Tanks and other Armoured Vehicles Image thread.

If you suffer from barrel ablation, it would still probably be more weight efficient to have both barrels, and possible a third, emplaced on a central rotary mount rather than duplicating so much autoloader.
Good luck with boresighting and stuff like that in combat conditions, accuracy would suffer with that system.
All depends on particular autoloader design, if there is an autoloader at all.
And it comes with a bonus in form of ability to do a quick 1-2 shot if needed, plus some redundancy against damage or malfunctions.
 
To be fair, the proposed Swedish Strv. 2000 was quite a bit smaller than any other 140mm concept, at only 52 tons. It also placed a high emphasis on mobility, being designed with a 1500-horsepower engine (i.e. equal horsepower to that of most other Western MBTs, but those other MBTs weigh 60-75 tons).

And more important,looked cool.I would made it only for that reason,if i were swedisch goverment.

The M3 Lee and Grant were technically double barreled

And french B.1 heavy tanks,and churchills,too.
I think,that it could worked for infrantry tanks,but not medium one.
 
Still better then a lot of other tanks in the war
Yeah, the base design was solid, with a decent armor compared to early war tank designs and as every american model far more mechanically reliable than tanks from every other country, but the turreted 37mm AT gun and a 75mm in a sponson with very limited traverse was inferior in firepower and configuration than either the upgunned Panzer III with a 50mm or the long barreled versions of the Panzer IV while having a taller profile and being unable to use its 75mm on a hull down protected position.

And unlike those two tanks the configuration of the Lee/Grant made it unpractical to upgrade its weapons.
 
Been reading up on electrothermal-chemical guns, From the gist of what I read it seems that its possible to give say a 120mm the firepower of a 140mm or possibly more somehow.
 
Last edited:
It's still the gunpowder, but plasma ignition means that propellant burns up more efficiently, thus giving the projectile more energy.
 
It's still the gunpowder, but plasma ignition means that propellant burns up more efficiently, thus giving the projectile more energy.

Well that would be better than needing a 140mm+ gun weight wise. With the way development is currently going we will end up unironically creating the Panzer Maus.
 
And unlike those two tanks the configuration of the Lee/Grant made it unpractical to upgrade its weapons.

To be fair, the Lee/Grant was an interim weapons upgrade of the M2 Medium Tank in the first place. The M4 Sherman was the "proper" upgrade.
 
It's still the gunpowder, but plasma ignition means that propellant burns up more efficiently, thus giving the projectile more energy.
That's the boring application of it. The real shit is that it will make feasible new, different types of propellants, including some that will have higher has expansion speeds than conventional ones, allowing APFSDS rounds to reach velocities higher than available now, which will improve their performance, especially in lower calibers and with tungsten penetrators.
 
That's the boring application of it. The real shit is that it will make feasible new, different types of propellants, including some that will have higher has expansion speeds than conventional ones, allowing APFSDS rounds to reach velocities higher than available now, which will improve their performance, especially in lower calibers and with tungsten penetrators.

Apparently South Korea is investing heavily in that technology for their K2 Black Panther.
 
Apparently South Korea is investing heavily in that technology for their K2 Black Panther.

Given the smaller physical size of Asians, larger and heavier calibers are an even bigger penalty than with American and European tankers. That's part of why the K2 Black Panther has an autoloader system, which most 120mm armed Western tanks do not.
 
Given the smaller physical size of Asians, larger and heavier calibers are an even bigger penalty than with American and European tankers. That's part of why the K2 Black Panther has an autoloader system, which most 120mm armed Western tanks do not.
Looking up the tank, it looks more like they went all-in on a high tech tank. I wonder how maintenance intensive the In-Arm Suspension Unit is?
 
Realistically most tanks are probably about to start becoming unmanned so autoloaders will just be a par the course thing.
Several major tank producing countries have experimented with that recently, they all came to the same conclusion. Somehow you don't see those showing up on the battlefields.
The main problem is a nasty gordian knot of tanks' eternal situational awareness problem combined with the inherent EW problems and vulnerabilities of drones.
You need either a commander looking through the hatch of a tank or a shitload of very expensive sensors for it to have decent situational awareness.
The first option is out in a drone tank, so you need at least as many cameras as on most generously equipped normal MBTs, which are already insanely expensive, mostly due to the increasing amount of electronics.
But here's the thing, to transfer so much video data without much latency you need an insanely powerful, high quality and secure datalink. Multiply by hundreds of tanks. Add jamming, damage, terrain.
If that was going to have the slightest chance to work, we would be using command guidance missiles far more often. They require the same things, but in far lesser quantity. Yet for such reasons those are usually a relic of at least half a century ago.
 
Last edited:
Lets say you have a bunch of drone tanks in the wilderness waiting for an ambush. Then a bear walks up, it decides one of these funny looking rocks in front of it would make a good place to take a nap, so it sits on top of the antenna for one of your drone tanks. That drone tank is now mission killed because there is there is not 200 kilograms of water blocking the signal.

Hell, a flock of birds pigeons can mission kill a drone tank by shitting all over its sensors, a crewed tank would just send someone out with a rag, but the drone tank can't. There are thousands of trivial maintenance problems a crewed tank can deal with that will mission kill a drone tank.
 
Why do you think the US has yet to go for an autoloader and have only had UAVs?
UAVs have a constant link and less things that can cause the signal to be interrupted
 
Why do you think the US has yet to go for an autoloader and have only had UAVs?
UAVs have a constant link and less things that can cause the signal to be interrupted
Also how even the drones aren't meant for maneuver combat or ground attack with manually guided weapons, only hanging around as a platform for sensors and launching "point at target and leave everything to computers" guided munitions, so a lagspike is no big deal if it happens.
 
Also how even the drones aren't meant for maneuver combat or ground attack with manually guided weapons, only hanging around as a platform for sensors and launching "point at target and leave everything to computers" guided munitions, so a lagspike is no big deal if it happens.
Exactly
 
@Urabrask Revealed Not gonna lie. You Germans sure know how to built a sweet looking Tank.

220614_rheinmetall_KF51.png
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top