User:Koakhtzvigad/tank design
Research and development[edit]
In terms of firepower, the focus of current R&D is on increased detection capability such as thermal imagers, automated fire control systems and increased muzzle energy from the gun to improve range, accuracy and armour penetration.[1] The most mature future gun technology is the electrothermal-chemical gun.[2] The XM291 electrothermal-chemical tank gun has gone through successful multiple firing sequences on a modified M8 Armored Gun System chassis.[3]
To improve tank protection, one field of research involves making the tank invisible to radar by adapting stealth technologies originally designed for aircraft. Improvements to camouflage or and attempts to render it invisible through active camouflage is being pursued. Research is also ongoing in electromagnetic armour systems to disperse or deflect incoming shaped charge jets,[4][5] as well as various forms of active protection systems to prevent incoming projectiles from striking the tank at all.
Mobility may be enhanced in future tanks by the use of diesel-electric or turbine-electric series hybrid drives improving fuel efficiency while reducing the size and weight of the power plant.[6] Furthermore, advances in gas turbine technology, including the use of advanced recuperators,[7] have allowed for reduction in engine volume and mass to less than 1 m3 and 1 metric ton, respectively, while maintaining fuel efficiency similar to that of a diesel engine.[8]
In line with the new doctrine of network-centric warfare, the modern battle tank shows increasing sophistication in its electronics and communication systems.
Design[edit]
The three traditional factors determining a tank's effectiveness in battle are its firepower, protection, and mobility. Firepower is the ability of a tank to identify, engage, and destroy. Protection is the tank's ability to resist being detected, engaged, and disabled or destroyed. Mobility includes tactical (short range) movement over the battlefield including over rough terrain and obstacles, as well as strategic (long range) mobility, the ability of the tank to be transported by road, rail, sea, or air to the battlefield.
Tank design is a compromise; it is not possible to maximise firepower, protection and mobility simultaneously. For example, increasing protection by adding armour will result in an increase in weight and therefore decrease mobility; increasing firepower by installing a larger gun will force the designer to sacrifice speed or armour to compensate for the added weight and cost. Even in the case of the Abrams MBT which has good firepower, speed and armour, these advantages are counterbalanced by its engine's notably high fuel consumption, which ultimately reduces its range and in a larger sense its mobility.
Since the Second World War, the economics of tank production governed by the ease of manufacture and cost, and the impact of a given tank design on logistics and field maintenance capabilities, have also been accepted as important in determining how many tanks a nation can afford to field in its force structure.
No tank design has ever been fielded in significant numbers that proved to be too complex or expensive to manufacture, and made unsustainable demands on the logistics services support of the armed forces. The affordability of the design therefore takes precedence over the field performance characteristics. Nowhere was this principle illustrated better than during the Second World War when two Allied designs, the T-34 and the M4 Sherman, although both simple designs which accepted engineering compromises, were used successfully against more sophisticated designs by Germany which were harder to produce, were more expensive and demanding on overstretched logistics of the Wehrmacht. Given that a tank crew will spend most of its time occupied with maintenance of the vehicle, engineering simplicity has become the primary constraint on tank design since the Second World War despite advances in mechanical, electrical and electronics technologies.
Since World War II tank development has shifted focus from experimenting with large scale mechanical changes to the tank design to focusing on technological advances in the tank's subsystems to improve its performance. However, a number of novel designs have appeared throughout this period with mixed success, including the Soviet IT-1, the Swedish S-tank, the Israeli Merkava, and the incorporation of autoloaders to reduce the crew complement in a number of tanks.
Firepower[edit]
The main weapon of all modern tanks is a single, large-calibre gun mounted in a fully traversing turret weapon mount. The typical tank gun is a smoothbore weapon capable of firing armor-piercing kinetic energy penetrators (KEP), also known as armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS), and/or armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) and high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shells, and/or high explosive squash head (HESH) and/or anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) to destroy armoured targets, as well as high explosive (HE) shells for engaging soft targets or fortifications. Canister shot may be used in close or urban combat situations where the risk of hitting friendly forces with shrapnel from HE rounds is unacceptably high.[9]
A gyroscope is used to stabilise the main gun, allowing it to be effectively aimed and fired at the "short halt" or on the move. Modern tank guns are also commonly fitted with insulating thermal jackets to reduce gun-barrel warping caused by uneven thermal expansion, bore evacuators to minimise fumes entering the crew compartment and sometimes muzzle brakes to minimise the effect of recoil on accuracy and rate of fire.
Traditionally, target detection relied on visual identification. This was accomplished from within the tank through telescopic periscopes; occasionally however, tank commanders would open up the hatch to view the outside surroundings, which improved situational awareness but incurred the penalty of vulnerability to sniper fire, especially in jungle and urban conditions. Though several developments in target detection have taken place especially recently, these methods are still common practice.
In some cases spotting rifles were used confirm proper trajectory and range to a target. These spotting rifles were mounted co-axially to the main gun, and fired tracer ammunition ballistically matched to the gun itself. The gunner would track the movement of the tracer round in flight, and upon impact with a hard surface, it would give off a flash and a puff of smoke, after which the main gun was immediately fired. However these have been mostly superseded by laser rangefinding equipment.
Modern tanks also use sophisticated light intensification and thermal imaging equipment to improve fighting capability at night, in poor weather and in smoke. The accuracy of modern tank guns is pushed to the mechanical limit by computerised fire-control systems. A fire-control system uses a laser rangefinder to determine the range to the target, a thermocouple, anemometer and wind vane to correct for weather effects and a muzzle referencing system to correct for gun-barrel temperature, warping and wear. Two sightings of a target with the range-finder enable calculation of the target movement vector. This information is combined with the known movement of the tank and the principles of ballistics to calculate the elevation and aim point that maximises the probability of hitting the target.
Usually, tanks carry smaller calibre armament for short-range defence where fire from the main weapon would be ineffective, for example when engaging infantry, light vehicles or aircraft. A typical complement of secondary weapons is a general-purpose machine gun mounted coaxially with the main gun, and a heavier antiaircraft machine gun on the turret roof. These weapons are often modified variants of those used by infantry, and so utilise the same kinds of ammunition.
Countermeasures[edit]
The measure of a tank's protection is the combination of its ability to avoid detection, to avoid being hit by enemy fire, its resistance to the effects of enemy fire, and its capacity to sustain damage whilst still completing its objective, or at least protecting its crew. In common with most unit types, tanks are subject to additional hazards in wooded and urban combat environments which largely negate the advantages of the tank's long-range firepower and mobility, limit the crew's detection capabilities and can restrict turret traverse. Despite these disadvantages, tanks retain high survivability against previous-generation rocket-propelled grenades in all combat environments by virtue of their armour.
However, as effective and advanced as armour plating has become, tank survivability against newer-generation (1980s) tandem-warhead anti-tank missiles is a concern for military planners.[10] For example, the RPG-29 is able to penetrate the thickest frontal hull armour of the Challenger II[11][12] and also managed to damage a M1 Abrams.[13]
Avoiding detection[edit]
A tank avoids detection using the doctrine of CCD: camouflage (looks the same as the surroundings), concealment (cannot be seen) and deception (looks like something else).
Working against efforts to avoid detection is the fact that a tank is a large metallic object with a distinctive, angular silhouette that emits copious heat and noise. Consequently, it is difficult to effectively camouflage a hull-up tank in the absence of some form of cover or concealment (e.g., woods). The tank becomes easier to detect when moving (typically, whenever it is in use) due to the large, distinctive auditory, vibration and thermal signature of its power plant. Tank tracks and dust clouds also betray past or present tank movement. Switched-off tanks are vulnerable to infra-red detection due to differences between the thermal conductivity and therefore heat dissipation of the metallic tank and its surroundings. At close range the tank can be detected even when powered down and fully concealed due to the column of warmer air above the tank and the smell of diesel.
Thermal blankets slow the rate of heat emission and camouflage nets use a mix of materials with differing thermal properties to operate in the infra-red as well as the visible spectrum. Camouflage attempts to break up the distinctive appearance and silhouette of a tank. Adopting a turret-down or hull-down position reduces the visible silhouette of a tank as well as providing the added protection of a position in defilade
The Russian Nakidka camouflage kit was designed to reduce the Optical, Thermal, Infrared, and Radar signatures of a tank, so that acquisition of the tank would be difficult. According to Nii Stali, the designers of Nakidka, Nakidka would reduce the probabilities of detection via "visual and near-IR bands by 30%, the thermal band by 2-3 fold, radar band by 6 fold, and radar-thermal band to near-background levels.[14]"
Armour[edit]
To effectively protect the tank and its crew, tank armour must counter a wide variety of antitank threats. Protection against kinetic energy penetrators and high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shells fired by other tanks is of primary importance, but tank armour also aims to protect against infantry antitank missiles, ATGMs, antitank mines, bombs, direct artillery hits, and (less often) nuclear, biological and chemical threats, any of which could disable or destroy a tank or its crew.
Steel armour plate was the earliest type of armour. The Germans pioneered the use of face hardened steel during World War II and the Soviets also achieved improved protection with sloped armour technology. World War II developments also spelled the eventual doom of homogeneous steel armour with the development of shaped-charge warheads, exemplified by the Panzerfaust and bazooka infantry weapons which were lethally effective, despite some early success with spaced armour. Magnetic mines led to the development of anti-magnetic paste and paint.
British tank researchers took the next step with the development of Chobham armour, or more generally composite armour, incorporating ceramics and plastics in a resin matrix between steel plates, which provided good protection against HEAT weapons. Squash head warheads led to anti-spall armour linings, and KEPs led to the inclusion of exotic materials like a matrix of depleted uranium into a composite armour configuration.
Reactive armour consists of small explosive-filled metal boxes that detonate when hit by the metallic jet projected by an exploding HEAT warhead, causing their metal plates to disrupt it. Tandem warheads defeat reactive armour by causing the armour to detonate prematurely. Modern Reactive armour protects itself from Tandem warheads by having a thicker front metal plate to prevent the precursor charge from detonating the explosive in the reactive armour. Reactive armours can also reduce the penetrative abilities of kinetic energy penetrators by deforming the penetrator with the metal plates on the Reactive armour, thereby reducing its effectiveness against the main armour of the tank.
Grenade launchers which can rapidly deploy a smoke screen, which are opaque to Infrared light, to hide it from the thermal viewer of another tank. The modern Shtora soft-kill countermeasure system provides additional protection by interfering with enemy targeting and fire-control systems and jamming of SACLOS guided ATGMs.
Active protection system[edit]
The latest generation of protective measures for tanks are active protection systems, particularly hard-kill countermeasures. The Soviet Drozd, the Russian Arena, the Israeli TROPHY and Iron Fist, Polish ERAWA (on PT-91), and the American Quick Kill systems show the potential to dramatically improve protection for tanks against missiles, RPGs and potentially KEP attacks, but concerns regarding a danger zone for nearby dismounted troops remain.
Mobility[edit]
The mobility of a tank is described by its battlefield or tactical mobility, its operational mobility, and its strategic mobility. Tactical mobility can be broken down firstly into agility, describing the tank's acceleration, braking, speed and rate of turn on various terrain, and secondly obstacle clearance: the tank's ability to travel over vertical obstacles like low walls or trenches or through water. Operational mobility is a function of manoeuvre range; but also of size and weight, and the resulting limitations on options for manoeuvre.
Strategic mobility[edit]
Strategic mobility is the ability of the tanks of an armed force to arrive in a timely, cost effective, and synchronized fashion. For good strategic mobility transportability by air is important, which means that weight and volume must be kept within the designated transport aircraft capabilities.
Nations often stockpile enough tanks to respond to any threat without having to make more tanks as many sophisticated designs can only be produced at a relatively low rate. The US Military for instance keeps 6000 MBTs in storage.[15]
Tactical mobility[edit]
Tank agility is a function of the weight of the tank due to its inertia while manoeuvring and its ground pressure, the power output of the installed power plant and the tank transmission and track design. In addition, rough terrain effectively limits the tank's speed through the stress it puts on the suspension and the crew. A breakthrough in this area was achieved during World War II when improved suspension systems were developed that allowed better cross-country performance and limited firing on the move. Systems like the earlier Christie or later torsion-bar suspension developed by Ferdinand Porsche dramatically improved the tank's cross-country performance and overall mobility.[16]
Tanks are highly mobile and able to travel over most types of terrain due to their continuous tracks and advanced suspension. The tracks disperse the weight of the vehicle over a large area, resulting in a less ground pressure. A tank can travel at approximately 40 kilometres per hour (25 mph) across flat terrain and up to 70 kilometres per hour (43 mph) on roads, but due to the mechanical strain this places on the vehicle and the logistical strain on fuel delivery and tank maintenance, these must be considered "burst" speeds that invite mechanical failure of engine and transmission systems. Consequently, wheeled tank transporters and rail infrastructure is used wherever possible for long-distance tank transport. The limitations of long-range tank mobility can be viewed in sharp contrast to that of wheeled armoured fighting vehicles. The majority of blitzkrieg operations were conducted at the pedestrian pace of 5 kilometres per hour (3.1 mph), that only was achieved on the roads of France.[17]
In the absence of combat engineers, most tanks are limited to fording rivers. The typical fording depth for MBTs is approximately 1 metre (3.3 ft), being limited by the height of the engine air intake and driver's position. Modern tanks such as the Russian T-90 and the German Leopard I and Leopard II tanks can ford to a depth of 3–4 meters when properly prepared and equipped with a snorkel to supply air for the crew and engine. Tank crews usually have a negative reaction towards deep fording but it adds considerable scope for surprise and tactical flexibility in water crossing operations by opening new and unexpected avenues of attack.
Amphibious tanks are specially designed or adapted for water operations, but they are rare in modern armies, being replaced by purpose-built amphibious assault vehicles or armoured personnel carriers in amphibious assaults. Advances such as the EFA mobile bridge and MT-55 scissors bridge have also reduced the impediment to tank advance that rivers posed in World War II.[18]
The tank's power plant supplies kinetic energy to move the tank, and electric power via a generator to components such as the turret rotation motors and the tank's electronic systems. The tank power plant has evolved from predominantly petrol and adapted large-displacement aeronautical or automotive engines during World Wars I and II, through diesel engines to advanced multi-fuel diesel engines, and powerful (per unit weight) but fuel-hungry gas turbines in the T-80 and M1 Abrams.
Tank power output in context:
| Vehicle | Power output | Power/weight |
|---|---|---|
| Mid-sized car: Toyota Camry 2.4L | 158 horsepower (118 kW) | 106 hp/tonne |
| Sports car: Lamborghini Murciélago 6.5L | 632 horsepower (471 kW) | 383 hp/tonne |
| Racing car: Formula One car 3.0L | 950 horsepower (710 kW) | 2100 hp/tonne |
| Main battle tank: Leopard 2, M1 Abrams | 1,500 horsepower (1,100 kW) | 24.2, 24.5 hp/tonne |
| Locomotive: SNCF Class T 2000 | 2,581 horsepower (1,925 kW) | 11.5 hp/tonne |
Command, control and communications[edit]
Commanding and coordinating tanks in the field has always been subject to particular problems, particularly in the area of communications, but in modern armies these problems have been partially alleviated by networked, integrated systems that enable communications and contribute to enhanced situational awareness.
Early[edit]
Armoured bulkheads, engine noise, intervening terrain, dust and smoke, and the need to operate "buttoned up" are severe detriments to communication and lead to a sense of isolation for small tank units, individual vehicles, and tank crewmen. Radios were not yet made portable or robust enough to be mounted in a tank, although Morse Code transmitters were installed in some Mark IVs at Cambrai as messaging vehicles,[19]. Attaching a field telephone to the rear would became a practice only during the next war. During World War I when these failed or were unavailable, situation reports were sent back to headquarters by some crews releasing carrier pigeons through top hatches[20] and communications between vehicles was accomplished using hand signals, handheld semaphore flags which continued in use in the Red Army/Soviet Army through the Second and Cold wars, or by foot or horse mounted messengers.[21]
Modern[edit]
On the modern battlefield an intercom mounted in the crew helmet provides internal communications and a link to the radio network, and on some tanks an external intercom on the rear of the tank provides communication with co-operating infantry. Radio networks employ radio voice procedure to minimise confusion and "chatter".
A recent development in AFV equipment and doctrine is Network-centric warfare (US), Network Enabled Capability (UK) or Digital Army צי"ד (Israel). This consists of the increased integration of information from the fire control system, laser rangefinder, Global Positioning System and terrain information via hardened milspec electronics and a battlefield network to display all known information on enemy targets and friendly units on a monitor in the tank. The sensor data can be sourced from nearby tanks, planes, UAVs or (in the future) infantry. This improves the tank commander's situational awareness and ability to navigate the battlefield and select and engage targets. In addition to easing the reporting burden by automatically logging all orders and actions, orders are sent via the network with text and graphical overlays.
References[edit]
- ^ Pengelley, Rupert, A new era in tank main armament, pp. 1521 - 1531
- ^ Hilmes, Rolf (January 30, 1999), "Aspects of future MBT conception". Military Technology 23 (6): 7. Moench Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh.
- ^ Goodell, Brad (January 1, 2007), "Electrothermal Chemical (ETC) Armament Integration into a Combat Vehicle". IEEE Transaction on Magnetics, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 456-459.
- ^ Wickert, Matthias, Electric Armor Against Shaped Charges, pp. 426 - 429
- ^ Xiaopeng, Li, et al., Multiprojectile Active Electromagnetic Armor, pp. 460 - 462
- ^ Electric/Hybrid Electric Drive Vehicles for Military Applications, pp. 132 - 144
- ^ McDonald, Colin F., Gas Turbine Recuperator Renaissance, pp. 1 - 30
- ^ Koschier, Angelo V. and Mauch, Hagen R., Advantages of the LV100 as a Power Producer in a Hybrid Propulsion System for Future Fighting Vehicles, p. 697
- ^ USA Today (2005), Tanks adapted for urban fights they once avoided
- ^ BBC News (2006) Tough lessons for Israeli armour
- ^ "Defence chiefs knew 'invincible' tank armour could be breached", Daily Mail, 24 April 2007
- ^ Sean Rayment (May 12, 2007 *). "MoD kept failure of best tank quiet". Sunday Telegraph.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Michael R. Gordon (May 21, 2008). "Operation in Sadr City Is an Iraqi Success, So Far". The New York Times.
- ^ http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/nobron_en.htm#7
- ^ John Pike. "M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2009-06-09.
- ^ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, pp. 154
- ^ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, p.180
- ^ Deighton (1979), Blitzkrieg, From the rise of Hitler to the fall of Dunkirk, pp.234-252
- ^ Macksey, K., Tank vs Tank, Grub Street, London, 1999, p.32
- ^ Fletcher, D., British Mark I Tank 1916, Osprey, p.19
- ^ Wright 2002, Tank: The Progress of a Monstrous War Machine, p. 48, "To the extent that they communicated at all, the tank crews did so by squeezing carrier pigeons out through a hole in a gun sponson, by brandishing a shovel through the manhole, or by frantically waving coloured discs in the air."