3 ms·

This was the thinking behind the Leopard 1. It had really thin armor compared to peers because it didn't think it mattered. Later upgrades added spaced armor et

by greedo 4y ago

This was the thinking behind the Leopard 1. It had really thin armor compared to peers because it didn't think it mattered. Later upgrades added spaced armor etc to help with ATGMs, and the Leo 2 had Chobbham so it was kind of a rejection of that theory. Missiles on tanks have been a thing for decades and really don't add much value. Main gun rounds are much cheaper, and you'll always need something that can blow up fortifications. And crew size can't really get much lower than 3 (four is really optimal) because of pulling guard duty, maintenance etc. Replacing a tread with two guys leaves no one to pull security watch.

nradov 4y ago
The design philosophy behind the Leopard 1 wasn't necessarily wrong, just too early. Air-to-air missiles on aircraft were a thing for decades but didn't really add much value at first. Until around 1990 when the technology improved enough that they started working really well. Modern top-attack ATGMs have become so lethal that no amount of armor is going to be effective. So if tanks are going to continue having a role in high-intensity conflicts then they need to avoid getting hit. That means hanging back and using off-board sensors and stand-off weapons instead of direct fire cannons. This will be tremendously expensive, but still cheaper than the alternative. Again mimicking the evolution of surface warships. Future armored units are going to contain a mix of manned and unmanned combat vehicles. So they're going to have to figure out a way to do maintenance on vehicles with zero crew. Probably by having extra maintainers follow behind in transport and engineering vehicles. Sure this will slow down some work, but what's the alternative?
- greedo 4y ago
  Zero crew maintenance will never be effective. You'll just be doing what the Soviets are doing in Ukraine; abandoning $25M tanks when they throw a track. Or you'll be dooming maintenance crews to a quick death. And you can't wave away the flaws of the Leo 1 as being too early for its time. The trend has been 180º in the opposite direction. Focusing on top attack weapons is missing the forest for the trees. There are numerous weapons that can destroy a tank: - Mines - Artillery, both unguided and guided - ATGMs, whether top attack or side. All can penetrate most armor if they hit. - SMAW/RPG etc - Air launched unguided rockets - Anti-tank grenades dropped by COTS drones - Ad infinitum Yet no military (including Ukraine) is saying they don't want tanks, only armchair generals who see another RMA in the mist. There's a saying "Ships are safe in a harbor, but that's not what ships are for." Trying to make sure a tank is invulnerable ends up being a fool's errand. Use them appropriately, and they'll be fine.

by greedo 4y ago

nradov 4y ago

The design philosophy behind the Leopard 1 wasn't necessarily wrong, just too early. Air-to-air missiles on aircraft were a thing for decades but didn't really add much value at first. Until around 1990 when the technology improved enough that they started working really well. Modern top-attack ATGMs have become so lethal that no amount of armor is going to be effective. So if tanks are going to continue having a role in high-intensity conflicts then they need to avoid getting hit. That means hanging back and using off-board sensors and stand-off weapons instead of direct fire cannons. This will be tremendously expensive, but still cheaper than the alternative. Again mimicking the evolution of surface warships. Future armored units are going to contain a mix of manned and unmanned combat vehicles. So they're going to have to figure out a way to do maintenance on vehicles with zero crew. Probably by having extra maintainers follow behind in transport and engineering vehicles. Sure this will slow down some work, but what's the alternative?

greedo 4y ago
Zero crew maintenance will never be effective. You'll just be doing what the Soviets are doing in Ukraine; abandoning $25M tanks when they throw a track. Or you'll be dooming maintenance crews to a quick death. And you can't wave away the flaws of the Leo 1 as being too early for its time. The trend has been 180º in the opposite direction. Focusing on top attack weapons is missing the forest for the trees. There are numerous weapons that can destroy a tank: - Mines - Artillery, both unguided and guided - ATGMs, whether top attack or side. All can penetrate most armor if they hit. - SMAW/RPG etc - Air launched unguided rockets - Anti-tank grenades dropped by COTS drones - Ad infinitum Yet no military (including Ukraine) is saying they don't want tanks, only armchair generals who see another RMA in the mist. There's a saying "Ships are safe in a harbor, but that's not what ships are for." Trying to make sure a tank is invulnerable ends up being a fool's errand. Use them appropriately, and they'll be fine.