Ok so a medium weight wheeled chassis and a heavy tracked one. Something like a Centauro and a Abrams X?
I think you are referring to the propellant size and saying that it could be smaller for BLOS specific ammunition and larger for LOS. A smaller charge on a BLOS round would reduce the necessary hardening which would be useful if it has electronics in it, then regain the lost range by firing it in an arc like artillery. The lower velocity would make it less accurate, but BLOS rounds are usually guided in some way anyhow.
Not quite, they have better behind armour damage (I love that that abbreviates to BAD), lower penetration, lose less penetrating power over distance, and often use denser tantalum instead of copper in high end ones. (Side question, but I've never heard of tantalum being used in HEAT warheads, why so - it seems like it would significantly increase performance against ERA and NERA)
Ok well that seems significantly more specific than the conversation has been going in, nothing that is to artillery as V-hull is to mines.
Mortar shells are designed to be low velocity as mortars want to have maximum angle of attack to land where howitzers can't. In addition the low velocity allows them to have more explosive payload and can use cheaper metals in the rounds construction that create superior fragmentation patterns against infantries.
But armour isn't the only thing that can do that. Rapid deployment, volume, acceptable attrition levels, and many other things can do that.
Certainly a valid opinion, but tanks are getting heavy and there is less and less mass to support the infantry. I think what I am suggesting is less an MBT and more a family of systems like ALE that includes a MBT and other vehicles that could perhaps be described as LMBTs (Light Main Battle Tank), TDs, and Infantry Tanks. I know, I made the thread and I called it "what is the ideal MBT", but the family is still built around performing the role of an MBT, just adapted to the situation.
I totally agree that 120mm APFSDS is the cheapest, most reliable, and possibly most universal NATO aligned AT weapons. I also think that tank on tank combat is a very small part of what a tank dose. Additionally, some new APS systems claim to be partially effective against APFSDS and SY simulations on youtube has done good modeling of this. If we need to give troops an anti APS ATGM, then something like CKEM is an option (who could have guessed I like CKEM) which to my understanding also seemed like it would be cheaper, more compact, and of similar weight. Now that I think about it CKEM or a similar system might be worth reviving anyways just to add more AT volume as we would probably burn through Javelins very quickly in a near pear fight.
Tank designers around the world seem to be trying to reduce the weight of their tanks (Abrams X, Type 10, K2 Black Panther, ect) and with the likelihood of proxy wars increasing high strategic mobility sounds like a priority for NATO countries. Adding an autocannon on top of the turret is counter to this goal. Not to say that is a bad thing, like you say there are a lot of upsides to it, but it will add more weight and maintenance. A smaller main gun makes it easier to justify a 30mm autocannon on top. Overall I also do like the Abrams X with its lighter weight and hybrid engine.
Expensive yes, but every little bit counts when your making a lot of them. Look at what the Air Force calls Attritable Mass! With UGVs one important thing to remember is that when an UGV dies you lose no crew which is a big deal both practically and politically. As for APS yes it costs a lot, but so do the ATGMs it will knock out. As for sensors, yeah that's a problem especially since they, and the computers use a lot of components mainly sourced from countries like Taiwan or South Korea that are likely to be invaded or China, who we are likely to fight a proxy war with. They also need maintenance, and many "shove it into the infantry/armour" plans don't account for this.
Tacitly yes, but they have better top speeds, fuel efficiency, and lower maintenance. I think that the French add wheeled scouts to their tanks to help alleviate the maintenance required to keep tanks running.
I don't think that was what Kqcke for you was recommending. As for me, I don't see how hard it would be to have them share a engine, applique armour, and turret ring size/load capability.
That is really interesting, I will look into FCS more. Still I think that saying wheeled vehicles are not good at providing direct fire support to infantry and maneuvering where the infantry can't whether that be because of enemy fire, terrain, or top speed is not true. Not trying to put words in your mouth, but I got some of that sentiment from your and Foo Fighters posts. I would agree that once you are in the fight tracks are usually preferable, but wheels are probably better for getting to that fight.
