The modern heavy tank. Is it even possible?

[frontier-auxilia]

Hey guys i like to know if the 21st century have the technology to produce a heavy tank that can achieve a 6:1 kill ratios against modern MBT as the tiger tank had allied tanks in WWII.

Now i am not talking about the feasibility of it. Anyone with sound military logic will LMFAO at the proposal and tell me to go back fantasising about red alert. I am just asking whether it is possible for technologies today to create a tank with heavy enough armor that resist MBT main guns and powerful enough guns to bust them away in 1 shot that it will dominate in a pure tank to tank engagement.

[Sphere]

MBT's are generally designed so that they can get over bridges, through tunnels, down roads and over mucky ground. That is why all MBT's are still around ~63 tons, which is what the Tiger I weighed back in WWII. Once you start getting much heavier than that, a tank has difficulty moving around as both man-made infrastructure and nature cannot handle the weight. Some 200 ton monstrosity that might look nice on paper would prove fairly useless out in the real world as all the armor and fire power in the world will not get you across a river.

[Hresvelgr]

And a more important question is not if it can withstand 120mm tank shells, but bombs. Any bigger than a modern MBT and you just become airplane bait. The Maus, if ever it had been put on the frontline, might as well just had a bullseye slapped onto the top. You'd just end up sacrificing armor for speed, which might not even work given the lethality of modern weapons. Unlike in WW2, modern anti-tank shells aren't just slugs of metal using sheer kinetic force. You have depleted friggin' uranium shells, and Russian tanks can also fire AT missiles as well. In the modern world, making a heavy tank that can get a 6:1 kill ratio just doesn't seem possible, as technology has advanced far beyond mere armor and guns.

[SPECTREtm]

Now i am not talking about the feasibility of it. Anyone with sound military logic will LMFAO at the proposal and tell me to go back fantasising about red alert. I am just asking whether it is possible for technologies today to create a tank with heavy enough armor that resist MBT main guns and powerful enough guns to bust them away in 1 shot that it will dominate in a pure tank to tank engagement.

No. The MBTs of tomorrow will be smaller, lighter, faster, and rely more on active protection.

[Condottiere 40K]

40K tanks are constructed out of Absurdium and powered by Crapola, their designers are adherents of the Gothickool School.

Totally automated unmanned armoured vehicles, where the removal of life support and crewspace will permit any combination of more firepower, protection and/or speed, plus faster reaction speed and more willing to take chances to get shots off.

[Hresvelgr]

The think the biggest nail in the coffin though for the heavy tank idea, is that for one heavy tank that can be protected from most threats on the battlefield, you could get at least 5 advanced MBTs that can cover more ground, go much faster, watch more places, and provide for firepower all with almost the same amount of protection as a heavy. All the Tiger tanks did in WW2 is prove the concept of heavy tanks was outdated and inefficient. Upgunned Allied tanks could pop open Tigers easily enough with a much greater mobility advantage, to say nothing of their massive numerical superiority.

[LSJ]

I think the future of MBTs is in tanks that;
- Are designed like modern, camoflagued, low profile MBTs
- Are built with lighter, stronger structural materials and so can move faster and farther with less fuel
- Fire sabot rounds with more advanced targeting systems
- Have active defense systems against ATGMs, shells, and mortars
- Can locate the origin of incoming projectiles
- Have active infrared cloaking systems to be invisible in the infrared spectrum
- Employ better composite armour

Half-weight MBTs that are fast, maneuverable, hard to see, hard to hit, and shoot you first.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

No. The MBTs of tomorrow will be smaller, lighter, faster, and rely more on active protection.

Yes, I think this is going to be the way forward. I imagine they'll have crews of just 2 or 3. They'll probably also have a large "ground crew" like an aircraft to maintain all of those intricate protection and situational awareness systems.

Tanks will probably end up being smaller and thus more survivable than infantry fighting vehicles, which need to be big enough to carry their complement of infantry.

[Ak1980]

Considering that even in WW2 the chance of tank to be destroy by another tank is quite low, there's no real need for heavy tank today.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

At the OP: No. The MBT is a hybrid of medium and heavy tanks, that weighs as much as a heavy, but is quick, maneuverable and deadly.

[Voodo chile]

they'd be quite good for propaganda purposes. Just make sure it never leaves the country and but tons of turrets on it and occasionally shoot some rounds off

[Jom]

Let's keep discussion to real vehicles rather than fictional ones, please.

[Condottiere 40K]

The real factor involved is if the designers can manufacture a vehicle that can reasonably shrug off direct hits of anti-tank missiles.

[GrnEyedDvl]

That is always the factor. Better armor = better bullet = better armor = better bullet. If we continued that cycle we would end up with bullets 100 feet long and armor thicker than an aircraft carrier. That is why all the reactive armor and new stealth tech is so cool. Sure its expensive, but it would be just as expensive to build armor good enough to take that direct hit, and more expensive still to do nothing and have all your stuff destroyed by a kid with a straw and a spitball.

I suspect there will always be a need for an armored vehicle like a tank, but I also suspect they have about maxed out the design, especially when it comes to weight. Today a modern drone piloted by remote can be more effective in combat, though it cant hold ground like a tank can.

[Condottiere 40K]

Weight is relevant due to it's effect on ground pressure, which is why walker armoured vehicles will always be suspect.

Heavy tanks need to be able to take punishment, as well as dish it out at a distance. The distance part is now the province of the AT missile, so the main gun is likely a smoothbore gun/missile launcher variant.

Another factor is cost, the reason so many countries simply don't keep a large MBT component is not only because their expected opponents have reduced inventories as well, it's usually tied to the procurement and operating costs. The less tanks you have, the more you're inclined to make them more survivable, though the smarter course of action is to actually have more to win by attrition. As such, you could expect more protective measures bolted on, quite possibly transforming the MBT to a heavy tank.

One theoretical variant is a hovercraft tank, though if it were possible with current technology, DARPA would have issued a feasibility study.

[SPECTREtm]

In my opinion 2 should be achieveable. Driver and Weapons operator/Commander... Hell, the controls might even end up resembling BF2142. It's just a question of providing enough infomation and control while avoiding the "helmet fire" issue. Which again leads to the semi-conclusion that tanks properly will end up as land-based MQ-9 Reapers.

[Condottiere 40K]

If any country on this world will build a heavy tank, it will be the Israelis; the Merkava already emphasizes survivability, and urban warfare is probably heavily factored in.

[Vizsla]

Good point.
The Israelis don’t have to lug their tanks too far; they just drive them to the border.
Most other major tank manufacturing countries picture themselves flying or shipping tanks half way round the world so too much tonnage or size is a problem.
You also have to factor in fuel consumption. In Gulf War 2 the yanks had to stop their advance because the tanks were getting low on fuel. They run on jet fuel these days. The days of blitzkrieg are over.
We’re all so afraid of casualties we’ll probably have remote control or independent computer controlled tanks soon - the smaller and more low profile they are the better. If it doesn’t have a crew you could concentrate on making it as cheap as possible and just tank rush the enemy.

[SPECTREtm]

They run on jet fuel these days. The days of blitzkrieg are over.

Not for the Leopard 2... In the sense that fuel is not as big an issue as it is for the Abrams.

However I do imagine that future MBTs will have far more efficient (and powerful) engines, coupled with them being smaller and lighter = More Hp/ton and greater operational range.

[Darkhorse]

To some extent the performance of armour in the Gulf Wars justifies its inclusion on the future battlefield. The match up of armour in the first Gulf is much closer than in the second war; therefore the first Gulf provides better reasoning to keep on the tank on a strict tank versus tank basis, despite the logistical problems. In the period between the wars, these tanks were updated or replaced. Although these designs are untested against equal competition the use of tanks in the second Gulf did prove their worth, tanks such as the M1A2 and Challenger 2 do act as deterrents, and there is a psychological factor in their deployment, this also seen with light armour. Afghanistan and the Iraq Insurgency have proved the tank capable of adapting to asymmetric situations. The use of such vehicles in asymmetric warfare has been instrumental in adapting conventional tactics to fight irregular enemies. Technology has played a large part, and without advances the MBT would succumb to threats. There has been an arms versus armour race which has only sped up in the advent of asymmetric warfare, “none of the technology thus far deployed inevitably spells the end for armour”[1]. Although the MBT may be less used, and nation’s tank fleets have been downsized or disbanded, there has always been some vehicle or doctrine to replace the tank, some future theorists predict that this will be combined with long range artillery due to the increasing depth of a battlefield, yet tanks would still be required to protect IFVs.[2] With the failure of projects such as the M8AGS, expeditionary units have failed to find an adequate replacement for the MBT, substitute vehicles such as the Stryker MGS and the Sheridan, ideal for low-intensity use are inadequate when any sizeable armoured threat is expected, therefore expeditionary units still have provision for MBTs despite the procurement requirements. The tank has proved useful in the Middle East despite the inadequacy of the types used by the majority of the Middle East. They are suitable for warring with neighbours and internal struggles. The lessons learnt from the Gulf Wars in conjunction with other factors mean that the main battle tank will be part of the battlefield in the future – “Maybe it won’t even touch the ground….maybe it will have no turret…maybe its gun will be a laser beam…but there would always be ‘one platform providing direct and indirect force defence power.”[3]

[1] J.P. Harris and F.H. Toase, p.236

[2] J.J.G. Mackenzie and B.H. Reid (eds.), The British Army & the Operational Level of War (London, Tri-Service Press Limited: 1989) p. 105

[3] P. Wright, p.431


- My own academic work.