Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Austin]

Akim , The models of Boomerang and Kurganets were shown with 57/45 mm Gun

Here are those models in order http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/20158/

 

[Austin]

More details on the 45 mm Gun

Сделано у нас - Русская 45мм АП с телескопическим выстрелом

 

[Akim]

Akim , The models of Boomerang and Kurganets were shown with 57/45 mm Gun

Here are those models in order Сделано у нас - Визит Рогозина в Пермь . Похоже окончание

I read it before. Understand, model of tank from Plastics, arming is possible whichever, though by a plasma cannon. But the real life is a not computer game. When they will be "in a metal", when tests will begin, when the first machines will get in an army, all will come back to initial 2А422(72).

 

[Austin]

We will see what happens later ,right now we can speak on only what has been displayed , Time will prove who is right.

 

[Akim]

More details on the 45 mm Gun

Сделано у нас - Русская 45мм АП с телескопическим выстрелом

The article mentions the BMPT "Terminator". He was not accepted on an armament not from weak cannons (they just meant to destroy to infantry). This System did not accept, because she is not seen in composition brigades. She there is not simply needed. Professional servicemen does not see expediency in her. While the idea is good. Of course now that screams Rogozin will buy this machine. But she is not needed.

 

[Damian]

IMHO the main drawback of BMPT is that this is dedicated vehicle. If it's turret would be designed as replaceable combat module, then the situation might be different. So BMPT idea might be more successfull on "Armata" platform as a combat module, that can be installed when nececary in place of standard tank turret, and both can be unmanned.

 

[Akim]

IMHO the main drawback of BMPT is that this is dedicated vehicle. If it's turret would be designed as replaceable combat module, then the situation might be different. So BMPT idea might be more successfull on "Armata" platform as a combat module, that can be installed when nececary in place of standard tank turret, and both can be unmanned.

About is that this is dedicated vehicle – I am agree. Though undercarriage from Т- 90, but such chart adds a mess. The similar module is necessary to be had in an amount a 1 units in composition the company of heavy IFV ( from the restriction Troopers ).

 

[Damian]

Dunno, if someone will be interested but...

Jane's o polskich planach pancernych - DziennikZbrojny.pl

And translation:

Jane's about Polish armored plans

Industry publication Jane's (group IHS, text author, Polish journalist Remigiusz Wilk) referring to the deputy commander of the armored and mechanized forces Col. Dariusz Górniak reported that the Polish armour program is to be launched in 2014, so that the first vehicles appeared in the line in 2018. Expected to purchase 300-500 new tanks armed with 120 mm caliber cannon and being the successor to the 584 T-72 (A/M1/M1D - in the line there is no more than 350) and 232 PT-91 Twardy. According to Jane's the new vehicle will be one of the elements of the entire family of modular vehicles with different variants from floating IFV to a 50-ton tank.

In addition to the tanks, the exchange of the park is to be used BWP-1 and MT-LB. Estimates say about acquiring approx 1000-1500 vehicles in different versions. IFV is to be armed with automatic cannon 30-40 mm caliber and to use also programmable ammunition.

Armour and Mechanised Forces Command is working two years on the concept of the new Polish family of armored vehicles. It is expected that the BWP-1 and T-72 will be written with the condition of the Polish army in the years 2018-2021, while the newer PT-91 tanks until the period 2027-2032. Leopard 2 tanks will be upgraded, the scope of work has not been determined.

 

[Akim]

So, treats not fear from tanks...

 

[Damian]

Well it definetly prooves that gas turbine engine is not that hot, so human can withstand it's heat for a limited amount of time.

And another news gentlemen, during MSPO 2012 exhibition in Poland, there will be presented mockup in scale 1:10 of Leopard 2PL. I will provide further informations when only exhibition will start and news from it will be avaiable in the internet.

 

[Akim]

Well it definetly prooves that gas turbine engine is not that hot, so human can withstand it's heat for a limited amount of time.

And another news gentlemen, during MSPO 2012 exhibition in Poland, there will be presented mockup in scale 1:10 of Leopard 2PL. I will provide further informations when only exhibition will start and news from it will be avaiable in the internet.

I do not know, who talked this foolishness about a reactive stream with GTE. Only difference. When Т- 80 goes to the trench, it more frightful what Т- 64 or Т- 72. It him with to the side heard, and he goes noiselessly on you. But when he will pass, here and noise and sand. It is easy exercise. I can not show, what norms were before, because then there were not chambers in mobile telephones, and telephones yet were not, and on a firing field forbade to shot foto.

 

[Damian]

I do not know, who talked this foolishness about a reactive stream with GTE.

This is a popular myth about Gas Turbine engines.

When Т- 80 goes to the trench, it more frightful what Т- 64 or Т- 72. It him with to the side heard, and he goes noiselessly on you. But when he will pass, here and noise and sand.

During the first excersices in NATO when M1's were participating, I think Canadians that were acting as OPFOR, were so surprised how quiet M1's are that they nicknamed them "Whispering Death", that nickname stick to the tank so good that it is called that way up to this day.

 

[hest]

Dunno, if someone will be interested but...

Jane's o polskich planach pancernych - DziennikZbrojny.pl

And translation:

If I understood correctly, Poland will developed and aquire future MBT on base of a new heavy universal plattform ? Very good for them. Is it all 300-500 or in that figure upgraded Leopard 2 are included ?

 

[hest]

In USSR was developed the first serial gas-turbine engine for tank in 1968, featured in T-80 tank series.

Such engines are characterised by high power-dimensions performance, compactness.

Howewer they are no longer seen as perspective due to many reasons, new Diesel engine developements analogous in characteristics but with significantly lower fuel expense, and increased resource.

 

[average american]

I would not invest much in tanks, like the air craft carrier and not stealth air crafts they are on the way out.



The Tank Is Dead, Long Live The Tank
by James Dunnigan
December 31, 2011

Has it really happened this time? Is the tank on its way out? For several decades the main battle tank has been declared obsolete. Like the battleship, another weapon that depended on big guns and thick armor, the tank was seen as inevitably done in by faster, cheaper, and more numerous weapons that could destroy it. The first modern battleship was launched in 1906, but in less than half a century aircraft and submarines made the battleship obsolete and none were built after 1945. The tank has lasted longer than that. First appearing in combat during World War I (1914-18) the tank became a decisive weapon during World War II (1939-45) and continued to dominate battlefields to the present. That's over 90 years, twice as long as the battleship. But the tank, like the battleship, also became too expensive and too vulnerable to cheaper weapons.
But there's another major factor that kept the tank going for so long, the Cold War arms race. Russia saw the tank as their principal land warfare weapon and produced over 100,000 of them after World War II. Russia introduced a new model every decade from 1945 to the 1990s. The World War II T-34 gave way to the T-54, then the T-62, the T-72, the T-80, and the T-90. The United States responded with the M-48, M-60, and M-1.

As the Arab-Israeli wars, and the 1991 Gulf War demonstrated, the American tanks in the hands of well-trained crews could handily defeat larger numbers of Russian tanks. In addition, the M-1 with its use of high tech sensors, composite armor, and depleted uranium shells, set a new standard for tank design and effectiveness. The high price of the M-1, nearly five million dollars each, eventually proved to be a worthy investment. With Russia dropping out of the arms race when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and no one else willing, or able, to afford a tank to match the M-1, the end of the line has been reached. Well, a few nations could match the M-1 (Israel, Britain, and Germany) but none of these were willing to build many of them, or come up with a radical new design that would keep the tank relevant on the modern battlefield.

The United States ended up with 7,000 M-1s when the Cold War ended. Most of the huge Russian tank force was left parked all over the place, with no cash available to operate or maintain them. Russia was selling off its best tanks for less than a million dollars each but no one thought of these as anything more than targets in a battle with M-1s. The world will still have plenty of tanks for the next few decades, until the last of the 50,000 Cold War surplus Russian tanks rusts into uselessness. Russia recently decided to speed up that process and scrap the last of its Cold War tanks. Russias new tanks are T-90s, an extensive upgrade of the Cold War era T-72. The T-90, on paper, is a match for the M-1 but the T-90 has not been in combat, with anyone, yet.

But why should the tank disappear now? Simply because the main reason for the tank was to provide a weapon that could battle its way past artillery fire and determined infantry (armed with machine-guns and anti-tank weapons). With modern electronics, cheaper precision rockets and bombs can deliver the firepower and flexibility that only tanks could provide in the past. These new weapons are easier to use and maintain than tanks, which have always been complex and difficult to keep going. Just like admirals did the math and decided that submarines and aircraft were cheaper and more effective than battleships, generals the world over will consider their options and go with what they feel will work best. There won't be much choice. With few new tanks being built and cheaper, more effective, weapons available.

