Don't write off the tank - drones can't do everything

[Damian]

You all still making conceptual mistakes.

Tanks are not obsolete as a concept, the only reason why many were talking about withdrawing tanks were costs, their size and weight.

But such conclusions were created mostly by complete morons, that do not understand that vehicle can still evolve.

How? It was said many times.

First, weight reduction, how it can be accomplished? By using more compact and lighter components, for example tracks, do any of you know how much are weighting metal tracks? Approx 2 metric tons each, still weight can be reduced many ways, for example by replacing metal tracks with tubber tracks, such rubber tracks also do not damage roads so much, are of course lighter, and simpler, probably also much cheaper.

Another thing is to reduce vehicle internal volume, of course it is problematic from ergonomics point of view, but it is not a problem that can't be solved. Good idea is also to resign from manned turrets, this reduce volume that is needed to be protected by heavy armor even more, so heaviest armor can be focused around hull protection.

Thus we can achieve smaller, more compact vehicle, that is lighter and as good or even better protected all around.

How to further reduce costs? By resigning from dedicated platforms, if you base MBT on a common, modular multipurpose chassis, that shares most of mechanical components with all it's variants, you greatly reduce costs and logistical problems.

As I said, what shortsighted fools do not understand, is that there is no problem with tank as a concept of well protected, mobile platform with significant firepower for direct fire support.

What these fools do not also understand, is that tank, is not a specialized platform, tank is univeral, multipurpose platform, that can provide direct fire support and cover for infantry, but as well can be used as heavily protected, highly mobile platform with this significant firepower in manouver warfare. Tank can be used both in offensive and defensive operations.

Tank is also psychological weapon, US or overall NATO forces learned that tank is detterent, in most cases insurgents resign to attack NATO units performing operations when these are supported by tanks, why? Simply because tank is difficult to kill, even if you damage tank, it's crew can still kill, yeah, tank is incredibly lethal, you can escape from artillery if you know that after your initial attack soon rounds will start to fall on your head, so you hit and run, and artillery can in such way make unnececary destruction, maybe even kill someone innocent. Same for air support.

You can't do it with a tank, tank can immidietaly respond to your actions, also tank can manouver and still provide fire when manouvering, You can't outrun a tank on foot, especially in open terrain.

So, what were problems with tanks? Merely technical ones that can be and are slowly solved, and tactical one, armed forces needed to learn, that they need to kinds of tactics, one for highly manouver conventnional conflicts, and second for slower pace, assymetric conflicts. Last problem is allready solved, contrary what many fools say on internet forums, armed forces all over the world, are changing but not resigning from tanks, not, actually what is seek by them, is proper force structure balance between heavy armor mechanized forces and light weight forces, but still, it is constantly replied in asnwers by armed forces, that heavy mechanized forces are core of the ground forces.

One more thing that also should be noted and understood. The overall design concept of future tank is well known to tank designers in most countries, why they are not introduced? In reality designing such oerall structure of vehicle is not a biggest problem, the biggest problem are all these components like engine, transmission, suspension, turret components, electronics etc.

If we look in to details, currently a lot of money is pumped in to R&D programs focused on these components, so when a time will come, many solutions in terms of these will be ready, only thing that will be really new, will be overall vehicle design, and it seems that most components solutions are ready, the biggest problem is how to increase situational awareness of crew, this is where biggest effort is put to improve capabilities.

So it is a question of when, not if, new generation of MBT's will be designed and fielded, and remember that benefits that comes from improving tanks, in the end finds their way also on other platforms, IFV's and APC's for example, and in the end the biggest beneficent of these solutions is infantry, that use these vehicles.

PS. As for eutonomous ground systems, tanks will not evolve in to such, there is too much problems with situational awareness of such systems and also navigation in difficult ground terrain.

So tanks among other vehicles creating core of armor mechanized forces will stay manned, however, unmanned systems will serve a role of support for them, as scouts and in other roles.

 

[cloud]

Purely my lollypop dream....

I have always thought of having 2 or 3 types of tanks in the army. Considering the annual spending of 5B$ for procurement.

1. One very very heavy tank, something like 100-110 tons Arjun with 140 mm main gun(could be dual barrel automatic 125 mm as well with firing speed of 2-3 sec for each round, with an option to fire both of them in mili sec interval - to defeat the APS/ERA etc), with almost double the Armour of current T90 level tank with say 15 mm CIWS gun apart from a few Surface to air missiles and G to G and small air search radar - Say 15-20 million per unit. - 1 billion annual budget can get us close to 50 per year. meaning around 1500 to 2000 would be a regular fighting strength after 15-20 years down line, also initially more money could be pumped in to get the regular strength upto numbers.

