Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Taihei Tengoku]

Perhaps, but we may be running into physical hard limits. It was 17 years from 6-pounder to L7, 20 from L7 to the Rh 120, which will probably soldier on to 70-plus.

[The Akasha Colony]

Ugh fine, but if at any point 140mm becomes inadequate they'll just have to get used to missiles until rail/coilguns are ready

Just jump ahead to 155 mm already.

One would almost think at some point it would reach a state of balance where guns are so powerful that armor adequate to protect against them becomes to heavy to be practical, and everything becomes, in effect, a glass cannon except to non-tanks.

The most likely outcome is that APS ends up taking over, along with more advanced forms of ERA (some of which may already be sort of blurring the lines between APS and ERA).

[Rhinocera]

Ugh fine, but if at any point 140mm becomes inadequate they'll just have to get used to missiles until rail/coilguns are ready

Just jump ahead to 155 mm already.

One would almost think at some point it would reach a state of balance where guns are so powerful that armor adequate to protect against them becomes to heavy to be practical, and everything becomes, in effect, a glass cannon except to non-tanks.

The most likely outcome is that APS ends up taking over, along with more advanced forms of ERA (some of which may already be sort of blurring the lines between APS and ERA).

Two things. First, that’s one of the best looking tanks I’ve seen on NS. Props to you (or whoever put it together for you, though I’m pretty sure it’s you). Second, I’m sure that, while guns may surpass armor, armor will eventually catch up. New schemes and compositions will always be in the works. Be it reactive armor or passive good old fashioned hard to pierce armor, it’ll catch up eventually.

[Spirit of Hope]

Just jump ahead to 155 mm already.



The most likely outcome is that APS ends up taking over, along with more advanced forms of ERA (some of which may already be sort of blurring the lines between APS and ERA).

Two things. First, that’s one of the best looking tanks I’ve seen on NS. Props to you (or whoever put it together for you, though I’m pretty sure it’s you). Second, I’m sure that, while guns may surpass armor, armor will eventually catch up. New schemes and compositions will always be in the works. Be it reactive armor or passive good old fashioned hard to pierce armor, it’ll catch up eventually.

There is nothing to say that armor, in whatever form it takes, will maintain pace with weapons. The reverse is also true, nothing says weapons output has to stay matched to armor. New technologies will inevitably lead to changes in what weapons make sense to use and, if radical enough, even how war is fought.

[Rhinocera]

The development of armored warfare up to this point suggests that, while weapons may surpass defenses and defenses may surpass weapons the other will typically catch up eventually. Once that proves untrue the concept of the tank in its current form will find its way to obscolesence (particularly once weapons surpass defense by a wide enough margin). Until then though it’s fairly safe to assume relative parity (not perfect parity) will develop over time.

[Fordorsia]

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

So I originally made this as a joke at the request of a friend but it looks so cute with its giant stubby rackenmoerser that I might find a way to actually use it......potentially involving nucc. Because F you, that's why.

[Austrasien]

It is questionable if a 140 mm gun will ever enter service. The NATO 140 mm was defined for a threat which no longer exists based on what is now obsolete technology - it is far more likely that the German 130 mm will be adopted as the next NATO standard as there is no serious alternative while Russia, of course, has its 152 mm guns. There is nothing fundamental about the 120/125 mm calibre though. Since the 70s the bulk of improvements in penetration have come from APFSDS - a modern 105 mm APFSDS easily outperforms the first 120 mm APFSDS - and this has hitherto made a calibre change a low priority. But partly as a result of leaning so heavily on ammunition improvements for so long, 120 mm APFSDS rounds are reaching physical limits in every aspect; propellant, sabot, rod. There has never been a tank gun so thoroughly optimized.

It requires about a meter plus of special armour to halt a modern 120 or 125 mm APFSDS. Since this is well beyond the design thickness of Cold War stalwarts tanks with this level of armour protection have been quite rare. But Germany and Israel are now exporting special armour kits that can dramatically boost the protection of older tanks (witness the M60 Sabra that took a Kornet to face, a fivefold or more improvement in protection) and so this technology is likely to proliferate fairly rapidly in the not-to-distant future. It isn't unreasonable to expect that even third world countries will have tanks that cannot be defeated head-on with even the best 120 mm ammunition by 2030 or so.

The T-14 attracted most of the attention but this is probably a lesser factor as it will not enter widespread service for some time and it is very unlikely Russia will export it. But it is more politically convenient to point at the T-14 rather than Germany and Israel for proliferating advanced armor technology, and "Russian super tank" focuses the minds of civilian leaders more effectively.

[Xiongnu-]

Light chassis: APCs, armored guns, self-propelled mortars, etc.

Medium chassis: IFV, air defense systems, automatic mortar, tank destroyers, various utility chassis, radio-direction finders, ammunition carriers, minelayer, etc.

Heavy chassis: Main battle tank, AVLB, ARV, obstacle breacher, self-propelled howitzer, self-propelled gun, rocket flamethrower, heavy APC, etc.

SKOT Zuuns are self-sufficient and literally forage because raisins.

[Fordorsia]

Defiler Nuclear Assault Vehicle

Length: 9.1m
Width: 5.7m
Height to roof: 2.13m
Weight: 75 tonnes

Engine: V-12 1200HP
Power/Weight: 16 HP/tonne
Suspension: Interleaved torsion bar
Ground Pressure: 1kg/cm²
Fuel Capacity: 526L internal tanks, 356L external tanks
Operational Range: 120km

Protection:
CRBN
Interior boron lining
Full anti-flash white coating
Upper hull front: 200mm
Lower hull front: 200mm
Casemate front : 200mm
Sides: 80mm
Rear: 80mm
Roof: 20mm

Main Armament: x6 40cm rocket launchers (x6 0.5MT nuclear warheads)
Minimum Safe Firing Range: 2.8km
Maximum Firing Range: 6km

Secondary Armament:
x1 Periscope mounted 8.5mm MG (2000 rounds)

Crew: Commander, Driver, Gunner, Assistant Gunner

[Tule]

(Image)
(Image)

Defiler Nuclear Assault Vehicle

Length: 9.1m
Width: 5.7m
Height to roof: 2.13m
Weight: 75 tonnes

Engine: V-12 1200HP
Power/Weight: 16 HP/tonne
Ground Pressure: 1kg/cm²
Fuel Capacity: 526L internal tanks, 356L external tanks
Operational Range: 120km

Protection:
CRBN
Interior boron lining
Full anti-flash white coating
Upper hull front: 200mm
Lower hull front: 200mm
Casemate front : 200mm
Sides: 80mm
Rear: 80mm
Roof: 20mm

Main Armament: x6 40cm rocket launchers (x6 0.5MT nuclear warheads)
Minimum Safe Firing Range: 2.5km
Maximum Firing Range: 6km

Secondary Armament:
x1 Periscope mounted 8.5mm MG (2000 rounds)

Crew: Commander, Driver, Gunner, Assistant Gunner

*giggles*

[Rhinocera]

It is questionable if a 140 mm gun will ever enter service. The NATO 140 mm was defined for a threat which no longer exists based on what is now obsolete technology - it is far more likely that the German 130 mm will be adopted as the next NATO standard as there is no serious alternative while Russia, of course, has its 152 mm guns. There is nothing fundamental about the 120/125 mm calibre though. Since the 70s the bulk of improvements in penetration have come from APFSDS - a modern 105 mm APFSDS easily outperforms the first 120 mm APFSDS - and this has hitherto made a calibre change a low priority. But partly as a result of leaning so heavily on ammunition improvements for so long, 120 mm APFSDS rounds are reaching physical limits in every aspect; propellant, sabot, rod. There has never been a tank gun so thoroughly optimized.

It requires about a meter plus of special armour to halt a modern 120 or 125 mm APFSDS. Since this is well beyond the design thickness of Cold War stalwarts tanks with this level of armour protection have been quite rare. But Germany and Israel are now exporting special armour kits that can dramatically boost the protection of older tanks (witness the M60 Sabra that took a Kornet to face, a fivefold or more improvement in protection) and so this technology is likely to proliferate fairly rapidly in the not-to-distant future. It isn't unreasonable to expect that even third world countries will have tanks that cannot be defeated head-on with even the best 120 mm ammunition by 2030 or so.

The T-14 attracted most of the attention but this is probably a lesser factor as it will not enter widespread service for some time and it is very unlikely Russia will export it. But it is more politically convenient to point at the T-14 rather than Germany and Israel for proliferating advanced armor technology, and "Russian super tank" focuses the minds of civilian leaders more effectively.

I’d think that 140 mm would be a more likely caliber to be adopted than 130mm. The 140 mm concept has been tested (though the weapon that was tested is probably obsolete). The 130 mm, as far as I know, hasn’t really been significantly explored. This all assumes that NATO would look to “upgun” it’s nwxt generation tanks once they enter service. The Russians seem content with their 125 mm platforms, though the guns and their ammunition continue to evolve. Their isn’t really a threat that challenges the viability of the 120 mm at the moment, and with the 120 being the dominant western style MBT caliber I don’t see an “upgun” any time soon. If/when one does occur, however, I’d expect to see 140 mm be the adopted caliber since their is a precedent in former conceptualized planning for a conversion of Abrams tanks to the caliber. I feel like it would be the easier option for NATO. Once again, I haven’t really read into any 130 mm concepts so my opinion might be a bit dated.

[Gallia-]

140mm doesn't exist. 130mm does. That's really all there is to it.

[The Akasha Colony]

I’d think that 140 mm would be a more likely caliber to be adopted than 130mm. The 140 mm concept has been tested (though the weapon that was tested is probably obsolete). The 130 mm, as far as I know, hasn’t really been significantly explored.

Rheinmetall is actively working on a new 130 mm gun to arm the next German tank.

Meanwhile, all of the NATO 140 mm programs have been dead for at least a decade, in most cases much longer.

The 130 mm is the most likely candidate because it is literally the only serious "next generation" tank gun in development in the West. The only other Western nation with the resources to develop a new gun and accompanying family of ammunition is the USA, but the US Army these days can barely pull off minor Abrams upgrades, nevermind a new gun program.

This all assumes that NATO would look to “upgun” it’s nwxt generation tanks once they enter service. The Russians seem content with their 125 mm platforms, though the guns and their ammunition continue to evolve.

The Russians have been flirting with 152 mm guns for decades. Their continued use of 125 mm guns is due in large part to the fact that that a new gun would require a new tank at a time when post-Soviet Russia could not afford a new tank. But now they have a new tank, and despite the fact that T-14 will remain rare in the Russian arsenal for the foreseeable future, it is likely the Russians will continue their flirtation with larger guns. In fact, the low rate of production may be beneficial as it reduces the number of 125 mm-armed T-14s that would have to be refurbished to the 152 mm standard if such a gun were adopted.

Their isn’t really a threat that challenges the viability of the 120 mm at the moment, and with the 120 being the dominant western style MBT caliber I don’t see an “upgun” any time soon. If/when one does occur, however, I’d expect to see 140 mm be the adopted caliber since their is a precedent in former conceptualized planning for a conversion of Abrams tanks to the caliber. I feel like it would be the easier option for NATO. Once again, I haven’t really read into any 130 mm concepts so my opinion might be a bit dated.

Yes there is. The wider proliferation of advanced appliques is a serious problem for existing 120/125 mm guns.

[Rhinocera]

I didn’t know about the 130 mm project. Pretty much everything I just said was wrong. I do stand by the statement that their isn’t really anything currently active that makes the 120 mm a non-viable option though. The 120 is capable of neutralizing T-90 tanks and the T-14 isn’t going to replace the T-90 en masse for a while. While advancement in armament technology is always necessary, and upgunning will be necessary, it’s not like the 120 is obsolete. It’s still an effective system against the potential adversaries it could face.

[The Akasha Colony]

I didn’t know about the 130 mm project. Pretty much everything I just said was wrong. I do stand by the statement that their isn’t really anything currently active that makes the 120 mm a non-viable option though. The 120 is capable of neutralizing T-90 tanks and the T-14 isn’t going to replace the T-90 en masse for a while. While advancement in armament technology is always necessary, and upgunning will be necessary, it’s not like the 120 is obsolete. It’s still an effective system against the potential adversaries it could face.

1. The existing crop of Western Cold War tanks (Abrams, Leopard 2, etc.) have historically been rather evenly matched between their guns and their armor. Both have continued to advance and this may still be the case, but is not a serious problem for NATO since obviously this is only important if they were to start shooting at each other. But the problem is the growing export of advanced applique kits from these countries to other nations that might end up being hostile to Western interests. These kits aren't just marketed toward old tanks like M60 either; Germany has multiple defense contractors offering a wide variety of Leopard 2 armor upgrades that significantly improve protection.

2. The goal is to adopt such a weapon before the current generation becomes obsolete. Given the long lead times required for major Western defense programs, starting work on a next-generation MBT with a bigger gun now means that it may well debut after Russia manages to accumulate a reasonable stockpile of T-14s. There is no "quick and dirty" solution, either. The 140 mm gun tests all proved that the current crop of NATO MBTs would at the very least need new turrets and substantial modifications to accept a larger gun, and most NATO members have shut down their tank plants and have no ability to quickly design, test, and build such modifications.

[Yohannes]

Hi, sorry if this is a silly question

I see people using the word ERA everywere. What is ERA?

[The Akasha Colony]

Hi, sorry if this is a silly question

I see people using the word ERA everywere. What is ERA?

Explosive reactive armor.

[Yohannes]

Explosive reactive armor.

Oh cool ty! How can I caulculate armour thickness for my tank?

[The Akasha Colony]

Explosive reactive armor.

Oh cool ty! How can I caulculate armour thickness for my tank?

There is no real simple or easy way to do it in large part because it's such a complex subject. The old NS preference for RHAe numbers was hugely flawed because it tried to compress complex interactions down to just one or two numbers.

If it's just literal LOS armor thickness, you would need a reasonable approximation of your tank's weight, the surface area that needs to be protected, and how much armor weight you want to allocate to different areas. MBTs usually devote roughly half their total weight to armor, so a 60 tonne tank will have roughly 30 tonnes of armor weight to work with, which must be allocated across its surface area. To get its thickness, you'd have to estimate its density (others probably have some figures on this but I don't at the moment) which would let you know how thick the armor is in a given area based on the mass and surface area protected.

Or you could just take the easy route and increase or decrease the thickness of the armor based on estimates for real-world tanks. This is much easier. For instance, current Abrams variants have front turret LOS armor thickness of ~800-900 mm IIRC, so based on whether your tank is bigger/heavier than Abrams or whether you want to allocate more armor toward frontal protection (at the expense of side/rear protection or w/e) you can ballpark how much this would increase or decrease.

As to performance this is a whole 'nother can of worms and even harder to estimate. Which is why most people here will probably say don't bother to actually calculate anything, just have a rough idea of its characteristics and what sorts of threats it is designed to defend against. This is how IRL tanks are designed anyway; they aren't specified to have armor of [x] mm thickness, they're required to defend against specific threats (like 140 mm ATGMs or 120 mm APFSDS) and the armor ends up as thick as it needs to be to defeat these threats.

[Yohannes]

There is no real simple or easy way to do it in large part because it's such a complex subject. The old NS preference for RHAe numbers was hugely flawed because it tried to compress complex interactions down to just one or two numbers.

If it's just literal LOS armor thickness, you would need a reasonable approximation of your tank's weight, the surface area that needs to be protected, and how much armor weight you want to allocate to different areas. MBTs usually devote roughly half their total weight to armor, so a 60 tonne tank will have roughly 30 tonnes of armor weight to work with, which must be allocated across its surface area. To get its thickness, you'd have to estimate its density (others probably have some figures on this but I don't at the moment) which would let you know how thick the armor is in a given area based on the mass and surface area protected.

Or you could just take the easy route and increase or decrease the thickness of the armor based on estimates for real-world tanks. This is much easier. For instance, current Abrams variants have front turret LOS armor thickness of ~800-900 mm IIRC, so based on whether your tank is bigger/heavier than Abrams or whether you want to allocate more armor toward frontal protection (at the expense of side/rear protection or w/e) you can ballpark how much this would increase or decrease.

As to performance this is a whole 'nother can of worms and even harder to estimate. Which is why most people here will probably say don't bother to actually calculate anything, just have a rough idea of its characteristics and what sorts of threats it is designed to defend against. This is how IRL tanks are designed anyway; they aren't specified to have armor of [x] mm thickness, they're required to defend against specific threats (like 140 mm ATGMs or 120 mm APFSDS) and the armor ends up as thick as it needs to be to defeat these threats.

Ty so much for the help The Akasha Colony! Your posts are always very informative you are one of my favourite posters I love reading your posting history

[New Vihenia]

Or do what i did... come to military expo.. bring measurement tools, climb on to the tank and start measuring... only stop when someone stop you. profit

[Iltica]

Or just download tanksharp.

[Yohannes]

Or just download tanksharp.

Whats tnakshrap?

[The Akasha Colony]

Or just download tanksharp.

I have never found Tanksharp to be all that useful. Given what it requires, you may as well just spend slightly more time learning Blender or some other basic 3D drawing program and mocking up a 3D model which will also at least give you a nice picture to display.

I am generally somewhat wary of calculators in general because they often seem to encourage the people who use them to treat them essentially as the word of god, even though they must obviously simplify things to an extreme degree to be even somewhat understandable to a lay audience. And often the people who use them end up putting in bad data without realizing it, resulting in some major GIGO problems.

Or just download tanksharp.

Whats tnakshrap?

An excel spreadsheet that lets you punch in a whole bunch of tank parameters and get a bunch of others out. Unfortunately, it's even clunkier than Springsharp and requires more background knowledge than even New Vihenia's spreadsheets in order to find appropriate input data, since aside from a bunch of largely irrelevant (for MT) options, it is short on included options.