Future Tank

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-09 08:49pm

This is an offshoot of the Treaded vs. Hover thread. I'm trying to design a future tank in my head using plausible technology. The tech involved doesn't need to be in the near-future, just plausible. Means of locomotion will be treaded, not hover. However, I need you insight on armor, weapons, targeting, sensors, etc.

Happy Fragging!

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2003-01-09 09:14pm

The tank or its replacement will be lighter, faster, and deadiler then the current generation of tanks. However, the current generation of tanks has some nasty sons of bitches in it.

Balrog · Post by **Balrog** » 2003-01-09 09:35pm

Probably something involving Rail Gun technology as a main cannon (perhaps a laser?!?!?!)

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-09 09:47pm

The FMBT concepts min America and Britain are based around several new principles of which I can remember.

1. The new tanks must be lighter and more agile but still retain the ability to defend against anti-armour weapons to a certain degree.

2. They will utilise electric motors or gas turbines with more efficient combustion or fuels.

3. The armour will be polymer, ceramic or steel based, Chobham armour will replace DU entirely.

4. Railguns will be hopefully reduced in size and power requirements to enable tracked vehicle carriage. They will probably be 80mm bore and able to fire solid aluminium or DU slugs/sabots at several klicks/second.

5. Missiles and active defences and optic camouflage will be considered.

6. Increased anti-aircraft abilities, the helicopter gunship and aerial tank busters are still the worst enemies of any tank commander followed by infantry and other MBTs.

7. Crews will be a maximum size of 3, possible 2 man tanks may be produced using further automation and smaller mechanisms that are more reliable than current systems.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-09 10:11pm

I'd like a smaller, automated turret for increased stealth.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-01-09 10:42pm

jaeger115 wrote:I'd like a smaller, automated turret for increased stealth.

The Russians are doing that now.

Also, a new MBT is not necessarily lighter. The only reason that the US and UK are looking at light tanks is that they aren't expecting to have to wage pitched, hard-core war very much in the future, and full-size tanks are expensive.

A near future tank would probably have an automated turret, chobham/DU mesh armor with strong ERA, and a smoothbore main gun of 150mm or more. It will probably also feature the ability to fire ATGM rounds through the barrel, or at least a ATGM mount on the turret, to give it greater range, flexibility, and the ability to engage those blasted helis. A stealth system is also possible, to hide it from reconnaissance.

Further into the future, railguns are a possibility.

Basically, all the tank technology was set in stone fifty years ago. All that you're going to change is weaponry and electronics, with a bit of improved materials science.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-09 11:02pm

Anti-air?? Are you saying future tanks won't need support anti-air tanks for defense because the AA assets will be on the MBTs themselves?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-09 11:05pm

Perhaps a high durability light weight armor and a good fuel source would allow for a kind of vehicle with capabilities between tank and helicopter?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-09 11:09pm

jaeger115 wrote:Anti-air?? Are you saying future tanks won't need support anti-air tanks for defense because the AA assets will be on the MBTs themselves?

No, just give tanks a credible means of self-defense.

Russian tanks have had this for ages. Their gun-launched anti-tank missiles increased the cost of the tank immensely, but allowed them to engage both tanks and (slow-moving) aircraft beyond main gun range.

The T-64B came first with the radio-command guided Kobra ATGM (AT-8 SONGSTER). 4 km range.

The T-55M then got the laser-guided Bastion ATGM (AT-10 STABBER). 4km range

The T-62M around the same time got the laser-guided Sheksna ATGM (AT-12 SWINGER), which was just a Bastion ATGM reworked to be fired through the larger main gun of the T-62. It also had 4km range.

The T-80,T-80A and T-80B also had the ability to fire the Kobra.

The T-72B has the abilit to fire the laser-guided Svir (also known as Refleks), or AT-11 SNIPER. 4 km range.

Then the T-80U and T-90 have the ability to fire the Refleks-M (AT-11 SNIPER-B). 5km range.

Of course, the T-64,T-80,T-72 and T-90 missiles are more effective because of the larger gun diameter, though the 100 and 115mm models aren nothing to sneeze at either- they'll kill anything on the modern battlefield except for an enemy main battle tank- not bad for a T-55 and T-62.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-09 11:10pm

jaeger115 wrote:Anti-air?? Are you saying future tanks won't need support anti-air tanks for defense because the AA assets will be on the MBTs themselves?

Did anyone say that? No they didn't. They merely indicated that the ability to engage helicopters would be incorporated into future tanks, already a number have shells or missiles, which can do the job to an extent. Air defense tracks will still be needed. Though the arrival of THEL may result in laser only ones. A laser can do the job of both guns and short-range missiles if you have a fair sized vehicle to haul it around.

That is something else to keep in mind. Once more countries have THEL and can shield their troops against artillery the ATGM team is going to be fucking hard for armor to beat. Without suppressive artillery fire tanks will need a lot of infantry and direct fire support to take them out. Though it may be that the tanks would just go for the THEL units and then bring in artillery.

No one can really tell at this point though. THEL is on the verge of entering service in Israel and a few years after with the US in Korea. But it might not see a major war till 2010 or later.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-09 11:13pm

The current US plans to design a 20-ton fighting vehcile with which to replace the 70-ton M1A2SEP is ok so long as you don't expect it to fight against any other tanks. I'm sorry, but at 20 tons it is physically impossible for it to withstand main gun ammunition from a true main battle tank.

They're relying on 'battlespace dominance' and 'information overmatch' and other such nifty slogans to make sure that their 20-ton wicker baskets don't come in front of the business end of a tank's main gun or an infantry man's manpack ATGM or RPG/LAW.

This is all tied up with US preoccupation with power projection- you can't transport a 70 ton tank (M1A2SEP) and a 33 ton IFV (M2A3 Bradley) in a fast and efficient way. It's just not on.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-09 11:17pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Did anyone say that? No they didn't. They merely indicated that the ability to engage helicopters would be incorporated into future tanks, already a number have shells or missiles, which can do the job to an extent. Air defense tracks will still be needed. Though the arrival of THEL may result in laser only ones. A laser can do the job of both guns and short-range missiles if you have a fair sized vehicle to haul it around.

That is something else to keep in mind. Once more countries have THEL and can shield their troops against artillery the ATGM team is going to be fucking hard for armor to beat. Without suppressive artillery fire tanks will need a lot of infantry and direct fire support to take them out. Though it may be that the tanks would just go for the THEL units and then bring in artillery.

No one can really tell at this point though. THEL is on the verge of entering service in Israel and a few years after with the US in Korea. But it might not see a major war till 2010 or later.

It'll be positively decades before THEL can be a credible anti-artillery defense- sure it can shoot down individual rockets, but how many THELs would you need to stop an artillery strike by a battalion of BM-21 Grads? That's 720 rockets incoming.