Tanks post-2022: what now?

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.

Click to expand...

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

Thumpalumpacus said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Thumpalumpacus said:

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

Click to expand...

Well - not exactly...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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

SaparotRob said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

I did not know that.

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

SaparotRob said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

You forgot to add the M60A3 was super cool.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

GrauGeist said:

Well - not exactly...


View attachment 662630

Click to expand...

They left them parked illegally and they got towed away.

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.

Click to expand...

Way cool! Reduce, reuse, recycle.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Seen it. Very enlightening vid.