×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Tank Warfare Development

Tank Warfare Development

Tank Warfare Development

(OP)
Are we ever going to get rid of the turret (for smaller profiles)? I was thinking a circular railgun with a counter balance. Would this work?

The Mainer...

RE: Tank Warfare Development

The turret also serves to protect the gun and occupants from return fire.

Profile is essentially irrelevant.  No guts, no glory... the objective is not to hide, but to destroy the enemy.  If your barrel is too low to the ground, it's essentially useless, as you will be unable to effectively attack your opponent.

Profile is also irrelevant from the perspective that the US Combined Arms Doctrine uses airborne attack, which is not significantly affected by profile.

TTFN

RE: Tank Warfare Development

(OP)
Armor profile is important because the primary threat to the tank is infantry and other tanks. Although the use of tanks as stationary firing platforms is not necessarily a good idea it is done if the situation requires it. Without a conventional turret, firing from concealment or cover would expose less of the vehicle to return fire.
 War has always had the no guts no glory glamor to romanitc, but the equipment and strategy is designed to prevent significant losses (to our side). The objective is, you are right to win, but to be more specific, to win in the shortest amount of time possible with consideration to loss of human life.
 Until recently, tanks have not had the ability to fire accurately while moving, either it was complete luck or exceptional skill that would a tank could engage on the move. With our military we enjoy the luxury of air superiority, this is not something that can be depended on in every battle. Tank tactics in battle have to based on that of the infantry in mind: Flexiblity; you cannot always be moving otherwise you will out run your support units.
 Without a conventional turret, there would be no conventional barrel. I was thinking about a rail gun, the barrel in a circle so that the round would be spinning, a hatch opens along a 360 range of fire and the round released. Counter balance to make up for wobble and autoloading when fired.
 I think I was unclear...
 

The Mainer...

RE: Tank Warfare Development

You're kidding, right?  

M735 105 mm APFSDS round has a muzzle velocity of something like 1500 m/s.  Running that puppy around in a 4 m circle would result in 10^5 g's of centripetal force.  A static counterbalance would be useless.  The counterforce required to keep the round within the barrel would vibrate the tank at about 120 Hz, which would completely thrash any possibility of stable tracking or fire control.  The EM field required to contain such a round would probably crash any electronics within 10 m of the turret.

Additionally, the APFSDS round has a dispersion of less than 0.5 mrad.  You couldn't begin to get round to leave the circle with that kind of accuracy.

Firing from concealment was only a scenario for the Cold War Fulda Gap Soviet invasion of Europe, since it's a purely defensive approach.  When you are trying to subjugate a foreign country, particularly like a Iraq, the tanks need to bring the battle to the opponent.  The majority of US tank battles have been with the US advancing on an opponent.  Kind of hard to advance if you have to fire from cnocelment.  Additionally, the M1A1 has better firing accuracy moving at 30kt than a T-72 sitting still, in additional to having a longer effective range.

Even assuming that you could solve the problems, the turret would still need to be as heavy as it is now, since the barrel question does not eliminate the need for armor to protect the tank from ambush, RPG's, TOW's, etc.

TTFN

RE: Tank Warfare Development

(OP)
I wouldn't think that this is a short term development project; it did start out as a sort of joke. The idea that started this was the introduction of the battle suit, that has been the wetdream for the military for years, to the arenal of an enemy. Imagine an individual soldier having the capasity to stop an Abram while engaging multiple other targets with indirect fire and at the same time providing real time information to a c3 center located in orbit for analysis and a short time, shifting logistics with the potential for orbital bombardment.
 We will need a small bolo.

 I was thinking about a whole new kind of rail gun. Not using the traditional round; something smaller, cheaper. Maybe like a football, hollow & spinning? like that nerf thing maybe. A static counterbalance is completely useless, I knew that and took it for granted, it would require a constant adjustment possibly having more than one round in the chamber at once for a continuing balance while not engaged and a variable counterbalance that engages at firing and lasts long enough to bring another round up to speed and to be chambered. The EM spill field might be able to be recycled or contained. Maybe the field itself could be used in a defensive capsity. I wonder if it could be used effectively against guided weapons? I shudder to think about the power plant for this.

Assuming the problems can be solved recessing the main weapon and maintaining the amount of elevation and allowing for a 360 line of fire, allows that the tanks have a greater operational capsity. Adding armor to make up the tonnage is not a disadvantage. Besides, our armor is as well armored top down, such as taking a RPG or TOW from a 5th story window.
 Logisticly, the fewer types of equipment that have to be moved in to use in each battle spectrum, the easier. The more fluid lines, the more problems logistics are going to have. Keeping the chassis of the Abram, allows that exsisting support equipment will have a longer life, but as the Navy, Air Forces and the Army are cooperating better now we can expect or should expect a better logistical situation in the future when everything is completely mobile.

 European terrain is not as advantagous to tank battles as is Iraq. In Iraq we dominate the set piece battle because we can bring more force to bear quicker (as there is less goegraphical strategic points) and is alot harder to hamper movement in Iraq. In the European Theater with the USSR, there is no way that we could have engaged directly. Our US based forces, being a reactionary force, acted primarily as a reserve against the USSR blunting itself against the exsisting European forces. To bring our forces to bear, prior to  vietnam, would have taken at least three weeks. We would have not been able to penetrate deep and hold strategic positions much less the geographic tactical positions (necessary to dog supply lines and the counterattack) in the USSR. Iraq is an exception in that the terrain favors US mobility.
  

The Mainer...

RE: Tank Warfare Development

Ever thought about trying to erradicate friendly fire incidents?

Look at the figures!

The US military killed more allied personnel than the Iraqi's did in Desert storm.

Maybe the solutions just too tough..........

RE: Tank Warfare Development

Easy if you can find a set of humans that will not make mistakes in the heat of battle.

TTFN

RE: Tank Warfare Development

Well the turretless AFV has been around for quite some time. Nomenclature wise, isn't really called a tank. Self-propelled gun or tank destroyer. US really hasn't fielded (to my knowledge) many of this design. USMC used something similar, turretless AFV with six recoilless rifles mounted on it.

Germans during WW2 had some very effective designs. Allows you to keep a low profile (which is very important), and lots of armour at very nice angles. Not especially good for infantry support, but devastating nonetheless.

At this stage of the game though, you have to ask if its worth it. Training, armour, and fire control on the M1A2 is far superior to anything the OPFOR can throw at us. And with battles moving to more congested areas, or back to the ETO you really need to be able to swing around and engage targets rapidly, with a turret. Not to mention, if you have an SP and you're tracked you are effectively out of the battle.

With regard to a 'football' shaped projectile, and possibly hollow, I don't know about that. If you're going to just send it through a smoothbore barrel you'll need fin stabilisation at the very least. Ballistic co-efficient will be low with a hollow projectile I think, less crossectional density.

And then you have to consider impact dynamics. Need a tip that is going to bite into the armour. And I'd think that a hollow projectile would just squash up into a disk.

And then with railgun munitions travelling at such high speeds you might have to worry about shatter gap. Not sure. But with a lot of projectiles there exists a range of impact velocities at which the projectil will just shatter and break up on impact, rather than bite and dig through.

RE: Tank Warfare Development

(OP)
Glad to see that there are some that don't consider the idea of cover outdated. Hull down is not too vague a term.
 
 The circular rail gun that I'm thinking of is not too unsimilar to the slingatron from twenty years ago, only to fire smaller payloads. I see it as more similar to maglev than the slingatron though in principal.
 
 Although I am a fan of the Bolo, bigger doesn't really work in cities and truth be told cities are for light infantry and some mechanized infantry. Heavy tanks can be too easily manipulated in built up areas with dedicated forces and although the punch may go some length to justifying its use in urban combat, it really is not a good idea in the long run. The ability to traverse, aquire and fire in restrictive areas is just one of the problems of tanks. It not a good idea to think that any product has been perfected, only improved from the earlier models.
 
 The tank mounted circular railgun was an idea to remedy that one problem of time necessary to engage. The projectile spins would normally at an accerated and then released by the trigger to create the aiming vector. The firing ring would release the round to the target.
 
 The problems with this are great and the need for this is little as many, myself included, do not see a big need to get rid of the smoothbores that we have now for at least ten years, but smaller, more heavily armored heavy tank should stay on the horizen.

-Mainer

 

The Mainer...

RE: Tank Warfare Development

Turretless is a good concept - The Swedish S-tank was a moderately successful implementation in the 1970s. Never fired in anger, as far as I am aware. Szelag - even without a turret, it's still a tank (look back to 1916).

Operationally, the tank has another attribute that mustn't be overlooked; IT TAKES GROUND. On the way it may have to kill other tanks and engage other targets, but it's when your tanks roll down the High Street that you've taken the city. You can't do it with HUMMVs and helos - at least not so effectively and decisively. This is the only reason for hanging on to tanks - Nowadays, everything else can be done as well or better by other weapon systems.

Finally, don't get too focused exclusively on US armaments - US produces good kit and lots of it, but other countries do good stuff also - just not the huge quantities. M1 is a competent MBT but not flawless - equivalents from France, Germany, UK and Israel are also useful but all have their own shortcomings. Comparing M1 to T72 isn't quite fair - the USSR relied on huge numerical superiority over technical excellence - strategically, that's not a bad way to win a battle.

Interesting thread - thanks to all

John

RE: Tank Warfare Development

(OP)
God loves large Brigades:)

 Tanks take ground. That was the mission back in WW1 and still now and they do that when they are used correctly. The absolute worse place for a tank is high street. It's impressive sure, but wrong because for many reasons. It will only scare the civilians and look good on TV.
 Taking cities are for infantry. House to house, door to door; systematic lock downs are done with people, not machines. Hummves & gunships with tanks can be used as support, but taking a city is an infantry job.
 
 I liked the US models because they might be easier to get (later on) than foreign models. Odds are more likely that I would have to build everything from the ground up. Would be nice to use existing track systems. Not that it matters...
 Anyways, I think discribing it as turretless is not accurate on my part. More like a regressed turret, as flush as possible to hull. Mounted with two axis in mind, but keep the full rotation.

...
Mainer

  

The Mainer...

RE: Tank Warfare Development

So far, Irag has proven the exact opposite.  When the M1's rolled through, fired a few shots, people calmed down quickly.  When the Marine infantry attempted to shoot it out, they suffered high casualties.  Tanks and APCs provde power leverage, otherwise, it's AK-47 vs M-16, which does not have a significant multiplication factor.

Even the M2's gun comes with more firepower and penetration than the infantry it carries

TTFN

RE: Tank Warfare Development

(OP)
Exactly.
 This is guerrilla war now. We have to engage. The enemey will not engage without surprise, will not carry through beyond inital contact. They are more likely to engage our softer targets like our um... organic weapons systems.
 There are going to be casualties, there is no way around that. It is war, and it is not over. Not for them, nor for us; regardless of what the Boss thinks.
 To engage and win in Iraq we have to repeatly give them targets to waste themselves against. Give them so many seemingly easy targets that they are trying to hit them all, encourage mistakes. Gather intel. Sun Tzu comes to mind.

 Sooner or later, either they'll run out of troops or we'll move basic training groups there for some advanced security training as part of AIT.

 I shouldn't joke about it even when I am being half serious. This war is one of unorthadox tactics, the use of light arms is not going to be a deciding factor at all, as said it is not a significant force multiplier in this case.
 This will be like a huge psi-ops. Destroy the army, re-educate the masses, wait three generations and start pulling out. Not a fast process.

 Sounds pretty; need more intel, need to be there to be more accurate.


 
 

The Mainer...

RE: Tank Warfare Development

it is interesting how blue-on-blue (the so-called friendly fire) seems to dog the US whilst being only a minor factor for other nations.  Granted, the Brits have suffered a few issues but no where near as many casualties as they have sustained from the Americans over the two gulf wars.

Is there a fault in the intelligence levels of the recruits (do they have a basic intelligence requirement?) or is it faulty command and control systems (shooting down a UK aircraft of a package of 6 returning from an area where there were no enemy aircraft operating (Iraq!).

RE: Tank Warfare Development

It's more likely a combination of:

5 to 10 times more US troops in theater than anyone else
More firepower
More battles
More combined arms battles

TTFN

RE: Tank Warfare Development

(OP)
More fire power, more people, more reliance on systems previously untried outside training, different people not used to working together. There are alot of reasons. I'm sure that there are even friendly fire incidents that are not actually friendly fire... I doubt if everything is as secure as they think it is.
 There is a basic intelligence level. It goes with or toward job skill for primary and secondary MOS. I found that either you had the exceptional competent & incompetent with degrees of the ablity of hiding it. Same as every where else...
  
 
 
 

The Mainer...

RE: Tank Warfare Development

Finally a kindred spirit! thankyou Chris McLean.

I must admit IRstuff nearly got it right with

5 to 10 times more US troops in theater than anyone else
More firepower
More battles
More combined arms battles

But amazingly left out "More screw ups"

Then Maine tries to make excuses with

"I'm sure that there are even friendly fire incidents that are not actually friendly fire... I doubt if everything is as secure as they think it is".

How is it guys, that an obviously NATO APC with the correct recognition marks gets shot to smithereens by some whizz kid in a "state of the art" american aircraft. Like I said before try eliminating this before thinking up more uncontrollable killing methods.

RE: Tank Warfare Development

I was serving with an American air force captain in 94 when that Blackhawk full of brass was shot down over Northern Iraq despite the fact that the type was only in service with the coalition and the F-15 that carried out the intercept was subject to AWACS control.  As I recall, ROE required a visual ID prior to any engagement at that time and yet the incident still ocurred.  Needless to say, it was not a topic he enjoyed discussing given earlier 'fratricide' issues in that theatre.

It is a worry that friends of mine who have participated in numerous multinational exercises expressed more concern about serving with the US in Iraq than about the Iraqi forces themselves...

Volume of forces accounts for a certain amount of the problem but coupled with gulf experiences, Apaches that didn't work in Kosovo, the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade due to out of date maps and the Delta Force raid in Mogadishu on UN aid workers points towards a culture where mistakes are routinely ocurring, may even be tolerated, and attrition due to blue-on-blue incidents is a normal part of combat casualty forecasting.  Serious lapses in military planning and intelligence also appear to be the norm - is this an indictment of incompetent political leadership over stretching resources and also overstating the ability of the forces concerned to carry out the prescribed role?

Given the recent experiences, and I mean no offence when I say this, but I hope the US armed forces aren't involved in security work for the Athens Olympics.  Better perhaps to rely on other bodies, such as the British and Australian SAS who provided security for Sydney and other bodies such as GSG9 who learnt the hard way about anti-terrorist warfare.

RE: Tank Warfare Development

Guys:

This is very interesting but rather off-topic. We started on turretless tanks, and now we're into operational analysis, doctrine, and the cause and effect of fratricide.

A new thread on 'blue on blue' incidents may be appropriate, although it's not exactly an engineering issue ...... or is it?

John

RE: Tank Warfare Development

Fair point, apologies for dragging the thread off line.

On a more relevant note, it's interesting to see how tank warfare is poised at the moment.  It's somewhere between dying a death due to expense and terrain limitations, coupled with a somwhat reduced likelihood of the Red Army rolling through the Fulda Gap, and undergoing a resurgence as a place-holder in situations like Iraq.

My question is this - given that tank warfare against a similarly amoured foe is now unlikely, and the advent of increasingly smart anti-tank air-to-ground weaponry somewhat decreases the life expectancy of any armoured vehicle, is there any future for armoured warfare? Should more resources be applied towards developing better protection for what one of our learned colleagues describes as 'organic weapon systems' (a terrible euphemism by the way) rather than developing a mode of combat last at the forefront of conflicts fifty years ago?  Better use of QRF and airmobile troops allows fast response to local problems, though this does cause difficulties in respect occupying an area.

Tanks: crap or not?  Over to you gentlemen...

RE: Tank Warfare Development

(OP)
Essentially all tank are is a heavily armored & very mobile weapons platforms on a track that also can inspire psychological responses in regards to the battle itself. That said:
 Many figure the Main Battle Tank as we know it is about dead. Unless a new superpower with technological, economical and manufacturing capacities beyond our wildest dreams, immerges overnight to provide the ultimate in military surprise, we are going to maintain the almost ten year technological advantage over everyone else. This can easily be shown as a horizontal line on the technological S curve. Without competition to our MBT; its own advanced ability has flatlined its further progress line.
 One thing to remember is that the horse cav took forever to finally be reduced to a non essential military asset. This was mainly due to its outdated but politically strong supporters. The loss of ground from horse to mech was primarily due to the machine gun. Would it be too much to imagine a new tactic being able to stop the tank all the time? Masterplays are not unheard of, rare as they are.
 I do see the battle suit as something to either replace the tank or work in conjunction with the tank. Most problems with the battle suit that SF does not deal with well is the logistical support of the suit and that may well be the role that the MBT could most significantly fill. Its heavier weapon or weapons are a welcome addition to the field; but the main weapon would have to be significantly better than the package that the battle suit could offer.
 In that futuristic set piece battle, the tank works as long as we deal with conventional armies. Unconventional armies such as of cells and loose, undefined command and control structures will maintain an advantage over the set piece battle as they are not seeking a decisive tactical battle but a series of strategical and significant losses (though economically bias to a win). Totally different doctrine. Too bad it is off the subject except periphierally.
 To me, the MBT has to be developed to handle a broader expense of missions as well as the missions that it has already. Alot more should be expected from the new MBT if they are to be developed further.
 
