The future of armor

So with the apparent effectiveness of the so-called turtle tanks with improvised gap armor, how can this concept be standardized and improved? I’m picturing a vehicle with modular expendable plate attachments easily installed over standard armor, perhaps with reactive armor either on top of the regular armor or the plates themselves. Maybe a flame moronant foam insulation between the tank and the plates instead of just air gaps. What other drone and ATGM countermeasures could be piled on to the platform or achieved with combined arms to make aggressive armored thrusts more effective? Perhaps tanks and the artillery backing them up could be loaded with smoke shells and a rolling barrage of smoke could cover their advance, making it more difficult to target them with precision weapons? How about equipping tanks with mortars that fire timed or proximity frag rounds and smoke screens to counter drones? How about equipping tanks with their own intercepter quadcopters to hover above the tank and intercept incoming drones?

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

    It's shit and so is your thread.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What makes you think it’s a bad idea? Do you have a better way to counter drones and ATGMs?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it's because there's literally nothing to learn here. russia's 21st century reenactment of early 20th century war isn't actually how things are done and will be done. trophy will probably get upgraded to deal with aerial attacks and slower moving targets

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Wouldn’t a tank with gap armor and APS be better than a tanks with just APS? Also how do you fix the problem of APS accidentally intercepting non-enemy missiles and drones? Seems like a very complex and failure-prone system to rely on completely

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That can be solved by basic combat spacing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >these glavset animals are calling it "gap armor" now
            They're cuck sheds. They do nothing other than make you look even more ridiculous.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because you no longer have a turret, you are now a casemate with none of the advantages, and it does literally nothing to stop most modern ATGMs. It has some moderate effectiveness against the small warheads carried by nigrigged FPV drones. Actual purpose built FPVs like switch blade, which carry a javelin warhead, will cut through it like it's not even there - now you're back to square one except you're fricking blind and can only shoot in a small frontal arc.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >no longer have a turret
          This could be solved by mounting gapped armor to the turret and chassis separately

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Or by using a circus tent.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, well you probably now have horribly restricted sensors, vision, and a crippled machinegun. You're also probably going to have all kinds of problems with the wear on the turret and rotation speed since the weight is now fixed to the turret which wasn't designed to weight 40% more.
            It's just a bad solution to a problem that needs to be solved at the doctrinal level. The solution to shitty drone spam is maneuver war, air power, and not getting bogged down in trench warfare. Failing that, have adequate SHORAD, lasers.
            Failing that, have APS that can look up.
            Coordinate your attacks with other branches such that defenders are too busy being shelled to pilot FPV drones.

            This 'solution' is settled on by Russia because Russia does almost literally every basic tenant of modern warfare incorrectly and incompetently on a shoe string budget.

            It's like training how to fight with your eyes gouged out when you could instead, y'know, train things that would prevent that happening in the first place.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              That all sounds like problems that could be overcome with some engineering that anticipates the presence of gapped armor on the platform in the first place, and a lot of your proposed solutions could be deployed along with gapped armor and still work. Nobody has really put a lot of thought into engineering a modern tank around the concept of gapped armor. I’m sure the turret and machine gun issue could be solved with a bit of thought. The fact that a layer or two of gapped armor makes the platform much more survivable against the very threats that people were saying would end the tank completely as a concept makes it worth looking into at least, especially since it’s so cheap and doesn’t require any active system or supporting platform remaining functional to do its job

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think this just means bigger motors/bearings on the turret, and mounting the machine guns outside the shell, fully remote-controlled

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        fricking redesign the tank so the ammunition is stored in isolation from the crew and have safe blow out panels so the heat and pressure doesnt vaporize the people inside

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That aids crew survivability but doesn’t increase the amount of hits the platform can take before becoming combat ineffective

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          put the ammo outside the tank and have robots load it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >What makes you think it’s a bad idea?
        All the blown up clown sheds so far. Are your bosses really telling you to promote this embarrassment? How humiliating.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >these glavset animals are calling it "gap armor" now
          They're cuck sheds. They do nothing other than make you look even more ridiculous.

