It was touted as the world's first 5th generation tank. This was confusing to many, because Russia had its own classification system that differed from the western one:
1st Gen - T-34.
2nd Gen - T-54/55.
3rd Gen - T-64.
4th Gen - T-90.
5th Gen - T-14.
Meanwhile, the Western classification system would remove the T-34 from the Russian system, and put every tank on the list one generation lower, and perhaps the T-14 would share the 3rd gen spot together with the T-90.
How do we define generations today?
Rolf Hilmes made the clearest definition to date:
1st Gen - Post WW2 tanks that would otherwise be referred to as Medium Tanks during WW2.
2nd Gen - Enhanced night fighting capabilities, an NBC protection system (resulting from a massive nuclear arms race especially at the beginning of the cold war), and usually standardized tank guns. The British Royal Ordnance L7 was the star of the 2nd generation tanks in the western hemisphere.
3rd Gen - Composite armor, computerized Fire Control Systems, and a shift to even bigger main guns (120mm in the west, 125mm in the east).
 |
| The Centurion was a particularly famous example of 1st generation tanks, built as a reimagined Heavy Cruiser tank. |
Tanks like the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, and T-80, that are probably the first to pop into one's head when he thinks of 3rd generation tanks, have been around since the late 1970's. Within less than 40 years after the 2nd World War, 3 whole generations of tanks were developed and defined, but in the past 40 years leading to today, not one has been clearly defined.
Labels like "Next Generation" are a great marketing strategy for practically any modern piece of military hardware, to get everyone to think it's the latest and greatest but without clearly understanding what differentiates it from others.
How do we proceed from here?
What we need is new definitions for what a modern tank should have, and distinguish between the capabilities of modern tanks from the earliest examples of 3rd gen tanks of the late 70's.
Fortunately, in the past several years, tremendous improvements were made both to the construction of tanks' subsystems, and their conception.
I have gathered a few recent and not so recent developments that may found a very strong basis for a 4th generation machine. While it would be most ideal if the next MBT would incorporate all these features and more, some of these technologies are less crucial than the others, and thus even if only a few of them were present, it would be possible to classify a certain tank as being a generational leap ahead of others.
For example, much like the composite armor technology reshaped tank design schools into a new thinking, APS are too redefining the concept of protection.
For example, much like the composite armor technology reshaped tank design schools into a new thinking, APS are too redefining the concept of protection.
APS
Much like composite armor has revolutionized the tank-making industry, APS is revolutionizing the modern conception of tanks' usage and capabilities, and not incrementally increases their protection, but multiplies it.
In the post-WW2-era, tanks would be built with relatively thin armor, knowing they won't be able to fend off ATGMs or modern AP projectiles anyway, so might as well just invest in mobility. Shining example of this was the Leopard 1.
Then composite armor came, and countries with tank-producing industries could armor-up their tanks to provide sufficient protection against most threats, but still had to make compromises in where they would put this armor. Composite armor was still heavy, and thus only the front was truly heavily armored.
Today, with an APS, a tank could go in aggressively, do its job, and not even worry about being hit, let alone being penetrated or destroyed. These, of course, have limited munitions, but they do provide an immense tactical advantage.
Say, if a certain missile is highly prolific in a certain area and statistically would penetrate tank X about 50% of the time, and an APS has 6 charges, then the statistic reduces from 50% to 12%, meaning one would have to spend 8 missiles to destroy just one tank, instead of 2.
What this gives the tank is not only vastly increased survivability, but changes the way its once most dreaded foe, the concealed ATGM teams, have to operate, because the ATGM teams, or enemy tanks (if the APS can defeat KE) will now have to be a lot less aggressive and more concealed, which will hamper their capability to engage the enemy.
In the post-WW2-era, tanks would be built with relatively thin armor, knowing they won't be able to fend off ATGMs or modern AP projectiles anyway, so might as well just invest in mobility. Shining example of this was the Leopard 1.
Then composite armor came, and countries with tank-producing industries could armor-up their tanks to provide sufficient protection against most threats, but still had to make compromises in where they would put this armor. Composite armor was still heavy, and thus only the front was truly heavily armored.
Today, with an APS, a tank could go in aggressively, do its job, and not even worry about being hit, let alone being penetrated or destroyed. These, of course, have limited munitions, but they do provide an immense tactical advantage.
Say, if a certain missile is highly prolific in a certain area and statistically would penetrate tank X about 50% of the time, and an APS has 6 charges, then the statistic reduces from 50% to 12%, meaning one would have to spend 8 missiles to destroy just one tank, instead of 2.
What this gives the tank is not only vastly increased survivability, but changes the way its once most dreaded foe, the concealed ATGM teams, have to operate, because the ATGM teams, or enemy tanks (if the APS can defeat KE) will now have to be a lot less aggressive and more concealed, which will hamper their capability to engage the enemy.
Unmanned Turret
These first made an appearance in IFVs as a new niche, as IFVs are generally lighter but larger vehicles, to whom a proper distribution of armor was a lot more sensitive issue.
What these offer is increased protection to the crew - the turret is always more exposed, thus having it unmanned will keep the crew out of harm's way if it is compromised.
Moreover, some may prefer to keep the turret less armored, or even un-armored, as it no longer houses the crew, and thus invest considerable amounts of armor on the peripheral protection of the hull.
Whether keeping the turret un-armored is a good idea, is up for debate. But it is still possible to save a great deal of weight even if the turret is fully armored, because its internal volume will be greatly reduced, and the weight of the armor is a function of the volume it has to protect.
Crew Capsule
The threats of today have shifted away from long lines of main battle tanks facing each other, to hybrid warfare that combines technologically sophisticated weapons found usually only in full fledged militaries, with medium intensity gureilla warfare, done by non-nation actors.
As such, a typical MBT today can expect to fight against an enemy that conceals itself all around the MBT's area of operation but will employ advanced ATGMs and occasionally VBIEDs, mortars, and rocket artillery.
This means that the concept of survivability has shifted.
In the past, the most optimal solution was to armor-up the turret more than anything else, armor-up the hull front as well, and hide the ammunition and other hazardous equipment such as hydraulic systems where they are least likely to be hit. In some it meant below the turret ring, in some it meant the ammo was encapsulated and behind closed doors in the turret, with blow-out panels, or a combination of both approaches.
But what remains to this day is the fact that all tanks keep either some, or most of their ammo within the same compartment as the crew does.
The Abrams remains the sole tank in the world to have all its main ammunition in a separate compartment that does not endanger the crew. Most of its shells are located in the turret, which is un-conventional on its own, and either 8 (for 105mm) or 6 shells (for 120mm) are located in the hull with blow-off panels facing downwards.
But that alone does not solve the entire problem.
Encapsulating the crew compartment provides an additional advantage - The protected volume is significantly reduced. Which again means more armor around the crew.
As such, a typical MBT today can expect to fight against an enemy that conceals itself all around the MBT's area of operation but will employ advanced ATGMs and occasionally VBIEDs, mortars, and rocket artillery.
This means that the concept of survivability has shifted.
In the past, the most optimal solution was to armor-up the turret more than anything else, armor-up the hull front as well, and hide the ammunition and other hazardous equipment such as hydraulic systems where they are least likely to be hit. In some it meant below the turret ring, in some it meant the ammo was encapsulated and behind closed doors in the turret, with blow-out panels, or a combination of both approaches.
But what remains to this day is the fact that all tanks keep either some, or most of their ammo within the same compartment as the crew does.
The Abrams remains the sole tank in the world to have all its main ammunition in a separate compartment that does not endanger the crew. Most of its shells are located in the turret, which is un-conventional on its own, and either 8 (for 105mm) or 6 shells (for 120mm) are located in the hull with blow-off panels facing downwards.
But that alone does not solve the entire problem.
Encapsulating the crew compartment provides an additional advantage - The protected volume is significantly reduced. Which again means more armor around the crew.
 |
| You can see all 3 crewmen are seated at the front in a crew capsule, with the turret operated automatically via remote command. |
Peripheral View System
Several such technologies are offered on the market, and one of them is already mid-way to become operational.
Shining example of this is the Elbit's IronVision system that is due to enter service in 2020-2021. Another offering by BAE is the BattleView 360, which is an eyepiece.
Ukraine and Taiwan were also reported to work on this technology, but they are basing their products on civil technology that may be less secure.
 |
| Elbit's IronVision system is based on the JHMCS helmet that was developed for the F-35. |
So all in all it greatly reduces response time, and greatly increases one's perception of the environment.
Hybrid Electric Drive
Other than being environmentally friendly, hybrid electric engines provide many tactical advantages:
They are stealthy, allow higher acceleration and top speeds, and they don't put much logistical burden on the supply chain.
What I mean by stealthy is that they don't produce a heat signature and they're very quiet. It will make tanks considerably harder to detect at night. For a tank to obtain such capability, they'd usually use an APU, but they'd have to remain stationary for that.
 |
| Carmel future fighting vehicle with hybrid electric drive. |
Current examples
The best two examples for a 4th generation tank today are the Israeli Merkava 4 and the Russian T-14 Armata.
While currently the Merkava only features an APS out of all the above mentioned technologies, and the T-14 is not yet in service, they are both very close to becoming the first in-service 4th generation tanks.
How to do it right:
Merkava
By the year 2020 the first Barak tank, a heavily modernized version of the Merkava 4M, is set to enter service with a brand new hybrid electric powerpack, IronVision peripheral view system, and a next generation of APS.
It will essentially be an upgrade of a tank designed in 1999-2003, so it will not be able to take radical changes like a crew capsule or an unmanned turret (logistical problem) but its modular nature allows it to remain "young" for a long while, and its newly acquired capabilities will allow it to be operationally miles ahead of the conventional 3rd gen designs.
Depending on the changes made to it, it could well be somewhat of a 4th generation tank.
Depending on the changes made to it, it could well be somewhat of a 4th generation tank.
 |
| For almost a decade now, the Merkava 4M sports an active protection system that gave it a tremendous tactical boost in several engagements. |
T-14
The T-14 was lauded as the first of its generation, and indeed it is the first newly constructed MBT shown to the world in a long while, rather than an upgrade. And although it too doesn't feature all the technologies I've listed, it's impossible to put it in the same category as older 3rd generation tanks.At the moment it features an Afghanit Active Protection System, with a total of 10 charges and capable of defeating APFSDS, at the cost of being unable to fire hard kill munitions at top attack missiles. It has a low profile unmanned turret, and a protected crew capsule.
It is the embodiment of a revolutionary concept that has been played around with by both the USA (M1 TTB) and USSR (and likely other European countries during the cold war).
Reports of its date of acceptance into service are very frequent and often conflicting. But it should enter service somewhere around the year 2020, and with the Taman Division that protects Moscow.
Abrams
Other countries are also making strides, albeit slower, but each to the pace that suits them.The US's Abrams MBT has recently been fitted with a Trophy APS, which together with the SEPv3 upgrade, will give it a tremendous boost to its capabilities in all parameters.
Trophy was purchased as an urgent material request, and is an initial part of the long term MAPS program that intends to create a common, modular architecture for an active protection system that would allow to easily integrate any APS, or component of an APS into a vehicle, and thus create the possibility of combining multiple APS for their tailored needs.
They are also looking to combine additional tools to locate hostile fire via the Kongsberg-supplied CROWS Commander Remote Operated Weapon Station to detect small arms fire, and not just RPGs and ATGMs like the T-14 and Merkava do.
While it faces the same issue as the Merkava and Altay at the moment, of acquiring new capabilities through upgrades and not through a fresh design, it could acquire enough advanced capabilities to compensate for it.
The next generation of the Abrams is already envisioned with an autoloader and smaller base crew.
 |
| A contract has already been given to equip an entire brigade with the Trophy APS. |
How to do it wrong:
Altay
The Turkish Altay tank has had a problematic history. It was first envisioned to enter service 3 years ago (in 2015) yet today it is unknown whether it will enter service before or after the year 2020.
The Altay is built on the basis of the South Korean K2 Black Panther tank and uses some of its features like hydropneumatic suspension and 120mm L/55 gun, but is overall a different tank with a crew of 4 men, no autoloader, stretched hull, and a different concept of protection.
 |
| 2 variants of the Altay were developed. One for conventional warfare, and the other for asymmetric warfare. |
It is estimated that at some point, the Altay will come standard with the Akkor APS, also a Turkish domestic development that utilizes tube-launched grenades to defeat RPGs and ATGMs, and may potentially also defeat APFSDS type shells.
Although it does use an APS and is a very young design, it almost appears to follow the steps of the notoriously badly designed Challenger 2 tank, which within less than a decade since it gained initial operational capability, started having obsolescence issues and required deep and expensive modernization efforts.
The Altay is a new tank that could have been designed with modern approaches to crew protection in mind, but simply wasn't.
As mentioned above, it retains a larger crew of 4 still laid out in a conventional setup in which all crewmen are dispersed at different heights and different points in the tank, and thus vastly increase the required protected area.
It also retains an ammo rack at the front section of the hull beside the driver, which as shown in multiple conflicts already (Turkish operations in Syria being the primary example), is a very dangerous and completely unnecessary setup. This ammo is in the same compartment as the crew is, and thus it is vulnerable in low/medium intensity conflicts where an ATGM could come from everywhere.
The Altay missed an amazing opportunity, and will likely either remain in service long enough for contemporary designs to out-match it with new concepts, or will have a relatively service life to take advantage of these same new concepts.
The Altay is a new tank that could have been designed with modern approaches to crew protection in mind, but simply wasn't.
As mentioned above, it retains a larger crew of 4 still laid out in a conventional setup in which all crewmen are dispersed at different heights and different points in the tank, and thus vastly increase the required protected area.
It also retains an ammo rack at the front section of the hull beside the driver, which as shown in multiple conflicts already (Turkish operations in Syria being the primary example), is a very dangerous and completely unnecessary setup. This ammo is in the same compartment as the crew is, and thus it is vulnerable in low/medium intensity conflicts where an ATGM could come from everywhere.
The Altay missed an amazing opportunity, and will likely either remain in service long enough for contemporary designs to out-match it with new concepts, or will have a relatively service life to take advantage of these same new concepts.
Conclusion
At the moment, at least one tank can be described as a 4th generation tank - The T-14, which was designed as such from scratch. Others possess similar advanced capabilities, or more capabilities, but suffer from the inherent design flaws of the previous generation of tanks.
And a few recent ones, unfortunately, were designed without taking into account new trends, such as the Altay, perhaps leading to them becoming obsolete sooner than others, as happened to the Challenger 2 tank that due to its outdated requirements, has become obsolete decades before its contemporaries would be considered such.
The 4th generation of tanks will be manned by a crew of 2 or 3 sitting in an armored, have an unmanned turret, have an APS or multiple layers of APS, and possess technologies that enhance its situational awareness significantly compared with the previous generation.
