Modern Ant-Tank Guns

Because man portable weapons are more efficient.

not needed anymore

>>30768800
javelin is better in every way

>>30768800
It's called the Stryker mobile gun system OP, the US army uses it.

>>30768800
because ATGMs exist the same firepower in something carried by a 2 man team.

And the worlds armys are MUCH more mechanized than when they were still motorized in the 50s

Perhaps if ww3 kicks off the nations will salvage them from stock piled rusted old tanks to replace loses if it becomes a ww1 style throw everything at them.

>>30768800
because recoil is a thing.

A 12 KG sabot+penetrator+gases moving at 1700m/s is almost 20,000 kg*m/s of momentum. The vehicle itself is going to have to absorb all that.

>>30768800
>basic fire control computer
but you would need an equivalent-tech fire control and sensor suite or the tanks would just pick you off from several kilometers away

>>30769034

So. Toyota Hilux is fine then?

>>30769034
20,000 kg*m/s

What measurement do you think you just stated?

>>30769184

That's a niggawatt.

>>30769184
obviously its a measurement of momentum
s m h

File: 1469555781183.jpg (15KB, 250x240px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x240px

>>30769184

File: 1420425869398.gif (921KB, 280x229px) Image search: [Google]

921KB, 280x229px

>>30769184
It's a formula you dolt

File: M274 with 106.jpg (67KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 800x600px

>>30768800
Will a 106mm work? Murica did it in the 50's-70's

>>30769128
Not only would this work, you could save money of fuel by simply aiming the gun opposite the direction the vehicle is travelling and use the recoil as propulsion! Genius!

>>30769285
That's adorable

>>30769184
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_second

File: m50-ontos-tank-destroyer.jpg (102KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 800x550px

>>30769344
Fuck you take 6 106!!!

File: Stryker_MGS_Mbile_Gun_System_USA_07.jpg (325KB, 580x393px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 580x393px

>>30768800
You mean something like that?

>>30769352
could you convert that to fig newton seconds for me please? am bad to math

Israel is developing something like that. Its 8x8 and called 'Eitan'

I believe it'll be 120mm and fuckhuge.

>>30769285
That is a recoilless gun, meaning only HE type rounds.

Great idea, OP. Maybe add treads so it can handle hills and such better, and add some armor to protect the people inside. We could call it a tank.

>>30769128
Ya, Toyotas for the win! I'd use a Tacoma

>>30769430
20,000 newton seconds.

>>30769685
please enlighten me, on your autism.

>>30768800
>Why has no one mounted a 120mm tank gun on some wheels and a chassis to make a cheap anti-tank weapon?
120mm tank gun with modern FCS would be anything but cheap.

Modern American artillery field guns and self propelled can direct fire. Meaning the m777 can be a anti tank gun and the paladin can be a impromptu tank destoryer. The crews are trained for direct fire engagements just incase.

>>30769866
nono FIG newton seconds e.g. how many fig newtons, per second, of equivalent energy in KJ

File: Stryker MGS.jpg (2MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4288x2848px

I believe the MGS uses a rifled 105mm gun, but the idea is the same.

File: 1381737017_image002.jpg (109KB, 640x255px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 640x255px

T-14's gun.

File: 2a82_050814.jpg (27KB, 631x283px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 631x283px

>>30770112

>>30769395
>>30768882
>Stryker mobile gun system
That's anti-infantry and anti-light vehicle/structure.
It's definitely not anti-tank.

The real reason is that even something like the stryker only carries 18 rounds and 18 ATGMs are way easier to carry in a HMV or something and can actually kill a tank.

>>30769285
That's one way to solve the Stryker's lack of aircon.

>>30768800
Couldn't you just use an efp?

>>30770054
> apache warhammer
Fuck that's metal

>>30768882
The MGS is a 105, not a 120.

it's also massively shitty for anti-armor jobs. it's a breaching tool.

>>30769906
Try google, I gave you the words to search for.

>>30770133
M900 is very much an anti-tank round, though it is a bit dated for shooting at something like a T-14.

File: img_7853.jpg (88KB, 600x804px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 600x804px

Did someone say Ant -Tank?

>>30768800
>Why has no one mounted a 120mm tank gun on some wheels and a chassis to make a cheap anti-tank weapon?
One, those 120mm guns are huge and would make the vehicle fucking undrivable.

Two, that was actually a thing that people did anyway. It fell out of favor because, again, it's impossible to drive and aim and not just get outperformed by the tank you're hunting.

Three, there's lots of modern "hussar" units that are basically that, except instead of using anti-tank guns, they use anti-tank rocket/missile launchers for space, weight, and ease of use reasons.

>>30769430
1 fig newton has 110 kcal, or 460 kilojoules

so 20k newton seconds / 1 fig newton = approx 43.5 fig newtons

say it takes about 5 seconds to eat each fig newton, about 3.62 fig minutes per firing of the cannon

>>30770838
correction: 1 serving of 110 kcal is 2 fig newtons

so:

call it 87 fig newtons, it would be 7.25 fig minutes per shot