*Note : I am unaware of any other threads that solely concentrate on this topic.
The concept of a futuristic tank is at hand by both Eastern and Western designers.
It would seem that Western designers prefer a tank that is light and can engage a target beyond line-of sight rather than a stand-up fight of conventional warfare. However, if it comes to the point where close range fighting is necessary, these tanks are alleged to be able to fight these battles as well. A good concept in my opinion. The upcoming MCS in the American FCS is a good example. These also have integrated active protection systems like Raytheon's quick-kill, unlike the Abrams. However, I am unsure of what other Western countries think, but since the US is one of the major powers in NATO, it is seen fit to be placed here. There are also rumors that a Railgun could be domesticated into the turret of one of the tanks in the far future (probably like 2050 or something
). The US Navy has made the first prototype of a railgun that launches an intermediately sized projectile that produces roughly 10.6 megajoules of energy. The impact of the projectile would be tremendous. It's a good way to fire a nuke without being noticed I guess. (Like MGS4 suggests....)
Then, there is the traditional conventional design where the tanks still weigh about 40-50 tonnes, up-armored with External and Integrated ERA as well as Active Protection Systems. This seems to be the take the Russians are going for, the T95 and the T12UM1 "Black Eagle" (some call it a T80UM2 as well) are good examples. These tanks have abandoned the concept of the original small tank turrets. Instead, the crew are in the hull, the turret is auto-loaded (naturally) and the whole tank operates via Virtual Reality for movement. The T12UM1 is seen with SHTORA or ARENA, but the T95 utilizes both. The crew count is still three.
Of course all systems are computerized. The standard bore size of each tank is between 130mm to 152mm it would seem. The exception would be the T12UM1 as it still uses the 125mm 2A46M gun but plans to move it up to 135mm is in consideration. A bore size of 200mm++ would be a bit impractical already, right?
So the question is, which concept is more logical? Or, should tanks cease to exist since, as some suggest, they are coming to the point of obsolescence? Are these concepts even practical or even logistically possible? Give your reasons for your statement.
EDIT :
Also, do you think an auto-loader to be more advantageous or disadvantageous? Increased fire rate sounds like a good idea but if it breaks down, then too bad I guess. Plus, I'd hate to lose arms and limbs but I've heard this to be a myth amongst Russian tankers.
The concept of a futuristic tank is at hand by both Eastern and Western designers.
It would seem that Western designers prefer a tank that is light and can engage a target beyond line-of sight rather than a stand-up fight of conventional warfare. However, if it comes to the point where close range fighting is necessary, these tanks are alleged to be able to fight these battles as well. A good concept in my opinion. The upcoming MCS in the American FCS is a good example. These also have integrated active protection systems like Raytheon's quick-kill, unlike the Abrams. However, I am unsure of what other Western countries think, but since the US is one of the major powers in NATO, it is seen fit to be placed here. There are also rumors that a Railgun could be domesticated into the turret of one of the tanks in the far future (probably like 2050 or something
). The US Navy has made the first prototype of a railgun that launches an intermediately sized projectile that produces roughly 10.6 megajoules of energy. The impact of the projectile would be tremendous. It's a good way to fire a nuke without being noticed I guess. (Like MGS4 suggests....) Then, there is the traditional conventional design where the tanks still weigh about 40-50 tonnes, up-armored with External and Integrated ERA as well as Active Protection Systems. This seems to be the take the Russians are going for, the T95 and the T12UM1 "Black Eagle" (some call it a T80UM2 as well) are good examples. These tanks have abandoned the concept of the original small tank turrets. Instead, the crew are in the hull, the turret is auto-loaded (naturally) and the whole tank operates via Virtual Reality for movement. The T12UM1 is seen with SHTORA or ARENA, but the T95 utilizes both. The crew count is still three.
Of course all systems are computerized. The standard bore size of each tank is between 130mm to 152mm it would seem. The exception would be the T12UM1 as it still uses the 125mm 2A46M gun but plans to move it up to 135mm is in consideration. A bore size of 200mm++ would be a bit impractical already, right?
So the question is, which concept is more logical? Or, should tanks cease to exist since, as some suggest, they are coming to the point of obsolescence? Are these concepts even practical or even logistically possible? Give your reasons for your statement.
EDIT :
Also, do you think an auto-loader to be more advantageous or disadvantageous? Increased fire rate sounds like a good idea but if it breaks down, then too bad I guess. Plus, I'd hate to lose arms and limbs but I've heard this to be a myth amongst Russian tankers.
Last edited:
