Does America need a new main battle tank?

The pretty much only thing giving the MBT's any trouble in iraq right now are roadside bombs which are exploding underneath the tanks where they have much less armour, and the bomb payloads are quite high.

an MBT can take quite alot of the old RPG hits that many of the insurgants have.

You could also make up a unit that is more or less a striker but more truck like. But have the hole back half vertical launch bays that launch high speed kenetic rockets. we are talking at least 60-90 of them. This unit sits at the back of the formation and takes orders from forward units to launch at targets eather given or guided by UAV's or ground troop spoters giving gps loc's at a range of 2-3 miles it would only take the rocket like 2-5 seconds to reach the target. So The unit just lays back and when some one needs fire support it just launches one and away it goes...

if you had a complicated enough system to target and fire on 60-90 diffent targets at the same time it would be a very devistaing weapons platform.


Also you could also configure a air drop anbush style system that consists of a 9 shot box

I think the U.S. Army is developing a new engine for the Abrams tank. As for the tank itself, I don't think it will need replacing for another ten years or more.

Man, that will be cool though when they bring out the new tank designs to replace it. And then I can imagine it being called the "F/A-22 of ground vehicles," as well, as I am sure we technically won't need a new tank at that point, even if it is the coolest, most bad-@$$ piece of armor on tracks ever seen by the world.

Maybe we will need a new one, I mean things can pop up in the world, but I doubt it.

Here is a cool movie I found of the Abrams, if anyone is interested:
www.fprado.com...

[edit on 4-5-2005 by Broadsword20068]

Does America need a new main battle tank?

Yes, the British Challenger 2!

I don't think a new MBT is in order just to deal with urban combat situations. The urban environment's major problem is visibility and close ranges. The enemy gets outstanding chances to engage you at point blank, which places even the heavily armored abrams in peril.
If we defeat that primary challenge, lighter armor which is better suited to urban operations will be survivable enought to carry most of the workload. The way to defeat this is by proliferating man-portable UCAVs and the new robotic weapons platforms to the lowest levels of organization. If we can get a remote controlled helicopter with an M-240 mounted on it organic to the rifle platoon, every patrol on the street will be able to check around the next corner, compromise the enemy's cover and concealment, observe for artillery, and lay suppressing fire without having to expose themselves to the danger.

America should also work around the ban on non-lethal gas. If we can pepper or CS an urban area when we come under fire we can save lives without having to call artillery into a crowded area.

So no, not a new MBT. Other new weapons to shore up our urban combat doctine.

www4.army.mil...

Thats the new upgrade to the M1A2

Other than upgrades, the US is currently shifting out of 'heavy' MBT's. They have become like the battleships of old. With current and upcoming AT technologies, they will become nearly obsolete in the near future.

The Present and Future of Armour
U.S. Future Combat Vehicle Sets Tone for Other Nations
Jane's Armour and Artillery
US Army's Future Combat System (FCS)

Within ATS:
US Army's "Future Combat Systems" Program
US Army's Future Combat System




seekerof

[edit on 4-5-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Other than upgrades, the US is currently shifting out of 'heavy' MBT's. They have become like the battleships of old. With current and upcoming AT technologies, they will become nearly obsolete in the near future.

The Present and Future of Armour
U.S. Future Combat Vehicle Sets Tone for Other Nations
Jane's Armour and Artillery
US Army's Future Combat System (FCS)

Within ATS:
US Army's "Future Combat Systems" Program
US Army's Future Combat System




seekerof

[edit on 4-5-2005 by Seekerof]

i wouldnt say we should shift to lighter leaner yet, since we still have potential hostiles who still have conventional forces like China which is building the new t-98 mbt and no doubt strykers are not goin to take head on with and even a hummer with the new LOSAT will not be able to survive that long with only a few missiles.

Originally posted by C0le
www4.army.mil...

Thats the new upgrade to the M1A2

Thats exactly the one I was refering to, great find!!




[edit on 4-5-2005 by skippytjc]

The U.S. Army will keep its heavy tanks until something comes along that is vastly superior. There were plenty of tank skeptics until the recent Iraq War, where it was proven that heavy tanks are a valuable asset.

And even in the one link, it says Europe is skeptical of the U.S.'s new combat vehicle system, waiting to see if it works or not. No one will know until it is fully put into action, and hopefully it will be a success, but I mean no great weapon system is taken out of action until a replacement for it is proven to be superior.

The U.S doesn't need a 60 ton tank, more like 30 - 40 ton tank. However, the U.S is planning to build a 20 ton tank for it's FCS program.

Mounted Combat System

Allows for a crew of 2+2 passengers possible. Provides offensive capabilities to destroy enemy forces. C-130 transportable. Reaches a speed of 90kph and has a range of 750km. Possess a Self Protection Weapon: .50 Cal MG, Mk-19 40mm, 120mm Main Gun.

120mm Main Gun.

really???

Isnt that a bit too low?

Many european countries and china want to change to 140mm, as 120mm isnt strong enough to destroy new tanks

Originally posted by Wodan

120mm Main Gun.

really???

Isnt that a bit too low?

Many european countries and china want to change to 140mm, as 120mm isnt strong enough to destroy new tanks

If you design/make it good enough, it is. MCS's main gun will be an ETC gun, which is more powerful and precise than current guns.

"The term electrothermal chemical propulsion applies to propulsion techniques (typically applied to gun propulsion, but with some potential applications to space propulsion) wherein the burning characteristics of a chemical propellant are enhanced with an electrically induced plasma. ETC fits into a group of kinetic energy weapons (KEWs) technologies aimed at enhancing lethality by increasing velocity. In order of increasing electrical power requirements, ETC falls between true EM launchers (rail guns and coil guns) and pure chemical propulsion." - GlobalSecurity.org



[edit on 5-5-2005 by NWguy83]

[edit on 5-5-2005 by NWguy83]

ETC gun tested by United Defense

120mm cannons are too small, a 140mm is a bit small too, we should make a 200mm cannon, infact lets put two 200mm cannons on a heavy tank, the tank will weight about 200 tons hehe. it will also have lots of missiles on the sides of the Turret + it should have a anti- missile, anti-aircraft laser on top-back of the turret, then one machine gun on the top-right and another one on the top-left on top of the turret. and will look like the tanks that i show earlier such as this one


oh yea


and take this laser and put it on the mammoth tank shown above

with the hugh double cannons and the laser you will have a perfect tank
well, except it might be too heavy lol

cheers

Originally posted by ulshadow
lets put two 200mm cannons on a heavy tank, the tank will weight about 200 tons

hehe. it will also have lots of missiles on the sides of the Turret + it should have a anti- missile, anti-aircraft laser on top-back of the turret, then one machine gun on the top-right and another one on the top-left on top of the turret. and will look like the tanks that i show earlier such as this one

I sure hope that one of America's enemies does that. I can see the headlines now- "Marine sets billion dollar tank on fire- enemy declares bankruptcy".
There's always a way to put a weapon out of action. Always. I remember a story from Granada about a team of SEALs putting an APC out of commission with well-placed small arms fire. When you put all of your eggs in one basket you're just making things easy on an outmatched but clever enemy. Many smaller, cheaper complementary weapons are better than one huge expensive integrated platform. Sun Tsu knew what he was doing when he compared a great army to water flowing down hill (as opposed to a boulder).

Well, lets add energy shields to it so it won't be easily destoryed by few rpgs, + add electic armor on it hehe and add lots of armor, it might go like 5 miles per hour at max speed but it should hell pack a serious fire power hehehe

Originally posted by ulshadow
Well, lets add energy shields to it so it won't be easily destoryed by few rpgs, + add electic armor on it hehe and add lots of armor, it might go like 5 miles per hour at max speed but it should hell pack a serious fire power hehehe

Have you ever read "For Whom the Bell Tolls"? In the words of Pablo, "If I had some kerosene I could set it on fire." Back in the day that could destroy a tank. Today at least it will blind sensors, destroy any gear and external fuel supliments. Not to mention make it stand out for anybody with thermal targeting capabilities. When all else fails- set it on fire.

Nothing is perfect. I have to reitterate that you can guard against imperfection through redundancy and sound tactics much better than by putting every gizmo in the world on one machine.

Another thing we all need to make a disctinction with is the difference between "destroyed" and "dissabled".

Its not overly difficult to dissable ANY tank. Many of a tanks parts that "hang" on the sides and stuff are totally out in the open. Vents, weapons, communication equipment, optical sensors, and such are all easily detroyed.

But, to destroy a tank I would define as an impact that breaks apart or breaches the armor and kills its occupants. And thats terribly hard to do with an Abrams.

Originally posted by skippytjc
Another thing we all need to make a disctinction with is the difference between "destroyed" and "dissabled".

Its not overly difficult to dissable ANY tank. Many of a tanks parts that "hang" on the sides and stuff are totally out in the open. Vents, weapons, communication equipment, optical sensors, and such are all easily detroyed.

But, to destroy a tank I would define as an impact that breaks apart or breaches the armor and kills its occupants. And thats terribly hard to do with an Abrams.

yea, ture, but we are not talking about abrams we talking about a super tank like the ones i describe posts before