The Late 21st century AFV? Successors to the MBT?

[Avimimus]

Hello,

I agree with the arguments put forward as to why claims about the 'death of the tank' are, once again, unreasonable.

However, life is clearly getting harder for tanks:
- The overall PHit/Pk of anti-tank missile systems have increased dramatically, flight times have reduced, and they have become less dependent on operators. Costs for things like fire-and-forget capabilities and top-attack capabilities keep reducing.
- This results in greater effective ranges for man-portable anti-tank munitions, making it harder for infantry to protectively screen tanks, and allowing anti-tank teams to cover a larger area of the front and more easily support each other.
- The continued development of guided indirect fire rounds, as well as loitering munitions, means that fire can be concentrated on tanks (as relatively high value targets) from further away.

So, what does a world look like where guided artillery, loitering munitions, and top-attack precise concealable anti-tank missiles become affordable? What pressures will this produce?

My own thoughts would lean towards a heavily armoured reconnaissance and fire-support tank... favouring soft-kill and hard-kill active-protection, armour (including armour against top-attack munitions), and sensors (e.g. at least two panoramic sights, augmented by a 360 degree MWS and back-up sighting systems, and possibly radar), and sacrifice firepower to achieve this. The overall doctrinal role would be to replace the IFV with a more survivable platform that could also provide a relatively secure position to identify targets for indirect fire.

Medium calibre main-guns:

Such a vehicle could be armed with a ~70mm cannon with a reasonably deep magazine (e.g. 100-150 rnds), have a remote weapon station for a second machine gun and a cannister carrying 2-4 anti-tank/demolition missiles for high value targets that the main gun can't defeat.

The smaller calibre main gun would save weight, but could also have superior amounts of ammunition available for suppression, be very effective against exposed targets, and carry specialised guided/fused ammunition to deal with drones/helicopters. It could also achieve >300mm RHA with APFSDS. When enemy armour out-matches it, it could still be used to strip reactive armour off of an enemy tank and/or damage optics and systems through vibration while an anti-tank missile is enroute to the target (and have the kinetic performance to do so, as such a large weapon would have similar ranges to an anti-tank missile).

P.S. Before someone starts with 'It isn't a tank if its main gun isn't intended to defeat the frontal armour of enemy main battle tanks'... I'll point out that such an argument means that interwar tanks, the original Panzer IV, and any tank which doctrinally is mainly to be used against infantry and artillery (rather than tanks) isn't considered a 'tank'... which is very silly. Yes, under some modern doctrines almost no interwar tank is a tank - but that is only under some modern doctrines - the idea of the tank is older than your perspective and the tank will be around (in some form) long after as well (albeit potentially with new doctrinal roles).

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I could see a very useful role for such a vehicle in support of more traditional MBTs, similar in concept to the Russian BMPT. (Has the BMPT seen any combat action in Ukraine?) Perhaps tank platoons with mixed types would be a good idea featuring one or two of these fire support vehicles and two or three main battle tanks which retain the large caliber (120mm+) guns for direct engagement with enemy heavy armor and heavily fortified targets. Or you could even reverse that ratio depending on how successful such a vehicle is.

I'm not certain if such a vehicle could also replace the infantry fighting vehicle although it would definitely be useful when working alongside them. There is always going to be a case for infantry not to mention combat engineers and other types. If anything I think it is harder to design the ideal infantry fighting vehicle due to all of the different requirements and the need to carry sufficient troops.

I think the ARES high-velocity 75mm gun would be a pretty ideal weapon for the vehicle you're looking for. Maybe have it in an unmanned low profile turret with a large carousel type autoloader, the crew would be up front in a separate compartment.

 

[Avimimus]

Something I also wonder about is - whether such a vehicle could identify targets and then hand them off to the big gun (120mm-150mm) direct fire tanks? In which case the direct fire platform might not need as much armour, as the target's location would be roughly known it could shoot and scoot (while remaining further back).

I wonder if one could also build in a longer barrel life to allow such a vehicle to augment artillery forces when needed (i.e. it'd have a smaller magazine then self-propelled guns, but would still be able to contribute to indirect fire missions in a crisis). There might be some contradictions in requirements between having a low profile and a gun with high elevation, but it could be possible.

So one could almost envision a situation where the MBT gets replaced by a forward armoured reconnaissance tank and a fire-support tank... blurring the lines with both IFV and SPGs respectively!

 

[Fluff]

Given the number of ‘tanks’ in service, any change is going to be incremental, so I would add to existing tank units, a VL atgm vehicle, and a local air defense vehicle, or some tanks carry this, to see off drones. Add in the already on order 40-50 ton ifv, and your getting there.

 

[Avimimus]

I could see a very useful role for such a vehicle in support of more traditional MBTs, similar in concept to the Russian BMPT. (Has the BMPT seen any combat action in Ukraine?)

I believe a few of the prototypes were deployed. Given the scale of the war it is unlikely that we'll have any clear reports on performance though (at least until Russia declassifies them). The BMP-T concept does remind me of another conjecture though: Will the multi-turreted tank return? I know some of the BMP-T concepts involved multiple turrets (e.g. two independent 23mm equipped turrets, or independent high elevation grenade launcher turrets that could operate independently of the main turret).

The development of light weight RWS/RCWS would potentially enable such a trend: We already have motorised RWS on many tanks (effectively acting as a second turret). One could see a situation similar M1 Abraham's that were fitted with a machine gun for the loader as well as a commander's machine gun... The benefit would be faster reaction times.

One could even envision a situation with a conventional single turret (with autoloader) - but the loader position becoming replaced with a second gunner to increase situational awareness - with two (or even three panoramic sights). The commander and second gunner would both contribute to improved situational awareness and could hand-off targets to the main gunner who would then engage them.

 

[Avimimus]

Given the number of ‘tanks’ in service, any change is going to be incremental, so I would add to existing tank units, a VL atgm vehicle, and a local air defense vehicle, or some tanks carry this, to see off drones. Add in the already on order 40-50 ton ifv, and your getting there.

Good point. A long transition, but one that might already be here with heavy IFVs being up-armoured (and often carrying heavier weapons for local air-defense etc.) I honestly haven't given much thought to transitional states - more what the end result would be!

 

[uk 75]

The evolution of the tank has been driven by conflict in Europe.
The present generation of tanks in the West and Russia are still driven by the prospect of a future version of Kursk.
But actual conflict between Russian and Western tanks has really only been seen in Israel and Iraq.
This is in contrast to World War 2 where British, German, Russian and US tanks were competing on the battlefield.
Events in the Ukraine sadly look like recreating these circustances.
Russia may yet send Armatas and Challengers, Leopards and Abrams will be tested.
If one looks back to 1939 the descendants of Matilda II or.Pzk III look remarkably similar to those vehicles. A turret with a main gun mounted on a tracked chassis protected by armour.
There have been a few attempts, notably by Sweden, to change this form, but it has remained remarkably durable.
My guess is that the tank of 2042 will still be recognisable to a tank crew from 1939.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Pardon the digging up an old thread, blame the "see also" sidebar of the forum.

I don't see a ~40ton vehicle holding much over 75 rounds of ~70mm ammunition, assuming round dimensions roughly equal to the old US M1 76mm. I'm assuming internal volume roughly on par with an M4 Sherman, even though the outer dimensions will have to be a lot bigger due to thicker but lighter composite armor.

Assuming that the designers didn't cheap out and use the 105x617 NATO tank ammunition, I'd expect a 90mm as the smallest compromise caliber. This gives good HE volume even in a high velocity shell, and potentially more HE filler than the weight of an entire 75mm shell in a low velocity shell.

Russia may yet send Armatas and Challengers, Leopards and Abrams will be tested.

With what Armatas? Do they even have more than a dozen?

If one looks back to 1939 the descendants of Matilda II or.Pzk III look remarkably similar to those vehicles. A turret with a main gun mounted on a tracked chassis protected by armour.
There have been a few attempts, notably by Sweden, to change this form, but it has remained remarkably durable.
My guess is that the tank of 2042 will still be recognisable to a tank crew from 1939.

I mean, look at the battleships. From Dreadnaught in 1905 to the Iowas, there was only one significant change in layout of the secondary battery, from casemates in the hull to turrets. But otherwise the ships basically all settled out as 2A1 or 2A2 designs, two turrets forward and one or two turrets aft. The difference being 3-gun or 2-gun turrets, respectively.

The Stridsvagen 103 was a good design for when all tanks had to come to a halt to shoot with any accuracy. It was competitive against the major western tanks of the time in terms of hitting targets and moving on. But it was rendered obsolete by the shoot-on-move FCS of the Abrams and Leo2.

 

[Avimimus]

Another concept:
- Gearing and rear view to allow rapid reversing. Hybrid drive to allow relocating on short notice (e.g. moving from a cold state to shoot-and-scoot, even before the engine has fully turned on).
- Casemated unmanned turret. Artillery grade barrel (large number of rounds between replacement, ease of replacement).
- Thick forward and top armour (with ERA).
- One modern IIR sight for the commander.
- 2-3 Crew in vehicle (e.g. driver, commander/gun-layer, assistant commander/engineer).

Doctrinally such a design would be intended to be both affordable and survivable. Lower logistics costs (designed for long static periods, and having only one high-grade sight. It could provide indirect fire (acting as artillery) from relatively forward positions. It would also be survivable enough to temporarily move into a direct fire role before pulling back. It could also ambush advancing enemy vehicles fairly effectively.

 

[Desertfox]

How often is the main gun on a tank used to actually shoot at another tank? Perhaps we should be moving to a more inter-war doctrine with dedicated tank destroyers and infantry support tanks. What does the tank of the future need to accomplish? If your primary usage is supporting infantry in an urban environment you are better off with a low velocity 90mm gun + a high angle autocannon vis a 120mm high velocity anti-tank gun. If you are trying to kill tanks, is a high-velocity gun the most efficient way to go?

 

[uk 75]

Terrain has a great impact on tank warfare.
Where there are wide open spaces and fields or just open desert fast moving agile armoured vehicles able to fire as they go come into their own.
But where movement is constrained by natural or man made obstacles the armoured vehicle is vulnerable to attack by mine, drone, RPG or artillery.
There are some terrain forms like mountains, jungles, marshes, swamps or toiga where the going is so slow and difficult that altetnatives have to be sought.
Arguably Ukraine has seen a move from fighting in open country to ploughing into mines and ditches or obstacles.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How often is the main gun on a tank used to actually shoot at another tank? Perhaps we should be moving to a more inter-war doctrine with dedicated tank destroyers and infantry support tanks. What does the tank of the future need to accomplish? If your primary usage is supporting infantry in an urban environment you are better off with a low velocity 90mm gun + a high angle autocannon vis a 120mm high velocity anti-tank gun. If you are trying to kill tanks, is a high-velocity gun the most efficient way to go?

Tank Destroyers in the US sense only went away for a little, then came back in the late 1960s/early 1970s with attack helicopters. First when armed with HEAT rockets, and then when armed with guided missiles.

However, the original British concept for Infantry tanks was slow, not much faster than the soldiers could move on foot. That's not going to stick around, unless there's a dual-range transmission involved. "Low range" is walking speeds, "high range" is highway speeds. And for close support of infantry, I find myself really liking the BMP-3/BMD-4 turret with both a 100mm and a 30mm. 40ish rounds of 100mm HE-Frag and anything else you want to throw, 8 rounds of GL-ATGM for things too big for the 30mm gun to deal with.

 

[Avimimus]

Essentially what I was thinking - carrying a couple of anti-tank missiles is enough to counter enemy armour initially, and if there is a major armoured formation then using longer ranged anti-tank missiles (i.e. 15km-20km range) with forward spotters makes sense. So there is room for a refocusing and respecialisation of armour.

I do think there is some use to high velocity and high calibre guns, but the platforms carrying them may not need to be orthodox main battle tanks... and something like the B-19 turret for the BMP-3 (although perhaps with even fewer missiles but better sensors) might be more optimal, as might something like a 7.5cm L/24

 

[Scott Kenny]

I do think there is some use to high velocity and high calibre guns, but the platforms carrying them may not need to be orthodox main battle tanks... and something like the B-19 turret for the BMP-3 (although perhaps with even fewer missiles but better sensors) might be more optimal, as might something like a 7.5cm L/24

I'm not sure that a 75mm slow firing gun is a good idea. It is about the smallest gun that has a decent size HE load, but there are a couple ways around that.

First, let's start with our favorite 50x228mm Bushmaster III. It normally fires two different rounds, APDS and PABM. Modify the breech so you can have two ammo feeds per side. Use one for APDS, two feeds for PABM, and the last for Obstacle Reduction. These are low velocity HESH/HEP types, flying at no more than 500m/s so you can have a nice thin shell wall for best possible splat on the target. Two or three 50mm HESH have about the same capacity as one 75mm, and look, you're using a chain gun. Flip selector switch to ORR and fire a burst. What bunker, sir?

The other option was an idea that started development in about 1970, but when the US withdrew from Vietnam the idea was shelved: A 70mm version of the Mk19 automatic grenade launcher. Uses the same Hi-low propulsion concept as the Mk19, weighs about 110lbs. Stick that on one of the RWS.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I'm not sure that a 75mm slow firing gun is a good idea. It is about the smallest gun that has a decent size HE load, but there are a couple ways around that.

I quite like the idea of an IFV with the 76mm L23 from the Scorpion armoured reconnaissance vehicle. We know from the Scorpion and Scimitar that the L23 and the 30mm RARDEN can be accomodated in similar spaces. So, since the Warrior has a RARDEN, it should be possible to put an L23 on an IFV.

The concept of the Scorpion and Scimitar was that the 76mm gun vehicles were for close support, firing HE and smoke, and that the 30mm cannon vehicles were to engage APCs and reconnaissance vehicles. A mix of the two types within an infantry unit gives the commander options.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I quite like the idea of an IFV with the 76mm L23 from the Scorpion armoured reconnaissance vehicle. We know from the Scorpion and Scimitar that the L23 and the 30mm RARDEN can be accomodated in similar spaces. So, since the Warrior has a RARDEN, it should be possible to put an L23 on an IFV.

The concept of the Scorpion and Scimitar was that the 76mm gun vehicles were for close support, firing HE and smoke, and that the 30mm cannon vehicles were to engage APCs and reconnaissance vehicles. A mix of the two types within an infantry unit gives the commander options.

No argument there, just that I don't like specialized vehicles in general. If I can give every vehicle in the unit the same capabilities via that Bushmaster 3, I'll do that instead.

 

[asVAL]

First, let's start with our favorite 50x228mm Bushmaster III. It normally fires two different rounds, APDS and PABM. Modify the breech so you can have two ammo feeds per side. Use one for APDS, two feeds for PABM, and the last for Obstacle Reduction. These are low velocity HESH/HEP types, flying at no more than 500m/s so you can have a nice thin shell wall for best possible splat on the target. Two or three 50mm HESH have about the same capacity as one 75mm, and look, you're using a chain gun. Flip selector switch to ORR and fire a burst. What bunker, sir?

Why would you want a quad feed out of all places? It introduces more points of failure, more technical complexities, and eats much more internal spaces; all of that could be avoided by simply using smart fuzes.
Modern fuzing is so effective that you could package a RF VT fuze, a FCS-fed timed fuze and a normal PD fuze all in one 40mm HE shell.
As for super strong bunkers, task an A-10 with that. Not like 50mm HESH is much more effective than 25/30mm for that role, the US Army phased out 165mm HESH for 120mm delayed fuzed HEAT for obstacle reduction.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why would you want a quad feed out of all places? It introduces more points of failure, more technical complexities, and eats much more internal spaces; all of that could be avoided by simply using smart fuzes.

I'm visualizing the quad feed as 2 feeds on each side, case ejection out the bottom of the receiver and drive motor/chain on top. This assumes a linkless feed so you don't have to deal with links in the way. Having 2 ammo stores on each side is only slightly larger than having one higher capacity store, and allows you to equalize the ammo stores between the two sides: Say 200 rounds per side. Left side has 40x APDS and 160x PABM. Right side has 120x PABM and 80x HEP. Total carriage is 40x APDS, 280x PABM, and 80x HEP.

Modern fuzing is so effective that you could package a RF VT fuze, a FCS-fed timed fuze and a normal PD fuze all in one 40mm HE shell.
As for super strong bunkers, task an A-10 with that. Not like 50mm HESH is much more effective than 25/30mm for that role, the US Army phased out 165mm HESH for 120mm delayed fuzed HEAT for obstacle reduction.

The Army also phased out 165mm HESH because it was only on the Combat Engineer Vehicle based on M60s, (M728?) which weren't capable of keeping up with Abrams. The Abrams-chassis CEVs were never built due to funding issues.

 

[asVAL]

Having 2 ammo stores on each side is only slightly larger than having one higher capacity store, and allows you to equalize the ammo stores between the two sides: Say 200 rounds per side. Left side has 40x APDS and 160x PABM. Right side has 120x PABM and 80x HEP. Total carriage is 40x APDS, 280x PABM, and 80x HEP.

Yet no one tried that irl... 4 ammo bins mean you have to deal with more walls, more attachment points, more feed lips, plus if you use linkless, more motors and wiring, all of which will eat up a ton of space. The fully decoupled and linkless magazine Northrop (or Nammo?) designed for the enhanced 30mm gun is already gigantic, now scale it up to 50mm. Look at autoloading howitzers like the Crusader. They didnt bother with different feed paths at all and went with electronic fuzing instead.

The Army also phased out 165mm HESH because it was only on the Combat Engineer Vehicle based on M60s, (M728?) which weren't capable of keeping up with Abrams. The Abrams-chassis CEVs were never built due to funding issues.

Important reminder: the explosive-based obstacle reduction capability of the M728 was replaced in-service by HE-OR (which wasnt even a pure HE round, it was a MPAT with hard steel nosecone and a delayed fuze), meaning they considered the HV 120mm equal to the 165mm for that role.

The reality is that most militaries that used HESH in any major capability switched over to multi-mode HE for general purpose work, including the destruction of fortifications. Only the British still use it and I would not consider their tankineering expertise to be any better than the Soviets, American and German.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yet no one tried that irl... 4 ammo bins mean you have to deal with more walls, more attachment points, more feed lips, plus if you use linkless, more motors and wiring, all of which will eat up a ton of space. The fully decoupled and linkless magazine Northrop (or Nammo?) designed for the enhanced 30mm gun is already gigantic, now scale it up to 50mm. Look at autoloading howitzers like the Crusader. They didnt bother with different feed paths at all and went with electronic fuzing instead.

Valid point. I haven't spent any time digging around in a Bradley turret to see how big the feeders are.

Important reminder: the explosive-based obstacle reduction capability of the M728 was replaced in-service by HE-OR (which wasnt even a pure HE round, it was a MPAT with hard steel nosecone and a delayed fuze), meaning they considered the HV 120mm equal to the 165mm for that role.

The reality is that most militaries that used HESH in any major capability switched over to multi-mode HE for general purpose work, including the destruction of fortifications. Only the British still use it and I would not consider their tankineering expertise to be any better than the Soviets, American and German.

That happened because everyone but the British wanted smoothbore guns for higher velocity. HESH does not like smoothbore guns, it needs the rotation caused by rifling to spread the explosive across the impact area.

As point of fact, the US still has HEP (US term for HESH) rounds available for the 105x617mm tank guns. Like what's used on the M10 Booker.

 

[shin_getter]

I agree with the arguments put forward as to why claims about the 'death of the tank' are, once again, unreasonable.

...So, what does a world look like where guided artillery, loitering munitions, and top-attack precise concealable anti-tank missiles become affordable? What pressures will this produce?

When looking at the combat ecosystem, the thing to look at is what is the missing task and role that a platform is best suited.

Well, powerful long range PGM means anti-tank is no longer a important role for a tank. What other threats that exists that can not be solved by PGM and need other weapons platform? Now lets suppose the PGM shooter platform already exists.

1. Targets that is too cheap to use PGM on
2. Targets that is too concealed for long range fires
3. Targets that is too evasive and mobile for long range PGM
4. Targets that is too much of a threat that makes the time lag of long range PGM unacceptable
5. Targets that is too tough for PGM

Now, effective real threats are often combinations of these things:
1. Mines: Concealed and cheap
2. Drones: Concealed, Evasive and cheap
3. Missiles: Evasive and too much of a threat for slow reaction weapons
4. Tunnel networks/Urban: Too tough for PGM to clear by raw firepower.
5. Immobile obstacles: Not directly dealt with by PGM

Now, these threats already exist before the decline of the tank, so it just means a change in combat formation Composition.

SHORAD, CRAM: Deal with evasive, and short response time threats in general.
Mine clearing/engineering vehicles deal with immobile problems in general
IFV/APC, Drone/Robot Carriers: deal with complex terrain that is too tough to reduce by fire: tunnels and urban
Artillery/Missile + Air recon: deal with slow, not very stealthy threats at extended range

My own thoughts would lean towards a heavily armoured reconnaissance and fire-support tank... favouring soft-kill and hard-kill active-protection, armour (including armour against top-attack munitions), and sensors (e.g. at least two panoramic sights, augmented by a 360 degree MWS and back-up sighting systems, and possibly radar), and sacrifice firepower to achieve this. The overall doctrinal role would be to replace the IFV with a more survivable platform that could also provide a relatively secure position to identify targets for indirect fire.

Combat vehicles are not good platforms for long range observation. Line of sight is too limited.

On the high end, something like a F-35 can spot on a theater level deep into enemy territory. On the low end, a backpack drone costs basically nothing while having more detection range than vehicles of normal height in most terrain. There is a huge variety of recon aircraft possible within half a dozen order of magnitude in cost.

A tethered drone is far more effective if you want operating cycles similar to existing land vehicles. Since such drones have longer viewing rang than direct fire weapons, it doesn't need a offensive weapon. If defensive weapon platforms have area effect, it can very well be a independent vehicle.

Since the entire cost of a tethered drone plus ground vehicle is in the sensor, and the sensor can't be armored, there is not much point to armor the thing.

 

[shin_getter]

I do think there is some use to high velocity and high calibre guns, but the platforms carrying them may not need to be orthodox main battle tanks... and something like the B-19 turret for the BMP-3 (although perhaps with even fewer missiles but better sensors) might be more optimal, as might something like a 7.5cm L/24

A 70mm version of the Mk19 automatic grenade launcher. Uses the same Hi-low propulsion concept as the Mk19, weighs about 110lbs. Stick that on one of the RWS.

the US Army phased out 165mm HESH for 120mm delayed fuzed HEAT for obstacle reduction.

A cheap High explosive thrower that you can stuff on a RWS would be pretty neat. However rocket pods with thermobarics is probably good enough that further developments would be marginal unless the war one long urban siege after another.

 

[tomo pauk]

Drones will be cheap and cheerful decades before the end of the century - they are already there - so a good anti-drone defense is needed. Unless there is a good laser to make hard kills, something like a 40mm grenade launcher should do it, with proximity fused ammo of course. Dual feed, so the ground targets can also be engaged, the weapon sitting on the top of the turret.
Main gun - the 120mm seems to be plenty enough, it does not drive the size, weight and price of the complete tank into unaffordability, add also the 120mm mortar rounds in the arsenal for the main gun (keeps the recoil low, improves the life of the gun, shells are much cheaper, might even poach the shells from the mortar units need-be), as well as attack-anything guided rockets/drones/loiter ammo. HMG as a coax, so the infantry can also be attacked behind light cover.
Relocating all crew members into the hull allows more freedom to design the turret, and also improves the ready ammo load count; will require automatic loading of all weapons, though.