Your Nation's Main Battle Tank (No Mechs) [Part 1]

[Dostanuot Loj]

Tank guns always have, and likely always will have on-the-move accuracy issues. Even the M1A2SEP, with the short L/44 120mm gun, is nowhere near as accurate on the move as people seem to assume it is. Unless you're in a desert and your target is not moving, you ain't hitting shit with an Abrams past 800m unless you're crawling, if not still. And if you're doing 30km/h or more, you ain't hitting shit period, not even an aircraft carrier.

[The Corparation]

Tank guns always have, and likely always will have on-the-move accuracy issues. Even the M1A2SEP, with the short L/44 120mm gun, is nowhere near as accurate on the move as people seem to assume it is. Unless you're in a desert and your target is not moving, you ain't hitting shit with an Abrams past 800m unless you're crawling, if not still. And if you're doing 30km/h or more, you ain't hitting shit period, not even an aircraft carrier.

Well Aircraft carriers aren't usualy in the middle of the desert. So you're never gonna hit one.

[Greater-Prussia]

Tank guns always have, and likely always will have on-the-move accuracy issues. Even the M1A2SEP, with the short L/44 120mm gun, is nowhere near as accurate on the move as people seem to assume it is. Unless you're in a desert and your target is not moving, you ain't hitting shit with an Abrams past 800m unless you're crawling, if not still. And if you're doing 30km/h or more, you ain't hitting shit period, not even an aircraft carrier.

Well Aircraft carriers aren't usualy in the middle of the desert. So you're never gonna hit one.

It's called sarcasm man. He means quite literally you are hitting -nothing- not even something that large.

[The Corparation]

Well Aircraft carriers aren't usualy in the middle of the desert. So you're never gonna hit one.

It's called sarcasm man. He means quite literally you are hitting -nothing- not even something that large.

I too was being sarcastic.

[Greater-Prussia]

It's called sarcasm man. He means quite literally you are hitting -nothing- not even something that large.

I too was being sarcastic.

Now I feel like the backside of a mule. Two cheers for not thinking, eh?

[Radictistan]

Can someone explain how a top attack SACLOS missile (such as the BMG-71F) is possible? I take it there's some kind of sensor that tells the missile when to increase its altitude, or is there some other kind of secondary guidance?

[Dostanuot Loj]

Can someone explain how a top attack SACLOS missile (such as the BMG-71F) is possible? I take it there's some kind of sensor that tells the missile when to increase its altitude, or is there some other kind of secondary guidance?

Easy, fire sight looks at target, measures range and direction, speed, that stuff. Decided the path the missile will fly, and tells the missile to do it.

Pretty much all the "thinking" is done by the fire computer on the launch platform. If the FC tells the TOW to fly in circles it will, because the TOW has no brain. As the operator tells the FC to "kill this" with point-click-hold, the FC decides how to do it by seeing how far away it is.

[Radictistan]

Can someone explain how a top attack SACLOS missile (such as the BMG-71F) is possible? I take it there's some kind of sensor that tells the missile when to increase its altitude, or is there some other kind of secondary guidance?

Easy, fire sight looks at target, measures range and direction, speed, that stuff. Decided the path the missile will fly, and tells the missile to do it.

Pretty much all the "thinking" is done by the fire computer on the launch platform. If the FC tells the TOW to fly in circles it will, because the TOW has no brain. As the operator tells the FC to "kill this" with point-click-hold, the FC decides how to do it by seeing how far away it is.

So it's more akin to an active CLOS system?

[Dostanuot Loj]

Easy, fire sight looks at target, measures range and direction, speed, that stuff. Decided the path the missile will fly, and tells the missile to do it.

Pretty much all the "thinking" is done by the fire computer on the launch platform. If the FC tells the TOW to fly in circles it will, because the TOW has no brain. As the operator tells the FC to "kill this" with point-click-hold, the FC decides how to do it by seeing how far away it is.

So it's more akin to an active CLOS system?

Except the operator doesn't guide the missile, it only aims the FC at the target, and the FC guides the missile.

[Licana]

In regards to armour, would a mix of miracle ceramics and carbon nanotubes be a feasible set-up?

[Mikedor]

In regards to armour, would a mix of miracle ceramics and carbon nanotubes be a feasible set-up?

Sounds cripplingly expensive.

[Licana]

In regards to armour, would a mix of miracle ceramics and carbon nanotubes be a feasible set-up?

Sounds cripplingly expensive.

Yeah, I'm PMT, so production would be refined, but it would still be hellishly expensive. However, I go for quality over quantity.

[Greater-Prussia]

Sounds cripplingly expensive.

Yeah, I'm PMT, so production would be refined, but it would still be hellishly expensive. However, I go for quality over quantity.

400 M1 Abrams > 100 LY4s

It'd be expensive but I imagine it'd be a near unbeatable armor composite.

[L3 Communications]

In regards to armour, would a mix of miracle ceramics and carbon nanotubes be a feasible set-up?

i have considered a composite SiC + Buckypaper armouring for my FT tank.

do it

[The Corparation]

In regards to armour, would a mix of miracle ceramics and carbon nanotubes be a feasible set-up?

I think Graphene would be better then Nanotubes in terms of a carbon based armor. 200 x Stonger then steel. And thats only a 1 atom thick layer. Its a bitch to extract it from regular graphite though.

[L3 Communications]

In regards to armour, would a mix of miracle ceramics and carbon nanotubes be a feasible set-up?

I think Graphene would be better then Nanotubes in terms of a carbon based armor. 200 x Stonger then steel. And thats only a 1 atom thick layer. Its a bitch to extract it from regular graphite though.

Isn't graphene just a fancy term for "carbon sheet"?

Also, buckypaper is a bit easier to make and more than twice as strong as your ill-cited and likely wrong figures.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/di ... aper_N.htm

yes there are better sources.

they all cost money.

[The Corparation]

I think Graphene would be better then Nanotubes in terms of a carbon based armor. 200 x Stonger then steel. And thats only a 1 atom thick layer. Its a bitch to extract it from regular graphite though.

Isn't graphene just a fancy term for "carbon sheet"?

Also, buckypaper is a bit easier to make and more than twice as strong as your ill-cited and likely wrong figures.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/di ... aper_N.htm

yes there are better sources.

they all cost money.

Right yours is better. But my figure for Graphene is correct.

[Strykla]

In regards to armour, would a mix of miracle ceramics and carbon nanotubes be a feasible set-up?

I think Graphene would be better then Nanotubes in terms of a carbon based armor. 200 x Stonger then steel. And thats only a 1 atom thick layer. Its a bitch to extract it from regular graphite though.

Carbon Nanotubes would probably be better, as they likely do not cost as much and, while not being stronger, is still exceptionally strong.

[L3 Communications]

I think Graphene would be better then Nanotubes in terms of a carbon based armor. 200 x Stonger then steel. And thats only a 1 atom thick layer. Its a bitch to extract it from regular graphite though.

Carbon Nanotubes would probably be better, as they likely do not cost as much and, while not being stronger, is still exceptionally strong.

*facedesk*

Carbon nanotubes are ridiculously expensive, and a lot stronger.

[The Corparation]

Carbon Nanotubes would probably be better, as they likely do not cost as much and, while not being stronger, is still exceptionally strong.

*facedesk*

Carbon nanotubes are ridiculously expensive, and a lot stronger.

So's buckypaper. Also Graphene isn't a fancy term for "carbon sheet" Its a one atom thick sheet of graphite. And its found naturaly in graphite. It's what carbon nanotubes and fullerenes are based on.

[Amerikians]

And neither exist in the vast quantities needed to make armor for anything much less something so complex as an MBT.

[L3 Communications]

And neither exist in the vast quantities needed to make armor for anything much less something so complex as an MBT.

cool bro

we're talking ft

[Greater-Prussia]

And neither exist in the vast quantities needed to make armor for anything much less something so complex as an MBT.

cool bro

we're talking ft

Dammit man; drop a clue! >_>

[The Corparation]

And neither exist in the vast quantities needed to make armor for anything much less something so complex as an MBT.

Graphene is in everday graphite. Which is extremely cheap and common. You just have to seperate it out.

And neither exist in the vast quantities needed to make armor for anything much less something so complex as an MBT.

cool bro

we're talking ft

Actually its PMT I belive.

[The Kievan People]

O lord carbon wank

By the time any such materials are available in quantity they will already be obsolete as heavy armor. They are already useless against shaped charges (which ignore all material characteristics except density) and will be equally useless against future hypervelocity long-rods that will penetrate in a similar manner to modern shaped charges (hydrodynamically).