Why? I understand why that had to be when it was the only way to kill tanks. But there are far more effective tank killers than direct fire with a cannon these days.
AHQ/AHC: Ideal modern tank design?
- Thread starter phx1138
- Start date
Because tanks are always going to be the centrepoint of any major, ground-based offensive operation. Yes, it will always need support, from SPAAG, from IFVs/APCs, from artillery, etc, but the tank is the foundation, because they are, in modern terms, heavy cavalry.
I’m not saying tanks will disappear, just wont remain the go to for halting massed armored formations. Most of the time tanks support infantry not fight tanks anyways. In WWII American doctrine was use tank destroyers to fight tanks and Shermans fought infantry. That didn’t work only because the tank destroyers weren’t enough by themselves. By the Gulf War the A-10, F-111 and attack helicopters killed lots of tanks and the Bradley with it’s TOW missile killed more tanks than the Abrams. Today there’s an insane amount of option for tank killing I don’t even want to bother listing them. I can see a future where tanks are infantry support vehicles that might occasionally fight a tank, but will typically call back up to deal with them.
Tanks are not the centrepiece of a battle. Infantry is the Queen of the battlefield. All other arms and services are their to support Infantry. All were invented to help and support the infantry. Tanks are exist only to help the infantry onto their objective and to help support it once it attains it.
Um... No. Just no.
What kills the most enemy tanks is not a factor in the equation, the tank's armour is. Tanks are the spearhead precisely because they are the most heavily armoured thing on the battlefield. Nothing else can take the damage a tank can and still be repaired afterwards. A tank killed is not a tank destroyed. A tank that has been 'killed' (knocked out) can be returned to a depot and be repaired, while a tank that has been destroyed is irrecoverable.
Last edited:
I feel like we’re talking past each other. Armies of the future don’t need a super expensive all purpose tank. Some of the tank’s roles like fighting other tanks are best left to much more capable platforms.
I think there will still be a place for all of our "analogue" weapons in the future and I personally see the push towards electronic warfare as a red herring. When you have a full electronic army, all the enemy has to do is drop some EMPs and your military is basically wiped out and then they just send in the traditional army. What are you going to do then, call in Captain Mainwaring with his pitchforks?
If I was to design a new MBT to replace the Challenger, it would have a 130 or 135mm gun, 2 layers of reactive armor and a 360 degree 50 caliber monitor. For better crew protection, it can be driven remotely or via a screen inside, so the driver isn't exposed. Power would come from a fuel cell or super capacitor and have a diesel engine (thinking something along the lines of a Cummins ISB6.7 as found in your typical Alexander Dennis double decker) hooked up to a generator for emergency/shore power.
I'm just grateful we get a new MBT, even if it is just an upgraded and modernised Megatron. We do need a 100% clean sheet design though, not something that can trace its lineage back to the tail end of the cold war. Which to put it in time terms, the Berlin Wall has been down longer than it was up.
If I was to design a new MBT to replace the Challenger, it would have a 130 or 135mm gun, 2 layers of reactive armor and a 360 degree 50 caliber monitor. For better crew protection, it can be driven remotely or via a screen inside, so the driver isn't exposed. Power would come from a fuel cell or super capacitor and have a diesel engine (thinking something along the lines of a Cummins ISB6.7 as found in your typical Alexander Dennis double decker) hooked up to a generator for emergency/shore power.
Not quite
The main issue for RAAC was finding an AFV or types and numbers to fill the roles.
Under project Waler in the '80s, there was huge debate of wheels vs tracks. It was one of the reasons the project failed.
That and the total lack of experience in building heavy fighting vehicles and an industry to build them (add to tiny run of AFVs with full R&D cost)
The challenge for Australia and defence of the north, half the year is dry with a huge area (wheels!), The other half wet either flooded or dense foliage along the coast (tracks and amphibious!)
Rooikat would be great for dry, but too heavy for the wet. Its 76 APDSFS with 300mm penetration would be good for old T62s.
Throw in MBT for fixed battle at critical points, and the RAAC leopard 1 was not close combat tank. It was designed in the 60's for fast acceleration, thin armour, nth German plain.
Australian leopard 1 only had active IR, basic APDS (no Fin), fixed program computer, night sight only for commander /not gunner and 140mm front armour (70mm@60)!. Side armour is half as thick (45mm turret side) and most autocannon can defeat it with APDS.
Canadian leopards had at least LLTV and APDSFS while in Europe. RCAC was going to replace it with styler MGS. After real combat, that was quickly dropped, Leo 1 uparmoured and then replaced with Leo 2 (800mm vs HEAT!)
Last edited:
This is not confirmed but I've seen one book on AS1 saying it also got L64A4 APFSDS in the 1980s.L52A2 APDS is definitely confirmed, though.
Definitely not!
You could not even use it, even if you had it.
You'd new new FC system.
L52A2B1 is all we had.
Last edited:
The tanks primary role has always been and will always be as a hammer, to go in and do things no other vehicle can do because no other vehicle could survive. In any war against even a semi-industrial opponent, a tank will always be a necessity.
Actually, having spoke to the RAAC's official historian several times, chauvinism and desire are very important in it's decision to go with the Abrams. The Abrams was considered the bee's knees after the Gulf War and it was seen as the perfect opportunity to have a go back at Howard's (in)famous "armoured brigade group" comment on talk back radio. If he wanted an "armoured brigade group" he'd have to make sure the Army had one.
Waler failed because the Australian market was simply too small for us to produce our own APC/MICV. The industry would have been built, if the will to do so was there. The market was simply too saturated with existing vehicles. The "debate" about wheels or tracks was basically non-existent. Army wanted tracks. Simple as that. If we were to have this vehicle, it was going to be tracked.
Of course people can never anticipate when new vehicles would be really needed, but even if in hindsight we know Australia can wait until the 2020s it would have been better to just do the current Land 400 in the 1980s. Also I thought they chose LAV-25 because they thought wheeled was better? Is it a case of wheeled vehicles being cheaper?
RIP in pepperoni then
The Abrams decision and debate was much later. Waler predates Howard, and Dibb report. As the RAAC histo about that.
Right through '90s, the move was to dump tanks, Al la Dibb. We didn't get Abrams till 2004, a decade AFTER GW1!
The Australian Abrams was supposed to Euro-pack diesels. But ended up with gas guzzling turbines, but run on diesel not kerosine.
The decision for Abrams finally got done with GWOT, post GW2.
Now in 2021 will finally get A2 SEP!
As to wheels vs tracks, try again.
Attachments
The fact MTU 883 isn't omnipresent in export tanks nowadays is mind-boggling.
The LAVs were chosen by the Minister of Defence Bomber Beazley basically because the Army was huming and hawing about the decision for, in his opinion, far too long. So the Dept. of Defence took the decision out of their hands and made an order for a hundred LAVs.
Tracks were what was wanted. Wheels were something the Army played with. Improved M113s were what the Army ended up with.
As for Dibb, his report was handed down in 1986. That predates GWI and the GWOT by 4 years and 14 years approximately. Dibb was why the Army ended up with LAVs. The Army couldn't make it's mind up and so Bomber Beazley made the decision for them. It was GW2 that decided the matter for the Army. They loved the idea of the Abrams after witnessing it's performance during GW1 and GW2.
Waler does predate the decision to go for the Abrams. No denying that. The reason why it was abandoned was because the Australia market was simply too small to sustain building the required number of carriers.
The "tanks are dead" theme has been spouted ever since the introduction of the SS-11.
Tanks survived that, and will keep surviving because there is nothing as flexible in both offensive and defensive operations.
Well trained tank Units operating with well trained Infantry to form combat teams is very formidable Unit, and offers commanders the flexibility required in modern fluid warfare.
It is true that tanks cannot operate and survive without Infantry. The Infantry love the fact that tanks can "reach out and touch the enemy" out to 4000 meters. Tankers love Infantry because they help keep tanks alive, especially in close terrain.
The fact that tanks carry anywhere between 40 and 60 main gun rounds each, and a Infantry Battalion would be lucky to have more than a dozen anti-tank missiles is another reason to keep the big noisy monsters around.