Will The US Army ever build a NEW MBT?

The MBT looked set for transformational changes in the late 1980s, new ceramic armours, ERA, unmanned turrets and external main guns, remote sensors, smaller crews, telescopic missile launcher arms, gas turbine power. All the goodies that were set to revolutionise tank warfare.
Then 1990 happened and the Soviet tank hordes melted away, then 1991 happened and everyone found out you could whack Soviet armour pretty easily by aerial attack and with existing tank weaponry (has airpower destroyed more tanks than tanks themsleves? Probably).

Since then there has been no motivation to innovate, nobody has come up with a newer and more formidable armour, nobody has found a way to radically alter the power-to-weight ratio, external turrets never really got past the testbed, railguns remained staples of sci-fi fiction for tanks. Nobody had mass tank armies and so what was on hand seemed to be enough to handle whatever newer models might come along because they were only going to to be comparable.

The same holds true today. If you have neighbouring tank opposition then it makes sense, but if you have to airlift and sealift heavy tanks it becomes a major constraint on how many you can deploy at short notice. So the trend is firepower and mobility and low weight. Unless you can get MBT levels of firepower and mobility at low weight then its unlikely to ever be a massive advance over the last great generation of tank designs. Sure an M1 designed today would be quite different in details and execution, but would it be that much more capable to justify the $$$?

1. I don’t have the stats in front of me but I’m pretty sure that in Desert Storm, most Iraqi tanks were knocked out by Coalition tanks.
2. The Soviet export tanks used by Iraq, were NOT the models that the Soviets would have tried driving to Frankfurt.
3. The need to airlift/sealift heavy armor is an old one (”light” Stryker brigades went by sea) and it’s not changing unless we will now be Ok with more vulnerable vehicles to fight more capable ones. Those Sheridans sent to Saudi Arabia in 1990 were awfully lonely.
 
Back to the MBT question I think the problem of wanting something "transformative" is a very real one in this area as well. When the subject comes up they seem reluctant to even say "MBT" or "tank".

The latest version of the M1A2 is a great vehicle but I believe there is plenty of a room for improvement. Both the Germans and French seem to think that the current 120mm cannon will be inadequate against future threats so the Germans have that new 130mm cannon and apparently the French have tested a 140mm on a modified Leclerc. Does anyone know if this is a further development of the NATO 140mm cannon trialed late in the Cold War? Either way both of these guns use ammunition so large as to require an autoloader to maintain a good rate of fire. All things considered it would probably be a good idea just to design a whole new turret. That would also have the benefit of allowing of a more "streamlined" integration of active protection systems, smoke dischargers, commander weapon station, CITV, RF jammers, and everything else that is now expected on an AFV.

One question that the Army needs to answer is if they want a three or four man tank crew. There are benefits and drawbacks to each and generally NATO nations have expressed a preference for four man crews.

Industry was looking at hydropneumatic suspension units and a MTU-833 diesel engine as a potential upgrade path. If you want alternatives you could probably bring back the LV100-5 gas turbine from the dead and there was also an advanced diesel engine tested during the same time period as well.

Overall it might be better to design a mostly-new tank on a hull that could be reconfigured like the Armata for use as an IFV and in other roles. Yet the Army can't seem to stop itself from adding contradicting or overambitious requirements when it comes to new designs.

There is also the question of the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program which seems to be in an awkward place. Too heavy to air-drop but too light to have a high level of armor protection. I'm not entirely certain what they want the thing for. In-theory I think it would be working with the Stryker brigades which are able to be deployed faster by air than the heavy armor can be, but for that role wouldn't a wheeled platform be better? Something like the Stryker MGS but without all the problems.

Has there been any news in regards to ETC guns? I haven't heard anything about that subject in quite some time.

Back to the MBT question I think the problem of wanting something "transformative" is a very real one in this area as well. When the subject comes up they seem reluctant to even say "MBT" or "tank".

That is a big problem going back to the early 90s. All this crap about hover tanks and electromagnetic shields?! Very destructive to any new MBT design because it just ain’t gonna happen and if it does it won’t be for ground vehicles first.

The latest version of the M1A2 is a great vehicle but I believe there is plenty of a room for improvement. Both the Germans and French seem to think that the current 120mm cannon will be inadequate against future threats so the Germans have that new 130mm cannon and apparently the French have tested a 140mm on a modified Leclerc. Does anyone know if this is a further development of the NATO 140mm cannon trialed late in the Cold War? Either way both of these guns use ammunition so large as to require an autoloader to maintain a good rate of fire. All things considered it would probably be a good idea just to design a whole new turret. That would also have the benefit of allowing of a more "streamlined" integration of active protection systems, smoke dischargers, commander weapon station, CITV, RF jammers, and everything else that is now expected on an AFV.

The 120mm gun being insufficient agiants future threat tanks was known way back in the 80s. BLOCK III was expected to have the 140mm version of the XM291. There was a NATO MOU for a 140mm gun w/commonality in the chamber size. There was also the GHz frequency MTAS fire control radar. A lot of this “new stuff” has just been back burnered for many reasons.

I wonder if the fighting in Yemen is reinforcing the “ATGM is master of the MBT” mentality that I think makes one of the reasons why the USArmy seems to be dreading designing a new MBT.
I would be careful to learn any lessons from Saudi ops in Yemen. It may be modern western mbt’s, but it’s far from a western unit, trained and organised, from the video’s I’ve seen they drive on roads until someone shoots them.

for sure if you park an mbt and shoot atgm’s you can destroy it. The role of everyone else, infantry, arty, recon, air support, is to prevent that happening, or to mitigate it quickly if it does.

You’re right about that war not being textbook combined arms, but it may be feeding into the tank haters in the USArmy. “Yeah, see, Abrams can’t stand up to modern ATGMs, cost too much to try. We won’t need them anyway in the Pacific.”
 
