Bulpup battle tanks?

>>32889877
>Looks fucking stupid
>Higher target profile
>If shit ain't broke don't fix it

>>32889877
I'm pretty sure someone has thought of it, and the benefits didn't outweigh the drawbacks

How the loader gonna load it?

>>32889894
autoloader

>>32889877
you would be making the tank super rear heavy and actually increasing recoil by doing so. Shit's gonna rock really badly unless you make a much longer tank and lose any mobility you gained

>>32889889
wouldnt it pretty much just be like
autoloader->ammo->breach? you can't really have a Bullpup tank cause it's already basically just a mag->breach>barrel. nothing to bullpup

File: Type 90 autoloader.jpg (668KB, 892x900px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 892x900px

>>32889877

>>32889901
Then put the engine on the front. Problem solved.

AUTISM
U
T
I
S
M

>>32889918
that top panel looks really thin....


Imagine it getting hit with a top attack missile.

>>32890069
blowout pannels

>>32890069
imagine it having a thick, resistent roof and then ammo gets set on fire inside...

>>32889877
>I don't want any gun depression.jpg

Seriously even if you can depress that cannon how the fuck are you going to load it. Specially in a combat situation where you need fast reload.

>>32890621

at this point they might as well make the turret into an open top tank destroyer platform like WWII

File: haloreach_vehicles_unsc_scorpion_by_isaac_hannaford.jpg (153KB, 1600x759px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1600x759px

/thread

>>32889886
the same arguments against rifle bullpips which were debunked atleast 1000 times

>>32892312

I know this whole thread is just bait, but I'll bite. Higher profile is not an issue that has ever been brought up with bullpup rifles, and it's not even a valid concern if it were to be brought up.

For an armored vehicle, having a higher profile is a very valid issue. It's good to be able to shoot over stuff, yes, but it's also not good to have your optics and gun mounted so high that it's impossible to hide behind anything. If your gun and optics get taken out because you can't put them in cover, then your tank becomes useless.

>>32889877

>tfw you get shot right in the breech

>>32890621
How is this high mounted gun capable of less depression than a lower mounted gun?

>>32892342
>For an armored vehicle, having a higher profile is a very valid issue.

No its not
Being able to depress more and shoot over hills allows better concealment of the tank
Rarely is a tank fighting on flat plains

>>32892342
Nah I thought of the higher profile equivalent of bullpups which is being less 'ergonomic'

File: remove_chink.jpg (48KB, 400x267px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 400x267px

>>32889918
>pic related

>>32891460
Exactly what I was thinking.

>>32891460
But those tanks were absolute shit.

>>32892662
You're absolute shit. Scorpions are sexy.

>>32892312

Bullpups still look retarded though.

Because one C4 or any IED could blast the gun breach, even if its armored, it is impossible that explosion wouldnt destroy the gun elevation mechanism. Would make it harder to use the gun in urban scenarios. Autolading system would be very easy to destroy. It would be hard to make hatches on the top since the gun is covering the most of it, so it would be very hard to enter and exit the tank, especially if you dont have the escape hatch on the bottom (like its the case with M1 Abrams). Doesnt give ability to place various attachements on the tank, since modern tanks have remote MGs, CITVs, APS...

>>32892378
Because the breach is behind the pivot point, when the barrel points down, the breach points up. There's no room in your retarded design for the breach to point up unless make it even fucking taller. Which would then require more armor and would be even heavier.

File: 1477628080635s.jpg (3KB, 121x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 121x125px

>>32892662
Scorpions beat everything faggot

>>32889877
>putting the gun even further away from center mass
>good idea
No

File: 1354165240481.jpg (90KB, 634x851px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 634x851px

>>32892407

If you actually tried reading my post, I said that. People have tried making tanks capable of shooting over taller cover in the past. Pic related.

It's just never caught on, because the conventional method is better.

Being able to shoot over things is less useful than being able to hunker down low and make yourself less of a target. If you're going to make yourself taller, it's a really shit idea to put your main weapon right at the top where everyone can shoot at it. If you armor it to stop it getting shot, you end up with a bigger target up there and more weight.

File: AMX-13_(SM-1).jpg (80KB, 600x397px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 600x397px

>>32889877

What you're describing is essentially what was done with the AMX-13.

TLDR you can't make such a design have both a normal ammunition capacity and acceptable armor without making it unacceptably heavy.

These tradeoffs are fine for a light tank, but 5-10 round capacity in the primary magazine is unacceptable for an MBT, where reloading the magazine means exiting the vehicle.

>>32892917
It's not mine, fuckstick. You could minimally increase height in order to clearance the breach for depression. You couldn't load like this, but you could fire.

>>32889877

1. That is basically what an oscillating turret is
2. We tried it, didn't like it

>>32893945
>What you're describing is essentially what was done with the AMX-13.
I was about to post this