Canada's tanks

[Underway]

There was a time when the Stuart, Sherman, and Churchill were all fielded as tanks, (no " ") to fill different roles in the same army. Further, each of those tanks had variants that could provide different capabilities and were employed in different ways. Flame tanks, AT Fireflys, 95mm Howitzers for close support. All still tanks.

Maybe the issue isn't that the "tank" is no longer viable, but that the wheel has kept turning and the "Main Battle Tank" is no longer viable as a one size fits all solution that squeezes out all other "tanks", but instead should be one tracked armoured direct fire vehicle in a portfolio

This is a great point. The MBT might not apply anymore, but tank variations might apply just fine.

 

[Kirkhill]

More like this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/hte8zq

Main, the point being that light/medium/heavy have all been superceded by single platforms.

No point sweating unusual expedients until we have a large enough army facing a large enough mix of combat situations.

Putting a relatively lightly-armoured turreted specialized weapon system on a heavily armoured hull seems like a waste of the hull.

But I thought the Main Battle Tank evolved from the Medium Battle Tank as the best general purpose solution between the Light Tanks and the Heavy Tanks? Although today's MBTs are more like WW2s heavies.

The Josef Stalin heavy weighed 46 tonnes
The British Tortoise was 79 tonnes
The German Elefant was 65 tonnes (Maus was in a league of its own).

Centurion 51 tonnes
Patton M48 45 tonnes

 

[Brad Sallows]

But I thought the Main Battle Tank evolved from the Medium Battle Tank as the best general purpose solution between the Light Tanks and the Heavy Tanks? Although today's MBTs are more like WW2s heavies.

Doesn't matter what it evolved from. "Main" is approximately "the one that serves (almost) all purposes".

 

[GK .Dundas]

That Aviation unit got shot up in Iraq because some idiot thought that following the same route every mission was a bright idea.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I doubt the MBT is going away. The role-based platforms of WWII emerged for reasons that seem to be firmly buried.

And yet- M10 Booker. M3 Bradley. EBRC Jaguar. Centauro 2.

Main, the point being that light/medium/heavy have all been superceded by single platforms.

Maybe that the present time that sentence is better written as "were" - in that it was temporary and that the delineation was -in a way- limited to semantics.

I also doubt that the MBT is going away. But maybe calling things Combat Reconnaissance and Fire Support Vehicles was always an illusion and we've always had MBT's, CRT's, and FST's. And maybe those things are a good fit for an RCAC that outside of three squadrons- is at a crossroads- again.

 

[Kirkhill]

Doesn't matter what it evolved from. "Main" is approximately "the one that serves (almost) all purposes".

It was the 80% solution. With the addition of LRATGMs, SUASs and CUAS/LAA systems is the centre point of that 80% bell curve still the same?

 

[GR66]

Can we keep falling back on "we would do it better?"

I don't have conclusions. Its a discussion thread!

There's a definite risk that if we accept the first argument that we won't have enough discussion.

I agree that there's lots of things from the Ukraine War that we shouldn't assume represents the way Canada/NATO would fight in a future conflict, but there are certainly a number of "developments" that have the potential as they evolve to make our current way of fighting less effective. Just as we shouldn't jump to conclusions we also shouldn't disregard them out of hand.

I strongly suspect that the NATO status quo equipment and doctrine, while likely to perform better than what the Ukrainians have managed to achieve, would fall short of our expectations in a future war against China or a reconstituted Russia.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It was the 80% solution. With the addition of LRATGMs, SUASs and CUAS/LAA systems is the centre point of that 80% bell curve still the same?

Nothing more lightly armoured or slower cross-country is likely to be more survivable. The main armament has to pack enough wallop to kill whatever the enemy puts in front of it, while being able to also fire HE, and to be able to do both at a reasonably high rate of fire. Obviously at the other end of the spectrum dismounted infantry are not the most survivable battlefield system (yet).

One thing about all the other platforms is that they are essentially based on ideas, without ever really being tried in high-intensity battle. Sure, we might get some surprises.

I'll stipulate that for any particular niche, there is some kind of niche-tailored system which is the best solution for that niche. I'm not sure it makes strategic (industrial) sense to pursue that philosophy.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There's a definite risk that if we accept the first argument that we won't have enough discussion.

I agree that there's lots of things from the Ukraine War that we shouldn't assume represents the way Canada/NATO would fight in a future conflict, but there are certainly a number of "developments" that have the potential as they evolve to make our current way of fighting less effective. Just as we shouldn't jump to conclusions we also shouldn't disregard them out of hand.

I strongly suspect that the NATO status quo equipment and doctrine, while likely to perform better than what the Ukrainians have managed to achieve, would fall short of our expectations in a future war against China or a reconstituted Russia.

My guess is that after the Ukrainian conflict is over that mines and mine delivery systems will see a resurgence in armies opposing a western based military. It exposes a major weakness in our doctrines and it's an area that armies on a tight budget can build up a stockpile quickly.

 

[dapaterson]

The threat of explosive devices is routinely forgotten. Booby traps, IEDs, mines...

 

[Kirkhill]

Nothing more lightly armoured or slower cross-country is likely to be more survivable. The main armament has to pack enough wallop to kill whatever the enemy puts in front of it, while being able to also fire HE, and to be able to do both at a reasonably high rate of fire. Obviously at the other end of the spectrum dismounted infantry are not the most survivable battlefield system (yet).

I think it is pretty safe to say that nothing, in isolation, is survivable. That, to me, means that there is a reason why long range weapons and standoff sensors are becoming a thing. Trying to take an objective with a single, mad rush is becoming even more dangerous than it has been.

One thing about all the other platforms is that they are essentially based on ideas, without ever really being tried in high-intensity battle. Sure, we might get some surprises.

Couldn't you say the same about Hobart's Funnies, virtually weapons system of WW2 and the entirety of technological development in WW1? In those cases the risk of doing nothing was greater than the risk of whatever it was that was being attempted. Some worked, some failed and some failed but could be improved.

I'll stipulate that for any particular niche, there is some kind of niche-tailored system which is the best solution for that niche. I'm not sure it makes strategic (industrial) sense to pursue that philosophy.

I think that is where modularity comes in to play. That and additive technologies. Just take a look at your average modern car and truck manufacturer. Henry Ford's line was whatever you want so long as it is black. Now the same production line gives you not just different colours but pickups and suvs, 2 doors and 4 doors, diesel, gas, hybrid and evs, 2WD/AWD/4WD, duellies etc.

I've used this before

Good Modularity


Bad Modularity


The Saladin and the Saracen shared mechanicals but modified the hull to suit the role.
The Cougar and the Grizzly shared mechanicals and hulls and just stuck a different fire power module on top and called it good.
I feel that the Boxer version of modularity is heading the same way.

Meanwhile this could be a better basis for modular design



Add capabilities, crew, pax, weapons, sensors and armour to your hearts content.

 

[YZT580]

I think it is pretty safe to say that nothing, in isolation, is survivable. That, to me, means that there is a reason why long range weapons and standoff sensors are becoming a thing. Trying to take an objective with a single, mad rush is becoming even more dangerous than it has been.



Couldn't you say the same about Hobart's Funnies, virtually weapons system of WW2 and the entirety of technological development in WW1? In those cases the risk of doing nothing was greater than the risk of whatever it was that was being attempted. Some worked, some failed and some failed but could be improved.



I think that is where modularity comes in to play. That and additive technologies. Just take a look at your average modern car and truck manufacturer. Henry Ford's line was whatever you want so long as it is black. Now the same production line gives you not just different colours but pickups and suvs, 2 doors and 4 doors, diesel, gas, hybrid and evs, 2WD/AWD/4WD, duellies etc.

I've used this before

Good Modularity
View attachment 79615View attachment 79616

Bad Modularity
View attachment 79618

The Saladin and the Saracen shared mechanicals but modified the hull to suit the role.
The Cougar and the Grizzly shared mechanicals and hulls and just stuck a different fire power module on top and called it good.
I feel that the Boxer version of modularity is heading the same way.

Meanwhile this could be a better basis for modular design

View attachment 79619

Add capabilities, crew, pax, weapons, sensors and armour to your hearts content.

was't the best weapon the Hungarians had in 56 the ubiquitous coke bottle?

 

[KevinB]

Keep in mind that the MBT was never designed as a stand alone system.
The MBT needs Infantry around it in close terrain - and Infantry to dismount to seize and hold ground.
Combat Engineering Vehicles made from tank chassis (and sometimes turrets) have been around for ages as Tanks nor Infantry can get rid of obstacles.

I would argue that the MBT has its role, the H-IFV has its role, the CEV has it's (and potentially a few variants of that), and a Wrecker.
The H-IFV can have several sub variants as well, for FIST, Mortar Vehicle, AD/CUAS etc.

