Cold War tanks
The Second World War , under the impact of the atomic bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the strategic adjustments, soon also affected the development of tanks in the approaching Cold War . The fact that the battlefield was no longer completely safe for anyone due to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (ABC weapons) led to some trends that were hardly foreseeable just a few years earlier. The upheaval in tank development even led to a fundamental discussion about the combat value of tanks at times . The question actually no longer arose after the great tank battles of World War II; it was quickly recognized that the battle tank had lost none of its combat power even on a changed battlefield , as it appeared in the scenarios of warfare, especially in Central Europe . The tank offered at least the advantage that it could exist and act as an armored unit even under ABC conditions. Technical developments then also improved mobility, armor protection and firepower over time.
The tank proved its worth in several conflicts, most notably the Korean War and the Middle East . There it could be used under conditions comparable to those in World War II, while the strategists in other conflicts, especially in the Vietnam War or during the ten-year occupation of Afghanistan, had to accept that new types of combat management alternatives , above all the guerrilla war , and also changed environmental conditions such as the Jungle challenged the tank for its superiority in the event of a conflict.
As in the Second World War, the development of the armored weapon varied depending on the country or region, also due to geographical requirements.
Operating principles of the armored forces
edit.png)
In order to understand how the modern “battle tank” developed, one has to look at the different operational principles of the states and alliances involved in the Cold War, ie NATO on the one hand and the Warsaw Pact on the other. These operational principles changed in some cases massively since the Second World War and represented fundamentally different views of modern warfare.
Warsaw Pact
Following the experiences of the Second World War, the planners of the Red Army further developed the proven doctrine of the operation in depth . According to this doctrine, which was adopted by all Warsaw Pact states, the attack should take place in three seasons. The leading first season was the strongest. With battle tanks as a spearhead, operational incursions into the depths were to be made behind the lines of the enemy. Instead of turning into the newly created flanks and completely rolling up the front line, the first season should push further down after the break-in and force the breakthrough. There the command and supply facilities of the opposing troops should be destroyed. The main task of the troops of the somewhat weaker second season was to secure the area behind the first season and to replace losses of the first season. Pure support tasks then fell to the relatively weakest, the third season. In the 1970s, an operational principle of the Second World War was taken up again. At that time, a so-called "mobile group" was used for deep advances. Within the Combat of Combined Arms , this new group was named "Operative Maneuver Group" (OMG) . Here, too, the main weapon was the main battle tank. Mechanized infantry and tank artillery also belonged to the OMG for further support .
The basic principle of this tactic was that only successful attacks in their direction should be further developed and supported. In the case of an attack by a regiment with three battalions , this meant that only the battalion that had received the weak point in the opposing defensive was supported with fresh forces, even if the other two attack battalions were to remain in the attack zone.
In order to implement this tactic successfully, it was necessary to concentrate a large number of tanks in the respective main battle direction. That is why all Soviet tanks turned out to be relatively simple at the beginning of their series production, but could be expanded. Another point was that Soviet tanks always reached very long ranges on a single tank of fuel. The T-10, for example, took a back seat with a range of just 250 km.
NATO
In contrast to the Warsaw Pact , mass concentrations of armored forces did not originally form the strategic backbone of NATO. It was not until the 1960s that NATO planners developed the operational principles that are still valid today. The aim of NATO planning was to destroy heavily attacking Soviet units at the earliest possible stage of the battle. For this purpose, reaction forces were formed. Within a corps, this task as "fire brigade at the front" could be assigned to entire divisions. A formation of tank armies or tank corps with a pure tank character was not planned. The mobile and leading element in tactical and operational attack should be battle tanks and armored personnel carriers, with the task of destroying enemy tank formations. Infantry and armored reserve units (cadre tank and tank destroyer units) in the second meeting should finally secure the area. During these operations, air attack units should take on the task of directing targeted strikes against troops, facilities and infrastructure of the enemy in the depths of his area (" follow-on-forces attack "; " air land battle "). Only when tanks and armored personnel carriers had destroyed the top of the enemy troops, the attack should also be carried deeper on the ground.
Other states
Different states used their own developments and had little or nothing to do with the Cold War. Nevertheless, they conformed to the image of the Cold War doctrine or went completely their own way. The warring black African states are appropriate here as an example. They used and still use tanks mainly as infantry support elements, especially wheeled tanks. They serve less to achieve powerful breakthroughs through enemy fronts. Guerrilla warfare is particularly prevalent in Central and South Africa, where the tank, as shown later, is not an effective means.
Armored troops in combined arms combat
The technical developments at the beginning of the 20th century (motor vehicle, aircraft, battle tank) created new, unknown tactical possibilities that first had to be meaningfully integrated into the old concept of combined arms combat . Before the Second World War, the German Wehrmacht leadership and their operational thinkers, such as Heinz Guderian and Erich von Manstein , developed a battle order that made it possible to operate the new branches of arms together. For this purpose, vehicles were supplied to the infantry divisions so that they could follow the rapidly advancing armored forces and use their breakthroughs successfully. During the war, this tactic was continuously improved. The units formerly referred to as motorized infantry divisions received lightly armored vehicles, such as the Sd.Kfz. 250 and so could easily keep up with the faster tanks. The artillery was also increasingly motorized and upgraded with self-propelled guns. The principle was that all branches of arms could work together effectively in combat. At the same time, strong air units were assigned to the individual armies or army groups. The attack aircraft occupied an important place. It provided close-up support for attacking units and was able to effectively paralyze the enemy's supply routes. At the end of the Second World War, this tactic had matured to such an extent that only technical improvements could be made. Combined arms combat is trained and developed by every army today. Of course, the armored personnel carriers have been further developed, as well as the battle tanks. Close-up support tasks by means of air strikes are usually carried out by helicopters today.
In most armies, the brigade is the smallest unit that can carry out combined arms combat with its own resources, i.e. without the supply of reinforcements . It has artillery, tanks and motorized infantry in its troop framework. Airmen are assigned to you based on knowledge of the battle situation. Additional subordinate troops can strengthen the brigade but are not absolutely necessary.
In the US Army , the smallest unit for this task is the Armored Cavalry Regiment (German: Armored Cavalry Regiment ). There are currently two regiments that can perform this task. The aim here is to have a very small association that can function independently as the spearhead of a brigade or division and is not dependent on the units to be subordinate to the division or brigade. The Soviet Operational Maneuver Group cannot be compared with this, because it can be a question of brigades and divisions.
Main battle tank
Soviet Union
T-34
From the T-34 about 80,000 units were built from 1940 to 1958. He was also involved in Cold War conflicts. The two variants, the T34 / 85 (named because of the 85 mm tank gun) and the older T-34/76 (with a 76 mm gun), were in service or in the reserve of the armies until the 1980s of the Warsaw Pact . Significant missions were the suppression of the uprising of June 17, 1953 and the Korean War , where it caused significant losses to the US armed forces. Production did not end until 1956. In battles with western tanks in the Middle East in the 1960s and 1970s, it became clear that the tank was no longer a threat to modern tanks. The T-34 and the IS-3 were replaced by the T-54 /55. The planned successor T-44 was not a great success.
IS-3
A development of the Second World War was the IS-3 . This was built too late to actively take part in the fighting. At the same time, after the Second World War, he formed the core of the armored forces of the USSR . In its day, the IS-3 was a formidable enemy. It was extremely heavily armored and had a 122 mm on-board cannon, one of the heaviest weapons used in battle tanks to date. Its shape also gave a first glimpse into Soviet tank construction over the next thirty years. It was the first combat vehicle with the so-called turtle tower , which was to become distinctive for Soviet and later also Russian tanks. This shape of the tower had the advantage that it made projectiles ricochet off more easily and allowed thick armor. When the IS-3 was retired from the ranks of the Soviet tanks in the 1950s, however, it was not scrapped, but - a practice that the Soviet leadership used just as often as the US American leadership during the course of the Cold War allied states delivered. A large number of IS-3 tanks were used by the states of the Middle East in the wars against Israel . However, this showed that the IS-3 was no longer able to cope with the more modern equipment of the Israeli tank weapon. From 1970 the vehicle disappeared from the arsenals. It was replaced by the T-54 /55.
T-54/55
One of the most produced tanks in the USSR was the T-54/55. It was designed so that it could be easily upgraded. This includes reactive armor to protect against shaped charge projectiles, better or more modern fire control systems, target computers and other modifications. At the same time, the T-54/55 should be relatively cheap, so that poorer countries could also afford this vehicle. The T-54/55 is one of the most common tanks in the world and has played a role in many conflicts and wars. Among other things, he was involved in all Gulf Wars, in many missions in the Middle East and in the Yugoslavia conflict in the 1990s. Every Warsaw Pact army had T-54/55. The Soviet Union also delivered it to African countries (e.g. Angola ), Cuba and Asian allies. It has been considered obsolete since the 1980s. Combat value increases could not prevent the T-54 from being inferior to modern tanks. Its direct successor was the T-62 .
T-64
The T-64 appeared in the arsenals of the Soviet Union in the 1960s. The tank was the first Soviet tank that did not belong to the old class system (light, medium, heavy), but was designed from the outset as a battle tank according to today's conception. It was the first tank in the world to have pioneering composite armor made of ceramic and armored steel , which at the time offered excellent protection while being lightweight. The T-64 was also the first tank to have an automatic loading system. This saved the loader and thus reduced the space required in the tower. This led to a smaller silhouette of the tank, which reduced the attack surface of the vehicle and made reconnaissance in the field by the enemy more difficult. The T-80 projected in the 1970s was based on his design .
T-72
The T-72 , introduced in the early 1970s, had a major impact on the image of the armored forces of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. It was manufactured under license in the USSR as well as in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. The T-72 was a step in a new direction: it was designed for use in a conscript army, so it was very easy to use and maintain. Fire control computer and NBC protection were part of the equipment. The procurement and maintenance costs for the tank were relatively low. The tank seemed to be sufficient for its time. The T-72 had its first combat missions in the Middle East. It was no match for the more modern Israeli Merkava . Even today, the T-72 is the standard tank in many countries that were formerly part of the Warsaw Pact. In China, many armored vehicles are based on the T-54/55 and the T-72, at least in terms of their chassis and running gear. The basic features of the T-72 formed the basis for the T-90 model developed after the end of the Cold War .
The T-72 experienced increases in combat value in some user states, including additional reactive armor and an improved fire control system. A modernized Polish variant is called PT-91 .
The reliable 125 mm cannon and the armor, which was superior to some Western tank models in the 1970s, led to the introduction of new armor-piercing ammunition in the NATO member states in the early 1980s.
United States
M47 Patton 1 and M48 Patton 2
The United States faced a massive problem after the end of World War II. The bulk of the US armored forces were armed with M4 Sherman tanks. The US troops had nothing to oppose the heavy Soviet tanks. The problem could be solved with the M26 Pershing at short notice , but this solution was not satisfactory. With the M24 Chaffee you had a light tank that didn’t lose its effectiveness with newer ammunition, but also fell victim to its age. A completely new tank had to be designed urgently, especially since it was necessary to recognize that the division into light, medium and heavy tanks was outdated. Even the idea of atomic deterrence no longer had any effect at the latest when the Soviet Union also had this weapon at its disposal. Although the M26 could be subjected to an increase in combat value, which was so blatant that the further development was given its own name ( M46 ), there was no avoiding a redesign. It was the M47 / 48 Patton. However, the M47 still had to struggle with major problems, for example its fuel consumption was enormous. While additional drop-off tanks could be installed, that was of minimal help. The first real changes did not appear until the M48 Patton 2 . It was already being developed when series production of the M47 was just starting. The main features of the M48 were based on the M47, but had some innovations. In order to reduce the unacceptable gasoline consumption of around 5 liters per kilometer, a new drive unit was developed that cut fuel consumption by around half. The M48 was the first tank in the world to have an NBC protection system and one version was given a weighing tower for test purposes . In principle, however, a conventional tower was used.
M60
The M60 was one of the most produced main battle tanks in the US since World War II. It is often mistakenly referred to as the M60 Patton , but never operated under that name. It was one of the few western tanks that did not have an official nickname. The cause of the mix-ups between the M60 and the M48 was the turret of the M48A2, which was fitted with the 105 mm L7 cannon and placed on the hull of the first model series and which was given the designation M60. The M60 impressively pointed the way that NATO tanks would take in the future. Many countries still use the M60 today. Although the basic principle was based on the experience of the development of the M 47/48, the tank was a completely new development and already equipped with a diesel engine (760 hp). One of the first prototypes still had the 90 mm M36 cannon. However, it was already decided during the test phase that at least a 105 mm caliber was necessary. The M60A1 received the 105-mm L7 cannon and a different turret. These were APFSDS projectiles used. The armor protection was improved and the range shortcoming of the M48 was eliminated. The tower machine gun was hidden as its predecessor back under a tank dome, which partly led to the false conclusion that it was a multi-tower tank . In fact, the machine gun in the domed position was ideally suited to offer the commander protection when fighting enemy targets, a possibility that was not available with openly mounted machine guns. With the M60A2 it was decided to try to enlarge the cannon. Instead of the 105 mm cannon, a 152 mm cannon / FK launcher was installed. This weapon could fire the MGM-51 Shillelagh anti -tank guided missile. This construction proved unsuccessful and was soon discontinued. The successor M60A3 had an improved aiming system, laser rangefinder and an improved drive. Until the appearance of the M1 Abrams , this tank remained the main model of the US armored forces. Unless own developments were available, the M60 was exported to many allied states, some of which are still in service today. An unknown number of vehicles are still in use in the United States for training purposes only and by the National Guard.
M1 Abrams
The M1 Abrams represents the last development of the American tanks in the Cold War. The origin of the M1 Abrams was the binational project Kampfpanzer 70 (MBT 70 or MBT-70) with the participation of the USA and the Federal Republic of Germany. Differing views between the partners as well as development progress led to the joint project being abandoned and a start was made on developing their own main battle tank , the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2 . Chrysler has produced the M1 Abrams since 1980. The first version received the 105 mm cannon of the M60, which still had a rifled barrel. This cannon quickly proved to be out of date and inferior to the new 120 mm smoothbore cannon from Rheinmetall and the robust and powerful 125 mm cannon of the Soviets. That is why the Americans quickly took over the German cannon and have been manufacturing it under license ever since. The tank tracks of the M1 also come from the Leopard 2 tank. It was completely different that a gas turbine was used instead of a diesel or multi-fuel engine . This increased the fuel volume required, but gave the tank excellent maneuverability. The composite armor has been reinforced in the course of the versions so that even projectiles with high kinetic energy (such as APFSDS projectiles of the most modern production) can only penetrate it with difficulty. The upgraded variant is the M1A1 Abrams and finally the M1A2. There is currently no end to production in sight.
Great Britain
Great Britain developed its own tanks even after World War II and did not adopt any design from the US or other allies.
Centurion and Conqueror
The main model of the British armored forces was for a long time the Centurion , which is considered one of the most successful western tank developments of the post-war period. He was instrumental in the wars in the Middle East , where he successfully prevailed against Soviet models. High maneuverability, good armor protection and the problem-free increase in combat value made the tank developed in 1945 as successful as the T-55. Even after the Chieftain was developed, the Centurion was still used by many armies. The Centurion BARV ( English Beach armored rescue vehicle ), a variant developed for landing operations, was even used in the Falklands War in 1982. Two other armored personnel carriers, the 165 mm AVRE and the 105 mm AVRE, were used until the 1990s, with the 165 mm AVRE variant being used in the second Gulf War.
The Conqueror was far less successful . The heavy tank was to provide long-range support with its gun for attacking Centurion units. The Conqueror's chassis was a simplified form of the Churchill tank's chassis . Although the experience of the Second World War suggested that too many castors prevented mobility, eight castors were installed on each side. As a result, speed and mobility were severely restricted. In fact, the Conqueror could only reach 34 km / h on the road, correspondingly less off-road. In relation to its weight of around 65 tons, it was severely underpowered, which created additional problems with the engine. Maintenance was time-consuming and accordingly more supply and support troops were needed. Similar to the even more unfortunate M103 from the US, the Conqueror could not convince. After it became clear that the Centurion could be upgraded to the combat value of the Conqueror almost without any problems, the tank became obsolete almost overnight, so that only just under 200 Conquerors were built. Similar to the US counterpart M103 , these were only used in Germany. When most tanks achieved main battle tank status - the Centurion from the 1960s, as well as the M60 - the principle of the heavy tank was abandoned. The tanks were retired and scrapped.
Chieftain and Challenger
Chieftain and Challenger successively replaced the venerable Centurions. The Chieftain is one of the second generation tanks. When it came to the requirements for the successor, emphasis was placed primarily on strong armor protection and only second and third on firepower and mobility. Thus, the Chieftain was superior to its competitors Leopard 1 and AMX-30 in terms of armor, but it was much slower and with a much smaller driving range. The main point of criticism is the target acquisition system, which was inadequate for the time.
The Chieftain formed the backbone of the British armored forces from 1968. Around 200 vehicles were to be exported to Iran . The vehicle modified in accordance with Iranian requirements, the Shir 1 , did not go into series production when the revolution broke out in Iran and the Shah was overthrown. The chassis produced so far remained in place until Jordan was won as a new customer. However, the Jordanians wanted additional modifications. The Challenger was created from this vehicle, which was delivered as the "Khalid". As early as 1983, 50 percent of the British Army on the Rhine were equipped with challengers. Both tanks use the 120 mm L / 11 drawbar cannon. It is disadvantageous that the cannons are designed for separately loaded ammunition.
Germany
Leopard 1
The structure of the Leopard 1 is strongly reminiscent of the panther of the Second World War. Its development began in 1957 with a military agreement between France and Germany for a common standard tank. The tower construction was also beveled and thus offered a high level of armor protection despite the lack of thickness. The Leopard 1 and 1A1 did not yet have a weapon stabilization system and were therefore forced to stop firing. As usual in all states, the Leopard 1 was also subject to various increases in combat value . The last model in the Leopard 1 range was the Leopard 1A5. The main focus was on improving fire control and enemy detection. The vehicle family of the Leopard 1 is very large. In addition to the Flakpanzer Gepard also were pioneering tanks , armored vehicle launched bridge and armored recovery vehicles developed on the basis of the Leopard 1 and built. In addition to the English Centurion and the US M48, the Leopard 1 is considered to be the NATO main battle tank with the highest export figures.
Project battle tank 70
The Kampfpanzer 70 project was a joint project between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1970s. The resulting vehicle should be groundbreaking for the future of NATO combat vehicles. The project, which was running at the same time as the Leopard 1 was manufactured, turned out to be less than successful. In addition to quarrels between US and German developers, the enormous expense and the complicated technology were also a problem, which led to the project being discontinued. Still, the results of this project resulted in two tanks that are now among the best in the world: the Leopard 2 and the M1 Abrams.
MaK VT-1 project
Since the greatest assumed threat was a massive Soviet tank advance, the Test Vehicle 1 project was launched. The aim should be a highly motorized tank with a low silhouette, two parallel 105 mm cannons that can only be adjusted in height, and automatic loading machines, which should bring the necessary superiority in tank versus tank combat.
Leopard 2
After the failure of the Kampfpanzer 70 project, both the Americans and the Germans had to look for a new way to modernize their armored weapons. In the USA it was decided to build the M1 Abrams. In Germany, however, a vehicle from the production of Krauss-Maffei and Rheinmetall was used.
A successor to the Leopard 1 was designed in the 1970s. The Leopard 2 no longer leaned against the Panther, but returned to the straight construction of the armor plates. Thanks to the new multilayer armor that had found its way into tank construction, the armor protection did not decrease, but was increased. The combat value of the Leopard 2 has also been continuously developed over the course of its existence.
Its last version is currently the 2A6M with reinforced front armor, extended cannon and improved mine protection. The Leopard 2 was exported in different versions (from A4) to many NATO countries. An armored recovery vehicle ( Bergepanzer Büffel ) corresponding to the weight of the Leopard 2 had to be developed, as the previous armored recovery vehicle 2 was overwhelmed with it. The Leopard 2 has a multi-fuel engine that is mainly powered by diesel. In an emergency, however, most of the other fuels available can also be used. The 120 mm cannon was developed and further developed by Rheinmetall and today represents the most powerful smooth barrel cannon in the western world. It is used today in many vehicles such as the M1A1 Abrams and also formed the basis for the cannon of the Israeli Merkava.
France
AMX-13
After the Second World War, the French constructed a large family of light tanks. First, the French armored troops built on war equipment left by the USA and two battalions of undamaged captured Panther tanks from the German Wehrmacht. In addition to the later imported M48 from the USA and M24 Chaffee, the AMX-13 formed the backbone of the French armored forces. The usual structure in a battalion provided for five companies, in which the first four companies were equipped with the basic version of the AMX-13. The fifth company received a modified AMX-13 capable of launching guided missiles and classified as a tank destroyer. When the M48 was retired, the AMX-30 was not yet available. So the AMX-13 had to be modified further. Instead of the 75 mm cannon previously used, a 90 mm cannon was installed. To do this, the tower had to be changed. When the M24 Chaffee was taken out of service, the tower of the Chaffee was mounted on the chassis of the AMX-13. These vehicles were mainly used in Algeria . Vehicles based on the AMX-13 are still in use today. These include mortar carriers, pioneer tanks, bridge-laying tanks and command tanks. Although actually a classic light tank, the AMX-13 has proven itself in various conflicts with many armies, not least because of its comparatively low price. Its successor was the AMX-30.
AMX-30
The AMX-30 was the first battle tank of the French armed forces and was developed in parallel to the Leopard 1, which had a so-called multi-fuel engine. He could fill up with diesel or gasoline, but also light oil or paraffin. Otherwise, the AMX-30 was a very conventional design. The tank had a 105 mm cannon and strong multilayer armor. To improve the armor, the armor plates were inclined. The commander's high observation structure for all-round visibility was unusual. Fire control and fire control are carried out by computer, distance measurement by a laser system. At 600 kilometers, the tank has a respectable range. However, it can no longer compete with the latest generation of tanks. Even the increases in combat value on the AMX-30 B2 version did not bring any outstanding results. The AMX-30 is currently being replaced by the modern Leclerc battle tank . Nevertheless, vehicles based on the chassis of the AMX-30 such as the self-propelled howitzer AMX-30 AuF1 or the engineer tank AMX-30 EBG are still used by the French armed forces.
Israel
When Israel was founded, it had to fight serious wars with its neighbors. The terrain offered every opportunity to develop effective tank tactics. At first, Israel mainly used English and American main battle tanks. But the Israelis quickly developed their own ideas, for example the use of the Centurion main battle tank turret with the 105 mm L7 cannon on the chassis of the M 48 main battle tank, which meant a not inconsiderable (and unorthodox) increase in combat value. Since this was only a temporary solution, however, further considerations led to such an unconventional vehicle as the Merkava .
Merkava
Israel can undoubtedly be described as the country with the most experience in modern tank fighting. After the end of the Second World War, no other state had to fight as many wars with pure tank battles as Israel. While the British Centurion tank was the main weapon of the Israeli army in the early days, a completely new approach was taken from the production of the Merkava . Unlike main battle tanks produced in the USSR or the USA, the Merkava was designed with the possible combat terrain in mind. The leading element was good armor protection. So the engine was installed on the front to create additional armor. The entire crew was moved to the rear for this. A 120 mm cannon is used as armament, which is based on the now widespread Rh 120. The chains were widened for operation in the desert sand. The combat load is an impressive 92 rounds for the main weapon. In an armored compartment, the wounded can be transported or - unusually for a main battle tank - a crew with a 60 mm mortar. This makes the Merkava the only tank that can carry its own artillery.
China
Chinese tanks are usually built by Norinco . Until the break in relations between China and the USSR, the Chinese army used Soviet models such as the T-54. The entire Chinese tank construction was ultimately based on the Soviet combat vehicle. Until today the Type 90 has not been let down from the turtle tower of the Soviet and later Russian tanks. Despite everything, Chinese tanks represent a serious combat factor simply because of their sheer mass. Up to the T-90, Chinese main battle tanks operate at the level of the T-54 or T-72. They are inferior to modern main battle tanks in terms of armor, firepower, and mobility. The Type 90 and its future successor are the first completely in-house designs and are looking for a connection to the construction of modern battle tanks.
When building other types of tanks for combined arms combat, the Chinese developers always tried to use existing materials. The first Type 63 anti- aircraft tanks were built on the chassis of the T-34.
Sweden
Sweden went its own way. Impressed by the MBT 70 project, the Stridsvagn 103 was developed. This was built without a turret based on the model of the tank destroyer. The entire vehicle had to be moved for side straightening. The leveling was also completely unconventional. Since there was no cover, the vehicle was raised or lowered hydraulically to adjust the height. However, the unique concept did not prove itself in practice due to various technical problems. The Strv 103 was replaced by the Swedish version of the Leopard 2.
Other states
Of course, many tanks were exported from the leading countries in tank construction, but smaller countries also developed their own combat vehicles. Otherwise most of the exported vehicles are modified according to the requirements of the user states. The Spanish and Swedish versions of the Leopard 2 serve as examples .
The M48 was the inspiration behind the development of the Swiss tank 68 . The chassis of the German Marder was used for the first versions of the Argentine TAM ; later the chassis of the Leopard 1. The Leopard 1 was also the inspiration for the Italian OF-40 , a tank intended only for export. The Israeli Scho't is based on the British Centurion; it has a completely different fire control system, a different laser rangefinder unit and different armor. The Soviet T-72 was the basic model for Japanese and South Korean models, which were convinced of the design with a turtle tower, but used western technology for their tanks.
What all these tanks have in common is that they have many components similar to their counterparts, but have been modified by so many features that they are independent vehicles. With the exception of the OF-40, they were all designed for use by the developer and for his needs and were thus adapted in their basic structure. The number of pieces in production never reached comparable values with any of these models as with the models described above.
The Warsaw Pact states were largely dependent on Soviet tank production; nevertheless, some states went their own way. For example, T-72s were modified in Romania and Czechoslovakia and adapted to their own requirements.
Armored personnel carriers
The soldiers of the German Wehrmacht were already able to convince with the concept of mechanized infantry in World War II. After the war, the Soviet Union and its allies in particular had to recognize this missing link. At best, the Soviet Union used trucks to transport its infantrymen, but they could only partially follow armored vehicles into the terrain. The German soldiers, on the other hand, drove lightly armored half-track vehicles such as the Sd.Kfz. 250 and its varieties into battle.
After the war, a number of armored personnel carriers were developed in the Soviet Union. The first real armored personnel carrier was without a doubt the BMP-1 . He combined the tactical mobility of battle tanks and their armor protection with the ability to take on a combat group of infantrymen. It had a 73 mm cannon and was able to fire an anti-tank guided missile. The Soviet designers developed a whole series of armored personnel carriers such as the MT-LB , which can also be used as an artillery tractor. This wagon is also used by Scandinavian countries, where its wide chains and the associated low ground pressure prove themselves on the soft ground. Its successor, the BMP-2 , received new gun armament and new missiles. In accordance with the Warsaw Pact doctrine, air-loadable models such as the BMD were also developed.
For a long time, the M113 was the standard at NATO level . Even today, many armies still use this vehicle, which was developed in the 1950s, including the Bundeswehr . The vehicle family of this "all-round talent" is enormous. In addition to an armored personnel carrier, there are ambulance vehicles, flak tanks , pioneer tanks and mortar carriers. Of course, the M113 was not an armored personnel carrier as it is today. But it was used that way for a long time.
The first "real" armored personnel carrier of NATO was the German Marder 1 . A 20-mm cannon and a turret machine gun with a caliber of 7.62 mm were mounted in a two-man turret. After its first increase in combat value, it was also able to fire MILAN anti-tank missiles and since 2002 the latest 1A5 variant has had anti-mine equipment. On the US side, the M2 / M3 Bradley followed with a 25-mm main armament and the British Warrior with its 30-mm on-board automatic cannon. At the beginning of the 21st century, these three vehicles are still the standard armored personnel carriers of NATO armored infantry troops.
The armored personnel carrier is certainly an important element of warfare, but cannot fulfill the tasks of the main battle tank. As mutually supportive elements, however, the two cannot be separated from one another.
Tank destroyers
_-_Jagdpanzer_Kanone_90_mm.jpg)
During the Second World War, all powers had experience with self-propelled guns and tank destroyers , above all the German Wehrmacht . Effective tank destroyers were created with elementary models such as the Jagdpanther or the Hetzer . After the Second World War, this concept was largely considered obsolete. Nevertheless, the German Bundeswehr relied on the concept and developed a new tank destroyer. The versions “Jagdpanzer Kanone” and “Jagdpanzer Rakete” were produced. The Jagdpanzer 4–5 (the official name) was a turretless tank with a front-mounted cannon with a limited lateral directional area. (Incidentally, the cannons came from the decommissioned M47 battle tanks.) The first rocket tank destroyer was based on the chassis of the HS 30 armored personnel carrier (Raketenjagdpanzer 1) until it also received the chassis of the tank destroyer. With the further development of the anti-tank defense, the German Armed Forces decommissioned the tank destroyers of the active troops and converted 176 of these vehicles into rocket tank destroyers with the TOW system . Different configurations have also been tried out in other armies. A particularly bizarre variant is, for example, the American M50 Ontos , which however did not prove itself as a tank destroyer and could only be used for infantry support.
The concept of the classic tank destroyer has hardly been pursued since the 1970s. In most armies, the guy is retired. It was replaced by lighter tank destroyer vehicles and armored personnel carriers armed with anti-tank missiles. Also gunships have taken over this role. The still active Austrian cuirassier is an exception . The vehicle is so conspicuous because it has a peculiar tower construction. This is the weighing turret of the French AMX 13 tank destroyer. The cannon is turret mounted with a magazine drum which, however, has to be reloaded from the outside. The case of the fired cartridge is ejected outwards. Tactically, this is a disadvantage if reloading the magazine is only possible under fire.
Light tanks
Although a fixed division into light, medium and heavy tanks no longer seemed appropriate since the bad planning of the British Conqueror and the US M103 , suitable models were needed for use in light formations. In both the Soviet Union and the United States, these were mostly air-moving units. One of the first representatives of an air-transportable tank was the Soviet ASU-57 . Although more of a self-propelled gun than a real battle tank, it was air-transportable and amphibious. Later, the Soviet designers developed the PT-76 tank , whose reliable chassis and good chassis served as the basis for many other versions. The last line of air-transportable Soviet tanks were the combat vehicles of the BMD family. The structure was reminiscent of the BMP armored personnel carrier and certainly took over some of its components, but it was still a completely independent vehicle.
The M551 Sheridan should be used by the US airborne divisions (such as the 82nd Airborne Division or 101st Airborne Division "Airmobile") and the US Marine Corps. However, the vehicle had such serious defects that it is no longer used today. The CCV-L was developed to increase the firepower of the light troops . Although the vehicle has been ready for production since the 1980s, it is still being tested by the troops. The Vickers FMC Mk V was developed for the British Paras, but then only intended for export, because the British Army preferred the " Scimitar " as a combat vehicle and otherwise relied on wheeled armored vehicles.
The importance of the light tanks can only be explained in the context of the light division. None of the models is up to an open battle with modern battle tanks.
Self-propelled artillery
Artillery that can be deployed quickly was always part of the combined arms battle and the demands of the individual powers. As early as the Second World War, guns were more or less successfully mounted on the chassis of battle tanks. After the Second World War, this concept was recognized as correct. An outstanding representative of this category is certainly the M109 self-propelled howitzer . It was used by almost all NATO forces. It has all-round protection and is lightly armored. The gun was also delivered to many allied states and is still in use today despite recent developments. The gun used is a 155mm howitzer. These howitzers were therefore continuously developed in order to be able to accompany the fast tank units and to support them effectively. However, open vehicles were also used, such as the M110 howitzer .
Very large calibers were used and long-range guns were installed. Therefore one could do without comprehensive armor protection. There were special designs from Czechoslovakia and South Africa that mounted howitzers, like the South African G-6, on wheel frames. These were easier to maintain. At the same time, they were cheaper and more suitable for export than expensive and complicated tracked vehicles. Motorized artillery has completely disappeared from the arsenals in many countries and has been replaced by mobile self-propelled guns.
.JPEG)
The Soviet Union, and with it the Warsaw Pact, started developing self-propelled artillery relatively late, but the Pact's artillery was never to be underestimated. Since the Second World War, the Warsaw Pact armed forces have relied on moving light rocket artillery. According to the doctrine, cannons and howitzers were regarded as preparers of the attack, rocket artillery as companions of the combat troops. It was not until the 1960s that Soviet engineers developed real self-propelled artillery. The exception to this is the ISU-152 . It could be used as a self-propelled artillery, but also as a tank destroyer. Compared to corresponding models of NATO and other countries, however, it was completely inferior in the 1960s. The Israeli army captured several ISU-152s during the Middle East wars. During the 1970s and 1980s a number of armored artillery vehicles with different tasks were developed and manufactured, such as the 2S1 , 2S3 , 2S4 , 2S5 , 2S7 and 2S9 models . Many of these self-propelled guns were exported. The 2S19 self-propelled howitzer comes from the late 1980s and is certainly on a par with comparable western vehicles.
Rocket launchers, such as the Chinese Type 70 or the Brazilian ASTROS-2 system , were also mounted on tanks as an armored concept . At the same time, the US's well-known MLRS system is also built on the basis of a tracked vehicle. This enabled the crews of such launchers, who fire at very high risk, to retreat under armor protection.
A separate chapter of self-propelled artillery are the launch systems for medium-range missiles. These systems were built to either deliver large explosive charges over medium distances precisely to the target or to fire chemical, biological or nuclear explosives without endangering one's own troops. For this purpose, like the Pluton system shown, they were placed on the chassis of armored vehicles or on multi-axle wheeled vehicles such as the Soviet SS-21 Scarab . The armor protection of the crew was of secondary importance. The aim was to be able to keep the systems ready to drive even in impassable terrain and thus to be able to change positions quickly and to be able to fire from positions that are difficult or inaccessible for other vehicles.
Anti-aircraft tank
The German Wehrmacht developed the first anti-aircraft tank during World War II. The Flakpanzer IV was the first real anti- aircraft tank . It was used very successfully and proved that armored vehicles could also be used for air defense. After the war, all armies realized that it was imperative to protect battle tanks from air strikes, especially since helicopters became more and more important as tank destroyers.
Existing chassis were mostly used by battle tanks. A very good example is the German cheetah based on the Leopard 1. The Soviet ZSU-23-4 "Schilka" was developed based on the PT-76. On the US side, the M163 Vulcan was developed on the basis of the M113 armored personnel carrier.
The anti-aircraft tank is characterized by the fact that it works practically without any external radar system. Its own system and a modern fire control computer are able to locate approaching enemy objects and to calculate the time for the start of the fire fight and its end. Anti-aircraft tanks armed with cannons are supposed to work at close range. Anti-aircraft tanks armed with missiles such as the German Roland , the British Tracked Rapier or the Russian 9K35 Strela-10 naturally have a longer range and are intended to fight approaching enemies before they come within the range of their own weapons.
Support and engineer tanks
In order to be able to conduct the combined arms battle effectively, the support troops also had to be equipped with armored tracked vehicles. Rapidly advancing tank units and other motorized troops needed quicker, more straightforward support. Armored chassis were already used in World War II to mobilize the engineer troops. A well-known example is the Bergepanther . These vehicles were used to salvage shot down or defective battle tanks from the battlefield and to hand them over to the repair units. Other vehicles such as the Sherman BARV were used to support the troops, to supply them with supplies or, in the case of the Sherman BARV, to clear landing beaches. They were specially constructed, lighter armored than battle tanks and mostly not or only lightly armed. Support tanks usually have cranes, lifting devices or earth spades, depending on their task. In order to be able to overcome water obstacles without any problems, pontoon bridges were used in World War II, which were built by the pioneer troops. This often happened under heavy fire.
After the war, rapid armored bridges were developed. This enabled smaller watercourses and rivers that exceeded the depths of the fords of the tanks to be overcome quickly. Attacking tank units are not hindered by the tedious construction of a pontoon bridge and can continue their advance faster and more effectively. One of the most effective uses of bridge-laying tanks was carried out by the Egyptian army during the Yom Kippur War , when they bridged the Suez Canal with bridge-laying tanks and a few pontoons from 1.30 p.m. on the first day of the attack. The Israeli army had reinforced the east side of the Suez Canal with a wall of sand that was sprayed away with strong jets of water. Subsequently, bridge-laying tanks were able to bridge the Suez Canal within four hours. At the same time, amphibious vehicles and airborne troops formed a bridgehead. By midnight, large parts of the 2nd Egyptian Army had crossed and taken the east bank of the Suez Canal.
Other armored vehicles are used to transport supplies or, like the German Bundeswehr's Skorpion mine-throwing system, as a mine-laying vehicle . Special pioneer tanks such as the German Keiler are used to clear minefields quickly and effectively.
They all serve to facilitate the advance of the tanks and armored forces. Thanks to their crawler tracks, they are also very effective in difficult terrain. Usually the developers of such vehicles fall back on the chassis of existing battle tanks. Due to the same performance data, the speed of the attacking tank units is maintained and the supporting units can easily follow the combat troops.
Wheel drive
The wheel drive represents a cost-effective alternative to the heavy, expensive and complicated vehicles with chain drive. After the Second World War, the off-road capabilities of the wheel drive increased due to improved technology. The great advantage of armored vehicles is that they are easier to maintain and operate.
Wheel combat tank
For a long time, the weak armament of the relatively small vehicles was problematic. Heavy armor-piercing projectiles could not simply be fired because the turrets used were unable to accommodate the large cannons. However, this problem was resolved in the course of development after 1945. The German Wehrmacht was already able to equip eight-wheel reconnaissance tanks with a short 75 mm stub cannon. Nevertheless, armored vehicles were only used for reconnaissance and communication purposes during World War II. This changed with the development of the Hornet Malkara at the latest . The Hornet Malkara was based on the Humber Pig 4 × 4 transporter . The Malkara missiles were able to destroy any tank that existed at the time at 2000 meters. These vehicles are now offered with cannons up to 105 mm in caliber, such as the Italian Centauro. Anti-tank guided missiles were mounted like the BRDM-2 .
Almost all large armies use wheeled armored vehicles for various tasks, but the main focus of the producers is on exports for smaller armies. Poorer countries, especially in Asia and Africa, have almost only armored armored forces. The fast vehicles are also suitable for inhospitable environments such as rainforests. In contrast to heavy battle tanks, most wheeled tanks are also fully amphibious; Water hazards can often be overcome without preparation. In some variants, the drive takes place via wheels; However, variants were also produced that had a water jet drive or screws. In the future, the armored car will probably be given more importance. The modern combat field seems to be more suitable for these much smaller vehicles than for heavy battle tanks. In an urban environment, wheeled armored vehicles are faster, more agile and, thanks to new armament, just as powerful as their larger relatives.
Armored personnel carrier
Light armored personnel carriers are often used, especially by light infantry troops such as paratroopers or mountain troops. In addition to the light tanks, they form the armored forces of these units. Like their chain-driven equivalents in the Panzergrenadier , they are armed with a light cannon with a caliber of 20 to 30 millimeters. The crew compartment holds six to twelve soldiers. They are air-packable, completely amphibious and just as inexpensive as the wheeled combat tanks. An important representative is the South African Ratel , as well as the US Light Armored Vehicle-25 , which is in service with the US Marine Corps. Wheeled infantry fighting vehicles are also a serious factor in the urban battlefield. They can easily take on patrols and, thanks to the wheel drive, are faster and more manoeuvrable on the road than tracked infantry fighting vehicles . At the same time, they can transport several soldiers under armor protection to their area of responsibility. In the context of international missions, for example in Kosovo or Bosnia, the armored personnel carrier is one of the most important elements of the troops stationed there.
Artillery wheel armor
Both the Czechs and the South Africans went their very own way. In addition to the DANA , the Denel G6 is one of the few self-propelled guns on a wheel frame. Similar to wheel archers and armored vehicles, the focus is on easier maintenance of the weapon. The disadvantage here is that armored vehicles do not offer the same stability as tracked vehicles. Therefore, additional support devices must be deployed on both vehicles before firing.
Findings, threats and countermeasures
During the Cold War, all the nations involved massively upgraded their armored forces - they were awaiting the great tank battle in Central Europe. The battle tank was a tried and tested means for this, which also influenced its development in accordance with the doctrine and operational basis presented. After the end of the Cold War, however, the task profile of the armored forces changed. The great tank battle in Central Europe was no longer to be expected. Instead, the troops deployed in the various conflicts around the world are repeatedly forced into asymmetrical warfare. Small, fast combat units made up of infantry and armored personnel carriers, supported by strong air units, are increasingly taking over the battlefields. The battlefield itself has also changed. During the Cold War, battles were assumed to take place in the open. In the asymmetrical war, however, the battlefield is urban in nature. Here the tank proves to be too cumbersome. In this environment, the tank is more and more threatened by small anti-tank troops. Thanks to the new anti-tank technology, these can now act in such a way that they strike and leave the battlefield before a tank unit can prevent this.
Balance of power
At the height of the Cold War, there were theoretically about 70,500 tanks facing each other. A considerable part of these tanks of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact could only be described as battle tanks if they were very generously interpreted.
In detail, the Warsaw Pact in the early 1980s had (all variants):
- about 20,400 JS-2 , JS-3 , T-10 and T-34 (completely unsuitable)
- 13,800 T-55 / T-62
- 10,640 T-64 and T-72
- 1,100 PT-76 (conditionally suitable)
- 2,550 ASU-57 and ASU-85 (ASU-57 completely disabled)
- T-80 (delivery only from 1984)
- TR-85 (delivery from 1986)
- Total: 48,490 (24,440 suitable, 1,100 conditionally suitable and 22,950 unfit)
At NATO (all variants):
- 4,396 M48 (conditionally suitable)
- 10,245 M60
- 3,989 M47 (disabled)
- 150 M1 Abrams
- 4,451 Leopard 1
- 150 Leopard 2
- 70 M551
- 1,384 AMX 30
- 403 Centurion (disabled)
- 471 AMX 13 (conditionally suitable)
- 39 AMX-10 RC (conditionally suitable)
- 264 ARC EBR-75 (unsuitable)
- 970 tank destroyers
- 900 Chieftain
- 100 M 41 (unsuitable)
- 81 M 24 (unsuitable)
- ? FV102 Striker
- Challenger 1 (delivery only from 1983)
- Total: 28,274 (18,320 suitable, 4,906 conditionally suitable (plus the FV 102 Striker) and 4837 completely unsuitable)
References
See also
literature
- Shelford Bidwell et al. a .: Land war in the 20th century: history, technology, strategy. Edited by: Ray Bonds, Gondrom Verlag, Bayreuth 1978, ISBN 3-8112-0148-4 . (German translation; English original title: The encyclopedia of land warfare in the 20th century )
- Ian Hogg : 20th Century Artillery. 1st edition, Gondrom Verlag, Bindlach 2001, ISBN 3-8112-1878-6 . (Translation)
- David Miller, Christopher F. Foss : Modern combat weapons. Ed. By: Horst W. Laumanns, 3rd edition, special edition, Stocker Schmid Verlag, Dietikon / Zurich 1998, as well as: Motorbuch-Verl., Stuttgart 1998, ISBN 3-7276-7092-4 . (German translation; English original title: Modern land combat )
- Roger Ford: tanks from 1916 to the present day. 1st edition, Karl Müller Verlag, Erlangen 1997, ISBN 3-86070-676-4 . (Translation)
- Armed Forces 1982/83. In: The "Military Balance" of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London. Bernard & Graefe Verlag, Munich 1982.
- Ferdinand von Senger and Etterlin : Tanks of the World. Arms and Amor Press, London 1983.
Web links
- Technology at Panzerbaer.de
- Modern tank technology at fas.org (English)
- Chinese main battle tanks at Sinodefence.com (English)
References and comments
- ↑ Christopher F. Foss, David Miller: Modern battle weapons. Stocker Schmid Verlag, 3rd edition, Zurich 1989, ISBN 3-7276-7092-4 , pp. 176–177.
- ↑ Christopher F. Foss, David Miller: Modern battle weapons. Stocker Schmid Verlag, 3rd edition, Zurich 1989, ISBN 3-7276-7092-4 , pp. 182-190.
- ↑ Roger Ford: Tanks from 1916 to the present day. Karl Müller Verlag, Erlangen, ISBN 3-86070-676-4 , pp. 116, 134.
- ↑ Christopher F. Foss, David Miller: Modern battle weapons. Stocker Schmid Verlag, 3rd edition, Zurich 1989, ISBN 3-7276-7092-4 , p. 97.
- ↑ Christopher F. Foss, David Miller: Modern battle weapons . 3. Edition. Stocker-Schmid, Zurich 1989, ISBN 3-7276-7092-4 , p. 179 .
- ↑ Armed Forces 1982/83 . In: International Institute for Strategic Studies London (Ed.): The "Military Balance" . Bernard & Graefe, London / Munich 1982.