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

[Amerikians]

You; good sir with the PhD in weapons designs. Why is a dual barreled tank bad?

[The Corparation]

Buckypaper is stronger then Tungsten. Which is good. A combination of Tungsten ,Creamics and Buckypaper would be best.

As Morbo would say...

Armour does not work that way!

Why not use a layer of Each?

You; good sir with the PhD in weapons designs. Why is a dual barreled tank bad?

You only need one main gun.

[Amerikians]

As Morbo would say...

Armour does not work that way!

Why not use a layer of Each?

You; good sir with the PhD in weapons designs. Why is a dual barreled tank bad?

You only need one main gun.

Miss that? I know you only need one main gun. Not what I asked.

[Old Vester]

GER7000:

I could just get soldiers to flank it, climb on it, and put explosives on it.Or just get behind it. It does have a big blindspot after all.

[The Corparation]

You only need one main gun.

Miss that? I know you only need one main gun. Not what I asked.

A second gun is redundant, takes up space, which means less ammo. All bad.

[Amerikians]

Miss that? I know you only need one main gun. Not what I asked.

A second gun is redundant, takes up space, which means less ammo. All bad.

I. Didn't. Ask. You.

[Indeos]

A second gun is redundant, takes up space, which means less ammo. All bad.

I. Didn't. Ask. You.

You posted in a public forum, therefore it's open for anyone to reply. /arguing about off-topic, unimportant thing.

[The Corparation]

A second gun is redundant, takes up space, which means less ammo. All bad.

I. Didn't. Ask. You.

Sorry.

[L3 Communications]

I. Didn't. Ask. You.

Don't get mad, get deal with it.

[The Corparation]

I. Didn't. Ask. You.

Don't get mad, get deal with it Even.

Fixed. Revenge pays

[United NW Canada]

GER7000:

I could just get soldiers to flank it, climb on it, and put explosives on it.Or just get behind it. It does have a big blindspot after all.

Our solution might be to use STAM (Smart Top-Attack Munition) top-attack anti-tank munitions. The projectile is fired in a high trajectory profile comparable to that of a mortar or that of long-range artillery. It should be emphasized that this is not an anti-tank missile—it does not contain any rocket propellant or motors, and travels through the air solely with the kinetic energy applied to it during the initial propulsion from a tank's main cannon or artillery piece. The STAM round does, however, house internal guidance and obstacle-avoidance systems, in the form of a small millimeter band radar, IR and radiometer sensors. Should the need arise; it also has a limited ability to be manually controlled via live data link with the launch vehicle. Upon reaching its designated target area, a parachute deploys, giving the on board radar system and sensors enough time to seek and acquire stationary or moving targets and fire its explosively formed penetrator from a top-down position, offering excellent anti-tank capabilities due to less protection present at top armor of turrets and hulls of tanks. Due to the fire-and-forget nature of these rounds, the launch vehicle can remain concealed behind cover while firing successive rounds towards the known location of an enemy. It can also also provide effective indirect fire support against targets hidden behind obstacles and structures.

[The Corparation]

I could just get soldiers to flank it, climb on it, and put explosives on it.Or just get behind it. It does have a big blindspot after all.

Our solution might be to use STAM (Smart Top-Attack Munition) top-attack anti-tank munitions. The projectile is fired in a high trajectory profile comparable to that of a mortar or that of long-range artillery. It should be emphasized that this is not an anti-tank missile—it does not contain any rocket propellant or motors, and travels through the air solely with the kinetic energy applied to it during the initial propulsion from the main cannon. The STAM round does, however, house internal guidance and obstacle-avoidance systems, in the form of a small millimeter band radar, IR and radiometer sensors. Should the need arise; it also has a limited ability to be manually controlled via live data link with the launch vehicle. Upon reaching its designated target area, a parachute deploys, giving the on board radar system and sensors enough time to seek and acquire stationary or moving targets and fire its explosively formed penetrator from a top-down position, offering excellent anti-tank capabilities due to less protection present at top armor of turrets and hulls of tanks. Due to the fire-and-forget nature of these rounds, the launch vehicle can remain concealed behind cover while firing successive rounds towards the known location of an enemy. It can also also provide effective indirect fire support against targets hidden behind obstacles and structures.

You don't need that. You need a fireteam with some c-4, a cutting torch, and a ladder.

[Old Vester]

I could just get soldiers to flank it, climb on it, and put explosives on it.Or just get behind it. It does have a big blindspot after all.

Our solution might be to use STAM (Smart Top-Attack Munition) top-attack anti-tank munitions. The projectile is fired in a high trajectory profile comparable to that of a mortar or that of long-range artillery. It should be emphasized that this is not an anti-tank missile—it does not contain any rocket propellant or motors, and travels through the air solely with the kinetic energy applied to it during the initial propulsion from a tank's main cannon or artillery piece. The STAM round does, however, house internal guidance and obstacle-avoidance systems, in the form of a small millimeter band radar, IR and radiometer sensors. Should the need arise; it also has a limited ability to be manually controlled via live data link with the launch vehicle. Upon reaching its designated target area, a parachute deploys, giving the on board radar system and sensors enough time to seek and acquire stationary or moving targets and fire its explosively formed penetrator from a top-down position, offering excellent anti-tank capabilities due to less protection present at top armor of turrets and hulls of tanks. Due to the fire-and-forget nature of these rounds, the launch vehicle can remain concealed behind cover while firing successive rounds towards the known location of an enemy. It can also also provide effective indirect fire support against targets hidden behind obstacles and structures.

That. Or you could simply make it shorter. Also, when I comment about a tank I usually do so on how infrantry would deal with it. If my guys ever saw that tank, they would flank it and attach explosves to the treds and then blow open the hatch, and then drop a couple of grenades in. Just because your tank is a tank-killer, that doesn't mean it is unkillable by infrantry.

[United NW Canada]

Our solution might be to use STAM (Smart Top-Attack Munition) top-attack anti-tank munitions. The projectile is fired in a high trajectory profile comparable to that of a mortar or that of long-range artillery. It should be emphasized that this is not an anti-tank missile—it does not contain any rocket propellant or motors, and travels through the air solely with the kinetic energy applied to it during the initial propulsion from the main cannon. The STAM round does, however, house internal guidance and obstacle-avoidance systems, in the form of a small millimeter band radar, IR and radiometer sensors. Should the need arise; it also has a limited ability to be manually controlled via live data link with the launch vehicle. Upon reaching its designated target area, a parachute deploys, giving the on board radar system and sensors enough time to seek and acquire stationary or moving targets and fire its explosively formed penetrator from a top-down position, offering excellent anti-tank capabilities due to less protection present at top armor of turrets and hulls of tanks. Due to the fire-and-forget nature of these rounds, the launch vehicle can remain concealed behind cover while firing successive rounds towards the known location of an enemy. It can also also provide effective indirect fire support against targets hidden behind obstacles and structures.

You don't need that. You need a fireteam with some c-4, a cutting torch, and a ladder.

LOL too much work

one of our 155mm Archers with a rate of 8-9 rounds/min could burst fire, move and fire again before the first rounds land, or single 220mm rocket with a STAM cluster warhead could gut a formation

[United NW Canada]

Our solution might be to use STAM (Smart Top-Attack Munition) top-attack anti-tank munitions. The projectile is fired in a high trajectory profile comparable to that of a mortar or that of long-range artillery. It should be emphasized that this is not an anti-tank missile—it does not contain any rocket propellant or motors, and travels through the air solely with the kinetic energy applied to it during the initial propulsion from a tank's main cannon or artillery piece. The STAM round does, however, house internal guidance and obstacle-avoidance systems, in the form of a small millimeter band radar, IR and radiometer sensors. Should the need arise; it also has a limited ability to be manually controlled via live data link with the launch vehicle. Upon reaching its designated target area, a parachute deploys, giving the on board radar system and sensors enough time to seek and acquire stationary or moving targets and fire its explosively formed penetrator from a top-down position, offering excellent anti-tank capabilities due to less protection present at top armor of turrets and hulls of tanks. Due to the fire-and-forget nature of these rounds, the launch vehicle can remain concealed behind cover while firing successive rounds towards the known location of an enemy. It can also also provide effective indirect fire support against targets hidden behind obstacles and structures.

That. Or you could simply make it shorter. Also, when I comment about a tank I usually do so on how infrantry would deal with it. If my guys ever saw that tank, they would flank it and attach explosves to the treds and then blow open the hatch, and then drop a couple of grenades in. Just because your tank is a tank-killer, that doesn't mean it is unkillable by infrantry.

Oh i agree and know better than you think being retired Infantry tanks without infantry support is situation where the hunters become the hunted.

[Old Vester]

[spoiler]

That. Or you could simply make it shorter. Also, when I comment about a tank I usually do so on how infrantry would deal with it. If my guys ever saw that tank, they would flank it and attach explosves to the treds and then blow open the hatch, and then drop a couple of grenades in. Just because your tank is a tank-killer, that doesn't mean it is unkillable by infrantry.

Oh i agree and know better than you think being retired Infantry tanks without infantry support is situation where the hunters become the hunted.

[/spoiler] Exactly. I'm great with infrantry and tanks aren't a problem when it comes to my guys. They can handle a tank. But can a tank handle them? No!

[The Kievan People]

You; good sir with the PhD in weapons designs. Why is a dual barreled tank bad?

Because armor isn't like in command and conquer? Armoured targets typically either die when hit or they don't. If they don't firing again and again at the same spot won't help.

For less than weight of two barrels you can fit one larger barrel, which will be more effective against every target than two smaller ones. Very high ROF (the only advantage of two barrels) is only useful against soft area targets (like a mass of infantry or a convoy of trucks) which a gun as powerful as a tank maingun is unnecessary for anyways. Sustained two-barrel high ROF will also burn ammunition at a hilarious rate and expose the tank to counter-fire.

[St George of England]

You; good sir with the PhD in weapons designs. Why is a dual barreled tank bad?

Because armor isn't like in command and conquer? Armoured targets typically either die when hit or they don't. If they don't firing again and again at the same spot won't help.

For less than weight of two barrels you can fit one larger barrel, which will be more effective against every target than two smaller ones. Very high ROF (the only advantage of two barrels) is only useful against soft area targets (like a mass of infantry or a convoy of trucks) which a gun as powerful as a tank maingun is unnecessary for anyways. Sustained two-barrel high ROF will also burn ammunition at a hilarious rate and expose the tank to counter-fire.

In short Dual barrel = bad? What if we could fit two large tank guns side by side. Would it make more viable? I suppose not, as you could fit an even bigger single barreled gun.

[The Kievan People]

Hit the nail on the head you did.

One big tank gun always wins over two small tank guns.

[Anemos Major]

Well, I always liked the Ontos, but...

... yeah. Essentially, it's more operationally flexible to have two guns in two tanks.

[Satirius]

I think I might actually make a Merkagavin

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

I think I might actually make a Merkagavin

Why?

[Senestrum]

ALL HAIL MERKAGAVIN

[Anemos Major]

ALL HAIL MERKAGAVIN

I hate all of you. ALL OF YOU.

Now make a T/BTR-90.

[Schavakia]

ALL HAIL MERKAGAVIN

Looks reasonable to me