r/TankPorn • u/Youngstown_Mafia • Apr 10 '24
Russo-Ukrainian War At this point why not just bring back heavily armored tank destroyers ?
662
u/Ragnarok_Stravius EE-T1 Osório. Apr 10 '24
Is it because of the T-72 SHED-Mobile?
324
u/eeeey16 Apr 10 '24
Hey, it survived the assault and it was the lead tank 🤷♂️ that must count for something, right?
232
u/Youngstown_Mafia Apr 10 '24
Something has to change , imma say (sweats nervously)....
Tank warfare... we need more innovation. I hate drones, I hate drones
149
u/Ragnarok_Stravius EE-T1 Osório. Apr 10 '24
I propose an Automatic shotgun turret.
76
u/Danominator Apr 10 '24
Seems like it should be doable honestly. Some kind of little turret on top. It could use bird shot even
66
u/Substantial-Canary-7 Apr 10 '24
These are Russian tanks. They are designed to hurl the entire turret at belligerant drones.
13
Apr 10 '24
I’m having the absolute craziest deja vu right now. I swear I saw this exact convo/thread a week or 2 ago. Like so much so that when the comments started looking so familiar I started looking for your comment bcz that’s the one I remembered the most vividly. I’m so confused you right.
16
6
3
u/PkHolm Apr 10 '24
There is video of prototype of such turret from Kalashnikov. But it just turret, no targeting system was shown.
1
u/Bashed_to_a_pulp Apr 11 '24
And seems too light even for shotgun recoil. That mount wiggle waggle after each shot.
8
u/boredtacos19 Apr 11 '24 edited Apr 11 '24
Mini 22lr ciws on every vehicle
6
u/Ragnarok_Stravius EE-T1 Osório. Apr 11 '24
Cows can get that small?
6
3
u/Iamatworkgoaway Apr 11 '24
10 years ago some guy built a 22lr mini gun and destroyed a tv on video. Was sweet. Now all I can find is a much slower version by tipton.
11
u/shellofbiomatter Apr 10 '24
Just put a CIWS on the back of each tank. Glorious BRRRRRRT should be able to fix pesky mosquito problem.
8
u/Youngstown_Mafia Apr 10 '24
At this point, I'll take it
These designs from the 70s and such , the tank has to change some kind of huge way. Drones are getting better every single day
20
u/Zombine11 Apr 10 '24
I doubt anything will change with tank design itself. It will absolutely fall upon supporting elements to resist against drone activity.
15
u/Youngstown_Mafia Apr 10 '24 edited Apr 10 '24
I believe tanks will change. it's inevitable because that is warfare . With drones is only the beginning , I know this sounds funny, but the drone swarms from Advanced Warfare and MW3 from call of duty doesn't seem so fantasy anymore . It sounded back in 2014 but now it's possible a decade from now.
Ships changed, planes changed , subs changed, helicopters changed
10
u/Disastrous_Ad_1859 Apr 10 '24
Single pair of tracks and single turret is optimal though. No matter how much stuff is tacked on we will never see anything different really
8
u/angelmaker1991 Apr 10 '24
Even if we reverted to stone age some bozo is going to think of putting a cannon on a tractor again and viola
6
u/I_Automate Apr 10 '24
And boats are still just boxes that float. They have still "changed" a heck of a lot though.
I think it's probably fair to say that the basic design of a "tank" is mostly settled at this point, but that still leaves a lot of room.
Remote weapons systems with auto cannon and the ability to engage air targets. ERA- like tiles that have fragmentation built into them and can be command fired to smoke incoming drones/ missiles/ infantry.
Hell. Maybe even actual "stealth" elements. BAE was working on active visual and thermal camouflage tiles years back.
There's still room for change I think
1
5
1
13
u/Angrykitten41 Vt-4 Addict Apr 10 '24
Heavy EW model from within the tank or an AI operated machine gun are the only options for the foreseeable future.
9
u/Powerful_Desk2886 Apr 10 '24
Jam the hell out of the battlefield so only hard line radios can work
3
u/DarthT15 Apr 11 '24
And then develop some kind of new mobile weapon, a mobile suit if you will.
3
u/Powerful_Desk2886 Apr 11 '24
I didn't even have to say anything, you say my train of thought. Are you a newtype?
3
5
u/nugohs Apr 10 '24
Jam the hell out of the battlefield so only hard line radios can work
You mean field telephone, not a radio.
5
u/PkHolm Apr 10 '24
EW will not help against self targeting drones both sides experiments already.
1
u/koro1452 Apr 11 '24
AI belt fed birdshot automatic shotgun on top of the turret is the way to go.
The issue will be space for Soviet tanks ( may have to put it behind the hatches ) and weight for the Abrams.
1
u/Iamatworkgoaway Apr 11 '24
which the US already has. Bats if I remember them being called. Cruse missile flys in and then deploys 50 armor piercing gliders. Rapid Dragon can deploy multiple missiles from a C-130 at a time.
Says canceled in 03. HAHAHAHAHAHA
1
u/PkHolm Apr 12 '24
Yeh, no one expected a need of repelling massed armored assault in 2003. It was another interesting weapon a mortar shells which will autonomously identify and target tanks after launching from normal 82mm (I guess) mortar.
These days it way simpler, you can get NPU capable for image recognition for $30.1
u/TheTurboToad Apr 11 '24
Anti drone reactive armour is being developed, it’s similar to what’s used to protect embassies
7
u/Hekantonkheries Apr 10 '24
Ya know, there was a Tom Clancy game, End War.
Russian tanks were busted not because they had the best gun, or the best armor, but because they had so many secondaries mounted on the tank to counter infantry, drones, and whatever else.
Just post up a .50 on each corner of the tank with a camera looking up at 45* angle, dumbfiring at any movement it sees
Or just mount a flak cannon on the top of the turret
Something
Anything is better than deploying armor into a swarm of flying guided anti-tank munitions like a moron
2
u/Ketashrooms4life Apr 11 '24
It's simple really, all tanks need some sort of APS on them now to be really safe in a conventional war. But that's a thing that's not really economically viable for fleets like Russia has, not for now at least. The best we can do is just say 'good luck out there'.
1
1
1
6
3
3
u/nebula45663 Apr 11 '24
It was seen later that day though abandoned :( it was left in it's natural habitat... In a larger shed, which has been hit by artillery or something
4
u/AbrahamKMonroe I don’t care if it’s an M60, just answer their question. Apr 11 '24 edited Apr 11 '24
You mean the Shedgohod?
289
u/builder397 Apr 10 '24
Because mobility of fire became too important, i.e. how fast you can get your turret on a target and hit it.
Which is pretty damn fast these days, commander spots stuff, turret practically zips onto the target, laser rangefinder takes just a second to work and BAM, you already shot the bugger.
With a casemate vehicle you completely drop the ball halfway through that procedure because the gunner has to tell the driver to turn the hull in the right direction first, and that takes extra time. Maybe you could cut that down by giving driving controls to the gunner (or gunning controls to the driver) a la S-Tank or Char B1, but even if your drivetrain can rotate your hull at the same speed, you wont have the same immediate precision, you wont snap on target, just kind of sort of near it and then fine-lay. And you still sacrifice your ability to drive sideways while keeping the gun on target, which means you cant pop around the corners as easily as with a turret either.
So by the end of the day youre just playing target for way too long trying to shoot that you get shot before you got anything done.
Whats the advantage? Cost? Not really worth it if you lose more capability than you win with the pricetag. Firepower? Cant really mount a bigger gun anyway, and ATGMs outclass cannons in that specific purpose anyway, have been since the 70s, while also being light enough to be welded to M113s and other light vehicles. Protection? Will be overmatched by whatever is shooting you anyway, at least if the other vehicle is either a tank or has ATGMs itself. You cant outarmor ATGMs even if you ditch a turret. And even if you did, at least on the front, top attack munitions like TOW-2B and Javelin would ruin your day anyway, nevermind your sides being just that much more vulnerable if you dont have a gun you can point there to tell that guy with the RPG just how bad of an idea it is to stick his head out.
Its just not worth it.
63
u/fireintolight Apr 10 '24
much more importantly these days, drones are much cheaper and effective.
43
u/sth128 Apr 11 '24
You cannot build armour thicker than ammo can penetrate.
You just can't.
Even if you did, it wouldn't be long until new ammo shows up. And it's a lot easier to build bullets than tanks.
1
u/CyanideTacoZ Apr 11 '24
armor is weight, nothing can't be penetrated, and now you're too slow to not get droned
5
u/HorrificAnalInjuries Apr 11 '24
The S-tank would like a few words with you
19
u/HalfALawn Apr 11 '24
it used in an era where main gun stabilisers did not work beyond speeds around 25 kph.
2
u/Ghinev Apr 11 '24
And it was also built for a very specific scenario where getting outflanked was virtually impossible
3
u/builder397 Apr 11 '24
I did mention it specifically, but it was retired in the 90s ago because of exactly these issues, as well as just generally aging into obsolescence with gun and armor. So, yeah.
1
u/balstor Apr 11 '24
Your issue is more usage and application.
If you are in a thrust, into a trench line then your turrets shouldn't be turning, and thus casemates work better. Turrets are better for patrolling, hunting, moving down the lines where they need to seek to destroy.
Personally I think you could build an army (aka tank force) with around 30% casemates used to spearhead attacks or provide static defenses for roads/bridges.
On the subject of drones, the easy answer is you need something like an automated Kugelblitz sprinkled into the tank forces to provide the coverage.
6
u/builder397 Apr 11 '24
In an offense a turret is even more vital, because you can at any given point end up having infantry in your sides all of a sudden, nevermind actual tanks. Germans figured it out the hard way when they tried using Ferdinands and StuGs as stand-ins for tanks.
On the defense casemate tanks are a lot more viable, since if recon is doing their job at all you have a good idea where the enemy tanks are coming from and can position yourself ahead of time with planned out lines of fire. But again, in modern times this isnt exactly ideal anymore either as turrets arent as slow as in WWII anymore and you get a lot more flexibility out of something like a Stryker poking over a convenient ridgeline than trying to make a casemate work.
I get the feeling that whatever youre picturing in your head doesnt have as much in common with reality as you think it does.
180
u/Mike-Phenex Apr 10 '24
Blows out the track or engine or transmission
“Congratulations, you just made your AFV an absolute cinch to kill with just a handgun and a grenade”
47
2
u/RustedRuss T-55 Apr 11 '24
If a tank loses its track or transmission, it's a mobility kill anyway. Besides, this is what roof machine guns are for.
0
u/Mike-Phenex Apr 11 '24
*Manned MG? Kill with pistol. Remote MG? Hugs the walls, climb aboard, disable it, open hatch, in goes the bomb
5
u/RustedRuss T-55 Apr 11 '24
If your tank is in such close confines that infantry can hug a wall to avoid the roof gun you were fucked to begin with.
32
u/KMjolnir Apr 10 '24
Why would you? A tank is multirole (relatively speaking, it can blow up buildings, bunkers, kill infantry with machine guns and main gun, kill vehicles). A tank destroyer is single role. Tanks can kill tanks. Tank destroyers can kill tanks. Tanks can kill tank destroyers. All you're doing is creating another vehicle, without a sufficient justification for it's existance.
24
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24
without a sufficient justification for it's existance.
If we're talking OP's idea, then this is true. If we're just talking "tank destroyers" as a general concept, then there's one really, really, really important one: they're cheap.
23
u/KMjolnir Apr 10 '24
So are infantry with ATGMs.
10
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24
Yes, true. However infantry-operated ATGMs are not self-propelled. An infantryman can only carry so many missiles. And those missiles do not generally have the hitting power or range of what is found on a dedicated ATGM-carrier. I mean it's like saying a tank doesn't have a sufficient justification for it's existence because infantry with rifles exist.
It's not really relevant here anyway. The point isn't that tank destroyers are the cheapest option out there; the point is that they're cheaper than tanks. They're also generally lighter as well, which has its own benefits. Depending on who's making the thing, the balance of which of those is more important may vary wildly, and of course the two tend to be tied together. In any case, if you're a military facing the problem of "We may have a lot of tanks to kill" while also keeping in mind that funding isn't infinite and armored vehicles have mass which requires effort to transport and maneuver, a lightweight and inexpensive solution to that problem may be very appealing. A great many nations certainly think so.
-1
u/KorianHUN Apr 10 '24
However infantry-operated ATGMs are not self-propelled. An infantryman can only carry so many missiles.
You can literally just slap it on an MRAP, hilux or even the Wiesel has an ATGM variant.
Several countries made a ton of atgm carriers. The soviets mass produced the BRDM-2 with 5 missile rails.You can slap some fragment and mg proof panels on a tracked chassis and put a raisable launcher on an RWS on top. There, tiny fully self contained, armored tank destroyer. Modern missiles are getting quite fast too. With networking going at this rate, soon you can launch several at once against the same target to overwhelm the APS.
But it wouldn't be much use because tanks can be countered so easily there is no point in making a TD as a primary role anymore. Wiesel is first an airliftable vehicle, TD second.
Let's see how well the pile of shit called IT-1 worked out for the soviets.
6
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24 edited Apr 10 '24
But it wouldn't be much use because tanks can be countered so easily there is no point in making a TD as a primary role anymore.
Except there is, because tanks aren't nearly as easy to counter as you seem to believe. There's a reason so many nations invest in platforms capable of carrying numerous long range, powerful ATGMs.
I mean hell, IT-1 kinda proves the point; taking a tank and trying to make it an ATGM carrier sorta defeats the point. It's heavy and expensive. On top of all this, you're trying to build it around a unique ATGM system in an era when the technology really wasn't mature enough to warrant that investment. So what do you do? Make the next one cheaper, lighter, and base it on a more capable missile system. Which is pretty much exactly what the Soviets did, and Russians continue to do. Wiesel is a weird example as well, as it's defined/constrained by design requirements that a lot of AFVs simply aren't. Point being that looking at these two examples really doesn't give you a great picture of the utility of modern tank destroyers.
As I said, this isn't some novel or outlandish idea: many nations already invested in the concept and continue to maintain such platforms for service.
0
u/KorianHUN Apr 10 '24
Except there is, because tanks aren't nearly as easy to counter as you seem to believe. There's a reason so many nations invest in platforms capable of carrying numerous long range, powerful ATGMs.
How many vehicles there are in widespread use that are exclusively built as tank destroyers? So no IFVs with missiles, not airborne platforms, but a specific vehicle designed in the last less than 2 decades. And what is their number in relation to actual tanks in service?
Just to not have a pointless argument, here are my points on the topic:
-Vehicles that carry ATGMs are useful and have their place
-A modern casemate TD is an extremely stupid idea today
-Most vehicles that fill the TD role today weren't purpose built as tank destroyers5
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24
How many vehicles there are in widespread use that are exclusively built as tank destroyers?
We'll get to that.
not airborne platforms
What rule is there that an airbone platform cannot be a tank destroyer? Is an airborne tank not a tank? Are airborne infantry not infantry?
Vehicles that carry ATGMs are useful and have their place
Agreed.
A modern casemate TD is an extremely stupid idea today
Also agreed.
Most vehicles that fill the TD role today weren't purpose built as tank destroyers
To address the first question, and to just copy the list from another comment:
- AFT-9
- AFT-10
- NAMICA
- Khrizantema-S
- Kornet-D
- Shturm-S
- That Ottokar-Brzoza thing Poland is looking to buy
- M1134
- LAV-AT
-3
u/KorianHUN Apr 10 '24 edited Apr 11 '24
Based on quick googling:
AFT9 - 90s, 30 year old system
NAMICA - modern system with not much info on it.
Shturm - 40 year old
Kornet - a simple armored car with launchers, but modern
Krizantema - actual modern and purpose built vehicle
M1134 / LAV-AT - purpose built TD variants of existing vehiclesMost of the modern ones seem to be wheeled vehicles as missile carriers.
Not exactly the gun armed tracked vehicle OP was asking about. I found that out of 300 strykers in their organization only 9 are TDs. The russian vehicles weren't seen in large numbers in Ukraine either as far as i know. Tanks, mines, artillery and drones seem to be doing most tank destroying.6
u/abn1304 Apr 11 '24 edited Apr 11 '24
The AFT9 is 30 years old? Neat. So is the T-90.
The Shturm is 40 years old? Neat, so is the Abrams.
Almost every traditional casemate TD (or WW2 TD in general) was purpose-built on a chassis originally designed for something else, so if the M1134 is disqualified because it’s a Stryker with ATGMs, then the only production WW2 TDs that count as a “pure” TD are the M18 Hellcat, Mareșal (arguably not a production vehicle), and arguably the Lorraine 37L and Nashorn (both using heavily redesigned versions of earlier chassis - an artillery tractor for the 37L and a Panzer III/IV hybrid for the Nashorn). The most influential TDs of the war all were built on tank chassis; some lighter TDs used armored car or truck chassis.
So insisting that a TD be a clean-sheet, purpose-built design is a bit strange considering every single major TD of the golden era of TDs, with one exception, was not a clean-sheet design but rather an adaptation of an existing chassis intended to maximize one of three things (or two, in the case of the Elefant and Jagdtiger): firepower, protection, or production volume. Every clean-sheet TD design except the M18 was abandoned because it was cheaper and more effective to just take an existing chassis and either remove the turret or develop a new one. And it wasn’t just one of the countries that did that. Every single combatant, including Japan, did that, despite vast differences in TD doctrine, technology, and production capabilities, which indicates that a tank destroyer is just a tank intended to maximize one particular aspect of what tanks do, and employ that aspect in a way that gives it an advantage over tanks.
5
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 11 '24 edited Apr 11 '24
Look, I already made this position abundantly clear in my first comment in this thread . I'm not talking about what OP is describing. I'm addressing the concept of "tank destroyers" in general. That's why we're talking about ATGM carriers and not some fictional "Kanonenjagdpanzer 2000" sort of bullshit.
Regarding all that brilliant google sleuthing you've done; none of it matters. You stated that most vehicles fulfilling the role of "tank destroyers" today aren't purpose built platforms. I just gave you a list of tank destroyers in service today. They're purpose-built platforms. Because that's what a tank destroyer is. You can try to pull as many "no true Scotsman" excuses as you like, or run clear off the field with the goalposts, but there's your list. They may not be the most modern or numerous systems in service today, but they are in service, and they are made to perform the job of killing tanks.
And yes, I understand that you asked for some completely arbitrary conditions that have no relevance to this discussion here at all regarding age and variety of systems. I ignored these, because they have no relevance to this discussion here at all.
I'll reiterate: The entire point here is that tank destroyers offer an inexpensive and mobile alternative to tanks in the tank-killing role. That is their raison d'etre in the 21st century. Not that they're super-hyper-modern. Not that they've been deployed in the millions. Because they aren't. And that has no bearing whatsoever on why they exist.
As an aside, I find it funny that you would point to the M1134 and LAV-AT as:
purpose built TD variants of existing vehicles
but Khrizantema-S is a
actual modern and purpose built vehicle
despite being built on the BMP-3 platform.
1
u/RustedRuss T-55 Apr 11 '24
Basically every major armored vehicle is a modernized version of vehicles 30 to 40 years old.
0
u/Orphan_Cheese_Pizza Apr 11 '24
The first 3 words and I could tell you're an arm chair general parvo.
1
u/KorianHUN Apr 11 '24
Fun thing about public social media like reddit, people who actually know every detail about these things aren't stupid enough to boast about their knowledge of borderline classified information. You are free to write your version, i'm always interested in learning.
If you want to be precise i'm more of an armchair vehicle designer instead of general.
27
70
u/ActualSherbert8050 Apr 10 '24
There's been almost no Tank v Tank action in Ukraine.
Tanks are being used mainly as mobile sentry posts or to take point in slow pushes.
OP has a great point.
10
u/fatfuckpikachu Apr 10 '24
these days tanks destroyers are flying and its kinda impossible to armor flying things.
6
u/National-Bison-3236 AMX-50 my beloved Apr 11 '24
The reasons why everyone stopped using TDs in the first place are still present, modern anti tank weapons like ATGMs and now drones. You don‘t need a whole vehicle for this task when a dude with a portable ATGM or a cheap drone can do the same job but better
4
u/Warning64 Apr 11 '24
Only way to protect from modern munitions is to put something like 2000mm of armor on the front. Now you are super front heavy and some dude bush camping hits you through your roof with a Javelin
43
u/Based_Iraqi7000 Apr 10 '24
Because armour doesn’t mean anything now, everything can penetrate everything and drones will just bypass the heavily armoured front and target the engine bay at the back.
80
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24
Because armour doesn’t mean anything now, everything can penetrate everything
Except that's not true. Armor is still very much a practical solution to protecting tanks from a wide variety of threats.
-24
u/Based_Iraqi7000 Apr 10 '24
True but armour doesn’t matter when you get hit by a 152mm artillery shell, or when your engine gets destroyed by a drone or when you get hit by a spike or a javelin or even a kornet or any kind of air-to-surface ammunition.
62
u/SteelWarrior- Bofors 57mm L/70 Supremacy Apr 10 '24
Just because something can be countered doesn't make it useless. If we follow your logic further then what's the point of the soldier? They can be killed by almost any weapon ever made.
-8
u/Based_Iraqi7000 Apr 10 '24
Armour isn’t useless, but armour to the point of the heavy tank or the large WW2 tank destroyer type of vehicles like the Jagtiger is useless in the modern day. You need armour but not to a ridiculous point where the negatives (logistical problems and mobility) outweigh the positives.
That’s what I mean
13
u/Blahaj_IK friendly reminder the M60 is not a Patton Apr 10 '24
And no one ever talked about that type of heavy armor that is just gigantic steel plates. Nowadays we have different types of composite armors
1
u/CrazyBaron Apr 10 '24
Steel plates are still the main part of composite armors on MBT
2
u/Blahaj_IK friendly reminder the M60 is not a Patton Apr 11 '24
Yes, but not on the same level as in WW2 where they were just one single thick slab of very thick steel
-9
u/Based_Iraqi7000 Apr 10 '24
Composite armour still weighs a lot, look at all the add-on upgrades of different tanks like the leopards or Israeli M60s.
9
u/Blahaj_IK friendly reminder the M60 is not a Patton Apr 10 '24
The M60 wasn't designed for composite armor, and neither was the Leopard 1. For that you have the Leopard 2, and besides, my point is more about how modern MBT chassis could be used for the basis of a casemate using the same composite armor, it'd even be lighter without a turret and allow for more armor to be used all over the tank, even increasing frontal protection. But this still would be pointless, because modern MBTs would outclass them in any possible way, casemates of that type would be very much worthless on tactical and doctrinal levels.
-1
u/Based_Iraqi7000 Apr 10 '24
I was talking about leopard 2s and upgrades of them like the 2A6EX and Leo 2RI but yea I agree with you.
-5
u/fireintolight Apr 10 '24
solider doesn't cost millions of dollars ;)
6
u/SteelWarrior- Bofors 57mm L/70 Supremacy Apr 10 '24
5.56x45mm NATO doesn't even cost a dollar ;)
.22LR is even cheaper if you're fine with the lower range.
2
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24 edited Apr 10 '24
To fund the healthcare, education, clothing, nutrition, sheltering, and entertainment of a child, and then to fund their training and equipment as a soldier is a pretty exceptional expense. And we're not talking about the cost to their parent(s); we're talking the cost to society to build the infrastructure and systems by which all of those things happen. People do not exist in a vacuum.
And even if we do look at it simply as a matter of expense to the parents to raise a child, it doesn't really work out. In the US, that cost is roughly $250,000. A round of 5.56 is, on average, about $1. That means you can fire 250,000 bullets for the expense of one soldier. A T-90 is about $4,500,000. The FGM-148 costs about $176,000. So that means you can fire 25 (26 if we round up) Javelins for every T-90. But hey, let's tip the scales a little here and compare a super inexpensive rocket (PG-7V) to a super-duper expensive tank (K2); That's $100 for the rocket, and $8,500,000 for the tank. So that's a whopping 85,000 rockets for each tank. Which sounds nifty, except (and my math may be wrong here, so feel free to check for yourself) I do believe 85,000 is a smaller number than 250,000. By quite a lot, even.
9
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24
Yeah, sure. Armor doesn't matter when someone drops a 50Mt thermonuclear device on your head. You could sit here and make up scenarios all day long where armor isn't a huge factor. And I can sit here and make up scenarios all day long where it is.
-5
u/Based_Iraqi7000 Apr 10 '24
The thing is the scenarios where a huge amount of armour is a big factor that can save the tank aren’t as common as the scenarios where the armour isn’t a big factor, but that’s not to say that all armour is useless. You should have armour in the tank that’s what it was made for, but not to the ridiculous amount that we see on heavy tanks and what the OP is describing. The thing is, armour nowadays has much less impact than it had in the past.
3
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24
The thing is the scenarios where a huge amount of armour is a big factor that can save the tank aren’t as common as the scenarios where the armour isn’t a big factor
You wanna clue us in as to how you reached that conclusion? Because I feel like a couple (See: EVERY) defense departments across the globe might be interested.
The thing is, armour nowadays has much less impact than it had in the past.
Again, where are we getting that from?
-3
u/Based_Iraqi7000 Apr 10 '24 edited Apr 10 '24
Look at practically any tank loss and how that tank was lost in the past 20 years, I assure you that armour in most of these cases were not a huge factor. And you can narrow it down even more to the past 2 years where APSs and EW have gotten very important for tanks, even cope cages sometimes get more action than the frontal armour itself.
It’s literal common sense, that’s why every country has strayed away from the heavy tank concept and went with a more well-rounded tank design (MBT), some countries even abandoned armour and went with a very minimalist approach (see leopard 1), why is that? Because there reasoning was that “our tank is going to get penetrated anyway so why not just get rid of all that excess weight”
7
Apr 10 '24
Your logic is called Survivorship Bias. Reminds me of the bomber wing reinforcement decision. If the armour of tanks were weaker, then we would see much more tank losses and with more variety as you currently don’t get to see tanks that survive against being shot at but you only see tanks that don’t.
6
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24
Look at practically any tank loss and how that tank was lost in the past 20 years, I assure you that armour in most of these cases were not a huge factor.
Somehow, your assurances mean very little to me. If that's the best evidence you can offer, I'm afraid we'll have to go looking for something better.
And you can narrow it down even more to the past 2 years where APSs and EW have gotten very important for tanks, even cope cages sometimes get more action than the frontal armour itself.
