Is the Rheinmetall 130 mm going to be the next leap in tank guns and become standard?

it's called autism

It's clearly some kind of weapon exhibition/salon you blind fuck

At this point, everything is just pussyfooting around the reality that barrel launched missiles are the future. Getting a missile to go, and stay going at the same speed as a round is not an issue, even if we used a charge launched missile, having it with terminal guidance is the future.

The other issue is going to be active protection, which actually is not insurmountable. Just slap it's shit with a canister shot or fragmenting missile at range and fuck up it's sensors or probability.

That is the name of the game, escalation, it wont be cheap to wage war because now you need to have either a decoy or screen with your primary munition that does "soft" damage to impede external sensors.

sooo...The near future will be where sensors are armored, or are distrubted as well. watch and see.

>barrel launched missiles are the future
That's what was claimed 50 years ago

gun clit.

Clearly you have been paying no attention at all to the Ukraine or Syria.

It is clear that it is replacing the 140mm as the standard future-proof gun. It remains to be seen if it will see adoption however.

The main problem that larger rounds take up more space meaning that upgunning would decrease the amount of ammunition carried. Combine that with the trend of replacing manual loaders with autoloaders to save on weight and the recognition of the import of blowout panels and round counts start getting worrying low.

China is already fielding 155mm guns on their tanks with excalibur level of autonomousity while you guys are just starting to develop your even smaller guns?

>China is already fielding 155mm guns on their tanks with excalibur level of autonomousity while you guys are just starting to develop your even smaller guns?

It's not an achievement to build a big gun. The real magic is putting it into a tank that isn't ridiculously large, ridiculously under-equipped for combat, excessively heavy, unprotected, or too slow. Smaller caliber tank guns still kill everything they need to shoot at just fine.

>The overall size of tanks carrying this gun woild have to increase dramatically
Not really, just make an unmanned turret. Of course, when operational auto-loader is a technology unreachable for US and German engineering, France and Russia would be only guys with a new big shinning cannons.

The tradeoff with autoloaders is that it's harder to implement blowout panels, have less room for ammo (a human loader is quite dexterous), and a manual loader can outpace an autoloader.

>At this point, everything is just pussyfooting around the reality that barrel launched missiles are the future.

I hope this is true. I want to see ground vehicles and helicopters with anti-tank missiles that have an 8-10 mile range.

Attached: Starbucks Water.png (1260x1242, 1.15M)

>The tradeoff with autoloaders is that it's harder to implement blowout panels
Not in a case when turret is unmanned.
>have less room for ammo (a human loader is quite dexterous)
A human loader take space that need to be armored to the max. The mass of that additional armor is killing all bonuses from human dexterousness. Just compare M1A1 to Block III.
>manual loader can outpace an autoloader.
With heavier shells for a bigger gun no reasonable win can be gained.

An amazing superpower.

>Not in a case when turret is unmanned.
Which suddenly means you can't have the commander looking out the top of the tank, with the superior visibility it offers, without adding a man hatch that gets in the way of the autoloader and/or gun, or ends up off center and not particularly useful if the turret ever needs to traverse until you move right back to where you started and make it a manned turret again.

>M1 weighed 61 tonnes
>M1A2 SEP V3 weighs 70 tonnes

adding a new 130mm gun would probably cause it to sink into the ground

t. mbt-70 designer

I'm seriously surprised tanks these days aren't just armored javelin missile launchers with an autocannon for infantry fighting

>Which suddenly means you can't have the commander looking out the top of the tank
You can put a camera on top of the tank. With zoom and thermals.

I served with a vehicle that had L/44 mounted. That is why know

T. Samefag

Chuckle berry fin

>MBT70
Haha, that thing was nuts.

t. khrushchev

Khrisantema?

>Smaller caliber tank guns still kill everything they need to shoot at just fine.
Then why the need for 130mm when 120mm is fine?
China uses them because Chinese 155mm has a lot of impressive ammo that only China is able to field. Not only can it fire suicide drones, it can even fire aerial depth charge that can blanket a lot of air area suffocating a helicopter hiding behind an obstacle, like an Apache.

>Then why the need for 130mm when 120mm is fine?
Exactly. That's why everyone's still sticking with 120mm guns and upgraded Rheinmetall 120mm platforms like the Abrams and Leopard 2.

>Which suddenly means you can't have the commander looking out the top of the tank
Why do you hate tank commanders? The Canadian Army spent neat bux on replacing the manual gunner with RWS on their MRAPs, and that's just one example.

>with the superior visibility it offers
Bullets and Shrapnels are flying around and yet you say the commander would be able to stick his head out there, and spot targets better than a thermal sight with 50x zoom can? lol, pull the other one.

Most targets for a tank are possible enemy positions, not actual targets, which means a decent HE-frag.

You offer them both. Mark 1 eyeballs have to be available to the crew to command the tank, and you want a well placed hatch for fast egress of the crew. One close proximity explosion and your fancy optics package is easily blinded.

