Tanks post-2022: what now?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Tanks are still important as is their proper use.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
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.
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
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
1st Sergeant
That's why we we will use the acronym AFV.
An armored fighting vehicle (Panzerkampfwagen) can take many forms.
An armored fighting vehicle (Panzerkampfwagen) can take many forms.
"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.
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.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
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.
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.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Light wheeled armor has always looked cool. Just sayin'.
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
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
- Thread starter
- #11
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Admiral Beez
Captain
Have postwar Russian tanks ever had success on the battlefield?
Yes but only when used by Ukrainians.
Israeli use as well.
Admiral Beez
Captain
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
It's a secret.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
