[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Tanks (Page 1 of 6)
Posted: 4/7/2005 7:23:34 PM EDT
|
The infamous World War 2 matchup: M4 "Sherman" vs. Pz VI "Tiger" A quote from a German tank commander captured by the Americans during World War 2: "One of our tanks can kill about 5 of yours, but you always seem to have 6." Interestingly enough (but not surprisingly), the driving force behind the development of the M1 Abrams were World War 2 tankers. There were two absolute requirements: 1. Kill the enemy with the first shot. 2. Keep the crew alive. What is the next generation MBT? What characteristics should it have? Discuss armored vehicles. |
|
I believe what made US tanks so effective in recent engagements is better electronics/imaging and speed. I think lighter, faster vehicles are where we are headed. We will emphasize reliability, moderate firepower and to some extent, economy. There will always be a need for heavy armor, but lighter armor is more versatile in the kind of environments forseen in the immediate future. |
So let's start fielding the Scorpion series of tanks. Those suckers are fast and tougher than they look on paper. |
smaller, faster designed to stand up in urban fighting against RPG or heavier anti tank armed infantry at close range. Tanks will be used as much to back up infantry against other infantry in urban conflicts as to fight out other tanks. Since we have always had air control in recent conflicts enemy tanks can be dealt with from the air most of the time, I would think |
Agree to a point. Speed is where it is at. The ability to direct armor support where it is needed and for that support to reach it's target as quickly as possible would be a good strategy. Unfortunately either engines have to get twice as powerful or armor has to be reduced. I imagine a cross between a MBT and an IFV will ensue. Vehicle with a moderate main canon supported by some type of TOW missle system. Maybe even something with electromagnet pulse ability. Knocking out electronics in a radius to disable other tanks computers/sensors/etc. |
I just read an AAR which stated that patrols in the M1 were being done at 3-5mph to allow them to find and react to threats. |
I was just pointing out that we been down the "lighter, faster more mobile" road before and got burned. |
Absolutely... imagine advances led by fast, remote controlled light armor supported by R/C drones. Heavier units following with feet on the ground. |
|
The Merkava is a great tank, but IMO, the US Army model of the M1A1/A2 would match it or better. I do like the 60mm mortar on the Merkava, though. In fact, I'll say that I would prefer the Merkava over the M1A2 when fighting in MOUT operations against dismounted infantry (insurgents with Soviet style weapons), unless the M1A2 has the TASK upgrade. However, I would not want to be caught alone amongst the enemy with either one of them. As far as the Merkava carrying an infantry fire team, I would want that space for the tank's crew lounge....  As far as I'm concerned, a 65 ton Infantry Fighting Vehicle with spaced armor on top, bottom and all sides, using the M1A2 engine, 30-40mm main gun, 7.62 co-ax, missiles, and a couple dismountable 25mm HMGs would certainly demoralize the RPG gunners. Say eight infantry with a 1,000 lb loadout per troop for ammo, coffee, DVD player, etc....69 tons total, same as the M1A1. |
I don't see how those requirements have changed. Tanks need to be more efficient at both. Future generations of tanks must be able to detect and engage enemy tanks sooner and at longer ranges. They should also have airborne threat detection/defense capabilities. That means built in defense from aircraft as well as missles. |
|
If our military planners learn anything at all from this war, I hope they learn that armor keeps men alive. This Future Combat System that is in development, the various vehicals are supposed to C-130 compatable, which means no more weight than about 17 tons. Without some sort of revolutionary armor these vehicals will be flaming death traps. I've heard no mention of armor for these FCS vehicals, lots of talk about sensors and fire control network intergration, ect, ect, but nothing so far about how they intend to make light vehicals survivable. That electric armor is no good against kinetic energy weapons, such as tank gun sabot rounds, auto cannon, or heavy machine gun. Right now there is no substitute for heavy armor with ERA for extra protection from shaped charge weapons. |
|
A main gun which is able to be elevated more for urban combat? 106mm recoilless rifles loaded with fletchettes on the turret, linked to the main gun for when SHTF and lots of enemy infantry is close by? Forward mounted engine with rear mounted turret akin to the Merkava? More highly sloped armour? |
|
Future tanks will have to have a lot thicker top armor, as even man-portable anti-tank weapons like the Javelin now have a top attack feature. I wouldn't be surprised if an active missile defense system isn't too far away, maybe once laser tech becomes a little more portable. I think kinetic kill projectiles are reaching their near maximum effectiveness with conventional propellant. I wouldn't be surprised if you see a hybridization. Maybe a tank like vehicle with a 25mm - 35mm main gun for dealing with infantry and APCs/IFVs, and LOSAT type missile racks to deal with heavier armored threats. Tank on tank engagements are pretty rare, but the need for heavy armor is still there with the proliferation of anti-tank weapons and IEDs. M1's need a more effective infantry weapon than the .50 cal though. |
| I think that a major update in Cargo Aircraft is in Order. Because If a tank can be hauled in a C-130 It wont last long on the modern battlefield. Unless there is a huge advancement in Lightweight armor Like High stringth plastics or ceramics or somthing which I suppose there could be. I also hope they dont cut the tracks to save weight. |
|
Remote-controlled? I've never been in a tank. And I certainly wouldn't want to be in an enemy tank nowadays. If the Germans could come up with the tanks they came up with in WW2. Why didn't we come up with them first? From what (little) I know, we currently have the best tank on the battlefield. I wonder though, what the 24th century zombies and aliens have in store for us.  I have no doubt that remote-controlled tanks have a lot of technological hurdles to overcome, but is this feasible? That quote ("we kill 5 but you have 6"), if true, says a lot. We had an inferior tank but we had more of them. How many tankers do we have? I wish I had a tank. 
