Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on October 28, 2003, 04:16:58 am
-
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-pics.htm
-
You've only just noticed the Stryker? :wtf: There's all kinds of arguments surrounding it.
-
(Having never played RA2) What is it? Some kind of "any package on top of the same body" deal?
-
In a word, yes. Put different types of infantry in it, and takes on their role, as it were. Put a tesla trooper in it, it becomes a tesla tank, put an engineer in it, it becomes a repair vehicle, and so on.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
You've only just noticed the Stryker? :wtf: There's all kinds of arguments surrounding it.
Excuse me for not living in North America, as well as for not having a TV. :p
And Thunder: if you like strategy games at all, RA2 is one of the more fun ones. Not all that realistic, but simply fun. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
And Thunder: if you like strategy games at all, RA2 is one of the more fun ones. Not all that realistic, but simply fun. :)
Cheers, I might do that... I've been playing HW2 for a while now.
-
:)
On the Stryker issue, I haven't researched it (obviously), but from what little I've seen, it seems that the "issues" involve its vulnerability to anti-tank weapons (namely the extremely common Russian-made RPG). Now, pardon me, but if you write a virus, and then complain that anti-virus programs are able to stop it, who's fault is that- the virus's? :rolleyes:
-
Nope. The people who wrote the anti-virus program.:D
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
On the Stryker issue, I haven't researched it (obviously), but from what little I've seen, it seems that the "issues" involve its vulnerability to anti-tank weapons (namely the extremely common Russian-made RPG). Now, pardon me, but if you write a virus, and then complain that anti-virus programs are able to stop it, who's fault is that- the virus's? :rolleyes:
I don't know what exactly you mean by that, but the fact remains that its armour is easily defeated by a very common current weapon, rendering it ineffective. That's the major problem with it, I guess, but I don't really know that much about the issue.
-
The whole purpose of that "very common current weapon" just happens to be defeating MBT armor... to expect the armor of a glorified and highly modifiable APC to withstand such weapons would mean that you would have to equip said vehicle with better armor than an MBT.
I mean, really:
1) Tanks are invented.
2) Anti-tank weapons are invented.
3) People complain that tanks are a failure because they are vulnerable to anti-tank weapons.
Puh-leeeze! :rolleyes:
EDIT: Now I'm not saying that the tank in the analogy shouldn't be improved simply because it was defeated by something else that was made to defeat it, but there needs to be either a change in presentation of this Stryker vehicle, or a change in its composition.
Presentation: Public, this ain't a tank. It's supposed to provide mobility to ground forces and protection from anything from small arms fire to heavy machine-guns. If you want a vehicle that can withstand modern anti-tank weaponry, go pour yourself a 10-meter thick wall of reinforced concrete and put wheels on it.
Composition: Due to the multiplicity of anti-tank weaponry among the enemy, the Stryker vehicle as originally concieved is ill-suited to the modern battlefield. In its current state, it can fulfill the role of infantry transport to the front-lines exceedingly well, as well as various other duties that do not involve intentional front-lines combat. The alternative is to redesign the vehicle to be 5 meters wide, 10 meters long, and 3 meters tall. The internal space will not increase; all this extra space will be devoted to additional armor to withstand even the fiercest barrage of weaponry concievable.
:rolleyes:
-
No, it's more like:
- Tanks are invented
- Anti tank weapons are invented
- Better tanks that can resist previous anti-tank weapons are invented
- Better anti-tank weapons are invented that can defeat modern armor
- Repeat
Against a modern MBT, one of those RPGs can at best hope for a mobility kill. I know the Stryker shouldn't have as much armor as an MBT, it would be silly, but there is people lobbying to get it to replace true MBT forces (the version with the tank gun), where it doesn't have even nearly the same survivability as a modern main battle tank.
I won't argue this because I don't know all the facts, but that's what I heard on the issue up to now.
-
Again, :rolleyes:. Even modern MBTs can be taken out of the equation with the right weapon hitting the right spot, and I don't just mean having their mobility impaired, either.
I'm quite versed in the RPG - I used it in the IDF. RPGs are constantly upgrading. The basic launch tube remains essentially the same, but it's not the launch tube that is causing the damage, now is it?
The rockets they had when I learned about the RPG (5-6 years ago) were capable of penetrating over a meter of standard armor with ease.
A meter. That's a lot of metal.
Now of course there are more advanced types of armor beyond just plain metals - CHOAM, reactive, plated, etc... but the fact of the matter is that our ability to cause damage to an object is increasing faster than our ability to protect said object from damage is. "Build 'em, and they will come."
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Again, :rolleyes:. Even modern MBTs can be taken out of the equation with the right weapon hitting the right spot, and I don't just mean having their mobility impaired, either.
I'm quite versed in the RPG - I used it in the IDF. RPGs are constantly upgrading. The basic launch tube remains essentially the same, but it's not the launch tube that is causing the damage, now is it?
The rockets they had when I learned about the RPG (5-6 years ago) were capable of penetrating over a meter of standard armor with ease.
A meter. That's a lot of metal.
Now of course there are more advanced types of armor beyond just plain metals - CHOAM, reactive, plated, etc... but the fact of the matter is that our ability to cause damage to an object is increasing faster than our ability to protect said object from damage is. "Build 'em, and they will come."
So, you're saying you'd support it if the IDF decided to switch their Merkavas for the mobile gun variant of the Stryker?
-
The issue isn't that it's vulnerable to RPGs per se, it's that it's vulnerable to RPGs and is planned to fill a role where said vulnerability is a massive failing. Apparently some people in the US military want to use it as a light tank, something that it emphatically is not. That's one of the issues surrounding it.
Another is that it's note as airportable as it should be, it just barely fits into C-130s and that's stripped down.
Anyhow sandy, I figured you'd have heard of it seeing as you're in the military.
-
RPGs for the most part will be irrelevant soon, with the new tank shielding tech.
-
What shielding tech?
-
Ooh that electrical charge stuff.... :drevil:
-
There's that and there's the actual electromagnetic shielding that's being proposed for the US Future Combat Systems, which is just a concept by now if I'm not mistaken.
-
oh k
-
military technology is evolving every year (or so) something new is builded or trying to make but i think that just bad because that money could be used somewhere else :)
okay it was little OT
*still remempers his military years*:sigh:
-
What about cloaking? If I remember back a year or so in some issue of Scientific American, I seem to remember some sort of cloaking technology that had been developed for personelle use... wonder if that could ever be adapted for tank warfare. :)
-
Well.. it'd kinda make sense to have a multi-purpose vehicle. Weak or not, right? It ain't like it's cutting edge tech.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
So, you're saying you'd support it if the IDF decided to switch their Merkavas for the mobile gun variant of the Stryker?
Eh? How'd you arrive at that conclusion?? :confused: Of course I don't. However, it could very well be that the Stryker is a worthy replacement for the aged M113 APCs Israel still uses widely, and maybe even for the PUMA (engineering vehicle - basically a turretless tank).
Originally posted by Shrike
The issue isn't that it's vulnerable to RPGs per se, it's that it's vulnerable to RPGs and is planned to fill a role where said vulnerability is a massive failing.
I thought I said that. Anyway, agreed. :)
Originally posted by Shrike
Another is that it's note as airportable as it should be, it just barely fits into C-130s and that's stripped down.
That is a big issue for the US, true.
Originally posted by Shrike
Anyhow sandy, I figured you'd have heard of it seeing as you're in the military.
Reserves, actually. I get called up once or twice a year to use the most decrepit equipment the IDF has. :p But I'm actually surprised that I hadn't heard of the Stryker before. Oh well.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
What about cloaking? If I remember back a year or so in some issue of Scientific American, I seem to remember some sort of cloaking technology that had been developed for personelle use... wonder if that could ever be adapted for tank warfare. :)
I seem to remember seeing something in a newspaper about 5 years ago that they'd fitted a Challenger II tank with some sort of cloaking tech. I can't remember the specifics, but I believe it was based on fibre optics all over the vehicle, meaning that if you looked at one side of it, you'd see what the fibre optics on the other side were looking at.
-
There should be a MAX plugin for that kind of effect - basically it would remove the volume of space the cloaked object took up from the equation. So the imagery that was rendered from the cloaked object would seem that much closer to the camera.
Any takers?
-
but from what little I've seen, it seems that the "issues" involve its vulnerability to anti-tank weapons (namely the extremely common Russian-made RPG).
Any light infantry support vehicle like that always be vulnerable to an RPG.
-
All of you go play Op Flashpoint. :p
APCs can take 1 RPG
M60s and T72s can take 2/3
M1A1s and T80s can take 5 or more.
-
Presumably that's for gameplay reasons more than anything else. I can't envisage a game where you shoot tanks being very challenging if you can just find the 'sweet spot' and keep aiming for it, destroying the tank every time.
It's always easier to destroy something than to prevent it being destroyed. It's just like that.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-pics.htm
It's the same basic design like the Canadian Forces IFV's (LAV, Cougar, Coyote, Grissly, etc,) as well as our communications vehicles.
[ http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_1.asp ]
Cheers!
-
Well, the Stryker is built in Canada, it's a next-gen LAV.
-
There was some sort of Russian RADAR cloaking technology that was hyped a few years back. It involved, basically, metal filaments all over the aircraft which ionised the air surrounding it, thereby reducing RADAR signature by absorbing or dispersing incoming RADAR signals. Problem was, the plane couldn't use its radio while the shield was active for obvious reasons. And the shield didn't work in wet weather, or at high speeds (above the Mach).
I heard somewhere that the Beak (or B-2 'Spirit', if you want to be absolutely correct) uses a similar system?
Then there was that armour developed for light vehicles, to protect them from AT rockets. The armour consisted of two layers of metal, with a potential difference of about 50 000V across the airgap.
1) Rocket hits outer layer.
2) Slug of copper is forced through outer layer and touches the inner layer.
3) Huge current flows, vaporising the copper slug.
In tests, a jeep was hit by about 30 AT rockets and was still able to roll off the test range under its own power.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
All of you go play Op Flashpoint. :p
APCs can take 1 RPG
M60s and T72s can take 2/3
M1A1s and T80s can take 5 or more.
What game are you playing? Maybe its because im using LAWs, that those T80s blow up when i get em in the neck. Though it is realistic i think, not just for gameplay, i imagine the bigger tanks can tank more than one RPG.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
3) Huge current flows, vaporising the copper slug.
Handy that the slugs were copper, a highly conductive metal, eh?
-
I forget at the moment why copper is used in these weapons. Something to do with density and melting point, perhaps?
But this technology works against all rockets that dish out damage in that way. Against ordinary explosives it's no good at all, but if the weapon involves forcing a dense (usually molten) metal slug through the armour, it increases survivability markedly.
-
And then someone fires something diamond-tipped at the wonderful precious multi-billion pound tank and it goes kaput. It's not altogether difficult to make something non-conductive that's also very hard. It's just a little easier to use common metals.
-
Nope, not the case at all. AP rounds are by their very nature relatively soft, believe it or not. A diamond would shatter on impact. Copper is used because copper turns to a molten form at a low enough level to be reached by conventional explosives, and is malliable enough to stay in one cohisive blob as it penetrates the armor.
The idea of an armor-piercing weapon is not to put the whole shell through the armor plating, just to put something so deadly to the crew through that no one is still in the tank to run it when you're done. AP weapons detonate on the surface of armor, propelling a small slug (often made of copper or some other relatively soft metal) into the armor. As the slug penetrates, it generates a lot of heat, so that by the time it reaches the cabin beneath the armor it is superhot and quite lethal. It then (in theory) spews onto the crew or the ammo or something like that and takes the tank out of action. The crew (or some other flammable, non-explosive type thing) getting hit results in a burnt-out tank, and if the ammo stores get hit then you're liable to see a popping turret. Nasty things armor piercing weapons are, but not exactly made up of what you might think.
-
Fair enough. But something non-metallic with those properties, hmm... maybe not. But there ought to be some way to combat it. Like grounding wires or something. ~shrug~
-
Simply put, if there was enough damage to make the first piece of metal touch the other then the whole system would be offline (massive short), so it isn't near as bulletproof as it seems to be. As for changing armor piercing rounds, that's pretty unlikely, since they rely very heavily on the properties of metals to work, and it just so happens that all stable, non-explosive metals are pretty conductive.
-
So, basically, you throw something really large and heavy at it so it dents and shorts, then have at it with the anti-tank stuff?
-
Yes, basically. Then there's the idea of multilayered armour, which works on the basis that several layers of metal seperated by fibreglass (or similar) is harder to punch through than the same thickness of metal, because it's flexible enough to absorb some of the impact. It's also lighter and (sometimes) cheaper.
I was considering this type of composite armour for my entry in Robot Wars (which never materialised). It would've been exceptionally good in the arena, coz circular saws would probably have got stuck when they tried to cut through.
-
For circular saws you cover the darned thing with (unflammable) fur. Hopefully overheats their battery while you're at it, since their motor just uses more and more current as it enters the low-speed high-torque range of the scale.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
No, it's more like:
- Tanks are invented
- Anti tank weapons are invented
- Better tanks that can resist previous anti-tank weapons are invented
- Better anti-tank weapons are invented that can defeat modern armor
- Repeat
and thus Colossus was commissioned...
;7
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Nope, not the case at all. AP rounds are by their very nature relatively soft, believe it or not. A diamond would shatter on impact. Copper is used because copper turns to a molten form at a low enough level to be reached by conventional explosives, and is malliable enough to stay in one cohisive blob as it penetrates the armor.
The idea of an armor-piercing weapon is not to put the whole shell through the armor plating, just to put something so deadly to the crew through that no one is still in the tank to run it when you're done. AP weapons detonate on the surface of armor, propelling a small slug (often made of copper or some other relatively soft metal) into the armor. As the slug penetrates, it generates a lot of heat, so that by the time it reaches the cabin beneath the armor it is superhot and quite lethal. It then (in theory) spews onto the crew or the ammo or something like that and takes the tank out of action. The crew (or some other flammable, non-explosive type thing) getting hit results in a burnt-out tank, and if the ammo stores get hit then you're liable to see a popping turret. Nasty things armor piercing weapons are, but not exactly made up of what you might think.
Technically speaking, nobody uses straight 'AP' any longer - it's either APDS sabot rounds or HEAT rounds.
The former use extremely dense, hard metals such as tungsten or uranium to mechanically push their way through armor by maximum force on minimum area - that's why APDS penetrators are only about 40-50mm in diameter, about a third of the gun bore, and are extremely long relative to their diameter. These are the most reliable at penetrating armor because there aren't so many nifty tricks you can do to stop them except add more armor and slope it.
HEAT arounds use a shaped charge to fire a jet of superheated metal (as stated, normally copper) through armor, cutting through armor with a combination of thermal and kinetic energy. These weapons are handy because you don't need a big ****ing gun to fire a HEAT round, the speed of the shell has no relevance to the effect of the warhead, hence why they're used on missiles and rockets. However, there's more ways to defeat them, such as ERA, composites and some experimental stuff like the electric armor.