Future of the Tank - Page 3




 
--
 
December 15th, 2006  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sukio
Kinda what I meant, thats NOW,think of the future?

Give it some effort, and some time, and you will have a improved tank that could be basiclly, a "supertank" And I mean no Muas either, a true "run -n- gun" tank that excels in over powering lines of fire.

What I mean is, dont call me crazy, please dont, but,think about it, we have smart bombs, special ops gear that can see almost perfectly at night, pilot locator recivers, all kinds of goodies at our finger tips that took years to prefect. (By our, I mean U.S. , U.K. , Germany and other modern western nations.)

And the tank, has been around how many years now? Coming close to a century, I mean, the new A2 the Army has upgraded is a very fersome match to any tank, and you dont need to write a essay to figure that out!

But, out of all the improvements I keep seeing to the Abrams line of MBTs, they all look , and seem to still be oriented for Tank on vehicle, tank on tank warfare.

I think, that if were are going to upgrade Abrams to deal with the insurgants that fight in tight urban areas, the Abrams may need one helluva overhaul for my idea, which would inculde ligther, and still strong and durbable armor, and increased engine and power output(I know it would be hard, cause the tank is big, and a gas guzler) , and bascilly, place some in turrent mounted machine guns (prefferably using electronic discharge cartirages like on the metal storm) or two, yes two, 20 mm like on fighter aircraft.

And last but not least, it may be kinda odd, and will seemingly stupid, put in one heck of a autoreloader , I know why the Army wanted the breech load in in the 70s, it kept up the accruacy , as well as reliabliltiy , but that was then , when the Abrams would be fighting basiclly outnumbered agaist large numbers of Soveit Tanks. The autoreload I am proposing would help raise the number devastating 120mm rounds that can be put downrange on a tight city block for instance, in support of infantry. And that more engine power I was talking about, woudl come in handy, to help the tank has good mobility , and momentum , if it has to over come obsticles, such as roadblocks, and low clay walls.

I know this all sounds crazy, but, who said you would have to do this to ALL Abrams, of any model?

Sorry about skirting the topic any, but after seeing what was done with some Up Armor Hummvees, I just had to turn my head to the Abrams and think...

You need to really take a look back in history. M551's in Nam' where pretty beefed up, M60A3's in Storm got a total remake sometimes, and the V-200 Commando's got a real nice makeover.


You seriously need an enducation in Army upgrading. Have you happen to hear of the 1028 120mm Canister round? I'll plug that SOB in before I start welding M61A1's to the Abrams.

Go to globalsecuirty.org and do a good long look over of armor, ammo, and use of the tank. I'm not boasting here, but I've seen alot on info you won't seen for another six months to a year. My father works for the Armor Center..........and thats as far as I'm going.
December 17th, 2006  
Yossarian
 
 
I knew of the Upgrades on the M 60s for action in the Gulf in 1991.

And some of the M 48s, and Shermans in the 6 day war, and also, flamthrower tanks of British armor in WW II.

But, most of those, have alot in common, they seemed radical then, but now, it seems to melt back into "typical armor"

To me, only the more recent models like the M 60s, upgraded Challengers, and Abrams.

Are still, putting a higher bar on themselves, and still in a class of their own.

But, the one thing that made the germans abandon their trenches at the first site of them in WWI , was the factor of their size, and the large tracked vehicles able to over run their trenches.

But, like any other organized military in history, the Germans have found ways to exploit, and take out enemy armor."And rather quickly I might add"

Anti Tank and Tank warefare has been changing ever since...

But, the war the Coalition armored forces are fighting, is one with tactics, tactics most ,if not All, of the armored forces, even though out gunning the enemy insurgants.

Still are , very slowly , having vehicles knocked out of operational status.
Even with tank prototypes of the future,like the new Expeditionary tank Prototype.

Even if equitped with high velocity guns, revulionary armor. It would still, be hard to fight in a tight city, agiast a enemy that is not afraid, to die. In that case, what if the amature isurgants go home? And the veteren fighters, with simple, IED weapons, or RPG 7, most tanks in the coalition could survive a direct RPG hit, since, basiclly the RPG 7 is outdated.

But, lets put the worlds one of the world's most dangerous and technological warmachines, and put in it the middle of a alley, with at least 10, 12, RPG wielding or gernade wielding fighters. They, like every citizen in the city, dress in civilian clothes. And are dedicated, and are ready to meat death, when the tank moves into the killzone, and the ground troops surronding it , are alert, and ready to eliminate any threat, the hidden ambush fighters, have a good opritunity.

The tank, when used right, can be a very good pyscological weapon, but, most tanks in operational service, are having a tough time combating a enemy they cant see. One who is a civilain , and a fighter. And, over time, that fighter, grows less , and less wery of armor vehicles, if not oblivios to a enemy armored vehicle, not matter what type of vehicle.

Bascilly what I was talking about, was a tank, that could move swiftly through a urban enviorment, with alot of fire power, I mean, more than in nessary, one that when the enemy sees, the see a wall of fire, that, might strike fear into a enemy, plus. Be a firing platform , that could move through swiftly in a ubran envioment, one , that the size of MBT, but, can move through obsticales.

(that may be the future, if the underhand tactics we are facing now, may be a type of warfare, we will be facing far off into the future in the war on terror. But, coalition military planners may take another route.)

And , listen, I am sorry if I made you angry on anything, I am not trying to make anyone look bad, and, the things you mentioned , are now, but, with time, these suggestions I made, may be effective, I just wanted to state them, not try to force them on any body, sorry if I offended you in any way.
December 18th, 2006  
FO Seaman
 
 
While your ideas are something, you are still young...I not being much older..yet I understand why the US Military hasn't devloped such a weapon already.

First off whats know as "Collateral Damage" the destruction of an occupied nations structures and buildings, and the mass ammounts of civilian death. You can't have some giant rolling beast firing in all directions smashing through walls......not only is it "Collateral Damage" it puts the US on a path of political/economic/diplomatic sucide.

Second, the US has over 7,000 M1A1/A2's's in service, with another butt load in surplus from the M1 Baseline's. Why waste defense spending and tax dollars on developing a system devoted to one operation, granted the M1 is a tank, but it can be modified and uypgraded as needed.

Third, fuel comsumption, ammo use and stowage, weapsons platforms. What type of engine? You need something powerful enough to move it around, the AGT 1500 Honeywell-Lycoming thew M1 has is a Multi-Fuel engine, meaning it can utilize gasoline, desiel, JP-4, JP-8 and Kero.

Weapons you can't just mount a M61A1 on the M1 without a housing unit or mount a remote weapon. An the reason the US kept human loaders over auto's was because a 26 year old loader is faster, smarter and doesn't break down or needed to be maintained.

Ammo stowage.......the M61A1 fires at 6,000 RPM meaning in lest than a minutes you wasted half what the M240D coax in the M1 is armed with...... then with an autoloaded your wasting space that ammo can be stowed in, and then is the danger of a flair up if the vehicle is damaged, the reason the M1 has armored and seperate ammo storage. Where do you put 100,000 rounds of 20mm HE-DP ammo, along with 40 rounds of 120mm and 15,000 of 7.62mm API??'

Your idea is inovative atleast..........but you must consider current military doctorine, diplomatic reasoning, and cost along with supply.
--
December 18th, 2006  
Yossarian
 
 
Well, true I suppose, but, sometimes, all the laws, and rules, make it almost impossible to fight effciently sometimes...
My concept, ever if chosen, (which would be shocking) is maybe a long ways ahead of time, no telling where warfare will be in a 100yrs from now?
It seems it develops at a frightening pace as it is.

But,the colateral damage, sometimes, is where the enemy hides, and , its kinda hard to find them, and route them out, and then, in a civilized manner , arrest them.

Well, thats all I can say, maybe the future doesnt lie on just tanks, and weaponry. Maybe the new way of warfare has yet to present itself, maybe only time will tell which way of fighting is truely superior.

Or maybe, its just how far the superior force is allowing itself to go?
December 19th, 2006  
A Can of Man
 
 
 


Similar Topics
Tank Studies
Tank school
What's your MOS (Military Occupational Specialty)?
Yom Kippur war - Shmuel Askarov story
The tank in future conflicts?