Author Topic: Why Can’t Tanks be Larger? Rheinmetall’s 130mm Gun and the Future of MBTs  (Read 18121 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 257,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,247
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
The US army has being toying with light tanks for years, the reality is that it is not willing to accept the loss rate that goes with them. The French did and the AMX 10-RC is really that a light tank without tracks. They gave up a little mobility for speed and minimal logistical footprint, but still retain the firepower. All light tanks sacrifice protection. I note the French are moving away from the big gun AC's to the auto cannon which is somewhat counter intuitive to the issues the Canadians ran into with their auto-cannons.
So far modern war has given us little tank vs tank since the Battle of 73 Eastings in the Gulf War, so the tank primary role will continue to be fire support for infantry with the ability to react to enemy armour.
We have tried oddball turrets far back as the M60A2 Starship, the MGS and the Jordanian Falcon Turret and I seem to recall the Swedes working on one as well. They seem to fall to the wayside. We have to see how the Armata does in real life with the commander having limited visibility to the rear.

The new 'light tank' is the IFV. The one thing that the last 15 years or so has confirmed about tanks, IMHO, is that the day of the MBT is not over... by a 'long shot' (forgive the pun :) ).
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,600
  • Crewman
GR66, I'm thinking of the evolved gun tank as a vehicle which still needs protected mobility to survive on the modern battlefield. Enemy rounds will manage to "leak" through various countermeasures, brave or suicidal infantrymen could still pop up at point blank range with RPG like weapons or enemy mines, IED's and similar weapons can still be laid to deter mobility.

Collin, the Merkava is the conceptual idea to see how rearranging the internal layout of the tank could provide the means to carry a much larger weapon without expanding the armoured envelope or weight. A Gen 4 tank with a front mounted engine, clear rear area and robot turret could be built today from a PUMA chassis, for example, and the CVCT120 is a "light" version of this idea. It seems clear to me that the real "revolution" would be networking the tank into a larger sensor network so the tanker could "see" potential targets outside of LOS, and potentially engage (currently tanks could be in a target area but unable to engage because the target is not LOS).

Haligonian, the US Army wrote its pre WWII doctrine around that very idea and their Tank Destroyers of WWII were the embodiment of the idea, but the overall execution left something to be desired (to say the least).

Some serious design flaws with your premise here.  A tank requires good gun depression.  It is not going to get that with the turret anywhere back of the center line.  The further forward the gun, the better.  That way the tank does not have to go "tracks up" to shoot over hills, but it can instead use the hills as protection as it fires over them, exposing very little of the vehicle. 

Fuel tanks and engines placed in the front of the AFV work well in APCs and IFVs, giving them added protection for the crew and passengers, but that would be a poor design for a MBTs.

All AFVs are susceptible to IEDs.  As witnessed in Afghanistan, if two mines stacked would not kill an AFV, then three would be stacked, and then four.  It is always a game of "Catch Up" in providing armour protection, as it is always faster to produce a larger explosive to counter the armour protection.

In the 70's there was one philosophy that we saw in European AFVs like the Leopard 1 and the Mowag Piranha/AVGP/Cougar/Grizzly that was based on the 'Swiss Cheese Effect'.  The vehicles provided armour protection from small arms up to .50 Cal, and then were thin enough that larger rounds would pass straight through without ricocheting around inside the vehicle.  Armour protection was sacrificed for speed; which for a while provided protection, as most anti-armour weapons could not track vehicles that fast.  (Times have changed)  Speed and mobility were what was needed most. 

DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,763
  • Freespeecher
While I don't dispute the need to be able to depress the gun, George (it is also needed in an IFV as well), a tank or fire support vehicle which can engage with non LOS weapons provides the tank crew and the combat team commander with interesting new ways to defend or otherwise disrupt the enemy. Firing downhill at 2000m (assuming you have that clear field of view) is one thing, but skimming a top attack round over the enemy AFV, bunker or platoon in open 8 km away provides a much greater way to shape the battlespace.

Actually, I don't think the Merkava or CV90120 have issues when it comes to firing from defilade despite being front engine designs, so perhaps the issue isn't as severe as you might think. To be even more versatile, I'd actually advocate for something like the CV-CT turret, since it provides up to +420 elevation, allowing the crew to engage long range targets and shoot at annoying people perched on rooftops, win/win either way.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 187,741
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,126
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Is it time to bring these into the picture yet:

http://bolo.wikia.com/wiki/Bolo_Mark_I

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7245.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 281,442
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,683
    • Army.ca
Tanks can fire indirect, semi-indirect and direct. We don't need to see the target.

The max depression is dictated by the turret ceiling and the top of the breech.

If you want know the pros/cons with true light tanks, look at Chafees and Sheridans. Many things still apply
« Last Edit: March 14, 2017, 02:28:10 by recceguy »
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,600
  • Crewman
The max depression is dictated by the turret ceiling and the top of the breech.

This is true.  Why add to the limitations by having a long front end to the vehicle?  Remember what firing over the back deck limitations are on our current tanks.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,763
  • Freespeecher
Both the CV90120 and Merkava are reported to be able to depress the main gun 90. A cleft turret has no limitations to depression based on the turret roof (there is no roof over the breech).

The main issue is larger and larger guns, more and more armour etc. threaten to create immobile beasts rather than modern tanks. This issue was actually a factor in the cancellation of the "Block III" program back in the 1980's (the then projected replacement for the M1 was thought to weigh in at 80 tons), but this has historically derailed heavy tank and tank destroyer projects almost as long as there have been tanks (think things like the Char 2b, Maus, "Tortoise" or even the first generations of Chieftain tanks). Large and immobile platforms are no benefit to us and are just targets for the enemy to play with.

We are pretty much at the limit of how much extra performance you can squeeze from traditional designs, so it certainly is worth looking at the alternatives.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,674
Both the CV90120 and Merkava are reported to be able to depress the main gun 90. A cleft turret has no limitations to depression based on the turret roof (there is no roof over the breech).

The main issue is larger and larger guns, more and more armour etc. threaten to create immobile beasts rather than modern tanks. This issue was actually a factor in the cancellation of the "Block III" program back in the 1980's (the then projected replacement for the M1 was thought to weigh in at 80 tons), but this has historically derailed heavy tank and tank destroyer projects almost as long as there have been tanks (think things like the Char 2b, Maus, "Tortoise" or even the first generations of Chieftain tanks). Large and immobile platforms are no benefit to us and are just targets for the enemy to play with.

We are pretty much at the limit of how much extra performance you can squeeze from traditional designs, so it certainly is worth looking at the alternatives.

I would say it's more likely we are at the limit of current building materials and armours, designs as well yes granted, western and eastern tank designs haven't changed much in the past 40 years. I would say the T-14 is the first break away from Russian tank design since the IS-3.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 57,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 632
Are we getting to a point where larger numbers of light vehicles launching non-LOS weapons may be a better (and cheaper) solution than tanks in a defensive scenario where you have the luxury of being able to trade some ground to halt an enemy advance?  However, how effective are those light platforms in the advance when you have to expose yourself to enemy direct fire?  Or when you have to hold ground against an enemy advance?  Or in an insurgency where there is no clear front line?

Maybe the MBT still the best compromise solution until all the technological pieces come together to provide an all-around alternative. 

Could you maybe leaverage the excellent mobility, survivability and sensor capability of the MBT to take better advantage of new weapons?  Instead of a separate platform to launch your Non-LOS missiles use your tanks...something like was done in the past with unguided rockets.





Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,600
  • Crewman
When you start getting into vehicles that carry and fire a large number of NON-LOS munitions, then you are no longer talking about tanks.  You are talking more of anti-tank systems or MRLS artillery systems.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,689
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
I think any western army that can afford it needs a light and heavy brigade, with the appropriate supporting elements. Current history shows we will likely be defending Europe from Russia for the next 20 years. A potential to fight a sustained war in Korea for at least a decade. An ability to fight a organized but not near peer army somewhere in the world, conduct peace making and peace keeping around the world generally lined up against semi-organized forces along ethnic/religious and tribal lines. I don’t foresee any of those possibilities going away and never say never, imagine saying in the summer of 2000: “Canada will be in sustained combat in Afghanistan for a decade” You be laughed out of the room…. 

Going light and heavy, means you don’t have to compromise as much and generally the compromises suck. Yes it means having a more complex fleet, but better that than a fleet that is hopeless or inadequate for the task. The LAV would do well in most of Mali, the tanks would struggle. The reverse is true in Northern Europe.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,600
  • Crewman
What the Leopard 3 may look like and who will build it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=JNcnEPIfec8
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 257,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,247
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
I think any western army that can afford it needs a light and heavy brigade, with the appropriate supporting elements. Current history shows we will likely be defending Europe from Russia for the next 20 years. A potential to fight a sustained war in Korea for at least a decade. An ability to fight a organized but not near peer army somewhere in the world, conduct peace making and peace keeping around the world generally lined up against semi-organized forces along ethnic/religious and tribal lines.

And things like OP LENTUS which, apparently, can bring a military to its knees trying to sustain it at home over long periods of time.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,763
  • Freespeecher
I will have to disagree with George about merging tanks with NLOS weapons. This is already happening, for example Russian through tube missiles, the Israeli LAHAT through tube missile and the ROK's K-STAM top attack round. Many of these systems can actually be traced back conceptually to the Americans, for example the 1960 era MGM-51 Shillelagh anti-tank missile system, or the 1980 era TERM (Tank Extended Range Munitions) program.

The tank provides a powerful, heavily armoured and mobile fire support platform, while the combination of extended range and NLOS munitions combined with a high fidelity situational awareness allows the vehicles to engage targets in places and situations where conventional tanks cannot. A simple example is tanks in defilade cannot engage with APDFSF rounds, and using indirect fire with unguided HE or HEAT is inefficient and a waste of ammunition. Since a Korean K-2 can engage targets out to 8Km with K-STAM rounds, and Merkavas can engage at up to 13Km, the commander can use his armoured forces to shape the battlespace from a much greater distance. Since the firing platforms are tanks, they can also rapidly move to exploit the shaping, or retire if unsuccessful (more so than conventional or even SP artillery, for example).

Probably the greatest challenge for future tank designers will be how to get 40+ rounds into the tank in safe and efficient storage, but also easily accessible to the crew to engage a wide range of targets in a rapidly changing battlefield environment? If you can't carry sufficient main gun rounds, are there other ways to deal with this? I'll throw out one historic example: the Swedish Stridsvagn 2000 T140/40 was designed around a 140mm cannon to engage tanks, but carried a 40mm coaxial cannon to engage any lesser target (the thought being a 40mm would be able to deal with IFV's, bunkers etc. that presented themselves). Obviously there are other possible solutions to the problem, so it should be interesting to see how far "out of the box" new tank designers will go.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 32,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 726
And things like OP LENTUS which, apparently, can bring a military to its knees trying to sustain it at home over long periods of time.

Reports from France are that Op Sentinelle is seriously overstretching the French Army. If they want to maintain that level of troops on their streets, they may need a bigger army.

Similarly, the British Army had over 20,000 troops in Northern Ireland in the 70's, but that was with a bigger army, those levels would be difficult to sustain today.

Troops deployed are still troops deployed, whether it's a domestic or international operation, they aren't training and they aren't available for other tasks.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 19:22:38 by Ostrozac »

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,689
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Time for NATO or the West to create and pay for a Gurhka Battalion to augment our lack of infantry. Perhaps a "Foreign legion" of Westerners to operate specialist equipment including TD, ATGM, ADA.   

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,804
  • All your base are belong to us.
Time for NATO or the West to create and pay for a Gurhka Battalion to augment our lack of infantry. Perhaps a "Foreign legion" of Westerners to operate specialist equipment including TD, ATGM, ADA.

Maybe these last few posts could be sent somewhere? They don't really belong in this thread.
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,689
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
true I tried to tie it in by mentioning specialist forces, in any advent the day of the MBT may be over, but not of the tank itself, we may see a divergence again into specialized tanks.   

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,689
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
I wonder Canada would follow suit or team up with the Germans on this?
https://defense-update.com/20190124_germany-to-field-trophy-aps-with-leopard-ii-tanks.html

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 113,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,999
Isreal for example can afford heavy tanks because they wont need to be transported anywhere. The US has to make sure our armor can be transported by sea and possibly by air. The Russians are not limited. Their tanks can be moved by rail and roads. I liked Robert Heinlin's concept of armor propelled by air cushions.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,689
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Until you try it. Having spent a number of years working on SRN 6 Hovercraft, anything that hovers on the ground will find a slight slope and slide that way and is a utter ***** to move when it does, because it's managed to slide right between two things that prevent it from going downslope, front or back.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 257,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,247
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Until you try it. Having spent a number of years working on SRN 6 Hovercraft, anything that hovers on the ground will find a slight slope and slide that way and is a utter ***** to move when it does, because it's managed to slide right between two things that prevent it from going downslope, front or back.

Meanwhile, the US wants to develop AI enabled tanks: https://www.zdnet.com/video/the-military-wants-to-build-lethal-tanks-with-ai/
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon