Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Rhodesialund]

Lots of people die painful deaths of skin melting off and being burned alive.

Ergo physical protection makes a comeback.

Yeah, but in what form? Are we having tank armor that offers the same protection as thicker armor, allowing for weight savings or are we having to slap on more armor? One way reduces weight and other increases weight significantly.

The problem is that it's gonna have to go towards lightweight. Heavy tanks weighing in at 80 tons is already a lot. The more weight will start showing its painful self in strategic and tactical situations.

[Rhodesialund]

Honestly I feel like we are reaching the limit of what armor can protect against. If the next generation of tanks gets a 14cm or 15cm gun the armor to protect against that will weigh like 80 tons by it self. And we are already in the age of 60 ton tanks being pushed up to 80 by addons. So like we better pray that APS and ERA reach some sort of revolution in the next decade or two or else the battlefields of tomorrow will be fought by mice.

We are already halfway to the 80 ton tank Purp. Which is my concern because then the weight starts showing it's ugly side in strategic and tactical situations. We already have DU APDS that cuts through armor with ease unless you decide to double up or come out with a revolutionary thing.

I'm leaning towards the future of lighter, more mobile tanks. Always staying mobile, one step ahead of the enemy so they can't get a good bead on you.

[Purpelia]

We are already halfway to the 80 ton tank Purp.

Yes and no. As I said, we are right now in the range of 60 ton tanks that are getting pushed to 80 by the various bits and bobs we stick on them. A proper 80 ton tank would be something that weighs 80 tons before you start adding stuff like ERA, RWS, urban combat kits and the other stuff people add these days.

I'm leaning towards the future of lighter, more mobile tanks. Always staying mobile, one step ahead of the enemy so they can't get a good bead on you.

I am leaning toward the future being tanks that have as much weight put into armor as modern ones but all of it focused around the crew pod T-14 style. So like you'd get a vehicle that can just about shrug off anything you fire at it as long as it hits within a very small area that matters and everything else is just going to be expendable. And the typical post-battle followup is going to be the crew walking out of a burned out tank, getting it towed and having the entire turret or engine replaced.

[Gallia-]

Honestly I feel like we are reaching the limit of what armor can protect against. If the next generation of tanks gets a 14cm or 15cm gun the armor to protect against that will weigh like 80 tons by it self. And we are already in the age of 60 ton tanks being pushed up to 80 by addons. So like we better pray that APS and ERA reach some sort of revolution in the next decade or two or else the battlefields of tomorrow will be fought by mice.

Because having no armour is better than good armour?

[Purpelia]

Honestly I feel like we are reaching the limit of what armor can protect against. If the next generation of tanks gets a 14cm or 15cm gun the armor to protect against that will weigh like 80 tons by it self. And we are already in the age of 60 ton tanks being pushed up to 80 by addons. So like we better pray that APS and ERA reach some sort of revolution in the next decade or two or else the battlefields of tomorrow will be fought by mice.

Because having no armour is better than good armour?

I just don't see it as realistic thing to expect that the distribution of armor on vehicles will remain the same as the weight and volume per level of protection continues to rise. If you need 100 tons to achieve the same degree of protection (vs enemy main gun) that you needed 50 tons for on your last vehicle there simply is no realistic answer to that other than to only armor half the area. So like I imagine that futuretank^TM is going to have armor everywhere, but that aside from the crew pod all else is going to only get the same grade protection modern tanks use for their sides and rear.

So like you still won't be able to shoot a tank out by destroying its turret with a 30mm autocanon from a BMP-2. But the days of tanks taking main gun rounds to the turret front and living are going to be dead and gone.

[Rhodesialund]

You start going past a certain limit with armor, and you come across diminishing returns.

[Gallia-]

Because having no armour is better than good armour?

I just don't see it as realistic thing to expect that the distribution of armor on vehicles will remain the same as the weight and volume per level of protection continues to rise.

Areal density has been going down steadily for decades.

Merkava IV might be adequately armored to resist 140mm LRPs even. You can slap on some applique made from its Special Armor arrays (or using technology of it) onto an M60 and achieve protection against well over a meter of hollow charge penetration. Probably most 120mm ammunitions too.

Besides that, there's plenty of ways to reduce armored volume that can be incorporated into next generation tanks that will keep them similar or lighter than modern fighting vehicles while having adequate protection. T-14 is a fine example of reduced armored volume providing good protection.

