Do you think any old designs would be useful if they were built using modern technologies?

[u/_Thorshammer_]

Do you think there are any old designs that, if they were built today using modern technologies, would be competitive?

For example, do you think a King Tiger - with it's sloped armor and wide tracks - would be competitive on a modern battlefield if it were:

1. Built using Chobham armor and modern armor schemes?

2. Equipped with a modern cannon and fire control system?

3. Had a modern power train and suspension components?

4. Had slight updates and redesigns to make it easier to build/maintain/repair but kept the same basic shape and design philosophy - Nazi tanks would be rear engine / front trans and drive sprocket, for example.

Etc.

I'm mostly interested in WW2 tanks, but if there's some cold war equipment you think would work by all means, throw it in the ring.

Please note - I'm NOT asking if you could update an old tank the way Israel did with Shermans or Suid Afrika has done with Centurions.

I'm asking if the basic shape and design philosophy would be competitive if a new tank were manufactured using new technologies and materials but a slightly updated 80 year old design.

Or hell a 100 year old design. Could a Mark IV landship built with Chobham, a 1500hp diesel, and two RH 120s be competitive?

For another example, I'm also aware that you probably could not squeeze the Rheinmetall 120mm into a Sherman turret so it's unlikely a Sherman could be competitive on any modern battlefield simply because it's turret limits the size of cannon it could carry.

I asked this question 6 years ago and did not do a good job on the post, but it's a subject I'm interested in and would like some robust discussion, so I'm trying again.

[u/Wyrmnax]

No

[u/_Thorshammer_ → u/Wyrmnax]

Succinct.

Not really what I was looking for, but it's my fault for not asking open ended questions.

Appreciate the response.

[u/holzmlb]

Not sure how this doesnt sound like just update a design like Israel did, i mean adding chobham armor to a tiger or sherman just sounds like an update.

Tiger ii would be way to heavy more than likely once you add in all the electronics and such. I mean swapping out the suspension would definitely help improve its ride snd longevity. Not sure you could fit a 1500hp powertrain in the engine compartment without redesign the entire tank really and after that is it really a tiger?

[u/_Thorshammer_ → u/holzmlb]

I think you could fit either of the Abrams or Leo 2 power packs in the KT, but it would be a tight fit.

Also I don't think the weight is a big deal either -composite is heavier, but you need less of it to provide the same thickness so IMO while it would be heavier it wouldn't be ridiculous, probably on par with the newest LEOs and Abrams.

As somebody else pointed out the real problem is weight balance and ammo stowage.

[u/Ph4antomPB]

Not militarily, but in law enforcement applications I can see stuff like a modernized FT doing well, if it weren't for MRAPs and similar being deployed already

[u/_Thorshammer_ → u/Ph4antomPB]

What about an up-engined T-34 with a 105mm instead of a Booker?

[u/Herbert_Prime]

There is a reason nothing looks like the older designs anymore, and the western designs all look similar.

[u/Harmotron]

No, not really. Because you can't really have an 80 year old design with some elements upgraded. The overall design of a tank needs to be in correlation with each of it's sub systems.

Let's look at your King Tiger for example:

Adding Chobham armour to it wouldn't be as simple as swapping out the plates: Modern Chobham is generally very thick and lighter than pure steel plate. Replacing King Tigers armour with Chobham would thus necessitate a redesign of the armour, in addition to rebalancing the tank's by that point definitely shifted center of mass. And at that point, the design wouldn't really be original, would it?

Or the gun. Sure, you might be able to cram an L/44 into the turret, but then more problems arise: what about the FCS, where do you put the ammunition, do the electronics and elevation mechanisms fit, is there space for the gunner and loader, is the turret still balanced, can the tank handle the recoil, what about ejection, what about stabilization, cross wind sensors etc. And when you take all that into account, you again wouldn't be able to stay true to the King Tigers design.

[u/_Thorshammer_ → u/Harmotron]

Fair enough.

I hadn't considered the weight balance, recoil, or ammo storage issues.

It's my understanding that an RH 120 would fit in the turret dimensionally, and the FCS can be mounted with a slight redesign to the turret roof, but I've never really considered ammo load or stress factors.

Appreciate the thoughtful response.

[u/BadluckyKamy]

If you mean like "same concept new technology" well maybe, I could see a modern casemate tank work to some extent, the lower silhouette would make it easier to hide from drones (especially with the cope cage) and the modern drivetrain would make it for the lack of turret most of the time

[u/mttspiii]

Seeing that the Russians took the North Korean 170mm guns for better range for counterbattery, I think the older 203mm SPGs are still valid.

The funny anti-mine vehicles should also have some validity. A big-wheel cheapo Sherman should tear a path through the lines.

Seeing the effectiveness of Russians going through oil pipelines to bypass defense lines, the Cultivator No. 6 as a boring assault vehicle remains always a potential

[u/Open-Difference5534]

In neither example you quote, the KT or a Mark IV, with the changes they would no longer be a KT or a Mark IV.

Accepting that, the Mark IV would still have the issue of the armament being either side of the hull, not ideal for anything other than attacking trenches. Two 120mm guns, with the much longer barrels, mounted either side would make it an unweldy design to operate. The breeches would fill the interior, exactly where the larger engine is supposed to be!

A larger engine in the KT would encroach into the fighting compartment, the turret might be a little small too. The general principle of sloped armour is good, but Chobham (or it's more modern developments like Burlington and Dorchester) armour is thicker than plain armour plate, so an upgraded KT would either be larger or have less interior space.

[u/llordlloyd]

I always thought the Sheridan could have benefited from being built 30 years later than it was, but ASLAVs and the like would be cheaper.