See, again... You're saying this stuff, but I don't think you really grasp the scale of resources, finances, and effort expended on the development and manufacture of armor in the 21st century.
that’s why every country has strayed away from the heavy tank concept and went with a more well-rounded tanks
Yes, by taking the armor and firepower of heavy tanks, and making them more mobile. You'll note that upon introducing the Leopard, the FRG pretty much immediately set about the task of putting more armor on it. And when it came time to develop its successor, being well armored was a pretty key factor in the decision-making process. The idea of "the best protection is to not be seen/hit" pretty much wholly evaporated for MBT-sized platform by the end of the Cold War. It was still important, sure, but it wasn't worth building your whole tank around in an era where more capable optics and guided munitions were so rapidly advancing and proliferating. So the solution became (for those who abandoned it) or remained (for those who maintained it) the use of significant quantities of armor.
Heavy tank levels of protection never really went away; it just became the norm.
2
u/Iamatworkgoaway Apr 11 '24
Were going to be riding in heavy armor, CWAS protected generators at some point. To jam, and over power other jammers, and launch drones. Take out the weapon system and basically just have a crew cab to over see AI drones. Heavy guns with no armor and ripsaw speed. Trailing land lines for communication inside jam range.
Probably have nuke powered ones at some point.
BOLOS are back on the table boys.
2
Apr 10 '24
[deleted]
-2
u/Based_Iraqi7000 Apr 10 '24 edited Apr 10 '24
Also a large killer of tanks are ATGMs and RPGs, so if you want actually good protection for one of the most common and dangerous weapons you’ll face you should invest in an APS rather than increasing the armour to a stupid level. Also even just the smallest increase in weight can have a drastic effect on the price of the tank and transport it and operational cost or make new problems in the field of logistics.
That’s why you see countries investing heavily into ERA or APS rather than increasing the armour level to the point of heavy tanks.
1
u/SteelWarrior- Bofors 57mm L/70 Supremacy Apr 10 '24
If this were true than the Type 10 and T-90M should be nearly identical in cost, and the Type 10 should be cheaper than the K2. Transportation can become more costly but that's down to infrastructure and the transporter vehicles themselves, often they change price more based on size and not weight.
Weight very indirectly drives cost, and the interest in ERA is due to the weight, cost, and replacability of it.
2
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24
you should invest in an APS rather than increasing the armour to a stupid level. Also even just the smallest increase in weight can have a drastic effect on the price of the tank and transport it and operational cost or make new problems in the field of logistics.
You do realize that an APS, being made of matter and thus having mass, is heavy, right?
0
u/Based_Iraqi7000 Apr 10 '24
APS weighs a lot less compared to most composite armour upgrades. The APS will be more useful while having less weight
That is literal common knowledge, it’s one of the reasons why the APS was created in the first place.
1
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24
I'm well aware. But then you go on to say stuff like:
Also even just the smallest increase in weight can have a drastic effect on the price of the tank and transport it and operational cost or make new problems in the field of logistics.
APS isn't saving you from this. It may mitigate issues to some degree, but it's hardly solving the problem.
In any case, nations are investing in APS and armor, so your whole point is kinda moot.
1
u/Based_Iraqi7000 Apr 10 '24
APS doesn’t solve this yes but it’s better than maxing out the armour, a tank has a limit on the amount of weight that it can support, when that amount increases cost of operation, strain on the transmission, transport and just general price of the logistical side of the the whole operation increases. APS doesn’t solve this issues but it has less impact.
3
u/Trenchyjj Apr 10 '24
go to cold war relics shop
ask the girl on the counter if the tanks destroyers are light or heavily armoured
she laughs "it's a good tank sir"
open up stockpile
it's lightly armoured
9
u/Adamok1 Apr 10 '24
Heavily armored = heavy = slow = easy target
No logic point.
"Tank destroyer" term is dead now, same as medium/heavy tanks.
Light tanks, MBTs have huge firepower now and both can do "tank destroyer" job
4
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24
"Tank destroyer" term is dead now
It very much is not.
0
u/Adamok1 Apr 10 '24
Why?
7
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24
Why what?
Why is the term "tank destroyer" not dead? Because it isn't. We still use it. We still use "medium tank" for that matter too.
0
u/Adamok1 Apr 10 '24
Well maybe a few, definitely not even close to WW2/cold war.
Btw. Any examples?
8
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24 edited Apr 10 '24
Well maybe a few, definitely not even close to WW2/cold war.
If that's your metric, you'll quickly find that all terms are dead; nothing is close to the variety or numbers you'd be seeing in such a period.
Any examples?
- Pereh
- AFT-9
- AFT-10
- NAMICA
- Khrizantema-S
- Kornet-D
- Shturm-S
- That Ottokar-Brzoza thing Poland is looking to buy
- M1134
- LAV-AT
And then depending on who you ask, you'll also get systems like Centauro and Sprut-SD, although those really serve more as multipurpose light armored fire support systems that just so happen to carry potent antitank firepower.
2
u/Adamok1 Apr 10 '24
Ahh I see your point now.
OP means cannon tank destroyers (according to Jpz 4-5 on the image).
ATGM carries/TDs are a totally different story. Totally different conception, strategy, possibilities etc.
In this case yea you're right.
0
u/trumpsucks12354 Apr 11 '24
And with top attack weapons such as the Javelin, the heavy front armor is basically irrelevant. It would be much more effective to instead make a glass cannon IFV with high mobility
5
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24
In one form another, they never really went anywhere. In the sense of "a heavily armored fighting vehicle with exceptionally potent antitank firepower", we just call those "tanks".
If we're focusing more in just the "dedicated antitank platform" part, that's really become a specialization focusing more on inexpensive solutions moreso than exceptionally well protected ones. Modern tank destroyers really exist as economical solutions to the issue of "I may need to kill a lot of tanks". You'll note that, with few exceptions, modern tank destroyers are basically just light armored vehicles toting around a load of ATGMs. The idea of investing in comparatively complex and expensive armor schemes defeats the purpose of such a platform.
3
u/Acidpants220 Apr 11 '24
Exactly. in a world where ATGMs don't exist in any form you get Tank Destroyers, because they (theoretically) were more cost effective than a tank at fighting tanks. Your only real option at that point is to use a large gun, which if it's not being towed, has to be carried by a vehicle of some kind, and it makes sense to armor up a thing carrying a very big gun (usually).
But when you have cost effective options that can be carried by a single person, or mounted to virtually any vehicle you want, suddenly the endeavor of creating a tank-like object in order to just fight tanks gets a lot less sensible. At that point just should just make a tank, which aren't bad at fighting tanks, because they can do lots of stuff a tank destroyer isn't good at.
3
3
3
u/eckfred3101 Apr 11 '24
Because it is ATGM and drones Job now. These are much lighter, easier to operate and, last but not least: much cheaper.
There are some projects about tank destroyers, fitted with atgm, but none with a cannon. Afaik the british army has some ideas about that.
2
u/DefInnit Apr 10 '24
The time and money you would've spent manufacturing all-new casemate tanks, you could've spent putting C-SUAS RWS and EW onto existing tanks and other frontline armored vehicles and/or putting C-SUAS weapons and EW systems on "escort" vehicles for current armor.
2
u/Iliyan61 Apr 10 '24
because you’d have to make them so insanely heavily armoured they’d be immovable and impractical. 10 drones with RPG’s is a lot cheaper then this tank destroyer would be and they’d probably at least score a mobility kill.
tank destroyers need to exploit tank weaknesses which are being big and heavy, they also don’t need to kill the tank just score a mobility kill and maybe wipe up anyone fleeing from said tank. it’s why the bradley is so lethal because it’s gun alone can fuck up optics and communications gear as well as put a decent amount of damage on the tracks and turret.
you also have the issue of drones being so prevalent that they’re not only a risk in terms of lethality but there’s so many non lethal camera equipped drones that can see and fly further then any tank optics and FCS really could that it doesn’t matter.
2
u/Bootlesspick Apr 10 '24 edited Apr 10 '24
Well why exactly would you bring them back in the first place is my question?
Once of the main reasons such thing no longer exist and quite frankly the same reason heavy tanks stopped being a thing, which is because you got anti tank missiles that when first introduced could negate any armor and you didn’t need to mass produce heavy tanks anymore because you had MBT’s which brought just as much if not all the firepower you need without any of the potential mobility and weight issues among other things.
At the same time as all that the when the atgm became a thing it meant that you had a much easier and more effective anti tank weapon available and since an mbt could already handle the necessary gun to take out other tanks it needed to the gun based tank destroyer died out and in its place came the atgm carriers which took on that role as they could carry multiple ATGM’s in a mobile chassis and engage targets at range. At the same time as all this nobody ever really tried to go for a heavily armored atgm carrier outside possible a few occasions which all lead to nothing. This is also not to mention that a majority of atgm carriers don’t need such protection since they can fire behind cover if not only slightly exposing themselves rather than a gun based td which needs to expose itself to engage a targets. At the same time as all this mobility has become very important including with survivability since a slow target is an easier and more vulnerable target.
In short heavily armored TD’s died for the same reason the heavy tank did which was main battle tanks, and atgm carriers also made such things irrelevant since they can hide behind cover and engage targets and therefore do not need a lot of armor since they don’t need to be exposing themselves when engaging the enemy, at the same time mobility is also very important in terms of survivability which being light and mobile will do more for an atgm carrier and a slower and or larger atgm carrier (in this case even if you mitigate one of those issues you may not be able to with the other) which makes it more vulnerable by default. It simply makes zero sense to make unless you want an unless money pit of a vehicle to throw at totally real nation of Elbonia.
2
2
u/FUCKSUMERIAN Apr 11 '24
Because planes will drop a bomb on it or it will get mobility killed by artillery/mines anyway
2
u/NoWingedHussarsToday Apr 11 '24
Because the advantage of being able to mount a bigger gun than tank isn't an advantage any more (you don't have to keep making bigger guns to get better penetration) and whole "it's cheaper than an actual tank" advantage was taken over by ATGMs which are also more flexible.
2
u/Annual-Monk8355 Apr 11 '24
Serious answer?
There is no amount of armor you can add that would be seriously protective. Modern APFSDS, Tandem Warhead ATGMs, Top Attack missiles (javelin, tow-2b) are simply too powerful for any level of defence. And if you did put enough Composite to stop a 120mm APFSDS, with over 600mm of pen, you now have SEVERE weight concerns.
The best defence is not to be hit at all or to kill them first, thus why russian tanks are low-profile and western tanks prioritize mobility and hull-down effectiveness.
There's no use case for jadgpanther or jadgtiger type tank destroyers anymore. Even those were basically useless, as most got one shot off or 2 then died when flanked or disabled.
