FapsCommunity
ItsDirector from patreon
ItsDirector patreon

The New Era 33

🕑 Added 2025-03-21 10:06:21 +0000 UTC

Comments

Michael Halpern

true enough but i will point out that a lot of the current consideration on up gunning tanks to 130mm or higher (again single piece because longer rod) ALSO is combined with an unmanned turret, either from the start or as a later option. if you are willing to sacrifice some of the armor and/or firepower assault guns/light tanks also have similar roles to the MBT, the main difference being that they are medium vehicles, and are meant for use where you don't anticipate going against heavy armor but you need something protected enough against most artillery and light AT systems.

ItsDirector

I must disagree with your estimation on the necessity of an autoloader for anything above 120mm. The FV4005 had a load-assist, but not a full autoloader and they had the biggest tank-shells ever made (183mm). When I was in the Marines, I used to personally sling 155mm for the M777A2 Medium-Towed Howitzer. That also has a load-assist mechanism, but when it malfunctioned we had to load the shells manually, and it wasn't all that difficult (depending on the elevation lol). The reason that I highlight the armor and mobility features of tanks is because that's the combination that you can't find elsewhere in the armed forces. Artillery packs a lot more punch than tank cannons ever could, but if they're armored they aren't very mobile and vice versa. Aircraft are more mobile and can pack a heavier punch than tanks can, but they're far more fragile. Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but the size of the weapon on a tank has no consideration when defining a vehicle as a tank.

Michael Halpern

one piece 120mm is about as big as you can get without an auto loader, its a point of failure, but not a reduction in capability due to fire rate and the ability to go to an unmanned turret and save a LOT of weight. A tank is armor, mobility and heavy direct/semi direct fire capability, for busting through targets with too much C-RAM for the allotted time. it just so happens the gun is also great for other things- if a bit big. the loss of the additional crew member for maintenance can be handled through the French method, which is to have the 4th crew member in an IFV

ItsDirector

The primary issue with autoloaders is that it adds an unnecessary point of failure while also detracting from the tank's range of capabilities. The addition of this point of failure also adds the requirement of specialized maintenance to avoid said failure while also removing a member of the crew that could aid said maintenance. Despite what your eyes will tell you, the point of a tank isn't the gun. It's the armor and mobility. As such, upscaling the shells would be counter-intuitive because long-range mobile artillery already exists. Biggest tank shells ever used were ~183mm (FV4005), biggest mobile artillery shells ever used were ~800mm (Schwerer Gustav). So, if enemy tanks end up being too armored for your tanks to fight, it makes more sense to look at the tech of the shells than the size of the shells. Or just go for the tread ;)

David Ellis

*Pushes up glasses* "Well akshually, if the light is curving you still wouldn't see a drop from your scope because the light coming from the target in the distance would have similarly been curved by gravity, so it would still appear straight to you."

Michael Halpern

slam fire only lasers... that's got to be an act of sabotage

Michael Halpern

i would think they'd have up calibered the tanks enough to require auto loaders, so that's 3 people, however, ablative applique would probably help against plasma.

Rhuidean

OMFG, I get to read this before work this week!


More Creators