>>13677 Clearly you haven't seen that video where a bunch of slavs were unloading artillery rounds by carelessly sliding/throwing them down a small, grassy slope and into a pile where they kept colliding until suddenly detonation accures.

>>13690 Do you still have that webm by chance? I think we lost it when 8cuck got taken down due to el paso.

>>13690 Russia is a state of mind

>>13697 Those were ukrop niggers.

https://invidious.kavin.rocks/watch?v=Qnsb2LQFvoM To think that the US made these in the 1940s and yet failed to deliver an autoloader for an MBT is quite something.

>>14479 >yet failed to deliver an autoloader for an MBT It's a bit disingenuous to claim that the US failed to deliver an autoloader for an MBT when in effect it wasn't a delivery issue (the US designed multiple successful autoloaders for every caliber main tank cannon they used from the old pre-WW2 37mms in that video to the current 120mms and beyond), it was the customer changing their minds while the delivery man is ringing their doorbell and refusing to accept the system because - well, actually, who knows why. You'll note that none of the autoloaders in that video were accepted either - the Americans have a long history of designing autoloaders they never use.

>>14507 If I wanted to be a faggot I'd say the US Army itself still failed to deliver any of those autoloaders to any of those tanks, even if various companies did deliver autoloaders to the Army itself. It's just mind-boggling that they had these advanced concepts that were too advanced for 1940s technology, and they already wanted to get rid of the loader more than 70 years ago, and yet there are still people who defend the lack of an autoloader to no end, comping up with a plethora of excuses repeated ad nauseam. I hope the next episode will shed some light to the real story behind the lack of autoloaders.

Does any of you anons have any good fictional books that features a lot of tonks, something like William Keith bolo series?

>>14752 The one I can remember is the foresight war.

>>14753 Do you happen to have a download link for it? I can't find it on libgen.

>>14754 You're doing something wrong, then. http://libgen.rs/fiction/0FCBD3E8BFBB97816E65816E98E4BC4A

>>12518 Oh I had to search it under fiction category, I thought the first one was a generic category. Thanks.

I wonder if we will see smaller calibre rifled guns upgraded with new propellants to be able to launch APFSDS projectiles at such high speeds that a 75mm gun is comparable in performance to a modern 120mm ones. Of course such propellants would also make a 120mm gun significantly more effective, so there is an argument to keep the current caliber.

>>15384 The idea's been around since WW2, but some faggot always bitches and moans about how the HE shell can't demolish entire buildings and is therefore useless.

>>15440 They are not wrong about a tank needing to have good HE shells, but if I'm not mistaken the good ol' rifled 105mm has shells with significantly greater explosive payloads than what the 120mm HE shells can deliver. And that changes the picture significantly.

>>15444 (checked) Is there a specific reason why the 120mm HE shell has less payload then the 105mm HE shell? This is the first time I have read about this.

>>15530 120mm Gun is Smoothbore, the 105mm Rifle is rifled. To stabilize the HE shell from a smoothbore gun, it requires fin stabilization, which by necessity takes up valuable volume of the shell which otherwise could have been used for filler charge. Incidentally, this is why using APFSDS from a 75mm gun to match the APFSDS shells from the 120mm smoothbore gun is a bad idea. You'd be needing to use a smoothbore 75mm gun to ensure performance of the APFSDS shell (which would make this 75mm gun's HE shell pitiful) or accept reduced accuracy and penetration from the shell in which case why are you using APFSDS in the first place when you'd get the same mileage from a WW2-era US type M3 75mm gun.

https://invidious.kavin.rocks/watch?v=eZcOL_sxTsg Is this some advanced shitposting that I just don't understand? It seems like that for the same effort they could have copied the autoloader of the T-72, with an additional magazine in the back that refills the main magazine in the turret ring, and improve the RoF and the number of shells carried.

>>601 >Tiger 2: let's put as much armor as possible on this behemoth and just absorb any incoming fire vs >Leo1: armor is useless just get a canon to go fast and shoot the russians before they shoot you Seeing how ww2 went down the leo was probably a better design philosophy

>>15530 Looks like it's mostly because American shells are meant to be fancy dual-purpose shells that combine HE and HEAT into one, German and French shells are proper HE shells that hold more explosives than 105mm shells. >>15537 Brits seem to be happy enough with rifled 120mm guns, even when it comes to firing APFSDS projectiles.

>>15879 The turret design is from the past expeditionary vehicle that failed miserably so it was already present even if it is terrible in use. Even if a new turret was done the M1128 is currently floating in logistical limbo for a good reason; we're still using them simply because we have them but IIRC the U.S. is not getting more of this model. The chassis cannot handle the recoil of the 105mm gun and it tends to break things in the vehicle, the suspension in particular is the first to go. And firing from a steep-ish angle could probably roll the vehicle. Anytime the U.S. puts a turret on the stryker the result is horrible mess >mgs takes a poor auto-loader and straps it to a vehicle never meant to fire a gun that powerful and with an already high center of gravity >dragoon puts a tall turret with a 30mm on top yet still retains infantry carrying capabilities severely restricting ammunition capacity for the 30mm to 156 rounds and 400-500 rounds for machine guns

>>16014 >he doesnt want bradley part 2 absolutely unamerican

>>16014 Is the Stryker somehow inherently flawed, or is it simply what happens if you push a wheeled light APC into roles the chassis physically can't handle?

>armor? we don't need no stinking armor! If it was good enough for grandpappy, then it's good enough for me. >

>>16025 The stryker is a copy of the Canadian LAV III which is a copy of the Swiss Piranha and seems quite good. All the versions where the U.S. uses it within it's intended envelope I can't find anything negative about. My only major gripe with the vehicle is the lack of amphibious capability. It really is just a case of the stryker not being designed for the task of firing a cannon that powerful from it. The closest practical AFV, going by weight as the stryker is meant to be easily air transportable, to the M1128 would be the French amx-10rc and it uses a 105mm gun with reduced shell weight, 11 lbs/ 5 kg's less for HE , to reduce recoil and it's only 16 tons to the strykers 18. Wheeled AFV's that use full power cannons are usually heavier at 25 tons and up. An exception is the Russian sprut-sd at 18 tons as it uses the full 125mm cannon, although it was purpose built to fire that cannon and is tracked. The dragoon model of stryker could easily be fixed though. >strip infantry carrying capabilities to make room for ammo >switch to the new 50mm gun which should be no problem for the chassis to handle >strap some TOW's to it to fend off heavier armor It would then actually fill a role that's currently empty but the U.S. is so obsessed with 'multirole' they would stitch socks into boots if it was financially feasible.

I have a dumb question, have you heard of it? Is it even possible at all to engineer a tonk design that can withstand attacks from a large monster lets say, a godzilla? or even a smaller scale of a godzilla at least? I'm curios how this tonk could look like that is capable of fighting it head on or at least through different tactics.

>>16125 a tank to fight godzilla? no. a tracked vehicle to fight godzilla? yes. city survival not guaranteed

>>16034 >lack of amphibious capability Maybe it's my 'tism acting up, but I think we've already reached the point where an army should justify why any of its land vehicles are not amphibious, so that really is a big negative. >It would then actually fill a role that's currently empty What would be that role exactly? A light ˝tank˝? Also, I'm on the opinion that the turret should hold enough ammo for at least a single engagement, therefore that turret is flawed as it is in my opinion.

>>16128 And what is the reason in this case, is it due to lack of large enough calibers that can be fitted on a MBT? What if the tonk is equipped with a 140-150mm cannon and a nuclear HE shell instead?

>>16130 You'd need a tank significantly heavier than Godzilla itself, otherwise that monster will just flip it upside down, and then it's game over. As such, protection doesn't matter, and your only chance is to bring it down with preferably a single shot. Therefore all you need is a big cannon on tracks.

>>16125 Yes. You just have to bring out the right super-materials and super-tech, and then build a Bolo.

>>16132 Ah so basically the biggest cannon that can be fielded on a tracked vehicle and praying to d*g that a single nuclear shell is enough to bring the monster down? >>16135 A bolo tonk? Where can I read more about its specifications and other details? I already a few pages of the first bolo book that I have but it doesn't mention any specific details what kind of equipment it has.

>>16137 Bolos are super tech from 1-10,000 years in the future, their specs are whatever the plot needs them to be.

>>16137 >Ah so basically the biggest cannon that can be fielded on a tracked vehicle and praying to d*g that a single nuclear shell is enough to bring the monster down? Pretty much, although going nuclear is optional. In general such monsters don't seem to be that tough once you realize that an armour-piercing shell with a delayed fuse should be able to go through its skin and explode inside, doing a tremendous amount of damage. Except of course if our monster has some kind of a natural carbon nanotube armour for its skin or scales, and then it's suddenly a lot more scarier.

>>16146 If I remember right godzilla can only be killed by a nuke since hes made of nukes or something like that, he also has some super regeneration power that lets him survive other weapons.

>>16139 >Bolo tonks are 1-10k years from the future Well shit. So if the lore is set in 21st century then Bolo tonks are not possible to develop? >>16146 >Pretty much, although going nuclear is optional. In general such monsters don't seem to be that tough once you realize that an armour-piercing shell with a delayed fuse should be able to go through its skin and explode inside, doing a tremendous amount of damage. That sounds like a relief if there is a fighting chance for a tonk, what about other hypothetical weapons such as a gauss cannon, rail guns or particle accelerator? Are those weapons practicable enough to with a increase in scale to be mounted in a tonk as even more effective means to eliminate a (very-) large monster? >Except of course if our monster has some kind of a natural carbon nanotube armour for its skin or scales, and then it's suddenly a lot more scarier. So counter attacks are much more difficult to perform?

>>16150 Well the original godzilla was destroyed by a kind of molecular deconstructor and the modern godzilla had some kind of impervious energy shield and just kinda fucks off back to the ocean after fucking everything up, so its hard to speculate on what would and wouldnt work without knows the specifics of the powers he has.

>>16150 >Well shit. So if the lore is set in 21st century then Bolo tonks are not possible to develop? We are already living in the 21th century, and it's perfectly possible to build a gigantic tank. It just makes no sense, because a ship or a bunker would be much superior for anything you could use it. >other hypothetical weapons There is nothing hypothetical about cannons, tank, or nuclear shells. >gauss cannon, rail guns Those are used to accelerate a projectile in a manner that is much more complicated than simply burning some gunpowder in a tube, and making anything other than simple APFSDS projectiles is harder if you are also trying to electrocute the shell in the process. >particle accelerator Closest things we have right now are lasers, although there was that one time when a lab made a short-ranged plasma gun (look up Project MARAUDER). But with most scientists being busy chasing the mythical dark quantum powenergy I don't think we will see death rays in the coming decades. As such, speculating about particle accelerators is a futile attempt. >Are those weapons practicable enough to with a increase in scale to be mounted in a tonk as even more effective means to eliminate a (very-) large monster? But why do you need a tank, when the only thing that matters in this context is the projectile? Your best bet would be to take one of those stupid fast Russian anti-ship missiles (there are a few varieties of them), put a HEAT or a nuclear warhead on it, and see how much it hurts our monster. All you need is a(n admittedly big and purpose-built) truck with no armour whatsoever. Tanks are meant to go to the enemy and engage them in line-of-sight battles. Doing that against Godzilla is suicidal.

>>16150 >So counter attacks are much more difficult to perform? Forgot this: it means most projectiles couldn't pierce its skin, therefore you'd need something much stronger than a tank gun.

>>16152 >We are already living in the 21th century, and it's perfectly possible to build a gigantic tank. It just makes no sense, because a ship or a bunker would be much superior for anything you could use it. Ah well I was confused that to be considered a bolo class tonk it needs technology levels from 1k-10k years in the future. >There is nothing hypothetical about cannons, tank, or nuclear shells. That's not what I meant. >But why do you need a tank, when the only thing that matters in this context is the projectile? As I stated in my previous question I was curios if its even possible to develop such type of a tank and how would it look like. Because I'm idea fagging something currently and I was wondering if a tank game versus (large) monsters could be a plausible scenario. >and see how much it hurts our monster. All you need is a(n admittedly big and purpose-built) truck with no armour whatsoever. Tanks are meant to go to the enemy and engage them in line-of-sight battles. Doing that against Godzilla is suicidal. So a very large missile carrier with a guidance system is a better bet?

>>16154 Godzilla may not have been the best example to lead with since he's a special snowflake when it comes to monsters, if it's just a generic big monster then just a plain old 5000 pound bomb will do. If it's an EDF scenario with a fuck ton of smaller but still big monsters then you're better off with some kind of rapid firepower like an Oerlikon or some such. and its spelled curious you fucking anime poster

>>16154 If you want gigantic tanks fighting gigantic monsters, then you just need a setting where both of them are present, and the tanks were not developed specifically as anti-kaiju weapons. Say, humans colonized a planet with no breathable atmosphere but with gigantic storms, so the colonists started living in semi-mobile bases than then slowly evolved into gigantic tanks. Then one day the kaiju attacked. Maybe they are from space, maybe they were sleeping under the polar ice caps, maybe a team of mad scientists developed them, it doesn't matter. What matters is that you have humans with tanks that vary from very big to truly titanic, and these are their best weapons against the monsters.

>>16155 Ah alright, well I couldn't think of a better example of a hypothetical scenarios that would give the tank engineers a excuse to develop bigger tanks. >>16156 That's a interesting idea, I will write it down. I especially like the concept of mobile bases.

>>16204 In that case add in that the planet in question shouldn't have large bodies of water either, so that ships are also out of the equation.

>>16205 So basically large amounts of water which is mostly underground instead of above and when there is water then its not often not practicable enough to build ships and as for natural phenomen some kind of storms or whatever that prevents aircraft from flying smoothly so that all that is left that can be build in massive size is wheeled or tracked vehicles, is that right?

If youre gonna brainstorm do it in the shitpost thread.

>>16209 Rude. And at least recommend a thread better suited for this: >>5117

>>16209 This is the tank thread, is it not? I always immediately delete my posts when they get moved to other threads, but that's just my personal thoughts on the matter.

>>16210 I meant this one >>16158 >>16214 Yes but we've begun to veer off of tanks and on to sci-fi settings. I'm just saying if this is going to turn into 20 posts about how to make a homebrew world work take it to the designated catchall thread.