Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Toxn

Forum Nobility
  • Content Count

    5,091
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Toxn last won the day on December 15 2018

Toxn had the most liked content!

About Toxn

  • Rank
    Social Justice Prince

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,115 profile views
  1. Toxn

    What would a robot tank look like?

    Robo-Gavins are summoned by saying "Sparky" into a mirror three times in quick succession.
  2. Toxn

    What would a robot tank look like?

    Without considering your post: I suspect a completely crew-less tank is a ways out yet, which makes the question complex. My guess is that the first tank-sized UGVs will be used as adjuncts to manned vehicles - either to fire on the same targets or to go ahead into areas where the manned vehicle is in danger of being attacked (or perhaps as demolitions/combat engineering vehicles). This means that the first UGVs will probably be missile or autocannon armed rather than armed with whatever the main gun is. My other guess is that the actual hulls will look a lot like whatever the existing front-line vehicles have - the future of armoured vehicles involves significantly more automation than is presently the case so it will probably be easier to just use a hull/drivetrain/etc already in production rather than reinventing the wheel. Ediot: one of the things that rarely gets talked about when contemplating UGVs is the human component to their logistical chain. Presently one of the arguments put forward in favour of 4-man tanks is that the extra man significantly eases the constant maintenance that tanks require in order to function. Maintenance-related tasks, incidentally, are very hard to automate. So you might end up in a situation where the supposedly crew-less tank formation is actually tailed by almost as many maintenance techs as a manned formation has tankers. This also obviously presents a soft target if your maintenance techs are, for instance, being carted around in soft-skinned vehicles.
  3. Probably a T-72 of some sort.
  4. Toxn

    Competition Suggestions

    That's a pity - we're all secret Bolivians here.
  5. Toxn

    Future of AFVs

    Side note, but does anyone else get the impression that future APS systems are rapidly going to develop into layered systems in pretty much the same way that CWIS systems did? So you'll end up with one or two radars, an electro-optical system, short and long-ranged interceptors, decoy/chaff/smoke etc, but all miniature?
  6. Toxn

    Future of AFVs

    Putting a dial or something on it to program the fusing isn't hard, but I get where you're coming from ITO bulky missiles. Another way to combine them is to have a link function where both shots are fired from seperate launchers but timed and guided by the ATGM control unit. Sort of complex but definitively a lighter approach if your squad is hauling around two types of launcher anyway. The final option (which might be a thing already) is to make your missiles modular and split the components up amonst your team: one guy carries the sight/control unit, another the cradle, the third the motors and the fourth the guidance units and warheads. Mix and match just prior to firing. Also more complex, but it allows you a lot of flexibility if you're stacking warheads in the way I described.
  7. Toxn

    DRDO; India's Porsche

    In terms of raw muzzle energy maybe. But what about the power... to move us?
  8. Toxn

    Future of AFVs

    Twin barrel RPGs/ATGMs sound rad as hell. I guess the boring way is just to make a slightly longer tube (less than 30cm longer) for a missile with a small secondary that detaches from the front of the main body a few dozen metres before impact. The secondary can simply be a stubby finned job with the detaching motor in the rear and a VT fuzed shrapnel warhead in front. Set it to detonate at 5m from the target. The fuze can handle both separation and detonation, so this could also be sold as a stand-alone addon for SACLOS and beam rider rockets which don't require a seeker head in front to work.
  9. Toxn

    Future of AFVs

    @Mighty_Zuk I should mention that, as someone who is very prone to latching onto nifty ideas myself, I understand that you're feeling misunderstood/misrepresented here. My advice is to try to take it as a compliment that people are engaging with your ideas seriously rather than just engaging in mockery. Further; perhaps one way to show us how you're thinking this will work is to game it out. Model two sets of vehicles of the same weight/volume (keeping everything not directly related to your experiment constant), encode realistic assumptions about how they operate into rules and game out a meeting engagement starting at maximum range. Document everything you do so that others can understand and engage with it properly. My guess is that conventional wisdom is right and that the extra main gun rounds give the non-AC tanks an edge. But I'd be happy to see this overturned.
  10. Now do high-low, for completeness' sake
  11. Toxn

    Future of AFVs

    All good points, but we're talking about a conflict a decade from now when FF tech is as cheap (or cheaper) as SACLOS is today. The trend is towards cheaper, more capable electronics overall. Which also makes fancy main gun rounds ever more feasible as well, but then I'm not talking about replacing the main gun in this case. I'm simply considering a potential better use of weight/volume than a pair of autocannons mounted to the turret sides.
  12. Toxn

    Future of AFVs

    For serious, though: missiles are only getting cheaper and cheaper to make. Firing them four or five at a time should be enough to saturate any APS not based on future-lasers. And they're accurate out to maximum range. Fuck sticking twin 40mm guns or whatever onto the turret.
  13. Toxn

    Future of AFVs

    I'm still putting in a vote for missile volleys (preferably swarms). Not for technical reasons, but because the footage will be so freaking cool.
×