Future Tanks 1

To Adjust to Future Warfare, How can we Redesign Current Army Tanks to be More Multi-

faceted? Including a follow-up : Do we really need tanks in the future?

Vincent Zhao

RDF International School

Author Note

Vincent Zhao, Honor Thesis, RDF International School

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Vincent Zhao,

Honor Thesis, RDF International School

Contact: 2974433042@qq.com

Proofreader: Jon Samuel

Future Tanks 2

Tanks are the steel roaring beasts rampaging through the billows of gunpowder smoke,

designated to bring destruction upon enemies. This saying has been substantially rooted in the

minds of military fans. To put it formally, tanks are perfect combinations of advanced army

equipments with exceptional firepower, protection and mobility. Or are they? When tanks pre-

sented themselves in the first world war, they crashed everything that was in their way, tearing

apart German defenses as if nothing could ever cease them. This achievement came largely as a

result of surprise; Germans never expected such firepower on the ground. The cannons on the

British tanks shot out hellish flame and shell, blowing German bunkers back into bricks, filling

the battlefield with scorched bodies of German infantry. When German troopers concentrated all

of the firepower they could gather to counter the attack, to their great astonishment, British tanks

remained largely intact after enduring a round of barrage and continued slaughtering afterward.

Tanks have been enhanced ever since they came into being. This argument is still to this day one

of the most crucial factors of army warfare which leads to the question: How can we redesign

current army tanks to make it more multi-faceted in terms of firepower, protection and mobility?

With the emergence of a variety of sophisticated vehicles, the need for tanks in future warfare

seems to be ever dropping as time has deprived of their last opportunities to be refined. Some

have suggested that tanks have fulfilled their duties and it is time for them to quit the stage of war

while the rest insist that tanks are always needed regardless of which time period they are in.

Even there is divergence between the United States Army and Congress as former claims that

they do not need tanks anymore whereas latter, which has signed piles of contracts with weapon

suppliers, announces that the army will continue purchasing new army tanks. The issue has

sparked off spirited debates among individuals, military enthusiasts in particular. People opine

different thoughts ascribable to their dissimilar backgrounds and experience. Do we really need

tanks for future warfares? This is the question we need to look into as insightful thinkers.
Future Tanks 3

The existence of the first tank can be tracked back to the first world war where govern-

ments of warring nations were craving the resolution to trench warfare. Inspired by armored trac-

tor and the determination to break the deadlock of trench war, a group of middle-ranking British

Army officers tried to persuade the War Office and the government to initiate the project of ar-

mored vehicles. The Army turned it down unexpectedly, so the implement of the project was car-

ried out by the Royal Navy.

Winston Churchill, the contemporary First Lord of the Admiralty established the Landship

Committee led by the director of naval construction for the Royal Navy, Eustace Tennyson

dEyncourt. ( Churchill, p.316) On 22 July 1915, a mission was assigned to the committee which

required the members to design a machine that could overcome a trench 4 feet wide. The first

prototype, Little Willie, was fielded in September 1915 and awaited to be developed into the form

of the track while a enhanced model whose nickname was Mother came into existence with

better ability to cross trench, reinforced armor and enhanced weapons, alongside the concept of

Male and Female tanks in which the former carries naval cannons and machine guns where-

as the latter is merely equipped with machine guns.

The first group of prototypes which were officially known as Mark I male joined the bat-

tle of Flers-Courcelette. ( Regan, 1993, p.12) According to a battlefield report, Bert Chaney, a

signaller with the 7th London Territorial Battalion, recorded that three huge mechanical mon-

sters such as he had ever seen before, frightening the Jerries out of their wits and making them

scuttle like frightened rabbits.. (Robinson, 2000). Chances are that this saying was exaggerated

by personal sentiments and national propaganda, and yet the might of tanks was clearly demon-

strated through the way people viewed them. Indeed, tanks assisted British Army in advancing

forward and breaching German defenses. A Mark IV male tank even managed to seize a village

with three hundred German soldiers in captivity. Accordingly, German began to develop an ar-
Future Tanks 4

mored vehicle named A7V which was designed as an APC (armored personnel carrier). It

could hold up to eighteen soldiers and was anticipated to transport them through Allies defenses.

The flaws of the tank started to manifest the time A7V was deployed to battlefield in April 1918.