          What took you guys so long? We managed to have an interesting discussion already

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Really? where? You glavset wienerlets are so desperate to nest here it's almost endearing.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >glavset
              I couldn’t come up with a more cringe and toothless meme insult if i tried

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's not an insult, it's where you work.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >apparent effectiveness

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There’s video of improvised gap armor preventing the destruction of a tank from drone hits that would have otherwise disabled them.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks are obsolete. There were becoming untenable in the 70s but became obsolete in the 80s (inside NATO). The Gulf War made them officially obsolete when the last major tank battle was won by the USAF, ie, it was obvious to everyone that tanks were no longer viable. But, still, there were a lot of copes people clung to ie monkey models, dumb Arabs, etc. But now there’s a peer conflict in Ukraine blatantly showing the world that tanks are hopelessly overmatched by many different weapons including man-portable ATGMs able to casually one-shot any tank anywhere from several kilometers away. China has been mass producing a Javelin clone for a decade now. There’s simply no room on a modern battlefield for a 30+ ton steel beast run by 3-4 highly trained specialists that is casually killed by a mobik carrying a 50-lbs missile system from 4km away. It’s over.

    The only difference between a T-90M and M1A2 is that the crew of a M1A2 is more likely to survive after being immediately knocked out without accomplishing anything.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Are tanks really obsolete or are they simply unusable for classic armored thrusts? It seems like they’re still effective for infantry support. Infantry with armored support still does better than infantry alone. Classic armored thrusts may become feasible again with more effective gap armor and other methods of protecting armor

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Think of them like WW1's (unarmored) cavalry.
        People get angry if one points out how obsolete they are out of nostalgia.
        They have a very niche use by this point.
        But are overall useless.

        >The Gulf War made them officially obsolete when the last major tank battle was won by the USAF
        it's called combined arms. it's the airforce's job to take out all major defenses then the tanks and infantry and whatever support move in with full air support to clean up. i don't see how tanks still won't be useful in the west's doctrine. reminder that russia can't into combined arms and still can't achieve aerial supremacy so you can't say what's happening to them currently is how it will actually play out with a competent military

        >competent military
        By /k/'s standards, only the US is competent.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Tanks are immune to ordinary firearms and can blow away anything you point the gun at. I don’t see them vanishing completely. Making them cheaper and shittier and using them more conservatively makes a lot more sense than abandoning them.

          It's also the same reason why America has almost phased out from towed artillery since CAS regularly does a better job, it's why Russia's artillery experience from this war is worthless, kinda similar how Iraq's experience at making good trenchs against the Iranians in their was against them was worthless against the Americans.

          CAS can’t really replace artillery especially in a defensive role. Concealed artillery pre-sighted onto likely attack routes will always be better for defending a fixed point than a plane that has to land every time it shoots off its missiles or runs out of fuel. Planes also have a bottleneck in the system that can be targeted by drones and cruise missiles, the airfield. Artillery also works in inclement weather and can’t be jammed

          The only reason why these turtle tanks aren't completely exploding is because fpv's are using old, soviet era warheads with 400mms of penetration and no tandem.
          We will start seeing these explode when the new shipment of javelins arrive.

          Doesn’t this still prove the concept? If really bad gap armor is effective against sub-par fpv drones, wouldn’t higher quality gap armor be better against higher quality threats?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Tanks are immune to ordinary firearms and can blow away anything you point the gun at
            The problem is that the same thing is true of much cheaper forms of armor, and anything that will destroy those cheaper vehicles will also take out a tank.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              tanks could theoretically slap on a lot more gapped armor than a cheaper wheeled platform could handle, so if they can come up with a good design to maximize the effectiveness of gapped armor and get it really good at deflecting tandem ATGMs and FPV drones, the tank might be made survivable enough to justify its existence, especially if gapped armor makes cheaper tanks with less complicated systems viable again

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >anything that will destroy those cheaper vehicles will also take out a tank
              abjectly untrue.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >By /k/'s standards, only the US is competent.
          Correct.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Brits were right all along with their infantry tanks

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I have been telling /k/ for some time.
          Cheap disposable mass producible infantry tanks with high calibre HE round max crew survivability will be the key.
          Modern MBTs are too expensive for any job except taking out the same expensive tanks.
          The direct fire support on enemy positions for assaulting skirmishers we see Ukraine can be done by a Sherman or T-34.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            MBTs could still have a defensive role as infantry tank killers, but perhaps classic tank killers would fill the role better

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The basic abraaps or leo2a4 isnt that expensive, you could probably get a unit cost of around 1 million. The expense of cutting edge tanks is with cutting edge FCS, for shitloads of tungsten in the reactive armour, and for all the development costs with a small production run. Making shermans would be just shitting away money, transport capacity, men and fuel, far too basic and easily identified and taken out by enemy squad AT before it can itself identify or fire at anything, much less hit something.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Isn't that what the M10 is, more or less? A modern 30-ton tank.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The Gulf War made them officially obsolete when the last major tank battle was won by the USAF
      it's called combined arms. it's the airforce's job to take out all major defenses then the tanks and infantry and whatever support move in with full air support to clean up. i don't see how tanks still won't be useful in the west's doctrine. reminder that russia can't into combined arms and still can't achieve aerial supremacy so you can't say what's happening to them currently is how it will actually play out with a competent military

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's also the same reason why America has almost phased out from towed artillery since CAS regularly does a better job, it's why Russia's artillery experience from this war is worthless, kinda similar how Iraq's experience at making good trenchs against the Iranians in their was against them was worthless against the Americans.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      tanks are not obsolete maybe in the current form but whats stopping people from designing a tank with improved top armor

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The only reason why these turtle tanks aren't completely exploding is because fpv's are using old, soviet era warheads with 400mms of penetration and no tandem.
    We will start seeing these explode when the new shipment of javelins arrive.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >tandem
      Just add more layers of gapped armor

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We would be reaching several meters in height at the point anon.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Does it matter if it works? Tanks can't be stealthy anyway. Not with all the drones flying.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What about in bad weather? Just advance your thrust as far as you can when you get some fog or rain, then have your infantry dig in there

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not necessarily, has anyone done the math on minimum effective space between gaps to counter tandem warheads? What about adding springs to the gaps so the plates have some wiggle to them?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm glad that I live in the Mad Max timeline but with the internet and drinking water.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I hope they got a permit for that shed

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Trophy or Ironfist can literally stop ANYTHING.
    missiles, grenades, mortars, shells, drones, jdams, even sabots.

    Once tanks are mass-equipped with these APS systems, tanks will be unstoppable and all you will need are tanks, nothing else.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >tanks will be unstoppable and all you will need are tanks, nothing else.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >can’t shoot your own munitions without APS shooting it down
      >sensors that can get blinded by lasers or even simply the dust and mud that gets kicked around during combat
      >column of APS MBTs that must be spaced out in order to work at all runs into a concentrated column of gapped armor tanks tanks that can overwhelm the APS with sheer volume of fire
      >APS tank drives into fog or smoke and instantly turns useless

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        that can get blinded by lasers or even simply the dust and mud that gets kicked around during combat
        they use radar

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The shit the israelites use cant stop everything, it has a minimum arming range of around 30-35 feet so its still vulnerable to infantry at close range (although tank armour has improved a lot vs CE-especially with urban warfare packages like TES), and has limitations in the aspects it can cover horizontally. It cannot stop sabots, they are far too high velocity to be intercepted. It is not proven to stop a shell and its very unlikely that it would. It can probably stop most current ATGMs, but its not proven to stop large AGMs or cruise missiles. It also has a limited number of charges. Its very good, but not that good. Also tanks are still vulnerable to mines, and you need proper scouting and infantry support to prevent ambushes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the future counter to APS systems will be a high-low mix of swarms of cheap small kamikaze drones and a few expensive large fast missiles with huge tandem EFP warheads that can hit a tank from over 50 meters away.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        how about railguns with radar systems and AI-aiming for tracking incoming fire? they can fire small projectiles at higher velocities than EFP rounds, into the tens of kilometers per second

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >with the apparent effectiveness of the so-called turtle tanks
    Lol

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    nice try Mr. Putin

    that being said, laminated basalt fiber, but it is too expensive for your shit-tier army to afford

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      line the top and bottom of the basalt fiber with copper plates connected to a Hugh-Jass capacitor bank to zap the shit out of incoming projectiles penetrating the basalt, electric reactive armor

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wut
      Basalt is cheap as chips once you set up the factory.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        not in the quantities you need for an *effective* turtle tank lmao

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Exactly how large is the turtle tent you're proposing?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think 200mm thickness give or take, but the academic literature is not replete with tests at such high energies. Likely much less if the capacitive idea were implemented right.

            If shitty gap armor is good enough to stop the cheaper drones and ATGMs then it’s already doing its job. That means every weapon to counter a tank will have to be larger, more expensive and hauled around by its own vehicles instead of carried around by some guy who’s already carrying a ton of gear.

            but most of the turtle tanks are still getting blown up, even after multiple hits, though

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Sure but what happens after the concept is developed further and the gapped armor consists of more than just rusty sheds and pallets?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If shitty gap armor is good enough to stop the cheaper drones and ATGMs then it’s already doing its job. That means every weapon to counter a tank will have to be larger, more expensive and hauled around by its own vehicles instead of carried around by some guy who’s already carrying a ton of gear.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Remember when those webms of wrecked "turtle tanks" were up,
    And some naïve anon said, "this should cut down on the turtle tank spammers?"
    Yeah.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody said it’s invincible merely that it’s a cost-effective way of making tanks more survivable against the cheapest counters to tanks

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wrong. Vatniks had been claiming they were indestructible for weeks.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >what is hyperbole

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Slow and steady wins the race. 80 years late but Bob gets vindicated

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Don't tank guns outrange handheld ATGM by a mile?
    If a tank is able to detect and identify infantry through concealment, it should be able to engage lightweight AT weapons beyond their effective range.
    Too bad Russia's decent optics were all made in France.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >mbts are excellent at direct fire support
    >we still have legged infantries directly assaulting enemy positions anyway
    Why not use towable howitzers?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why not use self-propelleg howitzers?
      Ok now give it armour so it can survive being on the front-line.
      Change its gun so it can take out other tanks as well as hit positions and infantry.
      Make it more mobile so it can perform assaults and keep up with mechanised infantry.
      Now you have an MBT.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Purpose is to provide direct fire high calibre HE support at affordable price, not hunt down tanks.
        What you are telling basically is use HIMARS on a job that a 60mm mortar can do just because it is better.
        And in this case, stakes are much higher because they will be frontline units. Tank armor and mobility right now are saving jackshit, and highly limited in numbers.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Theyre limited in numbers because Ukraine has frick all, US and China arent fighting anyone, Russia is incompetent/not the USSR- and pissed a lot of their armour away. Greece and Turkey arent yet at war, and everyone else relevant has basically disbanded their militaries after the cold war.

          >Tanks are immune to ordinary firearms and can blow away anything you point the gun at
          The problem is that the same thing is true of much cheaper forms of armor, and anything that will destroy those cheaper vehicles will also take out a tank.

          Cheaper? Maybe, it depends on the tank. You can get lighter vehicles with similar FCS and weapons, but theyre not neccessarily cheaper. The Leopard2A4 is 1.25m per unit, while the Centauro was 1.6m. Modern tanks like the Leo2A6 are 8.6.m, new and cutting-edge stuff like the 2A7 is 13-15.m, and for modern TD's the Type 16 MCV is 5.1m. There's a cost difference but its not like other AFVs are "cheap", if you're going to invest in vehicles then invest in good ones.

          Tanks generally have larger guns, significantly better protection against autocannons and CE threats from front and sides, are able to resist other tanks frontally (mostly/depending), better mine protection, and these days the mobility is pretty much the same cross-country. They're just better, even a tank from 25 years ago is better than a TD/MCV built today. You *will* get hit in a peer war, you will be ambushed, you will find yourself out of position, better that the enemy at least has to aim or maneuver to the sides to try to kill you. Plus with APS, tanks are going to start to be immortal to the ATGMs on trucks that /k loves to talk about.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why not stop at making the howitzer self-propelled, but with a motor built into the carriage like those Indian artillery pieces?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Arty pieces with motors can reduce counter fire but cant scoot like sphs. I dont see the point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why not stop at making the howitzer self-propelled, but with a motor built into the carriage like those Indian artillery pieces?

            I have an idea....

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    As far as I can see, tanks will become like jet fighters in the 21st century. Very expensive, with tons of electronic warfare kits, sensors, next gen armor, maybe even stealth kits like with pic related. They will be produced in fewer numbers and tactics will have to be changed because how valuable they become. They may be armed with 140mm guns that can tube launch missiles or be armed with 50mm autocanons with missiles since fighting is going to be beyond line of sight or from behind cover.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The very expensive tank packed with next-gen sensors and electronics just ran over a mine and got finished off by a $500 FPV. It’s over, let it go.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the next-gen designs should use individually rotating wheel/motor assemblies lining the whole underside of the chassis, so it can spread weight out better and continue operating after hitting mines

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the next-gen designs should use individually rotating wheel/motor assemblies lining the whole underside of the chassis, so it can spread weight out better and continue operating after hitting mines

        If we're going to turn tanks into battleships, we need to escort them with dedicated minesweeping vehicles. Something with a strong-ass radar that can detect landmines through vibrating the ground or some shit.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Existing MMW radar does it. America miniaturized ground-penetrating radar into handheld minesweeper size circa 2010. Russia may struggle for that though.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Existing MMW radar does it. America miniaturized ground-penetrating radar into handheld minesweeper size circa 2010. Russia may struggle for that though.

