What would a brand new, 2023-designed tank look like? Every tank nowadays is just an upgrade from a 50-year-old design
What would a brand new, 2023-designed tank look like? Every tank nowadays is just an upgrade from a 50-year-old design
What would a brand new, 2023-designed tank look like? Every tank nowadays is just an upgrade from a 50-year-old design
You don’t wanna know
These can be made from Leopard 2A4 hulls. They are rebuilds + extremely extensively upgraded 50 year old designs.
Type 10 is new. It is neat. Very internetworked, which is definitely the future.
Good point. The Type 10 rocks, and the fundamental concept for the vehicle is really interesting. Certain things like the CVT transmission as opposed to a hydromatic and the hydropneumatic suspension really tickle me.
Still, though, it's a design from the mid-2000s. In the nearly 2 decades that have passed since its conception, there would surely be new developments that warrant changes. There are some new trends in turrent design concepts (in particular as they relate to APS integration and increased sensors dependence) that might or might not be worthwhile.
Still the most "modern" tank hull around. On a completely different weight class than the Anglo-German-American tanks however.
We just had a new one lads.
The EMBT concept vehicle features a lot of takticool shit on the turret, but like the KF-51, it's based on an old hull. In this case a Leo 2A7 instead of a 2A4 though.
Only if you consider it a light tank and not, for instance, a Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle, an assault gun, etc.
Something that incorporates a bunch of the stuff off AbramsX and the rheinmetal thing. I think the big one is the AbramsX's thermal invisibility and the 360 cameras
The Jap one has that along with some other cool Gundam stuff:
The search range for each vehicle can be specified from the platoon leader's vehicle.
The detected target is collated with the database and automatically identified, and the distance, position, type, etc. are automatically shared within the platoon.
It is possible to instruct each vehicle from the platoon leader's vehicle. It is possible to instruct both concentrated shooting and shooting at individual targets.
The platoon leader's vehicle automatically knows where and when the vehicle under command is aiming.
When aiming, FCS collates with the database and automatically aims at weak points.
When landing, FCS will judge the effect from the landing position and enemy vehicle type, and if uncertain, it will recommend a re-attack.
Automatically track multiple detected targets, determine the threat level, and recommend to occupants.
>Automatically track multiple detected targets, determine the threat level, and recommend to occupants.
>Questions were raised about the system in March 2019, when two unrelated whistleblowers reported that the system recommended that crews conduct a "Bonsai charge," in over 95% of simulated engagements. Further, when crews did not follow instructions, the system began recommending ritual suicide as "the only way for this crew to recover its honor." The MoD has so far refused to comment.
you missed the chance to say "bonzi charge" what with clippy and all
>140mm gun
So you want to purposely cripple the tank's ability to partake in sustained engagements - to what end? A 130 is more than enough to kill tanks, and even then the ammo capacity tradeoffs are questionable. ESPECIALLY if you want to stuff in bulky stuff like a large battery pack, a drone (operator? stowage?) etc.
to take advantage of the greater range a drone would afford
armor is constantly thickening to withstand the latest guns, and a 140mm gun would no doubt spur another arms race between armor and firepower
and if youre fighting at extreme ranges thanks to drone spotting, then you are going to need every gram of additional hole punching as armor becomes more valuable at longer ranges due to velocity reduction
>armor is constantly thickening to withstand the latest guns
Ammunition keeps up. M829A4 capabilities are uber-classified but trust that it's a hell of a rod. And - there's not actually much proof that the unbustable armour is actually a thing. I mean come on. Chinese armour is not focussed on being unpenetratable but rather just being good enough, while Russian future armour consists of Armata, a whole nest of lies.
>and if youre fighting at extreme ranges thanks to drone spotting
Weird scenario in which artillery support is totally unavailable and only the tank is available to engage. But sure, it's nice to have something that can do it all.
My question is why that would be necessary in the first place. Engaging Chinese tanks would take place in a context where both forces are expeditionary, and China would simply not be able to counter air and fires supremacy in that case - and then there are better ways to engage a comically up-armoured tank than a tank, if such methods are available. (Also China will probably not be using 140mm guns, meaning the enemy tank will be out of range to do anything to this 140mm flinger.)
It would be a nice to have. But I wonder whether it would ever actually be useful.
>but trust that it's a hell of a rod.
I've seen so many comments from tankers online along the lines of "I can't say what it can do but when I saw it my jaw dropped" that I believe it.
>Engaging Chinese tanks would take place in a context where both forces are expeditionary
Oh I agree, personally my headcanon for the first likely US-China armed conflict will be somewhere in Africa.
> then there are better ways to engage a comically up-armoured tank than a tank, if such methods are available
100% agree, just trying to come to grips with why you'd want a 140mm gun myself and that was the first thing that popped into mind.
>Ammunition keeps up.
ammunition reaches a maximum possible velocity regardless of rod design at a certain point and you will eventually need a bigger gun
technology does not stop and you are constantly looking to defeat the latest round and requiring the next latest gun
140mm will effectively future proof the gun against future developments
>Weird scenario in which artillery support is totally unavailable and only the tank is available to engage.
defeating a massed armored thrust is done with your own armored counter-thrust
artillery is used to hold the enemy in place while your own tanks flank and engage
if you can penetrate the enemy at maximum range with drone spotted rounds you automatically have the advantage
and if you can do so with the tanks main gun while the enemy needs to call divisional artillery, they are at a disadvantage
When you increase the caliber of the gun, you reduce the amount of ammo in stock.
When you increase the calibre of the gun, you reduce the amount of ammo required
you also guarantee superior range and power, which will be a natural complement to increased range and target identification
its a perfectly acceptable trade-off if you can guarantee kills against any target, at any range, with or without ERA or APS
well then make more of it, frickface
>defeating a massed armored thrust is done with your own armored counter-thrust
It's done with massive interdiction efforts to attrite that massive thrust so that by the time "your own armored counter thrust" is going into action it faces only a portion of the enemy presence and is positioned well to take initiative, not by chaaaarging tanks and having two ground formations shoot at direct-fire range until something happens
Not against the most common target of tank guns: infantry strongpoints.
> not by chaaaarging tanks and having two ground formations shoot at direct-fire range until something happens
the artillery hold them but the tanks destroy then
this is why tanks have strongly emphasized long range anti-tank capability, because tanks are the main answer to enemy tanks
>Not against the most common target of tank guns: infantry strongpoints.
this was true about 80 years ago during WW2
and the importance of using tanks to defeat enemy tanks was understood
every war since has had increasingly large percentage of tanks engaging other tanks
modern tank forces are trained in anti-armor operations as their main role
any tank you can build the enemy could also potentially build
so if you could build a tank that can spot with drones past 5km and fire through obstacles with a 140mm gun, then the opposition could also build that
so you cant ever rest in one spot with good enough, you need to continuously increase caliber and armor to thwart even your own tanks, because technology is now easily understood across borders with no way to hold a secretsauce advantage
>interdiction
air power not artillery
>every war since has had increasingly large percentage of tanks engaging other tanks
have you looked at this board once in the last 16 months?
anyway that last segment is literal dreadnought arms race tier logic and outrageously dumb stuff that could only be conceived by someone thinking about tanks completely in isolation and furthermore without any consideration to tradeoffs, which are a real thing that exist
>have you looked at this board once in the last 16 months?
>US tankers are still trained in tank on tank combat
>israeli tankers train on tank on tank combat
>chinese training is still unclear, but design of their tanks indicate an increased tank vs tank capability
if a war broke out, tanks will be the basic maneuver element
and tank v tank combat will be as common as infantry v infantry
yeah of course tank units train to fight tanks
but i have no idea how you derive
>tank v tank combat will be as common as infantry v infantry
from that fact. read a manual. your preceptions don't match reality
the largest tank force in the world invaded a country with 1500 tanks this past year. 2500 tanks have been written off in combat in the past year and a half. neither side has air supremacy. and through all that there was about one major tank on tank battle, that being vuhledar.
