125 replies to this topic

[CommanderJB]

The trouble is, in order to make a tank gun with appreciably better range than the ones currently deployed, you need to make the gun longer and the propellant charge much more powerful, and probably stop using APFSDS rounds as well. So gun design will get you so far, but you will end up needing a bigger tank if you want ranges in excess of 10kms, because at that point it basically becomes a flat-firing artillery piece. Or you could just use ATGMs instead.

[Eddy01741]

That's what I was referring to as a huge gun (longer barrel, larger caliber, etc.). And wouldn't APFSDS rounds be ideal since they travel at such a high velocity and have less air resistance?

Anyways, yes, mounting advanced ATGM systems instead of a gun would work, but missiles are more expensive, and also with all the new anti missile systems being mounted on tanks I dunno if they will still work.

[CommanderJB]

APFSDS rounds travel much faster, yes, but they're also not nearly as accurate as a rifled HEAT shell thanks to the fact that even with the fin-stabilised adjustments made to the original APDS rounds you'll still lose some precision in thanks to the smooth-bore barrel and the separation of the round, and the ballistic characteristics of the penetrator are somewhat different. It's good over most ranges, but at extreme range I think you'd want to revert back to having a rifled barrel firing a traditional projectile for true 'sniping'.
Regarding the ATGM systems, it's true that they are indeed much more expensive, but at this sort of range I think the ability to guide the round, especially with the massive increase in damage potential, outweighs it. Something along the lines of the AT-15 'Khrizantema' or LOSAT descendants would probably be the most equivalent to my thoughts, but not directly; more like a very modern development of the Drakon or similar dedicated 'missile tanks' as opposed to lighter missile carriers. It presents challenges, but nothing that can't be overcome, I wouldn't think.

[Eddy01741]

I thought all HEAT rounds that were fired out of a rifled barrel had a "compensator" to make sure it did not spin in flight (I read in some book that rifling hinders the effects of HEAT somehow). I guesss if you are forced to use a traditional AP projectile or a HEAT round at long ranges, it probably would be best just to use missiles.

[Waris]

What makes today's artillery piece so accurate? Ballistic computer. With one of this I wager nearly all the drawbacks of smoothbore tank barrel is erased.

[Eddy01741]

I doubt that you'll be able to steer a projectile at such a low trajectory at such a high speed (in excess of 5280 feet per second, aka, faster than a mile per second), artillery howitzers like teh M109 Paladin have a much higher trajectory (longer flight time) and have a lower muzzle velocity. I honestly don't know how you could possibly steer an APFSDS.

[Waris]

...Who mentioned steering the projectile? If someone did then he's not me.

Ballistic computers in modern MBTs are used to calculate the correct path a projectile must take to reach its target, taking in account range, elevation, wind speed, type of ammunition etc..

[Eddy01741]

The most accurate of artillery shells (like copperhead and stuff like that) are guided. Today's Fire Control Systems are already very very advanced and do take into account all the factors you mentioned. So what was your point of stating that Smoothbore barrels ahve no disadvantage over rifled barrels? I think we all knew that considering all modern big name MBTs I can think of save for the Challenger use the smoothbarrel tank gun.

Anyways, a rifled barrel still has a flatter trajectory even though it has a lower initial muzzle velocity.

[Zero]

Oh my god! This is still going! And it's productive too! LOL!!!! Face it, the only reason we would be arguing for this long is the fact that no matter what we say we are all C&C fans and would love to see a mammoth on the field (and face it, there's no sexier tank than the new C&C3 Mammoth). Still, keep going, this is getting good.

[Eddy01741]

It would be dead for good if you didn't post in it... *facepalm+sigh*

I actually don't like the design of the mammoth wierd proprotions, stuff like that, not aesthetically pleasing.

Like I said, I'd prefer a more mobile, lighter, and smaller (smaller target) MBT with a single more powerful, longer ranged gun.

[TWPC920]

what if instead of two cannons you mounted two ATGM missile launchers on the sides =O, twice the killing power!!

[Strategia]

partyzanpaulzy, on 21 Aug 2008, 17:28, said:

Well if one day will be need to broke fortifications, some sort of mammys with panzer from boricum carbide and large dual cannons (nuclear fuel) would be good on this + psychological effect. :cyclops:

If you're facing fortifications strong enough to defeat any tank, you don't need a boricum carbide armoured dual-barrelled nuclear-fuelled monster tank, you just need a few artillery pieces - or the Schlieffen Plan, of course.

TWPC920, on 28 Aug 2008, 1:20, said:

what if instead of two cannons you mounted two ATGM missile launchers on the sides =O, twice the killing power!!

There's been attempts at building missile tanks in the past, without success. ATGMs take up too much space, and (IIRC) reload slowly; ergo, one 105mm gun > two ATGM launchers.

[T-34]

the AT-15 is freaking supersonic. it can own pretty much anything, 2 barrels or not.


also, on the subject of heavily armed tanks, look no further then the BMP-T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-T

two 30 mm 2A42 dual-feed cannons
two AGS-17D 30mm grenade launchers
9M120 Ataka-V ATGM system (4 launchers)
one 7.62mm machine gun
additional weapons can be installed
The vehicle is protected by passive and reactive armour.

[Eddy01741]

Um, pretty much all missiles are supersonic, the sidewinder travels at mach 2.5 IIRC, and teh pheonix even does mach5+ (IIRC). In fact, missiles are slower than guns in almost all cases, teh muzzle velocity of the abrams smoothbore M256 is above 5280 feet per second (aka, faster than a mile per second), which is faster than 3600 miles per hour, FAR above mach 1.

The BMP is an IFV, not a tank. In fact, 2 30mm cannons isn't impressive compared to the BMP3's combo of a 30mm chain gun (auto cannon) and a 100mm gun (or was it 105mm gun....).

ATGMs could potentially work, but then one would argue, why make it a heavy tank? Just get a long range ATGM, and mount it on a lighter vehicle like a bradley (maybe something a litle more armored). The main reason that tanks have such heavy armor and such a large gun is to combat enemy tanks, they are already safe from smallarms (which havn't been a threat since the first tanks in WWI).

[CommanderJB]

Eddy01741, on 29 Aug 2008, 8:01, said:

Um, pretty much all missiles are supersonic, the sidewinder travels at mach 2.5 IIRC, and teh pheonix even does mach5+ (IIRC). In fact, missiles are slower than guns in almost all cases, teh muzzle velocity of the abrams smoothbore M256 is above 5280 feet per second (aka, faster than a mile per second), which is faster than 3600 miles per hour, FAR above mach 1.

But not all ATGMs. Only a very select few ATGMs are supersonic; namely the 9K121 Vikhr in use on the Ka-50/52, the 'Khrizantema' (AT-15), and the LOSAT, which of course never made it into production, but has spawned some ongoing research projects. Whether an ATGM is supersonic or not makes a big difference to its effectiveness; even if it doesn't rely on the kinetic energy of the round a la LOSAT, the additional speed considerably improves some aspects of penetration ability. But of course the largest advantage is the fact that the target has virtually no time to react; it has been claimed that by the time a tank's laser lock warning systems detect an incoming Vikhr, the missile virtually hitting the vehicle, leaving it no time to use any countermeasures. It also means the launch unit is exposed for less time, vital in aerial scenarios especially.

Eddy01741, on 29 Aug 2008, 8:01, said:

The BMP is an IFV, not a tank. In fact, 2 30mm cannons isn't impressive compared to the BMP3's combo of a 30mm chain gun (auto cannon) and a 100mm gun (or was it 105mm gun....).

While the rest of the BMP series are of course IFVs, the BMP-T is something of a special case. It was created in response to the conflict in Chechnya where it was found that the regular BMPs and other vehicles were ineffective in an urban combat scenario, and was designed to fill the gap between an IFV and a tank by providing all-around versatile support to both classes of vehicles. The major improvements were the remotely-operated turret and the drastically improved elevation on the guns, allowing them to hit targets which are on top of buildings even while travelling down a street; the dual 30mm cannons are the best possible armament for this role because not only do they give it the power to engage virtually any other IFV/APC out there with a very good chance of success, the size of the gun itself is much smaller; the breech of the BMP-3's 100mm gun would limit elevation, and so they decided to leave it out for this one. For dealing with tanks the ATGMs (which, it is important to note, are all ready-to-launch, meaning it doesn't have to spend minutes reloading like a Bradley or several seconds like a BMP-3) give it more effective punch than almost all other vehicles of its class, and almost all other vehicles full stop. And of course the automatic grenade launchers pretty much remove cover from the equation in an urban combat scenario.

Eddy01741, on 29 Aug 2008, 8:01, said:

ATGMs could potentially work, but then one would argue, why make it a heavy tank? Just get a long range ATGM, and mount it on a lighter vehicle like a bradley (maybe something a litle more armored). The main reason that tanks have such heavy armor and such a large gun is to combat enemy tanks, they are already safe from smallarms (which havn't been a threat since the first tanks in WWI).

Technically anti-tank rifles were effective against the earliest WWII tanks, but yes, your point is indeed abundantly clear. The main reason I was suggesting a true missile tank as opposed to a missile carrier, the likes of which are already around and have been for some time, is that missile carriers are generally only suitable as ambushing weapons; a heavily armoured missile tank would provide better firepower that's able to actually go in alongside an armoured spearhead and give it a good deal of extra punch against enemy vehicles, though by no means would I suggest it replace the traditional tank entirely thanks to its massive lack of versatility when compared with such vehicles.

Edited by CommanderJB, 29 August 2008 - 00:02.

[Eddy01741]

Damn, nice post, you really know your russian military stuff....

[T-34]

As do I, im just too lazy to type it all out lol

[TWPC920]

so does that mean that my post has valid point??

[CommanderJB]

I personally think so, yes. A mix of 'missile tanks' to deal with enemy AFVs and traditional tanks for the grunt work and you're all set to roll over an opposing force in my mind.

[Destiny]

If it wasn't for snipers and the like, tanks would've been pwned by jeeps with:

- Mounted missile/rocket weapons
- Infantry with the above

No, I'm basing it on 1 jeep versus...let's say, SOME TANK?

But no, we won't been seeing any super heavy 2 barreled tanks anywhere in this decade...if there are they'll see get owned.

[RaiDK]

Unless they develop some form of super resistant to everything armour.

But even then, you'd be better off making mecha with it by that stage

[The Wandering Jew]

It is much more economical to develop an armor for a "mammoth" tank rather than a mech. We might have forgotten that it is basically regardless of the power plant you use to the mech, but the main issue is the LOCOMOTION (i.e. pneumatics and hydraulics). Okay, so how will you move that 20-ton leg? With 21st century pneumatics and hydraulics?

P.S. Still, my stand in this topic is the feasibility of such massive vehicles. Firepower and mobility can offset armor, and will always be.

[CommanderJB]

They tried that in World War I with battlecruisers. Didn't work so well. All the current evidence of modern armoured warfare points to the survivability of your AFV being its most important attribute, more so than its firepower, as even limited amounts of firepower can, properly directed against an improperly defended target, win an engagement in double-quick time.

[The Wandering Jew]

CommanderJB, on 29 Aug 2008, 15:20, said:

They tried that in World War I with battlecruisers. Didn't work so well. All the current evidence of modern armoured warfare points to the survivability of your AFV being its most important attribute, more so than its firepower, as even limited amounts of firepower can, properly directed against an improperly defended target, win an engagement in double-quick time.

Thus the Renaissance of the aircraft carrier...

[Eddy01741]

Not really, the demise of battlecruisers just meant battleships>battlecruisers. Battlecruisers like the HMS Hood, and the deutschland (bad sp) class could as fast as smaller ships, and had the firepower of battleships, but their armor suffered. Basically, battlecruisers had the speed and armor of a.... destroyer, and the armament of a battleship. Out gun what you can't out run, out run what you can't out gun, basic principle of the battlecruiser.