Return to “Everything & Anything”

Post

Re: Tanks

#151
Triggerhappy wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:28 am
1. Near-Far. Within theoretical understanding of technology. Antimatter tech is as far as I am willing to go.
2. Game settings - Insane. Sci-fi settings - hard.
3. Full realistic, with rule of cool where it does not interfere.
define "as far as you are willing to go".
theres tech which provides (way way way way way) more power and absolute energy amounts than antimatter and has a lot safer fuel as well :D
Post

Re: Tanks

#152
I am very wiggly on the tech available as of now.


Well after a looo-oooong discussion with Outlender we came up with a tank with:


A primary 152mm cannon, mainly for firing nuclear shells
A railgun bound to the primary

A smaller turret weapon, likely a machinegun and electrolaser in one turret on top of the main turret, for anti-infantry and close-range defense.

A Gau-8-like G-to-A and G-to-G weapon on the side of the turret
A maser or microwave projector to the other side of the barrel, for clearing minefields and such, as well as un-armored infantry.


Two gauss-launchers on the side/top of the body, for firing grenades and mine clearers.
A turret-point on the front/top of the body, for forward firepower support, likely armed with a gauss launcher using the same ammo as the other two, as well as an electrolaser and/or a normal machinegun.

A missile system inside the tank body, with an choice of missiles, including a UR-77 style system for breaching a corridor in the enemy line or clearing mines.

Either singular or paired track, havn't decided yet, with full controlled suspension for making the tank sit.
I also want four rotary thrusters, two on each side of the tank, for short-range 'leaps' as well as breaking during orbital drops.


Of course the basic armor would be superior to what we have now, layered with ERA-style active armor, as well as more traditional anti-missile pods.

This thing would have 2 crew with seats that can perform the same tasks, but with one responsible for target choice, while the other handles the driving, with the rest of the tasks distributed between the two, as well as an AI for targeting and other tasks that are better performed by a computer.

For more ranged defense against missiles and low-flying aircraft, I want a dome with a high-power pulse laser and a directional EM emitter, for throwing railgun slugs slightly off-path for near-hits.


This tank would be massive, but built in a low shape to allow it to better handle nuclear and kinetic shockwaves.

The assumption is that an efficient power storage unit is available, something greatly superior to fossil fuels and currently available batteries, capable of keeping this tank running for many hours, more if the weapons are not used.

The body would be modular, with the option to turn it to other uses, such as Rescue and Repair units, troop transport and support, or dedicated artillery/AA/missile platforms. The same body would be used to house a mobile armored reactor, for on-field unit recharge.


Of course, this vehicle would be built to function off-Earth, so the crew would have a full life-support system in their armored capsule.



Not sure if I forgot anything, will correct with time.
Image
Post

Re: Tanks

#153
why have a conventional chemical cannon when theres obviously already reliable large scale magnetic accelerator weaponry of different kinds?
that only makes larger portions of the tank explosive in the case of penetrating hits and wastes mass/space on propellant you could replace with the way more dense main power generator/storage system.
(modern explosives are far behind in the way of energy density and chemical guns have way lower efficiency overall than magnetic accelerators could have)
you'd gain bigger flexibility in muzzle velocity and projectile mass/geometry and save mass on the propellant you'd have to drag.
Post

Re: Tanks

#154
The only defense against that is that a chem-based weapon is less affected by knockout EMPs and such, and is more fragile than the (theoretically) already solid electronics managing the gauss and rail guns.

But yes, it makes sense to use a large gauss instead of the chemical main gun. Would allow you to fire different calibers of ammo too at different range, if done right.


However, I want to keep at least the two small machine gun on the turret and hull, as a backup.
Image
Post

Re: Tanks

#155
Triggerhappy wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:31 pm
The only defense against that is that a chem-based weapon is less affected by knockout EMPs and such, and is more fragile than the (theoretically) already solid electronics managing the gauss and rail guns.

But yes, it makes sense to use a large gauss instead of the chemical main gun. Would allow you to fire different calibers of ammo too at different range, if done right.


However, I want to keep at least the two small machine gun on the turret and hull, as a backup.
the whole thing already relies a whole lot on electronics working.
and a gauß cannon doesnt need much electronics, a railgun much less so (none, in fact. just a few wires and a big capacitor)
with the railgun having reduced capacity with its electronics knocked out (as you have no nice pulse shaping power electonics anymore to modulate acceleration)

and even then. when you can knock out the very basic stuff needed to knock out a railgun, the targetting systems are toast long ago (along with the power electronics you need to move that heavy of a turret in the first place)
because those are made to receive various kinds of radiation.

for the backup machine guns you can also have electronically simple railguns fed by just some mechanical pusher and no actual switch in the power circuit.
fed by capactitor "powder charges" you can put on belts along with the projectiles (or even use as projectiles if you are lucky enough that they'd work. because those would be electrical explosives in themself :D)
Post

Re: Tanks

#158
I suggested a mix of high-calibre conventional (chemical or electrochemical) gun and railgun for two reasons:

1. Kinetic penetrators are basically long, thin rods; with a railgun, calibre as small as 25 mm can be used, which allows carrying a metric crapton of dedicated anti-tank ammo. On the other hand, such a gun won't be able to fire anything even remotely efficient against infantry and buildings. Making a high-calibre railgun/Gauss gun, while attractive, would mean having much less ammo.

2. Railguns don't really need a barrel; so the rail system can be put inside the turret below the main gun, sticking out only a little bit, and protected by retractable lid, sparing it the damage from shrapnel, low-calibre guns, missiles, shockwaves, etc., which is important for accuracy and efficiency of the railgun...basically, you don't want mis-aligned rails :ghost:
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.
Post

Re: Tanks

#159
outlander wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:54 pm
1. Kinetic penetrators are basically long, thin rods; with a railgun, calibre as small as 25 mm can be used, which allows carrying a metric crapton of dedicated anti-tank ammo. On the other hand, such a gun won't be able to fire anything even remotely efficient against infantry and buildings. Making a high-calibre railgun/Gauss gun, while attractive, would mean having much less ammo.
and how would a chemical gun of the same calibre need less space than a railgun? :P
especially if you already have electric energy storage much denser than hydrocarbon fuels which means its hugely more dense than any modern chemical explosive
outlander wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:54 pm
2. Railguns don't really need a barrel; so the rail system can be put inside the turret below the main gun, sticking out only a little bit, and protected by retractable lid, sparing it the damage from shrapnel, low-calibre guns, missiles, shockwaves, etc., which is important for accuracy and efficiency of the railgun...basically, you don't want mis-aligned rails :ghost:
except they do need rails with length >0 that they can accelerate their stuff :P
the murikan experimental ones mostly look like guns for a reason :P
Post

Re: Tanks

#160
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:56 pm
except they do need rails with length >0 that they can accelerate their stuff :P
the murikan experimental ones mostly look like guns for a reason :P
Yes, but it's future tech, so we can tell that these are 1.5 metres long rails inside the turret accelerating carbon-nanotube-reinforced tungsten rods to 7.5-10 km/s for MOAR PENETRATION. Because how else would you penetrate 1-metre-thick composite armour made of alternating steel and graphene sheets, and with ERA and APS downing everything that approaches it at less-than-orbital velocities?

Meanwhile, Soviets got railguns, too:

Image
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.
Post

Re: Tanks

#161
outlander wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:03 pm
Yes, but it's future tech, so we can tell that these are 1.5 metres long rails inside the turret accelerating carbon-nanotube-reinforced tungsten rods to 7.5-10 km/s for MOAR PENETRATION. Because how else would you penetrate 1-metre-thick composite armour made of alternating steel and graphene sheets, and with ERA and APS downing everything that approaches it at less-than-orbital velocities?

Meanwhile, Soviets got railguns, too:
Ya sure that's a railgun? And not a coilgun?

Code: Select all

<+BMRX> Silver Invokes Lewdly Verbose Experiences Readily With Absurd Rectal Expeditions
Post

Re: Tanks

#163
Silverware wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:20 pm
Ya sure that's a railgun? And not a coilgun?
Absolutely sure. The projectiles it fires are really small, and weight only 2.5 grams. The whole thing is used to test the effect of micrometeorites on spaceships :)

Edit: fun fact - it's fired in the same room. The round green-ish part is an adapter for installing targets. It also has no breech mechanism, you just put the projectile into the rear end of the railgun, leave the room, and press the FIRE button. Simplicity itself :ghost:

Edit #2: This.
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.
Post

Re: Tanks

#164
outlander wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:40 am
Absolutely sure. The projectiles it fires are really small, and weight only 2.5 grams.
With a railgun shooting 2.5 gram projectiles you cant really make arguments about the length of actual combat railguns that are supposed to fire something similar to M829 long rod penetrators which weigh almost two thousand times as much, though :ghost:

Using the same argumentation you could also claim that you only need a 500mm barrel to fire tank rounds at upwards of a km/s :ghost:
Post

Re: Tanks

#165
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:14 am
With a railgun shooting 2.5 gram projectiles you cant really make arguments about the length of actual combat railguns that are supposed to fire something similar to M829 long rod penetrators which weigh almost two thousand times as much, though :ghost:
More power to the rails, higher speed. Railguns are quite straightforward, as long as you have all the friction problems solved. That Soviet railgun is actually frictionless; it generates plasma that pushes the projectile. Of course, it all looks really nice and cool but at high energies it tends to generate some heavy low-temperature plasma that erodes the rails really fast. That's the reason the US went for using heavy metal rounds and long rails, but it's also a road that leads to absolutely nowhere. In Trigger's tank, we assumed that these problems are solved
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:14 am
Using the same argumentation you could also claim that you only need a 500mm barrel to fire tank rounds at upwards of a km/s :ghost:
No I can't, because physical principles are completely different :squirrel:
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron