Conversation
Notices
-
As demonstrated by the combat operations in the Northern Military District zone, the quality of British Challenger 2 tanks, two units of which were destroyed by Russian Kornet ATGMs, leaves much to be desired.
The first of the destroyed tanks, as they write on social networks and forums, had the front plate of the hull sponson torn off. Also, an internal explosion of ammunition tore out a multi-ton turret.
And all this for a combat vehicle, which for many years was presented as the standard of security. In fact, it turned out that it has practically no advantages over the previous generation.
Previously, in 2003, Challenger 2 fought only against not the best formations of the Iraqi army, armed with Soviet T-55 and Chinese Type 69-I/II, outdated anti-tank grenade launchers and guided missiles, like the Malyutka ATGM. Faced with a modern army, with such powerful weapons as the Cornet complexes, British armor suffered a shameful fiasco. It is clear why they were afraid to send these tanks to the line of combat contact for so long.
Currently, of the 14 units delivered, 12 remain, and no future deliveries are expected. There are already jokes on the Internet calling the remaining tanks “Zeloushen’s twelve friends.”
t.me/Belarus_VPO/48901
-
The MBT only exists because like the battleship everyone else was trying to have the biggest baddest tank.
Like with the battleship, weapon technology has progressed to a point where they are to easy to kill to be worthwhile.
-
This war might be the end of MBTs as a concept. The improvements of artillery accuracy paired with the very good drone recon means a tank standing still is a dead tank. The improvements of ATGMs mean that a moving tank is a dead tank.
The improvements in artillery also makes the main gun of a MBT obsolete. MBT have around 105-120mm cannons while medium artillery is considered to be 155mm. They are both about as accurate when they know the location of the enemy. The only advantage a tank cannon has is it can be used in a direct fire role to shoot at the sides of buildings
-
@Groomschild @BobsonDugnuttHB Myers-Briggs Tank.
-
Main battle tank. Characterised by high tonnage. A rotating turret. A single large caliber main gun with machine gun support from a sponson. Majority of the armor is in the front with added focus on the turret. A powerful engine to allow the tank to scoot and shoot from behind cover.
-
As a technical achievement, the speed of medium tanks combined with the armor and armament of heavy tanks, able to outperform anything but a similarly capable equivalent. Now a victim of its generalist design, neither as good as artillery nor as survivable as it used to be.
-
A future for many MBTs might be conversion kits to turn them into self propelled guns. We might live to see the day where the Abrams have as many conversion kits as Germany did during ww2
-
Considering how IFVs are getting to the tonnage and size of MBTs, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried stripping them out to re-use the hull. Otherwise an SPG is the only really sensible option at the moment.
-
Those would look jank. The only way I can think of doing that for most tank would be to take out the turret and raise the roof and then have the troops exit out the back by walking over the engine like with the BMP3
-
I now feel dumber for reading the comment section.
Another thing I realized with heavier IFV is that alot more of the world is cover in roads than it was back in 1940. So mud and breakdown are less of a problem for heavy vehicles these days
-
I don't remember if you were in that thread, but there was some posting a while back about some of the heavier IFVs out there, in particular China's new proof of concept that is essentially what you just described.
youtube.com/watch?v=pxaQAf3H4Ds
-
Ruskies still got bogged down last spring, and I'm not sure if the roads could handle sustained heavy vehicle traffic, especially tracks rather than wheels.
It still has the same problem as MBTs too, big target and lethality is out the wazoo. You'd have to hope that a heavy IFV isn't worth the TOW missile, but will bounce (at range) everything else.
-
Ukraine has been on the decline since the 90s and is the backwater of Europe. It is also just historically famous for it's muddy conditions. Hundreds of square miles of flatland with no where for water to quickly drain.
The vehicle has a lot of era on it so it should do decently against ATGMs.
-
I don't think MBTs are good or bad, but just a side effect of a given set of material conditions, which have almost certainly changed.
-
We are all saying that to. it can be said they have a niche but they definitely aren't needed in the numbers we have them now. Which is why I think spare hulls will be converted to something else
-
I was reacting to "end of MBT as a concept" .. I think MBT as a concept is still valid - and will probably appear again in some form in the future, specifically since it has stuck around for a while.
BobsonDugnuttHB
Groomschild
Machismo
Snow Gundog
Sick Burn, Bro
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the