Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Tank Warfare Development
- Thread starter Maine
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #21
Essentially all tank are is a heavily armored & very mobile weapons platforms on a track that also can inspire psychological responses in regards to the battle itself. That said:
Many figure the Main Battle Tank as we know it is about dead. Unless a new superpower with technological, economical and manufacturing capacities beyond our wildest dreams, immerges overnight to provide the ultimate in military surprise, we are going to maintain the almost ten year technological advantage over everyone else. This can easily be shown as a horizontal line on the technological S curve. Without competition to our MBT; its own advanced ability has flatlined its further progress line.
One thing to remember is that the horse cav took forever to finally be reduced to a non essential military asset. This was mainly due to its outdated but politically strong supporters. The loss of ground from horse to mech was primarily due to the machine gun. Would it be too much to imagine a new tactic being able to stop the tank all the time? Masterplays are not unheard of, rare as they are.
I do see the battle suit as something to either replace the tank or work in conjunction with the tank. Most problems with the battle suit that SF does not deal with well is the logistical support of the suit and that may well be the role that the MBT could most significantly fill. Its heavier weapon or weapons are a welcome addition to the field; but the main weapon would have to be significantly better than the package that the battle suit could offer.
In that futuristic set piece battle, the tank works as long as we deal with conventional armies. Unconventional armies such as of cells and loose, undefined command and control structures will maintain an advantage over the set piece battle as they are not seeking a decisive tactical battle but a series of strategical and significant losses (though economically bias to a win). Totally different doctrine. Too bad it is off the subject except periphierally.
To me, the MBT has to be developed to handle a broader expense of missions as well as the missions that it has already. Alot more should be expected from the new MBT if they are to be developed further.
I did look up the Swed S tank, by the way; did like that chassis idea; it brought to mind that really complex skateboard truck with all the springs from the sixties, if anyone else remembers the issues with that
.
The Mainer
The Mainer...
Many figure the Main Battle Tank as we know it is about dead. Unless a new superpower with technological, economical and manufacturing capacities beyond our wildest dreams, immerges overnight to provide the ultimate in military surprise, we are going to maintain the almost ten year technological advantage over everyone else. This can easily be shown as a horizontal line on the technological S curve. Without competition to our MBT; its own advanced ability has flatlined its further progress line.
One thing to remember is that the horse cav took forever to finally be reduced to a non essential military asset. This was mainly due to its outdated but politically strong supporters. The loss of ground from horse to mech was primarily due to the machine gun. Would it be too much to imagine a new tactic being able to stop the tank all the time? Masterplays are not unheard of, rare as they are.
I do see the battle suit as something to either replace the tank or work in conjunction with the tank. Most problems with the battle suit that SF does not deal with well is the logistical support of the suit and that may well be the role that the MBT could most significantly fill. Its heavier weapon or weapons are a welcome addition to the field; but the main weapon would have to be significantly better than the package that the battle suit could offer.
In that futuristic set piece battle, the tank works as long as we deal with conventional armies. Unconventional armies such as of cells and loose, undefined command and control structures will maintain an advantage over the set piece battle as they are not seeking a decisive tactical battle but a series of strategical and significant losses (though economically bias to a win). Totally different doctrine. Too bad it is off the subject except periphierally.
To me, the MBT has to be developed to handle a broader expense of missions as well as the missions that it has already. Alot more should be expected from the new MBT if they are to be developed further.
I did look up the Swed S tank, by the way; did like that chassis idea; it brought to mind that really complex skateboard truck with all the springs from the sixties, if anyone else remembers the issues with that
. The Mainer
The Mainer...
I've seen the S-tank demonstrated (I'm ex-navy) and I don't think the benefits of a low profile will weigh up the slow aim. Particularly so when opposing a fast and mobile enemy. Syre, you can't hit what you cant see, but thermal imaging must surely be able to pick up the heat from a big diesel engine revving away like crazy, trying to power hydraulics as 20 tons of tank dances around on its tracks trying to get a good aim?
As an aside, I play the game "Battlefiled 1942" a bit, and in this game, there are two classes of tank - Panzer IV or Tiger, Sherman or some British aberrance called the A10. I'm fairly good at this, and every single round I play online demonstrates the same point...
The Pz IV will defeat any other tank because it is easier to drive (at full speed) and mainiain a good aim with. Quite often I will defeat one or a few heavy tanks alone just by moving quickly, taking a good few shots at them and moving around them.
