Why have we stopped using low profile assault guns ? The lack

File: stuh-42-f-1.jpg (65KB, 750x490px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 750x490px

above all they are cheaper than full on mbts but offer even more protection due stronger super structure

the stuh is just a historical example

My guess is that the sheer accuracy and range of modern armor and artillery makes a small, sad, very innacurate POS like that completely obsolete. What good is heavier armor when an Rheinmetal 120mm has an effective range of 4-8km doesn't even need to get any closer than that? What good is a bigger gun if you can't hit the enemy accurately?

tl:dr if projectile guidance weren't a thing these might be useful.

Being a smaller target doesn't help that much in a battlefield populated with guided munitions (many of which use a top-attack terminal profile). The limited angles of fire, not just horizontally, but also vertically, are a major downside. Between MBTs and combined gun & ATGM armed IFVs carrying ATGM armed infantry, there isn't room for the assault gun.

>>34079969
>small, sad, very innacurate POS like that

Dude why are you talking as if OP actually suggested bringing back the StuG? Are you actually retarded or what?

>>34079936
>Why have we stopped using low profile assault guns ?
Its not 1945 any more

>>34079936
Lack of turret means they can only engage targets to the front and have to turn the whole vehicle to counter flanking, negating digging in and making them very vulnerable in cities.

Very little 'open combat' is fought currently, generally conflict revolves around cities and assets.

Many things they can blow up can also be neutralised by an airstrike, meaning you don't need to lug a tank everywhere you go to strike hardened targets.

Low profile can be an asset for digging in, but is a liability in mobile warfare where line of sight for the main armament will be more easily blocked by debris or intervening terrain.

As such, traditional assault guns lack many features required to succeed in modern warfare, they might do alright used as artillery or one hit wonders for ambushes, but a modern tank is versatile enough to fill those needs already.

File: T72 dug in.jpg (451KB, 993x668px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 993x668px

>>34079988
Even digging in really only stops direct fire (sort of!) in an environment full of ATGM's, artillery and air strikes that's only a small margin of defence

>>34079988
>negating digging in
I doubt you'd want to leave the sides of the turret exposed with a tank when digging in so an assault gun would have pretty much the same effectiveness when dug in.

A low profile isn't as much of an advantage as it used to be.

File: 1023823712.jpg (80KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1000x541px

>>34079936
Hello there, comrade

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (170KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1280x720px

>>34081170

File: smugdog.jpg (13KB, 250x281px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 250x281px

>>34079936
>Troops leading behind them
>Leading
>Behind them

>>34081170
>>34081177
>varied suspension AND vertically adjustable gun
what?

>>34079988

To counter the issue of flanking, why not add a remote-controlled ATGM launcher to the top of the tank? The launcher can rotate 360 degrees and engage targets that the main gun can't engage unless the entire vehicle turns.

>>34079936
because military's have to spend the most money possible for the least effective equipment possible

>>34081541

Why not just use gingerbread for their armor and candy canes for their tracks?

Its not fucking practical.

>>34079936
As far as the armor goes, it's no longer really a matter of "more" so much as "better".

Modern KEP and HEAT munitions make RHA more or less pointless. IE, the days when you could just slap another inch of steel on and call it safe are long over.

Dudeeeee why dont we bring back battleships tooooo???

>>34082109
No, "more" remains entirely relevant as well, because no matter how much better you make your armour, having a thicker layer of that fancy stuff would increase protection compared to a thin layer of the same.

>>34079936
>Perfect for open field
>Breakthroughs

Except being able to shoot on the move is pretty much a must have for these things.

If you want a turretless tank destroyer, arm it with ATGMs (Like a Jaguar). If you want infantry support arm it with autocannons (like a Terminator).

Direct fire, large calibre guns are not the only option anymore like they were in WW2. There is no reason to build a shittier version of an MBT when you can just put a few missiles on a LAV for greater effect

>>34081170
>>34081177
>that machine gun
holy shit, this is the future

File: UDES 20xx.jpg (61KB, 681x390px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 681x390px

>>34081201
Probably UDES 03, or somethign clsoely related. UDES was a series of Swedish studies in the seventies, looking at making or buying a new tank. The UDES 03 option following in the footsteps of Strv103. This project got to the point of making one test rig for driving and one for shooting. These tests shoved that the tanks intended two man crew was insufficient to get all the shit a tank crew needed to do done, and the whole thing was abandoned.

Another UDES idea was to have a two part body with a powered joint in between, similar to Bandvagn 206, and an unmanned turret. That made it to some kind of proof of concept stage, as you can see here.

To the best of my knowledge the only UDES study that made it all the way was UDES 09, a turreted command vehicle largely built on an UDES 03 chassis. This would eventually become the CV90 family.

>>34080136
It's still an advantage, harder to see, harder to hit
Less frontal armor needed, etc

>>34080024
though you could always make the berm higher on the sides the in the front

>>34079969

Rheinmetal 120mm cannot reliably penetrate the glacis plate of an Abrams, Challanger II, K2, or probably Armata. It would be trivial for a nation capable of producing modern MBTs to proof a modern assault gun against it.

No, the real reason assault guns aren't used is because the tanks we have are already good enough for open fireld combat, and urban combat, which is where the focus is, is an area where assault guns perform worse than tanks with a 360 degree field of fire.

File: IMG_3238.jpg (43KB, 634x356px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 634x356px

>>34079936
It would be a great design for a ROV or drone.

Imagine a infantry platoon with its own assault gun. Remotely controlled!

Or you can just put a gun on a purpose designed flatbed, for indirect fire. Make it tracks if you wanna try that hard desu

File: AAi RDF scorpio - Elevated.Kinetic.Energy.Demonstrator ------ XM274 ARES 75mm (1).gif (121KB, 1000x559px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1000x559px

>>34079936
obsolete

File: 1484871327646.jpg (29KB, 599x372px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 599x372px

>>34079936
pic related

>>34079936
t. William "Teutonic Caboose" Lind

>>34083782
Damn that seems like such a cool idea, too bad it didn't ever get adopted.

>>34083782
How does it reload?

Gotta bring them back
super heavy turreted MBT's are totally unfit for modern combat

Both high intensity & low intensity

>>34079936
My guess is that the focus has shifted from firepower to mobility. A turret allows for strafing and the like which you can't do with a fixed gun

Because the battlefield has changed. The reason we use a 5,56mm rifle as long as a door frame is wide instead of a 3 and a half foot 7.62mm rifle as our standard issue is because we don't fight in fields anymore. If you put a modernized case tank destroyer in Syria, it would be useless in the rubble crowded streets

File: IMG_3608(1).jpg (468KB, 1678x1406px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1678x1406px

>>34081170
>>34081177
WG should have listened to me and used a more final version of that tank.

File: udes_03_korrigg_web1[1].jpg (417KB, 992x648px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 992x648px

>>34081201
its mostly like that because the Strv 103 had problems with crossing trenches/ditches (it had to do it at an angle to not dig the tank in). It also allows some degree of stabilization and increasesthe elevation angles.

I like this idea. Turrets are meant to provide better situational awareness and response, which can also be substituted for with sensors and maybe semi-automatic slew/training. The biggest problem with tanks is weight. All-the way-rear mounted 140mm autoloading seperately elevating gun, blowout rear ammunition, the crew can be packed into a central/forward cubicle like on Armata and armored to match the gun. And not stay within what are rather problematic weight limits. Perhaps better than Armata approach, although the difference between the two isn't great.

File: Patrick_Star_in_CopyBob_DittoPants.png (200KB, 332x460px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 332x460px

we need a modern stuh with a short barreled 150mm HE bunker busting howitzer that can also be used as artillery

everybody in ww2 thought turretless tanks were shit until they actually used them. Stugs killed more enemy tanks than all others, they were simple, cheap and practical. They killed over 20k t34s by 1944 alone

>>34081654
You say that, but North Pole has never been invaded successfully and have for years launched a great number of yearly air raids and ground assaults throughout the world. North Pole, Best Pole

File: bmpt.jpg (87KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1280x720px

>>34080803

>Terminator

muh diq

Make a small one man stug with an auto Loader.

Like the pic related only with actually armor. Throw in a tow launcher for shits and giggles.

File: IMG_3248.jpg (43KB, 448x219px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 448x219px

>>34089637
Pic

>>34079936
Because the Stridsvagn 103 is old and is shit for anything except ambushes.