51 replies to this topic

[Alienized]

lol that thing was so slow that you couldnt use it for anything else as defense or st stuff where speed doesnt matter, like the siege of a heavy fortificated city.

it has the turning speed of a snail.

[Anjian]

Kalimaster, on 09 February 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:

Never seen the T28 before. 4 tracks. Neat.

If I recall, this is playable in World of Tanks.

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Tank:T28

Edited by Anjian, 11 February 2015 - 11:06 AM.

[StompingOnTanks]

@ Marack and Silken:

Both of you make some points, but the biggest reason I think tanks will never be obsolete is because they fill a unique battlefield role that nothing else provides.

The biggest roles for a tank are smashing through enemy lines with speed and firepower.

Tanks are an extremely important part of the concept of combined arms. Aircraft provide pave the way by bombing enemy defensive positions that the ground forces by themselves could not deal with, and keep the ground pounders safe by protecting them from air threats; IE enemy fighters and ground attack planes. Infantry storm buildings, take and hold ground, and capture objectives. However, something that neither infantry nor aircraft can or will be able to do, is to smash through heavily fortified enemy defenses with speed and firepower, which is exactly what tanks have been designed to do since the 50s.

"But Stomping, tanks are big and slow!" Yeah, but they're not THAT big and THAT slow. The M1A1 Abrams tank can reach top speeds of a bit over 40mph. That's pretty damn fast for a vehicle that size, and it's surely fast enough to move from objective to objective in a reasonable amount of time.

Tanks are also far more resilient than I think you guys might understand. I'll refer to the Abrams again: We sent hundreds of Abrams tanks into Iraq in the Iraq war against RPGs, T-72s with 120mm guns, and IEDs, yet we only lost two tanks to enemy fire. Two. There were also instances during the same war when friendly Abrams tanks fired on each other, at point blank range by accident, in urban environments. The shots simply bounced off. And just so you know, a 120mm cannon like the Abram's has enough kinetic energy to level a two story brick house in one shot.

"But tanks can be easily killed by cheap effective weapon systems!" Yeah, and so can everything else. A destroyer or aircraft carrier that costs several billion to build can be sunk by a single multi million dollar missile. A Marine whos equipment costs $20,000 and whos training and basic needs cost ~$100,000 can be killed by a 50 cent bullet fired from a $500 AK-47 in the hands of a half starved terrorist with no training. An F-22 that costs over 20 million can be potentially brought down by a $500,000 anti-aircraft quad-gun and a radar, or a $1,000,000 guided missile. And yet, Marines, Navy ships, and jet fighters keep getting made and deployed.

The basic fact is that unless somebody invents power armor with firepower, speed, and survivability comparable to a tank, tanks are not going to become obsolete because nothing can replace them. Sure, air power can fulfill all of the "smash and blow things up" roles that tanks traditionally have, but in a REAL war - not a cute little skirmish against a half-assed 3rd world country with an army with no training and equipment that is 50 years old - there is no guarantee you will have air power available. In fact, most of the time it probably won't be, because it won't be safe to send out air support with modern enemy fighters and anti-air systems prowling around. So, if you need to smash through the enemy line and kill things with massive firepower, but you can't do it with air power for the reasons mentioned above, what could you use? A 60 ton armored death wagon with a gun the size of a car on it. That's what.

So, I believe my argument stands. Tanks will not become obsolete, at least not soon, because they fill a role that nothing else can. They will continue to evolve and improve to meet modern needs and deal with modern threats. Apparently the military must agree with me, because the army has plans for future tanks and I've seen no articles stating that military experts believe tanks will become obsolete anytime soon.

The biggest difference will be their stealth technology, energy weapons, and they will most likely become autonomous or remotely controlled. They're working on that too btw.



But you know what, let's bring up something we can all agree on.

Cookies and cream ice cream is awesome.

[TheSilken]

I believe that tanks are definitely still useful in modern warfare and the future. I was saying that the stealth tank in the video was not since the cost compared to effectiveness ratio was poor. My argument was that that particular piece of military hardware is unlikely to replace the current MBTs because its advantages are limited while the disadvantages are large.

And yes, cookies and ice cream rocks

Edited by TheSilken, 11 February 2015 - 04:27 PM.

[StompingOnTanks]

TheSilken, on 11 February 2015 - 04:23 PM, said:

I believe that tanks are definitely still useful in modern warfare and the future. I was saying that the stealth tank in the video was not since the cost compared to effectiveness ratio was poor.

We don't know how much that tank will actually cost. But if it's anything near what the F22 cost, then yeah, I agree with you.

[Anjian]

Tanks win the battlefield because of one overlying principle:

Weight over Surface ratio.

If you have a 50 ton tank and a 50 ton mech, which would be more survivable in the battlefield?

The tank. Because when armor is divided and distributed over a much smaller surface area, it is also much thicker. Add the profile as well. In addition to that, you can angle your tank towards the enemy, increasing the slope and the effective armor thickness.

Playing MWO, and World of Tanks and War Thunder Ground Forces gives me ideas what tanks can do and what mechs cannot do.

Mechs can't hide as efficiently as tanks can. They can't peep out of the corner, or peep out of the hump, as well as tanks can. Go through tight streets or hide in holes like tanks can. At least the Battlemechs can't, not without a massive redesign that puts the guns on top and turn massive flat chests into thin highly angled and sloped profiles. When we had the chance to create all modularized mechs in Chromehounds, those are the designs we ended up with.

Not sure what is the point of having a "stealth" tank.

Stealth in air and in sea has something to do with radar visibility. Stealth on the air is low visibility against the most common air radars, especially those used in fire control (X band). Stealth on the sea is low visibility against the most common sea radars (usually S band). Those on the sea require larger and flatter surfaces because of the longer radio wave. All of these are meant to confuse and defeat detection (long wave) and tracking radars (shorter wave). It is easier to defeat the latter though, so even if stealth objects are detected, getting a missile lock is extremely difficult. In addition, stealth on both air and sea also includes hiding thermal signatures.

On ground however, there is constant enviromental interference against radar (noise) that makes the use of radar guided weapons impractical. Radar is constantly reflecting from the environment unlike air and sea. Hence all antitank weapons are optically guided. Thermal is also used to detect tanks, so reducing your heat signature is a priority. Thus, "stealthy" look on tanks don't mean sh*t. It is much more important to create optical camouflage, and the use of digital camouflage to disrupt pattern recognition algorithms used in optically guided missiles.

Undersea, with subs, we have a totally different type of stealth, one aimed for noise reduction and sound absorbtion.

In summary,

Stealth on air and sea is to defeat RADAR.
Stealth on land is to defeat OPTICS.
Stealth under the sea is to defeat SONAR.

Finally, when it comes to stealth on all three levels, mechs suck on all these.

Another problem I see with mechs is autostabilization for the gunnery. A tank is a very stable gun platform. Mechs with all their joints and legs are not. Tanks can also handle recoil but how will you design a mech to handle large recoil loads?

Edited by Anjian, 11 February 2015 - 07:18 PM.

[TheSilken]

Not trying to ruin your long post but we did not mention mechs in this thread at all.

[StompingOnTanks]

Yeah man. We talkin' 'bout armored boxy shooty things on wheelie tread stuff.

[TheSilken]

Do appreciate the info on stealth though. Always good to get a refresher.

[Kalimaster]

To bad we don't have any photo's from the inside of any of these monsters.

[StompingOnTanks]

I, for one, just want the army to deploy their Armored Cores already.



C'MON PENTAGON. WE KNOW YOU HAVE THEM.

[GonaDie]

YEAH! I want my TIMBY!

[H3llokuromi]

=)

Edited by H3llokuromi, 17 February 2015 - 02:48 PM.

[Sonny Black]

Working on the inner tracks of the T28, must have a real joy.

[Colonel Fubar]

StompingOnTanks, on 09 February 2015 - 12:06 PM, said:

I wish we still built big supertanks like that. Sadly tanks aren't considered as important as they were during WWII.

I agree...But when one foot soldier can terminate a tank...wait till the new enhanced personal armor is release...the world will change forever! Until That Day!

[Anjian]

Sorry to raise this old thread again. It looks like the T28 and T95 are headed to War Thunder. Growing WoT like power creep?

https://warthunder.c...log/current/767

Edited by Anjian, 22 April 2015 - 12:14 AM.

[Kalimaster]

I must admit that the concept of a Stealth Tank is neat. Even if they play only a limited role, I can see that the idea of this tank being in the area would play havoc with the moral of an opponent.

[AWOL 01]

Anjian, on 11 February 2015 - 07:12 PM, said:

Tanks win the battlefield because of one overlying principle:

Weight over Surface ratio.

If you have a 50 ton tank and a 50 ton mech, which would be more survivable in the battlefield?

The tank. Because when armor is divided and distributed over a much smaller surface area, it is also much thicker. Add the profile as well. In addition to that, you can angle your tank towards the enemy, increasing the slope and the effective armor thickness.

Playing MWO, and World of Tanks and War Thunder Ground Forces gives me ideas what tanks can do and what mechs cannot do.

Mechs can't hide as efficiently as tanks can. They can't peep out of the corner, or peep out of the hump, as well as tanks can. Go through tight streets or hide in holes like tanks can. At least the Battlemechs can't, not without a massive redesign that puts the guns on top and turn massive flat chests into thin highly angled and sloped profiles. When we had the chance to create all modularized mechs in Chromehounds, those are the designs we ended up with.

Another problem I see with mechs is autostabilization for the gunnery. A tank is a very stable gun platform. Mechs with all their joints and legs are not. Tanks can also handle recoil but how will you design a mech to handle large recoil loads?

I came to this discussion late and I know we're not really discussing mechs but I just wanted to point out a few things.

The development of carbon nanotube muscles would actually allow mechs to carry the same, if not more armor than tanks. They are incredibly light and powerful, they run on very little power, and are strong enough to withstand even large caliber rounds hitting them. In my opinion mechs would be like walkers from BF2142:

Kind of like a tank turret on legs. It would be relatively small, no more than 20-25 feet. If you look at the silhouettes of this mech vs a tank, the mech actually presents a smaller target. The side of a tank is a VERY large target compared to the side of a mech, and from the front most of the mech's profile is empty space between the legs. The turret of the mech could use the same slopes as tanks, and the legs are well protected by the CNT muscles and the extra armor it can carry because it replaces the engine, transmission, etc. that the tank needs with a very light movement system would allow them to be sufficiently armored.

Mechs would actually be very good at peeking around corners and over humps because of their legs. They can crouch down to hide behind smaller cover, or they can extend their legs for extra height, allowing it to transition from a hide position to a hull-down position much quicker than a tank. Also, when a tank peeks out from behind a corner, it has to expose the large portion of its hull that is in front of the turret in order to fire. A mech doesn't have that. For example, the mech pictured above would expose almost none of its turret or legs while still being able to fire its minigun around the corner.

Computer systems could very easily compensate for any instability in a legged design. And there's this:

[Anjian]

The vulnerability of a mech vs. a tank is the very high profile of a tank. There is no stealth qualities in a mech whatsover, because the complex geometry of the legs and the underside are sure to reflect radar and emit heat. The higher the profile, the greater the detecion range.

If carbon nanotube technologies are applied to mechs, they can easily be applied to tanks too. A tank design is so much more compact, this allows that for the same weight allocation of armor, the armor on the tank is going to much more dense and less thinned out. Large surface areas defeat armor density.

Tanks have no problems hiding their hull for peek and boo tactics. In fact, tanks are ideal for peak and boo tactics. In fact, that is one of the most essential things you will learn if you have to play tank games like World of Tanks or War Thunder Ground Forces.


There is a tactic called sidescraping. In this case, the tank is set in a way that much of the hull is covered by the wall, and the exposed side is steeply angled.





Similar to tank sidescrapping is tank angling. By angling the tank, the slope of the armor towards the enemy tank is greatly increased, making effective thickness of the armor much greater.





Another tactic tanks do very well is hull down. That is, you bury the hull down at a depression, then use the tank's gun depression to shoot over the edge. If the tank is under fire, it is going to hit the turret, which is the strongest and most sloped part of the tank, resulting in the shell having a high deflection rate.





The height of a mech makes hull down difficult to do, and requires that humping, which is a similar tactic, must have all the weapons hardpoints at the top of the mech. However, ground depressions that a tank can use for hull down tactics are going to be much more common --- like the crater of a shell blast --- than a structure or hill tall enough for a mech to do humping.

Sidescrapping and angling are difficult to do on a mech due to the arms, as well as the width of the torso. Sometimes firing means spme shots would hit the environment rather than the target due to the firing to target geometries.

Unless of course, the mech only has one main weapon, like a big rifle, and holds it on the shoulder, like an infantry soldier. Or the mech can raise its arms, so its weapons can fire at the shoulder position.



You will also note that in this position, the mech can use its arms to hide the torso.

Another way mechs would have to be viable is something we know about in Mechwarrior: Pop tarting. Some of you may not know this, but pop tarting exists in real life, with assault helicopters. They hide behind a structure, rise above, lock on to the target, fire, then descend down quickly back to the cover of the structure.

Edited by Anjian, 23 April 2015 - 10:00 PM.

[Kalimaster]

Choppers. Gotta love what they can do. One of my favorites is the Cobra. I know that the long bow is better, however there is just something neat about how the Cobra looks when compared to other attack helicopters.