Is the use of loitering munitions by tanks and other frontline vehicles a meme or could it actually revolutionise modern armoured warfare?
Is the use of loitering munitions by tanks and other frontline vehicles a meme or could it actually revolutionise modern armoured warfare?
Only being able to carry 20 main gun rounds is the real meme
>He still hasn't contacted Rheinmettal to ask what is the actual stowage capacity.
You think I've forgotten you from the cope threads you've been making all week?
What the frick are you talking about?
Jesus this guy really has the 20round autoloader living rent free in her(male) head
That’s what the rheinmentall release said and it’s really not a lot of ammo for a tank. You’d be surprised how fast tanks chew through ammo when they’re leveling buildings and destroying hardened positions
The 130mm FGS has been developed specifically for current gen tank killing, not for leveling buildings. Any handheld ASM can do that job now, or even older gun systems you can duct tape to a troop carrier. 20 FGS rounds = 20 tank kills
Armored vehicles or ATGM positions in cover, which would normally be destroyed with an airstrike or artillery, can now be destroyed by the tank itself.
I wonder if an APS couldn't just counter them though. Optionally the drones can also just scout the area, which is a huge advantage.
20 in the ready rack, 10 in the hull stowage.
That's as much as most MBTs carry right now and that with a larger caliber.
Rheinmetall wasn't very clear about it because the hull isn't out of the prototype phase yet.
A forgivable mistake but you people are going so hard at it, that you appear like trolls.
Lurk moar, some anon posted an official document in the last thread.
>I wonder if an APS couldn't just counter them though.
Probably, but I see them more suited to frick up lighter targets than tanks. For example ATGM teams hiding in forested areas or artillery.
>20 in the ready rack, 10 in the hull stowage.
Source? I haven’t seen rheinmentall say that
>Lurk moar, some anon posted an official document in the last thread.
Document about what?
look, I can’t prove what you’re saying wrong but that’s not what this thread is about. Stay on topic
https://esut.de/2022/06/meldungen/34795/weltpremiere-des-mittleren-kampfpanzers-kf51-panther/
> Im Lader werden 20 Schuss mitgeführt, im Panzer weitere zehn.
"20 shells are stored in the loader and 10 in the hull"
>inb4 source invalid
This magazine exists since 1952 and their other magazine "Soldat & Technik", which is an official service magazine for the Bundeswehr, since 1958.
I speak German and that doesn’t say anything about 10 rounds in the hull. Very disingenuous attempt at trying to lend credence to your argument. I didn’t care and wasn’t involved in your gay little fued until I saw this.
>Nach Aussage von Rheinmetall stehen für das FGS Wuchtmunition (KE) und programmierbare Sprengmunition (mit Luftsprengpunkt) sowie Übungsmunition zur Verfügung. Im Lader werden 20 Schuss mitgeführt, im Panzer weitere zehn.
>According to Rheinmetall, mass ammunition (KE) and programmable explosive ammunition (with air blast point) as well as practice ammunition are available for the FGS. 20 shots are carried in the loader, and another ten in the tank.
Oh and it can also carry 10 extra rounds outside on the back of the hull, I imagine for ease of transport.
Ah okay you're just a troll.
>pls believe my pig rune source!
>what do you mean Stars and Stripes doesn’t have the authority to make claims that the manufacturer deliberate left up to interpretation
It's 20 ready and 20 total. There is NO storage space for extra rounds in the hull and it doesn't matter if there is, because refilling the autoloader would require several minutes.
Samegay
>caring about main gun rounds over drones
Is this 2001?
>caring about the tanks MAIN armament
Yes
If the tank has the loitering munition module integrated, the main cannon only holds 10 rounds. This is why nobody will get the drone package. It's better to have a support vehicle handle the drones.
*20 in the ready rack, more elsewhere
>warriortard got destroyed so hard yesterday that he changed targets from British IFVs to the Panther
That's pretty funny.
The T-72 has 22 round in it's autoloader
I heard more experienced Russian tank crews only carry 8 rounds because of the autoloader.
I'm sure its nice, but should be stuck on a dedicated carrier instead of putting the drone operator right there on the frontline, any link between the drone and the tank can be established anyway but you lose another crewman in the tank so it can be smaller and lighter.
Or give it actual hull storage for 130mm rounds. 20 in the whole tank just doesn’t cut it
I thought it was quite obvious that the increased shell size(and therefore kinetic energy, range, lethality) came at the cost of capacity. You would think this would be common sense and wouldn't need to be explained.
Tell that to the rabid rheinmentall fanboys claiming a 10 round rotary drum is stored in the hull.
>fanboys
It’s one guy. Notice how he relies on the obscurity of the “last thread where he BTFO this argument”. Actual military enthusiasts recognize that 130mm is such a step up that the decrease in capacity is worth the added capabilities 130mm offers.
Yeah, it seems like a strange decision. Maybe they're thinking of 3rd world countries that can afford new tanks every now and then, but don't have the training and datalink capabilities to distribute drone control like that.
You don't want to cut the crew too much because having an extra crewman is important for maintenance on the field.
... that sounds like something that should REALLY be done with external personell.
Yeah but some shit like changing a broken track could have to be done in field conditions without access to the main logistical hub.
There's gonna be some sort of support around the tank anyway, at any time. They don't operate in a vacuum after all, not in a competent army anyway. Tank space is too precious a commodity to house maintenance personell.
The logical answer is to use permanent mixed formations like the US ACRs used to do; Don't just interleave a mech inf BN with a tank BN for wargames and combat, mix them together at the company or even platoon level full-time, and train the infantry enough that they can do basic maintenance on the tanks as well as their own rides.
The downside, of course, is that this makes it somewhat more expensive and difficult to manage training infantry on infantry tasks, because tank and infantry training schedules don't line up perfectly, but it does lead to a superior result when you actually take to the field, because everybody has ample experience working together.
Why nobody makes loitering ammunition shootable through barrel?
Sensitive electronics don't react well to multiple hundreds of Gs of acceleration.
I think the drone/Ew operator is going to become the next new normal. Having a spotter or suicide Drone on call is a big advantage .
And there is no reason why not.
Reminder that >O-ONLY 20 ROUND CAPACITY gays got absolutely BTFO a few days ago by a technical document by Rheinmettal that stated the autoloader capacity and coaxial machinegun capacity only referred to ready rounds, not total capacity.
Not 1(one) homosexual who has been shilling anti Panther nonsense is an operational tanker, FGS designer, or any military oriented mechanical engineering profession
How is that evidence of hull storage? Can you link me to a source detailing that the tank Carrie’s more than 20 rounds?
You are fully capable of contacting Rheinmettal via their contact portal to request information about any of their products, as I already explained to you a few days ago, yet you're still here talking horseshit on /k/.
So are you. Get back to me after you contact rheinmentall and finally have proof that the tank can carry more than 20 rounds
Just wait for some bundeswehr autist to post classified specs on the warthunder forums and we'll find out
Bundeswehr isn't involved so no. But you bet your ass there's warthunder players on rheinmetall staff.
have to realize that drone counter measures have really fallen behind drones.
Drones enjoyed enourmous civilian success and investment while anti drone capabilities only get funding through military channels and that's only really became focus for some militaries in the last 3-5 years, 5 years being optimistic, in these 5 years commercial drones etc been puring billions into it's capabilities.
I think this is the peak of drones before counter measures catch up, Not deying drones will play a huge role in the battlefield during the next decade, but they've peaked, not everything is getting replaced by drones, these loitering drones would be frick all when counter measures become as available as the drones themselves, certainly won't be replacing artillery or airstrikes on that role.
Laser-based APS/DIRCM, perhaps on a mini-turret with a coaxial mini-AESA for jamming EM-based guidance, should solve a lot of the problem. Hard to say how many years out that is, though. In the long run, tanks will need sensor fusion capabilities like the F-35's, in order to identify threats quickly enough to engage them prior to impact.
>Ideal for anti-tank missions, or other strategic objectives, the Hero-120 is the largest of the short-range systems. It carries a 4.5 kg warhead and can endure an extended flight time of 60 minutes.
>Weight (with canister): 18 kg
>Warhead: 4.5 kg
>Range: 60+ km
>Endurance: 60 min
>Engine: Electrical
>Launch method: Single/Multi-Canister
How can other tanks cope?
>it has a fricking CIWS
jesus christ, its so based.
>can only carry 20 rounds
wtf bros I don't understand, that's not enough for a service rifle. Why do 5.56 rifles carry more ammo than 7.62? I simply cannot comprehend any feasible reason why this would happen
Actually the scar can carry another 10 round rotary magazine inside the pistol grip. No I don’t have any source to back this up but it just can ok
>technical documents for the SCAR-H say the magazine can only carry 20 rounds.
