casscot

What is the next generation of MBT going to be like. Is it going to bigger than the current crop or will the be smaller. I read somewhere can't mind where that some country was experimenting with plastic armour to save weight. I havent come to an decision yet but I think bigger might be better but what do u guys think?

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Dave Lewis

Glyn.I agree with you that tanks have reached there nominal fighting weight at the moment.I read somewhere recently(can;t remember were)that future tanks would be scaled down in both size and weight(poss for as you say transportation purposes)but will be upgunned to maintain current firepower capabilities.The down grading in size could also have something to do with the terrain that is presently in force in certain parts of the world.Role on the medium tank.?.

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?

Stan187

Yeah. Still comparatively safe.

Dave Lewis

Only if it was turret down.

zraver

Yes, cavalry survived the pike, rifle, machine gunb, and ATGM. The simple fac tis armies need the ability to inflict shock through the application of fire power and mobility. To an extent helicopters have taken over the role of light cavalry and harrassers. But you still need the awesome direct fire capabilities a tank provides. Both to help on the attack and on the defence. As advanced as guided weapons have gotten most are still not cost effective and a generation behind. Already the worlds most advanced systems are facing the threat of new types of reactive armor and active counter-measures systems. Advanbces in armor like advances in weapondry will not stop, this race has existed for thousands of years.

What has stopped is the explosive growth of a tanks weight. As new armors offer weight reductions armor levels will increase, weight levels will not decrese. Sure you could make a palstic tank tha thad the protection of an Abrams fopr the weight of T-72 but why when for the same weight your logistics system is already set up for and bridges and rail tunnels already caapble of accomadating you could make a tank with an Abrams weight but 25% better protected?

tankie

I tend to agree Glyn the future isnt rosy , however zraver , makes good points for the time we have now.And Dave , the answer is no.

__________________
TANKIE , WITHOUT WAX

Trucker Mike

first off I am no expert. Now that we are clear, in todays modern warfare you have a undetermined battlefeild of IEDs and land mines. No major force has the " smart weapons" that would worry me. While China is becoming a greater threat they do not have the weapons nor the real exerience to be a effective threat. They are more of a economic threat. When you look at the great tanks out there, I see great strides that have been made with the Leopard II, the M1A1 and many others in NATO. But all these are for the Big Battles done on great battle fields. In the battles of tomorrow I believe we will need smaller more manuveable tanks that have the fire power of todays MBT yet can be rapidly deployed in the tightest of quarters.

__________________
Professional soldiers are predictable; the world is full of dangerous amateurs.

zraver

Unless of course Russia begins rapidly rebuilding its historic empire, North Korea, Iran, WW4 as Globalw arming shifts into global ice Age forcing massed migrations to the few remaining temperate zones.... What we don't is what exactly tommorrow holds in store. While a rapidly deployable high fire power viehicle is needed this role can be met with light tanks and wheeled gun platforms. But only a true MBT offers the combination of fire power, mobility, and survivability neede din a world where only heavy armor works. Anti-viehicle wepaondry can already defeat all but the heaviest armors. That technology isn't going anywhere. This means light viehicles are going to suffer a high degree of attrition.

MBT's actually help lighter viehicles survive by drawing fire. It takes a very well traine dand led force to ignore the tanks to go after the tracks. While weight is capped at around 65-70 tons advances in armor will not reduce this but increase protection. One very important lesson from Iraq vs IED's and ambushes is that there is no replacement for armor.

SnowLeopard

Ever play MetaGaming's Ogre? Bi-Phased Carbide (BPC) armor? A few millimeters of the stuff is quite light, protects against a kiloton blast? Troops can wear that amount, GEV's can carry something similar as can the light tank and missile tank.

But then there was the Heavy Tank, their MBT, and it was loaded down with the stuff. (and Ogres carried 3 meters but that's beyound the point here).

With armor, it does not seem to be an equation of how much one needs, but how much one can carry. In a futuristic reality, I suspect that will be the issue. How much can a tank carry for the cost, for the numbers wanted.

If it is necessary for the tank to fly, then that may be a factor to making it lighter, but I suspect that won't be an issue for two main reasons and a few small ones. First of all, realize that military decisions are often based on how old soldiers think. It may be the greatest thing since whatever, but if it is radially different than before, it may have a hard time catching on. Hence ......

Armor doesn't fly, that's what AirCav is for.

Secondly, flight is more than being light enough, more than having wings of somesort. It's power plant for that purpose, it's fuel that won't vapor lock, it's being streamlined, it's being stressed to fire such a cannon, etc.. A tank that can fly? Sounds nice but I suspect that it will be a very complex system that's not worth the work.

Now, what someone might do is build a GEV tank. That's "easier". It still sounds more of an AirCav issue, but it's not trying to load as much complexity onto the systems.

Basically, though, I expect MBTs to move the heavy bunker like approach they have always been.
-----------------------------------------
(The Huvies took off, climbing to about 100m's on their air cushions/antigrav units, moving at about Mach 1.--description from Karl Hanson's "Dreamgames" (w,stte), book)

ArmchairGeneral

The question, as far as I can tell, is whether armor technology will keep up with firepower increases. With the development of longbows and firearms, heavy armor virtually disappeared from land warfare for half a millenium. Cavalry still was a vital part of the battlefield, but it depended on mobility for protection, not armor.

With the rapid growth in firepower in the pre-WWI years, the effectiveness of cavalry was reduced greatly. The static warfare of WWI resulted. However, the combination of the internal combustion engine and modern armor provided a suitable replacement, the tank, which brought back mobile warfare.

In the century following, armor and firepower have both developed dramatically, but have kept pace with each other reasonably well. It's been a seesaw battle between firepower and protection, but so far the results have followed the Red Queen hypothesis: it's taken all the running they can do to stay in the same place.

It seems to me that it's hard to predict whether one technology or another will develop faster in the future, or run into a brick wall. But long term I think I'd bet on firepower over armor. In which case it would be interesting to see what would follow. Historically, mobility sufficed to keep cavalry effective, but I wonder if that would work today? There are limits to how fast you can move on land, and I have a feeling that might not be enough to protect you from modern weapons. So will some other way of staying alive develop? Or will cavalry go airborne all the way? Or will massive firepower stall the battlefield, a la World War I? Or will there be developments (carbon nanotubes? force fields?) in armor that allow the modern MBT to survive in some form or another?

Or am I just another armchair general spouting nonsense?

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

T_igger_cs_30

__________________
FEAR NAUGHT

I don't work here ...I am an analyst!

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.

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.

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

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.

Officer of Engineers

Brigade recee should not be done by tanks, at least not the 70 ton monsters. 3-7Cav example not withstanding.

__________________
Chimo