There will have to be some battles to make the point. China and India are still building tanks, using technology far behind and a lot cheaper than the M-1. But with smarter and cheaper anti-tank weapons available (missiles, "smart mines", and air delivered robot tank killers like SADARM) it will only take one incident of the "cheap and smart" stuff beating up on a lot of tanks to make the point. Another telling sign is the lack of enthusiasm in America and Russia for designing a replacement for current tanks, at least not a replacement that features the "bigger gun and thicker armor" that has characterized tank development for the past 90 years.

Then again, it may be premature to write off the tank. For a weapon that has been dismissed as obsolete for decades it still survives. True, there are a lot fewer tanks in use now (less than 50,000) than there were at the end of the Cold War (over 100,000). And the new ones being built are not sufficient to replace those that wear out each year. Less affluent nations will still find tanks useful against their own citizens, or equally poor neighbors who also have some tanks. The U.S. and its allies found out that the M-1 and similar Western tanks were very useful against irregulars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The math, however, is unavoidable. Unless a new arms race begins the number of tanks in service will slowly decline year by year. Meanwhile, the number of "smart weapons" grows rapidly. The tank won't completely disappear soon but never again will it be the key weapon for ground warfare.

 

[p2prada]

Tanks are needed to plough through defences and hold ground. Aircraft can't do that.

Aircraft will be restricted in their role if there are enemy aircraft present. Ground based SAMs will further reduce aircraft capability against tanks.

Modern A2G weapons would mean current generation of tanks may be more vulnerable than before, but tanks are not out yet. New generation tanks can be designed to be more stealthy (in visual and RF) in order to avoid detection from the air.

 

[Bhadra]

Tanks are needed to plough through defences and hold ground. Aircraft can't do that.

Aircraft will be restricted in their role if there are enemy aircraft present. Ground based SAMs will further reduce aircraft capability against tanks.

Modern A2G weapons would mean current generation of tanks may be more vulnerable than before, but tanks are not out yet. New generation tanks can be designed to be more stealthy (in visual and RF) in order to avoid detection from the air.

Tanks do not hold ground and not meant for that. Tanks can not even capture ground !! Like an aircraft it is only an offensive weapon to run over and destroy forces over the ground.

 

[Damian]

If I understood correctly, Poland will developed and aquire future MBT on base of a new heavy universal plattform ? Very good for them. Is it all 300-500 or in that figure upgraded Leopard 2 are included ?

~300-500 new MBT's, 50 tons class, based on universal combat platform, something new to me, dunno if this is realistic approach, IMHO it will be MBT based on dedicated platform but unified as much as possible with WPB Anders light/medium UCP, + 128 Leopard 2A4 modernized to Leopard 2PL standard, total ~428-528 modern MBT's.

Tanks do not hold ground and not meant for that. Tanks can not even capture ground !!

Maybe stop spreading BS, if You don't even know about what You talking about... damn armchair generals...

Modern A2G weapons would mean current generation of tanks may be more vulnerable than before, but tanks are not out yet. New generation tanks can be designed to be more stealthy (in visual and RF) in order to avoid detection from the air.

Who the hell even need a new generation of MBT's to make them stealth, just coat them with Intermat company IR camouflage paints and watch how fly boys try to detect these tanks using FLIR from several kilometers above... I wish them luck, when FLIR placed less than 1,000m on ground had problems to detect both M1A2 and Leopard 2A6HEL coated with this paint.

 

[Bhadra]

Maybe stop spreading BS, if You don't even know about what You talking about... damn armchair generals...

And who does a tank hold ground? and how does a tank captures ground. An armchair technicians talking about tactics without knowing any thing about it .

 

[Bhadra]

Armor and Tactical Air Are Partners
It is literally true that armor and tactical air, when working
close together, form a team with enormous power. This partnership
does not happen by chance. It takes close association, careful
air-ground training, and an intimate understanding of each
other's capabilities, limitations, and methods to attain the desired
relationship. Armor is the one that needs the support. It
must go far more than halfway, if necessary, to effect the partnership

http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.1998.mj/3sunell98.pdf



Armour does not hold ground. It carries out defensive operations through elastic offensive actions. Armour like cavalry is an offensive action arm but does not have any capability to hold ground.

Stop writing about tanks if you do not know this basics.