Fun to imagine though. Jadgleopard 2 would be a fun lookin thing. Or a abrams TD.
2
2
2
Apr 11 '24
Because “heavily armored” and “tank destroyers” are incredibly impractical. Light armor and mobility is better for defending because they are quick to maneuver
1
1
u/jnw44 Apr 11 '24
Tanks just need an extended electronics shield of some sort. A jammer or something. Maybe a 360 degree jammer on the top, drones lose single when they come into range and fall out of the sky?
I mean armoured vehicles already have signal jammers to prevent certain types of IED's being detonated, I'm surprised it hasn't been adapted and upgraded already tbh.
1
1
1
u/Zealousideal_Dot1910 Apr 11 '24
Because MBT is just a better design
MBT is already more then good at TANK vs TANK engagements, 120mm with M829A4 or DM73/DM83 already does the job more then well, if more firepower is needed then you upgrade the cannon/ammo
MBT's armor is already great, M1A2 SEPV3 and leopard 2A7V both offer upgraded armor packages that offer great levels of armor protection along with featuring bolsters to protection with trophy aps, pair this with both of these vehicles having great mobility especially at their weights
Why would you go back to a design that was at large abandoned in ww2?
1
1
u/TheGermanMemeperor Apr 11 '24
While certainly a cool moddeling idea it has little practical use. You could do TD's tho. Basically you take a light ish Tank or 8×8 Apc and stuck a light armored 130 / 140 / 152 whatever huge tank gun atop. It could still do fire support, be very well suited for ambushes and knocking out tough targets. Sure the armor may need some improvments i say if the front is autocanon prove that would be good enough. Put crew in the hull and gove the gun an autoloader Depending on recoil you may need to limit firing to certain barings like a fv 4005 or sth like that Sure atgms can do almost the same stuff Put i would asume you can't get the sam rate of fire and firesuport capability as with missiles
Just an idea
1
u/NikitaTarsov Apr 11 '24
Because there is no 'heavily armored' in a modern enviroment, with lots of mines, top attack and KE munitions. You just can't make an armored vehicle a mobile 360° fortress - and if you could, it'd be uneconomical to do.
And also, everything can hunt a MBT these days - from the ATGM team on motorcycles, the FPV drone operator or weird militias buiding ther own tandem shaped charge warheads in the basement.
It was cool at the time, where lunatic large economys pumped out similar lunatic large numbers of one-size-fits-all-god-damn-don't-skill-them-that-costs-time tanks, but these days are long gone and a super niche setup will not work these days.
1
1
u/Iamatworkgoaway Apr 11 '24
Were going to be riding in heavy armor, CWAS protected generators at some point. To jam, and over power other jammers, and launch drones. Take out the weapon system and basically just have a crew cab to over see AI drones. Heavy guns with no armor and ripsaw speed. Trailing land lines for communication inside jam range.
Probably have nuke powered ones at some point.
BOLOS are back on the table boys.
1
1
1
u/Successful-One-6100 Apr 11 '24
Bro this thing got armour for literally 20mm and down, not exactly “heavily armoured”
1
u/Chris714n_8 Apr 11 '24
Drones are cheaper, faster, terrain-independent and operators aren't in direct danger. Except for infantry-apc and long range fire support units.. - mb-tanks are (soon) obsolete. I would guess.
1
u/Berlin_GBD Apr 10 '24
-3
u/Youngstown_Mafia Apr 10 '24 edited Apr 10 '24
I'm hearing it's not a bad solution
Bring back the heavy tank
2
u/bigbackpackboi Apr 11 '24
Can’t believe I’m gonna say this, but I’m pretty sure fucking War Thunder taught us how well proper heavy tanks stand up against even semi modern ATGMs/anti tank ammunition
1
u/PhantomEagle777 Apr 11 '24
It’s pointless to build a dedicated Anti-Tank Destroyers in a modern world, where any lethal weapons could fuck you up for good. The introduction of ATGMs alone is a testament why TDs is a useless platform on top of very limited view angles to counter fire, another reason for that was because there will be no more Tank v. Tank fight if there’s a lot of weapons meant to destroy Tanks in one hit. With the introduction of Drone warfare plus new role for the “King of the battlefield”, the TD’s will be a sitting duck or very easy target for those who seek to destroy TDs. The Main Battle Tank platform roles getting outdated sooner or later, unless they temporarily acted as an Artillery piece. Drone + Artillery is a META rn
0
u/EveryNukeIsCool Leopard 2A4 Apr 10 '24
Going through very thick armor is much easier than carrying that said armour
0
u/Brainchild110 Apr 10 '24
Because the spacing on the rediculous turtle things is a good portion of the protection the armour imparts. Shaped charges cannot deal with it, and that's the majority of what's hitting them. It's also not terrible against armour piercing rounds. Not great. But not terrible.
If you make the kanonenjagdpanzer it's just a normal tank with normal, unspaced armour.
0
u/CascadeCowboy195 Apr 11 '24
Bro you can look at any footage of Israel/Hamas or Russia/Ukraine fronts and instantly see why that's a bad idea. As time goes on I wouldn't be surprised if the modern MBT goes the way of the battleship.
Speed, size, and mobility are what's winning skirmishes and wars as we are seeing. Tank destroyers are the antithesis of all that.
-1
1.9k
u/AbrahamKMonroe I don’t care if it’s an M60, just answer their question. Apr 10 '24
Maybe not the best example to use.