Does moving to 140mm make your long rod penetrator harder to kill with APS? If it doesn't, it doesn't matter.
>to what end?
I'm assuming he wants a gun capable of removing Chinese tanks no matter how much APS or ERA is strapped onto them. Like at that point you could probably cut the sabot in half and still get a penetration.
>75mm? 37mm is plenty for destroying tanks
>90mm? 75mm works just fine
Nah, this is more like saying
>90mm? 76mm with HVAP is plenty for destroying tanks
Even in that case the trade for 140 is way worse. The 90x600 is not thaaat much bigger than the 76x539, but the 140mm ammunition proposed makes NATO 120s look like toys. And the WW2 era designers had the option to increase vehicle sizes and optimise poorly laid out fighting compartments to improve stowage. Such a privelege does not exist in the modern day, especially not if you want to add yet more internal equipment. The "Terminateur" char leclerc had a comically extended turret and still took a 25% hit to stowage.
>It looks like you're trying to murder Chinese soldiers! Would you like some help?
>TENNOHEIKA BANZAIIIIIIIIIII
50-60 tons, 120mm, auto loader, light and fast with active and passive defense against atgm, remote controled auto canon on top to shoot down drones (maybe with a targeting system like small radar or software using a camera).
2 drone boxes on the back for quick reconnaissance and bird eye view.
hello
>2 drone boxes on the back for quick reconnaissance and bird eye view.
This
Any tank that doesn't have a drone or two will be considered a blind target
Also tethered drones that can stay in the air for hours will be used aince they can't be jammed
>Ctrl F "Tesla Truck"
>no results found
Seriously?
Probably something like the XM1202 MCS. 2 man crew, 120mm+ cannon, hard kill APS, turbine hybrid powertrain, auto-cannon and shell splinter protection only for armor, sub 30 ton weight.
put wheels on it and you've pretty much got an AMX-10
Wheels are dumb and the AMX-10 lacks the whole point of the MCS, which is using networked sensors and APS to allow the tank role to be filled by a 2 man vehicle that fits 2 to the C130.
call me stupid, but look
what about small tethered balloons?
Just a worse drone
Tethered drones are a thing btw
>Just a worse drone
Probably way cheaper though
>140mm gun
>integral APS
>APS pointed upwards to defeat top-attack munitions
>3-man crew with bustle-autoloader
>built-in networking with drones
>periscopes augmented with 360-degree cameras
>1500+hp diesel engine
>battery pack to run electronics without the engine to conserve fuel while idling
Also tanks should be able to fire missiles or shells from the main cannon
Something like a pzh2000 with a smaller gun, a bit more armor, strong APS, spotter drone integration and a focus on being able to fire accurately while moving.
>but that's not the same as a ww2 tank, so it's not a real tank
only if you believe that f16s aren't fighters because they're not the same as a mustang
>Artillery, but change everything so it's actually an MBT
Yes. Pure arty for 5km-70km, MBT/arty hybrids for 0-20km. They'd be able to do everything a current MBT could do, but also provide midrange counter battery fire and knock out targets of opportunity without needing line of sight. That range would give them a huge advantage over current MBTs in tank on tank combat and make them much more useful in supporting breakthroughs.
why not just have dedicated artillery and dedicated MBTs instead of trying to create some middling hybrid
Why build a vehicle that can get right up to the front and lob 120-130mm shells at high velocity then artificially limit it's range to line of sight? It made sense when back spotter drones didn't exist and calculating firing solutions was hard, but now it makes even less sense than building a gun only fighter jet.
Dedicated artillery will fire dramatically faster and more effectively than an MBT trying to perform the same role. Tanks already have the ability to perform indirect fire, but if we want to use a plane analogy we're trying to combine a a B-1 and an F-16.
The F16 itself is the airborne version of what I'm asking for. It's a versatile multirole with the payload capacity of a WWII bomber.
>payload capacity of a WWII bomber
Yes a WW2 bomber, not a 2023 bomber
A modern MBT could easily do the job of a WW2 artillery piece, but performing to a modern standard requires tradeoffs.
Hell, why not put manpads on an MBT? Because it already travels as part of a combined unit with AA capabilities and it would be uneconomical to try and combine them.
How would adding 10-15 degrees of extra elevation be uneconomical? You'd massively improve the capabilities of the vehicle for very little cost. It might get a slightly higher profile, but that doesn't matter in an era where the primary threat to tanks is not direct fire cannons. You're already carrying a big gun that shoots at high velocity, you've already got a screen to look at spotter drone footage, you've already got a computer in there.
Let's look at a short list of changes
-Change gun elevation from ~+15-20 to ~+65-75
-Add variable load ammunition and a greater variety of ammunition
-Aiming system for both direct and indirect fire and crew training to match
-Redesign internals allowing for the dramatic change in elevation
I'm sure it could be done, but at what cost?
Is that 140mm a 2 part case?
Meant for
Yeah, from ATAC. The Frenchie 140 they mounted in a Leclerc also had two-piece ammunition.
To stretch the metaphor: a 120mm HEAT shell contains more explosive power than a 105mm howitzer that was the standard for artillery in yonder day.
>Hell, why not put manpads on an MBT?
Based North Korean doctrine
>a 120mm HEAT shell contains more explosive power than a 105mm howitzer that was the standard for artillery in yonder day.
I'm not sure what your point is here
Scaled up M8 with turret consisting of 2 quick-swap missile pods on either side of a central high-speed, high-elevation autocannon with dual feed ammo. The turret is unmanned, the 3 man (possibly 2 man) crew is located in an armored box inside the hull. The "tank" is a configuration of a common chassis with an armored upper, similar to a Boxer, with the tank upper having a second power pack to provide enough power for the added weight of the armor. The transmission is electric, it idles on batteries, has active thermal camo (refrigerated tiles that route heat to the belly or back) and possibly active visual camo.
Missiles are not substitutes for main guns
Elevation needs greater volume, and greater volume demands greater mass for the same protection. Presumably, we do not get free magical bridges and road wideners everywhere, so that is a pretty big problem.
Besides - surprise, a direct-fire weapon purpose built for that tends to be not very good at the indirect role. It's being done right now - T-62s and T-55s are currently substituting for Mstas - but it really sucks and is only being done out of desparation.
So it's useful enough that they're doing it despite not having suitable equipment? Sounds like refusing to lob shells out of raw SIR THAT IS NOT MY JOB spite is a bad idea.
It's useful enough that when your artillery park has been utterly gutted by enemy action it can function. An infantry mortar works as an artillery system in a pinch. Doesn't mean that you'd want to depend on it unless there was truly nothing else available.
Anyway, look at field gun ammunition. Compare it to tank gun ammunition. Notice that being designed for entirely different things, they look entirely different and are actually shit at each other's jobs.
Tank parks are getting gutted by enemy action too but no one is sending turreted SPGs to act as makeshift MBTs.
The one stipulate is an all-round armored crew cell. Otherwise - either 2 or 3 crew, probably bustle autoloader, RWS/high angle coaxial probably with exploding ammunition, maybe electric torque overdrive or boost to sync with its modern beefier electrics. (not an electric tank, nopers).
The tank of today doesnt have a crew, just mechanics that follow with an infantry detachement. It has lots of cameras and drones with redudancy that detect in an instant and track targets in real time. A larger system assign target and micromanage the units like if it was a starcraft finale.
In real time, proud american patriots at home are solving captcha with unsure target to stop the enemy from doing amything smart that would confuse the AI.
One batallion would probably mop up a division.