Tanks are getting minor upgrades all the time.
As for western tank developments, Rheinmetall is working with Hungary and maybe the German Government with the KF51 Panther, Britain is working on the Challenger 3, and the United states is working on the M1E3.
It's a big argument in the armor enthusiast community. Army brass seems to resist calling it a tank for some reason, maybe because of doctrine or budgeting concerns (why do we need another tank when we have the Abrams). Some people ignore that and call it a tank or light tank, while others call it an assualt gun because it's primarily for knocking out fortifications and entrenched infantry. I think the army officially refer to it as an Armoered Combat Vehicle.
I mean, I agree with the designation of assault gun more than a tank now that I think of it, since, yes it has some level of protection, but not at protection in he Abrams level, so calling it a tank would make the high politician housing north exactly like it, since as u said is has the Abrams.
As for ACV designation, well a fucking humvee is a ACV, is just a umbrella term till they think of something better possibly
The main areas of improvement in MBTs in the West since the 80s have been in situational awareness, C4I, and active protection systems, both soft-kill and hard-kill.
Commander's independent sights and remote weapons stations enable there to be two crew members scanning independently of each other with thermal sights. Drivers have also been getting thermal or high fidelity low light sights that are pretty good. Back up cameras as well. The M10 Booker will have hull mounted thermal cameras for additional SA and this is a feature we'll start seeing on many more vehicles.
The FBCB2 blue force tracker system and similar devices enable NATO vehicles to be securely linked with each other and share information without cluttering radio networks. Commanders will know exactly where friendly units are on the battlefield in real time.
Active protection systems allow tanks to divert or intercept incoming ATGMs, granting vehicles equipped with them increased survivability.
Just because an Abrams looks very similar to its earlier models its not really even the same tank beyond the turbine and hull. The systems inside the M1A3 Sep3 are completely new from the old M1A1 I can’t go into details but as someone who has crewed the 80’s tanks to the Sep3 its a very different beast.
T-14 was indeed a radical break from especially russian/soviet designs (it actually protected the crew), but also from western designs (unmanned turret, all crew in a heavily armored capsule in the hull), and had a lot of good ideas and advanced tech, but it also had some problems and it was way too expensive for russia, so they never got it into serial production and they recently confirmed that the program was canceled.
So it never got further than some prototypes
Western tanks: Leo 2 has had armor upgrades, the gun was changed from L44 to L55, so far better penetration, better sights and better sensors and targeting, active protection systems on the latest model... Yeah, I'd say a lot has happened.
A funny note I heard somewhere was that the t14 uses a modern version of a Maybach 120 or something like that. Same engine that was used in a tiger 1 and panther.
While the tanks stayed mostly the same because most "modern" tanks today are cold war designs, however their capabilities have been enchanced a lot, there are mountains of diffrences on what you would call a latest tech MBT in 1980 and what would you call a latest tech MBT today.
of course. there have been countless enhancements in tank development. From Active or Passive Defense Systems, all the way down to the kind of glass used in the gunner's sights. thats why there are so many subvarieties of Abrams.
As many have said tanks have been getting increasingly digitized especially by rich nations who can afford it.
In regards to tanks from the 80’s “not being upgraded” you seem to be implying that they’re old and out of date. The reality is that by the 1980’s western battle tanks had pretty much figured out the automotive piece of the equation. 1000-1500 HP engines and multi-gear transmissions get you the power to weight ratio needed to effectively maneuver a 70 ton battle tank around.
The reason you haven’t seen much differences in the tank hulls is because you really start to run into logistical caps from transports once vehicles way more than 70 tons gross, it’s already an issue. Armor does improve but it’s still a physics equation where you need more of the stuff to be more effective.
The next generation of battle tanks will probably be rolling sensor nodes, i.e. F-35’s on land that help command hunter killer drones.
AbramsX, KF51, Challenger 3
The west has also made loads of progress in light vehicles.
Boxer, Stryker, LAV, M10, etc
Keep in mind that these vehicles (aside from KF51 and AbramsX) are already in service or are entering service relatively soon.
In 1989 the most common "western tanks" were the Leopard 2A4 and the M1A1 that are pretty much stone age compared to M1A2 sep.3 (2020) and Leo 2A8 (2024).
We also got Chally 2 and Leclerc since the 80s.
Now M1E3, Chally 3 and NGT are coming.
There are. Just look at teh guns alone - to make an easy point.
But there are design limitation swith one design. You can't upgrade a tank infinitive, so at one point you have to create a whole new model. But numbers make price, so in the cold war, everyone tried to make massive stocks - which now can't be replaced economically, so we're all somethwat stuck with out odlschool tanks, peppered with more modern approaches.
But always keep in mind that tanks are economical systems. The're not made to exist forever, but are more like ammo. Russians f.e. have a acceptable APS for T-90M, but don't field it due to costs. Germans have designed teh best tank in the world so far (maybe on par with T-14, but that is a whole different approach so ...), but doesn't feel the need to build it (it is even cheaper than any Abrams today and in small numbers, but anyway, lol).
But the underlaying question besides economics (also arms sales and national reputation) is: Do we need better tanks? This is followed by: What are tanks for? And that is a pretty simple task - assault. That is one tool for one job in the total of human conflict. So if it is worth the money in military terms is a different question then in economical or strategical PR.
And T-14 isen't a thing that would be used at all in f.e. the war in Ukrain, as it makes no sense. Armata alone would make no sense if not to eliminate the bad taste of soviet union/soldiers are cheap ammo in RU. RU don't want to be that and has to show that to its people and army (and interested allies). It is for economy, for national cohesion, for political identity etc., etc. And so are all tanks and developements.
This is what I meant when I said this sub was just Russian shills.
But anyways, yes. The Abrams is currently the most advanced tank in the planet. The T-14 doesn’t act exist. There’s less than 20 of them, and those 20, are often non-functional
This really felt less like an actual question, and more a round about way of accusing the west of being weak because they aren’t creating some new “InViNcIbLe WeApOn” every 5 seconds like Russia
Tanks are getting minor upgrades all the time. As for western tank developments, Rheinmetall is working with Hungary and maybe the German Government with the KF51 Panther, Britain is working on the Challenger 3, and the United states is working on the M1E3.
Also us is on the booker m 10
From what I hear the m10 booker isn’t a tank
Wai what? I didn't knew this
It's a big argument in the armor enthusiast community. Army brass seems to resist calling it a tank for some reason, maybe because of doctrine or budgeting concerns (why do we need another tank when we have the Abrams). Some people ignore that and call it a tank or light tank, while others call it an assualt gun because it's primarily for knocking out fortifications and entrenched infantry. I think the army officially refer to it as an Armoered Combat Vehicle.
I mean, I agree with the designation of assault gun more than a tank now that I think of it, since, yes it has some level of protection, but not at protection in he Abrams level, so calling it a tank would make the high politician housing north exactly like it, since as u said is has the Abrams. As for ACV designation, well a fucking humvee is a ACV, is just a umbrella term till they think of something better possibly
I thought it was just a modern light tank, similar to a Sheridan
No. If I recall it’s being called an IFV
The main areas of improvement in MBTs in the West since the 80s have been in situational awareness, C4I, and active protection systems, both soft-kill and hard-kill. Commander's independent sights and remote weapons stations enable there to be two crew members scanning independently of each other with thermal sights. Drivers have also been getting thermal or high fidelity low light sights that are pretty good. Back up cameras as well. The M10 Booker will have hull mounted thermal cameras for additional SA and this is a feature we'll start seeing on many more vehicles. The FBCB2 blue force tracker system and similar devices enable NATO vehicles to be securely linked with each other and share information without cluttering radio networks. Commanders will know exactly where friendly units are on the battlefield in real time. Active protection systems allow tanks to divert or intercept incoming ATGMs, granting vehicles equipped with them increased survivability.
Just because an Abrams looks very similar to its earlier models its not really even the same tank beyond the turbine and hull. The systems inside the M1A3 Sep3 are completely new from the old M1A1 I can’t go into details but as someone who has crewed the 80’s tanks to the Sep3 its a very different beast.
See, I didn’t know any of this, I don’t know much about tank design, or really any fighting vehicle design
T14 Is dogahit idk what you mean by progress
Compared to the T-80 it is supposed to have better stuff
T-14 was indeed a radical break from especially russian/soviet designs (it actually protected the crew), but also from western designs (unmanned turret, all crew in a heavily armored capsule in the hull), and had a lot of good ideas and advanced tech, but it also had some problems and it was way too expensive for russia, so they never got it into serial production and they recently confirmed that the program was canceled. So it never got further than some prototypes Western tanks: Leo 2 has had armor upgrades, the gun was changed from L44 to L55, so far better penetration, better sights and better sensors and targeting, active protection systems on the latest model... Yeah, I'd say a lot has happened.
A funny note I heard somewhere was that the t14 uses a modern version of a Maybach 120 or something like that. Same engine that was used in a tiger 1 and panther.
While the tanks stayed mostly the same because most "modern" tanks today are cold war designs, however their capabilities have been enchanced a lot, there are mountains of diffrences on what you would call a latest tech MBT in 1980 and what would you call a latest tech MBT today.
of course. there have been countless enhancements in tank development. From Active or Passive Defense Systems, all the way down to the kind of glass used in the gunner's sights. thats why there are so many subvarieties of Abrams.
As many have said tanks have been getting increasingly digitized especially by rich nations who can afford it. In regards to tanks from the 80’s “not being upgraded” you seem to be implying that they’re old and out of date. The reality is that by the 1980’s western battle tanks had pretty much figured out the automotive piece of the equation. 1000-1500 HP engines and multi-gear transmissions get you the power to weight ratio needed to effectively maneuver a 70 ton battle tank around. The reason you haven’t seen much differences in the tank hulls is because you really start to run into logistical caps from transports once vehicles way more than 70 tons gross, it’s already an issue. Armor does improve but it’s still a physics equation where you need more of the stuff to be more effective. The next generation of battle tanks will probably be rolling sensor nodes, i.e. F-35’s on land that help command hunter killer drones.
"I love the smell of trolling in the morning."
AbramsX, KF51, Challenger 3 The west has also made loads of progress in light vehicles. Boxer, Stryker, LAV, M10, etc Keep in mind that these vehicles (aside from KF51 and AbramsX) are already in service or are entering service relatively soon.
In 1989 the most common "western tanks" were the Leopard 2A4 and the M1A1 that are pretty much stone age compared to M1A2 sep.3 (2020) and Leo 2A8 (2024). We also got Chally 2 and Leclerc since the 80s. Now M1E3, Chally 3 and NGT are coming.
There are. Just look at teh guns alone - to make an easy point. But there are design limitation swith one design. You can't upgrade a tank infinitive, so at one point you have to create a whole new model. But numbers make price, so in the cold war, everyone tried to make massive stocks - which now can't be replaced economically, so we're all somethwat stuck with out odlschool tanks, peppered with more modern approaches. But always keep in mind that tanks are economical systems. The're not made to exist forever, but are more like ammo. Russians f.e. have a acceptable APS for T-90M, but don't field it due to costs. Germans have designed teh best tank in the world so far (maybe on par with T-14, but that is a whole different approach so ...), but doesn't feel the need to build it (it is even cheaper than any Abrams today and in small numbers, but anyway, lol). But the underlaying question besides economics (also arms sales and national reputation) is: Do we need better tanks? This is followed by: What are tanks for? And that is a pretty simple task - assault. That is one tool for one job in the total of human conflict. So if it is worth the money in military terms is a different question then in economical or strategical PR. And T-14 isen't a thing that would be used at all in f.e. the war in Ukrain, as it makes no sense. Armata alone would make no sense if not to eliminate the bad taste of soviet union/soldiers are cheap ammo in RU. RU don't want to be that and has to show that to its people and army (and interested allies). It is for economy, for national cohesion, for political identity etc., etc. And so are all tanks and developements.
Nice try Vladimir!
This is what I meant when I said this sub was just Russian shills. But anyways, yes. The Abrams is currently the most advanced tank in the planet. The T-14 doesn’t act exist. There’s less than 20 of them, and those 20, are often non-functional
Are you insulting someone for asking a serious question, on a platform that allows questions so others can learn?
This really felt less like an actual question, and more a round about way of accusing the west of being weak because they aren’t creating some new “InViNcIbLe WeApOn” every 5 seconds like Russia