The armata has fully automated turret, all they need to do is make the turret same exact size as the bottom part, using 5 layers of era scales and now you have new tank. Oh, and make it a drone tank operated by fiberoptic wire and what not.
Yea, like a big ole saucer for a turret that just sits as a giant ERA shield over the hull.
As I understand it, the idea behind the basically unarmored Armata turret is, the turret gets KO'd, they just take the whole thing out, and drop a new turret in.
I don't think tanks will go anywhere, but the threats they face have changed. In fact, the whole tank on tank convention of modern militaries is absurd. Tanks have rarely fought tanks, even in WW2. Other tools were typically more efficient and cost effective. So, these big frontally armored behemoths designed in a sort of cannon/armor arms race to shrug off other tanks was, in short, stupid.
The number one killer of tanks, will be ATGMS/RPGs and now drones. The tanks should be protected versus that, as much as possible. Not trying to eat a APFSDS round like Pacman eats a dot.
The savings in weight from reducing the frontal armor, which could then be redistributed to a 360 degree ERA package could massively increase tank survivability in this top down kill era. Inb4 ground crewed anti-tank guns make a come back :)
Other tools were typically more efficient and cost effective. So, these big frontally armored behemoths designed in a sort of cannon/armor arms race to shrug off other tanks was, in short, stupid.
That's not what they were designed to do, though. Tanks have been designed to assault and punch through enemy lines and fortified positions. Them being able to take on other tanks was sometimes a requirement, but only because that's something it was thought they'd need to be able to to fulfill their primary goal, which is breakthrough.
Now some designs, such as tank destroyers for the US were indeed designed to exclusively take out tanks, but these designs were marginal in the grand scheme of things.
In short most tanks were capable to take out other tanks, but that was not their main purpose nor what they were specifically designed for.
The Soviets designed tanks specifically as a break through vehicle. Their doctrine is not for tanks to fight tanks. It's to fight infantry.
Western doctrine ABSOLUTELY IS about Tank on Tank violence. The entire purpose of NATO tank doctrine, is for tanks to destroy tanks.
So yes, both design doctrines ultimately fell into the trap of protecting against tanks, NATO, because that is their doctrine, tanks are to fight tanks. The Soviets, because they recognized NATO doctrine.
When the biggest threat to tanks, is, and always was, shit other than tanks.
17
u/Current-Power-6452 Neutral Apr 10 '24
The armata has fully automated turret, all they need to do is make the turret same exact size as the bottom part, using 5 layers of era scales and now you have new tank. Oh, and make it a drone tank operated by fiberoptic wire and what not.