new big 'Ogre' tank that combines functions of tank and self-propelled howitzer?

You cannot divorce technology and tactics, they are joined at the hip.

The initial advance was NOT stopped by drones, mass drone use came later.

Kill zones and manouvre are also linked, lose the manouvre part and you are left in a kill zone of your own making. Both sides have paid the price for this.

Active defence has basically not been seen so referencing the AFV of any kind is illogical.

What we call 'tanks' is something that will evolve further, exactly how is yet to be seen and prediction is a smoke and mirrors exercise, we ALL have an idea of how our prejudices would LIKE things to go but how real is that?

For myself, I tend to major on the little things that affect the crews and how they leverage whatever vehicle is in use at the time. Consider the proliferation of electronic 'kit' in any AFV. How many fans? Air cooling versus water cooling (Remember that many PC's have water cooling now due to the increase in heat generation from higher performing componants). Take a fatigued crewman on radio watch for example.

Those fans we had were enough to create a migraine like you would not believe unless you have been there. With a crew helmet rather than a beret hoo nose?

Whatever kit you have, the organic squidgy bit, will probably have a greater impact on effectiveness than is given credence by many. Especially those who want two crew persons per vehicle. Yes, and PC to boot.
 
Scott Kenny said:
2 platoons of Bradleys is not "massive losses"




When you're talking about "what the new generation of tanks need to be," gaming is kinda required.
Click to expand...
It actually is not. You are (deliberately???) confusing actual *hardcore* Engineering with *slacker* Gaming. One is an actual profession, while the other one is based on my admittedly very limited insight on modern popular culture with what I take to be called Cincinnati Time-Waste as an example, see https://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Cincinnati_Time_Waste:_Rules_and_Regulation
 
martinbayer said:
It actually is not. You are (deliberately???) confusing actual *hardcore* Engineering with *slacker* Gaming. One is an actual profession, while the other one is based on my admittedly very limited insight on modern popular culture with what I take to be called Cincinnati Time-Waste as an example, see https://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Cincinnati_Time_Waste:_Rules_and_Regulation
Click to expand...
Since the new tanks need doctrine figured out for them (in terms of whether each tank needs high-end anti-drone APS or if the company will have an AA vehicle or platoon), that's the part that needs gaming out.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Since the new tanks need doctrine figured out for them (in terms of whether each tank needs high-end anti-drone APS or if the company will have an AA vehicle or platoon), that's the part that needs gaming out.
Click to expand...

A new article for the Center for European Policy Analysis (a thinktank in Washington DC) states that the embattled Ukrainian Army continues to use heavy armor successfully in combined arms advances despite a front now saturated with Russian drones; see < https://cepa.org/article/ukraine-advances-the-tank-isnt-finished-yet/ >. As argued in the first post of this thread, it seems likely that the next-generation US Army tank design will require more (not less) weight than the 1970s-designed M1 Abrams, to carry better armor, better countermeasures, and more electronic jammers for tomorrow's battlefield. Just as the M1 was heavier than the M60, the M60 was heavier than the M48, etc.
 
Owens Z said:
As argued in the first post of this thread, it seems likely that the next-generation US Army tank design will require more (not less) weight than the 1970s-designed M1 Abrams, to carry better armor, better countermeasures, and more electronic jammers for tomorrow's battlefield. Just as the M1 was heavier than the M60, the M60 was heavier than the M48, etc.
Click to expand...
But then you get into the same problem as the M1A2SEP3s: the stupid thing weighs 80 tons.

And that's not logistically supportable even for "Captain Logistics" the US Army.

I think we're going to see physically smaller tanks to reduce armor weight, because those tanks will have to carry literal tons of DIRCM, DAS, MAWS/RHAW sensors, APS, chaff/flares/disposable-jammers/decoys, jammers, cyberwarfare EW...
 
Owens Z said:
A new article for the Center for European Policy Analysis
Click to expand...
Hmm, why would a "think tank" (no such thing exists, as no thinking occurs in these organizations meant to engage in lobby work) that is heavily associated and funded by the likes of American Rheinmetall, Lockheed Martin and General Atomics/General Dynamics make shit up in order to convince US decision makers to invest into 1970s style heavy armor (looking at M1E3 and XM30 here specifically) even though that may not be particularly smart...hmm...I couldn't think of any potential rea$on...
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
But then you get into the same problem as the M1A2SEP3s: the stupid thing weighs 80 tons.

I think we're going to see physically smaller tanks to reduce armor weight, because those tanks will have to carry literal tons of DIRCM, DAS, MAWS/RHAW sensors, APS, chaff/flares/disposable-jammers/decoys, jammers, cyberwarfare EW...
Click to expand...
If only there would've been a modern AFV developed in America with a medium caliber main armament, half the weight and plenty of realy estate to support active protection. Oh wait, there was, it was called Booker and they killed it while going ahead with upgrading their super heavy cold war MBT instead.

ZTZ-100, ZTQ-15 and the "Shturm" are more in line with how modern armor should look like, as opposed to doubling down on Cold War thinking and Cold War era models. The Abrams of Theseus can only bring you so far.

The Booker could've been much more too, unfortunately that wasn't meant to be. Either way, 120mm AT is entirely unnecessary in this day and age, with the three examples I mentioned having opted for a 105mm gun and a shortened 125mm "howitzer" instead. Utility, fire support and tactical mobility is where it's at, not immense weight and anti-tank focused development paths.
 
EmoBirb said:
If only there would've been a modern AFV developed in America with a medium caliber main armament, half the weight and plenty of realy estate to support active protection. Oh wait, there was, it was called Booker and they killed it while going ahead with upgrading their super heavy cold war MBT instead.
Click to expand...
Booker was too heavy for being a support piece in Infantry Brigades (and maybe Stryker Brigades).

MPF absolutely HAD TO BE <40 tons including 20% lifetime weight growth, for Infantry Brigade native engineering to be able to deal with it. That means no more than ~33 tons at introduction. Yes, Sherman weight for a dedicated Infantry Support Vehicle.



EmoBirb said:
Either way, 120mm AT is entirely unnecessary in this day and age, with the three examples I mentioned having opted for a 105mm gun and a shortened 125mm "howitzer" instead. Utility, fire support and tactical mobility is where it's at, not immense weight and anti-tank focused development paths.
Click to expand...
All three of those vehicles are light tanks, not MBTs.
 
Too heavy for infantry brigades but not too heavy in general. Overall weight was a sweet spot for a modern AFV.

Neither ZTZ-100 nor Shturm are light tanks, they are MBTs, with ZTZ-100 being a clean sheet next gen design while Shturm is an in-depth modification of an existing MBT.

ZTQ-15 is a light tank and thus far more suitable for modern armored warfare than any MBT with cold war roots weighing 70+ tons dragging around a uselessly optimized AT gun.
 
Scott Kenny said:
But then you get into the same problem as the M1A2SEP3s: the stupid thing weighs 80 tons.

And that's not logistically supportable even for "Captain Logistics" the US Army.

I think we're going to see physically smaller tanks to reduce armor weight, because those tanks will have to carry literal tons of DIRCM, DAS, MAWS/RHAW sensors, APS, chaff/flares/disposable-jammers/decoys, jammers, cyberwarfare EW...
Click to expand...
Well, since you are fighting static trench warfare, who cares? Especially now, when the armor on most modern tanks is modular. You could ship the chassis and armor separatedly, and then just combine them near the frontline.

In fact, I think that the future tank would likely be designed to have two functional modes:

* "Mobile tank" - only frontal heavy armor fit, weight around 50-60 tons. Basically a modern MBT for mobile warfare;

* "Siege tank" - additional all-around heavy armor fit, weight around 80-100 tons. Basically a superheavy siege tank to support infantry in trench warfare;

So you usually carry around tank in "mobile" mode, and when you face trench warfare situation, you just up-armor it to "siege" mode.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom