3G Future Tank
-
Incorporates much of current British n Western tech n thinking:
Smaller than current MBTs to allow air-deployability.
Comparison with Challenger 2
Hybrid-Electric drive for quieter operation.
Use of composites to reduce weight of basic hull.
Modular add-on armour(Chobham n Slat but not ERA) Possibly active defence.
Use of "Electric Armour" to make it impervious to HEAT. Dual-warhead HEAT defeated by external SLAT n/or Chobham armour creating multiple layers of armour.
Crew in centre of vehicle offered max protection/survivability.
Electro-Thermal Chem tech offers 50% improvement in gun performance - allowing smaller calibre (lighter) main gun n more ammo. Gun would be better than current 120mm guns.
Better mobility than current MBTs.
Low observable tech centred around RAM/shapping/composites.
Network-centric battlefield control tech offers better crew awareness.
Electric Armour
The ubiquitous RPG-7 can be picked up for a mere US$10 in most of the world's trouble spots but is capable of destroying a tank n killing its crew. When the grenade hits the tank, its shaped charge warhead fires a jet of hot copper into the target at around 1000mph.
It's capable of penetrating more than a foot of conventional solid steel armour.The new electric armour is made up of a highly-charged capacitor that is connected to 2 separate metal plates on the tank's exterior. The outer plate, which is bullet proof n made from an unspecified alloy, is earthed while the insulated inner plate is live.The electric armour runs off the tank's own power supply. When the tank commander feels he is in a dangerous area, he simply switches on the current to the inner plate.When the warhead fires its jet of molten copper,it penetrates both outer plate n insulation of the inner plate. This makes a connection n thousands of amps of electricity vaporises most of the molten copper. The rest of the copper is dispersed harmlessly against the vehicle's hull.But despite the high charge, the electrical load on the battery is no more than that caused by starting the engine on a cold morning.In recent demonstration of the electric armour,an APC protected by the new British sys survived repeated attacks by RPG grenades that would normally have destroyed it several times over.Many of the grenades were fired from point blank range but the only damage to the APC was cosmetic. The vehicle was driven away under its own power. The use of electric armour will protect it against all shaped-charge warheads including artillery n tank shells. -
With regards to the recent Israeli experience in Lebanon, do tanks still have any tactical or strategic relevance in the warfare of the future? It doesn't seem so to me.
-
that's where u are wrong.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:With regards to the recent Israeli experience in Lebanon, do tanks still have any tactical or strategic relevance in the warfare of the future? It doesn't seem so to me. -
Arti n tanks can kill but i feel the main idea is to dampen the morale n resolve of the enemy troops n people.
-
Care to elaborate?Originally posted by beavan:that's where u are wrong. -
The tanks weren't the problem; the problem was on how they were used.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:With regards to the recent Israeli experience in Lebanon, do tanks still have any tactical or strategic relevance in the warfare of the future? It doesn't seem so to me.
If you send armour into an urban area without infantry as a screening force, you will lose lots of tanks. That said, while infantry will always been the queen of the battlefield, you need armour to support them in urban ops. Infantry helps to take out the RPG teams, while the armour helps protect the infantry from snipers and enemy GPMGs. -
Interesting question. A question that has been repectedly asked for decades, almost since the birth of tanks.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:With regards to the recent Israeli experience in Lebanon, do tanks still have any tactical or strategic relevance in the warfare of the future? It doesn't seem so to me.
I advice reading "Panzer Leader", a copy I saw recently at Border's.
It is by none other than the grandfather of German lightning warfare Blitzkrieg, Guridian. He had an arguement of why you still need tanks even when they are not totally invulnerable.
The answer is in tactics. Namely, massing of armour, surprise, use of terrain, attacking the weak points of defense, movement shifter than the enemy can recover.
Tanks are just tools. Anyhow use a tool wrongly, you wouldn't get the desired results. Use a tool correctly, you would get the result the tool is designed to perform.
If you don't fear tanks, then you have never been an infantry trooper seeing tanks in action
-
armoured forces are always needed for the mobility to exploit the enemy's weak points.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:Care to elaborate?
even in the past, heavy armoured calvary(in our case, tanks) were kept behind the main forces. when a weak point was identified, they would then charge through and wreak havoc in the rear.
that's just one use for tanks. -
Most of the replies I see here seems to relate to conventional warfare, but in guerilla warfare it seems to me that tanks have little tactical value and are vulnerable to RPGs, grenades, home-made bombs, and booby-traps. Even a screening or escorting force can be easily distracted or diverted in order to create chances for guerillas to launch anti-tank missiles or get up close to plant bombs.
-
hmm. but which army can be totally developed to be against non-conventional warfare.
-
Can't armies be trained in guerrilla tactics n fight them with better infantry equipment? Use guerrilla tactics to fight guerrillas but with higher tech....N btw y do armies around the world bother to build up their conventional forces even when guerrilla warfare has proved to be effective ? Is it because it's not that effective enough?
-
wah...3person
-
-
cool pic biut o dunno what it represent
-
Well at least the pressure is off the infantry man and on the tankee.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:Most of the replies I see here seems to relate to conventional warfare, but in guerilla warfare it seems to me that tanks have little tactical value and are vulnerable to RPGs, grenades, home-made bombs, and booby-traps. Even a screening or escorting force can be easily distracted or diverted in order to create chances for guerillas to launch anti-tank missiles or get up close to plant bombs.
Yes they might destory or disable to tank....but if the crew survives and the screening infantry can take out a few of the attackers then the tank has fufiled that mission of protecting the infantry hasnt it?
They might call destorying a tank a victory but at what price? and it does distract them from the mission of killing a soldier.Which you are not directly engaging. -
3G Future Tank may look like this if compared with drawn plan. -
damn it looks like some old SP arty gun hahOriginally posted by papabear20046:
3G Future Tank may look like this if compared with drawn plan. -
confirm this one can transform one...~ he heOriginally posted by nismoS132: -
There are soldiers inside the tank. Besides, you cannot discount the effect on enemy morale if you can kill their tank.Originally posted by |-|05|:Well at least the pressure is off the infantry man and on the tankee.
Yes they might destory or disable to tank....but if the crew survives and the screening infantry can take out a few of the attackers then the tank has fufiled that mission of protecting the infantry hasnt it?
They might call destorying a tank a victory but at what price? and it does distract them from the mission of killing a soldier.Which you are not directly engaging. -
Let me introduce you to this movie called Blackhawk down, aka what happens if you don't have armour support.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:With regards to the recent Israeli experience in Lebanon, do tanks still have any tactical or strategic relevance in the warfare of the future? It doesn't seem so to me. -
Another Future Tank - STEALTH.......But looks too big n heavy -
Yes there are but they are alot better protected then the foot soldiers.Taking out the tank doesnt mean taking out the soldiers inside like i've already saidOriginally posted by dakkon_blackblade:There are soldiers inside the tank. Besides, you cannot discount the effect on enemy morale if you can kill their tank. -
Look at what the Israelis use during the recent fighting inthe Lebanon - all heavy armor even for APCs. Do they use anything less than 50 tons when fighting a determined soldier on foot ?
-
Not fighting for land so can be heavy n slow but protected....kind of anywayOriginally posted by glock:Look at what the Israelis use during the recent fighting inthe Lebanon - all heavy armor even for APCs. Do they use anything less than 50 tons when fighting a determined soldier on foot ?
