Is this the future of tank warfare?

>Javelins, NLAWS, FPV drones, and quadcopters mean the roof of a tank is as much a target as the front
>loitering munitions and AI-driven drones will only become more and more common
>the thin roof of the tank is now as likely a target as the frontal aspect
Tanks will need to adapt to this new reality. The roof needs to be as protected against expected threats as the front. The economics of cheap loitering munitions discount relying on active protection systems. But how to accomplish this while staying within a realistic weight limit? You can't just take an existing tank like the Abrams put as much composite armor on the roof as the hull and turret front.

The solution: combine the front hull, turret front, and turret roof into one thickly armored plane.

Discuss.

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm going to rape you.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      On god!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I would prefer it if you didn't.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Don't threaten me with a good time gay

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One syllable:

    Mines

    Reconfigure.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The reason we have roofs is because we need internal volume. Soviet-derived tanks are already notoriously cramped, making a future "tank" like this will only make this problem worse. The solution is to use APS and/or other non-armor based methods to defeat these threats. Armor should be kept in the front of the tank to allow for survivability against traditional weapons (which will remain common on the battlefield) however the thinking needs to lean towards "how can we avoid the tank even taking the hit to begin with" rather than "how best to survive a hit". Any tank that gets hit is likely going to be significantly damaged in the first place and the crew is likely to bail.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      APS is going to get orders of magnitude better in the next couple decades. It’ll start at company and platoon level and then be implemented on a unit by unit basis. Soon enough the present “drone drops” will be invalidated against sufficiently modern and organized armoured forces, and ATGM will need to adapt. Maybe kinetic penetrators will be in vogue again?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/GLefF7c.jpg

      It is far cheaper to put the crew inside a trailer and fill the tank with sandbags.

      >however the thinking needs to lean towards "how can we avoid the tank even taking the hit to begin with"
      do it like this

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You'll come to the conclusion that there is no way to avoid taking a hit hence the armor on tanks

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        God, the way it slams it’s ass down on le halpless tankette is soooo fucking hot

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Interesting how the Swedes figured out how to min-max tank design decades ago

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the final Giugiaro wedge
      someone page PrepHole

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They can't keep getting away with it

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Here’s a new reality: GUNS and their turrets are obsolete. Instead of a heavy turret supporting a gun, have a heavily armored chassis with VLS tubes. Missiles can be dual-use for anti-surface or anti-air. Ballistic or cruise, top-attack or direct. Program-fused or proximity for various engagement scenarios. If there’s a gun it should just be a remote MG station. No fat optics shed but rather compact sensors around the chassis stitched together to provide all-round situational awareness while you rely on networked platforms (ie drones) for long-range sighting.

    Name ONE real reason why tanks have to lug around a cannon and protect its turret. That weight budget should go it into heavy protection around the chassis and the roof protecting critical internals. No future tank should die from a tiny-ass Javelin warhead because there’s no weight budget for the top.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is an interesting idea that almost feels more at home as a support vehicle for a column than as a direct replacement to tanks in general.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > Instead of a heavy turret supporting a gun, have a heavily armored chassis with VLS tubes
      Great, you now have 6 missiles before you're just an armored bunker

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >name one reason

      HE is cheap and fast, ATGMs are slow, expensive, and high visibility/exposure. Popping up with just your turret and scooting off > that wall of fudd.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Name ONE real reason why tanks have to lug around a cannon and protect its turret.
      You can fit a lot more HEAT rounds into a tank for cheaper than you can missiles.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Name ONE real reason why tanks have to lug around a cannon
      speed

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Name ONE real reason why tanks have to lug around a cannon and protect its turret.
      Sometimes you just need to fuck up something that's right in front of you as soon as possible
      Also, there are anti missile active defense sistems, but there is no anti tank shell active defense systems, which, combined with shells just being cheaper and faster to produce, is also the reason why conventional artillery is still relevant

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Here’s a new reality: GUNS and their turrets are obsolete. Instead of a heavy turret supporting a gun, have a heavily armored chassis with VLS tubes. Missiles can be dual-use for anti-surface or anti-air. Ballistic or cruise, top-attack or direct. Program-fused or proximity for various engagement scenarios.
      so you basically want an ATACMS that has 80+ tons of armor only on the front?
      I mean why bother at all with armor just spam produce ATACMS and make them sit 190miles out

      >No fat optics shed but rather compact sensors around the chassis stitched together to provide all-round situational awareness while you rely on networked platforms (ie drones) for long-range sighting.
      optics are not big for no reason at all, if you put random cameras around the tank you won't be able to do shit at night and be extremely vulnerable to side attacks

      >Name ONE real reason why tanks have to lug around a cannon and protect its turret
      to hit something on it's side? to hit something that is not exactly in front of the cannon? for transport? to hit an air target with programmable ammo? to clear trenches? and many more

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    still won't stop the kaspian rape monster

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is far cheaper to put the crew inside a trailer and fill the tank with sandbags.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You need that slope 360°, the attack can come from any side.
    > Leonardo knew it back then!

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      there was a russian tank like this but it was a failure because it was expensive as shit to produce and repair, also the cold war was about to end so all the weapons manufacturers were about to go out of business

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Still get fucked by Arty and drones

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Tanks existing in the future

    It's just gonna be drones that can hold maybe 10 rocket propelled tank rounds. Fly up, shoot them, fly back to reload after firing their load. Even if they get shot down who cares it's like 1/100th the cost of a tank

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A complete redesign of your average tank will not happen. What's sooner to happen is some kind of jammer or laser-based countermeasure with multiple or near infinite uses.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The economics of cheap loitering munitions discount relying on active protection systems.
    I have no idea how you reached this conclusion.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We jag'n here

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unlike a cannon the kamikaze drone can choose its attack angle for maximum pen.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This, every tank should be equipped with a goalkeeper (if only for spectacular videos)

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >taps the sign

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *