The recent new tank concepts are pointless designs

Since yesterday I have been thinking about new tank concepts we saw in Eurosatory 2022. These tanks are apparently ultra high-tech designs. Some of them and their common features

Nexter and KMW KNDS E-MBT



- Trophy APS and GALIX soft kill APS
- 130 mm gun
- Organic UAV
- Acoustic sensor
- Commander periscope with integrated MG
- 30 mm gun with AHEAD ammo
- Has an autoloader but the 4th crew member remains in as the UAV and 30 mm gun operator
- 360 degree awareness

Rheinmetall KF-51


- APS
- 130 mm gun
- Organic kamikaze UAV
- Apparent radar signature reduction
- Has an autoloader but the 4th crew member remains in as the UAV operator
- Interchangeable fully digital crew stations

Hyundai NGMBT



- APS
- 130 mm gun
- Laser
- Multi-purpose missile
- Rising mast sensor
- Unmanned turret and crew capsule in hull
- Organic UAV
- Hybrid propulsion with BEV mode
- Band tracks
- Radar signature reduction and IR camo
- 360 degree radar and EO coverage
- IED detection and defeating system

Then we have this notional concept


It seems we will have tanks with many fancy features like drones, loitering munitions. multi-purpose missiles, 130-140 mm guns, 360 degree sensor fusion, UAV detection and elimination, IED detection, and elimination, etc. Even though I had written posts involving very high-tech tanks in past I actually see several problems with these vehicles

1- The 130 mm gun serves no purpose

There is no tank in the world that couldn't be penetrated by a good 120 mm gun. And tanks can not match the range of ATGMs without getting turrets that allow high elevation angles. For infantry support and anti-structure work (what tanks do nowadays most of the time) the difference is very small. So the 130 mm gun brings little benefit for anti-infantry and anti-structure tasks, doesn't solve the ATGM range problem, and solves a non-existent problem in regards to armor penetration.

2- Their contribution to the battlefield is almost negligible compared to their cost

They bring a low-range medium-caliber gun to the battlefield. Every other piece of hardware which make the vast majority of the gun carrier's cost is there to keep it alive. I think there are a lot more cost-effective ways to bring similar firepower to the battlefield. These tanks would likely result in less firepower because of their price.

3- They don't solve the three fundamental problems that tanks are facing today

The first one is the fact that ATGM teams and vehicles are a lot more mobile, harder to find, have more range and are extremely lethal. IR camo will help in avoiding detection by such teams but ATGM teams will get the same camo technologies too, making it harder for the tank to spot them. APS is effective but methods to defeat them already exist. The second problem is enemy artillery. Artillery will still be as deadly to these high-tech tanks as it is to current tanks. The third problem is enemy airpower which became an even bigger problem because of cheap drones. These tanks offer no solutions to that problem too. So they have very low firepower compared to their cost and they offer very little survivability improvement against the top 3 tank killers on the battlefield.

4- Loitering munitions on tanks make no sense

Loitering munitions are long range munitions so their users don't need much armor. A light vehicle or even dismounted infantry can carry and use them effectively. Why should we complicate tanks?

5- A tank can not defend against UAVs effectively

Air defense is a task that requires specific hardware because of its difficulty and uniqueness. Adding 30 mm guns or ATGM derived SAMs to tanks won't do anything to most UAVs. These weapons have ranges around a few km. Even 100 kg UAVs outmatch them. They would be useful for point defense against kamikaze UAVs but that task can be done much better by an air defense system.


To sum up, I think these new tank concepts are tech development for the sake of tech development which is a problem that plagues the current European procurement. Extremely high-tech, extremely expensive but actually solve very few problems that the current tanks face.

So what's the alternative? Unless you are suggesting we abandon mechanisation and switch to infantry only, there will be a need for tanks.

I'm not a fan of the 4th crew member controlling a UAV/loitering munitions. In an integrated military that should be handled by someone else. But in the real world a tank crew being able to do their own reconnaissance or long range strikes may turn out to be very useful.

What I think what's happening tank companies are trying to find reason to sell a completely new design over countries just bolting an APS on an old design.

