TL9 Heavy Tank

[mlangsdorf]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Auto-loaders are absolutely the wave of the future, and using an obsolete design from fifty years ago as an basis for arguing against them is absolute madness. Modern auto loaders can and have addressed many of the survivability concerns, and offer substantial benefits over manual loading. The largest advantage is that by getting rid of a crew member, you can make the turret and hence the tank much smaller, which means thicker armor for a given weight.

But you're also trading out a crew member who can perform maintenance for another complicated system that needs to be maintained. There's a trade-off there.

That said, if the crew ergonomics can be worked out, a crewless turret with autoloader has a lot of advantages in terms of survivability and something like the T-14 is what I'd expect from a TL9 tank - assuming the tank has a crew at all.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

But you're also trading out a crew member who can perform maintenance for another complicated system that needs to be maintained. There's a trade-off there.

That said, if the crew ergonomics can be worked out, a crewless turret with autoloader has a lot of advantages in terms of survivability and something like the T-14 is what I'd expect from a TL9 tank - assuming the tank has a crew at all.

Next gen tank concepts tend to go that way -- see the AbramsX for example.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

But you're also trading out a crew member who can perform maintenance for another complicated system that needs to be maintained. There's a trade-off there.

That person gets replaced by 'part' of a trained mechanic in your logistics train. That person can be more fully trained in maintenance, because they are not also having to be trained in tank crew duties, and they are (unless things go badly wrong) safer to the rear and not up with the tank.

What it definitely does in increase the crew workload when it comes to continuous minor maintenance on the go.

That said, if the crew ergonomics can be worked out, a crewless turret with autoloader has a lot of advantages in terms of survivability and something like the T-14 is what I'd expect from a TL9 tank - assuming the tank has a crew at all.

I do not expect unmanned tanks for a good long time, well after the airforce has been de-piloted.

[Polydamas]

Thomas Theiner has a thread on how since the 1970s, NATO and Ukrainian light antitank weapons were specifically developed to defeat the T-64 and T-72 families of tanks. The Soviets then Russians had trouble improving their armour systems as much because, you know, collapse of the Soviet union + Time of Troubles + Putinist oligarchy. So those tanks have become increasingly vulnerable, especially if you do stupid stuff with them like driving into a city without your infantry.

The Turkish army has lost a number of NATO-designed tanks in Syria by doing stupid stuff with them (or going up against newer light antitank weapons).

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

I gained my knowledge largely from reading technical data about these weapon systems over the past few decades and listening to subject matter experts. Compared to what was available when I was in high school(FAS was about the best free source) and what is available now and the ease of which that information can be accessed(for example Nicholas Moran's youtube series and blogs), at this point there's not really much excuse for somebody who wants to talk about these subjects to have atleast a basic understanding of the vehicles and the weapons systems, other than wilful ignorance and obstinacy.

That has kind of been the heartbreaking lesson of the Internet: you can put detailed, factual information out there, but some people don't know how to find it, and most just want to be entertained and to repeat what their buddies say. Me, I'm just shooting the breeze on this thread and focusing on general principles because I am not an expert.

Re: crew sizes, the Swedes and everyone who uses Soviet tanks have got by with a three-man crew without the vehicle falling to pieces like a +3 plate armour that encontered a rust monster. American tankers seem attached to the fourth man, but I think they could learn to live without him.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Which might be why the Ukrainians use any of them they capture.

I dunno. It might be a case of any tank being better than no tank. North and South Vietnam used tanks that they managed to capture from each other, and they weren't on the same model.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by TGLS

I dunno. It might be a case of any tank being better than no tank. el.

This rule can be expanded to "any thing is better than no thing". Plenty of combat has occurred around Japanese pick-up trucks with improvised weapon mounts in the back. If they're not at tat level yet in Ukraine it might be because there's a very large amount of NATO/Warsaw Pact stuff of all kinds to burn through yet.

When they run out of weaponizable vehicles you see infantry with as many rpgs as they can carry and if they have to retreat to the most gawdawful terrain they can find that's where they'll end up.

How people actually do things isn't always the best guide to what you want to design future implements for. You'll end up at the lowest common denominator.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

As others have noted: the "jack in the box" vulnerability seems to be showing up more often in russian tanks tanks, rather than Ukrainian tanks of the same or similar make. Are Ukrainians employing better tactics, are they using different operational methods that enhance survivability? Quite possibly. But it's also quite possible that there is selective reporting, and Ukrainian tank losses(and losses in general) are downplayed for political reasons. This may also be related to the imminent collapse of the Russian war effort that has been a few days or weeks at most away for over a year.

This isn't really that surprising, as there's plenty of times that one side will report really good kill rates, and later on it will turn out that as few has half of those kills can be independently confirmed after the conflict.

From my limited 'passer-by' reading and interest in the matter:

For the majority of the 'time' of the conflict the Russian associated forces have nominally been on the offensive.

One of the least armored elements of tanks and IFVs in general are the top and the bottom.

The carousel autoloader is located near the center and low in the tank to protect against incoming fire.

There is no dispute that the Ukrainian forces have access to and have used mines (anti-personnel and anti-armor). Recent NATO+ munitions have included artillery deployable mines.

Engineering troops responsible for mine clearing are rather specialized troops, usually with more training and equipment than line infantry.

Russian Forces were initially deployed rather lacking in sufficient infantry for the mission assigned. I would expect the number of Engineer units deployed might be even more lacking and those units could well be focused on bridging operations and thus not available for mine clearance.

With all these factors in mind I am most curious to see any information regarding tank and IFV losses and the percentage of such losses to mines. My WAG is that it will represent a healthy number particularly after the first couple of days as the Ukrainian Forces finished scrambling 'onside' after a bit of surprise after the balloon going up.

YMMV and certainly I am no expert but defensive mines have played a signficant role in military operations since gunpowder really caught on.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Edit: its not "unsupported armour vs. supported", its whether you can keep 10 to 15 different systems all moving in unison. Many militaries can do the basics but struggle to keep infantry, armour, artillery, engineers, manned and unmanned aircraft, air defenses, etc. all working together in a complex battlespace.

Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult.

-Karl von Clausewitz

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Witchking

With all these factors in mind I am most curious to see any information regarding tank and IFV losses and the percentage of such losses to mines. My WAG is that it will represent a healthy number particularly after the first couple of days as the Ukrainian Forces finished scrambling 'onside' after a bit of surprise after the balloon going up.

Its also likely that some of the tanks that tossed their turrets were abandoned with fuel and munitions inside then demolished. A team of guys and gals with explosives and antitank weapons should be able to make any tank explode if its parked in a field somewhere. But getting back to the OP, tank designers seem to agree that future tanks will be autoloaded, the details of where the ammo is stored are probably beyond the scope of a GURPS book.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

American tankers seem attached to the fourth man

And the British, and everybody who uses the Leopard II.