HOME | DD

A3DR In reply to SIERRA-116 [2014-03-06 13:24:39 +0000 UTC]

Modern MBTs would be an interesting concept to implement only the notions of armour and 'tanking' would be redundant. I'm also not sure about how much information a game developer is able to collect regarding current or recent MBT designs and specifications.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SIERRA-116 In reply to A3DR [2014-03-06 13:40:15 +0000 UTC]

Hmm, you have a point there. Stuff be classified. Still, why would armour and "tanking" be redundant? Is it because most modern MBTs possess heavy armour all over their chassis's, and are probably essentially equal to the toughest tanks in WoT? 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

A3DR In reply to SIERRA-116 [2014-03-06 14:06:03 +0000 UTC]

Back in WWII, the concept of high velocity specialised rounds (Armour Piercing Composite Rigid [APCR] and High Energy Anti Tank [HEAT] at least back in WWII) was still being researched. It was used during that period but it was toward the end of the war that tank guns were advancing faster than armour could counter it. Many of the late war prototypes and blueprints spoke of tanks with immense armour compared to 2-3 years before hand but they were slow and cumbersome. Improvement of APCR in particular essentially led to the redundancy of all but the thickest armour. Tank designs conceived after WWII (ignoring concepts that never advanced past the testing stage) would be fast and mobile while having relatively little in the armour department (ie the Leopard I, the Pattons and the Centurions. The British still developed the Chieftain (a slow vehicle with ~250 mm of angle hull armour and 300 mm of frontal turret armour) which was intended to play a defensive role complementary to the fast American, French and German tanks in the contingency of a Soviet invasion. 

 However, then came the development of Armour Piercing Self Discarding Fin Stabilised penetrator rounds (or simply Sabot as most people know it). The penetration of Sabot rounds was remarkable to the point of defeated most armoured targets regardless of thickness. Caliber sizes range from 105-125 mm. The usage of depleted uranium (among a few other heavy metals) improved the already potent nature of sabot as well as having an enhanced detrimental effect on the struck vehicle's crew. As for HEAT, there is a museum with a set of armour plates equivalent to 1000 mm and the HEAT shell used on it had gone through ~900 mm.

 I don't know how much of this was already known to you (and if most of it was I apologise). Although to cap it all off. The development of armour hasn't gone out of the window at all. Armour seems to be more of an addon for MBTs and operates in unconventional ways to prevent penetrations from both HEAT and penetrator rounds. The concept behind such developments being far beyond the scope of anything used back in the WWII-early Cold War period.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SIERRA-116 In reply to A3DR [2014-03-06 22:28:33 +0000 UTC]

Well, I believe in response to higher power cannon shells, armour design changed from being simple metal plates slapped onto the chassis, to being something more advanced.

For instance, ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) are bolt on slabs that, when struck, explode in a outwards directed blast, acting as a counter to the energy from the hostile shell.

And another thing, more for rockets, is the inclusion of essentially AMS for tanks. A device shoots out tiny shards at incoming RPGs, and destroys the rockets. Admittedly, I only know that from MW2, so don't take my word for it.

However, armour isn't extinct. It's just getting more advanced. Maybe one day there will be Magnetic Shielding designed to deflect shells away from the tank by projecting a magnetic field bubble around the tank. To counter that though, shells would be made from non-reactive material... or energy weapons not affected by magnetic currents. And that's another thing. If energy weapons do propagate, will armour get weaker to conventional means by being made to withstand energy? Or will armour grow both tougher, and also non-reactive to energy weapons, of which I expect to be likely laser weaponry. I do know of one energy weapon in existence, but its effectiveness against tanks is.... well, it's a crowd control device. I don't think tanks will be worried. But another thing is EMP... no armour can defend against that... or can it? Perhaps they will design armour that acts as a shield against EMP, perhaps by being made or coated with materials that protect the vulnerable electronic systems within.

Armour development will never die out. So long as there is a weapon out there, people will design ways to defend against it. Even in the world of modern day tank warfare, where the emphasis is not on overwhelming destructive power, but rather clean penetrating and crippling shots. People will make armour to stop penetrators, and to that end, armour will enter a space age, being made of materials both light and strong, and may stop being straight metal alloys or the like, but integrated with electronic measures, or coated in substances that reflect heat and energy of non-kinetic nature. But in my opinion, armour will always be penetrated, and as we verge on the age of magnetic kinetic weapons, that will be no more true. Rail Guns and Gauss Guns do not need to have large calibres or explosive shells. They just need extreme hyper-velocities to punch straight through armoured shells. They may not even need explosive cores, for their speed may create shockwaves within material it passes through that literally shakes the tank apart. I know human heads can be blown apart by rifles of sufficient calibre and velocity at range from such shockwaves. Perhaps tanks will be the same.

Of course, there is one form of armour that may not be entirely fiction, at least theoretically, and the strength it may possess may push armour to the forefront once more... energy shielding, in a literal sense. Of course even then, where armour exists, a weapon will be made to break through it...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

A3DR In reply to SIERRA-116 [2014-03-07 12:56:12 +0000 UTC]

As I said, armour hasn't been thrown out altogether. As you state, playing defensively will always prompt a counter.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

A3DR In reply to RussRamos [2014-03-06 11:29:17 +0000 UTC]

Happy to hear that and, if this is the case, welcome to both deviantArt and All-Things-WoT.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RussRamos In reply to A3DR [2014-03-06 12:35:24 +0000 UTC]

Thanks. Only if my graphics were like yours...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0