Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mk.IV

[Yes Im Biop]

Nah, it wasn't one of the Orion tests. Those were ablation tests using coated steel balls during otherwise normal nuclear weapons tests. As you can imagine, it was quite hard to find the balls afterwards!

No, the plate-launching was a complete and total accident on every level. They were doing a safety test with the bomb at the bottom of a 500-foot shaft, trying to figure out how large of an explosion they would get if just one of the detonators went off by accident, as opposed to the full set required to get a proper initiation. They expected a yield of maybe a couple pounds.

They got 300 tons.

As it turns out, to really get high projectile velocities with a nuclear device, you need to be right on top of it or else you might as well have used a pile of regular explosives. So how did that one-tonne manhole cover at the top of the shaft get launched? As it turns out, there was a five-foot thick concrete plug sitting right on top of that bomb, so when it went off that concrete plug got turned into a spectacularly hot vapor and promptly acted like propellant in a 500-foot gun barrel...

Why dose this sound like the Basis of Defense cannon?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I was wondering that does autoloader on T-80 (and whatever other tanks using similar loader) have similar penetrator lenght restriction as T-72/90 style autoloader?

It uses the same gun, so I would imagine it's still loaded in a similar two-piece carousel fashion.

[Bafuria]

Would a relativistic projectile even disintegrate though? Does it even interact with the target long enough?

Maybe if you tried to shoot THROUGH a planet.

There are two prevailing views on this: that it will pretty much instantly explode or that it will just carry on penetrating through everything.

Sadly, we probably won't know until we start slinging around relativistic projectiles.

This guy got hit in the head with a proton accelerator. Apparently it went straight through and he didn't feel a thing.

If relativistic weapons are similar they should just act like really really really powerful KEPs.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Judging from what happened there, a relativistic KEP might just penetrate a very narrow channel not much wider than the KEP itself, expending its energy directly downwards which would only allow it to strike deep hardened targets with limited range of effect.
Possibly why some proposals for RKVs call for some kind of atmospheric shattering which spreads hundreds or even thousands of relativistic fragments over a wide area.

Like Joseph of Cupertino's own demented shotgun.

[Bafuria]

Judging from what happened there, a relativistic KEP might just penetrate a very narrow channel not much wider than the KEP itself, expending its energy directly downwards which would only allow it to strike deep hardened targets with limited range of effect.
Possibly why some proposals for RKVs call for some kind of atmospheric shattering which spreads hundreds or even thousands of relativistic fragments over a wide area.

Like Joseph of Cupertino's own demented shotgun.

Make it a hollow point for greater planetary stopping power.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

But then it won't fragment against spehssships
Not to mention, at a few thousand kilometres per second, might not be in the atmosphere long enough to actually scatter or even deform Wiki claims proposals call for an actual bursting charge to initiate the effect.

[Spirit of Hope]

But then it won't fragment against spehssships
Not to mention, at a few thousand kilometres per second, might not be in the atmosphere long enough to actually scatter or even deform Wiki claims proposals call for an actual bursting charge to initiate the effect.

Well KEW's have the problem of penetration, a simple wimple shield will cause it to loose much of its affect. What you should do is have missiles with laser or nuclear warheads, hey fly towards enemy ship then go boom. but we should stop talking about this here in the MBT thread, to FT thread?

[VietMai]

The Viet Maiese People's Army operates a combination of main-battle-tanks, examples are below. (Whether or not you like these choices; bring issue up with me in telegram and don't be a dickweed; comments are otherwise, welcome. I do not have pictures for these, if anyone could find some for me that aren't shit-quality I would appreciate it.)

The Ch'ŏnma-ho MBT is an older frontline service battle tank with the Viet Maiese People's Army, numbers exceed one thousand units.

The P'okpung-Ho is the most modern frontline service battle tank with the Viet Maiese People's Army, numbers as of yet do not exceed one thousand units.

In addition to the first two there are also units of the M-60A1 and M-60A2 left over from the Viet Mai War that were captured; these are not considered operational due to the lack of spare parts. There are also units of the T-72A.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Don't see why anyone would be dicks to you, they're both RL and both sensible for your presumed IC.

[VietMai]

Don't see why anyone would be dicks to you, they're both RL and both sensible for your presumed IC.

I'm just checking my bases.

[Bafuria]

I've been wondering: Why use KEPs at all?

It seems to me that HEAT rounds can give you better penetration and the same after-armor effects while giving your gun a far longer barrel life.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

HEAT is lots easier to armor against. An armor scheme with a given amount of protection against KE might have half again as much protection against HEAT, and that's for something which isn't even optimized against it. Fuck, the Abrams is goddamned near impenetrable to HEAT across two thirds of its front hull because of the fuel tanks.

Re relativistic projectile discussion: a bunch of protons is not a macroscopic projectile.

[Bafuria]

HEAT is lots easier to armor against. An armor scheme with a given amount of protection against KE might have half again as much protection against HEAT, and that's for something which isn't even optimized against it. Fuck, the Abrams is goddamned near impenetrable to HEAT across two thirds of its front hull because of the fuel tanks.

Re relativistic projectile discussion: a bunch of protons is not a macroscopic projectile.

Really? The RPG-29 has a 105mm warhead and it managed to beat the frontal armor of the T-80 and Challenger 2.
In fact, it seems to me that nowadays KE penetrators are easier to defend against than HEAT because of heavy ERA.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Challenger 2 is claimed 860mm HEAT protection in LoS RHAe on the surface that was penetrated. The actual thickness of that plate (relative to the normal) is maybe a couple of inches, and until this incident wasn't regarded as a priority area to armour, it's now liberally plastered in huge ERA bricks.

The T-72 and T-80 platforms have very weak base armour, we know this.

[Bafuria]

Challenger 2 is claimed 860mm HEAT protection in LoS RHAe on the surface that was penetrated. The actual thickness of that plate (relative to the normal) is maybe a couple of inches, and until this incident wasn't regarded as a priority area to armour, it's now liberally plastered in huge ERA bricks.

The T-72 and T-80 platforms have very weak base armour, we know this.

Ok. Thanks.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

There really are too many damned abbreviations in armoured warfare.
Thank God I never really bothered researching aero engineering.

[Bafuria]

There really are too many damned abbreviations in armoured warfare.
Thank God I never really bothered researching aero engineering.

What is the M60A3's LOS protection measured in RHA equivalency against HESH, APFSDS and HEAT when equipped with ERA? And how effective are APS' against the aforementioned threats?

[The Akasha Colony]

There really are too many damned abbreviations in armoured warfare.
Thank God I never really bothered researching aero engineering.

What is the M60A3's LOS protection measured in RHA equivalency against HESH, APFSDS and HEAT when equipped with ERA? And how effective are APS' against the aforementioned threats?

Inferior to that of the M1A1HA with DU HMM inserts, which in turn is inferior to that of the M1A2 SEP. GLATGMs and TAMs like KSTAM and SADARM render most of this useless anyway, although a well-designed APS like AMAP-ADS coupled with AMAP-R reduces this.

[Purpelia]

Random question of the day time. How would you rate the fallowing vehicle.

1. Take one turret from the Deutschland class pocket battleship. Complete with the 28cm cannons.
Image
2. Remove the middle gun and shrink the turret to a 2 canon configuration to reduce the mass. (Or not. Treat it as two variants)
3. Mount light flak turrets on top to protect from dive bombers.
4. Mount the thing on large tracks and add a submarine diesel engine behind the turret to power it.
5. Use as the basis for a heavy siege regiment.

Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_cm_SK_C/28_naval_gun
BTW. The turret had a total mass of 590'000 kg. That would put my vehicle at half the mass of the famed Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte. But more sane, smaller and well more sane.

[Spirit of Hope]

Random question of the day time. How would you rate the fallowing vehicle.

1. Take one turret from the Deutschland class pocket battleship. Complete with the 28cm cannons.
Image
2. Remove the middle gun and shrink the turret to a 2 canon configuration to reduce the mass. (Or not. Treat it as two variants)
3. Mount light flak turrets on top to protect from dive bombers.
4. Mount the thing on large tracks and add a submarine diesel engine behind the turret to power it.
5. Use as the basis for a heavy siege regiment.

Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_cm_SK_C/28_naval_gun
BTW. The turret had a total mass of 590'000 kg. That would put my vehicle at half the mass of the famed Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte. But more sane, smaller and well more sane.

My thoughts on this idea:
1. Make it just one cannon per tank thing
2. This system is likely to be funky and prone to breaking down. Tracks able to carry this system would be prone to problems and would likely require a lot of maintenance.
3. Why would you need these tanks? You don't need huge artillery to break through fortifications. Something like 155mm artillery will destroy most true fortifications, and their is almost always a way to get around said fortifications.
4. Why a submarine engine? Just make a new one designed specifically for the vehicle.

[Purpelia]

1. Make it just one cannon per tank thing

Hm... ok. Consider that as variant 3 of the design.

2. This system is likely to be funky and prone to breaking down. Tracks able to carry this system would be prone to problems and would likely require a lot of maintenance.

That is acceptable. It's not like this thing would need to move far. The tracks would be for mobility in its field of action. It would be disassembled for long term travel. The 1 gun variant could even be put on rails for long range transported WW1 style.

3. Why would you need these tanks? You don't need huge artillery to break through fortifications. Something like 155mm artillery will destroy most true fortifications, and their is almost always a way to get around said fortifications.

First it's not a tank. It's a heavy siege gun. Second, I need it for the same reason why everyone needed huge siege and railroad guns in the two world wars. There are indeed forts you CAN'T crack with 155, or even 200mm shells. And anything that hardened is not something you will likely be able to bypass without serious risks to your rear and flanks. Or in short terms. There just are those days you really need to take Sevastopol.

And yes, this is meant for the late 30's early 40's. The era of superheavy guns.

4. Why a submarine engine? Just make a new one designed specifically for the vehicle.

Submarine diesels are proven to work for moving stuff on that scale. And they are already available due to it being cheaper to import a proven diesel engine from abroad than to develop the infrastructure to build my own huge engines. What with being land locked and all Purpelia does not have an industry for these things at all.

EDIT: Variants now include:
2 Barrel 28cm Canon
1 Barrel 28cm Canon
1 Barrel 38cm (15 inch) Cannon

EDIT: EDIT:
I just ran into some data saying that the German 38cm cannon had a mass of just 110 tons and that the 28cm cannons had a mass of just 48 tons. The rest of the massive, massive mass must be due to the turret fittings I guess. So scratch those. This thing has a non rotating turret anyway. SO I guess both could comfortably end up in the 150t to 200t region. And that is not that bad.

[The Akasha Colony]

1. Make it just one cannon per tank thing

Hm... ok. Consider that as variant 3 of the design.

2. This system is likely to be funky and prone to breaking down. Tracks able to carry this system would be prone to problems and would likely require a lot of maintenance.

That is acceptable. It's not like this thing would need to move far. The tracks would be for mobility in its field of action. It would be disassembled for long term travel. The 1 gun variant could even be put on rails for long range transported WW1 style.

3. Why would you need these tanks? You don't need huge artillery to break through fortifications. Something like 155mm artillery will destroy most true fortifications, and their is almost always a way to get around said fortifications.

First it's not a tank. It's a heavy siege gun. Second, I need it for the same reason why everyone needed huge siege and railroad guns in the two world wars. There are indeed forts you CAN'T crack with 155, or even 200mm shells. And anything that hardened is not something you will likely be able to bypass without serious risks to your rear and flanks. Or in short terms. There just are those days you really need to take Sevastopol.

And yes, this is meant for the late 30's early 40's. The era of superheavy guns.

4. Why a submarine engine? Just make a new one designed specifically for the vehicle.

Submarine diesels are proven to work for moving stuff on that scale. And they are already available due to it being cheaper to import a proven diesel engine from abroad than to develop the infrastructure to build my own huge engines. What with being land locked and all Purpelia does not have an industry for these things at all.

No one needed siege guns during WWII. Indeed, the vast majority of them were nothing but a complete waste of resources that would've been better spent building normal howitzers and bombers. A gun like this is going to have the same problems as the German land cruiser concepts, including the ones that were designed as siege platforms rather than actual tank-analogues. The most obvious being a hideous vulnerability to air attack, and the inability to move over anything but test-range-perfect terrain.

If you do insist on building them though, breaking them into individual vehicles is going to be a much better solution. It drastically saves weight, and vastly reduces mechanical complexity. Because remember, the turret isn't just the part you see sticking above the hull. It's multiple decks tall below the weather deck to accommodate hoists, traversing systems, and magazine space. You're literally going to be dragging a three-story turret around, which is going to be terrible for the vehicle's center of gravity and balance.

[Purpelia]

No one needed siege guns during WWII. Indeed, the vast majority of them were nothing but a complete waste of resources that would've been better spent building normal howitzers and bombers. A gun like this is going to have the same problems as the German land cruiser concepts, including the ones that were designed as siege platforms rather than actual tank-analogues. The most obvious being a hideous vulnerability to air attack, and the inability to move over anything but test-range-perfect terrain.

Than it fits perfectly with the whole theme start to finish. And besides, there are indeed targets you can't go around or penetrate with bombs or normal guns. See Sevastopol for example. Some things are just too hardened and yet they are in the way.

Also, see my edit.

If you do insist on building them though, breaking them into individual vehicles is going to be a much better solution. It drastically saves weight, and vastly reduces mechanical complexity. Because remember, the turret isn't just the part you see sticking above the hull. It's multiple decks tall below the weather deck to accommodate hoists, traversing systems, and magazine space. You're literally going to be dragging a three-story turret around, which is going to be terrible for the vehicle's center of gravity and balance.

See my edit in particular to this part. Right now, I am thinking of having approximately 100T of gun on either of the two setups. And than having maybe another 100T for the mount, very light armor (no battleship grade, just shrapnel protection) and stuff like that. All in all, the vehicle should weight at in about 250T engine and tracks included. For comparison, the same 38cm cannon on a railroad mount with full rotation but no armor weighed in at about 270T.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-52_skc28.htm
For the data source.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

What is the M60A3's LOS protection measured in RHA equivalency against HESH, APFSDS and HEAT when equipped with ERA? And how effective are APS' against the aforementioned threats?

Inferior to that of the M1A1HA with DU HMM inserts, which in turn is inferior to that of the M1A2 SEP. GLATGMs and TAMs like KSTAM and SADARM render most of this useless anyway, although a well-designed APS like AMAP-ADS coupled with AMAP-R reduces this.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Crookfur]

Random question of the day time. How would you rate the fallowing vehicle.

1. Take one turret from the Deutschland class pocket battleship. Complete with the 28cm cannons.
Image
2. Remove the middle gun and shrink the turret to a 2 canon configuration to reduce the mass. (Or not. Treat it as two variants)
3. Mount light flak turrets on top to protect from dive bombers.
4. Mount the thing on large tracks and add a submarine diesel engine behind the turret to power it.
5. Use as the basis for a heavy siege regiment.

Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_cm_SK_C/28_naval_gun
BTW. The turret had a total mass of 590'000 kg. That would put my vehicle at half the mass of the famed Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte. But more sane, smaller and well more sane.

I'm not actually seeing any real difference between this and the P.1000 Ratte