Tank talk

[Tan]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps


With U.S built M1A1 tanks in their arsenal. Maybe the IDF has studied the American tank and knows Weakness around the special composite armor. I would say hit the Bastard in the Rear of the turrent(although that may only cause the loss of the blow out panels), or the rear turbine engine deck since it is near impenetrable on the sides of the turrent and front hull.


The latest Israel ATGW SPIKE will be able to defeat the most formiable tank in the world. With the fire and update mode and high trajectory flight profile of the missile, it can easily hit the top part of the tank which is the least protected part. I know it cause I am a SPIKE operator.





Please recognize the Increased effective armaments the Arabs have, it is there, a fact, so such weapons will make for a more pitched battle, you as a Military Man should realize more preperation in defensive arms and thoughtful planning is needed to adjust to a more able enemy, not a headlong dive without a second thought.


Having the most sophisticated weaponary does not automatically translate into more potentful millitary might if it is not properly integrate into the overall structure of the organisation and the operational doctrine.
This probably explain why Israel is able to defeat the enemies latest amour like T-55, T-62 with their old Sherman tank in the Six Days War and Yom Kippur war

[NewsGuy]

Considering that there is no other reason for Israel's existence other than being a Jewish state based in the Jewish homeland (and that's a darn good reason of course), there should be some special consideration to religious scholars.

In every society there is a division of labor, where people contribute according to their skills. There are professors and policemen, scientists and businesspeople. I would have no interest in a baseball payer doing my corporate taxes, nor would I want a typical CPA to serve as designated hitter for the Dodgers.

It makes sense to me that certain Jewish scholars should be allowed to hone their scholarship to the best of their ability without spending 3 years in the secular environment of the army.

However, this does not preclude religious scholars from dedicating some amount of time to public service, and I definitely do not think that every Yeshivah student should automatically be considered a scholar who merits military exemption.

[Mr. Pumps]

Originally posted by Tan


The latest Israel ATGW SPIKE will be able to defeat the most formiable tank in the world. With the fire and update mode and high trajectory flight profile of the missile, it can easily hit the top part of the tank which is the least protected part. I know it cause I am a SPIKE operator.
Having the most sophisticated weaponary does not automatically translate into more potentful millitary might if it is not properly integrate into the overall structure of the organisation and the operational doctrine.
This probably explain why Israel is able to defeat the enemies latest amour like T-55, T-62 with their old Sherman tank in the Six Days War and Yom Kippur war

Well here is another Idea I got thanks to the great IDF.

A media picture showing a IDF tank ( http://www.waronline.org/IDF/pictures/Army/Magach-7/pages/image36.htm) traveling along a narrow alley between two structures , what if armed palestinians showed up along the floors of both the structures and started to rain down fire on the vulnerable target, with one internal CIWS(Close in weapon system) the user would have to point the weapon in one direction, reload it and then point it in the other direction, a slow process, the enemy could fire while the reloading and/or turning the weapon is in progress. Two CIWS with high firing arcs could protect the vehicle much better when locked down in a narrow place and destroy both floor strong points before the enemy could fire.

Hmmm.................

[Mr. Pumps]

In my Techie, futurist, Armor lover mind I believe the Tank will somehow will be affect by the following tech:

1.) Eye piece computer sceens and tiny wearable CPU'S.

2.) Voice Command Reconginition.

4.) Artifical intelligence

3,) Super fast Proccessors.

3.) Body movement detection like head or finger movement.

4.) Offensive lasers.

5.) Fiber optic links.

5.) Enchance detection via superior senses I.e Hear, See....etc.

6.) HDTV displays.

7.)Integration of Biology and Artificial Smart machines(CPU'S)

8.) The near perfect Realism in games, a Tank with a built in Video game Type Simulator and training device.

9.) Voice recongnition.

10.) Tiny video cameras.

11.) Microscopic UAV's.

One serious thing wrong about the Battle tanks of today.

It can't talk to and you can't talk to it.

"Abramy or Merkavay please turn on your engine".......and so forth

and get a a CPU voice back "Yes, sir Srgt. whoever"

[minusthejihad]

Mr. Pumps,

You're Tyte! :cool:

[Mr. Pumps]

:D How about Shaul the Onboard Battle Tank Aid Helper? using voice command recongnition the Crew members talks to a High Definitiion Panel with a Texture modelled face of Shaul mofaz, who represent the central A.I in of the Tank and the hub of all combat systems.

[Mr. Pumps]

Voice command identifying technology in Tanks.....a rather novel and interesting idea.

Things the Tank's Artifical intelligence computers would understand:

"Back"

"Eject smoke grenades"

"Turn on the engine"

"Turn on front Lights"

"Move turrent in such and such Degree vertically and horizontally"

"Give me such and such a Shell type"

"Track so and so Target"

...... and so on!.

[Mr. Pumps]

Mr. Pumping out brainstormed ideas when I am bored and have time to go nuts.

People like fellow techy Ibrodsky should be well aware of the amazing CPU power of today. But take for example the French Leclerc MBT it has 30 processors all of them lowly, primitive 8-Bit and 32bit.

For any New Computer 21St Century operated weapon like a tank, a 128 bit computer should I think be the Minimum standard.

[shiva]

Everyone carries their weight, regardless of there pedagogical talents. The Hadsidism young had finally had it, and started to join the army, out of embarrassment. The fact that just because one is a scholar, does not mean he/she lets others fight for them. Dead weight is not needed. Nor is arrogance.

[Mediocrates]

Waht happened with that M1A2 'digital tank' fire accident yesterday? 2 dead and 9? injured. Anybody know?

[Mr. Pumps]

I have heard of a remarkable hand gun that can fire all calibers of ammo without adjustment(0.22, 9MM, 7.62mm)

Imagine that as a main tank gun!!! able to fire all standard soviet(100mm, 115mm, 125mm) and Western rounds(105mm, 120mm) by itself. That would bring awesome flexibility. Lack a certain round well the gun can fire other caliber rounds. One gun able to fire all calibers of rounds......that would be a asset.

And adaptable paint on tanks that allows for the matching the color and texture of the terrain at will. Wow! that would be awesome too!.

Some say the beast is dead, but I say the beast will come into it's own by installing new abilities and Technology into these machines.

[Mr. Pumps]

THE TANK WILL NEVER DIE. EVEN IF TANKS NOW ARE VULNERABLE, NEW TECH AND IDEAS IARE BEING ADDED TO THEM ALL THE TIME.

ANYONE WHO THINKS THE TANK IS GONE IS A MORON,BECAUSE MODERN CAPABLE ARMIES STILL PUT THEIR TRUST IN THE AWESOME FIRE SUPPORT AND MEANNESS THEY PROVIDE.

THE TANK WILL RUMBLE ON FOREVER.

[Simon]

http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=217745&lang=e&dir=news

Analysis: Israel's new Merkava 4 tank clearly designed for war with Syria

[danholo]

Simon,

I read only the beginning of that article and it was already full of misinformation and historical fallacies.

They say the reason why this tank was developed, so they could attack Syria and why Israel didn't attack Damascus was because Israeli tanks could not overcome the "volcanic terrain".

Sure took Israel a long time to develop a tank to attack Syria.
The one thing here is that even without the MK.4 Syria wouldn't stand a chance anyway.
This kind of "reporting" is a mockery to all, even less intelligent, humans.

Some people with more weapon knowledge on this board could give better info, but to my information a Hind helicopter only has a high-velocity vulcan cannon and no missiles.
A Hind couldn't even damage a MK.3 Merkava.

[Tan]

The Mk 4 turret seems to have a higher profile as compare to it predecessor. Don't know is it due to extra amour protection to protect against top down attack.


More info here.

http://www.defense-update.com/directory/merkava4.htm

[Mr. Pumps]

Originally posted by danholo

Some people with more weapon knowledge on this board could give better info, but to my information a Hind helicopter only has a high-velocity vulcan cannon and no missiles.
A Hind couldn't even damage a MK.3 Merkava.

The Hind helicopter has AT-2 and AT-6 missles in it's armament, 57mm or 80mm rockets and a four barreled 12.7mm machine on early models and a twin 30mm gun on later models.

The Hind is obsolete design on the smart battlefield, but can still defeat some armor with the AT-2 or AT-6 missile.

The merkava MK4 could blow one down before it even fires I am sure, the power of a 21st century design compared to a 1976 design

[Mr. Pumps]

Why do tanks still have the sharp edges, imagine the scapes from those edges, alittle rounding of egdes and corners would help save many knees and elbows.

[Mr. Pumps]

Multi-caliber weapons:

Eg. http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/out/9811BOFAP.html

Imagine a Tank cannon like that, that could be capable of firing all calibers of tank round, agian flexibility in warfare, one caliber fall short in supply, use your opponents captured supply instead.

Another star coming up, speaking to a Tank's CPU, a technology that is already here:

Eg http://smarthomeusa.com/smart/voice/homevoice1.asp

[Simon]

Originally posted by danholo
Simon,

I read only the beginning of that article and it was already full of misinformation and historical fallacies.

They say the reason why this tank was developed, so they could attack Syria and why Israel didn't attack Damascus was because Israeli tanks could not overcome the "volcanic terrain".

Sure took Israel a long time to develop a tank to attack Syria.
The one thing here is that even without the MK.4 Syria wouldn't stand a chance anyway.
This kind of "reporting" is a mockery to all, even less intelligent, humans.

Some people with more weapon knowledge on this board could give better info, but to my information a Hind helicopter only has a high-velocity vulcan cannon and no missiles.
A Hind couldn't even damage a MK.3 Merkava.


Thanks. I am no weapons expert and was just browsing on information about tanks (we Indians have been trying to develop one of our own for a while).

[Mr. Pumps]

Yes the Indian Arjun Tank, a ill-fated mess, I am shocked primative Pakistan is having better success at upgrading her armored fleet then vastly bigger India is. Al Khalid and Al Zarrer upgrades.........shocking! and India cannot prepare her tank for desert warfare without sacrifice other qualities of the Arjun. And what is amazing the Arjun only has a range of 200 Km! most Tanks have a range of 400-500Km.

And I say the Merkava should never be sold abroad even if her Tourism industry has taken a hit by the current uprising, the Merkava is a symbol of Israel, like Beer in Germany or Waffles in Belgium. It is a part of what make the little Jewish Territory unique!.

[Mr. Pumps]

Old systems ran on high tech hardware of the day. And today Military machines still due.

The Gameboy had a 8-bit 4.19MHz Z80 processor and the Gameboy Advance has a 32 Bit RISC ARM 33MHz Processor.

:D That means the Leclerc, supposedly one of the most technical of modern MBT's has the processors of Portable game systems that costs $80 U.S. :D

Where are the 128-Bit and 256-Bit capable and advanced computers as part of the FCS?.....hell there are even 512Bit CPU's being made now like the Parhelia-512 that is most like more potent than all the 32bit and 8Bit crud on the Leclerc......but Tanks still have Nintendo NES 8-bit Bleep-Blip processors .

It is kind of dissapointing such weapons are not given the same level of sophistication as Commerical tech. But I guess when a Army spends thousands on obsolete CPU's that is considered a deal. :rolleyes: Hmmmmmmmmm!

[Mr. Pumps]

The Medusa pistol can fire from a 5.5mm round to a 9mm round and 104 DIFFERENT ROUND TYPES AND CALIBERS!. Imagine what a gun with that multi-caliber capability would have, maybe to fire shells from 76mm to 120mm or even 155mm....wow! the endless military possibilities.

[Mediocrates]

Do they have a AC-130U type 'Spooky' gunship?

The AC-130U is armed with a 25mm Gatling-gun (capable of firing 1800 rounds per minute), a single-barrel, rapid-fire 40mm Bofors cannon, and a 105mm Howitzer. The AC-130U replaced the two 20mm cannon used on the AC-130H with one trainable 25mm cannon while retaining the other weapons. The AC-130U employs the latest technologies and can attack two targets simultaneously.

http://198.65.138.161/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u.htm

[Mr. Pumps]

In the Popular Mechanics article the Medusa pistol can fire all sorts of caliber rounds without having to think about the type of round used.

You just load the Pistol with WHATEVER type handgun ammo you desire and shoot it off. Impressive

So I am wondering why Tank smoothbore weapons should'nt have that capability as well to fire off vaious caliber rounds without a second thought. All are fixed 105mm, 120mm or 125mm caliber weapons that can't be fired between one gun and another.

The article says:"Interestingly, the Medusa's cylinder will chamber and fire up to 104 different cartridges worldwide, down to a 5.5mm round, although the company recommends only the 25 cartridges listed in its literature"

Imagine a main tank smoothbore gun designed to be able to fire every modern tank round type in existence on it's own.

[Tan]

Latest on Merkava Mk4 Auto loader.

http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000986.html

[Mr. Pumps]

AWESOME! I wonder if America is falling alittle behind in this type of Warfare, with other countries adding innovative things like the Chinese adding a cool Red Laser weapon on the TYPE-98.

http://www.hongkongads.com/t98-12.jpg

:mad: Boo! why did the Israelis have to show such a piece of onboard equipment, one of the best things about being into Tanks and armored vehicles is wondering what all innovative gadgets they put in their vehicles are and how they work and what else radical future things could be put into it. And the Merkava Vehicle was one of the best at that . Boooooo!

There is so much experimenting that can be done with such platforms like the Soviet 1957 Project 279, Multi-turrented designs, The Quadruple track design of the Command and Conquer Mammoth Tank( I wonder if that truely works!), monster Tanks like the German Maus, I wonder if the rhomboid design still works!.

[Mr. Pumps]

More possible Tank Tech:

-Eye Retinal scan identification of th Driver before startup of the Tank's engine.....a security agianst for the Tank on the Drivers position.

-External remote control on all Tanks systems like weapons, mobility controled by a state of the art controller giving the operator the Tanks perspective of what is being controlled

From Star Trek DS9

http://http://www.ccdump.org/images/domheadset3.gif

Imagine such a thing for a Tank Commander , with builtin functions like Thermal auto target tracker, thermal imager, 360 Degree VR, Systems status, crew status and so on. Such a small view screen could be attached to the side of his helmet via a swivel mount. from such a device it could even be possible to controll the Barrel launched ATGW's.

[Mr. Pumps]

Awwww... Stupid URL oh well! it is the headset viewer of a Jem Hadar ship Commander in Star Trek DS9..............sci-fi lover Gilgamesh might know what I mean.... :) care to bail me out friend!

[Mr. Pumps]

I heard on the Website link Tan gave, someone was using CAD for designing a armored vehicle from scratch......WOW!....I bet I can do that for the simple reason my father has been a CAD designer for a LONG time.

Things my AFV would have........yeah!

-One main gun, and one MG or 40mm AGL in the turrent.

-Remote controlled, armored single or twin 40mm AGL Commanders position.

-Ability to remove tracks and Run on Suspenion wheels, much like Walter Christie's first tank or the BT-5 had the ability to do

-Pop up AA MG remote controlled.

-A skirt of Genetically produced spider silk on aft end of turrent ring

-Helmets and outfits with CPU and Viewer headset infrared communication and interaction between crew's personal CPU between the maincore Tank CPU's.

-Foldable sideskirts with a low and upper part, the upper part protects suspesion and tracks and lower part protects the wheels. The lower part can be folded and locked into the upper part to double the thickness of the upper part

-Two internal Close in weapon systems.

-Armored rear door opened by keynumber or via remote.

-Modular armor based on a Russian "Nesting doll" concept i.e 6 to 10 layer varying size composite modules within each other while spaced . Protection based on layered level protection of the various sized identical modular armor units.

-Voice recognition and speech capable CPU and onboard Computerized helper, built in interactive training sessions program.

[Mr. Pumps]

Can someone explain to me the need to go lighter when it comes to the Armored vehicles. There is a push for wheeled, thinly armored vehicles. THEY LOOK LIKE TIN CANS, EASILY SPLIT OPEN!.

In my view there is a HUGE NEED for heavy and super heavy Infantry armored carriers with Tank levels of EVEN exceeding Tank levels in protection.

Israel's and Russian's HIACs are 36 to 44 tons, but 60-70 Tons cannot be ruled out.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992654

wipes out the electronics & power generationand leaves buildings standing.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/defense/dtap/weapons/ch100309.htm

High powered microwave weapon w/ a peak power 50Gw burst.

[Mr. Pumps]

I look at a Russian nesting doll and think does this have meaning.

Modern vehicles have armor that can be disattached from the turrent body and replaced if damaged or a new material becomes available a system called modular armor.

But what if there is the interior shell of the turrent, than a encasing of steel or composite armor, followed by a exactly identical but bigger, encasing ofthe same type of armor encasing the first layer, Another exact, but but bigger piece agian encasing the 2nd layer...........and so on and so on.

Like a Russian Nesting doll, one exact doll, within it another smaller exact doll, within another it a smaller exact doll. One exact armor casing, within it another smaller exact armor casing, within it another exact armor casing all spaced between each other. to repair damage or to see how far penetration a projectile has hit, remove the the armor shell encasings.

Spaced armor but based on exact looking but different sized modular encasings.

Instead of removing pieces of the turrent to be replace. Remove exactly the same look, but smaller and smaller skeleton armor encasings.

[Mr. Pumps]

Perhaps the most interesting supersense found in sharks is the electromagnetic sense. Sharks have a highly specialized bioelectrical sensory system that not only helps them locate and home in on prey, but also helps them find their way relative to ocean currents and the earth's magnetic field. This system consists of hundreds of skin pores known as ampullae of Lorenzini. The ampullae of Lorenzini are able to detect electric fields as weak as .01 microvolts per centimeter. What does this mean? It means sharks can detect an electric field that would be like the charge created by placing two tiny AA batteries, like you would use in your walkman, almost a mile apart . Because all living creatures produce an electrical field, a shark can detect the presence of another living creature at great distances, even if all its other senses were deactivated .

Imagine if a military machine i.e a Tank could detect the electrical field of say a groups of rebels waiting in ambush, now that would be beneficial and avoid those diasterous scenes I see in Chechnya.

The problem with thermal imager is that when ambushed such a device is useless for detection, I am saying a early warning system that there are Humans around as picked up by their electric megnetic field.

[Mr. Pumps]

:confused: :confused: I am in a awkward situation. For you see Michael Wittman was the best Tanker of WW2,with the most kills and so on. But he fought for the Nazis, so while the guy had a impressive record, he fought for evil.I don't know if the man should be praise for his abilities or scorned for his following of Satan?

I guess I should just play it safe and keep focus of the achievements Soviet tankers Rem Ulanov and Semion Aria were able to accomplish.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
:confused: :confused: I am in a awkward situation. For you see Michael Wittman was the best Tanker of WW2,with the most kills and so on. But he fought for the Nazis, so while the guy had a impressive record, he fought for evil.I don't know if the man should be praise for his abilities or scorned for his following of Satan?

I guess I should just play it safe and keep focus of the achievements Soviet tankers Rem Ulanov and Semion Aria were able to accomplish.

Good question. I say you can and should study Wittman to learn what you can from what he did. The same should be done with General Rommel, scientist Werner Heisenberg, engineer Werner von Braun, etc. Heisenberg and von Braun were quickly "rehabilitated" after WWII, despite their Nazi service - quite likely this was unfair to those who suffered horribly, but I guess the West wanted to take advantage of their abilities.

[Mr. Pumps]

I look at it like this when Russian tanks armed only with a 12.7mm AADMG goes into Grozney and meets 2000 armed rebels and the Tanks get wipe out one but one without any offense in reply , there is a disasterous problem there, more than Tanks in MOUT warfare.

Such a tank like the Vicker A1E1 independent I see as something:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/7413/a1/a1f1.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/7413/a1/a1e1all.jpg

But, instead of a MG's in the four auxillery turrents, how about a 40mm grenade launchers like the MK-19 to defend to vehicle agianst mass side ambush.

I know it sounds ridiculous- a multi-turrent designed tank , but no modern Tank can survive massive side of vehicle attack in MOUT settings as:

1.) The roof-mounted MG's are useless.
2.)Turret weapons are useless.
3.) Bow Machine guns are useless because of fire arcs.

I see a merging of the Heavily armored T-55 suspension and hull conversions APC merging with the Vickers A1E1 Muiltiturrent design to create a MOUT capable vehicle.

[Mr. Pumps]

Both fool! On both the Soviet BT-5 Fast tank and Walter Christie's first tank, based on a suspension all modern tanks are based on, THERE WAS THE CAPABILITY TO RUN BOTH ON THE TRACKS AND ON THE THE ROAD WHEELS, without the tracks.

A old solution to a stupid debated question?

[Mr. Pumps]

The first time I got interested in Vehicles was seeing a book entitled "Soviet Military power" at the local library and being awed at the pictures of design like the BMP-1 and T-55 and how the book made a remark that all soviet vehicles had a firepower advantage over the West.

But now I know those Vehicles, all of them pictured on parade in Red Square are deathtraps, a Tank firing it's man gun is not impressive anymore.

A Tank with plastic dummies inside,while being pelted with ATGW's and Anti-tank mines being rumbled over and still survive is a much more realistic and impressive display.

[Mr. Pumps]

British Develop Electric 'Force
Field' To Protect Tanks

By Michael Smith
The Daily Telegraph - London
8-21-2

LONDON - An electric "force field" for armored vehicles that vaporizes anti-tank grenades and shells on impact has been developed by scientists at Britain's Ministry of Defense.
The "electric armor" has been developed in an attempt to make tanks and other armored vehicles lighter and less vulnerable to grenade launchers such as those used by Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan.
It could be fitted to the light tanks and armored personnel carriers (APCs) that will replace the heavy Challenger II tanks and Warrior APCs in one of the two British armored divisions.
The ubiquitous RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade, can be picked up for a mere $10 in many of the world's trouble spots and is capable of destroying a tank and killing its crew.
When the grenade hits the tank, its "shaped-charge" warhead fires a jet of hot copper into the target at about 1,000 mph. It is capable of penetrating more than a foot of conventional solid-steel armor.
The new electric armor is made up of a highly-charged capacitor that is connected to two separate metal plates on the tank's exterior. The outer plate, which is bulletproof and made from an unspecified alloy, is grounded, and the insulated inner plate is live.
The electric armor runs off the tank's power supply. When the tank commander feels he is in a dangerous area, he simply switches on the current to the inner plate.
When the warhead fires its jet of molten copper, it penetrates both the outer plate and the insulation of the inner plate. This makes a connection, and thousands of amps of electricity vaporize most of the molten copper. The rest of the copper is dispersed harmlessly against the vehicle's hull.
Despite the high charge, the electrical load on the battery is no more than that caused by starting the engine on a cold morning.
In a recent demonstration of the electric armor for senior army officers, an APC protected by the new British system survived repeated attacks by rocket-propelled grenades that would typically have destroyed it several times over.
Many of the grenades were fired from point-blank range, but the only damage to the APC was cosmetic. The vehicle was driven away under its own power.
Professor John Brown of the Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, which developed the "pulsed power system," said it was attracting a lot of interest from both the British Defense Ministry and the Pentagon.
With the easy availability of RPG-7 rocket launchers, "it only takes one individual on, say, a rooftop in a village to cause major damage or destroy passing armored vehicles," he said.

[YoungMan]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
Why do tanks still have the sharp edges, imagine the scapes from those edges, alittle rounding of egdes and corners would help save many knees and elbows. Didn't you know that in the beginning wheels were square? Only after they were used for quite a while that they started to round up and one day a guy noticed: "Oy! Let's make them round!"

[Mr. Pumps]

Oh Mr. Wise Guy eh....... seriously look at a MBT the armor is edged, the ERA plating is edged , the Internal systems are edged. I think only the domed T-55 and T-62 is deviod of sharp edges externally.

Also ever look into a first or second generation Tank, it is a clutter mess of dials and buttons, a organized, easy accessable layout internally is just as important in my opinion as firepower, speed and mobility. maybe no dials and knobs and ALL full color high definition flat screen displays and touch screen displays on all state- of- the-art tanks and virtual reality in the future.

[danholo]

Mr. Pumps,

Seems that science fiction is becoming science fact, once again.
Remeber shield generators in Star Trek and Star Wars?
Those "electric shields" might be exactly that or its prototype.

Truly amazing at how fast technology is advancing.
Hope we don't see a dark WWIII fought with laser weapons.

[Mr. Pumps]

:) It is foolish to say the Tank is past its prime.

There are MANY amazing Technologies around today that can be applied to Tanks and APCs, but a attempt is not made to bring it over.

I am one of the proponents of the Tank. Every else sucks!. Viva le Char de Combat.

[YoungMan]

Albert Einstein:
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

[Mr. Pumps]

:) I believe in the future War machine will be manned by robots like the Honda Asimo.

http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/

Does anyone what is Hebrew for Terminator?

[Mr. Pumps]

Originally posted by Tan
The Mk 4 turret seems to have a higher profile as compare to it predecessor. Don't know is it due to extra amour protection to protect against top down attack.


More info here.

http://www.defense-update.com/directory/merkava4.htm

The Merkava Mk4 has been the first Tank to eliminate the useliess loaders position, a very wise choice.

What would be cool is a combined offensive red laser/APS rocket and radar system along the sides of the turrent taking the concpets of the Russian and Chinese Ideas.

But the single unprotected MAG for the Commander makes me cring, why not a 40mm AGL for close in defense or at least a shielded protected MAG MG...shoot!.

[Jay]

Originally posted by Tan


The latest Israel ATGW SPIKE will be able to defeat the most formiable tank in the world. With the fire and update mode and high trajectory flight profile of the missile, it can easily hit the top part of the tank which is the least protected part. I know it cause I am a SPIKE operator.






Having the most sophisticated weaponary does not automatically translate into more potentful millitary might if it is not properly integrate into the overall structure of the organisation and the operational doctrine.
This probably explain why Israel is able to defeat the enemies latest amour like T-55, T-62 with their old Sherman tank in the Six Days War and Yom Kippur war


If I might respectfully joiin your conversation, I as an ex-marine, and having been in Israel during conflict, can say there are good points to your debate. Taking the tank out with a spike is great,albeit expensive, the easiest way is to cripple the tread, and heat up the tank with napalm(flame thrower until the fuel tank ruptures and flames up. It'll serve the purpose at about 1/100 th of the cost of a Spike. Given that, the good ol'tank trap works just as fine as it did since tank immemorial. That will serve to accomplish two things, get rid of the tank, and, get rid of the idiots in them as well. :)

[Mr. Pumps]

:( This has never occured to me before, but seeing it a picture is rather surprising, I hope the IDF knows of this.

Looking at a Merkava riding atop a ramplike incline on the side of a hill, the highsidedness and broadness of the front hull makes depressing on the Maingun downward enough to be used improbable at such a incline.

Please tell me the IDF knows of it.

[5-alef]

The Merkava Mk4 has been the first Tank to eliminate the useliess loaders position, a very wise choice.
wrong. the auto loader is an aid.
its foolish to eliminate the loader.
what if the auto loader melfunctions?
what if the gunner or the commander are hurt?
another crewman=better ability ot tackle difficulties.

[Mr. Pumps]

I mean there is no hatch in the turrent for the loader.

http://http://www.voodoo.cz/merkava/images/mk3/mk3_5.jpg

See how the longness of the the front hull section, prevents the main gun from being moved downward enough to shoot straight forward effectively from a inclined position, instead the gun is pointed upward, parrelleled to the angle of the hill side.

Maybe I am just to picky.

[Mr. Pumps]

Well I guess that is a compromise for being the safest machine of its type in the world.

[5-alef]

your link doesnt work mate.

the loader on the other hand exists. he just went below. his roles are: loading, operating the comms and the 60mm mortar.

about the decline problem.
it has exactly the same angles as the previous types.
that the problem with most tanks. the merkava has it more since its front is very bulky. (the engine unit) but thats the way with all the tanks.
dont worry, the angle is average.

[Mr. Pumps]

http://www.voodoo.cz/merkava/images/mk3/mk3_5.jpg

I guess it would be easier for a rear engined Tank to be easily to depress the main gun down while at such a upward incline, but then what is safety. I doubt in the any Middle East fighting Tanks would fire in a inclined position anyways.

Does anyone know what Tank was in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, it looked like a British WW1 male tank with side sponser cannons and a out of place 2 pounder turrent on top, I have never seen such a vehicle in any war.

[Tan]

Originally posted by Jay



If I might respectfully joiin your conversation, I as an ex-marine, and having been in Israel during conflict, can say there are good points to your debate. Taking the tank out with a spike is great,albeit expensive, the easiest way is to cripple the tread, and heat up the tank with napalm(flame thrower until the fuel tank ruptures and flames up. It'll serve the purpose at about 1/100 th of the cost of a Spike. Given that, the good ol'tank trap works just as fine as it did since tank immemorial. That will serve to accomplish two things, get rid of the tank, and, get rid of the idiots in them as well. :)

A single Spike missile cost abt US$60 000. Much more expensive than Milan 2 (I operate Milan b4 Spike). But Spike is a much more sophisticated system compare with Milan. What more is that with it 4 km range, it can engage tanks at a safe distance from the tanks guns.
It will of couse be much cheaper to use LAW and other shorter range weapon but this place the soldier under great risk as tanks dun operate alone.

[Mr. Pumps]

What is scary is that a RPG-7 fired in salvos can disable even the most elaborately protected Vehicle.

The Russian T-90 took in 5 to 10 RPG-7/14 hits and got disabled, even when fitted with the Drozd-1 APS and Kontackt-5 ERA.

Instead of trying to detect a projectile and destroy it in flight, how about detect the person or people launching the protectile before a launched. A kind of motion tracker. Ever see Aliens before, that kind of device onboard.

[Jay]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
What is scary is that a RPG-7 fired in salvos can disable even the most elaborately protected Vehicle.

The Russian T-90 took in 5 to 10 RPG-7/14 hits and got disabled, even when fitted with the Drozd-1 APS and Kontackt-5 ERA.

Instead of trying to detect a projectile and destroy it in flight, how about detect the person or people launching the protectile before a launched. A kind of motion tracker. Ever see Aliens before, that kind of device onboard.

Good idea, real good idea.

[I am David]

Did you know Britian is currently conducting field testing for a new anti-tank missile system, with the contestents being Israel's Spike system and U.S's Javalin system? I wonder who will win, I hope Israel will.

The field trials will end around the end of this year and the new system will take effect in 2005.

Spike info (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/gill/)

Javalin info (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/)

[elke]

Originally posted by I am David
Did you know Britian is currently conducting field testing for a new anti-tank missile system, with the contestents being Israel's Spike system and U.S's Javalin system? I wonder who will win, I hope Israel will.

The field trials will end around the end of this year and the new system will take effect in 2005.

Spike info (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/gill/)

Javalin info (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/)

IMO, Israel should think twice before selling it to them. Or, better yet, sell it to them on condition that Great Britain will stop that idiotic embargo nonsense for good! Enough already! :rolleyes:

[I am David]

But it's good for bussiness, and some say other European countries will buy Spike if Britain does.

PRAY that Britain will choose spike.

[elke]

Originally posted by I am David
But it's good for bussiness, and some say other European countries will buy Spike if Britain does.

PRAY that Britain will choose spike.

I know! :( It's just that the Brits act so stupid sometimes!

[I am David]

Definitly they do, like when they held back the ammunition for the Israeli gun sport team (did they ever deliver it?), and many others, and their overall criticism and bais towards Israel as well as possible and very likely anti-semitism.

How ever, I find it quit humurous that Great Britian, a wealthy country both larger in terms of population and size with a long and more developed history than Israel, and without the many problems today that Israel has today, is testing equipment produced in Israel that should technically, given it's history, not have nearly the technicall capabilities that Britian has.

Britian HAS to IMPORT technology from ISRAEL, lol, I find that funny!

[Mr. Pumps]

What is even more impressive is that the Chinese are innovating, the Red laser APS system, is impressive to me.

But China still uses the circular cassette carousel type autoloader like the original T-72, on their best tanks. Why make a vehicle that statistically is impressive, but then have the same vulnerability that Russian Tanks had in Chechnya. I don't get it.

Individual Tanks today need a edge to impress and inspire awe, new abilities and ideas to enchance and evolve it. The secret to a new ability is to take what exists and think in your mind if and how it could be applied to another different thing.

I look at Artifical intelligence and CPUs,
and mother nature to form what the Tanks this century will evolve in abilities.

The "smart" Tank, a product of the 21 century.

[Mr. Pumps]

How about Immediate Surroundings Hostile, Detection and Awareness and Alert system(ISHDAAS). A system that reinforced the Tactical Command and Control System(TCCS) system by detecting a single individual or small hostile groups in very close proxity to the vehicle that just pop up by surprise or in a ambush position, something missed by the TCCS and "digital" battlefield.

What a Idea! shheeesh!. I have seen many IFV's and Tanks taken by surprise in face to face close encounters, and the crew having no idea a attack was coming so quick and close, a deer in headlights. That NEEDS to change

[kakarizz]

Originally posted by I am David
Definitly they do, like when they held back the ammunition for the Israeli gun sport team (did they ever deliver it?), and many others, and their overall criticism and bais towards Israel as well as possible and very likely anti-semitism.

How ever, I find it quit humurous that Great Britian, a wealthy country both larger in terms of population and size with a long and more developed history than Israel, and without the many problems today that Israel has today, is testing equipment produced in Israel that should technically, given it's history, not have nearly the technicall capabilities that Britian has.

Britian HAS to IMPORT technology from ISRAEL, lol, I find that funny!

which land of the hebrews are you from? Israel a country surrounded by foes, and still goes about its business,
located in a dry region yet feeds its people, strong army!, mossad! what did you expect a chickened out country with little technology and cabbages? :confused:

[Mr. Pumps]

I am thinking of a tank with unsurpassed detection of threats both right in close and far away threats, way beyond the thermal imager, panoramic sight, night sight stuff. But other detection abilities based on other ideas.

[Mr. Pumps]

I got a vague notion of what such a system might look like in practice. Not a map as in a BMS or TCCS system.

But the Tank represented by a icon in the middle of a high definition display and the space around the Icon the territory immediately around the vehicle, taking into account all structures and terrain right next to the proximity to the vehicle and a full desricription of the objects with automatic tracking of threats of close in possible threats.

A new system for targets not KMs away but a few metres, small mobile hostile parties in wait, the MOST dangerous opponents by far.

[Tan]

Originally posted by I am David
Did you know Britian is currently conducting field testing for a new anti-tank missile system, with the contestents being Israel's Spike system and U.S's Javalin system? I wonder who will win, I hope Israel will.

The field trials will end around the end of this year and the new system will take effect in 2005.

Spike info (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/gill/)

Javalin info (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/)

Hi

I am the first few soldiers outside Israel to use Spike. I never use Javelin b4 so I cannot tell which is better but I heard in that Spike have the edge over Javelin due to it scalability.

Spike is indeep an excellent weapon. It can even engage slow moving helicopters.

[elke]

Originally posted by kakarizz


which land of the hebrews are you from? Israel a country surrounded by foes, and still goes about its business,
located in a dry region yet feeds its people, strong army!, mossad! what did you expect a chickened out country with little technology and cabbages? :confused:

LOL, Kakarizz! :D Welcome to the Forum! :)

[5-alef]

A new system for targets not KMs away but a few metres, small mobile hostile parties in wait, the MOST dangerous opponents by far.

its been already invented. its called infantry! :D

[I am David]

which land of the hebrews are you from? Israel a country surrounded by foes, and still goes about its business, located in a dry region yet feeds its people, strong army!, mossad! what did you expect a chickened out country with little technology and cabbages?

I don't know what your point is kakarizz, but just know that just because a country has a dier(spll?) need for high tech stuff to defend itself doesn't mean in the slightest that they will be able to achieve it, especially when the reason they need it in the first place may be a primary reason why they cant' achieve it, as it hinders their progress.

In Israel's case, her history is so short and full of wars and expending money just to defend itself with ready made technology, that one wonders how all this stuff was made in so little time with so little people and money (the US money was barely enough to offset the advantage the Arabs had and for the massive immagrants). It is a miracle atributed to the skill, intelligence, awareness and determination of the Jewish people.

[Mr. Pumps]

Originally posted by 5-alef


its been already invented. its called infantry! :D

Oh that's funny, The problem is in a convoy the infantry is on a IFV. And on those occasions infantry does not stand a chance.

I won't go into the huge amounts of armored vehicles that have been disabled by some fool standing alone on a ledge with a RPG or some groups picking off vehicles individually, it is sickening to watch it in reality. In all of these attacks the crew and onboard infantry don't have a clue.

[Mr. Pumps]

Two things I hate in war is "Lightning attack" and "Melting away".

I highly doubt these "Digital onboard battlefield maps" would help in such quick and deadly encounters. No, people have to find a way to detect the progression of a rebel "split second" attack and ambush on a vulnerable mobile target. A system like that would be a asset in battle and a edge.

[5-alef]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps


Oh that's funny, The problem is in a convoy the infantry is on a IFV. And on those occasions infantry does not stand a chance.

I won't go into the huge amounts of armored vehicles that have been disabled by some fool standing alone on a ledge with a RPG or some groups picking off vehicles individually, it is sickening to watch it in reality. In all of these attacks the crew and onboard infantry don't have a clue.

well, spoken like a true tanker.
in an area where you're confronted with AT-infantry, you dont go in mounted! you send the Infantry ahead, covered by tanks from longer distance.
lots of mortars, lots of artillary, thats the play ground.
AFV/IFV/APC's are all nice names for armoured buses.
only Infantry can kill Infantry, and the cost of advancing without Infantry had been shown time and time again.

does JOINT says something to you mate?
thats how war is fought these days. combined arms.

[Mr. Pumps]

I speak of a Tank with elaborate anti-ambush detection and awareness defenses ,and I don't mean more heavy armor too. surprise! a new idea. No Tank in the world is suited for low intensity partisan war, because none have such a ability and get caught over and over. Nations foolishly use tanks as patrol vehicles, but a Tank is depended on first detection at a distance through sights and thermal imaging, so a instantaneous unexpected surprise attack beside the Tank means the tank is in its death zone, and cannot do anything.

[Mr. Pumps]

Until I see the term "anti-ambush capability" in the list of gadgets/abilities that is in a Tank/IFV/APC/OAFV. I won't be happy.

[5-alef]

then you wont be ever.
cause there is no such thing.

[Mr. Pumps]

Not now yeah! but like I said before new ideas and technologies are being applied all the time.

Such thing would be revolutionary and a KEY asset for such endless encounters, ingnored by corporations in weapon development would be history.

It has to be realized the targets are not only what the main gun in the turrent can be aimed at or air targets, or mass infantry, there is a Individual person or small groups that can do as much damage too.

[Mr. Pumps]

In weapons development corporations I don't see anything related to the countering of ambushes, but in conflict that is how soldiers are killed and equipment destroyed or captures countless times. Many modern designs and equipment have been embarressed by out of the blue attacks.

Such a counter capability is a holy grail agianst partisan war.

[Mediocrates]

I don't work with military systems specifically but among my other duties is to harden systems, make them stupid proof and create maintainable, resilient, durable envrionments that tough and partial-failure-graceful.

These recommendations are starting to sound awfully complex and fragile. What is survivability in a partial or complete subsystem failure or intermittent failure or dynamic miscalibration or restart/reboot. It sounds like some of what you're talking about involves aerial/satellite command, communications, control and uplink which by themselves are defeated by local jamming, EMP and whatnot.

[5-alef]

i really cant see you able to locate pair of AT-13 operators at 3000 meters. sorry, thats day dreaming.
Infantry can fool many many things you'll do.
hell, i can order a launch of an AT-missile from over 500 meters!
using a cammo net, i can crawl up undetected by IR sensors. etc. etc.
bushes, houses, boulders, dunes, trees are all the heaven of the Infantry.

[Jay]

Originally posted by I am David
Did you know Britian is currently conducting field testing for a new anti-tank missile system, with the contestents being Israel's Spike system and U.S's Javalin system? I wonder who will win, I hope Israel will.

The field trials will end around the end of this year and the new system will take effect in 2005.

Spike info (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/gill/)

Javalin info (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/)

It should be Israel, since they have the most experience in remanufacturing tanks captured in previous wars. This gives them the advantage to study different manufacturing processes for tanks and to come up with the right balanced missile/APA for defensible purposes. Remember, the best defense is agood offense!!!

[Mr. Pumps]

Well what is the alternative, getting rid of the Tank and replacing it with a lighter force on wheeled and tracked vehicle.

Lighter is infinitely more dangerous, because of the weak machinegun and Shell splinter armor.

Heavy protected APCs are the future, as are Tanks. More and more Technology put into them.

There is no way in a billion years that a Tank can destroy multiple
projectiles fired from different directions using APS.

Yes there is infared, night vision....but there are other detection methods out there far more complex used by other things.

[Tan]

Originally posted by 5-alef
i really cant see you able to locate pair of AT-13 operators at 3000 meters. sorry, thats day dreaming.
Infantry can fool many many things you'll do.
hell, i can order a launch of an AT-missile from over 500 meters!
using a cammo net, i can crawl up undetected by IR sensors. etc. etc.
bushes, houses, boulders, dunes, trees are all the heaven of the Infantry.

Tanks dun operate alone. U can be easily detected even at 3000m. ATGM are relatively slow in speed,less than 300m/s. At 3000m it would need more than10 secs to reach the target. And i still have not factor in the reloading time. Moreover, ATGM create quite a big backblast area which can be easily spoted even from long range.
During the interval where the first missile hit the first tank and the time when the operator is ready to engage the second one, tank crew can easily counter attack back.

[5-alef]

Originally posted by Tan


"Tanks dun operate alone.U can be easily detected even at 3000m. ATGM are relatively slow in speed,less than 300m/s. At 3000m it would need more than10 secs to reach the target. And i still have not factor in the reloading time. Moreover, ATGM create quite a big backblast area which can be easily spoted even from long range."

you cant shoot at me if you dont see me. shooting from behind a bush will eliminate the back-flash. a very messy battlefield will do even better.
using classic AT tactics of shooting from the FLANK while you engage targets on front will ensure you'll be distracted.
and speaking of the spike. i can shoot it and immidietlly get behind cover. Fire-and-Forget, you know. so, you wont have even the chance of hitting me.

but as i said before. combined arms IS the answer. using both Infantry, sappers, armor, recon and artillery WILL BE answer.

"During the interval where the first missile hit the first tank and the time when the operator is ready to engage the second one, tank crew can easily counter attack back."
as i said, more and more fire and forget missiles enter service.
i can shoot, hop on the jeep behind the hill, drive on for 2 klicks and shoot again

problem is you'll see it as a dual. and it aint.
real battlefield is messy, noisy and "foggy". you think tank crews will have time to look for AT-teams while they are engaged with tanks?


.U can be easily detected even at 3000m
i invite to come to a training session i'll have and try to find me in a 20*20 meter square ok? then we will talk 3000m.

mr. pumps:
Well what is the alternative, getting rid of the Tank and replacing it with a lighter force on wheeled and tracked vehicle.

did i say that? i said COMBINED ARMS!
which means tanks, APC's light infantry, air-assault, paratropers, mobile infantry etc.
can tanks operate in mountains? hardly. infantry will do better.
can infantry operate in open desert? hardly, tanks will be much of a help.
it all sums into COMBINED ARMS!

[Mr. Pumps]

Originally posted by 5-alef
did i say that? i said COMBINED ARMS!
which means tanks, APC's light infantry, air-assault, paratropers, mobile infantry etc.
can tanks operate in mountains? hardly. infantry will do better.
can infantry operate in open desert? hardly, tanks will be much of a help.
it all sums into COMBINED ARMS!

Well lets see the achilles heel of a Tank or any AFV is, both urban combat (MOUT) and rural rebel terrain and certain types of terrain i.e mountians. And not any Joint arms can help in these situations. Infact I heard systems like helicopters brought to escort a convoy has made a situation even worst.

Sure sticking more and more armor and useless Shtora 1 and Arena **** on the turrent does something, but it does'nt solve the weakness of the vehicles, the attackers could'nt give a damn wether there is more plating or if there is a a APS system easily defeated by multiple direction ATGW salvos.

If you are going to make a APS system how about detection based on noise level and pin point of sound direction, instead of a pair of laser sensors to detect laser beam riders. The RPG-7/14/29 are not Beam riders and are still potent.

I bet all ATGW missles when fired make a noise and continue to make a noise as the rocket propels the warhead to the target. It would be impossible to muzzle the sound such a high velocity.

Detection by noise, basically giving a tank the ability to hear. incoming objects, how is that jammed.

[Mr. Pumps]

Oh and sound waves are not limited by buildings, terrain....etc....is it really possible to block sound waves.

Can I block your hearing, can you block my hearing ......not damn likely.

[5-alef]

Well lets see the achilles heel of a Tank or any AFV is, both urban combat (MOUT) and rural rebel terrain and certain types of terrain i.e mountians. And not any Joint arms can help in these situations. Infact I heard systems like helicopters brought to escort a convoy has made a situation even worst

transiting armor through these areas is sometimes neccesary. you wont do it then? would you say that the Ardens manuever in WWII was wrong?
the fact is thatin situations like you describe an Intelligent use of all branches is the solution.
Infantry alone cant solve MOUT. a tank can be an excellent fire base. and in turn it'll have to secure the tank from AT teams.


If you are going to make a APS system how about detection based on noise level and pin point of sound direction, instead of a pair of laser sensors to detect laser beam riders. The RPG-7/14/29 are not Beam riders and are still potent.

tell me what is louder, a 155 mm shell that explodes near-by, an AT missile from short range, an ATGM from 4KM, or you shooting the main gun?

here im am, quoting myself:
problem is you'll see it as a dual. and it aint.

have you ever been to a live fire EX.?
130 armoured vehicles along 10-20 155mm guns, and couple of hundreds Infantry guys, all shooting, shouting and doing all kinds of ****. what do you think when an enemy force that size is doin the same? do you really think that ANY kind of detection will work?


Can I block your hearing, can you block my hearing ......not damn likely.
simple i'll generate a MUCH louder noise.hell your tank probably will do it on his own.

[Mr. Pumps]

But they all have their own sound signature don't they in frequency and decipals of loudness.

So a 155mm shell and RPG and a 4km ATGW are very different and distinct as is the sound of the Tank itself.

Sound is good because everything has a unique sound to it and multi directional detection is possible. Out of a 130 vehicles you could pick out one for of its unique sound pattern.

Even with a loud noise or a friggin rock concert I still hear what is going on. Hearing is not that easily to go against.

[5-alef]

So a 155mm shell and RPG and a 4km ATGW are very different and distinct as is the sound of the Tank itself.

so? you know how different it is between a shell that hits between a 45 angle and 60? a shell that hits rocks and a shell that hits sand?
there are so many factors that get into sound that its impossible to say: "thats 155 and thats 105", or for that matter "thats M1A1 and that Type 95".


Sound is good because everything has a unique sound to it and multi directional detection is possible. Out of a 130 vehicles you could pick out one for of its unique sound pattern.

you know how hard it is to assign such a thing?
in the submarines they can classify subs. why? because they have to hear the propellor and the reactor. thats it.

a tank has it tracks, turrent, main gun, secondary gun, engine.
more over you'll have to record every single one in order to identify them. and do it BEFORE the battle.

last. all i need to do then is to record and deploy hundreds of cheap decoys while advancing. and there. i fooled ya.

take it as a rule of thumb: there is no electronic system that cant be defeated.

btw. if you think a rock concert is loud, then you really havent been to a battle or an EX.

[Mediocrates]

It's probably easier to pick out land vehicles by their magnetic signature. Sound is tough to isolate in an echoic environment like among rocks and buildings. IR is difficult because the resolution is not very fine given the frequency of the radiation. So probably high energy variable resolution MRI in a shaped beam might work.

Of course you could use an inside out PET scanner if you drive the energy level high enough. It might require an onboard cyclotron though :cool:

[Mr. Pumps]

Those Metis-M and Kornet-E ATGW gives me the chills, esp. since the latter can blow a hole in 1200mm ERA backed Armor at 5.5Km...BRRRRRRRRRR!.

Well it has a weakness that it is a laser beam rider.So a laser warining reciever is a benefit. The other is SACLOS so it would be useless.

So does the RPG-29.........650mm armor plate......... BRRRRRRRRRRR.

I really hope there is counters for these weapons, because Syria buying 1000 Kornets is a serious thing.

[Tan]

Originally posted by 5-alef
[B]

problem is you'll see it as a dual. and it aint.
real battlefield is messy, noisy and "foggy". you think tank crews will have time to look for AT-teams while they are engaged with tanks?


i invite to come to a training session i'll have and try to find me in a 20*20 meter square ok? then we will talk 3000m.



It will again depend on the battle field situation. Also terrain plays an important role. In an open terrain like Israel, it will be easy to be spotted and in a close terrain in Malaysia, it will be easier to hide.

As individual it will be hard to spot a person from that distance from a unaided eye. But tanks have telescope to aid them and bear in mind that the smoke and dust create by the ATGM backblast will potentially expose ur position.

[Mr. Pumps]

New APS systems have to be made.

No wonder the IDF did'nt show a APS system for the MK4 for there is none that has proven successful at the moment and agianst Misslies coming in from all directions, such systems such as Shtora I, Arena sound better on paper, then in reality.

There is a need for a all-round protection and the capability to track and destroy multiple launched and salvo fired ATGW and RPG fire. And the ability to destroy RPG fire.

A true APS system has the ability to stop a hectic amount of Missile fire and salvo after salvo of fire. Without that it is useless.

[Mr. Pumps]

About sound, I bet with enough insulation a Tank would be quite quiet and modern Tanks such as the M1A2 (silent death) are already very quiet.

And it really does'nt matter by sound if you can't pick out type of missile, but most importantly you can tell the distance, all the directions, and number of the incoming projectiles.....and that is what is VERY important....knowing that missile and RPGS are coming in and being fired in salvoes, not what type are they.

Some animals have remarkible hearing used to detect preythat could raise the ability of war machines to know where the enemy is.

I doubt there is artillery shells if hundred of guerillas ambush in a city or attack a vehicle out along country roads. Sounds of of MGs, RPGs, ATGWs only are a given..

[Mr. Pumps]

There is a huge difference between multiple corporations working on a project and a individual messing around with a CAD program.

But remember one thing it is the Garage Dwellers that have the flexibility and imagination to come up with unexpected gold material. Corporations have so many limitations based on fixed schedules and ideas and profit margin.

So little me who fumbles around a CAD program designing interesting things as a side amusement is just as potent as some companies with thousands of faceless, thoughtless employees.

[Mediocrates]

I sure wouldn't want to rely on the probability of 5-9's deviation of your typical garager application development lifecycle. Embedded systems are VASTLY tested and verified and tested again...


BTW, Owls have 3 dimensional hearing.

[Mr. Pumps]

O.k Mediocrates show me a EOCMDAS APS system that has been vastly tested and can shoot down over and over agian multiple fired ATGWs and RPGs rounds from far away to right near the vehicle and in possibly multiple salvos.......... did'nt think so!.

If I invent such a APS system I would be a millionaire. Wow!. I might be able to because I have my father's designing ability and fancy being a inventor.

[Mr. Pumps]

Look at this thing!


http://www.tiscali.co.uk/technology/reviews/oqo.html

What incredible power in a tiny device. Hmmmm......

How come not one Tank has a very small, modular, ultra powerful, ultra modern FCS.

Based on the size of that contraption, a object the size of a Tank can have innumerable very capable processors resulting in unimginable operations per second. Not to mention neural processors as a future FCS possibility.

With devices like the OQO CPU imagine the amount of processors and power that can be attained.

First generation MBTs have primative FCSs based on stereoscopic rangefinding, but this generation should be in another world.

Sure take Tanks like the Leclerc designed and built when Pentium 166 CPUs(early 1990's) were the most capable, but today there is 2.4GHZ Pentium 4 computers avaliable.

Imagine a Tank's FCS being a insanely powered CPUs that can be changed over time....wow.

Biological like atonomous sight, hearing, self-understanding + Main Battle Tanks = What I am guessing is the future, essentially a merging of A.I robot technologies and war machine.

[Mr. Pumps]

Cute........

http://www.keymags.co.uk/dcforum/User_files/3d7f9e96743f6296.jpg

Hmmm... how effective would this be on a battlefield.

[Mediocrates]

I wonder how you feel about the change in US doctrine since Desert Storm that increases the role of helicopters from support to active front line tank killer as well as forward ops? The integrated force of heli gunships coupled with A-10s in a leapfrog strategy appears to be the new modality for antitank warfare.

[Mr. Pumps]

I think helicopters have proven good only if backed up by Tanks and infantry.

But helcopters are not invulnerable, take the five out of seven Apaches that got damaged in Afghanistan, and the Anti-helicopter ability of modern missile firing Tanks and I don't think a 18 million dollar Helcopter is worth as much a Tank.

Infact, I firmly believe a well-trained crew of a Tank can perform even better than a Helicopter crew anyday. And you can adjust Tanks with better protection and firepower, can you add more armor to a helicopter with it being functional......No! and it is vulnerable to small arms and portable SAMs like Stinger and SA-7.

Tanks will survive but they need more anti-infantry capablility and adjustments to face rural and urban threats.

[Mr. Pumps]

Well, mediocrates what is your view of the radical T-95, since your a man of technology do you think a Tank with a uninhabited Turrent and the crew being all in the hull is a good idea?

[Mediocrates]

Can't say don't know tank ops. It would seem to be better under some situations but perhaps much worse for urban warfare. I'm guessing the intent is to encase the crew in a heavily armed central pod, but what happens if the turret is breached from overhead?

[Mr. Pumps]

I can't believe the Russians have thought up such a stupid idea.

Where would a escape route be located if surrounded by enemies? over the top of the turrent only or maybe doors on both sides of the hull or a floor ecape route.

Keeping the crew in the hull they would'nt have a idea what threats are near the vehicle, what is to protect the vehicle from hostile infantry lacking any roof MGs to defend itself with. If such a idea has any hope some roof mounted remote controlled Anti-infantry weapon would have to be installed or else I could see such a vehicle being overwhelmed.

[Mr. Pumps]

www.armchair-strategist.freeservers.com/concept_tank1.html

QUOTE]This concept MBT places the crew in the rear of the hull [/QUOTE]

Putting the crew in the aft section of the hull so they face rearward of the vehicle, it would be incredible awkward! that idea is insane.


Another innovation is that a 25mm anti-aircraft cannon is mounted on the rear of the turret.

Well other than the main gun what is it's anti-infantry and CIWS ability to defend agianst face to face threats.

[gregg]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
Voice command identifying technology in Tanks.....a rather novel and interesting idea.

Things the Tank's Artifical intelligence computers would understand:

"Back"

"Eject smoke grenades"

"Turn on the engine"

"Turn on front Lights"

"Move turrent in such and such Degree vertically and horizontally"

"Give me such and such a Shell type"

"Track so and so Target"

...... and so on!.

I think its better just to have buttons to do that, becuase noice levels in tanks are high and in the middle of battle if the tank starts to say I am sorry can you repeat it, the tank operator will be very upset

[Mr. Pumps]

Originally posted by gregg


I think its better just to have buttons to do that, becuase noice levels in tanks are high and in the middle of battle if the tank starts to say I am sorry can you repeat it, the tank operator will be very upset

:) I am guessing the future of these machines is A.I intelligence, a "self healing" FCS computer, a weblike network between military units, near biological detection abilities, less crew more automation, new virtually silent powerplants or the dropping of fossil fuels all together in favor of something else so speech recognition tech should not be ruled out.