[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.

[Knight Templar]

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.

[Sandwich]

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?? 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. But I'm actually surprised that I hadn't heard of the Stryker before. Oh well.

[Petrarch of the VBB]

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.

[Sandwich]

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?

[Kosh]

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.

[Petrarch of the VBB]

All of you go play Op Flashpoint.
APCs can take 1 RPG
M60s and T72s can take 2/3
M1A1s and T80s can take 5 or more.

[Odyssey]

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.

[Fractux]

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!

[Shrike]

Well, the Stryker is built in Canada, it's a next-gen LAV.

[Descenterace]

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.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
All of you go play Op Flashpoint.
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.

[Odyssey]

Originally posted by Descenterace
3) Huge current flows, vaporising the copper slug.

Handy that the slugs were copper, a highly conductive metal, eh?

[Descenterace]

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.

[Odyssey]

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.

[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.

[Odyssey]

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~

[StratComm]

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.

[Odyssey]

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?

[Descenterace]

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.