Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
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.
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.
Last edited: