>>561 >A discussion thread about the most powerfull land vehicles and it's derivatives. Technically armoured cars predate tanks rather than deriving from them.

>>574 Yes I know that, but tanks started the whole motorization of army. Technically there were army motorized vehicles but they weren't much used becayse every retard who called himself "general" thought that horses are superrior and yes they were supperior in some instances and some times... Before i'll tell the entirity of early motirized warfare. I'll tell you this again. I know that.

>>577 *Because *Motorized

>>577 Motorised or mechanised? They're different things after all.

>>561 I miss the time when tanks were still designed by the rule of cool. T'was a more fun time. Still hoping for a smash-up of these two one day. A nuclear powered Landkreuzer the size of a small village might not be the rational future of warfare, but it's more fun than islamic drone swarms.

>>595 After learning a few things about warships, I have to say that the Landkreuzer isn't as insane as people make it to be. I mean, yes, it's pretty insane, but the only challenging part would be the final drive. Otherwise it's just the armour and turret of a cruiser with the power plant of a submarine. Considering that the Kriegsmarine stopped all surface actions during the later parts of the war, they could have used spare parts to cobble together this monster.

Maybe I'm just seeing what I want to see, but this prototype Leopard 1 with the 120mm gun looks like a very late descendant of the Tiger II with this seemingly oversized gun.

Are multi-"hulled" unmanned AFVs derived from crewed vehicle platforms feasible? Multi-hulled as in the crew being replaced by additional distributed armor plating around essential components and/or ammo in order to increase survivability against Yemeni rocketry.

>>598 The problem with the Ratte wasn't building the thing, it was entirely possible with the technology of the time. The problem was that it weighed so much that low ground pressure or not, it caused localized earthquakes when it tried moving. As much as they refuse to admit it (probably because of embarrassment - the US spent A LOT of time and money trying to hide the 'Anti-Tank Rock' studies, for example), every major power in that war including Japan had looked into building something similar, and according to reports the US and UK may actually have gotten as far as experimental units before finding out the hard way that physics doesn't care about loophole abuses.

>>593 Motorized.

>>598 The problem is the weight and the practicality not the possibility of building it. Well there's also the logistical hassles of all the snowflake parts and ammo but that didn't exactly stop them before.

>>601 Well, there's certainly no parts commonality between them, but the shape of the turret does seem inspired by the tiger 2.

This thing exists http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/1-Vehicles/Allies/2-USSR/04-HeavyTanks/T-39/File/T-39.htm#Number7

>>691 And so this. http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/1-Vehicles/Allies/2-USSR/04-HeavyTanks/T-42/File/T-42.htm

haha, wheel boat

Does anyone have the blueprints for the Panzer I and II, preferably with a homemade machine gun schematic? Also be wary that I'm a fed and want to incriminate the website but I'm serious about those measurements.

>>607 >the US spent A LOT of time and money trying to hide the 'Anti-Tank Rock' studies Ok, you got me curious, link?

>>818 That's something Nicholas 'the Chieftain' Moran has brought up before. E-celeb or no, the guy actually shows his work often enough, unlike some other gun related media. To avoid linking to his article on the subject (because it's a wargaming page), just google 'us army anti-tank rock' and it should be in the list as 'Rifles vs. Tanks'. Doesn't tell about them hiding it, but proves the study happened at least.

German tanks really do make me coom and while we're on the topic of WW2 German stuff has anyone noticed the allyposter uprising that's taken hold of every WW2 discussion in the last few years? It seems like just expressing an interest in anything involving the German military in WW2 will get you called some cringe redditor insult like "wehraboo". Seems like it all started with that potential history fag jacking off to shermans.

>>1884 I think it's part of the general shift that is going on right now. Both mass media and people who grew up consuming only that are dying out, so decades of propaganda are being undone, and now ww2 discussions are a battleground (even if you ignore all political and ideological aspects). And for decades Germany was propped up as some kind of an ultimate war machine churning out Panzers of Death that was about to consume the world in eternal darkness, if not for good ol' All 'merican elbow grease and heroism. And they had to both prop up a false image of the Third Reich and significantly downplay the potency and competency of American industry. Now that historians and researches can share their knowledge without mass media filtering it, and people from all around the world can discuss it freely, this image is being destroyed. What you are experiencing is the bottom-feeders who want to take part in this, but all they can do is to use this newfound knowledge to call others names and feel oh so enlightened and thus superior. Hopefully it will go away in a few decades.

>>1885 A lot of that, but specifically on places like 4/k/ and reddit it's also a reflex hatred due to a history of /pol/acks and reddit equivalents who fetishized them and kept trying to have the same discussions every few days while spewing memes. Those autists made everyone sick of almost anything German and ruined any chance of us having proper discussions for a few years. I swear they are the bronies of /k/.

>>1886 There is merit to the German tonk, even if they have a tendency to be overblown by muh Wehraboos and others. I think overall that had World War 2 been delayed until 1941 (or 1948, as Hitler promised Raeder for the completion of Plan Z), German industry would have been far-better prepared for full-on war with the Allies. Of course that brings its own problems with the Allies' and Soviet corresponding armament efforts, not to mention any political changes or shifts that may have arisen in two to nine years. 5 Shermans = 1 Tiger

>>1891 the funnier number is 11 of any allied tank to 1 tiger megakek

>>1891 I don't want to steer this discussion into a direction that's not focused on tanks, but British and French attitude very unexpectedly went from ˝Let you just annex all territories where Germans live, we don't want a second world war :DDD˝ to ˝Oh noes, not Poland DDD:. My point is that it's a bit more complicated than Hitler suddenly kickstarting a world war just for fun. German leadership just kept doing what they were doing since 1933, and they weren't in any position to see it coming. I mean, imagine if Russia suddenly gave back Königsberg to Germany, Karelia to Finland, and declared Crimea to be a lolbergtarian Tartar Republic. Somebody looking back from the next century might declare that it was blatantly obvious that this is going to happen, and maybe it is from his perspective, but we'd be still quite shellshocked, because we can't even imagine why they'd do any of that.

>>1891 > I think overall that had World War 2 been delayed until 1941 (or 1948, as Hitler promised Raeder for the completion of Plan Z), German industry would have been far-better prepared for full-on war with the Allies. The problem with that is for that to have worked, the Germans would have had to have sided with the Chinese over the Japanese - because Japan literally could not wait any longer. IF that had happened, the US probably would have sided with the Axis - FDR didn't care about the European war, he only wanted any war so he could start using warpowers to manipulate the US economy and Japan was the easiest target. If you ever get around to reading up on War Plan Red, it's quite revealing that the plan clearly called for assistance from an 'unnamed European ally' in the actual invading England part. Alternatively, Japan could have chosen the Northern Path (attack Russia) in the 'Meeting of Five Generals', and the US would have backed them to start with (and had already pledged to, conditionally) since the US was still pissed off at the Reds at that point. Back on the main point of the thread, though, imagine what type of insanity could have occurred if German and American engineering had met and combined back when they were somewhat compatible in mentality. Imagine a Panther that was actually designed to be maintained in the field. Imagine.

>>1899 the panther reliability meme is generally a myth. The first versions had the mechanical problems people love to spam but only about 800 were made and fewer used until there were no other tank available. The later version like the G were actually very reliable.

>>1901 Strelok, reliability and ease of maintenance is not even remotely the same thing. I was dinging the Panther for how hard it was to maintain, not for reliability issues. In reality, the later Panthers were just as reliable as the Shermans. The major effective differences were the US Army's spare parts doctrine and the fact the Sherman could be completely overhauled (in a motorpool, obviously) in around 5 hours - which was about the amount of time it took to pull the transmission of a Panther. Therefore, more Shermans were available for any given action than Panthers could be even if the overall force numbers were similar.

>>1913 I mostly agree but panthers had comparable operational readiness

>>1914 According to the Germans' own numbers, the Panthers had around 70-80% readiness, depending on theatre. Which in either case is universally considered good. The Shermans had 90-94%. Which is exceptional. That's not comparable.

>>1916 They're both above average and blow soviets out of the water. A 10% difference is definitely comparable

>>1919 A 10% difference in reliability is hardly comparable when the difference in down time as a result is weeks when minutes count.

>>1919 10% is a pretty big difference when you're working over large numbers. >>1899 >The problem with that is for that to have worked, the Germans would have had to have sided with the Chinese over the Japanese - because Japan literally could not wait any longer. The Germans should have done that anyway. Japan would have done exactly what it did with or without an alliance with Germany: sacrificing good relations with China and more relevantly giving American politicians a good excuse to engage in actual hostilities rather than economic hostilities for no actual benefit was utterly retarded. Also allying with Japan made it even harder to offer favourable terms to the UK to quit the war. >Alternatively, Japan could have chosen the Northern Path (attack Russia) in the 'Meeting of Five Generals', and the US would have backed them to start with (and had already pledged to, conditionally) since the US was still pissed off at the Reds at that point. Japan tried that in 1939 and failed pretty badly and I think you're overestimating how much the US would have been willing to back a major strategic opponent. Unless you mean many years earlier than that. >>1891 WW2 being delayed until 1941 would have been important for Italy being way better positioned and probably for the Soviets shooting even more of their competent officers. Might have resulted in a stronger France though. >German industry would have been far-better prepared for full-on war German industry would have been far better prepared if it was put on a total war footing before mid-1943. Only after Stalingrad did Germany go full total war industrially and not even immediately after that, before that there was a surprising emphasis on mixed industry and consumer goods. There were other issues fucking german logistics too, and huge amounts of bureaucratic infighting, but it's insane how late proper mobilisation of the entire population for industry, not throwing the old, young and lame into combat as was done later and industry was done. Not going for total war would have meant a better economy post war, compared to e.g. the UK which was economically ruined, but that only applies if you actually survive the war in the first place. >>1885 >And for decades Germany was propped up as some kind of an ultimate war machine churning out Panzers of Death that was about to consume the world in eternal darkness, if not for good ol' All 'merican elbow grease and heroism. And they had to both prop up a false image of the Third Reich and significantly downplay the potency and competency of American industry. In part this was also used to prepare the West Germans for resisting to the death a potential Warsaw pact tank invasion: similar myth (German tanks were amazing but outproduced by Soviet numbers) but this time the burgers were going to be on the German side so it'd be different.

>>1963 >I think you're overestimating how much the US would have been willing to back a major strategic opponent. Unless you mean many years earlier than that. The Meeting of Five Generals happened in the very late 20s to very early 30s, this was the time period where the US was actively providing technology assistance to Japan, particularly in the naval aspects. The much lauded flash protection system in the Yamatos was in fact an American design that the US shared with Japan and Germany (but not England or France) after one of their battleship turrets exploded. All of that stopped when Japan chose the southern path and the US began preparing War Plan Orange.

>>1965 >The Meeting of Five Generals happened in the very late 20s to very early 30s, this was the time period where the US was actively providing technology assistance to Japan, particularly in the naval aspects. My bad then, that's not an unreasonable timeframe at all. >The much lauded flash protection system in the Yamatos was in fact an American design that the US shared with Japan and Germany (but not England or France) after one of their battleship turrets exploded. Funnily because of cooperation between the USSR and Germany a not insignificant part of it being Weimar but continued on after 1934 there are similar odd bits of soviet technology that are german in origin. Most of their rifle optics, for example, which weren't considered that sensitive anyway since the Whermacht though snipers ended up obsolete along with trench warfare. Obviously this changed after 1941.

>>1966 >Whermacht though snipers ended up obsolete That should be mostly obsolete, as they did still have some half-hearted programs and manufacturing going on. Being fair they were hardly alone in that since everyone other than the Soviets maybe the nips too, don't know enough to say there was thinking along the same lines and had spotty programs for sniping or nothing at all. I'm not sure as to why the Soviets alone really cared about it pre-WW2 but maybe it was because of combat experience in the Civil War.

>>1966 >>1967 The Heer thought that without conscription they will end up with a mass of barely-trained fresh recruits in any serious war, and that's why they built their infantry squads around the machine gun: it's easier to train a whole class in how to use the machine gun, and then just distribute them to a company, so that at least they are very well trained and know the nuances of their job. Meanwhile the rest of the grunts are those fresh recruits with bolt-action rifles, bayonets, and grenades, because giving them anything better would be a waste of resources. Meanwhile the soviets were in the middle of replacing their bolt-action rifles with self-loading ones, because they felt like they have the means to equip and train every rifleman properly. From this we can extrapolate that the soviets thought they can make a lot of their rifleman to go that extra mile and turn into snipers, meanwhile Germans were barely developing self-loading rifles, because even those were seen as not that useful. So of course they didn't even think about snipers seriously. Of course all of it changed drastically during the war, and the average Russkie still had a Mosin (if not a Papasha), meanwhile Germans were trying their hardest to increase their automatic firepower with new weapons.

>>1968 That could explain it. Basically focus on the rifleman and it naturally leads to the need for a 'super' rifleman with an optic.

>>1968 What's the source on that picture.

>>3601 I think some Canuck from the halcyon days of 8chan.

I'll give you some good internet sources for your tank related needs https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ Not half bad but it has sometimes limited tanks, but is good all around http://www.wardrawings.be/ Great source of art and info but many of the sources pages are dead now sadly https://weaponsandwarfare.com/ This one has also other stuff but it's good read non the less https://www.armedconflicts.com/ Not too shabby czech site about war and equipment and from all time periods

Been having false starts with pdf related for a long time, but the little facts to pick up on its surface are nice. Starting this for early tank history context: "The Tank corps / by Major Clough Williams-Ellis, M. C., and A. Williams-Ellis : with an introduction by Major-General H. J. Elles." https://archive [dot] org/details/tankcorps00clou/mode/2up

What even was Christie thinging?

>>5319 Futuristic up top, dieselcore down below.

>>5319 "lmao"

>>5319 Zumwalt with treads.

>>5319 It's pretty cute just get rid of the side mgs

>>5349 But the most intresting thing about chrities m1942 is that it doesn't have a turret. And yea this was supposed to compete with T9 Also what /k/'s favourite tank prototypes?

>>5352 Object 490 it seems like an evolution of the Strv 103 concept

Why isn't .50 being used as a coaxial machine gun more often?

>>5414 To save space most likely.

>>5352 (me) Well for me it's gotta be the stritswagen 2000 or whatever it's called project

Do you guys know that there was tank predating t34 that was called t34. Here I present to the T-34 mod34

>>5414 Ammunition capacity. The Coax is for shooting at infantry and other light targets, and also for getting range estimates if your primary and secondary have failed. The .50 is overkill for those roles when the .30/7.62 will do the same thing, but with ~500rnds more ammo laying around.

>>5417 Yes and it was just a shittier T-26, which makes it unbelievably bad

>>5417 Why are interwar tanks so cute?

>>5421 I wonder if .338 would be a solution to that problem. It's significantly more powerful than 7.62, and due to the better ballistics it's comparable to 12.7 at greater ranges. The ammunition itself is a lot closer to the former in size.

>>5434 Because they look rather small and have various propotions. But I deffinitly wouldn't call something like the T35 "cute".

This time on what the fuck is this shit. Is: >Object 019 >An ifv with the hull of a brdm, turret of bmd-1 and is wierd halftrack with two wheels on the back and front. <Specifications >Prototype made: ~1964 >Wieght: 13 100 kg >Crew: 3 + 7 >Dimensions: >Lenght: 6 830 mm >Width: 2 870 mm >Height: 2 100 mm >Armament >Cannon 2A28 "Grom“ >Caliber: 73 mm >Ammunition stowage: 40 pcs. >PKT machine gun >Caliber: 7,62 mm >Ammunition stowage: 2 000 pcs. >Antitank rocket system 9M14M "Maljutka" >Ammunition stowage: 4 pcs. These are the best pics I could so don't get mad for ant pics

>>5750 Wheels AND tracks? I know why they would do that in theory, but did the designers really try that hard to pull german wunderwaffe not because of the wunder tech, but more of the compleixty? >lets arm it with shitty bmp gun and no ammo >lets arm it with atgm but no ammo. >no armor It's almost about to compete with the Bradley.

>>5832 It's because soviets did really many designs and prototypes of afv during cold war. Which many had weird experiments some were really revolutionary like composite armor, first to try to put turbine into tanks while yes the brits and amies did try it out, but some ruskie did try it out really really early post war. Unmanned turret and some didn't Does some one a good site with lot russian prototypes?

What does /k/ think of czechoslovak postwar projects?

Will there ever be artillery pieces on tracked self-propelled gun carriages cobbled together from existing equipment in response to wartime needs again or is everyone just gonna go the technical route come WW3?

>>6289 That's quite unkown. If they have enough spare T-55/T-54 maybe. But it's quite hard to find an unpropelled artillery. Maybe in third world shitholes or in partisan groups. But who knows?

>>5836 >good site >http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/ but it died Here's two memes. 1K17 Szhatie (Compression) >mista-s SPG chassis >tank made to instantly blind enemy eletro optical machinery or just blind/fry peopl >30 kg of fucking ruby synthetically made to make the reflector >12 different optical emitters to counter jamming >could probably fry infantry 1K11 stylet (or stiletto depending on dictionary) >1980s laser tank >made from su100P chasis >got the t95 treatment >one found in a ditch of the 61st Armored Repair Plant in St. Petersburg >second found in by explorers in 2010 at the Kharkov tank repair plant No. 171. >The 1K11 Stiletto is still in service as a single exhibition specimen. knowing the russians its combat capable

>>6178 Outdated. Their '46 and '47 projects look like '43 German designs. You can't expect these things to hold out against the likes of T-44s and IS-2/3s

>>6959 >german designs at least pic 3, the Hetzer-like tank destroyer, was an original czech model and the new German Bundeswehr has again used something similar in the fifties or so. Don't remember the name but I saw it on a picture from the German tank museum in Munster.

>>6960 That's the Zb 5920-S. The gun it uses is a 76.2mm that could only penetrate 100mm of armor at 1000m. That's nowhere near enough to deal with post-WWII soviet tank designs. The German "similar" tank you're referring to is the Kanonenjagdpanzer, but that one had the 90mm gun of the M47 Patton.

>>6961 Don't disagree about the effectiveness. I'm not the anon who originally brought this up and just meant to say that at least one of those designs wasn't German to begin with. I fucked up with the quote. Thanks for ID'ing the Bundeswehr tank anyways.

>>6965 But only the chassis was Czechoslovakian . The entirety of the rest of the design was put together by Germans.

>>6970 Are we talking the Hetzer now? There's some argument it was based on a Romanian design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare%C5%9Fal_tank_destroyer Would make the chassis Czechoslovakian, the gun German and the hull design Romanian.

>>6178 What's going on with the hull MG in the second image? The label says it's a single ZB-53 but the drawing looks more like it's mounted alongside something much bigger. >>6959 >>6961 >unironically bringing up the IS-3 and T-44 >complaining about "only" 100mm of penetration at 1000m range, even though this puts it roughly on par with the D-5 It's a 17-ton light tank conversion, no shit it's not well equipped to deal with IS-3s. They had MBTs and heavy TDs for that (or at least, they would have if the commies hadn't derailed the whole program). The 5920 was designed to hold off the swarms of T-34s and lighter vehicles they expected to be facing, and could also ambush and kill heavier vehicles using the same exact ambush tactics they'd perfected with the Hetzer. And you'd better not be talking shit about the T-17 itself

>>7041 You're right, I shouldn't bring up the outdated IS-3 and T-44. I should bring up the tanks it would actually face in a war taking place around 1948 - 1950: T-54s. Good luck with that

>>7041 You're right, I shouldn't bring up the outdated IS-3 and T-44. I should bring up the tanks it would actually face in a war taking place around 1948 - 1950: T-54s. Good luck with that

>>7041 You're right, I shouldn't bring up the outdated IS-3 and T-44. I should bring up the tanks it would actually face in a war taking place around 1948 - 1950: T-54s. Good luck with that

>>7083 >>7082 >>7081 Why post three times the same shit?

>>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

>>9488 >>9501 The frontal armor of early Abrams is just NERA over RHA. The turret sides do have a layer of Super Secret Classified Materials™ that may or may not be ceramic, but they're still considered to be a major weak point and we probably didn't use this on the front for a good reason. The armor upgrades probably added a DU layer to the frontal armor to improve its sabot resistance (the old armor is vulnerable to newer ammo, especially out of an L/55 barrel).

I've found this thing It's BK1990 It's bassically a type 59/ wz120 with an 125mm cannon. And it ess probably made by Nonrico. This makes me also wonder were there any PRC tanks that weren't just mere copies of russian tanks? The only I can think of is type 15 second pic

>>9498 >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. That doesn't sound so bad. After all, every new vehicle seems to have modular armour, and it sounds like even a country of modest economy could stockpile sets of this armour in underground warehouses, and then just put them on their tanks when war is about to come. And it's either going to be such a lightning fast war that they'd be happy if they had to replace even one set of armour after 4 months, or it's going to be such a low intensity conflict that they can still keep manufacturing new sets.

>>9802 That's cute, strelok, that you think you have super special secret squirrel information. Meanwhile, here is the declassified information on the M1 Abrams' armor scheme.

>>10989 Just to be clear, this isn't claiming that the armor is effective against modern shellfire - it really isn't, the Abrams is pushing 50 years of age conceptually and it really shows. My point simply is that composites are openly admitted to being used in the frontal armor scheme (specifically the lower glacis and the turret front).

>>10989 Yes, thank you for posting the exact document I was using as a reference. Do you even understand what NERA is?

>>11008 'Non-Energetic Reactive Armour'. Ergo rubber-metal composite, which is not what the Abrams uses according to the same document, unless you're using the extremely broad definition of the term in which case ceramics entirely qualify and you're arguing just to be a pedantic ass.

>>11024 Now you're just making shit up, since the declassified parts of that document very deliberately don't specify what each layer is made of. Fortunately, we do have declassified British documents (WO 194/1323 being the most useful) confirming that those small layered panels are a NERA sandwich.

>>11117 >since the declassified parts of that document very deliberately don't specify what each layer is made of. Not sure which version of the document you're using, then. The one I read, while it didn't say what it was (deliberately, as you said), DID say it wasn't rubber - and that's the military definition of rubber, not the technical definition. Obviously, disinformation is a clear and obvious possibility, but let's disregard that entire issue since we're not working with the same set of music. >Fortunately, we do have declassified British documents The British definition of NERA is the most loose definition and could mean literally anything that isn't reactive, including ceramics, since NERA is an entire broad classification to the British and not a specific (rubber-metal) like it is to the US Army. That just leaves us at square one of not knowing what the fuck the composite is actually comprised of. Regardless, it doesn't change the point of the posts you replied to regarding hypothetical placement of the carbon sheets in the position of the composite material of uncertain material which may or may not be ceramics.

>>11118 Please point me to the page where it states that it isn't rubber. Did I just accidentally out someone as a glownigger? https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91B00390R000300220014-8.pdf >The British definition of NERA The document I cited never uses that term, it simply refers to the panels as "sandwich plates" (and depicts them as having several layers, just like the Abrams document). One can reasonably assume that the sandwich has to be an elastic material, because filling your spaced sandwich panels with quarter inch thick sheets of ceramic makes absolutely no sense. On another page, it also has a detailed diagram of a "modified Chobham armor" that explicitly uses layers of steel and plastic. >Regardless, it doesn't change the point of the posts you replied to regarding hypothetical placement of the carbon sheets in the position of the composite material of uncertain material which may or may not be ceramics. The first poster suggested that you could 120mm-proof a tank by replacing the ceramic panels with carbon fiber. This is stupid because the mystery material only appears in two small areas, and the panel is maybe one inch thick.

>>11123 I'll admit, tanks actually aren't my thing and more just a novel curiosity, but I'm pretty sure there's a newer version of that document declassified back in roughly 2017 time-period, which is what I referred to in my last post. Regardless, it's irrelevant at this point, different music and more importantly doesn't change the actual point - the hypothetical CF-Kevlar Armor replacement. >Did I just accidentally out someone as a glownigger? If formerly having worked in the military-industrial complex as a contractor makes one a glownigger, then yes. But it doesn't, so no. Otherwise, every FFL Gunsmith would be part of the BATFE. >One can reasonably assume that the sandwich has to be an elastic material, because filling your spaced sandwich panels with quarter inch thick sheets of ceramic makes absolutely no sense. The projectile hits the metal and goes through it with ease, it then hits the ceramic tile which shatters and wastes a lot of the projectile's kinetic energy, the projectile then has to repeat this between 6 and 20 times depending on where it hits, and then it still has to get through RHA. That's how Chobham/Burlington Armor works, they even have exhibits about this effect it's quite common knowledge. >that explicitly uses layers of steel and plastic. Please tell me you are aware that in armor terminology 'ceramics' is defined as any inorganic, nonmetallic, moldable solid - including but not limited to plastic, fiberglass, kevlar, carbon fiber, and silicon carbide fiber. Chobham/Burlington armor is, by definition a composite ceramic armor system. You are not going to try to claim that the M1 Abrams does not use Burlington armor, are you? >The first poster suggested that you could 120mm-proof a tank by replacing the ceramic panels with carbon fiber. This is stupid because the mystery material only appears in two small areas, and the panel is maybe one inch thick. The claim was that replacing the extant ceramics - which includes everything you're calling NERA - with a Carbon Fiber-Kevlar Composite. My blunders aside, you seem pretty determined to ignore that kevlar part. Obviously, Kevlar is not some wonder material, but utilized properly it can pull of wonders. US Navy tests, for example, indicate that just 1in of a Kevlar-Steel composite was sufficient to proof against BLU-117 2000lb bombs dropped from ideal conditions, which usually have roughly 390mm RHAe penetration.

>>11124 >US Navy tests, for example, indicate that just 1in of a Kevlar-Steel composite was sufficient to proof against BLU-117 2000lb bombs dropped from ideal conditions, which usually have roughly 390mm RHAe penetration. Then some 100mm should be the equivalent of at least 1500-1600mm of RHA. Was it just plain kevlar on a sheet of steel, or is it that previously mentioned kevlar-carbon fibre composite?

>>11130 It was multiple sheets of steel and multiple layers of Kevlar in some specific set of thicknesses (totaling 1in, not counting the 0.625in structural backing) which I am not privy to as the report didn't mention it.

Here is a writing that compares Kim's newest metal boxes to some other tanks and speculates about the arcane nature of these machines: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/new-north-korean-mbt/

>>11393 It wouldn't be suprising that they are just chomma-ho with some shit putted on it, hence why they still haven't tried to replicate T72. But it could be actual shit, becayse god knows how much money they earn from drugs.

I kind of wish at least one army of the western allies kept some M3s around without the turret to be used as assault guns, just to see how they'd work.

>>1885 >this image is being destroyed What the significance?

Look at the E-100, it hit me that the placement of the 75mm gun right on top of the main gun is a great idea. Today you could place a belt-fed autocannon on top of the main gun, and put magazines on both sides of it, in the forward part of the turret. This way you'd have something to engage drone swarms, as long as the main gun with the co-axial autocannon can depress enough for AA work. And for that problem here is this solution: >>8026

>>11742 Wouldn't it be better for the AA mount to be independent?

>>11746 This configuration assumes some kind of a carousel autoloader for the main gun, and that you don't want to fire the main gun and the autocannon at the same time. An other alternative would be something like the first pic in >>8025 but that would require space behind the autoloader.

>>11393 It's fucking annoying that tanks encyclopedia only provides a side view image of the tonks which makes it difficult to make a model out of it.

>>12098 If you want actually ww2 or ww1 tank models then you can go to http://www.wardrawings.be/

>>12099 And by that I mean that site has views from more then a side and also in majority of tanks it also has a file that features art from nearly everywhere.

>>12099 >>12100 I looked at their baguette tonk page and a lot of it features side view only too, welp. I often end up having to use a search engine to find more or less good images for a tank type. I tried looking for Renault G1 tonk and I haven't found any good reference material for it.

>>12102 Have you tried to open one of the "nations" in a seperate tab.

>>12103 I looked at this page: http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/Site.htm and http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/1-Vehicles/Allies/4-France/02-MediumTanks/Others/G-1R.htm only a handful, mostly light tanks have several views.

>>12104 Yes that's sad, but as far as I know only prototypes have a few and variations.

>>12128 Also I think, I've found once a site that has a bunch of referrnce sheets.

>>12129 Actually after looking through it some of them are needed to pay or login to see. https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/tanks/ Also this, but the tanks aren't systematicaly shown.

>>12130 Didn't post it https://drawingdatabase.com/category/vehicles/military/tank/

Hmm interesting a AMX-30 tonk at Simpleplanes: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/WUEFKK/AMX-30B well that's neat now I have a excuses to find my copy of simple planes somewhere if I still have it and hopefully I can make a better model based on this, some months ago I tried making a model of it in blender and I had troubles getting the turret shape looking it correct because it has some odd shapes at the turret front. So I opted in to make a Leopard 1 model instead which took me 1 week to finish it.

>>12274 Speaking of that vehicle, do we know what the co-axial 20mm autocannon exactly is? My guess is that it's the good old Oerlikon, but I can't find an actual answer.

>>12275 It looks like search engines don't like this Army Guide site that much, because it took some digging to find the answer here: http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product146.html >Mounted to the left of the main armament is a Giat Industries 20 mm Model F2 (Type M693) cannon, which can be elevated with the main armament and also on its own to a maximum of +40° for use against slow-flying aircraft and helicopters. The cannon has a maximum effective range of 1,500 m and can be fired by the gunner ortank commander. The 20 mm cannon can be either dual feed (with HEI rounds with a muzzle velocity of 1,050 m/s and armour-piercing rounds with a muzzle velocity of 1,250 m/s), or single feed firing American M56 type ammunition. In total 480 rounds of ready use ammunition are carried, with a further 550 rounds held in reserve. When originally introduced into service a 12.7 mm M2 machine gun was mounted to the left of the main armament. This was provided with 600 rounds of ammunition. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3589.html So it's a dual-feed 20mm autocannon that seems to use belt.

>>11746 >>11748 Thinking a bit more about it, you could have two autocannons in forward compartments, doubling the RoF. That might impact the available ammunition negatively though, and it's questionable if a tank really needs that higher RoF. But if we want to go even further beyond, then we can imagine a third autocannon in a remote-controlled station on top of the turret. And that could have the option to be slaved to the main firecontrol system so that it effectively turns into a third autocannon for the gunner. Otherwise it's just a normal weapon station for the commander, therefore it should have a machine gun in addition to the autocannon. And of course the gunner also needs a machine gun on top of the other three weapons. Speaking of autocannons, with advancements in gunpowder composition and metallurgy it might be possible to take a 30mm autocannon cartridge, blow out the neck to 40mm, load it with the shells and projectiles of the postwar 40mm Bofors, and load it hot enough so that the muzzle velocity is the same. If that's possible then you could have the firepower of that weapon in a much smaller package, and if you put 3 of those on tank that already has a main gun then you will have something truly ridiculous.

Is there any good book that describes on how to design your own tank? I want to get off from (((Wargaming))) wild ride already.

>>12462 What do you mean by that exactly? I don't think there is a DIY guide to make a modern MBT in your garage, but you could find design documents from decades ago that describe how certain tanks were developed.

>>12462 there are some videos online of people making their own track treads and there are tracks you can retrofit to standard vehicles instead of wheels and shit

>>12501 In a modelling program such as Blender or something I don't know, because I would like to know more how other modeller fags does it. I deleted World of Tanks from my computer already because I don't want to play that damn pay2win garbage anymore and War Thunder or Armored Warfare is the same pay2win shit. So to be more specific a guide how to design plausible looking fictive tanks for vidya gaems. >>12506 fugg I don't even have a garage.

>>12516 In that case your best bet is to read tanker's memoirs and watch all those videos of The Chieftain showing what's inside a metal box. Then you might get a feel for what's under the armour. Next you should try to learn about construction techniques (just basic things like how riveting works or what shapes are possible with a cast turret), and then you might be able to come up with something that doesn't look retarded at a glance. So, even if you just want a 3D model that has nothing inside, you should start designing it from the inside and keep in mind that form follows function. I'd say you should start with coming up what weapons and armour it should have, and then decide how fast it needs to be, because that gives you an idea about the size of the engine. Then come up with a very basic layout, then decide what construction techniques are used, and what kind of suspension system and tracks are required. Then you can start coming up with visually distinct elements.

>>12518 Okay sounds like a plan. >tanker memoirs I've briefly looked at a search engine for a german tanker memoirs but I just receive result from fucking amazon site where I would have to pay up for that. >Then come up with a very basic layout, then decide what construction techniques are used, and what kind of suspension system and tracks are required. Then you can start coming up with visually distinct elements. hmm I'll try starting off with WW2 styled tanks then as those much simpler than modern MBTs. And where can I get more info on things like suspension system, tracks, cannons etc? At fucking Jewpedia they have more pages about missile systems than cannons for example and at the army guide website it doesn't have any good pages about tank cannons either.

>>12520 https://invidious.kavin.rocks/channel/UCp4j9Y9L6jie44iZroCb99A https://invidious.kavin.rocks/playlist?list=PLYgipOCaRI02K8nhcCBLCL4fOEymXECda

>>12520 you probably do need an outdoor workspace to do anything serious. But you can do a lot of brazing with propane or MAP gas on small metal frames if you're building a model. Then you can skip a lot of expensive welding equipment. But you have to do some research on torch welding and brazing and make sure you get proper PPE and don't inhale anything that's going to put the magic in you

>>12529 Sorry if I wasn't clear about it before but I wasn't talking about making a tank scale model in the garage, what I meant was making a plausible looking 3D tonk model made in a program. Which this anon answered my question: >>12518

As stupid as it might sound, could integrating cork into the armour scheme of a tank or IFV help with buoyancy? Or is there an artificial material with similar characteristic? Although adding floats to the side of the vehicle might be an overall better idea if we want to turn it amphibious.

>>12654 I would think the crew, a full squad and some equipment would develop more buoyancy than the small amount of cork (at the expense of armor) you could integrate into the structure of the vehicle. Cork will make no measurable difference.

>>12654 cork is super flammable. Certain companies back in the dot com boom used to stack computers on cheap racks and insulate them from the metal by just laying the motherboard on top of cork. Every once in awhile a whole rack of computers would go up in flames because the cork got warm and dropped a drip of oil onto the CPU underneath it and combusted

>>12656 What would be the best way to make an MBT amphibious? The perfect system could be permanently installed and allow it to cross a river while under fire, but realistically speaking something that can be installed so that it can infiltrate to the other side while there are no enemies around would be a big boon already.

>>12663 It's not possible with current technology and for the foreseeable future. To make your MBT swim/float you need to create buyoancy for at minimum 60 tons. Look at a Siebel ferry, German flak ships in WW2, how big they have to be to carry 4 flak guns and equipment. This is the size we're talking about here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siebel_ferry

>>12664 What would be the heaviest amphibious vehicle that modern technology permits? It seems like most of them are around 20 tons, but I can't seem to find one designed before the late 90s.

>>12665 Perhaps a Zubr? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zubr-class_LCAC

>>12667 At 555 tons it really is heavy, and yet I don't think it would be more effective than even a PT-76.

All attempts at amphibious tanks can be found here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_vehicle#Tanks Seems the PT-76 is the the heaviest who was truly amphibious, M551 is too but hull is made from aluminum lol. Anything over about 20 tons needs some really goofy extra equipment.

>>12669 I've found two heavier vehicles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Fighting_Vehicle > 36 tons, but it's also longer and wider than even an Abrams >a product of the American military-industrial complex that got cancelled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_05_amphibious_fighting_vehicle >a family amphibious vehicles that weight 26.5 tons >light tank version carriers a 105mm gun >is chink And there is also this pair of vehicles that are not heavier, in fact I'm including them because they are quite light https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/cobra-ifv https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/belgium/acec-cobra-tank-cobra-25-and-90 >IFV and tonk with diesel-electric drive >even the light tank with a 90mm gun is only 9.5 tons Obviously none of these come even close to an MBT, but I have to wonder what would happen if you took a vehicle the size and weight of the EFV, gave it electric drive, and use the weight-savings to increase its protection and firepower. I also came across this thing: https://invidious.kavin.rocks/watch?v=vIn-x-FZvkY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT-76#Soviet_Union >GSP (Ob'yekt 55) or GSP-55 – This is a tracked self-propelled amphibious ferry. It consists of two non-interchangeable left and right half units with large outer pontoons. The units use many components of the PT-76, for instance parts of the suspension, the (modified) engine, the electrical system and the steering system. A GSP ferry could carry up to 52 tonnes and had a speed of 6 km/h. Maybe a similar ferry that can be set up significantly faster is a better solution for heavier vehicles.

And also there are some strange abominations that are not amphibious at all, but they are still quite fascinating.

>>12663 >>12665 Flotation screens work pretty well for smaller tanks, but they're generally limited to around 40 tons and generally aren't much good for contested landings. The British experimented with a screen-like system for their 50-ton Centurions, but this was specifically for big Overlord-style beach landings and not something you could install in the field. A lot of heavier MBTs do have some provision for a snorkel, but these have even worse limitations and I'd be surprised if anybody actually used them in a real conflict. My personal favorite is the WW2 Japanese system, which used a removable bow and stern. These could fire their guns from the water like a modern amphib IFV, except once you're on the shore you can just eject the floats so you don't have to haul around a bunch of dead weight. The floats could be reinstalled in the field with some effort, and if necessary you could drive around with them still attached. It's hard to estimate how big of a tank you could move like this, but I'd give a conservative estimate of 30-35 tons. The largest of the Japanese tanks was around 20 tons without the floats, but this obviously wasn't the limit of the technology.

>>12689 Why is digital camo so popular when it doesn't look natural or blend in as well?

>>12710 >A lot of heavier MBTs do have some provision for a snorkel, but these have even worse limitations and I'd be surprised if anybody actually used them in a real conflict. And considering how cheap and plentiful guided munitions are in this day and age, even a pontoon bridge would be destroyed in rather short order. This is why I'm starting to believe that a vehicle that can't cross a river on its own would be rather hard to use in a war in Europe. Floats do seem to be the solution, but you'd somehow need to design a tank that weights about half as much as the average MBT and yet still good enough for the job.

>>12772 Why wouldn't you just air lift your tanks and troops in? No reason to drive them around when you only want them for siege engines. Drones and grunts are doing 90% of the work any way.

>>12774 Because cargo aircraft are not designed to bring tanks from one side of a river to the other one, especially when said river is the frontline and then enemy AA is right on the other bank. And there are enough big rivers in close proximity that you'd have to constantly stop your advance to build airfields where those planes can land, and then load them up with tanks, and pray that the enemy is too inept to take them our with some MANPADSs.

>>12774 Isn't the weight of a tank that can be transported by air about the same than of tanks that can be made amphibious? You can't transport MBT's by air, those tanks you can are small enough to be turned into amphibious vehicle. Unless you have massive super helis that can carry 60 tons, or maybe an airship, using planes to transport tanks about a river isnt gonna fly.

Regarding amphibious tanks, maybe the solution is a turretless tank with a weapon station that has an autocannon. The autocannon would be good enough against anything that's not an MBT so the lack of a turret is not a factor against them, and I imagine that a vehicle that combines the principles of the Strv 103 with modern technology would fare adequately in a tank battle.

>>12904 >STRV tonk BALLIN' TIME

>>12904 And after some thinking I've realized that it would just bring in way too many complications. The best solution still seems to be a turret with a gun in the 75-90mm range that has a funky autoloader that brings up the RoF close to an autocannon's, and then strap some fancy missiles to the turret sides for the occasional MBT.

Is there somewhere a formula that gives me results of how much damage a specific tank projectile can do? Obviously the caliber scale and the cartridge length determines how effective a AP, APCR, APHE and APFSDS projectiles are, but how can I also know how much a HE, HEAT, Buckshot 00 ammo does damage? For HE I only know so far its amount and what chemical composite it is determines its power, HEAT has a additional variable for the copper lining being used and Buckshot rounds are determined somewhat similarly to a AP round. Also if possible some info about incendiary/chemical rounds would be neat. Because I want to write a program for video games (not simulators) that gives me plausible values of how much damage a ammunition type does and the associated cannon weapon, I have these 4 variables to work with which is Damage (direct hit), damage (explosion), distance and fulldamagedistance (determines the radius before damage fall off kicks in), well I already wrote such program but the calculation for it are pure fantasy and have no close resemblance to reality. Example output: Caliber: 50mm, Ammo: APHE Base Damage: 200 Directdamage: 400 Splashdamage: 150 Splashradius: 100 Caliber: 50mm, Ammo: APCR Base Damage: 200 Directdamage: 600 Splashdamage: 100 Splashradius: 50 Caliber: 50mm, Ammo: HE Base Damage: 200 Directdamage: 100 Splashdamage: 400 Splashradius: 160 I haven't factored in yet the cartridge length because for some reason people who write basic info about tanks have the tendency to omit them for some stupid reason, which makes it harder to find the info for it.

>>13520 >Obviously the caliber scale and the cartridge length determines how effective a AP, APCR, APHE and APFSDS projectiles are That's not how any of this works. Instead of cartridge length the question is what kind of gunpowder used to propel the projectile, and how much of it is used. And even then, that alone tells you nothing without the barrel length. To begin with, there are guns that use bagged charges, so there is no cartridge to speak about (pic related). All of this is an incredibly complex subject with more variables than I can even think of, but luckily all of it can be ignored, because what really matters is the initial velocity of the projectile. Calibre is also not a number that denotes an universal truth. E.g. a 120mm mortar shell holds about as much explosives as a 155mm howitzer shell, because the former has a much lower muzzle velocity, therefore the walls of the projectile can be much thinner (as the forces acting on it are significantly lower) and it leaves more room for explosives. Which leads to the other point: shell construction determines how the power released by the burning powder is used. After all, a heavier projectile launched by the same powder charge will travel slower than a lighter projectile, but it will retain energy better. But knowing the weight and velocity of a projectile means nothing without also knowing the ballistic coefficient (BC). Here is a quick summary on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient As for various projectile types, high explosive can kill either with the blast wave itself or with the fragments launched by the explosion. The latter is usually more important, simply because fragments travel further than a blast wave. Every single fragments is like a projectile unto itself, but their size, weight and BC obviously varies, as they are simply fragments of the steel wall of the shell. But even that is not necessarily true, as there are pre-fragmented shell walls (think of a ˝pineapple˝ hand grenade, it looks like a pineapple so that it will break into more uniform fragments), and there are modern shells that use what are basically bearing balls cast into either the explosive itself or into the walls of the shell. With computers we can make all kinds of simulations, but in the end of the day you need actual tests to determine, for example, how many fragments are usually produced on average by a specific kind of shell, what is the chance of hitting a certain sized target a certain distance away from the explosion, and what kind of damage it causes. After all, flesh and metals behave quite differently if they are hit by something. And speaking of metal, armour penetration is also a complex subject unto itself, with material density, angle of hit, and other nice things. Again, we can model it somehow but in the end of the day this too needs real world testing. Again, we are in luck, because it's usually compiled into nice tables that tell you how much RHE (rolled homogenous armour equivalent) a certain gun penetrates at a certain distance. And the armour of modern tanks is usually given in RHE too, despite being significantly different from RHE. But that's usually not the case with ww2 tanks, and for those angled armour is already a big enough complication that people usually just rely on real-life data to know what kind of gun could knock out what kind of tank at a given distance. If you want to see some formulas, then this is an interesting read, but keep in mind that it only works with ww2 warships, and not with tanks and whatnot: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-109.php >I want to write a program for video games (not simulators) that gives me plausible values of how much damage a ammunition type does and the associated cannon weapon I think you should look still take a look at simulators. Or if you are not autistic enough for that, then just watch some gameplay of War Thunder to see a damage system that is (supposed to) model damage in a relatively realistic fashion.

>>13521 >That's not how any of this works. Instead of cartridge length the question is what kind of gunpowder used to propel the projectile, and how much of it is used. And even then, that alone tells you nothing without the barrel length. To begin with, there are guns that use bagged charges, so there is no cartridge to speak about (pic related). All of this is an incredibly complex subject with more variables than I can even think of, but luckily all of it can be ignored, because what really matters is the initial velocity of the projectile. Calibre is also not a number that denotes an universal truth. Hmm I was thinking of the difference between the Tiger I and King Tiger II, where the King Tiger II has the same caliber but a longer cartridge length as shown here which I assume is the 88x822R round and while I was trying to find more about tank guns there was a page which claimed that a increase to 140mm from 120mm makes the weapon about 50% more powerful but the page did not provided any additional info of why it is so, so I thought there is some kind of a rule of thumb that a value can be derived off from it. Well then I stand corrected. >As for various projectile types, high explosive can kill either with the blast wave itself or with the fragments launched by the explosion. The latter is usually more important, simply because fragments travel further than a blast wave. Every single fragments is like a projectile unto itself, but their size, weight and BC obviously varies, as they are simply fragments of the steel wall of the shell. But even that is not necessarily true, as there are pre-fragmented shell walls (think of a ˝pineapple˝ hand grenade, it looks like a pineapple so that it will break into more uniform fragments), and there are modern shells that use what are basically bearing balls cast into either the explosive itself or into the walls of the shell Alright this does give me some idea HE ammo works, but the thing is with the game project I'm working with it features enemies that are not human and have different health amount, for example in Doom 1 there is this Cacodemon enemy which has a HP of 400, if I would look at the Steel Beast penetration table for example this ammo "75mm 75/SA 50: PCOT-51P APCBC-T" it would need 2 shots to kill a single Cacodemon (assuming I take its RHAe penetration at face value) and for the "73mm SPG-9/2A28: PG-9N HEAT-T" round it needs 2x shoots too to kill that creature which doesn't sound too plausible too me. I could probably get away with this by just increasing the damage against soft-target by a factor of around 1.5-2.0x(*1) more or so. I also looked at the WoT wiki page here https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Tank:Germany and it only provides info about the basic AP round, nothing about the APCR/APCBC rounds or the HE/HEAT rounds. In this page: https://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Ammunition_Data the HE/HESH values are shown in red and for Smoke values it is shown in orange which denotes that it is not actually a RHAe penetration value, if its not that then what is it? *1 Though it also begs the question since the creatures are not human like and thus have different organ composite that determines their health/strength which makes them that strong in the first place, but I suppose it is a topic for another day. >And speaking of metal, armour penetration is also a complex subject unto itself, with material density, angle of hit, and other nice things. Again, we can model it somehow but in the end of the day this too needs real world testing. Again, we are in luck, because it's usually compiled into nice tables that tell you how much RHE (rolled homogenous armour equivalent) a certain gun penetrates at a certain distance. And the armour of modern tanks is usually given in RHE too, despite being significantly different from RHE. But that's usually not the case with ww2 tanks hmm well I also looked at some WW2 themed mods such as Axis & Allies mod for Total Annihilation where all weapon damage is assumed to be in 1000m range, For example the "50mm KwK 38/39" gun does 320 damage and has various tables against other targets, and the "German 75mm KwK 42" gun does 1490 damage, which made me wonder how they came to this conclusion, the readme file for this mod doesn't provide any explanation how they are balancing this mod. >If you want to see some formulas, then this is an interesting read, but keep in mind that it only works with ww2 warships, and not with tanks and whatnot: Only for warships? Damn what a pity.

>>13526 I don't want to be mean, but you seem to confusing and conflating reality, models used to describe that reality, video games that are trying to simulate reality based on those models, and video games that use significantly more abstract models (e.g. a health point system) to rather inaccurately approximate reality. In other words, there is a lot to untangle here. >the difference between the Tiger I and King Tiger II, where the King Tiger II has the same caliber but a longer cartridge length Now I'm just being autistic pedantic here, but you are speaking about the main guns of those tank, more specifically the cartridges fired by those guns. And yes, the 8.8cm KwK 43 of the Tiger II has significantly higher performance than the 8.8cm KwK 36 of the Tiger I. As you can see on your picture, the case of the 88x822mm is both longer and overall thicker than what the 88x571mm has. It means higher case capacity, or more plainly there is more room inside to stuff in more gunpowder, which means you can burn more gunpowder to propel the shell. But the nominal length of the case is only used as part of the name because it's rare to have two cartridges of the same calibre that also have the same case length, so it's a handy way of naming them. But the point is that knowing the nominal length of the case is not that helpful, because as you can see most of them are not perfectly cylindrical, so you can't deduce how much powder goes into them, and that's why the case length is usually ignored when discussing the gun itself. >a increase to 140mm from 120mm makes the weapon about 50% more powerful but the page did not provided any additional info of why it is so There are pictures of those cartridges ITT: >>9428 >>9433 As you can see the case is indeed longer, therefore it holds more gunpowder, and that leads to higher performance. But again, reducing it to the length of the case is a gross oversimplification. >this Cacodemon enemy which has a HP of 400, if I would look at the Steel Beast penetration table for example this ammo "75mm 75/SA 50: PCOT-51P APCBC-T" it would need 2 shots to kill a single Cacodemon Armour penetration means that the projectile penetrates the armour and keeps on travelling. Pic related is a piece of armour that was penetrated by an armour piercing shell, that's why it has a hole on it. Obviously someone standing behind that armour plate where it was penetrated when it was being shot would be quite dead. Those RHAe values show how thick of an armour plate (in millimetres) could that projectile penetrate. It's an abstraction of real life that has nothing to do with hitpoints in Doom.

>>13526 >>13535 >it needs 2x shoots too to kill that creature which doesn't sound too plausible too me Animals are not tanks, they work quite differently. For example, the only part that is really required for a human to live is the cerebellum, damage it and your victim dies instantly. You could surgically remove the rest of the brain, replace the heart with a mechanical pump, and also cut off the arms and legs, and that bastard would be still technically alive as long as you keep him alive. But again, damage the cerebellum and he dies. Now, the cerebellum is a rather small target, so aiming for it would be difficult, but what is easy is to stop the flow of blood to it. Cut an artery and he will start losing blood until there is simply not enough left in his circulatory system to supply the cerebellum with blood, and so he dies. Damage the heart and then his circulation collapses as there is nothing to keep up the blood pressure, and so his cerebellum doesn't any fresh blood. Destroy his spleens and he loses so much blood so quickly that he dies much quicker, but not as quickly as if you destroyed his heart. You can be also more indirect and cut the supply of oxygen to the blood, and then there will simply no fresh oxygen for his red blood cells to deliver to the cerebellum. One way of doing it is to strangle him, as breathing is what delivers air to the lungs where oxygen is taken out from it. You can even attack the very composition of the air, e.g. you can start a fire and somehow force him to inhale the smoke until he chokes. But I digress. What I want to say is that bullets usually kill humans and other animals by either causing internal bleeding or destroying major organs. Small animals can die from the shock of being shot. I don't know how it works, but my assumption is that their nerves try to deliver such a strong pain signal so suddenly that they fry their cerebellum. Second pic related show wound channels (they are using gelatine to simulate human tissue). It's a complicated can of worms, but as you can see there are two kind of marks here: the first one is caused by the projectile crushing the gelatine directly in front of it, and the secondary ones are caused by stretching the gelatine. As far as I understand, if somebody is being shot then this crushing and stretching can cause enough damage to lead to a sudden loss of blood that is enough to make circulation collapse and kill the target, even if no major organ is hit. Where these two things can meet is when you are either shooting at somebody wearing armour, or shooting at somebody who is behind an armour plate (like the crew of a tank). In this case the projectile first has to penetrate the armour then damage the fleshling behind it. The hide or scales of animals can also act as a form of armour, as steel is not the only form of armour. Indeed, modern tanks usually have layers of different materials in their armour. But I digress again. The point is that penetrating armour and killing animals is very different. Especially in this case, because we are speaking about fictional creatures with fictional anatomy. For all we know a Cacodemon might have no central nervous system that requires blood, and then killing him the same way you'd kill a human is futile, and you need to work with other principles.

>>13526 >>13536 >HE/HESH values are shown in red and for Smoke values it is shown in orange which denotes that it is not actually a RHAe penetration value, if its not that then what is it? HESH is a special thing, it is designed to deliver a shock wave to the armour plate that then rips out a piece of it on the other side. In the case of HE, I take it represent the armour that can be penetrated by the fragments coming from the exploding shell. Although the blast wave of the explosion can also damage equipment placed outside of the tanks (headlights, optics, barrels, etc). Again this is an abstraction that is used in a video game, because accurately modelling these things would most likely require supercomputers to model the interactions of individual atoms. >all weapon damage is assumed to be in 1000m range, For example the "50mm KwK 38/39" gun does 320 damage and has various tables against other targets, and the "German 75mm KwK 42" gun does 1490 damage, which made me wonder how they came to this conclusion, the readme file for this mod doesn't provide any explanation how they are balancing this mod. I have no idea how they came up with that, but again these are just serious abstractions in a program whose main goal is to entertain the player. But at this point I'd mention that disabling a tank is about damaging the equipment inside or killing the crew. After all, if you penetrate the armour and wreck the engine, then the tank can't move. Similarly, killing the driver will make it stop. So speaking about HP is more than misleading. >Only for warships? Damn what a pity. You could try to use it for tanks and tank guns, but we have significantly more data about those, and they weren't the starting point of this model. Alas, battleships weren't shooting at each other often enough to have combat data, but their guns and armour plates were tested quite a lot, and so these calculations are based on those tests.

>>13537 Forgot this: this is what is written under those tables: >Orange text: Incendiary effect, does not represent actual RHA equivalent thickness penetration In other words, modelling what happens when you set a tank on fire is a bit hard, so they went with an abstraction that represent it as if the tank was being shot with a normal projectile.

>>13535 >I don't want to be mean, but you seem to confusing and conflating reality, models used to describe that reality, video games that are trying to simulate reality based on those models, and video games that use significantly more abstract models (e.g. a health point system) to rather inaccurately approximate reality. In other words, there is a lot to untangle here. Well I am just a yuropoor noguns fag so I have absolutely no clue how weapons in real life works. >health point system With the game I'm modding for that's the only variable I can work with which denotes how "strong" a actor is, there is nothing else to it, besides I don't know of any other place where I could ask about those sort of questions. I'm the only /agdg/ anon left on other imageboards that does anything related with tonk modding, the other developer anons are making different type of games of different genres which may or may not have action/shooting elements in it. So I thought I might ask my question here instead. >But the point is that knowing the nominal length of the case is not that helpful, because as you can see most of them are not perfectly cylindrical, so you can't deduce how much powder goes into them, and that's why the case length is usually ignored when discussing the gun itself. Alright then that settles it. >>13536 >Animals are not tanks, they work quite differently... Right I'm retarded, I should have looked for the muzzle velocity/stopping power values instead. Well with that explanation in mind then to accurately reflect that with all the monster pack mods there is available for Doom would be nearly impossible having to tweak the values of each individual creature and having to write a general purpose script that somewhat reflects the reality a bit closer of how a animal gets wounded/killed would also be difficult as a lot of assumption has to be made. With this method there is still some trouble because Doom features also creatures like arachnotrons which are partially mechanical thus it implies a form of "hard" armor, because there is for me no flag to check for if a creature is all flesh, half flesh half armored or fully armored. I mean there kinda is one in form of "+NOBLOOD" flag but all it tells me that this actor is not bleeding and judging from the few monster pack mods that I've peeked the code of it the author of those packs cares little about such details. Actually now when I think of it, I should see if I can contact the author of hideous destructor somehow as this mod tries to be as "realistic" as possible and see what he has to say about it if he can gibes me gud formulas for various types of ammo and weapons. >>13537 >I have no idea how they came up with that, but again these are just serious abstractions in a program whose main goal is to entertain the player. Figures it, as Total Annihilation is a pretty bad base for that as its modding capacity is very limited, as in it does not feature scripting to allow them do to armor penetration calculations and the like, so they had to come up with something else. >You could try to use it for tanks and tank guns, but we have significantly more data about those, and they weren't the starting point of this model. Alas, battleships weren't shooting at each other often enough to have combat data, but their guns and armour plates were tested quite a lot, and so these calculations are based on those tests. Right but I'm retarded when it comes to math so I don't know how I should interpret the combat results/test result of WW2/Modern tank guns in order to abstract those values as a base somehow. I guess then for AP* rounds I will try using this formula then and see how it works out.

>>13540 >Well I am just a yuropoor noguns fag So am I, but that never stopped me from wasting way too much time on military history. >I don't know how I should interpret the combat results/test result of WW2/Modern tank guns in order to abstract those values as a base somehow. You look at the RHAe of a tank's armour at a given part, look up what is behind that part, then you look up how much RHAe a given weapon can penetrate. If the latter's number is higher, then in theory it should penetrate the armour and fuck up what is behind it. But I guess modelling any of that wouldn't work. Maybe you could do a system where every unit simply ignores a certain part of the damage (expressed in number, not in percentage) it receives, to represent non-penetrating hits. Then if a unit receiver any damage it blows up instantly, this is to represent that it's out of combat. After all, it a ww2 tank gets hit seriously the crew usually bails and then that's it for the tank. Still, this system would completely ignore the non-disabling damage dealt by smaller weapons, and you'd also have to add a system where the damage of a weapon firing AP projectiles decreases with distance.

>>13541 >But I guess modelling any of that wouldn't work. Maybe you could do a system where every unit simply ignores a certain part of the damage (expressed in number, not in percentage) it receives, to represent non-penetrating hits. Then if a unit receiver any damage it blows up instantly, this is to represent that it's out of combat. After all, it a ww2 tank gets hit seriously the crew usually bails and then that's it for the tank. That sounds like a good idea though at the other hand it would also focus slightly too much on the realism aspect, as in it would turn the gameplay where the player requires much more careful observation of his environment to make sure he doesn't get one shotted, because he forget to check for that suspective bush that he missed and with this balance it would slow down the game pace even more. Meh I cannot implement this type of model anyway for my GZDoom mod as it would mean I would have to dig up my old enemy replacer mod which requires serious amount of cleaning as its codebase is pure spaghetti. >and you'd also have to add a system where the damage of a weapon firing AP projectiles decreases with distance. Hmm right too bad that both WT and WoT wiki page doesn't mention any fucking formula of how they do it, so it's going to be a bitch to get that part right, in my mod I didn't bothered with it yet because my whole weapon code is not quite finished yet and just relative recently I am slowly rewriting the projectile code so that it uses ZScript instead of Decorate code. The Decorate APHE/APFSDS projectile I have currently is quite a mess but it's not possible at all to do it any better as Decorate is fairly limited in its capabilities. I guess I will take a peek soon at the Hideous Destructor mod then and hopefully I can make some sense of its code because with ZScript the whole modding aspect becomes even more complicated, for example I peeked at the Biogun zscript from the UT99 mod and I couldn't make sense of it. At the very least I think should be able to figure out the damage model for the rifle and grenade that the Hideous Destructor has and devising a formula based on it.

Fuck armor, Howitzer time.

>>13634 lol

>>13655 Deflect THIS

>>13634 >that photo Guy on the right is thinking "please don't drop that. Oh god, why did they let Big Baby Retard hold the atomic shell for the photo op?"

>>13634 >>13664 Those atomic shells don't have multi point safeties like the big boy atomic weapons do either, do they?

>>13664 >>13674 Do you honestly think it's going to detonate from dropping if it's designed to be fired out of a fucking cannon?

>>13634 Go make your own thread, fagget.

>>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.

Why were oscilating turrets dumped?

>>17262 They allow for more range of motion and larger guns, but otherwise they are not conducive to the sorts of battles we fight today. Oscillating turrets shine in open plains and suburban/rural environments where the top floors of houses are maybe 30-40 feet off the ground, however otherwise they have less elevation due to weight distribution, tend to get gunked up more easily when dust and shit is flying around, can't be armored as heavily, can't protect the crew as efficiently from biohazard attacks (chemicals, radiation, bioweapons), and require a taller profile. They were originally instituted because it allowed for larger guns with more range to combat the absolutely beastly Soviet tank designs that had giant (inaccurate) guns on them. In today's warfare environment they are still useful for light armor anti-infantry operations in fairly open spaces, but their disadvantages (especially the weaker armor, taller profile, and less grounded center of mass) make them easy pickings against insurgents in a largely urban or mountainous environment. They might see a comeback with specialized roles depending on where wars are fought in the future. In North America or southern South America for instance, the oscillating design would be highly efficient outside of the metropolises.

>>17265 >They might see a comeback with specialized roles depending on where wars are fought in the future. In North America or southern South America for instance, the oscillating design would be highly efficient outside of the metropolises. Or if you make an unmanned one where most of the drawbacks don't really matter. Although even so, they are not that useful in an urban environment due to their limited elevation. Y With modern robotics you could make an unmanned turret where the breech of the gun depresses into the turret ring to the point that the barrel is vertical, yet it wouldn't really impact the RoF, and that would be useful both in cities and against aerial targets. No, I'm not saying that every tank should also function as a SPAAG all the time, but with the threat of dronespams having extra AA is always a welcome.

>>17266 >Unmanned so you can depress the turret into the body So long as you make it easy to remove in the field for cleaning, that would indeed be an excellent use for the oscillating turret design since it could target both infantry and drones.

What would be best way to mix IFVs armed with either an autocannon in the 30-60mm range or a turret that has some higher calibre weapon for fire support (e.g. a 105mm cannon or a 120mm mortar)? Let's suppose that only the turrets differ between the two variants otherwise they are the exact same vehicle. A platoon consists of 3 vehicles, and a company is 3 platoons with an additional one for a total of 10. I can see two variations: >the company and platoon commander vehicles are fire support variants, the other 6 have autocannons >the company and platoon commander vehicles have autocannon, and one of the vehicles in each platoon have a big gun The only real-world example I know of were the Rooikat-equipped South African units, but I can't find much information about how those operated. >>17267 I don't think that would work with an oscillating turret, because the whole upper part of the turret would have to be depressed into the turret ring, instead of only the gun breech. I can see something like the Kugelblitz, but I don't see how that would be superior to simply raising only the gun barrel.

Can you make effective floating screens out kevlar, or it wouldn't give enough protection against small arms and artillery fire during a river crossing?

Can anyone tell me what would a wheeled (tire out of hard/elastic plastic, no air) tank with rockets that are autoloaded internally in a turret either in a tube or cannon that has multipurpose guided missiles as ammunition and a radar apparatus that could target land, air, and sea targets look like ? Does it need a autocannon also added to the radar apparatus to stop little drones from targeting it?

>>17841 >Can anyone tell me what would a wheeled (tire out of hard/elastic plastic, no air) tank with rockets that are autoloaded internally in a turret either in a tube or cannon that has multipurpose guided missiles as ammunition and a radar apparatus that could target land, air, and sea targets look like ? It would look like any other wheeled IFV, just with a different turret. >Does it need a autocannon also added to the radar apparatus to stop little drones from targeting it? We'd have to send it into combat both with and without an autocannon to find it out. I'd say if you can put one there then you should, and maybe remove it if it proves to be nothing but dead weight.

>>17841 Congratulations, you've just made a wheeled BMP-3.

>>19261 >In my case it's because I dream of ˝synchronizing˝ the guns used on land and on the sea. Specifically, with the kind of defensive system they are already putting on tanks the two best bets against them are going to be hypersonic missiles and really big guns. Therefore I imagine that for the front line the best main armament for a tank (or heavy IFV) would be a 76.2mm gun with a high RoF combined with a row hypersonic missiles. But the real tank killer should be a SPG with a 21cm gun: the first vehicle would mostly just designate targets for guided 21cm shells, and its own hypersonic missiles are mostly there for self-defence. >>19293 >When it comes to tanks, really, all you absolutely need to do to cause a mission kill is to poke a hole into the crew compartment. To that extent, extant 120-140mm tank cannons would defeat anything up to heavy CNT-based composites, no reason to pull out the heavy artillery and hypersonics yet. It's not futuristic armour schemes that I'm worried about, but active defence systems and newer generations of reactive armour. It is rumoured that Russians are already developing hypersonic anti-tank missiles, and they have successfully used laser-guided 152mm shells in Ukraine to hunt tanks, so using more missiles and bigger guns is just the next step in this game. Especially considering how long it takes to develop a new tank in this day and age, it's better to take two steps forward instead of trying to make an old school tank with a slightly bigger gun.

>>19429 One more thing to consider: the turret receives most of the hits, especially because tankers are sensible enough to prefer hull down positions. If unmanned turrets are the future, then most of the time the best you can with a tank gun is to blow up the turret, but the crew will not only survive that just fine, then can even drive away to a depot, get a new turret installed, and come back to the fight in a short time. Meanwhile a heavy artillery shell coming down from the sky like an angry thunderbolt will completely destroy the tank and slay the crew, making it a much more permanent loss.

>>19429 You appear to be effectively asking for a heavy reconnaissance vehicle (what the US calls Cavalry) and saying it's a tank. Also, everyone who is anyone in terms of artillery can already crack everything up to the aforementioned CNT-based composites with extant howitzers. As a matter of fact, the US was already using artillery to crack tanks in WW2. The reason why the US never fielded heavy AT guns in great quantity was that their numerous howitzers were already filling that role. As for ADS, they can't exactly slap an 20mm rotary cannon on main battle tanks and still have them function as tanks, so without going with an armored corps of nothing but Maus-sized tanks you are limited to the shotgun-style or reactive plating ADS which are designed to stop RPGs (and maybe the comically slow TOW) - not 120mm APFSDS or 155mm HE shells. HVATMs only refine an extant threat, they aren't real game changers either; at the ranges they are viable ADS doesn't really help anyway, their main advantage is that the firing vehicle (Helos, for example) doesn't have to expose themselves for as long. This is also a sort of useless development since Russia already had ATMs that were nearly immune to non-Russian ADS', so they are just increasing the cost of their own munitions for no discernible gain. >>19431 >One more thing to consider: the turret receives most of the hits, especially because tankers are sensible enough to prefer hull down positions. Turrets receive the most hits because it's the easiest target to hit with the highest chance of causing severe, mission-killing damage. Knocking out the turret eliminates the threat that the tank presents, knocking a track off or putting a few holes in non-critical locations on the hull will too often leave the turret operational and still a present threat. Even with HEAT shells. Hull down is not really as effective in tank engagements anymore due to the prevalence of local level reconnaissance, both aerial and ground, that allows for flanking or improvised ambush engagements with attached infantry MANPATs forcing abandoning cover. It's excellent when you can get it during a snap engagement, but it does not aid when the enemy has enough time to go around you or can afford to wait you out for artillery or air strikes (which are the US' two preferred methods of cracking tanks to begin with). >If unmanned turrets are the future The US experimented with unmanned turrets back with the TTD. Loved the thing, but eventually turned it down as an evolutionary step due to its limitations. First off, it's prohibitively expensive, as Russia is finding out. Secondly, it requires far greater than average levels of mechanical know-how to maintain, which is rare for an army to have in the field (once again, ask Russia how those dedicated mobile Armata depots are going, you'll find out not very well). Thirdly, while the protection of the crew is excellent in the initial engagement, the situational awareness of the crew drops to unacceptably low levels - even with full 360 degree surveillance systems, they found the Driver was often noticing things before the Commander could and the Gunner often would have no clue what the two were talking about despite being seated right next to them. Fourthly, tied in with the third thing, vision is terrible. Static cameras have too many dead spaces which are incredibly difficult to manipulate and rotating head cameras do not replicate the visibility of conventional optics. Additionally, they noted that a headless but otherwise unharmed tank may be able to be quickly repaired, but it's still mission killed and has to egress from the front line completely helpless save using its tracks as a melee weapon. No battlefield is a perfect peekaboo set up, it will have to expose itself at some time to make it to the rear, and a headless tank can't really help a tank platoon ward off flanking, All in all, they concluded that the concept was exceptional for a defensive tank, but the limitations were too great for an offensive breakthrough or siege tank such as they desired. Incidentally, Russia designed the T14 for primarily defensive purposes, understanding that the offensive capabilities of the vehicle were limited. The limitations were acceptable with their doctrine, they aren't for most other nations. >heavy artillery Extant artillery can already do that. Often with greater tactical mobility and effective tactical range. Bigger weapons systems are usually harder to move, thanks to weight and volume, resulting in shorter barrels with less efficient powder burn characteristics or absolutely massive monstrosities with barely any mobility (or both, often both), making for lower velocities and a nightmare trying to avoid counter battery fire. This is before you even get into the logistics of feeding the things, mind you. Where Heavy Artillery shines is in strategic long range fire, not tactical fire. Trying to pull them against individual tanks, while spectacular and glorious, is overkill of the sort that is extremely complicated to pull off in reality.

>>19440 >You appear to be effectively asking for a heavy reconnaissance vehicle (what the US calls Cavalry) and saying it's a tank. I fail to see that a vehicle with the same firepower, mobility, and protection is not a tank just because it uses a different mixture of armament than other tanks. If the US is fine with a 120mm cannon that fires a HE shell that is only comparable to a 75mm shell, then switching to a ~75mm cannon shouldn't hurt the overall firepower that much, especially if we consider that the majority of their potential targets warrants HE shells, and the SAP shells of that cannon would work exceptionally well on most AFVs other than MBTs. So that leaves only a very specific target this cannon cannot destroy easily, and that's why it has hypervelocity missiles. Against everything else it's an upgrade, because it is a more accurate weapon with a higher RoF and more ammo. And against MBTs hypervelocity missiles are also an upgrade, as they have higher accuracy and range, and you can fire them in salvos, effectively increasing their RoF over a 120mm cannon. Yes, I admit that strapping armoured missile launcher tubes all over a turret limits how many of them you can carry into battle, but a single tank usually doesn't have to take out a whole enemy tank company on its own. If I wanted to b cheeky I'd ask you if you count the Ticos as destroyer escorts. After all, they have only a pair of 5" guns in single mounts, and they are primarily meant to work together with other assets. >shotgun-style or reactive plating ADS which are designed to stop RPGs (and maybe the comically slow TOW) - not 120mm APFSDS or 155mm HE shells. We don't have a direct line to the designers to ask them, but these simulations seem to suggest otherwise: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=YUlNU-uziF4 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=nsJQe3i2dvE https://yewtu.be/watch?v=6hhSMryZaQY Granted, these are only simulations, but the Armata is either a Potemkin tank, or it was designed to take on the enemy head on. If the first if true, then nothing works on it, and this whole discussion is pointless. But if the latter is true, then I don't they'd bother developing a new tank because they are so afraid of their own RPGs. >This is also a sort of useless development since Russia already had ATMs that were nearly immune to non-Russian ADS', so they are just increasing the cost of their own munitions for no discernible gain. Do you honestly suggest that would be better off saying ˝good enough˝ and stopping all R&D, because the enemy will never catch up? As the story goes, the Germans did just that after defeating France, and a year later they were so shocked by unexpected enemy developments that they spent the rest of the war sending prototypes to the frontline. >Hull down is not really as effective in tank engagements anymore due to the prevalence of local level reconnaissance, both aerial and ground, that allows for flanking or improvised ambush engagements with attached infantry MANPATs forcing abandoning cover. Apparently the Armata has a dozer blade so that it can dig in itself without outside help if need to be, and I assume it's designed to dig a trench from which the tank can go out either forward or backward. Waiting in that trench until the enemy surrounds you is of course suicidal, but if this is true then they might still have a thing for a hull down position. >artillery or air strikes (which are the US' two preferred methods of cracking tanks to begin with). And this feeds back to the initial point: 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?

>>19440 >>19608 >First off, it's prohibitively expensive, as Russia is finding out. >Secondly, it requires far greater than average levels of mechanical know-how to maintain, which is rare for an army to have in the field (once again, ask Russia how those dedicated mobile Armata depots are going, you'll find out not very well). These points are usually what people bring up about autoloaders, and so I have a hard time responding to them, because -again- Russians can manage to put autoloaders into everything, so maybe they eventually figure out unmanned turrets too. >Thirdly, while the protection of the crew is excellent in the initial engagement, the situational awareness of the crew drops to unacceptably low levels - even with full 360 degree surveillance systems, they found the Driver was often noticing things before the Commander could and the Gunner often would have no clue what the two were talking about despite being seated right next to them. That sounds like a problem with orientation that can be easily solved by bolting the seats of the gunner and commander to the bottom of the turret, in a position that is still inside the hull, just behind the driver. Of course we can argue if this still counts as an unmanned turret if they are effectively outside of the turret, but not in a completely separate compartment. But it still means that a hit to the turret won't directly affect them to nearly the same extent. >Fourthly, tied in with the third thing, vision is terrible. Static cameras have too many dead spaces which are incredibly difficult to manipulate and rotating head cameras do not replicate the visibility of conventional optics. I admit that this is true, but you have to take into account that NATO tank commanders usually fight with an open hatch, while Warsaw Pact tankers were taught to always button up inside the tank during combat. >Additionally, they noted that a headless but otherwise unharmed tank may be able to be quickly repaired, but it's still mission killed and has to egress from the front line completely helpless save using its tracks as a melee weapon. No battlefield is a perfect peekaboo set up, it will have to expose itself at some time to make it to the rear, and a headless tank can't really help a tank platoon ward off flanking, It's a gross oversimplification, but if you win the initial engagement then you have a good chance of collecting and repairing knocked out tanks, and so being able to repair them much faster is a boon. If you lose the initial engagement then a headless tank still has a chance at retreating, even though this chance is admittedly not that great. But consider the morale and personal aspects: if an unmanned turret blows up, then the crew learns that they fucked up something, and hopefully they learn how to avoid that in the future. Then they drive back to a depot, get a new turret installed, and go back to the front. If a manned turret blows up, there is a good chance that you end up with 2-3 dead people, and a driver who now has to deal with the situation, and everyone in the unit knows that they just lost 2-3 comrades. So now you have dead crew members who learned nothing, and everyone in the unit will remember how their lives ended, and so they might be much more cautious in the future, to the point of hindering themselves. Again, this is an oversimplified and idealized situation, but I just want to illustrate that there are more to this than mission kills. >All in all, they concluded that the concept was exceptional for a defensive tank, but the limitations were too great for an offensive breakthrough or siege tank such as they desired. >Incidentally, Russia designed the T14 for primarily defensive purposes, understanding that the offensive capabilities of the vehicle were limited. The limitations were acceptable with their doctrine, they aren't for most other nations. I haven't heard any of this before. Admittedly, the last piece of news that comes to mind is that they were experimenting with an upgrade that would have let the crew of one Armata remotely control an other one. Although that can be used both offensively and defensively, assuming that it works reliably enough on a battlefield.

>>19608 >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. >HVATM-Cannon combo 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.

>>19629 Looking at this with a cooler head, I realize that posting after an extremely long four days involving hospitals and long hours arguing with medical professionals is a thoroughly garbage bin idea.

>>19629 >not mutating into cafe/k/'s Gordon Ramsay of warmachine design Strelok, you disappoint me.

Classified tank specs leaked on War Thunder game forums – again https://archive.md/hS9Jg Yes, you read that right, again. >A French Army tank crewman has leaked a portion of the Leclerc Main Battle Tank’s classified manual on the forum for popular online game War Thunder, the second time a leak of tank specifications has happened. Anyone got the leaks?

>>19817 I hope War Thunder will add the Armata. We'd have every design and test document available within 48 hours or less.

>>19817 >Security through obscurity Show me the schematics or die a dog's death when it's leaked!

What is this?

>>21805 BMD-2. Soviet era IFV that was designed originally for VDV IIRC. Designed to be airdropped and put into action almost immediately. Fully amphibious, armed with 30mm cannon. ATGM not present in the picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMD-2 https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/bmd-2.html https://archive.ph/20130219175954/http://warfare.be/db/catid/245/linkid/1782/title/bmd-2/

>>21809 >only used by Russia and Ukraine Thanks, now I understand why I couldn't figure it out: I simply am not familiar with all these airborne wonders.

The russians have been spotted putting metal grilles on top of T-72B1s to protect against top attack munitions.

>>21874 I'm not even sure if throwing a camo net on that would make it more or less goofy.

>>21874 Pretty sure these are meant for Crimea, not Ukraine. Russian tanks are equipped with an APS package, they have no need for these sandnigger tier grilles. Their tank forces near Crimea are B-tier and aren't issued with APS.

>>21874 This just asks for some drunk retard to total a tank by using these grills for cooking.

>>21874 >>21878 >>21898 But yeah, why no ERA? It seems to be no issue to just stack layer of ERA on the roof.

>>21973 Strelok, everywhere on that turret that can have ERA already has ERA on it. Everywhere else is sensors, weapons, and hatches.

>>21975 I know, that looks like T72B 89'on first glance, that version has ERA on the turret. I was kinda joking, like instead of metal bars you put ERA on that umbrella thing. I guess I worded it poorly kek

>>21978 I'm no engineer, but I've learned that the usual answer to such questions is weight. I guess you'd have to use some rather thick and heavy bars to construct something that can bear the weight of those ERA bricks.

>>9428 How about putting a Leclerc turret with the 140mm gun on a T-72 chassis?

>>15892 The Tiger II was a good tank though. The Leopard 2 didn't have armor because back then it truly was pointless. But during WWII armor was very effective. The image you posted isn't a Tiger II taken out in combat. It's a Tiger II abandoned and then bombarded by soviet artillery. Here's a good read: https://archive.ph/Aoclv

>>34763 >Leopard 2. Sorry, I've been typing about tanks all day in a military forum and my brain was on autopilot. I meant Leopard 1

How would you design a dedicated laser armed tank?

>>34796 I wouldn't

>>34796 >take tank chassis of choice >replace the turret with a laser mounting that is both small enough to fit there and consumes so little power that the tank engine can supply it reliably >or see if you can fit in some additional power plant Methinks you'd end up with a laser that is not strong enough to be really useful for how much the whole system costs. I mean, I guess you could fry optics and destroy tiny drones, but it's not the kind of gamechanger that casually eradicates any flying contraception fielded today.

>>34843 >They have some major design flaws making them basically death traps. And not in the tank sense of way. >They basically completely failed the trial in the Afghanistan war. Seriously I have no idea why they would use them at this point. >Though I guess they suck at basically everything, they have a lower range than T-72s as well. Still don't understand why they weren't part of the first wave. Can you detail the problems of this tank?

>>34796 >>34827 It depends on what exactly you want to do with it. What it's supposed to shoot with its laser(s)? Single very agile/fast targets? Small swarms of drones that need to be blinded or put down very quickly? Try to replace autocannons with frag against big swarms of small missiles or drones? The generator(s) are on the continuous power side, which can be the bottleneck for long-term rate of fire, i.e. will matter most if you want sustained fire. If you want occasional very energetic zap or short bursts with long intervals, the bottleneck is more likely to be on the pulse power side, in capacitors. That's aside of the weapon itself.

Ukro-russo war made me think: The idea behind BTGs is to provide flexible, heavilly mechanized support to elements of separatist militia. This, of course, could be improved by further mechanization of militia forces. Separatists of course have BMPs and so on, but their performance is greatly limited by the omnipresent antitank missile launchers. Sadly, the only real way to counter them are APS systems, which will not get mass produced anytime soon. Besides, the goal here is making cheap shit you can gift to locals by hundreads with military budget equivalent of pocket money. So here is the idea, the IFV of the future: Truck with howitzer. It can still perform well against its designated opponents (light vees and entranched infantry), especially if you invested in some fun ammo variants ( howitzer propelled thermobarics?). It would have enough range to outshoot ATGMs (in ideal conditions) while offering indirect fire. It only needs enough armor to withstand small arms and shrapnell, since it will die either way to anything bigger, no matter how well it is armored. Ideally can transport entire squad, though it might be hard to achieve. You could also use it to move supplies. Basically a purpose built technical/artillery support. Thoughts ? Do you think it would be viable? Do you think you could mount one on BMP while retaining infantry transport capacity?

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/vehicle_systems/armoured_tracked_vehicles/panther_kf51/index.php https://archive.ph/9wGMD https://yewtu.be/watch?v=fTBA5tQsDbE tl;dr Rheinmetall made a new turret for the Leopard 2 that has the new 130mm gun with an autoloader and a 12.7mm coax, and they decided to call it Panther KF51. It kind of looks like something out of the later Command&Conquer games. https://yewtu.be/watch?v=-JigFW_PQpY And General Dynamics released a fucking teaser with a computer rendered model that is supposed to be the new Abrams.

>>36256 >new Abrams I love the Abrams for what it is, but it's 40 years old and 20 years obsolete. Every time they make a new iteration of it, another part of my soul dies. While I understand why they won't do it (politics and money), I am cursed to forever wonder why they won't just put the CATTB (pic related) into serial production already. It was basically a Super-Heavy version of the Abrams with enough armor to actually block APFSDS shells and an autoloading bigass 140mm gun that had 1000mm penetration at 2km (tested) - and also had actual HE shells designed for it. It was pretty much what the Army has been saying an Abrams replacement ought to be for decades by this point.

>>36329 Some say that thing is only called Abrams for marketing reasons, although I'm not sure why would they do that. Still, you can make a ship of Theseus tier upgrade for a tank and that point the original design date doesn't really matter. >autoloading But muh eyez.

>>36256 It's an entirely new design, stop calling it a "new turret on Leo 2 hull" you dumb fucking retards. I've seen dozens of news articles call it such and it's plain fucking wrong. The KF51 is a new design and the only things in common with the Leopard 2 is the suspension/transmission system. Even the Rheinmetall CEO got pissed that so many morons called it an "upgraded leo".

>>36361 What's so new about it? Is the difference between this and the Leopard II as great as the difference between the T-90 and that new Russian memetank?

>>36371 >What's so new about it? Redesigned hull is optimised for maximum weight reduction. As a result the vehicle is faster than a Leopard 2 despite being more heavily armored and using the same engine. The 130mm is obviously a huge improvement and the autoloader is a big deal since no other NATO tank uses those instead of a human loader. Also it comes with 2 loitering munition drones which give the tank the ability to survey an area from above and engage targets without exposing the vehicle at all. Then there's a gazillion improvements on the electronics, sensors, optics and combat systems. It also comes with the Strikeshield APS by default

>>36447 I guess that really is a good enough list for a new tank. >the autoloader is a big deal since no other NATO tank uses those instead of a human loader. Did de Gaulle came back from death?

>>36447 >The 130mm is obviously a huge improvement >ignoring nato standards to introduce ammo which is not in stocks >improvement They should either keep 120mm or go all in and put 155mm on. >and the autoloader is a big deal since no other NATO tank uses those instead of a human loader. See post above. >Also it comes with 2 loitering munition drones which give the tank the ability to survey an area from above and engage targets without exposing the vehicle at all. This is unnecessery waste of internal space that could be used, for example, on storing ammo. And that space is wasted for something that should be performed by other units. Just park quadcopter drone or two on top of that fuckhuge turret. I am sceptical. Looks like another overengineered wunderwaffe that will cost too much to be produced in reasonable quantities. Low on ammo too.

>>36452 >They should either keep 120mm or go all in and put 155mm on. Or go for 140mm, because the original idea was to make a 120mm gun that can be upgraded to 140mm simply by replacing the barrel, and they already did it with the Leclerc. >>9428 The Worst Korean Black Panther is also designed so that the autoloader can handle both 120mm and 140mm ammo without any modification, therefore it is quite doable. The 130mm gun seems to be a compromise for no reason.

>>36256 >12.7mm coax I guess that would be this one: https://rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/news/detail_1354.php https://archive.ph/wip/iozsE >Partly to reduce the risk of jamming, Rheinmetall engineers have opted for a linkless, dual ammunition feeding system. Thus, apart from the muzzle, the RMG is completely sealed, an important consideration when operating in dusty, sandy environments. Thanks to the central electric drive, the firer will be able to pre-select a rate of fire of up to 600 rounds per minute. Matching the rate of fire to the specifics of the gun mount eliminates the problem of detrimental resonance frequencies. Powered by the electric drive, the gearbox-driven crank moves the bolt forward and back for the ammunition.

>>36452 >They should either keep 120mm or go all in and put 155mm on. If you're going to keep the 120mm, just keep using the leopard. The later variants ridiculously outclass any russian or chinese operational MBTs. The 130mm gun supposedly has 50% higher muzzle energy. It's meant to counter future threats ie. if the russians ever get more than a handful of armatas made. >This is unnecessery waste of internal space that could be used, for example, on storing ammo While I agree on principle, the Krauts somehow managed to stuff a 20-round ready rack in that turret regardless. That is impressive especially considering the larger caliber.