Nowadays stealth is not much more than a finish and a slightly modified exterior. Aerodynamics is much less of a factor for tanks than planes, and a lot of stealth elements like oblique angles work well against shells. If you are going to the effort to redesign a tank it makes sense to at least consider it.
I don't think it will last 5 minutes in the field once it gets some mud on it, but that's another point.
Ground vehicles already have stealth technologies. The camouflage netting added on to Tanks, IFVs even Humvees have it and IR reduction. It’s not about making the tank vanish it’s about signature control. Making the tank look like a mound dirt, boulders, a small pickup truck. Anything but an AFV. As to mud? I’ll raise you a gosh darn tree.
mud and foliage are often used to help break up the IR and radar signature of AFVs. The natural materials look different on IR than even the Paints. Especially Fresh foliage as it dries and decay the chemical composition changes and it looks different.
Now, to the features themselves.
First of all, I'd remove Hyundai - it really smells the same way PL-01 does - battlefield 2142-looking attention grabber. Instead, i'd add two more obvious candidates - T-14(well, the original thing everything began from) and Next Gen Abrams.
Main aim of the skin on PL01 was to bring in new IR masking plates that in theory would make the tank look like a pickup truck. At this point it’s still sci-fi. Maybe closer to 2030.
T14 is a step up in modern MBT but like other Russian systems at this point is gold plated. To expensive for Russia, not getting export buys and though the unmanned turret is a huge step up in survival vs legacy Russian tanks the trade offs on situational awareness and questionable top attack protection mean it might as well be a T90.
Abrams NG is being pitched but what’s happening with it is an unknown. GDLS is clearly pitching to try and head off Abrams retirement and a Optionally Manned Tank competition that might include K2M and Panther.
Which brings up why are all these concepts floating now? 2050. In 2050 the Abrams is supposed to retire at that point the Abrams Merkava, Leopard 2 series will be 60 years old. Leclerc is pushing 30. The basic theory is still sound but it’s harder and harder to maintain a system that old. If the Abrams is supposed to be retire in 2050 than production of its replacement has to start no later than 2040. If production has to start no later than 2040 than contracts and programs have to start in 2030. The sooner the head start the better the meeting that objective.
I didn't argue for the obsolescence of the tank. Ground forces were becoming more and more BLOS oriented for centuries but LOS units are still necessary after all. This calls for a platform with high firepower and survivability. I am criticizing the designs that are being showcased in Eurosatory 2022. In my opinion they look like just another attempt at do-everything but also plagued with one-upmanship and the cult of high-tech. They aren't the first tank designs with the said problems. There are quite a few actually. For example the A1E1 from the 1920s as one of the early examples. It had 4 independent machine gun turrets to fight infantry on its own. Such designs were very expensive and heavy. They were also very vulnerable against artillery, the biggest tank killer of the era. These new designs remind me of them.
EMBT is just a modified Leclerc turret with a slightly modified Leopard 2 hull. Kf51 is a modern tank with a big gun and full APS. They are attempting to cover the top attack issue which is the biggest vulnerability used by ATGMs and Suicide UAS.
They are also using Iron vision system to try and keep the hatches shut and crew under protection well giving situational awareness.
Other than the organic UAS they are very much in line with modern MBT out growth of established trends. The Addition of Drones to the MBT I think is a direct response to the ATGM ambushes we have seen in Ukraine and Syria if not earlier. Primarily intended to scan the area urban to suburban terrain and scout out potential ambushes. The range here in that aspect makes sense 60km of circle then either sighted a target who is about to die or return to the vehicle.
The 30mm may seem a sharp contrast to the old 12.7mm. The Israeli Merkava and Abrams TUSK have both added additional 12.7mm guns and even 40mm grenade launchers earlier tanks tried and even on occasion entered limited production with 20mm guns As an anti infantry and light vehicle killer. Make no mistake the 30mm on the EMBT isn’t an AFV killer. It’s the same 30x113mm used on AH64E (round not the gun). It’s the lesser nato 30mm compared to the 30x173mm used in IFV. It’s there for C-UAS and would chew up soft targets nicely. It’s a compromise between the MG and grenade launcher.
The larger gun isn’t just BLOS but form an LOS it means a bigger HE shell, and a longer direct fire vs adversary equivalent.
The IDF very famously survived huge onslaughts of T55 with seemingly obsolete tanks. Primarily as they practiced good gunnery and put a bigger 105mm in their older tanks allowing them to overmatch the T55’s range. If you need to engage another tank it’s better to do so when he can’t engage you. If you need to open a wall for infantry then a bigger shell is often better. These are more evolutions than Revolution.
Erm.
While i agree with the notion itself - it is constructed on the wrong premise.
There absolutely are tanks which are hard to penetrate with 120mm gun. Heck, even protecting against full power 140/152mm guns is perfectly achievable when we're talking about front armor only. So at least this reason to add caliber absolutely exists.
The problem is not this, the problem is the separation of form.
Tank is meant to do a few things, that can realistically be summed up to two things:
1. maneuver and exploitation.
2. infantry support
3. countering point 1.
Two of these functions primarily rely on HE round, and only in 3 (and, consequently in (1) when it meets (3)), APFSDS is paramount.
The problem is a simple one: larger calibers currently don't really get you anything useful other than more kinetic power(anything more powerful than 100/105 in direct fire HE is realistically redundant for a numerous tank), but they take ammo from you.
In both 1 and 2, ammo is extremely valuable. In 2 - it's primary ready racks (i.e. ammo directly accessible in combat, preferably - safe one). In 1 - every shell count, because the first thing you do when you get behind enemy lines is you get almost encircled yourself. At best your ammo supply will be iffy, at worst (and quite typically, actually) - your formation will be cut off, maybe even caught and encircled.
Strictly speaking, even 120/125 shells are really hard to get to the necessary number - they're big boys (and that before even mentioning that for firing HE it's better to have a rifled gun in the first place!). 130s are really huge - KF51 gets only 20 of them in the whole tank(and just 10 shots when it carries 4 loitering scouts)!
EMBT and Next Gen Abrams at least address this problem(30mm on top), but Panther is just doing a Pikachu face.
A couple counter points
First it’s rare very rare for an MBT to enter an engagement where it has emptied its ready rack let alone it’s reserve. If that’s the case then resupply. Unless your logistical support is an absolute nightmare then 20 rounds is plenty.
The Drone system on the Panther is an option one that probably would be exercised with limitations IE 1 per X number of units that could be squad, Platoon or company level.
The main ammunition issue was not this or that but this that those whatever that is and then some. 1) HEAT, 2)HESH (Brits),3) APFDS,4) Guided missile(mostly Russian Korean, some Israeli export),5)canister (tungsten tank sized shot gun), 6) barrier penetration HE (US)… all of this across a fixed number of shells in a tanks magazines.
Now modern HEAT rounds actually don’t favor rifles barrels they are fin stabilized. HESH does but HESH is pretty much useless against modern armor. The British loved HESH primarily as they to keep the few tanks they have closer to infantry units Where HESH does have its uses is clearing barriers.
Yet modern technology comes in with Advanced High explosive rounds taking the job of three or four rounds to one so you have your 1) AMP, then your 2)APFDS maybe a 3) guided munition. This means rather than trying to work out an optimal mix of 6 types of shells into 34 slots you have 2-3 types and most of them being AMP. Which simplifies the loaders/gunners job as he doesn’t need to suddenly realize that they are under attack by a target that is optimized for a shell he has stowed in the reserve magazine and not in the ready rack.