 I did look up the Swed S tank, by the way; did like that chassis idea; it brought to mind that really complex skateboard truck with all the springs from the sixties, if anyone else remembers the issues with that:).

The Mainer

The Mainer...

RE: Tank Warfare Development

I've seen the S-tank demonstrated (I'm ex-navy) and I don't think the benefits of a low profile will weigh up the slow aim. Particularly so when opposing a fast and mobile enemy. Syre, you can't hit what you cant see, but thermal imaging must surely be able to pick up the heat from a big diesel engine revving away like crazy, trying to power hydraulics as 20 tons of tank dances around on its tracks trying to get a good aim?

As an aside, I play the game "Battlefiled 1942" a bit, and in this game, there are two classes of tank - Panzer IV or Tiger, Sherman or some British aberrance called the A10. I'm fairly good at this, and every single round I play online demonstrates the same point...

The Pz IV will defeat any other tank because it is easier to drive (at full speed) and mainiain a good aim with. Quite often I will defeat one or a few heavy tanks alone just by moving quickly, taking a good few shots at them and moving around them.

Every once in a while I happen upon a stationary tank - which usually work out practically as a gift wrap. He can't shoot any better than I can, yet he can't move! All you need to do is keep moving, sooner or later you'll find a good angle for a killshot - or just circle around him and move on.

RE: Tank Warfare Development

I think the S-Tank was designed with a subtly different scenario in mind.  I understand that it was intended to be pureley defensive, and would work from pre-prepared earthworks using the soil to screen the IR signature until the advancing enemy was too close for a good shot.

At that point, it would fall back at speed in reverse (using the second driver, whose crewstation faced that way!) to take it to the next line of earthworks, where the attrition exercise would begin again.

A.

RE: Tank Warfare Development

Things may change in tanks soon. The GPS guided 155mm Howitzer round in development had it's first test firing a few weeks ago. The ability for the projectile to change course drastically is limited.

I could envision changing the round to a rocket motor driven round with pop out wings (mini cruise missiles), then the turret could be replaced with just a few limited sized barrels, or just vertical launch holes same as the Navy cruise missile launchers.

kch

RE: Tank Warfare Development

Tanks will be obsolete in the near future.

RE: Tank Warfare Development

Maybe,  but the US has learned the hard way, that the only thing that stands up well against an RPG-7 is an M1A1.

TTFN

RE: Tank Warfare Development

I think the territory deinal and threat projection of heavy armour will be very difficult to replace. Armour may evolve like all other arms, but I think it will stay with us for a while still.

Sidenote, I was'nt aware that the S-tank was that dedicated to defense. Almost hard to believe anyone would actually create and build such a thing. Swedes... *lol*

But I've been reading up on german ww2 turretless designs, and they had a few quite sucessful ones. One source claims SS units alone racked up almost 20.000 armour kills using such vehicles. (Which I don't doubt btw, knowing their meticoulos accounting systems.) These were fielded primarily in the last stage, as defensive units. And come to think of it, their design and tactics robably inspired the S..?

RE: Tank Warfare Development


I think the "Tanks will be soon obsolete!" idea has been around since soon after Vietnam, but Mr. Abrams and others took issue with the idea, much to the greatfulness of the US Army.  Tanks will not soon be obsolete.  New versions of tanks may come about- turretless, treadless, misc. functional variety, but the need of a ground-based, highly mobile, hardened shell that can spearhead offensives will never be needless.

...else everything reverts to trench warfare, circa 1919.

The idea of numerical advatage over technoogical advantage is intriguing to me- who wins?  The Allies won WWII for the simple reason that more men, supplies, and equipment kept the screws tightening on the Axis.  Have we ignored this simple formula for success?  I doubt present day USA could contribute in the same way as the country did back in the 1940's in helping to supply the "Arsenal of Democracy".

As far as blue-on-blue, I read somewhere in a metallurgist magazine about an idea to start incorporating a certain rare earth into hardened armor that "glows" when struck by laserlight of specific frequencies.

This would indicate to the firer that the metal belonged to a military asset of American Origin, thereby causing extra consideration to be made before committing to destroy that target.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources