Turret Less tank

[India22]

Do members here think Turret less tanks are good? Continuing from other thread. @Krusty

http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-42039/comparisons_with_turreted_tanks.htm

"- It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move."

In 1975 two "S"-tanks were tested the american armor center at Fort Knox. One Swedish officer and two mechanichs from Bofors came along and trained seven crews in seven weeks. The tests were well planned and conducted in a positive atmosphere. The results showed that the Strv 103 was more accurate that the M60A1E3 but fired on an average 0,5 seconds slower. The report states that the Strv 103 was well suited both for offensive and defensive action. The Swedish method of training was well appreciated at Fort Knox and the "S" fullfilled the high expectations the americans had.

Plus, now tanks obviously need a bigger gun than 125mm, which cant be mounted on turrets. So a turret less tank with 200mm gun to disable enemy tanks by concussion is way.

 

[Krusty]

No current armor can withstand 91kg shell.
Oh Kay, so if you can't penetrate the current armor, your solution is to mount a bigger gun? What if a breakthrough is made in armor material and the next gen armor can withstand a hit from a 200. What then? Go for 300? 400?

When you say Chinese and Pakistani tanks can withstand 125mm hits, just out of curiosity, are you saying that the Abrams/challenger2/leapord2/Merkava won't be able to punch through Chinese/paki armor? They all have a120mm gun.

Coming to Asal Uttar, of course we had RCL. A tank should face that too you know. Even though the main purpose of a tank is killling another tank, no modern combat doctrine will allow MBTs to loiter around without infantry support. Or we wouldn't need a tank to kill it. Just this will do.

Even if we didn't have RCL, what can tanks that are immobile do? Especially ones without turning turrets? We were in a defensive position. How Long can tanks burn fuel while being bogged down in a firefight? The crews will eventually have to come out. An immobile tank with a big gun that is bogged down will eventually just be a cannon fodder. Be it by artillery or airstrike. Their crews have no way to escape.

 

[India22]

No current armor can withstand 91kg shell.
Oh Kay, so if you can't penetrate the current armor, your solution is to mount a bigger gun? What if a breakthrough is made in armor material and the next gen armor can withstand a hit from a 200. What then? Go for 300? 400?

What break through? If a 91 kh shell hits a tank, the blast concussion will damage the internal mechanisms of tank. It is different from penetration.

When you say Chinese and Pakistani tanks can withstand 125mm hits, just out of curiosity, are you saying that the Abrams/challenger2/leapord2/Merkava won't be able to punch through Chinese/paki armor? They all have a120mm gun.

Yes and vice versa, Chinese and Pakistanis are on same level of tank development.

Coming to Asal Uttar, of course we had RCL. A tank should face that too you know. Even though the main purpose of a tank is killling another tank, no modern combat doctrine will allow MBTs to loiter around without infantry support. Or we wouldn't need a tank to kill it. Just this will do.

I dont say either. Keep tanks supported.

Even if we didn't have RCL, what can tanks that are immobile do? Especially ones without turning turrets? We were in a defensive position. How Long can tanks burn fuel while being bogged down in a firefight? The crews will eventually have to come out. An immobile tank with a big gun that is bogged down will eventually just be a cannon fodder. Be it by artillery or airstrike. Their crews have no way to escape.

That tank was abandoned. Who said that the tank would be immobile, go through the link I gave.

In Asal Uttar, the terrain was flooded, it became muddy. So Pakistani tanks got stuck.

You see here Chinese tank Modern MBTs cant defeat each other with single shot, as they used to do. That's why I said mount a 200mm gun, and since 200mm gun cant be mounted turret, so a turret less tank.

 

[Krusty]

What break through? If a 91 kh shell hits a tank, the blast concussion will damage the internal mechanisms of tank. It is different from penetration.



Yes and vice versa, Chinese and Pakistanis are on same level of tank development.



I dont say either. Keep tanks supported.



That tank was abandoned. Who said that the tank would be immobile, go through the link I gave.

In Asal Uttar, the terrain was flooded, it became muddy. So Pakistani tanks got stuck.

You see here Chinese tank Modern MBTs cant defeat each other with single shot, as they used to do. That's why I said mount a 200mm gun, and since 200mm gun cant be mounted turret, so a turret less tank.

Wow, the confidence with which you claim. How could you possibly know if or not merkava or challenger or Abrams could penetrate Chinese or Pakistani armor. Have you given a thought to what kind of ammo on what kind of range? You never account for the variables and just say yes it can or no it cannot. I'm sorry but that's a very blunt claim. How do you know? Have these tanks ever take a shot at paki/Chinese tanks? Did they use their latest ammo? Or at what range? Data data data. Please, let's have some sources to back your claim up.

Can we have some experts here please? @Kunal Biswas @gadeshi @pmaitra

 

[India22]

Look I am giving now a source

"The vehicle can fire HEAT, HE-FRAG and APFSDS which has a muzzle velocity of 1780 m/s. The tungsten core version can penetrate 850mm of steel whilst the DU version can penetrate 960mm both at 2000m. It can also fire the Russian 9M119 Refleks, AKA AT-11 Sniper shaped charge anti-tank missile, which has been manufactured under license by China since the mid 90’s. It has an effective range of up to 4km."

http://tanknutdave.com/the-chinese-type-99-mbt/

Specification of M1

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

You can find that Tungsten Type 99 tank can barely penetrate M1 Abrams, of 2002-2004 level.

 

[Heat]

Turret less tanks ( assault guns, tank destroyers) are ww2 era tech. They are good for static line of defenses or ambushes however in a war of movement real tanks would simply outclass them. Turret tanks can hit target on the move which is not fissible in turret less tank. Using turret less design just to mount a heavier gun is not the best idea. Developing better ammunition and new turret designs is the way forward.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The only reason i am taking interested because i like turret-less tanks ..

Will start by your idea of 200mm gun on stug type vehicle as its you main fantasy ..

=============

Increasing bore diameter does not qualify it for better penetration, you also need to have longer barrel for increase in muzzle velocity and satisfactory accuracy,

Longer barrel = Longer range = Increase muzzle velocity = better accuracy = better penetration of kinetic rounds ..

50-52 caliber is standard for anti-tank purpose anything less is best consider a field gun for infantry support.

==>

Let me further help with calculations :

155 x 45 = 6.95 meters long barrel
155 x 52 = 8.06 meters long barrel
155 x 39 = 6.04 meters long barrel

^^ The above is the length of barrels of 155mm guns of various calibers..

==>

Now you should :

1. calculate the size of your gun
2. calculate the size of the vehicle

Then you may go thinking about its operational usage.

 

[India22]

Turret less tanks ( assault guns, tank destroyers) are ww2 era tech. They are good for static line of defenses or ambushes however in a war of movement real tanks would simply outclass them. Turret tanks can hit target on the move which is not fissible in turret less tank. Using turret less design just to mount a heavier gun is not the best idea. Developing better ammunition and new turret designs is the way forward.

Have you gone through the link I gave?

Penetration is not going to be issue here. Point is immobilizing tanks by blast concussion, not penetrating armour.

I give an energy unit

When using 91 kg shell at 500 m/s 11375000 Joules energy we get.

Now as for 3BM46 125mm round it weights 4.85 kg and in muzzle velocity of 1700 m/s 7008250 joules energy we get. So it is obvious 200mm round wins even with 500 m/s second. Not to mention it has 50 kg explosvive at least in overall 91 kg shell.

I cant reply to that Main Battle Armour thread now @Chinmoy you can look into the link where turret less tank did not face any problem. Army issued new RFI means they are not accepting Arjun MK 2. I read somewhere that there are process to reduce Arjun MK 2's weight to 55 ton. Arjun MK 2 is brand new and before its induction army ordered RFI for new tank tank.

If some one thinks I am inherently against Arjun tank they are wrong. Arjun tank was originally a project of 1970s. In 1970s we operated Centurion, T 55 and Vijayanta. Original Arjun in this situation should have been a 2nd Generation tank, spacious like Centurion, having armour like T 55, having gun depression and elevation like Vijayanta, a bit more armour, 105 mm cannon based around brand new engine of T 62 tank. Anyway it is my last post on armour.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

You are comparing apple vs oranges, Get you basics corrected first ..

Keep assumptions aside, No knowledge is better than half knowledge ..

Have you gone through the link I gave?

Penetration is not going to be issue here. Point is immobilizing tanks by blast concussion, not penetrating armour.

I give an energy unit

When using 91 kg shell at 500 m/s 11375000 Joules energy we get.

Now as for 3BM46 125mm round it weights 4.85 kg and in muzzle velocity of 1700 m/s 7008250 joules energy we get. So it is obvious 200mm round wins even with 500 m/s second. Not to mention it has 50 kg explosvive at least in overall 91 kg shell.

I cant reply to that Main Battle Armour thread now @Chinmoy you can look into the link where turret less tank did not face any problem. Army issued new RFI means they are not accepting Arjun MK 2. I read somewhere that there are process to reduce Arjun MK 2's weight to 55 ton. Arjun MK 2 is brand new and before its induction army ordered RFI for new tank tank.

If some one thinks I am inherently against Arjun tank they are wrong. Arjun tank was originally a project of 1970s. In 1970s we operated Centurion, T 55 and Vijayanta. Original Arjun in this situation should have been a 2nd Generation tank, spacious like Centurion, having armour like T 55, having gun depression and elevation like Vijayanta, a bit more armour, 105 mm cannon based around brand new engine of T 62 tank. Anyway it is my last post on armour.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

T28 Super Heavy Tank

Weight 95 short tons (86.2 metric tons)
Length 36 ft 6 in (11.1 m)
Width 14 ft 11 in (4.39 m)
Height 9 ft 4 in (2.84 m)

Two prototypes of the T28 were built. They underwent evaluation at the Aberdeen Proving Ground and Fort Knox facilities until 1947. In 1947 one of the T28s was heavily damaged by an engine fire during trials at Yuma Proving Ground and was broken up and sold for scrap. The T28 never went into service due to the obsolete design, expensive maintenance costs, and the heavy weight; prevented it from being transported across seas, but was retained to test the "durability of components on such a heavy vehicle". Work on it ended before completion as the War Department decided to stop the development of vehicles of that sort of weight and the T28 program terminated in October 1947. By that point the T29 and T30 turreted heavy tank designs had been built. The T29 mounted the same gun as the T28 in a conventional rotating turret. The T30 was developed with a larger-caliber gun and more powerful engine.The T29 program was used to test mechanical components for future tank designs.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Tortoise heavy assault tank

Weight 78 long tons (87 short tons; 79 t)
Length 10 m (33 ft)
Width 3.9 m (13 ft)
Height 3 m (9 ft 10 in)

In the early part of 1943, the Allied forces anticipated considerable resistance in the projected future invasion of Europe, with the enemy fighting from heavily fortified positions such as the Siegfried Line. As a result, a new class of vehicles emerged, in the shape of assault tanks, which placed maximum armour protection at a higher priority than mobility. Initially, work was concentrated on the Excelsior tank (A33), based on the Cromwell tank. There was also a program to upgrade the armour of the Churchill tank. For similar work in the Far East, the Valiant tank (A38), based on the Valentine tank was considered although weight was specified to be as low as possible.

The Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Supply issued a Joint Memorandum in April 1943 that gave a vague specification for an assault tank, classing it as a special purpose vehicle to operate in heavily defended areas as part of the specialist 79th Armoured Division.

The Nuffield Organisation responded with 18 separate designs (AT1 through AT18) drafted between May 1943 and February 1944, each design larger and heavier than the last. By February 1944, design AT16 was complete and was approved by the Tank Board, who proposed that month that 25 should be produced directly from the mockup stage without bothering with a prototype, to be available for operational service in September 1945. An order for 25 was placed by the War Office and work was begun.

Following the end of the war the order was reduced and only six vehicles were built. One example was sent to Germany for trials, where it was found to be mechanically reliable and a powerful and accurate gun platform. However, at a weight of 80 tons and a height of 10 feet (3.0 m) it was extremely slow and proved difficult to transport.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Jagdtiger

Weight 71.7 tonnes (158,000 lb)
Length 10.65 m (34 ft 11 in)
Width 3.6 m (11 ft 10 in)
Height 2.8 m (9 ft 2 in)

Jagdtiger was a logical extension of the creation of Jagdpanzer designs from tank designs, such as the Jagdpanther from the Panther tank. The Jagdtiger used a boxy superstructure, with its sides completely integral with the hull's sides, on top of a lengthened Tiger II chassis. The resulting vehicle featured very heavy armor and the 128 mm PaK 44 L/55 gun, capable of defeating any tank fielded in World War II; even at very long ranges (over 3,500 m (2.2 mi)). It had 250 mm (9.8 in) armor on the front of the casemate and 150 mm (5.9 in) on the glacis plate. The main gun mount had a limited traverse of only 10 degrees; the entire vehicle had to be turned to aim outside that narrow field of fire. The Jagdtiger suffered from a variety of mechanical and technical problems due to its immense weight and under-powered engine. The vehicle had frequent breakdowns; ultimately more Jagdtigers were lost to mechanical problems or lack of fuel than to enemy action

 

[Kunal Biswas]

ISU-152

Weight 47.3 metric tons (maximum)
Length 9.18 m (30 ft 1 in)
Width 3.07 m (10 ft 1 in)
Height 2.48 m (8 ft 2 in)

The beginnings of the ISU-152 came on January 24, 1943, when the first prototype of the SU-152 was unveiled. This was a fully enclosed 152mm gun-howitzer on the KV-1S tank chassis. It was designated Object 236 (Объект 236). Object 236 was completed in Factory No. 100 in Chelyabinsk, and was successfully tested from January 24-February 7, 1943. On February 14 the vehicle was adopted and put into production under the KV-14 (КВ-14) designation; in April 1943 the designation was changed to SU-152 (СУ-152).