A ramjet tk rd was developed decades ago and now ramjets are back in vogue. Russian ATGMS are so long range why would one bother w/ direct fire. The Army is now showing the era of satellite RISTA is here. Direct fire option, ok if suddenly ambushed.. but those days are coming to an end. The Russians and the PLAN are not going shoot down the entire Blackjack sat constellation.

PS another reason Mech tms needs to have longer rg UAS than quadrotors can provide to clarify sat RISTA.
 
Two man crew? Three man crews can be done if there is the proper support in place but a two man crew is just ridiculous for the amount of work it takes to crew a real tank.

To make a two-man crew possible, you really have to have a full set of relief crews or support personnel assigned down at the platoon level, so that 4 tanks and 16 crew ends up being 4 tanks and 8 crew plus one APC and 8 relief crew plus a couple of APC crew. It's not a net savings on manpower, but it might mean the actual tank crews are less vulnerable. You still have issues maintaining SA and all-around surveillance in an urban environment, where the TC, gunner, and loader all have responsibilities in a conventional tank.
I cant really see the logic, for a given number of men, and vehicles, you only have half the tanks. More likely is tanks, plus 'panzer grenadiers' in heavy IFV, as one unit. I've never heard of an army that fought in shifts - to borrow from Mr Heinlein, everyone drops, everyone fights.
 
The MBT looked set for transformational changes in the late 1980s, new ceramic armours, ERA, unmanned turrets and external main guns, remote sensors, smaller crews, telescopic missile launcher arms, gas turbine power. All the goodies that were set to revolutionise tank warfare.
Then 1990 happened and the Soviet tank hordes melted away, then 1991 happened and everyone found out you could whack Soviet armour pretty easily by aerial attack and with existing tank weaponry (has airpower destroyed more tanks than tanks themsleves? Probably).

Since then there has been no motivation to innovate, nobody has come up with a newer and more formidable armour, nobody has found a way to radically alter the power-to-weight ratio, external turrets never really got past the testbed, railguns remained staples of sci-fi fiction for tanks. Nobody had mass tank armies and so what was on hand seemed to be enough to handle whatever newer models might come along because they were only going to to be comparable.

The same holds true today. If you have neighbouring tank opposition then it makes sense, but if you have to airlift and sealift heavy tanks it becomes a major constraint on how many you can deploy at short notice. So the trend is firepower and mobility and low weight. Unless you can get MBT levels of firepower and mobility at low weight then its unlikely to ever be a massive advance over the last great generation of tank designs. Sure an M1 designed today would be quite different in details and execution, but would it be that much more capable to justify the $$$?

1. I don’t have the stats in front of me but I’m pretty sure that in Desert Storm, most Iraqi tanks were knocked out by Coalition tanks.
2. The Soviet export tanks used by Iraq, were NOT the models that the Soviets would have tried driving to Frankfurt.
3. The need to airlift/sealift heavy armor is an old one (”light” Stryker brigades went by sea) and it’s not changing unless we will now be Ok with more vulnerable vehicles to fight more capable ones. Those Sheridans sent to Saudi Arabia in 1990 were awfully lonely.
mmm. having been there, seem to recall a few weeks of systematically dropping bombs on each tank - when dug in its hard to see if the tank is dead, or jut playin with you, unless the turret pops off. Army may have shot each tank on their way, not the same as they killed them. The airwar took 6 weeks, the ground what 7 days or so?
 
The MBT looked set for transformational changes in the late 1980s, new ceramic armours, ERA, unmanned turrets and external main guns, remote sensors, smaller crews, telescopic missile launcher arms, gas turbine power. All the goodies that were set to revolutionise tank warfare.
Then 1990 happened and the Soviet tank hordes melted away, then 1991 happened and everyone found out you could whack Soviet armour pretty easily by aerial attack and with existing tank weaponry (has airpower destroyed more tanks than tanks themsleves? Probably).

Since then there has been no motivation to innovate, nobody has come up with a newer and more formidable armour, nobody has found a way to radically alter the power-to-weight ratio, external turrets never really got past the testbed, railguns remained staples of sci-fi fiction for tanks. Nobody had mass tank armies and so what was on hand seemed to be enough to handle whatever newer models might come along because they were only going to to be comparable.

The same holds true today. If you have neighbouring tank opposition then it makes sense, but if you have to airlift and sealift heavy tanks it becomes a major constraint on how many you can deploy at short notice. So the trend is firepower and mobility and low weight. Unless you can get MBT levels of firepower and mobility at low weight then its unlikely to ever be a massive advance over the last great generation of tank designs. Sure an M1 designed today would be quite different in details and execution, but would it be that much more capable to justify the $$$?

1. I don’t have the stats in front of me but I’m pretty sure that in Desert Storm, most Iraqi tanks were knocked out by Coalition tanks.
2. The Soviet export tanks used by Iraq, were NOT the models that the Soviets would have tried driving to Frankfurt.
3. The need to airlift/sealift heavy armor is an old one (”light” Stryker brigades went by sea) and it’s not changing unless we will now be Ok with more vulnerable vehicles to fight more capable ones. Those Sheridans sent to Saudi Arabia in 1990 were awfully lonely.
mmm. having been there, seem to recall a few weeks of systematically dropping bombs on each tank - when dug in its hard to see if the tank is dead, or jut playin with you, unless the turret pops off. Army may have shot each tank on their way, not the same as they killed them. The airwar took 6 weeks, the ground what 7 days or so?

I‘m sure someone on this site has the stats to show one way or the other. You know that the Iraqi Army, especially the RG, didn’t just fold when they saw the ground forces coming to them.
 
I cant really see the logic, for a given number of men, and vehicles, you only have half the tanks.

Check your math. My proposal ends up with 18 crew, 4 MBT and 1 APC, against a normal platoon of 16 crew and 4 MBT. Worse (assuming the APC doesn't offer any combat value), but not half as many tanks.
 
All those proponents of smaller tank crews (2 or 3) forget about the long hours and all the extra duties. For example, just sitting in a observation position requires 2 or 3 men on duty at all times. By the time you count in time devoted to sleeping, eating, digging latrines, refuelling, etc. you quickly need more like 20 soldiers to maintain a single observation post for more than a day or three.

Even if you are not fighting for long days, you still need extra eyes and brains. Fore example, a tank troop usually needs four hulls, but the officer leading the troop needs to maintain "big picture" situational awareness, so he might want to delegate command of his individual vehicle to his loader. The troop commander also needs extra radios, extra radio batteries, time to attend orders groups, etc.
 
1. I don’t have the stats in front of me but I’m pretty sure that in Desert Storm, most Iraqi tanks were knocked out by Coalition tanks.
I can't find it now, but the quote I remember (I ran across it again a few weeks ago) was from an Iraqi commander who said something along the lines of "before the air war, I had 36 tanks. After the air war I had 32 tanks. After the ground war I had 4 tanks". My numbers may be off by a couple, but the ratio is reflective of his experience.

The exchange ratio was heavily skewed in favor of ground over air forces. Which was also the case in WW2. It was 30 years ago though, so things may be different next time around. Or not, if the tech that makes tanks vulnerable makes aircraft even more vulnerable.
 
To make a two-man crew possible, you really have to have a full set of relief crews or support personnel assigned down at the platoon level, so that 4 tanks and 16 crew ends up being 4 tanks and 8 crew plus one APC and 8 relief crew plus a couple of APC crew. It's not a net savings on manpower, but it might mean the actual tank crews are less vulnerable. You still have issues maintaining SA and all-around surveillance in an urban environment, where the TC, gunner, and loader all have responsibilities in a conventional tank.
The whole point those modern developments is to reduce the manning requirements, because the human is one of the most expensive thing for a decades long serving vehicle. The costs and strategic issues of actually losing men in conflicts is even greater. Videos of GI bodies dragged in the street can instantly lose a war regardless of orders of magnitude difference in budget.

------------------
The whole idea of 2 man crews is that modern AI systems can fill the gap of the third man: driving the vehicle, identifying threats, and so on. The fact that a crew is needed is because AI is not reliable in all tasks in all situations and a crew will be needed to deal with unexpected situations and other AI failures.

There is no reason why a 2 man crewed tank without largely functional AI onboard would have a shorter operating time than a 3 or 4 man tank with conventional configuration.

The dismount requirements for security is another problem being tackled with hopes pinned on things from unattended ground sensors and UAV swarms.

Not saying that systems of reduced manning would succeed since the tech isn't mature, but without this level of improvement there is little motivation for major development.

You’re right about that war not being textbook combined arms, but it may be feeding into the tank haters in the USArmy. “Yeah, see, Abrams can’t stand up to modern ATGMs, cost too much to try. We won’t need them anyway in the Pacific.”
Any 2nd rate power can realize they are unable to implement proper combined arms with their political/culture/economic structure and buy actually threatening things likes ballistic missiles and a nuclear program. If the state in question actually allows for professional armies, actually budgeting to train a loyal sizable professional army is more important than shiny vehicles that require very specific conditions to be valuable.

Iraq with a Armatas would have been rolled over by the US just the same. Hell, Iraq with Abrams gets rolled by a opponent on pickup trucks. One can look at the rapid collapse of Gaddafi's armored force, or the failures of Syrian armor to see how little value was derived from all these.

Given 2nd rate powers isn't throwing money into new tanks (outside of forces with more money than sense), there is even less need for 1st rate powers to update armor to maintain "over match." The potential for advanced powers to meddle in world affairs with aeronaval power with very low risk of casualties makes it a quite desirable path of development.

1st rate nuclear powers throwing armored formation at each other? The cold war was that way, and we know it'd go nuclear anyways.
 
Last edited:
I cant really see the logic, for a given number of men, and vehicles, you only have half the tanks.

Check your math. My proposal ends up with 18 crew, 4 MBT and 1 APC, against a normal platoon of 16 crew and 4 MBT. Worse (assuming the APC doesn't offer any combat value), but not half as many tanks.
I'd be investing in anti APC system then, if your jamming 4 crews into it. Or buying bi-planes to harrass your laager in the wee hours.
 
All this talk of sophisticated AI, drones, sensors, etc. just increases the logistics and maintenance "tail." This "tail" is expensive and vulnerable. "Tails" are also politically vulnerable. If a second or third world army annoys their (usually First World) supplier, the flow of spare parts dries up and hundreds of vehicles are inoperable. Even a simple lack of software updates can ground a fleet.

As for all the "tank-haters" remember that he who fires first usually wins tank engagements. Complex sensors, command links back to remote AT weapons, etc. all take time. In some battles, you just need to "snap shoot" to eliminate an enemy threat. High velocity, flat tragectory guns are still the best "snap shooters." Anything more complex is worse than a waste of time.

Finally, no single weapon is guarranteed to win any battle. As soon as a counter-measure is developed, you need a better weapon/tank. Far wiser - and more expensive - to have multiple over-lapping weapons/tanks because the enemy rarely reads the battle plan and even more rarely obeys the battle plan.
 
All this talk of sophisticated AI, drones, sensors, etc. just increases the logistics and maintenance "tail." This "tail" is expensive and vulnerable. "Tails" are also politically vulnerable. If a second or third world army annoys their (usually First World) supplier, the flow of spare parts dries up and hundreds of vehicles are inoperable. Even a simple lack of software updates can ground a fleet.

As for all the "tank-haters" remember that he who fires first usually wins tank engagements. Complex sensors, command links back to remote AT weapons, etc. all take time. In some battles, you just need to "snap shoot" to eliminate an enemy threat. High velocity, flat tragectory guns are still the best "snap shooters." Anything more complex is worse than a waste of time.

Finally, no single weapon is guarranteed to win any battle. As soon as a counter-measure is developed, you need a better weapon/tank. Far wiser - and more expensive - to have multiple over-lapping weapons/tanks because the enemy rarely reads the battle plan and even more rarely obeys the battle plan.
I agree, even US can't field the latest tank/drone/missile/recon/rifle all at the same time.

So overlaps in every area, you have recon satellites, and drones, and probably other systems or assets.

To kill tanks you have - kill rail system, kill factory, kill people in factory/city, kill crew outside of vehicle, cut off fuel/ammo/food/water to crew. destroy spare parts. All before you get to your tank, with its gun and ammo and crew. I have said this before, this isn't chess, where each side gets the same pieces, as Gen Patton said:

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
 
I cant really see the logic, for a given number of men, and vehicles, you only have half the tanks.

Check your math. My proposal ends up with 18 crew, 4 MBT and 1 APC, against a normal platoon of 16 crew and 4 MBT. Worse (assuming the APC doesn't offer any combat value), but not half as many tanks.
I'd be investing in anti APC system then, if your jamming 4 crews into it. Or buying bi-planes to harrass your laager in the wee hours.

Not sure how an anti-APC system is anything different from a regular anti-armor weapon. And harassing the laager works the same no matter what the crew rides on. If the force gets a competent counter-UAS capability, I would expect it to work against all sorts of harassing light air vehicles.

Look, I'm not advocating for my set-up as an improvement, just suggesting it as a mitigation for the worst problems they would encounter if they were to go forward with very small tank crews.
 
I cant really see the logic, for a given number of men, and vehicles, you only have half the tanks.

Check your math. My proposal ends up with 18 crew, 4 MBT and 1 APC, against a normal platoon of 16 crew and 4 MBT. Worse (assuming the APC doesn't offer any combat value), but not half as many tanks.
I'd be investing in anti APC system then, if your jamming 4 crews into it. Or buying bi-planes to harrass your laager in the wee hours.

Not sure how an anti-APC system is anything different from a regular anti-armor weapon. And harassing the laager works the same no matter what the crew rides on. If the force gets a competent counter-UAS capability, I would expect it to work against all sorts of harassing light air vehicles.

Look, I'm not advocating for my set-up as an improvement, just suggesting it as a mitigation for the worst problems they would encounter if they were to go forward with very small tank crews.
Sorry, I wasnt arguing for 4 man tanks, I was saying if your putting half your people in an APC, you may as well buy them some tanks. Personally I'd rather be in a tank, out of 8, rather than be in the one APC out of 5 vehicles. In WW2 anti-tankers when given the time, would target the tank with the most Ariel's. Systems now days can target specific signatures, if given a choice, so your APC could be a prime target.

I dont have any view on crew size, most expendable has to be the loader, and in the age of robots etc, I bet you could automate the human loader in an abrams without too much work. If you can automate trash sorting, etc.

So that gets you to 3. I.m not sure who leaves next - maybe the commander? He could be in the command tank - maybe look like a normal tank, but with the old wooden gun.

But even with all round video cameras(need some paint bombs....) the driver needs to drive, gunner can look round, but once he engages, you have no-one monitoring the area - could argue the driver isnt doing much while the gunner is gunning, so it drops to him. But still seems like an over load, which the enemy is going to target, i.e. you fit movement detector SW to your camera system, the enemy make spring driven things that jump every 5 seconds. end result you have 100 video alarms every hour. Crew will go nuts after a couple of hours of that. Detune it, and enemy dronemine can drive up to you at 0.5 m/sec and kill your tracks.

Isnt this now the role of wargaming, stick 2 guys in an abrams, with a virtual loader, and some cameras and see if they can fight, and do the same with a 3 man crew, there has to be an answer.

As for the optionally manned, is there really a need, are you really going to send your newest tank, at $50M into a presumably 'known' killzone? Surely you will either bomb the location, or send in either a small unmanned tank, or take your old tatty abrams and automate it, and send that in to draw out the enemy?

I cant follow the maybe 2 crew, maybe 3, maybe none - again where are these guys hanging out while their tank trundles off? Armies would man for 2, so where will you get your 3rd man from?
 
I find it amusing here those that seemingly disparage modern sensors and the like whilst forgetting that platforms such as the M1A2C (M1A2 SEP V3) are all about new electronics, sensors and the like - giving both improved capabilities (including better situational awareness and thus ability to see the target first and thus shoot first) whilst at the same time actually giving improved reliability. The yearning for simplicity (something I see regularly in other discussions - dare I say A-10 - just to stir people more;)) is admirable but often totally lacking in any basis in reality.

Logistics tails are a risk but have always been so (going back centuries I would argue) and there are also ways to overcome these without compromising capabilities.

Programs such as Israel's Carmel are pointing the way to the future of armoured vehicle development. They rely on sensors to give greater abilities. Things like degrees of AI will go further. The tank of tomorrow is not going to be about who has the best armour or biggest gun but rather who has the best match for the real world battles and the use of sensors and the like. It comes back to understanding the real battles to be fought (I doubt tank-vs-tank slug outs are the area most tanks will be used, or indeed have been used in the past) as well as the good old OODA loop.
 
Last edited:
The ATGM threat has been there since the late 1950s but its never killed the MBT as a concept.
The Soviets were putting ATGMs onto MBTs and IFVs routinely since the early 1970s and again it didn't have a fundamental shift in tactics.

Unless you are fighting in billiard table flat landscapes or a desert, there are always obstacles in the form of terrain and vegetation that block line-of-sight and engagement distances. Since 1940 its been shown that the tank with the longest-range gun or missile isn't necessarily the one that wins out.
More often engagements are far within theoretical maximum ranges, the aim is to surprise the enemy. He who spots first can fire first and have the element of surprise or get into cover if you are not spotted yourself.
I agree its harder to hide now with pervasive drone coverage and multi-spectrum sensors, but that applies to an MBT, an SPG, a Toyota with a ZSU-23 on the back or a guy with an RPG-7 on a motorbike, but surprises will always happen on the battlefield and I don't think we're ever going to see massed armoured formations going toe-to-toe. That's suicide on so many levels from ground and air systems.
 
The chances that a command vehicle with a wooden or otherwise fake gun will appear is about as likely as the army moving to tootoo pink for all vehicles as camouflage.
 
ATGMs of the old were inferior at close ranges: with long firing cycle and long time to target.

NLOS ATGMs (and other modern long range precision or massed strike) has the potential to be revolutionary. The direct fire gun can not defeat or suppress such a launcher, while defeating sensors and battle network for such missiles is unreliable and likely highly uneconomic: some masted sensor, UAV, UGV, man with a radio, unattended ground sensor what not can call fires and defeat even the most powerful conventional MBT. There has been series of RAND studies of NLOS missile armed forces taking on traditional tank formations, and a formation a fraction of size in weight, manpower and cost can inflict heavy damage, even if avoiding being overrun is not always possible if they stand their ground. Howevever if the formation shoot and scoot with help of obstacles and the opponent lacks NLOS firepower, there is no upper bound in exchange ratios.

MBTs have of course evolved to have soft and hard kill against such threats, but it has always been an afterthought with questionable effectiveness against evolving threats. A top attack standoff EFP missile can defeat modern APS designs by out ranging its effects and require no new technology or even sophisticated integration (take a existing diving missile). One would need a real C-RAM capability to defeat such a missile, and the price of such a vehicle would be very high relative to modern MBTs. Now such a vehicle would be necessary for maneuver under strike complexes, but all indicators is that it wouldn't be able to defeat strike complexes at anywhere remotely near cost parity, as the threat types are just too varied for a single defense system, and would only be used offensively only after the indirect/air threat is heavily suppressed.

The alternative strategy to dealing with powerful indirect fire is to go low cost. Cheap UAV/UGV (or human, if not 1st world) can be too cheap to be worth a high quality missile and if they spot a powerful combatant they can all call in high quality fire support. The way to defeat such a strategy, outside of symmetrical formations, is to have a vehicle that can out spot such low value threats, defeat them with low cost weapons and escape reactionary fires. Aircraft with high speed is likely the favored means of doing so. Some kind of stealthy vehicle might also work, but its design concept would likely be very different from existing MBTs.

the driver needs to drive, gunner can look round, but once he engages, you have no-one monitoring the area - could argue the driver isnt doing much while the gunner is gunning, so it drops to him. But still seems like an over load, which the enemy is going to target, i.e. you fit movement detector SW to your camera system, the enemy make spring driven things that jump every 5 seconds. end result you have 100 video alarms every hour. Crew will go nuts after a couple of hours of that. Detune it, and enemy dronemine can drive up to you at 0.5 m/sec and kill your tracks.
The Gunner can go as modern gunnery no longer need eye ball mk.I looking through a 10x sight or something. With Computer + AI assistance the engagement cycle can be simple as click and shoot a object on the screen, which is much faster and result in far less loss in situation awareness.

The camera system also wouldn't be simple like a motion detector, but AI that ideally could be as effective as a human at identification. With some advancement in AI research, if the opponent can build convicting decoys that fool the computer, it would work against humans as well.

As for wargaming, the Israeli Carmel do have two man crews driving around training grounds to see if the idea works.

As for the optionally manned, is there really a need, are you really going to send your newest tank, at $50M into a presumably 'known' killzone? Surely you will either bomb the location, or send in either a small unmanned tank, or take your old tatty abrams and automate it, and send that in to draw out the enemy?
Small unmanned vehicles, like SWORD, W-Mutt, Titan, are all of course on the table. Automating an Abrams is unlikely however, much of its systems assume human operation and a clean sheet would be cheaper and more effective. The tank gets used instead of bombardment because the tank can be the fastest precision strike option as the gun is faster than missiles or artillery. It is also a luxury in wars where collateral damage is a real problem.

------------------------------------------------
All this talk of sophisticated AI, drones, sensors, etc. just increases the logistics and maintenance "tail." This "tail" is expensive and vulnerable. "Tails" are also politically vulnerable.
The basic MBT already have a hugely vulnerable tail: the unending stream of fuel trucks. The Abrams with its 5hr refuel cycle is especially bad. There is a reason why I find classical armored maneuver warfare very questionable today: even if you "penetrated" whatever defenses, your fuel supply train can still be interdicted by shoestring sensors with support from long range fires. You need a entire stream of SHORAD/C-RAM and engineering (air scattered mines, destruction of roads/bridges/etc) to the keep the maneuver going, and any detected vulnerability can be exploited at the speed of artillery shell flight.

Some light weight vehicle that relies on active defenses might be difficult to maintain, it at least allows far more to be sustained on limited number of fuel trucks. Without fuel, the MBTs are bunkers in a day.

With all the constrains on MBT mobility and supply constraints, one ought to think many MBTs as plain heavy tanks with all its classical flaws except tactical mobility, and trying to maneuver warfare with heavy tanks generally is not a successful idea, especially in a world where everyone is at least motorized.

As for all the "tank-haters" remember that he who fires first usually wins tank engagements. Complex sensors, command links back to remote AT weapons, etc. all take time. In some battles, you just need to "snap shoot" to eliminate an enemy threat. High velocity, flat tragectory guns are still the best "snap shooters." Anything more complex is worse than a waste of time.
Of all the threats on the battlefield, the enemy tank is one of the least likely threat to pop up in surprise and demand a snap shot, due to large size, big signature, high cost and comparative rarity. There is a lot more UAV/UGV/light vehicle/Infantry/etc. MBTs are just plain heavy tanks that specialized in tank dueling while becoming less cost effective in all other roles, while not having dramatic advantage in head to head vehicle combat. Superior tactics, superior technology, superior numbers and superior tactical position enables light vehicles to defeat MBTs just like how medium tanks managed to defeat heavies of the old.
 
Last edited:
ATGMs of the old were inferior at close ranges: with long firing cycle and long time to target.

NLOS ATGMs (and other modern long range precision or massed strike) has the potential to be revolutionary. The direct fire gun can not defeat or suppress such a launcher, while defeating sensors and battle network for such missiles is unreliable and likely highly uneconomic: some masted sensor, UAV, UGV, man with a radio, unattended ground sensor what not can call fires and defeat even the most powerful conventional MBT. There has been series of RAND studies of NLOS missile armed forces taking on traditional tank formations, and a formation a fraction of size in weight, manpower and cost can inflict heavy damage, even if avoiding being overrun is not always possible if they stand their ground. Howevever if the formation shoot and scoot with help of obstacles and the opponent lacks NLOS firepower, there is no upper bound in exchange ratios.

MBTs have of course evolved to have soft and hard kill against such threats, but it has always been an afterthought with questionable effectiveness against evolving threats. A top attack standoff EFP missile can defeat modern APS designs by out ranging its effects and require no new technology or even sophisticated integration (take a existing diving missile). One would need a real C-RAM capability to defeat such a missile, and the price of such a vehicle would be very high relative to modern MBTs. Now such a vehicle would be necessary for maneuver under strike complexes, but all indicators is that it wouldn't be able to defeat strike complexes at anywhere remotely near cost parity, as the threat types are just too varied for a single defense system, and would only be used offensively only after the indirect/air threat is heavily suppressed.

The alternative strategy to dealing with powerful indirect fire is to go low cost. Cheap UAV/UGV (or human, if not 1st world) can be too cheap to be worth a high quality missile and if they spot a powerful combatant they can all call in high quality fire support. The way to defeat such a strategy, outside of symmetrical formations, is to have a vehicle that can out spot such low value threats, defeat them with low cost weapons and escape reactionary fires. Aircraft with high speed is likely the favored means of doing so. Some kind of stealthy vehicle might also work, but its design concept would likely be very different from existing MBTs.

the driver needs to drive, gunner can look round, but once he engages, you have no-one monitoring the area - could argue the driver isnt doing much while the gunner is gunning, so it drops to him. But still seems like an over load, which the enemy is going to target, i.e. you fit movement detector SW to your camera system, the enemy make spring driven things that jump every 5 seconds. end result you have 100 video alarms every hour. Crew will go nuts after a couple of hours of that. Detune it, and enemy dronemine can drive up to you at 0.5 m/sec and kill your tracks.
The Gunner can go as modern gunnery no longer need eye ball mk.I looking through a 10x sight or something. With Computer + AI assistance the engagement cycle can be simple as click and shoot a object on the screen, which is much faster and result in far less loss in situation awareness.

The camera system also wouldn't be simple like a motion detector, but AI that ideally could be as effective as a human at identification. With some advancement in AI research, if the opponent can build convicting decoys that fool the computer, it would work against humans as well.

As for wargaming, the Israeli Carmel do have two man crews driving around training grounds to see if the idea works.

As for the optionally manned, is there really a need, are you really going to send your newest tank, at $50M into a presumably 'known' killzone? Surely you will either bomb the location, or send in either a small unmanned tank, or take your old tatty abrams and automate it, and send that in to draw out the enemy?
Small unmanned vehicles, like SWORD, W-Mutt, Titan, are all of course on the table. Automating an Abrams is unlikely however, much of its systems assume human operation and a clean sheet would be cheaper and more effective. The tank gets used instead of bombardment because the tank can be the fastest precision strike option as the gun is faster than missiles or artillery. It is also a luxury in wars where collateral damage is a real problem.

------------------------------------------------
All this talk of sophisticated AI, drones, sensors, etc. just increases the logistics and maintenance "tail." This "tail" is expensive and vulnerable. "Tails" are also politically vulnerable.
The basic MBT already have a hugely vulnerable tail: the unending stream of fuel trucks. The Abrams with its 5hr refuel cycle is especially bad. There is a reason why I find classical armored maneuver warfare very questionable today: even if you "penetrated" whatever defenses, your fuel supply train can still be interdicted by shoestring sensors with support from long range fires. You need a entire stream of SHORAD/C-RAM and engineering (air scattered mines, destruction of roads/bridges/etc) to the keep the maneuver going, and any detected vulnerability can be exploited at the speed of artillery shell flight.

Some light weight vehicle that relies on active defenses might be difficult to maintain, it at least allows far more to be sustained on limited number of fuel trucks. Without fuel, the MBTs are bunkers in a day.

With all the constrains on MBT mobility and supply constraints, one ought to think many MBTs as plain heavy tanks with all its classical flaws except tactical mobility, and trying to maneuver warfare with heavy tanks generally is not a successful idea, especially in a world where everyone is at least motorized.

As for all the "tank-haters" remember that he who fires first usually wins tank engagements. Complex sensors, command links back to remote AT weapons, etc. all take time. In some battles, you just need to "snap shoot" to eliminate an enemy threat. High velocity, flat tragectory guns are still the best "snap shooters." Anything more complex is worse than a waste of time.
Of all the threats on the battlefield, the enemy tank is one of the least likely threat to pop up in surprise and demand a snap shot, due to large size, big signature, high cost and comparative rarity. There is a lot more UAV/UGV/light vehicle/Infantry/etc. MBTs are just plain heavy tanks that specialized in tank dueling while becoming less cost effective in all other roles, while not having dramatic advantage in head to head vehicle combat. Superior tactics, superior technology, superior numbers and superior tactical position enables light vehicles to defeat MBTs just like how medium tanks managed to defeat heavies of the old.
I take the rand study with a pinch of salt, how did the 100 missiles get to site, on a truck? of course with any ATGM you can kill 1000 tons of tank, for 2 tons of missiles. How do you get the right missiles to the right place? As Napoléon said 'are you trying to stop smuggling' by deploying 1 missile per km? 20 men with a load of boxes is still a target, as is the missile dump etc.

Should we ever get to a tier 1 v tier 1 I think everyone will have shot their war load by day 3, and day 4 you will be dusting of your T55 and centurions, and moaning about how heavy 7.62 is.......
 
I take the rand study with a pinch of salt, how did the 100 missiles get to site, on a truck? of course with any ATGM you can kill 1000 tons of tank, for 2 tons of missiles. How do you get the right missiles to the right place? As Napoléon said 'are you trying to stop smuggling' by deploying 1 missile per km? 20 men with a load of boxes is still a target, as is the missile dump etc.

It's not a problem.
1) 6x Brimstone on THeMIS UGV - a small unmanned vehicle have firepower to defeat a tank platoon (4 tanks),
2) 15x PAM (NLOS-LS) on HMMWV - this not large vehicle can defeat a tank company (3 platoons),
3) 8x3 (24x) Brimstone on K9 chassis
4) 30x (2x15) PAM (NLOS-LS) on 6x6 truck - vehicle can defeat a 2 tank companies,
5) 45x (3x15) PAM (NLOS-LS) on 6x6 truck - vehicle can defeat a tank battalion (3 companies)

Missiles (ATGMs) are game changer.
One cheap carrier (truck) can destroy (stop) a tank battalion.
One tank, modern or projected can't and never will be able to do this.
So yes, tanks are a thing of the past.
 
Missiles (ATGMs) are game changer.
They were a game changer since 50s. Tanks prevailed then. They will prevail now. Whatever "smart weapons" will bring to battle, they will not replace tank role: armored direct fire support. Slow down in development of tanks in last decades is not indication of tanks being obsolete of concept but militaries not seeing new top of the line tank a major priority. And since noone has top of the line tank - everyone has top of the line tank.
 
An AI assisted dynamic rerouter would allows vehicles to "penetrate" to destroy rear area support rendering opposition forward units 'dead BNs driving' as rear area units dont have sophisticated APS. Rand did a study on distributed behind the lines atks on logistics some time ago. The rerouting would overwhelm the defense planning thus breaking the the oppositions OODA loop. Culmination would be reached as logistics are destroyed and cascading collaspe would follow. Mobility presents Opportunity.jpg Small 4x4.jpg
 
No need to use vaporware.

8x spikes at 30km around 1.5tons. Thats >200+ missiles for an Abrams worth of weight.
spikeNLOSlight_725.jpg

The cool people gets VLS
16x CM501GA missiles at 40km range. 8 tons. For the weight of a single Abrams in weight transported you get like 90 missiles.
Chinese%2Barmy%2Bto%2Badopt%2Bnew%2Bmobile%2Bmissile%2Bsystem.JPG


It is also possible to go full retard and pack a vehicle with stupid number of missiles, but it is probably not useful since the opponent would be countering with their own long range fires, if they are sane. Missiles that gets blown up by counter battery is missiles wasted.

Putting missiles on planes is also a thing. 16 on an Apache might be fun, but by payload weight it ought to be possible to stuff 100 ATGMs on a F-15E, someone just need to figure out how to mount the damned things. Probably falls under full retard given the lack of suicidal targets.

Still, you do not win the long range fires fight with tanks, but with your own long range fires.
 
Last edited:
No need to use vaporware.

8x spikes at 30km around 1.5tons. Thats >200+ missiles for an Abrams worth of weight.
spikeNLOSlight_725.jpg

The cool people gets VLS
16x CM501GA missiles at 40km range. 8 tons. For the weight of a single Abrams in weight transported you get like 90 missiles.
Chinese%2Barmy%2Bto%2Badopt%2Bnew%2Bmobile%2Bmissile%2Bsystem.JPG


It is also possible to go full retard and pack a vehicle with stupid number of missiles, but it is probably not useful since the opponent would be countering with their own long range fires, if they are sane. Missiles that gets blown up by counter battery is missiles wasted.

Putting missiles on planes is also a thing. 16 on an Apache might be fun, but by payload weight it ought to be possible to stuff 100 ATGMs on a F-15E, someone just need to figure out how to mount the damned things. Probably falls under full retard given the lack of suicidal targets.

Still, you do not win the long range fires fight with tanks, but with your own long range fires.
Check out darpa g x v prototype from Pratt & Miller. Above vehicles are road only.likewise missiles are a logistics albatross. Small like China lake spike. Although that program seems to have decades of problems.
 
I take the rand study with a pinch of salt, how did the 100 missiles get to site, on a truck? of course with any ATGM you can kill 1000 tons of tank, for 2 tons of missiles. How do you get the right missiles to the right place? As Napoléon said 'are you trying to stop smuggling' by deploying 1 missile per km? 20 men with a load of boxes is still a target, as is the missile dump etc.

It's not a problem.
1) 6x Brimstone on THeMIS UGV - a small unmanned vehicle have firepower to defeat a tank platoon (4 tanks),
2) 15x PAM (NLOS-LS) on HMMWV - this not large vehicle can defeat a tank company (3 platoons),
3) 8x3 (24x) Brimstone on K9 chassis
4) 30x (2x15) PAM (NLOS-LS) on 6x6 truck - vehicle can defeat a 2 tank companies,
5) 45x (3x15) PAM (NLOS-LS) on 6x6 truck - vehicle can defeat a tank battalion (3 companies)

Missiles (ATGMs) are game changer.
One cheap carrier (truck) can destroy (stop) a tank battalion.
One tank, modern or projected can't and never will be able to do this.
So yes, tanks are a thing of the past.
Your assuming quite a few things there:

1 - 1 shot 1 kill
2 - 100% reliability, out of the box
3- no reactions from the first tank blowing up - like calling in a drone, or heli etc.

As the rand report mentioned, the defending force would still get overrun, = destroyed, so I take that to mean, the tanks won, but lost quite a few vehicles.

It really is not going to be so straightforward.
No need to use vaporware.

8x spikes at 30km around 1.5tons. Thats >200+ missiles for an Abrams worth of weight.
spikeNLOSlight_725.jpg

The cool people gets VLS
16x CM501GA missiles at 40km range. 8 tons. For the weight of a single Abrams in weight transported you get like 90 missiles.
Chinese%2Barmy%2Bto%2Badopt%2Bnew%2Bmobile%2Bmissile%2Bsystem.JPG


It is also possible to go full retard and pack a vehicle with stupid number of missiles, but it is probably not useful since the opponent would be countering with their own long range fires, if they are sane. Missiles that gets blown up by counter battery is missiles wasted.

Putting missiles on planes is also a thing. 16 on an Apache might be fun, but by payload weight it ought to be possible to stuff 100 ATGMs on a F-15E, someone just need to figure out how to mount the damned things. Probably falls under full retard given the lack of suicidal targets.

Still, you do not win the long range fires fight with tanks, but with your own long range fires.
Yes, I understand that missiles exist, a little inaccurate to only weigh the missiles there, are they going to deploy themselves forward 50 miles? That 3 axle truck with armour is going to be 15-20 tonnes. Hows it going to avoid my satellite?

I'm not claiming tanks are either indestructible, nor will stay the same, as part of a team, they are in my view, your bastion, your arsenal. In a high end conflict you would still want them with you.

Also want to point out that in Lebanon, Hezbollah had ample time to prepare for combat against tanks, and scored very few kills, with at the time, pretty advanced ATGM's.

In my view they are not a cure for being up against tanks. They are part of countering an armoured attack.

Lets not move onto rods from Gods.....
 
The chances that a command vehicle with a wooden or otherwise fake gun will appear is about as likely as the army moving to tootoo pink for all vehicles as camouflage.


What?! Are you saying this won't be real?

tank-01.jpg


But what about the infantry? Can they at least go pink?

pink-uniform-edit2.jpg
 
The chances that a command vehicle with a wooden or otherwise fake gun will appear is about as likely as the army moving to tootoo pink for all vehicles as camouflage.


What?! Are you saying this won't be real?

tank-01.jpg


But what about the infantry? Can they at least go pink?

pink-uniform-edit2.jpg
That would blend in, in some circles......and its inclusive.
 
Yes, I understand that missiles exist, a little inaccurate to only weigh the missiles there, are they going to deploy themselves forward 50 miles? That 3 axle truck with armour is going to be 15-20 tonnes.
The missiles weight 50~100kg each. The vehicle weights are included. The first involves a tomcar buggy that adds up to under 1.5 tons. The truck involved is listed to be a Dongfeng Mengshi CSK181 at 6 tons base with 2 ton payload. The can indeed deploy themselves.
 
Yes, I understand that missiles exist, a little inaccurate to only weigh the missiles there, are they going to deploy themselves forward 50 miles? That 3 axle truck with armour is going to be 15-20 tonnes.
The missiles weight 50~100kg each. The vehicle weights are included. The first involves a tomcar buggy that adds up to under 1.5 tons. The truck involved is listed to be a Dongfeng Mengshi CSK181 at 6 tons base with 2 ton payload. The can indeed deploy themselves.
I think thats a smaller truck -but who cares, as you can buy them on alibaba!!!

1597089371669.png
 
A new MBT, complete, not on the cards really when you consider the other things the DoD is paying for. The basic chassis of the M1 is pretty decent even if you stick with the turbine in the back and still has room for modification. As for pink tanks, they make great 'statements' for peace but as camouflage in a combat situation unlikely. I still hope that whatever we have we DON'T have to use them in anger again.
 
Last edited:
I can easily envision unmanned AFVs in a supporting role attached to more traditional armored formations but if you don't have those manned AFVs and their crews at the heart of the formation it seems like you're asking for a bunch of broken down robots stranded dozens of miles away from the nearest men or women capable of fixing the things.
 
I can easily envision unmanned AFVs in a supporting role attached to more traditional armored formations but if you don't have those manned AFVs and their crews at the heart of the formation it seems like you're asking for a bunch of broken down robots stranded dozens of miles away from the nearest men or women capable of fixing the things.
Yes, 'drone' sentry tanks, lead in, suicide, all roles for an unmanned 'tank'. Basically the same as the 'loyal wingman' programs. In both cases the claimed lethality, and visible speed of response means manned systems need a buffer, if they are going to last more than a few minutes in combat.

In reality, as with 2 lions, none of the tier 1 countries can afford to go to outright war. Proxies will have some of the toys, but it will be a while before they get drone tanks, or similar.

So this stuff has to be bought, and really its all part of your tax dollars at work, better than being on the dole, right? We can sell some to the arabs/turkey/wherever, and they can lose the manual/forget how to use it....
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom