TL9 Heavy Tank

[Anthony]

All tanks involve tradeoffs of one sort or another, every tank in WWII had flaws, just not the same flaws. To make it worse, statistics are also pretty suspect because the different armies had different ways of recording losses (if a vehicle is disabled in the field but could maybe restored to function by hauling it back to a depot for major repairs, is it a loss? Does it matter if those repairs ever actually happen? If you're generous with your definitions you can lose the same vehicle several times, if you're stingy a vehicle might be damaged and never reenter service and not be listed as lost).

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Part of the problem wasn't the design either, but rather the use of slave-labour to make them, as the workers 1) had no incentive to produce good parts, and 2) sometimes actively sabotaged their output.

I recall a story of some old, unexploded, WWII-era German ordnance that was found in a field somewhere they had invaded. Examination of the ordnance by the explosive disposal team found that where the fuse and explosives were supposed to be was instead a big chunk of concrete. And sometimes the free people (or at least as free as one could be in Nazi-controlled territory) in charge of a factory were in on it - Oskar Schindler switched from producing enamelware to artillery shells in his factory near the end of the war (as the former was no longer considered "essential," he switched to the latter so he could justify continuing to employ Jews), and I doubt they ever produced a single functional artillery shell.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Rupert

By the way, M4s weren't that great if away from the amazing US logistics chain. The Shermans the British used at El Alamein were supplied without sufficient spares (a problem that seemed to plague the British in North Africa - it had a lot to do with the poor reputation the Crusaders have), and they broke down pretty quickly. I suspect they were easy to fix when they broke, rather than not breaking.

To be fair:

1. Those Sherman's were the VERY FIRST of the production run. The British got them BEFORE the US Army (which honked off any number of Americans). At that point I expect the various component manufacturers were directing the parts towards actual assembly. I expect the spares pool was just beginning to be filled (if even that).

2. Regardless of what the spares pool in the US looked like, regardless of what was shipped to the UK; I expect the Brits were prioritizing shipping entire Shermans to Alexandria. Since every spare would be less space for full tanks I would expect they were shipping entire tanks and then any excess space might be used for spares.

[warellis]

I don't see why a TL9 heavy tank needs a 150mm gun. That's almost as large as current howitzers which are at 152mm (Eastern) or 155mm (Western) sizes.

I mean the ammo stowage must be small as hell, even with a heavy tank and unmanned turret.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by warellis

I don't see why a TL9 heavy tank needs a 150mm gun. That's almost as large as current howitzers which are at 152mm (Eastern) or 155mm (Western) sizes.

I mean the ammo stowage must be small as hell, even with a heavy tank and unmanned turret.

yeah, a few of us have suggested that something in the 120-140 mm range is more plausible and that a bigger bore only makes sense if there is an armour technology which guns in the 120-125 mm range can't penetrate. Current NATO tankers seem pretty confident that what they can see they can kill. I would focus on electronics, sensors, and AA defenses as the cool new weapons technologies (maaybe new ammunition types).

The current 120-125 mm tank guns have about the same bore as the largest common tank gun in WW II: the 122 mm main gun on the Soviet IS-2 and IS-3 series

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

yeah, a few of us have suggested that something in the 120-140 mm range is more plausible and that a bigger bore only makes sense if there is an armour technology which guns in the 120-125 mm range can't penetrate. s

Even the 100mm gun on the Light Tank in UT might be all they need. If you upgrade that to ETC it does 6dx33(3) which is 10% more than the 120mm on the Abrahms.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Even the 100mm gun on the Light Tank in UT might be all they need. If you upgrade that to ETC it does 6dx33(3) which is 10% more than the 120mm on the Abrahms.

Perhaps a gun-launcher combo. They haven't been particularly impressive at our TL, but UT makes guidance much better at TL9+, and missiles offer a few tricks that guns can't do.

But even without missiles, I think a SEFOP in top attack mode can probably get around frontal armor. Which brings us to active protection systems, which is a whole bunch of worms.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Perhaps a gun-launcher combo. They haven't been particularly impressive at our TL, but UT makes guidance much better at TL9+, and missiles offer a few tricks that guns can't do.

But even without missiles, I think a SEFOP in top attack mode can probably get around frontal armor. Which brings us to active protection systems, which is a whole bunch of worms.

SEFOP rounds are specifically noted as requiring a homing projectile to carry them. Their penetration isn't wonderful either (though probably 'good enough', at least in the case of the bigger ones).

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Perhaps a gun-launcher combo. .

The Light Tank in UT has the gun separate and then 10 100mm missiles in vertical tubes behind the turret.

Getting the full-sized 100mm missile ahead of a propellant charge into the gun breach is hard enough. How much the gun could add to velocity or range is also dubious. Velocity of the 100mm missile is already 2000 yards per second and it's horizontal range in direct fire is 10,000 yards.

You might could stretch the range by firing at a high angle and not having the rocket motor kick in until it reaches the peak of the gun's trajectory but that would have you firing well over the horizon and you have the problem of telling the 100mm missile component what you want it to hit.

Heavily armored tank turrets usually aren't compatible with high angle capability anyway.

You might find a use for a dedicated high angle gun mount used to boost 100mm missile altitudes but that's an Area Air Defense Vehicle rather than a tank.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The Light Tank in UT has the gun separate and then 10 100mm missiles in vertical tubes behind the turret.

Getting the full-sized 100mm missile ahead of a propellant charge into the gun breach is hard enough. How much the gun could add to velocity or range is also dubious. Velocity of the 100mm missile is already 2000 yards per second and it's horizontal range in direct fire is 10,000 yards.

You might could stretch the range by firing at a high angle and not having the rocket motor kick in until it reaches the peak of the gun's trajectory but that would have you firing well over the horizon and you have the problem of telling the 100mm missile component what you want it to hit.

Heavily armored tank turrets usually aren't compatible with high angle capability anyway.

You might find a use for a dedicated high angle gun mount used to boost 100mm missile altitudes but that's an Area Air Defense Vehicle rather than a tank.

Gun-launched missiles were a feature of Soviet tank armament. The US attempt went poorly, but clearly it's feasible possible. I don't think the point is so much adding kick to the missile as having a missile launch tube that you can load and fire from inside the vehicle (as opposed to the externally-mounted launchers you see on some vehicles.)

And it might be more practical than planting a bunch of VLS tubes where most tanks put their engine compartment...