[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
AA Launchers on Tanks
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons

Thread replies: 118
Thread images: 22
Why don't you ever see AA Missile launchers on MBTs (a la Command & Conquer's Mammoth tank)? The M6 Linebacker had Stinger Missile Launchers on the side. Why couldn't or shouldn't we do the same with an MBT, and cover a larger range of targets?
>>
>>28924163
Because the US is not north korea.
>>
M6 Linebacker for reference. It's a M2 Bradley that had the TOW Launcher replaced with a 4 Barrel Stinger Launcher.
>>
Forgot the image.

>>28924181

Yeah, probably better to develope a vehicle for a specific task, and have it excel at it, instead of being pretty good at many things.
>>
Wait. what is the US Army's current AA vehicle? I don't see any AA besides Patriot Systems, and Soldier carried Stinger launchers. If they aren't using the LAV-AD anymore, is anything filling the gap?
>>
File: m163 vads.jpg (53 KB, 630x480) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
m163 vads.jpg
53 KB, 630x480
>>28924484
here's one
>>
>>28924484
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
>>
File: Avenger_afghan0.jpg (190 KB, 1024x768) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Avenger_afghan0.jpg
190 KB, 1024x768
>>28924484
This is it.
>>
>>28924532
No longer in use.
>>
>>28924484
>what is the US Army's current AA vehicle?
Another jet
>>
>>28924163
Because an all-roles-in-one vehicle is shit; more expensive, more vulnerable, and less effective than two different vehicles for different roles.

Was that not in your stupid video game?
>>
>>28924484
>what is the US Army's current AA vehicle?

The US Air Force.
>>
>>28924532

these are pretty sexy but the VADS was always underpowered VS the helis it was meant to kill (hinds). its cannon simply couldn't reach as far as the helis could shoot their ATGM's from.

in reality these would mostly have been used in the anti-personnel and anti-soft-skin-vehicle role.
>>
>>28924163
>Why couldn't or shouldn't we do the same with an MBT, and cover a larger range of targets?

well, you CAN do that, but it really makes a lot more sense to put your stingers on foot or on a smaller, faster vehicle than a tank.
>>
>>28924163
MBTs are meant to be the centre of attention, small arms, crew served weapons, large caliber guns and ATGMs all have these as a high priority

Mounting anything irrelevant to immediate survival on an MBT is wasted effort
AA weapons are better served by concealed positions and easy access to rapid reloading
>>
>>28924582
This thing is so pointless. An entire hmmv for 8 stingers and a m3 browning.
No armor, radar, off road etc. It's not armored enough to be anywhere near a frontline, yet has such short range it has to be close. For some reason this vehicle also has the profile of a medieval watchtower as it was apparently to challenging to make a gunner station in the passenger seat, or have him sit lower; in other words, good luck hiding this thing. Ah and let's not forget about the browning on the side. Shooting at aircraft with a fiddy cal with no FCS always seemed as a durka durka thing to do to me. Apparently these brave syrian warriors copied it directly from american doctrine, at least they are smart enough to use Toyotas as platform though, instead of the god awful hmmv.
Designs like these is what you end up with of you don't have wars to test your equipment in.
>hurr we will always rule the skies
>no use 4 AA if they has no plane rite ?
So many fucking flaws in the concept of US air defence doctrine.
>>
>>28925124

the .50 is for engaging ground targets, amigo. it's just so your stinger bus isn't totally defenseless.

I don't really see what the problem is with having 8 stingers ready to go. that's 7 more than the usual way (carried by two dudes on foot), and much quicker because it's a truck.

I'm not saying it's a perfect vehicle, I'm just saying it's not "pointless". it makes sense for what it is.
>>
>>28925169
The thing is that as soon as you get into "just slap a browning on it so it's not defenseless" you might as well slap a stinger on an Abrams. The vehicle that is actually armored very well, wil not get fucked by .30 AP and has mobility, spare power and enough space for at least a double launcher on the back. It saves you an entire vehicle, crew and accompanying gas+MRE's. There is no point in a specialized vehicle if it does not grant any special capabilities. Soft skinned vehicles have no place on the frontlines, and the frontlines is where this thing would operate. Also a manpads on every tank would also be discouraging to enemy pilots, quite the advantage imo.
>>
>>28925275
>The thing is that as soon as you get into "just slap a browning on it so it's not defenseless" you might as well slap a stinger on an Abrams

never go full retard.
>>
File: 1455258545358.jpg (40 KB, 542x542) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1455258545358.jpg
40 KB, 542x542
>>28925275
>a manpads on every tank would also be discouraging to enemy pilots, quite the advantage imo.
>>
>>28925275
Take a look at an Avenger again, and look at that giant ass turret set up on its bed just to fire 8 stinger missiles. Do you really think you can fit something like that on an Abrams?
>>
>>28924163
Missile launchers on tanks now mean you've got a nice fat satchel charge enemy infantry can set off with a GPMG.

It's a bad idea for a vehicle you intend to expose to enemy fire (like a tank).

The best AS is all weather superiority anyways.
>>
File: 1448245588856.jpg (17 KB, 534x402) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1448245588856.jpg
17 KB, 534x402
>>28925275
>Also a manpads on every tank would also be discouraging to enemy pilots
>>
File: 1335316607571.gif (94 KB, 346x323) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1335316607571.gif
94 KB, 346x323
>>28925275
>aircraft only attack front lines
>anything that is not tracked and armored like an MBT is useless
>>
>>28925335

Don't humor him Anon, he's clearly retarded. Just let his little tard ass be.
>>
>>28925275
the point of a goddamn air defense network is LAYERS

artillery and fobs need defense from aircraft too you know
>>
>>28925318
You mean full functional right? Weighs 15kg, ~8 km range, strap two on your abrams for a combined cost of $75k and when you see that mi-28n with your THERMALS (guess what doesn't have thermal cameras), you can just pop the hatch and shoot under <30 secs.
>>
>>28925399
oh my, he is doubling down
>>
>>28925275

Anon, that line of thinking is how the Bradley was born. Less is more.

Though, a specialty vehicle made from an Abrams hull attached to a Stinger launcher wouldn't be a bad idea; like a less terrible version of the Sgt. York.
>>
File: 120_m830a1_mpat03.jpg (23 KB, 622x291) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
120_m830a1_mpat03.jpg
23 KB, 622x291
>>28925399
>>
>>28925332
>>28925332
>>28925335
>>28925397
>>28925353
Do you people have cognitive shortcomings? If you really hope to defend a FOB or depot from strike planes with a glorified manpads carrier, you are beyond saving. That is patriot territory. And why the fuck the entire cabin and 8 missiles. Jesus read a book and an hero in no specific order.
>>
>>28925399
I'm sure you can find a cheap, cost effective way of firing those stingers without actually leaving the tank.
>>
the reason you keep your AA and your MBT's separate is because they engage different kinds of targets that won't always be together.

imagine if you had to call up your MBT every time an enemy heli appeared.

>hurrrr just put the AA on a different vehicle then!

...then why would you put it on an MBT?
>>
>>28925433
Bradley's were not the first IFV moron.
>>
>>28924663
>meanwhile multi-role vehicles cut down on logistics
>and we know logistics win wars
>>
>>28925455
oh shit he really is doubling down
>>
>>28925455
>If you really hope to defend a FOB or depot from strike planes with a glorified manpads carrier

Nobody said that but you. The fact that you think stingers can shoot down planes at all is some turbo-retard shit.

By the way, there are these aircraft called "Helicopters", and that's what stingers are meant to shoot down. You can't use Patriots for that.
>>
>>28925455
>What is the Patriot missile system.
>What is the USAF
>>
>>28925455
>he only depends on Patriot
>he doesn't realize the importance of non radar solutions
>>
>>28925473
>multi-role vehicles cut down on logistics

Not really, not if they don't replace an existing vehicle.

A stinger on an MBT wouldn't replace AA vehicles, it would just add a new page of stuff that every armor platoon would have to worry about.
>>
>>28924163
Why would you bother? Just put a bigger gun on it and shoot Army Rangers at the incoming aircraft instead. They train to seize airfields so it follows that they can easily take out a single aircraft.
>>
>>28925534
No, you convert the Abrams into gliders so they can dogfight enemy fighters.
>>
>>28925534
>>28925571

This thread is finally going somewhere. Thank god.
>>
>>28925497
you are supposed to replace AA vehicles with MBTs that can do AA too.

Also the navy is adding anti-ship capability to tomahawks and the SM-3 specifically to be as multi-role as possible.
>>
>>28925440
Severely lacking round as it has no real fragmentation going on. And good luck on reaching out to 8km.
>>28925456
Well the belorussians could, so why not the US? Besides why would you? Option one is sitting in a plexiglass cabin before/during/after firing, option two is sitting in a DU reinforced cabin before/after but not during firing.
>>28925490
Haha jesus christ, been playing too much wargame? Want to bring the chapparal back too? You never know when those MIG-25BM attack your FOB right, thank god the Avenger stops the strike package in that scenario.
>>28925433
Because of the value of mobility an AA vehicle on the Abrams chassis has been proposed, much along the principle of the ADATS with DP missiles and RADAR/EOTS. Indeed very similar to bradley thinking in terms of mobility dependency and front line AA.
>>28925484
You really need to look into a helium based solution for your oxygen based problems.
>>
>>28925594
>you are supposed to replace AA vehicles with MBTs that can do AA too.


never

go

full

retard
>>
File: hqdefault.jpg (24 KB, 480x360) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
hqdefault.jpg
24 KB, 480x360
>>28925599
>he's still replying

the fact that jokeposting is getting more attention than your shitposts should be a clue, friend.
>>
>>28924484
>>
>>28925604
And thats why the nazis had so many different tanks because they hated multi-role. Sure worked out well for them amirite
>>
>>28925689

what are you even trying to express with this post?
>>
>>28925571
No, if you do that then the carrier mafia will simply put them on carriers and greatly increase the cost of defense. You need to give them their own hulls and then they can replace the ridiculous LCS while still providing air defense both at sea and on land.
>>
>>28925689

Ah yes, "the nazis", those famed users of stinger missiles on tanks.

Excellent post friend, have a (You)
>>
>>28925462

Never implying it was genius, but the reason why they aren't a 1/1 copy of the BMP and instead the 31 ton monstrosities with TOWs attached to them is due to feature creep.
>>
>>28925753
But we all know that the concept of surface carriers is obsolete thanks to undetectable AIP submersible carriers!
>>
>>28926027
Nope. There were a series of different programs that saw a change in direction over the course of the many that occurred. The Bradley program itself did not undergo much feature creep at all.
>>
>>28925749
the point was :

>multirole is bad!
>but everyone switched to multi-role MBTs instead of specialized tanks
>>
>>28925599
>chaparral

Literally AIM-9 in a ground launcher.

We need the I-HAWK back.
>>
>>28924484
>Wait. what is the US Army's current AA vehicle?
The Air Force and/or the Navy
>>
File: eRT8plc.jpg (179 KB, 1024x673) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
eRT8plc.jpg
179 KB, 1024x673
Strelas on a pokpung-ho
>>
File: stealth A-10.jpg (589 KB, 1280x1602) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
stealth A-10.jpg
589 KB, 1280x1602
You faggots are all retarded, it's obvious that we just make everything with stealth capabilities so the enemy never knows we're coming.

Shit nigger, there could be an F-35 in your room THIS FUCKING MOMENT and you don't know.
>>
>>28924201
Linebacker is no longer in service
>>
>MANPADs on tanks

I totally get what he's saying, but the entire point of a MANPAD is it can easily be carried a MAN.

The entire point of vehicles is to have weapons that a man can't carry.
>>
>>28928435

Someone needs to make a comic about this.

>be inna room
>on computer jerking it to trannies like always
>yfw the computer is an F35
>the trannies are also F35
>>
>>28928069
>>28928545
>>
>>28925124
>So many fucking flaws in the concept of US air defence doctrine.

Funny because something somthing... air based radar and on site electronic warfare something,"Muh BVR.
>>
>>28928545
>>28928634

>You realize that they patched out AA tank in Red Dragon.
>>
Fuck sakes, you people are idiots. Manpads are effective against helos and maybe MAYBE loitering CAS aircraft. Everything else is at "Don't fucking bother" altitudes. Any vehicle that would be worth mounting a manpad on will probably already have a weapon that's going to be roughly as effective against anything you'd be shooting a manpad at.
>>
>>28925433
The Bradley is fucking great. It is absolutely well suited to a highly mechanized/armored battlefield.
>>
>>28929351
I would say that the 25mm is getting a bit long in the tooth. There's not much more they can do with a round that size. It'll need to be upgunned by the end of the decade. Ideally the Bradley would get an entirely new replacement, but e.
>>
File: 1449084380469.jpg (14 KB, 167x175) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1449084380469.jpg
14 KB, 167x175
>>28925124
>not putting 50s on shit to shoot stuff

You are absolutely retarded
>>
File: CLqCyYWWUAAGrzN.jpg (38 KB, 600x310) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
CLqCyYWWUAAGrzN.jpg
38 KB, 600x310
>>28924163
why "SWOOOSSH!!!" when you can "BBRRTTTTT!!"?
>>
>>28929411
>it'll need to be upgunned by the end of the decade
To kill what? It's still capable of frontally penetrating every armored vehicle on the planet that ISNT an Abrams/Chally2/Leo2/LeClerc/T80MS/Armata MBT/K2. It positively rapes IFV's and APC's.
>>
>>28925124
The Avenger has FLIR, can carry a lot more missiles ready to fire than two dudes on foot (8 vs 1, and that's without a trailer), and also doesn't have to worry about batteries.

I'm not saying it's a great system, it's clearly pretty marginal, but let's not get carried away.
>>
>>28928692
It sucked anyway, ironically probably in a fairly realistic manner.

>Not-very-good MANPADS
>Limited ammo
>Crew and platform limitations limit effectiveness further.
>>
>>28925689
The US managed specialist vehicles just fine. The Nazi just sucked at manufacturing.
>>
Biggest problem is lack of situational awareness in a tank.

When buttoned up, a tank has less SA even with FLIR and CITV than a dismount with his ears and Mk.1 eyeball. The most important thing about air defense is detection and reaction. If the tank can't detect the helicopter in time, strapping MANPADS on is a waste, not to mention the very real possibility of overburdening the TC.
>>
Multi-purpose land/air attack missiles in a VLS, based on the abrams chassis, is the way to go.
>>
>>28925671
shitty 3rd gen aircraft going to get wasted by mig 29 and su 27s
>>
>>28931506
And yet having a human loader who doubles as an extra pair if eyes and ears is a bad thing because muh autoloaders.
>>
File: Capture.png (307 KB, 424x397) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Capture.png
307 KB, 424x397
>>28925594
>>
>>28925753
and now you have a freaking gundam.
>>
>>28931187
The heavy APCs that are incoming.
>>
>>28934149
"muh extra pairs of eyes"
Just put some sensors and computers into the tank

Reduce crew size needed to one.
And have triple the number of tanks
>>
>>28935249
>overburdened TC

Remember why 3 man turrets were such a big deal 70 years ago.
>>
File: Future A-10.jpg (799 KB, 3425x1943) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Future A-10.jpg
799 KB, 3425x1943
>>28928435
>>
>>28935297
We have computers now
Things can be highly automated
Also data links and letting people sitting in the USA be your eyes.
>>
>>28926055
Guys we just ditch all the super carriers and have a private cargo ship company build them instead of defense contractors. They manage to build ships just as big for a lot less money!
>>
File: 1434919920180.jpg (94 KB, 567x800) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1434919920180.jpg
94 KB, 567x800
>>28924163
Feast your eyes on this beauty.

It was a decent idea and one of our main reasons for backing the Canadian development of the ADATS system.

But then we remembered we have the First Second and Third Largest Air-force in the world and this kind of tech wasn't really necessary.
>>
>>28935456
You are trying to handwave away the issue.
>>
File: 1434920017958.png (402 KB, 1024x717) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1434920017958.png
402 KB, 1024x717
>>28935516
Details of the turret, it used an Abrams Chassis sorta like the Brits for their Heavy AAA
>>
>>28935516
The USMC is still the third largest air force? I could have sworn that Russia would beat them.
>>
too bad it was drawingboard concept only
>>
File: 20130503083135252.jpg (73 KB, 800x532) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
20130503083135252.jpg
73 KB, 800x532
Isn't AA stuff no longer in use because basically all you're fighting these days are dirty cavement with AK-47s and RPGs, instead of the classic soviet/iraqis armies with actual money for vehicles that aren't pickup trucks with mounted machineguns
>>
>>28924484

>what is the US Army's current AA vehicle?

Pic-related.

However, the US army recently announced that they were pursuing a plan to add AA abilities to Strykers (which is basically just an ACP). They want to up-gun them to 30mm, which they think will give them some AA potential.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/army-explores-anti-ship-howitzers-anti-aircraft-strykers/
>>
>>28935881
Why isn't everything done by drones in this regard? Are they still too slow/unwieldy/expensive?
>>
>>28935199
You mean from the two countries that won't produce them in meaningful quantities and will never export them, meaning we'll never actually face on on a battlefield? Also the Namer and supposedly the T15 can still be penetrated over the entire frontal arc, much less the sides, by the 25mm APFSDS load we've had for nearly 30 years.
>>
>>28935881
>anti ship howitzers
For what purpose? Especially when anti-ship missiles exist.
>>
>>28935888

Would you want an air-force that could be completely neutralized just by sufficiently powerful jammers?
>>
>>28935920
Good point. Sorry, I'm completely ignorant on these issues.
>>
>>28935920
Anything sufficiently powerful enough to jam satellite links in a UCAV operating at 50,000ft from any meaningful distance will jam their own shit and everything else in a 100mi radius, as well as eating more power than a football stadium during a nighttime bowl game per emitter and simply can't be fielded away from infrastructure as nobody has a generator powerful enough to run one.
>>
>>28935903
This.
>m919 APFSDS-T depleted uranium round
>tests show it will reliably penetrate frontal arc of T80MS on first hit 95% of time
>>
>>28926173
Yes, bwcaise the MBT concept allowed them to be as "Multirole" as possible without too heavy of a compromise

As has been pointed out, you have nothing to gain

If you affix a box launcher to the side of the turret then you have to rotate the turret to engage the aircraft, offering the sides or rear of the turret you also have to have crew dismount or a complex internal connection to the launcher

The other option is a single launch tube mounted on a RWS instead of the Browning, ask any tanker which they'd rather have

You also have atleast 3kg of HE strapped to the outside of the turret, items that where proof to small arms fire like antenna and the RWS etc are now sat next to a fixed grenade on the side of the tank not to mention the dangers to supporting infantry

Now, as established stingers have a max range of 8km, the gun has a max effective range of 3km, a little less than 1/2 that already so you are taking these disadvantages for a 5km boost.

Now are you honestly saying there is no where within 1 or 2km that an avenger could be holed up?
>>
>>28935823
yep
shit`s all been mothballed
there won`t be anyone with the capacity to oppose american aerial power for at least the next 20 years.
obviously the rest of nato can get their asses contested by the browns and yellows so most of them have AA systems fielded, except Canada, the retards, but US doesnt have to care.
If they`re faced with any kind of aircraft, even a $200 000 cessna or a $500 000 delphin, they can politically justify the deployment of a large jet fighter package, dozens of 4+ or 5 gens, which would establish air dominance in about however long it takes them to get to the enemy airfields at 300kph
>>
>>28936107
>except Canada, the retards
When was the last time Canada went somewhere with their military where they didn't have extensive US support?

Also nobody's gonna invade Canada for fear of the US defending them.
>>
>>28924201
Jack of all trades, master of none.
Still always better than a master of one.
>>
>>28935823
Russia's use of small cheap UAVs in Ukraine has reivigorated interest in gun based SPAAGs.

I know America is working on a 50mm Bushmaster that will fire guided rounds.
>>
>>28935903
>>28935988
Citation badly needed.
>>
>>28936167
>When was the last time Canada went somewhere with their military where they didn't have extensive US support?
exactly, because they can`t
in wargame canadians lack a bunch of capability and are hard as fuck to play, and thats WITH them using a bunch of fictional/retired tech
>>
>>28935944

So what you're saying is we should stop being afraid of developing Skynet and just get that bitch over with
>>
>>28936200
> Thanks for reminding me of that orphaned franchise.
>>
>>28936212
Yeah probably
>>
>>28935911
Because its an option, it doesn't mean there will be dedicated shore batteries.
>>
>>28936258
:^(
>>
>>28936191
>Namer frontal arc has roughly 250mm RHA-equiv armor (classified, experts' estimate)
>T15 is completely unknown but estimated to be similar
m919 has ~190mm RHA penetration @ 30* deflection, ~280mm RHA penetration at zero deflection

Probably would not penetrate the front of a Namer due to the extreme frontal slope
>>
>>28936357
wat
why so little armor
>>
>>28924163
Dunno about he US, but a few country have vehicles carry manpads in their kit. IIRC, russian MSTA-S spg, amonst others. Nothing (besides TOE) prevents you from doing it, and some paranoid crews might snatch a launcher in the armory if they expected to encounter helos.
But if you want a non-dedicated AA platform with SAM, the only things I see are Adats, nk tanks during parades.
Also, some tank shells with proximity/timed fuses are supposed to be effective against helicopters. Still better than nothing, I guess.
>>
>>28936357
That is not a citation.

And that penetration claim for M919 is higher than 40mm APFSDS, which is hilariously bullshit.
>>
>>28935363

That's a fatass hoe
Thread replies: 118
Thread images: 22
Thread DB ID: 519789



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.