Comment on MT-4A1 Liberator by SteamTank
In the world, where the guns are capable of penetreting 1meter of steel and more, thick armor is not masively useful
If this is the case, then there is no need for tanks. Armour is the whole point of a tank.
Not moving 120 mm cannons cross country at high speed while still being protected against non dedicated anti armour weapons?
If you just need firepower without the heavy armour, you don't really need a tank to fulfill this, at least not a Main Battle Tank. There are plenty of other types of AFVs that can fulfill this role just fine. I believe the kind of vehicles you may be looking for, are things like the AHS Krab, the LAV-600, or the B1 Centauro. They have enough armour to withstand most forms of small arms fire, but are lacking in the necessary protection against dedicated anti-tank weapons. On the other hand, they are light weight, highly mobile, and pack plenty of firepower.
The treads on Steam's design would provide superior mobility over rough terrain than wheels and the medium armour would afford greater survivability against smaller weapons than the examples you provided. Further, I think Steam was working off of a similar assumption to what the Germans made when they were designing their Leopard 1's (surely you are familiar?).
I'm at a loss as to why you grouped a howitzer with two wheeled tank destroyers however. They serve in completely different roles.
I'm at a loss as to why you grouped a howitzer with two wheeled tank destroyers however. They serve in completely different roles.
I think you misread my comment. At no point did I mention that the vehicle(s) had to have wheels, nor did I mention it having to be a tank destroyer.
I think you misread both my comment and your own previous comment.
You suggested 3 vehicles which would fulfil the requirements of my first comment (a large and highly mobile gun). 2 of these were wheeled tank destroyers and the other was a comparatively slow howitzer that could not be further from the stated requirement (hence my confusion in my previous comment).
The first half of my previous comment detailed how Steam's design would still fulfill those requirements.
You suggested 3 vehicles which would fulfil the requirements of my first comment (a large and highly mobile gun). 2 of these were wheeled tank destroyers and the other was a comparatively slow howitzer that could not be further from the stated requirement (hence my confusion in my previous comment).
The first half of my previous comment detailed how Steam's design would still fulfill those requirements.
Well, I said it can be any other AFV. I did not mention whether it had to be a tank destroyer or not, nor does it really matter to me if it has wheels or tracks. Tracked vehicles are not inherently more mobile than wheeled vehicles. The advantages and disadvantages they have are situational.
I would like to note that the LAV-600 technically isn't a tank destroyer. It is officially designated as a reconnaissance vehicle. Yes it has elements of a tank destroyer, just as how the Stridsvagn 103 has elements of a tank destroyer, but both vehicles were designed with a different intent in mind. The AHS Krab can attain a top speed of almost 70 km/h, which is not slow at all. In fact, it is on par with the average Main Battle Tank.
SteamTank's vehicle isn't bad. I actually never criticised the vehicle itself. I was commenting on SteamTank's comment towards Ammoracker101, where he makes it sound like the tank is pretty much useless. Stating that every gun can penetrate it. The tank has armour that is about 100-170 mm thick, and based on the conversation I had with SteamTank, this isn't an RHAe measurement. 100-170 mm is the actual thickness of the vehicle's armour. So we have a tank with armour that is actually quite thick, but doesn't really protect the crew from anything, besides small arms fire, in which case the armour could be made much thinner.
I would like to note that the LAV-600 technically isn't a tank destroyer. It is officially designated as a reconnaissance vehicle. Yes it has elements of a tank destroyer, just as how the Stridsvagn 103 has elements of a tank destroyer, but both vehicles were designed with a different intent in mind. The AHS Krab can attain a top speed of almost 70 km/h, which is not slow at all. In fact, it is on par with the average Main Battle Tank.
SteamTank's vehicle isn't bad. I actually never criticised the vehicle itself. I was commenting on SteamTank's comment towards Ammoracker101, where he makes it sound like the tank is pretty much useless. Stating that every gun can penetrate it. The tank has armour that is about 100-170 mm thick, and based on the conversation I had with SteamTank, this isn't an RHAe measurement. 100-170 mm is the actual thickness of the vehicle's armour. So we have a tank with armour that is actually quite thick, but doesn't really protect the crew from anything, besides small arms fire, in which case the armour could be made much thinner.
View all replies
Who knows.
Of course, who is to say we won't discover more effective armour in the future. In fact we already have better things than old fashioned RHA Steel Armour, such as Cobham Composite Armour and Explosive Reactive Armour. From what has been declassified, the 44S-SV-SH Armour and Malachit Reactive Armour on the glacis of Russia's new Armata platform has the protection equivalent of about 1 meter of steel, so we are already getting there with viable armour for this hypothetical future.
Yep, equivalent, but not an actual thickness. Malachit plates are about 200 mm thick. Also, if talking about this psrticularmodel, it can be outfittwd with additional armor sets like this (includes polyalloy shielding and ERA)
I understand. If the armour was literally over 1 meter thick, that would be kind of ridiculous. It would add so much weight and take up so much space.
As long as the protection equivalent outmatches 1 meter of steel (for the relevant ammo types), it shouldn't really matter at the end of the day.
As long as the protection equivalent outmatches 1 meter of steel (for the relevant ammo types), it shouldn't really matter at the end of the day.
Well, anyway, in case of this tank, armour had to be cut to accomodate for strategic mobility