Although reports said it was nearly impossible for soldiers to penetrate the armor via us-

ing conventional weapons like rifles and machine guns, the naval cannons installed in British

Mark tanks were able to tear apart A7Vs armor as if the armor was a piece of paper. Further-

more, many of them got stuck in off-road terrain as a result of their low clearance and poor sus-

pension, leaving three A7Vs paralyzed to be captured by the Allies. Consequently, A7Vs suffered

from heavy losses in their debut. Similar to the British Mark tanks, the main weapon for A7V was

a 57mm Maxim cannon, which was issued to all male A7Vs. The secondary weapon was a set

of six to eight 7.9mm MG08 machine guns. Its protection involved 20mm steel plate at the sides,

30mm at the front and 10mm on the roof. The problem was none of its protection was made of

hardened armor plate which rendered the tank extremely vulnerable when exposed to cannon fire.

The crew comprised of 18 personnels in total, of which 17 were soldiers and one was officer.

Such extraordinarily huge population was required due to the need of weapon operators which

are not necessities in modern tanks. The embarrassing performance of A7Vs suspension is in-

duced by the lack of shock absorbers, making the ride rather unpleasant and even jeopardizing

the safety of the crew. These two types of tanks are in general the most typical armored vehicles

rumbling in the battlefield of WWI, which represented the beginning of an armored era.

After WWI, British Army commenced the classification of army tanks which essentially

divided them into three categories: Heavy tanks, designed to combat with enemy armored vehi-

cles in the faces; medium tanks, designed to incorporate with infantry section and serve as the

hard core of a striking force; light tanks, designed for scout, dealing with other light tanks and

infantry without anti-tank weapons. British army was also the first organization to recognize the
Future Tanks 5

value of mechanized force which fundamentally stands for the incorporated force of infantry,

cavalry and artillery.

During WWII, Germany first put this concept which inspired the notion of blitzkrieg to a

test in the battlefield and attained incredible accomplishments. The Allies had no choice but to

strive harder to engineer new army tanks in order to compete against the growingly strengthened

German tanks. Among all those designs, M4 Sherman stood out from the rest. The idea of M4

Sherman was to replace the obsolete M3 Medium Tank whose main armament was positioned on

the side of the tank. In this case, a turret was furnished to meet the requirements of increasingly

mobilized warfare, in which tanks had to acquire their targets while they were still moving. M4

Sherman costed far less than its previous generation which suggests the tank was easier to be

manufactured in numbers. This characteristic facilitated the mass-production of the tank which

accelerated the whole process of the Allies war against the Axis.

M4 Sherman is the proud of American military engineering as if it is the spoiled child of

exceptional firepower, protection and mobility at that time. It adopted a 75 mm gun M3 with 90-

104 rounds which can penetrate armor plates with a width of 84 in 500m. The thickness of its ar-

mor can be up to 178mm depends on the location of the armor. Shermans mobility was the most

distinctive feature which was regarded as the icing on a palatable cake. Powered by a cylinder

radial gasoline, M4 Sherman exhibited speed superiority both on roads and off roads, comparing

to the majority of contemporary German tanks. Whats more, in order to be transported by land-

ing craft, various roads , railways and bridges, the United States Army imposed specific restric-

tions on the size of the tank. This act significantly promoted the strategic, logistical and tactical

flexibility of Allied forces. ( Green&James)

Beholding all of this happening, the competitive German army could not wait anymore.

Thus one of the most decorated and glorious tanks in history emerged as the times required
Future Tanks 6

Panzer V, it had a much more catchy nameTiger. Weighing 54 tonnes, Tiger was one of the

bulkiest tanks in WWII with a powerful 8.8cm KwK 36 L/56 which was designed as a flak can-

non in the first place, later reconfigured to a tank cannon, bringing destruction wherever it went.

The cannon was capable of penetrating the armor of nearly all Allied armored vehicles the time it

came into existence. Tiger was also renowned for its indestructible protection. The frontal turret

armor was 100 mm thick, 120 mm after a thick gun mantlet was employed. ( Prado, 2010). One

intriguing characteristic of Tiger is almost all of its armor plates were flat, unlike other conven-

tional sloped designs. It was mainly led by designers personal conceitedness of Tigers unparal-

leled protection which could withstand the direct hit of all Allied shells back then. Due to its gi-

gantic statue, a bigger and more powerful engine was installed to ensure the sustainability of

Tiger when carrying a mighty gun and loads of ammunition. Nevertheless, bigger the tank, less

the possibility of functioning properly. On account of its incredible weight and size, Tiger en-

countered numerous difficulties in passing small bridges, fording river and traveling in off-road

terrains. The engine always broke down after merely hours of being functional because the bur-

dens were too immense to be afforded. Therefore the crew had to check and mend the engine fre-

quently which was lethal if such incident occurred at the critical moment of a combat. Also, a

considerable amount of human and material resources was required to maintain a Tiger. This had

everything to do with the low production of Tiger1,347 in total. ( Jentz, 1996). As matter of

fact, there was merely a tiny number of Tigers were destroyed during real combats. The majority

of them were abandoned by their crew after experiencing technical difficulties, and captured by

Allied forces.

In subsequent years, tanks continued to evolve rapidly and there have been several con-

spicuous trends in developing tanks. Based on the instances of Mark, A7V, M4 Sherman and

Panzer V which stand out in the history of tanks, one might find that the population of the crew
Future Tanks 7

has diminished over time which suggests the possibilities of tanks with the absolute absence of

human interference. In addition to that, tanks are gaining weight as time passes, indicating that a

growing number of latest trinkets and gears are being mounted by tanks. However, enlightened

by the theory of rapid access to victory, developers has begun to view high mobility as the key to

the success of future warfare. Thus, instead of adding extra and unnecessary weights to tanks,

figuring out how to lighten current army tanks is a pressing matter at the moment. Aside from

conventional improvements of firepower, protection and mobility, the birth of active defense sys-

tem has altered the way armored wars are proceeded.

When it comes to tanks, the first image comes up in our mind is a giant, steel roaring

beast that charges into the battlefield and spits fire through its mighty cannon. It is commonly ac-

knowledged that tanks are the embodiment of extraordinary firepower, refined protection and

precious mobility. The question how to make tanks better has been existing ever since tanks

came into beings. Normally, we evaluate a tank in terms of the three aspects mentioned above.

Now it is about time to think out of the box and eventually refine tanks to a higher level.

For firepower, the most traditional trend is no more than enlarging the calibre and modify-

ing gunpowder within the shell. This should be the appropriate way to enhance tanks theoretical-

ly, yet scientists at BAE company have proposed an unprecedented idea as regards to the applica-

tion of electromagnetic cannons. The potential of conventional cannons that fire shells has been

profoundly restrained as a result of the development of protection. Armor becomes too tough to

be penetrated in one single shot which jeopardizes the whole crew if the target still possesses the

ability to fire back. Therefore the design of a new type of weapon has been put on the schedule.

After years of painstaking effort in laboratory, scientists finally apprehend a new scientific area

that is very much likely to meet the demand of future warfare-electromagnetic. Basically, elec-

tromagnetic wave is immune to nearly all sorts of physical protection, especially those steeled
Future Tanks 8

ones. In that, the majority of current armored protection essentially comes from alloy. Alloy is

conductive based on common sense which indicates that whenever electromagnetic wave comes

into contact with metal, the wave will directly penetrate it, compromising the electronic devices

and crew within armored vehicles. Target is expected to be paralyzed and lose its ability of coun-

terattacking, sitting helplessly to be slaughtered like a crippled lamb. As for the damage inflicted

on the crew, from the perspective of humanitarianism, electromagnetic cannons are said to be

able to render enemy crew unconscious without dealing lethal damage to them. However, debates

over whether it is appropriate to deploy electromagnetic cannons since they might kill the crew in

a torturing way.

The technological promotion of the protection of army tanks can be well-illustrated by the

wide employment of the latest armored transporting vehicles addressed as the Warriors, alongside

with a combat system given the name of BAE, being said to signal the end of heavy steel and

great cannons that limit the utility of army tanks and tend to be vulnerable when confronted with

IEDs ( Improvised Explosive Devices. With the application of an reactive armor which is cur-

rently under trial, tanks have been empowered to be more resistible to RPGs ( rocket-propelled

grenades), by interrupting the formation and passage of the fatal impulse with a layer of explo-

sive. When the shell firstly starts to penetrate tanks armor, the explosive beneath the armor deto-

nates, carrying metal sheets into the path of the speedy debris. The explosion is inevitable, inflict-

ing damage to the armor and surprisingly, the body of tank remains largely intact. Besides that,

smart tanks devised upon BAE have mastered the skill to repel the threat posed by incoming mis-

siles by identifying them and interfering them with a system firing a beam of energy, removing

missiles presence in mid-air. With that being said, this particular tank has been noted to be more

resistible when positioned face to face with airborne threats and unexpected shots from nearly all

directions. ( Unknown author, 2008)

Future Tanks 9

Speaking of the application of stealth technology, the Polish PL-01 stealthy tank is quali-

fied to account for this point. The tank has mounted a variety of currently available technologies,

along with several experimental equipments. Traditional stealth technologies reduce the infrared,

radar and visual signature of a tank via utilizing the infrared band of the electromagnetic spec-

trum or a signal-absorbing camouflage. As regards PL-01, it attains infrared signature reduction

through the employment of temperature controlled wafers that cover its exterior thereby allowing

the tanks skin to match the infrared signature of its surroundings. The process consists of the use

of small infrared sensors installed around the tank which collect data consistently and display a

pattern on the tanks honeycomb-like camouflage. Yet it is not the end, the tank can even use

these wafers as pixels to be manipulated in temperature which grant PL-01 the access to active

infrared camouflage. Imagine a tank which is capable of altering its infrared signature projection

on the screen of enemy radar joins future warfare, is there any possibility that the tank will ever

be detected? Probably not. PL-01 is said to be able to adjust its infrared signature to deceive en-

emy detectors, like replicating the infrared signature of a tiger in the jungle or making it flat like

the sand in the desert. The tank can also lower its infrared signature through discharging the ex-

haust from its 940 hp diesel engine. (Rogoway, 2014)

Even more surprising, PL-01 can not only avoid being detected by enemy radar but also

disguise itself as other objects like a car by matching the temperature of its surroundings and then

displaying a preprogrammed image on its temperature controlled wafers. In addition to that, the

disguise system can render enemy radar system ineffective during nighttime, making it almost

impossible for enemy fire control system to carry out data-processing and countermeasures.

Aside from all those fancy novelties, PL-01 has adopted radar-absorbing material, low-

profile and faceted design which are the components of the basis of tank stealth. Incorporating
Future Tanks 10

with the experimental disguise system, they are destined to make PE-01 a immortal legend in the

history of tank development. (Rogoway, 2014)

A lot of speculations have been ongoing as to the evolution of army tanks which have

provoked a lot of debates. Yet it can be said without doubt that tanks have grown into a relatively

mature and versatile combat platform. In that, tanks were once thought to be vulnerable to any

airborne threats and as time goes on, an growing number of anti-aircraft weapon like ATGMS

( AntiTank Guided Missiles) have been applied to certain types of tanks , endowing tanks the

ability of competing against low-flying aircrafts like choppers. Likewise in the aspect of fire con-

trol, the operator used to aim through simple optical sights and calibrate manually and now this

process has been supplemented with a laser range-fighter thereby granting the accuracy of firing

in motion. There are a plentitude of modifications that are being made to army tanks other than

these two and what I have mentioned above. Collectively they contribute the perfection of army

tanks throughout history on a full scale.

There is currently a broad movement away from consideration of mere enhancement of

army tanks toward a new aim involving seeking the replacement of tanks. As much as tanks are

raging in the battlefield shrouded by smoke, it appears that their domination is closing to an end.

The very uprising of new military weapons has posed a threat to the existence of army tanks by

outdoing them on a full scale. Tanks once was regarded as such an amazing combination of fire-

power, protection and mobility that no other terrestrial weapons can be a fair contestant to their

might. It is true that nothing is ever built to last. Tanks are no exceptions. After a century of fruit-

ful evolution, tanks have been pushed to the best of their ability and refined to the highest stage

of enhancement they could ever afford. Ideas of promoting tanks is near to depletion, not to men-

tion the disgraceful performance of tanks in modern warfares as they are not invincible as once

promised, the cannons lack penetration and firing speed , feeble engines are incapable of sustain-
Future Tanks 11

ing the growing bodies of tanks. Now armies from all over the world, especially those superpow-

ers ones have initiated well-focused projects in their attempts to find appropriate replacements

for present army tanks. Despite the fierce protests launched by tank supporters against armys de-

cision of discarding army tanks, it seems that there is an inevitable tendency of engineering the

next generation of main terrestrial weapons in terms of not only the three essential aspects, but

also other characteristics that are likely to promote the weapons survivability. With that being

said, tanks are to be buried in the dust and remain a part of history, the emergence of new vehi-

cles shall take over the key to future warfares.

Before getting to the replacements of tanks, for starters we ought to learn tanks are aban-

doned for what specific reasons. Despite the fact that tanks represent the supreme power of ter-

restrial weaponry, they are increasingly vulnerable when encounter assorted damage sources and

their attributes( firepower, protection and mobility) which people used to be bragging about per-

sist in failing tanks in the battlefields. The developers of army tanks are very much likely to be

dispirited by the fact that an increasing number of defense systems which are extremely resilient

to the so-called invincible strength of conventional cannons either are being devised or have

been applied to modern warfare. The point can be well-illustrated by the instance of reactive ar-

mor which can neutralize the blast of shell by detonating a layer of explosive adhered to the ar-

mor of the tank. For protection, notwithstanding refined armors are plentiful presently, there is a

clear trend that the majority of them are not meant to be utilized by tanks. The recently devised

transparent armor is designated to be installed on lighter and faster vehicles whose requirements

for heavy armor tend to be lower than their previous counterparts. The tendency of designing pro-

tection has shifted from reinforcing the resilience of armor to applying intelligence defense like

automatic tracking system whose functioning process will be brought up later in this paper. As for

mobility, the conventional design encompasses track system which empowers tank to travel in
Future Tanks 12

various terrains with a moderate speed. However, once the track is under the exposure to direct

gun fire which has great possibility of paralyzing the tank by rending the track into pieces, the

whole track system must be replenished which is nearly impossible to be accomplished in an ac-

tive war zone. The damaged tank must be transported back to factories in one way or another in

order to be fully repaired and yet the whole process occupies a great deal of time, manpower and

resources which puts people a point where they start to question whether it is worthwhile to com-

plete the entire process. Although a growing amount of attention has been placed upon protecting

the track system by adding a layer of armor beside the track which is estimated to withstand the

direct hit from light weapons, chances are that tanks will be immobilized after being hit by high

explosive are armor-piercing round which are standard issues equipped by tanks.

With all those problems facing army tanks, the replacements of tanks are expected to

clean the mess left by their former generation. The current trends of developing the replacements

of tanks are lighting up, speeding up and gearing up. For lighting up, the protection and mobility

of tanks contradicted each other for most of the time when developers in the past were racking

their brains to promote both of them simultaneously because higher protection is tantamount to

heavier armor whereas higher mobility equals lower weight. Can we could render higher mobility

and intelligence to future armored vehicles at the same time? The answer to this question is in our

sight. The United States army has been meeting with contractors and putting a plan regarding the

replacement of its current main battle tank-M1 Abrams in motion. M1 Abrams main battle tank

was a third-generation armored vehicle designed to replace the aging M-60 main battle tank,

equipped with depleted uranium mesh-reinforced composite armor ( Zaloga & Sarson, 1993, p.

11) with extremely high density and a 120mm L/44 smoothbore gun which can fire a variety of

rounds and destroy a target within a range of 2,000 meters. As a matter of fact, the United States

army have managed to engineer few of the variants of M1s main weapon, of which one is known
Future Tanks 13

as M1028 120 mm anti-personnel canister cartridge which can even create a shotgun splash

through firing 9.5 mm tungsten balls which are lethal to any living objects within a range of 600

meters. Another extraordinary improvement among them is called the Advanced Multi-purpose

round which adopts a variety of modes such as point detonation, delay and airburst through an

ammunition data-link and a multi-mode , programmable fuse in a single munition. ( Kidder,

2015, para.2-4) Apparently the army has put tons of effort in perfecting M1 Abrams main battle

tank and the tank itself has proven to be worthy of military expectations after several field tests

and actual combats. That being said, an increasing amount of limitations have been furtively im-

posed on the tank which put a ceiling on its further development. Based on M1s recent perfor-

mance in the Iraqs war against ISIS which is rather disconcerting, the army has no choice but to

be confronted with the stark fact that M1 Abrams tank has failed to adjust to CQB which stands

for close-quarter battle. Terrorists make advantage of its inflexibility when M1 Abrams main bat-

tle tank enters a blocked area, damaging it via deploying IEDs which can disable a tank worths

millions of dollar at a relatively low cost. The length of the barrel significantly refrains the tank

from targeting enemies in a compact space and removing the presence a single terrorist is not

worthy of an advanced round. Some say the machine gun installed on the roof of the tank might

do the job, and yet most of these self-defense systems are operated manually which means the

crew has to risk losing a members life in exchange of the integrity of the tank. Even so, the ter-

rorists have adopted guerrilla tactical skills which enable them to minimize the chance of being

hit by relocating frequently. One single machine gun is inadequate to repel a throng of moving

terrorists since human operators lack accuracy and can be taken out with ease. Whats worse, M1

Abrams main battle tank currently is applying a passive defense system which indicates that the

tank is merely under the protection of layers of armor platings. Simply put, while an incoming

offensive round is detected, the tank has no options but to expects its armor will be tough enough
Future Tanks 14

to sustain the blast. Chances are that the crew might not survive the strike since advanced armor-

piercing round can easily penetrate conventional tank armor, leaving a pile of burning wreck and

few scorched corpses. With that being said, the replacement is anticipated to carry an active de-

fense system, also known as hard-kill measures which actively eliminated the threat of incoming

attack by setting it off when it is still in air, which in a sense conferring the replacement the ac-

cess to obtain initiative when it is under attack. The types of countermeasures also vary according

to distinct circumstances. Some active defense systems employ a shotgun-like weapon which can

create a barrage in front of the tank to block the path of offensive objects to minimize collateral

damage. A noteworthy instance would be the Trophy system designed by Israel which is currently

being used by Israels main battle tankMerkava, one of the toughest tanks in the world. The

same principle also applies to one of the countermeasures utilized by air force named flares

which are activated to cast a curtain behind the plane to neutralize damage. Others include a

beam system which renders airborne threats like missiles ineffective and disables them through

generating a kinetic energy beam. Also it can deflect the missile from its original track by disrupt-

ing the missiles information sequence. Thus the penetration of the missile will be profoundly

crippled and the vehicle is estimated to remain largely intact afterward.

Aside from endowing future tanks with active defense systems, some other features of

tanks should be taken under consideration like the contour of tanks should be as low-key as pos-

sible in order to avoid being directly hit by hostile rounds. The slope of armor should be inclined

as much as possible to amplify the possibility of deflecting incoming shell based on common

sense. Moreover, future tanks should be streamlined with the purpose of acquiring maximum

speed which leads to another factor of researching future tanksfirepower. Questions regarding

how are streamline design and firepower associated might be raised as these two aspects are not

likely to be classified into the same category. Individuals shall learn the answer after taking a
Future Tanks 15

glance at the turrets of tanks. Conventional turrets for current tanks are way too gigantic to pro-

mote the speed which reveals the fact that it is preferable to remove turrets in exchange of ideal

speed. The problem is the cannons which used to be placed within the turrets, now have no where

to go. In for a penny, in for a pound. The United States Army might as well dispense of present

conventional cannon, supplanting it with sets of anti-tank missiles such as Javelin or Hellfire.

( Mizokami, 2016, para.7) . This act guarantees the speed of future tanks while assuring their

competitiveness against hostile armored vehicles. As regards infantry defense system, there actu-

ally have been a certain number of designs available thus far. The United States Army has fielded

two CROWs which refer to common remotely operated weapon station. The CROWs system of-

fers an operator with the capability to acquire and engage targets while in side a vehicle, protect-

ed by its armor. It is engineered to be adopted by a variety of vehicle platforms and provide them

with supportive fire. The system consists of two parts : the mount which is attached to the exteri-

or of the vehicle and control group. The mount has the capacity for 360-degree rotation and -20

to +60 degree elevation, along with gyro-stability which points out that the weapon system can

stabilize itself through updating electronic data while the platform is mobilizing. The sight pack-

age includes a daylight video camera, a thermal camera and an eye-safe laser rangefinder which

utilizes laser to determine the distance to an object. A integrated fire control system is employed

to perfect ballistic correction which significantly brings its performance to a much more refined

level.( Pike, 2005) The latest CROWS has even obtained the function to temporarily blind poten-

tial targets rather than firing at them by incorporating a laser dazzler. Enemy infantry stands no

chance against this mighty automatic weapon which is able to blast them into pieces within a

glance with absolute accuracy. ( Strategypage, 2013)

The significance of mobility can never be emphasized too much no matter how time flies.

It is gaining value consistently as time spans and has undoubtedly become the most crucial aspect
Future Tanks 16

of a future tank due to the ever-growing demand for fast reaction combat. A part of reason why

M1 Abrams main battle tank is losing the grip to armys attention is its bulky figure. Twelve feet

wide and weighing 70 tons, the formidable vehicle is troubled by restrictive terrains such as jun-

gles and mountains. Besides that, the most common airborne transporter is the C-17 Globemaster

which is one of the largest military transport aircraft currently on service can only accommodate

two M1s at one time, restricting the usefulness of the tank to a great extent. Another universal

military transporterC-130 Hercules is unable to fit even one M1 Abrams main battle tank.

Therefore the need of next-generation vehicle comes into existence. In developers attempt to

boost the speed of this vehicle, a previously disregarded wheeled design has gradually been resur-

rected. Although wheeled system is prone to have poorer performance comparing to tracked sys-

tem in particular terrains like ditches or muddy marshlands, it adopts high speed and low drag

which are quintessential to combats that are estimated to be concluded within a short timespan. In

fact, recent research in military-use tire has made remarkable breakthroughs in enhancing dura-

bility and versatility. Now the new prototype is expected to be fully functional under unfavorable

environmental conditions and sustain the weight of future tanks. Beyond that, wheeled system is

highly optimized for general use as it tends to be mended with less resources and effort in con-

trast with that of tracked system. A six-wheeled future tank can continue mobilizing properly

even after losing one wheel in the conflict depends on the specific location of the wheel. The

overall performance of wheeled system outdoes that of the tracked system. In that, wheeled sys-

tem embraces higher speed, ease to be repaired and similar versatility to tracked system. ( Mi-

zokami, 2016)

With all of that being said, some might question whether the future tank is likely to be a

light tank. The question does not exist for no reason since they do have lots of similarities. Yet

light tanks are inclined to have relatively short existence in the battlefield and mainly designed
Future Tanks 17

for scout and quelling enemy infantry whereas this future tank is destined to rule the war by haul-

ing countless anti-armor missiles and mass-shooting accurate bullets which eradicate everything

stands its way. The future belongs to next-generation armored vehicle.

Browse through the history of tanks, one finds that the original purpose of tanks was to

shatter the stalemate of trench warfare which they did a pretty good job at. Tanks were widely

introduced to the army of every military superpower thereafter and became the mainstay of ar-

mored forces. In that, tanks served as moving fortress armed with terrific cannons and unlimited

ammo, making their way through enemy defenses and eliminating enemy effectives. They un-

derwent several major modifications during the two world wars, in which tanks were installed

with rotatable turrets, well-focused anti-tank cannons and reinforced armor. The manufacture of

tanks gradually obtained maturity. After WWII, the Cold-War started during which tanks in the

United States and Soviet Union were put under rapid development. Medium tanks eventually

evolved into new main battle tanks. They started to carry guns ( US 90 mm, Soviet Union 100

mm) that was able to penetrate any type of armor within effective range. The concept of previ-

ously formidable heavy tanks was discarded as heavy tanks were as vulnerable as other vehicles

when facing latest medium tanks. However, speed did not receive lots of attention as expected.

Protection and firepower remained to be the top two priorities in a design of army tanks. Concur-

rently, the development of antitank weapons and countermeasures took place with the resolve to

tackle the newborn medium tanks. During this period, tanks were first proven to be vulnerable

against infantry when Israeli tanks were set on fire by the rocket of man-portable wire guided

missiles launcher operated by Egyptian infantry. Therefore, in the design of future army tanks,

the main arnament has shifted from a single cannon to several automatic-aiming machine guns

which are specifically designed to deal with assaults led by infantry. Armored vehicles will be

taken care of by anti-tank missiles which are said to be extremely fatal to any current tanks.
Future Tanks 18

Although there is a clear tendency in designing future tanks which is reducing their

weight as much as possible, the latest next-generation MBT ( Main Battle Tanks) seems to gain-

say that statement. Weighing twice as much as its predecessorT-90, Russias new armored ve-

hicles exhibit a huge technological leap from Soviet-era designs, featuring multilayered armor, an

independent crew compartment and an automatic 125 mm main gun firing both cannon rounds

and laser-guided missiles. ( Smith, 2015). The tank is addressed as Armata and built to bury

United States M1 Abrams main battle tanks in the dust. According to the Diplomat, the T-14 is

equipped with a 125 mm smoothbore cannon that can fire diverse munitions, including armor-

piercing discarding sabot projectiles, shaped-charges and other types of rounds. The sheer power

of the tanks cannon is measured to be greater than that of the German Leopard-2 Rheinmetall

120 mm gun. ( Unknown author, 2015). Speculations also hypothesize that the Armata tank will

employ a 152 mm gun. If so, the tank shall be considered to have the most powerful weapon ever

equipped by tanks. When airborne threats like gunships are posed, T-14 will activate its defense

protocol via controlling a 30 mm sub-caliber gun installed on its roof and take down low flying

aerial targets. As for the countermeasures for incoming anti-tank missiles, a 12.5 mm turret-

mounted heavy machine gun will do the job with prominent precision and speed. An AESA radar

is employed to counteract the damage inflicted by 3rd and 4th generation ATGMs by destroying

the incoming projectile in the way mentioned above and compromising enemy guidance system

through electronic disruptions. (

To put a satisfying period to this beautiful weapon, the tank has fully automated ammuni-

tion loading and computerized targeting systems which suggest that the tank merely needs two

operators to be functional. Armata tanks also are seen as an economical armored vehicle as they

only cost ( 4-5 million dollars) slightly more than the previous T-90 MBT which renders them

more competitive in an arms race. ( Smith, 2015)

Future Tanks 19

The specific design of Armata tanks remains largely veiled due to military confidentiality.

One thing we know undoubtedly is that tanks have been blessed with top hardwares and suffi-

cient public attention. The Armata tanks are the latest and most advanced armored vehicles thus

far which sets the benchmarks of quality and performance for future tanks design.

When all is said and done, we come to the conclusion that tanks are not likely to appear in

future warfare as they will soon be supplanted by a new-generation armored vehicles with excep-

tional performance. The definition for tank is an armored, self-propelled combat vehicle, armed

with cannon and machine guns and moving on a caterpillar tread. Yet future armored vehicle will

adopt wheeled design as it is more reliable and practical in the battlefield. Loads of armored ad-

vancements are rolling out of the factories, in which we can barely find the trace of a tank. Tanks

might be old and obsolete, they still represent the former king of terrestrial warfares with the im-

pressive combination of firepower, protection and mobility. They once ruled the battlefield as if

nothing could stand in their way. Still, it is time for them to shut the rumbling engine down and

withdraw from the battlefield they once roamed. It can be asserted that armored war would never

have existed if it werent for tanks. By lightening up, future armored vehicles will be deployed

and terminate their targets at a much faster rate, ensuring the survival of crew at the same time.

Maybe one day, people shall never be able to witness the intensive clash between two iron beasts

and the collision of their burning shells. Instead, targets are eradicated before we figure out what

is really going on. There is even no human will be involved in an armored operation as drones

will take care of most of the mens work. However, without humans interference, will drones still

be able to operate according to mens wish? That is actually another story. Anyway, chances are

that future armored vehicle will be mostly self-operated which allows them to attain better accu-

racy, precision and efficiency. Advanced defense system like disguising system will render future

armored vehicles much more invincible than ever seeing that they can not only be spotted by en-
Future Tanks 20

emies but also infiltrate hostile facilities as one of them. Tank now is in past tense, individuals

will be well-advised to look ahead and behold the rise of future armored vehicles whose perfor-

mance will definitely exceed peoples expectation and inherit the glorious spirits of their prede-

cessors..

Acknowledgement

I hereby would like to offer my gratitude to my tutor Dr.Carroll for assisting me in com-

pleting my paper, as well as my fellow classmates who support me along the way of my research.

My paper would have never been done if it were not for them. I would also like to recognize

Dr.Hudson, Mr.Stevens who have taken time out of their overwhelmed schedules to evaluate my

paper and become members of the committee. Finally, I would like to appreciate my parents

whose contributions can never be emphasized too much for being my great teachers and fabulous

friends in the course of my life. Special thanks to my proofreader and ESL teacher, Jon Samuel

from whom I acquire a wide range of knowledge.

Future Tanks 21

Reference:

1. Russian T-14 Armata: Most Powerful Tank in the World in Details Retrieved from

https://sputniknews.com/military/201504261021398947/

2. Russia's T-14 Armata Tank May Feature a Fatal Flaw Retrieved from https://www.-

fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/14/russias-t-14-armata-tank-may-feature-a-fatal-flaw.as-

px

3. http://defense-update.com/20150509_t14-t15_analysis.html

4. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/tank

5. The Engineer. (2010) https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/19-april-2010/the-future-

of-military-tanks/

6. The U.S. Army Wants a New Light Tank http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/

weapons/a22337/us-army-new-light-tank/

7. Hi-tech tanks: The futures in our sights http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gad-

gets-and-tech/features/hi-tech-tanks-the-futures-in-our-sights-778555.html

8. Censer. (2014). The end of the tank? The Army says it doesnt need it, but industry

wants to keep building it. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/econo-

my/the-end-of-the-tank-the-army-says-it-doesnt-need-it-but-industry-wants-to-keep-building-

it/2014/01/31/c11e5ee0-60f0-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.html?utm_term=.46019985fabd

9. http://www.edinformatics.com/inventions_inventors/military_tank.htm

10. Luck, Hans (2013). Panzer Commander: The Memoirs of Colonel Hans von Luck.

Dell. p. Paragraph 6.75.

11. War Department (22 May 1941). FM 1005, Field Service Regulations, Operations

(reprint). Washington, DC:. Retrieved 5 September 2013.

Future Tanks 22

12. Zaloga, Steve, Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II,

Stackpole Books (2008).p. 346

13. Trewhitt, Philip A. (1999). Armored Fighting Vehicles. Barnes & Noble. p. 26.

14. Dunn.(2012). Do Tanks Have a Future?. Retrieved from http://www.baen.com/tanks-

future

15. "World War One: The tank's secret Lincoln origins". BBC News. Retrieved 1 April

2015.

16. McMillan, N: Locomotive Apprentice at the North British Locomotive Company Ltd

Glasgow Plateway Press 1992

17. http://someinterestingfacts.net/first-german-tank/
Future Tanks 23

Appendix

Figure 1. Flexible fighters: A fundamental design rethink could see the tank of the future

perform a variety of new roles ( 2010)