Modern Tanks/Artillery

Why don't modern/upcoming tanks have the ability to also function as artillery by allowing the gun elevation to be increased ? With an autoloading turret you could have mobile artillery and tank in one platform which is a Huge advantage for "scoot-and-shoot" style tactics.

So far the only tank that seems to come close to it is the new French/German project with a 140mm cannon.

They should develop 140mm artillery and have one magazine with artillery and the other with anti-tank rounds, including Barrel launched ATGM's, unless the tank has extra-external ATGM's instead.

And at the very least, even if they don't want the jack-of-all-trades approach, the least they could do is have the chasis be modular and able to perform as either BattleTank/Artillery/engineering, just by swapping modules

Also: If the new Abrams doesn't have an autoloader I'm gonna laugh. It's stupid to have a 4 man crew, when you could add another entire tank crew for every 3 loaders that aren't needed. Plus it reduces casualties by ensuring personnel dispersion is in as many seperate vehicled as possible

What are your thoughts ?

Also, tanks far from the front lines should have a towable reserve ammo "cart" that they can place close to their operating area instead of needing a designated vehicle to resupply them. Or at least a robotic automated resupply mule that can ferry ammo without needing to waste personnel that could be used elsewhere

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    yeah

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I am saying it again. Stop posting that shitty french design.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It's stupid to have a 4 man crew, when you could add another entire tank crew for every 3 loaders that aren't needed
    stuff that never happened
    soviets only had 3 tanks per platoon while the US had 4 tanks per platoon, the additional man was not a big hindrance in that regard
    US also had a dedicated maintenance team in addition to the 4th member, soviets had a single mechanic per platoon

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Indirect fire has been a thing for a tank gun for over decades, Anon.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't Ukraine get a tank-on-tank kill with drone-corrected indirect fire the other year?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it's been a thing since WW2

      https://i.imgur.com/vsBTgxT.jpeg

      Why don't modern/upcoming tanks have the ability to also function as artillery by allowing the gun elevation to be increased ? With an autoloading turret you could have mobile artillery and tank in one platform which is a Huge advantage for "scoot-and-shoot" style tactics.

      So far the only tank that seems to come close to it is the new French/German project with a 140mm cannon.

      They should develop 140mm artillery and have one magazine with artillery and the other with anti-tank rounds, including Barrel launched ATGM's, unless the tank has extra-external ATGM's instead.

      And at the very least, even if they don't want the jack-of-all-trades approach, the least they could do is have the chasis be modular and able to perform as either BattleTank/Artillery/engineering, just by swapping modules

      Also: If the new Abrams doesn't have an autoloader I'm gonna laugh. It's stupid to have a 4 man crew, when you could add another entire tank crew for every 3 loaders that aren't needed. Plus it reduces casualties by ensuring personnel dispersion is in as many seperate vehicled as possible

      What are your thoughts ?

      Also, tanks far from the front lines should have a towable reserve ammo "cart" that they can place close to their operating area instead of needing a designated vehicle to resupply them. Or at least a robotic automated resupply mule that can ferry ammo without needing to waste personnel that could be used elsewhere

      >What are your thoughts ?
      you haven't the faintest conceptualisation of engineering issues, and you're like a child drawing a cartoon fantasy tank and asking "why not?" instead of going out there and reading up on the subject before opening your yammering cake-hole

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >yammering cakehole speaking
        I yarn

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ngl they should just give the Pzh2K a Leo 2 hull and call it a day. 155 is more than enough for everything and has good capacity (30+ shells with an autoloader)

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why don't modern/upcoming tanks have the ability to also function as artillery by allowing the gun elevation to be increased ?
    >So far the only tank that seems to come close to it is the new French/German project with a 140mm cannon.
    Germans want a 130mm for the MGCS not a 140 semi telescoped like the French do.
    The French had already worked on a 120mm turret with 30° elevation for their Vextra testbed twenty years ago, which could send explosive shells up to 14km away as well as NLOS missiles possibly even farther but the thing was cancelled.
    See .webm.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      God the Vextra was fricking cool. Extremely ahead of it's time. It died because the cold war died and the French state thought no major continental war would ever happen again. End of history syndrome.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. Cancelled in the early 2000s in favor of the VBCI based upon a Renault Trucks chassis. Kept being used as a testbed to try stuff, notably with that 120mm turret.

        At some point during trials in the UAE they removed one of the front wheels and the thing didn't lose mobility even in sand lol.
        Crazy machine, sadly its suspension was a nightmare.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I've actually been thinking the same thing. The wienererill turret in 105mm and 120mm variants can also do that. It was designed for fire support roles. The Turks are selling a medium tank with it called the Kaplan optimized for jungle and mountain environments. So far they've sold it in Indonesia and are also marketing an uparmored variant hard in Latin America. An upscaled variant on an MBT hull would be pretty great. I think the Koreans originally planned for the K2 to be able to elevate it's gun like that in combination with the active suspension but it the ultra high angle function didn't make it to production and the special ammo for it was also later cancelled. That wienererill turret can be put on a lot of stuff though. It's also been thrown on the Boxer. I think that's what Mexico is looking at. I do believe the same turret can be optioned on the CV90 and K21 as well.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    High elevation massively increaseeas tank turret size (primarily height). Also artillery want variable charges this is increases size and complexity of loading and ammo storage system.
    Did you see Paladin turret? Armoring big turret is much more difficult.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Actually, capability for low depression increases turret height. See, NEMO.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        NEMO mortar container has 2.6 meters height.
        Abrams tank height from the bottom of the hull to the turret roof is 1.92 meters.
        And NEMO is not even a real gun, it's just mortar.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          False equivalency. The NEMO mortar container includes the full shipping container.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >here is your tank bruh

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Both high inclination and low depression require taller turrets. Don't forget that the breech has to go to the supplementary angle of the barrel.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That is only true if trunnion is outside of the turret ring. Nemo is inside.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    make it a 3 man with a autoloader, keep 120mm, carry 50 rounds and allow decent elevation and it can replace mortars. make it versatile.

    trying to replace something like paladin is just a waste of time.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why don't (thing that has been common for 80 years)
    Just saw an article yesterday about the US thinking about designing wheeled artillery that can shoot and scoot faster than HIMARS or Caesar.

    The real answer is you want your armor to focus on armor things and can afford to have dedicated artillery. Specialization is stronger.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    FCS had a "tank" (LOS/BLOS) that was supposed to do exactly that. It got canned with the rest of FCS. So, yeah, the concept is not exactly unknown, and has in fact been around since the tank was first invented.

    It's not the optimal platform for indirect fire, however; there are reasons why a large, lightly-armored vehicle with a ~6" howitzer throwing ~100lb shells downrange has become the gold standard for the job. Tanks are optimized for other roles; sure, they can lob shells, but they contain less HE fill, don't have the same elevation (that forces you to use a taller turret in order to fit the breech inside the hull), and can withstand an awful lot of damage that would kill an artillery piece. So while tanks can and should be capable of doing indirect fire, they'll never be as good at it as a specialized self-propelled gun.

    Also, while it would certainly be nice for the M1E3 to have an autoloader, it might or might not be enough of a priority for them to include it compared to all of the other things the upgrade is supposed to accomplish. While the M1 has certainly served as a test-bed for autoloaders in the past, the best way to incorporate an autoloader is to design the turret--and possibly even the entire tank--around it, rather than to slap it into an existing design. Part of the decision-making process will likely involve whether the existing turrets will be re-manufactured or replaced--and the latter is a lot more expensive. So, there are decisions to be made and compromises to be reached.

    Finally, tanks-with-trailers has been tried, and the Soviets used to use the twin-55gal-barrels-on-the-back thing. It tends to compromise the tank's survivability too much. Having resupply troops ferrying ammo is safer, and AI is *not* flexible enough to handle front-line resupply yet.

    Progress is being made in all of the above; however, it's slower than you might expect.

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