added a bit . Now i see why you can think " best tank " take a look at




Yeah, I didn't go into details my original opinion, but it really hits the trifecta.


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 17, 2022)

I worked with a wheraboo many years ago. He asked me if I knew which was the best tank of WW II. Of course I answered T-34/85. He went ballistic. I'm not a good person.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Apr 17, 2022)

My reference to the T-34 was not pertaining to whether it was or was not a good tank but rather how it was employed.


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 17, 2022)

My reference to the T-34 was to piss someone off.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 17, 2022)

wlewisiii said:


> Only once they added the three-man turret with the 85mm gun. Before that it was average to slightly below average for it's time. It's just that the rest of Soviet armor was so much worse. But the early two-man turret was a pig to fight - having the TC be gunner is always a bad idea - and negated most of the advantages of the rest of the design.


The T-34/76mm was a great tank too and overall better then the contemporary Panzer IV. You shouldn't just jump time-periods.
When the Russians fielded the T34/76 what did the Allies have? Valentines, Crusaders, Mathilda's, Grants. all inferior against Panzer IV or a T-34/76 if fielded in equal numbers.








Medium Tank M4 Sherman - Tank Encyclopedia


The M4 Sherman was the main Allied tank in WW2, mass-produced to an extent of 50,000 and used in countless conflicts through numerous decades.




tanks-encyclopedia.com












T-34/76 - Tank Encyclopedia


The T-34 was a successful Soviet medium tank first built in 1940. Its design proved influential for future development of armored vehicles.




tanks-encyclopedia.com





Regards
Jagdflieger

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Apr 17, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> My reference to the T-34 was to piss someone off.


No doubt you have caused some keyboard seeth in more than one location.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 17, 2022)

Here's a good video discussing the issues with the early versions of the T-34.



And another one that goes with it:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 17, 2022)

sloped armour not ww2

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> The T-34/76mm was a great tank too and overall better then the contemporary Panzer IV. You shouldn't just jump time-periods.
> When the Russians fielded the T34/76 what did the Allies have? Valentines, Crusaders, Mathilda's, Grants. all inferior against Panzer IV or a T-34/76 if fielded in equal numbers.
> 
> 
> ...


Before 1941, U.S. Army doctrine was to use tanks to support infantry.
The M4 Sherman was also designed along those lines with the M10 designed to support the M4 if the encountered enemy armor.

The M3 Stuart was intended to be a form of "Cavalry", charging into enemy infantry ranks while the M3 Grant was to provide a form of "mobile artillery" to support infantry by knocking out enemy targets like pillboxes, machine gun nests and so on.

This philosophy changed quickly in the next few years, but this is where the U.S. was at in 1941/1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 18, 2022)

The issue with the T-72 and similar is that the autoloading relies on the ammunition sitting in a turntable under the turret. There are smarter ways to do an autoloader that can protect the crew, like on France's Leclerc tank.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PFVA63 (Apr 18, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> The T-34/76mm was a great tank too and overall better then the contemporary Panzer IV. You shouldn't just jump time-periods.
> When the Russians fielded the T34/76 what did the Allies have? Valentines, Crusaders, Mathilda's, Grants. all inferior against Panzer IV or a T-34/76 if fielded in equal numbers.
> 
> 
> ...


Hi,
Interestingly enough, although I have always thought that the M3 Grant was an a fairly odd and ungainly beast I was actually surprised to find that for a period of time it actually was considered be some to be one of the better tanks in North Africa when it first arrived. 

Specifically, accoring to Wikipedia the M3 first saw service with the British in North Africa in May 1942 and I read somewhere that the range of its 75mm gun came as a surprise to the Germans, and there is even a footnoted comment on its Wikipedia page (


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3)


 that the author of the book "Panzer Commander" by a former German Army Colonel during the war (Hans von Luck) that he believed that the M3 was a better tank than the Panzer IV, prior to the F2 variant. Also according to the Panzerserra Bunker (Panzer IV Ausf F2 - Sd.Kfz. 161/1 - case report) site Rommel had only received 27 Aus F2 tanks by August 1942). 

So, for a period of time at least I believe that the M3 may have held some advantage over the German tanks it was encountering in battle.

Pat

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 18, 2022)

M-3 Grant/Lee tank is a favorite of mine. For all the wrong reasons. It was nice learning that, like the Buffalo, was better than most thought. 
Unlike the P-GH.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 18, 2022)

PFVA63 said:


> Hi,
> Interestingly enough, although I have always thought that the M3 Grant was an a fairly odd and ungainly beast I was actually surprised to find that for a period of time it actually was considered be some to be one of the better tanks in North Africa when it first arrived.
> 
> Specifically, accoring to Wikipedia the M3 first saw service with the British in North Africa in May 1942 and I read somewhere that the range of its 75mm gun came as a surprise to the Germans, and there is even a footnoted comment on its Wikipedia page (
> ...


Taking the Africa-corps tank collection in numbers and Types into account - any Allied tank posed a danger to them - even a Valentine.
But in an equal number comparison I don't see a reason for a Panzer IV crew with the long 75mm cannon being intimidated by a Grant with a crew of 6-7 and a side mounted
75mm M2 gun. It was however most likely the best Western-Allied Tank in Africa.

IIRC once the Sherman came on in numbers the Grant's were immediately transferred to Australia and others deployed in South-East-Asia.

Regards
Jagdflieger


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2022)

The M3's main gun could traverse to the side, but the gun's "at rest" position was facing forward, like a StuG.
The advantage the M3 had, was that it had both the main gun and the 37mm upper turret (comparable to the PzKfw III armament) and it's crew may have been six, but the tank's weapon systems were fully manned, meaning all weapons could be active at the same time, instead of crewmen scrambling from one weapon to another during battle.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 18, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The advantage the M3 had, was that it had both the main gun and the 37mm upper turret (comparable to the PzKfw III armament) and it's crew may have been six, but the tank's weapon systems were fully manned, meaning all weapons could be active at the same time, instead of crewmen scrambling from one weapon to another during battle.


It also helped that much of the opposition was operating the Italian M13/40 and the short barreled Pz.Kpfw. III. The M3 will have to work harder against the Pz.Kpfw. IV and especially the Pz.Kpfw. VI, but for the most part the M3 was the superlative high volume tank of North Africa, until the M4s arrived.


----------



## PFVA63 (Apr 18, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> Taking the Africa-corps tank collection in numbers and Types into account - any Allied tank posed a danger to them - even a Valentine.
> But in an equal number comparison I don't see a reason for a Panzer IV crew with the long 75mm cannon being intimidated by a Grant with a crew of 6-7 and a side mounted
> 75mm M2 gun. It was however most likely the best Western-Allied Tank in Africa.
> 
> ...


Hi,
I'm not trying to make the claim that the M3's were overall better tanks than the Panzer IVs, but rather the main point I was trying to show is that since the Panzer IV Auf F2's were not available in North Africa until later in 1942 (with only 27 having been delivered by August of that year), while the M3 Grants were in service and operational in North Africa from May of 1942 there was a period of time where the M3s were likely more powerful than any tank that the German's had available in North Africa for several months of that year, as appears to be borne out by the reference from the book by Hans von Luck.

As such, I am just trying to clarify that a statement along the lines that "Valentines, Crusaders, Mathilda's, Grants. all inferior against Panzer IV or a T-34/76 if fielded in equal numbers." is not necessarily 100% correct, as there was a discernable period of time during the battles in North Africa, where the Panzer IV was only available in its short barrel low velocity 75mm gun versions, while the M3 Grant was fielding its higher velocity 75mm gun and a 37mm gun as well.

Regards

Pat

PS. As for the M3's after the M4'sbecame available, I believe that they remained in service in North Africa for some time, with the similar M3 Lee also serving alongside the M4's in the US Army during Operation Torch (Nov 1942) and following battles in North Africa.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (Apr 18, 2022)

PFVA63 said:


> Hi,
> I'm not trying to make the claim that the M3's were overall better tanks than the Panzer IVs, but rather the main point I was trying to show is that since the Panzer IV Auf F2's were not available in North Africa until later in 1942 (with only 27 having been delivered by August of that year), while the M3 Grants were in service and operational in North Africa from May of 1942 there was a period of time where the M3s were likely more powerful than any tank that the German's had available in North Africa for several months of that year, as appears to be borne out by the reference from the book by Hans von Luck.
> 
> As such, I am just trying to clarify that a statement along the lines that "Valentines, Crusaders, Mathilda's, Grants. all inferior against Panzer IV or a T-34/76 if fielded in equal numbers." is not necessarily 100% correct, as there was a discernable period of time during the battles in North Africa, where the Panzer IV was only available in its short barrel low velocity 75mm gun versions, while the M3 Grant was fielding its higher velocity 75mm gun and a 37mm gun as well.
> ...


You are aware that 50% of all Grants were destroyed at Gazaala? would you know by how many Africa-corps tanks?
Yes the couple of 88's certainly also paid off 
It all comes down to numbers - unless one sets the terms for a comparison at even odds, any comparison is just meaningless 

Regards
Jagdflieger


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 18, 2022)

It’s funny that this thread has somehow morphed from post-2022 to post-1942.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PFVA63 (Apr 18, 2022)

Jagdflieger said:


> You are aware that 50% of all Grants were destroyed at Gazaala? would you know by how many Africa-corps tanks?
> Yes the couple of 88's certainly also paid off
> It all comes down to numbers - unless one sets the terms for a comparison at even odds, any comparison is just meaningless
> 
> ...


Hi,
Yes the British lost a lot of tanks at Gazala. 

However, my contention is that the statement that "Valentines, Crusaders, Mathilda's, Grants. all inferior against Panzer IV or a T-34/76 if fielded in equal numbers." is not necessarily 100% correct.

As noted above there were periods when the Grant was in fact actually superior in capability to the Panzer IV, specifically with regards to how the M3's were able to outrange the 50mm armed Panzer IIIs and short barrel 75mm Panzer IVs in North Africa, prior to the arrival of sufficient numbers of Panzer IV Aus F2, to make them operational in the August (or perhaps Sept 1942 timeframe). 

As noted previously this is supported by written comments from some German officers of the time such as Mr. von Luck. In addition, it is even said that Rommel was quoted as saying "Up to May of 1942, our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent." 

Additionally, since the statement noted above specifically stated that "...if fielded in equal numbers", then the latter statement that "It all comes down to numbers - unless one sets the terms for a comparison at even odds" appears contrary to the initial assertion. 
Like I said before, it's not a big deal, and I am definitely not saying that the M# was a better tank overall than the Panzer IV, but rather just that since there was rapid technological advances during the war, coupled with the fact that it often took time to bring updates into service and make them operational, that a statement along the lines that the Panzer IV was superior to the M3 is not necessarily 100% accurate, as there was a discernable period of time when the M3 not only appeared to be more capable but also that some German officers have stated so in their writing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PFVA63 (Apr 18, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> It’s funny that this thread has somehow morphed from post-2022 to post-1942.


Ooops, Sorry about that. You are right, the focus should be on modern day stuff.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> It’s funny that this thread has somehow morphed from post-2022 to post-1942.


It is interesting, though, to see how armor concepts shifted during the course of the war.

Much like world airforces and their preconceived notions how an air war would/should be fought in the late 30's, world armies had a different concept as to how armored warfare was going to be used on the battlefield during that same time.

Most tanks were light, fast and designed to charge infantry with heavier tanks designed to be mobile artillery in support of infantry and the smaller tanks.

By the end of the war, an entirely new breed of tank had emerged and with it, a shift in how they should be used.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 18, 2022)

Back to today, is there any MBT not from Russia that Ukraine can quickly acclimatize to?


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 18, 2022)

Quickly? No. Tank training after basic, to learn the minimum to go to your unit takes 3 months. Say 2 months for experienced & motivated troopers. But retraining unit level and direct support level maintenance will take considerably longer, especially for turret mechanics. Those tasks.are complex and require special tools and techniques.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2022)

Also, any tanks provided to the Ukraine would need to be compatible with their current inventory of ammunition, or else ample ammunition would need to be provided.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 18, 2022)

Snautzer01 said:


> sloped armour not ww2
> 
> View attachment 665059



I don't think anyone said it was invented for the second war.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 18, 2022)

PFVA63 said:


> As noted previously this is supported by written comments from some German officers of the time such as Mr. von Luck. In addition, it is even said that Rommel was quoted as saying "Up to May of 1942, our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent."



Yeah, von Luck mentions the see-saw nature not only of the battles but of the technological introductions in his book. However one rates Rommel, I think he did good work with smaller numbers and at times inferior gear. The Grant was an ugly surprise for them, as was the Sherman, for a bit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 18, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Much like world airforces and their preconceived notions how an air war would/should be fought in the late 30's, world armies had a different concept as to how armored warfare was going to be used on the battlefield during that same time.



I wonder how much rethinking of the armored concept is going on as we write given the success of cheap, semi-automated drones in taking out AFVs? This is clearly the, repeat _the_, new threat to MBTs. I wonder if we won't see the resurrection of light AA onto tanks either as secondary weapons (_a la_ WWII), or in the form of light, tracked accompanying vehicles? Tiny is actually pretty hard to fight, I bet.

As I wrote above, i think tanks sill have a solid place in combined arms, but I'd hope and imagine that this war is providing lessons in what to do and more importantly what not to do.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 18, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I wonder how much rethinking of the armored concept is going on as we write given the success of cheap, semi-automated drones in taking out AFVs? This is clearly the, repeat _the_, new threat to MBTs. I wonder if we won't see the resurrection of light AA onto tanks either as secondary weapons (_a la_ WWII), or in the form of light, tracked accompanying vehicles? Tiny is actually pretty hard to fight, I bet.
> 
> As I wrote above, i think tanks sill have a solid place in combined arms, but I'd hope and imagine that this war is providing lessons in what to do and more importantly what not to do.


Update the capabilities of active anti-ATGW systems and the MBT is back in charge…. when used properly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 18, 2022)

I'd bet on either laser or railgun defense against drones probably using multiple sensors (audio, thermal, ladar) to target them. Laser is plausible because you don't need the power output to blind a drone that you would to destroy an aircraft or missile.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 18, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Update the capabilities of active anti-ATGW systems and the MBT is back in charge…. when used properly.



Proper use is a good point even though it's not a new lesson. 

Upgrading defense against MANPATS -- and more importantly against drones -- is my line of thinking. Those will be the changes going forward, I believe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2022)

It may be time to resurrect the M247 (was to be designated M3) Sergeant York system.

When the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradly were in development, they were supposed to be a component battlefield system where all three (M1, M2 and M3) supported each other on the battlefield.

Issues arose with the M247 and it was dropped from the system.

But now, almost 40 years later, technology has advanced lightyears beyond what the Sergeant York was capable of (as planned) and would present a deadly system (better than originally planned).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 19, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I don't think anyone said it was invented for the second war.


When mentioning the T-34 for the most people it is if it was the first that it was used. It wasnt. And while we were on the subject i thought i mentioned it. Carry on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Apr 19, 2022)

Gun based tracked Air Defence systems are outranged by the missiles of the aircraft they are supposed to be defending against


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 20, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Gun based tracked Air Defence systems are outranged by the missiles of the aircraft they are supposed to be defending against


Yes, but we can't assume that one side will stay still while the other innovates. The next gun based, tracked air defence systems may use electromagnetic railguns to win over the missile armed aircraft. 






Armys Pursuit of Electromagnetic Railguns Heats Up


Armys Pursuit of Electromagnetic Railguns Heats Up




www.nationaldefensemagazine.org









IDEF 2019: Turkish-made Electromagnetic Rail Gun unveiled by Yeteknoloji | IDEF 2019 News Online Show Daily defense exhibition Turkey | Defence security military exhibition 2019 daily news category


Turkish Company Yeteknoloji unveils its project of Electromagnetic Rail Gun technology dubbed SAHI 209 during IDEF 2019 defense exhibition in Istanbul Turkey




www.armyrecognition.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 20, 2022)

Won't that play havoc with the crew's cell phones?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Apr 20, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Won't that play havoc with the crew's cell phones?


What a dilemma. Use the railgun and lose reception or get hit and lose reception.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 20, 2022)

Yeah. It's a tough one.🤔


----------



## WARSPITER (Apr 20, 2022)

Given the need for 'connectivity' amongst the current younger generation they may need to build a 'safe space' into
AFV's in the future.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 24, 2022)

Some good chatter…






"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again."


I don't think Putin gives a damn about public pressure. The only public opinion that matters to Putin is the one that he, himself, so generously gives to the people to help enable the State to accomplish its great and glorious mission. Ergo, the real question is how does Putin see the presence...



ww2aircraft.net


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 25, 2022)

tomo pauk said:


> Two basic questions:
> - are the tanks still a must for a modern army?(I's say 'yes')
> - what the modern post-2022 tank should look like? (I'd say 'not like a T-72/-80/-90')



The Israeli 'trophy' type system and equivalents seem to be increasingly important. For sure there will be more "drone tanks", I would imagine an MBT with a small army of drone vehicles (flying and crawling) all around it for recon, to help find those pesky ATGMs

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 25, 2022)

That would be really cool!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 25, 2022)

Not so cool if you are the infantry guy with the ATGM. But they will be using drones too (already are).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 25, 2022)

What I'm actually really interested to see is drone vs drone systems. I have a theory about large scale RC aircraft in fact...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 25, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> What I'm actually really interested to see is drone vs drone systems.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 25, 2022)

That is A W E S O M E 

but i was thinking something more like this ...



...except probably with Jets more like this ...



.... or this



... or this....