2. T 90 like - must not exceed 50 tons - I guess IA's assigned tank strength is about 4000, should be increased to at-least 10k if not 20 k. We will have to make around 300 per year from now on to get to the total of 10K number in 15-20 years. assuming 6 million per unit cost. meaning 2 B $ a year for 300 tank a year.

3. A new tank weighing around 15 tons. Should be smallest tank and simplest in the world with lowest height possible, no costly armor, but very very thick tank like armor. (look wise imagine a big sized formula car in the armor with tracks spreading out from the main body. The only space inside should be to just seat the driver and the main gunner in bike like position, Meaning the front and sides has very less area to cover for protection and a separate unit of 76mm remotely controlled main gun tied along with the 30 mm gun mounted at the back on the chassis like in truck(not on the roof). And a separate 15mm gun for driver.

The driver should be able to drive the vehicle using feet only(or may be the use of left hand additionally if required) and can control the 15 mm gun from right hand. The main gunner can operate the heavy 76 mm rifled gun with 30 mm gun..

The idea here is not have a sophisticated vehicle but to provide the "tank like armor" to soldier with big guns. In all the sense a moving armor box with the a big gun and whatever cheap techs we can fit into it. I would say if we were to produce them in numbers like 5000 per year, unit cost could be much lesser then 0.5 Million $ easily. So a 2B $ annual budget will get us 4-5000 such tanks a year.

4. Above vehicle in different configurations can be considered as well for other rolls, such as heavy mortor firing, ciws equipmet, rocket launcher etc. (Not Including in this budget though).

--------

This gives us overall 1 lakhs numbers( .1 million) of tanks for total 100B $ of procurement spread out in 20 years, or around 2 lakhs tanks im 40 years, assuming their life to be around 40 years, and production continuous at the same rate to replace the older ones.

Now coming to maintenance front, regarding Arjun/T90, there should not be much increase (at max double from the current), as their numbers are not much from current. Also regarding the 3rd type (15 tons), it will be mass produced in the real sense with much less technological stuff. So Local type of maintenance shop should also be considerably cheaper.

This gives us the advantage of moving a good numbers of armored vehicle in numbers anywhere near the border or deep inside enemy territory. (Cheap MTAs/MI 26 can be procured in numbers, compared to big transporters, assuming 1 C17 could easily fetch 15-20 MTAs if I'm not mistaken. Even today India can maintain 500 MTAs, if their was a requirement. Imagine swarm of tanks dropping on the battle field like paratroopers.

--------

Off-course if one have that much money into Tanks(land army) then, then the other wings will also have to be competitive wrt to enemy if not better. Here I'm just providing a scenario where the main strength of nations army is in tanks and focused solely on tanks. Such a nation will also have to invest heavily on the Anti missiles/Air to Air System as well.

Another thing to note is that, new vehicles should also be based on hybrid power. Moving Mini nuke generators should also be persuaded , which can move along with the army deep into enemy territory with almost never ending energy supply. In-fact no army system should use the oil as the only energy option, we can always fit an extra cheap non efficient generator and make electricity.

 

[Damian]

Completely unrealistic fantasy. :shocked:

You would kill your own country economy, not to mention logistics, and a 100 tons heavy tank?! Are you insane? You know there was a reason to find new solutions to reduce tanks weight without sacrificing or even increasing their protection, what you propose is just as stupid as were ideas of some morons in a IIIrd Reich proposing such monstrous and idiotic designs like Maus or Ratte.

 

[Bhadra]

@Damian

Going by your logic it is better to kill indurgents with a nuclear bomb.

Oh what would be the cost of a COIN operations with tanks ? That beast of a tanks guzzles gas and makes this earth energyless..

Wars after all is a matter of economics and not computer games.

MOD Edit: It is Damian, i.e. the i comes before the a.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

There are different dimensions, Air is the another dimension in warfare one cannot mix up both to pass his opinion..

In such case the editor is not aware of such details..

 

[Damian]

@Damian

Going by your logic it is better to kill indurgents with a nuclear bomb.

Oh what would be the cost of a COIN operations with tanks ? That beast of a tanks guzzles gas and makes this earth energyless..

Wars after all is a matter of economics and not computer games.

MOD Edit: It is Damian, i.e. the i comes before the a.

Listen, the real soldiers, are deciding what is usefull and what is not in COIN or conventional warfare. I repeat the conclusion of real soldiers, that have real experiences in a real battles where real people die.

Their opinion is worthy trust, contrary to your foolish beliefes of armachair general that believe in opinions of similiar armchair generals, that are ready to risk soldiers lifes only to bring to life their sick ideas.