Frankly I would build them all off the MBT chassis if possible - which would probably end up being designed somewhat like the Merkava with the engine in front, which would make maintenance a little more awkward, but provide a lot more protection and a common combat platform for heavy forces.

 

[Kirkhill]

Keep in mind that the MBT was never designed as a stand alone system.
The MBT needs Infantry around it in close terrain - and Infantry to dismount to seize and hold ground.
Combat Engineering Vehicles made from tank chassis (and sometimes turrets) have been around for ages as Tanks nor Infantry can get rid of obstacles.

I would argue that the MBT has its role, the H-IFV has its role, the CEV has it's (and potentially a few variants of that), and a Wrecker.
The H-IFV can have several sub variants as well, for FIST, Mortar Vehicle, AD/CUAS etc.

Frankly I would build them all off the MBT chassis if possible - which would probably end up being designed somewhat like the Merkava with the engine in front, which would make maintenance a little more awkward, but provide a lot more protection and a common combat platform for heavy forces.

Which marries up with the German comment saying that they need at least four variants - which leads to the questions about how many of each type at what command level for what degree of integration.

Eg -

One of these

With 3 Autonomous Mine Plows and and Autonomous AVLB operating with 4 HIFVs and a Tank Troop in Overwatch with drones and LRATGMs.

 

[Kirkhill]

How does the Army learn from tanks and military vehicles of the past?​

How does the Army learn from tanks and military vehicles of the past?

Many of the tanks and military vehicles of the past are still proving useful to the service today.

www.forces.net

What are the differences between armoured vehicles and tanks?​

What are the differences between armoured vehicles and tanks?

Both are designed for combat, but with different capabilities.

www.forces.net

The futuristic armoured vehicle with an AI brain that can drive itself and launch drones​

The futuristic armoured vehicle with an AI brain that can drive itself and launch drones

ROBUST is an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) at the cutting edge of future autonomous warfare.

www.forces.net

I suspicion that we will likely see optionally manned vehicles deployed first with the engineers and the gunners.

 

[KevinB]

Which marries up with the German comment saying that they need at least four variants - which leads to the questions about how many of each type at what command level for what degree of integration.

Eg -

One of these
View attachment 79623
With 3 Autonomous Mine Plows and and Autonomous AVLB operating with 4 HIFVs and a Tank Troop in Overwatch with drones and LRATGMs.

Your assumptions on the viability of autonomous operations for combat vehicles are a little flawed at this junction in time.

I like the CAB (Combined Arms Battalion) for Heavy Forces. With both Tank Heavy and Infantry Heavy versions.
Tanks can have mine plows without issue. If you used a common platform either the tank or IFV could do it. I do like the idea of Remote Control Mine Plow systems - the only issue is to make it a believable breacher, it would be need to be a service model of the same types as the Tank and/or IFV
The specific Engineering vehicles probably would be a Bde asset, albeit if you do a lot of breaches or defenses, it may make sense to have those integrated into the Bn’s as long as they can also fight.

I’m already sold on the AD and CUAS systems need to be BN integrated.

AD at Coy?
CUAS at Pl?

If you have a base vehicle you can play with the configurations to find an optimal mix.

 

[Kirkhill]

Your assumptions on the viability of autonomous operations for combat vehicles are a little flawed at this junction in time.

I disagree. I think that people in extremis will reach for whatever tools they can find. The US is not in extremis. It can still afford to let its bureaucrats lead. Other countries facing more dire circumstances will be making different choices and taking risks with their dollars that the West generally will not. The alternative to the risk of lost dollars is the certainty of lost lives.

The Ukrainians and the Taiwanese, the Syrians and the Russians are playing for keeps right now. They are not just building inventory and fattening the FMS order book.

 

[KevinB]

AI and ML can assist in certain areas, but we are still along way from truly autonomous combat systems.

 

[dapaterson]

AI and ML can assist in certain areas, but we are still along way from truly autonomous combat systems.

 

[GR66]

To my little brain the problem with autonomous combat systems is trying to have them do too many/too complex roles. With greater complexity comes greater failure potential. I don't see great value in something like the OMFV or even the Robotic Combat Vehicle - Light/Medium/Heavy. Large, heavy, expensive and complex systems face too many challenges and points of failure.

I think it would likely be more cost effective to focus on much simpler (and expendable) ISR platforms combined with precision munitions to engage the targets they identify from range rather than an expensive, autonomous combat platform designed to engage the enemy directly.

Engineering vehicles that have no choice but to operate in LOS of the enemy are the other area where autonomous systems make sense to me.