Why do modern nations with decent militaries use no tanks but MBTs?
In world war 2 there was a variety of different kinds of tanks. Armored warfare was very diverse.
However starting from the 50s it seemed like there could only be one kind of tank on the battlefield and that's the MBT.
Why is that? What killed the other kinds of tonk?
>What killed the other kinds of tonk?
The MBT
other kinds of tonk were shit
>>30329365
My big Tonk. The MBT were better than all the old tonks in all tank categories. Because they weren't the nations mine.
Tonk forever. The end.
>>30329365
tanks are expensive to build maintain and design
a smart strategic decision is to have one tank that can do everything, therefore you reduce all the clusterfuck of having multiple vehicle types
>>30329365
MBTs are just so fucking good.
Light tanks became rather useless since armored car could do almost the same thing they could do.
Heavy tanks were too heavy, slow and were vulnerable to ATGM.
Medium tanks became MBT. Fast as light tanks and heavy armor, firepower as heavy tanks. There was also a change of doctrine on both sides of the iron curtain that emphasized manouver warfare and heavy tanks were simply too slow and heavy for that and were just as vulnerable to shit that could kill MBTs.
This little bitch that we saw burning in 1991 provided as much protection as heavy tanks when it came out and had more mobilitiy, similar to world war 2 medium tanks. It also had a 100mm gun that could pretty much kill anything that the 122mm gun could and it weighted less then lets say the IS-3 or IS-4 (heavy tanks).
>>30329365
in ww2 and prior, engine tec was shit so you'd have either manuerable, or armored tanks
that kinda got shattered by the advent of highly mobile and well armed MBT's so why even bother make shitkicker 'light tank' these days? And a slow target that gets stuck in mud is even shittier than a poorly armored one
>>30329365
Because during the Gulf War the US found that the Abrams did everything the M60 did better, and decided it was easier to retool the logistics than to keep them around.
>>30329475
The T-54 is both a medium tank, as well as a good example of why medium tanks aren't produced anymore.
>>30329516
A medium tank with the armor and firepower of a heavy tank aka MBT.
Sure the ruskies classify it as medium since they still had heavy tanks in service and a doctrine which had medium and heavy tanks and heavy tanks planned for service (T-10) does not somehow not qualifiy it to be considerd a MBT.
Everyone else today consider it to be a MBT. Well maybe not exactly the T-54 due to reasons but atleast the T-55A.
Because nations realized that you could have speed, firepower, and armor in one package without major compromises.
The light tank still has a few niches, countries that want air mobile firepower or cannot afford to buy/maintain MBT's. And in places where the ground/roads are not good for 70 ton vehicles.
And lots of IFV families include a version that has a 105mm or bigger gun which turns it into a light tank, those are not going away. That way you can have more fire support while sharing most of the parts with your infantry carriers/ambulances/command vehicles which is easier on logistics.
>>30329365
Light Tanks still have lives in Jungle countries.
You can actually tell shitty third world militaries in Jungle Countries if they insist on buying MBTs since DA COOL COUNTRIES DO IT as supposed to thinking locally.
>>30329365
Engine technology improved, so there was no need to specialize. Now you can have a bunker-busting, tank-killing, fast-moving, well-protected tank. The only practical trade-off left is speed vs protection, and it's not like as if each end of the spectrum is noticeably far apart.
Stingray for sexiest light tank in existence
Although if you could call the Sabra a light tank, I'd say that's a close second
neither the US or the british were that much into heavy tanks. it was mostly a german and russian thing.
and the russian kept using "medium/heavy" tank in spirit if not in name. During the cold war the elite/guards unit would get the t64/t80 while the cannon fodder get the t62/t72.
It's only after the fall of the soviet union that the russian stick to one tank line.
>>30329637
What even is the point of using light tanks in a jungle when the average rifleman can just hide in a bush with an AT4?
>>30329475
>Light tanks became rather useless since armored car could do almost the same thing they could do.
Actually light tanks are the only "old tanks" that "survived" MBT's and APC's to some extent.
>>30329569
That's not how it works. By that definition the medium tanks of WW2 were also in fact MBTs, as were half the interwar abortions. MBT is a doctrinal concept, not a classification. This is not to mention how bizarre it is to classify a tank based on how it compares to older tanks, instead of contemporary ones.
>>30329637
So Australians have shitty 3rd world military?
>>30329735
Tanks have enormous amount of duties that exceed past "killing other tanks".
A light tank can be functional direct-support weapon, carry some troops on top of it, clear minefields(special variants), barbed wire and other obstacles(dozer blade will be enough for it), tow stuff, while being resilient against small arms and indirect artillery fire, unlike many other vehicles.
>>30329756
...yet none of these require a turret and other tank stuff like optics to do so, therefore there's no point in using a light tank when you can do the same job with a cheaper and more appropriate vehicle like a M113.
>>30329743
>as were half the interwar abortion
Majority of interwar medium tanks were multi-turreted designs that rarely had any place in doctrines. Except for few French designs fit for role of Cavalry tank(FCM35 and S-35 are the most notable examples) and German Panzer 3 and 4.
When it comes to WW2 tanks you are sort of right - WW2 medium tanks are MBTs when you look at T-34 design proposal it's basically "a medium tank with light tank's mobility and heavy tank's main armament and armour"(note - point of reference for light tank was likely BT-7 and for heavy tank - T-35), but it's a classification with purely utilitarian use so internal inconsistency doesn't really matter here.
>>30329365
fun fact
Iraq would streamroll the ISIS if they bought Leopard 2 tanks.
>>30329774
Well, APC's are another factor here, although space/weight constrains make light tanks more favourable option here.
>>30329661
thats a weird way to spell M8 thunderbolt
>>30329791
With Abrams you lose.
>>30329745
Much of the country is desert, which is where all the tanks are
>>30329791
So you want to see them abandoning them at the first sign of combat and ISIS blowing them up?
>>30329774
So sure, you can call yourself a direct support weapon with an M2 or two. But you want a big fucking gun to blow shit to hell with, and you don't want to carry that fucker, so you put it on your armoured chassis in such a way that you can aim it all around, and there's you tank.
>>30329808
Their likely area of operation are Tropical isles north to them, New Guinea etc. etc. as the only military in the region capable of competing with Australians is Indonesia. 2nd Australian-Emu war is unlikely and the deserts have no military nor economic worth so defending them is worthless.
>>30329791
did they ever saw action ? i'd go with a bunch of Challenger 2, at least i know they are good.
>>30329814
Challengers were never in high supply though, hence why Leopards are so common around the world. They've also had Leclercs which some Gulf nations tried and loved.
Leopard 2 has indeed the adventage that everything was designed around the idea that the tank can be operated with a conscription army.
So everything is quite simple. Also the logistics are simplified when the same amount of tanks only need 1/2 of the fuel.
>>30329813
That's true, but you'll never see Australian tanks there if that happens.
>>30329774
M113's do not have a cannon on the top for fire support.
>>30329745
>Australians
>Jungle Country
Think long and hard about your geography lessons in school.
>>30329827
Because their tanks are, due to their weight and logistical problems related to them(Abrams is fine but it absolutely needs more intensive logistical support than other MBTs) undeployable.
Have them picked something lighter or at least - not requiring twice the logistical support normal MBTs require - and they would be able to deploy it in case of war that could set them in danger, but nah.
>>30329842
see >>30329813
New Zealand isn't going to make alliance with Abos and Emus to invade southern australia from sea and the desert.
>>30329827
I really do not know why we purchased Abrams in the first place, was it just for PR purposes?
Seems like we'll never go for MBTs again, but rather stick with light vehicles like the CV90 and/or whatever replaces the ASLAV
>>30329365
If you're asking this question you don't know what an MBT is...
>>30329833
The Flips and Turks attach cannons on theirs.
Because theres no land wars going on, if there were they would discover the need for a cheaper, more effective, tank destroyer
>>30329848
What would be the use of it? For the sort of conflict the ADF envisions on those islands, 2RAR plus air and naval will be firepower enough
>>30329850
I like to think we keep ours around just in case the Chinese/Indonesians get uppity.
We probably will switch over to lighter platforms in the future if the budget gets tight enough
>>30329743
>MBT is a doctrinal concept, not a classification.
The only reasons they called the T-54 a medium tanks was because they wanted to keep the old idea from world war 2 where heavy tanks (IS-2) would make a hole in the enemy lines and the medium tanks (T-34) would exploit it.
They wanted a heavy tank that could do what the IS-2 did but the IS-3 was shit, too heavy, too slow and its firepower was not signficantly better then the T-54 which could do what the IS-3 could but better. There was a line formed in the soviet army where you would have the old veterans from world war 2 that dreamed of a new IS-2 and then you would have the people that wanted the T-54 to become the MBT of the soviet army and throw away the older ideas of heavy tanks and embrace the idea of manouver warfare to the max. Everyone that did use the heavy tanks hated them (slow, heavy, bad ROF, questionable firepower, bad range and unreliable) and wanted to have the T-54 instead.
Even when the T-10 came into the picture it still was not the solution that the older faction wanted (because it was shitty).
But you are right considering that the first tank in the soviet armed forces that was called main battle tank or "osnovnoy boyevoy tank" was the T-64 and that the soviets did have heavy tanks in their doctrine (considering that they formed special heavy tank division consisting of IS-3's and T-10's and these would have the task of "break through" or later in 1967 "countertank combat" which they both sucked on then yeah) it was only in the early 70's when the T-64 started to roll in in large scale that they were truly gone (they started to deactivate most of these special heavy tanks divisions in 1965).
>This is not to mention how bizarre it is to classify a tank based on how it compares to older tanks, instead of contemporary ones.
IS-3 and IS-4 are not signficantly older then the T-54. They are pretty much from the same year or time.
I think something about advances in engineering have something to do with it?
Around 1950 the following changes happened
>A majority of bridges, roads and other infrastructure in the US and abroad became capable of carrying a 50-60 ton "heavy" tank.
>Engines became powerful enough to be able to propel a 50-60 ton tank at light tank speeds, while still maintaining the range of a light tank.
>Advances in ballistics, terminal ballistics and materials technology enabled us to produce a cannon that can pierce so much armour it'd make Friedrich Krupp weep
>This was only really necessary to keep up with the equally radical developments in armour
If we had the same technology as we do now in WWII, everyone would've been rolling around in MBTs. Any other lighter or different kind of tank performs in an increasingly smaller niche, making it less cost-effective.
Accept mbts as your true overlord
>>30329860
Which then turns it into a light tank/IFV.
That was the guys point, you need something that is less heavy and logistically easier than an MBT but which still has the ability to blow things up in those environments.
>>30329862
How would a light tank be 'more effective' when they have the same or smaller gun than an MBT in the same military?
>>30329915
Because active protection systems will make guns obsolete very soon
>>30329919
And how will having light tanks or MBT's make any difference then?
If guns are useless then they sure as hell can deal with missiles using APS as well. Is warfare going to consist of Robot Wars style battles where tanks try to flip each other over or use giant angle grinders?
>>30329936
Active robo-self-righting systems will make flipping robots obsolete very soon.
>>30329936
What will happen will be the same thing as happened with Ironclads during the 1860's. THEY'LL RAM EACH OTHER ASS TO DEATH FOR THE GLORY OF GOD EMPEROR TRUMP
>>30329936
I didn't say light tank
I said tank destroyer
I'm sure you could as well find a place for heavy tanks, for new 40~ ton medium tanks, for light casemate tanks.
>>30329967
Also in b4 some butt fucker claims IFV's are light/medium tanks
>>30329745
Yes. Australians are shitty, third world individuals.
>>30329893
What are you even trying to say? Your format and tone implies you're disagreeing but everything you're saying is agreeing.
>>30329967
You replied to someone asking about light tanks which can only mean you think light tanks will be used as tank destroyers from context.
And what is the point of heavy or medium tanks when an MBT does both jobs by definition? A modern heavy tank would be a logistical nightmare and a medium tank brings nothing to the table when a heavy IFV with a 105mm gun can do the same job while sharing parts with the troop carriers.
>>30330041
>when an MBT does both jobs by definition?
A generalist will always be worse than a specialist, by definition
>>30330073
Not when a heavy tank would be pointless overkill, and IFVs are everywhere.
>>30330073
If that was true MBT's would not exist.
The post WW2 heavy tanks were slow, heavy, expensive and barely any better at combat than the MBT's that replaced them. MBT's are already expensive to transport and are limited in where they will operate so why would you want to make that even harder.
And an IFV with a gun can do everything a medium tank can do while being cheaper.
Heavy and medium tanks are pointless and nobody makes new ones for a very good reason.
Say hello to the world's first Main Battle Tonk
What if we'd build 200 tons APC with no weapons but armoured to the limits to the point where it takes only 4 people in apart of the driver?
IMO it's the game changing weapon of warfare that will crush every enemy it faces since they won't be able to hurt them while it'll transport infantry with various ATGM's to destroy the enemy quickly.
>>30330111
Well we need a new idea even more stupid than the 'guns are obsolete, tanks should use VLS missiles' guy and I think you found it.
Don't forget to build heavy gliders to transport them.
>>30330124
Well heavy gliders are a must for ideas like that.
>>30330008
A "medium tank" that can do exactly the same thing that a heavy tank can do. Would it not be considerd to be a MBT?
>>30329791
Tanks for Police war.... funny tell me another joke....
>>30330282
A tank that weights more is naturally going to have better armor than a tank that weighs less
If we were actually fighting tank battles, or thinking about fighting tank battles, we would be building heavier tanks.
MBT's came from the concept of "Make every tank a heavy tank"
Jap MBT is a light tank.
>>30330111
Make it worth it to use mini tac nukes or MOABs on armored vehicle.
>>30330392
They have two: the Type 90 is the one that looks like a Leopard 2 pre-a5, and that's because it basically is. It's not going anywhere. The Type 10 is the new light tank, which sacrifices armor for maneuverability and light weight. It was developed so they can take it through mountains, over bridges, and down roads that can't support a full-60-ton MBT.
>>30330392
The country has lots of mountains and light weight bridges. Lots of urban areas. Country is made up of islands. Not a lot of traditional tank country for maneuver warfare. It's a mission requirement for a lot of their armor to get places a full sized tank could not.
>>30330003
As an Australian enjoying my 11th trip to Japan currently, I second this notion. Australia can be a right shithole sometimes, full of wankers, Boongs, and bludgers.
>>30329365
The light tank and tank destroyer roles were overtaken by wheeled vehicles.
We french are particulary adept at light armoured cavalry both for homeland security but mostly for our expeditionnary wars in Africa, most of which involve airborne or mountain troops with no organic heavy armour of their own.
We tried sending some Leclerc's on foreign operations in Lebanon but they proved too heavy and too delicate to send overseas with our relatively (compared to the US or Russia) meager heavy airlift assets.Sure the Mistral-class LHD can theoricaly carry Leclerc's but Operation Serval in Mali showed that leaving the Leclerc's home allowed the Mistral to carry something like 150 IFVs, APCs and 4x4s, all of which proved satisfactory in the field. We sold or decomissioned all of our LPDs between 2007 and 2015, won't build any in the future, and Leclercs are now for homeland defense only.
Long story short, MBTs are inconvenient for foreign ops if you don't have US-scale power projection. That's why light armor is still a thing, even if it tends to shed the tracks for wheeled designs. Personaly, I think that wheels will eventually end up replacing tracks altogether, even on MBTs.
>>30330504
Reasoned, descriptive, fair discussion. WTF?
>>30330504
>Personaly, I think that wheels will eventually end up replacing tracks altogether, even on MBTs.
Ever heard of ground pressure?
If you want any armor, you'll need tracks.
You can't just change physics.
>>30330525
Lighter and stronger materials, innovative suspension designs, that you can change. Then, it's a classic feature of French defense industry to focus on speed and lightness, even if that means light armor and huge guns on tiny frames. We don't think in terms of huge armored hulks.
>>30330547
Lighter and stronger materials just means you can have more armor.
Modern MBTs are adequately fast anyway.
If you want to play around in the sandbox with light vehicles, go for it, but if you ever want to fight any conventional warfare, you're going to need armor. (Which is why the Leclerc exists)
>>30330504
>>30330525
>>30330547
my god! a reasonable response and counter response set on 4chan
Later today in the news Hell freezes over!
BTW I think the wheeled AFV has real future with some of the new materials tech and the way we seem to be trending globally to police type wars.
>>30330377
MBT's are built to be able to win tank battles.
And no, MBT's evolved out of the medium tank.
>>30330579
>Lighter and stronger materials just means you can have more armor.
Except we don't have America's defense budget.
Say a super hard alloy from outer space is discovered. We can't afford to slap 500 tons of ayy lmao alloy on every MBT, maybe a few dozens. And they will only be used in the event of a conventional attack on France, which is unlikely in this day and age (or at least you would see it coming a decade or two in advance). So we'd rather make 100 IFVs with 5 tons of alium alloy each that we can use for home defense, foreign ops and peace keeping than a dozen of über-tanks that can be destroyed by a multiple-times sexually abused Iraki teen with a CIA-supplied Javelin.
>>30330671
If that situation ever happened, sure.
But in reality, armor is the cheapest part of a tank.
>>30329569
To be fair, the entire reason for heavy tanks existence at that time was due to absurd politicking from certain design bureaus and who they were connected to in the politburo. Western MIC can't hold a candle to Soviet MIC corruption
Technological improvement enabled designers to converge on the optimal solution.
The concept of light, medium, heavy tanks etc is the result of primitive technology that can't do multiple things well, combined with primitive design that isn't yet conditioned by experience.
>>30329967
>light casemate tanks
Casemate is inferior to a vehicle with a turret.
They were a stopgap, the Germans would rather have had more tanks mounting the same guns.
>>30330109
It was arguably the forebear of the MBT, but it wasn't actually one.
>>30330822
The T-34 was earlier.
>>30329365
China's developing a 30 ton light tank to replace the old Type 62s though.
>>30329774
>>30329812
No, you're running in circles here.
My point is that for logistical support it makes more sense to use a cheap vehicle like a M113 instead of a light tank, and that's if you can't use helicopters because that's preferable in a jungle.
If you want a fire support vehicle in the jungle get an attack helicopter or if you want t narrow it down to land borne, M113s with grenade launchers and machine guns. Again, I really see no point in using tracks in the jungle. It's much more easy to work around with infantry. I'm a Brazilian and I never heard of any military exercises in the Amazon involving tanks, APCs, etc. Most jungle operations are carried out by helicopter borne SF, and I know for fact that Colombia's military is basically a shit ton of UH60s and hardened infantry since their country is basically all Forrest, specially borders.
>>30330504
obviously when you are steam rolling africans you don't need a mbt. hell anything more armoured than a technical would do the trick. good luck fighting a real war like that tho.
>>30330073
Tank classifications aren't as useful in defining a vehicle's combat capabilities as those pertaining to combat aircraft--a situation in which a specialist is indeed better.
Tanks were more or less classified by what they lacked--light tanks didn't have good armor, heavy tanks were slow. Medium tanks were a compromise between the two.
However, this classification became rather useless once relatively heavy tanks (60-70 tons) could move as quickly as light tanks due to advances in engine technology. Combine this with the fact that, because KEPs are the primary anti-tank round, the correlation between gun caliber and effectiveness is less applicable, there is no longer a need to create tanks of various sizes because the MBT makes few compromises.
>>30330910
Yes but to what degree does the MBT matter in modern combat? This is the age that a two man unit can operate a device that destroys armored vehicles from several kilometers away. Is it worth spending millions more on armor and technology when in the end both an AMX 10 and a Leclerc can both tear down a wall with one shot and both be destroyed by a Mi24? I might be wrong but maybe today, more than ever, Soviet style wave tactics might work.
>>30330962
>Air superiority argument
Every time I see this I cringe, it's like whoever posts this argument conviently forgets that most insurgents, if not armies are armed like farmer's moms in englands when it comes to manpads.
>>30330353
Say that to Israel.
>>30331020
Yes, because they're more likely to have Stingers than RPGs, and helicopters, like tanks, don't have counter measures.
>>30330962
>Soviet style wave tactics
>but wot abowt air superiority???
oh dear me.
>>30331314
>No counter measures in tanks and chopers
... are being ironic or not ?
>>30329661
Sabras based on an M60 is it not? Hardly a light tank.
>>30330504
>and Leclercs are now for homeland defense only.
They're still supposed to be deployable, and there are persitent rumors about sending some of them in Mali.
>>30332027
What? Of course I'm not being ironic.
You must be some sort of rare kind of stupid to think I'd be ironic.
>>30330822
Actually, the Tiger I was the first true MBT, but it wasn't realized initially because of its weight relative to the shitty ass tankettes of the time.
>>30333043
MBT is generally defined as a tank with the firepower and armor of a heavy tank with the mobility and speed of a medium tank.
If took a King Tiger and gave it a 1000-1200hp engine; and a redesigned suspension that can handle high speeds; so that it could reach 50-60km/h, it could be considered an MBT.
>>30333043
Nah that's wrong. The first REAL MBT was Maus, but we haven't realised it yet.
Why are there people claiming that the Tiger 1 is a MBT again and again?
>>30333176
The Tiger is actually about as fast as the M4 Sherman.
It wasn't slow or unmaneuverable at all.
>>30333043
No, the Panzerkampfwagen VI was a Heavy Tank.
Doctrine comes into the definition by the way.
>>30333234
I don't think they understand the above, doctrine comes into it too.
You could have a tank with the same qualities as the centurion, but if the doctrine for it is just as a heavy breakthrough tank, then its a heavy tank.
>>30330847
It was a medium tank.
>>30330962
>This is the age that a two man unit can operate a device that destroys armored vehicles from several kilometers away
That's awfully scaring, thank you for opening my eyes, I hadn't thought of that.
Actually come to think of it, did you know that these days every soldier has a device with the potential to kill in the region of 30 (yes, you heard me right, THIRTY) combatants?
I don't see the point on training troops or buying body armor or even helmets if just one bullet can kill them, might as well just give them all fatigues, a rifle and start mass conscription.
>>30333176
That is a meaningless definition that ignores how the advance of technology actually works and you know it.
>>30333176
Except we're talking about the Tiger I, which had tactical mobility comparable to the Panzer IV and much better all-around armor and firepower.
>>30333350
>No, the Panzerkampfwagen VI was a Heavy Tank.
So it was called in 1941-1942. But so was the Panzer IV in the early 40s.
Doesn't change the fact that the Tiger I meets the definition of an MBT and is therefore the first mass-produced MBT.
>>30333586
I'm sure that is true. In your head that is.
>>30333586
>But so was the Panzer IV in the early 40s.
>heavy tank
Got some proof lad?
Question /k/.
People say that the T-34 and the Sherman tanks were strategically better and more cost effective tank designs than some of the German heavy tanks like the Tiger I and II or the Panther, because more could be produced for less amount of material. Losses could be made up far better than the German tanks, something like there were more Sherman Tanks built than Germans and British built during the entire war.
Could the same tactic be applied today? Instead of building a big heavy MBT like an Abrams, why not make far more smaller, faster tanks that can be produced much more quickly and in greater numbers?
>>30333673
Germans were lacking in men and fuel, they actually had a good amount of tanks.
>Could the same tactic be applied today?
No, wars aren't about mass production and attrition anymore.
More tanks have a larger logistics footprint.
MBTs are already fast enough.
Smaller tanks wouldn't be able to effectively fight MBTs.
>>30333673
You mean the T-55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90?
Russia has been doing that since the T-34. Today they've broken with that with the T-14 to have a more survivable tank; but it still has an emphasis on mobility and small profile.
>>30333673
>Germans were lacking in men and fuel, they actually had a good amount of tanks.
This is completely wrong.
The Germans were always critically short of armor, and if you were a German infantryman, there's a chance you could see your entire service from 1939-1945 without ever being supported by German armor.
>>30333673
>Could the same tactic be applied today? Instead of building a big heavy MBT like an Abrams, why not make far more smaller, faster tanks that can be produced much more quickly and in greater numbers?
That's exactly what a T72 is.
As it is, an M1 is not a difficult tank to build. We've already built around 10,000 of them, and put most of them into storage.
>>30333787
Soviet Tanks produced per Million Citizens: 654
German Tanks produced per Million Citizens: 625
Take a look at the facts.
>>30333893
That's a bizarre statistic... Where did you lift that from?
>>30333440
But that's how the USSR won WW2.
>>30333928
Calculated from AFVs produced and population.
Made it per million so the figures look nice and even.
>>30333893
a) [citation needed]
b) Doesn't mean that the Germans had more tanks, they didn't
>>30333809
10,000 isin't very much; the soviets built 85,000 T-55's, 22,000 T-62's and 25,000 T-72's
>>30333971
>Doesn't mean that the Germans had more tanks, they didn't
Where did I say that?
Just pointing out that the Germans actually had a good amount of armor.
>>30333986
So what's your point?
The M1 is a better tank that the ones you listed. We also put most of the ones we did build into storage because we did not need them.
>>30334055
Point is the M1 isin't an easy tank to build because you built 10,000 of them; it's just that america has the industrial might to make lots of them.
>>30334191
Uh, this isn't WW2 anymore. The M1 is built by 1 company.
>>30334191
>Point is the M1 isin't an easy tank to build because you built 10,000 of them
nobody actually said this
ok, let me try to help you out here because you appear to be retarded. I'm pretty sure the point you're trying to make is this:
>it is easier to build a T72 than an M1
but the anon you're replying to already said exactly that here >>30333809
so what you two are doing right now is having an argument about something you already explicitly agree about. stop that.
>>30333586
>Tiger I meets the definition of an MBT
Follow the words, NO. IT. DOESN'T.
An MBT isn't just defined by its technical specs, fuckstick, the doctrine its used under comes into it too, and the Tiger was used as a Heavy Tank. The Centurion, whilst meeting the technical specs to being an MBT, was also treated as an MBT within its doctrine.
>>30333993
>actually had a good amount of armor
They didn't, why do you think they had such a hard-on for casemate type vehicles.
Still waiting on the citation for those numbers you pulled (out of your ass).
>>30330910
Frog here, I'm back from work, it's 11:PM here
When did I say that the French army only uses light armor/despises MBTs? All I said was that we cannot afford to send MBTs overseas because of smaller budget and logistics than big guys like the US or Russia, and thus we had to make with light armor.
MBTs are still an integral part of the french army but for homeland defense in a conventional war or against (God forbids) an internal (mudslime or gommie, I've heard both scenarios being discussed, remember that May 68 got an inch from DeGaulle going full Assad on the pinkos) guerilla threat.
Given that France is the strongest military power in Europe and that we have strong faithful allies and neighbours like the UK and Germany, we don't see ourselves going into a conventional war to defend the Fatherland anytime soon, but we have the means to fight it if the need arises.
And we're not dumb enough to get into an overseas conventional war with anything other than African/arab states, against which we would mainly use air strikes, SOF, helos and maybe some naval and carrier assets if the geography permits it. France has no interest in going up against Russia, China or Iran, particularly on land. The navy is at the moment our main tool for power projection and probably our strongest armed force: so if we had to fight any serious conventional war against such develloped countries, the navy (and maybe the air force) would be doing 70% of the job
The Chinese are developing a new light/medium tank that is ~35 tons
Mainly because they need an armored vehicle than can operate in the mountains and rice paddies that have poor roads and shit infrastructure
Has a 105mm gun and the same optics as the ZTZ-99A2/G
>>30334800
For know, it is known as the ZTQ
>>30329849
We can barely go a month between Navy scandals. There's something about being on a ship that makes you a piece of shit.
>>30330111
The silly part is that the Army was attempting to make something awfully similar to this a couple years ago.
>>30330619
That depends on the tank in question;
American MBTs evolved from the Perishing/M103 heavy tank lines, and its especially apparent when you compare how they were used doctrinally; throughout their existance and prior to the Abrams completely eclipsing all other tank designs, American MBTs would often find themselves supporting lighter tanks such as the Sherman/Sheridan/Walker Bulldog/ect., and it really wasn't until the 21rst century that they became entierly divorced of their legacy role as heavy support.
>>30329661
I personally kinda like the Type 62 G just for making the combination of a shrunk-down T-55 chassis mounting a welded turret work.
>>30330109
Yeah, it's a perfect mix of medium and heavy tank- Mobility of a heavy, firepower and armor of a medium.
>>30334800
Inb4 someone claims it is a MBT because it has the mobility of a medium with the firepower and armor of a heavy.
>>30331314
>implying tanks don't have countermeasures
And you just went full retard.
>>30333272
>>30333575
Yeah, in theory. In practice trying to drive it like a Sherman or Panzer IV would just cause it to break something in short order and reduce it to the mobility of a bunker.
>>30329607
Those look like something 90's Nod forces would use
>>30335645
By the Army you mean Congress meddling.
>>30335848
Thanks /k/unt. Now I got Frank Klepacki tunes stuck in my head...
>Der der der der derrrr, der der der derrr derrrrrr.
>>30329850
Several reasons.
1: The germans were playing hardball. We wanted Leo 2's (because all our existing tools suited Leopard 1's) but the Germans decided that they didn't want to sell them to us.
2: Because of interchangeability with US tanks. If/When the Yanks get in a shit fight again they'll send their tanks. We can contribute by sending our crews to crew US tanks rather than trying to send both tank and crew to wherever the US is having it's latest bunfight.
3: Logistical Train. If Australia ever gets into a serious fight where it's using it's own tanks (hopefully) the US shouldn't be to far away which means their parts can be used on our tanks if needs be. And their engineers/RAEME's can repair our tanks etc.Their ammo can be used in our guns etc..
>>30336119
Mission Critical systems are not interchangeable between the M1A1, A2 and A3.
You still have, ostensibly, three separate supply and logistics trains for parts.
That said, the systems are fairly similar, so it'd be easier for an M1A2 mechanic to work on an A1 Abrams, than it would be for them to work on a Leo 2.
>>30329661
How is the stingray? They use to make them near my house.
>>30329428
Fpbp
Let's be honest here anons.
The light tank became the Bradley
The medium tank is an Abrams
The heavy tank lost armor and became the paladin + whatever that ammo carrier is called.
>>30336522
From what I've gathered, it's a decent and cheap light tank. Armor isn't really good for deflecting anything bigger than HMGs (and autocannons to the front with some applique), but it's got nice mobility, a 105mm with a decent FCS and it's built mostly from off-the-shelf parts, making it cheap both in terms of procurement and maintenance.
>>30336714
APCs became IFVs.
Light tanks are a different kettle of fish, more commonly used nowadays to get a full-size cannon into places you can't practically get a MBT, with a side order of doing armored recon - the yanks are about the only people who for some reason think stuffing an IFV full of extra ammo is going to make it good for that.
And the Paladin is a freakin' self-propelled artillery gun. Those have been a completely seperate thing ight from the outset.
>>30334957
Its a mix of unit humor (bullshit pranks), social isolation that makes people tolerant of said bullshit (simmons jacked off in the bathroom AGAIN!? What a scamp!) And lastly boredom.
>>30336758
It came as a result of TOW performance and omnipresent support. A bradley with tows can kill tanks and infantry and light armor. Anything more is support territory
>>30336758
A rocket propelled shell is a neat concept.
>>30333750
>Today they've broken with that with the T-14 to have a more survivable tank
They haven't broken anything. Stripped of extra armor it can utilize the same transport infrastructure as its predecessors.
>>30337149
TOW has it's own drawbacks and shortfalls that preclude it from a lot of the traditional fire support jobs you want light tanks for. Cost, extremely low rate of fire, insufficient effect vs entrenched positions and structures, limited ammo, considerably longer flight times making shoot&scoot more risky etc.
Armored recon and direct fire support in bad terrain is what light armor is for nowadays. Army sorta realised it now with the MGS and potentially the M8 Thunderbolt.
>>30335787
kek
>>30338568
TOW Bunkerbuster has a unitary warhead, it really comes down to cost.
>>30337513
>Stripped of extra armor it can utilize the same transport infrastructure as its predecessors.
That is assuming the existing infrastructure is capable of handling a vehicle that is heavier and larger.
>>30339081
>That is assuming the existing infrastructure is capable of handling a vehicle that is heavier and larger.
It can fit and its weight supported by current flatbeds, yes.
>>30339178
There is more to transport infrastructure than flatbed trucks.
>>30336280
>A3
Wat?
>>30339970
Intended future package of the M1.
I'm in doubt that Australia will even be given the option to purchase it.
>>30329428
</thread>
>>30330109
>turreted tank destroyer
ftfy
>>30339478
That includes flatbeds on rails as well(don't know the specific term) which are the most used way of transporting armor. Like the ones where we first saw the T-14s on.
Stripped of extra armor it can fit on Il-76s, and yes within weight limits.
>>30333986
M1s shit all over T-72s, much less older designs. Why match numbers when you have a giant advantage in quality?
>>30334800
>rice paddies
>narrow tracks
totally superpower guys.
>>30340297
Autistic shitposting/10!
Kill yourself for having no knowledge of historical context!
Not to mention the M1 had a limp-dick 105mm (LOL) being outgunned by the t72 by a long shot with it's superior 125mm gun!
>>30335703
>21rst century that they became entierly divorced of their legacy role as heavy support.
>21st century
learn your centuries first fuckface then talk about armored doctrine and classification
>>30340380
>Kill yourself for having no knowledge of historical context!
The irony being that limp dick 105mm could kill a T-72.
>>30340208
T-14's are too heavy for Il-76MD.
>>30340475
>The irony being that limp dick 105mm could kill a T-72.
Only export models, and even then only at the glacis, which was remedied by 16 mm of high hardness steel.
>>30340380
That 105 was popping slavshit turrets while mounted on the M60, and how many M1s carry 105s today?
>>30340543
>Only export models
Which had the same level of armor as the common model used by the USSR at the time.
>which was remedied by 16 mm of high hardness steel.
The M111 round from Israel had less penetration than the M735 and M833 rounds the US was using in the early 80's.
>>30340771
>Which had the same level of armor as the common model used by the USSR at the time.
Export models just had common sand in their armor cavities, so no.
>>30329365
this is a faust it is for panzers.
end of
>>30340855
You should do a little more research.
>>30336714
>the heavy tank is an artillery piece
what the actual fuck is wrong with you
>>30329365
Too expensive and hard on logistics. Plus, all MBTs now are effectively heavy tanks. No point in making a medium tank when you could make an IFV or APC instead.
>>30333673
Because America is all about K/D ratios now.
>>30333750
>small profile
>T-14
You must be joking.
>>30340855
>he thinks that 'Sandbar' armor involves actual sand
How can you be this willfully ignorant?
>>30329365
>Hey, general, we have different types of tanks.
>We've got the fast, light tank, goes fast but no armor or good gun
>We've got the medium, jack of all trades, master of none. Okay gun, okay armor, okay speed
>We've got the heavy tank, slow, but good armor and gun
>And we've got this MBT here which is fast, got armor and a good gun
>Build the 3 types
>General you're a genius!
>>30332246
Only put Sabra in the category of light tank due to it using the 105mm, and it's slightly smaller than your conventional modern day MBT.
>>30342459
The MBT hasn't replaced the Light Tank. There are still Lights still in operation around the world.
The MBT is a natural progression or evolution of both the Medium and Heavy concept- the idea being that near the end of the 1950s, the most "advanced" heavy tanks were actually growing slightly lighter for various reasons, but more importantly, growing more reliable and quicker, at the same time, mediums were growing larger and more well protected/better armed until both classes would be practically indistinguishable from eachother.
>>30342515
The light tank is still pretty obsolete now, and is either in use in few countries (Type 62, Scorpion) or is now in the form of modified chassis or IFVs (BMP-3, Stryker, M8 AGS)
>>30342484
It's uses a 120mm MG253. The same gun the Merk 4 uses.
>>30333673
>why not make far more smaller, faster tanks that can be produced much more quickly and in greater numbers?
Because Americans are all about keeping their soldiers safe in combat, not mass producing combat units and overwhelming the enemy.
Now what you MIGHT see is faster, smaller tanks running off remote operation.
>>30343408
The M8 was never put into production, nor is going to be for the MPF.
