T-95 baby

[T_igger_cs_30]

With new systems like the Trophy APS, the MBT is far from long gone

Your opinion, mine too BR, but those more qualified and knowledgable seem to disagree.

[bigross86]

The Trophy APS has already had it's baptism of fire, and intercepted an RPG launched at one of our tanks. In another case, the system detected a missile launched at the tank, calculated and saw it was no risk to the tank crew and held fire, though it told the crew exactly where the missile had been launched from. The tank crew returned fire and took out the launching team.

The problem is that sometimes those "more qualified and knowledgeable" belong to an older generation, and so approach problems with an old world approach and don't want to hear anything different

[T_igger_cs_30]

The Trophy APS has already had it's baptism of fire, and intercepted an RPG launched at one of our tanks. In another case, the system detected a missile launched at the tank, calculated and saw it was no risk to the tank crew and held fire, though it told the crew exactly where the missile had been launched from. The tank crew returned fire and took out the launching team.

The problem is that sometimes those "more qualified and knowledgeable" belong to an older generation, and so approach problems with an old world approach and don't want to hear anything different

As I said I do not disagree with you BR...however..... we are where we are because of "the older generation, who are more qualified and knowledgable" and in many cases more experienced.

[Nightowl]

It reminds me of the 18" - 20" gun battleship designs, too big to be practical - too many trade offs; ROF, # of rounds, weight, cost, reliability. Do MBT's really need a bigger gun? Aren't existing first tier 12-13 cm projectiles able to defeat enemy tanks at practical ranges now?

I think this particular mockup was part of a Cold War trend of upgunning. From the dimensions of the turret it seems they chose to have all the crew in the hull. I've seen a photo of a different prototype also following this line of design, but I don't remember what the designation was.

In the cold war, tank vs tank battle was the main development focus for tank designers. This resulted in constantly upgrading the armour and guns to match the other party's.... ehm, armour and guns. In the late cold war there were several programs that were trying to take the next step in calibre.



The reason they didn't, was the end of the cold war. Carrying around those big guns would've called for improvements in suspension and propulsion, to retain mobility. After the cold war, there wasn't the budget, nor the need.

It seems to me it would be more productive in the long run to increase MV, not the bore; a 120-125mm is about right, especially since we're mostly using APFSDS rounds anyway, but increasing the MV would make the projectile more accurate AND more effective. As Wisconsin said, we've pretty much already hit the wall in terms of round size; any bigger, and the trade-offs won't be worth it.

That's exactly the direction things went with the Leopard. The KWS I improvement program for the Leo 2 gave us the Leopard 2A6, increasing the gun to L55/120mm (from L44 for the Leo 2A5). The Abrams adopted the same improvement.

The next step is protecting tanks from those nasty little guided missiles. There's some promising developments there. I don't think we'll see the tank disappear any time soon.

[tankie]

I don't think we'll see the tank disappear any time soon.

Quite a lot of Gaddafis just have ;), showing the advantage of airpower and the fire control systems employed ,and as you rightly point out , those nasty little missiles are the way we r going ,,IMO it wont be too far off when tanks become redundant .

[Nightowl]

Quite a lot of Gaddafis just have ;), showing the advantage of airpower and the fire control systems employed ,and as you rightly point out , those nasty little missiles are the way we r going ,,IMO it wont be too far off when tanks become redundant .

:P
thing is that that is very much an uneven playing field. It really was no effort at all to secure air superiority. In a more even conflict, air superiority might not be such a guarantee.

There are a lot of things that are excellent in taking out tanks: guided missiles, apache's, landmines etc. This is because the tank is one of the most powerful things to enter the battlefield, ofcourse people are gonna think of stuff to combat them. While these days it seems that tanks have no lasting power anymore with all the AT gear around, there simply isn't anything around that can do what a tank can do. Two infantry guys with a MILAN can't storm a defensive position and punch a hole in it. Apache's are great strike weapons but no use at all when you're trying to hold ground. You need tanks.

[dave lukins]

OK Stitch, but how do you make 100% hit ratio with 120mm APFSDS anymore accurate?
Increased MV is not needed with this nature of ammunition or system.

Put an over under barrel on. Have one small loader and one very tall loader. Tip each round with an explosive that releases a picture of Tankie into the turret. If that doesn't kill the crew nothing will

[tankie]

Put an over under barrel on. Have one small loader and one very tall loader. Tip each round with an explosive that releases a picture of Tankie into the turret. If that doesn't kill the crew nothing will

[tankie]

:P
thing is that that is very much an uneven playing field. It really was no effort at all to secure air superiority. In a more even conflict, air superiority might not be such a guarantee.

