Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Mighty_Zuk

Future of AFVs

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, holoween said:

 

Yet 99% of combat troops dont carry pistols.

seriously though this analogy really starts breaking down and the is a pistol usefull is an entirely different debate to be had.

 

The problem i have with your argument is that youre arguing under the premise that the APS has to be destroyed to be rendered ineffective. With that premise i doubt anyone drastically disagrees with the idea of autocannons as APS killer. But noone accepts the premise that APS are infallable and there are a lot of easier ways of defeating non perfect (read: real) APS than adding an autocannon to an MBT.

Thanks for getting out of this pistol efficiency loop.

 

I'm the kind of person who gets absolutely bored when someone (MM) talks about some random (Leopard/Chally/T-72/Leclerc/Abrams) tank's armor and whether it's one inch thicker or one inch thinner.

 

I'm also the kind of person who gets absolutely excited when someone talks about pure concepts.

 

If one can get around an APS for a while, then that's all right. Will even save an extra round so HE-MP don't have to be fired at range to disable it. But it's going to have to be a solution that either requires extensive intel on the system, which needs to be both very accurate and very much in advance to allow proper study and development, or one that can be rather quickly countered.

 

Russia tried adding a decoy to their RPG-30 and shortly after Rafael said their system can already overcome such decoys based on the software.

 

A solution that can outright destroy the APS is far harder to counter. Heck, I don't even know how to protect APS from small arms fire, so now protect the whole system from medium caliber fire?

 

Soft kill APS were once a thing. They were never really successful though, as they could only counter one type of threat at a time. Introduce a new ATGM whose specs local intel still hasn't acquired, and that soft kill APS ain't worth shit.

 

Hard kill APS are similarly harder to do, but when they can blast literally anything out of the sky, it's no wonder they're so successful, with close to 2000 globally on order.

 

It's simple, really. The closer you get to a kinetic kill of something, the more fail-safe it gets. And fail-safe is future-proof. I don't need to explain why future-proofing is so important for so many reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I think I am being misunderstood here all over again

And I think you're focusing on the solution and looking for a problwm it can solve.

4 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

the maximum range at which a burst of medium caliber munitions can accurately hit a turret sized target and reliably neutralize an APS.

Except that with retrofit-level tech MBTs can be made entirely immune to such autocannon bursts.

6 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Diversification of the means of firepower is just as important as the diversification of the sources of firepower.

Fact: diverse isn't always superior. And when you're giving up internal volume to a system that is inferior in every important respect to the alternatives it displaces, that's a no-go.

7 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The changing architecture of AFVs, and MBTs especially, should free up a lot of resources (in terms of weight and volume alike) to add additional weaponry to better engage with additional threats.

Weight and volume better spent on electrical systems and 130mm ammo, not superfluous coax autocannon.

9 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The main function of a coaxial MG is to allow the MBT to engage with targets that would not be deemed "worthy" of a main gun shell, whether from an economical standpoint, or a practical one.

No, a coax MG exists to provide suppressive firepower against enemy troops whose location is not known precisely and to offer a close in self defence option with a large ammo reserve.

Anything larger than "jihadyota" is "worthy" of 120/130mm MPHE.

12 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

An autocannon will expand the spectrum of targets that an MG previously allowed to engage with.

At the cost of displacing 130mm MPHE, which is a price not worth paying.

13 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I'm not really following your rationale here. Adding a means of firepower does not limit the capabilities of the other means of firepower. The main gun shouldn't automatically become weaker because an autocannon was added. It could theoretically be somewhat hindered if the main gun munitions are reduced significantly, but the idea of using an autocannon should only slightly decrease the amount of actual shells, and increase dramatically the number of effective shells.

The rationale is that you're basing your entire concept of effective gunfire vs an opponents MBT on your ability to first land effective hits with your autocannon. This means your effective range is limited to the effective range of said autocannon. Unless you don't think the autocannon is needed to ensure effectiveness, in which case why install it in the first place?

Also, you seem to be greatly underestimating the bulk of an autocannon and associated ammo and feeding. You are displacing quite a few main gun rounds, which are significantly more effective, and consequently only harming the vehicles effectiveness. And the argument of saving rounds is a result of you completely ignoring alternative counter-APS approaches that do not involve multiple main gun shots.

21 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

It just allows the tank to be more effective at defeating an APS at closer range.

So you'd trade the long range firepower of stowed 130mm rounds for the ability to pepper enemy MBTs at close range with small frag which they can easily resist. After admitting that the ability to counter APS exists regardless, as you use it at longer ranges. Yeah no.

24 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

To me, your argument sounds a lot like claiming a soldier's efficiency is reduced because his pistol is only effective to 80 meters, even though he's clearly still packing a rifle able to send lead up to 400 meters

What I'm saying is that the line infantryman shouldn't be packing a pistol and 9mm ammo in the first place, but an equivalent weight in 5.56mm ammo, because 9mm is low energy, sad, short ranged and innaccurate and won't go through the enemy's body armor. Particularly not when the metaphor breaks down, as tech has been pushing the effective engagement ranges ever further out, so why the hell would I take a 9mm when I intend to fight the enemy at 800m?

30 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

True, but the alternative is worse.

No it isn't. There are options that do not require sticking around after announcing your presence like that.

31 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

each vertically laid differently because of different ballistics.

What is leading the target

31 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The target is 3km away, basically where the autocannon is still considered effective

Who let the target get within 3km

32 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

and within 3 seconds all shells hit the enemy tank. You immediately fire at that point through the main gun, with a delay of 3 seconds.

Confirmed for not understanding how ballistics or time work.

Protip-30/35mm fullbore rounds take a lot longer to reach 3km because the MV is low and the shells lose velocity quickly.

And all this extra time is time for the target to disappear and time you leave yourself exposed after announcing your presence, which is just asking to get nailed by someone who doesnt waste their time with autocannon bursts.

35 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Alternatively, you can get it down to 2 second to account for horizontal laying of the main gun, and have the main gun fire its round in a way that all shells impact at nearly the same time, with the main gun ammo arriving just slightly after the medium caliber shells

Better but still not as good as just not bothering with the small caliber shit in the first place. For a start as Bronez pointed out that solution is very sensitive to so many environmental conditions that its a non starter.

36 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

If you decide to fire off 2 shells from the main gun

Again, the alternative does not have to be firing multiple rounds from the main gun. But even if we assume for a moment that it is, well then you'd design your gun and autoloader for that purpose. And pre-selected ammo flick rammed 120mm guns can reach 120rpm. It's been done. Much faster than waiting for slow autocannon shells to cross the distance.

41 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Would shutters not negate the core functions of the APS's sensors and interceptors?

The point of such shutters is that you close them for a very short amount of time to protect the soft portions from frag and then open them again. They dont have to be closed for any longer than 0.1 sec per fragmentation round sent the way of the protected vehicle.

Servomechanisms powerful enough to move STANAG 3 level shutters at high velocity are established tech.

45 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

how quickly can the shutters be removed to allow the interceptors to fire upon the incoming threat?

Really fucking fast. Its a matter of how fast you want them to move, and building an appropriate servo mechanism. Servos are insanely fast.

And yes these shutters could also protect the system from small arms fire.

47 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The Trophy has shutters, but these are only put in place when tanks are parking, and removed prior to driving off.

Protective covers are not shutters. If you need to manually remove them before action they aren't the kind of system I'm talking about. Shutters as their name implies *shut*. Watch the vid LooSeR linked.

49 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Neither can a 7.62mm do any of these, and yet MGs are practically a MUST for any AFV

Yes, because you can carry 10k linked rounds for a machine gun as 7.62 rounds are tiny and because you want an emergency backup weapon that can prevent you from getting overrun by squishies and practically speaking eint run out of ammo. The MG is not however considered a primary weapon system substitute for any target.

52 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

but against infantry it should be a more economical (in terms of ammo stowage) choice. 

No. 120 or 130mm MPHE shits all over 35mm HEAB against all squishy targets. And to top it off the multiple smart fuzes on the multiple HEAB rounds you need to send downrange to provide a similar effect means the autocannon option is more expensive.

And thats without getting into how at long ranges the 35mm just cant reack and suffers such poor dispersion that significantly more rounds are required.

35mm cannot compete in the big league with the big boys.

56 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

In urban scenarios

M. P. H. E. 

If you dont want to bring down the building you set it to SQ or PROX. Will bring down part of the wall and anyone behind it but not the building. If you want the building to come down you use PDD. You don't need autocannon rounds for this.

59 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

There are many downsides to main guns compared to autocannons in urban settings

There are many upsides too. Most of them involve the multipurpose selectable destructive effect of MPHE rounds. And you're going to have autocannon equipped IFVs around anyway, in case you happen to run into a contrived situation which somehow only an autocannon can solve but a 120mm MPHE can't (or that a RCWS with a 40mm AGL with high elevation also won't solve). Still not a reason to install a coax autocannon on a tank.

100% of released future concept "tanks" with autocannon have no main gun to cut down weight and save cost, not because it provides complemetary firepower on the same platform.

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

IFVs are hardly the most common target for MBTs. Not even in a high intensity conflict.

I like the way you ignored all the other targets I listed. But just to make the point clear- the autocannon does not provide any additional AP capability against them either, as they will be immune. So again it is redundant.

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

may cause problems

This is just grasping at straws. 130mm ammo vs 120mm ammo requiring lengthened racks 'may cause problems' despite such work having already been done for the old 140mm systems? Last time I checked most countries are satisfied with current ammo capacites. And the shrinking of crews as you point out frees up volume, so what prevents you utilizing that volume for effective useful 130mm ammo?

 

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

There aren't many approaches to alterations of the munitions themselves, that can be future-proof for a good enough amount of time, and simultaneously not terribly hindering the projectile's core function.

There were a few already mentioned in this thread, had you bothered to read it. The additional length and greatly increased muzzle energy of the 130mm give a lot of room to play around with while keeping a reference long rod going at the desired velocity. Decoy darts, segmented programmable rods that break apart before entering the APS intercept zone, RCS reduction of the dart (and matching of any decoys), EW methods, AHEAD-tipped darts to try and hit the APS munition itself first, and many others.

All of these are more future proof than trying to spray the opponent with light frag, and none of them require the entire vehicle to be designed around them.

 

So again, in conclusion, you're obsessed with this solution and are desperately looking for a problem to justify it despite it objectively being a poor one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, holoween said:

With that premise i doubt anyone drastically disagrees with the idea of autocannons as APS killer.

I disagree, it's retardedly easy to defend against light frag like the proposed system uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Heck, I don't even know how to protect APS from small arms fire

Hint- it's retardedly easy.

You have a radar, which detects incoming rounds.

And a shutter, which can stop them.

You use the radar to cue the shutter.

You can even have 2 different kinds- the shutters on the radars and optics close only during the calculated time of impact, and otherwise stay open. The shutters on the interceptors stay closed except for launch. 

Easy, your APS is now resistant to anything smaller than what your shutters are rated for. You could do this for 14.5mm KE if you really wanted but the servos would get a bit fat. 35mm KETF cannot compete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Hint- it's retardedly easy.

You have a radar, which detects incoming rounds.

And a shutter, which can stop them.

You use the radar to cue the shutter.

You can even have 2 different kinds- the shutters on the radars and optics close only during the calculated time of impact, and otherwise stay open. The shutters on the interceptors stay closed except for launch. 

Easy, your APS is now resistant to anything smaller than what your shutters are rated for. You could do this for 14.5mm KE if you really wanted but the servos would get a bit fat. 35mm KETF cannot compete.

 

So either your radar detecting the rounds stays vulnerable or it cant tell when it has to reopen. To me this seems like its working perfectly fine since either the APS stays open, then the autocannon rounds destroy it, or it stays closed in which case the APS cant defeat the KEP.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

My proposal for an autocannon to be mounted coaxially to the main gun (horizontally but not vertically aligned), is only one layer of a solution to APS. This is supposed to be the lowest tier defense, for ranges from point blank to the maximum range at which a burst of medium caliber munitions can accurately hit a turret sized target and reliably neutralize an APS. Higher tiers are HE-MP shells from the main gun, going up to ATGMs either from the MBTs or from IFVs with an ABM-like effect, and at the top just good old shelling of tank units with artillery munitions to generally just soften them up. 

   So for a very specific situations of tanks meeting each other in very close combat you propose to install a new weapon system, design new gun mounting/turret/RCWS to accept autocannon powerfull enough for job, introduce new ammunition into logicstical chain of tank units, complicate FCS and gunner's workload during a very stressful moment of meeting enemy armor very near your vehicle, at distances where enemy APS may not even have time to react to incoming KE penetrator? We are sacrificing internal volume and external surface of our tank for AC ammunition, instead of other usefull things that tank needs to do its job.

   

   Moreover, at what distance AC fire will be reliable enough to punch through enemy vehicle that is equipped with proposed subsystem protection kit with armored shutters closing before rounds impact? Is it going to be something close to a "sword range"? At ranges were AC rounds will hit enemy tank before enemy's APS will manage to close armored protective covers for APS components, KE penetrator will connect with enemy hull even faster!

 

   Basically this idea was defeated at a concept level, Zuk. At realistical ranges for tank combat AC will be useless for proposed role because of almost 1950s tech-based active defence kit, at ranges where such system will not be able to react, APFSDS round will be far more effective anyway!  

 

Quote

Diversification of the means of firepower is just as important as the diversification of the sources of firepower.

   What? Are you proposing to add more weapons on tanks because there are more than 1 specific target at which tank needs to shot? "Resist complication of a system" should be a moto, not "add more means of firepower".

 

   So let's diversify means of firepower of Common Soviet MBT. Soviet tanks have a problem with infantry in close range. Can kill them effectively with 1 puny coaxiam PKT. Let's add a flamethrower!

Spoiler

42kC1l8.jpg

 

   But what if enemies are using light armor vehicle that are resistant to flamethrowers? We can save main gun ammo and install some serious HMGs or ACs on top of our vehicle!

Spoiler

pxpgdug.jpg

 

Qv9PzxU.jpg

   Perfect!

 

Quote

The changing architecture of AFVs, and MBTs especially, should free up a lot of resources (in terms of weight and volume alike) to add additional weaponry to better engage with additional threats. 

   Architecture of AFVs and MBTs didn't changed that much that they start to defy logic and physics. Bolting on more guns on already sophisticated tank creates even more sophistication for questinable gains, and very very questinable gains in case of anti-APS autocannons. Changes in layout from T-90 to T-14 (for example) were dictated by need of higher protection with changes in weight being as low as possible. All volume inside is already used for critical systems, there is not spare space inside to mount few more cannons and ammunition for them without taking something and throwing out of it. 

   Maybe if we speak about a tank with build in space for "future upgrades", than space is needed for better main guns and ammunition, FCS and armor, which are more important than very questinable anti-APS ACs.

   And if we start to mount more guns just because we have space left for them, we will end up with what i posted above. 

 

Quote

The main function of a coaxial MG is to allow the MBT to engage with targets that would not be deemed "worthy" of a main gun shell, whether from an economical standpoint, or a practical one. An autocannon will expand the spectrum of targets that an MG previously allowed to engage with.

   So are we speaking about anti-APS ACs or ACs that should be used against something other than APS-equipped tanks? BMP-3 exist. Commander's RCWS exist, they could be designed to accept something like AGLs or low recoil ACs, but this idea is better for something like urban survival kit.

 

Quote

I'm not really following your rationale here. Adding a means of firepower does not limit the capabilities of the other means of firepower.

   Did you saw how tightly some of equipment is packed inside of tanks? Where are you going to store all rounds for your burst firing anti-APS AC that would be enough to put all KE rounds that tank carry into enemy MBTs? In 4th dimension? Size and weight limitations exist for a reason. Protection, firepower of main weapon (so tank can do its main job) and mobility + ability of crew to make vehicle do its job are priority.

 

Quote

The main gun shouldn't automatically become weaker because an autocannon was added. It could theoretically be somewhat hindered if the main gun munitions are reduced significantly, but the idea of using an autocannon should only slightly decrease the amount of actual shells, and increase dramatically the number of effective shells. 

   With enemy doing this T-55-esque trick your anti-APS AC rounds will be a dead weight and wasted volume, on top of other complication of your vehicle design.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2018 at 1:49 AM, Andrei_bt said:

 

Hard to tell this by words,  very simple tank, very easy autoloader, looks like "mamoth" in "red alert" game, but with engine in front, next year.

Something like this?

1884227_original.jpg

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

There aren't many approaches to alterations of the munitions themselves, that can be future-proof for a good enough amount of time, and simultaneously not terribly hindering the projectile's core function. At least, not one approach that I know of.

   You can play around with ideas. In our situation we need to carry KE penetrator through APS. You can change internal design (as APFSDS rounds did to defeat ERA), so intercepting munition will not be able to degrade KE penetration capacity enough to defend targeted tank. You can try to use Sabo parts as some sort of false targets by reshaping them, release cheap/short KE rods with your main penetrator in order to punch through APS defences, change tactics and network FCS system to focus fire enemy tanks in a timed salvo and so on. There is many ideas that you can at least try to simulate on a computer first and select those whch show a potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would consider the rise of aerial drone warfare to make this a sensible solution.  Whether on same vehicle or adjacent vehicle (t-15 with 57mm)

 

But as main gun doesnt elevate to AA, the coaxial needs additonal elevation.

 

We live in a world where mining's electronic millisecond fuzes cost about $20.  So sooner or later it will be normal for a 57mm round to all come with those, so airburst becomes ubiquitous.

 

So far only israel see fit to keep a 60mm mortar on tank, so my guess is that only israel would add a similar caliber gun to a tank.  Others would keep it as an additional  vehicle.

 

Looking at syria conflict, a t 15 with 57mm couldve been so useful, tank round sniping vs individual infanty is here to stay, do we need 125mm rounds for that? What about future 130/140/150mm rounds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xlucine said:

This would make a fun design-a-tank competition.

   Not so sure. We had competitions based on AFV tech that is well know, so we can judge it according to those knowledges. Anti-APS capable tanks is not something that exist in reality, judging this would need to understand way less obvious concepts and more harder in general. Unless we spin it somehow.

 

   1st April tank comeptition - you are Westwood, resurrected from ashes and you are wroking on Red Alert 4. You need to design a tank for each action that can overcome APS upgrade installed on other factions tank as part of game tech research game mechanic. Go!

   That would be less serious, more fun way for people to get to their strange and unusual ideas. They will also feel safer at failing, which means that their creativity will be less restricted by parts of their own brains.

 

15 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

/.../

Russia tried adding a decoy to their RPG-30 and shortly after Rafael said their system can already overcome such decoys based on the software.

/.../

   RPG with 2 rounds is not a dead concept IMO. It needs to be approached from the other way. 

   Let's say we will have a common RPG system that consist of reusable FCS module like one on RPG-32 Hashim, with selection of rocket types in sealed disposable containers, that also act as disposable barrels. We will develop a Karandash-like airburst HE-frag round for anti-infantry work and also will have big tandem HEAT AT shot for our RPG. Let's also make FCS/launcher system to be able to accept 2 containers, so we can create a RPG-30-like short range AT weapon by mounting HE-frag airburst shot and AT shot into our FCS launcher module.

   This system, using FCS and rangefinding (or preset range or whatever) will be able to determine timing of firing each rocket so HE-Frag will enter zone of inteception of APS a moment before main HEAT shot. So if APS ignore it, we will have chances to damage launchers, radars and other equipment so AT rocket will be able to get to tank armor undamaged.

   We also can create special light weight small caliber shot full of radar decoys that would be released before main AT round get into APS interception range. FCS will again help to soldier to time shots of each round to sneak main AT rocket through APS.

   Any changes in aiming point between shots of 1st and 2nd rocket will be miniman at ranges were RPGs are used, so i guess this RPG-30 idea still have something in it.

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Not so sure. We had competitions based on AFV tech that is well know, so we can judge it according to those knowledges. Anti-APS capable tanks is not something that exist in reality, judging this would need to understand way less obvious concepts and more harder in general. Unless we spin it somehow.

 

   1st April tank comeptition - you are Westwood, resurrected from ashes and you are wroking on Red Alert 4. You need to design a tank for each action that can overcome APS upgrade installed on other factions tank as part of game tech research game mechanic. Go!

   That would be less serious, more fun way for people to get to their strange and unusual ideas. They will also feel safer at failing, which means that their creativity will be less restricted by parts of their own brains.

 

   RPG with 2 rounds is not a dead concept IMO. It needs to be approached from the other way. 

   Let's say we will have a common RPG system that consist of reusable FCS module like one on RPG-32 Hashim, with selection of rocket types in sealed disposable containers, that also act as disposable barrels. We will develop a Karandash-like airburst HE-frag round for anti-infantry work and also will have big tandem HEAT AT shot for our RPG. Let's also make FCS/launcher system to be able to accept 2 containers, so we can create a RPG-30-like short range AT weapon by mounting HE-frag airburst shot and AT shot into our FCS launcher module.

   This system, using FCS and rangefinding (or preset range or whatever) will be able to determine timing of firing each rocket so HE-Frag will enter zone of inteception of APS a moment before main HEAT shot. So if APS ignore it, we will have chances to damage launchers, radars and other equipment so AT rocket will be able to get to tank armor undamaged.

   We also can create special light weight small caliber shot full of radar decoys that would be released before main AT round get into APS interception range. FCS will again help to soldier to time shots of each round to sneak main AT rocket through APS.

   Any changes in aiming point between shots of 1st and 2nd rocket will be miniman at ranges were RPGs are used, so i guess this RPG-30 idea still have something in it.

   

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Toxn said:

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.

It is not exactly twin RPG as second one is rather small caliber rocket (like Karandash). Also my setup use normal shots that usually will be used separately, but when needed soldiers can put them together into single system.

 

Problem with makind RPG longer is that they are becoming to cumbersome. Just look at RPG-29 Vampir. I don't want to force soldiers carry single big specialized weapon, that's why  proposed RPG can be disassembled and used as separate anti-infantry shot and standard AT shot.

 

Another problem with VT-type fuses with pre-set range of detonation is that your weapon will meet different APS with different range of interception. So you need to be able to program fuse depending on type of tank you engaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

It is not exactly twin RPG as second one is rather small caliber rocket (like Karandash). Also my setup use normal shots that usually will be used separately, but when needed soldiers can put them together into single system.

 

Problem with makind RPG longer is that they are becoming to cumbersome. Just look at RPG-29 Vampir. I don't want to force soldiers carry single big specialized weapon, that's why  proposed RPG can be disassembled and used as separate anti-infantry shot and standard AT shot.

 

Another problem with VT-type fuses with pre-set range of detonation is that your weapon will meet different APS with different range of interception. So you need to be able to program fuse depending on type of tank you engaged.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Toxn said:

/.../

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.

/.../

Well, 5th gen ATGMs probably will be able to do that, launchers are suposed to be networked IIRC.

 

Also, proposed RPG have single launcher unit and use normal rockets, just assembled into one system. As i said, it is more like RPG-32

RPG-32_1.jpg

 

There are static launchers for RPGs that could be upgraded to do that trick (or they are already capable):

main-1479.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2018 at 8:16 AM, Toxn said:

@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.

 

One more thing I think people don't understand about me here is that I am a very harsh critic of using ACs on tanks myself, when it comes to current generation tanks.

I only support the use of ACs on tanks of the next generation, when the new layout of tanks will negate some of the downsides of ACs, and rising threats will increase the number of advantages an AC can bring to the table.

Combat inefficiency is declared at 50% manpower.

 

Here's a possible scenario:

BLUE and RED forces operating in a theater with a single BCT per side - i.e each side has tanks, infantry, well armed IFVs, artillery, and short to long range reconnaissance.

We will assume the BCT operates 60 MBTs and 60 IFVs.

 

BLUE spot RED forces movement 15km away. Artillery (old tech) is called in, and approximately 10% suffer damage to external modules including APS. Reconnaissance observe the hits and mark on a BMS (current tech) the targets that are likely no longer defended by APS. 

Via a fire tender (new tech) operating by a battle network (new tech), long range ATGMs (current tech) are used to hit the marked targets. 12 RED AFVs are destroyed, and are at 90% strength.

RED forces return disruptive fire and manage to close the distance to 8km prior to being spotted again.

Some of the BLUE AFVs obtain line of sight to RED AFVs and set up an ambush. A barrage of coordinated HE-MP shells is followed by ATGMs that leave them indefinitely out of service. An isolated force of 6 AFVs is destroyed. RED are at 85% strength.

 

Since we're not talking about bots, all actions are mutual and both sides are at 85%, which reduces the ability of the initiating side to use overwhelming firepower.

 

Mutual skirmishes continue until the range is 3.5km between the two forces. Both sides are now at 75% strength, and the goal is to bring the other side down by a further 25% of the initial strength.

RED MBTs are now 40 current generation MBTs (e.g T-14).

BLUE MBTs are now 40 next generation MBTs (e.g Leopard 3), equipped with a 40mm CTA coaxial AC.

 

Each force is hunkered down behind some form of natural obstacle that renders artillery ineffective. Air power is unavailable. Both sides are ordered to advance to a certain point on the other side. The terrain they must cross is flat and will not allow skirmishes, rather will force both sides to a direct and brutal confrontation.

 

Both are now advancing, and the RED MBTs are attempting to deplete the BLUE force's APS. BLUE MBTs are firing off their ACs first, destroying the APS of few. Vulnerable targets are marked on the network. Prior to that, due to similar numbers on both sides, coordination of firepower on a single MBT was impossible as it would mean some tanks would not be targeted at all, and would be free to fire for a protracted period of time.

With the disabling of APS on the RED's side due to constant AC fire, BLUE MBTs can freely engage them with their main guns. Coordination of fire is also enabled.

Let's assume a main gun's KE shot has a 10% chance to disable the APS, and an AC has a 50% chance to disable it in a single burst. This means that in the first cycle of engagement, the BLUE side can disable the APS of 60% of the enemy force, while the RED side can only disable the APS of 10%. 

Within that first cycle, 24 RED MBTs are damaged badly or destroyed, pushing the RED force above the casualty threshold, forcing a surrender.

The BLUE forces lose 4 MBTs only, and remain combat effective.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 3:00 AM, LoooSeR said:

Something like this?

   You can play around with ideas. In our situation we need to carry KE penetrator through APS. You can change internal design (as APFSDS rounds did to defeat ERA), so intercepting munition will not be able to degrade KE penetration capacity enough to defend targeted tank. You can try to use Sabo parts as some sort of false targets by reshaping them, release cheap/short KE rods with your main penetrator in order to punch through APS defences, change tactics and network FCS system to focus fire enemy tanks in a timed salvo and so on. There is many ideas that you can at least try to simulate on a computer first and select those whch show a potential.

 

Focusing on a single tank is usually possible only in an ambush scenario or a limited skirmish as the forces ratio doesn't usually permit that. But it is indeed part of the solution. However, this is yet another layer of capabilities that should be separated from the main topic. It is a capability that is good to have regardless.

 

How exactly one would change the APFSDS design to negate the APS's effect is beyond me. An APS would use a stupid amount of force against that rod to tilt it. I don't think making it even twice as heavy or twice as short would help in any meaningful way.

Any other wild solution does not seem feasible to me. How would one release any form of munition from an APFSDS mid-flight at a greater speed than the rod itself, and keep a very tight grouping for hundreds of meters of flight?

The sabots themselves will have to actually fly along the rod to become decoys, and that's just a massive amount of drag. And again making them fly faster than the rod itself would be impossible.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:51 AM, LoooSeR said:

So for a very specific situations of tanks meeting each other in very close combat you propose to install a new weapon system, design new gun mounting/turret/RCWS to accept autocannon powerfull enough for job, introduce new ammunition into logicstical chain of tank units, complicate FCS and gunner's workload during a very stressful moment of meeting enemy armor very near your vehicle, at distances where enemy APS may not even have time to react to incoming KE penetrator? We are sacrificing internal volume and external surface of our tank for AC ammunition, instead of other usefull things that tank needs to do its job.

 

Not an RCWS or turret, but mounted coaxially to the main gun. 

The ammunition should be native to these tank units as it would match the ammunition used by the IFVs of the same units. Using 30mm on your IFVs? Then put a 30mm there. And if the tank units and infantry units are organic, then maybe it's time to make the switch to non-organic or semi-organic combat teams.

 

The FCS would hardly be complicated by it. New advancements in technology are forcing in new features that would put far greater load on the central computer than the ballistic computations of an AC.

 

The gunner's workload should not be increased because:

A)Gunners probably won't exist on those tanks.

B)It is possible to make the whole process automated, and similar in complexity and requirement of human input to today's engagement of targets.

Actually, current technology already offers engagement features that will make even an operation with a so called 'anti-APS' mode substantially easier than current day's firing.

 

And of course, if the enemy APS is known to be unable to defeat KEPs at a set maximum range, and the units on the ground are trained with that information in mind, then the usa of an AC is no longer necessary.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:51 AM, LoooSeR said:

   Moreover, at what distance AC fire will be reliable enough to punch through enemy vehicle that is equipped with proposed subsystem protection kit with armored shutters closing before rounds impact? Is it going to be something close to a "sword range"? At ranges were AC rounds will hit enemy tank before enemy's APS will manage to close armored protective covers for APS components, KE penetrator will connect with enemy hull even faster!

 

We don't even know if the idea of shutters is realistic. IMI had to drop a 3-barrel design for its APS because the added weight of the 3rd barrel prevented quick enough operation that was crucial for the defeat of KEPs. I don't think a shutter several times heavier will be able to get the job done very well. 

But even if that idea is somewhat realistic, then the need for ACs is only reinforced, and I'll explain why:

If a shutter closes prior to impact, and has to cover the interceptors as well (as they're the most vulnerable part of the APS), then a steady barrage of medium caliber fire capable of reaching out to 3km will keep these shutters closed until the gunner can send a high caliber shell down range. As the shutters will be closed to protect the system from the constant incoming AC rounds, nothing will be able to defeat the KEP and the vehicle will be hit and damaged/destroyed.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:51 AM, LoooSeR said:

   What? Are you proposing to add more weapons on tanks because there are more than 1 specific target at which tank needs to shot? "Resist complication of a system" should be a moto, not "add more means of firepower".

 

   So let's diversify means of firepower of Common Soviet MBT. Soviet tanks have a problem with infantry in close range. Can kill them effectively with 1 puny coaxiam PKT. Let's add a flamethrower!

  Reveal hidden contents

42kC1l8.jpg

 

You mock the idea of an AC, but support adding a flamethrower? Its very short range and very chaotic nature will make it too hazardous for urban warfare, which is where infantry is actually a serious threat. And it's also illegal.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:51 AM, LoooSeR said:

   Architecture of AFVs and MBTs didn't changed that much that they start to defy logic and physics. Bolting on more guns on already sophisticated tank creates even more sophistication for questinable gains, and very very questinable gains in case of anti-APS autocannons. Changes in layout from T-90 to T-14 (for example) were dictated by need of higher protection with changes in weight being as low as possible. All volume inside is already used for critical systems, there is not spare space inside to mount few more cannons and ammunition for them without taking something and throwing out of it. 

 

There may not be spare space inside the T-14, but I wasn't really talking about the T-14. I was talking about the later generation tanks that are currently in development for the replacement of the Leopard 2, Leclerc, and Abrams. Either way, a T-14 would achieve a similar result in weight and space saving so I guess it can be used as an example.

First, the T-14 weighs ~50 tons, maybe more and maybe less. That's already a 15 ton decrease from the western standard, without any harm to ergonomics. To the contrary, ergonomics have vastly improved there.

And if we talk about space, well that exists as well. The AC does not have to take any space within the hull, and can have all its ammunition stored in the bustle, with the gun added as either a module or as an integral part, depending on how one would want to have the internals organized. 

That will make the turret larger, but that's hardly a problem when the turret is unmanned and already saves a great deal of space in comparison with current turret designs. So even with that system, the turret will be of reduced size relative to any manned turret.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:51 AM, LoooSeR said:

   Maybe if we speak about a tank with build in space for "future upgrades", than space is needed for better main guns and ammunition, FCS and armor, which are more important than very questinable anti-APS ACs.

   And if we start to mount more guns just because we have space left for them, we will end up with what i posted above. 

 

APS is a force multiplier. All the other components you listed are incremental upgrades. Thus, the ability to negate an APS will be far more critical than other capabilities. 

In Israel and Russia there are at least publicly known programs for anti-APS weaponry and tactics.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:51 AM, LoooSeR said:

   So are we speaking about anti-APS ACs or ACs that should be used against something other than APS-equipped tanks? BMP-3 exist. Commander's RCWS exist, they could be designed to accept something like AGLs or low recoil ACs, but this idea is better for something like urban survival kit.

 

I am speaking about an AC that will engage with other targets as well, but was made more feasible as a concept because of a new emerging need to inflict damage to external modules that APS cannot defend against.

There were always fanboys who thought the Moderna or Strv 2000 looked really cool with those ACs, and even though I have to strike one of these down at least about once a week, they at least know that there is some merit to these ACs. They just don't know how impractical it is to add them to existing tanks.

And the idea was toyed around with for a reason.

I believe the main idea was to use these against infantry at close to medium ranges, and very lightly armored vehicles. Today you got 2 additional threats - cheap and dispensable UAVs and APS. The APS just made ACs more viable on MBTs, it doesn't make my idea of ACs into something that is mission-focused on one capability.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:51 AM, LoooSeR said:

   Did you saw how tightly some of equipment is packed inside of tanks? Where are you going to store all rounds for your burst firing anti-APS AC that would be enough to put all KE rounds that tank carry into enemy MBTs? In 4th dimension? Size and weight limitations exist for a reason. Protection, firepower of main weapon (so tank can do its main job) and mobility + ability of crew to make vehicle do its job are priority.

 

   With enemy doing this T-55-esque trick your anti-APS AC rounds will be a dead weight and wasted volume, on top of other complication of your vehicle design.

 

Inside the now-empty turret bustle, as the main gun shells will be located in the basket.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:19 AM, N-L-M said:

And I think you're focusing on the solution and looking for a problwm it can solve.

Then you're terrible at inferring. You know that I am traditionally against ACs on MBTs, and if you don't know then look at my other forum posts. I was looking into the different ways that an APS can evolve. I played with the idea of multi-layered APS consisting of something like Trophy, a high powered laser, an ADS-like system, and an RCWS. But no matter what I did, I couldn't find a solution to ACs and small arms fire. And so it clicked - if ACs are an unsolvable problem, then why not use them?

On 12/31/2018 at 2:19 AM, N-L-M said:

Except that with retrofit-level tech MBTs can be made entirely immune to such autocannon bursts.

Look at my reply to Loooser for an explanation on why I don't believe shutters can have a positive effect on MBTs, and why I think they may have adverse effects, such as blocking the APS from being able to engage a KEP.

On 12/31/2018 at 2:19 AM, N-L-M said:

Fact: diverse isn't always superior. And when you're giving up internal volume to a system that is inferior in every important respect to the alternatives it displaces, that's a no-go.

Look at my replies above, I answer that there. Another TLDR is that you can put the ammo in the bustle, and then it won't interfere with the basket's capacity.

On 12/31/2018 at 2:19 AM, N-L-M said:

 

The rationale is that you're basing your entire concept of effective gunfire vs an opponents MBT on your ability to first land effective hits with your autocannon. This means your effective range is limited to the effective range of said autocannon. Unless you don't think the autocannon is needed to ensure effectiveness, in which case why install it in the first place?

 

I'm not basing my entire concept on the usage of the AC. In fact, I have, multiple times, demonstrated exactly a scenario where an AC is only used only in set conditions, and other methods are used in other conditions. I have reiterated time and time again the need to generate a layered response, in which an AC is only one of the layers.

 

I could use the same argument to debate the need of an LRF. Let's say the LRF only works up to 5km. Instead of firing to the maximum physically possible range of this cannon via ballistic charts, you'll be firing only to 5km, albeit much much faster. An LRF is not needed to ensure effectiveness, so why install it in the first place?

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:19 AM, N-L-M said:

Also, you seem to be greatly underestimating the bulk of an autocannon and associated ammo and feeding. You are displacing quite a few main gun rounds, which are significantly more effective, and consequently only harming the vehicles effectiveness. And the argument of saving rounds is a result of you completely ignoring alternative counter-APS approaches that do not involve multiple main gun shots.

 

Alternatives that are far shorter term and are bordering sci-fi that you choose to take as viable solutions while mock the inclusion of an AC as sci-fi despite it being deemed viable in the past.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:19 AM, N-L-M said:

So you'd trade the long range firepower of stowed 130mm rounds for the ability to pepper enemy MBTs at close range with small frag which they can easily resist. After admitting that the ability to counter APS exists regardless, as you use it at longer ranges. Yeah no.

 

No, because the addition of an AC with bustle-stored ammunition should not interfere with the basket-storage of the 130mm ammo. And I'm going to need an explanation for the claim that MBTs can easily resist medium caliber munitions. Simple small arms fire can do significant damage to an APS if aimed at the interceptors, so now medium caliber shells are ineffective?

The ability to engage an APS at longer range will also diminish with time. While I agree that spamming HE-MP shells with AB mode on APS is a good solution for long range engagements, certain APS can definitely engage and defeat HE-MP shells at a good standoff range. I believe Trophy intercepts at 30 meters. What happens when APS will be able to intercept such munitions at 50m, or 80m, or 100m via other more advanced means? Raytheon's Quick Kill, in concept, allowed long range interceptions. Even a 130mm HE-MP shell won't be effective enough at such ranges.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:19 AM, N-L-M said:

What I'm saying is that the line infantryman shouldn't be packing a pistol and 9mm ammo in the first place, but an equivalent weight in 5.56mm ammo, because 9mm is low energy, sad, short ranged and innaccurate and won't go through the enemy's body armor. Particularly not when the metaphor breaks down, as tech has been pushing the effective engagement ranges ever further out, so why the hell would I take a 9mm when I intend to fight the enemy at 800m?

 

Then a better analogy would be a battle knife instead of a 9mm pistol, if you're struggling with analogies. The point was that a soldier will need to pack his main weapon without any doubt, but have something to enable fighting in very close ranges. 

A grenade is another example of a weapon that is shorter ranged than a rifle, and in certain scenarios more effective.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:19 AM, N-L-M said:

Who let the target get within 3km

This is the BVR debate all over again from Vietnam. One might've thought that BVR missiles were going to end WVR combat, but they didn't. Plenty of tank on tank combat occurred at point blank range.

If you design a tank under the notion that you will never engage with a target closer than 3km, than that's a failed design.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:19 AM, N-L-M said:

And all this extra time is time for the target to disappear and time you leave yourself exposed after announcing your presence, which is just asking to get nailed by someone who doesnt waste their time with autocannon bursts.

 

I still don't understand how you propose to defeat an APS-equipped tank on the first shot. If you try that, not only will you expose yourself, but you'll do it for a far longer period of time.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:19 AM, N-L-M said:

Better but still not as good as just not bothering with the small caliber shit in the first place. For a start as Bronez pointed out that solution is very sensitive to so many environmental conditions that its a non starter.

 

Which doesn't really explain why someone thought ACs were viable as armament for IFVs.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:19 AM, N-L-M said:

Again, the alternative does not have to be firing multiple rounds from the main gun. But even if we assume for a moment that it is, well then you'd design your gun and autoloader for that purpose. And pre-selected ammo flick rammed 120mm guns can reach 120rpm. It's been done. Much faster than waiting for slow autocannon shells to cross the distance.

 

I don't really know how it's possible to get 120rpm out of 120mm guns, but I'll bite. With an APS like the Afghanit, you're talking about firing at least 3 shots to damage a tank, with an added number that could depend on whether the tank traverses its turret. Against Iron Fist you'll need 5 shots to damage a tank. And if people actually start layering their APS, then that number may grow exponentially until one would have to use the entire on-board ammo.

 

On 12/31/2018 at 2:19 AM, N-L-M said:

There were a few already mentioned in this thread, had you bothered to read it. The additional length and greatly increased muzzle energy of the 130mm give a lot of room to play around with while keeping a reference long rod going at the desired velocity. Decoy darts, segmented programmable rods that break apart before entering the APS intercept zone, RCS reduction of the dart (and matching of any decoys), EW methods, AHEAD-tipped darts to try and hit the APS munition itself first, and many others.

