|
bewbies posted:In any case we're getting to the point where we can't improve much more on armor protection while keeping the vehicle at useful sizes, while warheads continue to get better and better. A really old story in warfare: making better projectiles is easier than making a defense against them.
|
# ? May 6, 2015 18:25 |
|
|
# ? Apr 28, 2024 13:18 |
|
Yes. I'm no expert (or even novice), but directed energy is where many such products are going. With high fidelity sensors getting better and better, it's more feasible for directed energy to foul guidance or set off a fuse.
|
# ? May 6, 2015 18:33 |
|
Smiling Jack posted:Yeah but by the time 76mm Sherman tanks were fielded the Nazis had the Tiger II. And by the time the Nazis had the Tiger II, we had the P-47.
|
# ? May 6, 2015 18:34 |
|
Arrath posted:Thus the drive for better and better ERA and point defense/active protection systems. Well, we're already pretty well past the first generation APS (like Arena) that were basically what you're describing. Second generation systems like Trophy have done very well without being as dangerous to everything around it simply by reducing the danger area, but they still have big safety zones and aren't really ready to deal with top end threat systems. The third generation is the stuff in testing right now, and there are two approaches: destroying the target with a kinetic kill interceptor (Quick Kill), or disrupting/destroying the target with directed energy of some sort, most likely a laser (AMAP-ADS). The interceptor approach attacks from above, so most of the energy released from interception goes straight down which really reduces the danger area. With DE, the only real concerns are hitting something you don't want with the laser and the energy released by the threat warhead exploding. To go along with APS development we're already seeing the latest AT platforms with anti-APS countermeasures, and so the battle between attack and protection continues. In any case, I think the takeaway is that tank development is probably going to strongly mimic the way ships changed as a result of anti-ship missiles: armor became pretty useless relative to the effectiveness of active protection, so they got a lot smaller/lighter with a lot more time and energy devoted to munitions (both attack and defense) in contrast to passive protection. bewbies fucked around with this message at 18:44 on May 6, 2015 |
# ? May 6, 2015 18:41 |
Very cool, thanks. Would fire rate be an issue with DE protection systems? I'm sure the big gas turbine in, say, an Abrams can pump out lots of juice but there has to be a limitation in there somewhere, be it recharging capacitor banks or letting the emitter assembly cool down or whatever. I doubt many tanks suffer attack from 3 or 4 directions within a few seconds but its a though. I have seen videos of the top-attack interceptors, they're pretty drat slick. Now I'm pipe dreaming, but with good enough sensors and quick enough aiming systems, would the fancy new prototype guided .50 bullets be even remotely effective? Like, a CROWS setup that can be set to automatic defense. With all the downsides that come along with errant .50 rounds, of course.
|
|
# ? May 6, 2015 18:53 |
|
DE systems aren't really far enough along yet to get a good idea about what their max ROF is, but the limiting factor on a platform like an armored vehicle would almost certainly be heat dissipation, not power (it helps to have a giant turbine engine already in place). You're probably right in assuming that an attack from multiple directions and/or by mutiple warheads simultaneously is going to be the most effective countermeasure; a possible counter-countermeasure to that is having some manner of layered defense (eg, DE at long range, kinetic interceptor at short range, shotgun blast as last resort). Really, it is very similar to defeating ballistic or cruise missiles, just on a much smaller scale. A gun type system with guided rounds is a possible solution, but in testing for counter-RAM systems the guns that were looked at generally didn't perform very well for one main reason: bullets, once they are fired, are losing energy constantly (in contrast to rockets, whose motors provide energy for a while after they're fired). This makes maneuvering them, and predicting their manevuers, more difficult. When you add in factors like humidity/wind, etc it becomes even more difficult. Rockets are still affected by these of course but it is easier to predict impacts when you have a steady stream of energy for those first few critical seconds of flight.
|
# ? May 6, 2015 19:11 |
|
david_a posted:Are RPG-7s still a threat to top-of-the-line modern MBTs? Absolutely. Modern tandem warheads can penetrate over 750mm of RHA. That's not getting through the frontal armor on an Abrams, but it can penetrate pretty much anywhere else.
|
# ? May 6, 2015 19:13 |
|
bewbies posted:: armor became pretty useless relative to the effectiveness of active protection, so they got a lot smaller/lighter with a lot more time and energy devoted to munitions (both attack and defense) in contrast to passive protection. There's tons of passive protection on modern naval vessels, it's just not in the form of thick armor worn. Compartmentalization, shock-hardening of ship systems, redundant fire-fighting systems, reduced RCS, LPI radars, that's all "armor of form."
|
# ? May 6, 2015 19:18 |
Phanatic posted:Absolutely. Modern tandem warheads can penetrate over 750mm of RHA. That's not getting through the frontal armor on an Abrams, but it can penetrate pretty much anywhere else. It's really a matter of where you shoot and what range. Trying to go through the front or even side at 400 meters is destined to fail without a ton of luck, but you could damage the treads or wheels or blow off some external components (I believe Cojone Eh, one of the Abrams involved in the Thunder Run in Iraq, was set on fire by what's believed to be a recoilless rifle because it was carrying FLEXCEL fuel bladders for the long range of the operation and failed to detach or empty them before they were struck by enemy fire). But at close range, RPG-7s (especially with modern warheads) can pierce the top and rear or make mobility kills that force the tank to be abandoned or towed back.
|
|
# ? May 6, 2015 20:15 |
|
chitoryu12 posted:It's really a matter of where you shoot and what range. Trying to go through the front or even side at 400 meters is destined to fail without a ton of luck, but you could damage the treads or wheels or blow off some external components (I believe Cojone Eh, one of the Abrams involved in the Thunder Run in Iraq, was set on fire by what's believed to be a recoilless rifle because it was carrying FLEXCEL fuel bladders for the long range of the operation and failed to detach or empty them before they were struck by enemy fire). But at close range, RPG-7s (especially with modern warheads) can pierce the top and rear or make mobility kills that force the tank to be abandoned or towed back. It's not that HEAT shells stop working at long range. It's that it's harder to hit the target at all or accurately aim at a specific point at long range.
|
# ? May 6, 2015 20:31 |
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The Tiger tanks really were very good heavy tanks for world war 2 - they had excellent guns, good armor protection, and could move effectively in all sorts of terrain (forgetting little problems, like the Tiger I's layers and layers of road wheels.) That said, you are right, they did get an almost mythic reputation out of proportion to what they actually were. I think a part of this was that American tank forces during the Normandy invasion took a shitload of casualties from the Germans, partially due to some really unfortunate decisions regarding ammo storage. Somebody decided it'd be a wise move for M4s/Shermans to carry extra loose rounds in the cabin, and that meant anytime a Kraut tank could penetrate the cabin with a shot, it'd kill the tank and the crew. For all the hype about the firepower of the Tiger, it wasn't all that different from other AA guns of a similar caliber, which the Allies had in their medium tanks within a year or two of the Tiger hitting the battlefield. There's a reason why the Tiger II started development almost immediately after the Tiger was done: it was a dead end. As for its dread reputation, Carius admitted that Tiger kill scores, even his own, were hilariously inflated by propaganda. It's a bit of a hobby of mine to track down Soviet records that confirm all these glorious victories of Tiger battalions, and typically they claim to destroy more tanks than the Soviets had, let alone lost that day.
|
# ? May 6, 2015 20:44 |
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The Tiger tanks really were very good heavy tanks for world war 2 - they had excellent guns, good armor protection, and could move effectively in all sorts of terrain (forgetting little problems, like the Tiger I's layers and layers of road wheels.) That said, you are right, they did get an almost mythic reputation out of proportion to what they actually were. I think a part of this was that American tank forces during the Normandy invasion took a shitload of casualties from the Germans, partially due to some really unfortunate decisions regarding ammo storage. Somebody decided it'd be a wise move for M4s/Shermans to carry extra loose rounds in the cabin, and that meant anytime a Kraut tank could penetrate the cabin with a shot, it'd kill the tank and the crew. It also had rather poo poo strategic maneuverability and a logistical footprint from hell, which made it a pretty bad tank. The ammo storage issue was actually a British one, not an American one (the British would carry extra rounds until that was determined to be the main cause and it was stomped on. Also the US forces barely encountered any Tiger I's, most of them were fielded against the British.
