New MBTs

[Skybird]

Both the US and Germany have seen the demonstration of possible new MBTs this year. Rheinmetall introduced its new Panther KF-51, General Dynamics the Abrams-X.

I wonder, and reportedly so does the US defence ministry as well and probably also the German ministry: what sense makes it to invest heavily in new MBTs if the Ukraine war demonstrates how easily and fast tanks are being disabled and killed quickly and in discouraging quantities?

[Jimbuna]

^ Fair point

[Buddahaid]

The hybrid power plant. DOD is looking to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels as a national security issue.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

The hybrid power plant. DOD is looking to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels as a national security issue.

Yes, to me that is the prime argument for the Abrams X. Fuel reduction 50%. Wowh. The current Abrams are known jetfuel guzzlers.



But the Abrams-X also gets flak for the AI thing.

Still the question is: are MBT weapons of a past whose needs are no more valid in the face of these new weapon technologies today: ATGMs, drones, kamokaze drones, soon swarm AI weapons, autonomous AI etc. ?

Ask the Russians if they are happy with how their tanks perform. They have lost over 2500 MBTs so far. Plus over 5000 IFVs and APCs. The Ukrainians collect them like Obelix collects Roman helmets.

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Yes, to me that is the prime argument for the Abrams X. Fuel reduction 50%. Wowh. The current Abrams are known jetfuel guzzlers.



But the Abrams-X also gets flak for the AI thing.

Still the question is: are MBT weapons of a past whose needs are no more valid in the face of these new weapon technologies today: ATGMs, drones, kamokaze drones, soon swarm AI weapons, autonomous AI etc. ?

Ask the Russians if they are happy with how their tanks perform. They have lost over 2500 MBTs so far. Plus over 5000 IFVs and APCs. The Ukrainians collect them like Obelix collects Roman helmets.

The Russian army losing MBTs is mainly because of design errors, and they like the USSR so much they leap backwards.

[Rockstar]

I’ve said it before, even a T-72 is a fearsome weapon if manned by a well trained crew coupled with tactics, infantry, scouts, and air support. But using them like we’ve seen in Ukraine. The lone tank, even a Leopard or Abrams, is a sitting duck. Nothing has changed for the tank since the Brits “Big Willie” made its debut at the First Battle of the Somme in 1916. The tank is meant to restore maneuver to the battlefield, punch holes in defense and unleash the cavalry. I don’t see much of that going on in Ukraine. Instead video after video shows lone tanks zipping down roads, or overlooking hill tops, sitting in tree lines at a crossroad, or as a dug in gun emplacement. Only to be easily whacked by a Javelin or drone bombs.

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I’ve said it before, even a T-72 is a fearsome weapon if manned by a well trained crew coupled with tactics, infantry, scouts, and air support. But using them like we’ve seen in Ukraine. The lone tank, even a Leopard or Abrams, is a sitting duck. Nothing has changed for the tank since the Brits “Big Willie” made its debut at the First Battle of the Somme in 1916. The tank is meant to restore maneuver to the battlefield, punch holes in defense and unleash the cavalry. I don’t see much of that going on in Ukraine. Instead video after video shows lone tanks zipping down roads, or overlooking hill tops, sitting in tree lines at a crossroad, or as a dug in gun emplacement. Only to be easily whacked by a Javelin or drone bombs.

Correct Russian command has totally mismanaged the use of tanks, they send tanks in without any protection.

[Rockstar]

I think so too, this is a battle of infantry, artillery and will. Tanks though useful I don’t think have much of role on the current battlefield. Look at old Soviet doctrine and the design of the T-62-72-80’s. They are (like our doctrine) meant to fly across the battlefield en masse and overwhelm and breakthrough NATO defensive positions. But it also require good C3I, aviation and infantry support to exploit the holes. Without that support it’s just a waste of time.

[Skybird]

Thats all true, but wepaons to kill tanks have become mroe lethal while being easier to handle and more diffiuclt to be stopped by armour protection. The tnak has become more vulnerable, despite the negineering effort to niot make it so.



The quesiton is, maybe: when will become tanks, even when being led and manouvered by an expert tactician, so prone to such weapons that they are obsolete? Or at least too expensive to loose them to such wepaons in hiueg quanities? Even mroe so since manpower has become a more prescious and scare ressource and will accept losses has declined?


In the end a tank is much more expensive than the weapon that kills it. And kills it so easily now.

[Rockstar]

No doubt the times are a changing. It’s much cheaper to build, maintain and arm troops with anti-tank weapons than to build a tank. Heck I read not too long ago Javelins are being outfitted with SAM options too. That’s a lot of firepower for one individual and does make things more difficult for armor crews.

History has shown tanks have never been immune to attack or unstoppable. It boils down to when and how they’re used, supported and supplied. I just don’t see the role of armored warfare going away anytime soon. Todays challenge is keeping the crew alive. The west has the advantage in economy, technology to provide tank crews with toys like the Leopard and Abrams that increase survivability thereby providing confidence on the battle field. And it’s the survivability of the trained tank crew western military planners are concerned with when designing tanks, we can always build another tank. But training a new crew takes a lot of time and even harder to find crews to run tanks with a survivability like the T-80 that pops it’s turret if someone sneezes.

I’m rambling so I’ll stop now

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In the end a tank is much more expensive than the weapon that kills it. And kills it so easily now.

These are Russian tanks destroyed with western technology badly used on the front does not mean in my opinion the tank is obsolete on a battleground.

[mapuc]

There are many types of eyes on this war, so even weapon manufactors.

They have seen how vulnerable tanks has become.

To make it short in a decade from now the version of how a tank looks like will be altered.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

No doubt the times are a changing. It’s much cheaper to build, maintain and arm troops with anti-tank weapons than to build a tank. Heck I read not too long ago Javelins are being outfitted with SAM options too. That’s a lot of firepower for one individual and does make things more difficult for armor crews.

History has shown tanks have never been immune to attack or unstoppable. It boils down to when and how they’re used, supported and supplied. I just don’t see the role of armored warfare going away anytime soon. Todays challenge is keeping the crew alive. The west has the advantage in economy, technology to provide tank crews with toys like the Leopard and Abrams that increase survivability thereby providing confidence on the battle field. And it’s the survivability of the trained tank crew western military planners are concerned with when designing tanks, we can always build another tank. But training a new crew takes a lot of time and even harder to find crews to run tanks with a survivability like the T-80 that pops it’s turret if someone sneezes.

I’m rambling so I’ll stop now

I don't think the above is rambling at all, I certainly agree with you.

Only one thing you missed when you make mention of the 'survivability' of the tank crew and that is 'comforts', the British Challenger comes with a BV (Boiling Vessel) which enables the crew to have a cuppa and heat food

In fact, this has been the case with every tank designed since the Centurion in the 1960's

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I don't think the above is rambling at all, I certainly agree with you.

Only one thing you missed when you make mention of the 'survivability' of the tank crew and that is 'comforts', the British Challenger comes with a BV (Boiling Vessel) which enables the crew to have a cuppa and heat food

In fact, this has been the case with every tank designed since the Centurion in the 1960's

Its the technical implementation of psychic warfare. The enemy stares in disbelief and freezes, and can be easily put down. Pursing your lips and blow into cups wins wars!

[Jimbuna]

Previously, British tank crews had disembarked when they wanted to "brew-up" (make tea), using a petrol cooker improvised from empty fuel cans called a "Benghazi burner". Use of the BV enabled the crew to stay safely inside the tank and reduced the time taken for breaks.