Ok mutt, who uses autoloaders?

Dear Friend,

I am American like you! But why is I am more impressed with Chinese direction of progressing in gun technology? Of course I am American so I recognise the great American weapons of war but China has a clear difference not only in better research with development but the feel in the department? Probably Chinese Patriotic Culture? America is a mix of different culture that is different from one another that cause friction among themselves so they try multiculturalism that is to destroy the outline of one culture to include many others. This cause very small nationalism to the country they serve only to money. While Chinese can afford to rush person to stop a tank because of Patriotic Duty to Motherland.

every second up the hatch is every second not using the very expensive thermal sight. Its also a second more for one well placed bullet from a sniper or that close proximity explosion tearing our commander's face apart. When it comes to hatches the T-14 isn't lacking at all with 2 just above the driver and commander and the gunner having to share with either which is teh same situation with the gunner in Leopard 2/ M1 Abrams tanks

So what you're saying is that you have no counterargument that isn't a contrived argument that's actually just trying to defend the Armata, which doesn't actually let its crew see worth a damn.

>gun clit
hot

Can you put a gun or launcher on the end of a missile and activate it above the tank? Mebbe spray some graphite or something hot and sticky over the target

Attached: chinko_.jpg (940x716, 140K)

>So what you're saying is that you have no counterargument that isn't a contrived argument that's actually just trying to defend the Armata, which doesn't actually let its crew see worth a damn.
How can it be contrived when people did and would die from riding up top the open hatch? Hint: armor only protects you when you're behind it. I've only mentioned the T-14 as its the only unmanned turret tank out there and its gettin tiring to type unmanned turret everytime/

Attached: dronetank.jpg (474x266, 19K)

And you don't go around riding out the top of the tank every time, but you keep that as an option because your optics can and will break and you need it as an option of last resort. What's more, it provides an excellent means of getting out of the tank if its crippled. No one's arguing that people should be riding outside the hatch all the time in a combat zone.

I hope not. I'd much rather see things go the ETC route. Or at least go with things like the XM-360, significantly lighter 120mm that can handle more pressure than current guns and has ADL as standard to help future proof it

There's a world of difference between looking at the world through a camera compared to looking at the world for real.

An example is the attempt to replace power line inspection with a camera drone.
Power lines need regular inspection to see if there is trees growing too close, storm damage or branches that's gotten stuck.
Normally you'd have a dude in a helicopter flying along the power line, manually inspecting the power line.
They tried to have a drone fly along the power line and then have the dude inspect the recorded footage.
In a helicopter, the dude would be able yo stay attentive longer than the helicopter had endurance.
Looking at a screen, it was shown that your average person could stay attentive for up to half an hour before he got so bored that it seriously impacted the task.

Being able to have that TC pop the hatch and have a look is a serious advantage pf manned turret.

Attached: 1522611048252.png (1203x967, 597K)

One well placed shot into the fancy optic and you get the same result comrade. One costs money, the other a life, so I can see why you'd want to keep fleshy meat bags in the armor but still. Tank commanders are a legitimate need.

At this point, everything is just pussyfooting around the reality that world ending artillery are the future.

Broken optics are cheap, lives aren't. I'd rather have to drive back somewhere safe and then replace the glass for the sight (its a periscope with the actual expensive sight under armor) than risk commanders. Think about it, anything that fucked up the optics, a really small target and armored on most sides, would still be there when the commander goes up. Its way too much risk for little gain.

Also am I the only one noticing how ironic that I'm arguing on the side of the Russians who traditionally eschewed crew survivability here?

Easy fix. pay the guy monitoring drone screens about as much the fuel for the helo costs. I'd double dog guarantee you he'd be scanning every pixel like a hawk.

What, exactly, do you think I'm arguing for here?

This. 120mm ETC guns can already achieve 130mm levels of performance.

>120/125mm missiles are the future
>ATGM's are typically 152mm

>Looking at a screen, it was shown that your average person could stay attentive for up to half an hour before he got so bored that it seriously impacted the task.
That's why you do use AI.

One would think so but no matter how motivated, your attention will suffer no matter what if you are tasked to view a screen with repetitive information.
Your brain is wired in a certain way like that.
Being motivated by money helps but in the case of the T-14 during a wartime scenario, it will be manned by a bunch of vatniks conscripts who has slept far too little and hasn't had any bathtub cleaner to drink or anyone to rape.
Not an ideal situation for max attention to begin with.

their enemies would be amerishart mutts and faggot belters with subhuman IQs, they'd be fine.

S H E R I D A N

Bring it back right now

It's a laser reflector to mesure the deformation of the gun. Usefull in hot weather.

Truth be told, you barely need military to defend against the subhuman vermin that are russians. It is a well known fact that man for man, russians are some of the worst fighters in the world and a gathering of "men" that is a russian mobilization would result in such a gay rape orgy that their entire "army" would have HIV within the week.

Attached: 1494345650239.jpg (564x423, 36K)