Is it a bad idea to make your tanks capable of fighting anything?
>125mm gun
>Twin 30mm AGLs, can act as mortars
>2 meter periscope
>Pop up ATGM launcher
>Pop up AA missiles
>Hides behind obstacles, only shoots fron NLOS
>Is designed to be really fucking annoying to fight
Why isn't it a good idea to make your tanks as annoying to fight as possible? If they area threat to everything then they make your enemy focus on them to a irrational degree, especially if you have an absurd amout of artillery as your main military doctrine not tanks.
all these extra bits of stapled-on shit are cope because the thing is shit
Yes and its called the Bradley. It even fails against Russians
>pentagon wars posting
>in 2023
Shigity digity current year
>Is it a bad idea to make your tanks capable of fighting anything?
No. The problem is making a tank that can reliably do so and having a competent crew properly utilize it. Loads of countries are toying with the idea, but they all essentially require completely new platforms. Slapping a bunch of props on a T-62, is not a good idea
Avoids redundancy and overloading the crew. The tank cannon alone is enough to deal with any ground threat in theory. ATGM is completely redundant as a standalone launcher in that regard. GLATGM is a better option tbh. The periscope is fine (just use a drone tho) and so is the AGL though I'd argue it's poorly implemented (not RWS) and will have limited ammo compared to a machine gun. The AA launcher really only makes sense for north korea knowing the south korean and us air force will absolutely rape them so having as much dispersed AA as possible somewhat makes sense though I'd argue the chance of them being more effective than dismounts is very low. The issue is you're giving the crew an absolute fuckload of shit to operate in addition to operating the tank (which is harder than people think).
In a modern war everything doesn't exist in a vacuum and capabilities are mutually supporting, this is a good example of why not to put all your eggs in one basket too. One munition on this tank and you lost all the capability, compared to just running it as a normal tank, separate ATGM team and MANPAD team where you get better survivability and better soldier effectiveness because you can better train someone to specialize in one system easier than a Frankenstein mash of shit. Also cost is higher for just having these extra weapon systems slapped on so unit cost goes up.
>tl;dr north korea just makes shit that looks intimidating for domestic consumption and dick waving sometimes.
>shids and cums on your logistics by requiring 69 thousands different ammunition
>Is it a bad idea to make your tanks capable of fighting anything?
No, not really. If the AA and AT launchers are both remote and can be controlled when the tank is buttoned up, then its a direct upgrade. It looks like an old piece of shit, but if it can engage modern armor and perhaps even air threats from a defilade with even its turret concealed, then yeah that's going to be a hell of a lot more survivable than an equivalent old piece of shit. The launchers make sense, a tanks worst enemy is concealed infantry so dual GLs would be ideal for clearing any suHispanicious treelines. Everything about the tanks upgrade are a cope for it being an old design, but they're all pretty sensible well-reasoned copes.
So you are saying it is the best vehical in existance after the Munsters car?
Imagine the cook-off when it is destroyed
>No autoloader
>Ammo is stored in the turret rear in wet storage
>All exterior weapons just burn off
>Isn't covered in ERA
Pretty damn sure it doesn't blow up or burn like a Russian tank, the DPRK has a real space program and doesn't need to use random tanks to launch things into orbit unlike Russia's latest moon attempt.
A tank that is capable of fighting against anything (except air units) is just called a tank.
You don't need twin 30mm AGLs, you have a giant fuckoff cannon. You don't need ATGMs, you have a giant fuckoff cannon.
Your shitty MANPAD is useless because you are a giant fucking tank and the helicopter is going to see you long before you see it, and it's anti-tank sniper missiles have a range of 8-10km.
A tank is already the premier firepower on a battlefield. It doesn't need anything extra in terms of weapons. That's why all of the research at the moment is going into survivability and sensors.
Sometimes i wonder why cant we just slap some dual purpose (AA and anti personnel) guns on top of tanks.
It's not supposed to carry all that shit on it. It makes no sense to put MPADS on your tank, it defeats the point of them being MPADS. Notice how they never have them on in actual training exercises? They only put them on in parades to show they actually have them
>shitting on NK makes you a Russian shill
lol lmao
all this effort to die from a 120mm artillery shell
>Missiles are outranged by anything on a modern heli or a modern jet
>Could've just given the same system to infantry.
>Your tank can be taken out by enemy HMG return fire because you strapped high explosives all over it, including a box of explosives right on top of the turret.
>Your IFV is now a tank. Your SPAA is now a tank. Your squad weaponry are now tanks. Your missile carrier is now a tank. Good job, every vehicle you field now has the fuel requirement of a tank.
There is a reason nation's inhabited by actual humans don't use this shit. Because its fucking daft. Tanks are logistical monsters in terms of maintenance and fuel, which means that everything that you don't NEED to have on a tank to either make it fullfil its primary purpose or fullfill an essential role of self-defence should be outside of the tank.
The 30mm AGL can be in the light mechanized elements, the AA missiles given to infantry, the heavy ATGM's should be put on the IFV's because a tank already has a massive fuck-off cannon for it.
That way you have distribution (giving you the ability to put capability where it is most needed instead of having it all stapled to a single location) redundancy, and don't needlessly expand your logistical footprint.