Canada's tanks

[KevinB]

and how many of those specialized components are truly necessary for the war machine to operate effectively? I can fully appreciate the value of the optics and weapon systems but engine electronics and computers are just that many more pieces that can render the equipment immobile. Better to go for the cheap frame and mechanical drive trains whilst spending your dollar on the add-ons that don't require Eveready replacements

These days technology is a huge multiplier, and the difference between an actually military and something that cosplays as one.

 

[FJAG]

Trebuchet appreciation society?

Do you have any idea how complex a trebuchet was?

And that trebuchet masters were well paid indeed and that the apprenticeship program for a trebuchet was lengthy. Even Roman artillerists working such simple things as catapultae (not the type that you think) and ballistae were highly trained specialists.

Artillery was never simple.

 

[dapaterson]

Artillery was never simple.

Gunners, on the other hand...

 

[Kirkhill]

These days technology is a huge multiplier, and the difference between an actually military and something that cosplays as one.

What do you do when your Death Star dies?

Real wars are driven by emotion and they are fought with any tools available.

That is why Trump's discussion with Putin is a nonsense. There will always be some portion of the local society that will not acquiesce. You can call them patriots, partisans, oulaws, brigands or even NAZIs. Cossacks if you like.

Consent of the governed is often hard to come by.

 

[tomydoom]

Gunners, on the other hand...

Hey, we’re in the room.

 

[dapaterson]

Gunners, on the other hand...

I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

 

[markppcli]

I'm reminded of the 72 hour burst put on by Pearl Harbor to get Yorkton operationally ready of the battle damage she sustained in the Battle of the Coral Sea in time for her to participate in the Battle of Midway. Don't expect that these days.

I'm also reminded that as a young gunner I could fix most the things wrong with my 3/4 ton and any major component replacement - including engines - could be done by your average battery RCEME team. These days, even for the simplest of vehicles, there are entirely too many specialized components which need specialized diagnostic tools with too few parts available. Don't get me started on optics and weapon systems.

Not really what me or Kevin meant. The Yorktown was recovered and refit after the fight - that should be the expectation. We’ve gotten used to recovery under fire and it’s probably a bad habit.

 

[GR66]

Not really what me or Kevin meant. The Yorktown was recovered and refit after the fight - that should be the expectation. We’ve gotten used to recovery under fire and it’s probably a bad habit.

Unless we get quite a few more tanks than we already have we might have no choice but to recover under fire in order to remain combat effective...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Unless we get quite a few more tanks than we already have we might have no choice but to recover under fire in order to remain combat effective...

Never recover armoured vehicles under fire. During the Cold War, there was no expectation that your vehicle was getting recovered until after the immediate fight.

This is a Peacekeeping/COIN scar…

 

[GR66]

Never recover armoured vehicles under fire. During the Cold War, there was no expectation that your vehicle was getting recovered until after the immediate fight.

This is a Peacekeeping/COIN scar…

I was being facetious. I was making light of the fact that we have so few operational tanks that if we didn't recover our damaged ones we wouldn't have any at all.

 

[markppcli]

Unless we get quite a few more tanks than we already have we might have no choice but to recover under fire in order to remain combat effective...

All that’s going to do is get a recovery vehicle and some very precious maintainers killed.

 

[PrairieFella]

An ARV is extremely precious. Apparently we're pretty bold with ours, most of our allies dont have them internal to the Sqn which anecdotally has been viewed very favorably by our allies in Latvia. We're more risk tolerant which has the reward of speeding up the fight. That said, gone are the days of the ARV moving up while the enemy is still breathing. The SSM tends not to commit the fast pack like that now.

 

[GR66]

China is on the modular chassis bandwagon as well apparently. Light Tank/Fire Support Vehicle on the same hull as an IFV.

China develops new modular tank and fighting vehicle

A new family of armored vehicles, including a modular platform that serves as the basis for both a medium tank and an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), was spotted in China. The images, published on the Chinese social media platform Weibo, show the modern vehicles loaded onto rail transport...

defence-blog.com

Same idea as the CV90 & CV90120 combo or M10 Booker & XM30 combo (or a LAV6.0 & LAV-120 combo?)

Question being is the juice worth the squeeze? Makes sense for a number of support vehicles...AD, ATGM, Ambulance, Command, mortar, etc. but if you're using IFV's you're still likely to want MBT's in support so is a light tank necessary? Unless an APS system comes along that can reliably defeat tank rounds you're still going to want a heavier MBT. Unless the plan is to use them as a cavalry vehicle.

Too many issues with designing a main battle tank with the engine in the front to make a HAPC & MBT combo work unfortunately. Maybe if there is a breakthrough in solid state battery technology that could become an option.

 

[FJAG]

China is on the modular chassis bandwagon as well apparently. Light Tank/Fire Support Vehicle on the same hull as an IFV.

China develops new modular tank and fighting vehicle

A new family of armored vehicles, including a modular platform that serves as the basis for both a medium tank and an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), was spotted in China. The images, published on the Chinese social media platform Weibo, show the modern vehicles loaded onto rail transport...

defence-blog.com

Same idea as the CV90 & CV90120 combo or M10 Booker & XM30 combo (or a LAV6.0 & LAV-120 combo?)

Question being is the juice worth the squeeze? Makes sense for a number of support vehicles...AD, ATGM, Ambulance, Command, mortar, etc. but if you're using IFV's you're still likely to want MBT's in support so is a light tank necessary? Unless an APS system comes along that can reliably defeat tank rounds you're still going to want a heavier MBT. Unless the plan is to use them as a cavalry vehicle.

Too many issues with designing a main battle tank with the engine in the front to make a HAPC & MBT combo work unfortunately. Maybe if there is a breakthrough in solid state battery technology that could become an option.

There's a better picture of the tank here:

China Developed Next Generation Tank and Armored Vehicles - Militarnyi

The latest models of Chinese armored vehicles have been delivered to Beijing and will be shown for the first time at a military parade.

militarnyi.com

It doesn't mention a common chassis and when you look at the tank with a rear exhaust and drive sprocket and compare it to the front engine and drive sprocket on the IFV it seems that they do not share the same chassis albeit there may be some components shared (like the drive wheels, tracks and - depending on weight since the tank is lighter - maybe even engine although placement varies.

 

[GR66]

There's a better picture of the tank here:


It doesn't mention a common chassis and when you look at the tank with a rear exhaust and drive sprocket and compare it to the front engine and drive sprocket on the IFV it seems that they do not share the same chassis albeit there may be some components shared (like the drive wheels, tracks and - depending on weight since the tank is lighter - maybe even engine although placement varies.

I was just going from the comments about the modularity of the design in the original article:

A new family of armored vehicles, including a modular platform that serves as the basis for both a medium tank and an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), was spotted in China.

and

Weibo users also shared images of another vehicle built on the same modular chassis, configured as an IFV. Instead of a heavy tank gun, this version is equipped with a 30mm automatic cannon.

and

Military analysts have long noted that China is pursuing modular armored platforms to streamline logistics and production. By creating families of vehicles that share engines, suspension systems, and armor modules, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) can field a range of combat vehicles—from tanks to infantry carriers—while reducing production costs and simplifying maintenance.

Exactly how much commonality there is between the two you can't tell from a few pictures of course.

 

[FJAG]

I was just going from the comments about the modularity of the design in the original article:

and

and




Exactly how much commonality there is between the two you can't tell from a few pictures of course.

Yup. I wasn't blaming you. I just thought the article might be off base.

When I looked at the photos in the first article I thought I saw a typical tank back deck on the tank which simply can't work with a personnel carrier of any type (unless you have them dismount from the front ). so I looked for other articles and they didn't talk about common chassis.

You're right - and I agree - you can't tell commonality from a few pictures. The Leo chassis and the PzH 2000's are frequently touted as being the same chassis, just reversed back to front. They're actually a bit different but it's always possible that's what we're seeing here.

