Jump to content

Main battle tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Battle Tank" redirects here. For the video game, seeBattle Tank (video game).

German ArmyLeopard 2A5main battle tanks in 1996

Amain battle tank(MBT), also known as abattle tankoruniversal tank,[1]is atankthat fills the role of armour-protecteddirect fireand maneuver in many modern armies.Cold War-era development of more powerful engines, better suspension systems and lightercomposite armourallowed for the design of a tank that had the firepower of asuper-heavy tank,the armour protection of aheavy tank,and the mobility of alight tank,in a package with the weight of amedium tank.The firstdesignatedMBT was the BritishChieftain tank,which during its development in the 1950s was re-designed as an MBT.[a]Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the MBT replaced almost all other types of tanks, leaving only some specialist roles to be filled by lighter designs or other types ofarmoured fighting vehicles.

Main battle tanks are a key component of modern armies.[3]Modern MBTs seldom operate alone, as they are organized into armoured units that include the support ofinfantry,who may accompany the tanks ininfantry fighting vehicles.They are also often supported bysurveillanceorground-attack aircraft.[4]The average weight of MBTs varies from country to country. The average weight of Western MBTs is usually greater than that of Russian or Chinese MBTs.

History[edit]

Initial limited-role tank classes[edit]

Main article:Tank classification
Early model Mark I tank at theBattle of Somme,1916

DuringWorld War I,combining tracks, armour, and guns into a functional vehicle pushed the limits of mechanical technology. This limited the specific battlefield capabilities any one tank design could be expected to fulfill. A design might have good speed, armour, or firepower, but not all three together.

Facing the deadlock oftrench warfare,the first tank designs focused on crossing wide trenches, requiring very long and large vehicles, such as the BritishMark I tankand successors; these became known asheavy tanks.Tanks that focused on other combat roles were smaller, like the FrenchRenault FT;these werelight tanksortankettes.Many late-war and inter-war tank designs diverged from these according to new, and mostly untried, concepts for future tank roles and tactics. Each nation tended to create its own list of tank classes with different intended roles, such as "cavalry tanks", "breakthrough tanks", "fast tanks", and "assault tanks". The British maintainedcruiser tanksthat in order to achieve high speed and hence manoeuvrability in the attack carried less armour, andinfantry tankswhich operating at infantryman pace could carry more armour.

Evolution of the general-purpose medium tank[edit]

Main article:Medium tank
Abandoned FrenchHotchkiss H-39lightcavalry tank,Battle of France,1940

After years of isolated and divergent development, the variousinterwar tankconcepts were finally tested with the start ofWorld War II.In the chaos ofblitzkrieg,tanks designed for a single role often found themselves forced into battlefield situations they were ill-suited for. During the war, limited-role tank designs tended to be replaced by more general-purpose designs, enabled by improving tank technology. Tank classes became mostly based on weight (and the corresponding transport and logistical needs). This led to new definitions of heavy and light tank classes, with medium tanks covering the balance of those between. The GermanPanzer IVtank, designed before the war as a "heavy" tank for assaulting fixed positions, was redesigned during the war with armour and gun upgrades to allow it to take on anti-tank roles as well, and was reclassified as a medium tank.

The second half of World War II saw an increased reliance on general-purpose medium tanks, which became the bulk of the tank combat forces. Generally, these designs massed about 25–30 t (25–30 long tons; 28–33 short tons), were armed with cannons around 75 mm (3.0 in), and powered by engines in the 400–500 hp (300–370 kW) range. Notable examples include the SovietT-34(the most-produced tank to that time) and the USM4 Sherman.

Late war tank development placed increased emphasis on armour, armament, and anti-tank capabilities for medium tanks:

New Panther tanks being loaded for transport to theEastern Front
  • The GermanPanther tank,designed to counter the Soviet T-34, had both armament and armour increased over previous medium tanks.[5]Unlike previous Panzer designs, its frontal armour wasslopedfor increased effectiveness.[6][page needed]It also was equipped with the high-velocity long-barreled75 mm KwK 42 L/70gun that was able to defeat the armour of all but the heaviest Allied tank at long range. The powerfulMaybach HL230 P30engine and robust running gear meant that even though the Panther tipped the scales at 50 t (49 long tons; 55 short tons)[6]– sizeable for its day – it was actually quite manoeuvrable, offering better off-road speed than the Panzer IV. However, its rushed development led to reliability and maintenance issues.
  • The SovietT-44incorporated many of the lessons learned with the extensive use of the T-34 model, and some of those modifications were used in the first MBTs, like a modern torsion suspension, instead of theChristie suspensionversion of the T-34, and a transversally mounted engine that simplified its gearbox. It is also seen as direct predecessor of theT-54Unlike the T-34, the T-44 had a suspension sturdy enough to be able to mount a 100 mm (3.9 in) cannon.[7]
  • The AmericanM26 Pershing,a medium tank of 40 short tons (36 t; 36 long tons) to replace the M4 Sherman, innovated in US tanks many features common on post-war MBTs. These features include an automatic transmission mounted in the rear, torsion bar suspension[8]and had an early form of apowerpack,combining an engine and transmission into a compact package.[9]The M26, however, suffered from a relatively weak engine for its weight (effectively the same engine as the 10 t (9.8 long tons; 11 short tons) lighter M4A3 Sherman), and as a result was somewhat underpowered.[10]The design of the M26 had profound influence on American postwar medium and main battle tanks: "The M26 formed the basis for the postwar generation of US battle tanks from the M46 through the M47, M48, and M60 series."[11]

British universal tank[edit]

CenturionMk 3

Britain had continued on the path of parallel development of cruiser tanks and infantry tanks. Development of theRolls-Royce Meteorengine for theCromwell tank,combined with efficiency savings elsewhere in the design, almost doubled the horsepower for cruiser tanks.[12]This led to speculation of a "Universal Tank", able to take on the roles of both a cruiser and an infantry tank by combining heavy armour and manoeuvrability.[13][page needed]

Field MarshalBernard Montgomeryis acknowledged as the main advocate of the British universal tank concept as early as 1943, according to the writings ofGiffard Le Quesne Martel,but little progress was made beyond development of the basic Cromwell cruiser tank that eventually led to theCenturion.[1][14]The Centurion, at the time designated "heavy cruiser" and later "medium gun tank"[15]was designed formobility and firepowerat the expense of armour[citation needed],but more engine power permitted more armour protection, so the Centurion could also operate as aninfantry tank,doing so well that development of a new universal tank was rendered unnecessary.

The Centurion, entering service just as World War II finished, was a multi-role tank that subsequently formed the main armoured element of theBritish Army of the Rhine,the armed forces of the British Empire and Commonwealth forces, and subsequently many other nations through exports, whose cost was met largely by the US. The introduction of the 84 mm (3.3 in)20-poundergun in 1948 gave the tank a significant advantage over other tanks of the era,[16]paving the way for a new tank classification, the main battle tank, which gradually superseded previous weight and armament classes.

Cold War[edit]

A surplus of effective WWII-era designs in other forces, notably the US and the Soviet Union, led to slower introductions of similar designs on their part. By the early 1950s, these designs were clearly no longer competitive, especially in a world ofshaped chargeweapons, and new designs rapidly emerged from most armed forces.

The Quebec conference in 1957 between the US, UK and Canada identified the MBT as the route for development rather than separate medium and heavy tanks.[17]

The concept of the medium tank gradually evolved into the MBT in the 1960s,[18]as it was realized that medium tanks could carry guns (such as the American 90 mm (3.5 in), Soviet 100 mm (3.9 in), and especially the BritishL7 105 mm (4.1 in)) that could penetrate any practical level of armour then existing at long range. Also, the heaviest tanks were unable to use most existing bridges. The World War II concept ofheavy tanks,armed with the most powerful guns and heaviest armour, became obsolete because the large tanks were too expensive and just as vulnerable to damage by mines, bombs, rockets, and artillery. Likewise, World War II had shown that lightly armed and armoured tanks were of limited value in most roles. Even reconnaissance vehicles had shown a trend towards heavier weight and greater firepower during World War II; speed was not a substitute for armour and firepower.

SovietT-64undergoing decontamination

An increasing variety ofanti-tank weaponsand the perceived threat of anuclear warprioritized the need for additional armour. The additional armour prompted the design of even more powerful guns.[19]The main battle tank thus took on the role the British had once called the "universal tank", exemplified by the Centurion, filling almost all battlefield roles. Typical main battle tanks were as well armed as any other vehicle on the battlefield, highly mobile, and well armoured. Yet they were cheap enough to be built in large numbers. The first Soviet main battle tank was theT-64[20](the T-54/55 and T-62 were considered "medium" tanks)[21]and the first American nomenclature-designated MBT was theM60 tank.[22]

A very early modelM60with M48 turret and 105mm cannon

Anti-tank weapons rapidly outpaced armour developments. By the 1960s, anti-tank rounds could penetrate a meter of steel so as to make the application of traditionalrolled homogeneous armourunpragmatic. The first solution to this problem was thecomposite armorof Soviet T-64 tank, which included steel-glass-reinforced textolite-steel sandwich in heavily slopedglacisplates, and steel turret with aluminum inserts, which helped to resist bothhigh-explosive anti-tank(HEAT) and APDS shells of the era. Later came BritishChobham armour.This composite armour used layers ofceramicsand other materials to help attenuate the effects of HEAT munitions. Another threat came by way of the widespread use of helicopters in battle. Before the advent of helicopters, armour was heavily concentrated to the front of the tank. This new threat caused designs to distribute armour on all sides of the tank (also having the effect of protecting the vehicle's occupants fromnuclear explosionradiation).[23]

By the late 1970s, MBTs were manufactured by China, France, West Germany, Britain, India, Italy, Japan, the Soviet Union, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.[24]

The Soviet Union's war doctrine depended heavily on the main battle tank. Any weapon advancement making the MBT obsolete could have devastated the Soviet Union's fighting capability.[25]The Soviet Union made novel advancements to the weapon systems including mechanicalautoloadersandanti-tank guided missiles.Autoloaders were introduced to replace the human loader, permitting the turret to be reduced in size, making the tank smaller and less visible as a target,[19]while missile systems were added to extend the range at which a vehicle could engage a target and thereby enhance the first-round hit probability.[19]

The United States's experience in theVietnam Warcontributed to the idea among army leadership that the role of the main battle tank could be fulfilled byattack helicopters.During the Vietnam War, helicopters and missiles competed with MBTs for research money.[26]

Though thePersian Gulf Warreaffirmed the role of main battle tanks,[clarification needed]MBTs were outperformed by theattack helicopter.[27]Other strategists considered that the MBT was entirely obsolete in light of the efficacy and speed with which coalition forces neutralized Iraqi armour.[28]

Asymmetrical warfare[edit]

A GermanLeopard 2in thePSO-version,prepared forasymmetric warfare

Inasymmetric warfare,threats such asimprovised explosive devicesand mines have proven effective against MBTs. In response, nations that face asymmetric warfare, such as Israel, are reducing the size of their tank fleet and procuring more advanced models.[29][30]Conversely, some insurgent groups likeHezbollahthemselves operate main battle tanks, such as theT-72.[citation needed]

TheUnited States Armyused 1,100M1 Abramsin the course of theIraq War.They proved to have an unexpectedly high vulnerability toimprovised explosive devices.[31]A relatively new type of remotely detonated mine, theexplosively formed penetrator,was used with some success against American armoured vehicles. However, with upgrades to their rear armour, M1s proved to be valuable in urban combat; at theSecond Battle of Fallujahthe United States Marines brought in two extra companies of M1s.[32]Britain deployed itsChallenger 2tanks to support its operations in southern Iraq.

Advancedarmourhas reduced crew fatalities but has not improved vehicle survivability.[33]Small unmanned turrets on top of the cupolas calledremote controlled weapon stationsarmed with machine guns or mortars provide improved defence and enhance crew survivability. Experimental tanks with unmanned turrets locate crew members in the heavily armoured hull, improving survivability and reducing the vehicle's profile.[34]

Technology is reducing the weight and size of the modern MBT.[35]A British military document from 2001 indicated that the British Army would not procure a replacement for the Challenger 2 because of a lack of conventional warfare threats in the foreseeable future. The obsolescence of the tank has been asserted, but the history of the late 20th and early 21st century suggested that MBTs were still necessary.[36]

Design[edit]

TheOrganization for Security and Co-operation in Europedefines a main battle tank as "a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops."[37]

Overview[edit]

  1. Periscope
  2. Gun mantlet
  3. Coaxialgun
  4. Bore evacuator
  5. Main gun
  6. Driver's optics
  7. Driver's hatch
  8. Glacisplate
  9. Continuous track
  10. Machine gun ammunition
  11. Commander's machine gun
  12. Hatch orCupola
  13. Gun turret
  14. Turret ring
  15. Hull
  16. Engine airintake
  17. Engine compartment
  18. Side skirt
  19. Drivesprocket
  20. Link
  21. Road wheel

Countermeasures[edit]

TheChallenger 2is equipped withChobham armour,an advancedcomposite armour.

Originally, most MBTs relied on steel armour to defend against various threats. As newer threats emerged, however, the defensive systems used by MBTs had to evolve to counter them. One of the first new developments was the use ofexplosive reactive armour(ERA), developed by Israel in the early 1980s to defend against theshaped-chargewarheads of modernanti-tank guided missilesand other suchhigh-explosive anti-tank(HEAT) projectiles. This technology was subsequently adopted and expanded upon by the United States and the Soviet Union.

IDFMerkava Mk. IVmtankpictured on theGaza border.It has theTrophy Active Protection Systeminstalled, which has become operational in the IDF since 2011 to deal with missile threats.

MBT armour is concentrated at the front of the tank, where it is layered up to 33 centimetres (13 in) thick.[38]

IndianArjun MBT Mk.1demonstrating 360-degree neutral steering capability
The RussianT-14 Armatahas a three-tier protection system, with theAfghanitAPS,theMalachitERA,andcomposite armour.

Missiles are cheap and cost-effective anti-tank weapons.[39]ERA can be quickly added to vehicles to increase their survivability. However, the detonation of ERA blocks creates a hazard to any supportinginfantrynear the tank. Despite this drawback, it is still employed on many Russian MBTs, the latest generationKontakt-5being capable of defeating both HEAT andkinetic energy penetratorthreats. The Soviets also developedActive Protection Systems(APS) designed to more actively neutralize hostile projectiles before they could even strike the tank, namely theShtoraandArenasystems. The United States has also adopted similar technologies in the form of the Missile Countermeasure Device and as part of theTank Urban Survival Kitused on M1 Abrams tanks serving in Iraq. The latest Russian MBT, according to many forum members[citation needed]theT-14 Armata,incorporates anAESA radaras part of itsAfghanitAPS and in conjunction with the rest of its armament, can also intercept aircraft and missiles.[40][41]

MBTs can also be protected from radar detection by incorporatingstealth technology.The T-14 Armata has a turret designed to be harder to detect with radars and thermal sights.[42]Advanced camouflage, like the RussianNakidka,will also reduce the radar and thermal signatures of a MBT.[43]

Other defensive developments focused on improving the strength of the armour itself; one of the notable advancements coming from the British with the development ofChobham armourin the 1970s. It was first employed on the AmericanM1 Abramsand later the BritishChallenger 1.Chobham armour uses a lattice of composite and ceramic materials along with metal alloys to defeat incoming threats, and proved highly effective in the conflicts in Iraq in the early 1990s and 2000s; surviving numerous impacts from 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s erarocket-propelled grenadeswith negligible damage. It is much less efficient against later models of RPGs. For example, theRPG-29from the 1980s is able to penetrate the frontal hull armour of the Challenger 2.[44]

Weaponry[edit]

MerkavaMk 3d BAZ of theIsrael Defense Forcesfiring its main gun

Main battle tanks are equipped with amain gunand at least onemachine gun.

MBT main guns are generally between 100 mm (3.9 in) and 125 mm (4.9 in) caliber, and can fire both anti-armour and, more recently, anti-personnel rounds. The cannon serves a dual role, able to engage other armoured targets such as tanks and fortifications, and soft targets such as light vehicles and infantry. It is fixed to the turret, along with the loading and fire mechanism. Modern tanks use a sophisticatedfire-control system,includingrangefinders,computerized fire control, and stabilizers, which are designed to keep the cannon stable and aimed even if the hull is turning or shaking, making it easier for the operators to fire on the move and/or against moving targets. Gun-missile systems are complicated and have been particularly unsatisfactory to the United States who abandoned gun-missile projects such as theM60A2andMBT-70,[45]but have been diligently developed by the Soviet Union, who even retrofitted them toT-55tanks, in an effort to double the effective range of the vehicle's fire. The MBT's role could be compromised because of the increasing distances involved and the increased reliance onindirect fire.[34]The tank gun is still useful in urban combat for precisely delivering powerful fire while minimizing collateral damage.[28]

FrenchLeclerc

High-explosive anti-tank(HEAT), and some form of high velocitykinetic energy penetrator,such asarmour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot(APFSDS) rounds are carried for anti-armour purposes. Anti-personnel rounds such ashigh explosiveorhigh explosive fragmentationhave dual purpose. Less common rounds areBeehive anti-personnel rounds,andhigh-explosive squash head(HESH) rounds used for both anti-armour and bunker busting. Usually, an MBT carries 30–50 rounds of ammunition for its maintank gun,usually split between HE, HEAT, and KEP rounds. Some MBTs may also carry smoke orwhite phosphorusrounds. Some MBTs are equipped with anautoloader,such as the FrenchLeclerc,or the Russian/UkrainianT-64,T-72,T-80,T-84,T-90,andT-14and, for this reason, the crew can be reduced to 3 members. MBTs with an autoloader require one less crew member and the autoloader requires less space than its human counterpart, allowing for a reduction in turret size. Further, an autoloader can be designed to handle rounds which would be too difficult for a human to load.[46]This reduces the silhouette which improves the MBT's target profile. However, with a manual loader, the rounds can be isolated within a blowout chamber, rather than a magazine within the turret, which could improve crew survivability. However, the force of a modern depleted uranium armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot round at the muzzle can exceed 6000 kN (a rough estimate, considering a uranium 60 cm/2 cm rod, 19g/cm3,@ 1,750 m/s). Composite+reactive armour could withstand this kind of force through its deflection and deformation, but with a second hit in the same area, an armour breach is inevitable. As such, the speed of follow up shots is crucial within tank to tank combat.[47]

As secondary weapons, an MBT usually uses between two and four machine guns to engage infantry and light vehicles. Many MBTs mount one heavy caliber anti-aircraft machine gun (AAMG), usually of.50 caliber (like theM2 BrowningorDShK), which can be used against helicopters and low flying aircraft. However, their effectiveness is limited in comparison to dedicated anti-aircraft artillery. The tank's machine guns are usually equipped with between 500 and 3,000 rounds each.

Situational awareness[edit]

Further information:Situational awareness
Circular review system of the company LimpidArmor

Performing situational awareness and communicating is one of four primary MBT functions.[48]For situational awareness, the crew can use acircular review systemcombiningaugmented realityandartificial Intelligencetechnologies.[49]These systems use several externally mounted video sensors to transfer a 360º view of the tank's surroundings onto crewhelmet-mounted displaysor other display systems.

Mobility[edit]

MBTs, like previous models of tanks, move oncontinuous tracks,which allow a decent level of mobility over most terrain including sand and mud. They also allow tanks to climb over most obstacles. MBTs can be made water-tight, so they can even dive into shallow water (5 m (16 ft) with snorkel). However, tracks are not as fast as wheels; the maximum speed of a tank is about 65 km/h (40 mph)[b].The extreme weight of vehicles of this type 40–70 t (39–69 long tons; 44–77 short tons) also limits their speed. They are usually equipped with a 1,200–1,500 hp (890–1,120 kW) engine (more than 25,000 cc (1,526 cu in)), with an operational range near 500 km (310 mi).

The German Army has prioritized mobility in its Leopard 2 which is considered one of the fastest MBTs in existence.[39]

The MBT is often cumbersome in traffic and frequently obstructs the normal flow of traffic. The tracks can damage some roads after repeated use. Many structures like bridges do not have the load capacity to support an MBT. In the fast pace of combat, it is often impossible to test the sturdiness of these structures. Though appreciated for its excellent off-road characteristics, the MBT can become immobilized in muddy conditions.

The high cost of MBTs can be attributed in part to the high-performance engine-transmission system and to the fire control system. Also, propulsion systems are not produced in high enough quantities to take advantage ofeconomies of scale.[50]

Crew fatigue limits the operational range of MBTs in combat. Reducing the crew to three and relocating all crewmembers from the turret to the hull could provide time to sleep for one off-shift crewmember located in the rear of the hull. In this scenario, crewmembers would rotate shifts regularly and all would require cross-training on all vehicle job functions.[51] Cargo aircraft are instrumental to the timely deployment of MBTs. The absence of sufficient numbers of strategic airlift assets can limit the rate of MBT deployments to the number of aircraft available.[52]

Military planners anticipate that the airlift capability for MBTs will not improve in the future.[53]To date, no helicopter has the capability to lift MBTs.[28]Rail and road are heavily used to move MBTs nearer to the battle, ready to fight in prime condition.[53]Where well maintained roads allow it, wheeledtank transporterscan be used.[54]

The difficult task of resupply is usually accomplished with large trucks.[55]

Storage[edit]

Main battle tanks have internal and external storage space. Internal space is reserved for ammunition. External space enhances independence of logistics and can accommodate extra fuel and some personal equipment of the crew.[56]

The IsraeliMerkavacan even accommodate crew members displaced from a destroyed vehicle in its ammunition compartment.[51]

Crew[edit]

Main article:Tank commander

Emphasis is placed on selecting and training main battle tank crew members. The crew must perform their tasks faultlessly and harmoniously so commanders select teams taking into consideration personalities and talents.[28]

Role[edit]

US Marines during theIraq Warride on anM1A1 Abramstank in April 2003.

The main battle tank fulfills the role the British had once called the "universal tank", filling almost all battlefield roles. They were originally designed in the Cold War to combat other MBTs.[34]The modernlight tanksupplements the MBT inexpeditionaryroles and situations where all major threats have been neutralized and excess weight in armour and armament would only hinder mobility and cost more money to operate.

Reconnaissance by MBTs is performed in high-intensity conflicts where reconnaissance by light vehicles would be insufficient due to the necessity to "fight" for information.[53]

In asymmetric warfare, main battle tanks are deployed in small, highly concentrated units. MBTs fire only at targets at close range and instead rely on external support such as unmanned aircraft for long range combat.[57]

Main battle tanks have significantly varied characteristics. Procuring too many varieties can place a burden on tactics, training, support and maintenance.[58]

The MBT has a positive morale effect on the infantry it accompanies.[59]It also instills fear in the opposing force who can often hear and even feel their arrival.[28]

Procurement[edit]

Manufacture[edit]

Mechanics atAnniston Army Depotline up anM1 Abramsturret with its hull.

MBT production is increasingly being outsourced to wealthy nations. Countries that are just beginning to produce tanks are having difficulties remaining profitable in an industry that is increasingly becoming more expensive through the sophistication of technology. Even some large-scale producers are seeing declines in production. Even China is divesting many of its MBTs.[53]

The production of main battle tanks is limited to manufacturers that specialize in combat vehicles. Commercial manufacturers of civilian vehicles cannot easily be repurposed as MBT production facilities.[60]

Prices for MBTs have more than tripled from 1943 to 2011, although this pales in comparison with the price increase in fighter aircraft from 1943 to 1975.[34]

Marketing[edit]

Several MBT models, such as theAMX-40andOF-40,were marketed almost solely as export vehicles.[53]Several tank producers, such as Japan and Israel, choose not to market their creations for export.[53]Others haveexport controllaws in place.

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^"Chieftain, which until then had been called Medium Gun Tank No 2, was renamed the Main Battle Tank".[2]
  2. ^72 km/h (45 mph) for the Leopard 2[citation needed]

References[edit]

  1. ^abOgorkiewicz 2018 p222
  2. ^Forty, George(1979).Chieftain.London: I. Allan. p. 16.ISBN0-7110-0943-0.OCLC16495641.
  3. ^House (1984),Toward Combined Arms Warfare: A Survey of 20th-Century Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization[full citation needed]
  4. ^Tranquiler, Roger,Modern Warfare. A French View of Counterinsurgency trans. Daniel Lee,Pitting a traditional combined armed force trained and equipped to defeat similar military organisations against insurgents reminds one of a pile driver attempting to crush a fly, indefatigably persisting in repeating its efforts.[full citation needed]
  5. ^Encyclopedia of German tanks of World War 2; Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle
  6. ^abGreen, Michael; Green, Gladys (2012).Panther: Germany's Quest for Combat Dominance.Osprey Publishing.ISBN9781849088411.
  7. ^"T-44".Tank Encyclopedia.29 October 2015.Archivedfrom the original on 9 July 2017.Retrieved5 July2017.
  8. ^Conners, Chris (27 August 2015)."M26 Pershing".American Fighting Vehicle Database.Archivedfrom the original on 29 April 2011.Retrieved18 August2017.
  9. ^Hunnicutt, R.P (1996) [1970].Pershing: A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series.Berkeley, California: Feist Publications. p. 112.ISBN1-112-95450-3.
  10. ^Zaloga, Steven (2015).Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II.Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. p. 263.ISBN9780811714372.OCLC895501029.
  11. ^Zaloga, Steven (2015).Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II.Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. p. 289.ISBN978-0-8117-1437-2.Archivedfrom the original on 13 October 2017.Retrieved21 August2017.
  12. ^The Rolls Royce Meteor: Cromwell and other Applications. Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust.[full citation needed]
  13. ^Fletcher, David(1989).Universal Tank: British Armour in the Second World War - Part 2.HMSO.ISBN0-11-290534-X.
  14. ^Baldwin, Hanson W. (19 May 1947)."Tank Role Is Seen In Atomic Warfare".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on 13 September 2018.Retrieved13 September2018.
  15. ^Ogorkiewicz 2018 p178
  16. ^The Design and Development of Fighting Vehicles.R.M. Ogorkiewicz, page 43
  17. ^Ogorkiewicz, 2018 p179
  18. ^Советская Военная Энциклопедия. Под ред. Гречко А.А. – М.: Воениздат, 1976–80 гг., в 8-и томах, статья «Танк» (Soviet Military Encyclopedia)
  19. ^abcThomas W. Zarzecki (2002).Arms Diffusion: The Spread of Military Innovations in the International System.Psychology Press. p. 212.ISBN0-415-93514-8.Archivedfrom the original on 9 October 2013.Retrieved5 April2011.
  20. ^T-64 manual ( "Танк Т-64А. Техническое описание и инструкция по эксплуатации. 1984" ) state T-64 as "main battle" tank, while previous T-62 and T-55 (in corresponding military manuals, like "Танк Т-62. Руководство по материальной части и эксплуатации. 1968" ) stated as "medium" tanks
  21. ^Танк Т-62. Руководство по материальной части и эксплуатации. 1968
  22. ^MIL-T-45308 state "Tank, Main Battle, 105MM Gun, M60", while MIL-T-45148 state "TANK, COMBAT, FULL-TRACKED, 90MM GUN, M48A2"
  23. ^AcademicJohn Harris & Andre Gsponer (1986).Armour defuses the neutron bomb.Reed Business Information. p. 47.Archivedfrom the original on 9 October 2013.Retrieved29 July2011.
  24. ^Academic American encyclopedia, Volume 2.Aretê Pub. Co., 1980. 1980. p. 177.ISBN9780933880009.Archivedfrom the original on 5 January 2014.Retrieved4 April2011.
  25. ^David C. Isby (1988).Weapons and tactics of the Soviet Army.Jane's.ISBN9780710603524.Archivedfrom the original on 9 October 2013.Retrieved4 April2011.
  26. ^Daniel H. Else (III.) (2008). "Chapter 3".Bias in weapon development.p. 62.ISBN9780549385172.Archivedfrom the original on 9 October 2013.Retrieved12 March2012.
  27. ^Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies (1993).The Canadian strategic forecast.Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. p. 73.ISBN9780919769489.Archivedfrom the original on 30 June 2014.Retrieved4 April2011.
  28. ^abcdeChris McNab; Hunter Keeter (2008).Tools of violence: guns, tanks and dirty bombs.Osprey Publishing.ISBN9781846032257.Retrieved6 April2011.Main battle tank.
  29. ^Panda, Ankit (13 January 2015)."Main Battle Tanks in Asia: Useful Junk".Archivedfrom the original on 24 July 2015.Retrieved21 July2015.Beyond Asia's large militaries, the broader proliferation of tanks makes sense given the security needs of states with relatively weaker militaries. Naval and amphibious warfare focused states such as Japan and Indonesia are acquiring new tanks to build capacity in land warfare (urban warfare in Japan's case). Bangladesh, as a developing nation, is acquiring cheaper Chinese MBTs for similar reasons. None of these states expect to use these tanks for an expeditionary purpose, or even against a foreign invader. MBTs can play an important role in maintaining internal security.
  30. ^Anthony H. Cordesman (2006).Arab-Israeli Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars.Greenwood Publishing Group.ISBN0-275-99186-5.Archivedfrom the original on 29 June 2011.Retrieved14 February2011.
  31. ^Komarow, Steven (29 March 2005)."Tanks take a beating in Iraq".USA Today.Archivedfrom the original on 18 March 2012.Retrieved9 April2010.
  32. ^Komarow, Steven (29 March 2005)."Tanks adapted for urban fights they once avoided".USA Today.Archivedfrom the original on 22 August 2011.Retrieved9 April2010.
  33. ^Anthony H. Cordesman; Aram Nerguizian; Ionut C. Popescu (2008).Israel and Syria: The Military Balance and Prospects of War.ABC-CLIO. p. 99.ISBN978-0-313-35520-2.Archivedfrom the original on 30 June 2014.Retrieved1 April2011.
  34. ^abcdNeville Brown (2009).The Geography of Human Conflict: Approaches to Survival.Sussex Academic Press. p. 254.ISBN978-1-84519-169-6.Archivedfrom the original on 9 October 2013.Retrieved5 April2011.
  35. ^Stan Krasnoff (2008).A Claytons Defense.Strategic Book Publishing. p. 35.ISBN9781606932681.Archivedfrom the original on 13 October 2017.Retrieved5 April2011.
  36. ^Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter, Volume 30.Asia-Pacific Defence Publications. 2004.Archivedfrom the original on 13 October 2017.Retrieved2 April2011.
  37. ^Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. 1989. p. 3.Archivedfrom the original on 20 July 2013.Retrieved4 April2013.
  38. ^Stan Windass; Paul Walker (1985).Avoiding Nuclear War: Common Security as a Strategy for the Defence of the West.Brassey's Defence Publishers. p. 38.ISBN9780080311753.Archivedfrom the original on 30 June 2014.Retrieved4 April2011.
  39. ^abHolmes, Richard; Strachan, Hew; Bellamy, Chris (2001).The Oxford Companion to Military History.Oxford University Press. pp. 493, 902.ISBN9780198662099.Archivedfrom the original on 9 October 2013.Retrieved4 April2011.
  40. ^""Армата" расстреляет снаряды противника из пулемета ".9 April 2014.Archivedfrom the original on 18 May 2015.Retrieved22 May2015.
  41. ^"Танк Т-14" Армата "или Т-99" Приоритет "- Продукция - Библиотека - ВПК.name".vpk.name.Archivedfrom the original on 10 May 2015.Retrieved22 May2015.
  42. ^"БМП" Армата "сможет уничтожить вертолеты и беспилотники".5 May 2015.Archivedfrom the original on 18 May 2015.Retrieved22 May2015.
  43. ^""RPM" Cloak "to protect from exploration and precision weapons"".Nii Stali.niistali.ru. Archived fromthe originalon 9 October 2011.Retrieved22 May2015.
  44. ^Sean Rayment (12 May 2007)."MoD kept failure of best tank quiet".Sunday Telegraph.Archivedfrom the original on 4 July 2015.Retrieved5 April2018.
  45. ^African armed forces journal.Military Publications Ltd. 1994. p. 10.
  46. ^Jeff Groman (1985).Weapons of War.Gallery Books. p. 126.ISBN9780831793845.Archivedfrom the original on 31 December 2013.Retrieved18 February2011.
  47. ^Thomas W. Zarzecki (2002).Arms Diffusion: The Spread of Military Innovations in the International System.Psychology Press.ISBN9780415935142.Archivedfrom the original on 31 December 2013.Retrieved18 February2011.
  48. ^Slyusar, Vadym (10–11 October 2018).Methodology of identification of the critical requirements for armaments and military equipment.VI International Scientific and Practical Conference "Coordination problems of military technical and devensive industrial policy in Ukraine. Weapons and military equipment development perspectives". Abstracts of reports(Report). Kyiv, Ukraine.doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.36335.69281.
  49. ^Slyusar, Vadym (2019).Artificial intelligence as the basis of future control networks.Preprint(Report).
  50. ^National Research Council (US). Committee on Adiabatic Diesel Technology (1987).A Review of the State of the Art and Projected Technology of Low Heat Rejection Engines: A Report.National Academies. p. 108.Archivedfrom the original on 8 April 2017.Retrieved2 April2011.
  51. ^abFletcher, Robin (May 1995)."The Crewing and Configuration of the Future Main Battle Tank"(PDF).Armor:6–8, 42, & 43.Archived(PDF)from the original on 25 January 2017.Retrieved4 May2011.(HTML versionArchived21 July 2014 at theWayback Machine)
  52. ^Chichester, Michael; Wilkinson, John (1987).British Defence: A Blueprint for Reform.Brasseys Defence. p. 126.ISBN9780080347455.Archivedfrom the original on 9 October 2013.Retrieved4 April2011.
  53. ^abcdefAlbrecht, Ulrich (1998). "Chapter 5: The changing structure of the tank industry". In Kaldor, Mary; Albrecht, Ulrich; Schéder, Geneviève (eds.).Restructuring the Global Military Sector: The End of Military Fordism.Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 108.ISBN1-85567-428-9.
  54. ^Brian MacDonald (1997).Military Spending in Developing Countries: How Much Is Too Much?.McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP. p. 136.ISBN0-88629-314-6.Archivedfrom the original on 5 July 2014.Retrieved2 April2011.
  55. ^Michael Green (2008).War Stories of the Tankers: American armoured Combat, 1918 to Today.Zenith Imprint. p. 281.ISBN978-0-7603-3297-9.Archivedfrom the original on 14 October 2017.Retrieved4 April2011.
  56. ^David Miller (2000).The Illustrated Directory of Tanks of the World.Zenith Imprint. p. 384.ISBN0-7603-0892-6.Retrieved4 April2011.
  57. ^David Eshel; Bill Sweetman (25 April 2011)."New Designs Suit Tanks For Asymmetric War".Aviation Week.The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.Retrieved3 May2011.
  58. ^Saudi Arabia Enters the Twenty-first Century: The Military and International Security Dimensions.Greenwood Publishing Group. 2003. p. 140.ISBN9780275979973.Archivedfrom the original on 14 October 2017.Retrieved1 April2011.
  59. ^Stanley Sandler (2002).Ground Warfare: An International Encyclopedia, Volume 1.ABC-CLIO. p. 59.ISBN1-57607-344-0.Archivedfrom the original on 9 October 2013.Retrieved5 April2011.
  60. ^United States. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations (1990).Department of Defense Appropriations for 1991, Part 6.U. S. Govt. Print. Off.Archivedfrom the original on 14 October 2017.Retrieved4 April2011.


  • Ogorkiewicz, Richard (2018).Tanks: 100 Years of Evolution.Oxford: Osprey Publishing.ISBN9781472829818.

External links[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_battle_tank&oldid=1222412680"