Author Topic: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor  (Read 581 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461


Meet the Conqueror: During the Second World War, the British Army struggled to develop a tank that was able to truly stand up to the best that Germany had to offer. Efforts such as the Cromwell were essentially outmoded by the time they arrived on the battlefield. The Comet, which was certainly the best British tank of the war, arrived only in the final weeks of the hostilities.

Yet, it could be argued the British military learned valuable lessons, and it went on to develop the Centurion – one of the very best tanks in service during the early Cold War era. In addition, the British introduced the FV 214 Conqueror, which was designed as a response to the Soviet IS-3 heavy tank. Instead of supplanting the Centurion, the Conqueror was meant to provide long-range anti-tank support. It utilized the chassis from the FV201 Universal Tank and wielded a large-caliber 120mm rifled main gun that was situated in a heavily armored traversing turret. The hull was made up of plates of homogeneous rolled armor, and the vehicle was powered by a Rolls-Royce Meteor M120 No 2 Mk1A liquid-cooled gasoline engine developing 810hp at 2,800rpm. It was able to keep up with the Centurion on the road, and under tactical conditions could also match the Centurion cross-country.

Despite its potential, just 185 of the 64-tonne heavy tanks were manufactured during a three-year-long production cycle. From 1955 to 1966, all of those were deployed to the British Army of the Rhine

Efforts to Save the Conqueror

Today, fewer than a dozen surviving Conqueror tanks, including one that is on display at The Tank Museum, Bovington, while another is at the Land Warfare Hall of the Imperial War Museum Duxford.
Efforts are now underway to preserve another FV 214. A rusting hulk has been brought to the Royal Lancers and Nottinghamshire Yeomanry Museum at Thoresby Park, near Ollerton in Nottinghamshire where volunteers will spend the next few months restoring the heavy tank.

The location is fitting, as Thoresby was used as a training ground for British Army tanks during World War Two. Yet, it is the first time that such a vehicle had been back to the Thoresby Courtyard in some 80 years. “Thoresby has a long association with the British tank, and it only seems fitting that a great venue…will be home to such a historic and significant exhibit,” Keith Girling, Nottinghamshire County Council’s armed forces champion, who served in the Grenadier Guards for 18 years, told the BBC. “I’m sure the presence of the FV 214 Conqueror will no doubt prove to be a huge attraction to people coming to our county.”

The tank could provide the Royal Lancers and Nottinghamshire Yeomanry Museum with some added “wow factor,” said curator Mick Holtby. “Visitors will want to come and see it and that’s why we have put it where we have, because when people come out from the car park they will see it and think ‘wow, that’s a beast’ – and it is a beast.”

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31290
  • Gender: Male
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2022, 02:59:06 PM »
  Great search...you found an interesting armored /tracked vehicle..that had it's own niche..

   While the Conqueror was a notable dev4elopment in heavy tanks, there were only 180+ of them built around 1955-56
  Probably its high weight of 64 tons empty, was a detriment to usage in great numbers.

  The real star of British tanks of WW2, was the centurion. At 51 tons and 105 mounted, it could compare well with the
  best on the WW2  battlefield.  The Centurion was so good that this WW2 era tank, was used by the Israelis in both their 1967 war and the Yom Kippur war of 1973.

  Like our M-26 Pershing, the Centurion introduced late into WW2, but far as I know, did not see any tank-to-tank action.
 
  Our Pershing did see some minimum amount of tank-to-tank action, where it fought and destroyed a Panzer and a Tiger, proving it's mettle..and could favorably clash with and usually prevail over any tank in the field. It was later used in Korea, against Russian T-34 tanks, and served as a base for the Patton series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing#:~:text=The%20M26%20Pershing%20was%20a,extensively%20during%20the%20Korean%20War.
 
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2022, 06:37:44 PM »






FV214 Conqueror with extra spaced armour

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31290
  • Gender: Male
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2023, 10:03:04 AM »
  Our late tank addition during WW2, was the M26 Pershing..  It was introduced during the final stages of the war, but
  in time to face Germany's best, both the Panther and the Tiger...and came out on top both times.

  The M4 Sherman facing either, was operating at at great disadvantage, so the Pershing must have come as a great surprise.
   The Pershing was the forerunner of thebM47 Patton series tank. You can see the relationship..

  Here is a clip from WW2, where a Panther first kills an M4, then meets it's demise by an M26..under the shadow of the Cologne Cathedral.   Lots of real action..
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6LqB-RYUvY

  Below, see the M26 Pershing, and the M47 Patton..the tank I trained on.  My TOE unit had M48 Patton tanks.
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2023, 06:18:17 PM »
Ironglow:
As you are retired tanker, I every now and then, actually years between times -- (last time I did this much reading on state of tanks, was 20 years ago when I found out South American countries were using modified , updated M3, M4, M24 and M41 tanks and were looking to replace them) -- and I am amazed at what is now being used.

The old rounded/smooth tanks are mostly history with a few countries still using the U.S., Russia and French tanks of that style (but most modified one way or another).
I am supposing the sharp edged angular styles is how the reactive armor is incorporated on the turrets.

I read in what manner of use the smooth bore and rifled bore differ and how, for the most part, each is better for a certain type of use.
From what I have read the rifled bore cannons are better when used  as artillery, while smooth bore has a bit of an edge on taking on the types of armor new tanks are incorporating.

I can only imagine, even with modern head/ear protection what itsounds like inside one when a shells hits, even if the armor defeats it.
There is a fair bit of information on tanks, old and new but one has to do a lot searching as often using terms in a search engine one thinks will work, do not work so well; often it was a hot link on one site to another as the best way to fine more information.

This site is pretty good but I found some info that used to be there decades back is not there any more.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/

If I were an online gamer, this is one place I would visit often: https://worldoftanks.com/

If you dig through links on the site they can lead one to more information but it is set up poorly and not easy to search.

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2023, 09:49:16 AM »
Maybe its a second childhood, but this got me thinking about models, plastic type; I have a modeling air-compressor I gave my brother for Christmas 45 years ago (It cost me 80 bucks back then) and I thought maybe I should fire it up for the first time in 40 years, BUT ---- models, plastic ones cost from 40 to almost 100 dollars nowadays.

Oh well....

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31290
  • Gender: Male
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2023, 10:18:15 AM »
  I  was a tanker..trained at Ft Knox in 1955...then assigned to 4th Armored at Ft Hood.  My training tank was the M47 Patton, and the tanks in my 508th tank battalion at Ft Hood were it's newer brother, the M48 Patton.

  Much design change has gone on since then, and since it is in my interest, I keep up to date as you do..mostly on the web.

  The main gun tube on the Patton series, were 90mm..  When assigned to the 4th armored div., I took on a
   unit citation badge (blue w/brass frame ribbon)..and a French fortegiere  Rope, something the French awarded to units which were especially dashing and courageous..to their thinking..
   I always kept in mind..I DID NOT EARN THAT..it was earned by great soldiers 10 years before me.
 
    Audie Murphy's 3rd infantry division, was awarded the Fortegiere and unit citation as well.  You can see the fortegiere around his left shoulder, while the unit citation is over his right pocket flap...while around his neck is the Medal of Honor..along with the many other awards this great soldier earned.

  The third infantry division...."The rock of the Marne"..
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2023, 11:51:49 AM »
I had a first hand experience with U.S. Army tank boys when one of these, minus tank:



Hooked the rear of my Oldsmobile when going around a corner.
That led to a whole new experience of getting accident money from the Govt. who does not have insurance, they just pay, IF, you do the work. -- (My State Farm insurance gal, did the hard, several days,  work for me finding out who to contact; the police gal, a rookie, who while handling the accident report, looked like a deer in the headlights was as useful as teats on a boar.)


Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31290
  • Gender: Male
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2023, 01:38:51 AM »
Yes Bob, once a claim gets into the bureaucracy, nobody knows where it will end up.

  As to tanks..I believe they will be present on future battlefields, but in a lighter, faster form.  We know for instance that the M4 Sherman, coming face to face against the German Panzer or Tiger, was operating at at disadvantage.

  What many don't know, is that the Sherman was not intended to fight tank-on-tank.  Patton was the developer of
  our tank tactics, and it was his plan for the Sherman to break through the front lines and raise havoc in their rear.

  It was planned that the tank destroyers would handle tank-on-tank engagements.  Tank destroyers bypassed the heavy armor in favor of speed and agility..normally carrying a larger gun than the Sherman.
    Armor on a tank destroyer could resist a 50 cal, and depended upon speed and agility to avoid much..

  The M36 Jackson had a 90mm, certainly  able to knock out a tiger, and often did so.  The M10 Hellcat carried an HV
  76mm gun. The M10 was the quickest armored vehicle of WW2..capable of 55 mph.

  With the new armor and updated technology..most tanks may become lighter & faster.

  WW2 tank destroyers..  https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us/m36_jackson.php
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31290
  • Gender: Male
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2023, 01:23:09 AM »
Yes Bob, once a claim gets into the bureaucracy, nobody knows where it will end up.

  As to tanks..I believe they will be present on future battlefields, but in a lighter, faster form.  We know for instance that the M4 Sherman, coming face to face against the German Panzer or Tiger, was operating at at disadvantage.

  What many don't know, is that the Sherman was not intended to fight tank-on-tank.  Patton was the developer of
  our tank tactics, and it was his plan for the Sherman to break through the front lines and raise havoc in their rear.

  It was planned that the tank destroyers would handle tank-on-tank engagements.  Tank destroyers bypassed the heavy armor in favor of speed and agility..normally carrying a larger gun than the Sherman.
    Armor on a tank destroyer could resist a 50 cal, and depended upon speed and agility to avoid much..

  The M36 Jackson had a 90mm, certainly  able to knock out a tiger, and often did so.  The M10 Hellcat carried an HV
  76mm gun. The M10 was the quickest armored vehicle of WW2..capable of 55 mph.

  With the new armor and updated technology..most tanks may become lighter & faster.

  WW2 tank destroyers..  https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us/m36_jackson.php

    What I was talking about above..  France to furnish some new, lighter armored vehicles, which will be good for
   hit-&-run cavalry tactics.  Not heavy enough to 'slug it out' directly with heavier tanks, but by relying upon speed
     and agility as well as a competitive gun, they can wreak havoc.
 
    I'm a bit apprehensive, since The rounds furnished, don't look like true high velocity rounds..a necessary
    component to be competitive.  ..But if they are, a new chapter could be written.

   This is not to judge the wisdom of the west furnishing or not furnishing more arms, but only to assess the  possible
  contributions of advanced armor.
 
    A less than 2 minute video..     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdywWrmYKAU
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2023, 03:44:21 PM »
The Germans are now sending rebuilt Leopard 2 tanks to The Ukraine, I wonder if this is not to see what happens when newer tanks actually meet opposition, vs. training on a supposed battlefield playground.

Russia is finding out the hard way how their military is still mired in Stalinist quagmire tactics and training.

There are a lot of military sites on the internet (some of which maybe contain some people who are not just arm-chair generals) and more than a few say Europe and the U.S. are rethinking , or relearning how wars are actually fought.
I do believe that the U.K. will no longer be sending used tanks there, but I would not be surprised if The Pentagon convinces Biden to send some retired National Guard Abrams if the war drags on.

There was another site, where military, or ex-military people were saying most of the generals in the U.S. military are as useful as teats on a boar, and know zero about what it is like to be in combat, or how run a campaign.

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31290
  • Gender: Male
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2023, 04:20:41 PM »
Aside from political issues, which is not a consideration in this thread, I fear the Russian armor will be in deep stuff,
  if they contact any of those Leopard IIs..assuming the Leopard crews will have adequate training..

  I'm afraid that goes for the T-90s also..
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2023, 05:22:30 PM »
For info on any tank since Vietnam, active or coulda been a contenda:

http://military-today.com/tanks.htm

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31290
  • Gender: Male
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2023, 02:07:31 AM »
One thing to keep ion mind..the 2 western tank models that have been extensively proven in battle, are the Challenger and the Abrams. 
  When "experts" rate the various MBTs. it must be difficult to rate an unproven model.

    I expect to see more of this type built, and put into service..  Not to completely replace an MBT, but to augment
  them at less cost and weight.
 
   https://www.armyrecognition.com/french_army_france_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/amx10rc_reconnaissance_anti-tank_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_infor

  Why? Well, here are some reasons, compared to an MBT;

  1) Cheaper to build, so a nation can afford more.

 2)  It has a main gun that possesses armor defeating capability.

 3)  Tracks are a major part of maintenance on tanks..wheels are easier, less complicated.

 5) At about 15 tons, it looks like a minimum of 3 can be airlifted..in place of 1 MBT.

 6) More vulnerable than an MBT, it would rely on speed and maneuverability to avoid slugging matches.

 7) more appropriately called a "tank destroyer" than a "tank".
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #14 on: February 01, 2023, 10:00:36 AM »
The continous headlines on MSN about tank warfare in The Ukraine, aroused my interest in these vehicles that I have puchesed 4 new/er books on said same.

One just released in 2021 Tanks At The Iron Curtain 1946-1969 is fascinating.
The French used Ex-German Panther tanks till 1953, and they variety of Russian tanks was numerous.

Sadl the book has very little on either heavy tank used by the British or U.S. of A.but is is well illustrated.
It does say the main reason WWII infantry supported by tanks as the major form of combat went away was Kruchev liked missiles, and reduced spending on tanks, to build missile equiped tank-destroyers and other anti-infantry conventional missile backed systems.

While from the U.S. side Eisenhower decided reducing Army tanks and soldiers for nuclear backed ground force was the way to go after they first tested the 280 mm nuclear artillery shell.
The "Pentomic" division was created to form "  battle groups able to avoid decimation by nuclear weapons by remaining diverse and mobile"
Fortunately this was abandoned in the early sixties.

Tanks with a white triangle surround by a green circle represent the fictional "Trigon Army" in combat exercises simulating a nuclear tactical war.
There is an art picture in the book showing the M48 "Trigon Army Tanks  of the 50th Trigon Army Tank Division " and in the back ground is a simulated nuclear explosion (the book tells how simulated nuclear explosions , using gasoline and exposives, were conductied during thise real Army games.)
 So , Eisenhower is the reason our defense became dependent on nukes.

Did you end up in any of these war games?

My other books are Modern Tanks and AFVs,  British Battle Tanks 1946-2016 and FIREPOWER: A  History of the American Heavy Tank.
I am astounded by how much exists, and changed in even the past ten years.
Some the books show interior shots of tanks, but it seems no one has a decent wide angle lens so you can only see one seat, maybe and what looks more like hoarders closet than a tank office.

In four man tanks, where, did the loader sit, none of them ever show a seat for him,and the skeletal drawings showing supposed location of this, that and the other thing, are piss poor at best.

The one book says the Russian IS/T-10 series which scared Western military people, were due to poor design and construction techniques pretty much a : Fix or repair daily affair, literally.
Another says the Nuclear, Biological and Gas items worn in Iraq were a pain in the arse but once the gas masks and rubber gloves were removed, the rest of the uniform worked very well against cold-windy nights in Iraq. 8)

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31290
  • Gender: Male
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2023, 03:38:44 PM »
Aside from political issues, which is not a consideration in this thread, I fear the Russian armor will be in deep stuff,
  if they contact any of those Leopard IIs..assuming the Leopard crews will have adequate training..

  I'm afraid that goes for the T-90s also..
........................................

Well, IG,,,,you do know at the start of the Ukro War in 2014 when Kiev had Azov battalions daily shell the Donbass and assemble 60,000 troops in 2020 for invading the Donbas they had 2000-2500 tanks. Now in less than a year they have next to none; and are begging NATO/America for tanks.
So if Zelenskyy forces get 50 to 60 tanks how long do you think they will last?
.

  Depends upon how well they are trained and how well their tanks are maintained. I am not in favor of our sending any of our tanks to the Ukraine.  It is a European problem, and they should help the Ukraine with their logistics, if anyone does.
  So far as the given tanks are concerned, all other things being equal, the Russian T90 could not successfully engage either the Abrams or the Challenger..   ..And although they are as yet unproven in battle, I think the 9T90 would fare about the same, when facing  the Leopard, the LeClerc or the South Korean Black Panther.
 
   I still wish all those  young Russian troops could be home, developing their motherland.  A couple hero medals or a
  folded flag on a casket is a poor  substitute  for a son , husband or father.

 ...And I would say the same, if it were the Ukrainians invading Russian territory.

   STAY HOME... and quit sacrificing the lives of these young troopers, just to boost an old man's ego !

  ..And for Biden..quit spending us into bankruptcy, just to boost the WEF , and the globalist tyrants..
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2023, 04:57:23 PM »
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/08/05/it-seems-ukraine-is-struggling-to-form-tank-brigades/?sh=2a1c021669a0

It seems trained manpower, rather than a shortage of battle-ready tanks, is the major factor in Ukraine’s apparent struggle to field a larger armored force. The Ukrainian army had around 900 tanks—T-64s, mostly—in its arsenal on day one of the war. More than enough for four, five or even six tank brigades plus tank battalions in infantry brigades.

In five months of hard fighting the Ukrainians have lost around 230 tanks that analysts can confirm. But they’ve captured 280 Russian tanks and also have acquired around 300 fresh tanks from foreign allies.

Of course, it’s likely many tanks have sustained damage and await repair. Even so, Ukraine in theory has more tanks now than it did before the war.

But a tank without a trained crew is just a lump of metal and rubber. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of Ukraine’s best soldiers have been killed or wounded since Russia attacked in late February. Their skills and experience aren’t easy to replace.

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31290
  • Gender: Male
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #17 on: February 01, 2023, 05:34:35 PM »
The T90 is a modified T72..which spun off the T-62 of 1961, derived from the T55 of the Salinist era.

  The first 2-3 modification were some substantial changes, but it appears the primary changes from -T72 to T90,
  are the addition of composite armor plates.
  However, if as many are pointing out, Russian corruption has sold their military, rubber armored plates..it would be like  a regular T72.
   
  The battle of 73 Easting shows the imbalance of the battle between T-62s, T72s and T80s..and the Abrams. 
   The times when these same Russian tanks took on the Challenger, the result were duplicated.

   The battle  of 73 Easting..  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKZn-vT9CRE
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2023, 06:02:34 PM »
The T-90 is based on the T-72 which was a developement of the T-62.
The T-62 and T-64 look similar, as did a lot of Russian tanks, but are totally different under the skin.

The T-90 was a replacement for the T-80U, Russian turbine powered tank,but the T-80 failed miserably in Chechnya urban fighting, the Russians had mothballed nearly all of them but other countries modifications, making the T-80 work, caused them to rebuild them to a better standard..

The book I mentioned above explain this is a MUCH larger detail and there are a lot of details.
The Ukraine T-84 Opolot is their much modified, much better, version of the original T-80 but they have few due to financial problems not related to this war.

Many countries, all the way down to the old T-54s/55s, rebuilt them , removing/replacing any Russian parts, or design that was antiquated or never worked well and are still using them, at least they were six years ago.
It seems like after the T-55 , too many Russian tank designers/engineers died, of old age and the newbies, had big ideas that were just that, big ideas but that is all.

They found the faults at the cost of soldiers lives.

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31290
  • Gender: Male
Re: Conqueror: The British Tank Built to Take on the Russia’s Heavy Armor
« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2023, 02:14:28 AM »
...  And in many cases, their self loading guns are not  working out so well.  I think we will be seeing more  light tank designs...employing the new missile technology on a competently agile vehicle.

  That will be more in keeping with an often heard US Army motto..  "Shoot, move, communicate."

  Much of the Iraqis armor problems during Desert Storm, was their use of a static defense.  Mobility is
    of extreme importance.

  ..And some will likely be on rubber. 
    https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/06/28/us-army-unveils-contract-to-build-new-light-tank-for-infantry-forces/
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)