Technology Development in Armored Warfare

2010-12-01 10:25:01

#1

Trotskygrad: бля; +354|6387|Vortex Ring State

So, in this modern time and date, we are seeing developments in armored warfare such as active protection systems, ERA, and DU armor/shells (not really that recent, but whatever)

where might technology go in the future?

I'm thinking that mecha-style walkers are TOTALLY out of the question, something like that would sacrifice a shit-ton of armor for very little gain in mobility.

I'm thinking that Rail/Coil guns that make a very high speed projectile for higher penetration might be viable in future tanks.

Also, perhaps, mounting shaped charges onto tanks to form some sort of one-use only gun? Seems like an interesting idea to say the least, due to the nature of shaped charges. and their high penetration potential.

2010-12-01 10:31:59

#2

cl4u53w1t2: Salon-Bolschewist; +269|6861|Kakanien

nothing on the scale of aircraft, tanks and nuclear bombs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0

2010-12-01 10:38:25

#3

Trotskygrad: бля; +354|6387|Vortex Ring State

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
nothing on the scale of aircraft, tanks and nuclear bombs

tanks constitute armored warfare, I'm talking about how tanks, APCs, and other armored vehicles might look in the future

2010-12-01 10:56:22

#4

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6888|so randum

there was a bbc article on that smart-gun (the one thats basically like the rockets in BF2142) lemme dig it up. twas a good read

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2010-12-01 11:59:24

#5

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +564|7102|Purplicious Wisconsin

The merge of gunships(the aerial kind) and tanks to turn into the ultimate fighting vehicle.

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2010-12-01 12:00:29

#6

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5746|London, England

War Man wrote:
The merge of gunships(the aerial kind) and tanks to turn into the ultimate fighting vehicle.

Umm... no.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-12-01 12:02:47

#7

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7163|Moscow, Russia

drone better (c).

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2010-12-01 12:06:43

#8

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,990|7020|949

It's leading towards fully automated systems. I have a few good articles on the future of warfare/technology, if I can remember I'll post some of the stuff after work.

2010-12-01 12:39:50

#9

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6888|so randum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11876041

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2010-12-01 12:43:39

#10

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6859

wait is this Debate & Serious Talk or Conjecture & Fantasy Drivel?

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-12-01 12:46:03

#11

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5746|London, England

FatherTed wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11876041

That was on FutureWeapons a few years ago. Sick shotgun too.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-12-01 12:46:52

#12

jord: Member; +2,382|7066|The North, beyond the wall.

I agree with warmong

2010-12-01 12:50:52

#13

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6349|Places 'n such

JohnG@lt wrote:
FatherTed wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11876041
That was on FutureWeapons a few years ago. Sick shotgun too.

remember seeing something on there about some robot grenade launcher that fired a ridiculous amount of shells in a short time. that was cool.

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2010-12-01 13:20:09

#14

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +564|7102|Purplicious Wisconsin

JohnG@lt wrote:
War Man wrote:
The merge of gunships(the aerial kind) and tanks to turn into the ultimate fighting vehicle.
Umm... no.

Obviously you didn't notice me not being serious.

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2010-12-01 13:21:32

#15

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6387|...

War Man wrote:
The merge of gunships(the aerial kind) and tanks to turn into the ultimate fighting vehicle.

It's called Apache Longbow.

There's nothing I'd fear more than either a bullet to the spine or being confronted by an attack chopper.

Last edited by dayarath (2010-12-01 13:22:06)

inane little opines

2010-12-01 13:23:38

#16

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6387|...

I don't think fully automated systems will ever truly enter in the army on a very large scale... they're too expensive. Even if you'd bring the argument of mass production that doesn't negate the fact that many of them use scarce resources, have many different parts and are generally difficult to make.

Take the ammunition that explodes over a target f.ex. or homing ammunition, that sort of stuff is unaffordable. You can only shrink your active fighting force so much.

(also this doesn't really sound like much D&ST)

Last edited by dayarath (2010-12-01 13:25:33)

inane little opines

2010-12-01 13:26:16

#17

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +564|7102|Purplicious Wisconsin

dayarath wrote:
War Man wrote:
The merge of gunships(the aerial kind) and tanks to turn into the ultimate fighting vehicle.
It's called Apache Longbow.

There's nothing I'd fear more than either a bullet to the spine or being confronted by an attack chopper.

That still is a Gunship. Gunships can be tough as a tank, but that doesn't make it a merge of tank and gunship. You'd have to be inside my imagination to understand better.

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2010-12-01 13:28:56

#18

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6387|...

War Man wrote:
That still is a Gunship. Gunships can be tough as a tank, but that doesn't make it a merge of tank and gunship. You'd have to be inside my imagination to understand better.

I don't know what you're thinking but it sounds just as impractical as the P1000 the germans briefly designed.

The AC-130 covers the aerial artillery more than enough, and the longbow isn't called flying tank for no reason.

inane little opines

2010-12-01 13:29:28

#19

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5746|London, England

dayarath wrote:
I don't think fully automated systems will ever truly enter in the army on a very large scale... they're too expensive. Even if you'd bring the argument of mass production that doesn't negate the fact that many of them use scarce resources, have many different parts and are generally difficult to make.

Take the ammunition that explodes over a target f.ex. or homing ammunition, that sort of stuff is unaffordable. You can only shrink your active fighting force so much.

(also this doesn't really sound like much D&ST)

It costs millions of dollars to train up a single soldier. If you instead train one soldier and have him control a platoon of robots, it's more cost effective.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-12-01 13:39:55

#20

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6387|...

JohnG@lt wrote:
It costs millions of dollars to train up a single soldier. If you instead train one soldier and have him control a platoon of robots, it's more cost effective.

I don't see how that would be any cheaper, besides, it takes alot more time to look after those things than it does for a normal soldier. Firstly, there's the human factor - a human brain is unparalleled in problem solving or overcoming difficult obstacles, a human also has way more overview of a situation than a robot with a camera - and one guy can't possibly replace an entire platoon of people with their eyes open.

Secondly there's quite some rough terrain which robots will have an extremely difficult time to traverse, if they could even do that. (mountain slopes, thick forests / jungles, swamps) and the like. - pretty much the favorite hideouts for the current 'terrorist' problem we're having.

Lastly, maintenance has to be a bitch. If there's anything I learned from people talking about Afgh it's that sand gets EVERYWHERE. Not only that, there's lots of complex systems inside a robot and it'd need a quite skilled mechanic to fix it in an acceptable timeframe.

inane little opines

2010-12-01 14:04:50

#21

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,990|7020|949

Ever heard of the DARPA Grand and/or Urban challenge? They are looking at creating robots specifically to traverse rough terrain. It's happening sooner than you think. The FUTURE IS NOW!

Also, as far as cost is concerned, I think the inference is that a million dollar robot vehicle is worth less than a human life. The idea is to not risk human life when it's not necessary.

2010-12-01 14:09:39

#22

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6387|...

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Ever heard of the DARPA Grand and/or Urban challenge? They are looking at creating robots specifically to traverse rough terrain. It's happening sooner than you think. The FUTURE IS NOW!

Also, as far as cost is concerned, I think the inference is that a million dollar robot vehicle is worth less than a human life. The idea is to not risk human life when it's not necessary.

You can call me when they beat humans in obstacle courses and the like, I'm very doubtful that that'll happen within the next 30-40 years.

Even so, the rest of the points still stand.

inane little opines

2010-12-01 14:43:33

#23

Trotskygrad: бля; +354|6387|Vortex Ring State

Uzique wrote:
wait is this Debate & Serious Talk or Conjecture & Fantasy Drivel?

Research and Development is Conjencture and Fantasy drivel?

OK Uzique.

We're talking about emerging systems that are being currently developed, although I can see how your post might apply to some replies in this thread (War Man)

2010-12-01 14:47:34

#24

Trotskygrad: бля; +354|6387|Vortex Ring State

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Ever heard of the DARPA Grand and/or Urban challenge? They are looking at creating robots specifically to traverse rough terrain. It's happening sooner than you think. The FUTURE IS NOW!

Also, as far as cost is concerned, I think the inference is that a million dollar robot vehicle is worth less than a human life. The idea is to not risk human life when it's not necessary.

I think that a robot that traverses rough terrain is going to be weakly armored and rather impractical for battlefield usage.

2010-12-01 15:03:13

#25

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,990|7020|949

dayarath wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Ever heard of the DARPA Grand and/or Urban challenge? They are looking at creating robots specifically to traverse rough terrain. It's happening sooner than you think. The FUTURE IS NOW!

Also, as far as cost is concerned, I think the inference is that a million dollar robot vehicle is worth less than a human life. The idea is to not risk human life when it's not necessary.
You can call me when they beat humans in obstacle courses and the like, I'm very doubtful that that'll happen within the next 30-40 years.

Even so, the rest of the points still stand.

You obviously don't get it. A robot is not going to fully replace a foot soldier. That's just silly. Think of systems like the Predator drone - the human is far removed from the actual battlefield.

Your other points don't stand. You obviously didn't even bother to look up what the DARPA challenges are - they are challenges specifically catered to building robotic vehicles that can traverse rough terrain (yes, including jungle, mountains and forests). As for your other 'point', "I heard there's a lot of sand in Afghanistan and robots have a lot of parts so it would be hard to repair and maintain them" isn't a very good argument.

BF2S Forums Technology Development in Armored Warfare

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

War Man wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

War Man wrote:

War Man wrote:

dayarath wrote:

War Man wrote:

War Man wrote:

dayarath wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

dayarath wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Board footer