|
HEY GAL posted:is that...good? It's significantly heavier than this. It miiiiight be a tad overkill. 
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Can someone talk a little about the change from rifled to smooth? I always thought the rifling was to give stability through spinning. Are the rounds themselves stabilizing now? Yes. That's what the fins are for, to stabilise it in flight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:In the late 1940s, the Soviets decided that any tank weighing over 50 tons was a terrible idea and is more trouble than it's worth because of how hard it is to transport it. This is twice as heavy. It's not quite that bad since you can take the ablative armor off for transport. It's still going to be a huge pain if you have to cross anything while the enemy might be nearby.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Also a 93-ton tank is 20 tons heavier than a jagdtiger, but somehow still half the weight of the maus! I wonder how the track's going to look. Are they just going to make them the width of a small car or are things in "what is ground pressure?" territory?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:is that...good? If you define "good" as having the heaviest armored vehicle ever deployed, hell yeah, eat poo poo Jadgtiger
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Was there ever a battle where people on horseback beat the poo poo out of people in tanks?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:It's not quite that bad since you can take the ablative armor off for transport. It's still going to be a huge pain if you have to cross anything while the enemy might be nearby. The Germans tried that with the E-100, everything old is new again. Vegetable posted:Was there ever a battle where people on horseback beat the poo poo out of people in tanks? Many battles in interbellum colonial wars had tank forces get their poo poo rolled because people haven't figured out proper infantry cooperation yet. It was really easy to walk up to some half-blind tanks confined to a narrow mountain pass, shove some straw into the engine grilles, douse it in gasoline, and set it on fire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Was there ever a battle where people on horseback beat the poo poo out of people in tanks? I'm sure it happened at some point in Afghanistan, but they probably dismounted before firing their RPGs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The Germans tried that with the E-100, everything old is new again. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Was there ever a battle where people on horseback beat the poo poo out of people in tanks? I don't know about beating the poo poo out of tanks, but horses were still used to improve infantry mobility in WW2, and cavalry had access to anti-tank rifles and stuff. wdarkk posted:It's not quite that bad since you can take the ablative armor off for transport. It's still going to be a huge pain if you have to cross anything while the enemy might be nearby. I don't know much about tanks, so please tell me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't that basically be begging the enemy to use artillery/airstrikes against tanks in transit? Or is the assumption here that the enemy won't have access to either in areas where the tank is unarmored?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
If enemy artillery hits your train, that shipment is hosed regardless of how much armour the tank has on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So I just got spun up on the latest iteration of Abrams upgrades and their solution to the next generation of missiles is just to slap more ablative armor on the thing and no poo poo I'm not kidding you it's new curb weight is no less than 93 tons. God bless America It weighs 72 tons now, and they are going to add another 21?!?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Gotta think that's going to be hell on the M1's mobility and suspension. Quick, someone get them a copy of a report on the problems with German Heavies in WWII.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Just make a Ratte already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:If you define "good" as having the heaviest armored vehicle ever deployed, hell yeah, eat poo poo Jadgtiger Still loses to maus
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Take the trucks you use to cart the extra armor around and park them on either side of the tank for extra layers of protection.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
TasogareNoKagi posted:How do you keep the various military subdivisions straight? Battalion, brigade, company, corps, division ... If, like me, you spent your teens reading TO&E charts instead of fooling around with girls you eventually just absorb it. I don't recommend this method.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:If you define "good" as having the heaviest armored vehicle ever deployed, hell yeah, eat poo poo Jadgtiger Armoured trains and warships are vehicles, dear  Vegetable posted:Was there ever a battle where people on horseback beat the poo poo out of people in tanks? Training a horse to not panic when you launch an ATGM from the saddle would be rad (read: cruelty to the poor animal). I guess it would have to be a fire and forget weapon like Javelin or Spike, no horse would stay still long enough for you to guide the missile to the target.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Lol if you didn't lose your virginity on top of a big pile of org charts with correct NATO symbology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Can someone talk a little about the change from rifled to smooth? I always thought the rifling was to give stability through spinning. Are the rounds themselves stabilizing now? 1. Any round will precess/nutate a little bit. As the projectile length:diameter ratio increases, the degree of spin required to keep precession to an acceptable degree becomes impractically high. For a kinetic penetrator, you want to maximize cross-sectional density, which means increasing length:diameter ratio, which means you reach a point where spin-stabilization doesn't work anymore and you use a fin-stabilized projectile at which point you go smoothbore. 2. Spinning a HEAT round is counterproductive because it serves to disperse the penetrator jet. If you're using a rifled barrel you can use slip bands on your HEAT rounds that allow them to leave the barrel without much spin, but if you have a smoothbore barrel you don't need to worry about that. my dad posted:I don't know much about tanks, so please tell me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't that basically be begging the enemy to use artillery/airstrikes against tanks in transit? Or is the assumption here that the enemy won't have access to either in areas where the tank is unarmored? Literally everything we've procured for decades has been procured with the assumption that we'll have air supremacy in the area of conflict. Which is sort of bad as soon as we have to do anything more important than Operation Bomb Useless Dirt because the USAF is the smallest it's been since it was part of the Army, we don't really have any mobile SAM platform worth talking about, and we cut the F-22 buy in favor of a bunch of F-35s that will never be anything more than acceptable. The Russians have been doing spectacularly effective things with rocket artillery in Ukraine and we have let a lot of our capabilities go without much attention for far too long. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
To expand a bit more the developers aren't idiots, they put a ton of work into analyzing all of the mobility and sustainment requirements for what we have taken to calling jabba the tank. I don't know any details but they seemed...less pessimistic than you'd have thought. It is basically being built for one mission, and that is an offensive type operation in eastern Europe, and there basically wasn't a way to do it without more passive armor (apparently, I really don't know much about APS options and how they perform versus modern missiles although the inference is...not well at all). There was also sort of the general theme that this was the end of the line for the Abrams and with it probably tanks as we know them which has all sorts of interesting implications.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
bewbies posted:what we have taken to calling jabba the tank
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:not everything You wait till insurgents start trying to fight the new abrams by sticking RPG7 rounds on the end of pikes and waiting for it to charge them. I'm taking bets on whether that or sticking them on lances and charging the tank on horseback is a better idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You wait till insurgents start trying to fight the new abrams by sticking RPG7 rounds on the end of pikes and waiting for it to charge them. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
bewbies posted:To expand a bit more the developers aren't idiots, they put a ton of work into analyzing all of the mobility and sustainment requirements for what we have taken to calling jabba the tank. I don't know any details but they seemed...less pessimistic than you'd have thought. Just to clarify: You have the TARDEC types saying its the end of the line for tanks? Or the contractors? Because in a sense, it sounds kind of like turkeys calling for thanksgiving.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
bewbies posted:To expand a bit more the developers aren't idiots, they put a ton of work into analyzing all of the mobility and sustainment requirements for what we have taken to calling jabba the tank. I don't know any details but they seemed...less pessimistic than you'd have thought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
bring back the caracole, in my opinion
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:No, 93 tons is approaching "No bridge can handle this, and neither can many roads" territory Much less mud/snow/sand/other places that tanks are expected to operate. gently caress, how many are you gonna be able to airlift per plane? Or y'all just going to kick back and wait for sealift? Zamboni Apocalypse fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:Just to clarify: You have the TARDEC types saying its the end of the line for tanks? Or the contractors? Concepts guys, think...way, way further in the future than DECs or contractors look.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
It makes sense if you consider what the invention of the anti ship missile would have meant for the battleship if the aircraft carrier hadn't got to it first. Frankly, cold war era cruise missiles could probably have signaled the end of the aircraft carrier if they'd ever been deployed. Turns out that there just isn't a hugely effective defence against mass producible munitions that can total your probably $8m tank (with all the extra crap stuck on it) in one shot. And unlike aircraft carriers, tanks don't serve as mobile bases, a tank without effective armour is essentially a motorized field gun and if that's what you want, it's much cheaper to just build a motorized field gun than a really expensive tank with armour that isn't reliable against the kind of things it's likely to face. If ATGMs continue to advance and proliferate you're going to either need lasers to shoot them down or be very careful how you field your tanks. I'd also expect to see a trend away from big heavy tanks towards lighter vehicles, similar to what happened with navies. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Zamboni Apocalypse posted:Much less mud/snow/sand/other places that tanks ate expected to operate. Aren't tanks usually transported by sea anyway? Hence the effort to produce lighter things like the Stryker. I mean, you can transport MBTs by air, but not very many at a time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Zamboni Apocalypse posted:gently caress, how many are you gonna be able to airlift per plane? Or y'all just going to kick back and wait for sealift? It doesn't seem to affect airliftability because it's not expected to fight enemy tanks as it rolls off the ramp of a Hercules. All the extra weight is added on only when it's needed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Zamboni Apocalypse posted:Much less mud/snow/sand/other places that tanks ate expected to operate. I *think* the new C-5 can still carry two of them at once but in general those kinds of assets are reserved for more important things so it is sealift all day every day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
bewbies posted:To expand a bit more the developers aren't idiots, they put a ton of work into analyzing all of the mobility and sustainment requirements for what we have taken to calling jabba the tank. I don't know any details but they seemed...less pessimistic than you'd have thought. I'm guessing the rationale is that the answer to whether you can get the tank over a given bridge is less relevant than the answer to whether you can get any tank over the bridge and have it last more than a timespan of minutes. Better a tank that can survive to operate in a limited region than one that can't survive anywhere. Which is holy poo poo pessimism about missiles and artillery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
I remember someone saying that artillery in games always sucks because if artillery was as effective as it is in real life and you had the precision of targetting and battlefield awareness that you did as someone playing a PC game artillery would be all you need. I guess we're moving towards that kind of battlefield.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If ATGMs continue to advance and proliferate you're going to either need lasers to shoot them down or be very careful how you field your tanks. I'd also expect to see a trend away from big heavy tanks towards lighter vehicles, similar to what happened with navies. You don't need a frickin' laser to shoot down a missile, Soviets were already using the technology in 1980's and active protection systems have developed a lot from there. T-14 is an interesting opening for the next generation, it has an unmanned turret and the crew is isolated in its own smaller but better protected "capsule". Because a smaller volume is covered with the best armour, it weighs a lot less than if you applied the same armour to turret and engine compartments. So the tank is not undefeatable but in theory crew survivability is much better than T-90 which weighs almost the same. Remains to be seen how much of a difference it makes in the battlefield.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
And what happened to the electrostatic armor? Outer plate charged up to some fuckoff voltage, a dielectric, and a grounded inner plate, when the HEAT jet bridges the gap you get a big current pulse through it that breaks it up. There've been live-fire tests where it appears to work pretty well, but I guess it never went anywah?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Ablative armor for everyone! Renegade Legion makes a sudden and surprising comeback.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Was there ever a battle where people on horseback beat the poo poo out of people in tanks? Something something Metal Gear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
Speaking of all this armor talk: can someone do an effort post or otherwise point out some good places to read up on modern tank armor types/variations?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:43
|
|
