>>7094 Because this shit is a broken piece of shit and I got errors thrice. I kept trying to refresh the page to see if my posts still got in but nope. Now hours later I come back to see they did get posted.

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/overkill-152mm-cannons-russian-mbts https://archive.vn/wip/yGITi >The first Soviet 152mm tank gun project was called Object 292. It was basically a modified T-80BV, re-armed with a 152mm gun called LP-83 by the Kirov plant in Leningrad (St. Petersburg) in mid-1980s. The gun was developed by the “Burevestnik” design bureau. There was a lot of controversy behind this project – the T-80 platform was initially considered to be too small to carry anything bigger than a 140mm gun and had to be modified. The gun development was not smooth either – initially, it was supposed to be a rifled gun, but developing a smoothbore was considered cheaper and technically easier, so the Soviets went with it. >The same fate befell another advanced Soviet project called Object 195 although its history was a bit stranger. The Object 195 represented a major departure from the previous Soviet designs as it was armed with a different 152mm gun called 2A83, installed in an unmanned turret. The 2A83 gun was developed roughly at the same time as the LP-83, but by a different company – the Plant No.9 in Yekaterinburg. It was a 55 calibers long automatically loaded smoothbore gun. Thanks to its large charge, it was possible to fire APFSDS shells from it with velocities of up to 2000 m/s. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/could-russias-152-millimeter-cannon-be-added-armata-tank-25182 https://archive.vn/qhcIV >But the centerpiece was the armament, the massive 2A83 152 millimeter 55 caliber gun. It had a muzzle velocity of 1980 meter per second, close to what some consider is the theoretical limit of a conventional gun at 2000 meters per second. It was fitted with an autoloader that could reload it within six seconds. <The design of APFSDS ammunition of the 2A83 meant that this velocity would only decrease by eighty meters per second at two kilometers. This gave it monstrous penetration at range, with a cited figure of 1024 millimeter RHAe at 5.1 km (for comparison, most modern tank guns are rated for only around 700–800 millimeter RHAe at two kilometers). >In order to take advantage of this ballistic performance, the Object 195 was fitted with a radar gunsight. Due to their lower frequency on the electromagnetic spectrum, radar sights are totally unaffected by smoke and fog and don’t suffer from temperature changes like thermal sights. >While armor-piercing shells were considered to be the primary ammunition, the tank was said to have a high degree of compatibility with 152 millimeter artillery ammunition. Russian sources have stated that the Object 195 would be able to shoot the Krasnopol laser guided shell, which would allow it to deliver precision high-explosive munitions at very long distances. >However, the scariest implication of the 152 millimeter caliber and compatibility with artillery ammunition is that theoretically, the Object 195 would have the ability to shoot the 3BV3 152 millimeter 1 kiloton tactical nuclear munition from its gun I know the sources are shit, but it makes me wonder if an ˝ultimate˝ tank gun should be rifled. Develop it with rifling that can stabilize a 7 calibres long HE (or HESH, or thermobaric, or whatever) shell that has roughly the same payload an average 155mm shell. Then ˝just˝ take an APFSDS shell and a big enough charge to accelerate the rod to 2000m/s. Of course in this case the HE shell should be the primary shell type with the APFSDS being there against less-armoured MBTs. After all, most tanks would get disabled by a few direct hits from a 155mm shell regardless of their armour. I guess the main problem would be barrel life, but you could choose a relatively low muzzle velocity for the HE shell regardless of the APFSDS shell ridiculousness.

>>8013 > that post Makes me wish Vasily Fofanov's tank site still existed / was still being updated.

>>8013 >1024 millimeter RHAe at 5.1 km >3BV3 152 millimeter 1 kiloton tactical nuclear munition from its gun >shoot the Krasnopol laser guided shell, which would allow it to deliver precision high-explosive munitions at very long distances. Jesus.

>>8023 Also these do kinda remind me of these two shits >T-72-T21 Yes it is deviantart As far as I can get, It was join project of GIAT and Konštrukta bassically a t72 with a leclearc turret. And also you could have an 30mm cannon too? https://www.armedconflicts.com/SVK-FRA-T-72-T21-t223067 >T-72 M2E

>>8023 We can go even further beyond! Combine that gun with the Black Eagle's autoloader, and now you could theoretically design a mount that allows the gun to depress into the turret ring, allowing it to be raised completely vertically. Now you can use it to target various flying objects. http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/

>>8013 >>8023 >>8026

>>8025 Hold up. You mean that would mean the T-72 would theroetically be able to use the modular composite blocks the leclerc does?

>>8025 This actually seems to be a better idea than mounting the Leclerc's turret on a Leopard II. Which is exactly what the reborn Frankish Empire wants to do.

>>8025 >And also you could have an 30mm cannon too With drones being increasingly more ubiquitous I can see the merit of arming tanks with one. The real question if it should be on the turret or on the weapon station. Although it's not impossible to give a tank two autocannons, but that sounds like overkill.

>>8180 Land carries for drones? i like it

>>8185 What? I'm speaking about putting autocannons to tanks.

>>8188 >With drones being increasingly more ubiquitous I can see the merit of arming tanks with one. I got confused

>>8185 >BVR ATGMs So tanks and individual soldiers will turn into impromptu smart mortars?

>>8958 Because "light tanks" are IFV/APCs now, and these are airborne.

>>8958 Russians have their BMD's. Do you mean airborne as in air-droppable or airborne as in air-transferrable?

Are unmanned conversions of Wiesel tankettes a dumb idea?

>>9238 If you can develop AI that you can trust to do the job with minimal human assistance, then they might have some value. The problem with such tankettes is that otherwise they will still need the same crew as a manned vehicle (driver, commander, and maybe a separate gunner), and also need infantry support. And you have to maintain them and transport them to the battlefield somehow. So ask yourself: is a small and underarmoured tankette really better than a heavy IFV like pic related?

>>9238 >>9239 Unmanned vehicles are mostly a meme. Very few jobs can be completely unmanned, such as reconnaissance. When it comes to more serious jobs what you need isn't an unmanned vehicle, but an automated one. In other words a vehicle with enough TECHNOLOGY that makes the job of the crew easier, not obsolete. Tanks do this with things like range finders and autoloaders. Completely unmanned tanks would be a moronic idea, and completely unmanned ships would be a total disaster.

>>9240 I was wondering if eliminating the crew could allow the tankette to be up-armored and compartmentalized without nuking its mobility in the process.

>>9239 >is a small and underarmoured tankette really better than a heavy IFV like pic related? Aren't these tankettes used only within the context of an airborne assault unit? I know it's possible to airdrop still heavier tanks by parachute but the armata chassis is not among them but your comparison doesnt really fly, lol

>>9259 No, Germans try to justify their existence by trying to use them for as many things as possible. And you can't control a tank(ette) from the other side of the world, so the controllers would have to be reasonably close to the front line, in this case they'd have to be dropped together with the Wiesel. >lol smh tbh kys famalam

Any books/pdfs/resources where I can learn more about this particular topic?

>>9323 Anon, there are so many books, pdfs and sites about tanks, dude. I've litelary posted some sites up here

>>9329 Forgive my dumb self for not reading through the thread. Thanks for the sources.

Why still use tanks instead of armored cars? Is it because of displacement, stability, and terrain tougher for cars?

>>9349 Because tanks are tougher. Modern armor has completely negated ATGMs and frontally most MBTs are impregnable even by other tanks. They're fucking strong and can't be replaced by lighter vehicles. And no, the videos of shitskins and kikes getting blown up by other shitskins' ATGMs is not a representation of modern armor. Composite armor in modern MBTs is fitted around the vehicle and is very easily replaceable when it gets damaged. It completely defeats all current rocket launchers and ATGMs. Pic related. The only way to kill a modern 1st world MBT nowadays is either by shooting it with another tank or by landing an entire bomb on top of it. Modern armor and APS systems make every other anti-tank weapon ineffective.

>>9350 Why not just make an armored car out the same material to the same specification then? It's just a couple more millimeters of steel and composite armor. >that'd weigh it down and produce more torque Just like build a bigger engine.

>>9352 Because wheels suck

>>9350 > frontally most MBTs are impregnable even by other tanks LOL No they aren't, read about what DU ammunition does. https://youtu.be/lMLp-W5lfwQ This is why you see so many tanks pushing for extremely fast turret rotation, so even less armor but only optional added shield in many cases. In a real ground batte tank vs tank scenario as in "more armor than to defend against RPG" is unnecessary for a real war scanario, simply stated the question of armor is luxury because of DU and maybe thermobaric warheads. Armor is not much of a question anymore against a civilized oponent that doesn't have vintage tech but has all to with speed of who can draw first shot, do correct evasive manuevers and literally vaporize eachother inside with pyrophoric uranium rods and that goes for airplanes with their cannons too. And as a matter of philosophy who are they MORE LIKELY going to use these weapons on? The world is sitting on a barrel of dynamite thanks to the amerigolems devising mass produced nuclear weapons and sharing it with the world thanks to their stupidity. In a next huge war nobody but elite zoggers inside their DUMB's will have a real shot at civilized survival because it'll be a wasteland.

>>9354 >Links outdated youtube video and thinks it's still relevant

>>9357 >No argument Told

>>9368 What's there to argue? Anyone interested in tanks already knows that your post is retarded, there's no need for me to explain to you why. But here's a protip: There's a reason companies are pushing for 130mm guns, and it's not related to bigger HE filling.

>>9371 >There's a reason companies are pushing for 130mm guns But why not 140mm, even that is already developed? https://soapbox.manywords.press/2017/12/12/on-the-140mm-tank-gun/

>>9428 >tanks are getting muzzle brakes again It feels, kinda off.

>>9428 Because trying to fit a bigger gun in the same turret ends up with your tank having only 22 rounds

>>9432 It's only longer, because the 120mm shell's case has the same diameter, it's just shorter and necked down. The 130mm shell is also based on this, and it doesn't seem to be significantly shorter than the 140mm shell. https://soapbox.manywords.press/2019/11/07/m1-cattb-revisited/ >The autoloader was the same chain-style autoloader found on Leclerc and K2, and it held 17 rounds of either 120 mm or 140 mm ammunition. 140 mm ammunition was two-piece, and was stored in its ready to fire configuration in the bustle, which accounts for a lot of its length. The new powerpack opened up more room at the rear of the hull, and this was used for reserve ammo stowage. The reserve stowage could hold 22 140 mm rounds separated into the two pieces, or 33 120 mm rounds. There was also a mechanical ammunition transfer system to refill the ready magazine from the reserve stowage. In this concrete case it's either 50 pieces of 120mm or 39 pieces of 140mm. I doubt that a 130mm version could hold that many more shell than the 140mm version, so that's why I don't see the point of Rheinmetall developing this new cannon.

>>9371 You haven't researched anything about DU, it defeats all armor and especially when fired from gunship like the A10. Obsessing over bigger gun howitzer has nothing to do with what i wrote. Your claim of tank vs tank "impenetrable" idea of armor is severely wrong, retarded, when nearly all civilized armies have fielded DU since the 90's and there is no way to defend getting hit against those warheads. Furthermore it's legal to use DU even though it's acutely toxic to all sides incl noncombatants. DU rounds perfectly illustrate how everyone involved in modern warfare (except the real winners - arms manufacturers & their (((friends))) sitting comfortably behind the frontlines is expendable trash - friend or foe.

>>9441 >it defeats all armor What about super-BB tier CNT composites?

>>9441 >it defeats all armor and especially when fired from gunship like the A10 That is ridiculously wrong. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/cold-war-coloring-book-taught-a-10-pilots-to-kill-soviet-tanks-a26385113bf0 https://archive.vn/XX1fq

>>9441 >DU >Defeats all armor You haven't even posted the RHA penetration tables of 120mm DU rounds because you are a retard and doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

>>9443 >Super BB-tier CNT Composites You don't even have to go that far, for tank armor vs. present threats (incl. the 140mm gun mentioned above) just use bog standard carbon fiber sheets laminated to kevlar, replacing the ceramic tiles in the M1 Abrams' scheme. Done, easy, around $15,000 per tank. Just be prepared to spend that every 4 months or so, so only put it on deployed vehicles and put the ceramics back in when the vehicle isn't. Obviously, CNT Composite plating would be the ideal - the weight and volume savings would allow fully armoring the vehicle if you were so inclined - but that's a world of infinite budgets where you can spend $12+ million per tank. Even the K2 Black Panther doesn't cost that much (although at $8.5MM/tank without optional upgrades, it's clearly within spitting distance).

>>9488 >CNT Composite plating would be the ideal - the weight and volume savings would allow fully armoring the vehicle if you were so inclined - but that's a world of infinite budgets where you can spend $12+ million per tank. Elaborately colored and decorated Gundam-tier elite/commander units armored with CNT composites 10x as expensive as a grunt unit when?

>>9488 Why do those CNT-kevlar sheets have to be replaced every 4 month? And why is the difference in price is so astronomical between those and composite CNT armour?

>>9497 >Why do those CNT-kevlar sheets have to be replaced every 4 month? Temperature. Kevlar breaks down in high temperatures and loses a portion of its 'toughness', and as part of the composite it'd be sitting in a metal box under direct sunlight for most of the day when the tank is deployed to 80% of the world. Primarily the sandbox, where most 'warfare' tended to happen in the last half-century. This isn't to say that the armor suddenly becomes worthless after 4 months, merely that the armor is potentially degraded. >And why is the difference in price is so astronomical between those and composite CNT armour? At present only one factory in the entire world can make sheets of Carbon Nanotubes, and the process is fairly complicated to make an attempt for understatement of the year, one of the multiple reasons why copycat mass-factories haven't sprung up in places such as China. Bog standard Carbon Fiber sheets, however, can be (and are) mass produced for relative cheapness.

>>9498 >Bog standard Carbon Fiber sheets, however, can be (and are) mass produced for relative cheapness. Wait, so it's not even CNT? If kevlar with carbon fiber is so strong, then why is it not being used already?

>>9499 Who is to say it's not? Most of the particulars of current composite armor schemes are classified or tightly kept secrets. Obviously, I can't say it is or isn't being used, all I can say is it works and I'm aware of tests which concluded as much. However, if it's not being used, I can propose an explanation for why: because the various older methods aren't obsolete yet and are more cost effective during peace time.

>>9453 Nowhere does it mention anything about DU, becuase it was classified use at that point. As if anyone wants to admit they shoot nuclear waste. They've admitted DU probably was a causative agent in causing gulf war syndrome and secondly the faggots in the American government refused that they fired DU and refused to take accountability while internal documents were circulating that did say indeed state it was hazardous. >Yugoslav officials say they have no record of depleted uranium in Kosovo because of their army's hurried withdrawal in June - but claim that DU ammunition was used by Nato in areas around Vranje, Bujanovac, Ostojnik mountain and on the Montenegran peninsula of Lustice. >"We've asked the Americans lots of time where they used this stuff," a British ordnance officer told me. >"First - you know the Americans - they said they couldn't tell us for `security reasons'. Then they said that their A-10s used DU and fired the ammunition whenever they came across Serb armour. They said that because these were `targets of opportunity', they kept no record of the location or dates of firing.

>>9445 >>9554