In this post i will be researching and evaluating the position main battle tanks are in (MBTs) and their future role in war, if that role will change or if MBTs will even be a thing of the past. The point of this research is to help get an idea of how i will design my tank if should keep a traditional design or a more updated futuristic look.
Heavy Armor: The Tank’s Role in the Future of War:
This article holds the position that tank warfare isn’t going to change drastically in the near future. The point is made that the worlds armies are getting heavier rather then lighter. This speculation made is made because of the reaction from Germany and Poland to a resurgent Russia. Germany reactivating a hundred Leopard 2 tanks and the Poles ordering themselves a hundred upgraded Leopard 2s. The article goes on the to describe how the tank offers its owners a variety of options, it can survive in the harshest conditions. The other side effects of the tank is the psychological effect on ground troops. In my design this will most likely have some influence over the final look as things go.
Is the Main Battle Tank obsolete?
This article asks many questions about the purpose of MBT of past and present, for instance if the tank has just one role in modern times? Once again the psychological effects of a MBT are mentioned that being the possession of modern armor vehicles can serve as a deterrent to other nations for even starting a war. Although as we now arms races between nations don’t end well weather tanks are involved or not. So apart from being a deterrence what other uses does the tank have in the modern world? The article explains that the common perception tanks are a more of blunt instrument used in past wars. When in fact modern tanks of the day still have their HE (High-Explosive) and to more infantry like projectiles. This is very true in today modern wars in places like Iraq in 2003 the US army and Marine corp used the M1A2 Abram MBT on reconnaissance missions. The article points out in the cold war Soviet tanks would commonly out range western tank guns by using the main gun of the tank to operate ATGMs (Anti-Tank Guided Missiles) and in recent times limited use for anti-helicopter guided missiles. This tells me my design need to be multi-purpose while still being able to keep massive firepower to opposing MBTs. And that multi purpose becomes very important in new modern asymmetric warfare fighting insurgent groups with Air, Sea and Land units. And so the question is the tank the most effective weapon for such asymmetrical warfare? Certainly not is the articles opinion the tank has certain disadvantages to APC (Armored Personnel Carrier) like vehicles that can move faster and more efficiently through the battlefield. Fighting insurgent groups is especially difficult for MBTs considering a lot of the time it takes place in urban environments where tanks can be flanked and enemy forces go can go unseen around corners in buildings and such. This was demonstrated in Iraq in 2004 where an M1 Abram was destroyed by an IED killing the driver located in the hull. In my model I should try and incorporate some insurgent counter measures in the design for example making it a smaller tank is an option giving more visibility to the operators of the tank and giving more maneuverability and speed can all help. MBTs of today are severely vulnerable to air attacks the tank is still big target on the move with some defensive technology’s IR suppression to blind the seekers of guided missiles. With my designs i hope to retain those defensive features and add offensive features expanding on the ATGM side of things to become a threat to helicopter attacks.
Why Russia’s New Tanks Are A Wake-Up Call For The US:
Russian tanks have always been pioneer of tank design with the new T-14 Armata this is no exception. While the western powers have always questioned the position of the tank on the battlefield since cold war Russia stuck with having large numbers of tanks to overwhelm the enemy. This article entails exactly that and what the T-14 keeps the tradition of the conventional MBT at least in shape, as the biggest unconventional change isn’t that visible from pictures. The turret itself is completely unmanned and controlled by the crew in the lower compartment keeping them away from danger and direct hits to the turret. Arguably having the three man crew so close to the front with the engine in the back behind them is dangerous, exposed to direct fire from a foe. In my design the turret will be unmanned, it seems this is the way in which military organisations are going taking vulnerable human elements out of the equation.