25e178 No.502443
Let's have a tank thread that's not about outdated designs, but about vehicles so fresh they only exists in our heads. So not outright sci-fi tonks, but something that could be built in the coming decades.
For example, how about a tank that, instead of a traditional engine, uses electric motors integrated to the running gear, and the energy is provided by free-piston linear generators distributed in the hull of the tank. You could place some of them in the bottom of the hull, while some more could be in the sides, over the tracks. This way it would be practically impossible to take out the engine, because you'd have to destroy all the pistons for that. And they have a better fuel economy, and are easier to repair or replace. Best of all, if you made a free-piston linear generator that develops around 100 horsepower, then you could use that in nearly all of your ground vehicles. You'd just need 4-5 in a truck and about 15 in a tank.
25e178 No.502446
>>502443
Here's the webm that I of course couldn't upload to the OP because of the captcha.
927853 No.502455
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>502443
The future is actually from the past. Diesel-Electrics would be a far more efficient way of tapping into the power, giving you not only fucktons more power but also range.
84a51a No.502470
>>502443
About a tank that has heavy auto-guns, plenty of ammo, some additional MG/GL and ATGM in case it runs into another tank (or possibly thermobaric ATGM to be used as assault gun).
It would serve to curb stomp entrenched infantry. That's exactly what would be needed in Syria…
can't wait for combat footage
927853 No.502471
>>502470
SOURCE
NOW!
Before my erection implodes
849242 No.502474
>>502470
Best way to fight such a vehicle is through swarm tactics. 20 light vehicles with ATGMs aboard could seriously fuck up a few better armed, and more expensive, armored vehicles.
>>502471
Southfront published an article speculating on the SAA using the Terminators they received in the advance near Palmyra/DeZ.
70b2c0 No.502475
>>502474
>20 light vehicles with ATGMs aboard could seriously fuck up a few better armed, and more expensive, armored vehicles.
I hate to be the one to point this out, but actually the Terminator 2 is pretty damn cheap and can be used on the T-55 or T-62 chassis if they wanted to
25e178 No.502476
>>502470
Fine by me. Say, the turret is unmanned, right? Because then it will be a great field test for that concept. And how are the grenade launchers operated?
Related to the BMPT is that the Russkies themselves want to use the T-15 for the same role. Now, if you want to go with a heavy IFV instead of a tank, then with the free-piston system described in the OP you don't have to worry about the placement of the engine compartment, because you don't even need to have a traditional engine compartment.
4d7b08 No.502511
Aren't electric engines shit for dragging things? And wouldn't it be more efficient to use >>502446 directly?
25e178 No.502514
>>502511
>Aren't electric engines shit for dragging things?
Trains are all about dragging things, and modern trains are either electric or use diesel-electric systems.
>wouldn't it be more efficient to use >>502446 (You) directly?
You'd need a crankshaft and a transmission system for that. One of the goals here is to replace all those things with a few cables that go to the electric motor, because that means less parts to manufacture and maintain. And the engine itself is a lot simpler. Actually, I think you could even made the pistons out of polymer.
84a51a No.502521
>>502471
Sauce are the pics, some SAA guy on twitter.
The question is how many since officially they only made a real batch for Kazakstan (Algerian order isn't done) and UVZ only has like maybe 3 protos on hand.
So unless they made a small batch for syria more or less in secret, those are the protos (or it's not impossible the kazaks sent theirs).
It's also not the BMPT-72/terminator 2 but the older version with the new missiles pods
(newer prototype doesn't have the side 30mm grenade-launchers and has less crew).
With that it's pretty clear now that the pods are just an armored sleeve for the missiles, nothing fancy.
>>502474
>20 light vehicles with ATGMs aboard
Yeah let's send 20 light vehicles against something that has a twin 30mm loaded with hundreds of APHEI shells and a shitload of advanced optics… I'm sure nothing bad will happen.
ATGMs work great because the infantry can lug them everywhere, hide them then use them against tanks, then re-hide/run before the other tanks can realize what happened.
On vehicles you still need terrain access and LOS and the 2A42 is effective up to 4 000m (so TOW range…).
>>502476
>Say, the turret is unmanned, right?
Not on this version, only the newest.
>And how are the grenade launchers operated
By a gunner/loader…
Yes… it's crew is: Commander, Gunner, Gunner, Gunner, Driver. Which is why the Russians didn't order any, the one they will probably get (or not if they think T-15 are enough) will be unmanned turret, 3 crew, no GLs.
>then with the free-piston system described in the OP you don't have to worry about the placement of the engine compartment, because you don't even need to have a traditional engine compartment.
Why do you think the armata platform has full modularity including engine placement?
Guess what power their new range of heavy movers Kamaz "Platform-O" (that will replace all soviet era ones)?
The tech isn't ready yet but it's pretty clear it's on the near future upgrade plan.
1fddad No.502540
>>502475
Also it has twin autocannons so I doubt any motorcycle ATGM swarm would do shit to it.
25e178 No.502543
>>502521
>Not on this version, only the newest.
It's a pity, I'd like to know if those claims about the crew not seeing shit are true or not. More precisely, it would be nice to just some some webms of these in combat to disprove them.
>By a gunner/loader
I mean they are over the tracks, if I'm not mistaken. Seems to be a bit inconvenient if the gunners have to operate them "manually".
>Guess what power their new range of heavy movers Kamaz "Platform-O" (that will replace all soviet era ones)?
I've found nothing in English about the subject, but I take it's a diesel-electric system. I take if they already had linear accelerators or something comparably advanced then we would have heard of it already.
>The tech isn't ready yet but it's pretty clear it's on the near future upgrade plan.
My technophilia makes me want to say how great it is that at least some people want to make it real.
896d47 No.502549
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>502470
As sexy as the BMPT is, the cannon are way too wobbly. Sure, one could argue that they aren't meant to be for precision engagements, but I'd want more rigidity in the barrel. I would suppose that either heavier barrels or a lower fire rate could improve accuracy in burst fire.
fabeb3 No.502582
>>502470
Can you even call that a tank anymore? It's a counterinsurgency vehicle that can defend itself if pressed. Fundamentally the BMPT is an IFV that can't carry infantry.
That thing would get absolutely smashed by an actual tank. ATGM's are an ambush weapon not a frontline combat weapon. They don't work on the move or if the enemy can see you and return fire before being hit which they'll have plenty of time to do. Also four missiles available to launch at any given time is a joke. 15 AT rounds in the ready rack is a more acceptable number considering each kill will probably require multiple shots (in rapid succession, I don't think the BMPT can do that either).
896d47 No.502585
>>502582
Calling it a tank is definitely incorrect. It could perhaps be most accurately called an assault vehicle, though the Russians call it a "tank fighting vehicle" which makes reasonable sense.
It is supposed to be an intermediate between MBT and softer IFV and infantry. It carries a similar armament to the typical IFV and is therefore better suited to engaging soft targets, but has increased survivability. It's an IFV that traded infantry for armor.
That said, the AT-9 is probably one of the more potent anti-tank missiles around. It is supersonic and capable of upwards of 800mm penetration after ERA.
84a51a No.502609
>>502543
>Seems to be a bit inconvenient if the gunners have to operate them "manually".
It is, that's the main reason why Russia hasn't bought any, they do want a vehicle like that (in doctrinal papers they even call to change the 4 tank basic cavalry unit by 3 tanks and 1 "tank escort vehicle" which is what a BMPT is) but they felt the BMPT concept wasn't mature enough, the T-15 isn't actually in line with the BMPT but with the BTR-T that was briefly adopted (like one batch I think).
>>502543
I've found nothing in English about the subject, but I take it's a diesel-electric system.
I dunno I know they have motors in the wheels and the engine is just an electrical generator.
And that that particular 8x8 version with the engine in the wheels is suppose to lug things around from 75 to 165 tons…
>I take if they already had linear accelerators or something comparably advanced then we would have heard of it already.
No we wouldn't. Russian academia doesn't publish stuff in English. Never has, never will be. So many papers in advanced medicine and engineering from the soviet era aren't even yet translated, including ground breaking stuff (I'm talking public data here). For example the soviets had entire collection of man made viruses to kill bacteria… for decades (viral phage therapy… it's something that basically renders antibiotics obsolete. No biggie). Only reason the rest of the world heard about it is the lead hospital doing the research ended up in Georgia when the USSR broke up and their students started to put things out in English.
>>502582
>Can you even call that a tank anymore?
Well it's on a tank hull being heavily armored is part of it's job, breaking infantry formation, storming entrenched positions and fighting the occasional heavy vehicle too…
It's basically EXACTLY was a tank is, a WWI one that is.
It's not a Main Battle Tank, sure, but it's still a tank.
We can call it an hipster tank.
c7e636 No.502610
>>502511
>Aren't electric engines shit for dragging things?
The opposite, they have instatorque and alot of it
fbfa63 No.503165
Will we see advancements in river crossing? With diesel-electric drive it would make sense to use a battery and some bottled air instead of a snorkel, because you don't need air to run the engine. It would also increase the depth of the river a tank can cross underwater. The only problem I can see that if the tank breaks down, then the crew will die a horrible death, if they were crossing a body of water that was too deep. Although, if the crew hatches have motors to open them, then they might be able to get out. And they could be also provided with life jackets.
1fddad No.503186
>>502585
>>502582
Why dont you look up the definition of tank first, and differentiate it from MAIN battle tank, which is what youre conflating it with.
5b9560 No.503200
>>502609
The closest original term would be female tank.
fcdfbf No.503226
>>503200
>>502609
I'd call it iron maiden due to old men/female tank classification, but I suspect calling it combat support vehicle might be more reasonable. What was that American Ontos thing classified as? You know the m113 modification where it had like 6 recoilles anti tank rifles/guns attached to it, and it was used in Vietnam.
e97999 No.503228
>>503226
it was classified as a practical joke
kidding, ontos are awesome
fbfa63 No.503229
>>503200
The difference is that male tanks had cannons while females were machine guns only. And both male and female tanks were used against fortified enemy lines, so the distinction isn't based on their intended use, it only refers to the weapon configuration. Even more, those cannons had a calibre of 57mm only. I'd argue that a 30mm autocannon has more firepower, and then you also have to add the missiles. Not to mention that the Russians might make a similar tank with an 57mm autocannon in the future.
>>503226
Rifle, Multiple 106 mm, Self-propelled, M50
It's a self-propelled rifle.
1fddad No.503251
>>503229
>male tanks had cannons while females were machine guns only
Wouldnt that be like sissies and real men?
8c838c No.503254
>>503226
>>503200
>>503229
It has ATGMs though, not just anti-infantry weap…
Wait.
WAIT.
It's a transgender tank!
5b9560 No.503257
>>503254
Did you just assume Terminator's gender identity? I'll have you know that clang, preferred pronoun, is an armament-fluid pan-armorous MBT-kin. Check your privilege.
fbfa63 No.503259
>>503254
Now add in that the Mark IX tank only had 2 machine guns and it could carry 30 people. Therefore a BMP-1 with its 73mm cannon must be more of a tank that the BMPT.
1fddad No.503269
>>503259
The fattest girl ever.
ea2702 No.503296
>>503200
just call it gun tank
8815c8 No.503346
>>502582
Why do you think these things are ever sent in alone versus tanks? You'd never send something like this in alone knowing there are tanks around.
f540ab No.503354
>>502446
>Dat compactness
Can electric drives be used to power MBTs 70 tons plus?
If so, then MBTs may get more smaller with this tech.
1fddad No.503356
>>503354
Yes but electric drives are usually bigger, also they have energy storage problems. Ever see someone put a nail through a charged cellphone battery?
ea2702 No.503360
>>503356
>Ever see someone put a nail through a charged cellphone battery?
actually no
14a58a No.503369
>>503296
>this tank's most distinctive feature is that instead of a traditional modern gun it has a mixture of equally important weapon systems
>let's call it a gun tank
You nearly got me here.
>>503354
Again, most trains use electric motors to haul hundreds-upon-hundreds of tons of material. Of course they have an easier time because they run on tracks.
>>503356
>electric drives are usually bigger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_hub_motor
tl;dr: The electric motor is integrated into the wheel itself, therefore it takes up less space. Of course you'd have to integrate the motors into the sprockets in this case.
>they have energy storage problems
That whole video is about a potential solution to this problem.
1fddad No.503373
>>503360
Lets just say that a battery that powers a tank would cause the mother of all cookoffs if it was hit.
>>503369
When potential becomes real, and battle tested, we might start seeing hybrids showing up.
8e8884 No.503407
>>503356
>>503373
Diesel-electric doesn't need batteries, the motors are connected directly to the generator.
ea2702 No.503409
>>503407
and power generated in generator is stored in …?
>>503369
gun tank is better name then anything pentagon will think of.
I believe that electric engine is too much, but electric transmision in a tank would be possible
8ebf96 No.503422
>>503409
The energy is stored in the diesel, the diesel generator turns the diesel power into electricity that can be used by the motor.
Pulsed electrical currents through water does speed up electrolysis and can be harnessed but you need to keep your mouth shut about it or you'll find yourself in a woodchipper.
Safe, dry capacitors can also be used but you'll have to conduct the research as nobody really wants to bring down the various monopolies we've got going, and even then you've got yourself the risk of getting caught in a woodchipper.
74391e No.503428
>>503409
How do people not know basic shit about basic shit? Diesel locomotives are hybrid electric and have been around since the late 40's. The germans had a hybrid electric tiger prototype during WWII, but it cought fire and burned before it could be tested. Learn some shit about the world before you spout shit off people.
1fddad No.503441
>>503422
>>503407
Jesus christ thats retarded…
ea2702 No.503520
know whats the difference between trains and other vehicles? one of them is connected to reliable power source constantly, while the other is not.
the fact that something is possible doesnt mean it should be done or is aplicable in all cases.
93a8b9 No.503530
>>503422
>Drinking whilst pregnant
ea2702 No.503541
>>503530
well, he isnt wrong, mostly
d0bbac No.503695
>>503422
>woodchipper
>woodchipper
>monopolies
You seem to be knowledgeable about this type of "stuff", care to share some for us?
Are you (((their))) hitman?
e3922d No.503732
>>503520
I though you have trains over there. If that is so, then observe them for a bit and you will notice that electric trains are only used in lines made specifically for them, while diesel-electric trains are used on every line.
5c7f8a No.503748
>>503422
Fun fact. James May from Top Gear brought the idea of Diesel Electric cars to the general public. Although their homemade car was a joke it's engine setup wasn't. Why literally a year after the car was shown on television there was several diesel electric cars in the pipeline. Its a very efficient way of harnessing power from fuel.
dbc796 No.503755
>>503732
i am pretty sure that all our lines are electric
then again i am silesian so my point of view might be skewed
the longer i think about it the more sense does electric tank make. shit this might be actually good idea
e3922d No.503780
>>503755
>this might be actually good idea
Well, it's hardly mine, even some of the earliest tank experimented with electric drives. I'm just excited because after more than a century we will finally have the technology to make them work in the field. Which actually says quite a lot about technological development in our times: everybody is busy perfecting already existing technologies, but there are no people stepping up to actually utilize them for ideas that have existed for decades.
796451 No.503782
>>503695
It's all out there on the internet, and if you're interested in gathering materials you can always make everything out of literal garbage.
95d104 No.506185
>>503269
You would think it's easy to fit 30 people inside it, but I've been in one and I can't even begin to imagine how shitty it must've been to ride in one of those things, I was on my hands and knees most of the time (granted I am 6ft 5).
e5aea7 No.506188
>>503780
Sometimes old technology is better, the only reason we haven't gone back to a lot of things was due to them being often oversized which isn't an issue today.
e7a458 No.507053
>>507041
missile looking a bit flaccid
>>503755
the future combat tank that US canceled was hybrid electric
85f366 No.507068
>>507053
It's a deactivated/replica museum piece they tried to pose as if it was being fired. Or did you think the MkV Ferret was designed to have one missile just kinda hanging out there?
e7a458 No.507074
>>507068
i know but, come on, it's so sad looking. missile half chub.
85f366 No.507115
>>507086
fine, have this then
dbc796 No.507181
>>507053
>the future combat tank that US canceled was hybrid electric
that hardly proves anything since it was insane project based on taking all new and experimental tech and putting it in one vehicle, even thought half of it barely worked
What about making amphibious car with diesel electric engines? that sounds logical
0a64bc No.507184
>>507086
All these years I thought that was shopped
6a856b No.507607
>>507181
>What about making amphibious car with diesel electric engines? that sounds logical
Indeed, they could use the electricity to power either the wheels or the propulsion they use in water. An other benefit of this system with wheel hub motors is that you could use a tube chassis and build the car the way you want, because you don't need a transmission system, just a few cables that run from the generators to the wheels. Manufacturing cars would be a lot easier that way.
81a074 No.508437
>>502443
With this electric propulsion system it would be possible to make a practical tracked self-propelled gun that only has a casemate instead of a rotating turret. The electric motors and the generators can be turned on and off quickly, so you wouldn't have to waste fuel by idling the engine, and the vehicle would turn at a decent pace due to the torque the motors have. The SPG should have a navigational computer with a compass anyway, so you'd just tell it which direction to face, and it would turn that way automatically.
Without a turret you have more space, so it can carry more ammo. Or you could use smaller, lighter vehicles to carry the same amount of ammo. Something like this Italian wonder, just with tracks and a casemate instead of wheels and that goofy-looking turret. An other good point is that the autoloader has an easier time if the gun only moves vertically. Lastly, I think it would be easier to armour up a casemate against enemy artillery fire. Imagine an SPG that can take direct hits on the roof from most artillery weapons.
0895ed No.508438
>>502455
Yeah, I was gonna say wasnt the King Tiger an electric tank?
b1f51c No.508525
>>508438
IIRC the original Porsche designed king tiger was… except it didn't work, because they simply didn't have the tech to make it actually work.
d2f5a5 No.508771
>>507607
>>507607
>amphi-buggy
its like a dream come true.
Thinking about it that concept is perfect
>rear wheels powered by diesel electric
>diesel electric produceselectric energy
>you can use it to power up main drive, turbine to move in water or to power up engines on a front to get 4x4 with one simple button
cfea15 No.508773
>>508438
The Maus was, too.
2d39fe No.508952
>>508525
It did work, but it was shit. Nevertheless, they rebuilt those prototypes into the Ferdinand (lather Elefant) tank destroyers, and they kept exactly one Porsche Tiger to be the command vehicle of the unit. Hopefully kikepedia is a good enough source in this case:
>The two Porsche air-cooled engines in each vehicle were replaced by two 300 PS (296 hp; 221 kW) Maybach HL 120 TRM engines. The engines drove a single Siemens-Schuckert 500 VA generator, which powered two Siemens 230 kW (312.7 PS) output-apiece electric motors, one each connected to each of the rear sprockets. The electric motors also acted as the vehicle's steering unit. This "petrol-electrical" drive delivered 0.11 km/l (909 litres/100 km) off road and 0.15 km/l (667 litres/100 km) on road at a maximum speed of 10 km/h off road and 30 km/h on road. In addition to this high fuel consumption and poor performance, the vehicle was maintenance-intensive; the sprockets needed to be changed every 500 km. Porsche had experience of this form of petrol-electric transmission extending back to 1901, when he designed a car that used it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant#Drive
>>508771
And remember, you don't need one big engine block on the front, therefore you could wrap the vehicle in a very aerodynamic shell if you wanted to. Or an actual boat hull.
67e397 No.508987
>>508525
Tech for electric vehicles existed before the tech for internal combustion engines, or even steam power if you ignore ancient greek advances.
The problem has always been energy storage…. electric cars store their energy in a complex battery, whereas combustion cars store their energy in a liquid you can carry in a bucket.
c1658d No.508999
>>508525
The Tiger(P) aka VK45.01(P) was. The VK45.02(P) was the Porsche-developed contender for the King Tiger contract, which was designed with the lessons from the Tiger(P) in mind. It never got away from prototype status (high maintenance, used strategic copper), however one may have still existed at wars end: Soviet documents mention finding a Posche-built Tiger on the Kummersdorf proving grounds but no further documentation or photos have been found to confirm whether it was a Tiger(P), a King Tiger with the round Porsche turret or a VK45.02.
db31c8 No.509004
>>508999
Soviets presumably scrapped everything that came out of Kummersdorf to fight them. Nobody will ever really know.
c1658d No.509048
>>509004
Not everything, the Maus still exists in Kubinka after all. But yeah, unless somebody gets really goddamn lucky in the archives or Grandpa Vladimirs photo album it's a thing lost to the mists of time.
db31c8 No.509062
>>509048
I meant the task force made up of everything from Kummersdorf that could move under its own power that got wrecked was scrapped. I still don't believe the Maus moved with what they had onboard.
b7341d No.510466
>>502446
Now that I think about it, you could hook up one of these to a wood gas generator and use it to power a house. Or you could even put the whole system on a vehicle.
def183 No.513348
There is this writing about the new IFVs offered for the Czech, it has some interesting stuff in it, like a CV90 with an unmanned turret:
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.hu/2017/08/which-new-ifv-for-czech-army.html
Also it has a link to this post about the ultimate M113 Gavin?:
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.hu/2015/06/pmmc-g5-ultimate-m113.html
And that has a link to this page:
Splitterskyddad_EnhetsPlattform
The later is a diesel-electric vehicle developed by BAR Systems for Sweden.
It's quite interesting how unmanned turrets are getting ahead. At last I know for a fact that there is at least one design that can be accessed and reloaded from inside the hull. The people who developed the 40mm telescopic autocannon for France and Britain also made a non-penetrating unmanned turret that holds 40 rounds. I think the "ultimate" IFV of today would have that autocannon in an unmanned turret that can be reloaded from inside the hull of the vehicle.
57a8e6 No.513394
>>502455
>>502446
The combustion engine part might be more effective than the standard combustion engine but having the stored energy in fuel moved to a battery then to an electric motor will have some large losses.
22-32% of the potential energy is lost in a regular car.
Multiply that with the loss in en electric motor which is at around 30%
On top of that you have the added weight of a spare fuel tank and generator.
dbc796 No.513485
>>513394
idealy engine part and generator part would be incorporated in a single cylinder
then again shit would probably get hot as fuck
So yeah problem is still efficency and energy storage. i doubt we will ever fix these problems.
also we could design it without additionall oil/energy storage. Hell, even a capacitor is up to debate
cd707e No.513547
I swear one day every single armored fighting vehicle will be a CV90 underneath with just different modules and attachments.
fbd8d9 No.513941
>>513394
>having the stored energy in fuel moved to a battery then to an electric motor will have some large losses
That's why you should skip the battery and hook it up directly to the motor. After all, we don't want to build a glorified golf car here. Actually, you could have a small(ish) battery unit incorporated into every engine unit, that way you'd distribute the potential fire hazard too. Tesla already uses thousands of small batteries in one box instead of a single big one, so might as well copy that. Also, you only need electricity from this system, therefore you could increase the output by converting waste heat into more electricity with thermoelectric materials or systems. Even more, you could use the exhaust fumes to drive turbochargers that could also drive some smaller electric generators for even more power.
b1cf15 No.513943
>>513348
>hello hungarian mindbrother
>i have missed you
The future is optionally manned turrets with bustle autoloaders, because these autoloaders can fold into the bustle and leave enough room for a manual loader.
I envision future tanks will have distributed piston engines across the floor of the tank, these angines can be any shape as the pistons are independent. Also if a bomb or hit damages a piston, the others are unaffected so you just lose a percentage of power.
The pistons feed a small battery, which directly powers the electric motors for the tracks.
Above that a crew of 4 is possible. Two ahead of the turret ring, and two behind there is no big rear engine, it is flat and under their feet! the turret ring. Both pairs of crew are in armored capsules, and are cross trained in their duties.
The turret ring is accessible from either capsule, and there is enough room in the turret for manual loading, or safe turret-top observation while the bustle autoloader is working.
rate /10
fbd8d9 No.513948
>>513943
Damn, the way we think is indeed scarily similar. Although personally I'm thinking about the idea of replacing tanks with IFVs that have high-calibre autocannons and hypervelocity missiles. I know there should be a flaw somewhere, but I don't see where, because all the obvious ones are gone with these technologies. So personally I'd go with this:
>the floor is lava engines, as you've described
>capsule in the front for a crew of 3
>middle section with the turret
>behind that is an other section for 8 infantrymen
>alternatively there is no turret, but enough space for 12 grunts
>all sections are accessible from the next one
>for patrols and whatnot the leader of the infantry squad can climb into the turret if he feels lucky
>the weapon station/commander's optics is set up around the hatch of the turret like how they do it with machine guns, so they don't interfere with each other
>maybe you could even operate it manually, but it's not necessarily a good idea
>the infantrymen can help reloading the turret with ammo
>missile launcher is retractable and can be reloaded from inside the turret
The idea is of course that this whole thing wouldn't be bigger than a current MBT, an autocannon is fine against everything that isn't a MBT, and guided hypervelocity missiles should have a better chance at killing a tank than a high-calibre tank cannon. And it's easier to have 5 vehicles carrying up to 40 people to battle than using 9-12 tanks and IFVs for the same job. You aren't supposed to send forward tanks without infantry anyway.
b1cf15 No.513949
>>513943
>>513948
ONE BILLION HOURS IN PAINT
DONUT STEEL
b1cf15 No.513950
>>513949
>>513948
>11:36:48
>12:36:15
Wow its exactly 1 hour in paint
abfe49 No.513993
>>513348
>an M113 that cant swim, cant fly and is somehow even taller than the original
Don't get me wrong, I fucking love the metal bawkses, but that doesn't seem like the right direction to take it.
fbd8d9 No.514028
>>513949
What is the idea behind this crew arrangement? I guess one in the back acts as a lodaer in lulls of the fight, but what is his job otherwise? And who is the commander by default? The other one in the back? I get that they are cross-trained, but I'm not sure if 2 people can reliably do the work of 3.
b1cf15 No.514108
>>514028
The physical layout lowers surface area that needs to be armored, while breaking up into individual compartments reducing the chance that the entire crew will get taken out by one shell.
An enemy tank can penetrate both turret and one capsule, and still leave rank operational.
Also its for comfort and access to turret.
As for crew duties primary positions are driver and gunner. Loading is automatic, and theres a semi-automatic combat map.
During low intensity conflict, two guys work as gunner and driver, while two guys take turns observing up top vs resting.
During high intensity conflict the guy who rests on low intensity conflict becomes radio man, thus removing that burden from driver.
Seating arrangement, with MOS in order of proficiency:
Front left - Driver/radioman/scout/loader
Front right - Commander/gunner/scout/loader
Rear left - Radioman/driver/loader/scout
Rear right - Gunner/commander/scout/scout
The idea is to train guys on two skills in intoductory tank training - scouting and loading. This helps weed out the pussies (loading is HARD) and unaware retards.
Then second level trainkng is on radio, drive, weapons, and command of the tank. All four disciplines at once. AS SOON AS a recruit shows interest or skill at any of these MOS, they get extra instruction in that MOS.
Third level training is basic combat training & teamwork within tank, and fourth level is large scale unit cohesion.
c4b9fb No.514475
>>506185
>I was on my hands and knees most of the time
c51019 No.515612
The future is no tanks. It's light armor and FAV's along with infantry bristling with enough cheap ATGMs to fuck over any force retarded enough to use the now obsolete weapons that are tanks.
9b4139 No.515641
>>515612
it's don't
ATGMs have the upper hand right now, but as soon as hard-kill APS systems start becoming widely used it will be a whole new round of offensive vs defensive developments like it's been since WW1
IDF trophy system has been very successful in intercepting kornet/metis/RPG-29/konkurs without problems so far, and pretty much every new tank is being developed with some kind of hard-kill APS now
c55738 No.517178
>>513948
I might have come up with a way to make it even worse better:
>two boxes on the back of the turret, each with a bustle-mounted autoloader-like missile launcher
>a single launcher holds 6 missiles on a rotating apparatus, 2 up, 2 down, 1 on each side
>the missile is launched from the side position, then it rotates to the next missile
>the turret has 12 missiles, and they can be launched one-by-one, or in salvos of 2
>the launchers can be reloaded from the inside of the turret
Of course the missiles should be hypervelocity ones to make it really sci-fi, but for something immediately available (and expensive) imagine it with Hellfires.
11645e No.517184
>>515612
Future is Heavy IFV's geared for Kebab Removal using ATGM's for when the sandniggers manage to get a rusted T-55 working.
c55738 No.517190
>>517184
Not only that, but for longer ranges you are better off with salvos of hypervelocity missiles, because they have a better chance to destroy a tank with APS. And if they get close to each other (a few kms), then an autocannon is better than a slow-firing cannon, because it can damage the optics and whatnot. It might even take out the APS itself. So tanks built around one big cannon are a dead concept, and yes, you might as well make IFVs instead of them.
cf8738 No.517197
>>517184
>>515612
>Future is Heavy IFV's geared for Kebab Removal
If that is true why don‘t see we any in Syria or Iraq?
The Merkava was once though as a combination of MBT and IFV. Didn‘t work because the space inside was needed for supplies. IFV with heavy protection are considered as to expensive, few are made like the Puma.
>>517190
>And if they get close to each other (a few kms), then an autocannon is better than a slow-firing cannon, because it can damage the optics and whatnot.
An IFV like an Puma with an auto canon can not touch an MBT like an Leopard 2
fda7ef No.517198
File: 671c21873dcf8d6⋯.png (Spoiler Image, 6.39 KB, 294x103, 294:103, how to respond to torfags.png)
>>517197
Oh look a wild TORfag appears.
b0df2f No.517199
>>517197
>If that is true why don‘t see we any in Syria or Iraq?
because syria is poor as all fuck and doesnt have its own manufacturing capacity?
but seriously this is good point. everything that can be said about tank armor can be said doubly about APC armor.
fda7ef No.517200
>>517199
>He took the bait
Poland NO!
We know why there hasn't been any in Iraq cause the West can't into Kebab Removal
There actually has been usage of such vehicles in Syria, in particular Russians testing the Terminator
We've seen the Israeli's use Heavy APC's oppressing Sandniggers so they have more space to build a new Holocaust Museum
And Russians have been using them for decades already when they were still dealing with Chechnya
c55738 No.517203
>>517197
>An IFV like an Puma with an auto canon can not touch an MBT like an Leopard 2
And an M113 would stand no chance against a Panzer IV. But how is that relevant here? Try something like a Leopard 2 against a T-15 with Ataka missiles and a 57mm autocannon.
cf8738 No.517210
>>517199
>>517197
>If that is true why don‘t see we any in Syria or Iraq?
>because syria is poor as all fuck and doesnt have its own manufacturing capacity?
Yes and the BMP “armour” is so thin, I suspect Syrian soldiers are not so keen to assemble in a tinbox as target.
>but seriously this is good point. everything that can be said about tank armor can be said doubly about APC armor.
For that sort of fight even the armor of an M1 is too thin everywhere but the front
>>517203
>>517197
>Try something like a Leopard 2 against a T-15 with Ataka missiles and a 57mm autocannon.
That argument has been made since a long time, decades, slap some missiles on it and it is as good as the real thing, same with ships and missiles. Problem is, good armor is expensive regardless of the weapon used, fire control too. Gun barrel and support, stabilizer is more expensive than a missiles rack, but each missile is more expensive than most gun projectiles. Gun shoots are much faster than missiles.
c55738 No.517215
>>517210
>That argument has been made since a long time, decades, slap some missiles on it and it is as good as the real thing
Show me a vehicle that tried to realize this concept and failed in combat. The criteria:
<it has to be an infantry fighting vehicle with a level of protection close to a MBT of its era
<it needs to have a large calibre (40mm+) autocannon for main armament
<it needs to have a rack of ATGMs, preferably hypervelocity ones instead of mere HEAT
<the battle must be a decisive defeat against MBTs
>Gun barrel and support, stabilizer is more expensive than a missiles rack
And you also need a bigger, heavier vehicle to carry them. Bigger, heavier vehicles are more expensive to manufacture and maintain, thus you also have to calculate those costs into the equation.
>each missile is more expensive than most gun projectiles
And? You only want to shoot at tanks, helicopters and similar targets. Even if a missile costs 10 times more than a kinetic penetrator, destroying a target is more of a financial loss for the enemy. Also, I'm positively sure that guided hypervelocity missiles would both hit and destroy targets much more frequently than unguided kinetic penetrators.
>Gun shoots are much faster than missiles.
Show me a tank gun faster than the LOSAT missile. And then there is the follow up, the CKEM, that flew with Mach 6.5. It's all early 2000s tech.
13d452 No.517220
>>517215
>Show me a tank gun faster than the LOSAT missile.
Show me a LOSAT missile that managed to make it into production :^)
7612ec No.517221
>>517220
Only yours for $6 gorllion a pop goyim :^)
c55738 No.517222
>>517220
I'm rather sure that the missiles in this footage weren't summoned to our realm by a space wizard.
da9be5 No.517223
>>502474
Isn't Southfront just the best?
51cb84 No.517224
>>517222
No, but they were certainly locked away by Space Jews
908f7e No.517239
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>517223
>Isn't Southfront just the best?
It's pretty great.
You head that there is a problem with Afghanistan right? With Obama surge, trump giving authority to send reinforcement, etc?
But where the fuck else have you heard that two afghan army base have been under siege for two months now and NATO is letting this shit go down (*cough* because they're already too busy *cough*)…
Then look at the map and realize all the major roads are de facto cut off by various talibans enclaves, meaning THEY control the country not the government or NATO…
It's amazing, we might end up seeing "Fall of Saigon 2.0: Snackbar edition" while NATO forces are still in the country… or having to dispatch serious troops to re-invade the whole place all over again!
6ad350 No.517322
>>517239
What army bases? We only have advisors and contractors there…
db342a No.517325
>>517222
He said production, genius. LOSAT never made it past testing.
e12a58 No.517337
>>517325
And do you think missiles don't get produced for testing? They certainly didn't exist on paper only, therefore you can't say that it's some untested technology that was never produced. Because, you see, they produced some for testing.
b0df2f No.517348
>>517337
there is a huge difference between hand making few prototypes and having them mass produced
022fb9 No.517408
>>517239
Trump should invite the CIA leadership and Obama's admin to the superbowl to come clean about the CIA,and allow the attendees and players to lynch them all.
The Media wouldn't be able to shut it down with so many people their with their cell phones. The truth about ISIS would get out and the deep state would be dead meat.
8673bd No.517917
>>513943
>I envision future tanks will have distributed piston engines across the floor of the tank, these angines can be any shape as the pistons are independent.
>Also if a bomb or hit damages a piston, the others are unaffected so you just lose a percentage of power.
The enemy (whomever you are facing) will just use a bigger IED and incorporate EMP with it. Dunno if that's possible, but more "contraptions" that are straight up weird have been invented and used with great effect since the early days of recorded history. If the IED-EMP hybrid explosive is impossible then your enemies will use an ambush tactic that utilizes IEDs and EMPs.
Here is how it "might" go: One person triggers the fuckhueg IED (about 10 150mm artillery shells strapped together), if the tank survives that then the EMP will be used. An RPG-type launcher with an EMP warhead would be used to fry electronics and overload electricity inside the tank. Of course, there will be some form of analog backup control inside tanks but the ambushers already have the upper hand. Another person with thermite/white phosphorus or C4 would be using the stunned state of the crew to either set it on fire/asphyxiate the crew or placing an explosive charge at the bottom of the turret ammunition rack or placing explosives on turret rings and then putting grenades inside the tank using the hole created.
Still, MBTs have proven their worth. No doubt about it. Commanders just do not know how to adapt these machines into the C.Y. + 1. Its poor judgement and tactics that causes losses in the first place.
8673bd No.517919
>>517239
Its like vietnam all over again! Minus the rice paddies and STD-laden hookers.
b28119 No.517920
>>513943
Naaa, tanks could just use an electric motor, enjoy all the torque, and have some small 4-banger spinning away in some corner, making electricity. Also hueg capacity batteries.
Germans already did that in WW2, and it worked great, but let's just ignore that
b0df2f No.517927
>>517920
>and it worked great
<it burned to the ground
>>517917
>EMP
not really possible or feasible. ever.
6ad350 No.517941
>>517917
So? Current tanks are less protected from IED than this tank would be. FAR less. Force has to go through tank floor, through a pretty solid metal engine, then it has to penetrate the capsules…. except by following path of least resistance that wouldn't happen.
>>517920
That's exactly what I said, I just increased size of combustion motor so I could decrease size of battery. The thing you ignore is how bulky, expensive and dangerous batteries are.
cf8738 No.517964
>>517917
>incorporate EMP with it.
Non-nuclear EMP is dificult to achieve, will have very limited range. You can’t EMP a generator or a motor but the power electronic used to regulate it
>An RPG-type launcher with an EMP warhead
What are you trying to destroy, the electronic watch the commander forgot in his bag on the turret? Chances are the damage are by chemical not electromagnetic forces.
>Here is how it "might" go: One person triggers the fuckhueg IED (about 10 150mm artillery shells strapped together),
Ten 15cm shells, are you trying a moon landing with tanks?
0018a7 No.518114
>>517964
>Non-nuclear EMP is dificult to achieve, will have very limited range. You can’t EMP a generator or a motor but the power electronic used to regulate it
that is the intended effect that I was thiunking that it would achieve.
>What are you trying to destroy, the electronic watch the commander forgot in his bag on the turret? Chances are the damage are by chemical not electromagnetic forces.
Uh, no. What I was trying to to is to use the RPG as a means of delivery for the EMP. The commander's electronic watch will be destroyed as well.
>Ten 15cm shells, are you trying a moon landing with tanks?
I'm just trying to let my inner Tesla-esque, mad scientist, frankenstein sperging go.
b0df2f No.518181
>>518114
nigger thats not even mad science, you havemt seen shit yet like electro magnetic rocket drives and tesla coil home defense turrets
0018a7 No.518356
>>518181
>nigger thats not even mad science,
Well, fuzing an EMP to IEDs to create a catastrophic effect that fries electronics and electrical systems in tandem with blowing up anyone within the radius of the IED-EMP hybrid IS mad science. The term "Mad Science" does not imply nor dictate that it needs to be purely science-y.
Although it can be applied as well to any science that is outright "mad" If anything, it is more of a form of expression pertaining to the inherent "craziness" of an idea or contraption.
> you havemt seen shit yet like electro magnetic rocket drives and tesla coil home defense turrets
That is because there are organizations that actively work in the shadows preventing said technologies from being released to the public, nigger.
2dd4af No.518391
Question: would it ever be feasible/sensible to discard tracks and make a hovertank?
b28119 No.518392
>>518391
No, the gun knockback would push them around
04f6b3 No.518407
>>518392
If you can make a hovertank, why can't you make a "gyroscope" that stabilizes the tank when it fires?
d50648 No.518409
>>518391
>can't drive on slopes
>creates a huge dust cloud wherever it goes
>no all-terrain ability
>skirt can be punctured or melted
>bad acceleration/deceleration
>vehicle can't be towed
I'm having trouble thinking of a single advantage, except maybe the ability to cross water. A niche that military hovercraft already fill.
fda7ef No.518420
>>518407
Cause the laws of physics are a bitch.
e7ea88 No.518422
>>518407
>for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction
Treads have friction, so the energy doesn't move the tank all that much. The only way you could really keep them from getting pushed around is if you made the hovertank more massive (which just creates more problems) or if you had some counter-thrust pushing in the same direction as the gun is shooting.
>>518409
You forgot
>isn't affected by landmines
b0df2f No.518426
>>518356
tesla foils you can literally make from a shitty wire and some dedication. Its not that hard. Electr magnetic drives are a bit harder.
And please tell me, how do you want to cause EMP effect. Also, arent most tank electronics protected from its effects because of cold war?
42fe10 No.518621
>>518426
>tesla foils you can literally make from a shitty wire and some dedication.
Yes, but weaponizing them would be another story.
>And please tell me, how do you want to cause EMP effect. Also, arent most tank electronics protected from its effects because of cold war?
That is the "mad science" that if somebody successfully pulled it off, the towelheads will be bringing the inventor top-quality, fit 'n' thicc wimminz as well as monies in exchange for tech and at the same time the inventor will be on the watchlist of every intelligence organization in existence whether known or unknown.
d50648 No.518627
>>518422
Isn't affected by pressure-activated landmines, you mean. Magnetically fused, tilt wire fused, or line of sight fused EFP-type mines still work. And manually triggered IEDs are good too. Pressure plate mines are just one solution and everyone would be quick to adapt.
6ad350 No.518697
>>518392
Flamethrower, DEW, ATGM or VLS.
Not to mention non-tank applications like troop carrier, medical, ewar, apc, ifv….
>>518409
Only 4 of those are correct, and you forgot the biggest flaw IT NEEDS POWER JUST TO STAND STILL
There ARE many benefits, like flying over some obstacles, mines, concertina wire, etc… IED would just pop the cushion because theres nothing solid to focus the blast.
A dual wheel/hover system would work ok.
c10931 No.518724
c10931 No.518725
99bdc6 No.521822
>>502471
>sauce
SilentStalker, For The Record; http://ftr.wot-news.com/
Good armor researcher, good contemporary posts as well.
9b778d No.529773
The Draco's 76mm cannon has a RoF around 80-100/min, because it has a revolver-drum like autoloader, and the 102mm Green Mace had a RoF of 96/min. I wonder, would it make sense to scale up this kind of system for a proper tank gun to overwhelm active defence systems? I don't mean that it should fire simpe HE shells in full auto all the time, but bring up the RoF to 120/min, and it can fire two APFSDS projectiles with only 0.5s delay. Make it 240/min, and now it's merely 0.25s, so one second is enough to fire 4 of them on an enemy tonk. And that should have an effect. But wouldn't the recoil be too big of a problem for it to work?
I envision it as the cannon having an bustle autoloader and a revolver drum. The autoloader loads one hole of the revolver drum when it's offset, then that hole revolvers to the cannon, then it fires. Normally it just adds an unnecessary step to the loading, but you could fully load it up with 3-4 shells and fire them in one salvo. Although that could be used with HE too, if just want to fuck the enemy infantry's shit up.
efcaa0 No.529802
>>529773
alles gutte but where do you want to place all that ammunition ?
591cd9 No.529822
>>529773
If Americans stop having nostalgia for obsolete cannons and obsolete machine guns and obsolete tanks maybe that will actually happen.
86c3db No.529933
>>503780
Electric drives are only now becoming a viable option because semiconductor technology is finally good enough. Early electric drivetrain tanks just had two engines each one directly driving a generator, each generator directly wired to a motor which drove the tracks, and the tank would be driven by throttling the engines. It worked, but it was pretty shit in just about every regard. You can't just run hundreds of kilowatts through a potentiometer for speed control, shit will be glowing like the sun. You need a proper motor drive circuit to get speed control with reasonable losses. And doing that with hundreds of kilowatts, reliable enough for wartime conditions means some beefy fucking transistors, that simply couldn't be made until recently.
It's not like suddenly people decided electric cars were a good idea and now we have tesla. People have been trying that shit every decade. It just wasn't feasible until now. Pic related, the tesla model S of the 1980s.
From what I've seen of the history of technology, quite a lot of things are conceived well before they can actually be practically made, and much of the rest is invented almost exactly after whatever other technology or manufacturing process it relies on to work is invented. People were toying around with coilguns in the 40s. The EIGHTEEN fourties. Railguns were invented during WW1. We still don't have that shit ready for prime time. Babbage came up with both calculators and computers before vacuum tubes or even electromechanical relays, and, due to how impractical it was to actually machine all the different parts needed to build them, none were built during his lifetime. The first babbage difference engine was finally finished in fucking 2002 as a museum piece, and his analytical engine has never been built to date.
efcaa0 No.529967
>>529933
>Electric drives are only now becoming a viable option
they are not. there are still tons of problems to hop through. like energy storage.
teslas exist only becuase of government subsidies. seriously fuck california
also pic related japanese robot from 1929
83eb33 No.529972
>>529967
This.
One of the problems to solve would be to get one standart road quality across the whole EU. You can drive from italy to northen lithuania just fine without problems. And then you hit Latvian roads and your fucking wheels fall off because "Lol all the road taxes actualy to something else".
And whoever said diesel angines are bad for anything should go on a few roadtrips and calculate some basic shit. Or a helicopter ride.
c6db24 No.529988
>>529822
So the USA could do this if only they paid the shekels for an upgrade they've been planning for the better part of a decade?
>>529802
That M1A3 with 36 pieces of food seems to be a good starting point. Then you could do something autisticly overcomplicated and expensive, e.g.:
>unmanned turret
>drums are offset a bit more
>there is a second pair of drums in front of them (where the crew would be)
>the secondary drums can load the primary ones if needed
And now you have 72 120mm shells.
>>529933
>And doing that with hundreds of kilowatts, reliable enough for wartime conditions means some beefy fucking transistors, that simply couldn't be made until recently.
I see, so that's why the Porsche Tiger had a tendency to catch on fire.
>>529967
>energy storage
I think we went through this, see the beginning of this thread.
>>529972
I wonder, could somebody compare the costs of maintaining good roads and the costs of running tracked vehicles on dirt roads?
efcaa0 No.529990
>>529988
>And now you have 72 120mm shells.
and only 18 shots if we assume one drum has 4 shells as sugested by you
and this system wouldnt need to use 120mm, it would only need to be able to penetrate armor below enemy era
>I think we went through this, see the beginning of this thread.
i am pretty sure we did. damn this thread is old
also http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-16/tesla-killer
83eb33 No.529992
>>529988
I though it was kind of obvious
<tracks on shit roads
>Absoloutely destroy the road
>tracks are under heavy use, have to be changed twice a year even on lightest vehicles
>no high speed turning
>difficult to steer overall
<good roads
>cheap car wheels
>do not have to repair suspensions/shocks every 6 months
>cars generay live longer, do not get shaked to bits and pizzas.
you want piles of numbers? Yeah, can not help on that research. But i wonder if someone has tried it.
c6db24 No.529993
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>529990
>and only 18 shots if we assume one drum has 4 shells as sugested by you
Well, if it works like the Green Mace instead, then you don't need a separate drum, because the two magazines also serve as the drums. Remember, I'm just thinking loudly here, and wait for other people to react, so that we can have conversations. Sadly some anons think this is some kind of arena, like if it was fucking /pol/, and you must stand behind your every word with your whole heart, so you can't play the devil's advocate for boderderline retarded ideas.
>it would only need to be able to penetrate armor below enemy era
Could you explain this to me? I'm actually thinking about how it could need a bigger gun. like this: https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.hu/2016/02/rheinmetall-to-develop-130-mm-gun-and.html Not that Germanistan will have the will to adopt it.
>>529992
Are tracks really this shitty? I thought a Wiesel with rubber tracks is supposed to have even less effect on roads than cars, due to the lower ground pressure. And basically every new tracked vehicle is marketed with rubber tracks. Also, do tracks really destroy themselves every half-a-year if you use them on simple dirt roads? There are people who use old tanks instead of tractors, and they are usually simple peasants who really couldn't afford to rebuild some old soviet tank that often.
efcaa0 No.529999
>>529993
well if there 4 shots in very short time period there is good chance that first shot will land on era block and the rest wont have to deal with it anymore.
thats the whole point, right?
591cd9 No.530006
>>529988
something like it
c6db24 No.530029
>>529999
It's not about simple ERA, that is a problem you can solve with brute force. But at this rate in a few decades even 3rd world countries will be able to buy bootleg chink active defence systems that automatically cover the tank in smoke if a laser is pointed at it, and they will have a chance to simply destroy an APFSDS projectile. And then you have the even better stuff, like the Russian "active ERA" that can intercept a projectile. There is a good article on what is in development: https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.hu/2017/01/hardkill-aps-overview.html
>good chance that first shot will land on era block and the rest wont have to deal with it anymore
I don't think that you can fire a cannon in full auto with enough accuracy for that. Remember, the actual kinetic penetrator is even narrower than 12cm, and ERA ties are also quite tiny compared to the size of the tank.
8e8b4a No.530032
What about futuristic warships?
c6db24 No.530040
>>530032
We had a thread on them, I'd say the verdict is that they would be cool as fuck, but you are better off with monitors that are a lot cheaper and numerous. Mount a turret with one (or maybe more) real big gun on them, outfit them with lots of CIWS and anti-submarine/anti-torpedo stuff, and whatever else you want. A dozen of them has as many big guns as one battleship, but you can build them either one at a time or more at the same time, and losing one isn't that much of a loss.
8e8b4a No.530041
>>530040
Mind giving an archive? If my country is famous for one thing it's for fetishizing naval warfare.
we wuz conquistadores n sheit
42de85 No.530069
>>530041
Sadly I don't have it. Although I'd say the most important topic was comparing big guns and aircraft, mostly on the basis of cost and vulnerability. One anon said that the US Navy had a paper that said most of the time a modern battleship with its fleet would win against a carrier group, simply because the battleship would carry enough ordnance to shoot down all aircraft and missiles that are on the carrier, then it just have to steam to the carrier group and send those puny ships and the big fat target that is the carrier to the bottom of the sea. Apparently it was mostly a question of which group could detect the other side first, but even the the battleship had the upper hand in theory. Unfortunately we don't have that paper either. Still, you can see how it would work even better with a fleet of smaller ships instead of one battleship.
Also, you can shoot down a low flying satellite with a 16" gun. And that's with decades old technology. PDF related.
4ffced No.530329
>>530029
Something else that popped into my mind: if we go the way of the Armata, and give an actual radar to a tank that has cannon capable of going full auto and has airbursting HE shells, then we end up with a proper SPAAG.
569b38 No.530453
3fffa8 No.530547
Are oscillating turrets just an old meme? They seem to be perfect for an unmanned turret with a cannon that has drum magazines, as they were mostly used with autoloaders that have drum magazines. They'd reduce the size of the tank even further, and with the drive system mentioned in the OP they could be quite tiny compared to most other MBTs, making them more survivable and potentially reducing the costs of production and maintenance.
>>530453
It's not mission creep if you only use it when necessary. E.g. against helicopters that try to take out these tonks.
591cd9 No.530605
>>530453
The distributed radar sets on Armata which it uses for active protection systems can detect a 1m2 sized target at 100km. The picture is fuzzy and barely enough for tracking, but multiple armatas can datalink it to an analysis van which can synthesize it to a targeting solution for a S-400, S-350 or Morfei battery.
Good luck doing SEAD where every enemy tank and IFV is a radar source, capable of popping chaff to confuse HARM, highly mobile to confuse them, and armored against near misses.
f3814a No.530606
>>502443
>future
>tanks
pick one
7adaa3 No.530610
It's fun to just go through Wikipedia and read about all the programs that get cancelled. And people wonder where all our money goes.
>The XM1111 Mid-Range Munition (MRM) was a 120 mm precision guided munition developed for the Rheinmetall 120mm Gun (known as the "M256" in the US military) used by several Western tanks. It was also intended to fulfill a requirement for Future Combat Systems (canceled) for a long-range, Beyond Line of Sight tank munition.
>The missile/projectile was to be a high-velocity multiple-mission projectile for line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight shots. In line of sight, it would operate using laser guidance or an uncooled imaging infrared seeker (IIR). In BLOS, the shell would be fired in a ballistic arc, and would glide to seek out its own targets. The BLOS mission could be autonomous or use FO directed target designation.
>Program status
>September 2006: A U.S. M1 tank fired an MRM-CE round which hit a moving T-72 tank at a range of 8,600 meters.
>March 2007: Successful test firing using dual-mode seeker fusion.
>December 2007: Raytheon Wins Army XM-1111 Development Contract.
>The Mid-Range Munition was cancelled in 2009 along with Future Combat Systems.
814910 No.530616
>>530547
Oscillating turrets were pretty much given up on because they were impossible to NBC seal or something like that. If you are going to have the entire crew in the hull with no turret access then I guess that means that's no longer an issue. But the issue with having to exit the vehicle to extract and reload the rather small capacity drum loader from the back of the bustle still remains.
9c2125 No.530624
>>517917
>10 150mm shell IED
>And if that doesn't work, more explosives.
>And if that doesn't work, more explosives.
>And if that doesn't work, more explosives.
>And if that doesn't work, use EMP.
>And if that doesn't work, more explosives.
>And if that doesn't work, more explosives.
>And if that doesn't work, use fire.
>And if that doesn't work, more explosives.
This is real life that's being discussed not a videogame you can use some give_all_ammo cheat command.
Also what happens when a second tank comes up?
569b38 No.530666
>>530547
The mission creep issue is mainly shown in development, as illustrated by 120mm-mrm anon. The bradley lightweight scout vehicle is a prime example, features are expensive.
cd0af3 No.530974
>>530029
Will man-portable point defence systems to defend against small arms fire and shrapnel be available before power armor and energy shields?
My sci-fi daydreams will never be the same
6d9501 No.531027
>>530610
>hits a moving tank 8.6 km away, without direct line of sight
>cancelled
efcaa0 No.531032
>>530329
>lets put a cannon on a tank to shoot at planes
>whenn we have anti air rockets with enough range to shoot to different continent
i dont see it
3ebc5f No.531041
>>530610
>December 2007: Raytheon Wins Army XM-1111 Development Contract.
There's your problem.
3519a6 No.531069
>>531027
Every army do it all the time. It's normal.
It goes basically like this:
>-HOLY SHIT [those fuckers] HAVE BEEN THROWING [millions of dollars and years of development] INTO DEVELOPING [sci-fi grade superweapon] WHAT DO WE DO
>-GET OUR BESTEREST ENGINEERS. BUILD A SUPEREREST SUPERWEAPON TO COUNTER IT.
*millions of dollars and years of delay later*
>-Welp, looks like we're not going to war anymore and [those fuckers] shelved [sci-fi grade superweapon], what do we do?
>Well we developped it, might as well actually build ours and gain strategical domination for the decades to come. How much would it cost to deploy?
9b778d No.531168
>>530666
But now that I think about it, a radar-guided main gun would be a perfectly good thing if it can track ground targets too.
>if it's set up to hit automatically track and hit maneuvering targets that fly with hundreds of km/h, then repeatedly hitting a tank that is significantly slower and less agile isn't a challenge
>you don't need to shine a laser at the enemy tank, and most soft active defence systems are triggered by lasers
>it would work perfectly fine through smoke
>the radar also doesn't care about bad weather or the darkness of a cloudy night
>it might be able to track targets through a treeline
>>531032
Because you don't want to see it. Not everything that flies is a billion dollar jet fighter that warrants a missile from something like an S-400. Think of helicopters, CAS aircraft and medium-sized UAVs.
bde4e7 No.534684
>>530624
Then they call in a gundam to destroy it
9b778d No.535465
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Is there a reason for electrothermal-chemical guns not being used, other than that the Cold War ended before they were put into service?
50e20c No.535473
>Radar
>GPS
>Radiowave communication
If it's not a gyroscope guiding it, it's worthless.
0be373 No.535552
>>535465
It requires large capacitors to work and was completely untested technology.
50e20c No.535612
>>535552
Industrial motors use large capacitors to run, can't be too hard to implement when I can charge a cap capable of blowing a hole through a metal screwdriver in under 10 seconds.
0be373 No.535618
>>535612
Large enough for the plasma they generate to vaporize the propellant and start the deflagration. The system isn't impossible to mount in a tank, but it is rather large, and comes with its own disadvantages.
Regarding lack of testing, it needs to PROVE a significant performance increase.So far it's mostly on paper, with minor tests proving concept but not performance.
164333 No.536710
>>529822
A pig loader is still useful than an autoloader IMHO.
The loader acts as a replacement for the driver if need be. The Commander can just be the loader for the meantime or have the gunner do the loading.
Another thing to consider are the costs of developing, making, and installing an autoloader that would not fail. Such costs are incomparable to teaching loaders how to load ammo and drive the behemoth itself.
2dfd34 No.536711
>>536710
Manual loading is also faster than auto-loading, auto-loading being quicker is just a vidya meme.
Also allows for a larger infantry fighting force in the case that the tank is disabled.
76f1c8 No.536717
>>536711
If manual loading is faster then why don't we have aircraft that use manual loading for their guns
chekcmageatteist.
efcaa0 No.536724
>>536711
we have been over this 20 times over. probably even itt. autoloaders always won
and no having more people to feed clothe and train isnt a good thing
2d203c No.536738
>>536724
>and no having more people to feed clothe and train isnt a good thing
You still have the same amount of people to train, clothe and feed, just not in the same tank, people don't go "Huh, my nation's military uses autoloading tanks, I'm just not going to have that extra child that I was thinking of having."
Autoloadingvs manual loading doesn't really have an outright winner, they're for different doctrines and the main advantage it gives you is the ability to have a tank that isn't as tall as as manual loaded tank.
0be373 No.536771
>>536711
>Manual loading is also faster than auto-loading
This is a myth.
The top scorer of a loading competition, in very good conditions, with a FEW shells loaded, has a chance of beating in specific an older mechanical autoloader, if he's loading a lighter single piece 120mm shell and the autoloader is loading a heavier two part 125mm shell. In rough conditions, with more continuous loading, even an old ass mechanical autoloader loading a larger more complicated cartridge has advantage over the best niggerloader in existance.
The cream of niggerloader crop can load once in 6 seconds, before he gets tired and starts slowing down. Leclec autoloader loads in 5 seconds every single time. Cold, hunger, adrenaline, fear, movement of the tank has no effect on it.
Bustle autoloaders do even quicker, loading a shell every 2-3 seconds.
5955b3 No.536779
The future is anime girls made real fighting our wars countered by spank robots.
657cac No.536786
>>536725
>How plausible is this?
Surprisingly plausible. The size of the bot in the left picture is a bit off but robots with grenades, rockets, and medium MGs replacing frontline infantry is a hell of a lot more plausible than the current "overmatch" nonsense being pushed by Milley and others in the Pentagon.
Standard service rifle that's 10x more accurate, able to engage dialed in HMGs and mortars at 1200 yards? Powered exoskeleton armor to deal with the crushing weight of too much gear? It's the worst aspects of spend thrift and penny pinching. One the one hand they won't pay for a bike and trailer for the gear because "a good soldier can handle a couple of extra pounds" while at the same time they'll blow a fortune on Gundam mechs because the average grunt has about 6 months in the field before his knees explode from the current standard gear load.
A hand-held weapon will never be able to compensate for the poor aim of the man using it, no rifle will ever shoot down fighter jets, no man will ever be able to carry the weight of 2 other men in gear without injury, and no sane engineer would try to build a suit of armor that weighs so much it would sink down to its knees if it ever stood on dirt. Overmatch is a toxic idea that probably has and certainly will get people killed. A good military is a team that work together to compensate for the weaknesses of the individual and achieve a common goal.
121f32 No.536847
>>536786
The phrase you are looking for is "penny wise, pound foolish".
9b778d No.537040
>>536725
Those track-leg things don't seem to be plausible to me, but Russians are already developing similar small ground vehicles.
>>536786
The whole problem is that mountain warfare requires light infantry with special training. I'd also add equipment, but what is good for the light infantry is also good for the mechanized and armoured infantry, so it's the fault of the US armed forces for not designing their infantry equipment with light infantry in mind. Instead they send in armoured infantry without their Bradley's and wonder why Afghan "light infantry" is running circles around them in a guerrilla war.
As for those robotonks, they are indeed a better investment than exoskeletons, but I doubt they could actually replace infantry. After all, infantry today is for difficult terrains and cityfights, and there the reduced situational awareness of the drone's pilot will be a serious problem, because situational awareness is already close to nil even for the people who are there. I can only see them augmenting infantry, because taking out a column of these robots with traps and in ambushes seems to be too easy. It would be like sending in light tanks into cities without infantry support.
An other problem is jamming. Electronic warfare is a really arcane subject to me, but imagine if the enemy overloads all channels of wireless communication and then unleashes mortars and rocket artillery on the now helpless vehicles, causing who knows how many millions of dollars in damage. And it's something even insurgents could do, then blend in right back into the population. Of course counter-insurgency is something that should be done by the local police, not by a foreign military, but that's an other can of worms. I imagine after a few conflicts involving these things the standard will be integrating one into every squad as a mobile cover and heavy weapon carrier (XCOM comes to my mind suddenly), and it will be controlled through a wire during firefights, because it denies the enemy the chance to shut down the robotonk with jammers. And every grunt should know how to operate these cute little killing machines.
Nathaniel?
657cac No.537235
>>537040
I think you're forgetting one of the main advantages of robots over men: they're disposable. If a column of bots gets ambushed, and wiped out with mortars you have lost some material assets, but no personnel. As long as they have power and ammunition, killbots will be able to carry on and complete their mission.
Jamming can be mitigated by using direct line-of-sight communication between the bots and an overhead transmitter. This could be a blimp or conventional aircraft orbiting above a battlefield and could either serve as a control ship with commanders on board or be a relay for a ground-based command center.
Cost can be reduced by limiting the amount of on-board electronics to the bare minimum needed to coordinate the received signals to each motor. All decision-making would be handled remotely by a more robust computer. It's called broadcast architecture, and it's one of the proposed safety measures for preventing a von Neumann machine catastrophe.
A human enemy force may be more effective than first generation bots, but if you're facing 30 tanks and you only have 6 rockets, you're screwed even if you score a kill every time. The future of war is going to be very similar to the future of heavy industry: disposable machines either operated remotely or fully-automated, will replace most humans in hazardous or difficult environments. They don't sleep. They aren't affected by radiation, chemical, or biological hazards. And perhaps most important of all in today's political climate where avoiding casualties comes before completing the mission, no one will ever cry about dead robots on television or screech "robot lives matter" while blocking a highway.
Who is Nathaniel?
f51ab8 No.537254
c21b80 No.537267
>>537235
>you have lost some material assets, but no personnel
You forget two things here: propaganda and money. Seeing your country's hypermodern killbots being reduced to scrap metal by a few tubes isn't a heartwarming sight. If it happens again and again, then the average civilian will look down at the incompetent military and starts questioning the whole point of the war. It also eats into the government's budget, and so they will have to either raise taxes or stop the war. If they raise taxes then they can expect both resistance from the people and a worse economy in general. Of course things depend quite a lot on the culture and the form of government here, but most countries that would replace their infantry with killbots are democracies that can't deal with the idea of people dying in a war, and there the government's popularity is all.
>This could be a blimp or conventional aircraft orbiting above a battlefield
So a single point of failure that can shut down all of your "front line infantry". Sound like a perfect target for a few AA missiles, especially if it's a slow aircraft that has to stay close to the front line 24/7.
>All decision-making would be handled remotely by a more robust computer.
So an other single point of failure, perfect for some sabotage or a few ballistic missiles.
>if you're facing 30 tanks and you only have 6 rockets, you're screwed even if you score a kill every time
It's more likely that you will have 30 rockets for every tonk, or more like 300.
>The future of war is going to be very similar to the future of heavy industry
Outscored to places where people will risk their lives for a dime a day? Like all those dangerous industries from coal mining to scrapping ships.
>They don't sleep.
And? They still run out of fuel and need constant resupplying.
>They aren't affected by radiation, chemical, or biological hazards.
So you can send them in to clean up after a nuclear strike, or use them defensively in such zones. Sounds nice, but only if you are actively preparing for a nuclear war.
>no one will ever cry about dead robots on television or screech "robot lives matter" while blocking a highway
Again, they will block the high way once they have to pay 90 cents for every dollar in taxes. And that's a likely scenario if a government buys new bots from companies like Lockheeb Martin every week.
0be373 No.537279
>>537235
>I think you're forgetting one of the main advantages of robots over men: they're disposable.
UAV costs 15 million, and carries about 5 million in weapons. Complementary UGV would be around under 10 million carrying about a million in weapons, lets say 10 million total. Not counting fuel, operator cost, fuel, maintenance etc it's 30 million dollars for one air and ground vehicle.
To hire a nigger in Africa costs ten dollars a week, plus his rifle which is fifteen dollars, grenade for thirty five, and ammunition for twenty. And for every ten niggers I have to buy a truck for 3k. Maintenance is fuel for 50 a day, food and water for 20 a day. To hire ten trucks for a three month campaign is about a hundred thousand dollars.
Every 10 light trucks…… add four trucks with three guys - driver commander and gunner. Gunner operating a heavy weapon like a RPG for two thousand dollars with sixteen rockets for another five thousand. Total for the truck is twenty thousand dollars. Also add four trucks with the same crew with four Igla MANPADs for twenty thousand dollars. Add also four trucks with the same crew with a heavy machine gun for three thousand and a shitload of ammo for another fifteen hundred. Add four autogyros, ten thousand dollars each new and armored plus five thousand dollars for pilot and maintenance man training. Pilot would cost more than regular crew, say hundred dollars a week. Each autogyro has a copilot/maintenance guy/weapons officer in the back with a load of three dozen grenades and a light machine gun with ammo, for two thousand dollars. Plus food and fuel for a days operation is two hundred dollars, but otherwise the gyro is towed behind a regular truck.
One motorized rifle company of:
10x Light trucks
4x Air defense truck
4x Artillery truck
4x Heavy machine gun truck
4x Air support autogyro
Is 13 million dollars for a three month campaign. Two such companies are twenty six million, for a fully equipped light motorized battalion.
I can hire a battalion of niggers for two of your robots, and that battalion would almost surely wreck your robots without taking any damage. Or one platoon of my guys would distract your robots while the remainder of the battalion went around the robots to do massive damage to your logistics.
Basically even in cost terms, robots aren't the future until we run out of people.
6d9501 No.537304
>>537279
If I paint cute anime girls on the robots, I can get a battalion of Japanese volunteers to defend them to the death.
c21b80 No.537309
>>537304
But the enemy could recruit elite operators who think you're waifu a shit, and will hunt down every single bot, and also the Japs with shit taste who defend them. Actually, the enemy wouldn't even have to recruit them, they'd join the fight on their own.
0288d7 No.537312
>>537279
Anon, the first processors costed millions.
They filled entire rooms and were very very inconvenient, and had may other problems.
They were only rentable to use on some very very specific niche of operations, that would be hard to do for humans. They also failed a lot.
Today processors sit in your room. Not just one of them but more like 10 to thousand depending on how modern your gear is. You most likely did not spend millions for them.
You are using them easily and are for everything.
Drone costs will continue to go down, the first guns were not cheap either.
There will be the equivalent of a glock / shitty rusty working ak in the drone market.
On the rest of your text, you claim that you are certain that the improvised militia will destroy the drone and you do not see any other outcomes.
You certainly could provide a list of high end drones downed by insurgent groups to back that claim, could you ?
And you most certainly could make some interesting stats by looking how many drone strikes were carried out compared to the downs.
Finally on the PR side, you fail to consider a lot of human chaos …
A drone will do as command, if you can command it, perhaps it will turn into scrap.
A pack of diversity may switch to some other occupations like becoming the local warlords, or just getting slaughtered by another thing.
if you would have a PR problem with the high tech being turned to scrap, it's easy to imagine the coverage your alternative may bring.
And if you go for the cheap, why not go with cheap drones ?
Imagine the category of improvised armed drones, like the ones that have been used by isis, or glocks on quad-copters …
Also perhaps it's time to consider rockets, a lot of missiles, RPG's, even most nukes as nothing else but simplistic and suicidal drones
657cac No.537329
>>537267
>So a single point of failure that can shut down all of your "front line infantry". Sound like a perfect target for a few AA missiles, especially if it's a slow aircraft that has to stay close to the front line 24/7.
Remember that time Boko Harambe shot down an AC-130 using nothing but rusted AKs and a couple of RPG-7s? Me neither.
And who said you can't have more than one in the air for redundancy?
>So an other single point of failure, perfect for some sabotage or a few ballistic missiles.
Well behind the lines or even in another country. Protected by both extreme distance and several layers of counter measures. Real weak link there.
>It's more likely that you will have 30 rockets for every tonk, or more like 300.
That's one hell of an assumption, but I'll let it slide because not one of those rockets will ever kill a person while the robo-tonks will kill the enemy. And they will be a lot cheaper than you think because the more developed a technology gets, the cheaper it becomes. Cellphones and computers used to cost an arm and a leg, but now you can buy a phone and computer at Walmart for a couple hundred dollars new that would make ten thousand dollar top-of-the-line behemoths from 10 years ago look slow and clunky.
>Outscored to places where people will risk their lives for a dime a day? Like all those dangerous industries from coal mining to scrapping ships.
More like vid related. I'm quaking in my comfy slippers at the thought of what these "people" would do when faced with a formation of killbots.
>And? They still run out of fuel and need constant resupplying.
Have you ever heard of aerial refueling? Something similar can be done on the ground while moving to minimize the time that a fuel or ammo truck is vulnerable.
And if the bots are lying in wait they can get away with batteries, solar, and a low-power mode in most locations during most of the year. Not everywhere, but most locations.
>So you can send them in to clean up after a nuclear strike, or use them defensively in such zones. Sounds nice, but only if you are actively preparing for a nuclear war.
Robots don't get malaria, ebola, or any of the other 80 million lethal diseases common in tropical shit holes. Soldiers do.
>>537279
>underestimating the cost of hiring a company of illiterate Africans
>overestimating their combat effectiveness
>assuming they won't kill you as soon as they get their weapons and money
>vid related, inspect your new troops
0be373 No.537334
>>537312
Robots will be a problem in the future, sure. But seriously doubt they'll reach anything close to the cost of a human unless something really bad happens to four billion people.
c21b80 No.537338
>>537329
>>537312
You still don't get the basic problem: sensory input. People often have problems parking with a car, and that's a slow process, they sit right in the car, and there are windows everywhere. A tank needs a crew of three just to function, and it's still very vulnerable to infantry in a city, simply because they can't see well and so can't react quick enough. Now a drone tank would be even more vulnerable, because you'd have to add some input lag, and not sitting in the vehicle also reduces your general awareness. It might sound cruel, but you don't worry as much if you know that you can fuck up and at worst case you will lose your job. Drone tanks might still work just fine in flatland though.
Now, a killbot controlled by humans is just like a remote-controlled tank, just smaller. You'd quite possibly need at least two people, a gunner and a driver. But maybe you'd even need a whole crew of three. In that case you'd replace every infantryman with three drone operators. And it's still just like a small tank, with the same vulnerability coming from the lack of awareness. Even if the drones themselves will be really that cheap, you'll have to rely on AI if you want to reduce the number of people you employ. But is it even possible to make an AI that can control a small tank in a city and win against humans? I'm rather sure the answer is no. You can of course come up with a solution like telling them to shoot at literally everything that moves and send endless columns of them into the city, but at that point you could just bomb it to oblivion then throw some poison gas on top of the ruins and call it a day.
657cac No.537343
>>537334
Doesn't the US put over a million dollars into training and equipping each grunt already?
46fc45 No.537345
>>537343
Around $100k to train and around $800k-1m to deploy for a year.
657cac No.537355
>>537338
>You still don't get the basic problem: sensory input.
Cameras, cameras everywhere. Sensory input can easily be solved by simply adding peripheral cameras to give the vehicle a full dome of coverage. Or you can have a few fish-eye cameras, use a program to flatten the image, then pan around that flat image to simulate looking in a particular direction.
Cameras are not limited to just the visual spectrum either. A bot can be equipped to see the whole spectrum, related pic of thermal camera view. This can be used to determine if a moving object is a potential human threat, or reveal a human hiding in concealment.
Finally, motion tracking is not difficult. It's actually quite easy for a robot to be programmed to scan for, track, and automatically shoot at things that are moving at certain speeds, like incoming rockets. But let's say that we don't want to kill everything that moves in an area. That's fine. We just tell the bot to track potential targets then have a human controller tap the icons he wants to die. Now each bot just needs one human for controlling the offensive weapons, maybe less if a person can watch more than one screen at a time, but we'll call it one for now.
Give each bot some rudimentary path-finding software, tell them to stay within a certain range of their neighbors but not get too close, and now they only need one commander for the whole group rather than individual pilots during most maneuvers.
Now let us say that each of these bots cost about $100k, each bot has one dedicated gunner, each squad has 1 commander/pilot, and 2-4 technicians/backup pilots to sort out any issues with the software or hardware that crop up during combat operations. Your 12 man squad of squishy humans has grown to 15-17 immortals.
I strongly encourage everyone interested in this topic to read through the Project Sentry Gun website. That's a consumer-grade fire control system made for paintball.
projectsentrygun.rudolphlabs.com/
0be373 No.537358
>>537343
Not even close. The army thinks a $500 rifle is too expensive.
They carry around 15k of equipment, and training is around 50k. With food and other expenses it comes out to 100k to train and equip a soldier.
>>537345
> $800k-1m to deploy for a year.
This isn't because it has to be that way, this is because people want it to be that way. Cost of deploying American soldiers could be made a lot smaller.
Also the price of the UGV doesn't include the cost to deploy it, cost to ship it fuel and fuel it, cost to sip it parts and maintain it…
Also also, I will note that a single American soldier equipped with a Stinger or Javelin missile is more than a match for any robot.
4802d8 No.537361
>>537358
I built a robot capable of shooting a handgun without falling over for roughly $250 back in college using aluminum frames, ABS plastic, steel counterweights, and a standard motor control/servo system. Controlled it with an RC helicopter controller, but honestly a regular controller would work just fine. I can't imagine it would be that much harder to use proper materials instead of niggerrigging it, for under $1,000/unit including gun probably. Takes two weeks to train someone how to use it at a level where they could discover bombs with it/deal with signal interference.
4802d8 No.537362
>>537361
Stick a recoil dampening system and targeting system on it, and you've got a 3burst/full auto death machine with humans being an optional feature for roughly under $5,000 dollarydos.
0be373 No.537371
>>537361
>>537362
And it you want to shoot someone in the same room with you, that's all you'd need. If you want to shoot someone just one room over, you'd need to add a bunch of cameras, monitors for yourself, an improved wireless connection so the TV signal can be sent over, and an arm so it can open doors (or ram so it can knock them down). If you want to shoot someone one building over you need a more powerful transmitter, a robot capable of going up and down stairs while shooting, and such things. If you want to shoot someone one town over, electric engines are out considering how far it has to go. Basically it needs to be car sized to even reach the enemy. Can't use shortwave anymore as well, at least not without a repeater tower. To send it a country over you need a satellite connection at least, and it needs some level of AI in case it gets stuck or its radio fails because the satellite is behind a mountain. It also needs AI so you can control multiple of them with just one guy, otherwise hiring 1 guy to control 1 robot is the worst of both worlds in terms of price.
At this point the UGV is going to start looking like a damn tank and costs five times the price.
And all this ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ is just assuming you're killing fat, dumb, happy, unsuspecting, unarmed civilians. In other words even BEFORE you meet an adversary who fires back, can jam your shit, and react much faster.
96409e No.537376
>>537235
>I think you're forgetting one of the main advantages of robots over men: they're disposable.
They're disposable just as much as M-16 magazine are disposable.
In the lefty mind friend with a jew with a money printing press maybe.
But there is no fucking way something that cost at the very least the same as a car (more probably 5 to 10 cars) is disposable.
You know what are disposable when shit hit the fan?
MEN.
Never weapons.
Men self replace with each year new fresh recruits coming to the age of service.
Weapons require industry, material, resources, money AND some manpower to make them.
Life is the cheapest currency on the planet.
793c4a No.537377
>>537361
>reddit memes
>thumbnail
0ef5ce No.537378
>>530624
Can't we just use a very small nuclear lance? The U.S. DoD supposedly dev'd a nuke small enough to fit in the palm of your hand, so just take one of those and put it in a proper cartridge for a casaba howitzer.
At that point you don't even need the emp though, but it the tank is dead anyways
d1c916 No.537389
>>537378
>The U.S. DoD supposedly dev'd a nuke small enough to fit in the palm of your hand
I thought 12kg was the minimum weight of a core that can achieve criticality without using really bizarre exotic elements.
efaffe No.537393
>>537371
>>537371
Honestly most of that could be accomplished with a drone camera mounted on the chassis and a compsci major for long range targeting. Rhe Army could just convert their bomb disposal robots already in use.
657cac No.537405
>>537389
12 kg of U or Pu isn't that big considering their density. But it is possible to go smaller, about as small as a football, and still have a boom-boom. The yield will be vanishingly small, less than 1 kt of TNT, but it can be used to pump a supply of lithium, deuterium, tritium, and/or protium.
If it's used in that way it's called a thermonuclear or fusion bomb. All fusion bombs are pumped by a fission device, usually referred to as the primary. The second stage is usually tamped with uranium, lead, or some other neutron reflector, and may contain a third stage of U, Pu, or other fissile material in a core inside the fusion material. Some bombs were even designed with even more stages offering even higher yields. The problem with going big is that after about 25-50 mt most of the energy in the bomb is wasted when deployed on a planetary surface.
If you want to learn more about small warheads I suggest you start with the W54 device affectionately known as the Davy Crockett.
1175d7 No.537422
>>537377
It's from /r9k/ you subhuman autist.
>hurr evryting i dun lik is le plebbit
>>>/suicide/
6f1346 No.537445
>>529933
Even in the modern age, Tesla is still bleeding money.
c5db0e No.537446
The future of all Tanks will be 2 man crews to make them safer in case they explode before finally becoming one man crews then finally drones till Russian Hackers take them over and use them to stage a coup over NATO's military.
0be373 No.537449
>>537378
That didn't happen.
>>537389
It is, he's talking about more energetic stuff like Californium. ''Theoretically" a very small amount of it is needed for criticality, but in real world there are technical problems with making that happen. Like the fact that a gram of it costs ten million dollars,or that it wouldnt fission cleanly.
3adfc5 No.537545
>>531168
The problem is radar guided guns are basically SEAD bait now, it's why all the super SPAAGs Russia and Western Europe developed are questionable ventures.
3adfc5 No.537546
>>534684
What if the enemy has already moved on to EVA units and needs metaphysical counter-measures to be defeated?
4bd2e9 No.537572
>>536725
>>536725
>>536725
>How plausible is this?
what? order66
834194 No.538587
>>536717
>If manual loading is faster then why don't we have aircraft that use manual loading for their guns
There are aircrafts that use manual loaders. The AC-130 is one. Apart from that, not much else since most aircraft is either a bombtruck or CAS craft (Frogfoots, thunderbolt IIs, Tornadoes, etc.).
545dff No.538588
>>538587
>There are aircrafts that use manual loaders. The AC-130 is one.
Wait… how the fuck does that happen when the Spectre needs to fly in an angle to shoot at a target?
834194 No.538590
>>536771
>This is a myth.
>…cough, cough, Two-part ammunition, gun rammer, cough, cough,…
Point taken about speed. Humans fatigue, machines just have a longer period before breaking.
Still, the fact is that autoloaders increase the mechanical complexity of a tank. Compare the cost of making, maintaining, and training the entire crew plus the mechanics of the autoloader to feeding, training and clothing two loaders/auxiliary crew members.Sure gun rammers are similar in concept to the autoloaders, still the mechanical complexity that a rammer brings is still lower compared to that of a full-fledged autoloader.
0be373 No.538591
>>537545
There are LPI antennas now, both PESA and AESA.
Iraq and Yugosalvia didnt have any for our last major wars, but LPI are common enough now that SEAD is no longer a viable tactic.
0be373 No.538592
>>538590
Compare the complexity of the continuous track with just having fifty niggers carry the tank on their back. Compare the complexity of chobham depleted uranium armor with just stacking a dozen niggers in front of the tank. Compare the complexity of the modern gun firing a guided missile, with just sending out an axplosive laden nigger running at top speed at the enemy tank.
545dff No.538599
>>538592
Somehow nigger-guided missiles doesn't sound as a very bad idea.
834194 No.538603
>>538592
>Compare the complexity of the continuous track with just having fifty niggers carry the tank on their back.
Can you even find much less attract 50 niggers to carry a tank?
>Compare the complexity of chobham depleted uranium armor with just stacking a dozen niggers in front of the tank.
Can you even find much less attract niggers to strap in front of an AFV?
>Compare the complexity of the modern gun firing a guided missile, with just sending out an axplosive laden nigger running at top speed at the enemy tank.
Modern tech and weaponry are for efficiently and quickly taking out threats and HVTs, suicide tactics are when you have no other recourse left to deal with whatever your enemies are.
Sure, you can just train and program downies, tyrone,and achmed to anhero themselves, at the very least there is still a lot more value that can be salvage out of a wrecked MBT compared to a whomever that just blew itself up to destroy it.
So, MBTs still win. Heck, why would you even send in MBTs without knowing how to use them in assymetrical warfare all the while high-speed, low drag 0p3r870r5 can do the job just fine?
834194 No.538605
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>538588 (Hitlerdubs Checked)
>Wait… how the fuck does that happen when the Spectre needs to fly in an angle to shoot at a target?
Watch.
545dff No.538609
>>538605
Shit's tight but wouldn't autoloaders make things much easier? How much more would they increase the cost and weight of a 50 tonnes $150m aircraft?
0be373 No.538613
>>538609
Autoloaders decrease cost and weight, that's why the Soviets used them. Don't know why people think it's the opposite.
834194 No.538619
>>538613
>Autoloaders decrease cost and weight
>Tell that to the Spectre Gunship crew.
Load of bullshit actually. Make an autoloader that is reliable from scratch. Now, compare that to any Cletus, Tyrone, or Jamal that is taught that all that he needs to do is to pick up a round and insert it into the breech after the gun goes bang to continue banging whomever the fuck was on the other end of the gun.
>that's why the Soviets used them.
IMHO, the reason/s that the soviets stuck to the autoloader concept is because of their chosen doctrine. Another, is that they treat their soldiers with ill will and little to no regard.
>Don't know why people think it's the opposite.
You are adding more time and money in the equation of maintaing an MBT.
Teaching some pleb to load shit is far more easier and beneficial compared to creating a fuckhueg contraption that gets 50-80% turret interior ballparked numbers and all that it does is to load a damned tank round.
Just because it worked does not necessarily mean that it is better. It may not be stupid, but sure as shit, it does not mean that it is better.
0be373 No.538623
>>538619
OK, what makes you think jamal is smaller, requires less space too move in, and is less power intensive than a device purpose built for the job that fits in a 3x3 space and requires no water, oxygen, food or light to work? What makes you think he, his baby momma, and his five hatchlings is easier to pay for than something that requires twenty cents of electrical power or a fraction of a horsepower from a 700-1300hp engine?
>You are adding more time and money in the equation of maintaing an MBT.
Is a nigger easier to train than an autoloader is to manufacture? Is a nigger easier to fix from disease or mental insanity than an autoloader is to fix software or hardware glitch?
This is so ludicrous.
>it does not mean that it is better.
It's cheaper, smaller, faster, and more dependable.
834194 No.538624
>>538609
>Shit's tight but wouldn't autoloaders make things much easier?
>already tight
>put an autoloader
Why? I am pretty sure that you notice that the guns inside the gunship do traverse with limitation. Slapping an autoloader for each of these guns will make the A/C heavier (less loiter time) and more dollarydoos spent for all of the doodads installed in the aircraft. Add to that the stress that having additional weight as well as the mechanical complexity that posits autoladers as well as the complexity of the A/C itself.
So less operational reliability + more dollarydoos spent + plus more time spent for training (Aircrew + Line and Base Mechanics) + more time on ground (maintenance) for an aircraft that kills itself earlier for every time that it flies.
You will be destroying the Gunship before it even reached its expiry date.
834194 No.538629
>>538623
>OK, what makes you think jamal is smaller, requires less space too move in, and is less power intensive than a device purpose built for the job that fits in a 3x3 space and requires no water, oxygen, food or light to work?
You would not be always firing your main gun, you sperg. Most of the time it will be the three of you digging mud 'n; shieet while the TC talks to the higher-ups about why they are not yet on the rendezvous point.
And if you ever will fire your gun, most of the time it will be from extreme ranges that reload speeds are negligible. Nobody just sends tanks inna city or on unknown, un-recce'ed AOs. Not unless you want to get royally fragged, that is.
Hence why, you would need an extra crewmember instead of an autoloader.
>What makes you think he, his baby momma, and his five hatchlings is easier to pay for than something that requires twenty cents of electrical power or a fraction of a horsepower from a 700-1300hp engine?
Have you factored in the cost of building and maintaining these autoloaders from scratch? Sure, let's say that they cost less to operate, compare the whole autoloader shebang to training a loader:
>Autoloader
<Invent/gain approval to do shit
<create
<test/torture test
<get approval/prove the autoloader concept
<mass production
<training of crew memebers and mechanics
<buying and storing of spares
<increased pages in tank manual
<increased hours in tank school
<powered by electricity
>Pig Loader
<Train for main job (loading tank rounds)
<Cross-train to do other tank-related tasks.
<Extra set of eyes
<is human, can handle guns, can fire at people
<powered by food and water
TL;DR: Pig loaders can do more. 'Nuff said.
>Is a nigger easier to train than an autoloader is to manufacture?
Yes.
>Is a nigger easier to fix from disease or mental insanity than an autoloader is to fix software or hardware glitch?
Can a nigger fix a software or hardware glitch?
And even if he/she can, the fact is that the tank itself is out of action. If it is out of action, you are wasting monies spent for that tank since it ain't killing shit. And if you ain't killing shit, then you will be demoted. And if you ain't killing enemies, your buddies will die. Nobody like demotions, dead buddies, nor breathing enemies.
Now about the mental insanity and diseases, the job for screening ultimately rests on the ones processing the recruits themselves.
9c2125 No.538639
>>538629
>Mechanics
<Train for main job (fixing the mechanical tank parts)
<Extra set of eyes
<Is human, can handle guns, can fire at people
<Powered by food and water
>Electricians
<Train for main job (fixing the electrical tank parts)
<Extra set of eyes
<Is human, can handle guns, can fire at people
<Powered by food and water
Secondary drivers
<Train for main job (driving the tank if main driver is hurt)
<Extra set of eyes
<Is human, can handle guns, can fire at people
<Powered by food and water
Secondary radiomen
<Train for main job (communication with other vehicles)
<Extra set of eyes
<Is human, can handle guns, can fire at people
<Powered by food and water
>Machine Gun operators
<Train for main job (firing the MG turrets)
<Extra set of eyes
<Is human, can handle guns, can fire at people
<Powered by food and water
That is the mental capability of your post.
4ddd4f No.538643
>>538639
>Gear boy
<Train for main job (changing gears for his side of the tank)
<Extra set of eyes
<Is human, can handle guns, can fire at people
<Powered by food and water
This seems like the sort of autism that Hungary would be into
d9c84d No.538649
>>538643
>artillery observers
<Train for main job (observing friendly artillery fire)
<Extra set of eyes
<Is human, can handle guns, can fire at people
<Powered by food and water
>air observers
<Train for main job (observing the sky for enemy aircraft)
<Extra set of eyes
<Is human, can handle guns, can fire at people
<Powered by food and water
>infantry observer
<Train for main job (observing enemy infantry)
<Extra set of eyes
<Is human, can handle guns, can fire at people
<Powered by food and water
>infantry coordinator
<Train for main job (keeping contact with friendly infantry)
<Extra set of eyes
<Is human, can handle guns, can fire at people
<Powered by food and water
I actually used this exact same argumentum ad absurdum once in a discussion about autoloaders.
834194 No.538659
>>538639
>That is the mental capability of your post.
Well, what do you expect the crewmen to do once their tank gets trashed? Hence my argument about another crewmember since they are an additional gun to any firefight that the tank crew will/might possibly have once they bail out. A pig loader will have use. Whereas the autoloader will just be that, an autoloader.
Did the TL;DR: that i made in >>538629:
>TL;DR: Pig loaders can do more. 'Nuff said.
not make any sense?
Or do the points that I gave pertaining to the usefulness of the autoloader still not satiate your 'tism 'bout autoloaders?
834194 No.538660
>>538659
Ah shit
>Or do the points that I gave pertaining to the usefulness of the autoloader still not satiate your 'tism 'bout autoloaders?
It should be:
>Or do the points that I gave pertaining to the usefulness of the Pig loader still not satiate your 'tism 'bout autoloaders?
4ddd4f No.538666
>>538659
I think that tanks should be made of thin sheet metal with no engine, tracks nor gun; a garden shed in other words. Once the tank is disabled, all that fancy kit doesn't help one bit. Therefore, I, Lord shitcunt, sickest cunt in Adelaide, declare that all tanks shall henceforth only contain infantry as they are more useful in a fire fight, as so keenly observed by our resident ladyboy. I entrust in you, as my chosen advisers, that these infantry will not be issued medical supplies nor sidearms, but instead 22lr machine guns with underbarrel shotguns.
All those in favour, say aye!
d9c84d No.538670
>>538666
Dear Satan, will those underbarrel shotguns have 22mm muzzle devices capable of retaining and launching standard NATO rifle grenades?
834194 No.538679
>>538666 (Unholy Aussiposting Trips of Six Checked)
>as so keenly observed by our resident ladyboy.
>resident ladyboy.
>ladyboy.
AYO, HOL UP!
I thought the thais were the poster country of ledybois?
Check yer pribiledge, shetlurd!
9c2125 No.539371
>>538659
This is basically like trying to argue that we should still be using bolt action (and none of that straight pull shit because even that's" too complex") rifles when even semi-auto exists because the gas or recoil system can break.
Now do not think I'm saying they shouldn't have some ability to work in a "degraded mode".
Nor think I believe complexity isn't an issue, I'd say the closer the auto-loader system is to a semi-auto rifle the better.
Nor think that I find autoloaders faultless but it's a lot better for the tank's performance than lugging an extra crewman around.
Which one other thing you forget is if you have a tank get outright destroyed you've just lost 4-5 men so it would be a good idea to try and reduce the number of crew per tank as much as possible for that reason.
e13462 No.540851
With the 40mm CT autocannon being so compact, I wonder if arming a tank with a main and a secondary gun will be an actually viable idea. After all, it could take out most targets, and so the problem of limited ammunition with a tank that has an unmanned oscillating turret with an autoloader that has drums wouldn't be that severe. The 40mm could be used to lay down smoke, suppress a great area with explosive shells, and take out IFVs. Therefore the main gun would only need HE, APFSDS, and some guided missiles.
72f05e No.540852
>>538666
> Therefore, I, Lord shitcunt, sickest cunt in Adelaide, declare that all tanks shall henceforth only contain infantry as they are more useful in a fire fight, as so keenly observed by our resident ladyboy.
Done.
0cb07c No.541050
>>540851
I concur. With the introduction of 140/152 mm guns in the future main gun ammo will be further reduced and the cannon with higher elevation allows engagement of targets at elevation in urban and mountainous terrains (and maybe UAVs?).
Although the use of cannon has made lot of sense on paper no country has fielded the concept except the French and the Swiss both of which have returned to coaxial MGs. Interestingly, initially it was believed that T-14 Armata would be armed with a 30 mm cannon (also featured in Object 95) and a 12.7 mm Gatling MG in addition to the main gun and but the final configuration was without them.
Model that lead to these rumors:
http://i34.servimg.com/u/f34/17/44/96/60/armata26.jpg
Various artistic representations:
http://cdn.thefiscaltimes.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_hero/public/media/russian-concept-tank.jpg?itok=h1BCasBA
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UWj5GZmS9eY/VPQ9BhBD2YI/AAAAAAAA7dI/baUOcHz1oUU/s1600/armata-tracked-armored-platform.si.jpg
Czech T-72 Moderna:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-edJya9aAo78/VUqSvJnh3XI/AAAAAAAADh8/UVenL9cX8wU/s1600/t72m1_03.1.jpg
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZPMnJQYWAK4/VUqTA_VjxkI/AAAAAAAADiE/0weSOWEvZyM/s1600/T-72M2-Moderna-4.jpg
I think a remotely fired AGL (but with longer range) mounted externally can be used like the Merkava's under armor to put rounds on suspected positions in close terrain.
0cb07c No.541052
>>540852
Japanese and American versions:
http://japan.greyfalcon.us/Armor.htm
Regarding T1E2:
>It was considered that the device could be manipulated by a single man and that it would provide protection against rifle and machinegun bullets at a very close range. This would permit the Soldier to close in on highly fortified positions and provide protection for Soldiers stationed in advanced observation posts. It was believed that the ballistic protection would have to be provided by armor-plates of considerable weight and thickness and that the entire device would have to be transported by means of wheels. In order to provide the degree of ballistic protection considered necessary, the planners thought the weight would have to range in the neighborhood of 150 to 200 pounds. After a very brief consideration, the entire project was discontinued.
083416 No.541059
>>540851
Why not make 2 different vehicles, one armed with just a 75mm main cannon, and one variant armed with 152mm cannon? Then you can mix them up differently according to situations.
0cb5ba No.541061
>>541050
remotely fired AGL (but with longer range) mounted externally
Actually, Dynamit Nobel Defence' Dual FeWaS remotely-controlled weapon station can mount an AGL and a machine gun at the same time. So I guess I'd outfit a tank like this:
>main gun in the 120mm-155mm range
>turret also has a 40mm autocannon with co-axial .338 machine gun
>on top of the turret there is a weapon station with a .338 machine gun and an AGL
That's 5 barrels of hell. Maybe there could be an additional AGL on the back of the turret, for a grand total of 6 weapons.
>>541059
And how do you mix-and-match them before an engagement? Either you keep a significant part of them in reserve to obtain the "perfect mixture" for the situation, or you make the tanks "modular" and send back a part of them to be re-equipped with a different main gun.
0cb07c No.541079
083416 No.541088
>>541061
I dont get the question.
If youre expecting combat where targets are MBT or bunkers, you send formations heavy in the 152mm version. If youre fighting developed nations its almost 10:1 in favor of building more 152mm tanks.
If youre expecting airborne threats, residential housing and armor weaker than IFV, send formations with more 75mm version. If youre fighting an insurgency a 75mm version will be wildly more useful, any one in ten 152mm versions that get sent would be armed mostly with HE.
128ecc No.542590
Glorious armored fighting vehicle of design Bmp-2 is all you ever need.
7548e5 No.542798
Come to think of it, I am surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet.
0eb58a No.543937
>>536710
To add to this: As more secondary systems are added to tanks (drones for scouting, CROWs, etc) the loader can take on additional jobs when hes not loading.
78aba9 No.543939
>>542798
>Top 4 designs got rewared with 500, 300, 200, and 100 $.
Wew, that's some communist rewarding system right there.
c18d7f No.543953
Turkey is going to launch a offensive in northern Syria soon with upgraded M60's and Leopard 2's. Any predictions on how many m60's are going to be lost in comparison to Leo2's this time around?
cff8df No.544179
Could a heavy IFV around the size of the MT-LB work innacity? I mean, make a vehicle with the motors we discussed to death ITT, aluminium-steel armour that can withstand at least HMG fire, the option to armour it up against 40/57mm autocannons, and lots of ERA. Put a (preferably non-penetrating) turret with a 40mm autocannon, 2 machine guns and a few ATGMs on it. Now you have a relatively tiny vehicle that can give and take punches, and it can transport its own infantry support. For comparison, here is an MT-LB that the good Poles equipped with a 40mm Bofors, and the 40mm CTA on a non-penetrating turret.
0cb07c No.544306
>>544179
Why dont we just go full Uko and get a family of heavy infantry fighting vehicles based on BMT-72/BTMP-84.
BMT-72:
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/bmt_72.htm
BTMP-84:
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/btmp_84.htm
>MBT level armor
>Ability to carry 5 riflemenmidgets(future UGVs/additional crew operating UGVs or UAVs,/rear aspect covering RWS)
>MBT level firepower
>Other variants possible such as "Terminator" version with BMPT-72 turret, artillery version with Vena/Hosta 120 mm gun-mortar or Gvosdika 122 mm howitzer turret (with rear compartment carrying additional ammo or retaining troop carrying capability), recon variant with rear mounted telescopic mast with optic/radar payload like Fennek possibly ATGW as well (http://www.defense-update.com/covers/cover_large/mp_lahat.jpg this on a telescopic mast or smaller this https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/images/gt-6-image01.jpg) plus UAV like Taifun-M (http://www.military-today.com/apc/taifun_m.htm) or tethered UAV (https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_ece4f043aa122a65c51d4a4275c4dff4/droneaviationcorp/db/275/1486/model_image_resized.jpg https://www.suasnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CobraTakeOff.jpg)
>Non turret carrying variants like BTR-T/BMP-55 for more troop carrying capacity, mortar, logistics etc
>Corresponding wheeled variants based on BMP-K-64 (http://www.military-today.com/apc/bmp_k_64.htm)
f1f4c7 No.544315
>>544306
It comes down to the kind of fighting I envision and the role of this vehicle in that. Basically anything that can't go fast and can't survive an artillery strike will be destroyed, expect if it's inside a city or an environment that makes detection extremely hard (like mountainous areas, swamplands, and very thick forests). Now, it means the vehicle will have to mostly fight in two different environments: open land and cities.
>cityfight
Let's say the vehicle can comfortably carry a squad of 8 riflemen who are deployed in two fireteams, and a platoon consists of 5 vehicles with 4 squads and a "half-squad" for the platoon HQ. And instead of an autocannon one of the vehicles has a 81mm mortar in the turret, capable of both diret and indirect fire. Now the exact formation of course depends on the layout of the streets and buildings and whatnot, but I guess you can see how 5 vehicles playing hide-and-seek surrounded by 8 fireteams that can scout ahead and also guard the flanks and the back would work.
In such an environment a smaller vehicle is better, because it can hide quite well. Those vehicles are even longer than normal MBTs, therefore they'd have more problems with maneuvering. I also doubt the cannon is useful, because it carries less ammunition, and the projectile of a 40mm autocannon is enough to anyone and everyone inside a typical building. Against reinforced targets you can use the ATGM launcher to fire a thermobaric missile, which should be even more devastating than a 125mm cannon's shell. And it can also target drones, helicopters, and even CAS aircraft. Additionally, it can take out a tank from combat even it fails to penetrate the armour. The number of shots can even overwhelm active defence systems.
>flatland
Fire and forget missile have a greater range and better hit probability than cannons, especially if both vehicles are firing while on the move. Therefore you could speed around the enemy formation and poke them both with autocannons and missiles, essentially fixing them. Then you can call in rocket artillery. Of course you can base the MRLS on the same chassis as the heavy IFVs. The only possible problem in this scenario is that the infantry they carry might be only a problem, because they can't do anything inside the vehicle, but they might suffer causalities if the enemy takes it out. Maybe the best scenario is to only bring the platoon commander and his second-in-rank to these engagements, and leave the riflemen behind.
>tethered drones
I was also thinking about them. You could add one to each vehicle, and let the commander operate it. Of course only one vehicle would need to use it from a whole platoon, and only when they are standing still and search for the enemy. I doubt you'd need a dedicated crew member just for that.
f1f4c7 No.544318
>>544315
>Maybe the best scenario is to only bring the platoon commander and his second-in-rank to these engagements, and leave the riflemen behind.
Although now that I think about it, that could cause problems. Maybe the best solution is to have a second lieutenant sitting in the platoon HQ's vehicle, who acts as a commander when there is no infantry element. Maybe at first a second lieutenant should spend some time both in charge of a (non-mechanized) infantry platoon in training, and as the leader of a vehicle platoon. Once he is trained in both roles he gets promoted to the rank of lieutenant and be put in charge of a mechanized infantry platoon.
8e5cce No.549138
>>518356
Just make an Explosively Pumped Flux Compression Generator.
Build it to a good size, and wrap the whole thing in a fragmentation jacket. Done.
b6a867 No.552758
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAT-120
So, if this isn't empty marketing, then it's possible to make a 37mm HEDP warhead with a weight of 250g that can penetrate 150mm RHA and has a lethal radius of 6m. Then couldn't you make something equally capable for a 40mm autocannon that can wreck virtually anything even with a dumb fuze? I mean, against buildings and entrenched infantry the HEAT effect should work well enough, and the "fragstorm" could damage even a MBT.
f4db4c No.552785
>>502443
I'm thinking about fancy "unmanned combat ground vehicle" (UCGV). Bonus points if using electric engine(s) and also use DEWs besides projectiles and missiles.
Prototypes so far: GCV, Uran-9.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCV_Infantry_Fighting_Vehicle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uran-9
Once A.I. is advanced enough we could have tracked terminators. I strongly believe UCGV A.I. needs to be more advanced than UCAV A.I. just to be able to go from point A to point B without human intervention and without getting stuck in a ditch.
86d742 No.552876
Are there tanks with legwheels?
0cb5ba No.560950
>>552876
No, that's retarded.
2280fb No.561088
>>552785
they made it special.
70101f No.561092
>>552758
Rotating shaped charges penetrate much less, 1.5-2 calibers of warhead so it would be 60-80mm of RHA and small calibers shaped charges are pretty bad against spaced armors. Also bomblets due to trajectory can achieve good fragmentation effects with concentrated fragmentation streams, not teh case of dumb cannon. All together loaded into to cannon this bomblet would be not so hot .
492f74 No.561148
>>561088
>DA GENRUL SED I KEN FITE WYD YU GUYS AN YU HAB TO BE NISE TO MEEE
21af9f No.570121
>>561092
Time to break that box: think of a 40-60mm smoothbore autocannon that fires fin stablized HEDP shells. The shell has a ridiculous amount of shaped charges, think of 4 or even more, so that it can penetrate 1000-1200mm of ERA. And of course it has a frag sleeve around them. Now add a programable fuze and a beam riding guidance system. It can now burst in the air, and that not only makes the fragmentation pattern a lot better, but you can use it against aerial targets too. Basically imagine a small barrel launched ATGM that doesn't have a rocket motor.
612b87 No.570716
Do armored fighting vehicles really need turrets outside cities? As ATGM's seem rather popular these days, just how retarded the idea of assault guns would be? Those things would hopefully be small and relatively cheap to buy and maintain since you are going to lose tonks anyway in virtually any modern conflict nowadays. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't tanks most of the time engaging targets when they are not moving?
6f6583 No.570720
>>570121
>40mm
>penetrating 1000mm RHA
what are you smoking
>>570716
>As ATGM's seem rather popular these days
They were popular, about 20 years ago. I love how everyone is just now catching on.
0cb5ba No.570921
>>570720
Read again, the idea is that you put more of them behind each other. In theory their penetration should add up.
6f6583 No.570926
>>570921
That's not quite how it works dude.
7548e5 No.570929
>>561088
The Tank named after General Downies?
0cb5ba No.570937
>>570926
Then how does it work, dude?
6f6583 No.570942
>>570937
Explanation is a bit longer dude.
Each warhead would act completely independently, there's no way to fuse separate copper penetrators into a single long one. Meaning instead of one looooong penetrator impacting the armor, it would be a succession of short ones. If a rear copper penetrator impacts the following, both break up, so their paths need to be different… which makes stacking them like you're saying impossible and it makes impacting the same point on the armor kind of difficult. Best case scenario is that they help form a start channel for the main charge, but that still isn't going to be straight linear multiplication of penetration like you think, each successive one might only add 5-10% more penetration to the successive one. Ergo they're only useful to pre-detonate ERA or applique blocks.
The only warhead that comes close to what you're talking about is the Russian 125mm, which only has 3 warheads. The sequence of firing isn't what you might want, nor does it boost penetration. The first charge fires to clear ERA, the third charge fires "through" the inactive second warhead to detonate integral ERA, and then the second charge detonates to penetrate composite armor. But the smaller two charges have nothing to do with penetrating the composite armor.
0cb5ba No.571192
>>570942
It's a pity. Still, using a smoothbore autocannon to fire guided HEDP shells with smart fuses seems to be a good idea, albeit an expensive one. Of course the cartridges would be longer, but if you just redesigned the 40mm CTA, then they'd just stick out a bit more to the side.
6f6583 No.571206
>>571192
Scramjet assisted shell could give a lower-pressure, lower-caliber APFSDS penetrator.
0cb5ba No.571208
>>571206
At that point you could just put a CLGG gun on the tonk. Might as well fire the kinetic penetrators without a sabot. Now that I think about it, the idea of putting both an autocannon and a small calibre CLGG cannon in the same turret already occured to me. The later would be used only against MBTs and similar targets, obviously.
0cb5ba No.571209
>>571208
Actually, you could make the turret modular, so that the left side is the autocannon, and the right side can be swapped out for either the CLGG or a rack of ATGMs. This way you'd have two possible solutions to the problem of enemy armour.
6f6583 No.571216
>>571209
Main cannon should be central to remove asymmetric thrust and improve accuracy.
The autocannon can be slightly offset, because a turret with sufficient weight and a large turret ring should override any torque from say a 30mm autocannon with a few tonnes thrust.
6005ab No.574368
Is there a reason to bring back tracked logistical vehicles? They would be more expensive, but they could also bring supplies to nearly anywhere and you could armour them up better. I of course don't mean half-tracks or tankettes, more like something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitterskyddad_EnhetsPlattform
6f3d81 No.574622
>>574368
They're not as essential as they were fifty years ago, but they're still useful in places like Africa and southeast Asia that still rely on shitty dirt roads for most of their infrastructure.
2a330e No.580511
An apocalyptic vision came to my mind: with a diesel-electric drive giving four tracks to a single tank wouldn't be that much of a challenge, as you don't need to make the drive train any more complicated. But let's not stop there! Have the tank so much spaced armour that it can float, and simply behave like a fucking boat. After all, you can also use the diesel-electric drive to power the water jets. Now you have a vehicle that can go through anything sort of a mountain.
3137d8 No.580550
>>580511
So an armored up DUKW with a turret?
be772d No.580593
>>580550
Guess I forgot the important part: imagine a 100t+ monstrosity with 2000mm+ ERA equivalent passive protection that is buyouant because of the amount of NERA and spaced armour. Brigdes and ground pressure are the two main reasons such steel beasts can't work (that they are completely impractical as anything but propaganda tools is a different question). But this arrangement could swim over rivers and go through seas of mud.
5c37fb No.580605
>>580599
>1-5 ft deep
>protects from air strikes
>airdrop behind enemy lines at night for maximum damage
Fresh Froots thread?
850d78 No.580990
Would giving the driver a pair of forward firing machine guns be useful today with all the urban fighting? This idea was featured in quite a lot of tanks from the 30s to the 60s, and as far as I know at the end of ww2 the soviets reduced the crew of their T-34s to 4 people, and the driver was able to fire the hull machine gun by pulling a wire. Some of their experimental tanks even featured machine guns bolted to the outside of the hull that were fired by the driver. Just look at this dakka: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/is-7-object-260
>>580606
>floating hydrocephalous nuke tanks
I wrote nothing about it being nuclear, that's just an illustration for a retarded floating tank I find funny. But more importantly, that whole concepnt doesn't require any arcane technologies to make the tank dig into the ground. I mean, how would you imagine that happening? The closest thing I can think of is that Russian tonks of this day and age can dig a ditch for themselves with their bulldozer blade.
653e8c No.588076
Let's speak of drive trains and suspension. During ww2 the Germans wanted a suspension system of Belleville washer rods with springs and hydraulic dampers for their Entwicklung tanks. The roads wheels were to be suspended on rods that contained the Belleville washers, and said rods were bolted to the outside of the hull, so to take them out you'd only have to remove those bolts. Later the Swiss used this system in the Panzer 61 and 68. Now, I can't find much information about this, but considering that those tanks were developed for the Swiss mountains, and the internet isn't full of stories about Swiss tanks breaking down, I take we can make an educated guess and say that this system works. Still, you could easily modernize it if you replaced the springs and rods with a hydro-pneumatic system.
I also spent an autistic amount of time arguing for a diesel-electric drive with free-piston linear generators ITT (just scroll up). A promising but failed diesel-electric project was the Swedish Splitterskyddad EnhetsPlattform, which used hub-mounted electric wheels in every roadwheel (therefore they also functioned as drive wheels). Combine that idea with the suspension system from the previous paragraph, and now you have both the suspension and the motor integrated into one package that can be easily replaced. Now you just need two additional wheels that are higher up to suspend the track, so it would follow the "lines" of the (in)famous Porsche Tiger.
Bonus: the Swedes developed both a wheeled and tracked version of their vehicle. And with this you could easily turn a tracked vehicle into a wheeled one if you removed the tracks and replaced all the wheels. Or you could go even further down in this path and end up back in time: modern airless tyres kind of work, therefore you could make a roadwheel for the track that works as a tyre without the track.
a47f3d No.588685
bump.
If you were given a huge budget and told to design a tank, how would you do it?
Would it be frontally impregnable by kinetic rounds? Would the turret be unmanned? How would you protect it from ATGMs? Shitload of armor or hard-kill systems?
How heavy would you make it? How would the armor be? Sloped? If you were to compare the design to an existing tank which one would it be?
56cfb9 No.588701
>>588685
>If you were given a huge budget and told to design a tank, how would you do it?
See:
>>502443
>>502446
>>503165
>>530029
>>531168
>>544179
>>570121
>>571192
>>588076
This really is an old thread.
All in all, I'd make a heavy IFV that is around 30 tons, has a crew of 3, can carry 10 soldiers and has all this shit in it. So the suspension is on the side of the hull, the diesel engines are also on the side of the tank over the tracks. It has an unmanned (preferably non-penetrating) turret with a 40-60mm smoothbore autocannon firing fin-stabilized HEDP, with some white phosphorus and thermobaric rounds mixed in for fun. It also has two machine guns (one co-ax, one for the commander) and a rack ATGMs, the later come in HEDP and thermobaric versions. It has a radar and the whole thing is covered in multiple layers of radar-triggered ERA.
>How would the armor be? Sloped?
Sloped everywhere, but designed so that you can perfectly cover the whole tank (including the sides, the roof, and even the back) with a single type of rectangular ERA plate.
2d0534 No.588708
>>588685
I would like to do something awfully stupid. Like, Armata with a commander controlled flamethrower. Or heavy APC with three flamethrowers.
City fights are just that troublesome.
50de88 No.588710
>>588701
Good ideas. Maybe make the coax swappable for grenade launcher?
My first try so it's probably be shit.
>>588685
APC idea
Wheeled vehicle of 2 with carrying capacity of 11. Driver and Commander/Radio operator/gunner. Main gun is a 30mm autocannon with high rate of fire and an autoloader with fast traverse. Secondary is a ATGM mountain at the vehichle rear. Engine's at the front. Slap on ERA and heavily sloped armor on sides and front with ERA there as well as the top. Smoke launcher in the front.
Tank idea
<45 ton
Max speed of 80km/h On road and 60km/h off road with better fuel econ than the fucking M1. Crew of 3 (or 2) with auto loader and blowout panels.,APFSDS, but mainly HE gun for suppression like the AVRE. Place this gun like the Strv 103 and place the main anti vehicle weapon as a autoloading ATGM on the back end of the vehicle. Add APS and ERA with sloped armor and a smoke launcher or something to provide concealment.
The idea behind this is to make it a low profile tank that is used as a Direct fire/ Fire support vehicle that can also engage tanks with the ATGM.
56cfb9 No.588715
>>588710
>Maybe make the coax swappable for grenade launcher?
Dream bigger, make a 15mm HMG that fires a telescopic version of this:
https://modernfirearms.net/en/sniper-rifles/large-caliber-rifles/austria-large-caliber-rifles/steyr-iws-2000-eng/
>IWS 2000 is wery formidable weapon. It fires 20 gramm (308 grains) tungsten dart (fleschette) with muzzle velocity of 1450 meters per second (4750 fps). At 1000 meters this projectile will penetrate a 40 mm of RHA (rollded homogenous steel armour) and will result in serious secondary fragmentation effect behind the armour. That said, it will penetrate two walls of any modern APC at one kilometer range. The trajectory is very flat and does not rise higher than 800 mm above the line of sight when fired to 1000 meters.The cartridge is of somewhat original design, and has plastic case with steel head and base. The projectile is concealed within a plastic sabot.
Develop a HE version of this cartridge, make the HMG dual-feed, and you are golden. Of course it won't be the same as a 40mm AGL, but you could stuff enough explosives into it to have an area effect, and so you could suppress enemy infantry quite well. And if you need even more suppression, then you have the autocannon with airbursting shells.
7f0cd6 No.588755
>>517927
><it burned to the ground
a most effective way to scuttle a valuable prototype
but, on a serious note:
1940's =/= 2010's
50de88 No.588816
>>517927
Er, taticool nukes? Wouldn't that caust an EMP?
Return of the vacum tubes when
2395c5 No.589198
>>588701
Forgot to mention: the armour is sloped mostly because it allows the ERA tiles to be shoot at incoming projectiles from a distance. Of course the roof of the vehicle should be covered in ERA too, to give it a second chance. The only minor problem is that there has to be a small gap at the "corners" where the sides meet. Also, I'm not sure if you could make uniform camo that allows you to replace pre-painted tiles of ERA and still keep the camo undisturbed. Maybe the solution is to use dotted camo.