.... or one of these 



The question is could you make an RC aircraft about that size and be able to carry a payload of say, a couple of stinger missiles or a light machine gun? Looks like they can carry flares....

I have seen them using airsoft successfully with these, but of course that is much lighter.


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 25, 2022)

A brief glance shows "heavy lift drones" with a payload of 20 lbs. 

A stinger is 30 lbs. 

Not impossible to scale up but by the time you're done how different is the Bayraktar TB2 where you have a payload of 330 lbs? Or just go all the way up to an MQ-9 Reaper sitting way way up in the sky with 3000 lbs of Hellfires?


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 25, 2022)

wlewisiii said:


> A brief glance shows "heavy lift drones" with a payload of 20 lbs.
> 
> A stinger is 30 lbs.
> 
> Not impossible to scale up but by the time you're done how different is the Bayraktar TB2 where you have a payload of 330 lbs? Or just go all the way up to an MQ-9 Reaper sitting way way up in the sky with 3000 lbs of Hellfires?



Well it's like the difference between a bomber and a fighter. The Bayraktar and the Reaper are 'bombers' and recon. They are very, very dangerous if you are on the ground in a vehicle or an artillery position or something. Drones can be shot down from the ground, but only if you can see them. So to protect the ground forces, it might be helpful to have another type of drone which can shoot down other drones. A 'drone fighter' in other words.

So something like one of those RC aircraft could be fitted with a small caliber machine gun or maybe a scaled down version of something like a stinger, and could find and eliminate drones that destroy tanks and APCs. I think that could be very useful. Even if it just had something like a laser designator which could help a ground based missile find a target that might be useful. Or a high powered laser (just a little more powerful than commercially available ones) which could disable the optics on one perhaps.

A lot of these 1/6 scale jets which are widely available now as toys are already up around 50-60 lbs in weight. I bet something like this could be fitted with say, a couple of .22 caliber guns. Maybe even .223. 



Large F-4C / E Phantom. 1 : 6 Scale – Jet North – RC Jet Community!


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 25, 2022)

wlewisiii said:


> Not impossible to scale up but by the time you're done how different is the Bayraktar TB2 where you have a payload of 330 lbs?


If Ukraine could get two hundred or more Bayraktar TB2 along with a thousand or more missiles they would have sufficient air power to rain death from above across Russia's front.

Interestingly, the Bayraktar's engine is made by the Canadian-owned Rotax company. I think it's time for Canada to enter the game.









Ottawa launches long-awaited competition for armed military drones


The federal government has officially launched a competition for the purchase of armed drones after nearly two decades of delays and discussion.




www.ctvnews.ca





Let's put some missiles onto the Heron done and offer them to Ukraine for live testing.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 25, 2022)

In a nutshell, i see drones as following a similar path to military airplanes in WW2. Right now we have 'scouts' and 'bombers'. I think 'fighters' are next.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 25, 2022)

I think you could put something like this on one of those 1/6 scale RC planes (jet or ww2 type) and it could shoot down other drones


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 25, 2022)

There are already drones out there that can hunt other drones.

One such drone, is the U.S.'s Coyote.

United Arab Emirates and Turkey also have something similar.









Watch Jet-Powered Coyote Take Down Enemy Drones With Ease


A drone that can capture intelligence information and data about hurricanes is now being used to blow itself up to counter enemy drones.




interestingengineering.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 25, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Gun based tracked Air Defence systems are outranged by the missiles of the aircraft they are supposed to be defending against



You can put missiles on tracked chassis as well. Or, if they're shooting at Frogfoots dropping dumb bombs, even guns could conceivably have a chance.


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 25, 2022)

I'm thinking that dual radar & thermal ranging M2 machine guns's on top of a hummer class vehicle or even an old 113 chassis would be an excellent anti-drone defense system

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Apr 25, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> There are already drones out there that can hunt other drones.
> 
> One such drone, is the U.S.'s Coyote.
> 
> ...



Am I interpreting that right that it's a 'kamikaze' drone that rams other drones?


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 25, 2022)

Rams its target, whatever that may be.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 25, 2022)

The Coyote has a shape-charged warhead that detonates in a circular (ring-shaped) blast when it gets in proximity of it's target.


----------



## Macandy (May 5, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> You can put missiles on tracked chassis as well. Or, if they're shooting at Frogfoots dropping dumb bombs, even guns could conceivably have a chance.




Or you can put lots of missiles on foot mobile infantry and make life far too exciting for anything stupid enough to fly below 10,000ft

Lessons learned from GWI - Stay high or die


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 5, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Or you can put lots of missiles on foot mobile infantry and make life far too exciting for anything stupid enough to fly below 10,000ft
> 
> Lessons learned from GWI - Stay high or die



This is why AD systems are, ideally, layered. You use MANPADs for low- and med- alt work, and heavier, vehicle-borne systems for med-to-high-alt work. It both is and isn't rocket science, lol.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (May 5, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> This is why AD systems are, ideally, layered. You use MANPADs for low- and med- alt work, and heavier, vehicle-borne systems for med-to-high-alt work. It both is and isn't rocket science, lol


Heavier systems aren't mobile, they are static defences for infrastructure.

The Russian fixation on so many mobile SAM systems is a testament to their Air Forces inability to every achieve air superiority over a battlefield.
And these systems against any credible enemy are just more targets.

If there is anything bar helicopters operating above the FEBA, your Air Force has failed


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 5, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Heavier systems aren't mobile, they are static defences for infrastructure.
> 
> The Russian fixation on so many mobile SAM systems is a testament to their Air Forces inability to every achieve air superiority over a battlefield.
> And these systems against any credible enemy are just more targets.
> ...



Actually, systems heavier than MANPADs can indeed be mobile, and often are, and the US has built them as well. The control of airspace over the battlefield is a combination of air-superiority fighters, large mobile missile systems, light mobile systems, and MANPADs. This is the layering I was referring to.

















I wouldn't call the S-400 just "one more target". It's got a range north of 275 miles and some pretty good fire-control. That's a little outside of Stinger territory, and is still mobile. The Patriot is also a pretty healthy mobile system as well, although it's a bit long in the tooth.

Relying solely on MANPADs and manned fighter aircraft leaves large gaps in an air-defense net.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (May 6, 2022)

Patriots are indeed long in the tooth, I'm not sure how well they are going to do against lower radar signature planes like some of the new Chinese fighters and even against conventional targets like SCUDS they didn't do so great.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 6, 2022)

Wouldn't the Patriot system have been receiving upgrades over the years?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 6, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Patriots are indeed long in the tooth, I'm not sure how well they are going to do against lower radar signature planes like some of the new Chinese fighters and even against conventional targets like SCUDS they didn't do so great.



Agreed, but my point was that this claim that large, mobile SAM systems are useless doesn't seem to be borne out in general, and also that they are a part of a layered anti-aircraft system. No one system is perfect, which is precisely why defenses are, ideally, layered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 6, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Wouldn't the Patriot system have been receiving upgrades over the years?


Yes, quite a few.









Patriot Missile Long-Range Air-Defence System


Patriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air defence system to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft.




www.army-technology.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (May 6, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Agreed, but my point was that this claim that large, mobile SAM systems are useless doesn't seem to be borne out in general, and also that they are a part of a layered anti-aircraft system. No one system is perfect, which is precisely why defenses are, ideally, layered.



yes I agree with this point. The best long range SA system in the US seems to be the Navy's Standard missile, by far. That one is world class and seems to keep being improvable.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## space dodo (May 6, 2022)

I think probably designs like the abrams or the merkava will be the go-to for the next couple of decades.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (May 6, 2022)

With some kind of active defense system ala Trophy, and an extra layer of anti-drone defense (drone killing drones, IMO)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 9, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Actually, systems heavier than MANPADs can indeed be mobile, and often are, and the US has built them as well.


They’re on trucks, and not really any more mobile than a 6x6 bus or M977 awd truck. The tracked variety is what you need once you’re off the main roads. But unlike the Russian Buk-M shown below, the NATO tracked SAMs seem to be shorter ranged.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 9, 2022)

You also design for your intended environment. 

Western Europe has one road density, eastern Europe (old Eastern Poland) a different road density. Belarus/Ukraine a different road density and some mid-eastern countries another.

Using tracked chassis if you are rarely going to be operating more than 20KM from a paved road with a 50km range missile seems a bit of overkill. 
Even a 24km missile like the 2K12 Kub doesn't need to be only a few km from the tanks, it might only need to be 8-10k? 

If your road network sucks you need to compensate for it.

If you don't operate in deep snow (or mud) very often then tracks may be over kill. 

How good are your wheeled chassis? not all trucks have the same mobility. 
Not all tracked vehicles have the same mobility. 

Tracked chassis cost over twice as much over their life times in fuel/maintenance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 10, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> They’re on trucks, and not really any more mobile than a 6x6 bus or M977 awd truck. The tracked variety is what you need once you’re off the main roads. But unlike the Russian Buk-M shown below, the NATO tracked SAMs seem to be shorter ranged.
> 
> View attachment 667609
> 
> View attachment 667610



When you've got a missile range of 160 or so km (Patriot) or 400 km (S-400), being road-bound doesn't really hamper operational effectiveness. What's needed at that point is good camouflage and good ground security.

Tracked vehicles are great for providing short-range AD for advancing columns, but for an area-defense system they're not a great add-on value. Not to mention the fact that longer-range missiles are of necessity heavier, so going off-road has other, non-combat hazards involved.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jagdflieger (May 10, 2022)

Up to the 70's aside the Hawk system (medium range) all other long range NATO SAM systems e.g. Nike/Bloodhound were static. - whilst the Soviets had turned all AA and SAM systems to be mobile due to obvious reasons. With the rise of anti-tank helicopters and NATO's change towards flexible response the short range systems e.g. German Gepard, Roland (tracked and 8x8) and Manpad systems were added.

Patriot was the first NATO SAM system to be mobile and they are all truck mounted, since the missile carrier is one issue, but far more systems/vehicles are required within a SAM battery in regards to command post, and tracking radars. AFAIK the Soviets turned partially to track mounted missile carriers due to having tracked vehicles in abundance - whilst 8x8 trucks are far more versatile in rugged and muddied terrain then SAM carrying tracked vehicles and offer a far more reduced heat signature then tracked vehicles.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (May 10, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I wouldn't call the S-400 just "one more target". It's got a range north of 275 miles and some pretty good fire-control. That's a little outside of Stinger territory, and is still mobile. The Patriot is also a pretty healthy mobile system as well, although it's a bit long in the tooth.
> 
> Relying solely on MANPADs and manned fighter aircraft leaves large gaps in an air-defense net.



Range north of 275 miles?
Oh Please!

It CAN detect a target at 275 miles, as long as its a large civil airliner flying above 30,000ft
Against fighter sized targets? 45 miles tops on a good day.
There's a VERY good reason S-400 has <25 mile range SHORAD missiles in some of its tubes - they are for self defence from attacking fighters.

Ya canna change the laws of physics, not even the Russians - S-400 needs an AWACS to target anything flying low beyond 25 miles miles.
And if you have an AWACS to guide SAMS, why isn't it guiding fighters at far greater ranges as BARCAP?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 10, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Range north of 275 miles?
> Oh Please!It CAN detect a target at 275 miles, as long as its a large civil airliner flying above 30,000ft
> 
> Against fighter sized targets? 45 miles tops on a good day.
> ...



Or even a raised antenna, which is a common workaround to expand a radar horizon.

And yeah, I'd kinda expect a SAM system to have some missiles for self-defense.



Macandy said:


> And if you have an AWACS to guide SAMS, why isn't it guiding fighters at far greater ranges as BARCAP?



Maybe those fighters are executing offensive missions rather than pulling standing patrols?

Hey, if large mobile systems are useless, how come so many militaries use them? Remember, that's the claim I'm disagreeing with.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (May 10, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Or even a raised antenna, which is a common workaround to expand a radar horizon.
> 
> And yeah, I'd kinda expect a SAM system to have some missiles for self-defense.
> 
> ...




No, even in GWI, the Patriots stayed well to the rear with the gear defending fixed installations from SCUDS, not moving up as air defence units. Nothings changed.
Patriot batteries don't carry rinky  SHORAD missiles to defend themselves - its a Russian thing, their telegraph pole sized missiles are not much use against anything with teeth.

The Russians have huge numbers of organic mobile SAM's because they expect to be mauled 24/7 by NATO Fast Air and loose any fighter cover in the first day.

NATO can rely on total air superiority from the off, big SAMS on your FEBA are Gods way of saying you are getting beaten.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 10, 2022)

Macandy said:


> NATO can rely on total air superiority from the off, big SAMS on your FEBA are Gods way of saying you are getting beaten.



Not sure where you got the idea I was saying they are or should be placed on FEBA. At any rate, that's clearly a misunderstanding on your part of what it is that I'm saying, which is that large mobile systems aren't "useless". They have uses such as airspace denial (ever wonder why the Ukrainian Air Force is cautious about flying high even around Lviv? there's one use right there) or supplementing air assets in air control.

Now --you neglected to answer my question -- if these systems are useless, why are so many militaries investing in them?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 10, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> if these systems are useless, why are so many militaries investing in them?


Kickbacks?
Employment after military retirement? 

Seriously I expect the answer is somewhere in the middle.

The ability/capability of many things like AA missiles is not at all easy to figure out even for anybody not working with them or up grading them. 

With so much of their ability/capability depending on radar/sensors/computer power rather than range figure or speed or altitude it gets very hard for some one without up to date military briefings to figure out what they can and can't do. 
Or to figure out what different upgrades have done. 
Or to figure out what their opponents upgrades and countermeasures have done. 

And figure out who is doing what.
If the Air Force and the Army are battling it out over budgets who is going to get the new toys, who is going to get upgraded toys.
Who is declared redundant and retired 2 years before pension kicks in?


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 14, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> MBTs still have their place, if used properly.


Have post-war Russian made tanks ever had success, no matter how used?


----------



## GrauGeist (May 14, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Have post-war Russian made tanks ever had success, no matter how used?


I'm sure there are several instances, but the one that comes to mind, is the tank battle in southern Iran back in '81, during the Iran-Iraq war.
Iraq's Soviet tanks held the upper hand against Iran's M-60s and Cheiftans.

I suppose I could look it up for better details, but going by memory, both sides were fairly matched in number, but Iran lost two-thirds of their armor force during the battle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (May 15, 2022)

That's correct. Which shows it's a lot to do with how they are used. That doesn't say much for the Russian tactical training.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 15, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> That's correct. Which shows it's a lot to do with how they are used. That doesn't say much for the Russian tactical training.


I have to go by memory, I'm having a hell of a time looking at stuff on this phone with one eye (see the "what annoyed you today" thread as to why), but Iraq had launched an offensive into southern Iran and Iranian elements tried to refuse the incursion with disastrous results.


----------



## WARSPITER (May 15, 2022)

The Iranian army lost between 100 and 200 Chieftan and M60 tanks due partly to trying to move through marshes but
they were mainly up against T-55 and T-64 tanks so had they known what they were doing they would have done better.
Iraq lost between 40 and 50 tanks.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 15, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> The Iranian army lost between 100 and 200 Chieftan and M60 tanks due partly to trying to move through marshes but
> they were mainly up against T-55 and T-64 tanks so had they known what they were doing they would have done better.
> Iraq lost between 40 and 50 tanks.


Chieftan vs. T-55 and T-64 is akin to a Tiger II vs. M4 Shermans. If numbers are similar it should have been no contest.


----------



## Jagdflieger (May 15, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Chieftan vs. T-55 and T-64 is akin to a Tiger II vs. M4 Shermans. If numbers are similar it should have been no contest.


IIRC at the time more or less the entire officer and NCO ranks of the previous Shah regime had fled or being forced to leave the Iranian armed Forces.
Also the US was heavily involved in supplying intel and satellite information towards Iraq - interestingly also in "favor" for the Iranians in the later stages of the war.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 16, 2022)

Russia has nationalized Renault’s Moscow factory. Here’s the next Russian tanks…

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (May 16, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Russia has nationalized Renault’s Moscow factory. Here’s the next Russian tanks…



So that picture then becomes "A Ukrainian soldier stands next to abandoned Russian T-92".

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 16, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> So that picture then becomes "A Ukrainian soldier stands next to abandoned Russian T-92".


Your caption is doubtful, as rarely would a Ukranian solder get a chance to pose by a Russian tank before a Ukranian farmer has towed it away

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (May 17, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Your caption is doubtful, as rarely would a Ukranian solder get a chance to pose by a Russian tank before a Ukranian farmer has towed it away


True. Therefore it will be 
"Ukrainian soldier waiting to help hook up an abandoned T-92 when the JD removal battalion arrives."

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 17, 2022)

WARSPITER said:


> True. Therefore it will be
> "Ukrainian soldier waiting to help hook up an abandoned T-92 when the JD removal battalion arrives."


That works!


----------



## ARTESH (May 17, 2022)

Something like those shown in video game: Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars.



Google Image Result for https://thegamerhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Command-And-Conquer-3.jpg


----------



## space dodo (May 17, 2022)

There were also those tank battles in desert storm where the Abrams would take on soviet takes and obliterate them.


----------



## ARTESH (May 17, 2022)

space dodo said:


> There were also those tank battles in desert storm where the Abrams would take on soviet takes and obliterate them.


If memo serves correctly, The Iraqi unit was the 10th Independent Armoured Brigade, armed with T-72s.

The very same unit, almost destroyed Iranian 2nd Brigade of 92nd Armoured Division, back in 1980.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