I call such people parasites, that do not respect lifes of soldiers.

And if you are not capable to comprehend usefullness of tanks, or improvements in technology (like engines that are more fuel efficent), then you are not worthy to even talk with you.

 

[Bhadra]

Listen, the real soldiers, are deciding what is usefull and what is not in COIN or conventional warfare. I repeat the conclusion of real soldiers, that have real experiences in a real battles where real people die.

Their opinion is worthy trust, contrary to your foolish beliefes of armachair general that believe in opinions of similiar armchair generals, that are ready to risk soldiers lifes only to bring to life their sick ideas.

I call such people parasites, that do not respect lifes of soldiers.

And if you are not capable to comprehend usefullness of tanks, or improvements in technology (like engines that are more fuel efficent), then you are not worthy to even talk with you.

Are you for real??

In COIN operations and builtup areas like cities, a tank is more dengerious to be inside rather than being in open....

Look at the Anti Tank arsenal all around right from IED, RPG to missiles to air delivered munitions to smart munitions - life inside a tank can be hell and only fools would advocate their soldiers to be inside tanks.

Tanks are not meant for any thing you spelled in your posts..

How many tanks were destroyed in Stalingrad ?? or back in Berlin ??

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Try to see the light in Iraq war specially CT ops with good design tanks right now & Compare to bad design T-72 tanks in CT ops in Syria . .

WW2 is told old and history in both tactics and technology..

How many tanks were destroyed in Stalingrad ?? or back in Berlin ??

 

[cloud]

Completely unrealistic fantasy. :shocked:

You would kill your own country economy, not to mention logistics, and a 100 tons heavy tank?! Are you insane? You know there was a reason to find new solutions to reduce tanks weight without sacrificing or even increasing their protection, what you propose is just as stupid as were ideas of some morons in a IIIrd Reich proposing such monstrous and idiotic designs like Maus or Ratte.

Well I should have said fantasy instead of dream, but anyway 100B $ spending over 20 year period(i. e. 5 B$ per year) is quite possible in India without hurting economy if spent wisely and we were to make them by ourselves. Soviets made 100000 normal tanks during the world war.

Those 100+ tons tank would be 2 % of total tanks in numbers, they would be used mainly for defense/thar area(against Pakistan like adversaries), unless the situation calls them in war. Today's tanks are already reaching around 70 tons. During world war, technology wasn't as developed (infra wise). I don't see any problem with the logistic within India. Also those German concepts were more focused on firepower (thus increasing the weight and size). here 100+ tons Arjun will be slightly bigger then the current one, having automatic loading, one less crew, double thick armor.

Regular 50 tons tank will be almost around 10% of total numbers. They will be the main spear attacking force for any enemy, may be backed up by a few 100+ tons Arjuns in front.

Behind them will be the swarm of 15 tons mini tanks (90% of total numbers, I guess this is what close to your concept/idea?). 2 Crew, fully automatic, slightly less protection(due to cost saving in armor tech) and much less fire power(only 76 mm main gun). These tanks could be para dropped in numbers near enemy territory or anyplace where an Aircraft could fly. All in all these will be the backbone of infantry division and will replace most of the foot soldiers with armed mini tanks.

 

[Damian]

Well I should have said fantasy instead of dream, but anyway 100B $ spending over 20 year period(i. e. 5 B$ per year) is quite possible in India without hurting economy if spent wisely and we were to make them by ourselves. Soviets made 100000 normal tanks during the world war.

Do you understand difference between a peace and war, war that was a total war for all or nothing? No, probably not.

Those 100+ tons tank would be 2 % of total tanks in numbers, they would be used mainly for defense/thar area(against Pakistan like adversaries), unless the situation calls them in war. Today's tanks are already reaching around 70 tons. During world war, technology wasn't as developed (infra wise). I don't see any problem with the logistic within India. Also those German concepts were more focused on firepower (thus increasing the weight and size). here 100+ tons Arjun will be slightly bigger then the current one, having automatic loading, one less crew, double thick armor.

Idiotic to say this gently.

Everyone reduces size and weight of tanks and increases their protection by different means. Why you need a 100+ tons vehicle, when with new materials you can have something most probably better protected and weighting half of that for example?

Why do you even need 3 types of tanks?

Regular 50 tons tank will be almost around 10% of total numbers. They will be the main spear attacking force for any enemy, may be backed up by a few 100+ tons Arjuns in front.

By why do you need different tanks than that standard 50 tons class? Do you even comprehend idea of main battle tank, you understand wy main battle tanks were created? To replace obsolete idea of different classes of tanks, when you have a main battle tank you do not need heavy and medium tanks, because single main battle tank is better in everything than these obsolete classes.

Behind them will be the swarm of 15 tons mini tanks (90% of total numbers, I guess this is what close to your concept/idea?). 2 Crew, fully automatic, slightly less protection(due to cost saving in armor tech) and much less fire power(only 76 mm main gun). These tanks could be para dropped in numbers near enemy territory or anyplace where an Aircraft could fly. All in all these will be the backbone of infantry division and will replace most of the foot soldiers with armed mini tanks.

This is not even close to the idea I support and is called main battle tank.

You are still following obsolete WWII concept of 3 tank types in armed forces, I support modern concept of main battle tank and other vehicles based on unified, modular, multipurpose platforms.

To put it simple, such platforms share common components, ease production, training, logistics, reduce costs.

New materials in armor technology that are stronger and lighter, like CNT's, ADNR's, Graphene, amorphic metal alloys, that gives new opportunities in vehicle designs, and increase potection without significant increase of weight, and even with it's reduction.

Graphene is 100 times stronger than strongest steel of the same thickness, it is expensive now, but scientists are working on methods of mass and cheap production of this material, in form of sheets, that can be packed togheter as composite armor package and combined with other materials.

Amorphic steel is stronger than classic steel, even if not rolled but cast, it is also rust resistant, thus vehicles can be stored without risk of rust.

There are new solutions in engines, BAE company is already working on hybrid engine for vehicle weighting more than 50 tons, when this will mature, will be robust, efficent, we will see great reduction in fuel use by vehicles, it will also be cleaner, probably also more compact and lighter than conventional engines.

This is the future, not a 100+ tons behemots, that I agree are useless, but next generation of main battle tanks won't evolve in to this direction, but direction I described. And from these developments, not only tanks will benefit, new armor materials will increase protection of IFV's and APC's and any other platform. Even soldiers will be capable to wear protection made from them.

 

[Damian]

Are you for real??

In COIN operations and builtup areas like cities, a tank is more dengerious to be inside rather than being in open....

Look at the Anti Tank arsenal all around right from IED, RPG to missiles to air delivered munitions to smart munitions - life inside a tank can be hell and only fools would advocate their soldiers to be inside tanks.

Tanks are not meant for any thing you spelled in your posts..

How many tanks were destroyed in Stalingrad ?? or back in Berlin ??

You are mentally too restricted to even comprehend advance in technology and tactics.

US Army that is well trained, have modern tanks and know how to use them, have a conclusion that is very important... tanks that are properly designed with modern solutions in mind, that are used properly, and proper training and tactics are used by soldiers, then tanks are incredibly usefull in cities.

This is a fact, more and more armies, that are modern, well trained, comes to the same conclusion, this is why instead of trend to use lightly armored vehicles in greater numbers, actually every platform have increased (but in a resonable way) weight and protection. Look at US Army's JLTV, a bigger, heavier, better protected replacement for HMMWV, and several companies today, offers a redesigned HMMWV that is also bigger, heavier and better protected.

This comes from realization, that proffesional soldiers life is worthy to give him best equipment and protection. In fact soldiers are more expensive than these vehicles in long term, you need to feed them, train them, provide them proper support, so it is desired to invest in to new design solutions for vehicles.

Because these vehicles are designed for these soldiers, to serve them as best as possible, and stupid civilians that do not understand this, should keep quiet.

 

[pmaitra]

@Damian,

If you see the experience of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, @Bhadra does have a point. The Soviet Army actually made the soldiers sit atop their BTRs, because that way, if it was hit, there were chances of some of the troops surviving. The same theory can be applied to tanks as well, especially in hilly or built up areas were only small and light tanks can be used, which have less armour. The same tactic was also used in Chechnya. It all depends upon where the tank operates, and what kind of armour it has.

 

[cloud]

Do you understand difference between a peace and war, war that was a total war for all or nothing? No, probably not.

But they were also hit badly in the start, yet they went on to create facilities/infra in much short time that too during the war. But anyway here the question is not of numbers but economy, which makes it possible if we go by the numbers. I guess the Indian army's yearly budget allocation is around 15-20 B $. An increase of 5 B$ can be adjusted. ( Please note - Not that I support this at current condition in India, just a debate of having 3 different tanks.

Idiotic to say this gently.

Everyone reduces size and weight of tanks and increases their protection by different means. Why you need a 100+ tons vehicle, when with new materials you can have something most probably better protected and weighting half of that for example?

Why do you even need 3 types of tanks?

