Will we ever see the return of turretless tanks?
>>64996199No, if you really have an entrenched and armored target dug in like that its just easier to call in a airstrike or gunship.
>>64996199Idk what a casemated tank would be good for these days. Even the strv103 was not significantly shorter than, say, T series tanks
>>64996199No. MBTs have essentially filled that role for themselves. Basically any modern tank can pen another modern tank. If anything we might see the Rhinemetall 140mm catch on if there's a new breakthrough in armor.
>>64996199S tank is unironically goodBUTas with all engineering questions, the response is as expected "it depends". The S-Tank is a great choice for what it's designed for, but trying to force it into another role would be detrimental.That said, I can see a Macross Missile Tank being a thing in the future.>Tank chassis with an onboard magazine of short, (for a missile), range missiles such as Javelins or another already in production g2g/limited g2asystem>Basically uses tank mobility to deliver extremely short travel time missiles where they're needed regardless of line of sightI would still put a small caliber turret, (small for a tank ie; 50 bmg, maybe a bit bigger for explosive payload anti drone/anti infantry rounds), on it for self defense though, not all targets need an expensive ass guided missile.
>>64996247I agree on the arsenal tank but why .50cal? I always say anything worth shooting with a fifty is worth shooting with a twenty.
>>64996199I'd never say never, but giving up a turret is quite a tactical handicap on the ground and the tank destroyer as a concept got replaced by a whole rock, paper, scissors solution to enemy armour. Essentially its easier to fight something like a tank from another platform that isn't a tank.Guided munitions, air, artillery, drones, landmines, infantry anti-armour if you're feeling keenArmour still has a place for that fast, direct, heavy fire support and can in the right circumstances break through enemy lines with the option to create utter chaos for a while with other supporting units.
>>64996266Loads more ammo, easy logistics, smaller gun=smaller lighter turret, ideally it shouldn't need to be used much anyway, etcI'm not an engineer so I can't pretend to know which would be better overall, but if you assume the missile tonk has radar networking then an autocannon with airburst for anti drone duty seems prudent. I know you COULD make airburst .50 BMG, but it doesn't seem like it would carry enough payload to be worth it.
>>64996199Gee Wilhelm, how come your mom lets you have two main guns?
>>64996199We might considering all those cope sheds we have seen in Ukraine
>>64996199No, especially not as tank destroyers, since a few dudes in a 4x4 / MRAP/ dune buggy with a TOW launcher strapped on top or a few Javelins in the truck are gonna be more mobile, more concealable and more cost effective.In the other role where they traditionally shined, as assault guns, they're equally in an awkward spot. Modern MBTs carry 120 mm guns, that's likely enough to deal with any fortification you come across, artillery and air support is also way more accurate and reliable than they used to be. There's no point to bringing a large assault gun whose sole purpose is to knock out fortifications when a tank will do just fine, and for something smaller (I.E. Booker) you'd probably want the turret for the flexibility it offers anyways.Protection-wise situational awareness is gonna trump armor. Casemating the tank only improves the innermost layer of the survivability onion.In terms of novel applications like the arsenal tanks and the like, if they're firing NLOS missiles there's not a whole lot of sense slapping armor meant for BVR combat.
>>64997138Even something like an assault gun is pretty much up there with battering rams for being an anachronism, there's self propelled heavy mortars, artillery and rocket systems that do all that job without being exposed to direct fire.
>>64996199tanks themselves are obsolete so no
>>64996218A turretless tank can be more heavily armored all over. Which might be important in fighting FPV drone equipped enemies. I know the drones can just carry heavier warheads, but that would force them to deploy larger drones which are both easier to see and target and more expensive to make.I wonder if we're entering the age of super heavy vehicles.
>>64996199nigga turretless tanks and tank destroyers are not the same thing,
>>64997155thirdie detected
>>64996199Possibly, but probably not. If guns get big enough or with a strong enough recoil that building turrets for them becomes prohibitive then maybe, but considering the flexibility you'd lose you'd need to REALLY want that gun. They're a lot like half tracks, they were useful in a very specific context and we probably won't see them again.
>>64997155"Tanks are obsolete" is as old as tanks themselves
>>64997488>nigga turretless tanks and tank destroyers are not the same thing,Yeah. Nowadays, pretty much anything big enough to mount an anti-tank missile can be a tank destroyer. Most IFV's can do the job as a side gig.
>>64996199>aim left gun >shoot right one comedy gold
>>64996199he reminds me of a slug or a nude snail, they should make them with big shells on top that they can retract into for more armor
Not really, the single reason is the industrial capacity needes for turret manufacturing and that isn't a bottle neck at all to any Western country.
>>64996247but if it doesn't need line of sight then why does it need tank armor?
>>64996199The main reason you saw so many TDs in WWII was because they were cheaper and quicker to get out the door. Maybe if we have a conflict that is chewing through armor we'll see a return but untill then I don't think we'll see them in any serious use or numbers
>>64996247Strv 103 was an ambush predator.Check the slope on that front armour.
>>64998230>The main reason you saw so many TDs in WWII was because they were cheaper and quicker to get out the door.Partially. Another big reason is that so many nations in the 30's were invested in 10-15 ton light tanks whose armor was only thick enough to stop rifle bullets and whose cannon was only big enough to penetrate armor made to stop rifle bullets. When war broke out you started to see more 25+ ton tanks with heavy armor and much bigger guns. Everyone had a whole bunch of factories tooled up to make these outdated light tanks that just couldn't cut it. They had a choice between delaying production to rebuild these factories to make vehicles 10-20 tons heavier or ditch the turret and mount a big fuck off gun that could actually kill the enemy now. Pretty much every major power took this option to some degree or another.The difference between WW2 and now is that we more or less reached the practical growth ceiling of tanks at about 70 tons. We don't need to mount a bigger gun anymore and as said >>64997886 here, pretty much any vehicle can be a tank killer. Personally I think the new wartime option for cheap tanks won't be Main Battle Tanks with the turret removed and a 140mm gun shoved in. Instead it will be our 30 ton IFV's with the auto cannon and troop bay replaced with a 105mm gun / ammo, anti-tank missile launchers on the turret side and some form of mini unmanned anti-drone turret on the top. Like picrel but less try hard futuristic.
Long range ATGM carriers are way better. You can get a cheap drone to spot a tank and they can take it out from way behind cover.
>>64997155SAAAR, THE DRONE IT IS OF UNSTOPPABLE
>>64997648Do you have a smaller picture, I was almost able to read that one.
>>64997138I don't see what turrets have to do with situational awareness. You can put a camera or copula just fine on the hull, and the gunner's optics aren't for situational awareness but for aiming.
>>64998446I always had the mental fantasy of the Soviets invading with an attempted decapitation strike on Stockholm with some naval/paratrooper fuckery from Estonia/the Baltics. Basically knowing the Swedish plan but trying to brute force it enough to get Stockholm to politically capitulate and the Bofors area. But anyways some large column of Soviet armor and mechanized infantry on some road moving north, hilly woods around them. And packs of S tanks hull down on slopes hidden in treelines opening up at range just sniping vehicles at will before withdrawing back into the woods. Like jagers/chasseurs/rifles in the Napoleonic wars. Since a lot of the Swedish doctrine was basically "idgaf if they decapitation strike us, you all have orders" and the pilots/planes were gonna be making Russia pay, I can absolutely see a bunch of independent wolfpacks of S tanks cut off from command but with hidden depots and stores in bunkers in the countryside doing hit and run ambush attacks really well. Only factor I can't really account for is that this was the era where helicopters didn't have as many ground-based mobile counters EG RPGs or Stingers or whatever, so a lot of Hinds as gunship support or trying to withstand a planned offensive would be hard.Still, you should look up the Bofors plant during the cold war. Since training was mandatory, their staff had basically their own reserve force as themselves, and all the various weapons at the plant were intended to be utilized as it was one of the most important heavy weapons industrial centers this side of Rheinmetall. That 120mm automatic AA gun being turned into a field gun a la the flak 88 or even configuring the fuses and shooting so low to get helicopters would be glorious.
>>64996199Probably not. The real advantage of it was that it was cheaper.
>>65002401>the real desperation of that was because they were cheapFIFY
