New Russian military hardware.

[MongGrel]

Or soldiers with a nice little bazooka. Edit- I take that back. Wow! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)#Possible_countermeasures We need this system.

How about a Paliden?

Do you mean these ?

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/paladin/

I used to build equipment for those also, they have been discontinued.

 

[Cheesemoo]

mammoth tanks vs. chronospheres

:awe:

 

[Blitzvogel]

You might want to read more about that tank. There are 3 separate compartments. The crew, gun, and engine compartments are all separate from each other. And autoloaders are actually just as good as humans, with some even better.

I know about the compartments, but I'm specifically talking about the autoloader being a point of issue. Traditionally, they've been slow and prone to malfunction and sometimes at the cost of ammo storage and ammo type availability for all the mechanical systems necessary to make them work. IIRC The French AMX Leclerc for example also has to lower the gun to it's neutral level boresight position for each round to be loaded, taking valuable time.

Having one less crewman also means one less person to take over an incapacitated crewman or help out with in-the-field tank repairs and maintenance.

I think my solution to the problem would be something like the AMX, except in a smaller scale, or a revolver-cylinder type system that is more manageable to travel in elevation with the gun itself. Each round, it's type, and magazine position would be logged into the tank so you could have for example 4 general APHE, 4 Sabot Rounds, and 2 HE or whatever combo is best.

It's because of these issues, I wouldn't mind phasing out large tank guns for large autocannons that can better accommodate separate magazines of ammo types, and do 90% of the jobs MBTs do. For head-on tank combat, they can still carry AT missiles.

 

[Ns1]

Having one less crewman also means one less person to take over an incapacitated crewman or help out with in-the-field tank repairs and maintenance.

seriously, anyone who has played WoT knows this.

 

[SSSnail]

Wait, why do we even need humans to operate a tank anymore?

 

[norseamd]

Probably the only tank you would probably want to be in is a Merkava with the Trophy system.

At least for now...
Then you just have to worry about other tanks.

I like your feeling of Western Supremacism, as if Russians dont have active protection systems.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Wait, why do we even need humans to operate a tank anymore?

Because some assholes think that using remote-controlled hardware to kill your enemies is "bad" somehow.

 

[norseamd]

I know about the compartments, but I'm specifically talking about the autoloader being a point of issue. Traditionally, they've been slow and prone to malfunction and sometimes at the cost of ammo storage and ammo type availability for all the mechanical systems necessary to make them work. IIRC The French AMX Leclerc for example also has to lower the gun to it's neutral level boresight position for each round to be loaded, taking valuable time.

Having one less crewman also means one less person to take over an incapacitated crewman or help out with in-the-field tank repairs and maintenance.

I think my solution to the problem would be something like the AMX, except in a smaller scale, or a revolver-cylinder type system that is more manageable to travel in elevation with the gun itself. Each round, it's type, and magazine position would be logged into the tank so you could have for example 4 general APHE, 4 Sabot Rounds, and 2 HE or whatever combo is best.

It's because of these issues, I wouldn't mind phasing out large tank guns for large autocannons that can better accommodate separate magazines of ammo types, and do 90% of the jobs MBTs do. For head-on tank combat, they can still carry AT missiles.

I was just reading about a tank being able to reload an elevated tank gun, not sure which one it was, was possibly the Armata, or it could have been the Type 10 or K2 Black Panther. Autoloaders are notably more advanced in the 21st century than when they first came out. Also you can put a co-axial autocannon on a tank, the AMX-30 had one, although not sure how big of one you can put next to a 120 mm tank gun.

 

[norseamd]

Because some assholes think that using remote-controlled hardware to kill your enemies is "bad" somehow.

It is more complex than that. Unmanned systems are nowhere near being able to operate autonomous for anything but very limited spectrum missions, and operating unmanned systems from any major distance means a lot of latency.

 

[norseamd]

seriously, anyone who has played WoT knows this.

There are other tasks than loading that could still be operated by a 4th crewman.

 

[MongGrel]

Not sure what WoT has to do with anything really, everything in it is antiquated to begin with.

It really does not apply to the thread much.

 

[pauldun170]

I like your feeling of Western Supremacism, as if Russians dont have active protection systems.

Never said they didn't have them.

You want to pull some "Western vs Eastern" comment them go ahead.
When it comes to the state of the Russian defense industry, I'm Western Supremacist all the way.

 

[kage69]

Because some assholes think that using remote-controlled hardware to kill your enemies is "bad" somehow.

To be fair, there is a legitimate worry about remote systems being hacked and rendered useless, or worse yet, controllable by someone else.

Remote systems bring a lot of good to the table, but they also present new vulnerabilities that shouldn't be taken lightly, especially when serious ordinance is involved.

 

[ElFenix]

Not sure what WoT has to do with anything really, everything in it is antiquated to begin with.

It really does not apply to the thread much.

didn't you see the graphics in the OP? all that stuff's been in service since 1945.

To be fair, there is a legitimate worry about remote systems being hacked and rendered useless, or worse yet, controllable by someone else.

Remote systems bring a lot of good to the table, but they also present new vulnerabilities that shouldn't be taken lightly, especially when serious ordinance is involved.

serious ordinance like "no parades of tanks after 6:30 pm"

 

[norseamd]

Never said they didn't have them.

You want to pull some "Western vs Eastern" comment them go ahead.

When it comes to the state of the Russian defense industry, I'm Western Supremacist all the way.

Your comments in this thread and the other thread prove that all too well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnNSnJbjdws

 

[Blitzvogel]

Not sure what WoT has to do with anything really, everything in it is antiquated to begin with.

It really does not apply to the thread much.

Yeah, War Thunder is much better, even with the Russian bias

 

[dave_the_nerd]

To be fair, there is a legitimate worry about remote systems being hacked and rendered useless, or worse yet, controllable by someone else.

Remote systems bring a lot of good to the table, but they also present new vulnerabilities that shouldn't be taken lightly, especially when serious ordinance is involved.

I was referring more to the moral objections, like we should have "skin in the game" and put soldiers' lives at risk because if the terrorists can't shoot back and hit meatsack, it's not "fair."

Yes, this is a thing people actually believe.

I fail to see the ethical difference between a Drone remote-controlled from North Dakota and an F16 with a pilot inside, dropping the same missile on the same wedding party, but that's my fault because Drones are scary and I am clearly a closeted chickenhawk warmonger or something.

 

[Blackjack200]