The Next Generation MBT - Page 2

T_igger_cs_30 · 01-22-2007, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zraver

Won't work, mixed forces ar eby design support units and armor is the combat arm of decsion not extra value add ons to other formations. heavy/mediummixes have never worked well why repeat the past to learn the same lessons? Also team commander swill be screaming for the heavies not the mediums.

fair comment, and even 2 years ago I may have totally agreed with you, but given the ever changing scenarios on the playing fields we are seeing now,I feel incorperated with the right doctrine, which has still to be written, using lessons learned from the past, I see it as a very viable option in all arms scenario's

The quest in tanks is to keep mobility, protection, and firepower increasing without further weight increases. There are several ways this might happen. Directed energy weapons or gauss/ mass driver weapons. Advances in chemistry/ceramics/ metallurgy may create hybrid composit eamror package supported by the latest in NxRA or ElRA.

No argument from me here, but the same can be said and used, to increase the effectivness of the Medium Armour vehicles.

Automotivetechnology continues to improve allowing more power and range for less weight.

Agreed

I really don't see a valid military reason for medium tanks. transport issue sare essentially economic not military. Want more transport: build it in peace time. War is not the right place to leanr you put your eggs in the wrong basket.

The validity has to be proved, I agree with the rest of your paragraph.

T_igger_cs_30 · 01-22-2007, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave lukins

Gents, with the reign of the guided weapons of todays technology would you like to be in a tank on todays modern battlefield?

Dave, and given the "Top Attack" capability of some of this generations ATGW, makes your question even more relevant.

ArmchairGeneral · 01-22-2007, 19:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zraver

Yes, cavalry survived the pike, rifle, machine gunb, and ATGM.

I would disagree slightly with this statement. It is correct, in that we still have cavalry, even after all those countermeasures were developed, but with the introduction of the machine gun, cavalry was relegated to a much lesser role temporarily. It was reborn with the invention of the tank, but who's to say another leap in firepower will not have the same effect on tanks?

Stan187 · 01-22-2007, 20:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

I would disagree slightly with this statement. It is correct, in that we still have cavalry, even after all those countermeasures were developed, but with the introduction of the machine gun, cavalry was relegated to a much lesser role temporarily. It was reborn with the invention of the tank, but who's to say another leap in firepower will not have the same effect on tanks?

Its a tit-for-tat relationships. People thought the era of the tank was over in 1945. Then 1973. If not a tank, a different form a cavalry will stand up. But currently, considering the use tanks are getting even in MOUT, I think that tanks are here to stay.

zraver · 01-22-2007, 21:17 PM

Tig,

Quote:

fair comment, and even 2 years ago I may have totally agreed with you, but given the ever changing scenarios on the playing fields we are seeing now,I feel incorperated with the right doctrine, which has still to be written, using lessons learned from the past, I see it as a very viable option in all arms scenario's

Would you ride a T-90 into battle vs modern ATGMs and MBT's? It's a modern medium. it has less armor than an MBT might equal the firepower and has no advantag ein speed. Modern automotive technology beign wha tit is the MBT can do everything a medium can, exocet better. Roads and bridges are already build to class 70 and MBT's ar ealready built to rail tunnel specs. The only advantage of a medium is deployability, and in the logn run better transports are prefferable to less capable tanks.

Quote:

No argument from me here, but the same can be said and used, to increase the effectiveness of the Medium Armour vehicles.

With MBT's haging in to surivability by thier fingernails how will a medium compete? Modern anti-tank weapons ar egeared towards killing behemoiths and pack an amazing wallop. A medium simply can't pack enough armor to survive and if it does it trades dangerously on firepower or mobility.

Quote:

Dave, and given the "Top Attack" capability of some of this generations ATGW, makes your question even more relevant.

And the MBT is already evolving to coutner this threat (Leo 2A6 as an example) and the threat does not even exist yet for any western MBT. Russian and Chinese weapons are still beam riders and frontal aspect attack weapons.

Armchair,

Quote:

I would disagree slightly with this statement. It is correct, in that we still have cavalry, even after all those countermeasures were developed, but with the introduction of the machine gun, cavalry was relegated to a much lesser role temporarily. It was reborn with the invention of the tank, but who's to say another leap in firepower will not have the same effect on tanks?

The machine gun never did in cavalry. it removed one aspects of its function the charge. it still remained a critcal arm for screening, rear area security, and explotation missions. Cav enjoyed a feild day in the East, in the wes tthe industrial sized armies anda flawed doctrine of attrition through bombardment removed the ability of the cavalry to function. The chance of a solid wall of anti-tank capable weapons (similar to the WW1 Western fronts density of machine guns) ever being deployed across the breadth of a single nation (outside of North korea) let alone a continet is very very remote.

lemontree · 01-23-2007, 00:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave lukins

Gents, with the reign of the guided weapons of todays technology would you like to be in a tank on todays modern battlefield?

Yes, its much better than being dug in some FDL and getting pounded by arty. There are always pros and cons in every arm.

T_igger_cs_30 · 01-23-2007, 03:33 AM

Zraver,
good comment,s and even fairer point's.

The question "would I ride a.... into battle " is a mute point" as I or anyone of us would ride into battle with whatever we are equiped with at the time of deployment as we always have.
We can counter all day with historical example's and modern day statistic's, but I think that those example's have been well covered by most posters on this thread.
The day of one element of any fighting force winning the war, I think we can all agree is long gone, if it indeed it ever truly existed.So we constantly search for the right mix, the right balance to achieve our aims.
all of us that served 20 or more years in our relevant branches of the military have at some point seen "the wheel being reinvented" sometimes effectively sometimes not.
We do not like it but the economic factor of maintaining an effective fighting force is always going to be with us now,It has been a long time since"the spoils of war" have covered this cost, therefore finding the right "mix" or "balance" is more imortant than ever.
"All Arms intergration" is more important now than ever before, and therefore thats why we will see a re growth in the use of medium armour (MA) within our fighting forces.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Debate about China, india and US economies, by Businessweek	oneman28	Political Discussions	7	11-28-2007 08:43 AM
Pakistan Economy	Neo	Political Discussions	3653	11-06-2007 10:30 AM
Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) - Back to the Future or Fraud?	Shek	The Staff College	42	05-06-2007 09:35 AM
Iraq fuels Global Jihad	Ray	Political Discussions	4	12-23-2006 12:43 PM
Pakistan's 25 years energy security plan.	Neo	Political Discussions	1	07-11-2005 08:31 AM

01-23-2007, 03:33 AM	#22 (permalink)
T_igger_cs_30 *Military Professional* Join Date: 01-04-07 Location: Canada Posts: 1,943 Country:	Zraver, good comment,s and even fairer point's. The question "would I ride a.... into battle " is a mute point" as I or anyone of us would ride into battle with whatever we are equiped with at the time of deployment as we always have. We can counter all day with historical example's and modern day statistic's, but I think that those example's have been well covered by most posters on this thread. The day of one element of any fighting force winning the war, I think we can all agree is long gone, if it indeed it ever truly existed.So we constantly search for the right mix, the right balance to achieve our aims. all of us that served 20 or more years in our relevant branches of the military have at some point seen "the wheel being reinvented" sometimes effectively sometimes not. We do not like it but the economic factor of maintaining an effective fighting force is always going to be with us now,It has been a long time since"the spoils of war" have covered this cost, therefore finding the right "mix" or "balance" is more imortant than ever. "All Arms intergration" is more important now than ever before, and therefore thats why we will see a re growth in the use of medium armour (MA) within our fighting forces.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)