Although the SU-152 was successful in combat, production of the KV-1S tank chassis was ending, which made the modernisation of the vehicle necessary, using the new IS tank chassis. On May 25, 1943, the administration of Factory No. 100 ordered the modernisation of the SU-152, which included increased armour protection and other improvements. Development began in July 1943, under the supervision of Joseph Yakovlevich Kotin (the chief designer of Soviet heavy tanks) and G. N. Moskvin as the main designer.

The new design, designated IS-152 (ИС-152), was tested from September to November, 1943. Testing revealed a large number of deficiencies, which sent it back for further improvement. On November 6, 1943, an order was issued for adoption of the improved variant, under the ISU-152 (ИСУ-152) designation, and in December production began at the Chelyabinsk Kirovsk Plant, replacing the SU-152

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Stridsvagn 103

Weight 103 B: 39.7 t (43.8 short tons; 39.1 long tons)
Length 9 m (29 ft 6 in) (incl. gun)
Width 103 B: 3.60 m (11 ft 10 in)
Height To cupola: 2.14 m (7 ft 0 in)

The Stridsvagn 103 never saw combat and so its design remains unproven. However, for its intended role in the 1960s, it had numerous advantages. In 1967, Norway carried out a two-week comparative observation test with the Leopard 1 and found that, with closed hatches, the 103 spotted more targets and fired faster than the Leopard while the situation was reversed when operating with hatches open. In April to September 1968, two 103s were tested at the British armour school in Bovington, which reported that "the turretless concept of the "S"-tank holds considerable advantage over turreted tanks". In 1973, the BAOR tested the 103. British crewmen received 6 weeks training and the vehicles were serviced by Swedish engineers. Over nine days of manoeuvres alongside the Chieftain tank, availability never fell under 90% and the final report stated, "It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move." In 1975, two 103s were tested at the American armour center at Fort Knox. The trial demonstrated that the 103 fired more accurately than the M60A1E3, but on an average 0.5 seconds more slowly

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Kanonenjagdpanzer

Weight 27.5 tonnes
Length Total: 8.75 m (28 ft 8 in)
Hull: 6.24 m (20 ft 6 in)
Width 2.98 m (9 ft 9 in)
Height 2.09 m (6 ft 10 in)

The Kanonenjagdpanzer was a highly mobile vehicle, its survivability based on its mobility and its low profile.Its hull consisted of welded steel with a maximum thickness of 50 mm. It carried a crew of four: commander, driver, gunner and loader. Since the Kanonenjagdpanzer followed the casemate design of most World War II tank destroyers, the gun was fixed within the casemate, located a little right from the center. The 90 mm gun could only traverse 15° to the sides and elevate from −8° to +15°. It carried 51 90 mm rounds for the main gun and 4,000 7.62 mm rounds for the two MG3s. The Kanonenjagdpanzer had NBC protection and night-fighting ability.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

M113 assault gun

Length with tube: 6.04m
Width: 2.91m
Height, hull: 1.76m
Height, commander's cupola: 1.92m
I think it had a crew of three; Commander, Loader and Driver/Gunner
Ammunition: 42 rounds
Loaded weight: approx 14,000kg

It could also carry 4 troops if necessary although some sites stated that the 4 troops were part of the crew (but I suspect if this was a permanent arrangement you would have to lose some ammo capacity just to make room - for example, some of the turreted M113 FSVs carry less than 35 rounds for smaller calibre guns and they have a full height hull for storage)

The 105mm was from Rheinmetall and could fire single and multi-part ammunition. NBC protected and amphibious. Protection from 14.5mm on frontal armour and 7.62mm NATO on side armour.

 

[MrPresident]

I believe, turret less tanks are obsolete now in the era of gunships and highly mobile tanks. Turret less tanks will be sitting ducks for aircraft and gunships. Hitler was obsessed with big guns and big machinery and paid the price for it.

 

[charlie]

Do members here think Turret less tanks are good? Continuing from other thread. @Krusty

http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-42039/comparisons_with_turreted_tanks.htm





Plus, now tanks obviously need a bigger gun than 125mm, which cant be mounted on turrets. So a turret less tank with 200mm gun to disable enemy tanks by concussion is way.

well then you have forget about moving and firing at same time, it's really hard to aim as you have to move the whole tank to take a aim.