But what if we create a 100+ ton tank with all those new materail/techs having 4 times the protection then the current one. Almost giving it double thickness with twice better armor protection ability of material. Now adays a man portable ATGM has the piercing ability of max 1650 mm RHA (DON'T PICK ME for technical words, its the idea). but what if the tank is survivable against such weapons as well with the direct TOP hit using all these new material and techs. That is why I have put the each Ajrun cost around 15-20 million a piece. Practically rendering any man portable weapon or existing tank guns useless.

By why do you need different tanks than that standard 50 tons class? Do you even comprehend idea of main battle tank, you understand wy main battle tanks were created? To replace obsolete idea of different classes of tanks, when you have a main battle tank you do not need heavy and medium tanks, because single main battle tank is better in everything than these obsolete classes.

Because the heavy once will be immune to any incoming existing tank/ATGM attacks. Plus the different adversaries have different techs. I have read somewhere that US already has 140mm prototype guns(modular type) which could be installed quite easily if required in future. Lets suppose if we were to invest on only one tank and restricting its weight to 40-50 tons. This will present a limitation for how much fire power one can have(lets say here as 125 mm gun max). Also your adversary will always try to beat you in the mouse/cat game. Meaning they will most probably develop a tank which is better then yours. Suppose if they go to route of heavy MBTs, they will have advantage of putting superior firepower with upgrades in future even if today it looks similar in performance.

This is not even close to the idea I support and is called main battle tank.

You are still following obsolete WWII concept of 3 tank types in armed forces, I support modern concept of main battle tank and other vehicles based on unified, modular, multipurpose platforms.

To put it simple, such platforms share common components, ease production, training, logistics, reduce costs.

New materials in armor technology that are stronger and lighter, like CNT's, ADNR's, Graphene, amorphic metal alloys, that gives new opportunities in vehicle designs, and increase potection without significant increase of weight, and even with it's reduction.

Graphene is 100 times stronger than strongest steel of the same thickness, it is expensive now, but scientists are working on methods of mass and cheap production of this material, in form of sheets, that can be packed togheter as composite armor package and combined with other materials.

Amorphic steel is stronger than classic steel, even if not rolled but cast, it is also rust resistant, thus vehicles can be stored without risk of rust.

There are new solutions in engines, BAE company is already working on hybrid engine for vehicle weighting more than 50 tons, when this will mature, will be robust, efficent, we will see great reduction in fuel use by vehicles, it will also be cleaner, probably also more compact and lighter than conventional engines.

This is the future, not a 100+ tons behemots, that I agree are useless, but next generation of main battle tanks won't evolve in to this direction, but direction I described. And from these developments, not only tanks will benefit, new armor materials will increase protection of IFV's and APC's and any other platform. Even soldiers will be capable to wear protection made from them.

I thought that in World war it was mostly focused on one type of battle tank from either side. Different version came, but when the new one came, old one was practically replaced.(except for German heavy tanks), yet I think they had only 2 types. Here 3 different design will be parallel to each other and will complement each other.

Here if you fix the weight of MBT to 50-55 tons, then it will present the great difficulty for large deployment, especially in high altitude area. Plus this MBT will not be suitable for many terrains.

We can go with the modular concept with 2 design as well(leaving the Heavy 100+ tons aside). I think this will present actually greater opportunity. The one with the 50 tons category with latest and costly techs can be used as base for Artillery/ heavy CIWS/ bigger Radars etc, while 15 tons tank with less costly armor/techs can be used as a base for mortars/small rocket launcher/AA defense derby - python,derby like/grenade launcher/ heavy machine gun platform. At the same time giving ability to deploy them where even an aircraft can't (using helicopters). Plus My idea here (with regards to 15 tons) is to replace an many as foot soldier with mini tanks, using the cheapest techs etc, while 50 tons will act as MBT in todays term, while 100+ ones will serve as deterrent/fear factor for any incoming armor.

 

[Damian]

@Damian,

If you see the experience of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, @Bhadra does have a point. The Soviet Army actually made the soldiers sit atop their BTRs, because that way, if it was hit, there were chances of some of the troops surviving. The same theory can be applied to tanks as well, especially in hilly or built up areas were only small and light tanks can be used, which have less armour. The same tactic was also used in Chechnya. It all depends upon where the tank operates, and what kind of armour it has.

Pity that you forget about protection of these vehicles. Soviet used old obsolete tanks in Afghanistan, literally junk. BTR's are lightly protected, vurnable even to heavy machine guns fire, RPG or a simple mine is overkill for such vehicles.

In Chechnya Russians sended incompetent, poorly trained and corrupted forces, their tanks were not even fully armored (lack of reactive elements in ERA).