[Rhodesialund]

Guess Ford was right. The grimdark future of no hope belongs to Bolo tanks the size of carriers.

[Gallia-]

Practically the size of Texas.

Or just proof that Rhodesialund and Purp are totally clueless? The latter, really.

This is what happens to thirty ton vehicles that get hit by land mines:







They explode. Everyone inside them explodes. And they die.

It is only slightly more difficult to make a land mine that can pop a Bradley or a Warrior like a bubble than it is to make one that does the same to a Humvee.

It's nearly impossible to do this to an MBT OTOH. Even massive IEDs have difficulty totally demolishing tanks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SIBSGel314

It would require several hundreds or thousands of pounds of high explosive. Probably an aviation bomb, detonating underneath a tank, to destroy it to the same level as those Bradleys and the AAV above. The medium weight vehicles merely require a couple artillery shells, maybe 100 kg of explosive, to totally demolish and kill a couple people. A Humvee can be popped by a well placed anti-tank blast mine. There are problems with this, because for one thing it is very hard to properly chain together sufficient shells to make a massive blast bomb adequate to kill a tank threat. It's not so hard to chain together the two or three needed to kill an IFV, or the less than one needed to kill a Humvee.

Medium weight vehicles like Eitan and Carmel will be death traps to troops riding them against the large mine threat. Against the =>30-60mm penetrator threat. Against the bomblet threat. They will be suitable for small anti-tank mines in the 5-10 kg class and the heavy machine gun and light cannon threats, and missile threats because of active protection.

Thus Merkava Mk IV will be around for a long time. I suspect that Carmel will be a supplement to provide direct fire support to Eitan mounted troops, rather than an alternative to Mk IVM or a hypothetical Mk V. It boils down to cost. You design for cheap cost in peacetime so lots of soldiers die in wartime and reduce your medical bills and pension costs for after the war, though no one has the sense of honesty or integrity needed to come out and actually say that.

[Chinevion]

What's a bolo tank

[Rhodesialund]

Or just proof that Rhodesialund and Purp are totally clueless? The latter, really.

This is what happens to thirty ton vehicles that get hit by land mines:

They explode. Everyone inside them explodes. And they die.

It is only slightly more difficult to make a land mine that can pop a Bradley or a Warrior like a bubble than it is to make one that does the same to a Humvee.

It's nearly impossible to do this to an MBT OTOH. Even massive IEDs have difficulty totally demolishing tanks:

It would require several hundreds or thousands of pounds of high explosive. Probably an aviation bomb, detonating underneath a tank, to destroy it to the same level as those Bradleys and the AAV above. The medium weight vehicles merely require a couple artillery shells, maybe 100 kg of explosive, to totally demolish and kill a couple people. A Humvee can be popped by a well placed anti-tank blast mine.

Medium weight vehicles like Eitan and Carmel will be death traps to troops riding them against the large mine threat. Against the =>30-60mm penetrator threat. Against the bomblet threat. They will be suitable for small anti-tank mines in the 5-10 kg class and the heavy machine gun and light cannon threats, and missile threats because of active protection.

Merkava Mk IV will be around for a long time. I suspect that Carmel will be a supplement to provide direct fire support to Eitan mounted troops, rather than an alternative to Mk IVM or a hypothetical Mk V. It boils down to cost. You design for cheap cost in peacetime so lots of soldiers die in wartime and reduce your medical bills.

I was being facetious about the Bolo tank.

As to the weight of tanks, I was thinking around the 40-50 ton range. Not too heavy to be like MBTs, but light enough to not be a strategic pain. Although the concept of light tanks has been shifted over to assault guns mounted on Strykers or other AFVs with similar armament.

[Rhodesialund]

What's a bolo tank

Basically an oversized tank about the size of a college or high school campus that goes around blowing shit up. Comes with nuclear propulsion.

[Gallia-]

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fcs.htm

!

What's a bolo tank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(tank)

What's a bolo tank

Basically an oversized tank about the size of a college or high school campus that goes around blowing shit up. Comes with nuclear propulsion.

W r o n g.

It's actually a knight.

[-Celibrae-]

If I recall correctly, 5 FCS Units of Action, each roughly equivalent to a BCT were intended to deploy within 48 hours anywhere in the world.

I have a question: Who believed this?

[Rhodesialund]

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fcs.htm

!

MCS looks like a fucking beanpole tho. Would rather it looked more of a Stingray II or the ZTQ-105.

[The Akasha Colony]

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/29665

RIP the IDF Armoured Corps, they had a good run.

Its like early Cold War germany. We dont need armor, We got MUH mobility

This is a bit exaggerated. The French went all-in on mobility with the very lightweight AMX-30, but the Germans took a bit more of a middle-of-the-road approach between the very lightly-armored French approach and the very heavily-armored British approach with Leopard 1, which is heavier than AMX-30.

Yeah, but in what form? Are we having tank armor that offers the same protection as thicker armor, allowing for weight savings or are we having to slap on more armor? One way reduces weight and other increases weight significantly.

The problem is that it's gonna have to go towards lightweight. Heavy tanks weighing in at 80 tons is already a lot. The more weight will start showing its painful self in strategic and tactical situations.

A lot of the weight growth in current-generation tanks like the Challenger 2 is the result of their older design, which requires heavy and relatively inefficient applique packages to be added. Especially on the sides and rear as a result of counter-insurgency experience in the Middle East.

A new tank designed from scratch with best-practices would be able to cut down on this substantially. Ditch the human loader (sorry USA), consolidate the ammunition in an autoloader, use a newer, more efficient, and more compact powerpack, include a better cooling system for the electronics as part of the base design, etc. Focus the base armor package on dealing with conventional threats because this armor is the heaviest and have available appliques and APS to deal with MOUT/COIN roles. APS is pretty well suited to dealing with insurgencies since the RPGs and basic ATGMs used by militants are much easier to deal with than LRPs and very high-end ATGMs used by modern militaries, so some of the side/rear protection role can be offloaded to a good APS.

Put these together and you can achieve a significant reduction in vehicle size and protected volume and could likely achieve current protection standards with at least ten tons in weight savings, if not more. If you could halve the volume of the Abrams powerplant (within the realm of possibility), you could reclaim several cubic meters of space (the equivalent of ditching two crew members) and make the tank half a meter shorter.

You start going past a certain limit with armor, and you come across diminishing returns.

This is also true of penetrators though. Doubling the muzzle energy of a gun does not double its penetration.

[Gallia-]

LV100-5, reduce vehicle length, consolidate the crew in the hull, and give it an unmanned turret.

You can have something mostly immune to HV guns and all around protection under 60 tons.

So basically T-14 with a bit more side armour and all-aspect APS.

[Purpelia]

Areal density has been going down steadily for decades.

Merkava IV might be adequately armored to resist 140mm LRPs even.

I am going to have to ask for a citation for a claim as bold as that.

Besides that, there's plenty of ways to reduce armored volume that can be incorporated into next generation tanks that will keep them similar or lighter than modern fighting vehicles while having adequate protection. T-14 is a fine example of reduced armored volume providing good protection.

And you'll notice that it uses the layout I described.

And another thing, I am not that other guy. I am NOT advocating for a return to the 40 ton medium tank. I am just saying that as things are going and guns start reaching out to 150mm and beyond it is unlikely that armor science is going to allow vehicles to retain the same degree of protection along the same areas as modern tanks without being far too heavy. And that thus a T-14 like layout is the future.

So my prediction for futuretank is a 80 ton T-14 that's really front-heavy around the crew pod.

[Gallia-]

Areal density has been going down steadily for decades.

Merkava IV might be adequately armored to resist 140mm LRPs even.

I am going to have to ask for a citation for a claim as bold as that.

The LOS thickness is comparable to what Block III was going to get.

Viky probably has a PDF about the DARPA thing.

Besides that, there's plenty of ways to reduce armored volume that can be incorporated into next generation tanks that will keep them similar or lighter than modern fighting vehicles while having adequate protection. T-14 is a fine example of reduced armored volume providing good protection.

And you'll notice that it uses the layout I described.

And another thing, I am not that other guy. I am NOT advocating for a return to the 40 ton medium tank. I am just saying that as things are going and guns start reaching out to 150mm and beyond it is unlikely that armor science is going to allow vehicles to retain the same degree of protection along the same areas as modern tanks without being far too heavy. And that thus a T-14 like layout is the future.

So my prediction for futuretank is a 80 ton T-14 that's really front-heavy around the crew pod.

Try sixty. Or fifty five.

[Chinevion]

Revived the telescoping camera for now, starting to add the smoke launchers and finalized skirt, from a design perspective how realistic is it, (still have not finished tanks

[Rhodesialund]

A lot of the weight growth in current-generation tanks like the Challenger 2 is the result of their older design, which requires heavy and relatively inefficient applique packages to be added. Especially on the sides and rear as a result of counter-insurgency experience in the Middle East.

A new tank designed from scratch with best-practices would be able to cut down on this substantially. Ditch the human loader (sorry USA), consolidate the ammunition in an autoloader.

Yeah, that's never gonna happen in the US. We love our human loader and it's an "If he can hold it, he can load it" thought process. Although if we do decide to get into 140mm, then the loader gets ditched for an autoloader. So far all efforts into a new tank is being directed into the M1A3 or a M1A2++++++++++ variant. (No, the plus signs are not a typo.)

This is also true of penetrators though. Doubling the muzzle energy of a gun does not double its penetration.

You are saying we shouldn't pursue electrothermal-chemical guns or advances in solid propellants to increase the muzzle energy and velocity of which the projectile travels?

[The Akasha Colony]

(Image)

Revived the telescoping camera for now, starting to add the smoke launchers and finalized skirt, from a design perspective how realistic is it, (still have not finished tanks

The telescoping camera is still too small. It should be the same size as the commander's periscope. The commander's periscope probably has to be wider as well, right now it looks too flat to house the necessary electronics.

What is the small vision block-looking thing next to the mantlet for?

Yeah, that's never gonna happen in the US. We love our human loader and it's an "If he can hold it, he can load it" thought process. Although if we do decide to get into 140mm, then the loader gets ditched for an autoloader. So far all efforts into a new tank is being directed into the M1A3 or a M1A2++++++++++ variant. (No, the plus signs are not a typo.)

At the current rate, I expect the US Army will not seriously consider a new tank until the Franco-German MGCS is either well underway or already in early service, so I expect the US will more or less have to adopt whatever gun caliber (130 mm) they roll out. And given the size of the proposed shells, that would also definitely require an autoloader of some sort.

You are saying we shouldn't pursue electrothermal-chemical guns or advances in solid propellants to increase the muzzle energy and velocity of which the projectile travels?

I'm not sure if this comment was meant to be facetious, but ETC is a dead end technology that hasn't gone anywhere despite decades of research in multiple countries and every new advance in solid propellant comes with significant drawbacks, usually to barrel life.

This doesn't mean that the age of the big tank gun is dead, but the Germans at least have concluded that it's time to simply step it up to a bigger gun (and in the interim, to adopt higher-pressure 120 mm guns), which is technologically a simpler and safer solution to the question of increasing penetration than ETC or bulk-loaded propellants or railguns or whatever. The US Army seems to be of the mind that they can still squeeze more performance out of their guns through better ammunition and novel penetrators and once flirted with guided shells before cancelling them, but in the end it's only delaying what looks to be an increasingly inevitable solution.

The US hasn't been interested in muzzle velocity improvements anyway. The MV of subsequent M829 generations has decreased substantially in response to various threats and both DU and tungsten have optimal penetration velocities. Exceeding these reduces their penetration efficiency, so there's an upper limit to desired impact velocity unless you're willing to go all the way to hypersonic speeds or something like a HEAT jet where the penetration physics are different.

There have been claims that this reduction in muzzle velocity in M829 generations is in part meant to reduce the likelihood of triggering ERA on impact, and the rest is likely because of the heavier penetrator needed to resist yawing and snapping while penetrating, which is more important than maximizing MV.

[Gallia-]

Yeah, that's never gonna happen in the US.

The USA has been looking at three man tanks since before you were born.

It can't help if it it's too stupid and incompetent to buy them.

2030s the M1 will be replaced by Block III tank that everyone will swear is a copy of T-14.

Possibly because it is if Ku$H and Trump have their way and make the USA dependent on the Sino-Russian axis.

[Chinevion]

(Image)

Revived the telescoping camera for now, starting to add the smoke launchers and finalized skirt, from a design perspective how realistic is it, (still have not finished tanks

The telescoping camera is still too small. It should be the same size as the commander's periscope. The commander's periscope probably has to be wider as well, right now it looks too flat to house the necessary electronics.

What is the small vision block-looking thing next to the mantlet for?

I removed the camera dont know why it autocorrected to revived, I'm going to either design a tethered UAV or redesign the camera. The vision block is the gunners sight, it is electronic. How should it look. What is the traversable launcher thing

[-Celibrae-]

I imagine a unit with dedicated reconnaissance UAVs would prove a better investment than equipping every tank with a rather mediocre one. A