The Ultimate Tank?

[Ed Anger]

For those concerned about me buying a mac, I've come across some interesting sites on installing OS X on a netbook.

That way, Apple only gets a hundred bucks or so. I do thank everybody for their concern.

[The Brain]

Just because you don't care about the various details of tankmakery (for shame!) doesn't mean no one does.

This is true, but that's not the question you're asking.  You're asking why guns, which are rather small, simple machines, end up with well-known designers, while tanks, which are large, complex machines, do not.  Because no one detail of tank design is as sexy as a complete system, it is hardly surprising that no single tank-designer is as well known as Kalashnikov.  No tank designer ever had as much impact on a weapon as Kalashnikov did.  Moreover, some occasionally revolutionary aspects of tanks are designed by someone different from the people who designed the tank itself, especially weapons, electronics and engines.

You can weep about how you feel that individual designers of armour are unrecognized, but surely you can't be surprised that it is the case.

I asked who designed the tanks and I lamented the fact that tank designers are unknown. I didn't ask why that was the case. L2R

And I corrected your ignorance.  When you asked 'Who designed tanks?', you were asking something stupid.  L2T

Ah yes, the virgin birth of tanks. Gotcha. I feel much better now.

[Razgovory]

The M1A1 came in to service in in 1985.   The T-72 that were used were knocks off of the T-72A which was produced in 1979.  So it's not exactly 20 years of difference.

The T-72 was an attempt to make a cheaper version of the T-64 from 1967, they succeded in not only making a cheaper version, but also a more crappy version. The only thing on the Iraqi T-72's that wasnt 60's erea tech was the laser range finder some of them had installed...

This is incorrect.

[Martim Silva]

The T-72 was an attempt to make a cheaper version of the T-64 from 1967, they succeded in not only making a cheaper version, but also a more crappy version. The only thing on the Iraqi T-72's that wasnt 60's erea tech was the laser range finder some of them had installed...

The T-72 was mostly a cheaper version of the very sophisticated (and expensive) T-64. It was accepted in 1973 and entered in service in 1975, but it was seen as a very good tank for the export market. It was not intended to be the main tank of the Soviet formations - the true enemy of 1970s NATO would have been the T-64, which was kept secret and never exported.

Note that Soviet tank design was split into two main branches - the cheap, lesser and export-oriented series, represented mainly by the T-72 and later by the T-90 (which improved the T-72 design in the area of fire control, night vision and a more advanced armor package), and the sophisticated, not-for-export tanks, the T-64 and the T-80 (the T-80A is basically the T-64B without problems).

That said, note that by doctrine a Soviet tank is not meant to engage a Western tank on a one-to-one basis. To do that would be a tactical failure by the Soviet commander. They were meant to outnumber their Western counterparts by (at least ) 5 to 1, preferrably more.

Which means that to recreate actual battle conditions, both the M1A2 and the L2A6 need to engage solo at least five T-80U.

As for the ultimate tank, it varies with the times, the FT-17 being top spot in WWI and the Panther the best pick in WW2, but the Soviet T-54/55 model has had an amazing run so far.

It was quite modern when it came out, it was an huge sucess in the export market, was built in numbers like no other [indeed it was the core of the chinese tank force as the locally-produced version of the Type 59] and is still in use today (not only in Africa, but note that the iranian T-72Z is actually a T-54/55 or a Type 59 with its 100mm gun replaced by a 105mm one).

In fact, several countries have tried to upgrade it to become more modern- anyone remembers the Jaguar, made by China State Factories and Textron Marine & Land Systems of the US? It was a Type 59 built to modern standards. Even Israel used the T-54/55 for a while.

[garbon]

Ah yes, the virgin birth of tanks. Gotcha. I feel much better now.

Actually I think they spontaneously appear. Virgin birth assumes a mother.

[grumbler]

That said, note that by doctrine a Soviet tank is not meant to engage a Western tank on a one-to-one basis. To do that would be a tactical failure by the Soviet commander. They were meant to outnumber their Western counterparts by (at least ) 5 to 1, preferrably more.

Which means that to recreate actual battle conditions, both the M1A2 and the L2A6 need to engage solo at least five T-80U.

No, because doctrinally the M1A2 and L2A6 were not intended fo solo operations.

In what postwar battle did the Soviets actually get 5-1 tanks odds against any of the Western Powers?  Claiming that something is doctrine doesn't make it reality.  There were many WW2 battles (Kursk, for instance), in which the Soviets failed to achieve 5-1 numbers in tanks (nor, indeed, even 2-1).  In fact, a quick look through my books shows them achieving this only in the initial stages of Operation Bagartion (which was, however, decisive).

[Razgovory]

The T-72 was an attempt to make a cheaper version of the T-64 from 1967, they succeded in not only making a cheaper version, but also a more crappy version. The only thing on the Iraqi T-72's that wasnt 60's erea tech was the laser range finder some of them had installed...

The T-72 was mostly a cheaper version of the very sophisticated (and expensive) T-64. It was accepted in 1973 and entered in service in 1975, but it was seen as a very good tank for the export market. It was not intended to be the main tank of the Soviet formations - the true enemy of 1970s NATO would have been the T-64, which was kept secret and never exported.

Note that Soviet tank design was split into two main branches - the cheap, lesser and export-oriented series, represented mainly by the T-72 and later by the T-90 (which improved the T-72 design in the area of fire control, night vision and a more advanced armor package), and the sophisticated, not-for-export tanks, the T-64 and the T-80 (the T-80A is basically the T-64B without problems).

That said, note that by doctrine a Soviet tank is not meant to engage a Western tank on a one-to-one basis. To do that would be a tactical failure by the Soviet commander. They were meant to outnumber their Western counterparts by (at least ) 5 to 1, preferrably more.

Which means that to recreate actual battle conditions, both the M1A2 and the L2A6 need to engage solo at least five T-80U.

As for the ultimate tank, it varies with the times, the FT-17 being top spot in WWI and the Panther the best pick in WW2, but the Soviet T-54/55 model has had an amazing run so far.

It was quite modern when it came out, it was an huge sucess in the export market, was built in numbers like no other [indeed it was the core of the chinese tank force as the locally-produced version of the Type 59] and is still in use today (not only in Africa, but note that the iranian T-72Z is actually a T-54/55 or a Type 59 with its 100mm gun replaced by a 105mm one).

In fact, several countries have tried to upgrade it to become more modern- anyone remembers the Jaguar, made by China State Factories and Textron Marine & Land Systems of the US? It was a Type 59 built to modern standards. Even Israel used the T-54/55 for a while.

The T-72 was an upgrade of the T-62 not the T-64.  The T-62 was a upgraded version of the T-55/54 hurried in to production to be able to counter the new M60A1.  The T-64  was a different tank entirely and is the ancestor of the T-80(T-80U is a post cold war configuration).  Why exactly the Soviets had multiple MBTs in production at the same time is not entirely known.  It's claimed that some are "quality" and some are "quantity" models.  Personally I think the real reasons lie with the bureaucratic politics of  the Soviet Union.  In practice the combat differences between tanks like the T-72 and T-80 were fairly small though the Soviets had hoped otherwise.  I should be noted that when the Soviet Union broke up 80% of the tank inventory was T-54/55s/62s.

[Razgovory]

That said, note that by doctrine a Soviet tank is not meant to engage a Western tank on a one-to-one basis. To do that would be a tactical failure by the Soviet commander. They were meant to outnumber their Western counterparts by (at least ) 5 to 1, preferrably more.

Which means that to recreate actual battle conditions, both the M1A2 and the L2A6 need to engage solo at least five T-80U.

No, because doctrinally the M1A2 and L2A6 were not intended fo solo operations.

In what postwar battle did the Soviets actually get 5-1 tanks odds against any of the Western Powers?  Claiming that something is doctrine doesn't make it reality.  There were many WW2 battles (Kursk, for instance), in which the Soviets failed to achieve 5-1 numbers in tanks (nor, indeed, even 2-1).  In fact, a quick look through my books shows them achieving this only in the initial stages of Operation Bagartion (which was, however, decisive).

I don't know any postwar battles where the Soviets got any odds on an Western power.

[grumbler]

The T-72 was mostly a cheaper version of the very sophisticated (and expensive) T-64. It was accepted in 1973 and entered in service in 1975, but it was seen as a very good tank for the export market. It was not intended to be the main tank of the Soviet formations - the true enemy of 1970s NATO would have been the T-64, which was kept secret and never exported.

The T-64 was a failure, and was not exported because the USSR could not even produce enough of them for its own use.  It was "a tank to far" as far as the ability of the Soviets to build and maintain it were concerned.  Technically excellent, it was a nightmare to keep going. 

As you note, the T-80 was intended to solve many of the T-64's problems, and mostly did so.  It even achieved some export sucess.  However, the Russians have decided it was not a very satisfatory tank and have opted for the T-90, built on the success of the "inferior" T-72.

[grumbler]

I don't know any postwar battles where the Soviets got any odds on an Western power.

So I guess the doctrine hasn't proved itself, and is therefore a poor method by which to evaluate the fighting capabilities of any given tank. 

[Razgovory]

My favorite tank was the Ontos.  It gets no love though.  I don't think it's properly classified as a tank.

[grumbler]

My favorite tank was the Ontos.  It gets no love though.  I don't think it's properly classified as a tank.

Agree.  I have seen one at Quantico, and it is no tank, though quite a cool fire support vehicle.

[Neil]

My favorite tank was the Ontos.  It gets no love though.  I don't think it's properly classified as a tank.

I always prefered the Schreck.  The Ontos was just too underarmoured, although the firepower was nice.  The missile versions were alright for support, I suppose.

[PDH]

Not the best place, but a question for the hardware buffs out there:

I know of some of the tank designs after the M4, was there ever any really serious work on a medium tank replacement during the war (or was it, as I suspect, more a case of the Sherman's problems becoming evident late enough - 1943 - along with the problem of the tank/tank destroyer doctrine that led to the M4 not being upgraded or replaced)?

[grumbler]

Not the best place, but a question for the hardware buffs out there:

I know of some of the tank designs after the M4, was there ever any really serious work on a medium tank replacement during the war (or was it, as I suspect, more a case of the Sherman's problems becoming evident late enough - 1943 - along with the problem of the tank/tank destroyer doctrine that led to the M4 not being upgraded or replaced)?

There was a joint US-UK medium tank project in 1943-44, which was designed to create the "ultimate Sherman," but was cancelled in 1944 because the Pershing was already in production.

It was difficult for the Allies to contemplate stopping the massive Sherman production line in favor of a follow-on project, because the Sherman was so good at everything but tank-to-tank combat (and, even then, the Easy 8 was as good as anything the Germans had bar their few Panthers and Tigers).

The fact that the Sherman was undergunned for its entire career can be laid to the fact that the best gun designs were restricted to the Tank Destroyer force, which was independent of the Tank force.  Gun production could only be available to the tank force once the tank destroyer force requirements had been met.