Vanilla Ice Q&A

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by HippoCrushEverything, Aug 13, 2017.

  1. No, my original point was that by failing to develop newer MBTs western countries had made it more difficult to deter Russia. The resources wasted on Iraq and building vehicles to fight insurgents rather than conventional military damaged military strength. If there was a western counterpart to the T-14 it probably wouldn't be viable to fight them with upgraded t-72 tanks designed 40 years ago. As it stands western MBTs are better per tank but not overwhelmingly so as tanks from different generations are.
  2. What's the deal with autonomous weapons? Elon Musk says it might arrive tomorrow, revolutionize warfare for the worse, and then it will be T-1000's roaming the earth.

    “Autonomous weapons select and engage targets without human intervention. They might include, for example, armed quadcopters that can search for and eliminate people meeting certain pre-defined criteria, but do not include cruise missiles or remotely piloted drones for which humans make all targeting decisions. Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has reached a point where the deployment of such systems is—practically if not legally—feasible within years, not decades, and the stakes are high: autonomous weapons have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms.”
  3. They have been around for quite a while.

    Several anti-ship-, anti-air- and cruise missiles are able to operate autonomously in the sense that in addition to being able to attack preset targets, they can loiter around a rather large target area, hunt for targets of opportunity, prioritise between targets, change flight path/altitude and take evasive action.

    Guided (sub) munitions from weapon systems that follow a ballistic trajectory also possess the capability to hunt for certain types of target and ignore others. They indeed "select and engage targets without human invervention". The M898 SADARM underwent first live-fire tests in 1989.

    The Bofors Strix round uses infrared imaging to home to a target. It can be fired to an area where the presence of hostile vehicles is unknown and hope that it finds something to kill. Besides cost issues, I'm not aware of a reason that would prevent reconfiguring the seeker head to home to an infrared signature of a medium-sized mammal instead. Usually it's faster and more cost-effective to saturate the area with unguided rounds; soft targets (people and sheep n such) don't require a direct hit from a 120mm HEAT warhead to make them less-than-combat effective. Armoured vehicles are a different breed.

    Besides obvious ethical concerns, there are a number of practical reasons why Hollywood-style bipedal killbots aren't being released on the battlefields. Building "quadcopters that can search and eliminate people meeting certain pre-defined criteria" is already feasible as far as the technology is concerned. But real-life military application of such a vehicle would be very complicated and potentially disastrous.

    All autonomous weapon systems that currently exist operate for a short period in a predetermined target area, and after their mission is a success/failure, they conveniently self-destruct. Even with this set of circumstances, and the target being a large ship or a plane, reliably transmitting a cryptologically secure IFF signal in a contested EM environment is not that simple. Reusable vehicles that could operate for extended periods would expose all sorts of vulnerabilities because they would require some input from their operators whenever the situation changed, or when the mission came to an end. Hijacked killbots operated by hostile forces would be quite embarrassing, and I could imagine several other scenarios where things could go badly wrong. Not to mention the trouble of equipping everything with IFF transponders.

    This being said, the mission envelope of autonomous weapon systems will definitely expand in the near future, and fully autonomous UAVs could very well become operational in 2020's.
    SuperSonic likes this.
  4. DoD has funded the cancelled MHV and CGV programs intended to replace the M1 Abrams, M2/M3 Bradley, M11XX Stryker/LAV- family and M113 Shitcan- family of vehicles during the 2000's.

    In addition to numerous interesting weapon systems and upgrades developed by Rheinmetall, BAE Systems, Nexter and KMW in recent years, they are working on a new AFV project called the MGCS intended to replace the Leopard 2 and Leclerc tanks in service.

    It's no secret that several tank designs around the world have reached parity or even surpassed the capabilities of contemporary NATO tanks. Despite this, NATO outmatches Russia in the number of modern MBTs in service and in reserve by quite a margin. Using the amount of MBTs as a measure of a nation's ability to wage war is misleading to say the least. Otherwise Algeria, Pakistan and Egypt would be fearsome adversaries.
  5. whats the most likely scenario for the next tank on tank combat

    arent we royally fucked if we ever actually see nato tanks vs chinese/russian/even NK tanks?
    HippoCrushEverything likes this.
  6. I'll get right back at you when I have time to type a proper post.

    Thx for the "tweet", I have no idea how to twat you back though.
  7. Found some amusing videos of swedish army testing T-80Us.

    HippoCrushEverything likes this.
  8. Key word: Air-mobile.
  9. ETB4U likes this.
  10. I thought the Abrams was awesome?

    Meh, still safer than the Harrier
  11. I'll type a lengthy reply divided into several sections. I also took some pictures in Munster to add some coherence to my ramblings.

    It's perfectly conceivable that NATO/allied forces could be overwhelmed and defeated in many parts of the world. But the outcome of an engagement wouldn't solely depend on tanks. Land warfare has been a combined arms effort for quite a while, and in operational art it's not necessary or wise to study the land, sea and air elements of a particular operation separately, unless some detail in one of the brances needs closer scrutiny.

    Looking at past conflicts, quality of armour hasn't really been the decisive element of any battle. In 1940, Germany totally outmanoeuvred and defeated the French and BEF armoured formations, despite having lighter and fewer tanks. A Panzer I or II was hardly a match for something like the SOMUA S35, let alone a Char B1. Lacking heavy anti-tank weapons, Rommel had to resort to his FlaK 18/36s to knock out the British Matilda IIs and French S35s.

    Pz I.jpg

    In 1941 this pattern was repeated, but the disparity between numbers was further amplified to the Germans' disadvantage. German tank and anti-tank crews wrote some very frustrated letters back home when they started facing these (not my pic, KV-1 preserved in Bovington UK):


    Despite the huge disadvantage in numbers (3,5k vs 20k) and a total lack of heavy tanks, the advancing Germans destroyed ~80% of all Soviet armour during the first months of fighting and fucked the country in the ass for 2 years.

    tenk stats.jpg
    Patton's 3rd Army is famous for advancing trough France and destroying German formations on the way. But along the way to Germany did lay some cats that proved to be ferocious:

    (Side note: The welding seams and general fit and finish on the German WW2 vehicles is just immaculate, save for the last production batches of the war. Better even than most mid-Cold War vehicles. Soviet T-34 turrets look like botched clay pots from some African village in comparison)
    Pz V.jpg

    In the Six-Day War Arab forces had the quantitative advantage, and qualitative parity with Israel. Both sides operated the M-48 Patton, for example. The Jews won.
    ScoRpFerrari and SEABEE like this.
  12. Let's get the easiest answer out of the way. Note: All military matters in the DPRK are surrounded by total secrecy so all I say is susceptible to error, but should be accurate enough to get the picture. Despite the Glorious Leader's invaluable guidance (he told them to build more missiles) to the strategic missile units of North Korea, and the subsequent advances in ballistic missile technology, I doubt that the country will field a Juche super MBT anytime soon.


    North Korean tanks vs South Korean/US/Japanese tanks? Technically speaking, there's a gap 2-3 generations wide between what DPRK/US would likely field in combat.

    They still operate these in active service:


    Their most ubiquitous tank in service is the Soviet T-54/55 and the Chinese copy Type 59, here in DDR guise. The one on the left is an early 80's upgrade to the obsolete vehicle, adding a laser rangefinder, an analogue ballistic computer, a better (still active) infrared searchlight/sensor system, some spaced armour and a capability to fire 9M117 anti-tank missiles from the main gun. Save for Soviet experiments with active protection systems/marine applications, the tank hasn't been upgraded since because it was at the end of its lifespan: "According to Zaloga, 'By the standards of the 1950s, the T-54 was an excellent tank combining lethal firepower, excellent armor protection and good reliability'".

    The ones in DPRK service most resemble the tank on the right:

    (Side note, this is the most widely produced tank in history with an estimated 100k+ units made)

    The most "modern" tank fielded by the DPRK in significant numbers is the T-62 and its copy Ch'onma Ho. The T-62 is like an upgraded T-55 with a 4-man layout, the main difference being the 115mm smoothbore cannon vs the 100mm rifled one. A smoothbore cannon enables higher chamber pressures and projectile velocities compared to rifled cannons (high velocity is essential in kinetic energy penetrators). Losses in accuracy are compensated for with the use of fin-stabilised projectiles. The Soviets pioneered smoothbore tank cannons with the T-62 and later high tech T-64, and the West followed suit. With the exception of British Challenger&/2, all modern MBTs have smoothbore main armament.

    A cross-section of a more modern Rheinmetall 120mm L44 smoothbore cannon loaded with a DM43 round:


    Rifled British 105mm L7 on an ex-Bundeswehr Leopard 1A4:

    L7 105mm.jpg

    T-62 (right):

    (Side note: Despite looking somewhat similar, the T-72 on the left is a whole different breed of vehicle)

    North Koreans have upgraded their Ch'onma Ho tanks with reactive armour modules (or look-alikes), and other trinkets. The tank is facing the same problem as the T-55; the platform is just too obsolete to remain effective on the modern battlefield, even with all the added upgrades.

    In any confontration against NATO/allied tanks, the North Korean MBTs would be blind and deaf by comparison. They would have obsolete ammunition loaded (the most recent 115mm smoothbore round developments are from the 80's), and would be poorly armoured compared to their Western counterparts.

    According to some sources, DPRK has imported a small number of T-72M1s (the one on the left). Suffice to say, Saddam had more.
    ScoRpFerrari likes this.
  13. by 'we'refucked' i didnt mean we wouldnt win a land war with tanks
    i meant we would be in such a huge all out conflict that the world would be on the verge of nuclear war

    the second the conflict changes from cyber and political and intel to kinetic, all living things will need to start worrying
  14. Oh ok

    Good that I won't have to type walls of autistic tank details then.
  15. Russia upgrading their T-80 tanks now much like they did with the T-72B3. Between these and the T-72B3 they will have a huge amount or reasonably good tanks, I think only America can field more modern tanks if needed, EU forces certainly won't have enough anymore.

  17. Love Hippos posts.

    HippoCrushEverything likes this.
  18. Here are some interesting observations about the conflict in Donbas. The whole paper is 50 pages, and tenk stuff starts @ page 22.
  19. SuperSonic likes this.

Share This Page