Tanks

ERA and APS basically made ATGMs obsolete in the 90s, its just that no one in the West is using these systems. In fact radar triggered ERA is about to make long rod penetrators obsolete too.

I don't know what the distant future is going to hold.

Any caliber warhead that contains sufficient HE to cause a chain reaction is hilariously unsafe in a light vehicle.

The enemy can use API machine guns to penetrate its armor and light off its own ammunition. In effect killing the crew as if they set off a satchel charge inside the tank. Everyone would be killed instantly and the vehicle rendered unusable.

In reality such a light vehicle needs orders of magnitude more protection for its ammo than even a MBT, which adds far more weight that no one is willing to see on their light tank. That's why Sheridan was such a failure, why BMP-3 is very dangerous to ride in, and why Buford was cancelled.

Armour will always have a place in the military, it just depends on who you are fighting.
You wouldn't send a tank against entrenched ATGM positions, but why send anything BUT a tank against entrenched infantry without ATGMs?
Or in another doctrine that may make this easier to understand:
You wouldn't send a CAS plane against a SAM site, but why send anything but a CAS plane against a bunch of IFVs?

Tanks have a special role. They take out infantry, even in heavily entrenched positions, by using their stabilized machine guns and direct fire HE weapons from what is essentially an all terrain armoured pillbox. As soon as you know the enemy has ATGMs set up and ready you switch tactics and use indirect fire weapons such as mortars or artillery to engage the enemy ATGMs.
Or, you know, you deploy a whole lot of smoke, drop a bunch of artillery shells on the enemy to make them stay in their hideouts, and have light infantry advance in light vehicles. As is standard procedure for attacking any heavily fortified position
I believe that ATGMs are the same to armoured warfare as the machine gun was to infantry warfare. It posed a massive threat until people found new ways to deal with it.

Retarded idea incoming:
Would binary explosive warheads be possible? Something that is only combined shortly before being loaded and fired? It complicates the loading process, but it would mean your light vehicles can hit harder than the enemy's ever could (unless they do the exact same thing, which cancels out the drawbacks somewhat anyway).

The Iraqi sarin shells used the rotation of the round imparted by the rifling to mix the binary precursors through centrifugal force. This would of course necessitate a liquid explosive, like PLX or something.
t. Not a chemist

Zig Forums designed this by the way

Attached: 1515747735938.gif (292x432, 1.72M)

Even putting aside the difficulties of mixing the catalyst super fast without reducing rate of fire, what guarantees that a penetrating hit won't cause the explosive to mix inside the tank anyway? The shell components would have to be in separate armored compartments. And that means a two-step loading process, which would reduce rate of fire by a lot. And the enemy's vehicle would be able to hit just as hard, just with less crew survivability.

My idea for a multirole fast support tank would be simple-
Idea is to have one for every 2 MBT, spraying soft targets with unending fuck you and making everyone else nervous.

First, it's not the HE that cooks off, it's the propellant. Second, if you're in a vehicle that's getting perforated by AP-I you're gonna have a bad time regardless of cook-offs. Third, if it's that big of an issue, wet storage and blowout hatches exist.

That is too complicated, besides there's nothing saying that an enemy shell couldn't penetrate canisters for both mixtures.
Best bet is making explosives more inert and more resistant to temperature, and then using them VERY SPARINGLY. Instead of making it a heavily HE warhead, instead make it heavily FRAG with very little explosives. Most HE warheads are just a thin

That's exactly what the Tunguska successor will be, except on a armata hull with the new "universal missiles" based on AT-16 Scallion

I take you mean a single turret with dual autocannons and two banks of missiles. Because if the Russians really want to make multi-turreted tanks again, then we are indeed living through the 30s again.
Universal in the sense that they want to use it both on ground and aerial vehicles, or does it have some funky combined HEAT-thermobaric warhead?

Btw, what's the current viability of microwave/laser weapons?
No up to date on the subject tbh

Yeah of course. Though tanks with independent 25-30mm sponson (rather than coax) and a 12.7mm remote turret aren't something exclusive to Russia.

Full funky, tandem HEAT warhead in a HE-frag sleeve.

Great as jammers, extremely dubious as a "real weapon" (IE stuff that blow up shit).
We should see the first laser proof optics for satellites soon enough.

Do you mean personal weapons? It won't ever be viable.

Lasers can be used to blind various cameras/sensors, but that is at best 'very fiddly'. Microwaves can be used as a sort of vehicle mounted pain ray - but for the nonlethal uses that has it'll basically never be able to compete with a bunch of guys with tear gas and rubber bullets. You could use (very heavy, on the human scale) lasers to disable the two visual sensors found in most peoples heads, but there are treaties making that a war crime. If you mean laser weapons as in some kind of sci-fi rifle then pretty much never, the energy density it would require will pretty much always be far too expensive to ever see use, and even if they could find a way to build batteries or generators that small and powerful they'd completely rework pretty much all of modern society and engineering before they got around to building weapons with them.

Wouldn't a large "microwave projector" be able to fry the crew of a tank?

Could you give some examples?
I take it has a funky fuze too to take out aerial targets if it's meant to replace the Tunguska. Also, is it fire-and-forget or guided by laser or radar? Or are there several versions?

Not better/cheaper/at a greater distance than an ATGM or an APFSDS round.
Also a lot of the stuff that could be done are of dubious legality, anything that potentially maim rather than kill/make clean injuries is illegal per the spirit of the 1899 Hague convention (which is largely the supplement pretty much everyone agreed upon the Geneva one, the basis of war law and all international law).
There are simpler way to kill a man than trying to boil him alive.

If it's like the AT-16 it would be a laser beam riding one (which is virtually impossible to jam) but working with a detection radar.
In theory the AT-16 on a Ka-52 can do all that already but they actually have too many good missiles to rationalize the production/adoption.

Talking about Hermes?

It's the new 2020-2050 mid range system which will go on ships, attack aircraft, tank destroyers, and infantry tripods. Range is 15-20km for air and ground variant, 20-100km for naval variant. Very large warhead capable of dealing with troops, shooting down subsonic aircraft, or wrecking armor.

Two stages in ground/air variant. Booster stage is 170mm caliber and is guided by inertia and datalink telling it where to go in general. Warhead stage is 130mm caliber with as much fragmentation potential as a heavy artillery shell, 1m RHA penetration, and is guided by laser dot homing.

Three stages in naval variant. The previous two plus a cheapo 210mm caliber secondary booster stage which gives it 100km range. Also the final warhead stage guidance is either infrared or radar homing, giving it a fire and forget ability.

Air variant is the same construction as ground variant, but has a greater range depending on launch altitude.

Attached: KBP_Tula_Hermes_Missile_MAKS2009.jpg (721x3726, 1.48M)

In other words, without all that expensive guidance system you could even use it in a MRLS just fine?

Useless.

Hit it on the head.

Replace 12 person carry with 80mm cannon with fast-swap ammunition for purpose fire if needed.

A modular chassis would be nice too.
Streamlined production for multiple purposes.

Mobile Artillery can replace the heavy firepower of MBTs with the same mobility.

If not all that, just say fuck it an lob a cruise missile and bomb the shit out of the area if ATGMs are that big of a concern.

Attached: 1476202220268.png (1024x768, 1.58M)

Most likely completely unmanned turret barely attached to the body of tank. That way if ammo is hit, tonk is still ok, jut put some new connections and a new turret. Perfect for just showing turret to enemy.

The main problem would be javelin like systems, that do not hit side of tank but from above. For that perhaps angled armor and era under the turret, and era on the turret.

But most goatfuckers will not get that, they will throw rusty RPG at leopard 2 , T72 and Abrams and watch fireworks because these are not latest tonk versions.

Attached: retarded_idea.png (640x800, 32.21K)

A bit of an off topic question. Why don't tanks use rifled barrels? Wouldn't they increase accuracy like in small arms?

Wait, there are still tanks with sponsons? This pleases me.

Tanks no longer fire rifled ammunition. APFSDS penetrators are better against tank armor than any sort of rifled projectile while being more accurate and better ranged. Plus with smoothbores you can have multiple ammo types like ATGMs and stuff like anti-personell canister rounds, vid related.

Attached: XM1028 120mm Canister Tank Cartridge.webm (480x360, 1.75M)

...

Three reasons.

1. HEAT rounds work better if they're not spinning, spinning destabilizes the copper jet.

2. APFSDS rounds self stabilize with fins, which work much better if they're not spinning.

3. It's much easier to create a lighweight pressure vessel that doesn't have grooves cut into it.

Potentially, with a very big (very expensive) magnetron, and an even bigger (and more expensive) power supply, and at very short ranges. Oh, and the magnetron itself would be fragile enough that you could disable it with small arms fire, and it would be impossible to armour without interfering with the beam (increasing the size, weight, and cost of the magnetron and power supply while also further decreasing the range). It would also take at least a few seconds (probably longer) for the beam to do appreciable damage to the crew, maybe as much as a minute or more for fatalities.

So, yes we could use a large enough microwave projector to fry the crew of a tank, but it's a terrible idea for as long as ATGM and cannon shells still work.

Your idea is viable but only if the main turret could only hold less than a handful of shells, even then why go through designing all that shit when you could just use a remote autocannon like the Marder IFV did? smaller turret, less chance to hit it.
Heck, most of the armoured vehicle losses aren't from hits to the turret anyway.

getting abit skeptical here

If you like 2 km CEP.

Thanks mates.
I have heard about Russian tanks shooting rockets out of their cannons, but why not use just standalone guided missiles from infantry or other vehicles?
Does it offer any advantages besides versatility? Every other option seems better than this.

It can't do anything.

It's useless at close range, because the booster stage doesn't have time to separate there is a large dead zone. It's more expensive than ataka and other such missiles already inuse. It's not exactly compact, its very heavy and bulky for what it is.
In fact I doubt their tripod variant is possible in two stages. It will likely use only the final stage which will have a very short range without the booster.

Oh and because there are literally hundreds of thousands of other missiles in stock, Russia likely won't care to bring this one into service for a long ass time.

Because they are gun launched, the warhead portion of the missile is larger and only a small sustainer rocket motor is needed. They're often deadlier, with larger armor penetration values.

Also it's a shit idea to hang things outside the tank, a light machine gun could damage your ability to fight, let alone a nuke blast which would blow it all off.

Should make a 76mm armed Tank designed for Removing Kebab.

Wew, didn't know that. I was thinking it would be worse due to how the rocket needs to first accelerate in the barrel and it would lead to some pressure difficulties.
Now that reminds me of a warhammer bolter.

Rocket powered munitions are fairly low-pressure devices actually. They don't need the pressure to propel them as in conventional small arms. Look into the physics behind gyrojet pistols.

Well they never went beyond the prototyping (and were 20mm) stage but yeah.

Attached: slovak T-72M1.jpg (1095x730 87.22 KB, 153.48K)

Also the Russians did got drunk enough to to make a full multi turret thing out off a BMP-3 hull.

Commander + Driver + gunner + gunner +gunner + gunner + gunner

Attached: object 781 side.jpg (800x449 62.2 KB, 43.6K)

We need to just have the entire planet take all their atgms and push them into a big hole, so the tank can still have it's fun. Maybe get rid of drones too, just in case. The last one is because I really love cannon based CAS

Attached: 55804ee7b97ea7a9fe547371856075a1329d95f530a920ce4529c023966d053d.jpg (800x1653, 437.14K)

Surely there is a finite amount of vodka on the planet? Or did the Russians just REALLY want a tank that could do 'basically everything'.

...

Why would that be a problem with a gigantic HEDP warhead?
Apparently it's 130kg, but I suspect that's the naval version. Although even 50kg is a lot.
Is 3km realistic?

Italians put a rapid firing 76mm naval cannon on a wheeled chassis before. But they would have been better off with either a smaller or a bigger cannon, because it doesn't carry enough ammunition to do its job, and the individual shells aren't destructive enough to it.
military-today.com/artillery/otomatic.htm

I imagine that the objekt 782 has two BMP-3 turrets, and the grenade launchers are placed in the front of the hull, like in the early Terminators.

It's a safe bet.

A Kornet weighs 33kg.
The boosterless section that contains the warhead is narrower but longer than a Kornet missile, it should weigh about ~30-40kg just by itself given its length and width compared to the entire system mass. It carries a small sustainer motor which should keep it in the air for awhile. So I'm guessing at least a few kilometers range, which is enough to safely deal with any armored vehicle as autocannon ranges are about that.

kbptula.ru/en/productions/multi-service-weapon-systems/germes-a

Cmon user, no vodka is enough to try and put two 100mm guns in one tank.

then what the hell were these guys drinking

Attached: 1024px-VT1-2_Bild3[1].jpg (1024x768, 113.67K)

Lab grade ethanol spiked with LSD and Viagra.

...

Why exactly are ATGMs so deadly against armored targets?

Well, if you go the autisti/k/ or Egyptian route, then you could put 3-4 of them on a handcart. That should be plenty of firepower.

Because they carry a stronk enough warhead to penetrate the armour of any MBT and are either guided by the shooter or are of the fire-and-forget kind. It's the IRL equivalent of using an aimbot in cawadooty to headshot everyone. Also, they are light enough to be carried and set up by a small team of people, who can easily hide and maneuvre through nearly any terrain. Their main downside is that they are quite slow (usually around 300m/s), so the tank might have a few seconds to shoot back if its attacked from a greater range. But that only works if they can spot the missile team in time.

Turns out molten copper or whatever the fuck burns/melts through steel and composite armor. And when you add a guidance system to that mix there's a extremely good chance that you are going to get the first hit, and thus get the first kill.

Another reason for deadliness of ATGM's is their size. You can't hide MBT's on 6th floor of a apartment building but you can put a ATGM-system there with some motivationally retarded guy and a teakettle to keep him company.

I suspect that their experiences in Afghanistan was part reason for the development of those dakka-machines. According to after-action reports I've read they figured out that the most cost effective and successful method they had for clearing out green-zones was raking the bushes/small forest with ungodly amount of fire from BMP's or tanks, and then just advancing with infantry to shoot or capture anyone that didn't die properly.

That's pretty much what my recent reading into these beasts seems to suggest. They were developed in the late 80's by V.L.Vershinsky after reports came in from Afghanistan. Apparently Soviet commanders there found that urban combat become a lot easier when you started it with a battery of Shilkas firing a few thousand 23mm HE shells at the buildings before the infantry moved in. Considering that urban combat was starting to make MBTs look obsolete at that point their options were either to abandon the tank (like armoured trains before them) or find a way to let tanks do the same job as the ZSUs hosing areas with rapid fire HE

The 781 & 782 projects seem to have stalled out after the first prototypes were produced and tested, but the idea was revived with Objekt 787, which has ERA added for that proper Slavic feel, and appears to be what they were aiming for with the Terminator line of BMPs.

Attached: Objekt 787.jpg (740x425, 353.89K)

Who am I expecting to fight?
If it's a continuation of recent decades I remove the crew and go with lightly armored highly maneuverable drones covered in APS.
If it's China / Russia I ditch tanks from much cheaper / lighter IFVs and assault guns in huge numbers.

Against insurgents I want something that can get into a city without being doomed.
Against a real military power air superiority will decide most of the outcome so I'm more focused on infantry support against fortified positions than taking out MBTs.

I also bring back the VADS because I fucking love it no matter how retarded and outdated it is today.

Attached: M163_VADS.JPEG (2840x1880, 1.2M)

That's just Germans having no restrictions.

Because also when they're built by non-retarded military industrial complexes they cost about $3000, and have the potential to take out a $8 million tank.

The copper is squeezed into shape by the explosive, directed at a tank, and then forces its way into the tank through the armor.

There's no real heating or melting going on, except for some waste heat because metal does that when it's hammered.

The copper liner in a shaped charge does not burn through armor so much as it causes the steel to yield to the pressure of the copper jet. It is like sticking a toothpick into a boiled egg.

I beg to differ.

Attached: T-54_Terror_Museum,_Budapest.jpg (3008x2000, 2.61M)

That tonk is on the ground floor of the building.
t. been there

I was half expecting you to say I drove it in there

That's the Hungarian revolution/Communist atrocity/Arrow cross atrocity museum right?
I hope to go to Hungary at some point during university. Do you guys speak American :^), and are the universities in and around budapest cucked?
polite sage for off topic

Wait, what?

Right. First it was the building of the Arrow Cross party, then it served as the HQ of the commie secret police.
Depends on your perspective. People from the West would say no, but as a proper Hungarian who grew up outside of Budapest, I have to call that city a wound in the face of this land. Even universities outside of Budapest get their share of libruls and Marxists, but of course that depends on the faculty. Really, it works like everywhere else, that is, it's up to you to find the right kind of people. You'll just have an easier time finding them at any Hungarian university than in Western Europeans ones.

Joke about the uprising and how you guys got a T-55 to the British embassy. I think

Drop armor altogether, get a treaded vehicle that's fast as fuck and has a big gun. Zerg the enemy. Glass cannon or bust.

Attached: 109a069f57f7d43bc1c0f2ab9869cdf1444c6307516fe908488b4de901ceb297.jpg (320x283, 23.48K)

LEO PARD MAN

smh tbh fam

Don't point fingers, Aussie, I'm pretty sure at least one Armaments Company in The Big Prison has been trying to find a way to load a 152mm shell with Funnel Web Spiders.

I don't think that's the future, the future is probably better armor and armor design. That or something that makes the odds of hitting the armor itself less and thus armor can be reduced. With computer technology advancing and AI being more integrated in our daily lives, we will see the enemy get spotted before the humans see it. If that happens, the tank can auto adjust to show it's most armored point without compromising return fire or initial engagement. War will rarely, if ever, be conducted on super powers ever again. It's going to be the strong vs the pushover countries. Those that have vs those that dont. Tanks roll will be minesweepers and entrenched enemy clearing. The age of the steel coffin is over, the age of air conditioning and luxury tanks is nigh.

I do want to see dummy tanks make a return again, this time unmanned tanks meant to be a distraction rather then full combat ready. Have it be exactly the same as a normal one, but remote controlled and made to draw fire away from the living tank crew. When the enemy hits it and it keeps going it will cause confusion and moral loss. They will be forced to double check tanks wasting precious time and energy from the fight to insure they aren't analy devastated.

Attached: 22fefe8d4e5191e0c80bb671d2156e8720cce181bbb5c5093abc203c3cd22fb9.png (1280x720, 580.19K)

Nah, m8. You just need a bomber filled with drop bears.

I thought they made up a significant percentage of Aussie Airborne units?

You can be rather sure that there was at least one Roman or Chinese general who thought the exact same thing. And yet history rolled on, and eventually rolled through those ahistorical civilizations.
The Armata is already capable of that.

So insurgent tier halftrack technicals using mid 20th century Soviet/Chicom infantry tactics.
Are you ok, Spic-kun?

And Rome was kill by inferior barbarians, not symmetrical warfare between it and a similar power.

Roman's dont have MAD.

thanks for that info though, had no idea and I'll look into it.

Rome was killed by idiot politicians who wanted orgies, vanity projects, and cushy jobs more than they wanted a functional state. The lead in the water pipes definitely didn't help either.

Everyone should scrap their MBT's and purchase Merkavas instead. Perfect for rolling over Palestinians.

Attached: Shoah Force.jpg (474x316, 29.96K)

I'm confused, are you describing Rome or London?

You know my gut tells me this is bait but actually it's not a bad idea if what we are facing is sandniggers.

...

Passive armor is only good for protection against kinetic weapons.
Sandniggers largest kinetic weapon is a 14.5mm machine gun. Just two inches of steel-ceramic-steel sandwich armor on all critical areas nullifies that threat, at a cost of 5-10 tons, depending on size of vehicle but averaged to MBT sizes. The good part is that a lot of it can be built around basic structural steel, for the hull itself, which removes a lot of the weight cost.
That's how much passive armor your tank needs to have when fighting sandniggers.

As for ATGM and RPG, both are contact detonated, both are rocket based subsonic vehicles, both mount HEAT warheads.

There are three levels of defenses one can use against them see pic:
1. Contact det vulnerability - Cage armor has a good chance of preventing an ATGM from contacting the armor, which means it can't detonate and often bounces off. Total mass under 2 tons.
2. Propulsion vulnerability - The vehicles are slow enough that APS systems can knock them out of the air. Total mass under 3 tons.
3. HEAT warhead vulnerability - ERA can degrade a HEAT warheads effectiveness by up to 90%. NERA armor can absorb the remaining 10%. Any leakage would be stopped by the two inch passive armor. Total mass under 10 tons.
Ergo a tank with a dead mass of 30 tons, add another few tons for the most fuel efficient engine you can find (two stroke in series? wheeled?), a fuel tank, electronics, crew amenities and other elements. Weapons on these are adequate. Total insurgency tank mass 25-35 tons.

Armoring against IED shouldn't be attempted in my opinion, IED attacks are incredibly rare and can be completely controlled by simply not using roads and having a force that is more aggressive and doesn't hide out on bases. Western hysteria about IEDs is borne out because the tanks used are so fuel hungry that they get 9mpg off road, so they stay on road where they're vulnerable. The huge fuel costs also mean a lot of fuel trucks to supply them, all of which are vulnerable. And the tanks are such sacred cows that they never leave the wire, patrol maybe a few times a week if their commander is especially aggressive.
An insurgency tank would be as fuel efficient as possible. This means it can go off road regularly and doesn't require as many fuel trucks to supply it, all this adds up to fewer places that IEDs can be used. More fuel efficiency also means more ability to undertake aggressive maneuver, patrolling out of base in overlapping 24/7 coverage, leaving the insurgents no time to dig a hole and drag an IED in. That is how you protect against IED, by shooting the nigger trying to place one, not by radically altering tank designs.

Merkava is over-armored for sandnigger hunting. Specifically because Jews were too fucking dumb to put cage, NERA, ERA, or APS on their tanks until fairly recently. They're built for fighting sandpeople, not sandniggers.

By the way I always knew you were a Jew

Attached: Armor_set_002.png (474x348 1015.46 KB, 24.56K)

Eh, it's the fate of pretty much every society when it gets powerful enough to be a dominant force in the world. Once you get to the point where rich families can raise their kids separately from problems and plebs you start to get politicians, senior officials, and officers who start their careers without an understanding of anything other than high society. At the start the smallish number of men can be taught/trained to act sensibly, but once you get a critical mass of idiot rich boys in charge that changes the culture of your leadership and it's all downhill from there. It happened to Rome, it happened to France, it happened to Britain, it's happening to America. In a century or so it'll be happening to China.

Wisest bong post I've seen in Zig Forums this far.

Behold the future gentlemen.

Attached: dcc8ba8dc947bacc8512857309e608e47a2e7aa9fc251a99679f4d0b8924ccc0.png (916x407, 42.95K)

That's genius

Merkava Mk IV with trophy system

Skeleton tank was thought of already, ww1 tbqh.

How about we completely remove the vehicle entirely, have the crew carry the gun and associated ammunition on their shoulders, and tell them to make tank noises when they move.

Your propellant can't cook off if you don't have propellant.

Attached: war has changed.webm (640x352, 5.15M)

This guy knows whats up

Attached: d859y3ih4rnz.jpg (990x794, 204.76K)

Attached: 12872836_f520.jpg (520x321, 33.97K)

...

AI is not going to help you know where the enemy is, dumb nigger. You clearly don't know shit, like the mutt you are.

Put camouflage for sick ass sneak attacks.