Why didnt the US upgrade M1 Abrams tanks from the L44 version to the longer L55 version?
Germany created the L55 version because they realized new soviet tanks would be immune to the 120mm L44 version.
So did the US make some other kind of improvement to the abramsto increase its anti-tank capability?
>>28329329
The Germs were committed to tungsten penetrators.
Murica was committed to DU penetrators.
DU out of a 44 is better than tungsten out of a 55.
>>28329439
But would DU coming out of L/55 be even better than coming out of a L/44?
>>28330284
Probably, but not even the Abrams has enough armor to stop a DU from the L44.
>>28329329
The Americans have improved their penetrators on their APFSDS rounds
>>28329329
I wouldn't be surprised if the M1A3 gets up-gunned to an L55, whenever the hell that happens.
>>28329439
>DU out of a 44 is better than tungsten out of a 55.
debatable. also, daily reminder that the M829A3 round has 4 in. of steel plug at the front(meant to disrupt Kontakt-5). The steel part isn't as good as heavier DU or W in terms of penetrating armor and the DU part itself isn't that much longer than a DM-53's wholly W penetrator. Now while DU has a buff of 10% accounting for adiabatic shear effects the added velocity to the DM-53 when fired from the L/55 pushes it closer to W's sweet spot of about >2km/s where penetration approaches Newton's approx, while the adiabatic effect for DU disappears in this regime.
>>28330284
Sure, but the upgrade wouldn't be free and the performance us already adequate, so why bother?
>>28329329
I think it's basically irrelevant because the US isn't conceivably going to be fighting wars against anyone with modern tanks or even competent tank crews. That said, it'd be worth the upgrade on new production tanks if we actually needed new production tanks (we don't).
>>28329329
Tanker here. The M256 firing the M829A3 can already kill just about anything on the battlefield, that being said the M829 has more penetration than the German DM53. It's already been covered but Tungsten vs DU, The DU wins almost everytime.
>>28329329
It could be two of three.
1.All tanks would have to get new guns, from Germany.
2. 152mm TOW ATGM's don't lose penetration over distance past APFSDS effective ranges.
3. Longer gun increases target acquisition time by adding weight on azimuth/elevation values, and targeting computers would have to be recalibrated.
>>28331263
>Tanker here. The M256 firing the M829A3 can already kill just about anything on the battlefield,
just about anything short of modern Western and Eastern tanks right?
>that being said the M829 has more penetration than the German DM53. It's already been covered but Tungsten vs DU, The DU wins almost everytime.
either you made a typo or you don't know your stuff as well as you think.
>>28331277
>1.All tanks would have to get new guns, from Germany.
not really, just license the gun barrel technology as they did with the M256 gun and produce it locally.
>2. 152mm TOW ATGM's don't lose penetration over distance past APFSDS effective ranges.
irrelevant.
>3. Longer gun increases target acquisition time by adding weight on azimuth/elevation values, and targeting computers would have to be recalibrated.
not that hard as you make it out to be. worst thing they have to do is replace the gun and turret trainer mechanisms but you could always slip that in when tanks go for capital repairs and upgrades.
>>28331207
>daily reminder that the M829A3 round has 4 in. of steel plug at the front(meant to disrupt Kontakt-5).
Threadly reminder that your only source is a forum post with a pic that took 9000 hours in ms paint.
>>28331370
DU does win pretty much every time due to retaining its pen over a larger flight profile and its post pen polyphoric properties.
>>28331370
Unless you're going to refute the central point I really don't care how much /you/ think you know. The DM53 is not better than the M829A3. /Thread
>>28331370
>not that hard as you make it out to be
There is a reason why the A6 and higher still does not have side turret armor.
>>28331378
>Threadly reminder that your only source is a forum post with a pic that took 9000 hours in ms paint.
its from an ATK patent.
>>28331398
>DU does win pretty much every time due to retaining its pen over a larger flight profile and its post pen polyphoric properties.
debatable still. also aren't most metals effectively polyphoric at those pressures?
>>28330391
I thought it did with all the FF incidents.
>>28331406
>Unless you're going to refute the central point I really don't care how much /you/ think you know. The DM53 is not better than the M829A3. /Thread
as you say Chief, just don't expect people to believe a round from 30 years ago is comparable to a 10 year old one.
>>28331441
>There is a reason why the A6 and higher still does not have side turret armor.
proofs?
>>28331453
Thought DU was better because it was self sharpening
>>28331480
>M829A3
>30 Years old
Here is your free reply.
>>28331207
Daily reminder that Kontakt-5's effectiveness was grossly overstated, to the point where it was completely ineffective against DM53.
Daily reminder that the shifty brits bought a number of T-80Us.
>>28331495
You said:
>>28331263
>that being said the M829 has more penetration than the German DM53
>>28331488
>Thought DU was better because it was self sharpening
eggheads call it adiabatic shear but it just means self-sharpening.
>>28331508
>Daily reminder that Kontakt-5's effectiveness was grossly overstated, to the point where it was completely ineffective against DM53.
wowsers, the newest round could defeat older ERA ;)
>Daily reminder that the shifty brits bought a number of T-80Us.
Daily reminder that the T-80 line is a mistake and have no future in Russian Army.
>>28331545
there is so much wrong in your posts. Do you have a citation for anything you're saying? You sound like a fucking idiot.
Its like you're screaming to the crowd, please ignore me.
>>28331511
So you're saying the DM53 is better than the M829A3?
>>28331599
>there is so much wrong in your posts. Do you have a citation for anything you're saying? You sound like a fucking idiot.
cant keep up? get >>/out/. not gonna waste my effort spoonfeeding people when they could just google and backcheck stuff.
>>28331480
>proofs?
>>28331615
Yeah because you can't even back check but deserve to get spoodfed yourself.
>>28331605
>So you're saying the DM53 is better than the M829A3?
not necessarily. could go either way but the advantage is not overly large.
>>28329329
you increase gun length by 25% with all issues comming from it (weight, stability, wear), just to gain 5% more muzzle velocity.
>>28331633
>not necessarily
So you're copping out of the argument than? The question was
>Why doesn't the US use the L55
and the answer was
>The American Ammunition from the L44 is still better.
Don't forget thats where this thread ends, anything after that you started talking about either is derailing the argument, or is you being Autistic.
>could go either way
>not overly large.
Maybe between the M829A2, which was designed to defeat K5, while the A3 is a significant improvement over it. DM53 is defenitley shadowed by the former. What part of that do you not understand?
Also the M829A4, from what I read if its still accurate, is about to become the next service round, before things like Rekilt or Malachit Armor become relevant. Will the A4 Pen those armors? What's Germany's response to that? Will they still use the L55? Start asking and answering the real questions and you can redeem your reputation of being a tard.
>>28331633
Except it is immensely large. There is a reason we don't bring training rounds to war and that is exactly what the DM53 is the equivalent to; a 120MM M865 TPCSDS-T.
>longer barrel DU is better than shorter barrel, though the latter is still adequate.
Sounds like some shit that would shift quickly with WWIIII, but then again if that happened I think the penetration of tank rounds would be moot.
>>28331666
>you increase gun length by 25% with all issues comming from it (weight, stability, wear), just to gain 5% more muzzle velocity.
nice trips satan. anyway Germans pretty much half-assed it- they should've increased the chamber volume as well to fully maximize Tungsten's strengths.
>>28331702
>So you're copping out of the argument than?
no im refusing to engage your strawman.
>Don't forget thats where this thread ends, anything after that you started talking about either is derailing the argument, or is you being Autistic.
clarifying things for others counts as derailing and autism now?
>Maybe between the M829A2, which was designed to defeat K5, while the A3 is a significant improvement over it. DM53 is defenitley shadowed by the former. What part of that do you not understand?
what part of 4 in. of steel tip makes up the supposed penetrator length increase in A3 over A2 do you not understand?
>Also the M829A4, from what I read if its still accurate, is about to become the next service round, before things like Rekilt or Malachit Armor become relevant. Will the A4 Pen those armors? What's Germany's response to that? Will they still use the L55? Start asking and answering the real questions and you can redeem your reputation of being a tard.
all im going to say is be careful when implementing countermeasures to stuff the other side haven't even deployed in meaningful numbers. your countermeasure may not work or worse it does but the other side just designs another one and deploys that one.
>>28331782
>no im refusing to engage your strawman.
I Asked a question, you couldn't give a straight answer. You're copping out. Hell, you're grabbing at straws right now to save face you hypocrite lol
>the only difference between the A3 and A2 is the addition of steel, thats not really a benefit
[ ] wrong
[x] really wrong
>clarifying things for others counts as derailing and autism now?
>clarifying
But you didn't.
>your countermeasure may not work
Scrap everything, stop all R&D, put this man in charge, he's bringing to the table what trillions of dollars worth of war, doctrine, design, and scientists couldn't.
>>28331763
That is largely the reason they haven't dumped money into it. There's no reason to.
>>28331824
>I Asked a question, you couldn't give a straight answer. You're copping out. Hell, you're grabbing at straws right now to save face you hypocrite lol
says the tripfag. anyway my answer to this:
>Why doesn't the US use the L55
is that the US is pushing for top attack gun-launched munitions instead. no point in getting a longer gun barrel when the next upgrade replaces the M256 altogether with one capable of shooting such rounds.
>[ ] wrong
>[x] really wrong
partially right. the steel is for bypassing Kontakt-5 but doesn't add meaningfully to penetration.
>>28331885
>partially right
No you're still really wrong, because that's not the only difference.
>>28329329
Because the US has a LOT of tanks, and upgrading all of them would be expensive. Not to mention since we do have a lot of M1s we outnumber the enemy tanks anyways, so there is no need for the slight increase in performance that the L55 would give.
>>28331207
Yes. I know some of those words?
Mind giving the keyboard generals here a bit more on the subject? I'd love to know a bit more.
>>28331885
Even if you where right, and that was the only difference, it would still be able to pen those armors.
>>28331953
what is he saying is that DU advantage over Tungsten gets smaller as you increase velocity, and both materials are pretty much equal at 2000m/s.
Never wondered why in M829A3 they increased mass rather than velocity? Increasing either would increase energy, but increasing velocity would decrease advantage gained by use of DU
>>28331453
>debatable still.
No, not really sir. To do so would be intellectually dishonest, like compareing same weight projectiles with same velocity, something that does not occur in real life (to get W to DU levels of weight, it has to be abnormally thick).
>aren't most metals effectively polyphoric at those pressures?
Nope, and definitely not W.
>>28329439
>DU out of a 44 is better than tungsten out of a 55.
More like that DU would break apart when fired from a 55. DU has the property of breaking apart at high speed, one of the reason why DU-rounds are heavier and slower than tungsten rounds and the incoming rail guns are also using tungsten penetrators.
We are slowly hitting a dead end with DU.
>>28332204
>We are slowly hitting a dead end with DU.
Not really. The Russians have basically admitted they can't keep up with our armor or projectiles with the T-14 Armata, so they're willing to risk it with Russian quality active defense systems.
>>28332204
>More like that DU would break apart when fired from a 55.
Asinine, low quality bait. Zero corroborating evidence, zero knowledge of current DU penetrators (they are composites now, but that does not even matter) just talking out of your ass.
>>28332220
>Not really. The Russians have basically admitted they can't keep up with our armor or projectiles with the T-14 Armata, so they're willing to risk it with Russian quality active defense systems.
proofs?
Direct fire anti-tank guns are already obsolete
soon enough we'll have rail guns
And a missile will always be better.
Replace the MBT with an armored vehicle that has a 40mm autocannon and a vertical launch system of ATGM's.
Once the need of killing other tanks with direct fire is gone, you can be putting large direct fire cannons on numerous vehicles.
Not just MBT's.
Firing ATGM's out of a tank barrel is absolutely retarded btw.
>>28332242
Besides the fact that there's no way the Armata can be produced in any kind of volume that matters? They know the autoloader system is a deathtrap, so they've taken crew out of the turret altogether. And because it's Russian, any published specs are automatically suspect.
>>28332252
Are you the same guy that got BTFO in the Abrams vs. Chally thread yesterday?
>>28332278
>Besides the fact that there's no way the Armata can be produced in any kind of volume that matters? They know the autoloader system is a deathtrap, so they've taken crew out of the turret altogether. And because it's Russian, any published specs are automatically suspect.
proofs not suppositions.
>>28332278
Tanks are really not that expensive to produce, if theres one thing the russians can do, its produce lots of tanks.
With the huge weight savings from an unmanned turrent, you can add significantly to armor on the front/sides.
Though it might still be exaggerated on specs.
>>28329329
Is it possible to weld the extra length to the end of the barrels, so instead of replacing the guns entirely they just need to manufacture a few thousand pipes?
>>28332308
If you are of even a fraction of a millimeter it won't work, possibly creating a pipe bomb instead of a barrel.
I doubt that would be a viable way to do it.
>>28332305
tanks by themself? No, they aren't THAT expensive.
What makes them REALLY expensive are all those bits and pieces like suspensions, FCS and thermals that are pretty much required if you want them to have any chance aganist other tanks.
>>28332305
>Tanks are really not that expensive to produce, if theres one thing the russians can do, its produce lots of tanks.
Lots of those tanks are shit Cold War era tanks that are basically cannons on treads. Only a small fraction of Russia's total available tank fleet is actually upgraded to maintain parity with modern Western tanks.
>>28332400
Still better than nothing.
I imagine they will be trying to modernize their tank force now.
>>28332400
>Lots of those tanks are shit Cold War era tanks that are basically cannons on treads. Only a small fraction of Russia's total available tank fleet is actually upgraded to maintain parity with modern Western tanks.
Both sides suffer from huge parks of outdated tanks with only a small fraction that are actually updated.
>>28331398
>post pen polyphoric properties
It's called pyrophoric. And that property applies to all finely powdered metals, including tungsten.
>>28331885
Bypassing ERA doesn't add meaningfully to the ability to defeat said ERA+armor?
Y'all get dropped on your head when you were a child, son?
A little late, but this is officially relevant.
>>28333006
>verticle
>>28330391
It doesn't reliably penetrate though
>>28329329
Because the L55 weighs a ton more and doesn't change the chamber at all, it's literally just a longer barrel. Also DU loses effectiveness as it increases in velocity and hits the knee of its curve at a much lower velocity than standard WHA alloys, this means that it has higher penetrative potential at lower velocities (aka it loses less penetration over longer ranges).
Plus the XM360 that was being built for the FCS is substantially lighter than the L44 while having ADL as standard and being able to accept higher chamber pressures than the L44 series. There's a reason why it's the current front runner for cannon upgrade for the M1A3
>>28331824
Wow, a tripfag that does the BTFOing instead of getting BTFO
>>28333122
>Missles
>>28333456
I study tanks for a living. Between me and TankSgt we have years of experience operating the machines. Including hands on experience from the guys at GD who designed everything, and work with people who had first hand experiences who fought over seas with them. Most of the people who were Thunder Run Iraq 2003 and beyond are all E6s to First Sergeants now.
Hell this was my Drill Sergeant years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU2M_qQDC8k Many of the NCO's of the Armored Branch are like this. I only regret to say I have never seen combat myself.
>>28331956
>Even if you where right, and that was the only difference, it would still be able to pen those armors.
T-series with Kontakt-5 except for maybe T-90A yeah, those would get cored.
>>28332953
>Bypassing ERA doesn't add meaningfully to the ability to defeat said ERA+armor?
>Y'all get dropped on your head when you were a child, son?
twisting words yet again. it says "doesn't add meaningfully to penetration" and it doesn't because its steel. being able to defeat the armor is not asserted; just raw penetration, jesus are you esl because it would be totally understandable if you managed to botch up reading.
>>28332164
>No, not really sir. To do so would be intellectually dishonest, like compareing same weight projectiles with same velocity, something that does not occur in real life (to get W to DU levels of weight, it has to be abnormally thick).
W and DU penetrator alloys aren't that far off in density like their vanilla counterparts.
>>28332204
>We are slowly hitting a dead end with DU.
not, really. only the death of monobloc and segmented projectiles. future KE penetrators would be segmented as a way to bypass the 30:1 L/D ratio and also because much higher velocities would allow them to be much more effective in the first place.
>http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2001/ARL-TR-2395.pdf
>ITT tank simulator fanbois playing armchair commander
>>28333824
>coming back after getting BTFO and proceeeding to say nothing
nice
>>28332036
Because increasing velocity isn't always good, at a certain point it begins to decrease penetration.
>>28332036
>Never wondered why in M829A3 they increased mass rather than velocity?
Because
http://longrods.ch/
http://longrods.ch/downloads/2000%20Minimum%20Impact%20Energy%20for%20KE-Penetrators%20in%20RHA-Targets.pdf
>>28333824
>future KE penetrators would be segmented as a way to bypass the 30:1 L/D ratio
Practical limit of 30:1 L/D ratio comes from mechanical stability of long rod during launch and flight. Splitting monoblock into several parts wioudl reduce its strength and would not help at all.
>>28332297
>>28332390
casting an armored turret is a skill we almost lost in this country when bethlehem steel went tits up
we've already lost the ability to cast large things like a locomotive frame. now we frabricate [eg., weld it together]
>>28334093
fuck off. ive been playing battle zone since before you were born.
>>28329329
>not using a 180mm shock cannon
It's like you want the aliens to win or something.
>>28335109
>Implying casted turrets aren't complete shit compared to composite armors
>>28332252
I was hoping you had died
>>28330284
>But would DU coming out of L/55 be even better than coming out of a L/44?
Yes, but not by much.
DU plateau's at a lower velocity, so like with M829A3 you just make the projectile bigger instead of faster.
That 125mm L/70 gun with unitary ammunition that was displayed in China is probably the first one that can hit the tungsten plateau.
>>28333006
damage control, the image
>>28332292
Its just an autist.
Pretty sure its the same guy who argues about submarine carriers, armored destroyers (battleships) to escort amphibious landings, IFVs need to be replaced with light tanks, and using VLS cells on tanks.
>>28330391
How do you figure that?
Densities and such can give you an idea of armor composition, but the info is very sparce
>>28335796
Because the only tank v tank combat losses were the result of friendly fire.
>>28331702
The specifics for such comparison are likely classified well beyond what you think you know, and if you do, you ought not share it
>>28335837
You would not expect friendly fire into the glacis or turret front
>inb4 out of context images of destroyed abrams
>inb4 yuros go all out on the b8
>inb4 dipshits falling for yuro b8
>>28335683
Hey Look, its this picture again. Daily reminder the rounds don't fly that fast anyway for this picture to be relevant.
>>28337700
So you are saying the velocities published by manufacturers are lies.
>>28335708
little german [spoiler]sabots[/spoiler]
everyone in this thread ignoring the fact the tungsten can't even burn people to death lmao.
>>28335128
I loved battlezone
>>28331702
I think we give too much credit to the Russians. After all, their vaunted K5 performed quite poorly even according to those soused slavs.
>>28332252
Not this guy again...
>>28337718
So you're saying DU Rounds fly at 1600 m/s? Cause they don't.
>>28338734
Every source that I can find places the M829's muzzle velocity at just over 1600 m/s
>>28338734
The M829A3, according to Orbital ATK, is a 10kg projectile with a muzzle velocity of 1555 m/s.
>>28339394
>>28339436
Also according to Orbital ATK at 3000m it has 1000~1150 m/s in impact velocity. Which is Pretty much better than anything else out there.
>>28339436
>>28339394
This doesn't disprove anything I said. At the muzzle the velocity still isn't high enough for the affects of DU to Plateau. Also said rounds are not flying at [insert number here] at 2 kms anyway, they slow down. Not much, but they don't get faster.
>>28339535
nah bro we just shoot everything point blank out there.
>>28339535
>This doesn't disprove anything I said
You said that the rounds do not fly that fast, you are moving the goalposts if you now say they do not fly that fast at 3km.
>>28339579
You can take his dick out of your mouth.
>>28332308
>>28339663
He didn't move any goalposts. He said DU rounds don't fly at 1600 m/s and he was never disproven. I'll stop when you stop being wronger than two boys fucking in the woods.
So basically L55 is stupid heavy for barely any penetration increase. DU is vastly superior in cost,penetration shearing/shifting armor resistance and lethality. Tungsten maintains better penetration past 4km but still has poor lethality due to non pyrophoric effects. Accuracy of both guns is similar but the L55 has more drooping problems when heating and vibrational problems due to greater weight and length. Does this about sum it up.
>>28339761
But the M829 vanilla flies at 1670m/s at muzzle. It could be that the M829 is not made of depleted uranium, which would keep that guy consistent.
Another way he could be right, which would send my sides into orbit, is if the M829 speed never decreases below 1600m/s from its muzzle velocity of 1670m/s. This would explain America's magic.
>>28339663
>the Sabot actually goes 50m/s faster
>that doesn't disprove what I said
>STOP MOVING MUH GOAL POSTS
cool
>>28339761
3BM29, 3BM32 are have DU and speed of 1700m/s.
>>28339879
You do realize by the time any of these rounds would actually hit something they would drop well below 1600 m/s or am I still just talking to myself?
>>28340020
>7.0 MJ of energy at muzzle
heh
>>28339507
>>28339535
>>28339579
Oh look, more tripfags to add to the block list.
>>28339895
>>28339761
seems like you two are just splitting hairs now
something I've always been curious about, how do your DU or other penetrator rounds perform against fortifications, cement blocks, gabion baskets, earth or sand berms?
could you hit a target behind suck a thing by shooting through fortifications with a tungsten round for instance?
>why would you want to do that?
if a target backed behind cover when you were shooting at it, maybe because it was the only angle you had on a stationary target
can't say I know a whole lot about tanks
>>28340060
there are recorded kills of enemy vehicles by sabots on targets behind behind walls n sheit but generally all sabot's have serious problems if they hit physical cover before engaging armor regardless of what the sabot is made of. Honestly all rounds have trouble with such thing even solid shot or apcr. It really comes down to what side of the tank is hit after passing through cover.
>>28340047
Go back to your Slav stronk theads. I have more time inside the belly of the beast then your dick has in your hands.
>>28340060
>splitting hairs now
Considering how my original statement still stands I fail to see how.
>against fortifications, cement blocks, gabion baskets, earth or sand berms?
pic related
>>28340060
We have OR rounds for that. I've personall seen an M865 shot through a sand berm before and it still hit the target. I'm not sure how much it would slow it down for the purposes of penetration though.
>>28340117
clearly >>28340118
>>28333006
Wow /k/ is really the most butthurt americlap board.
>>28331885
You got BTFO aspie. Leave.
>>28333536
Were there any tank-on-tank engagements during OIF? As in T-72 landing a hit on an M1?
>>28340253
Have I heard stories? Yes. Was I there? No. Can I remember said stories? Vaguely. I know that whenever someone tried to pen the Armor, they would enact damage control when they got back and literally just inject the armor with [opsec] to fill the hole.
>>28340118
>>28340117
>>28340128
thanks guys, I suspected much of the cover tanks use isn't for cover per-se
I've also wondered for a while, why do static defence installations not incorperate more visual cover; like chain link fences wrapped in camo or simple cloth
if you rolled a tank in a trench and put a meter of camo net above it, it could have considerable effect stopping anyone knowing which part of the trench the tank is in, the defending tank could roll back and forth
>>28340292
>[opsec]
my gut tells me they use liquid nails and hope they didn't get hit in the same spot
>>28340295
Unless it disrupts their shape in thermals it wouldn't really matter.
Cover a tank in tree it still looks like a tank in thermals.
>>28340324
Something like that.
>>28340295
It is but it isn't. Anything is better than nothing. But the whole point of a "battle position" is to expose the top of your turret so the Cameras can see the whole field, while basically none of your Silhouette is exposed at all, rendering you pretty much invisible.
Idealistically the Platoon will communicate the command and the tanks will roll into a hull down position exposing only the turret, and lay waste to the opfor at ranges of 2kms or great. If it goes off perfectly the tanks go back into the turret down position and the opfor never sees you.
The advantage of concealment outweighs everything here.
>>28340422
>>28340295
>>28340390
I assumed tanks would only use their NV and thermals at night, and that they wouldn't just drive around with them on
in a hot climate, the thermal mass of a tank would be immense at night, do/could tanks do much to keep their tank cool so it is harder to pick up with thermals?
>>28340442
I know it is a well understood concept, but this just adds to my confusion as to why I don't see it more
have I just not been paying attention?
the russian have inflatable decoys they are employable from the air, thermal decoys must exist with some degree of sophistication
it is just that in the middle east tanks are used very differently?
>>28340253
In the invasion of Baghdad the Republican guard still had T-72s left that weren't abandoned but none of them managed to land any hits before 3rd ID and and 1st Marine Division swept them away. http://www.tanks.net/tank-history/tanks-during-the-second-gulf-war.html
>>28340558
I shoot in thermals. Always thermals unless we are in really built up areas. It's much faster to pick up targets that way. Plus most commanders sights are only thermal anyway.
There are such things as camo nets made to block thermals but the only time I've seen them it was on a Leo2 and it didn't work very well. Romanians I've worked with threw cool mud on the front of their turret but after a while that only exacerbates the issue.
>>28340690
fascinating
I always wondered if you could run heating ducts into metal shapes or heat them in some other way
you could make a fake heat signature behind a wall, or on a road so the driver might be reluctant to cross over it
maybe parking a tank on something hot an night so it wouldn't stand out from the air?
I know how sophisitcated thermals are now, but it might confuse the operator if not the equipment
I also wondered why someone doesn't just tie IR flares into a drone and harass a tank with it, would hovering in front of the tank with a few IR flares effectively blind it?
>>28340778
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptiv
There are things like Adaptiv Panels, Barracuda Nets, and Intermat Paint that can be used to change or control heat signatures but most are obscenely expensive and there really isn't a need for it unless we are facing another conventional army.
IR flares on a drone would probably also be a waste. We can always switch to day sights and if it actually became a problem the tank commander would just shoot it.
>>28340865
The PL-O1 is pretty much the best tank ever made, it utilizes this.
>>28340906
>CV90 with a bunch of shit on it
It also doesn't exist yet!
Unmanned turret too.
I don't like it.
>>28340975
it also only has a 105mm gun with the promise that they may be able to add the 120. Also it doesn't have adaptiv as far as I know I mean I can't see any of plates and only has radar absorbent coverings.
>>28341004
not to mention the advertised 10 second reload on the autoloader which is even worse than shitty soviet designs
>>28340975
You know what else is a great tank? The M3 Lee, it has 2 main guns. Name a single other tank with a gun that can go toe to toe with it. You can't! Cause the M3 Lee has 2 main guns!
>>28340865
the ammount these tanks are worth, the cost of a drone with a few flares seems like nothing
for the price they cost you could send a whole swarm of drones against a tank
use them as markers for fire, to spray paint on optics and to block the pilots view
sounds stupid but I'm sure the molotov did too for a while
a tank worth 4 million, that's a lot of drones
>>28341004
Production models are supposed to have it according to OBRUM. The concept in the picture here doesn't.
>>28341059
>Pic related
>>28341478
Well I guess we'll see the system itself seems to be not only super expesive to use on anything in full production, but I can only imagine the amount of problems they will have with it out in the field. At the very least it will be interesting considering the tank has xm8 tier 3 levels of armor and is essentially a light tank relying on stealth.
>>28341478
>dump.jpg
I hope you become Asian escalator pasta.
http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/7-31-2015/bNlsFZ.gif
>>28341317
Are you literally retarded? Who would spend 4 billion on spam drones that will probably get destroyed the second they get anywhere near a tank.
>>28341608
You where the kid they passed off at the end right? That's why you have an irrational fear of escalators.
>>28341478
What do sci-fi artists and mechanical designers have against giving their tanks CITV's?
>>28339663
I don't get how this makes sense.
The berrel velocity is at 1600 ish sure but the autistic people are discussing penetration, which means the terminal velocity is what's being discussed and that's no where near the plateau
>>28341676
Don't take the bait, a few days ago the same autist was screaming we should be using civi rc planes as suicide drones
>>28339507
>Also according to Orbital ATK at 3000m it has 1000~1150 m/s in impact velocity. Which is Pretty much better than anything else out there.
BS. drag is 55m/s/km.
>>28340906
>The PL-O1 is pretty much the best tank ever made, it utilizes this.
stolen valor detected,
>>28344933
Because drag based deceleration is a flat line and totally not dependant on dozens of variables
>>28340906
Reminder that Poland does not want the PL-01.
>>28332308
lol
