TL9 Heavy Tank

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

I know the tank designers are pushing for bigger calibers, but much like the Navy artillery designers before them, I think they're hitting the point of diminishing utility.

And unlike the naval designers, tanks do have some practical restrictions on how long of a barrel they can tolerate -- positioning among trees, buildings, putting more than one of them on a railcar, etc.

[Polydamas]

Professional tankers like Nicholas Moran these days talk a lot about sensors and communications (thermal imagers are currently the hot technology, the US wants to develop augmented reality system so crew can 'see' in all directions via cameras). Are there any electronics or sensors which could be mounted on a larger vehicle but not a smaller one? Maybe a dedicated AI? What about a point-defense system?

"Gun, motor, and armour" is a mid-20th-century way of thinking about a tank.

Originally Posted by Rupert

Note that in the current war the Ukrainians are finding that many modern western artillery systems are poorly suited for the type of war they're fighting because they don't have a very high sustained rate of fire due to barrel heating. It appears that wars' appetite for shells is as great as ever.

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.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Nightrider_88

Heh. So, there was a discussion deep in he Discord, and one of us came up with a set of ideas for a futuristic heavy tank. I liked that idea and since then I'm thinking how well it would translate into GURPS.

60 tons. Unmanned turret. RHA equivalent of the hull armor should be about meter.

How many human crew: three?

One disadvantage of increasing the bore size is that its likely to slow reaction to (eg. "crunchy with an antitank missile just popped up at 1500 metres and 10 o'clock")

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Professional tankers like Nicholas Moran these days talk a lot about sensors and communications (thermal imagers are currently the hot technology, the US wants to develop augmented reality system so crew can 'see' in all directions via cameras). Are there any electronics or sensors which could be mounted on a larger vehicle but not a smaller one?

Sure, anything big and heavy; for pretty much any sensor bigger means better sensitivity and resolution (which usually translates to more range).

However, bigger doesn't mean "tank", it just means bigger. A lot of dedicated sensor platforms are unarmed. For it to make sense calling it a 'tank' you want armor and weapons that are designed to kill tanks.

A lot of this is going to depend on tech. For example, DEWs are hard to evade but generally easy to armor against, which would encourage an armor paradigm.

[Sam Baughn]

A lot of this design seems to be focussed on 'how an MBT can be even tougher and harder-hitting' rather than asking what the role of the heavy tank on near-future battlefields is going to be, or what challenges they are going to face (or indeed are now facing) in their current role.
Stealth and sensors seem like a really big deal for future tanks. There doesn't seem to be a better platform for active camouflage; they already have to carry a lot of weight, so don't care much about a bit more, they are big and expensive enough to justify fancy computers and expensive defences, they are already built to be low and use cover a lot. Radar stealth seems pretty do-able too. The main issue would seem to be emissions control; tanks are traditionally loud and hot, so seismic sensors, microphones, and passive IR don't have much issue picking them out. I guess sound could be reduced with softer tracks (or maybe lots of big wheels instead of tracks, although at that point it's less of a tank and more a protected gun system or something). Thermal signature could be a case of lower-powered and more efficient engines (or entirely battery / fuel-cell powered), or short-term solutions like batteries to run with the engine off, or active cooling of the exhaust with a tank of coolant. One interesting visual detail is that the surface may well be textured, possibly lumpy, leafy, or 'furry' in order to blend in better with vegetation.
Obviously better sensors and sensor data being better integrated by computer systems for improved situational awareness are very important, but I'd say there isn't much controversy about what that would look like; absolutely loads of small cameras, a big fancy (passive) sensor pointed in the same direction as the main gun, and everything handled by computer to give the crew a 'glass cockpit' experience.
Active defences seem like a difficult proposition. They screw up your stealth, both by broadcasting your position when activated (although by that point, you may assume they already detected you, unless the system can be 'spoofed') and, more importantly, by compromising your stealth surface, either by covering the vehicle in guns, or ripping chunks off when the ERA triggers. I'm inclined to say that this is a worthwhile compromise, because you are going to want a bunch of guns for drone and infantry defence anyway, and it's still better to blow up a chunk of expensive stealth surface than lose a tank.
Active defences are no fun for nearby infantry either, but near-future tanks may be less reliant on infantry support. Numerous (computer controlled) guns and sensors mean they are harder to sneak up on, and drones or robots can protect them while worrying less about explosives and so on. Tanks may well carry some 'tank rider' drones or robots to provide 'organic' support. Unlike human infantry, it isn't such a big deal if they get shot while hitching a ride, and if you need to cut-and-run, you can abandon them.
Weapon-wise I'm unconvinced by ever-bigger very high velocity guns. Are they really that competitive compared to (fast) missiles? Given the amount of barrel-wear expected in an extra-hot ETC gun, might railguns be a viable alternative too? The 40mm railgun in UT does less damage than the lighter 100mm ETC tank cannon, but it is more accurate and shoots a lot faster! Not sure how well the technology could adapt to a slow-firing but harder-hitting version. With computer-controlled weapons, inherent accuracy could be a huge factor (in GURPS terms, you want to raise the maximum effective skill under the Tactical Shooting 'Minute of Angle' rule).
If you're going with an auto-loader, one option might be to mount the gun pretty high in an 'oscillating' turret, with the gun breech and ammo feed projecting quite far behind, so that the barrel can be longer without sticking too far out the front (although this doesn't help if the gun is pointed perpendicular to the hull). Still, I'd be tempted to stick to lower muzzle velocities and maybe use guided shells and explosives (fancy HEAT or SEFOP) to make up for that. Using the rules in Pyramid vol. 3 issue 37, a 160mm heavy howitzer loaded with SEFOP 'only' punches through ~14" of RHA-equivalent, but that's a lot of armour to put on every surface! Such a weapon is also better suited for causing havoc against anything other than tanks and aircraft.
As for battlefield role and threats, the main developments which I see affecting future warfare are that drones (and autonomous flying robots) make aircraft smaller, cheaper, and a lot more common, while smarter missiles make infantry and light vehicles (and drones, and robots) more dangerous. That means the enemy can react to an armoured assault faster and more effectively, so just punching through where they are weak is a less viable option. Tanks will need to be both sneaky and powerful, possibly taking on more of a 'defensive' role like traditional tank destroyers (or late WW2 German tanks, like the Panther and Tiger), or acting as 'assault guns' against well-defended positions, rather than being 'cavalry' which hit hard to break through and then move fast to exploit the opportunity. That cavalry role seems better suited to drones and robots, which can pack tank-like firepower into small packages, and don't worry so much about being cut off or destroyed by rapid-reacting defenders. That suggests speed is less of a consideration than stealth.

[mlangsdorf]

Originally Posted by Sam Baughn

Weapon-wise I'm unconvinced by ever-bigger very high velocity guns. Are they really that competitive compared to (fast) missiles? Given the amount of barrel-wear expected in an extra-hot ETC gun, might railguns be a viable alternative too? The 40mm railgun in UT does less damage than the lighter 100mm ETC tank cannon, but it is more accurate and shoots a lot faster! Not sure how well the technology could adapt to a slow-firing but harder-hitting version.

Directed energy point defense weapons are probably more effective against a fast maneuvering missile than an armor piercing shell on a ballistic arc. The missile can be disabled by taking out its sensors or control systems and may be vulnerable to losing flight stability if its streamlining is disrupted. A hypersonic cannon shell might also be vulnerable to getting diverted by damage to the nose, and a slower shell might be more tolerant of that damage. So I can see a space for moderate velocity tank cannons intended for shooting up other tanks.

I don't have a strong opinion on gauss weapons. I do think if you're not hitting hard enough to crack the other guy's armor it doesn't matter how accurately you can hit him. If a lower caliber gauss weapon can crack the armor, hit more accurately, and fire faster, it's probably a good solution assuming it doesn't weigh too much. The only concerns at that point would be that you're almost certainly giving up the utility of a cannon that can also launch missiles and you may end up with a shell that is too small to carry a useful explosive load on those occasions when you want to blow stuff up.

[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.

Saves a lot on fuel also while it's waiting.

[Polydamas]

A more powerful gun would make more sense if there is an armour technology which can resist current 120-125 mm tank guns at combat ranges. While you can use a tank as an ersatz self-propelled gun, an actual SPG will be cheaper, longer ranged, and have appropriate ammunition and better training for that role. In 1944/1945 this was an issue with tank guns: the standard 75 mm gun on a Sherman was good all round, the British 17 lbr and US 76 mm were higher velocity so could not fit as much of a bursting charge inside a High Explosive shell. Which gun was better depended whether the threat was infantry with Panzerfauste in bunkers or tanks.

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

I do think if you're not hitting hard enough to crack the other guy's armor it doesn't matter how accurately you can hit him.

Apparently in Ukraine we are seeing a lot of HE used against armoured vehicles. While it won't penetrate the armour, a near miss will strip most of the fancy electronics off a tank, at which point its not longer effective on a modern battlefield. If it damages a track, bonus!

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Sam Baughn

Obviously better sensors and sensor data being better integrated by computer systems for improved situational awareness are very important, but I'd say there isn't much controversy about what that would look like; absolutely loads of small cameras, a big fancy (passive) sensor pointed in the same direction as the main gun, and everything handled by computer to give the crew a 'glass cockpit' experience.

And don't forget - the ability to open a hatch, stick their heads out and look around. The cameras will, inevitably, break down at some point, and the crew will need to un-button, and at that point they should be able to get an all-round view (this is a major issue with un-crewed turrets - there's no way for the crew to get a good all-round view without the cameras).

Active defences seem like a difficult proposition. They screw up your stealth, both by broadcasting your position when activated (although by that point, you may assume they already detected you, unless the system can be 'spoofed') and, more importantly, by compromising your stealth surface, either by covering the vehicle in guns, or ripping chunks off when the ERA triggers. I'm inclined to say that this is a worthwhile compromise, because you are going to want a bunch of guns for drone and infantry defence anyway, and it's still better to blow up a chunk of expensive stealth surface than lose a tank.

If your ERA fires, you've been hit, so stealth is clearly a secondary consideration at that point. Also, modern ERA doesn't have a large collateral effect, so only the box that fires need be compromised.

Active defences are no fun for nearby infantry either, but near-future tanks may be less reliant on infantry support.

See above, and add armour to the grunts and 'closeish' infantry should be doable. Being very close to the tanks when they're being shot up is a bad idea anyway - there's the incoming fire, the fragments and spalling, and the fact that the tank might decide to move in some unexpected direction with no warning, and 40-60 or more tons of tank won't notice which side a crunchy was on when it goes over them.

Numerous (computer controlled) guns and sensors mean they are harder to sneak up on, and drones or robots can protect them while worrying less about explosives and so on. Tanks may well carry some 'tank rider' drones or robots to provide 'organic' support. Unlike human infantry, it isn't such a big deal if they get shot while hitching a ride, and if you need to cut-and-run, you can abandon them.

If drones are all over, I can't see a tank not carrying them, and possibly a fourth crew-member to wrangle them (and probably all the other data coming in from networked friendlies as well).

Weapon-wise I'm unconvinced by ever-bigger very high velocity guns. Are they really that competitive compared to (fast) missiles?

Yes, because they can get more velocity out of a given amount of propellant than a rocket can. Thus the current use by the Russians of missiles for very long ranges and standard kinetic penetrators at normal ranges. Also, missile cost a lot more than gun rounds.

Given the amount of barrel-wear expected in an extra-hot ETC gun, might railguns be a viable alternative too? The 40mm railgun in UT does less damage than the lighter 100mm ETC tank cannon, but it is more accurate and shoots a lot faster! Not sure how well the technology could adapt to a slow-firing but harder-hitting version. With computer-controlled weapons, inherent accuracy could be a huge factor (in GURPS terms, you want to raise the maximum effective skill under the Tactical Shooting 'Minute of Angle' rule).

Wear is a thing for railguns, too. As for the maximum accuracy, having a computer aim doesn't increase that - it's inherent to the gun. What it should do is make it easier to reach that cap.

As for battlefield role and threats, the main developments which I see affecting future warfare are that drones (and autonomous flying robots) make aircraft smaller, cheaper, and a lot more common, while smarter missiles make infantry and light vehicles (and drones, and robots) more dangerous. That means the enemy can react to an armoured assault faster and more effectively, so just punching through where they are weak is a less viable option. Tanks will need to be both sneaky and powerful, possibly taking on more of a 'defensive' role like traditional tank destroyers (or late WW2 German tanks, like the Panther and Tiger), or acting as 'assault guns' against well-defended positions, rather than being 'cavalry' which hit hard to break through and then move fast to exploit the opportunity. That cavalry role seems better suited to drones and robots, which can pack tank-like firepower into small packages, and don't worry so much about being cut off or destroyed by rapid-reacting defenders. That suggests speed is less of a consideration than stealth.

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.

Unless the firepower and mobility and a certain degree of survivability can be gotten into a drone or light vehicle, tanks retain their value. 'Survivability' can be 'so cheap it doesn't matter if they die', to a point - you then need the logistics to keep bringing forward those replacement drones and their armaments, and the manufacturing capacity to replace them. Tanks might end up cheaper overall.

Also, the tanks themselves might get smaller and lighter, and carry less armour (as many NATO Cold War tanks did) in exchange for mobility, but they'd still be tanks, just not 'heavy tanks' (which nobody uses these days, though modern NATO tanks are as heavy as the heavier WWII heavy tanks).

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

A more powerful gun would make more sense if there is an armour technology which can resist current 120-125 mm tank guns at combat ranges. While you can use a tank as an ersatz self-propelled gun, an actual SPG will be cheaper, longer ranged, and have appropriate ammunition and better training for that role. In 1944/1945 this was an issue with tank guns: the standard 75 mm gun on a Sherman was good all round, the British 17 lbr and US 76 mm were higher velocity so could not fit as much of a bursting charge inside a High Explosive shell. Which gun was better depended whether the threat was infantry with Panzerfauste in bunkers or tanks.

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.

Apparently in Ukraine we are seeing a lot of HE used against armoured vehicles. While it won't penetrate the armour, a near miss will strip most of the fancy electronics off a tank, at which point its not longer effective on a modern battlefield. If it damages a track, bonus!

It's also really unpleasant for the crew.