Modern Main Battle Tanks ( MBT )

Leopard 2A7 and Leopard 2A6CAN

The last arrived

SamuraiBlue said:

Sorry mate but Joules does not equate to total amount of energy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you don't like Wiki you can look it up at any other site that gives a description of this unit and will give you the same explanation.
Basically it's the amount of energy transferred divided by amount of time spent square.
So the longer the time it takes to transfer the energy the less amount of joules.

Click to expand...

If we go by what you say, then the rail gun delivers 11MJ, and the 3BM-42 delivers 21.4MJ.

If you want to calculate the energy released by a shell, the equation is 1/2*m*v2.

Putting a railgun on a tank would be primarily to make it capable of taking down flying objects. Due to the high speed, it's very inefficient at transporting energy over a long distance and would be outranged by all conventional artillery systems you could place there as an alternative. It does make sense as a specialized vehicle in a group with differing armament.

Kurt said:

Putting a railgun on a tank would be primarily to make it capable of taking down flying objects. Due to the high speed, it's very inefficient at transporting energy over a long distance and would be outranged by all conventional artillery systems you could place there as an alternative. It does make sense as a specialized vehicle in a group with differing armament.

Click to expand...

I concur. It is a waste of defense resources and has limited tactical value.

Miragedriver said:

I concur. It is a waste of defense resources and has limited tactical value.

Click to expand...

Exactly, having a railgun on a mobile and relative small plattform brings more problems with it than benefits, especially that such a plattform wouldn't even capable of providing enough energy to fire any object with enough velocity to be of benefit. The same thing with the Laser weapons or the Laser "RPG's" russia has worked on, they cost thousand times more than any equivalent for current AT weapons and usually tend to lack the same performance due the lack of power a plattform can supply.

I don't see even the possibility for tanks with Railguns or Laser weapons to any effective degree that would replace current weapons, when we can just upgrade to 140-152mm guns and could also be indirect fire with relative good performance of accuracy compared what any railgun/laser weapon on such a plattform could achieve. This is more of sci-fi believes like we had during the 1960-1980's how in future all would have flying cars and alike, i don't see any of those future believes probable even in 150 years.

Black Shark said:

Exactly, having a railgun on a mobile and relative small plattform brings more problems with it than benefits, especially that such a plattform wouldn't even capable of providing enough energy to fire any object with enough velocity to be of benefit. The same thing with the Laser weapons or the Laser "RPG's" russia has worked on, they cost thousand times more than any equivalent for current AT weapons and usually tend to lack the same performance due the lack of power a plattform can supply.

I don't see even the possibility for tanks with Railguns or Laser weapons to any effective degree that would replace current weapons, when we can just upgrade to 140-152mm guns and could also be indirect fire with relative good performance of accuracy compared what any railgun/laser weapon on such a plattform could achieve. This is more of sci-fi believes like we had during the 1960-1980's how in future all would have flying cars and alike, i don't see any of those future believes probable even in 150 years.

Click to expand...

Could you elaborate the way I did with mathematics calculating the amount of electricity that can or cannot be generated with a gas turbine engine equipped on a M1A1 proving it is or is not possible?

If not it sound more like hot air and fan boism to me.

Black Shark said:

Exactly, having a railgun on a mobile and relative small plattform brings more problems with it than benefits, especially that such a plattform wouldn't even capable of providing enough energy to fire any object with enough velocity to be of benefit. The same thing with the Laser weapons or the Laser "RPG's" russia has worked on, they cost thousand times more than any equivalent for current AT weapons and usually tend to lack the same performance due the lack of power a plattform can supply.

I don't see even the possibility for tanks with Railguns or Laser weapons to any effective degree that would replace current weapons, when we can just upgrade to 140-152mm guns and could also be indirect fire with relative good performance of accuracy compared what any railgun/laser weapon on such a plattform could achieve. This is more of sci-fi believes like we had during the 1960-1980's how in future all would have flying cars and alike, i don't see any of those future believes probable even in 150 years.

Click to expand...

Look, Here is the problem Is see with this logic, A bigger tank gun needs bigger rounds bigger rounds mean a bigger magazine a bigger magazine means a bigger tank, a bigger tank means armor, which means a bigger tank gun. and so today's 50-60 tons becomes tomorrow's 70-80 tons and then that becomes 90-100 tons. at the same time you still leaving all the problems and making more. as the tank gets heavier getting it to the battle becomes harder, 50-60 ton tanks have a hard time with bridges as it, Air transport is a already a pipe dream and Amphibious is nearly the same. add to that they still rely on highly combustible charges that are a proven major weak point for tanks and any other platform that has to rely on them. As if a fire starts on the cartridges it finds a ready fuel supply and can reach a temperature to cause the ammo to cook off. blowing the tank up form the inside out.
I don't know about "Laser RPG's" but I do know this power is becoming more and more readily available Tanks and Armored vehicles are already becoming more and more computerized and those computers need more power then the tanks of the past could offer. as a result energy capture and auxiliary power units are becoming the norm. BAE at the AUSA show this year showed off a 40 ton APC with a megawatt laser. that vehicle powered by 2 generators with a electric drive had has the power to run the laser and drive. that's just the start.
Rail Gun Ammo has the advantage of being inert. there is no cartridge. no propellent only the warhead. and military explosives are more stable then ever likely to be even more so in the future. It's likely not going to happen in the 2020s or maybe even the 2030's but the options are either we keep building until Super Heavy tanks like the Maus or we find a compromise.

Personally I think ETC guns with a Binary liquid propellent are what we will see nearer term. the tank will have unmanned turret with a larger bore then barrel. the Autoloader will select the round load and close the breach. When the commander selects the target the gunner will line up and pull the trigger. two chemicals will be injected into the chamber much like a fuel injection system on a car. one will be a oxidizer or catalyst the other the fuel both are aerosolized. then the ETC fires igniting the mix firing the round. IF the tank takes a hit from enemy fire the binary fuel cells would be separated and individually armored the turret being unmanned. The would be sitting under a armored roof in a armored compartment. the turret trashed the rounds lacking there own cartridges and the propellants being spaced and perhaps only flammable but not as hot as the two compounds the actual damage would be a mission kill for the vehicle but overall being a repairable one. the overall gun calibre itself wouldn't need a major jump the rounds would be fired at a higher velocity and efficiency well still being about the same calibre, existing round could be adapted therefor saving cost.

Type 10

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Its not your simple facts. Its your attitude, that just got you on my ignore List. For the record BAE Systems the major European and American military vehicle and tank builder, has offered Rail guns as a option for Armored vehicles weapons.
Also for the record you fail to consider surface area of impact. If I was to take a 2x4 and whack you upside the head it would produce a set amount of energy spread across the point of impact IE the side of your skull and likely give you a concussion and a skull fracture. If however I took that same 2x4 and drove a 5 inch nail through it. Then whacked you in the head it would probably kill you. Why? Because the nail would punch through that thick skull of your more efficiently with the same amount of energy spread across a smaller point. And the nail would punch into your brain creating creating a hydrodynamic shock wave
My smaller penetrator may not have the same kinetic energy but it attacks a smaller spot on the tank. The tanks armor is optimized to try and dissipate that energy across a wide area but by hitting a sold very small point at high velocity I can penetrate with less energy.

Click to expand...

LOL, can you read my mind, so you did know that I forgot something? It is actually you attacked me personally with thing doesn't relates to the matter. Did I forget something, no, I did not.

What wrong with my attitude? Did I say something wrongly? If I did that I guess the mod has warned me, I still play in the safe lane. What I said is fact, nothing personal, nothing wrong.

Current tech is limited to L/D at ~30-40, because with higher L/D rod, it can be broken on impact, this is material science, which is not increased by Moore law. If your impact point is small, then the length of your penetrator is short. At high speed impact, the length of the penetrator is the most important, and by shortening your penetrator, you trade it wrong, you have less penetration, higher drag, higher velocity drop at range. This maths is calculated to the death by experts in the field, not by your imagination that you can easily just decreasing the impact area