Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 18th, 2012, 08:49 AM   #41

harbinger's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 719

atgms are much difficult to use vs tanks supported by infantry and mobile AA.
harbinger is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 18th, 2012, 05:10 PM   #42

Earl_of_Rochester's Avatar
Scoundrel
€ Member of the Year €
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Perambulating in St James' Park
Posts: 13,283

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangas Coloradas View Post
A-10 have always been great aircraft but the liability is it's slow speed and vulnerability to MANPADS and AA artillery. A-10s are not going to beat tanks with support. Same goes for choppers close in BUT choppers can hide among the terrain, aircraft can't.

I think the ultimate tank in the next 100 yrs will be of a hover type capable of moving fast over the ground and very stealthy. If you get away from the weight of the treads and suspension systems you really can have some crazy options. It will have defensive systems also. It will most likely be modular and tanks will run in groups as self supporting interconnected systems.

I imagine nanotechnology and an invisibility cloak for camo will get in there before the hovertank.

An Mi24 might be considered a hovertank...
Earl_of_Rochester is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 02:02 AM   #43

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: localhost
Posts: 3,881
Blog Entries: 3

all in all, i think we can say that they're still effective. otherwise no manufacturer would still produce them or develop new models
infestør is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 05:23 AM   #44
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,097

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
all in all, i think we can say that they're still effective. otherwise no manufacturer would still produce them or develop new models
I don't think any country is actively developing new models of main battle tank (MBT)

The USA is (or already has) down graded it's Abrams tanks to diesel engines, I don't think MBT manufacture exists in the UK

AFAIK, tank development now is mostly focused on modifying existing designs to make them lighter, more economical yet more survive-able in low intensity conflict
Poly is online now  
Old November 19th, 2012, 07:40 AM   #45

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: localhost
Posts: 3,881
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
I don't think any country is actively developing new models of main battle tank (MBT)

The USA is (or already has) down graded it's Abrams tanks to diesel engines, I don't think MBT manufacture exists in the UK

AFAIK, tank development now is mostly focused on modifying existing designs to make them lighter, more economical yet more survive-able in low intensity conflict
did you even read the #1 post? here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
(i hope this is the correct subsection)

this question came up in some of the turkish sites i read, upon the development of new turkish mbt altay.

many people argue that a country (turkey in this case) should concentrate on spending money on missile systems and fighter planes instead. also, tanks are not that effective on the battlefield if you have superior air power.

what do you think?
the russians are also developing a new model: T-95
infestør is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 09:32 AM   #46
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,097

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
did you even read the #1 post?
No I didn't.

If the Turks are developing a new tank, more fool them.


Quote:
...the russians are also developing a new model: T-95
No they're not:

T-95 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...the project was first reported in 1995 and announced by Russian official sources in 2000, but no concrete data had been released. It was due to be introduced in 2009, but was perpetually delayed. The Russian government terminated its involvement in the project in May 2010 and withdrew all funding...."

Developing new MBT's is a waste of money and resources

Making existing designs cheaper to run and developing their software and electronics in sensible. Germany is developing a version of its excellent Leopard II to make it more suitable to use in low intensity conflicts for instance

Making them lighter and easier to use is one thing...building a brand new tank is quite another.

Last edited by Poly; November 19th, 2012 at 09:43 AM.
Poly is online now  
Old November 19th, 2012, 09:58 AM   #47

KUZGUN's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 345

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post

If the Turks are developing a new tank, more fool them.
We are going to build 1000 of them for ourselves. Is it wiser to buy 1000 foreign tanks instead? Or is it wiser to keep using obsolete tanks?

And we are planning to build more for export, some ME countries are quite interested in Turkish military products nowadays.
KUZGUN is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 10:00 AM   #48

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 19,876
Blog Entries: 19

Actually that's not accurate. As for I know at Uralvagonzavod they are developing a new MBT on the platform Armata [curious enough it sounds like an Italian word ...].

From what I can understand from who is developing tanks, it's not about winning a great war, but about controlling a territory facing hostile forces no more organized in an opposite army.

I've got no doubt that to attack a great power using a large force of tanks is near to a suicide. Like for navy units, tanks are quite slow targets for missiles, but a ship can carry a lot of AM systems, while a tank can carry only some defenses.

Then after the missiles, it would be the moment of the helicopters. There would be really a few hopes for those tanks ...

Inverting the phases, the tanks could come later, once the defenses, the missiles batteries and the air force of the attacked enemy are destroyed [or well reduced].
AlpinLuke is online now  
Old November 19th, 2012, 10:03 AM   #49
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,097

Quote:
Originally Posted by KUZGUN View Post
We are going to build 1000 of them for ourselves. Is it wiser to buy 1000 foreign tanks instead?

And we are planning to build more for export, some ME countries are quite interested in Turkish military products nowadays.
It would be easier and better to build the German Leopard II under licence - what tanks does Turkey have right now?

Just how good do you need your tanks to be? The Leopard II is a pretty good tank and used by a lot of countries

I'm not sure how big the tank market is in the Middle East, most have bought US, French, British or German tanks and I don't think they'll need any more for quite some time.
Poly is online now  
Old November 19th, 2012, 10:25 AM   #50

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: localhost
Posts: 3,881
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
It would be easier and better to build the German Leopard II under licence - what tanks does Turkey have right now?

Just how good do you need your tanks to be? The Leopard II is a pretty good tank and used by a lot of countries

I'm not sure how big the tank market is in the Middle East, most have bought US, French, British or German tanks and I don't think they'll need any more for quite some time.
the problem with leopard 2 tanks is that germany did not want to sell (let alone license permission) the demanded amount to turkey over (afaik) terrorism* concerns. the ones that were sold were surplus A4 variant. they are not that many:

Click the image to open in full size.

one could also see that the fleet mostly consists of old tanks. i think these 2 concerns really pushed turkey to initiate a domestic production.

ps: wikipedia numbers are probably not accurate but at least they should give a general idea.
*: apparently it's over greek-turkey tension concerns

Last edited by infestør; November 19th, 2012 at 10:38 AM.
infestør is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
battles, crucial, tanks, today



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Confederacy uses tanks Nick Speculative History 7 April 27th, 2013 06:45 PM
Crucial battles of the antiquity duccen Ancient History 2 January 16th, 2012 06:55 AM
Tanks THut95 War and Military History 254 September 16th, 2011 05:04 AM
Three most crucial battles in your nation's past? JohnnyH General History 60 December 4th, 2009 07:58 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.