You are put in charge of designing a next gen MBT and it must

File: 8757456747.jpg (95KB, 872x439px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 872x439px

railgun tank

File: IMG_1395.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>33443319
Since we are evidently allowed to post pure fantasy ill just go with this.

>>33443305
Why does it have to BTFO every current tank? My aim, as a commander, is not to directly engage the enemy in a fair, tank to tank fight. My aim, is to preempt, dislocate, and disrupt the enemy in order to defeat the enemy, not destroy him in a war of attrition.

As such, I want something that's far lighter than the Abrams tank. FAR lighter. I want to be able to use weaker bridges in east Europe and Asia. I would, ideally like some amphibious capability so it can fjord larger rivers, but that would just be a bonus.

I also want something that is extraordinarily fast. I'm talking capable of 60+ mph on roads without blowing the engine.

It needs to be logistically sound as well. I want to sip fuel and have part commonality with other platforms to ease maintance. It also needs to fit inside medium sized cargo craft and on trains and such.

Perhaps, also develop a lighter variant that is airborne capable ala the Sheridan.

We can splurge on optics, computer systems, active and passive protection, etc at the expense of armor, gun, and ammo capacity.

My aim is to militate enemy victory by obviating the need for actual battle. Bear them to the punch, as it were.

>>33443335

that's not fair, we have working effective railguns irl, i dont think it would be that hard to simply build a tank around it.

>>33443305
I actually am an industrial welder working for Palfinger and have been thinking about this all my life. However, I don't believe tanks, epecially the Leo2, are made to be "good". They are more job-creating measures by the government. The Leo2 is pure trash top to bottom if you look at it's parts, layout, materials used etc. I don't think the .gov would like me tank - it would be too cheap, too simple, too easy to maintain, to easy to build.

>>33443356
Wtf *ford a river. Not a fjord. Weird autocorrect.

>>33443366
>it would be too cheap, too simple, too easy to maintain, to easy to build.

yeah nowadays where every military is in the pocket of defense/aerospace companies

>>33443362
That was initially what the Abrams was designed for; it was to be upgraded with railgun or directed energy weapons. That's part of the reason for its jet turbine power plant.

>>33443376
>chuckles in Norwegian

>>33443362
>working effective railguns
>effective

Nope, we still have problems putting them on big bloody ships. You need massive technological breakthroughs in batteries and/or power generation to get a railgun mounted on something the size of an Abrams that is more effective then a conventional cannon.

>>33443399
....right...

>>33443362
>>33443399

Jesus fucking christ the delusion going on right now. Your prototype railguns right now are stupid huge and expensive. There wouldnt be a way for it to be mounted in a tank without that tank being twice the size of the fucking Maus WHILE having to have a seperate tank the exact same size just to carry its batteries and generator.

Its impractical as fuck.

>>33443305
I believe you'll find your answer here: >>33441212

Unmanned turrets, engine in the front, crew compartment in the back.

You could peak out from behind a mound without endangering any crew members.

File: 1489859314513.jpg (26KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x337px

>>33443335
>Rivets fucking everywherrreeeee

Enjoy your death trap ladies.

>>33443481
It spalls outward, doubling as a anti-personnel mine.

>>33443425
I didn't say it was practical, I said that was part of the thought process behind the turbine. It's not practical. DARPA realized that. That's why they're looking into replacing it with a Diesel engine.

File: 16681614_1903756913191405_5702293162302530537_n.jpg (93KB, 960x863px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 960x863px

>>33443494
Fuck off no way?

A tank that turns into a giant frag grenade if you knock it out.

Exsquisite.

plasma armour
active cloaking

File: merkava_mk4_8.jpg (377KB, 1000x518px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1000x518px

>>33443305
Some things I'd like to see in a tank would be

a mark 19 or HE autocannon on a automated turret


An advanced atgm system with at least 4 rockets (atgms have twice the range of cannons and have superior armor piercing)

Reactive armor because it's aesthetic

The 130mm rheinmtall prototype for the main gub

A point defense laser for atgms, artillery, etc

Unmanned turret

File: 1457303856_a-8-tiger_.jpg (58KB, 1010x505px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1010x505px

>>33443305
>You are put in charge of designing a next gen MBT and it must be able to BTFO every current gen tank.

Done.

>>33443481
Its warhammer everything is a death trap.

Would probably design a tank that focuses on stealth,speed and range. Something that maximizes the use of long range atgms and is difficult to spot even with use of advanced optics. Essentially a tank designed to snipe enemy tanks from extreme range before they get a chance to retaliate

>>33443762

hover tank is better

>>33443881
This. I just out flank the Tiger with the Nekomata and pop them in the ass every time.

File: mbt70.jpg (172KB, 800x545px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 800x545px

I'd revisit the MBT-70 and gun/launcher concept. It was a pretty good concept, just too ambitious for its time.

>Rheinmetall 130mm
>unmanned turret
>armor pack of Abrams
>engine of Abrams
>just an Abrams with some new armor and a new turret/gun

>>33443356
>I also want something extraordinarily fast. I'm talking capable of 60+ mph on roads without blowing the engine
You realize any MBT worth its salt can already do that, but they have limiters so that the crew doesn't get pulverized driving offroad.

>>33443356
Light vehicles are irrelevant on the battlefield
Sensor fuzed munitions will wipe out whole divisions in an instant

>>33443305
>135-140mm main gun
>unmanned turret
>put weight and space savings into THICC composite armor arrays as well as active protection

Basically, an Armata but done right

>>33443356
t. Pierre Sprey and William Lind

>>33444362
Basically what I thought of in >>33444343 but you included the weight savings on the turret meaning better hull armor.

>>33444377
Honestly, I'd probably use a multifuel diesel powerpack, but that's almost an academic difference

>>33444402
I thought the Abrams already had a multifuel diesel powerpack.

>>33444415
No. The Abrams has always used a gas turbine. You might be thinking of the Chrysler prototype, which did use a diesel powerplant and was the basis of the Korean K1.

>>33444435
Oh. Alright. Isn't the turbine engine still multifuel though?

>>33444438
As far as I know, yes.

File: FMBT Bacon & Sharoni concept 1993.png (3MB, 1608x2752px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1608x2752px

>>33443305

File: 1431790725311.png (172KB, 415x407px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 415x407px

>>33444343
>engine of Abrams

>>33443481
that's just the external armor it has about 3 layers.
probably all of them has rivets tho.

File: 41234234.jpg (189KB, 1024x502px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1024x502px

>>33443305
Best thing to BTFO tanks is not a tank.

>>33443305
Resign.

>>33444304
just don't put the driver in the rotating turret and use autoloader! it will be fine.

>>33444658
>falling for the front engine meme

File: 1459595124541.jpg (26KB, 457x480px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 457x480px

Did I dream about a project in the 90's of a hypersonic gun launched missile from an abrams or did that actually exist?

>>33444699
come to think of it couldn't they make a srv103 style tank with smooth-bore high pressure 155mm cannon/launcher?

>>33444701
>peek out from behind building, exposing front of tank
>get shot
>now immobilized and sitting duck for anything the enemy wants to throw at you
>"b-but extra effective armor"

>>33444730
>155mm

have you any idea how big that ammunition would be?

File: kv-2.jpg (48KB, 900x545px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 900x545px

>>33444759
COMRADE
DO YUO HAVE NO MUSCLES

The gun itself is obsolete

We have modern networking, computing, cheap small drones for spotting, radar/lidar pattern recognition.

Need to build a tank around a Vertical Launch Missile System
Firing advanced Kinetic Kill ATGM's, capable of hitting targets inside & outside it's line of sight.

>>33444759
yes but it could potentially rekt every mbt today.
the shaped charge ammo from a 155mm would be insanely effective, even the he would be pretty fucking bad.

i'm not sure if the apfsds would be that much more lethal as the countermeasures that rekt the current penetrators would still work. maybe you could develop a 2-part penetrator for it where the reactive armor kills the first piece but an other one closely follows.

>>33444794
are you retarded

>>33444851
are you?

What air/ship combat looks like today is how ground combat will look like within 20 years

>>33444851
he is kinda right in that tanks are easy to kill from above. but aps systems make even that harder than ever before day by day. i wonder when aps systems evolve to intercept direct fire projectiles even. that would be interesting. remove most frontal armor from the tank increase mobility add more active defense totally different direction as today. you only need enough armor to withstand an ifv autocannon (possibly up to 30-40mm). everything bigger will be taken care of by the shield.

>>33444890
But then you have counters to that, such as Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact with your advanced ATGM's, or increasing the terminal energy/velocity of the KE penetrator

Only so many places you can go with a gun.

>>33444917
yes always evolving anyone staying a few steps behind of cutting edge will get rekt.

