Tank Designs

[Prechko]

 

[madmusti]

 

[vostok]

The concept of Soviet middle tank year 1959

Soviet missile tank project year1961

 

[Penguin]

Reminds of

 

[niaz]

Anyone familiar with the history & development of armoured vehicles, would have noticed that since need for protection resulted in progressively heavy armour & need to penetrate thicker armour required bigger guns, each newer generation of tank has been larger & heavier.

For example British Mark V tank designed in 1917 weighed 29 tons. All German tanks of WW2 except Panther & Tiger were about 30 tons (Panther 45 tons & Tiger 54 tons). US M4 Sherman weighed around 34 metric tons. British Churchill tank weighed 39 tons & the famous T-34 only about 30 tons.On the other hand modern Western tanks such as M1A2 weighs 68 tons, Challanger-2 60 tons, Leopard -2 68 tons and Merkava 65 tons.

Russian & Chinese tanks are also getting heavier. Whereas T-72 & T80 weighed 46 tons, T-90 weighs 52.5 metric tons and the Chinese type 99A2 weighs in at 58 tons. No matter how compact you try to make it, bigger tank with large gun turret would present a bigger target to the tank buster aircraft such as A-10 & the helicopter gunship like Apache.

Yom kipper war of 1973 showed how dangerous first generation Russian ATGM Sagger could be. Modern ATGMs like Russian AT-14 Spriggen & RPG-29; latest variants of TOW, Hellfire, Javelin, Swedish NLaw etc., are capable of causing havoc among the attacking armoured force. It is therefore logical to assume that massed armoured confrontations such as at Kursk or at the battle of the Bulge are a thing of the past. (Of course, tactical nukes would destroy a lot more; for the purpose of this argument let us agree that we are discussing pre-nuclear threshold battles)

I have a fundamental question; Tank replaced the heavy cavalry at the dawn of the 20th century. Now a full hundred years later, is the Tank obsolete and about to be replaced by the heavily armed but lighter and highly mobile IFV’s?

 

[marrakesh]

Spoiler

Anyone familiar with the history & development of armoured vehicles, would have noticed that since need for protection resulted in progressively heavy armour & need to penetrate thicker armour required bigger guns, each newer generation of tank has been larger & heavier.
For example British Mark V tank designed in 1917 weighed 29 tons. All German tanks of WW2 except Panther & Tiger were about 30 tons (Panther 45 tons & Tiger 54 tons). US M4 Sherman weighed around 34 metric tons. British Churchill tank weighed 39 tons & the famous T-34 only about 30 tons.On the other hand modern Western tanks such as M1A2 weighs 68 tons, Challanger-2 60 tons, Leopard -2 68 tons and Merkava 65 tons.
Russian & Chinese tanks are also getting heavier. Whereas T-72 & T80 weighed 46 tons, T-90 weighs 52.5 metric tons and the Chinese type 99A2 weighs in at 58 tons. No matter how compact you try to make it, bigger tank with large gun turret would present a bigger target to the tank buster aircraft such as A-10 & the helicopter gunship like Apache.
Yom kipper war of 1973 showed how dangerous first generation Russian ATGM Sagger could be. Modern ATGMs like Russian AT-14 Spriggen & RPG-29; latest variants of TOW, Hellfire, Javelin, Swedish NLaw etc., are capable of causing havoc among the attacking armoured force. It is therefore logical to assume that massed armoured confrontations such as at Kursk or at the battle of the Bulge are a thing of the past. (Of course, tactical nukes would destroy a lot more; for the purpose of this argument let us agree that we are discussing pre-nuclear threshold battles)

I have a fundamental question; Tank replaced the heavy cavalry at the dawn of the 20th century. Now a full hundred years later, is the Tank obsolete and about to be replaced by the heavily armed but lighter and highly mobile IFV’s?

I have a fundamental answer: never! Tank was, is, and will be the main armed power.

 

[-------]

Ukrainian T-64BM, you can see different layers of materials used in the construction of frontal armor.

 

[Penguin]

Anyone familiar with the history & development of armoured vehicles, would have noticed that since need for protection resulted in progressively heavy armour & need to penetrate thicker armour required bigger guns, each newer generation of tank has been larger & heavier.

For example British Mark V tank designed in 1917 weighed 29 tons. All German tanks of WW2 except Panther & Tiger were about 30 tons (Panther 45 tons & Tiger 54 tons). US M4 Sherman weighed around 34 metric tons. British Churchill tank weighed 39 tons & the famous T-34 only about 30 tons.On the other hand modern Western tanks such as M1A2 weighs 68 tons, Challanger-2 60 tons, Leopard -2 68 tons and Merkava 65 tons.

Russian & Chinese tanks are also getting heavier. Whereas T-72 & T80 weighed 46 tons, T-90 weighs 52.5 metric tons and the Chinese type 99A2 weighs in at 58 tons. No matter how compact you try to make it, bigger tank with large gun turret would present a bigger target to the tank buster aircraft such as A-10 & the helicopter gunship like Apache.

Yom kipper war of 1973 showed how dangerous first generation Russian ATGM Sagger could be. Modern ATGMs like Russian AT-14 Spriggen & RPG-29; latest variants of TOW, Hellfire, Javelin, Swedish NLaw etc., are capable of causing havoc among the attacking armoured force. It is therefore logical to assume that massed armoured confrontations such as at Kursk or at the battle of the Bulge are a thing of the past. (Of course, tactical nukes would destroy a lot more; for the purpose of this argument let us agree that we are discussing pre-nuclear threshold battles)

I have a fundamental question; Tank replaced the heavy cavalry at the dawn of the 20th century. Now a full hundred years later, is the Tank obsolete and about to be replaced by the heavily armed but lighter and highly mobile IFV’s?

Konigstiger weighed 69.8 tonnes
Leo 1 40 tonnes (increased to 42.2 tonnes on later models) 1965
Leo 2 1979
Empty weight: A4= 52 t / A5= 57.3 t / A6= 57.6 t A6M 60.2 t
Combat weight: A4=55.15 t / A5= 59.5 t / A6= 59.9 t (maximum mass; 61.7 t), A6M = 62.5 t

Russian KV-1 series weighed between 42.5-47 tonnes (heavy)
JS2 and 3 weighed around 46 tonnes. JS/T-10 52 tonnes (heavy)
T-54/55 weighed 36 tonnes, (medium)
T-62 weighed 37 tonnes
T-64 weighed 38 tonnes, mbt
T-72A weighed 41,5 tonnes, mbt
T-80A 42,5 tonnes and mbt
T-80B/U 46 tonnes mbt
T-90 46 tonnes mbt

Italy
OF-40 = 45.5 tonnes 1977 (expert Leo1 derivative)
C1 Ariete = 54 tonnes 1995

Japan
Type 61 = 35 tonnes 1955-1961
Type 74 = 38 tonnes 1962-1975
Type 90 = 50.2 tonnes 1989

France
ARL-44 = 50,8 tonnes 1946-49
AMX-50 = 57,8 tonnes 1949-1951 (cancelled in favor of M47)
AMX-30 = 36 tonnes 1963
AMX-40 = 43.7 tonnes 1983 (export model)
LeClerc mbt 1989-1993
series 1: 54.5 tonnes
series 2: 56.3 tonnes
series XXI : 57.4 tonnes

UK
Comet 32.7 1944 (medium)
Centurion 51 tons 1951 (medium)
Conqueror 64 tonnes 1955 (heavy)
Chieftain 55 tonnes 1965 (mbt)
Challenger 1, 62 tonnes 1983 (mbt)
Challenger 2, 62.5 tonnes 1998 (mbt)

US
M26 46 tonnes 1944 (heavy tank, reclassed medium)
M47 48,5 tonnes 1949 (medium)
M47 48,6 tonnes 1951 (medium)
M103 65 tonnes 1951 (heavy)
M48 49.8 tonnes 1953 (medium)
M60 50,7 - 54 tonnes 1961 (MBT)
MBT70 50.4 tonnes 1665-1970
M1: 54 tonnes since 1980 mbt
M1A1: 57 tonnes
M1A2: 62 tonnes

During the cold war there no longer was made a difference between medium and heavies, rather just MBTs, with higher (than medium) average weight

Also not mentioned: with improvements in protection materials and techniques, improved protection levels may be achieved for a given weight. Weight itself therefore is a necessary but not sufficient factor. Weight is also a function of size, which is in turn related to design philosophy (how much do you value crew / which kind of crew [conscript v professsional], autoloader etc.) Note how per T64 and beyond RUssian MBTs got heavier, relative to earlier models, while reducing crew via autoloader to remain small.

 

[Akasa]

According to a supposed interview with the designer of the Type 99A2, the next-generation Chinese MBT will have only two crewmembers and focus on mobility, defense, situational awareness, and multi-weapon versatility. The prototype is rumored to have been completed in 2014.

 

[niaz]

Konigstiger weighed 69.8 tonnes
Leo 1 40 tonnes (increased to 42.2 tonnes on later models) 1965
Leo 2 1979
Empty weight: A4= 52 t / A5= 57.3 t / A6= 57.6 t A6M 60.2 t
Combat weight: A4=55.15 t / A5= 59.5 t / A6= 59.9 t (maximum mass; 61.7 t), A6M = 62.5 t

Russian KV-1 series weighed between 42.5-47 tonnes (heavy)
JS2 and 3 weighed around 46 tonnes. JS/T-10 52 tonnes (heavy)
T-54/55 weighed 36 tonnes, (medium)
T-62 weighed 37 tonnes
T-64 weighed 38 tonnes, mbt
T-72A weighed 41,5 tonnes, mbt
T-80A 42,5 tonnes and mbt
T-80B/U 46 tonnes mbt
T-90 46 tonnes mbt

Italy
OF-40 = 45.5 tonnes 1977 (expert Leo1 derivative)
C1 Ariete = 54 tonnes 1995

Japan
Type 61 = 35 tonnes 1955-1961
Type 74 = 38 tonnes 1962-1975
Type 90 = 50.2 tonnes 1989

France
ARL-44 = 50,8 tonnes 1946-49
AMX-50 = 57,8 tonnes 1949-1951 (cancelled in favor of M47)
AMX-30 = 36 tonnes 1963
AMX-40 = 43.7 tonnes 1983 (export model)
LeClerc mbt 1989-1993
series 1: 54.5 tonnes
series 2: 56.3 tonnes
series XXI : 57.4 tonnes

UK
Comet 32.7 1944 (medium)
Centurion 51 tons 1951 (medium)
Conqueror 64 tonnes 1955 (heavy)
Chieftain 55 tonnes 1965 (mbt)
Challenger 1, 62 tonnes 1983 (mbt)
Challenger 2, 62.5 tonnes 1998 (mbt)

US
M26 46 tonnes 1944 (heavy tank, reclassed medium)
M47 48,5 tonnes 1949 (medium)
M47 48,6 tonnes 1951 (medium)
M103 65 tonnes 1951 (heavy)
M48 49.8 tonnes 1953 (medium)
M60 50,7 - 54 tonnes 1961 (MBT)
MBT70 50.4 tonnes 1665-1970
M1: 54 tonnes since 1980 mbt
M1A1: 57 tonnes
M1A2: 62 tonnes

During the cold war there no longer was made a difference between medium and heavies, rather just MBTs, with higher (than medium) average weight

Als not mentioned: with improvements in protection materials and techniques, improved protection levels may be achieved for a given weight. Weigh itself therefore is a necessary but not sufficient factor. Weight is also a function of size, which is in turn related to deisgn philosophy (how much do you value crew / which kind of crew [conscript v professsional], autoloader etc.)

Just to clarify that European as well as Russian tanks are in 'metric ton' ( tonnes) which is 1000 KG or 2204 pounds and hence less than UK & US tons which is equal to 2240 pounds.

 

[Penguin]

Just to clarify that European as well as Russian tanks are in 'metric ton' ( tonnes) which is 1000 KG or 2204 pounds and hence less than UK & US tons which is equal to 2240 pounds.

AFAIK all measure given in tonnes, same unit of measurement. Checked for it. Wuld have used 'tons' for metric.

 

[Malik Alashter]

Mate

One word, Money, we got screw pretty good during Rudd/Gillard government and they have reduce all the budget they can to finance their handout. We have had about 100 Leopard 1 tank in service prior to the replacement, we only order 59 to fill the gap. That is a single battalion.

But then we don't even have 59 Abrams to service under the Army, we have 41. 6 of the Abrams is reserved for Training and the other is for cannibalize for urgent parts replacement.

Our Abrams, is not exactly for offensive operation, they were deployed in Robinson Barrack as the 1st Australian Armoured Regiment, and they are for a pure defensive purpose, in case we were under attack. And since there are no neighbour to our immediate left, right and south, only Indonesia to our North, that is why our only armoured regiment stationed in NT.

However, recent governmental report suggesting that the Armoured Regiment would be broke down into 3 squadron attached to Cavalry unit, and stationed in NT, QLD and NSW. It would be quite useless if we were to split the 41 operational Abrams. So I am hoping they will get more Abrams from the US.

Davo

I think you bought them to show the kids in schools what a tank looks alike Looool.

 

[Penguin]

According to a supposed interview with the designer of the Type 99A2, the next-generation Chinese MBT will have only two crewmembers and focus on mobility, defense, situational awareness, and multi-weapon versatility. The prototype is rumored to have been completed in 2014.

The UCGV (Unmanned Combat Ground Vehicle) may be just around the corner.

Black Knight Prototype Unmanned Combat Vehicle | Military-Today.com

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and U.S. Army Crusher unmanned ground combat

AvantGuard G-Nius UGCV Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle

 

[Penguin]

Russian Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle Demonstrator

 

[Akasa]

The UCGV (Unmanned Combat Ground Vehicle) may be just around the corner.

Black Knight Prototype Unmanned Combat Vehicle | Military-Today.com

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and U.S. Army Crusher unmanned ground combat

AvantGuard G-Nius UGCV Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle

Not exactly a novel concept.