Post by pendell on Jan 27, 2016 8:36:11 GMT -5
Indeed, but MBTs have other drawbacks. One is that the M1A2 weighs -- what -- 62 metric tons 70?
When you're planning a movement, one of the things you've got to ask yourself is, "Are there any rivers I have to cross? Which of them can handle three hundred 62-ton vehicles all at once?" Also, hope the movement isn't being done over nice, soft mud. There's a bunch of youtube videos of various T-80s, T-90s, Abrams, and M-60s all done in by this unexpected factor. The Russians even have a word for it -- Rasputitsa, better known as "Marshal Mud".
The M1A2 is supposed to have the horsepower to get out of mud on its own, and sometimes it even does. When it doesn't -- good luck getting 62 tons out of a mire. As the Germans said,"it takes a Tiger to tow a Tiger".
That weight comes with a cost in fuel consumption. According to Global security , an M1 will burn 300 gallons every eight hours. That's ONE tank. Multiply that by 300 for a division, then multiply by the number of days the operation is expected to continue, and you're looking at a veritable lake of petroleum products. That's why one of the most effective defenses against tanks is simply to get behind them and kill all the soft-skinned trucks carrying their gas, instantly converting them into 300 very expensive metal pillboxes.
At any rate, that's the deal breaker.There are all kinds of improvements you can make to a tank, and they all come at a cost in weight. Better armor? Adds weight. Active defenses? Add weight. Bigger, better gun? ... aw, you know the pattern by now.
The bottom line is that with current technology we're rapidly reaching the point where a tank is simply too massive ; in more and more situations, it simply can't find a big enough bridge or solid enough ground to get to the battle in time, let alone fight in it.
To solve that, we really would need nuclear-powered hovertanks. And I have a response to an earlier comment on both man-portable and vehicle systems -- so are you volunteering to strap a nuclear power plant on your back? Hope you've had all the kids you want; if a bullet clips it and fractures the containment, you're looking at radiation poisoning and a lingering death. Oh, and if you get in a battle and you have a bunch of these broken power packs lying around, getting into the soil, I bet it'll make the region uninhabitable for a loong time.
Because of this, I suggest that modern MBTs are getting pretty close to the edge of their current development, absent some technological innovation I can't imagine at this moment.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
When you're planning a movement, one of the things you've got to ask yourself is, "Are there any rivers I have to cross? Which of them can handle three hundred 62-ton vehicles all at once?" Also, hope the movement isn't being done over nice, soft mud. There's a bunch of youtube videos of various T-80s, T-90s, Abrams, and M-60s all done in by this unexpected factor. The Russians even have a word for it -- Rasputitsa, better known as "Marshal Mud".
The M1A2 is supposed to have the horsepower to get out of mud on its own, and sometimes it even does. When it doesn't -- good luck getting 62 tons out of a mire. As the Germans said,"it takes a Tiger to tow a Tiger".
That weight comes with a cost in fuel consumption. According to Global security , an M1 will burn 300 gallons every eight hours. That's ONE tank. Multiply that by 300 for a division, then multiply by the number of days the operation is expected to continue, and you're looking at a veritable lake of petroleum products. That's why one of the most effective defenses against tanks is simply to get behind them and kill all the soft-skinned trucks carrying their gas, instantly converting them into 300 very expensive metal pillboxes.
At any rate, that's the deal breaker.There are all kinds of improvements you can make to a tank, and they all come at a cost in weight. Better armor? Adds weight. Active defenses? Add weight. Bigger, better gun? ... aw, you know the pattern by now.
The bottom line is that with current technology we're rapidly reaching the point where a tank is simply too massive ; in more and more situations, it simply can't find a big enough bridge or solid enough ground to get to the battle in time, let alone fight in it.
To solve that, we really would need nuclear-powered hovertanks. And I have a response to an earlier comment on both man-portable and vehicle systems -- so are you volunteering to strap a nuclear power plant on your back? Hope you've had all the kids you want; if a bullet clips it and fractures the containment, you're looking at radiation poisoning and a lingering death. Oh, and if you get in a battle and you have a bunch of these broken power packs lying around, getting into the soil, I bet it'll make the region uninhabitable for a loong time.
Because of this, I suggest that modern MBTs are getting pretty close to the edge of their current development, absent some technological innovation I can't imagine at this moment.
Respectfully,
Brian P.