Now compare this to how Americans used their tanks and other AFV's in Iraq and Afghanistan, how quickly they adapted to unconventional warfare, and adapted their vehicles, but not with depot made solutions, data was sended back to design bureaus and engineers quickly developed new solutions to counter enemy tactics and weapons used.

Soviets in Afghanistan in comparision were slow, they didn't used modern tanks with modern protection, their tactics were useless.

This is not fault of vehicles, but mostly incompetent fools.

And I afraid that if Bhadra would command some brigade in similiar conditions, he would be dead with his men, first because he do not understand how usefull are vehicles, second because he have too much faith in light infantry not knowing it's weakness, like for example lack of protection and survivability. And insurgents do not need to even openly fight with light infantry, IED's are even more dangerous to dismounted troops than to troops using vehicle, also tanks. RPG with OG granades or even FAE warheads are more dangerous to light infantry in the open or inside structures than for people sitting inside well protected vehicle.

Take a note however that I do not propose to resign from light infantry forces, I see where they are usefull. However I also see where usefull are other kinds of forces, among them, heavy armor mechanized ones.

This is difference between me and Bhadra, I follow logic and combined arms idea, he follows foolish all or nothing idea when only his pet ideas are good, and others do not have value, all people with such thinking loose.

 

[Damian]

But they were also hit badly in the start, yet they went on to create facilities/infra in much short time that too during the war. But anyway here the question is not of numbers but economy, which makes it possible if we go by the numbers. I guess the Indian army's yearly budget allocation is around 15-20 B $. An increase of 5 B$ can be adjusted. ( Please note - Not that I support this at current condition in India, just a debate of having 3 different tanks.

And what you will do with such numbers of tanks? Do you even understand that you spend on equipment not only when you purchase it but also through it's whole life time cycle? What about spare parts? What about maintnance?

But what if we create a 100+ ton tank with all those new materail/techs having 4 times the protection then the current one. Almost giving it double thickness with twice better armor protection ability of material. Now adays a man portable ATGM has the piercing ability of max 1650 mm RHA (DON'T PICK ME for technical words, its the idea). but what if the tank is survivable against such weapons as well with the direct TOP hit using all these new material and techs. That is why I have put the each Ajrun cost around 15-20 million a piece. Practically rendering any man portable weapon or existing tank guns useless.

And what if I can have the same thing weighting only 50 tons? Do you think about that? Besides this, do you understand that bigger and heavier not allways means better protected? What about maintnance, logistics, infrastructure to support such overweight useless things?

Because the heavy once will be immune to any incoming existing tank/ATGM attacks. Plus the different adversaries have different techs. I have read somewhere that US already has 140mm prototype guns(modular type) which could be installed quite easily if required in future. Lets suppose if we were to invest on only one tank and restricting its weight to 40-50 tons. This will present a limitation for how much fire power one can have(lets say here as 125 mm gun max). Also your adversary will always try to beat you in the mouse/cat game. Meaning they will most probably develop a tank which is better then yours. Suppose if they go to route of heavy MBTs, they will have advantage of putting superior firepower with upgrades in future even if today it looks similar in performance.

You have absolutely no idea about tanks designing. A hint for you, I seen 152mm gun on a tank weighting less than 60 tons, weight do not restrict use of a big calliber gun.

I thought that in World war it was mostly focused on one type of battle tank from either side. Different version came, but when the new one came, old one was practically replaced.(except for German heavy tanks), yet I think they had only 2 types. Here 3 different design will be parallel to each other and will complement each other.

You know very little about our European meat grinder then.

Here if you fix the weight of MBT to 50-55 tons, then it will present the great difficulty for large deployment, especially in high altitude area. Plus this MBT will not be suitable for many terrains.

In Afghanistan there are used tanks weighting more than 60 tons. Think about that, and these tanks are used with great success.

We can go with the modular concept with 2 design as well(leaving the Heavy 100+ tons aside). I think this will present actually greater opportunity. The one with the 50 tons category with latest and costly techs can be used as base for Artillery/ heavy CIWS/ bigger Radars etc, while 15 tons tank with less costly armor/techs can be used as a base for mortars/small rocket launcher/AA defense derby - python,derby like/grenade launcher/ heavy machine gun platform. At the same time giving ability to deploy them where even an aircraft can't (using helicopters).

Why the hell you even need a dedicated light tank? Because it is cool? Just design a goddamn turret module with the same gun or smaller than use your MBT and place it on the same chassis used by IFV, and you have a light tank that share the same chassis with IFV and other platforms with front mounted engine, commonality, reduced costs, training costs, easier logistics.

You are still thinking in the old way, hopefully you will understood the benefits of unified, moduler multipurpose platforms.

But of course the MBT, needs rear mounted engine, so the front armor can be more massive, to have better integrity and such things.

