Your Nation's Main Battle Tank [Part 2]

[Licana]

A 160mm gun will give you a lot more ammo than a 180mm gun for the same sized vehicle.

But a lot less punch and a bit less range.

Meh, range is for missiles. I would think that a 155 or 160mm would be more than sufficient, of course, you could try to make your SPA vehicle as big as reasonably possible to fit as many 180mm shells as possible, but I still think that something closer to 155mm will be more practical.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

But a lot less punch and a bit less range.

Meh, range is for missiles. I would think that a 155 or 160mm would be more than sufficient, of course, you could try to make your SPA vehicle as big as reasonably possible to fit as many 180mm shells as possible, but I still think that something closer to 155mm will be more practical.

Should I just say fuck it and switch to rocket artillery? As much as I hate it, for several reasons, they do have their advantages, and I am facing nations (NN, Imeriata, Lusitaniagrad) that will likely use large artillery guns with very long ranges. On the other hand, I considered the hilarious idea of using my SPA as direct fire AT guns with HEAT rounds at close (>4,000m) ranges.

[Licana]

I would say yes, as rocket artillery would outrange and likely be more percise (barring lulzy guided artillery shells) than gun artillery.

Like the old SPG/TD's of WW2? That would probably work, but not quite sure as to exactly how useful it would be.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

I would say yes, as rocket artillery would outrange and likely be more percise (barring lulzy guided artillery shells) than gun artillery.

Like the old SPG/TD's of WW2? That would probably work, but not quite sure as to exactly how useful it would be.

In practice it would be more like an M-18, weak armour (it will still have a roof at least), and a big gun. If it is ever used in a direct fire anti-tank role, it will probably be dug in, or hidden, so I won't send 400 of them across no man's land firing wildly, they will have a dug in defensive position from which they will pick off enemy tanks. Also, I may even consider giving them APFSDS as well.

On the topic of rocket artillery, I like being able to carry a larger warhead, as well as the greater range and accuracy, the ability for sustained bombardment is very important. I am so torn.

[Munathanura]

Meh, range is for missiles. I would think that a 155 or 160mm would be more than sufficient, of course, you could try to make your SPA vehicle as big as reasonably possible to fit as many 180mm shells as possible, but I still think that something closer to 155mm will be more practical.

Should I just say fuck it and switch to rocket artillery? As much as I hate it, for several reasons, they do have their advantages, and I am facing nations (NN, Imeriata, Lusitaniagrad) that will likely use large artillery guns with very long ranges. On the other hand, I considered the hilarious idea of using my SPA as direct fire AT guns with HEAT rounds at close (>4,000m) ranges.

You wouldn't even need a HEAT round. A 155mm HE shell will very effectively disable most tanks. Or alternatively, use a DU-APFSDS round with a slip ring (so that it'll work with a rifled barrel). I imagine that one of those would royally screw up even the heaviest MBT.

Looking at the G6-52, a 160mm self-propelled artillery system could probably have a range of up to 67 kilometres with 40 rounds ready to fire. Of course, rockets can deliver bigger payloads at similar distances, but it just depends on what you want to rely on.

[Munathanura]

I would say yes, as rocket artillery would outrange and likely be more percise (barring lulzy guided artillery shells) than gun artillery.

Like the old SPG/TD's of WW2? That would probably work, but not quite sure as to exactly how useful it would be.

In practice it would be more like an M-18, weak armour (it will still have a roof at least), and a big gun. If it is ever used in a direct fire anti-tank role, it will probably be dug in, or hidden, so I won't send 400 of them across no man's land firing wildly, they will have a dug in defensive position from which they will pick off enemy tanks. Also, I may even consider giving them APFSDS as well.

On the topic of rocket artillery, I like being able to carry a larger warhead, as well as the greater range and accuracy, the ability for sustained bombardment is very important. I am so torn.

The sustained rate of fire is likely to be lower, though.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Should I just say fuck it and switch to rocket artillery? As much as I hate it, for several reasons, they do have their advantages, and I am facing nations (NN, Imeriata, Lusitaniagrad) that will likely use large artillery guns with very long ranges. On the other hand, I considered the hilarious idea of using my SPA as direct fire AT guns with HEAT rounds at close (>4,000m) ranges.

You wouldn't even need a HEAT round. A 155mm HE shell will very effectively disable most tanks. Or alternatively, use a DU-APFSDS round with a slip ring (so that it'll work with a rifled barrel). I imagine that one of those would royally screw up even the heaviest MBT.

Looking at the G6-52, a 160mm self-propelled artillery system could probably have a range of up to 67 kilometres with 40 rounds ready to fire. Of course, rockets can deliver bigger payloads at similar distances, but it just depends on what you want to rely on.

True, but HEAT rounds are cooler. Besides, what if you need to sink a battleship? I am facing Nick and co. after all.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

In practice it would be more like an M-18, weak armour (it will still have a roof at least), and a big gun. If it is ever used in a direct fire anti-tank role, it will probably be dug in, or hidden, so I won't send 400 of them across no man's land firing wildly, they will have a dug in defensive position from which they will pick off enemy tanks. Also, I may even consider giving them APFSDS as well.

On the topic of rocket artillery, I like being able to carry a larger warhead, as well as the greater range and accuracy, the ability for sustained bombardment is very important. I am so torn.

The sustained rate of fire is likely to be lower, though.

Wait, what? I meant regular artillery has a faster sustained rate.

[Imeriata]

Actually while on the topic of missiles, what would be the best defence against one of them?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Actually while on the topic of missiles, what would be the best defence against one of them?

APS. Either that, or some kind of lulzy spaced armour.

[Imeriata]

APS. Either that, or some kind of lulzy spaced armour.

Advanced Photo System?

But I was mostly wondering if there was some way of taking them out in flight?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

APS. Either that, or some kind of lulzy spaced armour.

Advanced Photo System?

But I was mostly wondering if there was some way of taking them out in flight?

Active Protection System. Pretty much shooting a rocket or large bullet at it.

[Anemos Major]

APS. Either that, or some kind of lulzy spaced armour.

Advanced Photo System?

But I was mostly wondering if there was some way of taking them out in flight?

... APS?

A hard kill active protection system does just that.

[Munathanura]

The sustained rate of fire is likely to be lower, though.

Wait, what? I meant regular artillery has a faster sustained rate.

Right, sorry if I confused you, that is exactly what I meant. Regular artillery will have a higher rate of fire than rocket artillery.

[Imeriata]

Active Protection System. Pretty much shooting a rocket or large bullet at it.

Ahh thank you, some sort of mobile version must obviously be constructed for the guard.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Active Protection System. Pretty much shooting a rocket or large bullet at it.

Ahh thank you, some sort of mobile version must obviously be constructed for the guard.

Generally you just slap it on a vehicle (it is a tad more complicated than simply slapping it on, but you get the picture) and bam can take out HEAT rounds, ATGMs, other missiles, and some APFSDS.

[Munathanura]

Ahh thank you, some sort of mobile version must obviously be constructed for the guard.

Generally you just slap it on a vehicle (it is a tad more complicated than simply slapping it on, but you get the picture) and bam can take out HEAT rounds, ATGMs, other missiles, and some APFSDS.

Are there any RL ADSes apart from the AMAP-ADS that claim to be effective against KE penetrators?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Generally you just slap it on a vehicle (it is a tad more complicated than simply slapping it on, but you get the picture) and bam can take out HEAT rounds, ATGMs, other missiles, and some APFSDS.

Are there any RL ADSes apart from the AMAP-ADS that claim to be effective against KE penetrators?

Probably. Also, I have my doubt about the effectiveness of AMAP-ADS according to Wikipedia.

[Imeriata]

Yes that would be similar to the original idea of a radar guided dual barreled flakcannon on a support vehicle that I planned to do, but would that be something that could be done or would two heavy machine guns do a better job?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Yes that would be similar to the original idea of a radar guided dual barreled flakcannon on a support vehicle that I planned to do, but would that be something that could be done or would two heavy machine guns do a better job?

I doubt that any sort of machine gun or flak cannon could target the projectile quickly enough. You might wannas try and pass the idea through the real NSD before implementing it.

[Munathanura]

Are there any RL ADSes apart from the AMAP-ADS that claim to be effective against KE penetrators?

Probably. Also, I have my doubt about the effectiveness of AMAP-ADS according to Wikipedia.

The video on IBD's site shows that it works, but the posts I found on NSD seem to doubt that it works how we're told/that it's entirely effective as is claimed. I'd probably rather go with Trophy if I was putting an ADS on my tank (or use one of the NS designed super ADSes).

[Dostanuot Loj]

I've seen the DoD reports, it actually didn't make much difference. Much of the perforation was absorbed by the vehicle's base armour and stand-off for the ELRA panels. The conclusion of every analysis ended with the ELRS giving no added protection. This is why government funding was cut off, quite harshly, in 2007.

You can argue AN, but you're wrong. It doesn't work, and the MoD dropped it like a hot potato because of this, years ago.

Links plox. I would be extremely interested to read about this, since this is the first I've heard of any such thing.

Call the UK MoD and ask, they will sell you a copy of the report. I bought one (It's not expensive). You can also get a copy of the UK defence budgets for the last several years free, another way to look.

Finally, I simply challenge you to find proof that it works beyond a few tests in ~2004.

In the end you can believe what you want. You're wrong, but that's your choice. And this is an internet forum full of fantasy, so it's not in my interest to go out of my way to scan documents I have to dig up and sort through legal issues with posting online this information. in the end you'll keep your wrong opinion, and I'll go on continuing to do this professionally. Long story short, I'm not doing your work for you, it doesn't work, it's known not to, and the proof is out there.

[Senestrum]

Generally you just slap it on a vehicle (it is a tad more complicated than simply slapping it on, but you get the picture) and bam can take out HEAT rounds, ATGMs, other missiles, and some APFSDS.

Are there any RL ADSes apart from the AMAP-ADS that claim to be effective against KE penetrators?

Trophy claims to be, and I know that Arena has actually been successfully tested against them (probably one of the reasons the south koreans are using it in the K2).

[Licana]

Actually while on the topic of missiles, what would be the best defence against one of them?

APS. Either that, or some kind of lulzy spaced armour.

Aren't soft kill systems (jamming, countermeasures, etc) are more effective against guided missiles than a hard-kill system?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

APS. Either that, or some kind of lulzy spaced armour.

Aren't soft kill systems (jamming, countermeasures, etc) are more effective against guided missiles than a hard-kill system?

Soft kill systems are still active protection systems. Also, it depends, a hard kill will destroy the missile, shoot it right out of the sky, a soft kill relies on confusing the guidance system. Each has their advantages, hard kill kills the munitions outright, soft kill can defeat a missile regardless of countermeasures (top attack, maneuvering), soft kill can give away your position, soft kill does nothing against unguided munitions.