Tanks post-2022: what now?

[Denniss]

As I said above - they should have built the wider Panzer IV chassis with the Panzer III suspension. Its superior torsion bar suspension was introduced in 1939 with the E model.
If they had not wasted so much resources (both materiel and manpower) into these two similar-sized tanks they could have improved the Panzer IV a lot with torsion bars very early on.

 

[Gary Cain]

As I said above - they should have built the wider Panzer IV chassis with the Panzer III suspension. Its superior torsion bar suspension was introduced in 1939 with the E model.
If they had not wasted so much resources (both materiel and manpower) into these two similar-sized tanks they could have improved the Panzer IV a lot with torsion bars very early on.

Ahhh, ok, I missed that part. I agree with you, on the suspension superiority of the PZIII.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Panther is an excellent example of how not to design and produce a tank. On paper it's brilliant.
Excellent gun, armour, and mobility. Everything covered.

In reality it was really good as a long range tank destroyer but in other aspects of a tanks prime use such
as infantry support / protection which required close in fighting and good HE coverage, it doesn't rate any
higher than poor.

This video series goes over all the design flaws you mention, and more.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TL2KO2maIkU&pp=ygUTSW5zaWRlIHBhbnRoZXIgdGFuaw%3D%3D

They made an expensive to produce, complicated to use/maintain lemon around an excellent gun.

In the narrator's POV the best tank ever made is the Centurion.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=638QflWLdWE&pp=ygUmaW5zaWRlIHRoZSBjaGllZnRhaW4ncyBoYXRjaCBjZW50dXJpb24%3D

 

[Denniss]

WoT sponsored vids? Really ?

 

[WARSPITER]

The man who does them is a tanker who saw service in the Iraq war and is well informed as
he looks at tanks from a users perspective rather than quoting myths and legends.

 

[SaparotRob]

He has first hand experience with the Abrams and working along side the Bradley, from a command position.

 

[Ovod]

Yep. As far as WW2 RAF combat aircraft, all they needed was Spitfires, Mosquitos and Lancasters in vast quantities. But no, they had to make a cornucopia of competing and/or mediocre designs. And tanks, why put a 2pdr with no HE round into your tanks? The US put both HE and canister rounds in their 37mm.

Of those three aircraft the production of one of them could have been considered insufficient during the first few years of the war, the next one didn't enter service until the second half of 1941 (with many variants of the airframe design not entering service until later) while the last aircraft didn't enter service until 1942. How exactly do you suppose the RAF could have participated in the first half of WWII solely with aircraft that weren't actually available?

 

[Shortround6]

Hawker Demons hold the line until 1942

Shares a lot parts with Hawker biplane light bombes so they can be made cheaply.

 

[wlewisiii]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VP1NwbbjeU

 

[Admiral Beez]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VP1NwbbjeU

Why not send both?

 

[RogerdeLluria]

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.

I know I'm a year late, but this is what you are envisioning: A drone dispensing smaller drones

New Pods Will Allow Reaper Drones To Hunt Submarines And Launch Small Weapons And Drones

Recent tests show how the pods will enable MQ-9s to take on anti-submarine missions, but that's just the beginning.

www.thedrive.com

General Atomics recently announced that it had successfully flight-tested a dispenser pod as part of a broader demonstration of anti-submarine warfare capabilities it is developing for its MQ-9B SeaGuardian drone. In this particular test, the pods were used to release sonobuoys, but the company has said that they will also be able to launch precision-guided munitions, as well as small unmanned aircraft, the latter of which could then potentially operate as an autonomous swarm.

 

[yulzari]

I had a dream once that the Valentine tanks made in Canada swapped out their 2pdrs for USA 37mm and instead of shipping to Russia, shipped to Malaya - along with thousands of HE and canister rounds. Even if we stick with the 2pdr, we'll tear up the thinly armoured Japanese tanks. Unfortunately I also need to change the calendar a little for the tanks to arrive on time, since the very first Canadian-built Valentine rolled off the production line in May 1941.

Valentine tank

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...

www.silverhawkauthor.com

The ANZACs did well with their Valentines in the jungle. I believe they'd got the 6pdr version with its HE round.

View attachment 722240


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7zh4nGFSh0

They used the pre WW2 76.2mm close support howitzer as fitted to a proportion of Valentines and Matilda II. Unsuited to normal tank HE work but ideal for the extreme close range requirements of jungle tank warfare.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Visited CFB Petawawa yesterday on a 2000 km round trip with my motorcycle club. Here are some photos, including a Leopard 1 with add-on armour that Ukraine might want, and an ASU-57 that would suit the antiques Putin is sending to the front.

 

[Admiral Beez]

 

[Admiral Beez]

Interesting info


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gJz8cVUvYws

 

[PFVA63]

Thanks for the link. That was informative.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Thanks for the link. That was informative.

I thought so too. I had no idea that beyond the pointy or shaped bit, NATO 120mm rounds were made of cellulose, nor how fragile they were when handling. I expect the soft casing allows for easier, less explosive burn offs from BOPs.

