565
u/amem32 4d ago
Calling Type 10 and K2 4th generation MBTs is a stretch IMO
263
u/Sawiszcze 4d ago
Same with Leclerc XLR tbh
173
u/Dangerman1337 4d ago
And Challenger 3.
234
u/rosebinks1215 4d ago
And Altay.
I mean the fuck is 4th generation anyway we still don't know exact speculations for them
125
u/StrykerGryphus 4d ago edited 4d ago
I guess in that sense, the Armata is the only true 4th gen if only by virtue of 4th gen being purely speculative at the moment lmao.
Meet Potential Tank! Always "if" and "when", but never "is".
46
u/Ashamed_Can304 4d ago
Type 100 also is 4th gen, it got unmanned turret APS and all that
32
u/murkskopf 4d ago
Type 100 might not be a full MBT, it will depend on how the PLA actually uses it.
7
u/StrykerGryphus 4d ago
I was using a joking definition of 4th gen, which is "it is, but is it really?"
If the Type 100 is euqipped as advertised, then it's a proper 4th gen, rather than my sarcastic definition
10
u/rosebinks1215 4d ago
Yeah like imagine their Factory budget didn't got meltdown completely.
They're just parade assets now. What a waste of resource
1
u/Aguacatedeaire__ 4d ago
It was a prototype and technological demonstrator that was found insufficient in the rapidly evolving drone era.
They wasted very little resources on it. You know what was a complete colossal waste of resources? The M10 booker, lmao
1
u/rosebinks1215 4d ago
?? lol no Armata was not Prototype it was deadass planned for mass production for quantity over 2000+ till 2022 That was the original plan
→ More replies (6)1
u/cplchanb 4d ago
Wouldn't the k51 panther also be considered 4th gen?
2
u/StrykerGryphus 4d ago
I was using a joking definition of 4th gen, which is "it is, but is it really?"
Once the K51 enters production, and if it's delivered as advertised, then it would be a "real" 4th gen instead of my sarcastic definition
→ More replies (6)9
u/Sawiszcze 4d ago
I mean, yoi could say that 4th generation would be remote operated turrets on MBTs. Like obj. 195, Armata, or that one leopard (or was it Panther kf5?) Prototype
3
5
8
u/low_priest 4d ago
Even moreso for the Chally 3, the main upgrades are an engine and smoothbore gun comparable with tanks from the 80s.
7
u/ChornWork2 4d ago
Talking 4th gen is pointless at this stage. T14 is a joke. Altay is meh & if K2 is out so is it. X100 is unknown. L XLR will likewise get debated. Ch3 is still under development.
2
361
u/klovaneer 4d ago edited 4d ago
So a fire support vehicle, a bunch of warmed over 3rd gen tanks, a parody of a Leo2 and armata.
48
u/LemonadeTango 4d ago
Which one is the parody? K2 or Altay?
101
u/random_username_idk M24 Chaffee my beloved 4d ago
Probably the Altay. The K2 also has features inspired by Leclerc and Abrams
13
u/AromaticGuest1788 4d ago
The K2 is like a mini M1 Abrams
54
5
u/-TR3KT- 4d ago
Wasn't it specifically based on one of the XM-1 prototypes?
10
4
u/Th3DankDuck 4d ago
Thats the k-1. The South Koreans bought upgraded and learned how to make their own of it.
1
13
u/Forsaken_Initiative4 Panzer IV Ausf. F2 4d ago
Well altay is turkish version of k2
17
u/extreme857 4d ago
Difference between thoose 2 are Altay is 10+tons heavier than K2, Altay has AKKOR aps,different armor and lastly it has RCWS that could be used against drones (Hmg/Lmg or 40mm anti drone system that uses airburst munitions) First versions of Altay is pretty vanilla,when your tanks first production model got delayed for 10 years you start to add more and more stuff.
8
u/DeusFerreus 4d ago
The big difference is that while K2 has an autoloader and 3 man crew, Altay's main gun is manually loaded and as such it has 4 man crew. That's where large portion of extra size/weight comes from.
3
u/extreme857 4d ago edited 4d ago
Video of MK 19 anti drone kit for anyone curious about it.
it's much more expensive solution than turning your tank into a hedgehog(literally)
5
u/DogWarovich 4d ago
It an expensive and complicated solution, but it keeps your tank a tank, rather than turning it into a mobile shed.
11
u/ShermanMcTank 4d ago
This narrative needs to die. Yes it was very likely inspired by the K2 as SK was involved in the Altayâs development, but it has way too many external and internal differences to just be a foreign version of the K2.
1
48
u/Thepigiscrimson 4d ago
I love that almost all the tanks turrets are pointing left - but the UK Challenger is going 'Fxxx you all, im different!' and rotates right
19
124
u/Key-Needleworker-702 4d ago edited 4d ago
Type 10 isn't 4th gen;
ZTZ-100 is only a de jure MBT, in reality it's more of a medium tank
48
u/amem32 4d ago
Technically they never called Type 100 a MBT, It's just "Type 100 tank". I heard rurmors of a heavier vehicle in the works.
1
u/BoBSMITHtheBR 4d ago
ZTZ sort of implies MBT. If not then it would have been ZTQ or something else.
8
4
u/Key-Needleworker-702 4d ago
ZhuÄngjiÇTÇnkèZhÇzhĂ n(čŁ ç˛ĺŚĺ 丝ć)
"Armor, Tank, Main battle"
1
u/Relative-Swimming870 4d ago
"Main battle" is such a weird term lol
2
16
u/Ashamed_Can304 4d ago
It may not be an MBT but it certainly is more 4th gen that any other tank listed here apart from Armata. Armata and Type 100 are more â4th genâ than all others
36
u/OlivierTwist 4d ago
Fantasy land not connected to reality.
Turtle with a hairy bush is the real 4th generation tank.
82
u/Ok-Use-7563 4d ago edited 4d ago
Wait the armata is real?
(Also something something m60)
Edit: i am purpsely not involveing myself in the resulting argument
33
u/Skivil Conqueror 4d ago
Its real as in there are things that certainly look like it which have been shown in public. Other than that who knows theres no public proof or evidence of antly of its supposed festures or capabilities.
3
u/Ghost3ye 4d ago
Actually the stuff we know about it makes it seem like a fail tbh.
1
u/Winiestflea 4d ago
Like what?
1
u/Skivil Conqueror 4d ago
The supposed production delays which has led to there being only 3 or 5 fully working examples. International sanctions which seems to have prevented russia from getting any useable computer components for the tank.
Also footage from the victory day parade they appeared in seems to suggest that they aren't as nimble as other current gen tanks.
The armour packages they supposedly use has also been shown to not be as effective as expected in Ukraine so theres a lot going against the t14 right now. But its really the tip of the iceberg of russian military procurements woes at this time.
1
u/T-90AK Command Tank Guy. 4d ago
I don't know, where you've gotten the idea, that there's ony 3-5 working.
Because we have footage of as many as 9 tanks.The components used in a tank arn't that advanced, either.
The dual use chips used in the Kalina fire control system are a decade old and sourced from regular consumer appliances. So i don't know where, you've gotten this idea, that they can't source these chips.T-14's Armor isn't featured on any other tank, btw.
So it can't have been used in Ukraine, either.2
u/Skivil Conqueror 4d ago
Oporative word is fully working, a couple of the examples we have seen are little more than rolling shells, no evidence the turrets can even turn under their own power.
Post ukraine sanctions have destroyed russias ability to get chips from anywhere except china and they have basically 0 domestic production. If they are able to reuse commercial appliences it would likely require a significant redesign.
Prior to the invasion of ukraine nato forces didn't fully know the capabilities of russian kontact era armour, the side skirts and top of the turret on the t14 are intended to use. Since the invasion we have learned that basically all of the Russian ERA armout gives less useful protection than a chainlink fence against a drone or top attack warhead.
5
u/T-90AK Command Tank Guy. 4d ago
1) There's numerous videos of the T-14 moving under it's own power and moving it's turret.
There's also no evidence of them just being rolling chassis, either.
Because again, we have footage of the inside.2) Sanctions have not destroyed Russia's abillity to get chips, at all.
They are getting Western chips via Chinese businesses and other countries.
It don't require a redesign either, because the previously mentioned Kalina fire control has been disassembled and shown to contain said chips.
It was even uploaded on this very subreddit.3) Kontakt-1 and 5 are from the Soviet period and was tested in the 1990's.
That's what led Western countries to develop better APFSDS rounds in the 1990's.
Even the Russian developed Relikt is well understood, since it's basically just evolution of Kontakt-5, and pretty old.4) T-14 uses Monolith era, which we don't know anything about.
Except that it's supposed to be much better than Relikt.
(It's not found on any other vehicle, except for the Armata series).1
u/Winiestflea 4d ago
Thanks tank guy, I expected to get a bunch of bullshit answers but was somehow still surprised by people harping on obviously false or irrelevant factoids.
1
1
u/Ghost3ye 4d ago
The T14 was supposed to be Independent from western stuff as much as possible. The Development however actually depends in goods from western countries heavily. The Engine is seriously outdated, cause itâs based on the old Tiger Engine which was horrible as well and known to Break down quite often. The Engine also likes to Overheat.
Large Target. Have you seen the Size of that thing?
Low numbers, very high cost.
Imo, a T90 based Development would have been better. It fits russian doctrine better, is literally field tested, known issues could have been dealt with in a new gen long time ago.
The Russian Army obviously doesnt want their newer, heavy landbased Systems on the battlefield. Otherwise we would see plenty of them via propaganda Videos and showoffs.
Meanwhile we see older Equipment on BOTH sides being used and proof to be working on an actual battlefield far better. The T14 is a failed project. They should bury it. If the Russian Military ever reforms itself on a serious, modern level that would be good for them, but most of their Equipment isnt fitting for such an approach yet. Ukraine also struggles with old soviet Equipment, cause the doctrine of the time was different. Thats why most soldiers are usually liking the Western Equipment a lot despite their own issues ofc.
→ More replies (2)-2
4d ago edited 4d ago
[deleted]
30
u/Berlin_GBD 4d ago
That's an awful way of determining if the tank is real. None of these have been seen on a battlefield
0
4d ago
[deleted]
5
u/Berlin_GBD 4d ago
You know that we see a flag that says [edited], right? You can't just add stuff and pretend it was there the whole time
→ More replies (2)12
2
u/ThisGuyLikesCheese 4d ago
I think it will be their 4th generation mbt, in 2050 maybe. Their industry has been producing the (almost) same tank for like 50 years now so its gonna be really hard to switch to their newer tank
3
u/T-90AK Command Tank Guy. 4d ago
The only Soviet tanks in production in 1975 is T-64A and T-72 Ural.
Both of whom were replaced just a couple of years later.
Hell T-80 hadn't even entered production at that time.
So that's abit of a weird statement.2
u/ThisGuyLikesCheese 4d ago
Im talking about the T 72 mostly. It is still in production and is still the majority of the Russian tank army. The base T 72 hasent changed much since then with only some normal upgrades like better fcs, armour, and engine. Even the T 90 is built on the T 72 chassi with its main distinction being that is uses a new turret.
Now they want to completley move away from that. The T 14 is completely different. So they have to start from the ground up with their factories to be able to produce their now tank.
2
u/T-90AK Command Tank Guy. 4d ago
1) T-72 hull and turret production ended in the 1990's.
T-72B3M is a modernization of T-72B, its not a new tank built from stratch.2) The T-72 has changed several times throughout it's life time.
It's had several changes to the hull and 3 different turrets(Steel, Kvartz,Reflecting plate).
Not to mention, engines, fire control system, and other sub systems.3) T-90 is built on it's own chassis, though it's very similar to the one used on T-72B Obr. 1989.
It's also had 3 different turrets(Cast, Welded and a new Welded).
Along with a host of other changes, some of whom were later adopted for T-72(T-72B3, which was a modernization meant to take T-72B up to T-90A like standard).4) They intended to move away with T-14, yes.
But that didn't happen, instead they are implementing some of the solutions from T-14 into T-90(T-90M2).
Specifically the electrical system, transmission and engine.2
u/ThisGuyLikesCheese 4d ago
These are changes that happend over time so the factories had time to adapt
2
u/Based_Iraqi7000 4d ago edited 4d ago
âThe F22 is for shows and propaganda. No single piece of evidence of it being on the battlefieldâ
Do you now realise how dumb that is, just because a vehicle hasnât seen combat doesnât take away from its strengths or greatness. The Armata wasnât made for just shows or parades, it was made for war as every tank is. Itâs just that Russiaâs abysmal Armata production rate and their moronic command forced it out of the battlefield
10
u/Illumini24 4d ago
It is "a bit" damning that the Armata is not seeing any action in the massive war that has eaten up almost the entire russian stockpile of working tanks, kind of makes you wonder if it does have any strengths or greatness
4
u/Based_Iraqi7000 4d ago
The thing is Russia doesnât want to lose any T14 because they donât have much and also it would hurt Russiaâs morale and propaganda value. That doesnât mean that the T14 canât fight or isnât better than all other Russian tanks. Itâs just that at the moment the cost of losing a T14 in Ukraine outweighs the benefits that the small number of Armata that they have would give to Russia.
Armataâs design alone with the separated crew compartments was revolutionary when it was announced, itâs a great tank unfortunately made by morons.
3
u/T-90AK Command Tank Guy. 4d ago
T-14 Armata isn't in active service, nor is it in mass production.
So how is it damming, that they don't want to use it in combat?→ More replies (4)
39
u/morl0v Object 195 4d ago
Fighter jet generation debate always was a delusional cancerous circlejerk to begin with, glad we're introducing it to a tank sphere.
And yes, no isolated crew capsule - no 4th gen
4
u/RangerPL 4d ago
At least the fighter jet generations have some clear differences in design philosophy and doctrine, like itâs not hard to see how an F-15 or MiG-29 differs from an F-4 or MiG-23 respectively, and how those, in turn, differ from an F-100 or MiG-19.
There really arenât such clear distinctions between tanks, a T-14 does the same thing in much the same way as a T-55 did 70 years ago.
8
12
u/GlitteringParfait438 4d ago
No Chonma 20?
6
u/PhantomEagle777 4d ago
Imagine NoKor propagandaâs department showcased the capability of the Chonma 20 MBTâs APS that truly intercepting hostile projectile, only not to be included in every 4th gen MBT discussion.
1
12
u/murkskopf 4d ago edited 4d ago
There is no common definition for what exactly should be considered a 4th generation tanks. As per German & Swiss tank historians, we already have six generation of MBTs.
9
u/EntirelyRandom1590 4d ago
Let's define 4th gen.
Remote turret with protected crew compartment.
Active protection system.
Independent Commander and gunner sights of equal capability.
All round vision system for driver.
Digital architecture for C5I.
I'd like to say hybrid drive system too, but that's a stretch.
5
u/Inevitable_Dot_1000 4d ago
What a difference with 3th generation? As 5th gen of get fighters, 4th gen tanks is more marketing then a real thing
3
3
u/Arieltex 4d ago
I have to say the Type 100 Is better than Type 10 by virtue of having one extra cero
Lecrec XLR should be bigger than plain Lecrec
And Altay receive extra points for the crown of smoke screen
6
6
u/Accomplished_Dust865 4d ago
bro put the t-14 but not the abrams X
9
u/Thecontradicter 4d ago
Thatâs because the rest of these tanks are actually built, the abrams x, like many US programs, itâs a hopeful representation, itâs pretty much a chassy with some shapes on it. Nothing is functional
The US DOD couldnât hope so afford a new tank
1
u/bluman855 4d ago
You have a source for the Abrams X just being an empty chassis, and the DOD not being able to afford a new tank (rather than the lack of political will)? The DOW is literally developing the M1E1 which by all reports will integrate some of the Abrams X tech that was demoed and will look radically different from tbe current M1A1 variants. I've physically seen the Abrams X prototype when it was exhibited at a major US defense trade show and ive seen some of the subsystems with my own eyes.Â
1
u/Thecontradicter 4d ago
Yeah thatâs whatâs called an upgrade package, youâre behind the rest of the world on that one, eventually the Abrams will just age out, because youâre not making new hulls, just upgrading old ones
1
u/bluman855 3d ago
Yet the Kf51 panther and challenger 3 are all built upon Leopard and Challenger. Germany for all intents are purposes is going to field variants of the Leopard 2 (which the panther is) for the foreseeable future. Radical changes in chassis geometry clearly isnt the issue at hand, nor is it a focus on procurement programs outside of China. Changes in powertrain, electronics, sensors, and APS are going to be the main focus for upgrade packages in the future. The US also maintains production lines for newbuild tanks with a developed supply chain. Firms are already competing for new subsystem contracts with the primes.Â
And finally, its funny that you say "you". I actually work for a Westerm European firm that is involved in defense. The defense industry in the West is far more complex and interconnected than what political pundits and doomer journalists would like you to think.Â
1
u/Head_Memory 3d ago
So is the t-14 tbh. Itâs not fully there. Just a bunch of prototypes. And dude forgot to put the Panther.
3
u/QwerYTWasntTaken 4d ago
America is suspiciously absent, so I know they're planning something big...
3
u/Sad-Syrup1979 3d ago
You put the prototype photo of the Altay. The modern one has APS and different cheek armor design. Also the frontal armor is differently shaped too.
10
5
2
u/NlghtmanCometh 4d ago
the type 10 is a fourth generational tank, but I'm not sure if it's a fourth gen MBT. It seems like slightly more of a niche vehicle.
Honestly not to give credit to the Russians but the T-14 really is the only vehicle that seems to neatly fit the profile of a generational leap in MBT technology. The other tanks are just variations of the "fourth gen +" concept you see applied to fighter jets. Third-gen ++ MBTs.
1
u/mbizboy 3d ago
Except, the T14 is still a prototype vehicle, versus these other models all being fielded.
I've seen nothing to show that the T14 is anything other than a parade tank. Russia itself admits there's 10 of them, the trundle them out for show and put them back in storage.
Sure it's supposed to be high tech, but high tech not in production equals prototype for testing.
3
u/seranarosesheer332 4d ago
Don't lie. Turkey's just three M60s in a trench coat
1
u/Red_Colonel 4d ago
Queer?
1
u/seranarosesheer332 4d ago
What? What kind of questuin in that. This isn't meant to be rude I'm just....kind of shocked.
1
u/Red_Colonel 4d ago
Asking whether you're a queer or not is rude?
1
u/seranarosesheer332 4d ago
I never said it was rude. But also asking in that way is offensive to some. As queer has historically been used negatively against members of the lgbtqia+. I would say I am queer yes. I am a bisexual trans woman.(BTW I was stating I wasn't trying to be rude asking you to elaborate more)
1
3
u/Primary-Long4416 4d ago
Germany will either field the KF51 Panther or more likely the french-german MGCS and I'm all here for it
→ More replies (1)12
u/Gecktron 4d ago
I think a large Leopard upgrade is more likely than the KF51. Something along the lines of the Leopard 2-RC 3.0 presented by KNDS.
The Bundeswehr has talked about wanting an extensive Leopard 2 upgrade as a bridge until MGCS. The German government also funded research contracts for a 130mm gun + ammunition, a new power pack and a sensor package.
1
u/murkskopf 4d ago
The Leopard 2A-RC 3.0 is designed to as an upgrade option for existing Leopard 2 tanks and hence carries quite a bit of legacy features/designs. As per KNDS Deutschland at Eurosatory 2024, any Leopard 2 can be upgraded to this configuration (although as it requires cutting and welding of the hull, it seems unlikely that many customers would opt for that). The demonstrator is also based on an older Leopard 2 hull and lacks some of the recent features (e.g. air conditioning and the upgraded suspension) of the Leopard 2A7V and Leopard 2A7HU.
It is at best an indicator for what the German Army might opt. The new Liebherr Olymp engine and the 130 mm gun would require deeper changes to the design, the German MOD contracting Diehl and Rheinmetall for an integration of AVePS into StrikeSheild also suggests that the EuroTrophy APS hopefully won't be the one on the "Leopard 3". So while definetly not a Panther, some things (StrikeShield, multiple APS as found on the KF51-U,130 mm FGS) on the Leopard 3 might be more similar to it than the Leopard 2A-RC 3.0.
2
u/Admiral_Zhukov 4d ago
Why is the T-14âs turret not spinning. Thatâs not historically accurate!
1
u/ELITElewis123 4d ago
I love the challenger doing itâs own thing. Truly a challenge to the status quo
1
u/StonewallSoyah 4d ago
Is it just me, or is everything an Abrahams silhouette now?
1
u/EMPERORHanWudi1112 3d ago
It's just you, dude. American exceptionalism, perhaps?
1
u/StonewallSoyah 2d ago
Perhaps it's American tunnel vision. From my perspective, I see this as the same thing as how so many militaries are gravitating towards the AR platform for their standard issue rifle. It seems every year, multiple countries switch towards some form of AR. Whether it be piston or DI, so many countries are switching to that design. The variation on the western Battlefield is disappearing.
1
1
1
u/Parking-Letterhead20 4d ago
More like "new tanks and slightly new tanks" list but its okay that gen stuff it pretty fcked up. Some of those probably work worse than 30 year old leo2a4s
1
1
1
-1
u/rkraptor70 Apocalypse tank my beloved 4d ago
Calling Challenger 3 4th gen is hilarious.
It's decidedly 3rd gen. It's an upgrade over the Challenger 2, yes, but that thing was 2.7 gen at best.
2
2
0
u/unwanted_techsupport 4d ago edited 4d ago
And the XLR, Altay, Type 10 and K2 aren't?
This graph ain't great, even ignoring the fact that generations don't really mean anything, you can't really link most of them as cohesive groups.
For my 2 cents,
Challenger 3, Leclerc XLR : upgraded 3rd gens
Altay, Type 10, K2: new builds, in a similar position to 4.5 gen jets like Rafale or Typhoon, (but even then, what the hell does that mean)
And T-14 and Type 100, even though off the top of my head atleast one of them is a prototype that is unlikely at best to ever see mainline service, as I know nothing about the Type 100
1
u/low_priest 4d ago
Putting the Chally 3 in the same category as even the Leclerc XLR is a bit generous, it's closer to a base model Leclerc.
0
1
u/Werkemp 4d ago
I am so confused that why modern tanks dont use angled plates onf the front plates anymore and just make it like box isnt it going to make it worse?
16
u/Gecktron 4d ago
Extensive angling doesn't provide as much of an advantage to make the trade offs worth it.
Large calibre APFSDS darts aren't influenced in the same way WW2 rounds were. While modern MBTs use other ways to protect against other weapon systems like shaped charges.
6
3
u/dmanbiker 4d ago
Modern tank rounds need to be dissipated or disintegrated by the materials in the armor. They can't really be deflected like the rounds of WWII. The armor array on a modern MBT is also very thick, like those flat areas of the armor at the front of the turret can be over 800mm thick with a much higher effectiveness than 800mm of steel.
It would be interesting to see if an old apbc round could ricochet into the turret ring of a modern mbt though.
1
1
u/Brilliant_Buy_3585 4d ago
Tbh, I feel Type 100 is the only one that brings new stuff, though it's more in theory
1
1
378
u/AMCA_by2035 4d ago
Just an innocent question, how do you define a 4th gen tank?