Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Tranche 7

[Gallia-]

APSes seek to detect and intercept incoming munitions before they hit the tank, no?

Does Google not exist anymore? Are you people too lazy to look up when you're wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAP-ADS

[Yukonastan]

APSes seek to detect and intercept incoming munitions before they hit the tank, no?

I don't know, any sort of reactive armor seeks to somewhat actively protect the tank, by virtue of reacting (blowing up) to incoming threats upon sensing the munition hitting it (eg I shoot the block). However, a true AP system will attempt to cause that munition to be neutralized before it hits the RA.

---

Galla, APS isn't just AMAP-ADS. There's also Trophy and Drozd, among others.

[Gallia-]

It's ok, I would not expect you to understand it.

Surely if there's anything IR cameras would have difficulty detecting, it would be unpowered munitions?

Edit: AMAP-ADS is claimed to be capable of intercepting KEPs, anyway, which are both unpowered and relatively small...

AMAP ADS and DASH DOT are quite similar, with a time difference of half a century.

[Vancon]

Would a tank like this even work?

[Freihafen]

I'm afraid I don't quite see your point..?

[Gallia-]

I'm afraid I don't quite see your point..?

Sigh.

DASH DOT and AMAP-ADS both use infrared detection to direct LSCs towards incoming objects. These are KE or CE penetrators, it doesn't matter which since DASH DOT and AMAP ADS can engage both. DASH DOT is just 50 years old and a bit terrible since it never quite worked properly, but the idea is solid, and its been proven to work quite well in AMAP ADS.

[The Akasha Colony]

Would a tank like this even work?

About as well as it actually worked at shooting down ZAFT GINNs.

[New Vihenia]

Surely if there's anything IR cameras would have difficulty detecting, it would be unpowered munitions?

Edit: AMAP-ADS is claimed to be capable of intercepting KEPs, anyway, which are both unpowered and relatively small...

They might be unpowered and small, but they move very fast, making it quite a hot object. Which detectable by IR sensor.

[Freihafen]

I'm afraid I don't quite see your point..?

Sigh.

DASH DOT and AMAP-ADS both use infrared detection to direct LSCs towards incoming objects. These are KE or CE penetrators, it doesn't matter which since DASH DOT and AMAP ADS can engage both. DASH DOT is just 50 years old and a bit terrible since it never quite worked properly, but the idea is solid, and its been proven to work quite well in AMAP ADS.

Ah ok.

I am wondering why the remark that any munition is unpowered when it hits a tank, since if the tank has been hit, isn't it too late for APS to intervene?

They might be unpowered and small, but they move very fast, making it quite a hot object. Which detectable by IR sensor.

Ah. What about slower, unpowered munitions? Say, a recoilless rifle shell or guided mortar shell.

[New Vihenia]

Ah. What about slower, unpowered munitions? Say, a recoilless rifle shell or guided mortar shell.

They will still emit detectable IR radiation, though in longer wavelength than those faster munitions.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Would a tank like this even work?

At least its not double-barrelled... but its doubled tracked so that's gotta go.

[Yytuskia]

Yo! I have recently just finished my armored vehicle Factbbok. Can you guys check it out and give me feed back please?

[Rich and Corporations]

I'm afraid I don't quite see your point..?

Sigh.

DASH DOT and AMAP-ADS both use infrared detection to direct LSCs towards incoming objects. These are KE or CE penetrators, it doesn't matter which since DASH DOT and AMAP ADS can engage both. DASH DOT is just 50 years old and a bit terrible since it never quite worked properly, but the idea is solid, and its been proven to work quite well in AMAP ADS.

Projectiles would be quite hot coming out of a barrel, and even missiles would have a glowing heat signature... hmmm

Yo! I have recently just finished my armored vehicle Factbbok. Can you guys check it out and give me feed back please?

Link to it.

[The Kievan People]

Surely if there's anything IR cameras would have difficulty detecting, it would be unpowered munitions?

Edit: AMAP-ADS is claimed to be capable of intercepting KEPs, anyway, which are both unpowered and relatively small...

1. AMAP-ADS uses radar and laser sensors. IR signature is not really a big deal.
2. APFSDS go fast and experience significant aerodynamic heating, but even more importantly...
3. The muzzle flash of APFSDS is readily detectable by infrared or optical sensors.

Unpowered, subsonic munitions are significantly harder to detect with infrared sensors. An unfortunate (or fortunate depending on your perspective) quirk of physics however means a clear sky, when viewed in the infrared bands, has an apparent temperature of minus 100something degrees Celsius. Against the "cold" sky even an object like a mortar shell which has no propulsion and experiences no aerodynamic heating has significant infrared contrast.

Subsonic, unpowered direct fire munitions (like recoilless rifles) which are not contrasted against the sky might overcome this, except the launching signature of munition is also easy to detect in the infrared band.

[San-Silvacian]

Just mount Phalanx on all your tankus and then you can be impossible to kill!!!!!!

[Gallia-]

I was under the impression that AMAP ADS used some form of optical or IR cameras in its design, though? Is that just for passive tracking or something?

[The Kievan People]

There might be an infrared warning sensor in addition to the radar. IDR.

[Krasny-Volny]

There might be an infrared warning sensor in addition to the radar. IDR.

This the same device that allows tanks to detect if they're being tracked by an OPFOR laser rangefinder?

[The Kievan People]

Laser warning receivers are completely different.

[Krasny-Volny]

Laser warning receivers are completely different.

Pardon my ignorance, but are they not the same principle? Infrared warning receivers and laser warning receivers? Both are supposed to tell you if you're being tracked by enemy equipment.

[The Akasha Colony]

Laser warning receivers are completely different.

Pardon my ignorance, but are they not the same principle? Infrared warning receivers and laser warning receivers? Both are supposed to tell you if you're being tracked by enemy equipment.

Launch detectors don't tell you that you're being tracked by enemy equipment. Passive IR guidance doesn't let the target know it's being tracked at all. The only thing a launch detector does is let you know that something has been launched, not what it's tracking, because all it does is detect the IR signature from the munition.

[Erusuia]

Some people in my region were throwing around the idea that we may have a PT rp set some time in the 30s (last time I checked that was the plan at least) and I'm thinking about linearting up some tanks

I'm planning on having a multi-turreted heavy tank with 3 turrets (one main, one forward and one rear) and I'm wondering how I could make it competent. From what I gathered researching real multi-turreted heavy tanks, reliability and armor were the major stumbling blocks they faced (apart from all the problems with multi-turreted vehicles), so to rectify these things I've come up with a few ideas I'd like thoughts on.

1. Two engines. Given the low power output of early 30s engines and the low reliability of early 30s engines I'm thinking of having two engines situated in such an arrangement that if one fails the other can take over, allowing the tank to limp back to safety. Given that this tank will be operating on open plains and steppe were having a tight turning radius isn't as important as in some terrains, I don't really have to worry about the vehicles overall length as much as some other designs had too, so I may place the engines front to back. Another layout I was thinking of had the engines side by side

2. Armor. A major failing I've noticed of all the pre-war heavy tanks is that they almost universally have horrendous armor. I'm going to aim for KV-1 levels of armor where possible, with an armor arrangement like the SMK's (rounded pillar where the main turret is located) and extremely wide tracks

[Korva]

Some people in my region were throwing around the idea that we may have a PT rp set some time in the 30s (last time I checked that was the plan at least) and I'm thinking about linearting up some tanks

I'm planning on having a multi-turreted heavy tank with 3 turrets (one main, one forward and one rear) and I'm wondering how I could make it competent. From what I gathered researching real multi-turreted heavy tanks, reliability and armor were the major stumbling blocks they faced (apart from all the problems with multi-turreted vehicles), so to rectify these things I've come up with a few ideas I'd like thoughts on.

1. Two engines. Given the low power output of early 30s engines and the low reliability of early 30s engines I'm thinking of having two engines situated in such an arrangement that if one fails the other can take over, allowing the tank to limp back to safety. Given that this tank will be operating on open plains and steppe were having a tight turning radius isn't as important as in some terrains, I don't really have to worry about the vehicles overall length as much as some other designs had too, so I may place the engines front to back. Another layout I was thinking of had the engines side by side

2. Armor. A major failing I've noticed of all the pre-war heavy tanks is that they almost universally have horrendous armor. I'm going to aim for KV-1 levels of armor where possible, with an armor arrangement like the SMK's (rounded pillar where the main turret is located) and extremely wide tracks

Multi-turret designs are almost necessarily bad.