There are a lot of things that are excellent in taking out tanks: guided missiles, apache's, landmines etc. This is because the tank is one of the most powerful things to enter the battlefield, ofcourse people are gonna think of stuff to combat them. While these days it seems that tanks have no lasting power anymore with all the AT gear around, there simply isn't anything around that can do what a tank can do. Two infantry guys with a MILAN can't storm a defensive position and punch a hole in it. Apache's are great strike weapons but no use at all when you're trying to hold ground. You need tanks.

Uneven , and ????? how uneven is it for that turd to let loose tanks against rag tag n bobtail rebels in their toyata MG carriers and rocket launcher's ,, the point to ponder over is just how easily airpower took out his Russian supplied tanks . Yes tanks are a valued weapon of conflict however their time is a'coming soon , personally i would hate to see them redundant , however , times n tech roll on m8

[T_igger_cs_30]

Nightowl - response

You need tanks.

No one is saying WE do not need tanks, and your right to point out the tanks ability to be ablw to blitzkriek across a battlefield in huge numbers or be intimate support and "storm" a defensive position, and once through form the "ring of steel" in preperation of the counter attack whilst the Infantry finsih the position and secure it................ howevever what myself, Tankie and Dave are saying with our combined 75 years give or take experience is, we are not blind to the modern battle field and the new and next generations of ATGW , and new fancy ways of "tank bustin" simply becaue of that.......... the tank has ruled but its days are drawing to an end. Not in the foreseeable future but as we know them I am sure.

[T_igger_cs_30]

The Trophy APS has already had it's baptism of fire, and intercepted an RPG launched at one of our tanks. In another case, the system detected a missile launched at the tank, calculated and saw it was no risk to the tank crew and held fire, though it told the crew exactly where the missile had been launched from. The tank crew returned fire and took out the launching team.

The problem is that sometimes those "more qualified and knowledgeable" belong to an older generation, and so approach problems with an old world approach and don't want to hear anything different

BR I am impressed with this new Isreali designed system, do not get me wrong, but has it been tested against multiple attack? What happens when they start "double teaming it" from different angles and luanching 2 or even 3 missiles at one tank can it cope then? how long does it take to recover after an attack is it immediately reset and ready to go?

If there is one thing I have learned in my years, never mind the boffins who design it some grunt somewhere will find a weakness and it will be exploited.

[Nightowl]

No one is saying WE do not need tanks, and your right to point out the tanks ability to be ablw to blitzkriek across a battlefield in huge numbers or be intimate support and "storm" a defensive position, and once through form the "ring of steel" in preperation of the counter attack whilst the Infantry finsih the position and secure it................ howevever what myself, Tankie and Dave are saying with our combined 75 years give or take experience is, we are not blind to the modern battle field and the new and next generations of ATGW , and new fancy ways of "tank bustin" simply becaue of that.......... the tank has ruled but its days are drawing to an end. Not in the foreseeable future but as we know them I am sure.

You're probably right. Eventually tanks will be so easy to take out by cheap weapons that they hardly have combat value and simply cost too much to be effective.

What do you guys think will happen to the tank? Will it just disappear as nations decide to switch to tank-free armies or will the concept morph into something more suited for the modern day battlefield?

[bigross86]

In tests it's managed to intercept 30/30 missiles launched at it. From this article it seems that not only has Trophy been through double teaming and multiple angles, but is also able to defend from top-down attacks.

I don't doubt that someone somewhere will find a weakness and a way to exploit it, but the answer to double teaming and multiple angles is just to add another launcher and dedicated computer on the opposite side of the tank

[T_igger_cs_30]

In tests it's managed to intercept 30/30 missiles launched at it. From this article it seems that not only has Trophy been through double teaming and multiple angles, but is also able to defend from top-down attacks.

I don't doubt that someone somewhere will find a weakness and a way to exploit it, but the answer to double teaming and multiple angles is just to add another launcher and dedicated computer on the opposite side of the tank

As I said I do not doubt that it is a good system, as for your 30/30 I have serious doubts about that BR, and all I have seen so far is against RPG hand held, but I have not gone into it yet............... Would be interested to know if it has been tested against the likes of Javelin etc......... and something like a warthog maybe.......

[Officer of Engineers]

The problem is that sometimes those "more qualified and knowledgeable" belong to an older generation, and so approach problems with an old world approach and don't want to hear anything different

This older generation, ie me, approach anti-tank operations with a FFE barrage from a battery of 155mm howitzers.