What will tanks look like in 50 years?
I'm aware that this kind of predicting is impossible, but this is just for some fun. What does a future tank look like for you.
>>29465349
Same dimensions and weight as what we have now, only difference being composite composition, APS, more powerful engines, more automation, and more powerful guns
>>29465349
I think tank design is starting to plateau, if it hasn't already. I don't expect their current look and function to change at all in the next century. The internals will always improve, engine design, gun and ammo composition, and armor composition as new materials become easier to produce, but their overall look would be completely the same in my opinion. We're starting to focus on the "not getting hit" aspect now that all the other stuff is basically achieved. Devices that destroy incoming projectiles before touching the tank are becoming widespread, and, besides things similar to ERA, that technology is still fairly new.
>>29465349
>What will tanks look like in 50 years?
Like T-14. And unmanned variants.
>>29465349
Railgun or laser cannon tanks.
>>29465349
If tanks are still around in 25 years, I'll be impressed.
>>29465349
Whatever it is, they won't have legs
Screencap this for when 2066 rolls around
>>29465349
> What will tanks look like in 50 years?
well.
>>29465349
>What does a future tank look like for you.
>>29465478
>I think tank design is starting to plateau
If anything we will actually see before our very eyes an actual revolution in the tank designs and how they are used.
>>29465504
>laser cannon
It's "lascannon", imperial citizen.
>why do battle tanks not use melta bomb shaped charges?
>>29465529
>melta bomb
>What is HEAT ammo
I think the next big step is unmanned tanks
>>29465538
>implying Melta bombs don't use some techno-babble bullshit for being super rad and way better then lame HEAT
>tfw you will never fight the big dumb battle tanks of filthy ayys
Who do you think the next America MBT will be named after? We've always had a tradition of naming tanks after generals from past wars.
So you think we're going to see a tank named after someone like Norman Schwarzkopf Jr? Or someone else more recent, like a general from the Iraq War or from the Afghan War?
>>29465618
Mattis maybe
>>29465618
>>29465633
Doesn't it have to be someone who won any actual war?
>>29465683
so basically none alive then
The future is already here
Am I the only one hoping for Bolos?
>>29465683
They named the Abrams tanks series after General Creighton Abrams of the Vietnam War. So I don't think it has to be a general from a war that was won.
>>29465704
cardboard toy?
>>29465714
no its named after abram lincoln
>>29465718
NO, POLISH SPACE TANK!
m2 vining make it happen bros
>>29465706
[spoiler]nope[/spoiler]
>>29465704
literally a cv90 with a cheap ebay bodykit
>>29465730
That's the right idea.
>>29465704
star wars
>>29465843
>wheels
yuck
It's simple, we'll move into weapons that simply surpass tanks
>>29465871
Drone swarms, obviously.
That must be what you are talking about.
>>29465871
Metal.......gear?
>>29465704
that man couldn't look more Polish if he tried
>>29465871
I would shit my pants if I ran into that thing
What game is that?
like this
2 for the price of 1
>>29465884
a weapon to surpass Metal Gear!
>>29465890
metal gear solid 5
>>29465911
Looks neat
Are the other games in the series any good?
>>29465919
campy stealth/action games with convoluted and silly but fun military wank plot
MGS5 is the least story based and most actiony, if you actually want to follow the story start from the beginning and google a playing order guide or something, theres alot of games in the series.
M E C H S
>>29465478
Working APS equipped on every tank will revolutionize everything, and likely lead to the elimination of the "gun" on the tank, in favor of more powerful KE missiles.
I also anticipate an approach towards 1-2 person crew tanks
Huge amounts of what people do in tanks can be automated.
Integration of small autonomous drones both land & air
anti-air/infantry laser on the top
wider quad tracks for greater mobility
Along with 100t+ weights
Tanks will be replaced by mechs in 50 years
>>29465618
>McMaster
>Schwarzkopf
These are the only 2 acceptable options.
>>29465602
God damn snake Rommel.
>>29465518
>>29465527
Unmanned turrets are hardly a new concept.
>>29465349
We would have railgun hover tanks.
>>29465714
Well, he was in WWII when he was actually commanding tanks.
>>29465529
>reading a dark angels book
>one of them loads his bolter with a mag full of melta-tipped rounds
>starts coring CSM like apples
>mfw imagining having access to rifle caliber HEAT rounds
>>29468182
>>...concept..
Armata is a mass production model, not a "concept" like your photo.
>>29465714
Patton recognized Abrams as his being the best Tank Commander the US had in WW2. He was Colonel less than a decade after he commissioned.
He actually led the relief of Bastogne.
And if he'd been in charge of Vietnam from the start instead of Westmoreland, things would have gone a lot better.
>>29465349
Delivery and recovery vehicles for drones.
>>29465618
>Schwarzkopf
Yes please.
>>29468606
I hope they come out with some spaced armor kits or start slathering the turrets with ERA tiles because they are ugly as sin.
>>29468157
McMaster rolls off the tongue better.
Better get to the McMaster Tank!
>>29468708
>usmc m5
>not the army's superior M-5a2sepV3
Pleb
>>29465618
Next US tank will be named after the greatest general of our generation.
[spoiler]MBT M2A1 TRUMP[/spoiler]
>>29468893
shit i fucked up spoiler.
>>29468916
There are no spoilers on /k/, the M2 designation is already in use, and you're a meme spewing jackass.
![gray_2_by_rickyryan-d6yzqyn[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/oS4lKG5.jpg "gray_2_by_rickyryan-d6yzqyn[1].jpg")
>>29465349
assuming in 50 years we haven't nuked each other to kingdom come and gone back to the dark ages i would hope it is something like this
>What will tanks look like in 50 years?
Pretty much the same as they look now.
Probably a Big Dog type drone on steroids.
>>29468936
>Lets make our tanks bigger targets, which are less stable, less accurate, and are much easier to kill while also being more expensive!
>But, sir, why?
>I read about it in a book once and it sounded really cool.
>But-
>IT HAD LASERS AND RAILGUNS, CORPORAL!
>>29468963
>Gun mounted on the lowest place
For what purpose?
The concept of an MBT designed around engaging other MBT's was obsolete before the first MBT was even produced
>>29465504
>laser cannons
no just rail guns
>>29468956
But anon that effectively comes from the dark ages
>>29465714
USA didn't lose the Vietnam war though.
>>29465871
HIGH TEST
>>29469125
Because that's where the center of gravity is?
>>29469701
That's not an excuse.
>>29469701
your center of gravity is not in your dick
>>29469725
I'm not a robot
>>29468182
Given the sorry state of electro-optics devices in the 80s it was virtually impossible to create a working unmanned turret. Didn't stop both sides from making studies and prototypes testing its merits though.
Only now with QWIP thermals that can work for extended time periods, and HD TV cameras is the concept viable.
>>29465827
Where the fuck can I watch this!? This gives me big hyena boner.
>>29471679
https://bakabt.me/147881-venus-wars-g-p-remastered.html
>>29469166
i feel like the 40k dark age of overpoweredness and "nuclear wasteland' are actually......hell they're the same thing aren't they?
>>29471726
>You will never drive a house-sized mass of "fuck you" while a QT photographer is recording
>>29472167
Its a sad feeling.
>>29465349
Instead of 50 year old T-55 and M60 tanks doing the majority of fighting it will be 50 year old T-90, T-14, Abrams and Leo 2.
Also someone will still use T-55.
>>29471726
Awesome.
I'll never understand why Japan stopped putting out such coolness.
>>29465518
>>29465527
You're right, Russian tanks will look like that in 50 years.
>>29465618
Creighton Abrams
>>29465704
Won't be in service yet.
>>29472269
This.
>>29472269
Basically this, yeah
Also newest US tank would be M1A4SEPV51
I don't think tanks will be around because hopefully we have Starship Trooper power suits by then.
>>29474825
A starship trooper tank would shit all over a starship trooper power suit
>>29474905
Did Heinlen even detail the tanks? I just vaguely remember drop ships and power suits with jump packs.