>Nothing was mentioned about how much a soldier can carry on his vest.
>In my brain this means the total ammunition carried can only be 20 rounds.
>don’t know the difference between 7.62mm and 130mm
>don’t realize that rifle ammo can be stored anywhere with 0 protection
>don’t realize that 13m tank ammo has to be protected and stored in designated places so as not to emulate t-72 turret tosses when hit
this cope doesn’t work
Being able to fire only 20 rounds before needing to run and hide for half an hour would be shameful even if the tank did have hull storage for more of those 2m long 130mm shells, which it does not.
Ah yes, because tanks are well known to operate in groups of one with zero fire support from other tanks, other armored vehicles, infantry, artillery, and aircraft.
It's surely impossible that a tank could do something revolutionary like fire, then pull back and reload while another tank fires, that just wouldn't make sense!
That’s nice and all but who’s crane is going to lift a 2500 pound 10 round drum magazine (lol that you think this is real) out of the hull and replace one of the integrated magazines in the turret?
I…I hadn’t considered that
I didn't say anything about a spare drum, from what I've read in this thread while spare ammo in the hull is mentioned in articles none of those seem to specify it's a spare drum. I'd assume it would be a box akin to the Leopard's suicide box except placed somewhere not-moronic this time.
>it’s a spare 10 round rotary magazine
That wouldn’t work, here’s why
>it’s a box of loose rounds ok!
That's how other autoloading tanks do it. In fact, that's why Russian tanks throw their turrets: it's usually not the rounds in the carousel that *start* the fire, it's the insufficiently-protected reloads for the carousel that generally get the party started (with enough force to invite the carousel rounds to the party).
>2m long
It’s a proprietary rotary drum design that separates the projectile from the casing and powder. When a round is called up to the cannon it is automatically assembled. This is how they are able to store so much ammo in the hull
Ahh, so they're copying the Russians, but without the loose propellant charges inside the turret.
Wait... it just occurred to me: if they're using 2-piece ammo, that means the sabot projectile can't stretch the entire length; it can only be as long as the maximum length they allotted for the projectile section to be. You can't use any kind of telescoping.
Wouldn't that dramatically reduce the penetration capability of the KE round, compared to having a projectile that was 1.5m+ long in a single-piece round loaded from a bustle-based autoloader?
>if they're using 2-piece ammo
They aren't. Not sure where anon picked up that info.
>I will ignore several primary sources and focus on the shitposts mocking me, that will show 'em
fricking lmao
Stars and Stripes isn’t a primary source. Rheinmentall didn’t intentionally leave out the information in its own release just so they could scoop some German journalist with privileged information.
G*rms keep losing sales to South Korea. I don’t expect this tank will ever be serially produced
Don't you dumb c**ts realise that the reason 120mm operating tanks carry so much ammunition is because 1 shell was just not enough to guarantee a tank kill, especially now with current gen armour.
20 130mm FGS shells = 20 tank kills. That's a better than can be expected from 27+15 120mm shells
Well said, the decreased ammo load on the new panther is actually increased stowed kills.
I wonder if you could do counter battery fire with tanks, artillery has to get pretty close to the front to hit backline targets like ammo depots and tank cannons can shoot a long way if they get a firing solution. Scout drones would be very helpful if that does turn out to be viable.
We are never going to be able to discuss this tank huh? All because some people can’t accept that the tank only holds 20 rounds (it does) and some people can’t accept that that’s enough (it is)
germans just lost their edge
all they can produce nowadays is expensive trash
even their trains are lost beyond hope and im saying this as an indian lmao its emberassing truly
poo
we indians can raise from a pile of shit like a phoenix while germany can only go downhill and lost their ancestors connection and reputation
cope
In
The
Loo
SHUT THE FRICK UP MOTHERFRICKER OF FRICK
The old magazine flies with a massive plink and then you just use a gigantic loading strip. Simple as.
It's just leo-neger all over he just can't deal with it. So in his actual autistic rage he make the same spam post every time
Let’s talk about TAPS. What information is there out on this system? Has it been shown to work or is it just rheinmentall marketing?
It has a soft-kill system (probably some kind of jammer) to defeat loitering ammunitions as well as a hard-kill system (most likely just the already existing Rheinmetall ADS, just able to fire upwards too) for top-attack missiles. This according to Janes.
It hasn't been shown in action yet, but it probably works like ADS.
LMAO stop posting that g*rm trash, the future is KOREAN and POLISH, g*rms cant produce good shit, never could in fact overhyped garbage riding on marketing campaigns
>and Polish
Pollacks have given up on their domestic products in favor of cheap Korean shit, they are out of the game already
germany doesnt need tanks to occupy polish heads rent free
>only 20 round- ACK
>It's a "/k/ autists with no relevant professional qualifications, experience or technical knowledge other than outdated boomer wikifacts pretend they know better than multi-million dollar arms manufacturers"
>The KF-51 will never wor-ACK
>The F-35 will never wor-ACK
>Laser weapons will never wor-ACK
>Drones will never wor-ACK
>The A-10 will never wor-ACK
>Air-to-Air missiles will never wor-ACK
>The Jet engine will never wor-ACK
>Submarines will never wor-ACK
>automatic machineguns will never wor-ACK
>self contained cartridges will never wor-ACK
>rifled barrels will never wor-ACK
>muskets will never wor-ACK
Same shit, different autists.
nah its a great combination
the greatest weakness of armored vehicles is low visibility and situational awareness. everyone knows where you are but its hard for you to see where they are.
vehicle's dronesloitering munitions solve some of it by giving you a top down view of the area. couple that with quiet hybrid drive systems,multispectral camo and you can start tipping the scales to where its not so easy to know where you are and its easy for you to know where theya re.
If everyone knows where you are wouldn't the simpler choice be a periscope 50 meters into the air?
Imagine trying to stop a combined push of Panthers and Linxes as they spam loitering munitions to target your hidden ATGM teams and destroy your tanks from BLOS before they are even close enough to use their guns.
Uhhhh well actually chud it only carries 20 main gun shells therefore it's literally combat ineffective
You can spam loitering munitions from fricking trucks and the result will be the same.
Artillery wrecks trucks
Not if they're driving to the front full speed, launching their munitions, driving away again. Put the operators in an IFV then.
And they don't need to keep up all the time, it's enough if they're a few km in the back.
Btw. if trucks really don't have the survivability, you can used wheeled IFVs instead. Also russia does not have competent artillery and there's no armored pushes on either side in the ukrainian war, so at least for that case it really doesn't matter.
>if trucks really don't have the survivability, you can used wheeled IFVs instead
Not him but you don't seem to understand the problem.
Tracks go where wheels don't.
But drone carriers don't need to go where tracks do. Tanks and IFVs need to be able to navigate the entire terrain to maneuvre effectively in combat. Drone carriers are fine if they're just somewhere in the vicinity, much like artillery. They can just follow roads, drive a few meters by the side to not be so visible, no problem.
Vicinity? What if you go through 20km of light forests, shitty terrain and no civilisation?
You underestimate just how empty, unfriendly and untamed much of the planet is.
Look at a map of belarus or ukraine, you will be hard pressed to find such a place. And it only gets more dense the further you go west.
Look at the actual "roads", Black person.
If the roads are so impossible to use, how the hell would you support an armored offensive anyway? Your tracked vehicles need fuel (lots of it!) and ammo. There needs to be tons of trucks driving back and forth to deliver it. A mechanized army CANNOT operate far from usable roads. And most ukrainian roads are serviceable for most of the time, enough for a few extra trucks with loitering munitions to drive through.
>If the roads are so impossible to use, how the hell would you support an armored offensive anyway?
Tracks.
>Your tracked vehicles need fuel (lots of it!) and ammo
Tracked ammo carriers have existed for about 100 years, and roads aren't unusable, just not heavily usable, so if you reserve them for light (meaning unarmored) fuel trucks and don't outrun your supply lines, or simply accept that supply is gonna be slow and limit your range you'll be fine.
How do you think armored units operated in the east in the last century?
You make do. Tank ranges have increased considerably.
>And most ukrainian roads are serviceable for most of the time, enough for a few extra trucks with loitering munitions to drive through.
Plenty of places without roads and only stamped down dirt. That's why combat vehicles often have tracks.
>fuel trucks somehow make it
>missile carriers don't
Uhuh.
Though I concede there may be times when operating the drone from a tracked vehicle may be reasonable.
