HOME | DD
SixthCircle — MA9A2 WMAV ATGM (2)
Published: 2012-03-04 13:13:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 3649; Favourites: 33; Downloads: 60
Redirect to original
Description
This one's the other anti-tank variant. Essentially, we take the missiles on the other vehicle, make them vertical-launched, stick the sensors on the front of the vehicle and cram 24 vertical launch missiles into a single vehicle. Basically drawn from the US NLOS concept, and... well, kinda devastating.Related content
Comments: 10
It's alarmingly similar to my idea of a 2030+ 'MBT' (something that takes the role of, that is). Mine houses more missiles and a bigger gun, though I can't decide which one. I really like the GAU 22/A for it, since it would be a viable option against aircraft as well, but for that matter a BK-27 would do too. The original idea was a 30mm autocannon with a co-ax 7.62 chaingun.
Either way, keep up the good work
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Stick too many things on one vehicle, and it stops becoming useful. This isn't meant to act as an MBT by any stretch of the imagination - rather, it's just an extension of current Anemonian ANLOS theory, and the advancement of direct support for both offensive and defensive purposes. Rather than cram everything in one vehicle, you'd have one of these operating with an anti-aircraft battery, some rear area rocket batteries, and IFVs/APCs/MGSs on the front line - division of labour is always a good thing.
And thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My train of thought was 'replace all the heavy stuff on a tank with lighter stuff'. As such: Long range missiles instead of a 120mm gun (loose the gun, loose the main reason for a heavily armored turret, crew sits inside hull), ADS instead of real armor, wheels instead of tracks and a light engine instead of heavy 1500Hp gas turbine.
The GAU-22/A on top is it's anti infantry/anti aircraft/anti light-skinned vehicle weapon.
It ought to do everything a tank does (more or less). It only lacks the intimidating effect.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That doesn't work; APS isn't reliable enough to replace actual armour, missiles are too expensive to supplant conventional KEPs (and there will inevitably be replacements), and so on. Light and heavy vehicles are best used in conjunction, if you can afford to do so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know, but that's using current technology. I think that in 20 years ADS would be reliable enough to stop even incoming KEPs (when fired from some distance away of course, the trick is to destroy the tank potentially firing it before they catch your scent). Missiles are expensive, yes, but compared to the tank it destroys it's cost is negligible. The same is to be said of KEP's, but they require a clear line of sight and their effectiveness lessens the further they go down range (not the case with the missile and it's shaped charges).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But by the time that's the case, most projectiles will probably will have responsive countermeasures of their own (or speed - EM based weapons, if we look a bit further ahead). If you look at military history, the momentum tends to lie with the weapon, not protection.
As for KEPs, granted, but then, you tend to need LoS for target identification as well (and in fact, HEAT shells don't have any velocity reliance problems either, if you're going to bring that up).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Directed energy weapons are rather easy to counter. A copper mesh completely enclosing the vehicle is all you need against EM based weapons. Radiation based weapons are either more dangerous for the operator (ionizing radiation), or consume too much power to be portable.
A UAV with a targeting pod (either something like a Global hawk or something that the tank itself deploys) would cover the targeting problem (alternatively, the missile could be controlled remotely), and HEAT shells are far easier to tamper with than KEPs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
EM =/= directed energy - I'm referring more to electromagnetic propulsion and railguns, and so on. Even with ETC technology, you'll be facing bigger and faster KEPs - as APS technology advances, I wouldn't be surprised if offensive weapons systems advance further.
As for ANLOS, you don't need to sell me the idea (if you look at my HT9A7 MBT/SMBTs, that's their main mode of operations) - what I'm saying is that designing vehicles that are only operable in ANLOS/NLOS environments is untenable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In that case the power stortage or generation would still make such vehicle impractical. ETC gun armed tanks would be a problem, but when you see them before they see you they're not all that terrible. Besides, a 140mm ETC (you had one of those on Lineartinc?) gun would need at least 90 tons of tank behind it to cope with the massive recoil. 90 tons means a very big tank, thus a very big target.
I don't see why that's a problem. Essentially, all you need to operate this vehicle is knowledge of the location of hostile tanks. Anything that's capable of taking my idea out is unlikely to have inconspicuous overhead cover.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
At the moment, yes. But then, at the moment, APS systems aren't advanced enough to intercept the full range of HEAT based ordnance, let alone KEPs - with 20 years of APS advance will come 20 years of offensive advances too, and who knows what that'll bring?
Yep, had a 140mm ETC on Linc (don't use it myself). But remember, 120mm ETC is still as feasible, recoil control is becoming ever more sophisticated (where the AMX-10RC's 105mm was at the limit of feasibility at the time of its design, the current Centauro mounts a 120mm, for example), and so on and so forth. By the time APS begins to intercept KEPs regularly and reliably, you're going to find yourself facing ever more sophisticated weaponry.
As for 'knowing the location of hostile tanks', you'll find that this is, in fact, half the battle; the common adage goes, after all, that the first tank to spot the enemy is the tank that wins. When you say 'anything that's capable of taking your idea out', that's everything from MANPATs to MGSs to main battle tanks, all supported by other assets; you're overestimating the protection of a vehicle that, ultimately, relies upon its APS system for protection.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0