93c507 No.565626
What's the future of tanks in a battlefield littered with ATGMs? How would /k/ design a tank for the 21st century?
1cc398 No.565630
The future of tanks is APS.
a87b62 No.565633
>get shitty old tank
>replace useless gun with autocannons
>attach as ATGMs to tank as you can fit
>throw a couple of grenade launchers on for good measures
>now you have tank neutralizing, infantry destroying, infantry rending rape machine
ха-ха-ха, глупый НАТО! C одним простым трюком, вы побеждены!
a87b62 No.565635
>>565633
I was going to correct the errors in this post, but then I saw I got dubs. Oh well.
6c524a No.565640
HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
>make tiny APC that can carry 12 people
>armour it up properly against autocannons
>put ERA and APS on it for extra protection
>bolt on an unmanned turret with a large calibre autocannon and ATGMs
>stabilize the turret and use fire-and-forget missiles
>don't ever stop to fire, just spit shells and missiles at the enemy
>drop off the infantry at the appropriate time, keep going and firing after that
>>565633
Vid related is nice too, although it's not for tanks. But how about putting 2 of these on a T-72?
aad71c No.565644
>>565626
option 1:
>lighter
>faster
>more mobility
>more APS
>more ERA
This one sounds a lot more likely, but as people have been predicting this move for a few decades (to no effect) there's a decent chance that it'll just continue to not happen.
option 2:
>bigger
>heavier armour
>shed-loads of hard kill APS
>shed-loads of ATGMs and secondary weapons
As much as I love impractically huge designs the numbers don't break in their favour. Losing a £500'000'000 armoured vehicle to a £10'000 missile is just doing the enemies work for him and puts you in a worse situation that you're in at the moment.
option 3:
>armoured vehicles go the way of cavalry and tower shields and become 'something we used to use'.
If nothing else this is what battlefields will look like if no changes are made. You'd probably see battlefields returning to a western front WW1 outline without the mobility and protection of armoured vehicles (helicopters are going to go the same way once MANPADS become as widespread as ATGM are getting).
aad71c No.565647
>>565645
>a light tank with 2 cannon on the turret
I thought that caused all kinds of problems for not that much gain.
1ff7ad No.565650
I imagine lots of vehicles resembling a high tech version of the Vodnik.
Fast, all terrain, armored just enough and with some mounted ATGMs or whatever anti-armor feature is more feasible at the time.
Basically, masses of mobile and cost effective MRAPs capable of carrying more people.
d234a2 No.565658
>>565647
The loading mechanisms end up being a bitch.
63587b No.565691
ERA and APS basically made ATGMs obsolete in the 90s, its just that no one in the West is using these systems. In fact radar triggered ERA is about to make long rod penetrators obsolete too.
I don't know what the distant future is going to hold.
>>565645
>>565647
Any caliber warhead that contains sufficient HE to cause a chain reaction is hilariously unsafe in a light vehicle.
The enemy can use API machine guns to penetrate its armor and light off its own ammunition. In effect killing the crew as if they set off a satchel charge inside the tank. Everyone would be killed instantly and the vehicle rendered unusable.
In reality such a light vehicle needs orders of magnitude more protection for its ammo than even a MBT, which adds far more weight that no one is willing to see on their light tank. That's why Sheridan was such a failure, why BMP-3 is very dangerous to ride in, and why Buford was cancelled.
40c43b No.565693
>>565650
Armour will always have a place in the military, it just depends on who you are fighting.
You wouldn't send a tank against entrenched ATGM positions, but why send anything BUT a tank against entrenched infantry without ATGMs?
Or in another doctrine that may make this easier to understand:
You wouldn't send a CAS plane against a SAM site, but why send anything but a CAS plane against a bunch of IFVs?
Tanks have a special role. They take out infantry, even in heavily entrenched positions, by using their stabilized machine guns and direct fire HE weapons from what is essentially an all terrain armoured pillbox. As soon as you know the enemy has ATGMs set up and ready you switch tactics and use indirect fire weapons such as mortars or artillery to engage the enemy ATGMs.
Or, you know, you deploy a whole lot of smoke, drop a bunch of artillery shells on the enemy to make them stay in their hideouts, and have light infantry advance in light vehicles. As is standard procedure for attacking any heavily fortified position
I believe that ATGMs are the same to armoured warfare as the machine gun was to infantry warfare. It posed a massive threat until people found new ways to deal with it.
4c3470 No.565705
>>565691
Retarded idea incoming:
Would binary explosive warheads be possible? Something that is only combined shortly before being loaded and fired? It complicates the loading process, but it would mean your light vehicles can hit harder than the enemy's ever could (unless they do the exact same thing, which cancels out the drawbacks somewhat anyway).
4d5a70 No.565725
>>565705
The Iraqi sarin shells used the rotation of the round imparted by the rifling to mix the binary precursors through centrifugal force. This would of course necessitate a liquid explosive, like PLX or something.
t. Not a chemist
3d0cc1 No.565729
>>565691
>>565647
/k/ designed this by the way
1cc398 No.565730
>>565705
Even putting aside the difficulties of mixing the catalyst super fast without reducing rate of fire, what guarantees that a penetrating hit won't cause the explosive to mix inside the tank anyway? The shell components would have to be in separate armored compartments. And that means a two-step loading process, which would reduce rate of fire by a lot. And the enemy's vehicle would be able to hit just as hard, just with less crew survivability.
cbeb10 No.565770
My idea for a multirole fast support tank would be simple-
>Use same chassis as MBT
>Use unmanned autofeeding turret with 50mm HE-F shells for light target extermination and AA plus 12.7mm MG as a tracer gun, 3 man crew
>4x LR ATGM
>4x AA missile
Idea is to have one for every 2 MBT, spraying soft targets with unending fuck you and making everyone else nervous.
da1a0b No.565777
>>565691
First, it's not the HE that cooks off, it's the propellant. Second, if you're in a vehicle that's getting perforated by AP-I you're gonna have a bad time regardless of cook-offs. Third, if it's that big of an issue, wet storage and blowout hatches exist.
63587b No.565780
>>565705
That is too complicated, besides there's nothing saying that an enemy shell couldn't penetrate canisters for both mixtures.
Best bet is making explosives more inert and more resistant to temperature, and then using them VERY SPARINGLY. Instead of making it a heavily HE warhead, instead make it heavily FRAG with very little explosives. Most HE warheads are just a thin <1mm shell stretched over a fuckload of explosive, whereas most frag warheads are maybe 10-20mm of fragments around an explosive core, whereas I'm suggesting having a shell of 50mm of fragments with a much smaller explosive core.
The fragments wouldn't fly as far, being only lethal to 100m or so, but they would be incredibly dense and a lot more deadly.
Or maybe not even using explosives at all, some metals are incendiary and explosive. Sodium, potassium, lithium, barium, strontium….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophoricity
Hitting an enemy vehicle or building with one of these would still kill everyone inside and set a lot of things on fire, even if there was no blast wave.
>>565729
Actually I did, except the people who worked on the model went with the Hungarians dual-cannon concept. I wanted either a 15.5mm heavy machine gun, or an externally mounted 84mm gustav turret.
c6f321 No.565782
>>565640
>But how about putting 2 of these on a T-72
That's exactly what the Tunguska successor will be, except on a armata hull with the new "universal missiles" based on AT-16 Scallion
6c524a No.566012
>>565782
I take you mean a single turret with dual autocannons and two banks of missiles. Because if the Russians really want to make multi-turreted tanks again, then we are indeed living through the 30s again.
>"universal missiles" based on AT-16 Scallion
Universal in the sense that they want to use it both on ground and aerial vehicles, or does it have some funky combined HEAT-thermobaric warhead?
1ff7ad No.566021
Btw, what's the current viability of microwave/laser weapons?
No up to date on the subject tbh
c6f321 No.566025
>>566012
>I take you mean a single turret with dual autocannons and two banks of missiles.
Yeah of course. Though tanks with independent 25-30mm sponson (rather than coax) and a 12.7mm remote turret aren't something exclusive to Russia.
>Universal in the sense that they want to use it both on ground and aerial vehicles, or does it have some funky combined HEAT-thermobaric warhead?
Full funky, tandem HEAT warhead in a HE-frag sleeve.
>>566021
>Btw, what's the current viability of microwave/laser weapons?
Great as jammers, extremely dubious as a "real weapon" (IE stuff that blow up shit).
We should see the first laser proof optics for satellites soon enough.
63587b No.566037
>>566021
Do you mean personal weapons? It won't ever be viable.
aad71c No.566048
>>566021
Lasers can be used to blind various cameras/sensors, but that is at best 'very fiddly'. Microwaves can be used as a sort of vehicle mounted pain ray - but for the nonlethal uses that has it'll basically never be able to compete with a bunch of guys with tear gas and rubber bullets. You could use (very heavy, on the human scale) lasers to disable the two visual sensors found in most peoples heads, but there are treaties making that a war crime. If you mean laser weapons as in some kind of sci-fi rifle then pretty much never, the energy density it would require will pretty much always be far too expensive to ever see use, and even if they could find a way to build batteries or generators that small and powerful they'd completely rework pretty much all of modern society and engineering before they got around to building weapons with them.
1ff7ad No.566051
>>566025
>>566037
>>566048
Wouldn't a large "microwave projector" be able to fry the crew of a tank?
6c524a No.566057
>>566025
>tanks with independent 25-30mm sponson
Could you give some examples?
>Full funky, tandem HEAT warhead in a HE-frag sleeve.
I take it has a funky fuze too to take out aerial targets if it's meant to replace the Tunguska. Also, is it fire-and-forget or guided by laser or radar? Or are there several versions?
c6f321 No.566061
>>566051
Not better/cheaper/at a greater distance than an ATGM or an APFSDS round.
Also a lot of the stuff that could be done are of dubious legality, anything that potentially maim rather than kill/make clean injuries is illegal per the spirit of the 1899 Hague convention (which is largely the supplement pretty much everyone agreed upon the Geneva one, the basis of war law and all international law).
There are simpler way to kill a man than trying to boil him alive.
c6f321 No.566066
>>566057
If it's like the AT-16 it would be a laser beam riding one (which is virtually impossible to jam) but working with a detection radar.
In theory the AT-16 on a Ka-52 can do all that already but they actually have too many good missiles to rationalize the production/adoption.
63587b No.566082
>>566066
>>566057
Talking about Hermes?
It's the new 2020-2050 mid range system which will go on ships, attack aircraft, tank destroyers, and infantry tripods. Range is 15-20km for air and ground variant, 20-100km for naval variant. Very large warhead capable of dealing with troops, shooting down subsonic aircraft, or wrecking armor.
Two stages in ground/air variant. Booster stage is 170mm caliber and is guided by inertia and datalink telling it where to go in general. Warhead stage is 130mm caliber with as much fragmentation potential as a heavy artillery shell, 1m RHA penetration, and is guided by laser dot homing.
Three stages in naval variant. The previous two plus a cheapo 210mm caliber secondary booster stage which gives it 100km range. Also the final warhead stage guidance is either infrared or radar homing, giving it a fire and forget ability.
Air variant is the same construction as ground variant, but has a greater range depending on launch altitude.
6c524a No.566084
>>566082
> as much fragmentation potential as a heavy artillery shell
>cheapo 210mm caliber secondary booster stage which gives it 100km range
In other words, without all that expensive guidance system you could even use it in a MRLS just fine?
5448ec No.566086
>MBTs
Useless.
>>565640
Hit it on the head.
Replace 12 person carry with 80mm cannon with fast-swap ammunition for purpose fire if needed.
A modular chassis would be nice too.
Streamlined production for multiple purposes.
Mobile Artillery can replace the heavy firepower of MBTs with the same mobility.
If not all that, just say fuck it an lob a cruise missile and bomb the shit out of the area if ATGMs are that big of a concern.
33c60b No.566116
>>565626
Most likely completely unmanned turret barely attached to the body of tank. That way if ammo is hit, tonk is still ok, jut put some new connections and a new turret. Perfect for just showing turret to enemy.
The main problem would be javelin like systems, that do not hit side of tank but from above. For that perhaps angled armor and era under the turret, and era on the turret.
But most goatfuckers will not get that, they will throw rusty RPG at leopard 2 , T72 and Abrams and watch fireworks because these are not latest tonk versions.
1ac7e9 No.566205
A bit of an off topic question. Why don't tanks use rifled barrels? Wouldn't they increase accuracy like in small arms?
d234a2 No.566211
>>566025
Wait, there are still tanks with sponsons? This pleases me.
46dcf8 No.566256
>>566205
Tanks no longer fire rifled ammunition. APFSDS penetrators are better against tank armor than any sort of rifled projectile while being more accurate and better ranged. Plus with smoothbores you can have multiple ammo types like ATGMs and stuff like anti-personell canister rounds, vid related.
2e3992 No.566259
63587b No.566315
>>566205
Three reasons.
1. HEAT rounds work better if they're not spinning, spinning destabilizes the copper jet.
2. APFSDS rounds self stabilize with fins, which work much better if they're not spinning.
3. It's much easier to create a lighweight pressure vessel that doesn't have grooves cut into it.
aad71c No.566473
>>566051
>Wouldn't a large "microwave projector" be able to fry the crew of a tank?
Potentially, with a very big (very expensive) magnetron, and an even bigger (and more expensive) power supply, and at very short ranges. Oh, and the magnetron itself would be fragile enough that you could disable it with small arms fire, and it would be impossible to armour without interfering with the beam (increasing the size, weight, and cost of the magnetron and power supply while also further decreasing the range). It would also take at least a few seconds (probably longer) for the beam to do appreciable damage to the crew, maybe as much as a minute or more for fatalities.
So, yes we could use a large enough microwave projector to fry the crew of a tank, but it's a terrible idea for as long as ATGM and cannon shells still work.
bde9fa No.566480
>>566116
Your idea is viable but only if the main turret could only hold less than a handful of shells, even then why go through designing all that shit when you could just use a remote autocannon like the Marder IFV did? smaller turret, less chance to hit it.
Heck, most of the armoured vehicle losses aren't from hits to the turret anyway.
>>566082
>Universal missile that could do anything
getting abit skeptical here
d3fb5a No.566524
>>566084
If you like 2 km CEP.
1ac7e9 No.566544
>>566256
>>566315
Thanks mates.
I have heard about Russian tanks shooting rockets out of their cannons, but why not use just standalone guided missiles from infantry or other vehicles?
Does it offer any advantages besides versatility? Every other option seems better than this.
63587b No.566569
>>566480
It can't do anything.
It's useless at close range, because the booster stage doesn't have time to separate there is a large dead zone. It's more expensive than ataka and other such missiles already inuse. It's not exactly compact, its very heavy and bulky for what it is.
In fact I doubt their tripod variant is possible in two stages. It will likely use only the final stage which will have a very short range without the booster.
Oh and because there are literally hundreds of thousands of other missiles in stock, Russia likely won't care to bring this one into service for a long ass time.
>>566544
Because they are gun launched, the warhead portion of the missile is larger and only a small sustainer rocket motor is needed. They're often deadlier, with larger armor penetration values.
Also it's a shit idea to hang things outside the tank, a light machine gun could damage your ability to fight, let alone a nuke blast which would blow it all off.
09338a No.566577
Should make a 76mm armed Tank designed for Removing Kebab.
1ac7e9 No.566588
>>566569
Wew, didn't know that. I was thinking it would be worse due to how the rocket needs to first accelerate in the barrel and it would lead to some pressure difficulties.
Now that reminds me of a warhammer bolter.
d234a2 No.566767
>>566588
Rocket powered munitions are fairly low-pressure devices actually. They don't need the pressure to propel them as in conventional small arms. Look into the physics behind gyrojet pistols.
4b0d46 No.566933
>>566057
>>566211
>Could you give some examples?
>Wait, there are still tanks with sponsons? This pleases me.
Well they never went beyond the prototyping (and were 20mm) stage but yeah.
4b0d46 No.566935
>>566933
Also the Russians did got drunk enough to to make a full multi turret thing out off a BMP-3 hull.
Commander + Driver + gunner + gunner +gunner + gunner + gunner
e76ebb No.566937
We need to just have the entire planet take all their atgms and push them into a big hole, so the tank can still have it's fun. Maybe get rid of drones too, just in case. The last one is because I really love cannon based CAS
aad71c No.566954
>>566935
>Objekt 781 - modified T72 hull armed with
>2x 40mm grenade launchers
>2x 30mm cannons
>2x 7.62mm MGs
>1x 12.7mm MG
>1x Konkurs ATGM launcher
>Objekt 782 - modified T72 hull armed with
>2x 100mm guns
>2x 30mm cannon
>2x 40mm grenade launchers
>2x 7.62mm MGs
Surely there is a finite amount of vodka on the planet? Or did the Russians just REALLY want a tank that could do 'basically everything'.
9b1dc8 No.567032
>>566954
>Sergi let loose a mighty "WAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!" after a double.
>Suddenly, every engineer around him starts grabbing guns and strapping them to a hull.
>Shouting "MORE DAKKA!" as they did.
>Took a couple of commissars to wrangle them up.
773281 No.567036
>>566569
>It's useless at close range, because the booster stage doesn't have time to separate there is a large dead zone.
Why would that be a problem with a gigantic HEDP warhead?
>its very heavy and bulky for what it is.
Apparently it's 130kg, but I suspect that's the naval version. Although even 50kg is a lot.
>It will likely use only the final stage which will have a very short range without the booster.
Is 3km realistic?
>>566577
Italians put a rapid firing 76mm naval cannon on a wheeled chassis before. But they would have been better off with either a smaller or a bigger cannon, because it doesn't carry enough ammunition to do its job, and the individual shells aren't destructive enough to it.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/otomatic.htm
>>566954
I imagine that the objekt 782 has two BMP-3 turrets, and the grenade launchers are placed in the front of the hull, like in the early Terminators.
63587b No.567087
>>567036
>Is 3km realistic?
It's a safe bet.
A Kornet weighs 33kg.
The boosterless section that contains the warhead is narrower but longer than a Kornet missile, it should weigh about ~30-40kg just by itself given its length and width compared to the entire system mass. It carries a small sustainer motor which should keep it in the air for awhile. So I'm guessing at least a few kilometers range, which is enough to safely deal with any armored vehicle as autocannon ranges are about that.
http://www.kbptula.ru/en/productions/multi-service-weapon-systems/germes-a
1cc398 No.567139
>>566954
>"Its competitor was the Object 782…The profile was smaller and it was armed with a 100mm 2A70 low recoil gun and a 30mm 2A72 auto-cannon…"
Cmon anon, no vodka is enough to try and put two 100mm guns in one tank.
9adec3 No.567170
>>567139
then what the hell were these guys drinking
9e72cb No.567173
>>567170
Lab grade ethanol spiked with LSD and Viagra.
aad71c No.567225
>>567032
>The day has come
>Vasilij prepares for battle
>He turns and places one hand on Objekt-782 chans hull, today she will finally fulfil her purpose.
>In Syria it is a quiet day, nobody expects anything to happen
>Suddenly a wall seems to explode, bricks flying everywhere
>The experimental heavy IFV roars out of the hole, bricks bouncing off its armour
>Stood on top of this tank, with one foot on each of the 100mm barrels, is a shirtless Vasilij
>He's holding a bardiche in one hand and is wildly hip firing an RPK in the other
>So much vodka in his breath that you can see the air distort and writhe as he exhales
>The tank starts firing all its guns, swivelling turrets to track up to 6 targets independently, Vasilij somehow keeps his footing and continues shouting and shooting
>Hardbass starts playing, loud enough to make your ears bleed
>Ivan the Terrible looks down and smiles
f390b0 No.567232
Why exactly are ATGMs so deadly against armored targets?
773281 No.567237
>>567087
Well, if you go the autisti/k/ or Egyptian route, then you could put 3-4 of them on a handcart. That should be plenty of firepower.
>>567232
Because they carry a stronk enough warhead to penetrate the armour of any MBT and are either guided by the shooter or are of the fire-and-forget kind. It's the IRL equivalent of using an aimbot in cawadooty to headshot everyone. Also, they are light enough to be carried and set up by a small team of people, who can easily hide and maneuvre through nearly any terrain. Their main downside is that they are quite slow (usually around 300m/s), so the tank might have a few seconds to shoot back if its attacked from a greater range. But that only works if they can spot the missile team in time.
91513f No.567258
>>567232
Turns out molten copper or whatever the fuck burns/melts through steel and composite armor. And when you add a guidance system to that mix there's a extremely good chance that you are going to get the first hit, and thus get the first kill.
Another reason for deadliness of ATGM's is their size. You can't hide MBT's on 6th floor of a apartment building but you can put a ATGM-system there with some motivationally retarded guy and a teakettle to keep him company.
>>566954
I suspect that their experiences in Afghanistan was part reason for the development of those dakka-machines. According to after-action reports I've read they figured out that the most cost effective and successful method they had for clearing out green-zones was raking the bushes/small forest with ungodly amount of fire from BMP's or tanks, and then just advancing with infantry to shoot or capture anyone that didn't die properly.
aad71c No.567267
>>567258
>the most cost effective and successful method they had for clearing out green-zones was raking the bushes/small forest with ungodly amount of fire from BMP's or tanks, and then just advancing with infantry to shoot or capture anyone that didn't die properly.
That's pretty much what my recent reading into these beasts seems to suggest. They were developed in the late 80's by V.L.Vershinsky after reports came in from Afghanistan. Apparently Soviet commanders there found that urban combat become a lot easier when you started it with a battery of Shilkas firing a few thousand 23mm HE shells at the buildings before the infantry moved in. Considering that urban combat was starting to make MBTs look obsolete at that point their options were either to abandon the tank (like armoured trains before them) or find a way to let tanks do the same job as the ZSUs hosing areas with rapid fire HE
The 781 & 782 projects seem to have stalled out after the first prototypes were produced and tested, but the idea was revived with Objekt 787, which has ERA added for that proper Slavic feel, and appears to be what they were aiming for with the Terminator line of BMPs.
fdd72a No.567278
Who am I expecting to fight?
If it's a continuation of recent decades I remove the crew and go with lightly armored highly maneuverable drones covered in APS.
If it's China / Russia I ditch tanks from much cheaper / lighter IFVs and assault guns in huge numbers.
Against insurgents I want something that can get into a city without being doomed.
Against a real military power air superiority will decide most of the outcome so I'm more focused on infantry support against fortified positions than taking out MBTs.
I also bring back the VADS because I fucking love it no matter how retarded and outdated it is today.
8f8d98 No.567279
>>567170
That's just Germans having no restrictions.
63587b No.567284
>>567232
Because >>567258 also when they're built by non-retarded military industrial complexes they cost about $3000, and have the potential to take out a $8 million tank.
>>567258
The copper is squeezed into shape by the explosive, directed at a tank, and then forces its way into the tank through the armor.
There's no real heating or melting going on, except for some waste heat because metal does that when it's hammered.
1aa248 No.567285
>>567258
The copper liner in a shaped charge does not burn through armor so much as it causes the steel to yield to the pressure of the copper jet. It is like sticking a toothpick into a boiled egg.
3d0cc1 No.567952
>>567258
>You can't hide MBT's on 6th floor of a apartment building
I beg to differ.
feb980 No.567962
>>567952
That tonk is on the ground floor of the building.
t. been there
3d0cc1 No.568035
>>567962
I was half expecting you to say I drove it in there
ccc97c No.568039
>>567962
>>567952
That's the Hungarian revolution/Communist atrocity/Arrow cross atrocity museum right?
I hope to go to Hungary at some point during university. Do you guys speak American :^), and are the universities in and around budapest cucked?
polite sage for off topic
feb980 No.568066
HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
>>568035
>I drove it in there
Wait, what?
>>568039
>That's the Hungarian revolution/Communist atrocity/Arrow cross atrocity museum right?
Right. First it was the building of the Arrow Cross party, then it served as the HQ of the commie secret police.
>are the universities in and around budapest cucked?
Depends on your perspective. People from the West would say no, but as a proper Hungarian who grew up outside of Budapest, I have to call that city a wound in the face of this land. Even universities outside of Budapest get their share of libruls and Marxists, but of course that depends on the faculty. Really, it works like everywhere else, that is, it's up to you to find the right kind of people. You'll just have an easier time finding them at any Hungarian university than in Western Europeans ones.
5b9bcb No.568398
>>568066
Joke about the uprising and how you guys got a T-55 to the British embassy. I think
2199f0 No.578728
Drop armor altogether, get a treaded vehicle that's fast as fuck and has a big gun. Zerg the enemy. Glass cannon or bust.
205bf1 No.578734
034d85 No.578788
>Ctrl+f "Canadian water balloon armour"
>Zero results
smh tbh fam
084b2c No.578791
>>578788
Don't point fingers, Aussie, I'm pretty sure at least one Armaments Company in The Big Prison has been trying to find a way to load a 152mm shell with Funnel Web Spiders.
9282af No.578792
>>578728
>>578728
I don't think that's the future, the future is probably better armor and armor design. That or something that makes the odds of hitting the armor itself less and thus armor can be reduced. With computer technology advancing and AI being more integrated in our daily lives, we will see the enemy get spotted before the humans see it. If that happens, the tank can auto adjust to show it's most armored point without compromising return fire or initial engagement. War will rarely, if ever, be conducted on super powers ever again. It's going to be the strong vs the pushover countries. Those that have vs those that dont. Tanks roll will be minesweepers and entrenched enemy clearing. The age of the steel coffin is over, the age of air conditioning and luxury tanks is nigh.
I do want to see dummy tanks make a return again, this time unmanned tanks meant to be a distraction rather then full combat ready. Have it be exactly the same as a normal one, but remote controlled and made to draw fire away from the living tank crew. When the enemy hits it and it keeps going it will cause confusion and moral loss. They will be forced to double check tanks wasting precious time and energy from the fight to insure they aren't analy devastated.
053bec No.578793
>>578791
Nah, m8. You just need a bomber filled with drop bears.
084b2c No.578796
>>578793
>a bomber filled with drop bears
I thought they made up a significant percentage of Aussie Airborne units?
8d56ef No.578801
>>578792
>War will rarely, if ever, be conducted on super powers ever again. It's going to be the strong vs the pushover countries. Those that have vs those that dont.
You can be rather sure that there was at least one Roman or Chinese general who thought the exact same thing. And yet history rolled on, and eventually rolled through those ahistorical civilizations.
>Have it be exactly the same as a normal one, but remote controlled and made to draw fire away from the living tank crew.
The Armata is already capable of that.
079c04 No.578802
>>578728
>Drop armor altogether, get a treaded vehicle that's fast as fuck and has a big gun. Zerg the enemy. Glass cannon or bust.
So insurgent tier halftrack technicals using mid 20th century Soviet/Chicom infantry tactics.
Are you ok, Spic-kun?
645c1f No.578805
>>578801
And Rome was kill by inferior barbarians, not symmetrical warfare between it and a similar power.
9282af No.578808
>>578801
Roman's dont have MAD.
thanks for that info though, had no idea and I'll look into it.
084b2c No.578816
>>578805
Rome was killed by idiot politicians who wanted orgies, vanity projects, and cushy jobs more than they wanted a functional state. The lead in the water pipes definitely didn't help either.
a107fc No.579003
Everyone should scrap their MBT's and purchase Merkavas instead. Perfect for rolling over Palestinians.
2944e2 No.579010
>>578816
I'm confused, are you describing Rome or London?
>>579003
You know my gut tells me this is bait but actually it's not a bad idea if what we are facing is sandniggers.
645c1f No.579021
>>579010
>You know my gut tells me this is bait
<(1)
<Israeli Flag
<Shoah Force.jpg
If you can't tell the nature of this post on your lonesome I have some bad news for you Mohammed.
e897a7 No.579038
>>565626
Passive armor is only good for protection against kinetic weapons.
Sandniggers largest kinetic weapon is a 14.5mm machine gun. Just two inches of steel-ceramic-steel sandwich armor on all critical areas nullifies that threat, at a cost of 5-10 tons, depending on size of vehicle but averaged to MBT sizes. The good part is that a lot of it can be built around basic structural steel, for the hull itself, which removes a lot of the weight cost.
That's how much passive armor your tank needs to have when fighting sandniggers.
As for ATGM and RPG, both are contact detonated, both are rocket based subsonic vehicles, both mount HEAT warheads.
There are three levels of defenses one can use against them see pic:
1. Contact det vulnerability - Cage armor has a good chance of preventing an ATGM from contacting the armor, which means it can't detonate and often bounces off. Total mass under 2 tons.
2. Propulsion vulnerability - The vehicles are slow enough that APS systems can knock them out of the air. Total mass under 3 tons.
3. HEAT warhead vulnerability - ERA can degrade a HEAT warheads effectiveness by up to 90%. NERA armor can absorb the remaining 10%. Any leakage would be stopped by the two inch passive armor. Total mass under 10 tons.
Ergo a tank with a dead mass of 30 tons, add another few tons for the most fuel efficient engine you can find (two stroke in series? wheeled?), a fuel tank, electronics, crew amenities and other elements. Weapons on these >>565633 are adequate. Total insurgency tank mass 25-35 tons.
Armoring against IED shouldn't be attempted in my opinion, IED attacks are incredibly rare and can be completely controlled by simply not using roads and having a force that is more aggressive and doesn't hide out on bases. Western hysteria about IEDs is borne out because the tanks used are so fuel hungry that they get 9mpg off road, so they stay on road where they're vulnerable. The huge fuel costs also mean a lot of fuel trucks to supply them, all of which are vulnerable. And the tanks are such sacred cows that they never leave the wire, patrol maybe a few times a week if their commander is especially aggressive.
An insurgency tank would be as fuel efficient as possible. This means it can go off road regularly and doesn't require as many fuel trucks to supply it, all this adds up to fewer places that IEDs can be used. More fuel efficiency also means more ability to undertake aggressive maneuver, patrolling out of base in overlapping 24/7 coverage, leaving the insurgents no time to dig a hole and drag an IED in. That is how you protect against IED, by shooting the nigger trying to place one, not by radically altering tank designs.
>>579010
Merkava is over-armored for sandnigger hunting. Specifically because Jews were too fucking dumb to put cage, NERA, ERA, or APS on their tanks until fairly recently. They're built for fighting sandpeople, not sandniggers.
By the way I always knew you were a Jew
084b2c No.579039
>>579010
>are you describing Rome or London?
Eh, it's the fate of pretty much every society when it gets powerful enough to be a dominant force in the world. Once you get to the point where rich families can raise their kids separately from problems and plebs you start to get politicians, senior officials, and officers who start their careers without an understanding of anything other than high society. At the start the smallish number of men can be taught/trained to act sensibly, but once you get a critical mass of idiot rich boys in charge that changes the culture of your leadership and it's all downhill from there. It happened to Rome, it happened to France, it happened to Britain, it's happening to America. In a century or so it'll be happening to China.
54e446 No.579059
>>579039
Wisest bong post I've seen in /k/ this far.
9c0d2a No.579065
Behold the future gentlemen.
e897a7 No.579067
b590fa No.579081
>>565626
Merkava Mk IV with trophy system
9282af No.579097
>>579065
Skeleton tank was thought of already, ww1 tbqh.
084b2c No.579102
>>579097
How about we completely remove the vehicle entirely, have the crew carry the gun and associated ammunition on their shoulders, and tell them to make tank noises when they move.
4c92f9 No.579107
>>579102
>carrying ammo
Your propellant can't cook off if you don't have propellant.
208757 No.579112
>>579102
This guy knows whats up
9c9311 No.579144
>>579102
>the British army uses escalating conflict in the middle east to test their new "tank" model
>it's a resounding success, swarms of muds flee before the resounding footfalls of British soldiers moving in tightly clustered groups while making engine noises and pointing at enemies yelling BANG
>up until one particularly ingenious haji climbs up on the shoulders of another, and has him run around the British while he holds his arms straight out to the sides and goes VRRRRRRRRM, occasionally miming the dropping of bombs
>and so begins a new era in military technology
2199f0 No.579200
>>578792
AI is not going to help you know where the enemy is, dumb nigger. You clearly don't know shit, like the mutt you are.
2199f0 No.579201
>>578802
Put camouflage for sick ass sneak attacks.
084b2c No.579253
>>579144
>and then an American soldier turns up loudly telling everyone that he's wearing an 'everything proof shield'
>all other combatants (including his allies) stop fighting and swarm the faggot, bashing his head in with rocks
>The 'First War Of Imagination' (as historians call it) lasted only a few hours, but it gave birth to the most feared weapon of the modern age
>Every member of the UN Security Council vetoes proposals for a new, international, 'Geological Weapons Test Ban'
713477 No.579257
HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
Here is the autoloader of the future.
084b2c No.579277
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>579257
Vid related is Lockheeds bid for that contract
6667a5 No.586535
>>579107
Even with magnetic(rail or coil) guns, explosive shells can still cook off and the gun would become a dependent burden to the engine anyway.
000000 No.586565
I think something like this could work:
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/thunderback.html
>The claim that the tank or armoured vehicles in general are obsolete is one that has been made for decades. The increased capability and falling costs of ATGWs is often quoted as an argument. Others will point out that lighter anti-tank weapons like the RPG or thermobaric weapons like the RPO give an infantryman greater destructive power than artillery of a few decades ago. It is true an infantryman so armed is stealthier than any vehicle and correctly positioned can do considerable damage. On the downside, he can only carry a limited quantity of ammunition. An RPG operator can seldom carry more than three or four rounds. Only one or two larger weapons can be carried and then often at the expense of food, shelter and other important equipment. The infantryman will probably be part of a squad and this partially alleviates the problem, but realistically a squad will probably only be able to carry less than a dozen rounds. If a unit is on foot it can only move a few miles per hour. Tank designers like to talk about the “Mobility : Firepower : Protection Triangle”. Most people fail to realize this concept applies to other battlefield systems too. An infantryman with an RPO has considerable firepower but it is acute rather than sustainable. He can move on a variety of terrains, but only slowly. His main protection is stealth.
> Unarmoured vehicles are vulnerable to everything including a single individual with an AK-47. Just as ATGWs get more sophisticated so too do other systems. Several modern weapons make it practical to enforce “no-drive zones”. It is quite conceivable that in a couple of decades or less a contested area could be patrolled by inexpensive drones the size and shape of local birds. These weapons glide on thermals and use solar power to stay aloft for days at a time. When they encounter an unauthorized vehicle they dive into it and destroy it with a grenade-sized warhead. Logically, history will repeat itself. To bring enough firepower you will need a vehicle to transport it. To prevent the vehicle being destroyed by the lightest of weapons, it needs protection. The wider the choice of courses a vehicle has the less chance it has of being attacked, so cross-country ability becomes useful. Soon you have a tracked, armoured vehicle. More sophisticated attack systems will mean more sophisticated countermeasures, however. In addition to passive armour a future vehicle will have systems that detect and actively attempt to neutralize incoming threats. The “suicide bird” drones I suggest above might be countered by automatically aimed shotguns, for example.
Weapons:
1. Rear VLS bay with surface to surface missiles (akin to Hellfire)
2. Unmanned turret with medium gun (50mm Supershot) and pod mounted CRV-7 rockets (APKWS/Cirit)
3. Two RWS on each side of missile bay with HMG and AGL plus RWS on top of turret.
8d56ef No.586572
>>586565
Why would you need the CRV-7 rockets if you already have an autocannon? And why would you want vertically launched rockets? Hellfires can be fired from ground vehicles just fine, so put a rack of those to an armoured pod, and bolt that to the turret. And a proper big calibre autocannon should be able to do the job of a puny AGL when it comes to covering a field with fragments ir laying down a smokescreen. It might be inferior in sustained fire, but you have the machine guns for that. Or if you want to fire behind obstacles, then use HE with timed fuses. Those would work wonders against aerial targets (like drones) too.
Also, you only need a tankette to carry a turret with an autocannon and rockets. Might as well put that turret on a heavy IFV, and now it can carry its own infantry support. It's better for the infantry too, because they have all those passive and active protection systems to defend them while they are being transported to the front line. And it's good for the bugdet, because you need less vehicles for the same job. And you could still make the vehicle smaller than a MBT.
000000 No.586576
Alternate concept:
A "surveillance-strike complex" consisting of following components:
Surveillance half:
1. Tactical UAVs/loitering munitions
2. Recon vehicles with tethered UAVs and mast mounted sights
Strike half:
1. Assault gun-mortar turret-less vehicle armed with 120 mm gun mortar
2. Anti-tank missile vehicles armed with NLOS missiles
3. BMP-T like vehicle armed with cannons (and DEW) for threat suppression and protection against UAVs.
000000 No.586581
>>586572
> Why would you need the CRV-7 rockets if you already have an autocannon?
According to original author:
"The main turret also has a pod of 2.75” CRV-7 rockets. These versatile weapons provide an intermediate level of firepower between the 50mm cannon and the Jaguar Missiles. Both unguided and laser-homing variants can be used and a variety of warhead types are available including HE, HEDP, MPSM, Flechette Anti-Tank and General Purpose or Anti-personnel Flechette."
>And why would you want vertically launched rockets? Hellfires can be fired from ground vehicles just fine, so put a rack of those to an armoured pod, and bolt that to the turret.
"At first glance the Thunderback looks like a Heavy-IFV or “Tank Personnel Carrier”. In fact the same hull is used for a number of variant vehicles including personnel carriers. Instead of seating and equipment storage the rear compartment of the hull contains more than forty vertical launch missile tubes. The missile tubes are arranged on pallets and the vehicle can be reloaded by sliding pallets horizontally in and out the rear doors of the hull."
>And a proper big calibre autocannon should be able to do the job of a puny AGL when it comes to covering a field with fragments ir laying down a smokescreen. It might be inferior in sustained fire, but you have the machine guns for that. Or if you want to fire behind obstacles, then use HE with timed fuses.
"An effective fighting vehicle needs to be able to lay down fire to several quadrants at once so the Thunderback emulates a feature of the Vietnam-era M113 ACAV (left). On the rear deck, on either side of the missile launch ports there is a secondary turret that can be operated by remote control by any crewman. Each turret mounts a .50 HMG and a 40x53mm Automatic Grenade Launcher. The grenade launchers are capable of using programmable air-burst ammunition and have the associated sighting systems. The HMGs are dual-feed CIS 50s. The AGLs are a cost effective system for engaging infantry and light vehicles at ranges of more than 2,000m. The HMGs have even greater range and useful against faster moving air and ground targets or in situations where the grenades may cause collateral casualties. The optics and stability of the turret allow the HMGs to be used with considerable precision at ranges of more than half a mile. It is possible that the Thunderback will not have space to mount these secondary turrets and carry 40 missiles of Jaguar size and weight. In such an event two variants of Thunderback will be present in a platoon: A “Bull tank” with a full complement of missiles and a “Bitch” mounting secondary turrets and a smaller number of missles."
000000 No.586587
>>586572
More background information on why the author proposed a VL missile and two hull mounted RWS:
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/terminator.html
>A common tactic against armoured vehicles is to attack them with RPGs from several directions at once. Many tankers who encounter such tactics wrongly assume that the enemy needs to be highly coordinated to achieve this. In fact the reverse is often the case. Small, independent units simply fire at any vehicle that enters their area. If there is more than one unit in the area the result is a simultaneous attack from multiple directions. Such tactics work particularly well in close terrain such as urban environments since there is ample concealment and cover to allow anti-tank teams to get close and escape afterwards.
>While the BMP-T is along the right lines there is room for improvement. Attacks against armoured vehicles are likely to be from several directions at once so any vehicle designed to suppress such action must be capable of firing simultaneously into more than one quadrant at once. Also, as this article notes, armament should have capability against both mobile and fixed infantry in the field and in urban conditions. In other words the vehicle needs capability against anti-tank teams within buildings or sheltering behind brick, concrete or entrenchments.
>…40mm automatic grenade launchers might be suitable. Such a weapon might be loaded with chaff, smoke, flare and fragmentation rounds programmed to airburst.
(http://www.g2mil.com/tank-escorts.htm)
>>Also, you only need a tankette to carry a turret with an autocannon and rockets. Might as well put that turret on a heavy IFV, and now it can carry its own infantry support.
>A conversation I had with Ralph Zumbro fielded the idea that the tactical role I propose for the Bitch could be met by a Heavy IFV. Obviously there are economic and logistical advantages to using an IFV rather than a new design of vehicle. The innovation here would be that the IFVs would be organic to the tank platoon and manned by tankers, not attached from an infantry company. While the IFV-Bitch crews may be called upon to dismount, I see these vehicles as operating more like ACAVs. Like the ACAV additional armament that will include a pair of wing guns will be fitted. On a modern vehicle these will be .50 MGs mounted so they be operated both “heads up” and from under armour.
c55d74 No.586739
>>566051
>Wouldn't a large "microwave projector" be able to fry the crew of a tank?
Microwaves don't penetrate. Like, at all.
0cac88 No.591009