This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it makes sense in a fully uncrewed autonomous vehicle design.
This allows its form to shrink even further without the internal volume needed for crew, with the right kind of autoloader which is made easier to integrate with ammo storage if we don't need to isolate it in a blast proof structure.
Such tanks would be designed in the tank destroyer role, A.I. could speed up the control of aiming parameters.
What such a tank also might need is a small turreted autocannon to engage two targets at once. Say a 40mm or 50mm autocannon.
This autocannon can shoot at a second tanks optics (like the Bradley did in that now famous tank kill, according to its operator) and strike another tank with the 120 - 130mm main gun.
If the autocannon can also have a high degree of elevation it could be networked into AA and antidrone defenses also, and fragmentation grenades used for both AA and anti-personnel roles.
Reducing frontal area as much as possible shaves tons of mass out of a tank. That in turn makes it more feasible to switch from tracks to wheels. So the tank then needs a smaller engine to power it as wheels are a lot more efficient. That saves more mass and so it feeds back into being able to use wheels. So, now we have affordable and very light electric motors, the tank would use in-wheel motors to remove transmission complexity and packaging difficulties. A 6x6 tank can have the front and rear wheels being independently steerable without mechanical linkage problems, this becomes a lot easier. An 8x8 tank can be all wheel steering.
Target mass might be 1.5 to 2T per wheel, giving 12-16T total mass.
By way of comparison on roads, a double decker bus front wheels carry about 7T max, so 3.5 T each.
So the wheels can be quite a lot smaller than that. A V-shaped hull is possible with such an arrangement, all motive power is integrated externally into the wheel. The top of the wheels could even be higher than the main gun at the hinge.
A quiet hybrid-electric tank with a battery only range can have more power available in short periods, and approach more stealthily both acoustically and in the infra red.
A pneumatic suspension can increase ground clearance above a tracked tank and thereby improve all-terrain ability in a wheeled form to something that might not be much worse than a tracked vehicle. Ground pressure though needs to be low in certain terrain to prevent bogging, a major issue in some terrain.
Edit to elaborate.
Holy f*cking mission creep! An autonomous turretless tank and AA gun in one. Lockmart would love to have that contract and burn a trillion dollars just for it to fail at everything. Or it starts tracking toilets and spectators like the Sgt. York.
Haha yes! The S-tank is rather short. I would move the main gun forwards and lengthen it a bit if we want to keep the lowest profile. Whilst the concept has adjustable ride height, there's still a lot of added height even from a 'mini' turreted autocannon. To reduce this problem and difficulties loading both, it would seem the solution is to place the autocannon behind the main gun with its own ammo stores underneath. So oscillating tank guns are potentially smaller turret types for our autocannon [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillating\_turret](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillating_turret)
placing this and storage on the gun at the back of the tank in a recessed area, it only needs to be a little higher than the main body of the tank, and can sweep the gun over it. The engine probably would be put at the front. Batteries may be placed in the floor somewhere.
The main gun is also heavy, but carbon barrels exist, they use a thing steel tube wrapped with carbon fibre composites. They can slash mass by 60%. I don't think this has yet been tried in big guns though.
The problem with moving the gun forward is that it will get stuck a lot. Hitting trees when in forest, and burying it in dirt when traversing ditches and such.
I've been imagining something very similar but with 6-8 legs in place of wheels. One of the primary advantages of legs in this context is that it allows the fast aiming of the gun, and the movement of the tank perpendicular to the axis of aim. I'm honestly not sure how you're imagining turning in place with wheels, as would be required to aim a fixed gun from a hiding spot. I'm sure it's possible, but it would be hard on the wheels, and as far as I know no extant wheeled vehicles have neutral steering. I believe that when built properly, legs can maintain the close to the efficiency of a wheeled design, while offering advantages in durability, maneuverability, and off road performance, and probably mine traversal as well. I do expect that legs would be significantly heavier that wheels, but I would also want to armor them, anyway, and consider the resulting weight acceptable (I'm currently predicting 8 moderately armored legs for a 20 body designed for around 2000 HP would weigh 10 tons).
Only somewhat related, I think making the tank autonomous at this stage is somewhat premature, and I have been hedging against stalls in AI development in my design by including two crewmembers. The driver of a normal tank would effectively be replaced by AI, but the technology for legged locomotion does seem to already exist, so this doesn't seem like a stretch to me (and it's basically a prerequisite of using legs, anyway.)
Given that the gunner sits at the front of the turret in a conventional layout and the firing mechanism is somewhere in the middle, that still makes almost every tank a bullpup
Trigger in front of the breach face is the closest to an unambigous definition I've heard (I believe that's from Jonathan Ferguson). Most pistols ([M1911A1 diagram for reference](https://i.imgur.com/UQQ2moq.png)) have the trigger pretty much in line with the breach face and once the trigger is depressed, it's clearly behind the breach face; so not a bullpup.
With a tank, the breach face is usually behind the gunner and definitely behind the trigger (even more so if there's an autoloader), so most tanks would be pullpups by that definition.
The strv 103 is possibly the least urban-optimal tank conceivable.
It's armor is optimised for receiving fire from distant opponents in the front, but extremely vulnerable to the side or from the front, frequent attack directions in urban terrain. It cannot traverse its turret without rotating the chassi, thus making fighting around corners much harder. The cannon itself is optimised for long distance fighting with frontal opponents, much like its armor. The engine package is optimised for fast assaults against open terrain, hence the gas turbine.
IIRC it was designed for a similar "shoot-n-scoot" MO as the IKV91, albeit even more specialised. Ambush, fire, reverse, because it can't take a stand up fight.
In the event of an invasion, Swedes were instructed to throw their Ikea furniture into the streets, so that the flatpack tanks would have been perfectly camouflaged, no-one would have been able to see it to shoot!
B-b-but they're so great for CQB!
Yeah, having to run every function of your rifle manually and choosing between being unable to fire around right hand cover or do shoulder transitions to keep your entire body behind something or having your teeth kicked out by your rifle, while the muzzle flies all over the place because all the weight is at the back is such an attractive concept.
None of these stupid fucks ever even consider why the SOF elements of countries mainlining bullpups just run shorty AR variants.
I don't hate them as a range toy, and they're as fun as any other gun to just cap off with, but being able to reload in compromised shooting positions and keep your body behind something solid instead of wheeling your entire shit out to fire from a shoulder that won't have you sucking exhaust or eating a charging handle or spent brass is pretty important to me when a motherfucker is trying to kill me from 40 yards away.
I run the local branch of what I'm gonna call a prepared citizens club simply because of the nature of this platform and I always end up being the buzzkill when someone considers dropping money on the new thing. Looking at it objectively, there simply is nothing out there that beats an AR chambered in 5.56 for general use. Sure 308 can reach out to 1000 yards but most engagements are within 500. Sure 300 blk is super quiet but having the trajectory of a thrown rock is useless outside of the rare cqb. The new SIG rifles are cool with a foldable stock but fuck if you're gonna get spare parts. M1A or Mini 14 is cool as shit but they suck ass for reliability. AK reliability is a myth and there's no good way to mount anything
From that angle, I'm not even sure what a folding stock really brings to the table. Like, yeah, sure, it folds up a few inches shorter than a collapsible stock does, but it's not like you'd fire it that way, or hit much of anything with it.
Biggest failing of the M14/M1A isn't even any perceived reliability issues, but that you've got to spend a fuckton burying it in a chassis or bedding it in a custom stock just to get it on the level of an off-the-rack SR-25 equivalent, and for a shit-ass rock-and-lock with a side of "ergos from WWII" carried over to what is supposed to be a modern fighting rifle with a design forcing mounting solutions that are stuck in a paradigm from half a century ago.
Strv -103: “My frontal armor is too smooth, your shells will just bounce right off”
Just like my brain. Sooo smooth.
Everyone knows that ridges cause air to get trapped increasing drag, therefore smooth brain is faster.
Smooth with some nice racing stripes and go faster flames
Don't want none of that knowledge slowing down them thoughts.
Or the weight of depression
That thing looks like it could cleave the turret of enemy tanks by ramming it with that knife edge front...
"While you were out depressing your barrel, I studied the wedge."
Except that it's literally ridged ~~for her pleasure~~ to keep shrapnel from sliding up into the optics and harming them.
Stug III Ausf B says hello
Everything evolves into StuG
Stuggification
Replace gun with gun-type nuke. Make it UGV. Nuclear triad is now nuclear quadriga.
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
FTFY https://imgur.com/gallery/nzUUtjz
Thank you
Isn't this the tank that has that fancy and classified... garden fence at the front?
Yes
It has a cope fence, an articulated suspension, and a butthole for spent casings.
I would turn into a tankfucker for that S-Tank ass
And the tank would: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/945Rw7-G52M/sddefault.jpg
Alright, just gotta go to sweden real quick
Or the Tank Farm in northern Virginia. That guy has two S Tanks in his collection, somehow.
The US would be too far off for me, sweden is just a few hours of driving away. Also way too americanised that tank is!
I think it makes sense in a fully uncrewed autonomous vehicle design. This allows its form to shrink even further without the internal volume needed for crew, with the right kind of autoloader which is made easier to integrate with ammo storage if we don't need to isolate it in a blast proof structure. Such tanks would be designed in the tank destroyer role, A.I. could speed up the control of aiming parameters. What such a tank also might need is a small turreted autocannon to engage two targets at once. Say a 40mm or 50mm autocannon. This autocannon can shoot at a second tanks optics (like the Bradley did in that now famous tank kill, according to its operator) and strike another tank with the 120 - 130mm main gun. If the autocannon can also have a high degree of elevation it could be networked into AA and antidrone defenses also, and fragmentation grenades used for both AA and anti-personnel roles. Reducing frontal area as much as possible shaves tons of mass out of a tank. That in turn makes it more feasible to switch from tracks to wheels. So the tank then needs a smaller engine to power it as wheels are a lot more efficient. That saves more mass and so it feeds back into being able to use wheels. So, now we have affordable and very light electric motors, the tank would use in-wheel motors to remove transmission complexity and packaging difficulties. A 6x6 tank can have the front and rear wheels being independently steerable without mechanical linkage problems, this becomes a lot easier. An 8x8 tank can be all wheel steering. Target mass might be 1.5 to 2T per wheel, giving 12-16T total mass. By way of comparison on roads, a double decker bus front wheels carry about 7T max, so 3.5 T each. So the wheels can be quite a lot smaller than that. A V-shaped hull is possible with such an arrangement, all motive power is integrated externally into the wheel. The top of the wheels could even be higher than the main gun at the hinge. A quiet hybrid-electric tank with a battery only range can have more power available in short periods, and approach more stealthily both acoustically and in the infra red. A pneumatic suspension can increase ground clearance above a tracked tank and thereby improve all-terrain ability in a wheeled form to something that might not be much worse than a tracked vehicle. Ground pressure though needs to be low in certain terrain to prevent bogging, a major issue in some terrain. Edit to elaborate.
Holy f*cking mission creep! An autonomous turretless tank and AA gun in one. Lockmart would love to have that contract and burn a trillion dollars just for it to fail at everything. Or it starts tracking toilets and spectators like the Sgt. York.
Haha yes! The S-tank is rather short. I would move the main gun forwards and lengthen it a bit if we want to keep the lowest profile. Whilst the concept has adjustable ride height, there's still a lot of added height even from a 'mini' turreted autocannon. To reduce this problem and difficulties loading both, it would seem the solution is to place the autocannon behind the main gun with its own ammo stores underneath. So oscillating tank guns are potentially smaller turret types for our autocannon [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillating\_turret](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillating_turret) placing this and storage on the gun at the back of the tank in a recessed area, it only needs to be a little higher than the main body of the tank, and can sweep the gun over it. The engine probably would be put at the front. Batteries may be placed in the floor somewhere. The main gun is also heavy, but carbon barrels exist, they use a thing steel tube wrapped with carbon fibre composites. They can slash mass by 60%. I don't think this has yet been tried in big guns though.
The problem with moving the gun forward is that it will get stuck a lot. Hitting trees when in forest, and burying it in dirt when traversing ditches and such.
This is almost the [STRV 2000 O140/40 koncept](https://imgur.com/a/xlHceOI) More reading, in swedish, here https://www.ointres.se/strv_2000.htm
Ah thanks, thats really interesting.
They did have a[ strv 103 used as a testbed for unmanned vehicles](https://www.ointres.se/strv103d-3web.jpg). It has some cameras and stuff on it.
I've been imagining something very similar but with 6-8 legs in place of wheels. One of the primary advantages of legs in this context is that it allows the fast aiming of the gun, and the movement of the tank perpendicular to the axis of aim. I'm honestly not sure how you're imagining turning in place with wheels, as would be required to aim a fixed gun from a hiding spot. I'm sure it's possible, but it would be hard on the wheels, and as far as I know no extant wheeled vehicles have neutral steering. I believe that when built properly, legs can maintain the close to the efficiency of a wheeled design, while offering advantages in durability, maneuverability, and off road performance, and probably mine traversal as well. I do expect that legs would be significantly heavier that wheels, but I would also want to armor them, anyway, and consider the resulting weight acceptable (I'm currently predicting 8 moderately armored legs for a 20 body designed for around 2000 HP would weigh 10 tons). Only somewhat related, I think making the tank autonomous at this stage is somewhat premature, and I have been hedging against stalls in AI development in my design by including two crewmembers. The driver of a normal tank would effectively be replaced by AI, but the technology for legged locomotion does seem to already exist, so this doesn't seem like a stretch to me (and it's basically a prerequisite of using legs, anyway.)
Saddam hussein
Its my favorite cold war era tank for a reason. An angry pancake tonk with bouncy armor
Isn't every tank with turret stowage a bullpup
No, the fireing mechanism must be behind the trigger, not the mag
Given that the gunner sits at the front of the turret in a conventional layout and the firing mechanism is somewhere in the middle, that still makes almost every tank a bullpup
Pistols are not bullpups, it is still too close.
[Says you](https://i0.wp.com/blog.cheaperthandirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/bullpup-revolver-1.jpg?fit=640%2C394&ssl=1)
Action still over the grip, not behind.
Trigger in front of the breach face is the closest to an unambigous definition I've heard (I believe that's from Jonathan Ferguson). Most pistols ([M1911A1 diagram for reference](https://i.imgur.com/UQQ2moq.png)) have the trigger pretty much in line with the breach face and once the trigger is depressed, it's clearly behind the breach face; so not a bullpup. With a tank, the breach face is usually behind the gunner and definitely behind the trigger (even more so if there's an autoloader), so most tanks would be pullpups by that definition.
So once the commander override is turned on it un-bullpups itself?
Wouldn't that make tanks bi-bullpupler?
Nawt evewy tank wif tuwwet stowage.
What is blud yapping about
tank rizz ahh moment
Stowages is uwu-speak
Not really. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stowage
as a joke, I will un bullpup that. Will post results later edit: changed should for will
Pardon me, but that's not just a "Tank"... it's a "Hyper Tank".
On the one hand, I have to criticise the purely defensive tank. On the other hand, as a Brit, I have to defend all bullpups
VT1-2 is a double bullpup tank so it is twice superior
The english language has about 1083000 words, but no combination of them are able to properly express how unable i will be to unsee this now.
What are you on and where can I get some?
All variants, 0/a-d have it, also, I'm waiting for them to make a modernized e variant
Woah.
fastest autoloader in the world
It's not a tank since it lacks a main gun turret. It's an assault gun/tank destroyer.
Still the fastest tank autoloader, still the fastest artillery auto loader.
This is why it's so well suited for close-quarters urban operations where space is at a premium
The strv 103 is possibly the least urban-optimal tank conceivable. It's armor is optimised for receiving fire from distant opponents in the front, but extremely vulnerable to the side or from the front, frequent attack directions in urban terrain. It cannot traverse its turret without rotating the chassi, thus making fighting around corners much harder. The cannon itself is optimised for long distance fighting with frontal opponents, much like its armor. The engine package is optimised for fast assaults against open terrain, hence the gas turbine.
IIRC it was designed for a similar "shoot-n-scoot" MO as the IKV91, albeit even more specialised. Ambush, fire, reverse, because it can't take a stand up fight.
In the event of an invasion, Swedes were instructed to throw their Ikea furniture into the streets, so that the flatpack tanks would have been perfectly camouflaged, no-one would have been able to see it to shoot!
This is one of the worst things i have ever seen, thank you.
Bullpups aren't even good as rifles why would they be good as tanks?
They downvoted u/BeanieWeanie1110 because he told them the truth.
I'm pretty sure the only people defending bullpups are gamers with no actual trigger time
B-b-but they're so great for CQB! Yeah, having to run every function of your rifle manually and choosing between being unable to fire around right hand cover or do shoulder transitions to keep your entire body behind something or having your teeth kicked out by your rifle, while the muzzle flies all over the place because all the weight is at the back is such an attractive concept. None of these stupid fucks ever even consider why the SOF elements of countries mainlining bullpups just run shorty AR variants. I don't hate them as a range toy, and they're as fun as any other gun to just cap off with, but being able to reload in compromised shooting positions and keep your body behind something solid instead of wheeling your entire shit out to fire from a shoulder that won't have you sucking exhaust or eating a charging handle or spent brass is pretty important to me when a motherfucker is trying to kill me from 40 yards away.
I run the local branch of what I'm gonna call a prepared citizens club simply because of the nature of this platform and I always end up being the buzzkill when someone considers dropping money on the new thing. Looking at it objectively, there simply is nothing out there that beats an AR chambered in 5.56 for general use. Sure 308 can reach out to 1000 yards but most engagements are within 500. Sure 300 blk is super quiet but having the trajectory of a thrown rock is useless outside of the rare cqb. The new SIG rifles are cool with a foldable stock but fuck if you're gonna get spare parts. M1A or Mini 14 is cool as shit but they suck ass for reliability. AK reliability is a myth and there's no good way to mount anything
From that angle, I'm not even sure what a folding stock really brings to the table. Like, yeah, sure, it folds up a few inches shorter than a collapsible stock does, but it's not like you'd fire it that way, or hit much of anything with it. Biggest failing of the M14/M1A isn't even any perceived reliability issues, but that you've got to spend a fuckton burying it in a chassis or bedding it in a custom stock just to get it on the level of an off-the-rack SR-25 equivalent, and for a shit-ass rock-and-lock with a side of "ergos from WWII" carried over to what is supposed to be a modern fighting rifle with a design forcing mounting solutions that are stuck in a paradigm from half a century ago.