          Russians have (in theory at least) tank mountable EW designed for this.

          the next-gen designs should use individually rotating wheel/motor assemblies lining the whole underside of the chassis, so it can spread weight out better and continue operating after hitting mines

          the problem with mines in regards to all these posts is: you can just make bigger mines/ bury more of them. Then most mines these days have anti-tampering mechanics which will blow the mine if you try to remove it. What this all means is that the enemy has to send its sappers to deal with the mines, which they have to blow up and then they have to repair the road. A minefield should not be used as passive defence either but actively, so that you always have people keeping watch on it. They can then engage the enemy sappers.
          TLDR Modern mines win everytime.

          The ONLY way to win against mines is to mass artillery, and to have some devices that clear the minefield instantly. Those western devices where you launch an exploding rope are too slow, all footage I have seen of them requires maybe 2 min of setup.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What if manned tanks take the route you’re talking about and disposable gapped armor vehicles built to be as cheap as possible are unmanned and remotely controlled? Sort of like what we see with cheap drones occupying the niche that previously belonged to cheaper manned aircraft.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A big-ass basalt shell on an RC ditch-witch type vehicle might work pretty well for not too much $$$

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I could even see some of them being repurposed into suicide platforms whose only role is to get a few hundred pounds of explosives downrange

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why not just use a mass drone swarm with 120mm mortar shell strapped on it?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Sometimes you just really need a few hundred pounds of explosive going off as one giant explosion. Putting it on a platform that could bypass AA, maneuver through terrain and even be controlled by wire and unjammable could work well

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So basically this?

                https://i.imgur.com/2aDtbEu.jpeg

                [...]
                I have an idea....

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah except with extra gapped armor and a bigger charge

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    APS doesn’t work. If they can’t make a good robust reliable system by now they never will.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You're a fricking moron anon

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Like how gunfights become obsolete in naval warfare, so has direct-fire become obsolete in land warfare. Just as the battleship disappeared and was replaced by small, lighter vessels shooting long-range missiles, what may rep,ace tanks are rear-line support vehicles with missile cells. Lightly armored against small arms and shell fragments — if armored at all — carrying a bunch of missile cells. Cells can carry a range of missiles from cruise, loitering, SAMs, ballistic, etc with various types of warheads for different purposes. Instead of going into line of sight of a target, networked sensors feeds it a target which it hits with a missile outside of line of sight. It’s much more difficult to find and hit, much less likely to drive over mines, and much likely to impact the battlefield before being knocked out as a result. Maybe cells are VLS in the naval style, maybe more like a compact HIMARS. Maybe like a Tor. Maybe like a tank except the turret is replaced with a box full of missiles. Rounds are compact enough that crews themselves could handle reloading, depending on the type of munition and the system in general. Maybe these are drone vehicles commanded by a a battalion or tactical HQ controller or something. Maybe those Marine JLTVs are an early iteration of this new type of combat vehicle.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It doesn't work that way because on sea, radars and sonars are supreme.
      On land, concealment is still king, which is solved by volume of fire. Otherwise, they'd run out of HIMARS first instead of 155mm shells.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >jingle tank

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's kinda cute how when you are closer to a base subsistance level you come to appretiate things to the point it becomes a carnival.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >n-no no they're not buggery-barns! they're gap armor!
    Fricking Russians, man. Wipe that hellhole from the face of the earth.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >apparent effectiveness
    where? when?
    >gap armour
    who called it this?
    >how can this be standardized?
    It wont be, its useless for 1st world countries who already have actual composite armour with good coverage, have slat armour on light vehicles to stop rpgs, and are moving towards APS systems which defeat threats without turning the tank into a casemate shed.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >So with the apparent effectiveness of the so-called turtle tanks

    lmao this homie hasn't seen all the webms of turtle tanks getting BTFO by the same drones that destroy normal tanks. These cope shells do nothing, the only reason the first turtle tank worked was because the Ukrainians didn't know if it was friend or foe.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I can't wait to see what new dogshit Russian improvisation will be the next game changing development that upends all warfare once the turtle sheds are memoryholed.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >how can this concept be standardized and improved?
    You seem to have missed the "improvised" part of this whole concept. There is nowhere else for this concept to go because it's a desperate cover for the woeful vehicle underneath.
    The future consists of designing the tank right in the first place. The modular armor idea has merit, but then if it's intended to be put on it isn't improvised anymore.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >apparent effectiveness of the so-called turtle tanks
    Stopped reading there.

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