Future Armour

[KevinB]

Slovakia is looking at possibly getting the CV90120 to go with the CV9035's they've ordered.


I'm curious about their thinking here. What roles do they see the CV90120's doing in comparison to their older tanks? Intimate DFS for their CV9035's with the T-72's and Leopard 2A4's in support? Do they think that the older tanks are still viable/survivable on the modern battlefield? Why CV90120's instead of the K2's or Leopard 2A8's? Do they think the modern MBT's still aren't survivable in a drone environment so not worth the extra cost over the CV90120's?

I suspect that they are thinking for a Defensive mission that a 120mm is a 120mm, and are not as concerned about protection by using fixed fitting run up positions (possibly with OHP) - and able to get more bang for their buck.

 

[FJAG]

I suspect that they are thinking for a Defensive mission that a 120mm is a 120mm, and are not as concerned about protection by using fixed fitting run up positions (possibly with OHP) - and able to get more bang for their buck.

I think that's basically the nub behind the MBT v "light" wheeled or tracked tank debate.

If you want a versatile AFV that serve equally well in all roles in both defensive and offensive tactics, then you need an MBT.

OTOH, if you are looking at what is essentially a tank destroyer to be used primarily in the defense or on very limited offensive support roles, then the "light" tank is a cost-effective option.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think that's basically the nub behind the MBT v "light" wheeled or tracked tank debate.

If you want a versatile AFV that serve equally well in all roles in both defensive and offensive tactics, then you need an MBT.

OTOH, if you are looking at what is essentially a tank destroyer to be used primarily in the defense or on very limited offensive support roles, then the "light" tank is a cost-effective option.

You mean a 'Chimera', right?

 

[FJAG]

You mean a 'Chimera', right?

"Chimera" was an apt name for that project.

I never quite understood it. The 105mm and early 120mm of the day was quite adequate against Russian armour in that terrain and the ATGM had pretty much supplanted the requirement for the 'gun in hull' Sturmgeschütz/Jagdpanzer anti-armour concept.

Mind you, the Kanonenjagdpanzer 90 and the Stridsvagn 103 were still a thing in those days. And the Brits were looking for some use for the older Chieftain hulls they had kicking around.

 

[suffolkowner]

one common chassis, cheaper, bought in greater numbers

 

[KevinB]

one common chassis, cheaper, bought in greater numbers

But not a tank. You cede certain capabilities at that point. Quite honestly, I don’t get the idea of putting a tank gun, on an IFV hull. Based on what it has been showing with the 25 mm cannon on the Bradley’s in Ukraine, the APFSDS-DU Round can reliably punch through any opposition main battle tank. If you put that round and scale it to 40 or 35 mm you get a multipurpose cannon they can deal with pretty much any threat than add in fire and forget any tank guided missiles and you’re all Set at least for the lighter than tank platform. I also question the longevity of any of those platforms with the 120 mm tank because I’ve seen Abrams firing and they still have platform rock at 72 ton that loan a vehicle half the way those recall forces just don’t disappear the turret, hull and suspension eat them.