Main battle tank
During World War I, combining tracks, armour, and guns into a functional vehicle pushed the limits of mechanical technology.
After years of isolated and divergent development, the various interwar tank concepts were finally tested with the start of World War II.
In the chaos of blitzkrieg, tanks designed for a single role often found themselves forced into battlefield situations they were ill-suited for.
[13][page needed] Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery is acknowledged as the main advocate of the British universal tank concept as early as 1943, according to the writings of Giffard Le Quesne Martel, but little progress was made beyond development of the basic Cromwell cruiser tank that eventually led to the Centurion.
The Centurion, entering service just as World War II finished, was a multi-role tank that subsequently formed the main armoured element of the British 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 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.
An increasing variety of anti-tank weapons and the perceived threat of a nuclear war prioritized the need for additional armour.
By the 1960s, anti-tank rounds could penetrate a meter of steel so as to make the application of traditional rolled homogeneous armour unpragmatic.
The first solution to this problem was the composite armor of Soviet T-64 tank, which included steel-glass-reinforced textolite-steel sandwich in heavily sloped glacis plates, and steel turret with aluminum inserts, which helped to resist both high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) and APDS shells of the era.
This new threat caused designs to distribute armour on all sides of the tank (also having the effect of protecting the vehicle's occupants from nuclear explosion radiation).
[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.
[25] The Soviet Union made novel advancements to the weapon systems including mechanical autoloaders and anti-tank guided missiles.
[19] The United States's experience in the Vietnam War contributed to the idea among army leadership that the role of the main battle tank could be fulfilled by attack helicopters.
[26] Though the Persian Gulf War reaffirmed the role of main battle tanks,[clarification needed] MBTs were outperformed by the attack 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.
In response, nations that face asymmetric warfare, such as Israel, are reducing the size of their tank fleet and procuring more advanced models.
However, with upgrades to their rear armour, M1s proved to be valuable in urban combat; at the Second Battle of Fallujah the United States Marines brought in two extra companies of M1s.
[33] Small unmanned turrets on top of the cupolas called remote controlled weapon stations armed 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.
Despite this drawback, it is still employed on many Russian MBTs, the latest generation Kontakt-5 being capable of defeating both high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) and kinetic energy penetrator threats.
The latest Russian MBT, according to many forum members[citation needed] the T-14 Armata, incorporates an AESA radar as part of its Afghanit APS and in conjunction with the rest of its armament, can also intercept aircraft and missiles.
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 era rocket-propelled grenades with negligible damage.
[34] The tank gun is still useful in urban combat for precisely delivering powerful fire while minimizing collateral damage.
[28] High-explosive anti-tank (HEAT), and some form of high velocity kinetic energy penetrator, such as armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds are carried for anti-armour purposes.
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.
[48] For situational awareness, the crew can use a circular review system combining augmented reality and artificial Intelligence technologies.
MBTs, like previous models of tanks, move on continuous tracks, which allow a decent level of mobility over most terrain including sand and mud.
The crew must perform their tasks faultlessly and harmoniously so commanders select teams taking into consideration personalities and talents.
[34] The modern light tank supplements the MBT in expeditionary roles 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.
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.