 

[cloud]

And what you will do with such numbers of tanks? Do you even understand that you spend on equipment not only when you purchase it but also through it's whole life time cycle? What about spare parts? What about maintnance?



And what if I can have the same thing weighting only 50 tons? Do you think about that? Besides this, do you understand that bigger and heavier not allways means better protected? What about maintnance, logistics, infrastructure to support such overweight useless things?



You have absolutely no idea about tanks designing. A hint for you, I seen 152mm gun on a tank weighting less than 60 tons, weight do not restrict use of a big calliber gun.



You know very little about our European meat grinder then.



In Afghanistan there are used tanks weighting more than 60 tons. Think about that, and these tanks are used with great success.



Why the hell you even need a dedicated light tank? Because it is cool? Just design a goddamn turret module with the same gun or smaller than use your MBT and place it on the same chassis used by IFV, and you have a light tank that share the same chassis with IFV and other platforms with front mounted engine, commonality, reduced costs, training costs, easier logistics.

You are still thinking in the old way, hopefully you will understood the benefits of unified, moduler multipurpose platforms.

But of course the MBT, needs rear mounted engine, so the front armor can be more massive, to have better integrity and such things.

My idea here (with regards to 15 tons) is to replace an many as foot soldier with mini tanks, using the cheapest techs etc, while 50 tons will act as MBT in todays term with all the modularity and such things as you are explaining, while 100+ ones will serve as deterrent/fear factor for any incoming armor or in case of a surprise super fast advancement in tech in enemy 's armor they would be expected to fair better then the 50 ton ones.

Why such numbers - because its the main fighting force of the country as per my earlier assumption(in the first post). Plus to make any enemy piss in their paint wherever we march.

Regarding the maintenance - if the army has planned for 5B$ procurement then obviously they would have planned for maintenance. Anyway lets see here. Currently IA maintains 4000 tank, later they will need maintain 10k(50 tons) + 2k (100 tons). The total cost of maintenance should ideally come to 3 time more then the our existing fleet. Now for the 15 ton one, they will be the cheapest (cheap armor+ light+ light gun) and we will be getting them 10x times in number for the same cost of a 50 ton MBT. So assuming the same maintenance cost as 50 ton ones, total cost of maintenance for whole fleet would be 5 times higher then right now . So it will be a combination of Quality(50 tons+) and quantity(15 tons ones).

Now you say that what if all that can be done in 50 tons, then I say it will be the MBT of 50 tons category(2nd type as per my original post), I will use the same tech to make a 100 ton category one, which would be much better then your 50 tons ones, along with regular 50 tons which would be equal to your 50 ton ones. So to take the advantage wherever I can deploy 100 ton ones against your 50 tons ones. or else we will deploy the usual 50 ton ones.

Now wrt to your example of fitting a newly designed turret into the IFV chassis to make a lighter tank. Now IFV itself is a type of tank. After you redesign your turret and put it into IFV chassis, then what will be common between existing tank and new light tank? probably the gun parts and a few electronics? This isn't the type of modularity one would want. Also modularity itself doesn't always mean cost saving, besides everyone uses the common parts as much as possible.

regarding your comment about - 152mm gun on a tank weighting less than 60 tons. We all know the newtons 3rd law. we don't want the tank going 5 meter behind with every single shot fired, meaning a tanks weight will always dictate the momentum of the projectile in can fire if other things are quite same.

Why the dedicated light tank? (don't confuse with other posters comments and discussion). My concept of light vehicle comes with the cheapest price with lowest of the capabilities. These will be used in quantity. Its like for the same amt instead of fielding 100 MBTs, field combination of 50 MBTs plus 300 mini tanks. As I said in the start, My concept of light tanks are meant to replace the foot soldier carrying heavy weapons.

Also regarding you comment about the Afghanistan (high altitude), what about the leh/tibbet? These 15 tons tank can be dropped in thousands or even sacrificing them (reality of war). which can't be done with only heavy mbts.

 

[Damian]

My idea here (with regards to 15 tons) is to replace an many as foot soldier with mini tanks, using the cheapest techs etc, while 50 tons will act as MBT in todays term with all the modularity and such things as you are explaining, while 100+ ones will serve as deterrent/fear factor for any incoming armor or in case of a surprise super fast advancement in tech in enemy 's armor they would be expected to fair better then the 50 ton ones.

This 100 tons tank will serve as object of jokes and proof of incompetence of persons that forced such idea in to reality.

Why such numbers - because its the main fighting force of the country as per my earlier assumption(in the first post). Plus to make any enemy piss in their paint wherever we march.

Regarding the maintenance - if the army has planned for 5B$ procurement then obviously they would have planned for maintenance. Anyway lets see here. Currently IA maintains 4000 tank, later they will need maintain 10k(50 tons) + 2k (100 tons). The total cost of maintenance should ideally come to 3 time more then the our existing fleet. Now for the 15 ton one, they will be the cheapest (cheap armor+ light+ light gun) and we will be getting them 10x times in number for the same cost of a 50 ton MBT. So assuming the same maintenance cost as 50 ton ones, total cost of maintenance for whole fleet would be 5 times higher then right now . So it will be a combination of Quality(50 tons+) and quantity(15 tons ones).

Wet dream, nothing else. Grow up.

Now you say that what if all that can be done in 50 tons, then I say it will be the MBT of 50 tons category(2nd type as per my original post), I will use the same tech to make a 100 ton category one, which would be much better then your 50 tons ones, along with regular 50 tons which would be equal to your 50 ton ones. So to take the advantage wherever I can deploy 100 ton ones against your 50 tons ones. or else we will deploy the usual 50 ton ones.

How old are you? You think that real world is like a computer game? Who for the common sense sake would want to have a 100+ tons heavy tank? Besides some ridiculous fanboys that do not even know how difficult is to design tank properly.

Do you even thinked how you would transport such pile of metal over longer distance? Even railroads have their limitations to the transported vehicles size.

Now wrt to your example of fitting a newly designed turret into the IFV chassis to make a lighter tank. Now IFV itself is a type of tank. After you redesign your turret and put it into IFV chassis, then what will be common between existing tank and new light tank? probably the gun parts and a few electronics? This isn't the type of modularity one would want. Also modularity itself doesn't always mean cost saving, besides everyone uses the common parts as much as possible.

You have absolutely no idea about AFV's designing it seems.

regarding your comment about - 152mm gun on a tank weighting less than 60 tons. We all know the newtons 3rd law. we don't want the tank going 5 meter behind with every single shot fired, nor it is feasible unless one wants to fight in a stationary tank.

Oh, really, fascinating, so it seems that Soviet assault guns from WWII, and some of their tanks with such guns, weighting below 50 tons, were not going 5 meters back after every hit.

Soviets and later Russians had prototypes weighint below 60 tons, with such armament and there were also firing tests, no doubt, there is no problem with vehicle weight as you imagined.

Ukrainians developed a 140mm gun called Bagira, that can be fitted in to existing designs like BM Yatagan, that weights below 50 tons (approx 48), and still there will not be any problem with recoil.

I see you try to be smarter than engineers designing these things, do you?

Why the dedicated light tank? (don't confuse with other posters comments and discussion). My concept of light vehicle comes with the cheapest price with lowest of the capabilities. These will be used in quantity. Its like for the same amt instead of fielding 100 MBTs, field combination of 50 MBTs plus 300 mini tanks. As I said in the start, My concept of light tanks are meant to replace the foot soldier carrying heavy weapons.

Stupid idea, the same foolish concept of all or nothing, why do you want to replace soldiers carrying heavy weapons? And then what? You will force your pet project the allmighty mini tank to go through stairs to the building top to provide fire support to units below on streets?

Maybe start to think in reasonable way like adult, not like a child with it's computer games inspired, silly wet dream.

 

[pmaitra]

Pity that you forget about protection of these vehicles. Soviet used old obsolete tanks in Afghanistan, literally junk. BTR's are lightly protected, vurnable even to heavy machine guns fire, RPG or a simple mine is overkill for such vehicles.

You don't quite read before you respond, do you? I am quite aware of the protection of these vehicles, so your telling me I forget the protection is redundant. See what I have already written, and what you responded to.

@Damian,

If you see the experience of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, @Bhadra does have a point. The Soviet Army actually made the soldiers sit atop their BTRs, because that way, if it was hit, there were chances of some of the troops surviving. The same theory can be applied to tanks as well, especially in hilly or built up areas were only small and light tanks can be used, which have less armour. The same tactic was also used in Chechnya. It all depends upon where the tank operates, and what kind of armour it has.

 

[Damian]

You don't quite read before you respond, do you? I am quite aware of the protection of these vehicles, so your telling me I forget the protection is redundant. See what I have already written, and what you responded to.

I read, and I wonder, why you compare Soviet unions obsolete equipment and improper tactics to the much more effective NATO solutions in Afghanistan?

 

[pmaitra]

I read, and I wonder, why you compare Soviet unions obsolete equipment and improper tactics to the much more effective NATO solutions in Afghanistan?

My comment was a generic comment. The opening post of this thread is not exclusively about NATO. It is about tanks in general. Please read the opening post.