Why not make a :not:S35 and/or :not:B1.

[Purpelia]

I'm planning on having a multi-turreted heavy tank with 3 turrets (one main, one forward and one rear) and I'm wondering how I could make it competent. From what I gathered researching real multi-turreted heavy tanks, reliability and armor were the major stumbling blocks they faced (apart from all the problems with multi-turreted vehicles), so to rectify these things I've come up with a few ideas I'd like thoughts on.

Reliability was a major issue on all vehicles throughout WW2. Some more than others but the good ones usually came well into the 40's. You can not really get rid of these problems simply due to the fact that a large many turreted tank is going to weight much more than a small single turreted one. (Remember, your T-35 is in competition with your T-26, and not a T-34 in terms of how much the drive train can handle)

2. Armor. A major failing I've noticed of all the pre-war heavy tanks is that they almost universally have horrendous armor. I'm going to aim for KV-1 levels of armor where possible, with an armor arrangement like the SMK's (rounded pillar where the main turret is located) and extremely wide tracks

And here you are adding more weight. There is a reason why those tanks had little armor. They could not afford any more. If you take a T-35 and give it KV-1 levels of protection you are going to end up with something that in the 1930's will be as mobile as the Maus was meant to be. And break down more often.

Multi-turret designs are almost necessarily bad.

Why not make a :not:S35 and/or :not:B1.

Not nesecerily. There would be a niche role for them in the kind of warfare people thought they were going to be fighting. As in, rolling through barbed wire machine gunning enemy infantry in their trenches whilst they plink away at you with their rifles and machine guns ineffectually. And whilst such warfare did not materialize in practice the concept is something that we have to be aware off when designing period pieces.

[The Akasha Colony]

Some people in my region were throwing around the idea that we may have a PT rp set some time in the 30s (last time I checked that was the plan at least) and I'm thinking about linearting up some tanks

I'm planning on having a multi-turreted heavy tank with 3 turrets (one main, one forward and one rear) and I'm wondering how I could make it competent. From what I gathered researching real multi-turreted heavy tanks, reliability and armor were the major stumbling blocks they faced (apart from all the problems with multi-turreted vehicles), so to rectify these things I've come up with a few ideas I'd like thoughts on.

1. Two engines. Given the low power output of early 30s engines and the low reliability of early 30s engines I'm thinking of having two engines situated in such an arrangement that if one fails the other can take over, allowing the tank to limp back to safety. Given that this tank will be operating on open plains and steppe were having a tight turning radius isn't as important as in some terrains, I don't really have to worry about the vehicles overall length as much as some other designs had too, so I may place the engines front to back. Another layout I was thinking of had the engines side by side

2. Armor. A major failing I've noticed of all the pre-war heavy tanks is that they almost universally have horrendous armor. I'm going to aim for KV-1 levels of armor where possible, with an armor arrangement like the SMK's (rounded pillar where the main turret is located) and extremely wide tracks

These "solutions" only compound the problem. Adding an extra backup engine means that these engines now have to lug around the weight of the spare, and the hull/armor needed to cover the spare, and the complicated gearbox needed to connect their outputs to the same sprockets. Which means the engine is more likely to break down in the first place thanks to all the added weight and stress it will be under, and the new gearbox adds additional points of failure in the design (as well as additional cost). Historically, twin-engine tanks were even more unreliable than single-engine tanks, since losing just one engine meant the tank was still unable to fight (its speed would be extremely limited).

This is also why armor was traditionally limited to very heavy, very slow vehicles. On top of that, there was simply very little need for heavier armor, because heavier guns were not common. Why would a tank need protection against 75 mm guns when in the pre-war era guns in the 37-40 mm range were the most common anti-tank weapons? Especially when that armor would make the vehicle ponderously slow, unreliable, and expensive. Armor on pre-war tanks ended up being inadequate because due to the rapid speed of advancement during the war, gun caliber and penetration increased significantly. But this could not have been known pre-war.