I stand corrected on that point then. Though, if you're stationary, being in a tank won't save you either, and whether russia would currently manage to hit a moving target is another matter.
>Though, if you're stationary, being in a tank won't save you either, and whether russia would currently manage to hit a moving target is another matter.
I mean, I doubt they were stationary, but early on the russians did catch the PzH2ks in a counter barrage.
Didn't do any damage because of the lmao2pl8 armor though.
>"I have no source for my bullshit and got caught out trying to use manipulative language"
We win, you lose. I thought people were joking when they said you're israeli, but I guess it makes sense considering Florida's large hebrew population.
>Look at a map of belarus or ukraine, you will be hard pressed to find such a place
>5 heavy vehicles drive over the road
>road's gone
Anon, a lot of the roads there couldn't even handle meaningful civilian commercial activity.
Russkis didn't just abandon vehicles due to fuel problems, plenty just got stuck with no recovery vehicle around that wouldn't just get stuck as well.
Not that much has changed since WWII.
>Not if they're driving to the front full speed, launching their munitions, driving away again
That requires good roads, ideally roads your enemy isn't aware of because if you can only move over certain roads you get a recipe for rape.
HIMARS use very expensive missiles and have crazy range, that's why you can get away with wheels there and if Russians would be less incompetent they'd be in danger too.
An SPG needs tracks so it can be everywhere, go everywhere,hide in forests and most importantly quickly frick off from everywhere.
>requires good roads
An offroad capable truck can go through the tiniest agricultural or forest road.
>roads your enemy isn't aware of because if you can only move over certain roads
Not a problem if there's a tight road network, like in most of europe.
>An SPG needs tracks
People increasingly seem to disagree with that. And SPGs are actually more vulnerable to counter fire, since you can pick up the origin of the shells with radar. A drone carrier is just another truck or wheeled IFV - there's gonna be tons of those around combat zones.
>An offroad capable truck can go through the tiniest agricultural or forest road.
Not at speed, which was the requirement.
And also not at allif there's no road around.
>Not a problem if there's a tight road network, like in most of europe.
Most of western Europe. Are you planning to only ever fight in civilisation?
>People increasingly seem to disagree with that.
Really, what are the sale numbers saying and are you sure you're not confusing a few things here?
>And SPGs are actually more vulnerable to counter fire, since you can pick up the origin of the shells with radar. A drone carrier is just another truck or wheeled IFV - there's gonna be tons of those around combat zones
Actually there aren't any trucks where trucks can't go, no.
Travel a bit, 99% of the planet isahostile shithole. If you only plan to defend west Germany your thinking is fine, but we're not in the cold war anymore.
>Not at speed
Should be sufficient to follow an armored advance, or evade most artillery.
And yeah, no plans here to fight in siberia or canada. Wars are fought close to what's important - for NATO that's eastern europe and maybe some places in east asia (but I doubt the land war will be decisive there). There's no other place in the world where armies to threaten us can even be found.
>Should be sufficient to follow an armored advance, or evade most artillery.
The entire point of tracks is that that is Not the case.
>for NATO that's eastern europe
And you think eastern Europe is well developed with good roads everywhere that can handle a lot of very heavy vehicles?
Anon, the czech republic aside Poland is probably best off when it comes to infrastructure and eastern Poland still largely looks like a Soviet shithole.
Great place to invest, bad place for motorized warfare in the countryside.
I've actually been to southeastern poland, tons of tarmac or concrete roads there, some gravel but almost none dirt.
Try getting around the countryside a bit.
You're just talking in circles. We're already adopting the M-SHORAD for short range air defense of manoeuvre elements. That includes tanks. The M-SHORAD is based on the striker platform, which is a wheeled armored vehicle.
>We're already adopting the M-SHORAD
But different from what we're talking about, don't you think?
carriers don't
Fuel trucks have to be near tanks
Missile carriers Canberra 150km away to do their job depending on the type.
Aren't we talking about drone launching vehicles following tanks or something? I dunno I wasn't really following the conversation. Anyway the point is a wheeled vehicle can keep up, and we've got the M-SHORAD to take care of any enemy drones trying to get behind the tanks. So we should have the tanks be tanks, and have drone launching support vehicles behind them. The tanks will take command of the drones as they're launched.
>I wasn't really following the conversation. Anyway the point is a wheeled vehicle can keep up,
Bro, but written with a U and an H and spoken with a low income inner city sociolect.
Sure, but if you've got no objections I'm cool with it.
Yes, there's a big difference and that was my point all along. Some vehicles have to follow the formation closely and need tracks (except clearly whoever bought M-SHORAD disagrees). Some can stay further behind - like drone carriers and probably operators.
Noone wants to rush through enemy defenses with missile carriers. And they're not prime targets for long range attacks either - they don't need to stay stationary like artillery, they can be made to look like common supply trucks.
>Some can stay further behind - like drone carriers
What kinda drones? The original topic was about whether tanks shouldn't have drones attached because they can just have drone carriers near them.
Sure, drone carriers don't need tracks, but not if they're supposed to stick to the tank. You can also work with a 1-2 system and have the drones further away and only give the tanks control over them once they arrive, but that would severely limit their range (unless you're so close that we arrive back at tracked vehicles).
>M-SHORAD
>150km
Heh. Heh heh. HEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA.
>depending on the type
M-SHORAD was specifically called out as a system that is designed to provide close AD to maneuver units, which also happens to be wheeled.
Tracks have advantages, particularly when it comes to ground pressure. But wheels shouldn't be dismissed out of hand; there's been a lot of development on that end over the last few decades.
>>M-SHORAD
>Heh. Heh heh. HEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA.
Nobody even implied that, it's not even the same conversation. Learn to navigate posts here or get back to discord
>Missile carriers Canberra 150km away to do their job depending on the type.
>>M-SHORAD
What the frick are you talking about?
>you can used wheeled IFVs instead
Rheinmetall's IFVs can also shoot Hero munitions
There really is no reason not to have a drone launching vehicle behind the tanks. If it gets taken out, then any drones it deployed can just transfer their control to the tanks that are already using them.
>Also russia does not have competent artillery
I wish that would be true. As a drone operator on the southern front, I can assure you as soon as they see us with Orlan they strike fast. If you fly anything more serious than a DJI Mavic they don't skimp on resources and could strike you with mortars, SPGs and MRLs. Deep trenches is our best bet. No one would work from a huge armored vehicle or a truck as it can be easily spotted from above.
Trucks are not able to keep up with tanks in an offensive role.
The point of mobile protected firepower is that it forces the enemy to have weapon systems specially designed to counter them and to prepare defenses or face defeat.
A truck rush can be defeated by any checkpoint manned with a basic MG and rifles.
Tanks comes with its own air support, thats pretty neat.
You and the guy she says not to worry about
What is even cooler is that the compartment for the loitering ammo is modular. In the future they could swap them out for other subsystems, or maybe a larger number of lighter loiterers.
>What is even cooler is that the compartment for the loitering ammo is modular
Most of the stuff in the turret and much of the hull is built to be modular.
Tank designers have finally learned to think forward in more dimensions than just weight.
Nobody is going to get the drone package because it reduces the ready rounds of the main cannon to 10.
New cope just dropped.
So where is the 10 rounds stored if the specialist operator takes the place of the old hull ammo rack?
The space freed up by the Europowerpack in the rear hull?
that could be, either that or more fuel tanks.
Not sure if Rheinmetall has tested that powerpack yet tho.
There's no stated option for the 4th crewmember station to be replaced with ammo storage. It is suspected that the 130mm ammo is too large to store outside of the autoloader. Since the drone deployer takes up space in the bussle, having that option also cuts ammo capacity in half, down to just 10 rounds.
>warriortard making up shit again
>"it is suspected"
Lmao, look at the israelite employing passive language to fake some kind of authority, what the frick are you, a third rate journalist?
Feel free to post a source for those suspicions, anon. Unless you of course just tried to pretend you weren't talking out of your ass here.
Why can't israelites just be normal?
You're insanely emotional. Pull your thumb out and regain some composure.
>You're insanely emotional. Pull your thumb out and regain some composure.
Anon, you tried one of the cheapest tricks of manipulation on the book and got called out immediately.
Provide your source for the claims you attempted to lend fake authority by making it seem like it's not just your opinion or admit that you lost.
It's 2022, you think that shit still works after like 8 years of
>sources familiar with the matter claim
Lmao
I'm not gonna argue with a guy who's emotionally attached to an as of yet unfielded tank. All I can do is tell you the truth and hope some of it seeps into your hippocampus while you're sleeping.
>It is suspected that the 130mm ammo is too large to store outside of the autoloader.
By whom?
Tank analysists. People who study tanks and write articles about them. The biggest tank tuber on youtube, as well.
>a youtuber said it
Lmao, I think I'm going to trust the opinion of Janes' analysts more.
>Tank analysists.
That's a small youtuber and he doesn't say what you claim he does and gives no source unless you wanna give us a timestamp to prove otherwise.
Try again.
>it is suspected
Lmao this guy
I'd love to give you a source, but the thing is, everyone has already given them to you. You're choosing to ignore them because you suffer from a bias.
>I'd love to give you a source, but the thing is, everyone has already given them to you. You're choosing to ignore them because you suffer from a bias.
You haven't given any source. You linked 1 youtube video of a guy with no authority or knowledge on the matter not even saying what you said.
if you aren't using drones in support of your maneuver units you're going to have a bad time.
drones don't invalidate armored vehicles
drones provide massive real-time intel and make use of camouflage discipline in visible and IR very important.
don't forget EM-signature as well, so be disciplined in radio use and nobody gets cellphones anymore unless they have a deathwish.
*hero-120 launching LAV blocks your path*
What's the deal with these insane people defending the notion of a tank having only 10 ready rounds? "Oh, but they get to have 4 suicide drones so it balances out", they say. No it doesn't.
It is suspected by sources knowledgeable about the matter that it actually only has 5 ready rounds.
Fundamentally I don't think wheeled vehicles can keep up with tracked vehicles in every terrain, but tracked vehicles have gotten a lot better. It kinda depends how you want to use both in conjunction in the first place and what "keeping up" actually entails. If being in the general vicinity of like 30km is good enough wheels should be fine most of the time unless you're in places like norway.
But I thought my response was funnier than writing that out.
We've seen in
's picture how the drone module eats up space in the bussle. That's where the ammo is stored.
>"Up to 20 rounds"
Meaning it's 20 rounds without the thing that sits where the ammo normally sits.
That's just like, your opinion man.
And disregards hull stored rounds.
They didn't say "Up to 20" for no reason. Certain modules will decrease that number. On top of that, when the drone module is installed, the space that normally stored extra ammo in the leopard 2 is occupied by the drone station, which the 4th crew member will use to control the drones.
>They didn't say "Up to 20" for no reason.
*ready rounds
>On top of that, when the drone module is installed, the space that normally stored extra ammo in the leopard 2 is occupied by the drone station
Pure conjecture.
Ready rounds or not, it's besides the point. You get up to 20 Ready Rounds™ and it goes down if you pick the drones. You don't get those lost rounds back, obviously. In fact you probably lose some stored rounds in addition to ready rounds, because of the space needed for the 4th crew member and drone station.
>the panther will have the same hull layout as the leopard even though we already know it doesn't due to all the new modules the leopard never had + a new station
Really Black person?
If I explain how the layout is different because the former handloader now has a drone station, which is where the ammo used to be stored, am I not saying it's the same. The panther is heavily based on the leopard 2 hull, to the point where the turret of the kf-51 will fit on a leopard 2 body (a point of the marketing). If a drone station is taking up the ammo storage location, there is no other place for the ammo to go.
>wordswordswords
Pure conjecture
>it goes down if you pick the drones. You don't get those lost rounds back, obviously.
>group of tanks
>leader has the drone module, rest have extra ammo
Wow, I just solved all your issues.
>5 tanks in a group
>leader gets a drone module
I don't know why people are so confused by these concepts.
>5 tanks in a group
no, bro tanks operate alone which is why you need 100 rounds MINIMUN.
just like my war thunder anime
What do Western tanks need 4 ready rounds for?
Loitering is 100% a meme.
>Why would you loiter in the air?
To wait for or search for a target.
So why wouldn’t you just loiter with a regular reconnaissance drone?
If your enemy has some dumb microwave beam or whatever, just change it out to a high altitude drone.
Then, send the real time data to your artillery and they deliver a guided payload strait to your enemy, same day delivery and free with prime shipping.
>Well what if the enemy takes out your high altitude drone?
Then your air force sucks and you deserved it.
Or, try and make it stealthy.
Or, use a satellite capable of real-time updates.
Or, use low altitude drones that fly all sneaky beaky like the the trees and what not.
>Loitering is 100% a meme.
>all the most advanced militaries love it
>but actually it's bad and can be replaced with a strong air force and high-tech
>armchair general takes
lmao
I guess the army wants it because they're not used to having air superiority after 20 years of fighting the mighty mujahedeen airforce.
IMO it's too early to tell. Recon drones will definitely be a thing, if the targetting info gets back to a datalink, you can fire shells or an NLOS missile at it. However that's a potentially rather big if and it will incur delays. Different kinds of weapons need different ways to intercept them - a force may be able to intercept a shell or long range missile, but not a sneaky loitering munition. It may not have artillery or missiles in range - maybe it's a low force density environment. Loiterers will have a place in the future, just how big that place will be is still to be determined.
>So why wouldn’t you just loiter with a regular reconnaissance drone?
Because it's more tactically advantageous if the drone is cheaper and also can be turned into a missile to frick up targets of opportunity you may have discovered while loitering. Other drones due the more high-level recon and surveillance.
Small brain take anon, why wouldn't you want the recon to able to make the attack immediately and without the delay of an extended killchain? Plus an armored vehicle can have enough computer to just transmit the images from the drone directly to friendly units, no verbal radioing required. A loitering rocket munition is less vulnerable than a homosexual quadrotor or whatever anyway just by sheer form factor, so unless you're trying to perform long-term surveillance of troop movements, a loitering munition is a perfect tactical asset.
>why wouldn't you want the recon to able to make the attack immediately
Because if you do that the recon is gone. And if the recon carries a warhead around, it'll be heavier and bigger and more expensive.
you can have both loitering suicide drones and lighter higher endurance surveillance drones. having the option to loiter your PGMs is extremely valuable and is not a new tactic with the development of drones.
Sure you can have both. I just think that loiterers are less useful than you think. For starts, they're generally slow so APS works better, but primitive drone defenses with airburst grenades or even just small calibre RWS works as well. For an actual ATGM you need good APS, for artillery shells you need all out CRAM, they're harder to defend against.
>For starts, they're generally slow so APS works better,
APS doesn't work at all against top attacks and most targets don't have any in the first place.
Rheinmetall's TAPS works against top attacks but how many others can you name?
Sorry, I thought we were talking about future developments here, not the limitations of current models never designed to deal with drones. Most current tanks don't even have aps, or any kind of drone defense. You can probably drop an RPG projectile on them from a commercial drone and kill it, but that doesn't mean that's the future.
Drones =/= loitering ammo
And even 40 years from now top attack protection won't be widespread on potential targets.
Most things killed by tanks turn out not to be tanks.
>even 40 years from now top attack protection won't be widespread on potential targets
Lolwhat. Any kind of somewhat sophisticated future ATMG will have a top attack mode - it's just silly to limit yourself to the target area with most armor and APS. And any vehicle that will have APS (that goes down to stuff like trucks) will have top APS to deal with that.
Anon, 40 years from now most anti tank weapons will still basically be RPGs because most places will still be shitholes and trucks, aside from armored trucks, still won't have APS.
Because it's not worth it by any metric.
>give every truck a sophisticated APS system capable of dealing with the vastly upgraded damage, multishot and multi target potential of future ATGMs
Or
>don't and save trillions while simply keeping your unarmored trucks away from the frontline if you can
I wonder what will happen.
Best case scenario convoys get a dedicated APS vehicle or two to escort them.
It is a meme. They should be carried by other vehicles while tanks should be able to remotely request the launch and control over the munitions. Putting them in a tank is simply moronic. It only wastes space and weight limits that could have been utilized better.
But Panther is 60 tons of memes packed into a single vehicle, so.
>20 rounds
Fricking LMAO.
>postercount didn't rise
Turns out what broke warriortard ended up being stank instead of an IFV.
Funny.
>incoherent schizophrenic blubbering
Get stanked Black person
Dilate with your 10 rounds.
It is suspected that there are only 5 by reputable experts knowledgable in the matter.
Is warriortard from britain? Some say he's in Florida. Considering this response it does actually seem to be him though.
samegay
You wish Black person
Get stanked upon
>20 rounds
Your only argument remaines to be a number which was proven wrong several times
He says you‘re a samegayging Brit bong who‘s still salty about his nations incompetence when it comes to armored ground vehicles
Just accept that the tank is aimed at oil princes. Arab money will end going to a good cause by helping develop future capabilities.
There's literally nothing about it that would indicate that though.