Future of the Tank on the Modern Battlefield

"Will the U.S. Army Have a Tank in 2020?" by Dennis J. Szydloski:



Lieutenant-Colonel Szydloski proposes three possibilities for the role of the Main Battle Tank:

1. That a new Heavy Tank will replace the M-1 Abrams and weigh in the range of 40-80 tons, rendering it incapable of rapid-deployment. It may however either possess a larger conventional main gun that can launch guided munitions (such as TERM with a range of 10 km) or possibly an electrothermal gun instead.

2. Replacement of the MBT by a new Light Tank weighing 20-40 tons and therefore capable of rapid-deployment; moreover, the Light Tank chasis and hull might be used as the basis for an entire range of armoured fighting vehicles. However it may not be able to survive the same amount of punishment that the current M-1 can.

3. No Tanks at all, and possibly replaced either by new technology and tactics, or by new, lighter weapons systems. The advanced sensors that such systems would require may be hampered in close terrain and combat though.

For TERM try "Tank Extended Range Munition (TERM)" by Sal Ghazi:



And for how TERM would affect the tactical employment of the Tank try "Command and Control of the Tank Company/Team Using Tank Extended Range Munitions by Leopoldo A. Quintas, Jr.:



In comparison to Col. Szydloski, Lieutenant-Colonel Reginald R. Berry considers that the Heavy Tank will unquestionably remain tactically and even operationally necessary up to 2010 at least. He singles out the Tank's ability to perform decisive land operations due to its combination of firepower, mobility, and protection, a combination that no other land arm posseses as they reason that the tank will prevail for the time being.

"The Utility of the Heavy Main Battle Tank in Mid to High Intensity Conflict in the Year 2000 and Beyond" by Reginald R. Berry:



Since the beginning of the Long War in Afghanistan in 2001 and in Iraq in 2003, military attention has been largely diverted to Counterinsurgency Operations (COIN). Nevertheless, MBTs have proven tactically necessary even in counter-guerrilla operations in Afghanistan as well as in the clearing of cities such as Ramadi and Fallujah, et al., in Iraq, as initial attempts at doing so with lighter forces equipped with Humvees and LAVs/Strykers proved incapable of such operations without incurring unacceptable battle losses.

I think unless there isn't a revolutionary development in the armored vehicle design, there will be tanks on the battlefield.
Unless powerfull DEW weapons can be mounted on vehicles, the punch has to come from the gun. And with advances in ETC and TERM (small rocket motor and a laser seeker perhaps) those shells shuold be superior to missiles I guess.
On the other hand, for decisive head on assaults or COIN/MOUT ops that require presance/ negate mobility, those systems need to be able to withstand heavy punches. Unless ADS can deal with multiple fast moving rounds, heavy armor seems to be the only way.

Scratch said:

I think unless there isn't a revolutionary development in the armored vehicle design, there will be tanks on the battlefield.
Unless powerfull DEW weapons can be mounted on vehicles, the punch has to come from the gun. And with advances in ETC and TERM (small rocket motor and a laser seeker perhaps) those shells shuold be superior to missiles I guess.
On the other hand, for decisive head on assaults or COIN/MOUT ops that require presance/ negate mobility, those systems need to be able to withstand heavy punches. Unless ADS can deal with multiple fast moving rounds, heavy armor seems to be the only way.

Click to expand...

I quite agree Scratch. Although the 140mm has been ditched - for now - in favour of the 55-calibre 120 mm, I suspect that unless and until other interim technologies are perfected, we will probably see at least one more major increase in bore calibres before the arrival of DEW a generation or two from now (if that happens). At the end of WWII, the US Army had developed the T-30 Heavy Tank, a 65-ton beast with a 155 mm rifle:



It decided against going ahead with production because it was considered just too much tank for whatever tactical effectiveness it may have had. The Brits toyed with the Conway Tank Destroyer with a 180 and 183 mm rifles:



And the Russians developed some 130 mm rifle IS-series tanks:



If some other Tank finally emerges sometime over the next decade or so with something substantially larger than 120-125 mm, and ETC or other technologies prove too inefficient or too expensive (or just take too long to perfect), we may well end up with some monster calibres being mounted on Tanks over the next generation.

.PPT presentation on German 140 mm gun project and alternative technologies:



Artist's conceptions of three variants of the Russian Type 95, carrying a reported 135 mm smoothbore (but Jane's report first):









And an interior conception of the Type 95:



And another exterior conception of the Type 95:



The question is, once someone does field a Tank with something like a 135 or even 155 mm gun, are we going to see the beginning of a trend, whether that trend is welcome or not?

Just a sit rep....M1A2 Tusk firing canister rounds are playing hell with the Hajji's in the land of two rivers. these hyper velocity tungsten balls going through houses made of cinder-block like butter. the tanks are taking RPG29 hits with not a problem.

Pop CS gas into a neighbor hood and roll in guns a blazing,...The last two months of the "surge" has seen the use of more TUSKS with "CS heavy" firing out of smoke dischargers. also using Willy Pete to get them a movin to pick them up on TIS then...Bamm #4 Hajji shot...for all you bird hunters know what I am talking about. Mine clearing SUPER HEAVY Line charges fired from big boys make new roadways through neiborhoods instead of going down a road with IED. Iraq will have the largest population with hearing problems if this continues from the overpressure blast waves.FACT

These are direct reports and the verbage used on the ground. The battle for hearts and minds is over...you have a gun and even look like a bad guy....your dead. This has lead to both high civ deaths but even more bad guy deaths. the U.S troops on the ground think they are wearing down the insurgents and this will be over in a year because there just wont be any more men of fighting age left.

The tank is showing that it is morphing to fight in any condition.

Post Script:The term Hajji is not a shot at the Islamic faith by me. BUT, gives you the mind set and hatred the U.S has for much of the Iraqi population. A typical Marine or GI will tell you. wipe out the whole darn country and re-populate it with someone else. This has been induced by the decapitation of captured U.S troops while U.S forces treat wounded insurgents. Thus many in the U.S armed forces are taking the human out of the war by not thinking of them as a human for their lack of humanity. You hear a very common phrase by U.S military men in regards to its population and is as follows

1. They are Insurgents
2. Kids who will become Insurgents
3. Women who re-produce Insurgents.
I am now ff and will return to tanks but just wanted to clarify facts on the ground rather than this posters opinion.

I don't know if I agree about utelore's commentary on counter-insurgency warfare but I do agree with him when he says that tanks are always able to adapt. In any modern warfare enviroment (unless you were fighting in far north Siberia or the Antarctic or on the polar ice cap) the tank is useful in some measure. You don't need whole armoured divisions for the type of fighting in Iraq but two or three tanks are useful in street warfare to act as "gunboats", smashing more obvious insurgent positions with impunity and doing it more efficently than an F-16. So the short answer is yes, tanks are still relevant.

As for the future of tank armament, DEW weapons and railguns or something with magnetic acceleration probably are the future but right now they are not small enough to be feasible on land vehicles. Once we see them on ships that should be a good indication that the same technology will probably on tanks within a few years.

I think the thought process of lighter armour has come to a screaming halt and you will now see a shift to bigger tanks and very heavy APC like the nemara, merkava and BTR-T because of the ATGW on the battle field.

utelore said:

I think the thought process of lighter armour has come to a screaming halt and you will now see a shift to bigger tanks and very heavy APC like the nemara, merkava and BTR-T because of the ATGW on the battle field.

Click to expand...

Much agreed Utelore. The only way for Armour of any kind to have anything like a realistic possibility of survival under AT fire is to have the same armour protection as a current generation MBT. Almost anything less is a waste, of lives and money.

by Kris Osborn, Defense Daily, 14 January, 2008:

The U.S. Army has chosen a Raytheon-General Dynamics team to deliver the 120mm Mid-Range Munition (MRM), a first-of-its-kind guided tank round that can find targets up to 12 kilometers away, according to service officials at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.

The Jan. 2 decision moves the six-year-old MRM program from technology development into a 63-month, $232 million system-design-and-development phase. Raytheon, which beat ATK, would begin to deliver 36,000 rounds after a 2012 milestone C production decision, Picatinny officials said.

Steered by two small fins, the MRM is to be fired by modified Abrams tanks and, after 2015, from the Future Combat Systems Mounted Combat System.
“MRM extends the engagement area and allow us to remain out of contact so we can defeat the enemy without putting ourselves in danger. It will change how commanders fight,” said Chris Grassano, Army project manager for maneuver ammunition systems at Picatinny Arsenal.

When no friendly forces are in the firing area, the round can use its autonomous seeker system: a 3-inch infrared camera that takes 30 snapshots of the view ahead per second, and a computer that picks edges and shapes out of the images. The system can spot tanks, trucks and buildings, then aims for their most vulnerable points.

“We can look for the barrel and other features on the tank, accurately aiming the round to a soft part of the tank to penetrate easier,” said Rick Williams, Raytheon MRM program manager.

Click to expand...

The US Army had been working on TERM several years ago, and it was supposed to reach out to 10,000 m, but that was whittled down to 8,000 m. It never entered service. Now, MRM promises substantial improvements, including a range of 12,000 m, and the ability to target specific weak points on an enemy vehicle. If this works out, the tank will become a much more potent and flexible weapon.

I'm for the heavy tank too.

I think as active protection technology get better with faster reaction time, lower weight, and a higher degree of automation, the heavy tank will become that much more viable.

The heavy tank I envision is a modularized vehicle with the "core" vehicle weight at around 40~50 tons, and the other modules like extra armor, anti-personnel module for urban fighting, active defense module, etc. can be added as the mission demands them.

What do you think about South Korea's tank, the K2 Black Panther? It supposedly has the best of everything: most amphibious main battle tank (deepest swimming MBT), lots of automated components (like the cannon and machine gun), fast and accurate auto-loading gun with long range, advanced armor, relatively light weight for a new MBT, highly flexible chassis, great engines, and 8K range auto-seeking round plus, and two engines (one large engine for moving and the other engine for running basic computers and machines during quiet mode) plus many other goodies.

One vs. one, South Korea's K2 MBT seems to the best MBT in the world, but it is also the most expensive MBT. One tank will cost US $7 mil to $9 mil depending on the source. This is more than Japan's Type 90 tank and future Type 10 tank!

South Korea wants 680 of these tanks and construction will start in 2011.