Okay fair enough. I have too much faith in APS defeating most threats to tanks. Armata was included to make the point that while all western tanks of the previous generation are capable in their own way, they are geared towards a 20th century thinking and only the latest modifications consider the newer threats to tanks. Contrasting it with Armata that places emphasis on neutralising helicopter and infantry launched atgm. I think a 30 tonne tank does make a compelling case regardless because of the mobility it would offer. Most of those 60+ tonne tanks would be sitting ducks against a well trained and armed adversary. They probably do offer enough protection over the light tank for certain situations but they are not impossible to knock out, far from it. Maybe there's a place for a light tank amongst these heavier machines to fight in narrower streets or cross smaller bridges.
ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
First again most Hard Kill systems are not geared for Top attack missiles ( including Afghanit ) and a good deal of both Infantry and Helicopter are Top attack. Including potential threat systems against Armata.
Street fighting is a weak point for the lighter tanks, expeditionary is fine supporting fast moving elements like Airbourne is a good nice for them. but it is not a replacement for a MBT. It's best protection is to keep moving pic fights where it offers overmatch and avoid MBT's.
The US FCS is case in point the program was scrapped when it was realized that the 20 ton FCS manned vehicles were glass cannons and lacked the protection needed for IED's which are a far more common threat in Urban than ATGMs.
A full sized MBT is designed to fight well trained and well armed adversaries. Especially when combined with properly trained crews and support.
With the exception of highlands terrain and light bridges a MBT of even Merkava and Abrams weight is surprisingly fast and powerful off and on road.
And I don't deny they have issues and can be knocked out. But things that would virtually Vaporize a light tank like a VT5 or PLA version of the light tank would only damage a full MBT like the Type 99 or Abrams.
It's the question of survivability. If the crew is breathing and can be picked up and brought home the Tank is a sucess even if the machine will never fight again. If both are lost. The Tank has failed.
Street fighting is a weak point for the lighter tanks, expeditionary is fine supporting fast moving elements like Airbourne is a good nice for them. but it is not a replacement for a MBT. It's best protection is to keep moving pic fights where it offers overmatch and avoid MBT's.
The US FCS is case in point the program was scrapped when it was realized that the 20 ton FCS manned vehicles were glass cannons and lacked the protection needed for IED's which are a far more common threat in Urban than ATGMs.
A full sized MBT is designed to fight well trained and well armed adversaries. Especially when combined with properly trained crews and support.
With the exception of highlands terrain and light bridges a MBT of even Merkava and Abrams weight is surprisingly fast and powerful off and on road.
And I don't deny they have issues and can be knocked out. But things that would virtually Vaporize a light tank like a VT5 or PLA version of the light tank would only damage a full MBT like the Type 99 or Abrams.
It's the question of survivability. If the crew is breathing and can be picked up and brought home the Tank is a sucess even if the machine will never fight again. If both are lost. The Tank has failed.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Now this is interesting apparently US Army is interested in light tank but with new twist Big gun socalled RAVEN Here it is
The U.S. Army Wants to Put Big Guns on Small Tanks
Charlie Gao
,
•November 4, 2017
The Pentagon hopes to get a new lightweight armored combat vehicle.
The U.S. Army Wants to Put Big Guns on Small Tanks
Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy[/a] as a way to bring large caliber cannon technology to lightweight vehicles. This technology is called RAVEN, which stands for Rarefaction Wave Gun.
Technology of Tanks, from Jane’s, is that a vehicle needs to weigh about one ton for every nine hundred newtons of force exerted on it. This means for the current 120-millimeter M256 cannon shooting a M829A3 Anti-Tank Shell, . This is greater than the weight of America’s last canceled light tank, the M8 Buford. RAVEN technology cuts down on recoil significantly (, in theory) with the way that it vents, allowing for cannons of the same power factor to be mounted on light vehicles.
Disadvantages to RAVEN technology is the need for the gun to vent gas backwards. Similar to recoilless rifles, this limits the proximity in which infantry would be able to operate around an armored vehicle. It also would limit angles of elevation: a vehicle that allowed a RAVEN gun to elevate too high might suffer damage from the blast going onto its deck. The need for a new loading mechanism for RAVEN guns is another engineering challenge. The 105-millimeter RAVEN demonstrator had a swinging chamber that accepted rounds from a carousel autoloader, but this isn’t similar to any setup on existing American tanks. Vehicles would have to be designed for RAVEN from the ground up, or undergo a very lengthy retrofit process to implement this technology.
Overall, RAVEN guns present an interesting, high-caliber armament option that could provide America’s next generation of light vehicles the firepower they need to overmatch any current and future threat. While the technology is not yet mature, it is based squarely on concepts already understood and developed.
Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues." data-reactid="30" style="margin-bottom: 1em;">Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues.
The U.S. Army Wants to Put Big Guns on Small Tanks
Charlie Gao
,
•November 4, 2017
The Pentagon hopes to get a new lightweight armored combat vehicle.
The U.S. Army Wants to Put Big Guns on Small Tanks
Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy[/a] as a way to bring large caliber cannon technology to lightweight vehicles. This technology is called RAVEN, which stands for Rarefaction Wave Gun.
Technology of Tanks, from Jane’s, is that a vehicle needs to weigh about one ton for every nine hundred newtons of force exerted on it. This means for the current 120-millimeter M256 cannon shooting a M829A3 Anti-Tank Shell, . This is greater than the weight of America’s last canceled light tank, the M8 Buford. RAVEN technology cuts down on recoil significantly (, in theory) with the way that it vents, allowing for cannons of the same power factor to be mounted on light vehicles.
Disadvantages to RAVEN technology is the need for the gun to vent gas backwards. Similar to recoilless rifles, this limits the proximity in which infantry would be able to operate around an armored vehicle. It also would limit angles of elevation: a vehicle that allowed a RAVEN gun to elevate too high might suffer damage from the blast going onto its deck. The need for a new loading mechanism for RAVEN guns is another engineering challenge. The 105-millimeter RAVEN demonstrator had a swinging chamber that accepted rounds from a carousel autoloader, but this isn’t similar to any setup on existing American tanks. Vehicles would have to be designed for RAVEN from the ground up, or undergo a very lengthy retrofit process to implement this technology.
Overall, RAVEN guns present an interesting, high-caliber armament option that could provide America’s next generation of light vehicles the firepower they need to overmatch any current and future threat. While the technology is not yet mature, it is based squarely on concepts already understood and developed.
Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues." data-reactid="30" style="margin-bottom: 1em;">Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
I am going to go a bit in depth on this in the MBT thread.
but right now comparing the known Mobile Protected Firepower vs the PLA light tank concept The PLA vehicle is a bit more ambitious and has a number of advantages it's a Purpose built machine, better power to weight better protection better weight distribution. Basically a MBT on a Diet. by contrast the US MPF is a IFV hull with a Tank turret. advantage is easier to build, commonality of design.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I look forward to your write up.
RAVEN exists since at least 2009 IIRC, its not new. (edit: specifically, its not an reaction to any Chinese Light tank)
Considering that RAVEN relies on timing the shockwave, it would probably benifit a lot from technologies like ETC. A 105mm RAVEN ETC gun would be a very terrifying thing to be up against.
Considering that RAVEN relies on timing the shockwave, it would probably benifit a lot from technologies like ETC. A 105mm RAVEN ETC gun would be a very terrifying thing to be up against.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Well there is that there is also the fact that the backblast for such a system is really nasty. Pretty much prohibitive in urban operations or close troops support The only advantage compared to to low recoil guns is it theoretically could mount a 120mm gun on a vehicle less than 20 tons. Where a low recoil gun can mount over 20 tons.
You know sometimes this thing really does make me think of a mini Type-10, or so upon first glance.New ZTQ photo I think ...
