Firepower vs Protection vs Mobility

Once again, I apologize if this topic has been done to death already however interesting it may be.

When designing a tank, the designers have always ended up trying to evely juggle the 3 important aspects that make up an effective AFV; firepower, protection, and mobility.

What, to you, the forum members, is the most important factor of a tank: Firepower; Protection; or Mobility?

I prefer protection personally, much like the Israelis when they designed the Merkeva. Protection will allow it to get much closer to the enemy and if its firepower is lacking, the closer range should make up for that. Mobility will be less important as well if the tank can recieve great amounts of damage.

 

There's aspects to mobility - strategic (bridge load/ ground load for road damage/ rail transport), top speed, top useable speed (two different things), and agility/ acceleration among others.
The thing is, in a WWIII type situation which most current tanks were designed for (Israel being a notable exception) the problem with going for protection is that there's so many threats - other tanks, ATGW (including top attack and overfly attack), SADARM, air attack, SFF artillery etc etc. The old dictum, if you can see it you can hit it, and if you can hit it you can kill it, means that protection is relative.
I think I'm probably on the mobility side (able to move fast hit and get away/ change firing position - except that 40-50 kph vs 1700 metres/ sec... maybe move so fast that the bad guy doesn't see you properly). Does protection include low-vis designs/ active(?) camouflage etc?
It seems that firepower is pretty much a moot point these days, all the current 120/ 125mm are more or less the same (within limits)

 

I guess you could consider these under protection.

Good point, but if the crew can survive the destruction of their tank, they can run back to headquarters and tell them to get some better tanks!

 

Yeah I sort of agree about crew survival but the Merkava (lovely though it is) is currently a solution for Israel, not the rest of the world, Is it possible to make a tank survivable in a WWIII situation? Although, WWIII having gone by the board and turned a lot of "serious wargamers" into "fantasy gamers" :lol: there's now a whole slew of different requirements. Hence, I suppose the M8 with its 3 levels of protection dependant upon threat level.
For WWIII I suppose that a "survivable" tank would have such a reduced mobility it could have been approaching worse than useless, couldn't get to the battle in time (too big, heavy to transport), too slow to get there on its own, destroyed the roads getting there and if it had turned up it was too slow to stay out of the way of everything fired at it.
Merkava is probabaly a better solution than a "fully protected" tank, it gets shot up and the crew get out. You've saved the crew and you've saved the cost of training another crew. A truly protected tank wouldn't get killed from the first, or second, or third round fired and eventually the bad guys would notice and bung everything in its direction. No more tank, no more crew. Merkava is a sort of "graceful degradation" in engineering terms... :lol:

 

''What, to you, the forum members, is the most important factor of a tank: Firepower; Protection; or Mobility?''

I guess you explained why there are all as important, a good gun is important, good protection is important and good mobility is important, I thin kthere isn't 1 particulair thing that is more important than the other.

 

Nice idea Jeffrey, but the problem in the real world is that every tank is compromise. One that has all three tends to a decent all-rounder but inferior in firepower to a firepower-optimised tank, inferior in mobility to a mobilty-optimised tank and inferior... you get the idea. Every tank design done since... umm I don't know when the idea came up really, I first noticed it in one of Simpkin's or Ogorkiewicz's books, which for me would be early-mid 70's so the theory would predate that considerably.
Anyway, most tanks are designed to be better at 1, fairly good at another and only so-so at the third
Examples
Chieftain - Armour/Gun/Mobility (IIRC, it might have been Gun/Armour/)
AMX-30 & Leopard 1 - Mobility/Gun/Armour
etc. I think Zhukov's question meant "if you had to choose, which would it be?"

 

Than you are talking about fairly old tanks, the Leopard2a4 was the first tank wich ''mastered'' all 3 aspects, many followed

 

No, no tank has mastered all three.
Example, if they had put better armour on a Leo2A4 (quite possible they did it to 2A5) then its mobility would suffer, if it had "mastered" firepower then there would be no need for the L/55 gun.
Every tank is a compromise, including the most modern, and those yet to be designed/ built.

 

Is it about mastering????

No, it was about a good mix between the 3 most important aspects, and the Leopard2a4 was the first with a good mix, because times don't stand still they had to upgrade the Leopard2a4 with better gun, better armor and there was no need for a better engine as it provides enough power.

 

Don't be a Bull****er. You said yourself, and I quote:

No amount of backpedaling is going to change this.

 

In addition

Leo was originally designed as an anti WarPac AFV. Have Russian guns got any better since the wall came down, errm 2A46 - 2A46M, oh not really, have the Russians got faster, more armour (in general, there's a huge number of available add-ons but the Russians who designed them will probably be the last to field them, due budget restrictions :lol: ). Again no.
So has the general threat altered significantly? Nope, it's just modern technology allows upgrades (presumably as part of a regular maintenance schedule), everybody wants new toys, but how necessary are they? And in point of fact they're looking at a new engine which takes a whole metre less space!
And again it's debatable if Leo 2A4 (or 2A6 or whatever) has a "good mix".
Tanks are designed to meet a specific threat with consideration given to secondary threats. So it depends upon the percieved threat.
Chieftain was good mix, in fact it was an excellent mix, because the perceived threat was that armour was going to be needed most.
The question was

My emphasis on the important part.

 

Thanks for clearing that up in your own ''good'' way as always Danyel...

I corrwect myself: It has to be:
The Leopard2a4 was the first tank wich got a good mix of the 3 most important aspects.

''So has the general threat altered significantly? Nope, it's just modern technology allows upgrades (presumably as part of a regular maintenance schedule), everybody wants new toys, but how necessary are they? And in point of fact they're looking at a new engine which takes a whole metre less space!''

If I'm correct that new engine is installed on the latest Leopard2's (STRV-122, Leopard2a6E, Leopard2a6HEL)
I think all the new upgradfes where/are necessary:
1: The Thermal sight for te commander gives the Leopard2a5/a6 a hunter/killer capability

2: The add-on armor gives it more protection against modern anti-tank weapons

3: The longer cannon gives it te ability to fire new/betetr rounds

4: The new engine gives it an even better mix of firepower/protection/mobility

5: The improved mine-protection gives it (obviously) a better protection against mines or IED's (Usefull in Iraq)

What more???

''Have Russian guns got any better since the wall came down, errm 2A46 - 2A46M, oh not really, have the Russians got faster, more armour (in general, there's a huge number of available add-ons but the Russians who designed them will probably be the last to field them, due budget restrictions ). Again no.''

The main enemy isn't Russia anymore, think of Iran, they got heavily upgraded Chieftains, T-55's and T-72's + that even better tank the Zulfigar-3. About the Russians, on the all-welded turrets they install ERA packages wich are very effective against different rounds.

 

And Chieftain is of a generation earlier than Leo 2A4, T-55 is far earlier, T-72 is about what Leos were designed to counter and the multi-capability ERA (KONTAKT-5) is not in widespread service(query that?, maybe I'm thinking of KAKTUS). It's heavily touted, see http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=46314, but it has been said

so upgunning is not particularly necessary, AFAIK there's pretty much an ongoing "swap" of gun/ shot technology going on in the West. But regardless, the main threat is still (Chieftain excepted) WarPac designed tanks, regardless of who fields them. Zulfiqar is basically a T-72 mod, as opposed to an all-new design.
As stated earlier, they all had a "good mix" they were designed for a specific job, to a specific price (plus cost over-runs, plus inflation :lol: )
Again, which is more important to you, and why?

 

All as imporant :lol:

''And Chieftain is of a generation earlier than Leo 2A4, T-55 is far earlier, T-72 is about what Leos were designed to counter and the multi-capability ERA (KONTAKT-5) is not in widespread service(query that?, maybe I'm thinking of KAKTUS).''

As I said Chieftain, T-55 and T-72 are heavily upgraded with atleast reactive armor, don't know if it is KONTAKT-5 or some other ERA (, but ERA is used by MANY countries, and ERA is a cheap way to make a useless tank into a pretty deadly tank, and its cheap.

''Zulfiqar is basically a T-72 mod, as opposed to an all-new design.''

Its true that the older Zulfiqar tanks used many components from the T-72, but the Zulfiqar 3 is a whole new tank.

''But regardless, the main threat is still (Chieftain excepted) WarPac designed tanks, regardless of who fields them.''

Yeah, and??? :lol:

''Still the point remains that given that this test is supposed to have occured in 1997 and new rounds have been developed since then it is reasonable to assume that Kontact-5 is no longer proof against standard US rounds''

I don't know much about the rounds the US uses, but that website (http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/) claims that it cannot be penetrated in the frontal arc by US M829A1 APFSDS ammo.

 

It does (as has been pointed out) depend on what threat you face.

If your opponant can out-produce you, the standard answer is to produce tanks with higher armour & gun, but lesser mobility (Germany in WW2, Britain in the Cold War).

America always seems to have preferred mobility over everything else, especially gun, until the latest versions of the M1 with 120mm gun and crackin' good armour came out.
But then, the M1 only has superior mobility on roads. Cross-country performance seems to be roughly in line with all other current European MBTs. (not criticising, just pointing out that upgrading the gun & armour creates a less mobile tank).

 

Okay, ERA improves the effective armour thickness against HEAT rounds, which is not a tank v tank weapon anyway (the new Russian ERA is effective vs KE, but I'll cover that in a minute)
Zulfiqar-3, according to FAS and a Pakistani military site (haven't yet had chance to go through all the listings) is

. Wow, that's effective!! Not. I seriously doubt that Iran has the industrial capability or capacity to design and produce for general service a completely new tank.

from the Pakistani army site.
I said that Leo was designed for use against WarPac tanks, you said it wouldn't be facing WarPac but Iran, just pointed that it's still WarPac tanks. And handled somewhat less effectively at that.
Yes that's what Vasily's site says and the quote you've put above it says that the tests were carried out in '97 and that "new rounds have been developed since then" M829A1 is not the latest round available...
Tanknet had longish discussion about US rounds a month or so back, I'll see if I can retrieve them if you're interested.

 

Nevertheless, it is a tank still based on WarPac designs, so you can imagine overall quality will still be lacking. I believe WarPac tanks usually relied on mobility more than anything.

However, I will say that the Russian T-90 is a nice mixture of firepower, mobility, and protection. The 125mm gun, which shoots a powerful AT missile as well, is exteremly powerful; the armour is a mix of composite and reactive and the tank is equipped with a laser blinder system; and has a maximum speed of 60k/h.

Iran only uses foreign AFV and will probably do so for the rest of enternity for they have no industrial base to create their own tanks.

 

I still prefer T-80 of the Russian tanks (barring Black Eagle of course - very nice), especially in the U-M1 variant with Arena active armour.
T-90 is really just a re-badged (post Chechnya) T-72 with extra chrome :lol:
But I think Leclerc is probably the best-looking.

 

''pieced together or developed from major components of the Russian T-72 and American M48 and M60 tanks''

Yes, thats the Zulfiqar 1 and probably 2, the 3th is a whole new design and looks a bit like the US M1.

''Currently the third model Al-Zulfiqar III is been delivered and right now is in service. There are less than 100 of them, including all variants.''

I don't think you have to take pakistani sources to seriously...
100 is a very low number, I guess its very old, the keep producing them so to say they have 100 of them is not veru accurate.

''Yes that's what Vasily's site says and the quote you've put above it says that the tests were carried out in '97 and that "new rounds have been developed since then" M829A1 is not the latest round available...''

Don't they upgrade the ERA time from time...?

''Nevertheless, it is a tank still based on WarPac designs, so you can imagine overall quality will still be lacking. I believe WarPac tanks usually relied on mobility more than anything.''

The Zulfiqar 3 is a new tank, not from the '70's, it is completely designed and made by Iran...

''Iran only uses foreign AFV and will probably do so for the rest of enternity for they have no industrial base to create their own tanks.''

Somebody misinformed you...
They have there own weapon industry, its not a country like Iraq, you highly underestimate tem, they make there own tanks, artillery, weapons etc, eberything is made in Iran...

This is the Zulfiqar-3, it is in no way comparable with the Zulfiqar 1 and 2, its like comparing a Panzer 1 with a Panzer III:

 

Iranian made Artillery system: