You think we will see return of turretless designs? Its all about top armor now and there is no easier way to achieve high degree of roof protection.

>>4144 I can just about imagine something like a Jagdtiger, because the overall design would be still reasonably similar to the average MBT, And I'm sure that you could put a casemate on top of a Lynx :^). There is also the Object 490, but it has some sort of a turret that doesn't seem to be as well protected as a simple metal box. Now, I doubt that any army would adapt it during peace time, because it would be too unusual and old school, but making at least a few prototypes with as many off-the-shelf parts as possible doesn't seem to be that complicated, and then maybe it would be tried out during a war.

>>4144 >>4145 Why even make turrets for modern tanks? Aren't modern tanks faster and more maneuverable than the tanks of the past? Wouldn't the best solution to design the whole tank as the "turret", so to speak?

>>4146 The preferred method of fighting is that the tank pops out of cover, fires a few shots, then rolls back. Without a turret it doesn't really work, because instead of rolling out with the gun already pointed in the general direction of the enemy, a turretless tank would have to roll out, stop, spin the whole hull towards the target, fire, spin back to the position where it can roll back behind cover, and then start rolling.

>>4147 The sweedish strb 103 seems really ideal for defensive operations as a direct fire weapon though.. Use it as an amphibious defense in depth with a drivergunner in front, radioman/driver/anti drone operator in the back. Slap autoloader 120mm apfsds/hesh with an upward facing 30mm and add some top armor, reposition during artillery barages.

>>4148 If I recall correctly, they were supposed to be used somewhere in northern Sweden, where the ground is flat and they could have sniped the enemy from a fair distance. Under those circumstances they were even faster at tracking the enemy that the Chieftains. But for southern Sweden they specifically wanted the Chieftains, because traditional tanks with turrets were better there due to the greater clutter from cities, hills, treelines, etc. Basically a turretless tank wouldn't be an alternative to a main battle tank in Ukraine, but an old school assault gun or tank hunter.

>>4145 The case for using casemate is more about lack of capability of producing sturdy enough turret mechanisms to support fuckhuge gun you wish to put on top. As germans show us there is no problem with putting on a tank turret almost as big as a hull which is capable of turning at reasonable speed. The design goal here is less about having a 300cm gun, more about increasing top armor to protect against top attack munitions by reducing the weight of the top/front section which would allow for increase of effective level of armor protection at the same weight. >Now, I doubt that any army would adapt it during peace time, because it would be too unusual and old school Any sort of technological advancement and production in modern times takes an unreasonable amounts of time, thats for sure. We are fucked in any real conflict since we will be unable to sustain losses at all and our collective reserves are very shallow especially after giving away everything to ukraine. I read an interesting opinion that Russians do not push for production of Armata and other new systems because they have at least 30 years worth of specialists and reservists trained on operating and maintaining the same gear, with maybe only 30% of systems being actually something they are unfamiliar with. So this slow approach also has its benefits. Really the technology has plateaued. Its funny that you posted Objekt 490 as recently I was trying to find a way to put both an autoloader and blowout panels on a tank and ended up with a fairly similiar design with engine in the front. >>4147 I could see a design with a hull mounted cannon and a small turret with machine gun and ATGM glued to it working, like a modern day M3 Lee.

In other news, Hungary decided to join the development of the KF-51 Panther. I am not sure how good of an idea this is, and strongly suspect we will just throw some money at Rheinmetall so that the factory at Zalaegerszeg will also produce that tank.

Are we sure that tracks are still the best solution? with wheels you can put an electric motor behind every single one of them, and in theory design a vehicle that is still mostly functional. Meanwhile a single explosion is enough to detrack a tank and it's over. Although maybe the most autistic solution would be the best one, and make a Christie-style tank where every wheel is powered by a motor, and they all pull the track together, but the tank go on even if both tracks are lost.

>>4152 >wheels Supposedly, supposedly one of the big things they ran into with the Centuaro with the big fuck off gun was that it would damage the transmission when firing. My understanding is that if you're going fat as fuck boi you might as well go tracks for better ground pressure assuming they aren't skinny like a malnourished African child >>4149 >tanks with turrets I think it's a better idea in river areas along the Diniper. The idea was to use it as a highly concealed, tracked, direct-fire unit that can yeet tanks, while being top armored enough against most drones.

>>4062 You could also launch bigger ATGMs from a 155mm gun.

>>3916 >Ah so basically the biggest cannon that can be fielded on a tracked vehicle Which in 40k would be Shadowsword, not those “Brits double down on armoured LEGO” style tanks. >>4150 > The case for using casemate is more about lack of capability of producing sturdy enough turret mechanisms to support fuckhuge gun you wish to put on top. As germans show us there is no problem with putting on a tank turret almost as big as a hull which is capable of turning at reasonable speed. And before, there was KV-2. Which kind of worked, but… It’s mostly a question of which trade-offs are still acceptable. At some point they aren’t, then it’s better to have a tank that performs well enough and a good self-propelled gun than a tank that would be awesome if only it did not suck.

>>4152 >with wheels you can put an electric motor behind every single one of them, and in theory design a vehicle that is still mostly functional Energy storage is still not at the level where this would be viable. additionally you are introducing several complicated points of failure which take up space and weight more than a single engine would. Then there is ground pressure which might not look like it but is an important factor. Its a bad idea. >>4154 we need to go bigger. >>4155 I hate 40k so much it is unreal.

>>4156 >I hate 40k so much it is unreal. But retardedly oversized armaments is the best part of 40k.

>>4157 Badass tbh.

>>4158 And those are the mini Ordinatus' too.

>>4156 >Energy storage is still not at the level where this would be viable. Whenever someone proposes using electric motors in a tank, you should be thinking of a diesel-electric system.

>>4160 > in a tank, you should be thinking of a diesel-electric system. That's locomotive talk Strelok. But seriously, why isn't electric drive used more in tracked vehicles? The transmissions always seems to be a sore spot. Also electric drive would be awesome for ambush or stealth type scenarios.

>>4161 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel%E2%80%93electric_powertrain Yes, yes, kikepedia, but the point stands. >why isn't electric drive used more in tracked vehicles? Pretty much everything in service was either developed during the late Cold War, or are outgrowths of designs from that era. Even newly developed vehicles usually try to build on those, and it's easier to update the same combination of engine-transmission-suspension-tracks than making a clean sheet design. Although there is at least one vehicle that was specifically designed around a diesel-electric system: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/cobra-ifv https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/belgium/acec-cobra-tank-cobra-25-and-90

T-80 entering production again might seem like something uninteresting at first, with it being late cold war era design and not capable of offering much innovation, but they also claim to have fixed the poor reverse speed of the engine, the platform major downside. And there are already two experimental upgrades present which would be rather usefull in current battlefield: >Black Eagle Super big unmanned turret with different autoloader and blow out panels, 122mm or 152mm cannon and indirect fire capability. >Burlak Honestly - fuck knows. 122mm Cannon, wide turret resembling t-90 offering great protection for hull from drones , capability to mount APS, probably also different kind of autoloader. So with that said, do you think we will see soon a new tank that is what t-90 is to t-72 ? A complete pinnacle of the platform? Will we see mass produced Black Eagles? Both are like crystalized sex. With t-14 being seemingly a failure I could see them returning to this platform in near future.

>>4163 >Burlak From what I've read it's a new turret designed to fit on the T-72/80/90's, although it's only been put on the t-80 for now. It's a 2 person turret and the crew compartments in the turret are supposedly also up armored. It has a redesigned autoloader with the ammo now in a separate compartment with blowout panels like western MBT's. Think T-72 with the Leclerc turret. The goal is to improve crew survivability like the T-14 without the cost and logistic changeover of a whole new tank. >152mm cannon There is the object 292 which is a T-80 with a 152mm cannon. It wouldn't be unfeasible as the propellant charge in the 125mm 2-piece ammo is 152mm in diameter, so that can be reused. Then just reuse 152mm artillery shells as ammo. The biggest issue would be the poor barrel life associated with larger calibers. >do you think we will see soon a new tank that is what t-90 is to t-72 I think the Burlak turret has potential, due to the chassis reuse and improvement I can see Russian MOD pursuing it. Slapping it on the T-80 is a similar relationship between the T-90M and T-72. Russia also has the new 125mm 2A83 cannon on the Armata which can handle longer projectiles then the current 2A46. They were having production issues with it but it can be mounted in T-90M's, so I would assume it could be put into the Burlak as well.

>>4163 >>4164 If they consider a 152mm gun, then I have to wonder if they will try to make a completely new design for some reason, or instead choose the simpler path of reworking an existing artillery gun a bit.

>>4076 These count as AFV though

>>4165 Is it difficult to rework a gun into a smoothbore design? Or is it as simple as stripping out the rifling?

>>4167 Its so easy barrels smooth themselves over time just via use. Its really not an issue , perhaps you will need to re calibrate targeting system

>>4164 >poor barrel life associated with larger calibers. The 152.4mm of the Object 292 was smoothbore, so barrel life shouldn't be an issue. It would be lost in combat long, long before the barrel would need replacement. >artillery shells That would be impossible. Artillery pieces use rifled barrels and the difference between a shell made to be fired out of a thick ass rifled howitzer and a light smoothbore tank gun is night and day. The 152.4mm gun would use it's own ammunition.

>>4169 The soviets were examining both rifled and smoothbore guns in this calibre, so it is not impossible that the Russians might say fuck it all and go with the former.

>>4170 Every 152mm gun the Soviets tested (3 of them, I believe) were smoothbore

bump

>>4162 Cobra was an interesting vehicle, with one slight flaw: it’s a light tank made in 1977 when its niche died. >>4163 >>4170 KV-2 had a 152 mm howitzer in a properly traversing turret. The result was, of course, absurdly tall silhouette and lots of pain in the ass even then. Which presumably is why this was not tried again until the time when smoothbore cannons for HEAT/HESH were something to consider.

>>4173 To be fair, the KV-2 had a crew of 6, meaning that the turret had 4 people, and meatbags need quite a lot of space even in soviet tanks.

>>4174 They also insisted on using a towed field gun without any modifications, resulting in a recoil system that extended all the way into the bustle.

>>4175 Damn, at that point they should have added machine guns to the sides of the turret, just so that the loaders can have their fun if they are surrounded by infantry. I now also want to see some multi-turret abomination that has the turret of the KV-2 with extra machine guns, and two BT-7 turrets on the front.

>>4175 And KW was not a good platform to begin with. >>4176 > I now also want to see some multi-turret abomination that has the turret of the KV-2 with extra machine guns, and two BT-7 turrets on the front. Thats just a warship.

Has anyone ever died because tank barrel pointing downwards blocked an escape hatch?

>>4176 > Damn, at that point they should have added machine guns to the sides of the turret, just so that the loaders can have their fun if they are surrounded by infantry. Not quite like that, but it had an extra machine gun. It was a hybrid of breakthrough tank and SPG. A breakthrough tank is not supposed to get bogged down, but exactly because it runs ahead is not escorted by infantry, and needs to suppress in both directions while crossing trenches. Which was one of the reasons for those monsters with multiple turrets. KV-1 had 3 machineguns: driver, coaxial and ball mount in the rear of turret. So when the turret is turned sideways, coaxial MG can suppress on one side, ball mount MG on the other. The early KV-2 turret (sloped forward armor, bolted gun service hatch plate extending to the beveled rear corners) had firing ports. The late turret (boxy one >>4175 with flat ammunition hatch) had coaxial and rear mounts again, though the rear mount is not always as visible as the bump on KV-1. And seems to be optional, in that on some photo it’s absent or removed, but then for use as SPG it’s unnecessary anyway.