Every once in a while I happen upon a stationary tank - which usually work out practically as a gift wrap. He can't shoot any better than I can, yet he can't move! All you need to do is keep moving, sooner or later you'll find a good angle for a killshot - or just circle around him and move on.
As an aside, I play the game "Battlefiled 1942" a bit, and in this game, there are two classes of tank - Panzer IV or Tiger, Sherman or some British aberrance called the A10. I'm fairly good at this, and every single round I play online demonstrates the same point...
The Pz IV will defeat any other tank because it is easier to drive (at full speed) and mainiain a good aim with. Quite often I will defeat one or a few heavy tanks alone just by moving quickly, taking a good few shots at them and moving around them.
Every once in a while I happen upon a stationary tank - which usually work out practically as a gift wrap. He can't shoot any better than I can, yet he can't move! All you need to do is keep moving, sooner or later you'll find a good angle for a killshot - or just circle around him and move on.
I think the S-Tank was designed with a subtly different scenario in mind. I understand that it was intended to be pureley defensive, and would work from pre-prepared earthworks using the soil to screen the IR signature until the advancing enemy was too close for a good shot.
At that point, it would fall back at speed in reverse (using the second driver, whose crewstation faced that way!) to take it to the next line of earthworks, where the attrition exercise would begin again.
A.
At that point, it would fall back at speed in reverse (using the second driver, whose crewstation faced that way!) to take it to the next line of earthworks, where the attrition exercise would begin again.
A.
Things may change in tanks soon. The GPS guided 155mm Howitzer round in development had it's first test firing a few weeks ago. The ability for the projectile to change course drastically is limited.
I could envision changing the round to a rocket motor driven round with pop out wings (mini cruise missiles), then the turret could be replaced with just a few limited sized barrels, or just vertical launch holes same as the Navy cruise missile launchers.
kch
I could envision changing the round to a rocket motor driven round with pop out wings (mini cruise missiles), then the turret could be replaced with just a few limited sized barrels, or just vertical launch holes same as the Navy cruise missile launchers.
kch
ornerynorsk
Industrial
Tanks will be obsolete in the near future.
I think the territory deinal and threat projection of heavy armour will be very difficult to replace. Armour may evolve like all other arms, but I think it will stay with us for a while still.
Sidenote, I was'nt aware that the S-tank was that dedicated to defense. Almost hard to believe anyone would actually create and build such a thing. Swedes... *lol*
But I've been reading up on german ww2 turretless designs, and they had a few quite sucessful ones. One source claims SS units alone racked up almost 20.000 armour kills using such vehicles. (Which I don't doubt btw, knowing their meticoulos accounting systems.) These were fielded primarily in the last stage, as defensive units. And come to think of it, their design and tactics robably inspired the S..?
Sidenote, I was'nt aware that the S-tank was that dedicated to defense. Almost hard to believe anyone would actually create and build such a thing. Swedes... *lol*
But I've been reading up on german ww2 turretless designs, and they had a few quite sucessful ones. One source claims SS units alone racked up almost 20.000 armour kills using such vehicles. (Which I don't doubt btw, knowing their meticoulos accounting systems.) These were fielded primarily in the last stage, as defensive units. And come to think of it, their design and tactics robably inspired the S..?
I think the "Tanks will be soon obsolete!" idea has been around since soon after Vietnam, but Mr. Abrams and others took issue with the idea, much to the greatfulness of the US Army. Tanks will not soon be obsolete. New versions of tanks may come about- turretless, treadless, misc. functional variety, but the need of a ground-based, highly mobile, hardened shell that can spearhead offensives will never be needless.
...else everything reverts to trench warfare, circa 1919.
The idea of numerical advatage over technoogical advantage is intriguing to me- who wins? The Allies won WWII for the simple reason that more men, supplies, and equipment kept the screws tightening on the Axis. Have we ignored this simple formula for success? I doubt present day USA could contribute in the same way as the country did back in the 1940's in helping to supply the "Arsenal of Democracy".
As far as blue-on-blue, I read somewhere in a metallurgist magazine about an idea to start incorporating a certain rare earth into hardened armor that "glows" when struck by laserlight of specific frequencies.
This would indicate to the firer that the metal belonged to a military asset of American Origin, thereby causing extra consideration to be made before committing to destroy that target.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question