Taking into account the realities of modern war and the Ukraine experience: Could a Neo-Stug be a viable combat vehicle?Would there be any use or benefit to a modernized S-tank type deal?1. would it cheaper to produce?2. would it be any more survivable vs drones?3. does this type of vehicle have any tactical relevance anymore?Discuss
>>64506429>Could a Neo-Stug be a viable combat vehicle?no>Would there be any use or benefit to a modernized S-tank type deal?no>1. would it cheaper to produce?cheaper, but not more cost-effective because you have a restricted field of fire>2. would it be any more survivable vs drones?no>3. does this type of vehicle have any tactical relevance anymore?no>Discussno
>>64506429>Discussfaggot
>>64506429There's no novelty that would make stugs suddenly viable when they weren't viable before.In fact, future gun armed vehicles will probably have more flexible gun placement to deal with drones and perform indirect fire, not less flexible.
>>64506441the S tank design could be capable of indirect fire, has a lower profile than a tank could carry equivalent drone counter measures.
>>64506429Why does everyone have such a fantasy about the StuG?Does a turretless tank somehow defend well against drone top attacks?Instead, tell them to make a Metal Slug that can be piloted solo—having three or more crew members inside the tank is a waste.
>64506429 (no you)S tanks are cool but your brain is as smooth as they are.
>>64506447>the S tank design could be capable of indirect fireNot it couldn't, not enough vertical angle.And having a turret is necessary to quickly aim for drones with your main gun.>has a lower profile than a tankBarely matters when everyone has eyes in the air. And fights will likely be fought beyond direct visual range anyway.
>>64506447>the S tank design could be capable of indirect firthen just an SPG which is actually meant for indirect fire>has a lower profile than a tank could carry equivalent drone counter measures.lower profile is one of the least important aspects of survivability and theres no defense you couldnt mount on a turretless tank that you couldnt also put on a regular one
The lack of a turret and the small fighting compartment now reduce the crew's survivability in a top attack.The reduced frontal exposed surface area and the slope of the single layer of armor are no longer of much use.
>>64506449>Why does everyone have such a fantasy about the StuG?reformer logicthey always use the "its gonna be destroyed anyways, might as well expend it" logic as to why they should willingly downgrade their vehicles while also ignoring that vehicles create value before they are destroyed, and increasing that value is more important than reducing the potential value lost
>>64506456>top attackIf you think about it, top attack suggest that tanks should look rounder (or like half balls), rather than flatter. If every surface can be hit equally, the best ratio of surface to volume is in a ball.
>>64506472>the best ratio of surface to volume is in a ball.this has already been understood for ages that a sphere is, theoretically, the most efficient shape for ballistic protectionbut spheres have terrible internal space efficiency and are difficult to manufactureso tanks are generally designed more to approximate a sphere to the best that they can while still having acceptable ease of manufacture and internal spaceusually, they will use many-sided polygons rather than actual curved surfaces to achieve this, so pentagons and hexagons for turret shape instead of a boxthe classic round turret shape is a circle when viewed from the top and a square when viewed from the side, so a compromise between the mass efficiency of a sphere and the space efficiency of a boxthat being said, older tanks like the T-62 and M48 had hemispherical turrets that provided excellent mass-to-protection ratios due to advances in casting technology
why give a tank a 22LR main battle cannon?
>>64506429In a full scale war between US and China that doesn't somehow devolve into NBC?Yes.
>>64506570That ratio is nowhere near 5.5mm aperture. That's probably 12.7.
>>64506582your mom probably smoked crack while you were in the womb
>>64506472WE ARE SO FUCKING BACK.
>>64506594You think that is 5.5 mm, compared to 105mm?Ask me how I know you have never machined anything in your short and thus far fruitless life.Your mother regrets not agreeing to the anal her John propositioned her for when you were conceived.
>>64506449The S-Tank could technically be operated by just the commander who could both steer and fire the gun.
>>64506660Already assume a waste, but>>64506666
How much armor DOES it take to defend against modern (let's say current, not future) top attack? Google says Javalin gets 30 inches (760mm), which seems to be about what an Abrams front hull armor is. Hellfire is something like 1000mm? And I can't find on anything else
Give up on direct defense. You need armor plates to ensure a standoff of at least 5m and to deal with ATGM fuses that ignore thin plates.
>>64506429>Asks about assault guns/tank destroyers>Posts an MBTRetard.
