Feasible? MBT + SPA Hybrid Vehicle

Hi. I'm a new member, although I have been reading these forums for a while.

Do you think an MBT + SPA hybrid vehicle is a possible and efficient vehicle to design and manufacture? Through the entire history of armored vehicle combat, self propelled artillery and tanks were almost exclusive of each other. SPA have always been more thinly armored, without a turret, and less durable than a tank, while a tank gun has always been limited to direct fire.

I realize that with today's technology, mounting a powerful multipurpose cannon/howitzer onto a MBT is unrealistic. However, in the foreseeable future, say 50 years or less, will there be sufficient technology to create a hybrid vehicle that is reasonably efficient and effective to warrant mass production?

IMO There will be many advantages to a hybrid, that if technology permits, it will be a worthy vehicle to design. Here are some of the advantages I grant a hybrid vehicle.

1. and foremost, the versatility of an armored vehicle in the field will likely to be an invaluable asset for any army. During WW2, the US's strategy of fielding infantry tanks such as the M4 Sherman combined with specialist tank destroyers such as the M10Wolverine (similar to the German design with Panzer III and Panzer IV near the beginning of the war) did not meet practical demands, and the US armor suffered at the hands of German armor. I believe artillery and MBT are integratable, and it will bring great benefits.

2. The weakest aspect of modern SPA is its inability to defend itself against MBTs. SPA cannot expect to survive on the frontlines, and therefore are limited to be deployed behind the armored core at all times. Having a hybrid vehicle will allow the armored core to deploy artillery at the direct front with the enemy, which in turn allows for deeper artillery strikes into the enemy rear.

3. In recent wars between the US and other countries such as Iraq, air superiority was absolute. Therefore deep precision strikes were capable of being delivered by aircrafts as opposed to ground artillery. Similarly, some people have suggested the coming of attack helicopters to replace ground AFVs. However, in a war between equally matched forces, air superiority will be contested, and ground forces will have to play a bigger role in delivering deep strikes into enemy territory. Planes are easier to shoot down than artillery shells, which means that ground artillery will remain a critical tool in war for times to come.

4. Modern MBT cannot function without support, be it infantry, air, or artillery. IFV are specifically made to carry infantry along with the MBT, and air superiority as I stated in the last paragraph supports the MBT as well. However, artillery seems to be one element that always lag behind slightly. Allowing MBT to deliver artillery strikes will take this out of the equation and offer on point artillery support for the armored core.

IMO, the only disadvantages of such a vehicle are purely technical. Designing a tank that fields a large multipurpose cannon will be extremely difficult, and many argue that such resources are much better spent to build dedicated SPA and MBTs. Here are the debates then, whether hybrids are better, or specialists are better.

Many people I've spoken to have ridiculed this idea. If you disagree strongly, please take it easy. But, I hope some people might agree with me and see a possiblility in this hybrid vehicle.

While i don't see the same main gun being used for shooting both kinds of dumb rounds, i could imagine that a single gun could be a way to deliver both artillery rounds (be they dumb or guided) and guided rockets in the MBT role. Not unlike what russians have been using for decades now. 155mm calibre would allow basically any kind of guided rocket you might need for anti tank role.
With further emphasis on modular construction, even on per-mission basis, i don't see any reason why a single platform could not be made swing role, being a mbt or long range artillery though not both at the same time.

I would expect that additonal heavy armor plates would be attached to the vehicle when its performing its MBT role, that it'd carry differnt kind of ammo and would probably be down to 3 person crew. In its artillery version, less armor would be traded for more ammo and a perhaps a 4-5 man crew to operate the whole system.

Now just plop that engine in front, make the mainbody section high enough for soldiers, add a back door and (fairly) easy to remove turret - and you've also got an APC, if needed. Though swinging the role from apc to mbt would certainly require far greater work than just switching ammo and armor like from mbt to artillery.

well not in million years. The two arms differences too fundamentally to be feasible solution. The main idea of armour is to manouvre in the frontline and support the flesh that does the all occupation and political aspects of the war. Artillery is needed to destroy the enemy in order to make the manouvring units task work. In that they need to give indirect fire and to deliver that to all reasonable distance, the artillery needs to keep it distance to the front line in order to give maxium depth to the advance. So no matter what the situation in the battle field is, there would always be differene in the positioning of the fire support and manouvring element.

So anyway you look it, the SP gun isent in the front line and You dont need to strech its already cranked layout with requirments of immediate enemy thread. To that it needs to be armoured and armour weigths. If you look at SP guns, you clearly understand that all of them has higher profile do bigger turret and heigth of the hull. And that is simply becouse the Artillery gun needs to move vertically, becouse most of the time, the gun is fired on high angles. Also any usable modern SP needs to be IMHO 155mm with 52 cal tube(and thats the word of the gunner who had served with them) and alone that is a huge monster to be fitted in any vehicle. The breech of the gun takes huge space to move and also there needs to be enough room for the loaders. Also the ammunition comes in volume, much bigger than in SP and its by nature, lot different than the common MBT cartiges...

So to survive in the modern battle field as well as to be able to fire in high angles, the thing would be pretty much over amoured normal SP gun whit rear mounted engine...perhaps a Merkava whit PzH2000 turret?? And when come to count its weigth, tactical visibility and manouvrability.... you can easily draw the conclusion of it...Failure! And that doesent even count the training and organisational nigthmare of training tankers and the scientists of the battle field, the gunners in same unit, not to speech the fundamental organisational differences of artillery battery and tank company. ...what would you do with 'tank gun survey team'

So why arent they mixed the sniper rifle whit assault one?

Well for a sniper assault rifle, many armies around the world allow the use low powered scopes on their assault rifles. This gives assault rifles the ability to fire accurately at long ranges without affecting its power in conventional fire shootouts. A dedicated sniper rifle/artillery will be better than the hybrid at the specific task, but the hybrid assault rifle/MBT will also have many advantages in the field.

Regarding training and organization, I don't think the problem is as bad as you describe. I think it would be rather easier to produce one calibur of ammunition for both artillery and tank, and to design universal training programs that instruct the crew. If all else fails, one extra personel on the tank shouldn't impede its ability too much. After all tanks still have loaders when autoloaders are available. The extra person can't be THAT big of a problem.

With superior fire control and engines in the future, it should be possible.

Well If you think it would be eays, could you give your wievs of how to conduct artillery training at that same time whit tanker training or Have you any suggestions to what sort of role would the tree heart of the artillery: fire controll, HQ of the fire battery and the hq of the fire battalion have in the combined tank/artillery formation? Would the battery HQ required to manouvre whit in the field formation as it does in the tank company or would you think that stationary company HQ to manouvre unit would be better so that the HQ can do the firecalculation and command tasks of fire support level....

Have even got slighest idea of how artillery actually conducts its firing? are you under the impression that the gunners, universally aknowlidged by their rather rudimentary civilization levels, would just put the biggies in the tube and the holy spirit would fly them into the rigth place??? And all this becouse that sort of thing would look rather cool on some Video game screen?

The answer is no I don't. I've never served in the army. But, I don't think it's impossible to do. Please do not attack me personally and call all this just derivative or some video game screen. Calm down please.

I didnt attack you, only asked.... whit the hint of that what you are suggesting is more likely to surface in the screen of video game than in reality...

Well I really don't know much about artillery and don't claim to. All I know is that they require forward observers, command fire control calculations before they can lay down heavy concentrated and accurate fire onto an enemy target. The link usually goes from observer --> fire control --calculatons--> artillery ---> observer --(correction) ---> back to fire control......

It's not as simple as point and click, but in the future the spotting will be doable from precise satelites, UAVs, or other advanced recon systems. With advanced communication systems already in MBTs today, relaying artillery targets to each tank should be the least of all problems.

the link you missed (and the one making the biggest difference in support and manouvering unit philoshophy) is the survey that enables the guns to know where their own positions are. The essential element of artillery is its close marriage to GIS and survey methods and even whit the new GPS or other satelite navigation systems, the artillery battery still needs it specificed soldiers whit almoust engineer level knowlidge of these factors. Just guys and their equipment will only mean "deadweigth" to the tank unit. (and by this I mean civilian sector engineers, not by any means the arch enemy of the artillery, military engineers).
And still the Artillery unit isent anyway 'near' the battle line, even if it could get all the newest (and expensive!!) gizmoes it still needs to keep its distance in order to give the indirect fire...thats why its called indirect.

And then we come back to the thecnical issues. The basic differences of tank gun and artillery gun is the different pressure that the round generates. The tank ammunition neads much bigger board preassure than common artillery. That means that tankguns have much shorter tube life and cannot sustand the similar fire ammounts that indirect fire support needs. So to avoid the logistical nigthmere of two different types of ammunition, you would only end up whit compromise 'General purpose' aka poor-in-both-use type of artillery system...
And even if the ammunition proplem would be solved, the basic philoshophy of direct fire gun and indirectfire comes in the elevation. The gun needs transvere backwards due the recoil. In tank gun you can get the movment into horizontal direction, but the artillery gun, in high angles will need the vertical movment. Thats why all SP systems are so high in profile. And that profile issue will lead into its tactical usefullnes. If the vehicle is easily spotted, it needs to be much better protected and that means to weigth lot more with lots of extra armour+that any 155mm system is lot hevier than 120mm and the artillery use would mean lot more onboard ammunition than tank use...thats just too much for all economical engine solutions. You would end up with 100 tonner monster that can barely move, alone manouvre.

So why invest to many difficoult proplems when the end-products philoshophy is by birth doomed to be inferior compared to real MBTs or SPGs?? The requirments of these two systems, despite the outward similarity (sardine box with big gun) are just too specialiced and different.

Comprehensive reply. End result = theory busted.