UK DEPLOYS MISSILES ON RUSSIAS BORDER

[Flying10uk]

We may find that new types of armour plating that currently don't exist perhaps get invented that better protect the occupants of the Tank in the future.. All through the history of the Tank there has been a race between the technicians and inventors who develop the Tank and those who work on counter measures against it.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Gil Boyd]

ECM works, but not against a WIRE GUIDED missile

[mrclark303]

I think an evolved Tank will have a place on the modern battlefield for years to come, but fielded in smaller numbers. Not in the conventional blitzkrieg style mass formation attack. The days of 60 ton monsters are coming to an end, due to their increasing vulnerability as we have discussed.

I would think tanks will evolve over the next 20 years, get smaller and lighter again, so they can be air transportable and critically employ sophisticated low observable technology's (to help counter the growing GTG/ATG the missile threat), more reconnaissance and support orientated, with the ability to take and hold ground when required.

The only reason MBT's still have a place in most armies, is the fact that most potential adversaries currently lack the expensive and sophisticated weapon systems to knock them out. The rapidly growing size, capability and sophistication of the defence industrial complex in China (evolving at a jaw dropping speed) and the proliferation of its products far and wide, will be a game changer for the west and we better be ready to respond with new equipment and doctrines to counter it.

[Gil Boyd]

Tanks in this new age of warfare, against primarily a "terrorist threat" (at the moment), need to provide such flexibility, so not to be too cumbersome and heavy that they respond negatively in their all weather terrain locations to be able to succeed IMHO.
Tracked vehicles by their very nature make them extremely vulnerable.

They should be built in all cases to defeat all high velocity rounds and also deflect rocket propelled hand held launchers by their very design and panelled shape using Chobham armour or new plate designs.
This should be alround defence and not just three sides, as many tank designs leave the back end vulnerable. Side gunnery IMHO is also needed with better viewing equipment to provide all round defence not just the way the turret is looking.
Now we on Milsurps have brainstormed the wish list for the new wave of tank, someone will pick it up

[mrclark303]

I've sketched a "Dan Dare" design on the back of a *** packet Gil, lets get in patented a bit quick!

[Gil Boyd]

...................this is what happens when you get it ALL wrong

[gsimmons]

It'll buff out.

[mrclark303]

Yep, Buff out the scratches and use it as a howitzer with that bent barrel!

[Gil Boyd]

I think it was an Isreali tank. The barrel is the only thing beside the two lines holding it in place.
Short report and then a charge, and then into the room with striped windows and bars for a short stay

[Flying10uk]

It was quite interesting to see the results during the last Gulf War when there was a number of, limited size, Tank on Tank, engagements between the Iraqi Army and the U.K./U.S.. I believe that during this conflict the U.K. was involved in it's largest Tank battle since WW2 which resulted in the total or almost total loss of Iraqi Tanks with no loss of Challenger 2s. During this conflict I don't believe that the U.K./U.S. had an advantage over their opponents just with their Tanks; I believe that there was also an advantage over the Iraqis with the soldiers using the Tanks. The U.K./U.S. soldier, at the time of the last Gulf War, was better trained, more highly motivated and could think for himself much more than the average Iraqi soldier, in my opinion.