BF Evo, future weapons

[cordas]

If we ended with those horrible things from 40k, but they were better at doing their jobs than the current stuff I would not complain. Aesthetics should not be the main factor in judging combat vehicles.

Hmmm I dunno, Aesthetics are very important, you don't want your guys so embarrassed about climbing into their vehicles that they hate it. You want something that inspires fear in your opponent not contempt.

Side sponsons where used in the very 1st tanks, but where done away with as they wheren't efficent (you needed far to big a tank and it was to heavy - slow - unmanouverable and huge crews some upto 20-30 men). Also putting side sponsons into the track means you are very limited on suspension, which afects your speed over rough terrain.

Between the wars and at the start of the 2nd world war several countries experimented with the idea of putting 2 main guns on a tank (one anti infantry the other anti tank) and again these tanks wheren't efficent and tended to have a very high profile which made them easier targets, so they where done away with.

In a fantasy game (well sci fi but its more fantasy based than science) like 40k its easy to use magical technology to have guns sticking from all over the place, but BF:Evo isn't a fantasy game, its based in the near future, so near that they are using the same kit pretty much as is in use today (I feel the near future setting is more about giving them a cleanish slate for forces fighting each other, than anything to do with future technology).

Hmmm at least this rant is on topic

 

[Pietia]

Go here: http://www.g2mil.com/m1a3.htm and take a look at the bottom of the page. A description of "bucket of mgs" conversion from Vietnam (BTW, the whole article is worth a read, although it is quite old).
Vehicle crews want two things: to survive and to do their jobs. Quite often they know better, what tools do they need to achieve their goals, than some paper-pusher from Washington (or another capital city) who wants "his" vehicles to look cool during parades. The first M113 ACAV vehicles were field conversions. First up-armored HMMWV were field conversions...
I am not arguing for side sponsons (hell, I'm an engineer). An armored cupola/secondary turret like that on M60 makes sense, however. A few remote controlled weapon stations like those on Israeli vehicles also make sense, especially if they cover the rear and sides of the tank. They don't take too much space, but are very useful in urban combat.
As for me - if I had a choice of riding in a ridiculous looking vehicle which is good at its job and a choice of cool-looking vehicle which is not very good at it, I know what I would choose (especially since if I'm inside the funny one, I don't have to look at it).

 

[Gibbs]

Asthetics are pretty important thats one of the reasons the ONTOS wasn't popular although it was a bloody good and freaky tank. Check this out as a tank.

That's right kids six 106mm recoilless rifles. Capable of firing 3,600 darts in either a salvo or quick succession means that this was one dangerous mother.

Freaky tanks can get the job done. And come on, 6 guns are better than one.

This is the m50 ONTOS and it's damn good.

 

[DM]

Quite often they know better, what tools do they need to achieve their goals, than some paper-pusher from Washington (or another capital city) who wants "his" vehicles to look cool during parades.

True, although its worth remembering that in most countries the military are intimately involved with the procurement of new kit (and may even be leading on it) so its worth the guy in the front line remembering that the "paper pusher" who has delivered his kit is probably cut from the same cloth as himself (and that he himself may well find himself in the same position!)

 

[emperorpenguin]

Asthetics are pretty important thats one of the reasons the ONTOS wasn't popular although it was a bloody good and freaky tank. Check this out as a tank.

.

first of all it was a Tank destroyer, not a tank itself :wink:

second the real reasons it was scrapped had far more to do with logistics, the stupidly high profile (most TDs are low) and the real flaw: the crew had to exit the vehicle to reload

it wasn't because it looked bad!

 

[Paladin]

Besides which it would seem that the new cs's placement limits the cs's field of fire and wull mean that an Abrams is a sitting duck when trying to take out a snupee beacuse it's main gun won't be searching for other, more hostile targets.

But if you're in small arms, urban combat mode with no enemy armor in the region do you need the big gun?

 

[cordas]

But if you're in small arms, urban combat mode with no enemy armor in the region do you need the big gun?

Yes you always need a big gun, and the bigger the better It makes for a great door knocker if nothing else.

 

[Hiromoon]

Course, people seem to be operating under the assumption that the Abrams is the only unit out there.

They do tend to travel either in packs or with squishies, folks.

 

[Pietia]

Even if they travel in packs, with squishes and Bradley support, they still are one of the worst tanks when it comes to close infantry support. The main gun of course makes a great door knocker, but it could be even better with some specialized anti-personnel rounds.

 

[Hiromoon]

It wasn't exactly designed for Urban combat, Pietia. It was never designed to hunt infantry. That said, it's main gun can (especially with the M830A1 HEAT-MP-T round) can and will mess infantry up. In fact, with the built in proximity fuse, it can be use to play skeet with helicopters (if the Helicopter was so willing to let the M1 shoot at it).


Besides, why use specialized rounds when you can simply bring the building down atop the enemy personnel?

 

[Pietia]

I know, that it wasn't designed for urban combat. It has been designed as the ultimate tank killer (and it is pretty good at this job). For the last few years, however, urban combat has been the main use for this tank. For the next few years it will still be so. If you want to drive a nail into a wall, of course you can use your cell phone - but a hammer works much better.
As for specialized rounds and bringing buildings down - why bother with tanks, just nuke the city ;-) .

 

[Hiromoon]

The TUSK package is supposed to provide the Urban combat factor for this tank, Pietia.

The Tank Urban Survival Kit, or TUSK, is a series of improvements to the M1A2 Abrams intended to improve fighting ability in urban environments. Historically, urban and other close battlefields have been the worst place for tanks to fight as the design of all Main Battle Tanks of the 3rd generation had to maximize the balance between armor/weight/mobility; and as a result the front armor is much stronger than that on the sides, top, or rear. However, in an urban environment, attacks can come from any direction, and attackers can get close enough to reliably hit weak points in the MBT's armor, or get sufficient elevation to hit the top armor square on.

Armor upgrades include reactive armor on the sides of the tank and slat armor (similar to that on the Stryker) on the rear to protect against rocket-propelled grenades and other shaped charge warheads.

This upgrade also includes reactive armor or explosive reactive armour (ERA), to be applied on the Abrams' side skirts, to lessen the damage from explosions caused from ATGMs warheads, exploding shells, grenades, or dropped bombs.

A gun shield and a thermal sight system are added to the loader's top-mounted 7.62 mm machine gun, and the mount for commander's .50-caliber heavy machine gun is modified to allow the weapon to be operated from within the turret with the hatch closed (the original M1 and M1A1 had this capability, but it was lost on the M1A2 due to the reconfiguration of several turret systems). An exterior telephone allows supporting infantry to communicate with the tank commander.

 

[Pietia]

Yes, I know. After few years of urban warfare somebody finally came up with an upgrade which allows the crew to fire without exposing themselves (possible on the ancient M60) and to wound supporting infantry (unless they remember to always stay behind the tank). Ain't the world wonderful?

 

[Hiromoon]

Out of curiosity, where do you get the idea that these upgrades will wound friendlies?

 

[Pietia]

Have you ever seen a tank using ERA cell to defeat an RPG (no, not on youtube - in real life)? It's not very healthy for nearby infantry. In Chechnya many russian units switched from using ERA to improvised slat armor on their vehicles because the supporting infantrymen were often either stunned or wounded.

 

[Hiromoon]

Ah, that would be it, wouldn't it? Except that as reactive armor, not exactly active, and requires a warhead or explosive to strike before detonating. So wouldn't the attack have resulted in casualties amongst the squishies anyway?

 

[Mr Evil]

not realy hiro as a shell exsplodes inwards towards its target, reactive armour blasts out in a funel so the shells warhead then has its blast fanning out, russians also had on some T-80s a radar system thet fired small exsposive plates out befor the shell hit to make the shell inert by the time it hit its target as its warhead would have already been deployed, but these were for non infantry tank battalions that were designed to fight a tank war with no infantry support. US is redeveloping the system to fire some form of metal shot out, and it has been suggested this could be dangerouse for the nearby infantry or civilians in a built up areas.

 

[Hiromoon]

We're talking warheads, not shells Evil. Keep up.

 

[Pietia]

Ok, Hiro, HEAT and ERA 101:
HEAT warhead uses directed explosion to punch a hole in the armor. Not all of the blast energy goes into this effort of course, some endangers the infantry around - but most of the blast goes into making the hole.
ERA uses another explosion to reduce the effects of the HEAT warhead on the armor. This is achieved by redirecting the blast away from the armor. Away from the armor = quite often towards the squishies that happen to be on the same side of the tank the warhead was fired at. The energy does not go away, it goes elsewhere. ERA is a wonderful thing for vehicles which fight without dismount support (e.g. T90+BMPT), but it is not a good protection for urban combat.

Active armor systems, like Arena or Trophy use similar approach to the naval CIWS systems like Phalanx - destroying the warhead before it explodes using some kind of kinetic projectile (and a detection system of course, usually a microwave radar). Trophy is marketed as designed for urban combat, as it greatly reduces the risk to friendly infantry compared to ERA.

 

[Hiromoon]

Ooookay? So why are you saying 101? That's nothing I didn't know, Pietia. You're basically screwed either way. I mean, if they're lobbing HEAT warheads at the tank you're walking next to, you have scrapnel from the tank, the force of the blast from warhead detonation, and a few other things (like piss-poor aim on behalf of the enemy).

And the Trophy system still has that fear of collateral damage, even though, as you've said, that it's being marketed for Urban Environments.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm