>I fail to see that a vehicle with the same firepower, mobility, and protection
Because if you even bothered trying to study armored doctrines you would very easily understand that your concept has neither the firepower, freedom of mobility, nor protection as even an M1 Abrams.
If you're going to try to talk tank (or warship) designs, I suggest you at least try
learn the difference between specialized and single-purpose systems. This is not that hard.
This is stupid for a MBT.
The 120mm Tank cannon is specialized
in the AT-role, but it is by no means single purpose
nor 'over-specialized'; with the correct ammunition it is capable of dealing with essentially any target that a tank in a combined-arms force realistically should be engaging.
Yes, the straight 120mm HEFSDS shell is only roughly as good as an HE shell as the WW2-era 75mm shell. That doesn't mean the 120mm HEFSDS is bad
, it means the 75mm HE shell was that good
Did you somehow manage to forget that the Shermans' 75mm gun was quite literally a howitzer
But if you want effect down range, why are you even bothering with straight HE-type shells to begin with? You have a tank gun, not a howitzer, use it like a tank gun for tank gun purposes.
The Americans don't even supply straight HE-type shells anymore because they don't see any use for them
; between the M829A4 APFSDS, M830A1 HEAT-MP, M1028 Canister, and M908 HE-OR-Tm shells, basically any engagement is covered; and deciding that was too many shell types they're currently throwing around the XM1147 AMP multi-role shell, which basically is your coveted HE shell on steroids and some super-soldier serum; and that's just what the Americans have developed.
>why do you need an MBT with an overspecialized AT gun if your preferred method of taking out enemy tanks doesn't involve said AT gun?
Because without the ability to legitimately threaten the enemy tank, there's no way to pin the thing for the artillery/air-strikes to engage in the first place.
Do you also
claim Machine Guns are useless considering they very rarely get direct confirmed kills? Do you have any clue what 'Suppression by Implicit Threat' means?
The specialized (but not single-purpose) AT cannon presents an immediate, credible, and long lasting
threat to enemy tanks, allowing them to suppress enemy tanks enough to either allow other assets to get them (be those other tanks, artillery, or attack helicopters) or in rare cases to bag them themselves if they try playing peekaboo.
At the same time, it allows the tank appreciable effect against other targets when called upon. Specialization, but not single-purpose.
Yes, your HVATM can
present this threat, but have you given any thought at all
to how large or heavy armoring just 8 tubes for these hypothetical HVATMs would be?
Who am I kidding, of course you haven't, you somehow think just moving the Commander and Gunner two feet backwards is going to fix any disorientation issues which stem from an entirely different, patently obvious source - oh, say, the well known disassociation caused by viewing things through cameras
that has been plaguing drone operators for over three decades now. Here's an idea: Give them a VR headset and digitally stitch the video feeds together. It still not a complete solution, but it at least makes more sense than just rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic.
You're effectively doubling the turret's weight once you factor in the increased structural strain AND giving it Dumbo ears - and this is for a truly
single-purpose weapon system, they'd be far to expensive to waste on anything other than high-value targets. To reiterate: you're better off sticking with the cannon
If you want an upgrade in lethality that badly, just throw in a 125mm, 130mm, or even 140mm gun...
>If I wanted to b cheeky
That's less cheek and more having your head shoved so far up your ass that you've defied physics and simultaneously turned yourself into both a Mobius Strip and a one-man human centipede.
Warships are not tanks, trying to compare them is like me telling you that you're a manchild for not being as good as Michael Phelps at swimming - a categorical error of the highest caliber.
>Do you honestly suggest that would be better off saying ˝good enough˝ and stopping all R&D, because the enemy will never catch up?
No. I do, however, suggest they would be better off not chasing wunderwaffen during nominal peace time when their economy is in tatters and their industry a joke that cannot even manage to field in useful numbers the systems from four generations ago
. They would be better served by pursuing cost-effective solutions to existing problems than expensive solutions looking for problems.
I'm not addressing any of the rest of this, suffice to say it's stupid and doesn't work the way you think it does. Now, I'm going to go dunk my head in a bucket of water before I burst my last blood vessel and mutate into cafe/k/'s Gordon Ramsay of warmachine design. Something, something idiot sandwich.