>>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