 

[RogerdeLluria]

On the future of T-14 Armata

Wanted to write this since the start of the war, but never found the time to do so. In the end it has become quite a long text despite being a short version (initially the history of V-2 was much more detailed).

TLDR: It has no future.

When the T-14 Armata tank was unveiled at the 9 May Victory Day parade, in 2015, it embarrassingly broke down in front of thousands of spectators. Eight years later it can be stated the T-14 is over. To understand why T-14 has been a failure and there is no way to save it, we need a bit of history on soviet tank engines.

The V-2 engine is a diesel V12 designed by the Soviet Union in the 1930s, and is most famous for powering, yes you guessed it, the T-34s fielded during WWII. However, work on this engine continued on, being used in the T-54/55, T-62, T-72 and T-90. You read that right, many of Russia's current main battle tanks use a modified version of the T-34's engine.

The development of the V-2 started in 1931 as a potential new engine for future Soviet tanks and aircraft. It was originally developed in the Kharkiv Locomotive Factory (in today's Ukraine). The V-2 was an impressively modern design for the 1930s, with double overhead cams and four valves per cylinder. It displaced a huge 38.8 liters (2,367.7 cu in) and, in its initial variants, had an output of 500 hp. Despite being around 70 years old, the V-2, albeit in modernized form, found itself powering Russia's third generation MBT, the T-90. Latest T-90 variants T-90AM and T-90MS feature the upgraded 1,130 hp V-92S2F a direct descendant of the original V-2. This piece of engineering is now around 90 years old. There are few pieces of technology, let alone engines, that have remained in service for as long as the V-2.

A notable exception to the V-2 saga is the T-64, which carried a 5TDF engine. Some claim it's a failed attempt to copy the German wartime bomber engine Junkers Jumo 205. It certainly was inspired by it. Like the Jumo its a 2-stroke diesel engine with opposed pistons sharing a single cylinder per pair. The engine although small, compact and powerful was not very reliable, plus the T-64 was expensive to manufacture. The engine its produced in Ukraine, that is why Russia is returning to service older stored tanks like T-54/55 and T-62 but not the T-64 while Ukraine is fielding a few hundred T-64. The other exception is the T-80 that was powered by the SG-1000 gas turbine. A special case is the T-80UD variant, a diesel version with 1,000 hp 6TD (an evolution of the 5TDF engine) that was produced in Ukraine.

The T-14 Armata also started with a new engine, the X-shaped A-85-3. Again, there are claims that it's a (failed) Russian copy of the German X-shaped Simmering SLA 16 tank engine being developed at the end of WWII. The Sla 16 engine never entered production because of the German surrender in May 1945. The majority of Sla 16 parts, tooling, and equipment were captured by the Soviet Union. The A-85-3 however was not designed for a tank but rather as a unit for compressor oil and gas pumping stations. It proved a flop and failed to make any sales. Uralvagonzavod decided to use the engine as the basis of a novel tank: The T-14 Armata. The tank was designed around the engine and not the other way around. The A-85-3 was smaller and more powerful than the V-92S2F fitted to the modern T-90s.

On November 2014, Russian Defense Ministry television announced that the new tank will surpass all world analogues. These vehicles will replace the three main tanks of the Russian army at once: T-72, T-80 and T-90. The Russian Army initially planned to acquire 2,300 T-14s between 2015 and 2020. By 2018, production issues and fiscal shortfalls delayed this to 2025. Still in 2023 Russia only has a handful of test tanks.

On the top of the list of the production issues stands its engine. The A-85-3 did not sell because it was complex, manifested too many problems, and was difficult to maintain. It was assumed the problems would be corrected over time. They have not been and the A-85-3 remains a problem engine. A quick solution might have been to abandon the A-85-3 and refit T-14 Armata with the proven V-92S2F. It will be a bit underpowered, but at least will work, unfortunately the latter is too big and does not fit in the T-14. Second issue is all the sophisticated electronic equipment. Unfortunately for T-14, advanced microelectronics are no longer available due to sanctions.

The final reason why T-14 Armata will not become a production tank is because there is no assembly line. All models to date have been assembled by hand. The plant and workshops were built but are empty. Contracts were signed, but Western machine tools and other technology were never supplied due to sanctions.

Russia's announcement of the deployment of the T-14 Armata in Ukraine can only be interpreted as an act of propaganda. That tank is far from having a decisive role in this war. More recently it's been reported that T-14 has completed combat trials and has been withdrawn from the frontline. Yet, no footage of T-14 in combat has emerged.

 

[GrauGeist]

As far as vintage tanks go, just imagine what Ukraine could do with a few hundred of these.

 

[Admiral Beez]

As far as vintage tanks go, just imagine what Ukraine could do with a few hundred of these.

View attachment 730577

The Poles may have some Sturmgeschütz.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/08/02/wwii-stug-wreck-recovered-river-bed-poland-running-year-later/