|
Merkava Mk-III supposedly has the ability to engage helicopters with it's main gun. I think they will look for lighter lower better fuel usage, the M8 which the US Army cancelled, had at least one of the proto's rebuilt with electric motors. more anti-personell ability in close more comms "electric" armor |
I hope we can have our cake, and enjoy it too! |
We had some issues the germans didnt, a big one being that we had to ship our tanks over to europe, while the germans cound just drive them to the battlefield, or onto rail cars that would easily transport the heaviest tanks. Our ship yard cargo cranes were pretty much maxed out with the 32 ton Sherman, our river bridging equipment was just able to handle Shermans, there is no way we could of shipped a 60-70 ton tank in any meaningful quantity to compete with the german heavys. What we could have done, and did not, was up gun our Shermans to a point where they had a fair chance of killing all but the King Tiger frontaly. The M36 Jackson was a 90mm gun tank destroyer based on a Sherman chassis, the same gun, in a new turret could have been put in many shermans, giving them real anti tank capability. The Brits put their far more powerful 17 pounder gun in some of their shermans, a varient called the Firefly, the US war dept was not interested in doing this, the mindset was that we had tank destryers to kill tanks, and tanks are to support infantry, tanks are not for killing tanks. |
|
I always thought that they should re-open the Scorpion lines, with suitable modifications for sensors and fire control, and make that the new recon vehicle. I can't think of any reason it wouldn't be highly suitable for such a role. I think Abrams is the last of the American Heavies. The design is going to soldier on for a couple of decades to come yet, Britain's Challenger, Israel's Merk and France's LeClerc are all good for another decade or two as well. Leo's getting about as long in the tooth as Abrams, but I don't see the Germans replacing it either. I think the tank is fast enough for what it needs to do, the major improvements you're going to see on it will be with respect to vision equipment and communications. They will become more 'wired' into the networks. We're starting to see this with M1A2 where a tank can last to a target and the grid for that target can immediately be emailed to the battle computers. Abrams is the last of the modern Heavies to have pathetically thin roof armour. I expect that to be changed soon as well. TUSK is a good start. I'm told that they're mucking around with some sort of plastic/polymer that's tougher than steel to deal with those KE rounds without heavy weights. NTM |
|
Tanks have been optimized for tank to tank combat. I don't think that will be the case in the future. Aircraft, drone combat aircraft, sensors, and precision weapons mean they could and should be attacked and killed before our tanks arrive on the scene. So, what changes can you make if that's the case? Probably less armor--optimize for protection against RPGs and man-portable anti-tank weapons. Assume that larger vehicle-borne weapons can be neturailized by other weapons systems. Offensive weapons? It probably still has to defeat other tanks. Something with a high rate of fire and multi-role, so you can shoot up buildings, dismounted infantry, and other armored vehicles. I don't think you can back off of a large gun-like device there. |
Thats interesting, I expect such armor would be pretty secret for now. I've seen some of these new FCS vehicals using what appear to be rubber/band tracks, it seems like these would greatly reduce track related maintenance as well as reducing noise and vibration. Now I know rubber tracks have been around for ages, I assume the new ones are using more advanced materials and construction. Any thoughts on this? |
I would disagree with this. The Germans were able to ship Tiger tanks to North Africa. I see no reason given our resources that we would be unable to ship heavy tanks to Europe. I think it had more to do with our use of tanks in WW2. They were primarily as support to infantry. The Germans used their tanks as the main thrust for their attacks. The fact remains that the Germans and Russians were well ahead of us in tank design and tactics for most of WW2. |
Exactly, as General Heinz Guderian once said "The engine of the tank is a weapon just as the main-gun." |
|
One thing to learn from Iraq is that war has two phases: Major Combat and Occupation. During the major combat phase you need a tank like the M1. Big Gun, Heavy Armor, Fast. The armor must be very heavy up front were you expect the enemy. You also need light weight humvees (that's for another thread). For the occupation you need a different vehicle. Speed is less important. Armor does not need to be as heavy but must be more evenly distributed. The rear and sides need almost as much as the front. And the top needs a lot too. For a gun you don't need to penetrate a MBT's front armor you need to penetrate a sandbagged bunker. You also need to be able to hit the 6th floor of a building 50 yards away. A less lethal round for rioting crowds would be very useful. The weight and fuel consumption might be less of an issue since it's not going in until after the major combat phase is over. The problem is that the occupation tank would not be very good in the major combat phase. It's too slow, underarmored with a main gun incapable of taking out a MBT. If you follow this approach too far you end up with two separate armies. |
|
They should not compromise firepower or protection. The 'fast and light' concept is how we ended up with the Sherman. It was a conscious decision on our part to not produce heavier and better gunned tanks. Lets not do that again. It had nothing to do with transportation problems. We got the M26s over there eventually after we realized our mistake, just about two years too late. As far as improving the M1A1, I'd say they need to: -increase the fuel effeciency/range -increase the amount of ammo stored, especially 120mm and .50 -improve the commander and gunner MG mounts |