Tanks and other Armoured Vehicles Image thread.

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
I wonder if that’s intentional. Keeps the balance of power as is and allows for Western military adventures that can stretch on for years and years…
No, it's more like Congress (in the US's case) never liked shelling money for the military unless they absolutely had to (and, in Congress's eyes, they didn't have to until this decade). For Europe, they've got to do a balancing act between keeping the welfare stable and keeping the military funded.
 

DarthOne

☦️
No, it's more like Congress (in the US's case) never liked shelling money for the military unless they absolutely had to (and, in Congress's eyes, they didn't have to until this decade). For Europe, they've got to do a balancing act between keeping the welfare stable and keeping the military funded.

Congress not liking to give the military money?

(Looks at the ginormous US defense budget)

…If you say so.
 
Last edited:

Carrot of Truth

War is Peace
I have been sort of wondering if the future of tanks will be what is basically a fusion of a main battle tank and a self propelled artillery gun. In theory you would have a main battle tank that is also capable of performing indirect fire with high explosive rounds and such. I vaguely recall seeing something about that concept in a documentary years ago but I am unsure of the research into that ever went anywhere.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
I have been sort of wondering if the future of tanks will be what is basically a fusion of a main battle tank and a self propelled artillery gun. In theory you would have a main battle tank that is also capable of performing indirect fire with high explosive rounds and such. I vaguely recall seeing something about that concept in a documentary years ago but I am unsure of the research into that ever went anywhere.
Maybe sorta. I mean you certainly can and have seen tanks used in IF mode. The problem with making your artillery also an MBT is that you vastly increase the cost of said artillery. SP-Artillery doesn't need that sort of protection.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
I have been sort of wondering if the future of tanks will be what is basically a fusion of a main battle tank and a self propelled artillery gun. In theory you would have a main battle tank that is also capable of performing indirect fire with high explosive rounds and such. I vaguely recall seeing something about that concept in a documentary years ago but I am unsure of the research into that ever went anywhere.
It is doable since WW2 if not earlier, and occasionally done, but it's always a kinda desperate move from lack of guns or lack of better use for old tanks, rather than because it works well, because it doesn't work well. It is always found out to be suboptimal, as you can optimize a vehicle to be a good tank and crappy SPG, a good SPG and crappy tank, or something that's barely mediocre at both roles.
SPGs need a big gun with lots of ammo and space inside to load it fast and fire it at high elevations which means a yuge, tall turret that's hard to armor well, tanks need thick armor and lots of auxiliary stuff inside that means limited room in turret, SPG needs a rifled gun for range, tank needs a smoothbore for APFSDS and HEAT, and even if you did a miraculous balancing act, then you get the organizational shitshow with deciding how many of the hybrid vehicles should hang back near ammo stockpiles providing fire support, how many should fight at close range, and who should command which second rate tanks and SPGs.

So, why stick the artillery gun in a heavily armored, expensive and logistically tough to move around vehicle, when you may as well stick it on a relatively cheap tracked transporter chassis or even a 8x8 truck?
 

Carrot of Truth

War is Peace
It is doable since WW2 if not earlier, and occasionally done, but it's always a kinda desperate move from lack of guns or lack of better use for old tanks, rather than because it works well, because it doesn't work well. It is always found out to be suboptimal, as you can optimize a vehicle to be a good tank and crappy SPG, a good SPG and crappy tank, or something that's barely mediocre at both roles.
SPGs need a big gun with lots of ammo and space inside to load it fast and fire it at high elevations which means a yuge, tall turret that's hard to armor well, tanks need thick armor and lots of auxiliary stuff inside that means limited room in turret, SPG needs a rifled gun for range, tank needs a smoothbore for APFSDS and HEAT, and even if you did a miraculous balancing act, then you get the organizational shitshow with deciding how many of the hybrid vehicles should hang back near ammo stockpiles providing fire support, how many should fight at close range, and who should command which second rate tanks and SPGs.

So, why stick the artillery gun in a heavily armored, expensive and logistically tough to move around vehicle, when you may as well stick it on a relatively cheap tracked transporter chassis or even a 8x8 truck?

Still a tank being capable of indirect fire seems like it could be extremely useful on paper at least.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
Still a tank being capable of indirect fire seems like it could be extremely useful on paper at least.
Potentially...but there's lots of drawbacks to it.
1. ammo...everything you pack for indirect is generally useless for direct fire against armored targets.
2. generally don't have the targeting systems capable of both. even if you do you have to make sure the turret can move barrel and chamber to sufficient angle to make it possible.
3. doing #2 weakens turret assembly to resist direct fire
etc...
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Still a tank being capable of indirect fire seems like it could be extremely useful on paper at least.
Exactly, on paper.
In reality, it would be sentenced to be shit at one or both of the jobs.
Modern tanks can more or less do indirect fire and in Ukraine the crappier ones do, but the other side of this is that they are worth about as much as a (not particularly good) WW2 SPG while doing so. Meanwhile commanders would have to constantly argue about which job to allocate which vehicles to.
Potentially...but there's lots of drawbacks to it.
1. ammo...everything you pack for indirect is generally useless for direct fire against armored targets.
That's the least of the problems, tanks have plenty of use for HE and HEDP, and if push comes to shove a direct hit with big HE will fuck up a tank more or less anyway. Gun choice is a worse problem than ammo. For optimal artillery oomph and range you want ~150mm gun, and you want it rifled, firing multi part charges for high angle fire.
Tank guns now are optimal around 120-130mm range, and you want a smoothbore for a tank, with quick to load one piece ammo.
What do?
Use 130mm, get less range than enemy specialized SPGs, get ganked with superior range of enemy counterbattery fire while being unable to return counterbattery fire.
Use 155mm, get either unpractically low ammo load plus lack of much arc shot ability, or a 90-100 ton tank with a giant turret, middling armor, ballooning costs and limited mobility.
2. generally don't have the targeting systems capable of both. even if you do you have to make sure the turret can move barrel and chamber to sufficient angle to make it possible.
3. doing #2 weakens turret assembly to resist direct fire
etc...
Yeah, having a good SPG turret will make it a delicate tank turret due to the sheer size needs and in turn armor that would be necessary to cover it. Having a good tank turret will make it a shitty SPG turret. Purely on account of elevation needs, ammo, secondary weapons and loading mechanisms. Targeting is the least issue with modern electro-optics involved.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Abhorsen is sounding more and more like the Reformists... which is bad.

pegasus_hcv_revisited_by_cthelmax_d6sjaiz-fullview.jpg

republic_of_korva___ivc_selvans_by_b0iledegg_d9cvxvc-fullview.jpg
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
I'm stuck here wondering at what sort of military budget where building modular fighting vehicles like this makes sense. Perhaps a waterlogged nation that needs a lot of amphibious vehicles.

Also, the roof of the rear cabin makes me think the missiel variant should go with VLS cells in back and a smaller sensor mast fitted to the turret basket.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
The 'original' Hiller platform could reach 16 MPH and up to 30 feet. However, the larger 'Pawnee' version that the military was actually looking at could only barely get out of ground effect and was even slower; it was also difficult to control, as it was found that it could not use the supposedly intuitive "kinesthetic" leaning control of the smaller version, and instead the operator was seated but still had to throw their weight around to steer the device.
It should also be noted that it was made before the advent of 'fly by wire' (i.e., letting computers do all the hard work of flying an aircraft), which would make it easier to fly, and more advanced powerplants and propulsion units that we have today.

We could make a better Hiller platform today; it's just that helicopters are generally better overall in a combat situation. It could be of better use in the police or MP role, however.
12-Minions-and-hovercraft.jpg

[one of the few images of Jonny Quest Hover Platforms I could find of decent quality, used in their intended role surprisingly enough]​
Also, more tax:
dbsyltj-0aa0721a-b2fb-417b-ade3-aa35e146a534.png
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top