>>33444917
btw if you enhance active countermeasures and especially increase the smoke/chaff capacity on a mobile armor it will be very hard to hit with simultaneous guided fire.

>>33443305
>take that tracked, articulated, HEMETT looking machine (I don't know it's designation)

>Front portion:
>move driving cab and power plant towards the mid/rear
>give it multiple layers of the most advanced armor tech we have right now
>Ti-5553 alloy breaker plate and cage armor 1' from it (this is all around the sides and rear too)
>metalic aerogel and elastomers sandwiched with more Ti-5553 plates
>DU plate encased in Ti-5553
Impenetrable from the front by any current weapon
>sides and rear will just have a single layer of the encased metalic aerogel, protecting it from autocannon fire and smaller HEAT ammo.

The crew compartment, holding three:
>Driver
>Commander
>Gunner
Above the crew capsule / engine area, behind driver station will be a small remote turret armed with a 25mm autocannon and 7.62mm machine gun, and twin TOW2 style launchers, like an M2 Bradley turret, but smaller.

>Rear Articulated Portion:
>extendable sensor boom (IR, Thermal, AESA radar, etc)
>50 cell VLS system (box is on quick swap pins like on logistics trucks)
>Mix it with G2G / ATGMs and SHORAD missiles, whatever the mission calls for
>VLS space can also be swapped out for dual AMOS style auto-mortar turrets
>space can also be used as an infantry carrier, chaplain box, command and control, whatever else
>basically a "do everything AFV chassis".


Field them by the tens of thousands.

DARPA / other agencies, I hope you'll send me a reward for this idea, maybe rig a lottery to go my way or something. Thanks.

>>33443366
I know nothing about the making of tanks, what is so bad about the making of the leo, among other tanks and what could be changed?

>>33443494
Allah Tankbar?

>>33443648
>a mark 19
dude tanks pack so much greater firepower and so much greater range why not put water guns on it or an automatic nerf launcher?

>>33445205
Tank firepower actually sucks because its geared around killing other tanks

>>33445330
that's a negative, they are perfectly fine at demolishing buildings and shooting down helicopters even. it's all about the type of ammo used really.

>>33443356
>this mission type stupidity

>>33443305

>Develop a gun that can pen an Abrams at 1000m away from the front with room to spare
>Put it on a decent enough platform to survive low level AT by using APS
>Mass produce it at a rate of 5 of muh tank per 1 tank the US can make

Numbers beat quality everytime.

File: ngbbs56a2e0d0cce02.jpg (121KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 500x500px

Why not make a Tank out of diamonds?

It's the hardest metal known to man and could withstand any shot from another tank

>>33444746
>Using armor in that type of environment to begin with

Hows it going in Syria? Side armor still falling off?

>>33444817

>The Shape Charge
>It's current year and somehow APS and ERA have gone missing

A 155mm projectile would be moving so slowly that it would be useless, or it would produce too much recoil to be enclosed turret mounted.

>>33444890

>Tanks are really easy to kill from above

Because nobody is worrying about that.

All it takes to stop aerial deployment munitions is a 1in plate of steel about 2 to 3 ft above the tank.

>>33443305
Have 10m of barrel in front of the tank doesn't seem like a very good idea.

>>33446153
>t. I dropped out of public school at 12 years old

>>33443305
>take the latest Leopard 2 as starting point
>improve the ballistic computer to extend the effective range as much as the gun will allow (if the gun turns out to fall short of what the improved computer(s) would allow for, either develope a whole new gun or scale up the existing one & adjust the computer(s) for the new gun, use what ever dirty tactics you have to to get allies accept the new gun & its ammo as the new NATO -standard, because let's face it NATO -standards are the best way to standardize equipment and ammo)
>reduce the number of ammo stored in the hull
>make use of the vacant space by adding a drinking water tank between the hull and the ammo storage, build it so that if the hull & the water tank is penetrated & the water in the tank boils the building pressure is released outside of the hull, also make the sides facing the crew compartment and ammo storage sturdier than the sides facing the hull so that if the tank is ruptured despite the pressure release system that the failure point is away from the crew and the ammo.
>Add TUSK, 360 degree rotating laser range finder with GPS and Galileo, an azimuth indicator and a separate radio set for directing artillery fire with the greatest accuracy the operators' respective artillery fire control systems can facilitate.

>>33444725
XM1111, or you're you might be thinking of the LOSAT

>>33444746
>peek out from behind building, exposing front of tank
>get shot
>driver is dead, gunner is wounded, commander is knocked out and loader is in panic.
>"b-but it would be immobilized if it had engine infront?"

File: acv_tank2.jpg (118KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1280x720px

/thread

>>33443305
Is this the new Pz87 WE ?

>>33443305
>Infinity fuel so never stops
>Infinity ammo so always shoots
>Laser that can cut through another tank 50 miles away
>Diamond armor with special metal immune to everything even nukes
>Crew is robots with human brains that come from soldiers
>Force shield
>Crew has infinity ammo for their AR-10s and dubblestack colt .45s with upgrade to SA/DA along with invincible robot bodies

Ok I win kill yourelves

>>33444351
What you just said is
>"every tank can do it, but no tank can do it"
Wew lad. The only one I know is that can go that fast is the Abrams and that's ungoverned which is too much of a risk. >>33444357
Lighter vehicle. Not light vehicle. I'm not advocating for a Bradley or a Stryker. Just something that's not 70+ tons.
>>33444370
No, the advocated for a hi/lo mix and something that is cheap and can be popped like popcorn. This tank isn't that.

>>33446082
What's your argument here? Make a claim and we can engage.

File: yes.gif (1MB, 300x152px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x152px

>>33443305
>start from all but scratch
>four tracks, ala t95. each track outboard pair removable
>each track is 3.5 feet wide, options for rubber pads or grousers
>similarly to the PL01, the hull is built around angles for radar invisibility
>stock, the tank has reactive armor all around, and further TUSK grates can be added
>using chobbham armor, the hull will all around have an effective thickness to APFSDS
>engine is a Caterpillar 3516 putting out a maximum of 1800hp (regulated down for wear reduction) there is also a Caterpillar G3304B as an auxillary to run electric and hydraulic when the main engine is off
>the front of the hull has a pike nose, and a V shape on the lower glacis which continues down to the hull floor, to divert IED force. The hull sides are also angled inward 10*
>the crew are in their conventional positions, with the driver front-left, commander front-right of the turret, gunner front-left, loaders behind them.
>the turret, like the rest of the tank, is large. it will have a hydraulic round rammer, and use the abrams' ammunition storage innovations. the turret will have a front glacis with
950mm effective armor against APFSDS, 850mm effective everywhere else


>1x M126 155mm/L39 howitzer, excalibur and NBC capability of course.
>2x M230 Chain Gun mounted coaxially to the main gun.
>3x M2HB CROWS systems, 1 for commander, 1 for each loader
>8-barreled grenade launchers on either front sides of the turret in standard 40x46mm so multiple rounds can be used, loaded from inside the tank
>1x TOW launcher firing two missiles, commanders control. retracts down flat to the turret when in storage and lifts up for firing.
>trophy system on the rear of the turret where the ready rounds are to help prevent round detonation


>standard Abrams computer systems, however with an integrated IDF capability to use the advantages of the M126s rounds.

>3 shot halogen firefighting system
>each man has his own hatch
>SMG rack in turret basket
she is the M2 Ares.

>>33443335
ELEVEN BARRELS OF HELL

IT IS THE BANEBLADE

>>33443366
do tell us what is wrong with it if its possible

File: 002.jpg (273KB, 790x565px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 790x565px

Just upgrade it, job done.

>>33446452
>. I'm not advocating for a Bradley or a Stryker. Just something that's not 70+ tons.
the thing is, when everything is built on killing the heaviest thing on the battlefield, that being MBTs, anything lighter than them is fucked.
you have somewhat of a point, but you're (relatively speaking) building a TD.

>>33443305
just a leopard 2 with updated materials
trophy
autonomous helicopter drones for situational awareness
drones also work in tandem with a small grenade launcher on an unmanned mount on the turret for premptive indirect anti-infantry/light vehicle duty

>>33444377
>>33444362
Basically what these guys said.
Make the turret big enough to mount a M2 or Mk19 that can rotate separately. That way there is an option heavier than a 7.62 coax but lighter than the main gun.
All top tier passive/active anti-ordnance systems. If its armor make it bolt-on if its electronic make it standard.

Diesel power plant not turbine.

I would also keep the crew at four. The loader is now replaced with a Electronic Warfare/Comms officer. I feel with the shit ton of tech that is going into tank at some point commander work load is going to need be reduced by a fourth crew member.

File: 897465.jpg (7KB, 200x195px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x195px

slap some fucking atgms on t-34

File: fWGQxQn.gif (403KB, 461x263px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 461x263px

>>33446300

THE WAY OF THE FUTURE

>>33446786
>to mount a M2 or Mk19
why not both? M2 for when you need to deliver more hurt than a 7.62 can but not enough to level half of the village & Mk19 for when you *do* have to level half of the village & you can't waste the main gun's HE/the trajectory of the main gun is too flat for what you need.

Also I take it you want the external weapon station mounting that M2 and/or the Mk19 to be remote controlled?

>>33443305
I'd disguise it by calling it a 'tank destroyer.' See? A nice peaceful tank DESTROYER. Not a horrible awful TANK. See? It doesn't even have a big nasty gun. Just a little turreted 25mm and a bunch of vertical-launching antitank missiles of some sort.... and more armor than every other tank of the planet.

MBT's are landgoing battleships. I'd build a landgoing Aegis cruiser and revolutionize land warfare. Direct fire support for the grunts can be done by something like an improved Stryker MGS.

>>33446955
Size mostly. A tandem M2/Mk19 would either be really tall or really wide. Trying to find space for that system to have remote control, rotate, and feed would be difficult if the turret is going to be small and light.

>>33447009
I think Russia has a BMP fitted with a 30mm autocannon and ATGMs, copy that but put it on a better-armored vehicle of similar size & with swimming capability, use composite armor and ERA as needed to provide adequate protection without sacrificing swimming capability, use the passenger compartment for missile storage and to carry a fireteam as infantry support/for evacuating casualties from the combat zone, IDF -style.

>>33445205
From my experience playing wargame, Mark 19's fucking shred enemy infantry


That's basically it

>>33447141
You will never have both MBT armor and swimming capability
Maybe you could make the thing reasonably water tight to be able to ford deep rivers with a snorkel

>>33443536
I think he's just saying that your entire post, that they designed it with a railgun in mind, is utterly delusional.
As in, fitting railgun was never a concern for them.

Oh man, this is easy.

>Bring back battleships
>convert to nuclear
>install large pool on the poop deck
>float Arleigh Burke in poop deck pool
>add tracks to battleship
>tell Europe they have ~16 weeks to get wider bridges and tunnels
>doom e1m1.mp3

>>33443481
Baneblades are made of space metal and have a computer ghost piloting them. They can tank bunker buster scale weapons.

>>33446452
>what you just said
>every tank can do it, but no tank can do it
I hope English isn't your first language, because it's that or you're retarded.
Tanks can do 60moh, we just limit them, doesn't mean they can't fucko.

>>33443356
>defeat the enemy by driving rings around them till they run out of fuel.

File: 99590103096_OrkKillBlastaHeavyTank01.jpg (56KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x620px

>>33443305
*blocks your path*

>>33444681
The Abrams engine is better than anything out there m8.

>>33447366
>not painting it red

>>33447398
>Not paintin' it yellow ta be more explodey
It'z like you gitz don't even know how ta foight.

>>33446165
>A 155mm projectile would be moving so slowly that it would be useless, or it would produce too much recoil to be enclosed turret mounted.
yeah sure it's not like spgs exist. idiot. t30 also never happened. meh.

>>33443305
Make it bullpup and unmanned

>>33447418
>Not realising red makes it go faster so you hit harder and explode more, whilst going faster

>>33447429
You realise that spgs usually have much bigger turrets and space given over to recoil mechanisms, they also generally have recoil spades.

>>33446300
>Forgetting to include a katana with each crew member
8/10

>>33447271
>You will never have both MBT armor and swimming capability
well things like Rosomak (the Polish AMV) has rather decent armor (not MBT -tier but good enough to survive RPGs) & it swims, I'm sure with ingenious use of composites and ERA one could get MBT -tier armor that's light enough for swim-capable vehicle.

>>33447663
>22 ton wheeled APC

These "amphibious" vehicles lose the ability to swim when they are uparmored too

File: 1344728892427.jpg (423KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1500x1000px

>>33443305
The problem with your posit is that the tank best able to BTFO other tanks costs too much to field in large enough numbers to win a war. It ain't about designing an uber-tank, its about finding the right balance of combat effectiveness, support footprint, cost and numbers. That's what make a 'best' tank.

File: dimuns.jpg (125KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1024x768px

>>33446196
>t. a retard

>>33447939
When people are buying aircraft that costs 100+ million each, then trying to save pennies on the most important vehicle, the tank, is nonsense

File: 1459801419160.png (926KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

926KB, 900x506px

>>33443305

File: 133133jmshbarhn225ahha.jpg (462KB, 1600x1148px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 1600x1148px

>>33443305
Is the really any reason to keep using cannons on tanks? It seems like a tank with an autocannon for anti-infantry/light vehicle and ATGMs for anti-tank would be better in every regard.

File: Canadian Leopard II.jpg (864KB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 1920x1440px

>>33448006
Tanks and aircraft are not equivalent. Aircraft are far more important and will cost more.

>>33444759

Probably about 155 millimeters in diameter.

>>33448035
>Is the really any reason to keep using cannons on tanks?

ok, what does mbt do ?
can describe me how typical day of combat would look like ?

>>33444759
>how big that ammunition would be
For you.

>>33448451
Well you sit on top of a hill
And then get ATGM'd from 5 km away
Fix up tank
Repeat until ISIS runs out of turkish/CIA tow's

File: Stormblade_Cadian_98th_Armoured_Regiment.png (1MB, 1310x759px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1310x759px

>>33443335
>Not the Stormblade
shit taste

File: Fellblade.jpg (42KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x620px

>>33448506

Needs more Fellblade.

>>33447383
IF you can afford it.

>>33448035
Cost, although I doubt that holds true nowadays.

File: Iog8XnKSwI8.jpg (253KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1280x853px

>>33443305

>>33448028

This. Mobile Suits end the era of tanks forever. Just let it happen.

>>33446786
>Make the turret big enough to mount a M2 or Mk19 that can rotate separately. That way there is an option heavier than a 7.62 coax but lighter than the main gun.
At that point, you might as well put 25mm Bushmaster, though the cased telescoped rounds might let you go up to a 30mm.

>I feel with the shit ton of tech that is going into tank at some point commander work load is going to need be reduced by a fourth crew member.
This tee bee aych. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing drones integrated into vehicles. However, I'm not necessarily sure what sort of manually operated electronics besides that would require a separate crew member.

>>33446230
Engines get poked by AP small arms bruh, a KE arrow or HEAT jet would core it.

>>33443356

You live in a fucking fantasy land if you think more than two of those goals can be achieved concurrently.

The general rule of thumb with military hardware is that you can have two of the following four characteristics:

>Ease of Maintenance
>Reliability
>Effeciency
>Capability

For instance, the Abrams is Capable and Efficient at its tasking, able to dish out appropriate levels of carnage while working within the confines of its extremely complex and expensive suite of moving parts.

The HMMWV is both easy to work on and capable when it comes to tackling rough terrain, but is both unreliable and inefficient when it comes to its power train.

The perfect example is the C-130H, which has marks in all categories and is virtually impossible to relegate to the boneyard.

The converse is the F-35 which is a bloated mess and fits no categories, proving to be an overpriced, unreliable mess of parts which can't easily be maintained and can't appropriately fulfill its role.

Apply yourself.

>>33449053
>turret can't survive any AT related hit
yeah no.

>>33450423
citation?

>>33446452
>What you just said is "every tank can do it, but no tank can do it"
I'm saying a tank's speed is limited by when the crew starts getting bashed against the interior of the tank and dies. When you start driving above 50 mph offroad, it doesn't matter how good your tank is, the crew will not have a pleasant time.

File: 1489893035856.jpg (91KB, 720x718px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 720x718px

>>33446230
>implying a shitty cast aluminum engine will stop AT munitions

File: The Tank.jpg (152KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 600x400px

>>33443305
Done.

>>33449140
>Mobile suits will end the era of tanks forever. Just let it happen.
>Square cube law will make it sink into most terrain
>Limbs would need to be thick for structural support and motor control with no armor
>Joints would be vulnerable
>Much higher profile than conventional vehicles
>Easier to tip over
>Hard to go from walking to running pace without falling over
>More armor/sensors/weapons/anything makes it worse
>Firing any gun will tip over your mech unless it's recoilless
>Conventional vehicles have a squat profile, so additional armor doesn't affect them as much
>Imitating human torso makes it just about impossible to implement sloped armor
>Literally no mobility advantages over a tank
>Pilot has to concentrate on surroundings while aiming a gun and standing on a moving platform
>Would require an autistic amount of power, at which point we could just put railguns on tanks
>Basically glorified infantry that's shittier in every way

>>33450700
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40zz3I_Kuxc

>>33450265
>The converse is the F-35 which is a bloated mess and fits no categories, proving to be an overpriced, unreliable mess of parts which can't easily be maintained and can't appropriately fulfill its role.

t. retard

>>33443366
Check out the latest Abrams that got produced. Congress flat out said it was for jobs, not military capability.

>>33451419
>implying any of that shit matters with Minovsky particles and the power of Newtypes

>>33445036
..
>>33446556
..


Kinda surprised no one replied to these.

They're the winners I guess.

>>33443356

What you want is an SPG, not a tank.

>>33443305
A lightened cheaper tank, develop a bottlenecked cartridge for it, some form of basic autofeed system that doesnt over complicate things or make things too heavy.
Also better training systems for the crew.
Anything else is secondary.

>>33451695

The Abrams that army didn't want thing wasn't about jobs, it was about maintaining the production line. Closing production line and re-starting it few years later is more expensive than keeping it running on low production rate. Also losing skilled workforce would affect quality of products.

>>33451582
This kinda works against you, you know. Most of the turret is empty space filled by peripheral devices that when taken out, don't really affect the tank's capability to complete its mission, what with presence of redundant systems like in the duplicated sensors for the FCS, for example. The only conceivable target that can really mission-kill the tank is the actual gun mount superstructure itself- the box holding the gun, and its not a particularly easy target to hit, especially when most of is actually the armored walls of the structure by volume.

>>33453649
Why not pay those clowns to produce different variants of the abrams
Something lighter with a diesel engine and a low velocity cannon for example.

Stupid to just produce more of the same old shitty abrams design, and then in typical government contractor practice, they pretend they can't build something different without a billion dollar "development" program

>>33451093

Do you even steel transmission ?

>>33454754
>shitty Abram's design

"no"

File: agds[1].jpg (72KB, 600x477px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x477px

>>33454754

File: this is what pierre sprey actually believes.jpg (229KB, 696x1366px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 696x1366px

>>33443366
>it would be too cheap, too simple, too easy to maintain, to easy to build
Would it look like this, by any chance?

>>33454619
I don't really think it's a feature to have your tanks combat effectiveness be severely reduced by any faggot with full Calibre rifle rounds and AP ammo.

Some nigger with a durr rifle can just start plinking away anywhere on the turret and start removing systems.

>>33455155
no. it would use mostly industrial parts of the rack which I have exp. with and that have been around for 20+ years in commercial application, thus are pretty much bomb proof. I mostly focus on layout and materials of the tub/chassis, modular armour segments that can be changed like the powerpack etc.

>>33451096
FUND IT

>>33444690

come to think of it, how the fuck does a merkava driver see? the engines' mounted in the front right?

>>33455339
there are these things called periscopes

>>33455136
Yea they could just take existing tech and slap it together into a prototype

>>33455132
It's extremely dated and any newly built tank would look totally different

>>33446153
>It's the hardest metal known to man
No, anon, you're thinking of a tank made out of Dragonforce.

File: 47326_52a78d9b6ba9b8b4453de805bf4ea714.png (143KB, 554x564px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 554x564px

>>33448518
>double barrel turret fine time
>T-62 aesthetics

>>33444343
>Rheinmetall 130mm
>not modifying the barrels of the M109s to be fitted on an Abrams

>unmanned turret
>because malfunctions don't exist, extra crewman are somehow bad

>armor packs
>yes go for it
>so for the Abrams chassis

Also Active Defense would be nice.

File: UcDPD9h0KHs.jpg (111KB, 680x480px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 680x480px

>>33455549
Wimps and posers leave the hall.

>>33445065
Dirka dirka, Muhammed Tankbar

File: Turret shape.png (50KB, 2878x1050px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 2878x1050px

Nice thread OP. My tank would be the following:

>Vehicle:

A crossover between a Challenger II and a T-14 but its armour being buffed to extreme values and made physicaly somewhat larger. I am talking about 3000+ mm of RHA of protection levels on the upper glacis and 2000+ on the sides and 1000+ in the rear using new composite armour. On top of this passive armour, several layers of shaped charge ERA modules. The entire hull sans armour and other components is made out of carbon-nanotube reinforced titanium.

It features an armoured capsule within the vehicle like on the T-14 but with a hatch leading to the turret for manual backup controll for gun firing, reloading and turret rotation.

The engine bay is expanded to include 3 engines. One large, main engine for moving the tank, two to function as generators and backup for the main engine. One of these generators is soley used to power the electric turret motors. The other one for the rest of the tank.

To compensate for the increased length of the tank thanks to the expanding engine bay, the tracks are made much wider and are made out of carbon-nanotube reinforced titanium with kevlar reinforced polyurethane pads.

>Engines:

As mentioned, 3 engines. One 2500 HP engine with its power reduced to 2000 HP. The other two are rated at 300 but can do 600 with a combined of 1200 to act as an emergency backup. All of them are multifuel engines but perform best with diesel and each engine has its own dedicated fuel tank but is linked with the others.

>Turret:

Shaped like an hexagon but with the rear being elongated (pic related) to create room for the maingun ammo storage. Turret front has a similar armour layout as the upper glacis of the vehicle but even more extreme in protection levels (4000+ mm). Also the roof has 1000+ mm of protection to guard against top attack munitions.

Cont 1/2.

>>33444304
>gun/launcher concept
Russians and other ex-soviet tech users are already using it for decades (Svir, Kobra, Refleks)
Isrealis are making a missile for 120mm (Lahat)

File: spall killing your dudes.jpg (37KB, 781x502px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 781x502px

>>33455978
stupid idea

File: y_e7e375fc.jpg (140KB, 807x605px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 807x605px

>>33455978

>Weaponry:

One 152mm L45 super high pressure gun. Able to fire the fictional Lance and Spear rounds. The Lance is an APFSDS (KE penetrator) round made out of a core of osmium with a thick outer layer of depleted uranium. Pen value is around 2000mm+ of RHA. The Spear is a HEAT (Shaped charge) round that consists of 4 stages. Pen value is around 2500 to 3000 mm+ of RHA. It also can fire HE-Frag, Hesh and a modified Kornet ATGM.

One 14.5mm HMG for general purpose and a 12.7mm coaxial.

>Sensors:

It has full HD cameras allround at 120 FPS and several thermal/IR/UV camera systems with physical and optical zoom functions. It also has analogue sights in form of telescopes and vision blocks. It also has several milimeter wave AESA radars and everything is sensor fused.

>Protection.

Asides from the mentioned armour, it is outfitted with the Afghanit APS, smoke cannisters and anti-ATGM measures like a laser (Shtora-like system) and an UAV jammer.

>>33455179
>I don't really think it's a feature to have your tanks combat effectiveness be severely reduced by any faggot with full Calibre rifle rounds and AP ammo.
The only stuff outside the armor are the sensors and munitions for the APS which have to have open air access anyways.


>Some nigger with a durr rifle can just start plinking away anywhere on the turret and start removing systems.
Good thing said sensors can detect the vector of incoming fire and prepare a fuzed 125 mm response immediately.

>>33456043

>What are spall liners.

That comes standard with tanks nowaydays. Also:

>It features an armoured capsule within the vehicle like on the T-14 but with a hatch leading to the turret for manual backup controll for gun firing, reloading and turret rotation.
>It features an armoured capsule within the vehicle like on the T-14

>>33443362
As of now and the foreseeable future the power required to power a railgun on a tank is outright impracticable. Maybe in like 30 years, as of now the only use for railguns is on a naval vessel.

>>33456149
>What are spall liners.
maybe against HESH that would work but good luck when an HEAT carrot or APFSDS dart comes sailing through that outer armor sending hypervelocity particles into the compartment.

>Also:
Sure, making a maze with tunnels isn't going to impact ergonomics and size and weight of the tank in a negative way at all.

>>33456135
>One 152mm L45 super high pressure gun. Able to fire the fictional Lance and Spear rounds. The Lance is an APFSDS (KE penetrator) round made out of a core of osmium with a thick outer layer of depleted uranium. Pen value is around 2000mm+ of RHA.
If you really want to max. pen. that much that you have to resort to exotica, you could look at novel penetrator design itself. Things like telescoping rods that basically add more than 50% to the penetration, but would require very tricky construction and setup in flight as well as a very high muzzle velocity in the order of 2km/s for it to work, of which such a gun could conceivably facilitate.

>>33455978
>It features an armoured capsule within the vehicle like on the T-14 but with a hatch leading to the turret for manual backup controll for gun firing, reloading and turret rotation.
>>33456189
>Sure, making a maze with tunnels isn't going to impact ergonomics and size and weight of the tank in a negative way at all.
yeah, its difficult what with the vertical AL trays circumnavigating the turret, and eating up space inside.

>Shaped like an hexagon but with the rear being elongated (pic related) to create room for the maingun ammo storage. Turret front has a similar armour layout as the upper glacis of the vehicle but even more extreme in protection levels (4000+ mm). Also the roof has 1000+ mm of protection to guard against top attack munitions.
Why would you even bother with evacuating the crew from the turret if you are just going to slap heavy armor there as if the crew was there still?

>>33443452
Basically a merkava+strv 103?

Pixelated shades on top of an Abrams.

>>33451041
So why can't you have on and off road driving modes?

>>33443762
Oh god the front angles' shot deflection (or lack of)

>>33443770
this

>>33444658
Someone had to post it

>>33444692
this

>>33448035
A few years ago your idea would be rejected on cost grounds, ATGM spamming instead of cheap HE/HEAT/APFSDS would be unacceptable. Particularly when you account for the size of a tank's ammo load- A full T-72 load of GLATGMS would cost as much as the tank itself.

While missiles are getting ever cheaper, armor is improving against HEAT ammo, and with APS becoming a real thing now HEAT-based means of destroying tanks are looking iffy. KE remains the most reliable way of wrecking your opponent's shit.

File: 84313428_zpswqdqvrfw.jpg (37KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x480px

>>33455339
Periscopes.
>pic: test platform for Merk front hull

>>33457244
It'd be wrong to price stuff around a used T-72, but look at what a modern newly built Abrams would cost.

Spending a 100,000 dollar ATGM to kill a 10 million dollar tank is a bargain every time

File: 1482589355397.jpg (152KB, 1280x1381px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1280x1381px

>>33443356
>My aim is to militate enemy victory by obviating the need for actual battle. Bear them to the punch, as it were.

This is perfect.

Well done.

I'd take the budget and fund Space Marine style power armor instead and melta guns

All tanks then BTFO by my teleporting bullet proof microwave gun wielding super soldiers.

I dont really know much about MBTs.Is there any way to innovate with them or are they relatively ''perfected''.

literally just an m109 firing w48 shells

>>33457667
If you're going to put an expensive weapon on a cheap platform, you may as well put an inexpensive weapon on a cheap platform that more or less does the same thing.

>>33446844
and ERA. also remove the bow gunner/improve the driver's hatch.

>>33457667
>Spending a 100,000 dollar ATGM to kill a 10 million dollar tank is a bargain every time
Yes, but 90% of the time you're not shooting at a $10M target. And agaist a small bunker a ~$500 HE-OR round makes quite a bit more sense.
>100K/round
>40 rounds
>4M per load
Add in the fact that with APS the 100K missile has a much lower chance of success than a 20K (at most) APFSDS and missile spam makes a whole lot less sense.

There are a few developments in the works to greatly reduce the price of guided missiles, but the increasing deployment of APS means that KE will probably still reign supreme.

>>33457899
>Yes, but 90% of the time you're not shooting at a $10M target.
Even an 8x8 APC is worth a million, never mind the infantry that'll often be killed inside it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho_VHOjzMX0
Nothing stops an ATGM from being a KE penetrator

>>33449053
>be me, vatnik gunner in new stronk tenk
>see enemy
>we come under fire from capitalist bullets
>conscript armor falls off
>they fire from their 120mm cannons
>hits armor in front of ivan, the loader
>ERA does its putin-assisted job
>filthy pigs fire again
>see a light in my enormous front sight
>penetrates glass
>boris, the driver, is the only one to live

>>33452427
Only problem I have with them is that they'd be more expensive than anything yet fielded

>>33457925
>Even an 8x8 APC is worth a million
I was talking more about field fortifications, and troops in the open. Targets that do not require nor justify a large expensive missile.
Also remember that a lot of the ammo you buy will never be used, as much of it will be lost to various causes or used for suppressive fire- if a tank goes up in flames all its ammo is lost, and when said load is ultra expensive that's not good. Don't forget that you buy multiple loads, and some will be destroyed before reaching the front. Think less about incremental costs (buying one missile vs buying 1 APC) and more in total cost of ownership for said systems.

On the whole, guns are:
>cheaper to own (Including ammo reserves, training, and so forth).
>More reliable (less to go wrong, less shock-sensitive components).
>Longer lasting (Ammo loses relevance slower (A 105mm APDS from the 60s will still kill anything less than a T-72 from most angles and ranges, which you can't say for an SS-11/Sagger), more easily upgraded with new ammo, fire control, &etc. Also, by being simpler, ammo has longer shelf life).
>Less vulnerable to countermeasures (both hardkill and softkill).

Which is not to say that missiles don't have advantages; I just think you underestimate the advantages of guns.

>>33457925
Oh and WRT LOSAT-
it was big, expensive, and eventually terminated for not meeting project goals.
Definitely a capable system, but not a very cost-effective one.
Also, LOSAT lacked flexibility- a KE warhead alone made it unsuitable for the role of bullying dug-in infantry, which gun-launched HE does fairly well.

ATGMs are basically the modern equivalent to WW2's AT guns- a good method for destroying tanks from ambush, but not a replacement for the tank on the advance and for infantry support.

File: Final Version.png (4MB, 2000x1415px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2000x1415px

The correct answer is the /k/ tank.

File: k makes a tank.png (79KB, 991x519px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 991x519px

>>33458143

>>33458152
forgot to have some system use pure ethanol as coolant (*big* coolant tank) & have a small valve in the crew compartment for "taking samples" of the "coolant"

>>33458076
>I was talking more about field fortifications, and troops in the open.

The US bombs them from airplanes at greater cost than any surface to surface missile.
Just as a tank can load different ammo today, one could load different varieties of missiles, not just focused on anti-armor.
With mass production, missiles are relatively inexpensive.

Of course guns would still be present throughout the force, it's just that you wouldn't design around guns capable of killing MBT/IFV.

>>33443305
>Remove turret
>Add VLS-launched ATGMs and a recon drone
>Give each a wire-guided option for jammed environments
That'll do'er

File: INCOMI-.gif (2MB, 317x208px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 317x208px

>>33457899
>but the increasing deployment of APS means that KE will probably still reign supreme.
KE and EFP missiles are a thing, you know.

A light and fast ceramic/rubber tank that also has missiles

>>33443305
Hire people that are smarter and more competent than I am.

I highly doubt my autistic interest in roman legions and equipment will help in designing a MBT

>>33445036

Don't forget the 200,000 HP engine you'd need to drive that monstrosity and $10 billion unit cost

File: 4359cd70632cd37220ca7fbd4f5fe548.jpg (615KB, 1600x905px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 1600x905px

Try for this...

>>33445036
I have no words.

>>33446300
>SA/DA

Found the weak point.

>>33459524
This could work if you fix the retarded tracks and add 10 anti-aircraft guns.

>>33444658
Isn't too his essentially the MGS minus the wheels?

>>33443305
i did that for design purposes

it was too automated

>>33443356
That's gay.

>>33458043
The fuck are you talking about? There's no loader or are there anyone for that matter in the turret.

>>33458963
>KE and EFP missiles are a thing, you know.
And they are immune to APS capable of intercepting APFSDS how?

>>33443356
Though I disagree with your assessment of sacrificing armament, I like your style. I'd agree with most of it, except I'd feel a proper 120mm main gun would be obligatory. I feel that many tanks can do with a lot less these days, but not in the way of armament.

>>33459442
>200,000 HP engine
hardly
dual 1,200HP engines (one for each segment) would be enough

>$10 billion unit cost
Please
It would't be much over 15 million a pop

File: 1397270503062.jpg (98KB, 1400x700px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1400x700px

>>33445036
I see what you did there.

>>33457275

Ty for the pic.

>>33463524

Ugh Bolo...the Mary Sue of tanks.

>>33446061
oh so you're saying its geared towards killing other large vehicles and buildings? Definitely not the kind of anti-personnel shit that a Mk.19 could pull off?

>>33446300
>Ok I win kill yourelves
>yourelves
>your elves
Go back to the north pole Santa, you're drunk.

File: 1381401915057.jpg (97KB, 1191x670px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1191x670px

>>33443305

>>33465069
>Hovertank door gunner
He said MBT

>>33448518
That's a damn good paint job, holy shit.

Nuclear rounds.

>>33465532
Best munition in children of a dead earth, just bombard a fleet from max laser range, 1000km or so, and watch them slowly bake under nuclear flashfire.

>>33458143

=> http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2017/13/1490790296-tank-drawing-opinion.png

>>33447980
t. oldfag memeing unfunny memes.

Manage to develop a 185mm main gun

File: Heavy tank.jpg (67KB, 500x352px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x352px

>>33443305
Any modern main battle tank + modified turret to accommodate TWO (2) 120mm cannons.

File: bced407b71e37006eab9fe84f94fbcf0.jpg (519KB, 1024x622px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 1024x622px

The nigger whipper 5000

>>33443305
I'd aim for a target weight of 60 tons.
152 or 165mm main gun, short barrel, low velocity for lobbing HE.
Primary AT armament to be 6-10 Hyper velocity anti tank missiles.

>>33467219
What is this and why is this

>>33467346
it's a Sherman equipped with a flail used to clear paths through minefields.

File: 1470365367753.jpg (42KB, 562x367px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 562x367px

>>33443305
Its simple really, after reading through all of these ideas I have come up with the best one so far

>put the engine in the turret
>put the gun in the front
>put the driver in the rear
>ERA plates on the inside
>move the commander and the gunner to the outside
>put the tracks on the roof and a grenade launcher on the underside

Simple really

>>33467346

A mine roller; it spins the chains at high speed and when they hit a landmine, it detonates them at a safe distance, clearing a path through the minefield.

>>33467306

Your idea is stupid. Low velocity HE guns don't do jack shit against armored vehicles, and nobody uses them anymore. Putting ATGM's on a tank is retarded; many tanks have anti-missile systems that can spoof or shoot down the incoming missile, and missile warheads aren't nearly as effective as high velocity penetrators like a DU sabot.

There's a reason the Russian 152mm gun and western 130mm and 140mm guns are all focused on high muzzle velocities and sabot penetrators, not lobbing low-velocity wads of explosives like old-school demolition guns.

Another disadvantage of ATGM's is that they're bulkier than gun rounds, so you carry fewer of them, and a guy has to get out of the tank and expose himself to gunfire in order to reload the launcher. The only vehicles armed with ATGM's are IFV's and APC's that aren't intended to engage tanks and only have missiles as a means of increasing firepower over their smaller guns in case they have to engage a tank or bunker anyway. Tanks are designed to engage tanks, and they all use guns, not missile launchers. The idea of tanks engaging other tanks with missiles died with the M551 Sheridan, and that thing never worked right; the gun was ineffective, and the missiles were fired in anger literally once, and only at some Iraqi bunkers, not tanks.

File: 1.jpg (120KB, 1024x473px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1024x473px

>>33467456
>A mine roller
Technically it's a mine flail, a roller uses heavy wheels like pic related.

>>33446630
You never realize how fucking low those things are until you stand next to one

>>33459524
whoever drew this has no concept of ground pressure
>my 200t tank likes to exert 20t/ft on the ground it drives over

File: 123124.jpg (65KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x450px

>>33443356
So basically the Sprut-SD?

>>33467456
You don't shoot the gun at enemy tanks, you shoot it at fortifications, soft skinned vehicles, and dug in infantry.

A 100lb HVATGM moving at 7,500 feet per second can reach out and hit enemy tanks at 10 kilometers, and deliver up to 10 mega joules of energy.

Off the top of my head the latest m829 is 1/5th the weight and 2/3rds the velocity.

Do the math, which would you rather be slinging at the bad guy?

File: 210-1134_PI_TPS857615.jpg (11KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x400px

all terrain ability, very effective against infantry, highly mobile, can take out tanks from concealement, cheap, mass producable, requires vert little maintenance

BTFO

File: WoWs.jpg (5KB, 253x199px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 253x199px

Strike a deal with martians to sell me one of their anti gravity death ray craft

Take it to the Chinks and have them reverse engineer the thing

Set up a mass production line

manufacture martian hover tanks

File: 123123124.jpg (113KB, 800x561px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 800x561px

>20 years after its introduction
>still literally no tank can survive a Top-attack ATGM
>no APS is designed to counter them

>>33443305
hey DARPA

>>33467695
darpa has come on hard times as trump wants to reduce cost :'D
so here they are

File: index.jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

>Leopard 3 will not have an ETC gun

The Russians have the right idea with the Armata, considering future conflicts will revolve around smaller force commitments and asymmetrical threats.

Since we have always had the technological edge, we could simply revive the TTB concept and with our superior technology, it will easily compete with and beat out future contenders like Armata. Right now, the Armata is at parity with the Abrams. The Abrams might only need a handful of upgrades to be distinctly superior again, a whole new tank might not even be necessary.

>>33468079
>DARPA comes to weeb autists for ideas on how to make their multi-billion dollar projects better
i like this timeline

>>33443399
That would explain the newer LED coil pump laser energy load profile the DOD has developed.
It demands near the total power out of a jet turbine power plant of similar specs to that of the tank.

However that leaves one obvious problem, it can't move and shot at the same time given how much energy is demanded. Unless they got some battery/capacitor they didn't cover, they seem to be behind on that part. Granted if you have seen how powerful that laser cannon is with line of sight range it seems like it would still be a valuable asset on the battle field, especially given it's continuous fire mode. Think full auto with insane AP and I am sure you can find a use, given how well it performed in testing back in 2012.

Still worried about the issue of permanently blinding anyone nearby who is not wearing properly synced laser goggles, its already got noted as a possible future humanitarian issue if these lasers weapons are used in populated areas. Which is why most of this has been moved to other Navy projects, less red tape on the high seas.

Tanks are obsolete. I want a Gundam.

>>33467456
>Putting ATGM's on a tank is retarded;
No it isn't.

>many tanks have anti-missile systems that can spoof or shoot down the incoming missile
No there aren't (that much)

>There's a reason the Russian 152mm gun and western 130mm and 140mm guns are all focused on high muzzle velocities and sabot penetrators, not lobbing low-velocity wads of explosives like old-school demolition guns.
The primary ammo for even high-velocity smoothbore guns at least for the Russians is the HE-Frag shell still.

>Another disadvantage of ATGM's is that they're bulkier than gun rounds, so you carry fewer of them
Then why the heck do they occupy the same size tray as unpowered rounds in the AL?

>>33468255
>Right now, the Armata is at parity with the Abrams.
lol no it isn't. the Abrams is well behind the T-90A ffs.

File: 1454047599568.jpg (216KB, 1462x1462px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1462x1462px

>>33468623
>the Abrams is well behind the T-90A

Nice! I laughed. Thanks, Anon.

>>33468643
denial isn't just a shitty band.
>No APS, at all, will get gangbanged by ATGMs all day unless the commander has daredevil radar senses.
>No capable HE-frag with programmable fuzing
>shitty gas guzzler of an engine
>no AL
>weighs 20 tons more, but isn't armored any better
>costs more
I'd give it the advantage of better FCS, and ammo but that's about it.

>>33468701
>>No APS, at all, will get gangbanged by ATGMs all day unless the commander has daredevil radar senses.

AN/VLQ-6, Stopped reading the rest of your drivel.

>>33468701
>having armor so awful that you NEED APS to defend against threat weapons, nevermind systems like AN/VLQ-6 or Trophy that are already in use
>implying MPAT doesn't do the job just as well, also canister shells
>this being a problem in the face of the mightiest logistics fleet on the planet
>autoloader is inferior to human loader
>weight being a problem in the face of the mightest logistics fleet and engineering corps on the planet
>delusional slavaboos think ERA is as effective as DU inserts
>cost being a problem in the face of the mightiest economy on the planet

>better FCS
This is a fucking huge deal and you're a retard if you think it isn't.
>and ammo
Also a big deal. My Abrams can kill your dressed up T-72 with one shot in any general area, your T-90 need to hit a tiny gap

You also left out superior situational awareness, crew survivability (also a big deal), communications equipment, and support assets.

>>33468622
>X technology allows gundams
>Use X technology to build a better tank
>tank is better than gundam because it doesnt have to power unnecessary shit like legs so it can support better weaponry

rinse and repeat for any argument

>>33468743

You did not expand on battlefield networking.

One abrams spots your T-72, the rest see it in real time.

This is beyond huge.

>>33468757
I'm uneducated in that area since my focus is typically on cold war-era equipment. All I know about datalinks is their applications on aircraft.

File: image.jpg (13KB, 262x192px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 262x192px

>>33443356
The design seems a bit awkward though. But basically an LAV with heavier weaponry and mobility.

>>33468767

TLDR

>Abram spots a vehicle, commander one clicks it and
>the tanks see it on their battle net
>the apcs see it on their battle net
>the IFV's see it on their battle net
>the UAV's see it on their battle net
>The god damn humvees see it on their battle net
>then you can start assigning fire orders if there are many tanks
>then, those with turrets, the gunners can automatically slave the gun on the last known location of said targets, unless a UAV is tracking then its known location
>all targets are geotracked for fire missions

Shit, that was not TLDR at all....

Real TLDR: US has map hacks.

FBCB2 is a hell of a drug.

The goal here is supreme fatness. The armor is sloped as much as possible, a good meter thick, and got them fancy anti-rockets bricks. 4-treaded to spread the neckbeard-class weight, dozer blade, and the possibility of mounting a mine flail to go WW2-style once again.

About armament, a twin 152 mm with autoloaders; massive damage toward any smaller forces, deliciously large wet magazines, and a rate of fire sufficient to compensate possible losses of accuracy. Many MRL, in different directions, mortars at strategic points to bomb away the opposition and provide supports, remote controlled 20mm autocannons and .50s to make some gruyère of said opposition

About the motor, separate motors assembly (which could guzzle anything like the AGT 1500) to limit damages and provide the horsepower needed to tow that fine boy.
The self-sealing tanks shall hold as much gas as possible, to allow the thing to operate as long as possible without the logistically unbrearable field refueling.

Finally, for the gimmicks, the electronic wonders of this age -sensors and communications devices- should allow it to start turning toward the enemy before it arrive. Inside, the tank hold a few bunks (like a Baneblade), a mechanic workshop around each engine, and cargo area (like the Merkava), along with supplies to set a camp around the stationed tank. Possibly, handles, footholds, and strap-attaching swivels could be present at strategic places to allow operators to piggy-back.

The name? K.A.T.A.S.T.R.O.P.H.I.K, standing for /K/ Abomination Tastefully And Stupidly put Together, Ravenously Oblivious to Pitiful and Horrid Instabilities, yet Killy.

>>33468815
Well, you've created a tank that can't move in the Winter, Spring, or Summer, can't cross any bridges, can't drive on roads without crushing them...

>>33447383
No it isn't

maintenance is a bitch, logistics is shit, isn't that powerful, and it's expensive.

>>33468907
>maintenance is a bitch,

Not really.

>>33468886
But it can apparently move in Autumn. Though, I think a highway could handle it with the 4-treads, with a lot of cracking indeed.

>Implying tank can't be bridge if no bridge

>>33468914
Yes it is.

Do you want me to tell you why I know you've never been 10 foot near one?

File: Landkreuzer.jpg (248KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1024x683px

>>33443305

I'd go full Nazi and build something that is completely overengineered and useless on most battlefields. Like a Maus with a 10" main gun.

>>33468744
That is until you have a mountainous terrain where tanks can't go.

Or an urban environment where tanks have limited mobility.

>>33468934

Do you?

Mechanically its far simpler than a diesel engine, and the power pack comes out stupid easy.

>>33468949
You cant repair it in the field, whatever is broken. A turbine requires specialized equipment, diesel does not.

>>33468743
>>having armor so awful that you NEED APS to defend against threat weapons, nevermind systems like AN/VLQ-6 or Trophy that are already in use
On which tanks?

>>implying MPAT doesn't do the job just as well, also canister shells
It doesn't. MPAT has a smaller explosive filling. It also lacks electronic fuzing option automatically inputed from FCS.

>>this being a problem in the face of the mightiest logistics fleet on the planet
so you need more fuel trucks ie more targets further to your logistical tail than analogous equipment, in what universe is that an advantage?

>>autoloader is inferior to human loader
niggerloader detected.


>>weight being a problem in the face of the mightest logistics fleet and engineering corps on the planet
Terrain considerations don't care.


>>delusional slavaboos think ERA is as effective as DU inserts
assmad fatnik can't accept that 2-3 tons of ERA easily matches his expensive, heavy and unhealty DU armor inserts.

>>cost being a problem in the face of the mightiest economy on the planet
Says the guy who has to fight in wars abroad to enjoy basic human needs like a college education or healthcare

>This is a fucking huge deal and you're a retard if you think it isn't.
Its not that big of a gap to begin with


>Also a big deal. My Abrams can kill your dressed up T-72 with one shot in any general area, your T-90 need to hit a tiny gap
lolnope. The glacis of the Abrams wasn't touched compared to the turret and remains vulnerable to 90s ammo as it was.

>You also left out superior situational awareness
how?

>crew survivability (also a big deal)
They manage fine in Syria, much better than documented Abrams actually.

>support assets.
Russian artillery is head and shoulders above American, but American air support is just inhuman, but then again the Russians have the best organic AD.

>communications equipment
They both have modern datalinks, afair

>>33468975
>You cant repair it in the field, whatever is broken.

We pulled power packs and replaced in the field all day long. Even repaired on the FOB.

>>33468988
>On which tanks?

Any abrams they want? AN/VLQ-6 has been around since iraq 2. Get with the times.

>>33468988
>They both have modern datalinks, afair

Nope. Russia does not have a FBCB2 equivalent. Full stop.

Only with the armata series are they talking about introducing something similar, but without the backwords compatibility US systems enjoy.

>>33469001
You can do it with diesel, AND repair it in the field. Because you do not need and engineering degree and a shitton of heavy equipment to repair a diesel. Holy shit, even thinking about balancing a turbine in the desert makes me sick.

>>33443305
I think the best way to beat another country's tank force is to create a massive fleet of hybrid fighting vehicles made of cheap civilian trucks with wheels replaced with tank tracks, and armed with a powerful gun that can also launch wire-guided missiles. It will have some armor for protection against bullets and light enough to cross any kind of terrain or bridges. It will be fast, hard hitting, and its cheapness would mean I could field 3 of my "tank" for every 1 MBT my enemies would send againt me.

>>33468975
why would you even argue without having clue on the subject

YOU NEVER REPAIR MBT ENGINES ON THE FIELD

for fuck sake its not 1936 anymore, you just replace the powerpack and same goes for diesel engines, its like you live in your own little world

>>33469032
Why not? Also, your precious replacement power pack was bombed, what are you going to do, surrender? With the turbine it is the only option.

>>33469020
>Because you do not need and engineering degree and a shitton of heavy equipment to repair a diesel.

Yeah brah, just curl the power pack out and hit it with a hammer a few times.

Get out of here with that shit.

Same with diesels, you take out the power pack, you put a new one in, then you repair or send off the power pack you took out.

Fucking kids.

>>33469032
The fact that some anon stated that the agt1500 is currently the best MBT engine on the market speaks wonders itself

little does he know about reality, either

>>33469047
>Why not?

Because your simplistic views on how things work are not reality. Both are complicated machines.

> Also, your precious replacement power pack was bombed, what are you going to do, surrender?

The same thing you would do with a desiel, get another.

>>33469051

I would not say the honeywell is the best, its ageing and dated.

But i would not say, from experience, that its more or less harder to take out a power pack and put another in. Watched a leo do the same damn thing we did in germany. Same exact shit.

>>33468928
Autumn, at least here, is the driest time of the year.

>>33469047
because crew is not qualified to repair beyond basic stuff ? you have no spare parts ?
you still need a crane for any serious work (and apparently it was bombed with replacement power pack)

you are fucking delusional

>>33469074

NAH BRUH, JUST DEADLIFT THAT SHIT OUT, WRENCH IT A FEW TIMES!

I hate when kids post on /k/.

>>33469058
>Because your simplistic views on how things work are not reality. Both are complicated machines.
No, not really. I deal with big powerful diesels erry day, actually some not very distant relatives of my engines power the Leopard. They arent complicated at all, you can fix 99.9% of issues with whatever you have in the truck.
>The same thing you would do with a desiel, get another.
You dont have any. So, you surrender?

>>33469074
In what world a tank company does not have mechanics and recovery vehicles with it?

File: leo10ph_1.jpg (55KB, 629x409px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 629x409px

>>33469083
>you can fix 99.9% of issues with whatever you have in the truck.

Yes anon, because you can access the engine, you fucking moron.

Guess what? Guess what is the problem with a tank.

I will give you one fucking, one fucking guess.

>>33469009
>Any abrams they want?
You mean only M1A1 variants without the CITV.

>>33469018
>Nope. Russia does not have a FBCB2 equivalent. Full stop.
Isn't that the Strelets stuff? Besides, they already operate one working FBCB2 in whatever they call the datalink for their IADS net. If I'm to guess the lack of appropriate hardware is all that's really stopping them from enjoying such a system if they haven't already. But yeah, the T-90 shouldn't have an FBCB2 for the simple fact that it doesn't have GLONASS nor the map display to make use of it.

>>33469089

In what world where the tank company's recovery vehicles and mechanics dont have a replacement power pack if they are still alive?

>>33469098
>You mean only M1A1 variants without the CITV.
Oh, and they also don't have the ever convenient LWR and other optoelectronics sensor means that T-90 enjoys. In fact, such blinder devices like the SHtora IR shrouds and AN/VLQ-6 aren't effective at all against modern ATGMs, which is why the Russians removed them in the latest iteration of they T-90, but doubled down on obscurants and additional sensors instead.

>>33469103
Because replacement packs are huge and heavy, m8, carrying replacement packs with you means that you will have shitton of trucks trailing your company at all times. Considering you already have fuel trucks there it becomes really inconvenient.

>>33469098
>You mean only M1A1 variants without the CITV.

Wrong.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3794.html

There are provisions for full; 360 degree coverage, or gimbaled coverage.

Just in the gulf war they placed them where the CITV is now due to convenience, but you can stick it literally wherever you want.

>>33469137

>fuel truck, ammo truck, recovery vehicle, protection for said assets....
>GOD DAMN HEMMT FOR THE POWERPACK IS ONE TO MANY.

Get out.

>>33468623

>The primary ammo for even high-velocity smoothbore guns at least for the Russians is the HE-Frag shell still.

Not for engaging armour it isn't. There's a difference in trying to kill a Chechen in a house and trying to kill an Ukrop in a tank.

While I will say putting ATGMs in tanks is not retarded, simply because it gives a longer punch for when it's needed and tactically viable. That's why Russian tanks don't carry just missiles, but carry them as a complement.

>>33469153
Well, fact is - normally tank companies do not carry replacement engines.

>>33468384
>a possible future humanitarian issue
If you're in a warzone and just standing around in line of sight of a tank you already fucked up.
Built in crowd control is plus.

>>33469098
>Isn't that the Strelets stuff?

Stretlets is infantry only, and only within the ratnik system. not comparable.

> Besides, they already operate one working FBCB2 in whatever they call the datalink for their IADS net

Air only, only specific S-300/400 systems. not comparable.

FBCB2 covers both, btw.

> If I'm to guess the lack of appropriate hardware is all that's really stopping them from enjoying such a system if they haven't already.

Hardware and software, along with the network itself.

They have a long way to go.

All it takes is one faggot scout with a FBCB2 system and every one of your enemys has your exact location. From the niggerloader in the tank, to the cowboy in the apache, to the flyboy in the F-15E, to the nerd in the UAV. That, is fucking scary.

>>33469170
nor they repair on the field like ever, but what the hell lets torture that poor strawmen shall we ?

>>33443305
Ah, now I see where the American military gets their ideas from.

File: ABCT.png (123KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1024x683px

>>33469170
>Well, fact is - normally tank companies do not carry replacement engines.

But thats not a fact, and fucking wrong, you nigger.

>>33469163
>Not for engaging armour it isn't. There's a difference in trying to kill a Chechen in a house and trying to kill an Ukrop in a tank.
A direct hit from a 125 mm He-Frag has a very high chance of inflicting mission-crit. failure however.

>>33469144
>There are provisions for full; 360 degree coverage, or gimbaled coverage.
That's actually it, when its mounted in where the CITV is supposed to be, utilizing gimbals meant for it instead. There's not much any other way you can stick around a bulky box without hampering something.
>but you can stick it literally wherever you want.
No you can't.

>>33469231
>utilizing gimbals meant for it instead.

First of all, when the AN/VLQ-6 conceptualized, the CITV was never around

2nd off, 99% of the pictures you see is on a non gimbaled fxied mount (i dont think i have ever seen a picture of the gimbled mount, it was located high center of the turret)

>>33468988
>fatnik
Armatard, who let you out of your cell again?

>>33469180
>Stretlets is infantry only, and only within the ratnik system. not comparable.
They have a system in place on the individual soldier level- creating something for tanks isn't rocket science in comparison.

>Air only, only specific S-300/400 systems. not comparable.
Every piece of AD equipment is connected to a high-speed datalink network. How the fcuk would they manage to do their job then?

>FBCB2 covers both, btw.
Ah, I remember its something called SIGMA, which is AEGIS-ski for all.


>Hardware and software, along with the network itself.
>They have a long way to go.
Lol. You said it yourself, they already have a system in the T-14. What makes it impossible to retrofit the same networking equipment to older tanks?

>All it takes is one faggot scout with a FBCB2 system and every one of your enemys has your exact location. From the niggerloader in the tank, to the cowboy in the apache, to the flyboy in the F-15E, to the nerd in the UAV. That, is fucking scary.
Not really. Not when you have the same capability except in some units ofc at the moment if they don't already, and when you have a dedicated umbrella of protection 24/7.

>>33469253
>First of all, when the AN/VLQ-6 conceptualized, the CITV was never around
From what I recall they always thought the M1A1 variants woudl enjoy a CITV so they had a port cut open on the turret roof anyway, even before the CITVs were there.
>To prepare the M1A1 HA for a possible upgrade, a hole was added on that position and closed by a plate. This feature can be found on all later M1A1 tanks.

>>33465816
You forgot that the Trophy radars are mounted on ERA tiles and there's no launcher.

>>33469280
>They have a system in place on the individual soldier level-

Its a short ranged squad based system. Its not the same at all.

>Every piece of AD equipment is connected to a high-speed datalink network.

Not true at all, lots of systems are contained, for the ones that are not..

>How the fcuk would they manage to do their job then?

Its all kept inter system. For example an base S-2 cant talk to an S-400, or pass data.

>Ah, I remember its something called SIGMA, which is AEGIS-ski for all.

If its sea based its, again, not really comparable. First time hearing about it by the way. Sauce.

> What makes it impossible to retrofit the same networking equipment to older tanks?

Nothing is impossible, but they have not. They dont have the MFD proliferation the US has, nor the network backbone. As i said, they have a long ways to go.

>Not when you have the same capability except in some units

Except russia does not. 20 or so tanks in a self contained system is not the same proliferation at all.

>and when you have a dedicated umbrella of protection 24/7.

IADS is a meme killed by MALD's, and that fact will most likely trigger you.

>>33469302
>From what I recall they always thought the M1A1 variants woudl enjoy a CITV so they had a port cut open on the turret roof anyway, even before the CITVs were there.

Retroactively applied after the M1A2 came around/was in dev.

File: Shadowsword000.png (865KB, 1007x449px) Image search: [Google]

865KB, 1007x449px

>>33448518
>Not the shadowsword
It's like you hate winning.

>>33446630
how do you shoot a moving target?

>>33469363
>Its a short ranged squad based system. Its not the same at all.
You're right, its not the same. Its much harder to implement than a vehicle borne system.

>Not true at all, lots of systems are contained, for the ones that are not..
what are you talking about?

>Its all kept inter system. For example an base S-2 cant talk to an S-400, or pass data.
Bullshit. They can all talk to the command post, of which host networking equipment with backwards capability.

>If its sea based its, again, not really comparable. First time hearing about it by the way. Sauce.
http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/integrated-warfare-systems-combat-management-systems/sigma-e-combat-information-and-control-system
Not sure if a system combining full spectrum connectivity land sea air and space is also named SIGMA...

>Nothing is impossible, but they have not. They dont have the MFD proliferation the US has, nor the network backbone. As i said, they have a long ways to go.
Even their newly modernized BTRs have MFDs.

>Except russia does not. 20 or so tanks in a self contained system is not the same proliferation at all.
Give it time.
>IADS is a meme killed by MALD's, and that fact will most likely trigger you.
nah, if the Iranians with some export EW Russian gear can down a sophisticated stealth drone the Russians have nothing to worry about MALD. Their EW systems would swat those things lickety split.

>>33448417
kekd

>>33469489
>Its much harder to implement than a vehicle borne system.

.....you do realize you can have FBCB2 on dismounts, right?

>what are you talking about?

Some vehicles are fully self contained, like the Tunguska.

>They can all talk to the command post.

For their own family of vehicles. Not outside. Talking about data shareing btw.

>Sea based system

Again, an AEGIS like system is not the same as FBCB2.

>Even their newly modernized BTRs have MFDs.

Thats kind of making my point. Low number, modernized vehicles having MFD's.

Furthermore, as far as i am aware the MFD is just a display for the ELNIT stuff on VDV BTR-90's "Infauna".

Its not quite the same. as true MFD displays, but might be able to be used as one in the future.

>Give it time.

There is no plan for backwards moldularity.

>nah, if the Iranians with some export EW Russian gear can down a sophisticated stealth drone the Russians have nothing to worry about MALD.

Donald cook tier propaganda. Drone lost engines with caused it to crash, Flight control kept it stable all the way down.

>Their EW systems would swat those things lickety split.

Nope, self contained mission sets. They dont need connectivity to complete the mission.

MALD-J's will find radars autonomously and jam them too.

Like i said, fully fucked.

>>33468744
I just want to know how 55 tons on a 16m tall frame dwarfs the typical acv which is something like 12m long and 60T+

All that empty space must be great against SCJs

>>33469170
Just o-ins a Steiner Scout Lance to hold down your field repair base while the infantry haul out a new powerpack from the lostech plant three jumps out then.