It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What features will we see in the future tank?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:08 PM
I guess that the next set of features on a tanks, would be catapult seats for the crew. They could use the Russian K-36D-3.5A catapult seat which is an excelent seat for shooting people in the air. They would need to be blasted pretty high, say 100-200m in the air and scatterd over a large area. Making them harder to kill

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:32 AM
I think a tank of the near future will probably have some sort of Auto-loader system or possibly be un-manned like UAVs.
The overall shape of the tank would probably have a low profile and have sloped armour.
It could be armoured with advanced explosive reactive armour or even electric reactive armour, the armour could also have a layer of radar absorbent materials.
The armament might be a 120mm cannon firing advanced munitions such as the Mid-Range Munition .
There could be an advanced fire control system with an all weather capability and also be able to operate at night.
The engine would be an electic engine to allow much quiter operation and a petol or desiel engine could be used when not in combat or to recharge batteries. The tracks would probably be wider and made of lighter but stronger materials.
Several small machine guns that are controlled by an advanced targeting computer could possibly shoot down incoming projectiles.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 05:53 AM

Originally posted by trondjac
I guess that the next set of features on a tanks, would be catapult seats for the crew...

...They would need to be blasted pretty high, say 100-200m in the air and scatterd over a large area.

This is what tends to happen when the tank in hit anyway!

"Well baldrick, [if we hit a mine] the immediate action is to jump 50 feet into the air and spread ourselves over a large area".

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by fatcat2

Future tank? Call it a LAV (Low Altitude Vehicle):

- Vectored Thrust (think Harrier Jet)
- Rail gun (w/ fast recharge for short range & slow recharge for long range)
- Missiles in internal and/or external bays
- Stealth design & materials
- Anti-aircraft capabilities
- 360-degree anti-personnel system
- Flares & Chaff
- Reactive armor
- Reduced crew (crewed by 2 - 3)
- Deployable UAVs

That is the ultimate Future Tank. An armored vehicle that flies like a chopper. Super-accurate rail gun. Stealth and many more features.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by guppy]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:29 PM
havent read all the pages yet so i apologize if its already been posted b4

but i think the future of tanks is like some have mentioned optical camoflage and to a degree some automation as well as problay more advanced canister (anti infantry shells) and problay some discarding sabots of increseing craftyness advances in reactive armour and eventualy some kind of nify sheilds but that wouldnt be for a while i would assume some new kind of powersource is gonna make a debut in a few years so keep an eye out for those devlopements

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:38 PM
Hum, some of the speculation so far in this thread has been pretty generic, optical cam, DEW etc. But the more interesting stuff (Always worth reading anyone that quotes Stalin IMO), is more role / mission specific.
Which leads me to ask (not being as well informed as I might be) weren't most 'current' generation MBTs - M1, T-72, Leopard et al - designed to, either be meeting the Warsaw Pact somewhere in West Germany, or meeting NATO forces somewhere in East Germany?
I may be under-informed, but it seems to me that this particular scenario is no longer quite as likely to be played out. Do MBTs still have a role to play?
Are the weapons we are using to fight our current conflicts really suitable for them, much of the commentary in this thread seems to suggest otherwise. Does this mean our governments are still spending money developing weapons systems for conflict scenarios that are unlikely to occur? Short of invading mainland China are we going to be using the doctrines and equipment from the Cold War, or are we (should we) be looking forward to possible future conflict scenarios - limited intensity / objective engagements, policing actions, 'peacekeeping' and regime stabilisation? And how does heavy armour fit into these scenarios if it does at all?

Oh for my 2 pennyworth to the OP, better, clearer information communication. Voice comms radio is a 19th century technology coordinating 21st century forces.

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 06:21 PM
I think a better question is not what they will look like but what will we need them for in the future? fighiting in built up area's, streets and tower blocks, housing estates, villages etc appears to be the modern day battle ground and with the immenent arrival of some sort of landwarrior personal battle system giving an individual soldier extra lift/speed/strength and endurance capabilities plus all the support packages available to soldiers coming on line UAV's, JS fighters, satelite comms in real time observation of the ground with the ability to view tunnels underground never mind thermal imaging of buildings plus hand held tank busting HE launchers AND ship launched/air launched weapons, economically why do we need a big fat expensive tank that apart from an old fashioned war is becoming a limited and specialised area machine? Troop carriers are developing into tanks anyway so why do we need them? (apart from they look cool with all the gadgets you can put on them).

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 07:14 PM
are tanks even going to be around much longer?
i think drones will be the future.
smaller cheaper almost invisible
with a swarm consciousness/intelligence -
thermite termites .. c-4 hummingbirds?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in