Jump to content

That Guy

Members
  • Content Count

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About That Guy

  • Rank
    Crew
  1. Put it this way: A 152mm cannon long enough to kill any target, whether with HE or AP.
  2. My guess is that the REAL solution is to make a tank similar to the Stryker MGS. This is going to definitely require much higher SA while buttoned up, and popping a hatch to take a look would either require locking the gun from moving, or something similar. Perhaps somehow having the TC/Gunner be able to be part of the turret so that they would rotate around the inside of the hull with turret movement would work, but I have no experience with how this would work. I'm guessing that somehow the turret would be able to rotate to a certain position and then have automated reloading of the ready ra
  3. I'd like to see the USMC use the AMV with Mk44 and dual Spike-LR ATGMs for a turret, but a man can dream... I'd at least hope for a Mk44 and a TOW on each side of the turret. Maybe light amphib capability, but honestly that's just for getting across rivers when bridges are blown and there's no other way. Maybe a light tank/MGS with a long recoil 120mm HV HE/APFSDS thrower work for getting firepower where the Abrams can't, but that's a different story and I think it's much less likely. The Centauro is capable of fitting a 120mm L/45 with about a 26-30 ton mass, so it's all down to proper gu
  4. By this logic, it probably makes sense to use APCs to mount some kind of AT gun.
  5. The concept of a tank destroyer is still viable though. It's survived in modified form, either as the ATGM carrier or a lightweight APC/IFV with a 105-120mm long recoil tank gun on a turret. Both are still definitely specialized in purpose as a result of giving up protection for less weight, so it only has mobility and firepower. This is perfectly fine in any situation in which the vehicle is unlikely to receive high caliber sabot fire or anything else capable of destroying AFVs.
  6. From what it sounds like, the weight savings could go to making better protection from mines and IEDs, and while torsion bars may help, the reduced weight and what is probably the higher amount of protection per pound in the form of dedicated armor probably makes external suspension a better idea. A small diesel engine and the hydragas suspension would probably produce a pretty good net weight savings for extra armor to take it's place, and in the case of the engine, more hull ammo storage. Of course, I know nothing about the subject, so this is all conjecture.
  7. I've heard that the E-75 is an amazing tank for a T9 heavy. An equal to the IS-4.
  8. TOWs while capable of stabilizing, the wire could get caught or the missile simply is lost from the sensor. Any evasion would require breaking engagement of targets. Hellfires are only vulnerable, and slightly so during the lock-on/launch phase in which the Apache must be in the general direction of the vehicle for launch. AT-11s are beam-riders, so the laser usually won't be received by LWR, just laser rangefinders. This also decreases maneuverability. Basically tanks only have a chance at short range to engage helos, and only with prox fuse HEAT or prox fuse HE. APDS or KE rounds will
  9. I think that attack helicopters should be designed with the expectation of having to engage both tanks and infantry. An attack helicopter really shouldn't be just sitting back rippling Hellfires or just making gunruns. A good gun is a must. As a quick note, the Hellfire has a max range of around 5 miles, or 8 kilometers. More realistically, it will be engaging targets around 6-7 kilometers away.
  10. What I find surprising is that this AH-56A had the capability to hit a target accurately at 3.2 klicks away. I'd imagine it'd make sense for the Kiowa and Apache to be replaced with Sikorsky X2 technology based helicopters, with coaxial arrangements and rear props. The dash speed and maneuverability would probably be nice.
  11. In which case, what about the effectiveness of 120mm HE against vehicles? Of course, the APFSDS is smaller but when it primarily depends upon hitting crew, fuel, or ammo to achieve it's damage, it's harder to achieve a kill. HE's primary use would be against buildings and people, but when the sheer blast force would be capable of destroying some rather important bits on the outside of the vehicle, I would be pretty content with tracking or destroying the gun tube of an enemy tank, and possibly a lot more. APFSDS is extremely specialized, and is really just a big bullet that goes fast and goe
  12. Well really the long barreled L/52 would probably have to be heavily compensated via muzzle brake. However lower charge propellant is needed, and since it's HE, velocity is only helpful for increasing accuracy, and probably accuracy. The round only needs to be able to keep about 1200m battlecarry range, but otherwise not as necessary to do much. I think that computer assisted lead calculation via thermal autotracking systems would definitely increase hit rates. As long as it flies about as fast as HEAT though it shouldn't be all that big a deal.
  13. I was mostly thinking about having it for the HE and HESH. It doesn't really have to be L/55, it could easily just be the L/39 M777 adapted to use in a tank. Basically a return to the concept of the IS-2, using HE instead of AP for anti-armor. Makes the need for APFSDS irrelevant, and for absolute catastrophic kills you just need to land a single hit. 20-30 round capacity max. I guess downsizing the bore to 140mm would be reasonable. The beauty of having just a giant HE artillery round is that even if the APS makes it airburst, the shock wave and damage is enough to destroy a main gun, gun
  14. Title is the best description. I've read about how IS-2s didn't use AP rounds to kill tanks, and instead they relied upon HE's sheer explosive force to get the job done. I've also read a PDF file on how powerful artillery is even without direct hits: http://sill-www.army.mil/famag/2002/NOV_DEC_2002/NOV_DEC_2002_PAGES_8_11.pdf So the question is whether this would actually be a good idea.
  15. Well, a bustle that extends all the way to the rear hull might give enough ammo at the ready to equal that of the previous generation's total ammo storage, but then additional problems rear it's head... Would it be possible to fit an externally sprung hydropneumatic suspension system? Torsion bars are great and all, but hydropneumatic suspensions have a better ride, and if it's externally mounted then it'd be easy to actually pull off a damaged suspension when the need arises.
×
×
  • Create New...