TL9 Heavy Tank

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

I'm having trouble grasping how "thousands of tons of dumb shells" and "tons of guided munitions spotted by drones" interact in this war. One excitable person was sure that the future of artillery was self-propelled guns shooting and scooting, but both sides have a lot of towed guns firing simple shells until their barrels wear out.

There's a lot of TL7 and early TL8 kit still out there, throwing dumb rounds both from pre-war preserves and ongoing re-supply*, whilst both sides also have relatively small amounts of smarter kit. I'm also told that Russian doctrine is still more supportive of dumb bombardment operations and struggles with the command loop required to deploy smart rounds well.

Besides Nicholas Moran, there is an Australian chap who goes by the stage name of Perun who does logistic and supply side analysis that is very informative.

*Ukraine has set up its own lines for basic artillery rounds and they and their allies have been sweeping the world for replacement WarPac era rounds (rumour has it that a variety of former WarPac states are also re-starting production), whilst Russia has its indigenous production and is supposed to be drawing additional stores from Belorus, China and similar.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

*Ukraine has set up its own lines for basic artillery rounds and they and their allies have been sweeping the world for replacement WarPac era rounds (rumour has it that a variety of former WarPac states are also re-starting production), whilst Russia has its indigenous production and is supposed to be drawing additional stores from Belorus, China and similar.

122mm is the most common artillery calibre in the world. The question is, how many states bought decent stocks of ammo, and of those, who will sell?

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Rupert

122mm is the most common artillery calibre in the world. The question is, how many states bought decent stocks of ammo, and of those, who will sell?

... and of those, whose ammunition is still fit for use. I hear a big chunk of a recent consignment purchased from Pakistan was significantly sub standard. Even the Germans had issues - you'll recall the early war when they tried to donate those ex-DDR SAMs (Strelas IIRC) only to find some of them were unsafe to move, let alone fire.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by dcarson

The next gen Abrams is supposed to be a hybrid so it can maneuver without the main engine on. This lets you sit quietly without being stuck until the engine warms and keeps the noise level down in base so you don't keep troops from sleeping. Plus that does mean less heat signature.

The current M1 (M1A2 SEPv3) has an APU to power the systems without the main engine running.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Note that light vehicles already carry tank-like firepower. That's not what makes a tank unique and useful. What makes a tank useful is that it brings the hurt, and it's highly mobile, and it's survivable - the enemy has to bring that level of firepower to counter your tanks.

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.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The survivability has arguably been lost already.

Survivability is a relative term; it doesn't mean "invulnerable" it means "less vulnerable than some other vehicle". Tanks are still considerable more durable than a truck or IFV chassis, which are the usual alternatives.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Survivability is a relative term; it doesn't mean "invulnerable" it means "less vulnerable than some other vehicle". Tanks are still considerable more durable than a truck or IFV chassis, which are the usual alternatives.

Discounting the Front armor a tank may not be any more survivable than an IFV. The other armor facings are very comparable.

You also don't compare tanks to trucks because tanks have little ability to carry cargo.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Of course, they could have provided a high-capacity HE shell with a much smaller propellant charge and lower muzzle velocity, but for some reason that wasn't done.

Not being a tank gunner, I'm not sure if there were practical issues with having rounds with wildly different muzzle velocities (eg. setting up the sights or getting good accuracy from the longer barrel). Apparently the 17 lbr in a Sherman turret had ergonomic issues.

I do imagine there is a big difference between "rifle-calibre rounds pinging off our tank" and "oh my god something hit us and went boom my ears are bleeding." You can learn to ignore one but not the other.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Survivability is a relative term; it doesn't mean "invulnerable" it means "less vulnerable than some other vehicle". Tanks are still considerable more durable than a truck or IFV chassis, which are the usual alternatives.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Discounting the Front armor a tank may not be any more survivable than an IFV. The other armor facings are very comparable.

You also don't compare tanks to trucks because tanks have little ability to carry cargo.

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.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Not being a tank gunner, I'm not sure if there were practical issues with having rounds with wildly different muzzle velocities (eg. setting up the sights or getting good accuracy from the longer barrel). Apparently the 17 lbr in a Sherman turret had ergonomic issues.

Ballistic profiles would be a big part of it, also I'm not sure about having that huge, empty casing flapping about on the back of the lower powered round. The 17lbr did indeed have ergonomic issues, not least because it was installed on its side so that it would fit in the turret. It was too much gun for anything until the Centurion appeared - hence the downshift to the 77mm gun, which fired the same shell with a smaller propellant charge. One of the main reasons for limiting how much HE you put into a tank is specifically to stop it being used as a self-propelled gun, which is really inefficient in resource terms.

Also in the matter of shells - British made ones tended to be lower HE yield than US ones as we were using lower grade steel and so had to create thicker casings.

[Willy]

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