Quote from: Dominus NoxBasically, if defensive tech took a flying leap forward, as in maybe a carbon 60 based material that was stronger than anything we had today, and very light as well, we could see tanks mounting very thick armor, which would make huge tanks feasible.

Not really. They're just too everything: too easy of a target, too difficult to deploy, too expensive to build and maintain.

QuoteLikewise, if experiments with "electromagnetic armor" were to yield great results, and/or someone finally gets a room temperatore superconductor perfected, we could see tanks mounting EM armor that required huge generators but made the thing very resistant to most weapons. Hello, Bolo!

By the time we get to that point, the likelihood of Von Neumann machines that could disassemble it from the inside grows as well.

QuoteNow, if several of these advances came to pass and no offensive advances countered them to a great degree, any could lead to massive armored vehicles. Add in the possible development of portable fusion power and the sky's the limit.

This is the same argument as mecha. Big Fucking Tanks are cool. Cool != feasible.

IMHO (and take it for what its worth):

The future of warfare is a) Information war - Computer and web attacks and the like. b) Personal war - Starship Troopers / Armor type man-to-man (or bug or whatever) warfare. Not saying armored suits, per se, but its a man-on-man, not machine-on-machine type battlefield. c) WMD war - biological will be the way to go. It sucks and its scary and its evil, but if you want to win a war in the future, you do it by killing the other guys' civilians, and you pray like hell your civilians took their pills.

Quote from: WerekoalaIMHO (and take it for what its worth):

The future of warfare is a) Information war - Computer and web attacks and the like. b) Personal war - Starship Troopers / Armor type man-to-man (or bug or whatever) warfare. Not saying armored suits, per se, but its a man-on-man, not machine-on-machine type battlefield. c) WMD war - biological will be the way to go. It sucks and its scary and its evil, but if you want to win a war in the future, you do it by killing the other guys' civilians, and you pray like hell your civilians took their pills.

To me, the possibilities of battlefield networks and associated technologies are much more interesting. Why destroy enemy armor when you can hack their operating systems? Foul up their sensor systems, forge authentication and give them bad orders, make them think friendlies are bogeys, shut down motive and weapons systems. Half of any battle might well be digital, and a lot of it might occur before the armor starts to roll.

Quote from: WilNot really. They're just too everything: too easy of a target, too difficult to deploy, too expensive to build and maintain.



By the time we get to that point, the likelihood of Von Neumann machines that could disassemble it from the inside grows as well.

So does the chance of a von neuman defensive system to repel or destroy attacking VNMs. Think of a VNM based immunity system that consumes attacking VNMs and recycles them into defensive VNMs.


Also, your first argument has been used against tanks for decades: Tanks are too big, a guy wil a cheap HEAT warhead bazooka can kill one for a fraction of what it cost to make one, yadda yadda yadda. We still have tanks.

Quote from: Dominus NoxAlso, your first argument has been used against tanks for decades: Tanks are too big, a guy wil a cheap HEAT warhead bazooka can kill one for a fraction of what it cost to make one, yadda yadda yadda. We still have tanks.

Yes we do, but surprise of surprises they're getting smaller and lighter...not bigger and heavier.

EDIT: Found the FCS link I was looking for: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-t.htm

Quote from: WilYes we do, but surprise of surprises they're getting smaller and lighter...not bigger and heavier.

I would dispute that. M-1 Abrams is not small OR light. It's a beast. So is the LeClerc, Challenger, T-90, Merkava, etc. MBTs have gotten progressivly bigger and more powerful.

Quote from: WerekoalaI would dispute that. M-1 Abrams is not small OR light. It's a beast. So is the LeClerc, Challenger, T-90, Merkava, etc. MBTs have gotten progressivly bigger and more powerful.

RTFA, the next generation tanks are getting smaller.

Okay (puts on dumb hat) RTFA?

Also, which tanks are "next generation"? Who is making them?

Quote from: WerekoalaOkay (puts on dumb hat) RTFA?

Also, which tanks are "next generation"? Who is making them?

Read The Fucking Article. The one I linked to.

The U.S. Army's Future Combat Systems project has several armored vehicles under development. Lighter and smaller has several advantages:

* Increased automation reduces crew requirements
* Lower fuel consumption and increased endurance
* More manueverable and higher ground speed
* Easier to deploy
* Provides a smaller target/increased battlefield survivability

The M1 Abrams' design is 30 years old. It's production run as ended...so using it (or the T-90, or the Merkava, or the Challenger) as an example of tanks becoming smaller and lighter is disingenuous because the tanks on the drawing board are all lighter. The South Korean XK-2 is under 60 tons. The Russian T-95 is reported to be in the 50 ton range and have a smaller profile than existing Russian MBTs. Most, if not all, feature unmanned turrets (which helps reduce the tank's size).

Don't forget either that the Merkova is also designed to carry a squad of Infantry to the battlefeild.  The only MBT that does. Wacky Israelis...


I'll have to look up that author once I've gotten a chance.  Predicting 4000 years of military evolution is hard work, yo.

Quote from: SpikeDon't forget either that the Merkova is also designed to carry a squad of Infantry to the battlefeild.  The only MBT that does. Wacky Israelis...

That's a direct result of the way the Merkava is designed - the turret is moved rearward and the engine to the front, and it frees up some space at the very rear of the hull.

One thing about tanks, too - a lot of other nation's tanks are based off of hulls of tanks made by bigger nations. That means that the derivative tanks will still be big and bulky while the cutting edge tanks are small and manueverable.

Quote from: WilIt'll be the kind of thing that bombs made out of Coke bottles and bailing wire will blow up in less-developed countries while the country that fielded it laments the unfairness of a $2 bomb taking out a $5 million dollar machine.

This point interests me particularly. It was my understanding, and it may be entirely false, that such weapons killed the crew more than the tank. Is this so?

If it is, then removing the crew and sealing the hardware appropriately would make the tank much more resistant to this sort of attack.

Also, it was my understanding as well, that tanks are getting smaller. The vehicle I saw on Future Weapons was not much bigger than a humvee. It had pretty advanced pattern recognition software to get it through terrain. I think we are closer than you might think to reliable pattern recognition and expert system decision processing in AI.

Thanks for all the great input guys. Interesting stuff.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltThis point interests me particularly. It was my understanding, and it may be entirely false, that such weapons killed the crew more than the tank. Is this so?

Cessna would likely have more accurate information than I, but I would assume that the concussion from the blast does it when it comes to an IED. When it comes to an ATGM or similar projectile, what happens is the penetrator enters the crew compartment and doesn't have enough energy to get back out, so it bounces around for a while making friends with the crew.

QuoteIf it is, then removing the crew and sealing the hardware appropriately would make the tank much more resistant to this sort of attack.

Also, it was my understanding as well, that tanks are getting smaller. The vehicle I saw on Future Weapons was not much bigger than a humvee. It had pretty advanced pattern recognition software to get it through terrain. I think we are closer than you might think to reliable pattern recognition and expert system decision processing in AI.

Oh, I have no doubt we're getting damn good expert systems. We may even wind up with armored vehicles similar to Heavy Gear, where they are capable of some independent action. And I think AI will happen - it's just that true AI is a few decades out. Think of it in terms of the first tanks - they were clunky, slow and very ineffective. During WWII they matured quickly, then kind of kept improving what worked. We're due for some kind of revolution in armored vehicle design - automation, materials science, armament (electrothermal cannon and railguns, maybe), power plant. I just personally don't think bigger is part of that revolution.

Iraq War III 2027-

Quote from: WilRead The Fucking Article. The one I linked to.

Ah, should've known it was something like that.

I don't think the link was there when I was writing my response, but the point that I made that the MBTs HAVE BEEN getting larger still stands. This is probably the last generation that it is the case. They are planning on making them smaller in the future, but there's nothing in service at the moment. The course of future war and even low-intensity conflict would seem to require smaller vehicles, for the very reason that stand-up tank battles are a thing of the past, for the forseeable future. We need the smaller vehicles for city fighting. So it makes sense to design and build such things.