Your Nation's Main Battle Tank [Part 2]

[Malgrave]

Old people are small. Who would want to destroy a tank crewed by old people?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Old people are small. Who would want to destroy a tank crewed by old people?

I mean midgets as in 3ft> tall.

[Kazomal]

What do you all think about a tracked versus an 8x8 wheeled IFV?

[Immoren]

What do you all think about a tracked versus an 8x8 wheeled IFV?

Tracks>Wheels
Message writer's note:It really(?) depends in what kind of terrain you are using them, quality of roads, what is you doctrine and your logistics.

[Kazomal]

As far as I can tell, tracks are far more versatile, with wheels only being better for speed across well-maintained, flat roads. I was leaning heavily towards tracks, I just wanted to get this thread's opinion, see if there's any considerations I may have missed.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Tracks allow for vastly reduced ground pressures, effectively allowing you to field heavier vehicles on weaker surfaces.

[Immoren]

Tracks allow for vastly greater ground pressures.

Nitpick: You mean smaller, as increasing area while keeping force(weight), same decreases pressure
But yes. Give tracked vehicle wide/long enough tracks and make it light enough, and it can go through bogs that would stop soldier on foot.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Tracks allow for vastly greater ground pressures.

Nitpick: You mean smaller, as increasing area while keeping force(weight), same decreases pressure
But yes. Give tracked vehicle wide/long enough tracks and make it light enough, and it can go through bogs that would stop soldier on foot.

Balls, always making that mistake
At least my point was understood

[Altaiire]

How effective would a Grizzly tank from Halo Wars be? Not the final cut that has those unfortunate twin guns, but this concept version? It has a 120mm cannon and two 7.62 mm M240 machine guns. Assuming armor and speed are variable based around the design, which can be estimated by whoever's appraising.

[Licana]

It's from Halo, therefore it's bad.

[Kazomal]

Right? The closest thing Halo ever had to an IFV is the open-topped Warthog, with a guy standing up in the bed to fire the MG.

[The Celestial Flame]

Its acceptable for them to field whatever they wish in the rp. Its free form rp for a reason no?

If they wish to use a dual gun system let them, so long as the drawbacks are done accurately i do not see the problem.

Except he really isn't. This is what he would have to RP.

1. Less accuracy.

2. No added penetration or damage,

3. More weight than a single gun that has a bigger bore diameter.

4. Less frontal turret armour.

5. No real space in the turret for anything else.

6. An ugly ass tank. Dual gun tanks don't even look cool, I would choose a K2 or Type 10 aesthetically over a mammoth or something any day.

Except in real life with computer and gyroscopic compensated aiming the only things that holds is the weight being higher and possibly issues for space in the turret, if they cut weight for less armor that could be the case as well but they don't necessarily have to do that. Weight is the enemy to maneuverability though.
You don't just slap an extra gun onto a turret without it being redesigned which is what most of that hints at.

[Indeos]

Except he really isn't. This is what he would have to RP.

1. Less accuracy.

2. No added penetration or damage,

3. More weight than a single gun that has a bigger bore diameter.

4. Less frontal turret armour.

5. No real space in the turret for anything else.

6. An ugly ass tank. Dual gun tanks don't even look cool, I would choose a K2 or Type 10 aesthetically over a mammoth or something any day.

Except in real life with computer and gyroscopic compensated aiming the only things that holds is the weight being higher and possibly issues for space in the turret, if they cut weight for less armor that could be the case as well but they don't necessarily have to do that. Weight is the enemy to maneuverability though.
You don't just slap an extra gun onto a turret without it being redesigned which is what most of that hints at.

No, all the computers and shit IRL can't compensate for the extra recoil and vibrations of dual guns. Sumer (AKA Dostawhatever Loj AKA that guy who studies this for a living) has said as much in the past.

[Sabatina (Ancient)]

Am I right in thinking that a tank with two main guns, unless they can independently traverse, cannot hit the same target at longer ranges?

[Munathanura]

Am I right in thinking that a tank with two main guns, unless they can independently traverse, cannot hit the same target at longer ranges?

Probably not even then if you're firing them at the same time/one too soon after the other.

[The Celestial Flame]

No, all the computers and shit IRL can't compensate for the extra recoil and vibrations of dual guns. Sumer (AKA Dostawhatever Loj AKA that guy who studies this for a living) has said as much in the past.

They are definitely doing it wrong then, everything can be compensated for with the proper controls.

But saying that is actually the case, materials most likely not holding up if they actually can't, a larger gun(what I've seen people advocate here),twice the energy to keep it equal, would cause the exact same issues.

[Munathanura]

No, all the computers and shit IRL can't compensate for the extra recoil and vibrations of dual guns. Sumer (AKA Dostawhatever Loj AKA that guy who studies this for a living) has said as much in the past.

They are definitely doing it wrong then, everything can be compensated for with the proper controls.

But saying that is actually the case, materials most likely not holding up if they actually can't, a larger gun(what I've seen people advocate here),twice the energy to keep it equal, would cause the exact same issues.

Yeah, no.

- Vibration: When you fire one gun they will both vibrate, by the time either of them stop enough to be accurately fired you could have manually loaded one gun already, so you gain zero speed advantage.

- Weight: Not just weight of the armour for the added volume (Which will be high), but the added mass in the trunnion and mantle to accept the system, the added weight in the stabilization system to keep the heavier set stable, and all that, which will in turn take up more volume still, meaning more armour still.

- No power advantage: This is not CnC, vehicles are not based on a system of hit points where two shots takes twice the hit points. Each gun will only have the power of that gun, and as it is impossible to land both shots on the same point at the same time, any hit will have that exact power as well. A tank with, say, two 105mm guns will only be as capable in hitting power as a tank with one 105mm gun, and outclassed by a tank with one 120mm gun.

Just to name a few. Reality is, any competent tanker (Including Soviet conscripts from WW2) will not be scared of such a vehicle. They'd most likely welcome it to the battlefield, as it would be the advantage to them on many many ways. Your own tankers, on the other hand, would curse you constantly, those that live to see the end of engagements with other, more practically designed tanks.

It's not recoil you need to worry about, it's blast effect. A 120mm L/44 gun like the M256 produces a lot of muzzle blast, and that will effect your second barrel in ways a computer can not consider. Type of round, consistency of burn, air density and temperature, time of day, weather, the materials of the gun, and literally thousands of other things will have an effect, and every time you fire will be far enough different from every other time that your computer, no matter how advanced in real world terms, will never be able to accomodate it, ever.

As to rule of cool. I am always supportive of rule of cool on one condition, it does not infer unrealistic advantages. Unfortunately, by claiming any advantage generally touted by the twin-barrel crowd, you've crossed that line.

No, you're underestimating, or simply not understanding, the problem.

Yes many of those issues can be calculated for one barrel, and already are, but they effect another barrel very differently, and rather unpredictably. You can't calculate how the firing of say barrelA, affects barrelB, because all those things are in play for barrelB already plus the complete change in everything from firing barrelA. If you are waiting for the blast effects to die down, then you arn't gaining a firing rate advantage.

That explosion, with the huge shock, vibration, and expansion effects right next to your barrel are going to do completely different things to the thing then normal weather, and normal weather will all play a part in making that even worse. Changing material isn't what I meant, I meant how the material reacts to normal use conditions, and how it reacts to the boom-stick next to it. You think the two guns are in isolation, they're not.

How the hell do you know that someone has a REAL degree in "tankology" as you so put it? And you are MAKING a VERY BOLD statement saying that this user knows more than I do. You have no clue who I am in real life anyways so you cant legitimately say that. This point is MOOT and quite frankly, useless.

Oh writes research papers? Merely writing papers does NOT give one a degree as you so aptly it, in "tankology". Try the armory. The people who have been in tanks their whole lives or who have worked on them thier whole lives have degrees in so-called "tankology".

It's actually a Bachelor of Arts with a double major in Linguistics and Military History. My focus is armoured warfare doctrine and the technical-theoretical link. I am routinely invited to UNB and CJMSS conferences, among others. Have in the past been invited to conferences at West Point, UKansas, and others.

I have fired the main gun to more tanks then you have probably been inside, and am not now nor ever have been a serving soldier. I have, however, spoken, interviewed, and have great relationships with tanksers from three continents, totaling seven countries.

I don't care to begin to determine your credentials, because it doesn't matter. What you are proposing (A twin gun tank) will not work, and your sollutions will not work. They have been tested (The German VT series tests can be accessed from the Bundesarchiv if you want to read them), and they do not work. Your only saving idea is the ability to launch ATGMs, at which point you are better off with a larger ATGM anyway, ur, as I suggested, using something like the M901, which is not a tank.

Let me go back through.
A) If you are assuming that more rounds that can not damage a tank will cause more damage then a larger round that can, you are at best mistaken, at worst living in a fantasy land. Your idea that such damage would be cumulative is fantasy, and its only equitable example is hit points. Therefore, you are living in a fantasy land of CnC if you believe such.
B) You do not risk damaging something as long as you hit anywhere. Damage to minor systems is effectively nothing. Damage to more vital systems like sights, is not going to kill a tank. The only way to do it is to penetrate the armour, or mobility kill. Reality works against you in the latter as, quite frankly, hitting the tracks is almost impossible (Percentage of shots that land within the running gear is a single digit, with accurate weapons aiming for that area).
C) Then you believe in a fantasy, because it can not be done.

The ammunition for the Abrams, I have handled it. I am aware of its weight and bulk. I also have spoken to enough loaders to know the practical, expected, sustained rate of fire for an engagement is easily 12 RPM.

D)You need to quantify your statement here. One hit on what, with what? Further, if it is incapable of penetration with one, it is incapable of penetration with two. This is unavoidable.

3) No they would not. And I am willing to bet at this point I have forgotten more research then you have ever known.
To be frank I don't know why you are bringing up the muzzle velocity of GLATGMs. Its irrelevant for your argument, and everything for mine. If you are reducing the barrel tolerances to the point where it is ideal for GLATGM firings, it will not be able to fire conventional rounds, at which point, just use the M901. The velocity of the BK-29, as well, is relevant, as it is a HEAT round, and is actually reduced power compared to the likes of the BM-42, which does 1700m/s, and has twice the powder as a complete round then the BK-29. In fact, it has a whole extra propellant loading.

Plus, the launch speed (Muzzle velocity) of most GLATGMs from the 2A46 series is 800m/s, only 100m/s less then the BK-29 HEAT round, and half the APFSDS. So why are you trying to argue it?

But again, how is this helping your point? If you are building for a lower power like that, go M901. If you intended to use the gun for anything else, just keep it single. If you are that concerned about performance, go bigger, and actually get more effect.

[The Celestial Flame]

None that was actually backed up by real calculations....

Last I checked 1J+1J=2J Its kind of how lasers work.... A lot of photons with negligible energy simply adding together to produce a result far greater then what a single one would do.
Some weapons actually do take advantage of this. Unless the shells are completely deflected, imparting little of the energy there will be increased capacity for energy impartation.(In which case pick a different shell material, a higher velocity shell, etc.)
And from actually having studied stupid control systems... I can safely say just about everything can be controlled given proper resources and knowledge. Now if the blast is to be treated as a stochastic process, due to poor quality control, there could be issues due its random nature, but even that can be controlled for and checking says the math for that was done at least as early as the 1950's making it a non issue.
The issues listed for control seem more like a time or funding issue then anything. For multiple explosive controlled systems just take and large modern rockets for example...
If there is to many variables that only cause small changes simply treat it as pseudorandom and solve.
Also would need to keep the barrels either completely parallel or independently target-able... but humans can do it accurately with handguns after all.

Now if there was calculations I could believe it at face value but there isn't.

[Munathanura]

None that was actually backed up by real calculations....

Last I checked 1J+1J=2J Its kind of how lasers work.... A lot of photons with negligible energy simply adding together to produce a result far greater then what a single one would do.
Some weapons actually do take advantage of this. Unless the shells are completely deflected, imparting little of the energy there will be increased capacity for energy impartation.(In which case pick a different shell material, a higher velocity shell, etc.)
And from actually having studied stupid control systems... I can safely say just about everything can be controlled given proper resources and knowledge. Now if the blast is to be treated as a stochastic process, due to poor quality control, there could be issues due its random nature, but even that can be controlled for and checking says the math for that was done at least as early as the 1950's making it a non issue.
The issues listed for control seem more like a time or funding issue then anything. For multiple explosive controlled systems just take and large modern rockets for example...
If there is to many variables that only cause small changes simply treat it as pseudorandom and solve.
Also would need to keep the barrels either completely parallel or independently target-able... but humans can do it accurately with handguns after all.

Now if there was calculations I could believe it at face value but there isn't.

I can't really answer what you're asking, since I lack Sumer's knowledge, but I'd like to know where the talk about lasers came from. I'm also thinking that your method for "solving" the accuracy issue probably isn't going to work out all that well, and comparisons to systems like the MLRS is a misrepresentation of the entire picture. We're talking about precision here, not area saturation.

[Indeos]

None that was actually backed up by real calculations....

Last I checked 1J+1J=2J Its kind of how lasers work.... A lot of photons with negligible energy simply adding together to produce a result far greater then what a single one would do.
Some weapons actually do take advantage of this. Unless the shells are completely deflected, imparting little of the energy there will be increased capacity for energy impartation.(In which case pick a different shell material, a higher velocity shell, etc.)
And from actually having studied stupid control systems... I can safely say just about everything can be controlled given proper resources and knowledge. Now if the blast is to be treated as a stochastic process, due to poor quality control, there could be issues due its random nature, but even that can be controlled for and checking says the math for that was done at least as early as the 1950's making it a non issue.
The issues listed for control seem more like a time or funding issue then anything. For multiple explosive controlled systems just take and large modern rockets for example...
If there is to many variables that only cause small changes simply treat it as pseudorandom and solve.
Also would need to keep the barrels either completely parallel or independently target-able... but humans can do it accurately with handguns after all.

Now if there was calculations I could believe it at face value but there isn't.

I can't really answer what you're asking, since I lack Sumer's knowledge, but I'd like to know where the talk about lasers came from. I'm also thinking that your method for "solving" the accuracy issue probably isn't going to work out all that well, and comparisons to systems like the MLRS is a misrepresentation of the entire picture. We're talking about precision here, not area saturation.

I'd also like to point out the handgun thing, since it appears to be referencing the guns akimbo thing so popular in everything besides real life.

[The Celestial Flame]

I can't really answer what you're asking, since I lack Sumer's knowledge, but I'd like to know where the talk about lasers came from. I'm also thinking that your method for "solving" the accuracy issue probably isn't going to work out all that well, and comparisons to systems like the MLRS is a misrepresentation of the entire picture. We're talking about precision here, not area saturation.

I'd also like to point out the handgun thing, since it appears to be referencing the guns akimbo thing so popular in everything besides real life.

I can't really answer what you're asking, since I lack Sumer's knowledge, but I'd like to know where the talk about lasers came from. I'm also thinking that your method for "solving" the accuracy issue probably isn't going to work out all that well, and comparisons to systems like the MLRS is a misrepresentation of the entire picture. We're talking about precision here, not area saturation.

The laser was an example of a 1+1=2 situation.. its an simple example think of it more like individual photons then as what your use to. In this case if accuracy is high enough(they both hit same general area) it should be 1+1=2. Though maybe rotary cannon would be better example. A lot more rounds of lower energy causing high damage. If timed right it is more or less cumulative. (yes I know rates of fire aren't even close before that gets debated)
And the handgun thing is in reference to exhibition shooters able to target spaced targets with each hand firing simultaneous and hitting both. I am not saying the average person or even most highly trained people can do that, just that it is possible and their are videos of it.

[Licana]

Last I checked 1J+1J=2J Its kind of how lasers work...

Lasers =/= cannons

A lot of photons with negligible energy simply adding together to produce a result far greater then what a single one would do.

Not only am I not entirely sure as to what you're saying here, but adding a second cannon will not increase power like that. Ever. The only thing I could think of that conceivably would is a traveling charge.

Some weapons actually do take advantage of this. Unless the shells are completely deflected, imparting little of the energy there will be increased capacity for energy impartation.(In which case pick a different shell material, a higher velocity shell, etc.)

...wat?

And from actually having studied stupid control systems... I can safely say just about everything can be controlled given proper resources and knowledge.

Yes, if you have infinite computing power, there isn't a whole lot that isn't calculable. However, you do not have infinite computing power, and there are far to many variables from the firing of two guns on a platform like that to be reliably calculated and adjusted for. Especially considering how the firing of the main gun doesn't do the same exact thing every time, and how it also interacts with the other barrel/nearby standing air.

Simply put, unless your using lulzy FT computers that can calculate the universe and use quantum pseudoscience to look into the future for your FCS, you won't be able to account for these factors.

Now if the blast is to be treated as a stochastic process, due to poor quality control, there could be issues due its random nature, but even that can be controlled for and checking says the math for that was done at least as early as the 1950's making it a non issue.

I'd like to see a source that claims that the effects of the firing of a cannon, in particular, the effect this has on another cannon in the same turret, is 100% determinable all the time.

The issues listed for control seem more like a time or funding issue then anything. For multiple explosive controlled systems just take and large modern rockets for example...

It's not a funding issue, it's a computational issue. One that will not be solved for a very long time, if ever.

If there is to many variables that only cause small changes simply treat it as pseudorandom and solve.

It's not pseudo-random, though. In all practicality, it is random due to the complex interaction between the two guns.

Also would need to keep the barrels either completely parallel or independently target-able... but humans can do it accurately with handguns after all.

A tank is not a human and a high-velocity cannon is not a handgun. This would be more akin to a human dual wielding high-powered antimaterial rifles and firing them both accurately. This isn't even mention that dual wielding handguns provides no real major advantages anyway, and is something that you're infinitely more likely to see in Hollywood/video games than RL.

Now if there was calculations I could believe it at face value but there isn't.

There's no calculations that tell me that the number of emoticons I post on the forum decreases my chances of getting cancer. That doesn't mean I'm going to randomly start spamming because of that.

Note that this only addresses one of the many, many flaws of dual cannons on tanks. Even if you were 100% right on everything, dual cannons on tanks still wouldn't really be worthwhile. They'd only be slightly less derp.

[Munathanura]

The laser was an example of a 1+1=2 situation.. its an simple example think of it more like individual photons then as what your use to. In this case if accuracy is high enough(they both hit same general area) it should be 1+1=2. Though maybe rotary cannon would be better example. A lot more rounds of lower energy causing high damage. If timed right it is more or less cumulative. (yes I know rates of fire aren't even close before that gets debated)
And the handgun thing is in reference to exhibition shooters able to target spaced targets with each hand firing simultaneous and hitting both. I am not saying the average person or even most highly trained people can do that, just that it is possible and their are videos of it.

1) The issue isn't damage, it's accuracy. Even so, this isn't like a game, where you have hitpoints. You could probably hit a tank with two KEPs/HEAT warheads from two 105mm guns, getting them within a few inches of each other, and still do less damage than a single 120mm round.

2) Rotary cannons are not scalable to tank gun size, are not all that accurate, and isn't really cumulative on a scale that is practical in tanks.

[The Celestial Flame]

Given the generally higher velocities(what I found) of of 120mm rounds most likely.
And I wasn't saying to scale those to tank size just that smaller diameter shells can (sometimes) cause as much damage as larger ones given sufficient volume.

[Munathanura]

Given the generally higher velocities(what I found) of of 120mm rounds most likely.
And I wasn't saying to scale those to tank size just that smaller diameter shells can (sometimes) cause as much damage as larger ones given sufficient volume.

1) It's not just the velocities, it's the projectile weight and, in the case of HEAT, diameter. It's the reason why a single gun of a larger calibre will be more effective than two guns of a lesser calibre, while requiring less armour, weight and computational power. And by less computational power I mean a non-FT wanked super computer.

2) Except that you eventually reach the point where ammunition capacity and rate of fire mean that it's better to just use the single large calibre projectile.