The next American MBT (M1A3 or otherwise) needs an unmanned turret.

>>32180829
if i say that you are correct, will you stop shitposting ?

>>32180829
MGS is already a thing and it is a failure

File: 300px-PzKpfwIIIH.Saumur.000a1y8q.jpg (16KB, 300x176px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x176px

>>32180829

>Three man turrets were an important innovation that allowed the otherwise lackluster Panzer III to be competitive with the technically superior yet less ergonomically efficient Char B1 Bis.
>Automated turrets tested in the 60s, proved to be less responsive, while having significantly less situational awareness and no reported increase in safety to the crew

Why are you suggesting we regress in technology?

>>32180986
This is the most retarded thing I have ever read.

>>32181014

This is the most retarded thing I have ever read.

>>32180986

>technology hasn't advanced since 60s
>cameras don't provide better situational awareness than periscopes

>>32180829
Inb4 muh throw a track need extra hand meme

File: FMBT Bacon & Sharoni concept art armor magazine.png (1MB, 1085x827px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1085x827px

>>32180946

Low-profile turret =/= unmanned turret

File: german.sense.of.humor.jpg (12KB, 300x199px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x199px

They can save 10 tons on the Abrams with better electronics.

Now if they do that, they're best off reinvesting the weight savings into heavier belly armor, and thicker side armor.

60-65 tons seems the standard for a modern MBT.

>>32180829

Why not use automation for something actually useful like Quick Kill? Active defenses are the future.

Just make the whole goddamn thing automated

File: eva.jpg (127KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1024x768px

Make it an Eva

File: jelHHos[1].jpg (20KB, 606x238px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 606x238px

>>32180946
>MGS is already a thing and it is a failure
MGS is a gun version of BTR-80 rip-off. Of course it's a failure. Original BTR failed to carry cannon too.

>>32180829
>american tank with out nigger loader.
Into tolerance camps you go cis scum.

>>32180829
Unmanned turret:
> Cramming driver and gun operator/radio op/commander in the hull
> automated loader with many complex parts that are hard to repair in the field
> lots of servos and mechanisms to be maintained and hard to identify problems quickly
> much higher logistics footprint per tank
> no discernable rate of fire or target aquisition improvement over a well trained crew, penetration to the turret still means disabled tank most likely
Manned turret:
> get a human trained to perform multiple tasks instead of having an independent but interlocking system for each aspect of those tasks which can fail

>>32181495
An MGS platoon is with every single styker company.

Your idea of failure is weird.

>>32180986

EODAS solved almost all of the situational awareness problems. Now the question is can they make it small and cool enough to fit on a tank.

Why can't two people just pilot and shoot shit? I literally do the entire job solo in video games.

>>32181045
Yes because lifting 1000 lbs with hand tools and 3 pairs of hands it's as easy with 4. GTFO

Other things that are "just as easy" with a 3 person crew:

>Pulling radio guard
>Sentry duty and LP/OPs
>Maintaining radio communications PLT/CO/BATT
>Beaching Ops/Boarding party
>Being able to operate the tank with 1 less man (Abrams can operate with 3 crew if it has to btw)
>Literally disseminating all the man hours between the crew more easily that are nessecerily to perform tank operations, to include maintainence, fueling, driving, loading, scanning, loadplans, NBC tasks, gunning, reloading, radio operation, and a huge list of other things.

You're straw grabbing at the idea that a 3 person row boat is the same thing as a 4 person because you are incapable of critical thinking. 5 crew members would be even better, but the workload is then less then what 1 man is capable of. Your fallacy requires one man to do more work then 1 man is capable of, so tank efficiency is lower. 4 is perfect.

>>32180829

It shouldn't get an autoloader for the same reasons the T14 ruined it's credibility as being anything but a 5th to 7th rate tank.

>No one to clear jams in coax .50 or main gun.
>Severly Decreased observation
>No manual optics (inb4 tanks don't need manual optics) when your primary is shot out. FFS we still train and shoot with manuals to supplement
>no manual traverse during electronic or hydraulic failures
>Complete inability to fix turret based hardware problems on mission w/o headlining tank
>Autoloaders are slower than humans
>Autoloaders can't switch ammo types after already loading

The list also goes on. Congratulations, you saved 15% of your weight, marginally increased survivability, and degraded overall effectiveness. Haha fuck off. Your thread was a bait thread, 10/10 made me reply. Someone reading this will se reality. Not you, but the lesser informed commando reading this. BTW spent 5 years on tanks.

>>32181024
>This is the most retarded thing I have ever read.

>>32181660
>>Autoloaders are slower than humans
>>Autoloaders can't switch ammo types after already loading
>>Severly Decreased observation


All of these are lies.

>>32181623
Command and control, mostly. Something your game doesn't simulate at all.

>>32180829
How about no new MBT, and the military funds go towards to the people. No taxation.

>>32181469
>rebuildshit

>>32181725
>Autoader takes 6-8 seconds to reload
>Humans take 4 seconds, fastest load times recorded being as fast as 2 seconds
>After emptying the entire rack of ammo you're still reloading at about 6 seconds
>Implying a competent gunner can engage and kill targets that fast anyway
>Moot

>Most Soviet block autoloaders load charge and warhead separately
>Extraction process doesn't exist without human intervention
>Unmanned turret meme tanks don't even have that

>40% of your view is obstructed by a giant turret
>Cameras can see in broad view or fine detail, not both
>Ability to keep platoon tanks in formation and scanning targets simultaneously is physically impossible
>Scanning for enemy air is significantly degraded
>And so on

Hey look, another retard whose never even touched a tank in real life opining on them. How fucking fascinating. Please, please I beg of you post some semantic argument that skirts the topic and doesn't actually disprove anything I said so I can BYTFO some more.

>>32181725
>cameras with 3 pairs of eyes watching the displays is the same as 4 pairs watching the same number of screens.

>>32181912
Not even that. Observation is based on near-far. The twitch reflexes of the human eye/head are faster compete much better at near then a camera ever can. The panning, zooming, and in shitty optic cases focusing too, coupled with the time it takes to make a turn and for the screen watcher to process what he's seeing is vastly inferior at near scanning. The cameras hold lead in obvious shit like distance clarity and thermal, but believe it or not that's not the only kind of observation a tank is requires to do like these kiddos think. Go fobid they ever enter an urban environment.

Sorry for shit grammar. Mobile.

>>32181660
I meant it shouldn't get an unmanned turret because of specified reasons, not autoloaders. Those are shit too tho.

>>32180946
What is with you tards and hating the MGS?

How is it a failure?

>>32181745
Just a theoretical: could you make it so that a whole tank could be driven and operated by one man with an exbox controller?

File: LAND_Stryker_MGS_Firing_Anomaly_lg[1].jpg (573KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 800x600px

>>32184235
That's how.

File: 1414558555819.jpg (39KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x667px

>>32184276

Of course, with an autoloader and everything else linked into a computer. There's little that really couldn't be quarter-assed from one position all at once.

It would be a hilarious clusterfuck in action, though the guy is either going to drive from the turret position, which will see him crashing into shit because he's looking the wrong fucking way, or aiming the turret from the driver's position, which would probably make a man want to vomit when driving around.

Plus having to talk on the radio while looking out for threats and operating operationally.

>>32181188
Apparently the M1A3 managed to shave off a full two tons by replacing wiring with fiber optics.

>>32184790
What am I looking at?

>>32184903
>It would be a hilarious clusterfuck in action, though the guy is either going to drive from the turret position, which will see him crashing into shit because he's looking the wrong fucking way
Oh god so much this, people forget how insanely awesome the situational awareness WoT/AW gives you is compared to reality, you literally don't have to look for hostile vehicles due to the game spotting mechanics, and the driving is piss easy because not only is there no friendly infantry to not run over, you really don't give a shit what you drive/turn over because it's impossible to throw a track to anything other than incoming fire. Driving like everyone does ingame IRL would fuck your shit up so damn fast because tonks aren't actually go-anywhere do-anything machines and actually require some thought as to what you do with their tracks if you don't want to rip the fuckers off constantly.

>>32180986
>>Three man turrets were an important innovation that allowed the otherwise lackluster Panzer III to be competitive with the technically superior yet less ergonomically efficient Char B1 Bis.
No retard, the Panzers won because some kraut had the genius foresight to put radios in ALL the tanks, not just the platoon leaders

>>32184988
Probably all weight from shielding on the wiring to harden against EMP and interference.

>>32181882
Autoloader doesn't become a victim of exhaustion.

>>32184903

He also has to do all of the tank maintenance all by himself.

I hope this guy doesn't plan on eating or sleeping ever.

>>32185091

No, it's because fiber optics aren't as heavy as copper wire.

>>32180829
>needs an unmanned turret.
No

that means Russia wins.

>>32180986
>Automated turrets tested in the 60s, proved to be less responsive, while having significantly less situational awareness and no reported increase in safety to the crew

This

Everybody knows tech stagnates when there is no war. A Mitsubishi Zero can kill an F-35 in a dogfight.

>>32185033
A brace to prevent it from tipping over when firing.

File: IMG_7023.jpg (56KB, 530x399px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 530x399px

It's never too late!

>>32185675
AAI/RDF

2 crew
I 76mm cannon,burst fire capability
8 stinger missles
Air portable via C-130 (2)

>>32185700
>stinger missiles

Wouldn't ADATS have made more sense for a multipurpose vehicle?

File: M8thunderbolt.jpg (86KB, 1716x1068px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1716x1068px

Why cant we just have the m8 thunderbolt pls

not as a mbt but just in general

>>32185994
BAE revived the AGS for the MPF program. No idea if it will actually go anywhere though.

>>32180829
Nah, it needs rail, gauss or ETC tech applied to it.

>>32185050
You can actually throw tracks in drifts and by going over minor jumps.

>>32185967
Pretty sure the RDF predates ADATS

>>32181882
Leclerc autoloader loads in 5 seconds. T90 loads in 5 seconds if its the same shell type as the previously fired. Humans dont take 4 seconds. I know m48s in vietnam managed to load at 2 or 3 seconds before fatigue kicked in. No idea how fast can a 120mm be loaded. Everything I googled says that m1a2 has 6 to 10 rounds per minute. Why oh why would a fucking tank need to scan for enemy air? Fuck you gonna do shoot down a su25 with it? I dont know anything about unmanned turrets but since everything you posted about loading times was bullshit and cherry picking it leads me to believe that your whole post is just that.

>>32181168
Dat gun depression.

File: BlandWelllitBaboon.webm (1MB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1800x1200px

>>32181501
>>32181660
picrelated has 3 crew and can comfortably be operated by 2
turretfags btfo

>>32186148
>fuck firing on the move, utterly useless

File: 124124.jpg (99KB, 700x365px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 700x365px

>>32186159
Firing on the move is overrated.
Also, twin 120mm.

File: type 74 suspensions USA.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>32186106

Do you even variable hydropneumatic suspension ?

>>32186159
you are somewhat right. the unmanned turret solves that problem.
btw you want to read this
http://tanks.mod16.org/pdf/Strv%20103B%20in%20the%20US.pdf
the US army tested the Strv-103 and concluded that 2-man crews are perfectly okay on a tactical level, but that extended operations will require supplementing crews and/or rotating them, so that 4 men per tank are still needed in the armored unit's organization table
the "extras" would be normally kept with the unit's reserve force and moved forward as needed

File: twin 120mm.jpg (124KB, 1023x680px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1023x680px

>>32186215
>It was meant to fire on volleys to increase first hit probability and in the case of both rounds hit, lethality.
>Being hit by two 120mm simultaneously.
Someone said overkill?

>>32186159
The S-tank is especially made for shoot'n'scoot ambushes against a superior invading force.

It has a digger blade on the front to dig down and lie in ambush with just the barrel above ground and fire on any enemy tanks that come blundering by unaware.
If the enemy somehow noticed the S-tank first, it would be incredibly difficult for them to disable it, since very little of the tank would be a visible target, and that whole area is covered with extremely slanted armor that is remarkably difficult to penetrate.

It's an ambush machine, plain and simple, It's incredibly specialized and not well suited to anything else.

>>32186418
you're not quite wrong
the ambush machines can also do leap-frog advances, where one platoon covers the push of the next one over
also digging in is as simple as dropping the dozer blade and driving forward, takes all of 10 seconds, so no particular need to dash from cover to cover, american style

>>32185651
Does it need the brace Everytime, or just for photoshoots?

America has no money to fund finding a new tank. Instead there just gonna upgrade it with a APS, new CROWs, and two new rounds. SGM of the Armor school came on by to talk to my unit for some random reason.

>>32187296
Why spend the money for a whole new tank when the one we have is fine and can be further upgraded?

>>32187296

APS and more network electronics are all that are needed to create a new generation tank.

A next gen tank should have a 2 man crew, and be perfectly capable of 1 man or unmanned/auto operation

>>32180986
>>32181168
>>32181188
What happened to these images?

>>32180829

I don't know shit about tanks

But if you had an unmanned turret surely you'd need a longer tank to make room for all the shit that was in the turret?

>>32186092

>Why oh why would a fucking tank need to scan for enemy air? Fuck you gonna do shoot down a su25 with it?

Not him, but, I'd imagine that the sooner you could identify an aircraft the sooner you can get your vehicle into a woodline or other form of overhead concealment to make it harder for the enemy CAS to spot you. Hiding was the only effective countermeasure to aircraft that the Panzerwaffe could employ in Normandy, for example.

>>32181822
Enjoy the moment someone decides to step on your neck because you cant fight back.

But seriously, no taxation? Why not fucking start with the massive social programs that are doing nothing before you go after the compativly small military budget.

here. Educate yourself:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/52152-mbr.pdf