I found an old comment of mine at TD and decided to recycle it:
The problem is the price [of main battle tanks]. The technology of a MBT is approaching the technology of an AH-64E attack helicopter, and partially going [beyond] it.There’s a point where people simply need to re-learn that tanks are valuable and can be decisive in battle even while suffering atrocious losses. The attempt to keep tanks alive by making them ever more expensive is likely doomed. The art will be to determine which features belong into a MBT and which are excess luxury.
The existence of weapons and munitions that can penetrate any surface of a MBT doesn’t make that MBT obsolete in itself. German tanks of 1939-1941 were merely bulletproofed – every single anti-tank gun, field gun, howitzer and tank gun was able to penetrate them at useful distances. That was the time of [the German tanks'] greatest successes. Later on some of them became almost impervious – and successes were localised.
During the 1960’s Germany developed the Leopard, which was not built to high protection standards. Instead, mobility, maintenance, durability, ergonomics, command and good firepower were emphasised. [The (probably excessive)] emphasis on protection stems from the 70’s when Burlington/Chobham armour renewed hope for balanced tanks that were [impenetrable in their] frontal 60°.
I deem it worth repeating.
S O
.
Always good to be reminded of the 'Death Spiral'.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think the way out of it would look like today? Instead of proposed Leopard 3 somthing like CV90120 level of sophistication?
Is there space for a force with a high/low mix? Heavy tank/Assault gun in this case. What would the ratio be? 1:4?
Also, tanks need infantry, so where does your HAPC (MBT level protection 'battle taxi') idea fit? Could APCs have a similar or even more diverse high/low protection levels?
I realise that's a lot of questions, please understand it comes from genuine interest and not a desire to pick apart your premise. Simply the issues that jumped out at me while reading, appreciate the clarification.
Regards and thanks.
Well, one example of what could be a meaningful compromise at about 40 tons:
DeleteGive up on trying to penetrate the most hardened areas with a gun and instead use a 105 mm general purpose gun plus four ready-to-shoot HVMs that penetrate everything at 500-2,000 m (bulletproofed tubes behind the turret). Tank guns are difficult to upgrade and tend to be overcome by protection after a while. HVMs could be upgraded more easily.
Add a RCWS/OWS with an intermediate calibre (.338) machinegun and anti-drone mode. 2-man turret for saving height and volume, thus weight.
Turret front protected against 125 mm, hull front 60° protected against portable threats. Sides of crew capsules protected against 30 mm and lightweight shaped charges. Engine compartment protected against 14.5 mm.
Mine protection good enough to ensure that a 10 kg TNT hit under the tracks is no more than a mobility kill.
The modest hull protection would make a main gun depression of -10° to -15° and a self-entrenching tool advisable for exploitation of hull down ambush positions.
An APS should focus on multispectral smoke and RF jamming as quick responses to ATGMs. Nothing super-fancy.
Mobility could be optimised for agility (speed reached fwd/backward after five seconds of acceleration) and range (500 km offroad range, enough battery capacity and voltage to not need an APU).
------------
HAPCs need protection against portable threats all-round, not against tank guns. APCs need STANAG 4569 level 2 and should use standard automotive components from the army's soft vehicles fleet or be part of a family together with 6x6 armoured recce AFVs.
----------
Lots of other possible schemes would be an improvement over a mere upgrading of 1970's designs.
I find it funny how people say that the Heavy tank died when the MBT arrived, but now MBTs are turning into heavy tanks. And because of weight and price issues, militaries are looking for lighter firesupport platforms, basically a medium tank.
ReplyDeleteAlso the rise of light tanks, needed for air lift capability and to get through places where MBTs can not. Examples is the new Chinese light tank and the US MPF project.
I think a medium weight platform, weighing around 35 ton reusing the parts from a IFV. With a unmanned turret with a medium pressure gun for lobbing HE over 4km, with a coaxle 30mm and 12,7mm machinegun. and 2-4 ATGMs located under armor in the bustle of the turret. Also with a combined panoramic sight and RCWS with a heavy machinegun. A universal APS would be used to cut prices, only capable of defeating hollow charges.
Armor wise, the turret would be STANAG IV to VI depending on customer requirement. All around protection from 12,7mm AP, since the 14,5mm is very scares nowadays. 60 degree frontal protection from 30mm AP, and being able to resist ATGMs and RPGs over the front hull. Sides could be up armoed against RPGs and ATGMs alternativly, if the nation wises it.
Overall width would be 3,1m wide with normal skirts to fit small tunnels and roads. Rear mounted powerpack to reduce thermal signature and to increase armor protection around the crew. A Series hybrid, to have in practice a 500-1100kw generator, being capable of instantaneously accelerating or reversing. Having regenerative breaks, the ability to produce 300% of the motors torque for a short while and the ability to cruise in silent mode over short periods of time. Added to this, a ERS system for better fuel economy.
"That was the time of [the German tanks'] greatest successes. Later on some of them became almost impervious – and successes were localised."
ReplyDeleteThat lacks logic. The tanks would have had even more success if they had been better armoured in 1940. And afterwards in the meat grinder of the Ostfront lower armour levels would have led to even higher losses.
"Give up on trying to penetrate the most hardened areas with a gun and instead use a 105 mm general purpose gun plus four ready-to-shoot HVMs that penetrate everything at 500-2,000 m (bulletproofed tubes behind the turret). Tank guns are difficult to upgrade and tend to be overcome by protection after a while."
Here you should give an estimate what the differential costs per system would be. The IMHO relevant comparison would be a 40t vehicle with and 60t vehicle, both with the same elctronics, however, the 60t tank with larger gun and more armour.
If the difference is less than 3 or 4 million EUR per tank, I would go for the heavier vehicle, with only 600 systems in the Bundeswehr, with men as the relevant bottleneck, the 2 billion EUR more are peanuts.
Ulenspiegel
It's hard to have more success in 1940, but easy to have a higher fuel consumption and lower readiness rate. It's also easy to have longer repair times and to cause mroe problems with bridging and recovery.
DeleteYou treat protection as if it wasn't part of a compromise in design. There's no ceteris paribus better protection available.
The cost difference isn't so much about weight, it's about electronics. APS, two independent thermal viewers, radios, computers add up to millions.
The thing about the 130 mm gun is that it may be no more abel to penetrate the frontal 60° of any tank that was designed or modified with it as threat in mind. This may happen even before its introduction. And then it's no better a gun than a 105 mm gun - both can penetrate from the other 300°.
Also keep in mind that the Baltic Area and much of Eastern Europe is known for soft soils. The area of tracks does not grow proportionally to the mass of a tank. A 40 t tank can easily have much lower nominal and mean maximum ground pressures than a 60+ t tank and be much more mobile offroad.
Armoured engineer bridging can also have a couple emtres more span at MLC 40 than at MLC 60.
Finally, a 40 t tank has about 2/3 the fuel consumption of a 60 t tank using an engine of identical technology and quality. There is a proportionality between tracked AFV fuel consumption and mass.
"It's hard to have more success in 1940, but easy to have a higher fuel consumption and lower readiness rate. It's also easy to have longer repair times and to cause mroe problems with bridging and recovery.
DeleteYou treat protection as if it wasn't part of a compromise in design. There's no ceteris paribus better protection available."
No, I do not trat them the same. Some critical situations in which the light German tanks were in trouble could be solved because there were AA guns misused as PAK.
If such a workaround is not available today because most ATGM are useless, it boils down to alternatives like better gun and or new ATGMs.
Both can be defeated. But I accept your point that new ATGM MAY be easier than new guns.
Your electronic argument does not make sense, you can build the same setup with 40t or 60t. The amour and gun add to the costs.
Potential battlefield is an argument, but if an 40t tank faces a 60t tank it is in a disadvantage. How much does criticla soil conditions really constrain the operations?
Ulenspiegel
The German troops were in trouble at Arras because they lacked penetration. I addressed that with HVM, save for short ranges. Short ranges ~ closed terrain, which allows for flanking fires more than open terrain.
DeleteTo compare a single modestly equipped 40 t tank with a gold-plated single 60 t tank makes little sense. This is the cardinal error in thinking that leads to gold-plating; one has to look at fleet efficiency, not individual vehicles.
With full lifecycle costs it should rather be a comparison of one battalion of 54 x 40 t tanks vs. one battalion of 45 x 60 ton tanks. That still only covers the tank vs. tank battle, not the general utility, but it's far from certain that the 60 ton tanks would win the clash. Keep in mind HVM is capable of ripple fire - four missiles would suffice for two kills even through anti-KE penetrator hard kill APS.
The electronics argument makes sense because this piece was about extreme requirements / gold plating in general, not only about weight only. One has to draw a line between excessive and non-excessive in regard to electronics as well, and the state of the art is likely well beyond that threshold already.
Part of the problem are the poor economics of scale, though. The electronics could be much cheaper if we purchased them in the thousands.
Keep in mind a new tank design at 50 t could well exceed the protection levels of any Western in-service MBT. Even the 49 t T-90MS is already close, and it's an upgraded legacy design.
"Also the rise of light tanks, needed for air lift capability and to get through places where MBTs can not. Examples is the new Chinese light tank and the US MPF project."
ReplyDeleteNo. In the german context the air lift ability is a bug, not a feature.
"Overall width would be 3,1m wide with normal skirts to fit small tunnels and roads. Rear mounted powerpack to reduce thermal signature and to increase armor protection around the crew. A Series hybrid, to have in practice a 500-1100kw generator, being capable of instantaneously accelerating or reversing. Having regenerative breaks, the ability to produce 300% of the motors torque for a short while and the ability to cruise in silent mode over short periods of time. Added to this, a ERS system for better fuel economy."
Agreed. But you could get the same for a 60t tank. To go the lectric route does impose the same difficilties and advantages on both platforms.
Ulenspiegel