Whats the Next Gen Tank?

[Manfred2]

Flak Jacket is exactly the right word.

Some people call them bullet proof vests, but since they are not... that is a clue you are dealing with an ameture (like a reporter).

Speaking of anti-spalling, the interior of some US Armored vehicles is panelled with kevelar. I hear that during WW2, some crews scraped the white paint off the inside of the tanks, because hits from solid shot caused paint splinters to fly around and cut exposed skin.

Oh, about Hover tanks- thier use would be limited to low-recoil weapons, and lighter armor, as I said before.

 

[Waylander]

Not only the US kevlar inlets on their armored vehicles.
We and other western countries also do it.

And you are right when stating that even the paint inside of tanks can cause damage to the crew.

 

[eckherl]

I think it is a problem of me not knowing the right term for this:

http://www.army-world.de/shop/images/splitterschutz.gif

I always thought that flack jacket is the right word.

That looks a little thick for a anti spalling vest, ours was alot thinner, still a bear though in the summer time to wear.

 

[eckherl]

Not only the US kevlar inlets on their armored vehicles.
We and other western countries also do it.

And you are right when stating that even the paint inside of tanks can cause damage to the crew.

Germany pretty much had them on LEO 1 series correct.

 

[Waylander]

It also protects against 9mm pistols but nothing more.

The weight of this thing is a little bit more than 3kg.

And yeah you sweat under this thing like hell.

The kevlar has only been added to Leos from Leopard IIA5 on.
Before there are no spall liners.

 

[eckherl]

It also protects against 9mm pistols but nothing more.

The weight of this thing is a little bit more than 3kg.

And yeah you sweat under this thing like hell.

The kevlar has only been added to Leos from Leopard IIA5 on.
Before there are no spall liners.

What was in them, I remember that LEO 1 series crews used to just wear head phones and the berets.

 

[Waylander]

Nothing.
As I said spall liners were first introduced in the Leopard IIA5.
Any hit could have caused spalls inside (Be it from the paint the armor or parts of rounds which penetrated the armor) like in every other tank before.

The russian style hoods should be used by every crew member but barrets and to a lesser extent the Feldmütze are used by COs and often by loaders which serve for longer time.
I have yet to see a commander wearing the hood.
It's a question of pride.
The flack jackets are also relatively new and introduction began in the early to mid 90's.

So earlier german tank crews were much more vulnerable to spall due to not having spall liners or flack jackets.

 

[eckherl]

Nothing.
As I said spall liners were first introduced in the Leopard IIA5.
Any hit could have caused spalls inside (Be it from the paint the armor or parts of rounds which penetrated the armor) like in every other tank before.

The russian style hoods should be used by every crew member but barrets and to a lesser extent the Feldmütze are used by COs and often by loaders which serve for longer time.
I have yet to see a commander wearing the hood.
It's a question of pride.
The flack jackets are also relatively new and introduction began in the early to mid 90's.

So earlier german tank crews were much more vulnerable to spall due to not having spall liners or flack jackets.

Man - I have bashed my head in on a number of occasions just being inside the turret while the vehicle was stationary, I can only amagine the additional scars I would get if being inside with the vehicle moving.

We really did not get our anti spalling vests until the early 90`s either, we started getting issued Nomex overalls after a few tankers were killed due to flash fires caused by the combustable casings rubbing against the breech mechanisms and having a build up of flakes between the breech mechanism and breech block, thus the importance of good field TMs and gun cleaning practices.

 

[Waylander]

Hmmm...
Often enough the only scars occur while being the gunner when the driver isn't aware of a big hole in front of him and the gunner knocks into the sight.
First blood...

Maybe we drive more often with head out of the hatchet or the dangerous egdes inside the tank are better cushioned.

 

[eckherl]

Hmmm...
Often enough the only scars occur while being the gunner when the driver isn't aware of a big hole in front of him and the gunner knocks into the sight.
First blood...

Maybe we drive more often with head out of the hatchet or the dangerous egdes inside the tank are better cushioned.

Yes - U.S tanks need to have some cushioning around the hatches, they could reposition those bloody dome lights to, that accounted for the majority of my scars. I hope that I do not go bald any time soon, it just may scare the sh_t out of my wife.

 

[extern]

It is good to see that Russian tankers are wearing nomex overalls now, flash fires are a major issue in any tank penetation including western tank designs and accounts for more fatalities versus effects from spalling.

With all that improvements , new gen gadgets etc the work of tankmen however will never be as safe as driving in Mercedes So, the old folklore songs about tankmen's nobless are still actual just like tens years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQLe0dwhcnM

 

[eckherl]

With all that improvements , new gen gadgets etc the work of tankmen however will never be as safe as driving in Mercedes So, the old folklore songs about tankmen's nobless are still actual just like tens years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQLe0dwhcnM

Yep - it is still a position filled with many dangers, it doesn`t matter how much technologies that you place in a tank, your opponent will most likely come up with a solution/technology to destroy you. We will never get past that.

 

[AGRA]

I’m sure that the next generation of Main Battle Tank and Light Tank (post FCS) will probably see the role being split due to a combination of increased urbanisation, autonomous systems and the development of weapon’s technology. The two systems that will replace the tank will be a close combat vehicle and an anti-vehicle system.

The close combat vehicle will be quite similar to current tanks but designed for all round protection and equipped with a smaller gun, able to shoot at high angles and with larger units of fire (60-90mm) but with less armour penetration. Imagine something like a PSM Puma with a Oto 76mm naval gun type turret on the back. The role of this vehicle will be to accompany infantry into close combat and provide them with protected immediate direct fires (and swarming indirect fires).

The anti-vehicle system will be autonomous and based on a high mobility vehicle, either wheeled, single piece tracked, hovering, flying or a mix, and be armed with a very high velocity or smart weapon system (gun, missile or a bit of both). They will also have a significantly surveillance and reconnaissance capability. They will operate by rapidly moving through the battlespace identifying and destroying enemy targets. The only type of land target they won’t be able to engage and destroy will be enemies hiding in urban or other close terrain environments, hence the close combat vehicle and infantry combination, but should be dominant in open terrain.

 

[extern]

The close combat vehicle will be quite similar to current tanks but designed for all round protection and equipped with a smaller gun, able to shoot at high angles and with larger units of fire (60-90mm) but with less armour penetration. Imagine something like a PSM Puma with a Oto 76mm naval gun type turret on the back. The role of this vehicle will be to accompany infantry into close combat and provide them with protected immediate direct fires (and swarming indirect fires).

Thus, it must be kind of howitzer gun with splitted rounds, or/and grenade launcher. If so, 60-90mm is too little for splitted munition, I rather expect - 100-120 mm howitzer/launcher, but for non-LOS howitzer the all around protection should be a bit overkill, shouldnt it.
Why not BMPT-like vehicle on tank chassis with 2x30-auto/2x30-launcher/12.7/4xATGMs ? It has close to all around protection and the broadest spectrum of relevant targets.

 

[AGRA]

Thus, it must be kind of howitzer gun with splitted rounds, or/and grenade launcher. If so, 60-90mm is too little for splitted munition, I rather expect - 100-120 mm howitzer/launcher, but for non-LOS howitzer the all around protection should be a bit overkill, shouldnt it.
Why not BMPT-like vehicle on tank chassis with 2x30-auto/2x30-launcher/12.7/4xATGMs ? It has close to all around protection and the broadest spectrum of relevant targets.

The close combat vehicle is not a primary artillery system. Most of its fires will be direct. But with high angle of elevation of the weapon system - in order to engage direct fires against building tops - can provide a secondary indirect fire capability. This can be used to support swarming operations of distributed forces thanks to Network Centric Warfare (NCW) capability.

"Splitted ammunition" is I think semi-fixed ammunition, which is not mandatory for indirect fires - just preferred. There are many effective indirect fire weapons that use fixed ammunition without a capacity for the operators to vary muzzle velocity by removing bags of propellent charges as in semi-fixed ammunition.

The BMPT and other infantry fighting vehicles can not engage all the likely targets due to the lack of hitting power of the medium calibre guns. What is needed is something able to provide a large projectile at high velocity so as to penetrate rebar concrete and provide high levels of blast and fragmentation on other likely urban targets. With the compromise of high angle elevations we have to scale down from 105mm/120mm high velocity type weapons to make it practical.

 

[XaNDeR]

Thus, it must be kind of howitzer gun with splitted rounds, or/and grenade launcher. If so, 60-90mm is too little for splitted munition, I rather expect - 100-120 mm howitzer/launcher, but for non-LOS howitzer the all around protection should be a bit overkill, shouldnt it.
Why not BMPT-like vehicle on tank chassis with 2x30-auto/2x30-launcher/12.7/4xATGMs ? It has close to all around protection and the broadest spectrum of relevant targets.

That would be pointless , and ATGM are highly overrated in tank combats , as the most advanced tanks have much improved electronics and communications , once 1 tank see's the enemy in a matter of seconds the whole group would know , and in a tank combat , the gun is more important , because ATGM is too slow , before it would notice and fire the tank would already have been destroyed

 

[Jon K]

What is needed is something able to provide a large projectile at high velocity so as to penetrate rebar concrete and provide high levels of blast and fragmentation on other likely urban targets. With the compromise of high angle elevations we have to scale down from 105mm/120mm high velocity type weapons to make it practical.

How about automatic mortar, such as Patria NEMO system? This won't provide high velocity rounds, but 120mm mortar shell provides plenty of room for HEAT, HESH, and smart rounds. Additionally, a mortar would provide built-in indirect fire capability.

For urban fighting scenario a co-axial HMG might be useful as well.

For tank killing I would go for a vehicle employing hypervelocity missiles instead of a traditional tank gun, the reason being lower weight and thus smaller size.

 

[Chrom]

That would be pointless , and ATGM are highly overrated in tank combats , as the most advanced tanks have much improved electronics and communications , once 1 tank see's the enemy in a matter of seconds the whole group would know , and in a tank combat , the gun is more important , because ATGM is too slow , before it would notice and fire the tank would already have been destroyed

This is not quite true. Yes, at 2km gun is better than ATGM. However, at 3+ km, and espeaceally at 4+ km gun have very hard time hitting tank-sized target - and especeally moving target. The reduced APFSDS penetration at such long distances doesnt help too.

 

[XaNDeR]

I think you did not understand me Chrome , at range, there are and should be far more capable assets in dealing with enemy tanks.But if you don't have artillery and your tanks are reliant on just the ATGMs, then, you're in a desperate situation because more than likely, the enemy will have their artillery.

 

[extern]

How about automatic mortar, such as Patria NEMO system? This won't provide high velocity rounds, but 120mm mortar shell provides plenty of room for HEAT, HESH, and smart rounds. Additionally, a mortar would provide built-in indirect fire capability.

For urban fighting scenario a co-axial HMG might be useful as well.

120mm - I think - is a best solution! With Less, than 100 mm they will be prevented from using guided high-trajectory ammunition from closed positions. And of course: a coaxial 25-35mm autocannon with smart munition for LOS fire. I see it as a strengthened NEMO/Amos/2S31_Vena like combat turret on a tank chassis. However all the current close support systems (with exept of BMPT) have one big deficiency: their armor is too weak . It's 2S31 120mm SPH: