AHC: Main Battle Tanks with Real Wheels

[MattII]

Switzerland? And that's debatable since they actually use them. Probably better to look for a poor country that's decided that it just can't afford tanks.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by MattII

Switzerland? And that's debatable since they actually use them. Probably better to look for a poor country that's decided that it just can't afford tanks.

Switzerland uses Leo II MBT, as everybody with money and without a national tank factory does. The price question is not an issue. A 8x8 105mm Gun armed AFV is going to cost as much as a MBT. You can now buy used Leo II in great condition from all the Euro countries that are downsizing cheaper than a new Centauro.

The idea for the all wheeled mobile forces was:
1. Easier to move by C17
2. All the oposing MBT will be taken out by the air campaign (see Lybia)
3. They are easier to use, cheaper to run.
4. Tanks send the wrong message in Peace Keeping ops

In the real world, people soon discovered that MBTs are much harder to kill, and worth the trouble of deploying even for places as remote as kabul...

[omega21]

To repeat: tracked MBTs are very flexible thanks to being able to go off-road and the ability to carry massive amounts of armour and a big gun.

Another thought: depending on terrain, speed may not mean much. Yes, armour is meant for exploitation, but it depends on the terrain. If you're fighting on close terrain like jungle or forest, the tanks will be sneaking about at relatively slow speeds, blowing each other up at hundred-meter ranges. Not every battle's about charging hundreds of kilometers in the desert.

[MattII]

Tracks are also good for dealing with soft sand and mud and bogs where a wheeled vehicle would just sink in.

[Riain]

Not that it adds any value, but the G6 is my favourite AFV.

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by omega21

The only possible way I could see this happening is if an army decided to limit its armoured forces to defensive combat and ambushes on a road network, which would be okay for wheeled AFVs. Still, this is such a strategically self-limiting decision and is so operationally specific that it boggles the mind.

On the other hand, it's a mad world. Anyone care to suggest a country that is ok with letting the bad boys come in, and has a road network that is so comprehensive that it can't be outflanked on rough terrain...?

Or could serve as expeditionary force against weak enemies. Being lighter gives them greater strategic mobility, wheels make them faster on roads, 105mm gun is good enough to take out most targets. You'll need to make them resistant to hand-held AT weapons. Or as post-conflict force, once main enemy force is dealt with by heavies, once things are not as hot this force moves in.

[Arachnid]

Originally Posted by aktarian

Or could serve as expeditionary force against weak enemies. Being lighter gives them greater strategic mobility, wheels make them faster on roads, 105mm gun is good enough to take out most targets. You'll need to make them resistant to hand-held AT weapons. Or as post-conflict force, once main enemy force is dealt with by heavies, once things are not as hot this force moves in.

Very true but your not talking about a Main Battle Tank, you're talking about an armoured car. Main Battle Tanks are designed for one purpose, going toe to toe in all out conventional combat. They can do other things but that's what they're designed for.
Armoured Cars are much lighter on logistics, faster on roads and easier to transport and when you're fighting a low capability force or a CI campaign they're very useful. Every army should have some. But they're not tanks. It's like saying why don't we replace Light Machine Guns with Assault Rifles, Assault Rifles are lighter, cheaper and logistically less demanding and they still fire bullets, so why do we need LMG's?

[darkenedaze]

If you are not familiar with the Czar Tank, pictured above - read up a bit about it and discover why MBT's have tracks instead of wheels!

[SergeantHeretic]

The M1A1 Abrams main battle tank has nothing to fear from the Rookiat or from any other LAV or armored car. It's too big, too tough, too fast and has too great a mobility and terrein and FIREPOWER advantage over the Rookiat.

In adition that M1 will be operating in a tank platoon meant at least four tanks acting in concert with each other against a force of lighter armored lighter armed lighter powered LAVs that CANNOT easly move over broken terrien not with the speed and agility of the big "M"

So, yeah, no.

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by Arachnid

Very true but your not talking about a Main Battle Tank, you're talking about an armoured car. Main Battle Tanks are designed for one purpose, going toe to toe in all out conventional combat. They can do other things but that's what they're designed for.
Armoured Cars are much lighter on logistics, faster on roads and easier to transport and when you're fighting a low capability force or a CI campaign they're very useful. Every army should have some. But they're not tanks. It's like saying why don't we replace Light Machine Guns with Assault Rifles, Assault Rifles are lighter, cheaper and logistically less demanding and they still fire bullets, so why do we need LMG's?

True, true. My point is that you can use them instead of MBTs when suitable and in similar role as you would MBTs.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by aktarian

True, true. My point is that you can use them instead of MBTs when suitable and in similar role as you would MBTs.

Aaaahhhh, I don't know about that, I don't think you'll get very far using thse things to go toe-to-eoe with MAIN BATTLE TANKS!

[ivanotter]

So, what is a modern definition of a tank then? tracks?

What constitutes a tank? AFV?

I somehow believe that we got bogged down a bit in technicalities.

When is armour "thin" or rather too "thin" to be a tank armour?

Who can come up with a definition of a tank in today's environment?

Ivan

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

Aaaahhhh, I don't know about that, I don't think you'll get very far using thse things to go toe-to-eoe with MAIN BATTLE TANKS!

Which is why I said you use them when things settle down a bit or against weak opponents. I'm not saying, for instance, "US should have invaded Iraq in 03 with just Strykers" I'm saying "Once Iraqi army was gone they could be used" since insurgents (as a general rule) don't field large tank force composed of modern MBTs. Then you use them in role otherwise reserved for MBTs.

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by ivanotter

So, what is a modern definition of a tank then? tracks?

What constitutes a tank?

I'd say: tracked vehicle with large calibre gun (~120mm seem to be general rule) used for direct fire and offering protection against similar gun.

Originally Posted by ivanotter

AFV?

Any vehicle designed with armor and weapons.

Originally Posted by ivanotter

I somehow believe that we got bogged down a bit in technicalities.

When is armour "thin" or rather too "thin" to be a tank armour?

Who can come up with a definition of a tank in today's environment?

Ivan

I wouldn't focus on armor as much as weapon. I'd say above mentioned gun and sufficient protection against above mentioned gun.

[SergeantHeretic]

Aktarian tank design has always been and wil lalways be the story of the balancing act between firepower, armor protection and engine power/speed.

Nature of the beast.

The thing with the M1A1 is that someone just said, "To hell with it, let's stick a friggen pair of HELICOPTER engines in this bitch!" and the rest is history.

[Clint]

Originally Posted by ivanotter

So, what is a modern definition of a tank then? tracks?

What constitutes a tank? AFV?

I somehow believe that we got bogged down a bit in technicalities.

When is armour "thin" or rather too "thin" to be a tank armour?

Who can come up with a definition of a tank in today's environment?

Ivan

I don't think the problem is in the definition of tank. In your OP you asked if it's possible to have MBT's, as in the vehicles that spearhead the army, that carry the punch, so to speak, to be wheeled rather then tracked. You then asked us to find a way to make it happen pre-WW2.

If you build a vehicle that is to be fighting against every threat from infantry to lightly armored/armed vehicles and vehicles in it's own class, you'r going to need it to carry alot of armor, equipment, and be able to move in rough terrain. The simplest way to go about it is tracks. It's Simple, and it works.

Now while some countriers might prefer to have a fleet of light, wheeled vehicles instead of the more costly tanks as we know them today, that will never be the Main Battle Tank of every nation on earth.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Clint

I don't think the problem is in the definition of tank. In your OP you asked if it's possible to have MBT's, as in the vehicles that spearhead the army, that carry the punch, so to speak, to be wheeled rather then tracked. You then asked us to find a way to make it happen pre-WW2.

If you build a vehicle that is to be fighting against every threat from infantry to lightly armored/armed vehicles and vehicles in it's own class, you'r going to need it to carry alot of armor, equipment, and be able to move in rough terrain. The simplest way to go about it is tracks. It's Simple, and it works.

Now while some countriers might prefer to have a fleet of light, wheeled vehicles instead of the more costly tanks as we know them today, that will never be the Main Battle Tank of every nation on earth.

^^^^THIS^^^^

If a tank is going to be the tip of the spear, it's going to need big armor and major firepower and it's going to need to be able to go anywhere and if need be to be able to drive straight over some obstacles, and a TRACKED tank is prettymuch the only thing that'll feed that bulldog.

[Arachnid]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

The thing with the M1A1 is that someone just said, "To hell with it, let's stick a friggen pair of HELICOPTER engines in this bitch!" and the rest is history.

Which incidentally is why the Iraqi insurgents had such fun blowing up those massive fuel convoys US forces needed to maintain any operational mobility. Those gas turbines are such enormous fuel hogs compared to the diesels in Challenger II's that it's pretty easy to argue that after the initial invasion they were counter-productive. It was a viscous circle, the more the Iraqi's attacked the fuel convoys, the more tanks were used to escort the fuel convoys, meant more fuel needing more tanks to escort them. That said whoever decided that most of the US Army should run on jet fuel should be shot.

[b12ox]

Originally Posted by ivanotter

So, what is a modern definition of a tank then? tracks?

What constitutes a tank? AFV?

I somehow believe that we got bogged down a bit in technicalities.

When is armour "thin" or rather too "thin" to be a tank armour?

Who can come up with a definition of a tank in today's environment?

Ivan

You need tracks, and a rotating turret with a large gun. Otherwise it will be called something else.

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

Aktarian tank design has always been and wil lalways be the story of the balancing act between firepower, armor protection and engine power/speed.

Nature of the beast.

Never said otherwise.

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

The thing with the M1A1 is that someone just said, "To hell with it, let's stick a friggen pair of HELICOPTER engines in this bitch!" and the rest is history.

"Sir, if we do we'll need to invade an oil producing country every decade or so to fuel them!" "No problem, we'll have a fleet of tanks being powered by friggin helicopter engines to take care of them."