>Germany uses five Renault FT tanks in 1944
>20-25 year old tanks
>Russia uses T-62 (1967) in 2023
>55+ year old tanks
>US uses 1988 M1 hulls in their 2023 M1A2SepV3
>35 year old hull
Bruh
>Germany uses five Renault FT tanks in 1944. >20-25 year old tanks. >Russia uses T-62 (1967) in 2023
Dunno what happened, but world culture moves slower, clings more to old things now, and is way more risk averse. This is reflected in military procurement
Weapon systems are more complex and expensive than ever. Welded RHA hulls are relatively simple to manufacture and just require good steel and skilled welders.
Now a tank hull not only requires RHA for the outer shell but manufacturing composites out of more exotic materials to put behind the steel. Depending on the tank you may have ERA or NERA panels added as well, again adding another step of manufacture and more expertise.
It continues from there in terms of power packs, turrets, observation and fire control systems, and of course the cannon and ammunition.
This same general idea applies across the military, from fighters to infantry rifles.
Looks like the Tank has an outstanding return on investment.
US uses both rebuilt hulls and new build hulls, but it doesn’t really matter since the rebuilts are so totally overhauled they basically become new builds as they are taken apart then put back together using the latest greatest shit. Russia on the other hand is slapping some shit optics and a new paint job on a +50 year old tank and calling it good.
There hasn't been a new built hull since either 1992 or 1994
Small tanks like the FV101 and Wiesel show Renault FT-sized tanks still have a role in modern warfare. Wasn't an FT found fighting in Afghanistan?
I know an CV33 turned up in that conflict but I don't remember an FT appearing. Could've been Syria you're thinking about, all sorts of weird shit showed up there
There's a difference between using older tanks simply because you have them, and using older tanks as replacements for newer tanks that you can't rebuild or replace otherwise.
>35 year old hulls
>if it ain't broke don't fix it
the age of the hull is irrelevant. If the hulls are in perfect shape and the the rest of the tank us upgraded to current spec the age of the hull means nothing. Tank armor is not like Kevlar where there is a shelf life. The difference btwn the M1 used in Iraq and the russians using T62s is that the M1s used in 03 were not M1s that were kept in storage since the 1980s in the same shape, the same can't be said about the FT17 used in desperation, or the majority of the T72 and T62s being used now.
OP here. Im actually not sure of the point im trying to make. Can someone think of something?
All i know is that the T-62 is unironically an excellent tank
>leopard 1a5 will see it with thermals
Literally park the tank in a garage with only the barrel and gunner optic exposed, turn off the engine and let it cool for 2-4 hours. Then use manual turret slew to track the leopard. OGON*BOOOM* VRAGA UNICHSTOZHEN
The T-62 takes its first kill. Start the engine, vrr Wrr wrrr wrrr wrrr, turret traverse powers on, Whiiiir gunner tracks target two, onthewayBOOM another dead leopard from the V tank. Literally cope ameritards
What happens if there’s a third Leopard?
I could see the German army designating the MGCS as Leopard 3
would be cool to maintain that tradition, and France could use its own name too, but maybe they'll choose some soulless common name too like "Eurotank" or sth
What anon, you don't like the forced Euro inclusion (as long as it's just Germany and France)?
Next you'll tell me nEUROn is a shitty name.
I think Euro cooperation is good and important, but not at any cost. Also the names are kinda gay, but that's of secondary importance.
Isn't the KF51 Panther essentially just the Leopard 3? AFAIK it's based on the Leo 2 hull.
KF51 Panther is a Rheinmetall design and Rheinmetall doesn't have the right to the "Leopars" trademark, KMW does
and since the MGCS is a KMW+Nexter project, I could maybe see KMW continuing the Leopard series
That's why I said essentially. Yeah, they won't call it that, but that's what it is. Fitting, since a panther is just a leopard anyway.
Well, you know the old T-62 tanker proverb. "One shot, three kills".
>Literally park the tank in a garage
what fricking garage in the smouldering ruins of bakhmut
>country fighting for it's existence spends the money for newer vehicles
>countries that haven't had a significant military threat for decades don't
Shocking stuff.
>inb4 Ukraine
>inb4 Afghanistan
Neither of these pose any threat to the military security of the homeland.
I think the FTs they put rail wheels on are neat. Not sure how useful they would be, but it's a fun thing to imagine.
It's almost like all technological and mechanical development go through a phase of rapid development when first invented and then settle into a pattern of gradual steady improvement once the basics of what works best has been sorted out, with what few large scale changes do come later being related to economic maters of ease of production or how people actually physically interact with the piece of technology (see the gradual switch from fly by wire to digital controls in aviation)
The Renaults made complete sense. Germans got them for free and were using them in Yugoslavia to hunt partisans who had no heavier weapons than machineguns at their disposal.
>hunt partisans
"hunt" is a big word for this machine
I mean I agree with your post and I love the Renault FT, it was a revolutionary design that coined all following tanks, but it was slow as frick, 8km/h on roads
Agreed. You could run away from that boy. But with nothing to take out armor with, your unit probably would have to run once it rolled into your village. Also, weighing in at just 6 tons it could probably make it along roads that better and bigger tanks would find pretty challenging.