03-15-2023, 02:46 PM | #41 | |
Join Date: Mar 2013
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
Of course, the difference between "explosively igniting aluminium and fuel mix inside your tank" vs. "real thermobaric bomb" is probably a trivial distinction to the unfortunate crew of said tank. |
|
03-15-2023, 03:27 PM | #42 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
One of the troubles with the Peruns and Nicholars Morans and Bernhard Kasts producing videos rather than essays is that its hard to track down things like "which Soviet tank has a vulnerability low on the side towards the back which lets autocannon fire reach the ammunition storage." But that is design error + vehicles being used long after their intended lifetime + vehicles being used in close quarters without supporting infantry so the other fellow can get a close-ranged shot at the side hull.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
03-15-2023, 04:25 PM | #43 | |||||||||||||||||
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
The problems with a larger gun are many: -Larger gun ammo is heavier and more bulky, if the proportions stay the same in the ammo, the 150mm ammo would be twice the mass and more importantly volume, so you could carry less ammo. -Larger gun is longer to get the same length rating and a 120mm/L50 gun is already annoyingly long. -autoloader: see below Then the actual proposed technology: Having carbon tubes as a contact surface to a projectile sounds unlikely as such construction is really not very abrasion resistant and thus would not last many shots. Quote:
As you want as long as possible penetrator that does not shatter and with better alloys I guess thus that your gun would likely thus fire a say 40:1 penetrator to give it best possible penetration. Thus the penetrator would be about 1.3 meters long. You want a 2400m/s muzzle velocity. Estimating that the sabot would need to be close to current 50% of projectile mass due to the huge bore you want to fire the 32mm diameter dart. Thus you are around 86 mj muzzle energy. That is about 6-7 times 120mm apfsdsdu ammo. Basically your gun would need to contain that in about double the volume of 120mm gun. That is some interesting pressures and would require quite sturdy design. Making it telescoping would require a much sturdier sabot as the uranium rod is very fragile to sideways effects given how thin it is. So that sounds like an "interesting" development path to get it all working.. I would expect a lot of snapped penetrators in the process. Quote:
Your super lightweight sabot cannot survive the explosion that is the thing needed to reach that muzzle velocity, specially if you go for the telescoping case. As for autoleader handling easily the at least 1.5 meter long and 15cm diameter object. Well, way less handily than the 12cm diameter 1 meter long 120mm ammo of today. Quote:
Yes, tanks do and should act in direct fire role to support other forces, but using them for indirect fire is wasting the lifespan of the gun in tasks better done by other platforms. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If used you would likely want a fairly high load of ammo to deal with drones, autonomous ground combat units and such. Also regardless you want a machinegun, as you will also likely meet infantry unless the enemy is totally incompetent. If all infantry is in bodyarmor it would likely be something larger like a 12.7mm, but else a normal 7.62 or similar would do the job. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The interesting question on the powertrain would be the balance of the powerplant and the batteries. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nothing in your design indicates how it would get that against kinetic penetrarors. |
|||||||||||||||||
03-15-2023, 04:34 PM | #44 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Nothing that having a different range scale in the sights (which they had to have anyway) wouldn't deal with. Nor should the barrel length, etc. matter if the round is designed for that gun.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
03-15-2023, 04:41 PM | #45 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
NATO militaries have secret discussions about the relative merits of electronic warfare (details carefully not specified in public) and MGs or autocannons for drone defense, but it seems plausible enough for gaming purposes that EW has not defeated small drones as a threat as of the mid 21st century. Another thing we are seeing in contemporary wars is that combined-arms mechanized warfare is hard and many professional militaries struggle with keeping all the different systems working together. So there is some argument for putting the air defense (and maybe general point-defense system?) on the tank. Two autocannons and a HMG (coaxial with the main gun?) might be pushing it.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature Last edited by Polydamas; 03-15-2023 at 04:52 PM. |
|
03-15-2023, 05:31 PM | #46 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
The 'commander's' MG, on the other hand, is usually an HMG and historically was intended for AA use as much as anti-personnel use, at least originally. Replacing that with an automated anti-drone (and possibly active anti-missile) system using an HMG or cannon would be a simple evolution. It would presumably have over-rides so the commander could use it to shoot up annoying infantry and the like as well.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
03-15-2023, 05:32 PM | #47 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
One of the possible lessons of the current Russo-Ukranian war is that a cheap drone can act as a scout for tank killing systems or sometimes be a tank killer itself, and therefore tanks (and other elements like IFVs and SPGs) need a cheap system for killing cheap drones. No nation can really afford to spend $150K+ on the SAMs that kill the $5K drone.
Because of that, and the threat of guided missiles, I expect that a TL9 tank is going to have some point defense weapons. Whether those are multiple rifle caliber machine guns with smart targeting systems, some low powered directed energy weapons, or something else, I'm not sure, but I'd expect to see at least two other weapon mounts for anti-drone and point defense. The TL9 tank might be armed with something like a 130mm high velocity main gun that can fire anti-tank guided missiles, a 25mm autocannon on top of the turret for discouraging large drones and taking out unarmored vehicles, a co-axial light machine gun for shooting infantry, and a anti-drone/point defense laser on each corner of the hull.
__________________
Read my GURPS blog: http://noschoolgrognard.blogspot.com |
03-15-2023, 06:24 PM | #48 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
|
|
03-15-2023, 06:37 PM | #49 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
Quote:
I guess a bit depends on whether you see TL 9 as "the TL 9 in GURPS Ultratech which was rooted in the 1980s and 1990s" or "2050ish technology as seen from 2023." The former has more room for laser weapons than the latter.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
|
03-15-2023, 06:58 PM | #50 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: TL9 Heavy Tank
I'm not particularly expecting to see them in Ukraine, but anti-drone laser weapons are in fairly late testing phases.
|
|
|