Best Main Battle Tank!

[Saras]

Originally posted by Ned
Saras, how does the C2 compare to the American tank in terms of electronics. This was a major reason the US tank was chosen number 1 by the Military Channel. It had links to other units on the battlefield so the tank could see the tactical situation on a map, and it could acquire and fire at targets faster than any other tank.

FIRE CONTROL AND OBSERVATION

The digital fire control computer is produced by Computing Devices Company (now General Dynamics – Canada). General Dynamics UK is to supply the Platform Battlefield Information System Application (PBISA) for the British Army Challenger 2 tanks. PBISA integrates the commander’s display, inertial navigation system, digitisation processing computer and driver’s display panel. Land Systems is responsible for system integration and some of the software. PBISA is being delivered from 2005 – 2006.

British Army Challenger 2 tanks are being fitted with the Bowman tactical, digital communications system. Prime contractor for Bowman is General Dynamics UK. Bowman provides secure voice and data communications and automatic location of units. Challenger tanks fitted with the system were deployed to Iraq in early 2006.

The commander has a panoramic VS 580-10 gyrostabilised sight from SAGEM (formerly SFIM Industries). A laser rangefinder is incorporated into an intermediate assembly. Elevation range is +35° to -35°. The commander's station is equipped with eight periscopes which provide 360° vision.

The Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sight II (TOGS II), from Thales (formerly Pilkington) Optronics, provides night vision. The sensor is based on UK TICM 2 common modules. The thermal image, with magnification x 4 and x 11.5 is displayed in the gunner's and commander's sights and monitors. The gunner has a Thales Optronics stabilised Gunner's Primary Sight, consisting of visual channel, 4Hz laser rangefinder and display. The laser rangefinder has a range of 200m to 10km.

The driver is equipped with an image-intensifying Passive Driving Periscope (PDP) from Thales Optronics, for night driving.

[Ned]

Saras, sounds interesting. New too. But is it as good as the American tank's system? Comparison data?

[pchang]

Since it comes from the same company

(except UK designation - probably for legal procurement reasons), I would expect it to be pretty much the same. US and UK pretty much share all this tech pretty freely.

[Saras]

Didn't find stats on turret traverse speed for M1A2 - Chally 2 does it in 9 sec. Helps target acquisition a lot, I presume.

[Ned]

I noticed the Brits were not using GPS bombs in 2003. Also, I think the US 4th ID, in 2003, was the first to use the integrated field battle management computer systems. So, even though having these systems would make a lot of sense for Britain so that they could be better integrated into a US-lead force, I am not sure they actually use the US systems.

But the weapon system of the future is the Stryker. It's armor seems to be better than any tank's, and it has over-the-horizon capability with its rockets.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Ned
But the weapon system of the future is the Stryker. It's armor seems to be better than any tank's, and it has over-the-horizon capability with its rockets.

Are you smoking crack? It's more like an IFV, except with wheels.

Check the pic on Wiki - I'd say that external slat armor probably really does work well against RPGs. But I wouldn't want to be in one hit by a tank round.

[Ned]

Lord A,

Debated?

I saw a report on the Stryker's performance in Iraq. The report said the Stryker was the only vehicle virtually invulnerable to both IEDs, including those that blow up under it, and from anti-tank rockets.

Only.

That includes tanks.

Which implies the obvious, does it not, that the Stryker has better survivability than the M1A1 on the battlefield. It can also take out incoming armor over-the horizion with its own rockets.

So, I would say, the Stryker would defeat a tank, one-on-one.

"It has been deployed with the "catchers' mask"-style deflector (known as slat armor) that is specifically designed to disable the high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead of an RPG before it reaches the vehicle. It does so by squeezing together the angled sides of the metal nose cone and shorting the conductors between the detonator at the tip and the explosive charge at the back of the RPG warhead. This is a newer, more effective technique, not to be confused with older style appliqué plate armor with an air space behind, designed to pre-detonate the warhead such that the focus of the shaped charge dissipates before reaching the hull armor."

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Ned
I saw a report on the Stryker's performance in Iraq. The report said the Stryker was the only vehicle virtually invulnerable to both IEDs, including those that blow up under it, and from anti-tank rockets.

Only.

That includes tanks.

I couldn't find a pic, but IIRC the Stryker has a somewhat V-shaped underbelly, which deflects the force of an explosion. Also more attention was paid to mine protection given the types of missions a LAV has. And there is a solid rubber base inside the tires, so they can only be partially deflated and still remain useful. If a mine/IED takes out a tank tread, it can't move. So from a mobility standpoint, a tank is more vulnerable.

Which implies the obvious, does it not, that the Stryker has better survivability than the M1A1 on the battlefield. It can also take out incoming armor over-the horizion with its own rockets.

So, I would say, the Stryker would defeat a tank, one-on-one.

No, it does not. It depends on the battlefield. In the current Iraq environment the Stryker is more useful. In a land war in Europe against masses of enemy armor, I'd rather have the M1A1.

The Stryker ICV doesn't have ATGMs, does it? I think you're talking about different versions. And so what if a Stryker can take out a tank from ambush? One-on-one, how does the Stryker know the tank is out there if it's out of sight? Generally speaking, I think a modern tank would win more often than not, one-on-one.

And nothing you have said changes my mind that I wouldn't want to be in a Stryker hit by a tank round.

[Ned]

The US Army has tiny, remotely-operated planes that fly over the battlefield and give it effective over-the-horizon capability for rockets, artillery and motars.

Why is a tank round more lethal and an anti-tank rocket?

[Lord Avalon]

You said one-on-one. That means no help.

A tank round is potentially more lethal because it just punches through - you need heavier armor to stop it. The antitank rocket tries to burn through armor, and is more easily defeated by the ceramic composite armor types. And externally mounted slat armor.

[Ned]

No help? That is like saying a GPS bomber had to operate without its GPS satellites. Or a motar or artillery team operating without spotters of some type.

If the Stryker has over-the-hill rockets, I would assume that it could use over-the-hill spotter planes.

As to the tank round, you might have a point. If the tank and Stryker see each other at the same time, the tank should win most of the time because it can shoot faster (I think).

[Ned]

BTW, the US Airforce has weapons that can take out whole formations of tanks at once. It is a canister that holds hundreds of sub-munitions that deploy above the battlefield, ID enemy vehicles through infra-red, and then home in on them. Each munition stikes the target from above and can take out any tank.

I've seen a demo on the Military Channel. More than impressive.

Which is another reason the armored fighting vehicle of the future will have to deal with this kind of threat as well. Tanks might be obsolete except against backward nations.

[Lord Avalon]

If you don't mean one-on-one, then don't say one-on-one.

Air-deployable weapons aren't any good if the weather's so bad the planes can't fly to deploy them. Or if your opponent has enough air assets/air defense to prevent or hinder their deployment in useful numbers. So don't be so quick to mothball the tank.

[Ned]

I'm not so sure the US Airforce is detered by weather. But you do have a point about air defenses.

Hanoi was one such place -- heavily defended by missles, guns and planes. Still we sent our bombers over the city and inflicted considerable damage. True, we lost bombers, but we succeeded in the mission regardless.

I think the same thing would happen against even the most sophisticated oponent in the future. We would take some losses, to be sure, but we will also wipe out those tank formations.

New approaches are needed for armored vehicles. Stealth technology of some sort to hide them from aircraft and heat seaking missles are required.

[Lord Avalon]

Cloaking device now!

Unless you have some Predator-type technology, ground use is limited by closer proximity to the enemy. Aircraft stealth is more useful because it doesn't have to do as much - the plane is farther away and harder to see and hear. Add some anti-radar stealth so it's harder to detect that way, diffuse the hot exhaust a bit so IR missiles have trouble targeting, and you're good to go.

Tanks are much smaller than fighters, so there's less room to put on all that stuff. Plus it's not really worth doing, if you can still be seen visually.