>>29465349
This
>>29474281
>Won't be in service yet.
given that its a literal bodykit of a CV-90. Never
>You're right, Russian tanks will look like that in 50 years.
t. jelly pole stuck with literal hand-me-downs.
>>29474919
I didn't enlist for these feels.
>>29468606
>mass produced
Not yet it isnt
Also wtf the captcha fucking broke
I'm pretty sure tanks will eventually move on to quad track designs because it has basically already been proven.
Spiting 2 sets of tracks into 4 allows you to have a larger turret ring and gives you redundant mobility over 2 tracks.
What stopped its adoption was the added complexly to the drive train and the driver being unable to predict the tanks mobility when moving on less then 4 tracks.
Modern traction control systems solve the later while hybrid electric or fully electric drive trains solve the former.
>>29468708
Looks like a Porsche Tiger II and an Abrams fucked.
mark my words
>2 man crews
>360 degree sensors and vision
>detects and identifies potential threats within a radius
>a synchronized network with friendly vehicles and intelligence.
i bet the combined armed cohesion is going to be like a top down strategy game.
>>29475584
>friend/foe id systems
>autopilot mode that will set them to drive at X speed on Y course so the gunner can focus
the tank frame/internals will progress like all hell, but I think the guns have kinda plateaud out.
>>29475618
Dump the big gun for cheap mass produced multi-purpose missiles
>>29475714
do you know what happened when we tried that with the starship and sheridan?
>>29475732
DUMP the gun
Don't make a gun just to fire missiles out of it
The technologies and electronics available today are worlds different from what existed in the 60/70's
Since they bought 90,000 of the Shillelagh, you have to imagine that they at least worked, so the concept itself wasn't that bad.
>>29475765
>Since they bought 90,000 of the Shillelagh, you have to imagine that they at least worked, so the concept itself wasn't that bad.
lol. if inertia was all it took for an obviously shitty missile to be bought in those numbers then what about the much more massive(rightly so) inertia behind the highly successful gun?
>>29465349
>>29475801
Only takes the demonstration that a UAV/UGV can spot for a missile tank, and that missile can engage from out of range or line of sight of the gun tank.
>>29475919
>and that missile can engage from out of range or line of sight of the gun tank.
We have these things called howitzers and mortars you know, and they already use drones to spot and correct their fires. These drones range from multimillion predator drones/skis to your run of the mill commercial drones with gopros.
>>29475970
Which is why we've replaced our heavy units with artillery, right?
Need armor
>>29475983
>Which is why we've replaced our heavy units with artillery, right?
>Need armor
Both have their own niches on the battelfield. However what you are espousing in the missile tank can be done by arty too. In fact since the shells they shoot are orders of magnitude cheaper than any missile (even including DIPCM submunitions) they can service a lot more targets, and therefore are much better in the fire support role than any missile tank.
Also today's and near-future SPGs are already armored against indirect arty blasts and fragments which are pretty much what it could encounter if properly used. Those Russkies even went one step further and made the crew protection comparable to a tank's by basing their next-gen Koalition in the Armata chassis.
>>29475983
mate, the artillery already has this role covered with longer ranged gps guided munitions. tanks are for mobility and direct fire support. what you seem to be asking for is a heavily armored all in one spg, which would be a mediocre "tank" at best.
>>29475983
>>29476042
>>29476061
A lighter armored vehicle can carry a more powerful gun for its weight class, and likely have a longer range and higher top speed.
Tank destroyers m8
>>29476068
No.
>>29476042
There is nothing inherent that makes a cannon shell cheaper than a missile
You are cripplying yourself doctrinally by asserting that heavy armor = only direct fire cannon, everything else has to be lighter
And missiles can only be on unarmored platforms
>>29476061
Don't bother, he pops up every so often, he's along the lines of gliderfag; either actually mentally troubled or trolling.
No point replying to him.
>>29476068
>A lighter armored vehicle can carry a more powerful gun for its weight class, and likely have a longer range and higher top speed.
*and stands no chance at all of surviving a direct hit from an opposing vehicle(MBT) armed with a comparable gun which is also resistant to said armament.
>inb4 muh agility
APFSDS might as well be hitscan in the typical engagement ranges of tanks and tank destroyers (which is actually sub-1km for most of the planet except for the most glaringly tankiest tank country like the Fulda Gap or Iraq)
>>29476094
>There is nothing inherent that makes a cannon shell cheaper than a missile
>>29476094
>There is nothing inherent that makes a cannon shell cheaper than a missile
*chuckles*
>You are cripplying yourself doctrinally by asserting that heavy armor = only direct fire cannon, everything else has to be lighter
>And missiles can only be on unarmored platforms
Thats because missiles work best for lighter and less or even non-armored platforms relying on their mobility the most. They don't require a launcher that weighs a ton in of itself plus the attendant control systems for it that also weigh a crapton that needs to be armored as well.
>>29465349
The basic form will be the same, but they'll either be all sharp and angular, or all round and bubbly.
>>29474228
Even if they somehow make a not completely faggy anime, it won't look anything like >>29471726 now.
>>29465349
Tanks are stupid waste of moneys.
Just get big rig truck and put tank turret in back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8-x5ORZe70
>>29476110
Tank destroyers were historically successful and proved to be worth building.
>>29476086
Yes, actually. If you took the suspension system of any modern MBT and stripped it's armor, it could in fact carry a larger more powerful gun and it would have a longer range. All that armor is heavy, and it could outrange and outgun any MBT.
It are simple physics m8
>>29475509
doesnt seem to be a lot of room for the actual engine tho
>>29476354
>Yes, actually. If you took the suspension system of any modern MBT and stripped it's armor, it could in fact carry a larger more powerful gun and it would have a longer range. All that armor is heavy, and it could outrange and outgun any MBT.
>It are simple physics m8
yes but you also end up with a weapons platform that has very little protection even against RPGs and artillery
>>29476327
>Green exhaust
wow wtf are they using for fuel in those things?
Same size, yet lighter - due to inevitable developments in ultra-light, super-strong composites - faster, and firing ultrasonic laser-guided penetrators.
Maybe throw in a bit of active visual/IR camo, because why the fuck not seeing as this thread is just pure fantasy wishes.
>>29475831
Can someone explain the turret to me?
>>29476354
>tank destroyers were historically successful and proved to be worth building....
....but still not as good idea as a tank with the ability to engage armour, infantry and fixed positions.
They were always a stopgap. They're not used anymore for a reason dipshit. Kamikaze's proved to be historically successful, doesn't mean we should start cranking them out again.
des
>>29468011
>I also anticipate an approach towards 1-2 person crew tanks
So you lose the commander, driver or gunner. How can any of them be replaced? One-person tank is not even a meme, it's just a pathetic idea.
>anti-air/infantry laser on the top
AA laser maybe, AP laser won't work due to so many obstacles.
>Along with 100t+ weights
Now your tank has no strategic mobility as it can't be transported on train, it can't cross bridges, it can't be air transported.
>>29471726
Too much time. I'll just stream it. :^)
>>29476689
Unmanned turret.
T W O G U N S
W
O
G
U
N
S
>>29478322
>One-person tank is not even a meme, it's just a pathetic idea.
just think if you could control the tank with your body, like a Jaeger. Each part is interfaced with a correlating part on your body, while you are suspended by the waist. Gunner is integrated into eye piece with fire and forget.
>>29478518
The tank isn't shaped like your body though, so you lose that awareness immediately. You'll need to concentrate on maneuvering, shooting and seeking targets at the same time. Things that are normally reserved for three crew members because it's smarter that way.
>>29478540
>You'll need to concentrate on maneuvering, shooting and seeking targets at the same time.
>because a boot can't do that all while not being encased in a 100ton steel bathtub
Tanks are either gonna become drone squadrons, one-man interfaced with UAV for seeking targets, or quashed all together for lightweight flying helicopters.
Everything now days is turning more towards disposable tech, or for cornholing massive amounts of taxpayer money.
>>29468011
So you think APS will replace the gun... in favour of missiles which are even more vulnerable to it?
>>29465704
Wrong pic? It's just a picture of some trees.
assuming i'm correct and the fall of society has come to pass and we all live innawoods and innadesert then this
>>29465602
fucking christ this looks god damn fucking retarded and makes no sense at all.
hey guys let's put armor around our gun to make sure it will be an easier target. Also make sure that barrel armr is slanted in a way that will guide any sort of shell directly into the main part of the tank.
Also make our side armor with that exact same thought in mind. Just litte wedge that instead of angling off shells it will make sure it does as much damage as possible.
just fuck my shit right up.
>>29468708
>not futuristic looking enough
>I know, bee combs
huehuehue
>>29469144
what.
Say that to the all those wrecked t-72s from the Gulf War.
>>29465349
>3-man crews for Commander/Driver/Gunner
>able to launch quadrotors for scouting and spotting
>proliferation of active-protection systems
>advances in thermal and radar camouflage, possibly optical camouflage
>hybrid-to-fully-electric drive systems with plug ports or separate solar panels to reduce/eliminate the need for fuel convoys
>integration of smart/guided munitions allowing for improved direct/indirect fire
but i have no pictures of something like that so here is some hovertanks.
>>29478540
So the sort of thing that every person does naturally by themselves while just walking around?
>The tank isn't shaped like your body though, so you lose that awareness immediately.
Which just means you have to do TRAINING
>>29465349
Future tanks are probably going to be lighter, probably around 50-40 tons.
With substantially less passive protection and far more effective hard-kill APS that can defeat RPGs, ATGMs, APDS and maybe just maybe rail gun slugs. In addition to far more effective soft-kill ECM suites. I'm going to guess the passive armour is just going to be enough to defeat heavy autocannons and 105mm guns or whatever the heaviest armament might be on most AFVs in the future.
More emphasis will be put on situation awareness, command and control and network centric warfare, I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see EOTS, and sensor fusion electronic surveillance packages as well as AESA radar making their way to tanks so they also paint targets and guide missile and drone strikes if given the circumstance.
If the current trends are of anything to go by, modularity and multirole platforms are going to be far more stressed in DoD, if so the future tank will not only provide direct fire support but also act as self propelled artillery, so probably 120 or 155 mm gun or a intermediate 140 mm with a much much higher elevation range, or two variants of the same vehicle with minor modifications to support the two roles. The larger caliber gun would the need an autoloader, other then that I don't see full automated turrets being the norm in the west even in 50 years.
At the ass end of the 50 year timeline, we might starting seeing tanks armed with rail guns, but they're going to be 60-80 ton monstrosities or filled with design compromises to get the weight down.
>>29468011
I don't think missiles are going to be any less vulnerable to to being set off early than a metal dart.
>>29479567
Very easy to scale up the size of missiles, or do multiple simultaneous attacks.
Not so easy to do that with a cannon.
Turret on the abrams weighs over 20 tons.
Imagine a vehicle with ATGM's, and another 15 tons of armor on the hull.
>>29476698
Everyone has been cranking out kamikaze drones for decades, anon
>>29478496
>offset guns
>schizophrenic combination of speed and lockdown
Absolutely shit game
>>29465349
Basically the same. With new gizmos (like APS and sensors) slapped on top. US will be using M1 chassis.
>>29479592
This was explained to you last time.
Why do you still persist in this nonsense. Indirect fire missiles is exactly the wrong kind of weapon for a tank because a tank needs to be a versatile direct fire vehicle to do its job.
An ATGM carrier is a tank destroyer, not a tank.
>>29479592
You don't need to shoot a missile out of a gun barrel when there's drones or cruise missiles loitering over your head.
The future tank is going to have EOTS, command and control and network centric warefare capabilities and can just guide a missile down on a designated target.
>>29475543
sounds pretty hot tbqh pham
>>29476157
If you intend to take them into combat, then yes, they do require heavy armor
Maybe you missed the point, but APS will soon make tanks impenetrable by APFSDS.
So we will need KE missiles with vastly more penetration & multiple simultaneous attacks to kill.
If every tank has a C-RAM laser on the room, I think artillery will get less valuable as well.
>>29479592
Single shot will not be able to defeat tank with high-performance APS unless you will go into 500+ lbs territory PGMs. Most effective strategy to deal with potent APS for me seems dual stage approach. Suppression of APS with auto cannon burst and then kill shot from cannon or ATGM.
>>29479592
Upscaling a gun is easy and taking out a bigger metal dart or even a railgun round is much harder than taking out even multiple missiles.
>>29479670
Bullshit, nothing requires a tank to have a direct fire cannon. Other than your own headcanon
The armor and cannon are seperate, you need armor because you are going to take hits in combat. Whether you fire by using a missile or a cannon is meaningless.
>>29479730
Hitting the dart with an EFP from your APS will be a consistent thing soon.
That might reduce penetration by over 50%
>>29479730
Missiles could be kinetic also attack from top.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAtSkRgYLM
>>29478496
>>29479641
Hey guys, guess what it could of looked like if the devs chose the good concept art instead of the shit ones.
>>29479755
>EFP
Blast warheads, son.
>>29476594
soylent green guzzaline
do you even witness?
I'm gonna be pissed if we don't have moon tanks in 50 years.
>>29479802
>150mm burst fire for mbt
>still have 30mm spaag
wut, i'd at least expect a 50mm spaag. Maybe the gun is ETC for the SPAAG
>>29479755
>That might reduce penetration by over 50%
Not going to help much unless their armor gets much better.
>>29479800
A rocket-propelled dart instead of a powder propelled one...not really an improvement since guns can do the job better.
posting some tonks from my folder
good sci-fi tank art is stupidly hard to find, most of my stuff isn't even that great and I don't have much
>>29479923
>>29479876
>weaponizing space
>>29479932
>HIGH SPEED
>LOW DRAG
>>29479941
>>29479948
>>29479958
whatever happened to that anti-thermal plating anyway
>>29475831
Engine in the front.... not a good idea son
>>29479378
Don't you shit talk my hexagons.
>>29479755
Yes it does because a tank is by definition a multi-role direct combat vehicle.
Which it cannot do if it only has ATGM's. And the cannon is pointless without the armour to protect the vehicle in direct combat.
>>29465871
Pic unrelated, of course
>>29479882
>Not going to help much unless their armor gets much better.
It more than 50% for high l/d penetrators. It means than 150mm canon would have penetration after APS in the range of 300-400mm RHA. Dead end for frontal attacks.
>not really an improvement since guns can do the job better.
You can't attack from the top with gun.
>>29480129
ATGM's kill people and light vehicles too.
These missiles are getting cheaper and cheaper, 25-50,000$ missile to kill a person is a bargain.
The only reason for the big high velocity cannon is engaging other tanks.
Everything else could be accomplished by mortars/lighter autocannons.
>>29480192
anon you realize tanks can fire different types of shells right? They don't always fire AP rounds.
But... yeah. Think harder next time.
>>29476535
Maybe but probability not.
>>29480511
Missile tank can carry different types of missiles
Please God, let it be in my life time that these wildly impractical and easily defeatable weapons become adopted.
>Nobody posted a Bolo yet
>>29465730
see
>>29483400
Same picture even.
>>29465349
FOR THE EMPEROR!
>>29471726
I hate case mate tanks. those are the worst design
>>29474919
Is ok, grandpa tonk. You can rest. You did good.
>>29479802
that 150mm barrel looks awfully thin, more like a 120 or 105
Like this.
>>29465349
AI driven, crew space replaced with auto-loading rotating missile launchers. topside MG replaced with MANPAD comparable system/radar.
20000 years in MS paint.
could a tanks defence systems knock a very large cannon/AT gun round out? i know it works well against rockets and missiles but how would it fair against something so high velocity? and also you'd be able to get another round off faster with an AT to add a point..
What about when they start to mass produce EMP's? Wouldn't these ultracool half-automatic tanks turn into bunkers on wheels?
why isn't there anything like a modern land mattress with guided missiles?
have something like a small drone scout and paint targets and then just keep the vehicle with guided missiles out of sight
that could replace tanks for modern warfare
>>29471726
sauce?
>>29481584
And those will always be more expensive, complicated, and vulnerable than just using a tank shell.
>>29480180
>It more than 50% for high l/d penetrators
Unless they've managed to make force fields, no it wouldn't. Kinetic penetrators are such a pain to defend against because the physics to stop them just aren't there on most designs. ERA has only recently been able to have any effect on them by adding thicker plates, and even that has had only marginal results in testing.
>>29465843
One kebab made molotov and you're fucked son
>>29465907
that, while surpassing metal gear, was fairly reasonable and too realistic feeling for the series.
>>29468018
>Mfw when they won't
>>29468018
Now I would love to see mechs take hold as much as the next guy, but isn't the glaring problem with them that if you knock out a leg or the torso, (which would probably be pretty easy) it turns into a big old pile of cover?
IMO in 2066 tanks aren't going to exist in any form other than personnel carriers.
We'll have land drones carrying guns and high explosives operated remotely from trucks, and what tanks there are left are delegated to guarding this truck. It'll be like a carrier group on land. Except that there will be a lot of them.
>>29483999
>missiles
why, couldn't it run anything but that form of munitions for 1/50th the cost and triple the usage?
I mean, if this thing is supposed to be hovering, couldn't it use a recoiless rifle or two instead?
missile seem like a huge waste of resources, considering the technology involved and the cost of that tech
maybe if they get alot cheaper really, really fast.
>>29465349
Replaced by Power Armor.
>>29487257
>future with human-sized power armor
>with people even remotely close to the battlefield
you're funny. Do you think they'd ever even try to field power armor instead of a humanoid drone?
Unless you're half a click underground or in a steel structure with RF shielding out the ass, they're use a remote drone/robot thing in the future.
or, even better, a fully autonomous robot that can make decisions on it's own with a set of parameters to follow/goals to achieve.
>>29468754
The "turret" of Armata seems to be a spaced armor itself. Actual turret is much smaller. On top of the turret you can see an ERA tiles.
>>29475025
Nope. Your information is outdated. 2 minutes of google-fu and - profit:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/surprise-russias-lethal-t-14-armata-tank-production-15480
Here's a better question. Assuming we use SCIENCE to lighten, downsize and upgrade most of the tank tech, will MBTs get smaller and smaller with better technology or stay relatively the same size but have much better tech in them?
I'd say it will probably depend on their role, tank hunters will get smaller and more specialized, while MBTs used to support infantry will stay mostly the same.
>>29487883
why do russiaboos never read the articles they are posting?
>according to a top Russian defense industry executive
and there is your problem
the same "top Russian defense industry executives" claimed that PAK-FA will be in serial production since last year and will have plasma stealth and shit .. and now look at it
russians are always lying, always
>>29488336
If you have a 'tank hunter' and an 'infantry support tank' then neither is an MBT anymore.
The only way tanks will get smaller is low profile unmanned turrets or Soviet style 'fuck the crew' design.
>>29488872
>fuck the crew
I wish I could have tried to operate early russian tanks, if only to experience the huge fucking change to modern tank design that makes them more comfy than a sedan.
Wrong generation, I guess.
>>29483642
>>29479879
Main gun is supposed to be 105mm and the 150mm being a typo.
>>29487000
I'm not seeing how that's relevant.
>>29491197
Then you should stop posting.
>>29491248
Without context it's just a graph that explains something not related to ERA or passive armor.
>>29474914
In like the first chapter Rico talks about how much the mobile infantry fucks over tanks. Something like they can run as fast in the armor, carry anti-tank weapons or nukes to kill tanks, and mobile infantry out number them.
>>29491342
5 degree yaw on a penetrator halves its penetration
How much will ERA/APS do within a few years?
think about it