All of these are more future proof than trying to spray the opponent with light frag, and none of them require the entire vehicle to be designed around them.

 

So again, in conclusion, you're obsessed with this solution and are desperately looking for a problem to justify it despite it objectively being a poor one.

 

And how is any of them made possible? I at least explained how the autocannon solution would work. You could not explain yet how it would be physically possible to add decoys, stealth tech, or whatever other kind of alleged solution to allow KEPs to avoid an APS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

How exactly one would change the APFSDS design to negate the APS's effect is beyond me. An APS would use a stupid amount of force against that rod to tilt it. I don't think making it even twice as heavy or twice as short would help in any meaningful way. 

Any other wild solution does not seem feasible to me.

I thought you knew how APS intercepts APFSDS, my dude.

 

48 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

We don't even know if the idea of shutters is realistic. IMI had to drop a 3-barrel design for its APS because the added weight of the 3rd barrel prevented quick enough operation that was crucial for the defeat of KEPs. I don't think a shutter several times heavier will be able to get the job done very well. 

But even if that idea is somewhat realistic, then the need for ACs is only reinforced, and I'll explain why:

If a shutter closes prior to impact, and has to cover the interceptors as well (as they're the most vulnerable part of the APS), then a steady barrage of medium caliber fire capable of reaching out to 3km will keep these shutters closed until the gunner can send a high caliber shell down range. As the shutters will be closed to protect the system from the constant incoming AC rounds, nothing will be able to defeat the KEP and the vehicle will be hit and damaged/destroyed.

You should take a look at linear actuators. They're basically hydraulics but electric, but also retardedly quick. 50 kg pushing force at 1 m/s is standard for these things. Add a lever action or gearing or whatever and suddenly you can open and close heavily armoured shutters in milliseconds.

 

52 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Not an RCWS or turret, but mounted coaxially to the main gun. 

You want guided shells, but also KETF, see how you can combine those two. You can't mount the guiding in the front because that would interfere with proper KETF operation, and if you mount them in the rear you need to fold the fins somewhere, eating into your available space at astonishing rates.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bronezhilet said:

I thought you knew how APS intercepts APFSDS, my dude.

 

What exactly have I gotten wrong there? Because I don't think anything has changed in the past few days

 

1 hour ago, Bronezhilet said:

You should take a look at linear actuators. They're basically hydraulics but electric, but also retardedly quick. 50 kg pushing force at 1 m/s is standard for these things. Add a lever action or gearing or whatever and suddenly you can open and close heavily armoured shutters in milliseconds.

 

Okay so let's say they can open and close quickly enough. How would the radar compute follow-up close-open cycles if it obstructs its sensing capability? And how would it deal with projectiles that don't have a consistent velocity reduction and therefore a different time of arrival than the calculated one? 

 

To illustrate my last point, consider a guided shell making a slight maneuver mid-flight in an otherwise completely ballistic flight, causing it to arrive a few miliseconds late, about when the shutter should open up but already be at a distance that is too short for the radar to respond (hence why some solutions use optical sensors or a combination).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

/.../

How exactly one would change the APFSDS design to negate the APS's effect is beyond me. An APS would use a stupid amount of force against that rod to tilt it. I don't think making it even twice as heavy or twice as short would help in any meaningful way.

/.../

 

   For example "Shtandart" on Object 195 have probability to intercept KE rods of 0.5. This means that 50% of APFSDS are going to get through. Making them more resistant to inteception or harder to accurately track will bring this percentage to higher numbers.

   APS systems have problems with doing anything serious with KE rods because of their speed, weight and material. There are no magic APS that can stop those rods mid air or make them disappear. So at first APFSDS design can fight against APS by making rods to be more damage resistant. When APS will advance far enough to be capable to reliably intercept APFSDS rods, it will be a time to go fo other options - fool APS via decoys, jammers, or overcomming APS using it's design restrictions. Idea is to avoid complication of already very complicated vehicle such as modern and future MBTs, thats why at first you go with chaning elements outside of tank design.

 

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

/.../

Any other wild solution does not seem feasible to me. How would one release any form of munition from an APFSDS mid-flight at a greater speed than the rod itself, and keep a very tight grouping for hundreds of meters of flight?

/.../

   Some of proposed solutions are probably less wild as attaching additional cannons to a tank just to fire at APS on enemy tanks miles away. For example coating rods and shaping them to have less radar signature, while sabo parts acting as decoys (in close range fire) is not something too wild and can be done today or probably yesterday, if anybody wanted. 

   Did i ever intended to release a munition from APFSDS hundrerds of meterws away from target at a greater speed than a rod itself? One of my ideas was to put a fragmenation warhead that will work as a shotgun shell, firing before APFSDS round enters interception zone, so tank will have APS system damaged as it will have no time to react to fragmentations and rod will be able to get to a tank armor. I guess exploding small warhead on rod tip will make fragments to fly fast enough, but timings and fragments shape/speed is a question of specific design work, not a forum post about concepts.

 

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The sabots themselves will have to actually fly along the rod to become decoys, and that's just a massive amount of drag. And again making them fly faster than the rod itself would be impossible.

   What? Where i said that we need to make parts of Sabo rounds to fly along rod at faster speed than rod itself? Proposed idea was different - Sabo parts can fly for rather long distances already, reshaping them and make them to release decoys or work as a decoy (at short ranges to be specific), while main round have lower radar return maybe can allow to sneak a rod pass APS. At least this idea is more usefull in at short/medium ranges than AC bursts, as ranges at which AC rounds can reach enemy tank before APS can close up its parts from incoming fire is way lower than range at which APS will have no time to intercept KE round even without any interference, so this idea with sabo can allow to increase this range for KE more than anti-APS AC can.

   For very long ranges this concept also can work, but at higher cost, i guess. Decoys will be at first work as ramjets and than released at FCS-designated moment to act as actual decoy for main rod.

rtl5Qat.jpg

   Something like left one.

 

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

   Not an RCWS or turret, but mounted coaxially to the main gun. 

   Under "turret" i meant tank main turret. That is not a good place to mount AC, as you will need to move whole turret to aim main gun at targets that were fired with AC, because windages and different elevations, plus turret will need to be locked for time of AC burst, to avoid turret rotation from AC recoil (5 tons peak recoil force on 2A42 for example), as AC will be off center. On top of that this thing will eat internal volume and space that could be used to mount a bigger gun or more rounds for coax MG and other actually useful equipment than an anti-APS AC.

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The ammunition should be native to these tank units as it would match the ammunition used by the IFVs of the same units. Using 30mm on your IFVs? Then put a 30mm there. And if the tank units and infantry units are organic, then maybe it's time to make the switch to non-organic or semi-organic combat teams.

   I have my new Guards brigade tanks with 120-152 mm cannons and heavy IFVs with 57 mm ACs ready to attack capitalist West. Do you suggest to mount 57 mm AC coaxially to my main cannon and fire it in bursts?  Ammunition for it that is enough to make all KE shots "effective" against APS-eqipped AFVs would be carried where in order to not eat main ammunition? On gunner's laps? Tanks have other targets to fight with, not only enemy tanks and their APS.  

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The FCS would hardly be complicated by it. New advancements in technology are forcing in new features that would put far greater load on the central computer than the ballistic computations of an AC.

   It is unnecessary work on FCS for no gain for intended role, and those manhours could be used elsewhere. Mounting anti-APS AC on a tank is not going to be just a software update of ballistic computer.  

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The gunner's workload should not be increased because:

A)Gunners probably won't exist on those tanks.

B)It is possible to make the whole process automated, and similar in complexity and requirement of human input to today's engagement of targets.

Actually, current technology already offers engagement features that will make even an operation with a so called 'anti-APS' mode substantially easier than current day's firing.

a) Drivers are more closer to go away than gunners in future

b) Yes, it also is possible to do same job for a gunner with less time and effort spend on firing AC, waiting for results (if any of rounds in AC burst connected, because atmoshpere and ballistics of ACs are not good enough for ranges of tank engagements), adjusting aim manually, trying to figure out if APS is damaged enough if rounds actually landed on enemy tank to fire main round and not waste shells against APS (which is a whole point of anti-APS AC) etc. etc.

   No amount of FCS QOL improvmeents are going to fix physics and AC rounds ballistics at ranges at which KE can still be effective.

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

We don't even know if the idea of shutters is realistic.

   Yes, very hard.

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

IMI had to drop a 3-barrel design for its APS because the added weight of the 3rd barrel prevented quick enough operation that was crucial for the defeat of KEPs. I don't think a shutter several times heavier will be able to get the job done very well. 

   APS needs to aim launchers accurately, shutters are way simpler than that, don't need to fight with inertia, be accurate and so on.

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

But even if that idea is somewhat realistic, then the need for ACs is only reinforced, and I'll explain why:

If a shutter closes prior to impact, and has to cover the interceptors as well (as they're the most vulnerable part of the APS), then a steady barrage of medium caliber fire capable of reaching out to 3km will keep these shutters closed until the gunner can send a high caliber shell down range. As the shutters will be closed to protect the system from the constant incoming AC rounds, nothing will be able to defeat the KEP and the vehicle will be hit and damaged/destroyed.

   Shutters on launcher can have small window that will be open to launch intercetping munition. APS can be designed to fire 2 or more of such intercepting subminitions if one of launchers was damaged. APS also can be designed to fire submunitions from launchers not visible in frontal projections, or protected from small arms and AC fire (example of such APS is Arena-M, where submunitions are covered by armor plates and launched upward, so launcher itself is not visible from front and sides).

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

You mock the idea of an AC, but support adding a flamethrower? Its very short range and very chaotic nature will make it too hazardous for urban warfare, which is where infantry is actually a serious threat. And it's also illegal.

   It was a joke. Jokes are legal, and flamethrowers are good AA weapons.

Spoiler

IRs6WJ6.jpg

 

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Look at my reply to Loooser for an explanation on why I don't believe shutters can have a positive effect on MBTs, and why I think they may have adverse effects, such as blocking the APS from being able to engage a KEP.

Look at my replies above, I answer that there. Another TLDR is that you can put the ammo in the bustle, and then it won't interfere with the basket's capacity.

   There are APS with launchers already protected from ground fire (Arena-M in both "heavy" and "light" versions). And as we discussed with NLM that radio-transparent protection materials for radars also exist. Not only that, but because of low energy and sad ballistics of ACs, you can even avoid taking damage to radars by playing with their placement, as AC rounds at range are falling at much higher angles than KE. Protective plates could be made as baseball cap, basically.

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I was looking into the different ways that an APS can evolve. I played with the idea of multi-layered APS consisting of something like Trophy, a high powered laser, an ADS-like system, and an RCWS.

   So our APS now have high power lasers, EFPs, linear HEAT charges and shit but i am not allowed to fire decoys at enemies? 

 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I'm not basing my entire concept on the usage of the AC. In fact, I have, multiple times, demonstrated exactly a scenario where an AC is only used only in set conditions, and other methods are used in other conditions. I have reiterated time and time again the need to generate a layered response, in which an AC is only one of the layers.

   Your way to deal with APS are even less effective and more fantasy fueled than anti-APS autocannons? Do we need to like solve puzzles during firing at enemy tanks? Wasn't one of first version of Kalanit simplified because gunners were confused how to use it?

 

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Alternatives that are far shorter term and are bordering sci-fi that you choose to take as viable solutions while mock the inclusion of an AC as sci-fi despite it being deemed viable in the past.

   Umm... what? Are we speaking about like ~30 years ahead or we are so far in future where 20th century level of tech like autocannons can effectively defeat all future tech and allow AP rounds to hit enemy tanks? What if in future there will be a high power laser APS that can melt small autocannon rounds right in mid air taking advantage of their long flight? 

   Also, if something was deemed in the past as viable does not mean it is still viable. People in old days thought that swords are good enough weapon, it doesn't mean we should attach swords to tank gun barrels.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

How exactly one would change the APFSDS design to negate the APS's effect is beyond me. An APS would use a stupid amount of force against that rod to tilt it. I don't think making it even twice as heavy or twice as short would help in any meaningful way.

 

You know that EFA APS failed against 3BM15 round? APS was able to intercept the penetrator but it couldn't destroy. Because 3BM15 is thick and has more steel which has better durability against these threats than tungsten. Maybe telescopic penetrators would be more effective against APS countermeasures than homogenous or even segmented ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Zadlo said:

 

You know that EFA APS failed against 3BM15 round? APS was able to intercept the penetrator but it couldn't destroy. Because 3BM15 is thick and has more steel which has better durability against these threats than tungsten. Maybe telescopic penetrators would be more effective against APS countermeasures than homogenous or even segmented ones. 

 

The EFA uses a different defeat mechanism than the Iron Fist or Afghanit, which is a lot more specialized at defeating CE projectiles and EFPs than high caliber kinetic projectiles.

 

Iron Fist and Afganit use a fragment-free blast (not sure if Afganit uses fragments but for KEPs it doesnt need them) to apply force at the tips of the rod to induce yaw and tilt. An undamaged but tilted rod will lose most of its penetration power to the point of inability to pierce even the side armor of MBTs.

 

And @LoooSeR to you I will reply tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Iron Fist and Afganit use a fragment-free blast (not sure if Afganit uses fragments but for KEPs it doesnt need them) to apply force at the tips of the rod to induce yaw and tilt. An undamaged but tilted rod will lose most of its penetration power to the point of inability to pierce even the side armor of MBTs.

See, this is what I meant with this:

12 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

I thought you knew how APS intercepts APFSDS, my dude.

They work by acting on the fins of the APFSDS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...