Thread 64096591

>excessive armor made obsolete by top attack munitions/drones
kek.
Are unmanned turrets the future covered in APS? Move everyone into a hyper armored hull to avoid drones and top attack atgms.

>>64096591 (OP)
Im thinking since we already have unmanned turrets for IFVs, we are going to see newer MBTs with unmanned turrets and greater emphasis on top protection. Tanks of the future will have EW capabilities as well as APS.

>>64096591 (OP)
an unmanned turret is inherently top attack armor, no risk to crew so let them hit it.

You cannot put enough armour on a tank to make it survivable against HEAT warheads from every angle without turning it into a 100+ ton monstrosity, unmanned turret or not.

If APS and anti-drone turrets.pan out against drone threats then tanks are back to being just as effective and survivable as they have been for decades. If not, then war becomes even more airpower and indirect fire centric than it is already (god help us), because nothing is going to be able to survive near the frontline without clearing out every drone team and artillery piece in a 40km radius first.

>>64096631
>if aps and anti-drone turrets pan out
hehehe he doesn't know what a remote weapon station is

>>64096639
You are categorically not taking down an approaching FPV with a CROWS.

>>64096699
Skill issue

>>64096699
Yeah that's why we're letting the AI do the targeting, aiming and firing at the drones and not you, you just get the warning of incoming and give it permission to shoot.

>>64096712
>give it permission to shoot.
Why not make it automatic?

You need aps all around but the thing is the drone could probably land on the path of the tank and drop an anti tank mine and move it around if the tank decides to take an alternative path so you need a way to shoot the ground without using too much ammo.

>>64096744
what if the robot decides a friendly person isn't friendly? it's just a can of worms and way easier to give someone an ipad with a kill button so they can be held responsible.

>>64096746
If your underside of the tank cannot take a direct hit from a 1000ibs anti tank mine then it sucks

What if you made a tank with super strong top armor, and really weak frontal armor, and then just didn't tell anybody?

>>64096744
Skill issue

>>64096762
The marines would shoot there by mistake with a bazooka

>>64096591 (OP)
Why do you even need a manned tank in the first place.

>>64097598
To put marines in it so that they get shot at easier.
Unfortunately Marine high command is suffering and is against tanks for 2030 when the marines will have the finest gear from the army's discount bin instead of the trusty M1855 that they should be issued with.
I assume a lot of army and navy cock sucking since they won't have any armoured vehicles to support themselves

>>64096762
The tank would still weigh more than a normal tank because of the way tanks are shaped. And if you change the shape of the tank it would be really obvious what's going on. And you can't run a double bluff because a tank optimized in shape for top armor will then weight too much if you gave it good front armor. Also they can just send two waves of drones, the first wave targets the top, the second wave targets somewhere else. Or just get the drones to choose an aspect at random.

>>64096591 (OP)
Unmanned turrets have always been the future, top attack munitions just incentivize it further.

>>64096591 (OP)
The future is unmanned turrets because you can drastically shrink the turret ring which lets you make the hull narrower and making the tracks closer together lets you make the tracks shorter while retaining the same length to width ratio.
It has nothing to do with drone threats and drones will be dealt with by dedicated anti-air systems being intergrated into armoured units just as they were in WW2.

>>64098272
>>64096624
Unmanned turrets have no advantage for top attack protection.
Idea of unmanned turrets is min maxing against horizontal fire.
>we don't armor gun but we don't put crew and ammo behind it so round penetrating out gun is kinda ok.
But against top attack round passing your no armored turret would go into ammo or crew.

>>64098274
If gun doesn't fit into turrets ring it can't elevate. Then you need to rise your remote gun installation massively so it recoils above hull roof. Now try to armor this lol.

>>64098328
>Now try to armor this lol
Why would you? The main advantage of unmanned is it can be lightly armoured without endangering the crew.
Nothing is surviving APFSDS and HEAT can be drastically weakened by APS, at most you need enough armour to protect against autocannons.

>>64098328
What if you fit the unmanned turret with lots of EPA and spaced armor? So it would look like a normal tank. Think unmanned turret and not unmanned gun.

>>64096591 (OP)
Cope cages are not only going to become universal, they're also going to become a lot bigger and a lot more elaborate as time goes on.

In Chinkapore's case, none of their turd world SEA neighbors are smart enough to use drones much less buy/build them in the millions like Ukraine.

US jets are golden, their F-15s and F-35s will just bomb targets willynilly and they'd surrender in a day.

>>64098346
>The main advantage of unmanned is it can be lightly armoured without endangering the crew.
Against horizontal flying threats. If you have lightly armored turret that from top penetrator goes into hull under this turret where ammo or crew contained.

>>64098355
At this point can just make turret armored. Turret that covers hull from to need to be so big it would fit 2 crew members without much sacrifice

>>64098355
Cope cages is what they are called.
Cope.
They don't really protect tanks and they killed left and right, it's 21st century equivalent of voodoo anti bullet amulets.

>>64096591 (OP)
>armored cupola like based girl M60A4
>heavy ECM onboard
>360 radar and camera
>commander and gunner in turret
>droneman and driver in hull
>laser and pepperbox CIWS
>bustle VLS with drone interceptors and NLOS missiles
>some additional roof armor
But armor thickness is really the last part of the equation

>>64099244
not true! the cage will eat 1 or 2 drones before you then get blown up by the 3rd drone.

>>64096591 (OP)
the future is optionally manned vehicles

>>64096744
Because that's harder

>>64096746
You know I've seen some pretty dumb things that /k/ thinks drones can do but this takes the cake.

>>64096591 (OP)
entire tank should be unmanned

>>64096631
> because nothing is going to be able to survive near the frontline without clearing out every drone team and artillery piece in a 40km radius first.
Artillery is inaccurate as fuck against moving targets and a tank needs a direct hit to be destroyed, it’s basically immune to shrapnel. And shooting and scooting right away means they don’t even have the opportunity to adjust their fire so the counter battery has done its job. As for drones you can use spaags to accompany your tanks and form an air defence bubble around them. Have them in an integrated network with larger range GBAD at higher echelons.

Tanks aren’t obsolete, they just need support from other weapon systems. This is something we’ve known since WW2 and it applies to pretty much everything on the battlefield. Russia and Ukraine just suck at combined arms and coordination.

>>64096591 (OP)
>Russia is bad at using X or at Y tactic
>Why is X or Y obsolete?

Stop using vatniks as the control to see if weapons/tactics are good or not.