TL9 Heavy Tank

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The survivability has arguably been lost already. If there are offensive drones they won't be attacking through the front armor and IMHO it's the front armor that distinguishes tanks from other vehicles..

Switching to the bit about the un-crewed turret the hull driver's compartment on an Abrahms (and probably an other modern tank) is almost fully recumbent and very uncomfortable. Another compartment like it in the hull for a commander and maybe a gunner adds bulk there and makes a bad place to think.

Before you do this it might be time to look at making the hole tank un-crewed. Even if you can't make the wireless com links perfect a tank could trail wires behind itself much better than a small aerrial vehcile.

The bolded section has me staring, incredulously, at my screen. A tracked AFV like a tank is used because it is very capable of handling difficult terrain such as rubble piles, low barriers, trenches, light forests, etc. These are exactly the sort of terrain environments where you don't want to have command wires trailing along, waiting to get snagged by a piece of rebar in the rubble pile you drive over, snapping and rendering your tank a casualty because it no longer has command. You are also limiting the operation range of your tank to the length of it's command wires, which is going to be a lot less than it's fuel considerations. This is a horrendously bad idea.

As far as the hull interior volume issues: you're not considering that the very reason the driver is so cramped is that there's a massive fighting platform for the turret. You remove the volume of the loader, gunner and commander from the turret, and you can sharply reduce the volume the turret takes up in the hull, providing far more space for the two additional crew members(some proposals have suggest a two-man crew, driver and gunner/commander, but I think that's a flawed concept from the get go, as it places far too much on the commander, but that's a different kettle of fish).

Also, the difference between a Tank, such as the M1 and an IFV like the M2, is much greater than you're making it out to be. We're talking about comparing maybe 30-50mm of RHA equivilency for an IFV to the 100+ of RHA for the side armor on a tank. You're not going to kill a tank from the side nearly as easily as you will kill an IFV. This has been shown in donbass, where russian and ukrainian BMPs were "stripped out" of combined arms formations by threats that did not hamper the tanks, leading to the tanks being unsupported and vulnerable when their infantry escorts couldn't keep up. The israelis seem to have noticed the vulnerabilities of IFVs in built up areas, and have had a whole series of heavy IFV/APC vehicles based on tank chassis designed and deployed as a solution.

The Death of The Tank has been prophesied since the end of the Great War, and each time, the tank takes the hits and keeps on rolling, showing that it's unique combination of firepower, mobility and protection are still relevant on the battlefield. Drones and Javelins/NLAWs have not changed this. Attack drones like the TB2 are still vulnerable airframes with limited survivability in a contested air environment, the same as any manned attack craft(such as the A-10, which hasn't reliably demonstrated lethality with it's 30mm main gun, which was specifically intended as it's primary anti-tank weapon), and man portable ATGMs still have the same problems my uncle encountered as an Airborne trooper in the 70s: if the tank knows you're there, it can kill you before you kill it.

In the recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan successfully leveraged combined arms to knock out Armenian air power and air defense in the early days of the conflict, allowing their TB2s to switch from taking out SAMs and parked aircraft and logistics, to targeting armored vehicles. When weather probited the TB2s from flying, Armenia made good use of it's armored vehicles to counter-attack(the attack failed, but that's beside the point. It was a good faith effort).

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

T These are exactly the sort of terrain environments where you don't want to have command wires trailing along, waiting to get snagged by a piece of rebar in the rubble pile you drive over, s).

This would be why you mounted the reel of wire on the tank and unrolled it from there rather than from the command station. You'd also motorize the reel and synchronize it with the tracks rather than letting tension pull the wire off the reel.

<shrug>If you won't do that use low altitude microwave or laser comm relays. The tank drops them on their little tripods behind it as it goes.

The reason the driver position on an Abrahms is so cramped is that the profile of the hull is so low. Make a hull where multiple humans can sit up and do work and you'll have a Bradley with a big turret.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

This would be why you mounted the reel of wire on the tank and unrolled it from there rather than from the command station. You'd also motorize the reel and synchronize it with the tracks rather than letting tension pull the wire off the reel.

<shrug>If you won't do that use low altitude microwave or laser comm relays. The tank drops them on their little tripods behind it as it goes.

The reason the driver position on an Abrahms is so cramped is that the profile of the hull is so low. Make a hull where multiple humans can sit up and do work and you'll have a Bradley with a big turret.

The issue isn't the reel. The issue is that you have to have a command wire. Simple experiment: go grab a few hundred feet of twine. Tie one end to your belt and the other to your car. Now go to the woods and try to run around doing "tactical" stuff. The wire is going to get very tangled, very quick. It's also a massive vulnerability in that your tank can be crippled by an artillery blast no where near it's actual position. It's a horrible idea, all the way around. The laser comms relays idea isn't much better. You now have to have some sort of little dispenser, which needs to be built reugged enough to handle the sort of things a tank does, and then the tripods need to be self-set up, or you're gonna have to have a gang of techs or tech bots scurrying behind each tank, trying to set up line of site comms.

This doesn't even touch upon the issue that line of sight based comms are extremely limited for an environment where line of sight is going to be regularly compromised.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

There are some tough tanks out there - Challenger 2's have soaked up (in one incident) 14 RPGs and a MILAN* and (in another) 70 RPGs without any crew casualties. The first tank was out of action for six hours, partly due to having lost a track before the hits started landing, the other is not recorded as having been offline at all.

*No reference to what generation of MILAN.
.

Where did the weapons hit? If it was the hull or Turret Front or even the Turret sides the results are impressive but not mysterious.

In Ve2 David Pulver puts the Hull side armor at DR 140 Laminate. In HT for 4e HANS puts the T-72's hull side armor at DR 165 (unlaminsted). Both were only DR90 (unlaminated) on the Top

The first of those side armors would just barely stop a TL7 HEAT 40 mm launcher grenade [4d6(10)] but not the improved TL8 version [7D6(10)} The unlaminated armor stops basically no HEAT attacks.

Argue tank survivability with David and HANS if you like but not with me. I'm not the source of those numbers.

[Polydamas]

Basing an understanding of tank armour performance on game stats is not a good idea, especially since GURPS has known issues representing tank armour.

Originally Posted by Willy

One modern MBT is the KF51 Panther, it has a 130mm main gun among else.

But the K2 Black Panther is a new MBT which is actually in service and still carries a 120 mm gun. We will see whether an even larger main gun becomes common, but like I said before, the first step would be an armour technology which makes current tank guns ineffective at preferred combat ranges. Right now NATO tankers seem pretty confident that what they can see they can kill.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Where did the weapons hit? If it was the hull or Turret Front or even the Turret sides the results are impressive but not mysterious.

In Ve2 David Pulver puts the Hull side armor at DR 140 Laminate. In HT for 4e HANS puts the T-72's hull side armor at DR 165 (unlaminsted). Both were only DR90 (unlaminated) on the Top

The first of those side armors would just barely stop a TL7 HEAT 40 mm launcher grenade [4d6(10)] but not the improved TL8 version [7D6(10)} The unlaminated armor stops basically no HEAT attacks.

Argue tank survivability with David and HANS if you like but not with me. I'm not the source of those numbers.

Do note that the TL8 40mm is only inflicting around 8 damage to the t72 after "penetration". That aint killing the tank, it's not disabling it.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Do note that the TL8 40mm is only inflicting around 8 damage to the t72 after "penetration". That aint killing the tank, it's not disabling it.

If it's penetrating the area of the main gun's autoloader and its' semi-caseless rounds it would be enough to ignite those. That would indeed result in a kill. The T-72 is a death-trap (which the OP's design sort of addresses)..

Oh! I just remembered something about the OP's design. If a strong incendiary weapon hit the fuel tank filled with aluminum slurry for the engine I would be worried about that turning into a thermobaric bomb.

That's not much of a choice really. Be in the turret with the caseless ammo or in the hull with the aluminum slurry.

[weby]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

That's not much of a choice really. Be in the turret with the caseless ammo or in the hull with the aluminum slurry.

Except that blowout panels and similar things exist in some modern western tanks...

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

If it's penetrating the area of the main gun's autoloader and its' semi-caseless rounds it would be enough to ignite those. That would indeed result in a kill. The T-72 is a death-trap (which the OP's design sort of addresses)..

Oh! I just remembered something about the OP's design. If a strong incendiary weapon hit the fuel tank filled with aluminum slurry for the engine I would be worried about that turning into a thermobaric bomb.

That's not much of a choice really. Be in the turret with the caseless ammo or in the hull with the aluminum slurry.

Can you point to a real world scenario where 40mm HEDP has taken out a t72?

Edit: it also seems a bit disingenuous to talk about penetrating side armor, but then talk about hitting the main guns auto loader. The auto loader should be mounted in the turret along with the main gun, and the turret should be more heavily armored than the side of the hull.

In addition, perhaps basing a future tanks performance on game stats for a nearly fifty year old and obsolescent tank is going to give bad results.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Oh! I just remembered something about the OP's design. If a strong incendiary weapon hit the fuel tank filled with aluminum slurry for the engine I would be worried about that turning into a thermobaric bomb.

I wouldn't. There isn't a lot of oxidizer in the tank, which will severely limit combustion. The main reason not to use aluminum is that it's not a very good fuel -- hard to work with, lower heat of combustion (per gram) than much easier to work with fuels such as diesel.