"Tanks of the future": Europe named ten promising platforms

Despite the heated debate about the advisability of maintaining MBT in the army, Tanks will clearly remain on the battlefield for at least the coming decades. Whether it's upgrading existing types or developing new products. Key MBT users continue their development, in connection with which the European edition of Portfolio tried to look into the future, naming the ten most promising developments (platforms) in tank building.

As indicated, the Russian army has the most tanks, but a significant part of them were produced during the Soviet era, so they need constant modernization in order to keep up with technological progress. It is noted that recently, photographs have appeared on the Internet that may indicate the revival of the old Burlak program, designed to improve the firepower and protection of the T-72, T-80 and T-90.

In the Russian Federation, there is not only the modernization of old tanks: in 2015, at the Victory Parade, a new product T-14 "Armata" was presented, which, as indicated, "was greeted with great admiration by the entire Western public." Its serial production turned out to be too expensive and mass production is not observed, but further work on the project continues.

Despite the slippage of the program, "Armata" inspired other countries to start developing their own tank fleet, which was most clearly manifested in North Korea, where the Russian machine was almost completely copied.

- indicated in the publication about 9 new tanks that were held at the parade in the DPRK in 2020 and have already received the designation "M2020" in the West.

M2020

Back in the early 2010s, India announced that it was developing a completely new FMBT tank to replace the Arjun currently in service. It was about creating a light, small vehicle with a crew of 2 fighters and more armor protection. However, everything ended in a "grandiose failure": by 2021, not even a prototype was ready. According to the publication, it looks like India will have to upgrade the Arjun or acquire a new MBT abroad.

The Turks have been working on the creation of their own Altay tank since the mid-2000s, having already invested more than $ 1 billion in them. Due to the German embargo, Ankara had to reorient its technological research to the South Korean MBT K2 Black Panther. The first results of joint work are expected this year.

In early May, the British announced that 148 Challenger 2 tanks will be upgraded to Challenger 3 levels. The main goal is to digitize combat vehicles, and a new turret, engine and gun will be installed, which will increase their firepower and survivability. The first Challenger 3s are expected to enter service in 2027.

Development of the European MBT began in 2012, when Germany and France decided it was time to replace their Leopard 2 and Leclerc combat vehicles with a newer model. In 2018, a demonstrator was unveiled, “which is essentially a Leclerc turret mounted on a Leopard 2 hull, without any major technological breakthroughs,” the publication notes. But the program continues with the goal of creating a completely new MBT equipped with a 130-mm cannon and capable of controlling drones. Completion of development is expected by 2035.

The United States has not yet set itself such an ambitious task, betting on the modernization of the old fleet. As stated in the publication, the M1 Abrams has long been considered the best tank in the world, mainly due to its outstanding performance during the Gulf War. However, today this 40-year-old platform is already inferior to a number of machines in terms of impact power.

Nevertheless, work on its modernization continues, the current tank fleet is being rebuilt to meet the M1A2D / SEPv4 standards. This modification received new guidance tools, weather sensors, smoke grenades and new types of ammunition. The modernized combat vehicles will begin to operate in 2021.

Comments

[Victor_B]

Rather, Armata would become in line ...
Well, so that a 152 mm cannon was put on it.
Then any foreign tanks will penetrate BOPS through.
Any angle.
Just get in ...
And as a land mine 152 ... No one will seem a little!
Even a tank to anyone in the forehead without breaking through!

[VO3A]

What tanks will penetrate through? There will be no tank battles with NATO .... Stop raving with fictions and old memories ... Today, tanks are only targets in modern warfare. Anti-tank weapons are so developed that they do not leave tanks any chance ... They go in the 3rd echelon of the offensive, and suppress the centers of resistance of the defeated enemy ... If Russia has a lot of unnecessary tanks, this allows them to be lifted to the skies? .. And ARMRTA will also burn, like the T-90 ... For local conflicts without an air component, they can and will be useful, but they have already made a UAV ... Yes, the role of tanks can be revived, this can be done by combat information systems (network-centric), which should be used weapons are integrated and in real time ... But there are no such systems in Russia ... We must pay all attention to the development, creation and implementation of such systems, but for now, without them, tanks are not needed in such numbers, and they do not need to pay so much attention and sing they are praised ...

[poquello]

Quote: VO3A

Anti-tank weapons are so advanced that they leave no chance for tanks ..

for example will be?

[dauria]

They go in the 3rd echelon, and they suppress the centers of resistance of the defeated enemy.

What kind of war is this? In the school "lightning"? In the 3rd echelon ... And in the first one, we must suppose eroplanes, super-drones and special forces. And all of this is not afraid of tactical nuclear weapons. Okstay ... the tank and the crew, if you're lucky, can survive even 500 meters from the epicenter of a 20 kt charge. Or will we get ready to fight "pretend" to the first blood?
And it will be so - a tactical nuclear strike and tanks will be trampled directly on the infected area until the enemy's reserve approached in this area of ​​defense. And ours or theirs - it's like our fathers-commanders cook a pot.

[Igor Ushakov]

Okay ...танк и crew , if you're lucky, it can survive even 500 m from the epicenter of a 20 kt charge.

survive? Those. the tank will not burn out and break the radar and all the optics with a shock wave and infrared radiation, the EMP will not disable the electronics, and the crew will not receive a deep concussion? In addition, a tank without the support of motorized infantry will not fight much.

tanks will be trampled right over the infected area

in the same way, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles with a landing force can drive through a hot spot. Modern ATGMs installed on them are capable of destroying a tank from distances comparable to the effective range of fire of tank guns, while they are cheaper and consume less fuel.

[John_McCormack]

Another supporter of a nuclear strike and radioactive ash.
My friend, no one will use nuclear weapons unless absolutely necessary.

[Victor_B]

Quote: VO3A

What tanks will penetrate through?

Any.
Including Armata.
The difference is that Europeans seem to be replacing the caliber 130.
Why we have at once on 152 I do not know.

[Alf]

Quote: Victor_B

The difference is that Europeans seem to be replacing the caliber 130.
Why we have at once on 152 I do not know.

The difference is in the OFS. And the main targets of the tank are precisely the infantry targets.

[Igor Ushakov]

And the main targets of the tank are precisely the infantry targets.

A controversial statement, I am not a tanker, but, as far as I know, a significant part of the not-so-large ammo tank is reserved for BOPS and HEAT shells.

[Alf]

Quote: Igor Ushakov

a significant part of the tank's not-so-large ammo space is reserved for BOPSs and cumulative shells.

The fact is that, for example, in BC Leopard-2 there is no OFS AT ALL, there is cumulative fragmentation, which is not a gut.
In BC Challenger-2, there is also NO purely OFS, there are high-explosive armor-piercing.
In BC Abrams, there is also NO OFS, there is a cumulative fragmentation.

[Igor Ushakov]

there is a cumulative fragmentation that is not gut.

As a result, an overall, heavy tank gun with limited ammo is ineffective against infantry, while the above shells do not have a noticeable advantage over cumulative missiles in terms of armor penetration. After articles on VO about remote detonation shells (consider revived shrapnel) for small-caliber automatic cannons, I would like to state that the main task of the tank now remains to hunt for enemy armor.
And, for example, the statistics of the two wars in Iraq show that most of the Iraqi tanks were destroyed not by the Abrams shells but by the Bradley BMP missiles.

[Alf]

Quote: Igor Ushakov

as a result, a dimensional, heavy tank gun with limited ammo is ineffective against infantry

Guys, if you yourself are so-o-you that you did not bother to supply your tanks with a normal high-explosive shell, then who is to blame for this?

Quote: Igor Ushakov

The main task of the tank now remains to hunt for enemy armor.

Wrong. Everything you said applies only to Western tanks, our tanks have normal OFS in the BC.

Quote: Igor Ushakov

about shells of remote detonation (consider, revived shrapnel) for small-caliber automatic cannons,

And these same remote detonation shells for small-caliber guns will be able to take at least some serious cover? For example, a bunker or a concrete wall with a machine gun nest?

[Igor Ushakov]

Wrong. Everything you said applies only to Western tanks, our tanks have normal OFS in the BC.

it is clear, however, that the possibilities of hunting for heavy armor in western tanks are higher.

And these same remote detonation shells for small-caliber guns will be able to take at least some serious cover? For example, a bunker or a concrete wall with a machine gun nest?

cannot a priori.
However, you stated:

And the main goals of the tank are precisely infantry goals.

I figured you meant the infantry. Specifically, it is not so easy to reach an infantryman in a trench or behind the reverse slope of a hill with a tank gun, a shell of which flies over a long distance along a flat trajectory.
And 152-155 mm shells of self-propelled howitzers effectively cope with the destruction of fortifications.

[Alf]

Quote: Igor Ushakov

it is clear, however, that the possibilities of hunting for heavy armor in western tanks are higher.

Why do you think so ? The BC of our tanks also contains sub-caliber and HEAT shells.

Quote: Igor Ushakov

However, you stated:
And the main targets of the tank are precisely the infantry targets.
I figured you meant the infantry. Specifically, it is not so easy to reach an infantryman in a trench or behind the reverse slope of a hill with a tank gun, a shell of which flies over a long distance along a flat trajectory.

Infantry targets are not shooting at an infantryman in a trench, it is work on pillboxes, bunkers and artillery pieces.

Quote: Igor Ushakov

And 152-155 mm shells of self-propelled howitzers effectively cope with the destruction of fortifications.

I agree, but only self-propelled guns operate from closed positions and are unable to suppress emerging targets during an attack.

[Igor Ushakov]

The BC of our tanks also contains sub-caliber and HEAT shells.

I meant that the entire BC of western tanks is imprisoned for the destruction of armor, in one way or another.

Infantry targets are not shooting at an infantryman in a trench, it is work on pillboxes, bunkers and artillery pieces.

then it is really incomprehensible the absence of normal OFS in the BC of western tanks.

[Alf]

Quote: Igor Ushakov

then it is really incomprehensible the absence of normal OFS in the BC of western tanks.

This great mystery is ...
The Germans in WW2 also believed that the main task of the tank was to fight their own kind. In our Charter, it was clearly said-Tank-infantry shield. It is enough to look at the composition of our tanks' ammo.

The result is hundreds of accounts of all Carius and Red Army tanks at the Reichstag.

[Igor Ushakov]

The Germans in WW2 also believed that the main task of the tank was to fight their own kind. 

as far as I know, this tendency developed only after the invasion of the USSR. The Germans conquered Europe with their armored forces mainly T І and T ІІ, which were unsuitable for fighting armor. And the first versions of the T IV were equipped with a 75 mm shortened cannon. When the length of the gun was increased to counter Soviet tanks, some German commanders lamented the decrease in the effectiveness of fire on infantry.

In our Charter, it was clearly said-Tank-infantry shield. 

curious, what then was the idea of ​​Tukhachevsky, who launched high-speed but lightly armored vehicles into production? T-26 and BT of various modifications produced a total of about 20 thousand.
As far as I know, the British and French adhered to the concept of an infantry tank, producing heavily armored, but slow-moving vehicles.

[Alf]

Quote: Igor Ushakov

What then was the idea of ​​Tukhachevsky, who launched high-speed but lightly armored vehicles into production?

The fact that we will quickly pass the enemy country, without waiting for resistance, while it gathers an army. And only after Tukhachevsky was lowered to the underground level, the development and construction of tanks with anti-cannon armor began. Only after Tukhachevsky got what he deserved, the tank troops of the Red Army became self-sufficient in tank models. There were reconnaissance tanks (BT-7), defense breakthrough tanks (T-35 and KV) and success development tanks (T-34).

[Igor Ushakov]

There were reconnaissance tanks (BT-7), defense breakthrough tanks (T-35 and KV) and success development tanks (T-34).

at the beginning of the war, the KV and T-34 were few, as a result the mechanized corps was attacked by masses of "fast samovars" Tukhachevsky, suffering heavy losses from the fire of the German anti-tank weapons.
The T-35, produced by an experimental batch of 6 dozen vehicles, turned out to be a stillborn project, unsuitable for breaking through the defense with anti-tank weapons. Large dimensions, chassis breaking from weight, booking is worse than that of Czech tanks. But 5 (!) Towers, 3 guns, 2 × 45 mm, 75 mm short-barreled for OFS. Only a shot from each of the guns knocked down the sight of the rest, and the commander to adjust the fire of so many guns was almost impossible.
True, the three-turret T-28, produced in an amount of about half a thousand, turned out to be a little more successful and managed to fight back in the Finnish one.

[Alf]

Quote: Igor Ushakov

As a result, the mechanized corps was attacked by masses of "fast samovars" by Tukhachevsky, suffering heavy losses from the fire of the German tank destroyers.

The losses were not from the fact that samovars, but from the fact that they were thrown into battle in units, without the support of artillery and infantry, without accurate intelligence. And not so much our BT and T-26 were inferior to T-1, 2, 3.

Quote: Igor Ushakov

T-35, produced by an experimental batch of 6 dozen vehicles, turned out to be a stillborn project,

Therefore, they were quickly removed, and a KV was put in their place.

Quote: Igor Ushakov

managed to fight back in the Finnish.

And they showed themselves very well there.

[Igor Ushakov]

were thrown into battle in units, without the support of artillery and infantry, without accurate intelligence

these are the next miscalculations of Tukhachevsky and other military leaders who did not understand modern methods of war. First of all - inappropriate regulations and tactics. Low radiation levels of tanks, aircraft and spotters of fire and air support, lack of self-propelled guns, artillery tractors and armored personnel carriers. All that the Germans were equipped with.

And not so much our BT and T-26 were inferior to T-1, 2, 3.

T 1 and 2 were definitely inferior to the Soviet ones in all performance characteristics. However, one should not think in terms of tank duels, the German units were saturated with anti-tank artillery and ATGMs, and also skillfully adjusted the fire of heavy artillery and aviation.

[Alf]

Quote: Igor Ushakov

First of all - inappropriate regulations and tactics.

What was, was ...

[John_McCormack]

A normal office is a danger not only to the enemy, but also to your own infantry. Moreover, this may not always be effective in the city. The tank is always covered by infantry, which, as I said, can also be seriously cut by shrapnel, especially in narrow spaces.

[Incvizitor]

In local conflicts, a meeting is possible.

[DMi]

Anti-tank weapons will "suddenly" collide with KAZ. Yes, and modern remote sensing is quite a norm. means of protection. So the tanks will fight in the first line for a long time)

[poquello]

Quote: Victor_B

Well, so that a 152 mm cannon was put on it.
Then any foreign tanks will penetrate BOPS through.

and at the back you need to attach a cart with shells

[Victor_B]

Quote: poquello

and at the back you need to attach a cart with shells

Do you know exactly BC Armata?
And how much space does AZ take?
Enlighten, do not let die dark!

[poquello]

Quote: Victor_B

Quote: poquello
and at the back you need to attach a cart with shells

Do you know exactly BC Armata?

no, but I know that the larger the bricks, the less they are included in the box

[Victor_B]

Quote: poquello

I know that the larger the brick, the less they fit into the box

Only now people were taken out of this box (there was more space), and the box was noticeably lengthened.
And behind the tower they had stuck some kind of box.

[poquello]

Quote: Victor_B

Quote: poquello

I know that the larger the brick, the less they fit into the box

Only now people were taken out of this box (there was more space), and the box was noticeably lengthened.
And behind the tower they had stuck some kind of box.

and let the designer of the armata think (it is necessary - it is not necessary), besides, the gun needs to be stabilized (well, this is more to the Germans said with their 130)))))))))))))

[Incvizitor]

There, I have another and the department to remodel and the tower, a lot so far 2A82-1M is more and more enough.

[Lionnvrsk]

Quote: Victor_B

Enlighten, do not let die dark!

This is not the first time I have come across this phrase. You do not seem to look like a woman, which means you are quoting Tamantsev? But he in the original, sitting in ambush, said so- Just enlighten. Don't let me die a fool.

[Roman Efremov]

And how can the autoloader be replenished with heavy shells by a crew of 3 people! ..............

[Knell wardenheart]

"Abrams" can hardly be called the tank of the future - the platform is overloaded, the protection is relative, the car is essentially leaving as part of the US forces complex, apart from it it will be rather archaic.
At the moment, it is not entirely clear that this should be added to the MBT so that it acquires dominant characteristics over the tanks of previous generations, because the task of fighting tanks in the complex has already been quite effectively dismantled in parts for themselves, and it seems like due to this, dueling qualities tanks are already less decisive in comparison with the qualities that contribute to survival in this confusion, manufacturability of production, security and awareness of the crew and the same efficiency as a part of the network centric and as a combat unit. Judging by these characteristics, yes, "Armata" comes to mind by itself.
And at the same time, he immediately comes to the conclusion that all these qualities as such will be revealed only as part of a well-functioning complex of forces and means. Without such, there is no need for a large-scale modernization of the tank fleet.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

"Abrams" can hardly be called the tank of the future - the platform is overloaded, the protection is relative, the car is essentially leaving as part of the US forces complex, apart from it it will be rather archaic.

There are persistent rumors that the Americans are planning a global modernization of the abrashka, which will remove most of the uranium armor, leaving the equivalent of a maximum of 350-400 mm of homogeneous steel to reduce weight. And the main protection will be assigned to KAZ. But these are just rumors. There are rumors that they rushed in general their own version of armata with an uninhabited tower and other pleasures to develop.

[Knell wardenheart]

The main advantage of "Armata", I personally see its construction on a standard platform - that is, it is plus the price and large-scale production and maintainability. Everything else can be relative and there is little data so far, but economic and repair considerations are not the last in military affairs. Also in "+" Armata its weight.
The same "Abrams" has an unacceptably large weight for a tank of an overseas state, I have little faith in the success of its upgrades, because this machine is equally terrible from the point of view of the US strategy, from whatever angle you look at it. Weaknesses in the design, congestion, inconvenience in transportation, speed, motor resource, etc. - all this for a major war and the logistics of a major war, which they love to trumpet so much, will be a disaster.
While I heard that their Future Combat Sistem, which should have been the basis for replacing Abrams, burned out and devoured a lot of money and time. Judging by the concepts for this program, the Americans do not have a clear understanding of what they want from the tank and for what kind of war they need it. They are again torn between dubious high-tech and some kind of archaism, anti-partisanship and some outdated ideas about a major war. So I think they, in terms of the new MBT, "handed over their cards" to the Europeans - they will look at their decisions, rethink, look at the Chinese and our decisions, and only then they will "give birth" again. And "Abrams" will be rolled like a B-52 or Minuteman - to the victory, as they say ..

[poquello]

Quote: Albert1988

There are persistent rumors that the Americans are planning a global modernization of the abrashka, which will remove most of the uranium armor, leaving the equivalent of a maximum of 350-400 mm of homogeneous steel to reduce weight. And the main protection will be assigned to KAZ.

Kaz this is not for long

[Castro Ruiz]

Before the massive appearance of supersonic BOPS.

[poquello]

Quote: CastroRuiz

Before the massive appearance of supersonic BOPS.

and there are many options, while our kazy rule there is no point in discussing opposition

[Incvizitor]

In the place of the fshists at the abrashka, I would partially reduce the armor in front and due to this, cover the sides, although for me he is stillborn.

[kapitan92]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

At the moment, it is not entirely clear what this should be added to the MBT so that it acquires dominant characteristics over the tanks of previous generations,

Complex of active protection (KAZ), with protection of the upper projection.
Although, why fantasize, to see the "Arena". or "Afghanit" and that's good.

[Knell wardenheart]

The probability of interception from KAZ is not ideal, to put it mildly, but weapons that strike into the upper projection are becoming more and more (Those solutions that were more or less suitable against conventional grenade launchers are already much less suitable against UAVs and Kamikaze UAVs with a very wide range of their capabilities and EPR both themselves and their ammunition ..
The price of the tank rises, the price of the means of destruction multiplied by the effectiveness falls. Probably in the near future it will be necessary to somehow redesign the upper part of the tank, but this is already such a deep alteration that it’s probably easier to go not into modernization, but into redesigning MBT for modern warfare in principle. The current conflicts are conflicts of high-precision weapons, which for the most part do not fly to where the main project booking is located. Taking into account the increase in the price of the tank, the range of means of its destruction is also expanding because the "prize fund" is large.

[Smooth]

"Abrams" can hardly be called the tank of the future

"Abrams" can hardly be called a tank. In fact, this is a tank destroyer, a tank destroyer. That is, a combat vehicle designed for use in defense. No, of course no one forbids the use of a tank destroyer to solve the same problems that tanks solve. But there will be difficulties.
In NATO, in general, with the terminology of that ... The trouble ... They have Strv. 103 was listed ... was listed ... was listed as a tank.
It is, of course, understandable why this is so. When "Abrams" (and the rest of NATO tanks) was conceived, it was not there before the offensive. They thought about how to stop the avalanche of Soviet tanks so that they would not "wash the tracks" in the Atlantic waters a week after the start of the conflict ...

[Bad_gr]

For some reason, the photo of the T-14 in the article is turned inside out (it has a sight window on the left side of the tower, not on the right, and the panorama of the commander with a machine gun, on the contrary, should be on the right).

[Albert1988]

I noticed for a long time that in most Western reviews / articles for some reason constantly photo / video armata are reflected horizontally.

[Bad_gr]

So, this is

[Peak]

Quote: Albert1988

I noticed for a long time that in most Western reviews / articles for some reason constantly photo / video armata are reflected horizontally.

This is how copyrights for photos and videos are bypassed.

[poquello]

Quote: Bad_gr

For some reason, the photo of the T-14 in the article is turned inside out (it has a sight window on the left side of the tower, not on the right, and the panorama of the commander with a machine gun, on the contrary, should be on the right).

this is a right-hand drive version

[Grits]

Quote: poquello

this is a right-hand drive version

To roll her around Japan and the UK

[Gavrohs]

there will be no tanks in conventional terms, there will be something in between a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle

[Pattor]

And here was the T-95th project. Almost launched. And many from the Urals and the Trans-Urals say that a good car could be. But he stabbed the stools. And the armata is still raw, very strongly ((

[Marachuh]

Copied Armata .... hmm ... Apparently the author was not embarrassed by the presence of 2 lads in the turret of the tank.

[yfast]

... in 2015, at the Victory Day parade, a new product, the T-14 "Armata", was presented, which, as indicated, "was greeted with great admiration by the entire Western public."

We, too, have been admiring for the sixth year already, we are even tired of admiring, but they are still not there.

[Igor Ushakov]

tanks will clearly remain on the battlefield, at least for decades to come. Whether it is the modernization of existing types or the development of new products.

only the author modestly kept silent that the US Marine Corps abandoned tanks completely, and the British sent a third of the vehicles of the available fleet that did not fall under modernization for conservation.

[smaug78]

What nonsense and bottom

[Cer59]

I wonder what kind of grandmother the West got to, in connection with ARMATA?