I've always been of the view that one should have a common tracked chassis for one's tank, IFV and SP (and related admin vehicles). That's hard to do when you look at weight differences and the need for a more powerful engine on a tank, in general (unless you go the middle weight, lowered armour route). If nothing else, needless fuel consumption becomes an issue.

I wasn't too fond of Booker. It's just asking to be used as a tank. Bill Owen suggests a cavalry model that uses lighter medium-like AFVs with a 105 or 120 as the "heavy cavalry" component of an army but stresses that "you can't use them like tanks." There's a cost reason for going to "mediums." But, "mediums" may make a decent tank destroyer during a defensive phase operation, but you loose out on offensive capability that can't be replaced well by other things in the inventory. I can see a "medium" as a direct-fire support vehicle to a predominantly infantry-based force (like an infantry division) but even there, much of a "medium" tanks role, in the defence, can now be performed just as well with a Javelin or other lighter weapons. In the offense . . . ???

I still see a role (nay a need) for a "heavy" tank (although maybe 10-15 tons lighter would be nice) together with a heavier IFV (for extra armour and to share a common power plant). Whether the "tank" goes to a front engine or the IFV goes to a reversed tank chassis is immaterial to me - that's an engineering issue and may be decided by something as mundane as heat/exhaust shimmer from the front engine of a front-engine tank creating issues for the tanks optics/sensors. But you need a tank to do offensive tanky things and not just a tank destroyer/direct fire support things.

I'm looking forward to more info on these Chinese vehicles to see if there is something worth copying here.

 

[GR66]

Posted with the usual caveats about the reliability of AI in answering questions, I asked ChatGPT the following:

"list the main challenges and disadvantages of designing a main battle tank with the engine in the front of the vehicle" and here's the response that was generated:

Designing a main battle tank (MBT) with the engine located in the front presents several key challenges and disadvantages, both from a technical and tactical perspective. Here's a breakdown of the main issues:

---

• Heat and Noise: The engine generates significant heat and noise, which can make the crew compartment hotter, noisier, and more uncomfortable, especially for long-duration missions.
• Toxic Fumes: Improper sealing or damage could allow exhaust or fuel fumes to enter the crew area, affecting health and operational efficiency.
  

---

• Reduced Crew Protection: While the engine can act as a form of additional protection (sacrificial armor), a hit that disables the engine in the front can immobilize the tank before the crew can react or retreat, increasing the chance of a catastrophic kill.
• Fuel and Fire Hazard: The engine in front increases the risk of fuel fires reaching the crew compartment more quickly.
• Vulnerable Transmission System: Having the engine in front typically means the transmission must route power to the rear drive sprockets through a long shaft or complex drivetrain, increasing the number of vulnerable components.
  

---

• Longer Drivetrain: If the tank retains rear drive sprockets, the drivetrain becomes longer and more complex, reducing efficiency and increasing maintenance needs.
• Weight Distribution Challenges: Tanks are often rear-heavy to balance the large gun and turret at the front. A front engine can unbalance the vehicle, affecting:
  
  • Mobility and suspension performance
  • Obstacle negotiation (e.g., trench crossing)
• Cooling System Complications: Engine cooling requires large radiators and airflow. Managing this efficiently in the front, without exposing vulnerable components, can be harder to achieve.
  

---

• Reduced Gun Depression: Tanks with forward engines may have higher front hull profiles, potentially limiting gun depression angles over the front arc.
• Higher Silhouette: A front-mounted engine could lead to a larger silhouette, making the tank more visible and easier to target.
• Driver Visibility: The driver’s position may be compromised or obstructed by engine components, reducing forward visibility.
  

---

• Maintenance Access: Front engine compartments can complicate access to critical engine components due to cramped layout or turret interference.
• Modularity and Upgrade Path: Tanks with rear engines (like the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, etc.) often have better modular layouts that make upgrades or engine swaps faster in the field.
  

---

Despite these disadvantages, some vehicles (e.g., Israeli Merkava series) have front-mounted engines intentionally to:

• Provide added protection to the crew compartment
• Increase the chances of crew survival in frontal hits
• Allow rear troop compartments (in the case of the Merkava)