|
# ? May 6, 2015 23:30 |
|
bewbies posted:DE systems aren't really far enough along yet to get a good idea about what their max ROF is, but the limiting factor on a platform like an armored vehicle would almost certainly be heat dissipation, not power (it helps to have a giant turbine engine already in place). You're probably right in assuming that an attack from multiple directions and/or by mutiple warheads simultaneously is going to be the most effective countermeasure; a possible counter-countermeasure to that is having some manner of layered defense (eg, DE at long range, kinetic interceptor at short range, shotgun blast as last resort). Really, it is very similar to defeating ballistic or cruise missiles, just on a much smaller scale. My immediate thought for a solution is a distributed network of DE defenses among multiple vehicles. Sort of along the lines of a centralized Aegis control system, decentralized launchers.
|
# ? May 7, 2015 06:35 |
|
bewbies posted:A gun type system with guided rounds is a possible solution, but in testing for counter-RAM systems the guns that were looked at generally didn't perform very well for one main reason: bullets, once they are fired, are losing energy constantly (in contrast to rockets, whose motors provide energy for a while after they're fired). This makes maneuvering them, and predicting their manevuers, more difficult. When you add in factors like humidity/wind, etc it becomes even more difficult. Rockets are still affected by these of course but it is easier to predict impacts when you have a steady stream of energy for those first few critical seconds of flight. All I'm hearing here is "13mm gyrojet." Godholio posted:My immediate thought for a solution is a distributed network of DE defenses among multiple vehicles. Sort of along the lines of a centralized Aegis control system, decentralized launchers. Does this turn a tank column into a cruiser attack group analog? There are a few heavy combatants in the center and a ring of missile sponges with countermeasures around them? What would the sponges be? LAVs? APCs? IFVs? Or is the whole formation just MBTs with overlapping long-range countermeasures so one tank (hopefully) never has to use its close-in shotgun?
|
# ? May 7, 2015 12:48 |
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:All I'm hearing here is "13mm gyrojet." You're going to need an entirely new vehicle that can be used by the Army, National Guard and the Marines that will phase out all these old and obsolete 3rd and 4th generation AFVs. This will create a superior 5th generation AFV platform, and reduce costs through parts standardization. The Marine version also needs to be amphibious.
|
# ? May 7, 2015 13:30 |
|
Blistex posted:You're going to need an entirely new vehicle that can be used by the Army, National Guard and the Marines that will phase out all these old and obsolete 3rd and 4th generation AFVs. This will create a superior 5th generation AFV platform, and reduce costs through parts standardization. The Marine version also needs to be amphibious. M1A35B Program Delayed Again -CNN 2050
|
# ? May 7, 2015 15:12 |
|
Godholio posted:My immediate thought for a solution is a distributed network of DE defenses among multiple vehicles. Sort of along the lines of a centralized Aegis control system, decentralized launchers. This is sort of the direction things are headed, but the obvious limitation is that this sort of mutual defense setup limits your ability to move independently. The first big step is integrating the sensors, with the major effort being to implement some sort of elevated sensor (probably a small-ish rotary wing UAS) that hovers above the unit that can detect launches at much greater distances. Re. "sponges", this was literally pitched as one of the big advantages of manned/unmanned pairings for vehicles. One potential feature for an unmanned vehicle is including a "magnet" feature that draws munitions to the unmanned vehicle and away from the manned vehicles, like an IR flare or a strobe or something. In the case of a tank platoon, for instance, might deploy their six or eight unmanned vehicles in a circle a few dozen meters outside the.four manned vehicles. Blistex posted:You're going to need an entirely new vehicle that can be used by the Army, National Guard and the Marines that will phase out all these old and obsolete 3rd and 4th generation AFVs. This will create a superior 5th generation AFV platform, and reduce costs through parts standardization. The Marine version also needs to be amphibious. I think you were joking here but this is pretty much exactly what FCS was.