It’s rather like the navies between the two world wars believing putting a few spotter planes on battleships brings battleships fully into the air age, not realizing what ails battleships in the air age is not the fact that they didn’t make use of airplanes, but the diminished value of the essence of battleshipness in the air age.

Abominable said:

So what's the alternative? Unless you are suggesting we abandon mechanisation and switch to infantry only, there will be a need for tanks.

I'm not a fan of the 4th crew member controlling a UAV/loitering munitions. In an integrated military that should be handled by someone else. But in the real world a tank crew being able to do their own reconnaissance or long range strikes may turn out to be very useful.

Click to expand...

I'm just talking out my ass here but historically the purpose of a tank has been strategic armored mobility. Basically it can go cross country, encircle enemies and then attack them from behind. The other purpose is that it can survive being hit by anything other than a tank and ATGMs, which there are alot of like autocannons and machine guns.

Basically it is like the heavy cavalry in the medieval era.

A few ways to improve tanks for their role of breakthrough, encirclement and protection against smaller targets:

1. Hybrid electric transmission to improve acoustic stealth, IR stealth, fuel efficiency, instantaneous power and have the capability to silently idle. Currently no tank has this but with China's innovations in EV and plug in hybrids this may be possible in China's next MBT. Also, can loot enemy electrical grid.

2. Unmanned turret like T-14. In Ukraine the biggest problem is detonation of turret ammo causing entire tank to blow, and top attack munitions hitting the thin turret armor. With an unmanned turret + autoloader there are less rounds available but much more survivability, as the entire turret can be made smaller and more armored.

3. Rear entrance like Merkava to further reduce places with weak top armor. Other tanks all have a turret entrance.

4. I like the sensors on these proposed tanks but they have some weaknesses. 360 visual awareness they got right. But acoustic sensing is useless if they still run with noisy diesels. That is why it should be paired with hybrid transmission or IEP.

5. Replacing hydraulic actuators with electric motors when possible to avoid ignition or smoke when hit.

6. Type 99 already has laser detector, warning and retaliation system (blinding the laser sender). Next step should be full LiDAR capability to create a quantitative 3D map of the battlefield and be able to share that data with other armored vehicles, and the capability to intensify that beam to attack UAV.

LOL at NATO's jobs program to keep the fourth crewman employed. As if the gunner couldn't control the UAV.

I wonder if China's next generation tank will use a 130+ mm gun or stick with 125 mm. For gun barrels of the same length, the kinetic energy scales with the force, which is pressure * area. A 130mm gun would give China an 8.2% improvement in kinetic energy, while a NATO gun going from 120 to 130 improves its kinetic energy by 17.4% assuming pressure remains equal. It's a very natural step forward. Since China is almost certainly switching to single piece ammunition, it makes sense to increase barrel diameter since the old ammo would be incompatible anyway - besides, there are plenty of older tanks to use that ammo.

I hope it also gets all the new bells and whistles like hybrid transmission, ETC gun, unmanned turret, next-gen APS, etc. And to anyone who thinks the age of the tank has passed, all I have to say is TENK STRONK!

Expensive, complex, resource costly. Things to avoid for a MBT.

Honestly the upgraded Leopards, M1s, Challengers, Merkavas, and Leclercs are already peak MBT. Complicating things for the proposed benefit of improved anti-infantry and firepower against modernised heavy MBTs is a bit pointless. Okay it might be necessary for 130mm against something like an armoured up 99A but 120mm and 125mm are absolutely enough to at least mission kill a MBT of any size provided the shot lands somewhere.

It seems like these newer designs want to make use of unmanned turret and design the entire tank around the APS. This is the only genuine advantage in any modern battlefield, urban or not. APS on 4th gen tanks are more an afterthought and questionable effectiveness when it's just slapped on the turret with all the associated sensors exposed.

These are all a step in the right direction but do they justify the cost? Almost certainly not because the counters are going to be far easier to mass produce and put into service than setting up entire new production for new gen MBTs. Until adversaries field truly next level protection and anti-tank firepower, this isn't necessary as no APS are going to guarantee protection from anti tank artillery, guided anti tank shells, drone and helicopter ATGMs - attrition. Also seems like the armour on existing modernised 4th gen MBTs have equal or even superior armour than the proposals. Unmanned turret means better crew survivability but easier to mission kill the turret mounted firepower and/or sensors. T-14's turret armour is nowhere near 4th gen MBTs, outside of Russian MBTs.

Biggest improvement is a tank with a bespoke APS, it doesn't even need to counter apfsds.

I don't agree with 360° awareness, tanks should be covered on the flanks by other tanks and infantry.

Also an unmanned turret should only be considered if it doesn't make the tank higher overall (as it does on the t-14)

Note sure about a bigger gun. It's only good against other tanks, when it comes against armoured vehicles, buildings and foritifications you're losing substantial ammount of shells a tank can carry

ougoah said:

Expensive, complex, resource costly. Things to avoid for a MBT.

Honestly the upgraded Leopards, M1s, Challengers, Merkavas, and Leclercs are already peak MBT. Complicating things for the proposed benefit of improved anti-infantry and firepower against modernised heavy MBTs is a bit pointless. Okay it might be necessary for 130mm against something like an armoured up 99A but 120mm and 125mm are absolutely enough to at least mission kill a MBT of any size provided the shot lands somewhere.

It seems like these newer designs want to make use of unmanned turret and design the entire tank around the APS. This is the only genuine advantage in any modern battlefield, urban or not. APS on 4th gen tanks are more an afterthought and questionable effectiveness when it's just slapped on the turret with all the associated sensors exposed.

These are all a step in the right direction but do they justify the cost? Almost certainly not because the counters are going to be far easier to mass produce and put into service than setting up entire new production for new gen MBTs. Until adversaries field truly next level protection and anti-tank firepower, this isn't necessary as no APS are going to guarantee protection from anti tank artillery, guided anti tank shells, drone and helicopter ATGMs - attrition. Also seems like the armour on existing modernised 4th gen MBTs have equal or even superior armour than the proposals. Unmanned turret means better crew survivability but easier to mission kill the turret mounted firepower and/or sensors. T-14's turret armour is nowhere near 4th gen MBTs, outside of Russian MBTs.

Click to expand...

agreed, they are basically trying to one up the counters instead of thinking about how to actually use a tank, let it do its job better, and not put the tanks in a position where they'd be vulnerable. Their premise is kind of like asking the question: "How do I make an aircraft carrier capable of being targeted by multiple submarines and surviving?" The answer is not to add tons of underwater torpedo nets. The answer is to not put carriers in a position where multiple submarines will be able to target it and launch ASW helicopters.

M1s and Leopards, why are they so heavy and fuel inefficient? Because their role was to be deployed in defensive positions in Europe, not drive on Moscow where they'd consume tons of fuel and then get stuck in a ditch because their ground pressure is so high.

German blitzkrieg and Russian deep battle doctrines are tank centric, but did they really envision using tanks against other tanks or driving them into cities? No. Even today, Russia didn't use their tanks against Ukrainian tanks, they used Ka-52s, Krasnopol and UAVs. Ukrainians on the other hand are using their ATGMs and TB-2s.

FairAndUnbiased said:

agreed, they are basically trying to one up the counters instead of thinking about how to actually use a tank, let it do its job better, and not put the tanks in a position where they'd be vulnerable. Their premise is kind of like asking the question: "How do I make an aircraft carrier capable of being targeted by multiple submarines and surviving?" The answer is not to add tons of underwater torpedo nets. The answer is to not put carriers in a position where multiple submarines will be able to target it and launch ASW helicopters.

M1s and Leopards, why are they so heavy and fuel inefficient? Because their role was to be deployed in defensive positions in Europe, not drive on Moscow where they'd consume tons of fuel and then get stuck in a ditch because their ground pressure is so high.

German blitzkrieg and Russian deep battle doctrines are tank centric, but did they really envision using tanks against other tanks or driving them into cities? No. Even today, Russia didn't use their tanks against Ukrainian tanks, they used Ka-52s, Krasnopol and UAVs. Ukrainians on the other hand are using their ATGMs and TB-2s.

Click to expand...

Large portion of tanks and other vehicles in Ukraine, on both sides, have been destroyed with regular dump artillery.

Arguments against tanks can be used as arguments against all other AFV's but even death trap like BMP-3 has more protection than simple pick-up truck.