If even MBTs can be easily taken out by FPV drones, what's even the point of a tank that has even less armor?
>>65270212It's actually the other way around. Heavy armor, especially the way it is distributed on an MBT, is mostly useless nowadays. Tank on tank gun duels have stopped being a thing circa 3 years ago. Those IFV vs tank clashes of the past couple of years have shown that a heavily armored front, but tin-can sides (basically, all-or-nothing style), is a bad armor scheme. What you want is a vehicle that can reliably and repeatedly stop 57 mm APFSDS on all sides, can stop heavy artillery shrapnel all around, and can stop light HEAT/EFP (ex. DPICM) from above (except for the hatches, but that's a given).
>>65270212If your tank is lighter then It means that It has more "head room" for mounting cages, APS and other shit on top of It while not affecting much on mobility
Light tanks can go places MBTs cant, hence why they're popular with Asian countries, particularly the mangrove swamp countries. That M1 that vanished into a bog in Europe last year being an object lesson in why.
>>65270227You're such a retarded tourist it's unreal.
>>65270247Have you seen what's to the Israeli Merkavas in Lebanon against Hezbollah's FPV drones? The IDF is the first country in the world to mass field APS onto their tanks, and in the current conflict they enjoy full air superiority yet still they're getting hit. The US or any other NATO militaries don't have anything that IDF doesn't have.
>>65270212Force multiplication is key. If making the vehicles lighter = having more of them and more support for them then it's a good thing. But light materials are hard to make.
>>65270229>cages, APS and other shit on top of It while not affecting much on mobility Minimum fit should be extra sensors (incl. sound/gunfire, extra cameras etc.), a robotic miniturret like the ACS Bullfrog (against drones), and full coverage APS (against RPG/ATGMs).
>>65270255>>Have you seen what's to the Israeli Merkavas in Lebanon against Hezbollah's FPV drones?Most of what I've seen has the last frame being the APS turning to face the threat, and no aftermath video.
>>65270262>>65270229Why not redesign the entire vehicle from the ground up instead of making a "tank" and then put shit on top of It in order to face the current drone threat?
>>65270267Because you can't *not* put shit on top of it, that's the best location for range/coverage.
>>65270212>If even MBTs can be easily taken out by FPV drones, what's even the point of a tank that has even less armor?Well, for a start, armor isn't cheap. There is the cost of the extra armor, the more powerful engine to move the thing, the increased fuel that bigger engine consumes, the extra maintenance costs and the cost of the larger tank transports that carry that extra weight. So if an FPV drone or top attack ATGM can take out both the MBT and Light tank with roughly equal ease, why spend the extra cash? You can even keep costs down further by making your light tank a variant of your IFV.
>>65270327>So if an FPV drone or top attack ATGM can take out both the MBT and Light tank with roughly equal ease, why spend the extra cash?Because real protection form drones and missiles are active protection systems.Ways to counter active protection systems including long range warheads outside of APS rangeOr using kinetic missiles that are difficult to intercept.Both concepts are much easier to execute if target has thin armor. For example long range EFP penetrate 1/2 caliber with simple copper warhead and 1 caliber with state of the art tantalum liner multipoint detonation designs . Fro 150mm caliber warhead it is 70-150mm penetration. It will zip through any light armor AFV, but can be stopped by heavy armor with composite and ERA designs.Active protection systems are good but defeating active protection systems plus heavy armor behind it is much more difficult.
>>65270227>Tank on tank gun duels have stopped being a thing circa 3 years agoUkraine praised the Challenger 2 being a 'sniper tank' because it had an accurate gun and if they faced a squad of Russian armor they were able to take one out and take return fire. Gun duels still exist, they're just not within 500m of each other.
>>65270212The point of armor of a tank is to endure as much damage as possible. Sure it cannot protect from everything, but stuff like Drones or explosive projectiles able to destroy a tank make up less than 20% of what's one the field. Bullets of various caliberd, shrapnel and small explosives are far more prevalent and sending a small group of tanks is more economical than sending hundreds of soldiers.All nations across all 5 continents didn't just improve tank armor for shit and giggles.>>65270257That's not exactly how it works. Let's say a MBT costs as much as 3 light tanks both in money and material. That doesn't mean you can just convert productions into light tanks (which is a shitty idea anyway as I laid it down above). To produce more tanks, even if they are smaller in scope, requires more workers, industrial space and machines and even more manpower to maintain these machines. Stuff the west doesn't have, most nations are already understaffed because the current economic model of providing maximum prosperity and consumer goods for each citizen directly affects the heavy industry required to produce and maintain military hardware. No nation will produce tens of tousands of tanks in the future, regardless of how low quality they will be.
>>65270212Die the same way for cheap?
>>65270327Armor isn't cheap in terms of compounding engineering complexity in a properly designed first world combat vehicle; but it is cheap in terms of construction materials and lives saved.The breakpoint for armor today hasn't truly changed; it's just that tank games took the attention off it. Tanks keep competing over super-heavy frontal arc armor. Every other vehicle though - they are trying to get as close to, or comfortably past STANAG4569 level 4, which is the HMG proof tier, because that's where you become reasonably secure against non-direct hits from accurate but unguided artillery, as well as any gun infantry can reasonably procure, and most non-shaped-charge mines. The luxury version of this is level 6 (30mm autocannon).
>>65270212Light tonks are for turd world countries/regions where roads and bridges aren't rated for 70t+ behemoths.Good luck lugging a M1A2 in mountainous regions, swampy jungles, rice paddies, rickety passes with only a wooden bridge across, etc.
>>65270212It's simple: you buy Jewish anti-drone-drone APS drones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rl2sR6zkEw
>>65270546Why didn't the IDF install them onto the Merkava tanks that were deployed in Lebanon? They were taken out just as easily by FPV drones from Hezbollah, just like any other MBT used in Ukraine
>>65270570>They were taken out just as easily by FPV drones from Hezbollah, just like any other MBT used in Ukraineso the Israelis have no more tanks?
>>65270212IMO light tanks with big low velocity cannons are the future, tank on tank is rare so make them better at supporting infantry by removing buildings and fortifications.As for how to defend them intergrated SPAA is the clear solution.
>>65270879Looks like infantry tanks are back on the menu boys!
>>65270227>basing all modern war knowledge off of a war between two 2nd world nations
>>65270494>or comfortably past STANAG4569 level 4, which is the HMG proof tier, because that's where you become reasonably secure against non-direct hits from accurate but unguided artillery, aThese french armored cars that were give to the ukies before the kherson offensive had that level of armor protection and they still got shredded by russian artillery because obsolescent russian 152 mm shells are not designed to turn into 10 000 tiny fragments but shatter into a wide range of fragment sizes of which the larger turned out to be quite capable to go trough the STANAG L4 armor. OFC you wouldnt see that in tests with western 155 because these use special artillery steel and prefrag grooves to avoid producing large fragments.
>>65270227>What you want is a vehicle that can reliably and repeatedly stop 57 mm APFSDS on all sides, can stop heavy artillery shrapnel all around, and can stop light HEAT/EFP (ex. DPICM) from above (except for the hatches, but that's a given).Mr muttman, can you please tell us, what is your estimation of the RHAe penetration at 1000 meters of a DU APFSDS fired out of a Bofors 57 or S-60 57 mm AA gun?
>>65270212>taken out by FPV dronesYou mean after they've been immobilized and evacuated?>what's even the point of a tank that has even less armor?Mobility and active defenses. A fast enough tank can get out before the drones can hit them and it's way more effective to rig a CROWs mount as an anti-drone gun.
>>65270900>152 mm shells are not designed to turn into 10 000 tiny fragments but shatter into a wide range of fragment sizes of which the larger turned out to be quite capable to go trough the STANAG L4 armor.These large frags density is too low to destroy light AFV by anything but nearly direct hit.
>>65270900>and prefrag grooves to avoid producing large fragments.Nobody uses scoring in 155mm shells, it all you need to know about your knowledge.
>>65270879Cockerill about to make bank
>>65270910>Mr muttman, can you please tell us, what is your estimation of the RHAe penetration at 1000 meters of a DU APFSDS fired out of a Bofors 57 or S-60 57 mm AA gun?Bofors 57 is a naval gun, doesn't have an AT round (uses SAPHE, 3P and ALaMO). S-60 has an ancient APCBC with about 100 mm at 1000 m. An admittedly hypothetical APFSDS would be around 200 mm RHAe at the same distance. With good composite sandwich armor, you can get to around 300 mm RHAe without egregious weight penalties. Also, >DU Unlikely, it would more than probably be tungsten, like the APFSDS for the CTAS40.
>>65270212I like'em. They shoulda keep the Sheridan even if that required a full clean sheet redo to fix the problems including redo of big gun.Shoulda keep the big gun Stryker, and just settled for a gun that it can handle, whether its a low-V 90 or even 75mm or a high-v 57mm auto cannon or 40mm bofors, etc.
>>65270900>you wouldnt see that in tests with western 155 because these use special artillery steel and prefrag grooves to avoid producing large fragmentsyou won't see artillery shells used for STANAG 4569 testing either
