Tactical Command :: View topic - Smaller Turrets on Sci-Fi Tanks

Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Smaller Turrets on Sci-Fi Tanks http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=6276	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Cuban Commissar [ Mon May 01, 2006 4:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Smaller Turrets on Sci-Fi Tanks
With all the cool sci-fi models appearing, John Bear's digital concepts, GZG new vehciles, and Dark Realm Minis new line, I was surprised that more of these sci-fi tanks do not have minimized turrets. There are many concepts of future tanks where only the weapon is contained in the turret, while the entire crew is actually in the hull. I assume the weapon would have some kind of auto-loader or just be an energy weapon. What do you guys think

Author:	Dwarf Supreme [ Mon May 01, 2006 4:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Smaller Turrets on Sci-Fi Tanks
I think you're right CC. Tank development in the past few decades has emphasized reducing the overall height of the tank to give it a lower profile. Minimizing the turret is definitely one way of doing it, especially if the main armament is some sort of energy weapon.

Author:	javelin98 [ Mon May 01, 2006 5:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Smaller Turrets on Sci-Fi Tanks
I agree with my respected vertically-challenged colleague. Autoloaders and computerized targeting systems should allow more and more tanks to be fitted with low-profile, unmanned turrets. I figure that, in 50 years, we'll see tanks the size of a contemporary sports car, with two crewmen and fully-automated weaponry. When I worked for General Electric, there was an engine in development called the pulse-detonation engine -- a jet engine with no moving parts that worked by "exploding" the jet fuel in the engine a hundred times per second. I figure an adaptation of that technology will be tank rounds with no attached, self-contained propellant; the gun would chamber the projectile itself, and then the tank's fuel would be pressurized and detonated in a chamber behind the tank round. Thus the tank would be able to carry three times as many rounds as before, wouldn't need to worry about magazine explosions, and would be able to fire at a much higher rate than would be necessary for a main gun. Of course, this would become moot if ever we developed fusion engines and rail guns...

Author:	Heresiarch [ Mon May 01, 2006 5:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Smaller Turrets on Sci-Fi Tanks
The Canadian Forces are actually deploying a large calibre remote weapon station on their new LAV-III Mobile Gun System. http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehlavmgs1.htm I actually had a chance to talk to a Lt Colonel from the regiment... oddly enough my father's old regiment... thats deploying these and despite the press that they're getting here the Strathcona's are rather enthused with them.

Author:	javelin98 [ Mon May 01, 2006 6:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Smaller Turrets on Sci-Fi Tanks
On a related tangent... I have yet to figure out why the US Army and other NATO forces aren't using the Hydra-70 rocket system in a ground-support role. I would figure that replacing the two-shot TOW missile pod on a M2 Bradley with a nineteen-shot 70mm rocket pod would be a great answer for urban operations. I watched a video of a Bradley firing its TOW against a building being used as a fighting position by insurgents; the range couldn't have been more than 150 meters, well within accurate range of a Hydra rocket. This just seems to make sense to me, but, then, I've been out of the Army for a while, and I tend to forget how territorial some of the branches tend to be.

Author:	dafrca [ Mon May 01, 2006 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Smaller Turrets on Sci-Fi Tanks
Let?s not confuse reality with what looks cool. I agree real life has been moving toward that in ?Future Designs", but the visual of a Grav Tank skimming across the land with Commander Bob hanging out his copula is just cool. I remember just not too long ago we were all speaking about how far future war could be more about nano-machines then Grav Tanks, but the Grav Tanks were more fun to play. Well I think SciFi Tank design for the miniature world is more about what looks cool then what is realistic given todays military focus. Just my .02 dafrca

Author:

dafrca [ Mon May 01, 2006 7:19 pm ]

Post subject:

Smaller Turrets on Sci-Fi Tanks

Quote (Heresiarch @ 01 May 2006 (09:54))

The Canadian Forces are actually deploying a large calibre remote weapon station on their new LAV-III Mobile Gun System.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehlavmgs1.htm

Thanks for the Link, I had not seen that particular one.

dafrca

Author:

Heresiarch [ Mon May 01, 2006 7:26 pm ]

Post subject:

Smaller Turrets on Sci-Fi Tanks

Quote (javelin98 @ 01 May 2006 (11:16))

On a related tangent... I have yet to figure out why the US Army and other NATO forces aren't using the Hydra-70 rocket system in a ground-support role.

I can actually answer that...

It's an accuracy issue more than anything else.

You can put a TOW round through a window where as with a FFAR your going to be lucky not to end up shredding everything in a half block radius. Any of the FFAR family isn't really designed for anything other than area saturation missions.

And on a related note the Russians have actually developed a thermobaric warhead for the At-14 Kornet antitank missile based off their experiences in Chechnya for use in urban environments. Particularly their first invasion of Grozny in 94 where they lost over 122 of 146 AFVs in their column in one go.

They've slapped a quad launcher for them on surplus T-55 chassis along with a high angle 30mm cannon and a pair of hull mounted grenade launchers ending up with a design that at least on paper that looks like it should be hell on wheels in an urban environment.

The GLs are used as street sweepers, the 30mm as an anti-sniper weapon and the missiles for clearing whole buildings in one go. Not terribly subtle but thats not a description that gets applied to the Russian military anyways...

Author:

Heresiarch [ Mon May 01, 2006 7:27 pm ]

Post subject:

Smaller Turrets on Sci-Fi Tanks

Quote (dafrca @ 01 May 2006 (12:15))

Let?s not confuse reality with what looks cool. :;):