|
# ? May 7, 2015 15:21 |
|
bewbies posted:This is sort of the direction things are headed, but the obvious limitation is that this sort of mutual defense setup limits your ability to move independently. The first big step is integrating the sensors, with the major effort being to implement some sort of elevated sensor (probably a small-ish rotary wing UAS) that hovers above the unit that can detect launches at much greater distances. The line between reality and C&C Generals gets a little more blurry every day. And FCS + GCV are fun to read about simply to try and pin down all the poo poo the army kept adding to the platform. Towards the end there it was literally 70 ton IFV with a RadioShack on top.
|
# ? May 7, 2015 15:40 |
|
One of the T-14s broke down again during rehearsal. That's two tank (out of four) for a total three break downs. http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=072_1430999030 Back Hack fucked around with this message at 15:53 on May 7, 2015 |
# ? May 7, 2015 15:46 |
|
From last page butbewbies posted:Yeah that's the plan. Tank, IFV, howitzer, mortar, scout, ambulance, recovery vehicle, and so on. It feels the Russians have a better grasp on this concept if you look at previous designs. They focus on 1-2 vehicles at a time and work out from there, doing most of the work through incremental steps. The Armata at the moment is just the Tank, HIFV and SPG, with the Kurganets a seperate hull for the BMP/MTLB replacements. They probably also forego the electronics packages we were trying to shove in those programs. It's way too early to tell if it'll actually work out for them, but they seem to be a lot more modest in execution, which seems like the much better path to take if you want to avoid ballooning the poo poo out of things. EDIT: Then again the PAK-FA is a pretty good counter argument to this, so who knows simplefish posted:There is a 152mm artillery version of the Armata That doesn't quite count because it's basically a MSTA on the new hull; the T-95 was going to have a no poo poo 152mm tank cannon with a new line of ammo and TGMs, with a 30mm coaxial like the BMP-3. Mazz fucked around with this message at 15:59 on May 7, 2015 |
# ? May 7, 2015 15:50 |
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Does this turn a tank column into a cruiser attack group analog? There are a few heavy combatants in the center and a ring of missile sponges with countermeasures around them? What would the sponges be? Infantry
|
# ? May 7, 2015 18:45 |
|
Mazz posted:It feels the Russians have a better grasp on this concept if you look at previous designs. They focus on 1-2 vehicles at a time and work out from there, doing most of the work through incremental steps. The Armata at the moment is just the Tank, HIFV and SPG, with the Kurganets a seperate hull for the BMP/MTLB replacements. They probably also forego the electronics packages we were trying to shove in those programs. I think the PAK-FA could be a pretty good addition - this is their first stab at making a LO Fighter, and they didn't load it down with a million extra functions.
|
# ? May 7, 2015 19:18 |
|
Extra functions like being something other than just another shitcanned flanker variant
|
# ? May 7, 2015 19:33 |
|
So not only did one of the T-14s break down today, but one IFV variations did too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YDCyRT7Luo Call it a hunch, but I don't think we're going to see any of these vehicles on May 9th anymore.
|
# ? May 7, 2015 19:59 |
|
Mazz posted:The line between reality and C&C Generals gets a little more blurry every day. yeah that is exactly what I thought when I read rotary wing UAS. Scout Drone, Hellfire Drone, or Battle Drone, yours today for $100-500 C&CBux per tank.
|
# ? May 7, 2015 21:19 |
|
And wasn't there a general that have you DE missile defenses on tanks and raptors?
|
# ? May 7, 2015 21:21 |
|
The laser general. His tanks were laser tanks and I don't recall if they had the point defense lasers. The scout drone was fixed wing though; the repair/machine gun one was the only hovering one.
|
# ? May 7, 2015 21:32 |
|
mlmp08 posted:And wasn't there a general that have you DE missile defenses on tanks and raptors? The second tier USA tank came with laser defenses. Ironically, the laser general's laser tanks did not have laser defenses, (Shockwave fixed that IIRC,) and switched off if you lost power, but he was still the best USA general because he actually had tanks. General Granger had laser defenses on his raptors. Basically unstoppable if he got a victory snowball going. Shockwave made him even worse. I always hated fighting him because it became a contest between how fast you could crank out AAA guns (and nothing but AAA guns, because he didn't have any tanks) and keep them from getting all bunched up to be wiped out by an Aurora. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:35 on May 7, 2015 |
# ? May 7, 2015 21:33 |
|
Best general was Dr. Thrax no question
|
# ? May 7, 2015 21:45 |
|
Mortabis posted:Best general was Dr. Thrax no question AKA Dr. "Desperately trying to move all your units out of the anthrax puddles because they have no sense of self-preservation, god dammit stop driving through there" I personally liked the Nuke General, because rushing your damaged nuclear powered tanks into enemy lines to share your flying radioactive debris with them, and seeing your tac-nuke armed J-10s send enemy infantry bouncing off the skybox thanks to the wonky physics were great.
|
# ? May 7, 2015 21:58 |
|
Kwai was very defensive over his tanks. Also he had the best tanks in the game
|
# ? May 7, 2015 21:58 |
|
Back Hack posted:One of the T-14s broke down again during rehearsal. That's two tank (out of four) for a total three break downs. Regarding this. Kinda copying my link/quote from the D&D forums so forgive me :P "Based on some "insider reports" (whatever they may be worth) it wasn't a vehicle breakdown per se but an error on the part of the driver that led to the tank being locked up so that it couldn't be towed. A UVZ factory driver showed up, reset the tank and drove it off under its own power just 15 min. after the initial incident. If it was a breakdown, it was rectified from the driver's position." This reminds me of a weird conversation I had with my Russian friend last night about the Vikhr. AKA "that weirdass tumbling/spiraling missile". I claimed its accuracy was lower than usual, a willing compromise, due to the single control surface, which in turn led to its flight pattern. He disagreed, and insisted that the missile was totally accurate. The key point of contention was that apparently Russian's qualify "failure for the control surfaces to account for the target's movement" as a technical/mechanical failure. Thus the missile itself was super accurate by claims, the inability to hit the target was instead qualified as a technical failure? The whole conversation was very confusing.
|
# ? May 7, 2015 22:22 |
|
Russians are weird.
|
# ? May 7, 2015 22:24 |
|
Dandywalken posted:Regarding this. Kinda copying my link/quote from the D&D forums so forgive me :P Sounds like someone is an EE working on guidance systems. "My system is perfectly accurate! Go bug the mechanical engineers who can't get the control surfaces to work!" "The control surfaces are fine! Why can't the EEs tune a simple control system?!
|
# ? May 7, 2015 22:26 |
|
"Has anyone checked storage yet?"
|
# ? May 7, 2015 22:27 |
|
The systems works flawlessly. When it doesn't that is an error and should be discounted as such.
|
# ? May 7, 2015 22:59 |
|
Or a monkey model.
|
# ? May 7, 2015 23:27 |
|
xthetenth posted:Or a monkey model. Gotta wait until they get India to buy a bunch before that one emerges. For now just claim the crew for your top secret tank's big reveal to the world, in a massive public event, following years of propaganda to hype it, and in front of dear leader himself - are actually methhead rhesus monkeys.
|
# ? May 7, 2015 23:39 |
Dandywalken posted:Regarding this. Kinda copying my link/quote from the D&D forums so forgive me :P If it's not a "breakdown", what do you call it when your tank is so computer-driven that the driver can cause it to bluescreen? I think we need to expand the definition of "breaking down" to the computerized vehicle age.
|
|
# ? May 7, 2015 23:54 |
|
|
# ? Apr 28, 2024 13:18 |
|
Warbadger posted:For now just claim the crew for your top secret tank's big reveal to the world, in a massive public event, following years of propaganda to hype it, and in front of dear leader himself - are actually methhead rhesus monkeys. I'm the implication that the typical russian soldier isn't a barely functional vatnik fuelled by meth and vodka chitoryu12 posted:If it's not a "breakdown", what do you call it when your tank is so computer-driven that the driver can cause it to bluescreen? Over in YOSPOS goddamntwisto i think posted an anecdote where his bike has two ECU settings for a cold start: one for greater than freezing, and one for subzero. When it hits exactly zero his bike will get stuck in an endless loop of turning over and then stopping until he did something (I forget what) the point is, everything is terrible now.
|
# ? May 8, 2015 00:04 |