Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Tanks of the Future
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 авг 2024
- Audible one month free trial: www.audible.com...
What will tanks be like in the nearish future? Will they be hovertanks with rail guns?
Support me on Patreon: / lindybeige
My longest video to date, in which I ramble on about various ideas either I have had myself, or which I got out of a book on modern tank design, which I read about fifteen years ago, lent to me by someone who worked at the Vickers tank factory outside Newcastle. I think the most dated information is probably on image intensifiers, which have come a long way in recent years.
There was a time when I would have split this into at least three videos, but since I had to get the sponsor's message in, there was nowhere to get the editor's scissors in.
Buy the music - the music played at the end of my videos is now available here: lindybeige.ban...
More weapons and armour videos here: • Weapons and armour
Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.
Photo credit: By Jurii - images-of-eleme..., CC BY 3.0, commons.wikime...
▼ Follow me...
Twitter: / lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
Facebook: / lindybeige (it's a 'page' and now seems to be working).
Google+: "google.com/+lindybeige"
website: www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
/ user "Lindybeige"
My girlfriend told me "We need to have a talk..." I got so excited, thought we were gonna discuss tanks.
Ooooc
Tank god it was about time
She wanted to bring more armor terminology into the bedroom, right?
@Roger partner yes.
i did once talk to one of my ex-boyfriends about tanks and bought him a little model T-34 which made him really happy
I remember when my dad had this talk with me.
A U D I B L E D O T C O M ! ! !
you mean? :)
tasman_devil no, it was inaudible. Can you say it again?
I THINK HE SAID AUDIBLE DOT COOOOM!!!!
colt bolt My parents divorced when I was a kid so I never had this talk... Thank you Lindy, I needed it.
The talk about guns
"there comes a point in every mans life where he has to talk about sci-fi tank design"
It is sor, Sir.
Truer words...
@Roger partner My buddy's girlfriend told him "Give me 12 inches and make it hurt!"
So he did it three times and then punched her.
your coment have the same number of likes as the video has dislikes
@@ramixnudles7958 I have a strange feeling that “your buddy” gets top billing whenever the small dick jokes are in play. Just say it’s you because it is, and claiming it makes for some good old self-deprecating humor that infers you are confident in your own statistics. Plus, there isn’t a chance in hell any females are watching this channel, save one. Sofilein I think she is named? I
As Jeremy Clarkson says regarding hovercraft piloting - “if you see a tree coming toward you, it’s too late you’re already going to hit it.”
The key to understanding that, of course, is “if you see a tree coming toward you." Sobriety is generally advantageous when attempting activities requiring good judgment and fine motor control.
Corazon del Oro right.... okay.... Thanks for the tip!
Easy fix shoot the tree
It could be solved bij a hovercraft on wheels
@Colin Clevelandmakes me think of my work 🤣 I work for a local gov and we handle citizen complaints and we get wierd stuff like that. last week had a complaint saying "my shoes are ruined and the dogs feet are hurt. Its all over the road, Almost set the forest on fire." Without any further info or location. Like whut??
I will not rest until tanks are replaced by giant manned robots.
I will paint mine red to make it go faster.
You will make a fine Mekboy.
u need the horn
3x times as fast!
DA RED UNS GO FASTA!
needz more dakka
When you said that the British had only one main battle tank, my first thought was "do they take turns with it?" Lol
Mum said it's my turn on the tank
@@mazen6446 no it's my turn
@@itsjustthatsimple628 but it was your turn yesterday
@@Sirhc223 NO you took it yesterday
@@itsjustthatsimple628 but you ALWAYS get to go on the tank
Audible no longer sounds like a word.
Yup, now it's just an app name
you could say its..... inaudible
@@douglasparkinson4123 You know where the door is.
I didnt know audible meant something 😂
@@seherarslan4399 to make it simple audible is something you can hear
You have the mannerisms and style of a likeable teacher who has real passion for his subject
@@LegendLength Well, unions are just basically mini-mafias, after all. Money first, "job" last.
a rare occurrence, but a true gift
floating tanks, lifted by hydrogen...oh wait, I just reinvented the Zepellin.
In my opinion that plan is gonna... Crash and burn ; )
@@Yourlocaltankgirl8375 Zeppelins are actually pretty safe as long as you use helium instead of hydrogen.
@@safetyinstructor that's very true! :D
@@safetyinstructor it's a shame that the planet will run out of helium in 2025
@@flatd13tsoda56 run out is a hard statement ... perhaps we should say it will be harder to get your hands on it.
It won't dissappear but it will be harder to extract or refine
My take away from this video was that the real holy grail would be finding a way to make a tank out of some form of jelly
And a table
Actually modern tank armor is made of C4 which is close to jelly.
@@seanm4095 C-4 is more like Cake Icing or Sugar Cookie dough
@@seanm4095 The much less whimsical older brother of Silly Putty, Serious Putty.
General, why cant we use a rail gun on the tanks again?
The damn plug would keep coming out, I've told you this 20 times Jerry.
Teagan Fitzgerald I don’t think it’s reliable enough. The barrel would need to be easily replaced enough or durable enough for the amount of ammunition we want to be able to fire out of the tank in one run
69 likes
Reminded me instantly of the invader Zim episode "Megadoomer". The Almighty Tallest sent Zim a mech (by comedic shenanigans), but no power cells for it, so he had to fashion a cord/plug system that was compatible with earth power outlets. The major issue being, that the plug keeps coming unplugged, and needs a new, closer outlet to power the machine. If you can find it, I suggest watching it after watching this
@@kx7500 We'll figure out a new material one day
@@crispwhitesheets2175 easier said than done. and if you found such a material, might as well use it to make actual armour
This guy is the finest example of Chaotic Lawful I've ever seen
There's only one youtuber who would make a video about tanks one day before christmas...still love it though
Michael Rau 2 days
He could be australian.
Mike Foulds depends on your country
Merry Tankmass!
its always time to talk about tanks. never enough.
My uncle who serviced in Pacific was handed a rifle with an IR sight. He said that he did not like having a weapon with a big light on it. The sgr laughed and told him that no one would see it as it was invisible light.
Unless they also have IR sights...
@@andrewschroeder4167 oh yeah mounted on their 45 year old ak 47s
@@therecordholder by Pacific I think he meant WW2
1:35 "You want to minimize... the number of holes you put in your tank", and the number of holes your enemy puts in your tank.
7:48 nuclear hardness
What about a flying tank? ... oh, hang on, A10 😂
Oh you mean the IL-2 and the SU-25? They're actually called that in real life instead of your pos.
BBBBBVVVVVVRRRRRRR
I think you both meant to say the M18 Hellcat.
HS129B3
Do you all mean Antonov A-40, a literal flying tank, you peasants?
We all know that tanks of the future will just be Scythe Chariots with katanas sticking out of the tracks to slice and dice all enemy machine gun barrels.
Memerooney No no no, katana shooting katanas when you swing it.
Ninja-shooting railguns.
ExBruinsFan So a catapult that launches guys with swords?
alex Anerlon
BINGO.
not to hate on lindy, but I had literally never heard the word Spandau in my life until he said it, it was always just the mg42 to me
I'm not interested in tanks, and yet I have watched this entire video until the end, well done :)
WOW! Metatron, didn't expect to see you. And yeah, Lindy has this effect of being able to talk about literally anything for half an hour and make it sound interesting.
Metatron
Really? I think tanks are just as interesting as HEMA.
I've watched him talk about beds for half an hour for Gods sake
I'm not interested in any of the topics he brings talks about, and I'm excited to watch most of his videos. He's just really good at making things interesting, I suppose.
PianoMastR64 I like his points on a lot of things, he sounds like a knowledgeable dude
One advantage of extreme speed is that a projectile creates pressure waves that pulp the crew even if the shell goes all the way through
Not the pressure wave, the spalling, which is fragments of armor that break off at lethal speeds.
@@TheRealToaster2Both. Modern tanks have internal armor to prevent spalling. However it is well documented that large high velocity projectiles can destroy a target on a near miss because of the pressure and heat generated. Even a round as small as .50 cal can turn a person into mush with a near miss.
@@furrycow9263a .50 can't topple a house of cards by being shot through one. Those rounds are designed to disturb the surrounding air as little as possible to maintain velocity. If it was wasting enough energy to pulp a person for each inch it flies through the air it wouldn't fly for more than a hundred meters. I don't understand where that myth comes from. It's the high velocity pieces of armour and dart that kill you, not air.
About your hovercraft setting off mines theory. Somebody tried it and found they don't set off even really sensitive mines.
Little show called mythbusters.
This came out befor that episode aired
@@Dysfunctional_Vet33 Hovercraft didn't set off antipersonnel mines?
However, this is true only for direct-pressure fuzes. Tilt fuzes, where the detonation occurs if the fuze post is bent, will still trigger, because the hovercraft's skirt is in contact with the ground. Trip-wire fuzes will also trigger, for the same reason. Magnetic-disturbance fuzes will be set off by the metal in the hovercraft (at least for combat designs; light personal hovercraft may be mostly fiberglass and not have a big enough signature), and seismic or audio triggers will also be viable against hovercraft.
Yeah, I wouldn't try it (or risk my life) based on the results of a Mythbusters show. Not exactly conclusive proof.
JohnyG29 I would I’m trying it
I might watch this again in forty years. Will probably be a good laugh for the 69 year old me.
Forty years is just 2 times 20 years. And those are not very long times. I mean, 20 years before it was 1997. And that is almost the year 2000. In the year 2000 people thought that in 2025 there will be cybernetics and flying cars. Well, 2025 is almost here, only 8 years to go.
In the year 1997, who would've guessed that we would have computers many times more capable than the computers of the 90's in our pockets? In the year 1997, who would've guessed that we would have massive destroyers capable of producing enough power to power a good sized town, capable of using electronic railguns that fire projectiles at more than the speed of sound, and even though they're bloody massive, they're able to mimic the radar signature of a small fishing boat?
In the year 1997, who would've guessed that 266,000 people could watch a video on this thing called the "internet?"
In the year 1997, who would even know that mass communication IS?
Lets take 1939 to 1959. 20 years. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING changed, at least for the United States. In 1939, we were a powerful nation, but nowhere near as powerful as the nations of Europe - AND the majority of the world was struggling through the Great Depression.
In 1959, we were one of THE TWO SUPERPOWERS.
Also, nukes exist now, in 1959.
And the United States is one of the most prosperous nations on Earth.
Oh, and now we're in an arms race with the Soviet Union.
And the two nations have enough nukes to destroy the world two times.
And TV exists.
And EVERYTHING about combat has changed. Naval warfare, tank warfare, infantry tactics, air warfare...
The Soviet Union and the United States are THE two most influential nations in the world.
The Era of Colonialism is DONE.
We have Microwaves now.
We have Priminal Computers now.
We have Missiles now.
We put things in Earth orbit.
We have a commercial airline industry, revolutionizing mass communication.
We have this thing called the "Baby Boom."
We're in a war in the Korean Peninsula.
I could go on, but 20 years CAN change EVERYTHING.
Here's a big one. In 2010, we were still launching stuff via Space Shuttle. In 2030, NASA plans to send a man to Mars.
I didn't quite catch the name of that audio book website. Could you repeat it please?
Kj16V audible
Meme Maker Audible?
Kj16V It was inaudible.... :-)
Kj16V oooooohhhhhhh I just got the joke
Kj16V don't worry, it's in every video anyway
I didn’t realize that lindy beige and I were going to have “ the talk” tonight. I’m blushing rn.
When it comes to penetration it's always a problem if you're going too fast.
Haha, he struggled for a second to the say it with out laughing like a 12 year old 🤣
Because it turns into a perforation, right?
To be fair Sci-Fi probably got it completely wrong about tanks. Simple really $2000 tandem charge rocket kills $5,000,000 tank is a problem that will only get worse.
AKlover Tanks are becoming very obsolete you can just about open a tank hatch throw a grenade and watch
What kind of point defense? Anything can be countered. If you have lasers, then you can absorb or reflect, if it's vision, you can use other means of detection, or none at all.
I don't think the armoured vehicle is ever going to go away, but the MBT is indeed becoming more and more obsolete with more and more threats that can kill it, especially as modern wars change. We're seeing more and more urban conflicts against insurgents, who will either avoid your heavy armour or ambush it and in open field operations, MBTs are horribly vulnerable to air attack.
Like I said, I doubt we've seen the end of armoured fighting vehicles, but I think we're likely to see them getting smaller with an emphasis more on manouverability and possibly stealth, rather than survivability.
If the crew is buttoned up then NO! You can use a kinetic openetrator of some kind, a shaped charged which really needs to be tandem, or you can hit it with so much explosive you break every module in the tank rendering the crew dead and the tank inoperable. Problem with that last one is it usually requires air or arty and the leg infantry soldier seldom has a 2lb satchel charge of C4 to hand, all that before you get to placing it under the tank and clearing the blast radius before you get spayed by the coaxial MG.
AKlover I think that's why there going to get smaller and cheaper while keeping the big guns you send 50 tanks instead of 10 and hope you can kill the bad guys with firepower before you take too many loses excepting you will lose tanks to anti tank weapons
I know a LOT about repulsive power!
Have no idea why I'm single...
An Angry Marine! A lot of my friends have that
Me either, you're a good bloke!
A lot of women are intimidated by us 40k guys, I think they know the Emperor has set our standards too high.
join slanesh , 42 three boobed demons are waiting for you brother!
If there's ever a tank with legs then it must be named The Luggage.
The Luggage had no cannon, though. (But it was not “unarmed”.)
The tank in your thumbnail looks like something Elon Musk would design.
The cybertank
Google "polish stealth tank", you might enjoy the design that looks like a cool lego set.
@@alexeysaranchev6118 long boi
Alexey Saranchev
Looks like something out of Just Cause 3.
You mean "Musk would nick out of 80ies future design documents". Which is absolutely true.
Lloyd has always made me imagine him being the school teacher I never had, such a natural educator. Kudos good sir!
Wildeheart79 You could listen to him talk for hours.
Just take it with a big grain of salt.
Wildeheart79
hi's kind of fun to listen to normally but in this video he got almost every subject wrong from physical point of view.
Came here for tanks. Stayed for the digressions. :)
Like listening to my Grandad talk 😅
I think having a cheaply made swarm of unmanned drone tanks that are smaller in size is the way of the future. Everything is getting more urbanized, so being able to have a tank that isn't so clunky in the city is a good thing. Plus you could have specialized modules for each of the tanks to bolt on or take off at will. You could have one that's more geared towards anti armor, one that's more for anti personnel, one that is more for electronic warfare, one for carrying or resupplying human infantry. 1 chassis may not do everything but you could have a small medium or heavy chassis version for different roles. (future talk with my son)
I see the potential in the German Wiesel 1/2 AWC. What do you think?
@@paogene1288 Actually the French have something called the SYRANO based on the Wiesel 2 AWC. SYRANO, in French, stands for "Système Robotisé d'Acquisition pour la Neutralisation d'Objectifs". That in English translates to "Robotic acquisition system for neutralization of targets"
I'm not sure if its an experimental drone or if its actually been adopted. I also don't know if its armed or if its more just for recon. Can't find much info on it! I found it very interesting!
@@meadball1 I will look into it thanks.
I agree. I think the future of warfare is all about high numbers of low-cost unmanned autonomous robots and systems that are hard to hit and so cheap you don't care if you lose a few. Make them small and fast and just capable enough to do their job. Imagine a swarm of land mines that fly across the battlefield and cluster around a tank before exploding, or Drone swarms that fly through a city, track people down with facial recognition, and spray people with deadly nerve gas or explode like a small grenade. Small, cheap, fast, autonomous, mass-produced kamikaze bots. A tank (as we know them today) can't shoot down a drone swarm.
There's methods against things like these called lasers, and high fire rate machine guns like the minigun. No, what the military is currently thinking of employing is close, though: focused swarm tactics. This plays into the idea, I think it was an airforce theory, that you have a large number of easy to make and replace aircraft then a few really great "silver bullets", which was shown to have the same effectiveness of a much larger force. I believe this might be employed with smaller and larger autos, supplemented heavily with humans because humans are just more reliable.
Lindybeige: *talks about sci-fi tanks with an air or wrongness about them*
Also Lindybeige: *Shows Ratte*
Well played...
Is there any recorded history of someone boarding an enemy tank, and tossing a grenade into it, or is that just movie folklore?
I've heard of one Finnish soldier who jumped on a soviet tank and knocked on the hatch shouting (roughly translated) "Open, open! Death is knocking!"
Not quite what you asked but I did find this gif of a guy throwing one down the barrel of a tank in the Syrian civil war.
gfycat.com/SorrowfulBouncyGalago
I've seen old war footage of Germans out flanking a Russian T34 and getting on top of the tank, but as tank hatches can be locked from the inside there isn't much way of getting into them. And unless the breach was open, putting a grenade down the barrel wouldn't do anything as the breach block is meant to withstand explosions.
There is recorded history of people boarding tanks and being bayoneted by the tank crews when they try to do exactly this. It happened on the Eastern Front in WW2 sometimes, though.
Satchel charges under turrets or on engine decks turned out to be better.
Seph S. Finnish did this in Winter War against Russia I think.
"You can't shoot a jelly off the table" was my gran's favourite aphorism.
What a coincidence,, "shootin' jelly off the table" was my grandpas favorite euphemism.
I've watched enough Taofledermaus to know that you can indeed shoot jelly off the table.
I own a germanium lens :D it's my germanium sample for my period table collection! That thing is THE most perfect and clearest mirror I've ever seen, I swear the image is more clear than real life
Depleted Uranium has some fancy tricks against tanks.
@@allsoover depleted uranium has some fancy tricks
a book depleted uranium is fancy
Anything "Depleted" is shit.
We need to call it "Uranium X" or "Muscle uranium".
@@HansenSWE CALL IT CILLIT BANG
@@jtb9751 That is the most oblique reference I've seen in a while
What was the name of that service again?
Audible AUDIBLE auDIble AAUdible. com
eau de ball
Uwe Boll
no hamza that was shit
GTX Jake Uwe Ball is shit.
Maybe the tank of the future will use a pommel launcher.
I pray the world never stoops to develop such weapons of mass destruction. Are nukes not enough? Has not enough death been wrought? The pommel launcher would truly revolutionize war, but at what cost?
Pommel MG Railgun!
It would end war rightly.
what, with electric unscrewing and all?
A pommel launching Spandau MG with a katana bayonet.. Oh the terror!
You don't need to put holes in armor just pass information through (at least not as large nor direct holes). It might be a good idea to put a lot of redundant sights and sensor packs outside of the main armour and pack spares for when they get shot off.
I used thermal imaging in an intelligence unit in the early seventies.
We used it in strategic intell gathering. I could count planes that were there and those that had been moved.
It was important to know the time and temperature.
I believe this is how the Russians found out about the SR-71 Blackbird - The americans would take it into the hangar every time a spy satellite was due to fly over, but neglected to think about the thermal "shadow" that was still there. After one of their spies sent back word that it was discovered, they started leaving lots of weird shaped "cardboard cutout" style aeroplanes out on the runway to cast more spaceship-shaped shadows.
Have you not heard of Metal Gear?
Rail guns on tanks are a thing since 1999.
WALKING battle tanks
Throw a pommel and you surpassed Metal Gear
You misspelled 1987 (Metal Gear 1, the precusor to Metal Gear Solid, set in the far-flung future of... 1995).
@@KarlfMjolnir No, he misspelled 1998. The Metal Gear TX-55 featured in the original Metal Gear didn't use a rail gun, it just launched standard ICBMs. Metal Gear REX from Metal Gear Solid, which was released in 1998 and takes place in 2005, had a railgun. Get it right.
METAL...GEAR?
How about a tank that's carried at around shoulder-height by a couple of dozen slaves, in the style of pallbearers?
Actually, I guess you could just get a bunch of those robot dogs to carry a railgun.
Weapons to surpass Metal Gear.
A palanquin tank? Fund it, my body is ready.
at least its design would be prepared for the time beyond fossil fuels
or Bedrock
"you have to keep everything really very very cold indeed"
how to be British in one sentence.
"You can't shoot a jelly off a table"
Challenge Accepted.
How'd it go?
How did it go?
You could shoot another table on the table so everything flies away and starts spinning violently in the air. That would throw off the jelly.
Actually it's really easy shooting jelly out of the table due to hydrostatic shock. I suggest any Taofledermaus video
he is talking about extremely fast bullet that will have very low friction
OK, I gotta stop you right there. You may know a lot about the past of tanks, but apparently very little about their current state. Infrared (near) and "light amplification" _are the same thing_. In WW2 and immediately after, they weren't, but every single night sight the US has (and I've worked on literally all the infantry ones) is a light amplification tube _and_ a switchable near-infrared LED illuminator.
Thermal: thermal is the future in the sense that 1980 is the future. Our tanks and anti-tank munitions have been using high quality thermal sights for targeting since the TOW graduated to having a night sight. Hell, I have a thermal camera for my phone.
The Abrams MBT currently has passive light amplification, thermal and radar-designated sight capabilities. It also has non-line-of-sight GPS and networked target acquisition and engagement capability. A Longbow Apache can acquire targets and transfer that information to an Abrams (or field artillery or MLRS) and those systems can engage the target without ever having even seen it.
htomerif Don't bother. He doesn't understand and won't want to know. He doesn't learn or engage. All he can do is rant and waffle.
someones a grumpy muppet
htomerif AFAIK near-infrared and image amplification are not exactly the same technologies, but it's just that most electronic cameras now are able to see into near infrared (if you remove your phone's camera lens, you can see that for yourself), and so you can use the same sensor and light amplification cascade to capture visible and near-IR light together and of course you can use an IR illuminator with this setup just as you can use a normal flashlight. But, before the development of modern cameras, infrared and Starlight scopes used to be different.
He's right though.
how can you have a thermal camera on your phone? The technology is old, but FLIR cameras still cost a lot of money for example..
Legs.... tanks.... please world gives us AT-ATs
no, give us power armor!
TheMarineGamer IGGHQ Look up the mechs that are being tested! They look just like the mechs from Avatar so we might see something like it!
Silly as it sounds, Metal Gear would be a much more practical design. It's got more than just two gun, it's got a smaller visible profile, it's nuclear capable, the only thing it's lacking is in troop transport capacity and there are better vehicles for that already.
the only troop you need is liquid snake.
rAdiant Jet well the ones in Avatar got rekted by indeginous blue people xD
Mechs will be the armored fighting vehicles of the future. I know this because I played mechwarrior and watched gundam as a kid. *JOKE*
The only thing is see mechs good at is jumping over opstecals.
But then they land they gonna crash down into the sewer system
Hah jokes on you we just build every thing with a high limit
@@rambo8863 Scopedog and nightmare frames have 3-5 meters
too much problems with ground pressure, also the square cube law would make anything above a certain size problematic. If they stay fairly small like an exoskeleton, then yes, but the size of a titan in titanfall is too big.
Mechwarrior was awesome Now there is Titanfall
Imagine the recoil from firing a hover tank lol
Hahaha it would probably roll over lol
Might have to stop and drop to fire, or have quick deploy/retract stabilizer legs/roller wheels or spheres.
Very informative and entertaining video. I was, however, expecting three things that did not get covered in the video:
The first is armor, which should obviously be a part of a discussion on tanks (aka armor)? New materials, armor thickness, reactive armor, etc.
The second thing is stealth capabilities. It's one of the main things that affect the visual design of "futuristic" aircraft and ships, so it might affect real-life future tanks.
The third is electronics: automated targeting and driving systems, communications, jamming, the works.
I suppose these might merit a second video?
the first is VERY theoretical, so we can only guess.
the second is also highly theoretical, with stealth capabilities being very hard to predict and to actually make that is not specialized.
the third is variable not only per tank type but also per tank.
how do you predict something that is so variable?
Military History Visualized(often called MHV)made a video about tank armor. However, this was about historical(after WW2)armor and not really future armor. However it does mention some characteristics of armor. ruclips.net/video/f0IbZGfTgUM/видео.html
I guess the real problem of any future tank will be it's main goal : to break through (infantry) defensive lines. There will probably be no defensive lines any more, at least held by identified infantry and/or military vehicules. A more predictable future will be a mix of partisans equiped with small weapons, kamikazes using various sorts of explosives, and all sorts of robots you can imagine, all moving from one region (/country) to another and shooting or blowing up as soon as tanks will be out of sight... So old tanks will have no targets any more, except perhaps a few captured ones of their own side...
I think the next generation of first line armored vehicules will be a family of small (man-sized or car-sized)) robots, remote-controlled or totally automated, followed by a couple of command-cars and helicopters receiving orders by satellite and AWACS...
Tandem Shaped Charges seems to be quite a problem for tanks nowadays.
_"Tanks of the future"_
*Me:* "POWER ARMOR! I WANT IT! _T-45D!_ "
give me T60, then i will beat those russian bias tanks to shit
*****
Pretty much depends on how well they'd solve the servo power output, power consumption and the required power source, armour vs. mobility, and (field) maintenance and maintenance costs.
Power armour could have it's uses if it could be brought up to the effectiveness it is in the Fallout-games (especially 4).
Honestly speaking armour is of course lagging so far behind firepower right now that a power armor would be far more suited to a...
Hmmh, a S.W.A.T. team or heavy duty riot police, where the opposition likely won't have as deadly weapons as soldiers do, but good protection and certain "scary hulking brute" effect is required..
But then again, *COSTS* vs. actual use is kinda meh for cops regarding power armour, because the situations where one might need power armour are few and far-in-between.
Maybe cops would need power armor if we'll head into a dystopic "Cyberpunk" future where stuff like food riots (or whatever riots) are the norm.. MAYBE.
And then there's the whole potential "augmentation" field that may or may not show up as well.
i prefer the T-51B
Power armored soldiers are definitely not designed to fight against tanks. They are infantry, and they will stay that way. But a power armored soldier can still be practical - They have that edge of armor against other infantry! Which makes them great against y'know, terrorists and criminals who have no way of acquiring their own power armor.
A soldier that has armor that makes them invulnerable to small arms without sacrificing much mobility is going to get thrashed by an armed vehicle. But a soldier that has armor that makes them invulnerable to small arms without sacrificing much mobility is a _soldier that has armor that makes them invulnerable to small arms without sacrificing much mobility_. Sure, it'll only be deployed for specialist usage, but something that expensive is probably going to be reserved for special operations anyways.
Already in development for US Special Forces. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TALOS_(uniform) It's more intended for close quarters combat, breaching and clearing, that kind of stuff
“There may come a point that you get so hard and fast that it explodes on the outside and doesn’t penetrate” 😉😉😉
I didn't realize how old this was until I read the description and saw "My longest video to date"
I was looking at futuristic tank designs on the internet before my dad had this talk with me.
that audible sound scared me, i was expecting the great courses
"You can't shoot a jelly off a table" - lol, this sounds like a german proverb. If someone is about to start pointless and stupid work, you tell them "You could as well try nailing a jelly to the wall!". There is also a specific berlin version to this which is "You could sew a button to your cheek and turn it to tune in on RIAS" (RIAS = Radio In American Sector, allied post-war broadcast that eventually evolved into Radio-Berlin-Brandenburg or RBB).
Talking about railguns: “ammunition would be extremely cheap”
USA with their $800,000 per shot 155mm rail gun on the Zumwalt destroyer:😐
You do know those aren’t rail guns right? They’re supposed to have them, but don’t, they have advanced, semi auto cannons, with guided munitions, that’s what makes it so expensive. But they actually don’t carry that much of the smart rounds, because of cost. Most are just dumb arty shells. We still don’t have a functional rail gun, for combat use.
Sounds like defense contractors are ripping tax payers off doesn’t it?
@@OpiatesAndTits it's for your safety for God sake ... :-P
cost of ammunition an cost per shot can be a huge difference. in a conventional shell you have the propellant built in. hence the cost of propelling the ammunition is built in. but if you have a railgun the ammunition would be really cheap. but you need huge amounts of electricity to fire said ammunition. hence the cost of the propellant is not included in the ammunition itself.
The reason the rail gun rounds are so expensive considering is that they have advanced guidance packages for radar and lasers, and also release a shotgun-like burst of dumb projectiles so it can be used to intercept incoming missiles and even incoming artillery shells. It allows pinpoint accuracy at targets well over the horizon.
A hovercraft might not set of some pressure sensitive mines.
But you still have tripwires, prongs, magnetic, vibration, motion sensor/infrared.
Sci-Fi repulsor tanks (regardless of what the "repulsor" mechanism is) would only work for a short time, before someone builds a mine that detects the repulsor effect
Air pressure sensitive maybe. Depends on what kind of ground effect a hover tank would create, but It'll be pretty strong.
Tactics are usually made in response to something, an inevitability in warfare
What about a tank that can be both repulsor and normal?
I remember when battlefield 4 futuristic dlc came out and people complained that tank mines were still triggerred by hover tanks, the devs pointed out that it would be plausible that the inmense thrust needed to maneuver a 20 ton machine could easily trigger a landmine because of the pressure made by the engines
Gamerdept considering that there is no such thing as a repulsor, the answer is no. If you want to pretend, then anything is possible-in a game, or a movie.
"impossible to shoot a jelly off a table" I absolutely love that.
Has he watched my man Joerg Sprave
He shoots ballistic jelly straight off tables with automatic crossbows!
@@simongr63 Crossbows go slower and it's ballistics jelly which is made to be harder when hit
The Canadian Coast Guard has a few hovercraft. They're very fast, reasonably armored (yes, there are pirates in Canada), and are able to drive onto land, making logistics quite a bit easier.
Aye sir all up and down the Saskatchewan river
Where are these pirates in Canada?! I live in Canada and I haven’t seen pirate one. I feel a bit let down if I’m honest
@@bootsontheground4913 Stealing wheat, and barley... it's a right mess.
Canadian pirates?!
@@anisalikhan>>> I bet Canadian pirates always say *_"SORREY."_* 😉
5:15 Yeah I once tried to explain this to a platoon sargent who had covered a guard post in camo net and didn't realize that the nets radiant heat would block our thermoscope at night making the guard post useless in stopping attacks. He got angry that people were cutting holes in his net.
Will the tanks of the future be armed with bren guns too??
They will have a turret mounted katana (welded to the end of a cannon barrel, to provide reach) to swing around furiously, to deflect enemy fire and hack the opposition apart honourably. It is all they need.
vipertaja It must have a REALLY good turret ring!
Don't forget the pommel launcher!
Yes and the main guns will be Spandau machine guns with 20ft long barrels. The katanas can be welded to the barrel support (which would be like an I-beam underneath so the barrel wouldn't flex)
No. The katana is welded into the barrel, as it's sheer cutting might and furious deflecting power renders the use of gunfire a superfluous waste of time. Though I suppose gunfire sounds cool. =P
About the hovertanks:
mythbusters have confirmed, Hovercraft can hover over an anti-vehicle minefield without problems
yeah theres a few demos of hover vehicles going over eggs its some simple physics
A heavily armoured hover tank would have a correspondingly heavier footprint, enough to set off a light vehicle mine as well as anti-personell mines. Even if it only set off the AP mines, the shrapnel would shred the skirt and ground the vehicle.
alexander reusens I was thinking about that to... but i don't now about the heavy armor part...
alexander reusens but not over a trench
***** but they used them to. Not only anti tank
I was in the U.S. Long Range Recon Infantry back in 1985 and I had an issued pair of personal starlight goggles from 1985-87... now today they are even better then back then but as it is even then I could see SOOOOO well while driving at night. And if a helicopter was in the area or landing I could see VERY clearly the rotor blades tips all lit up almost as if it was on "fire". It was very cool indeed!
Lloyd I can't express the hole you briefly pull me out of when I watch your videos. But I wish I could tell you just how much good you do me. The fear and unease I experience on a daily basis is matched only by the sense of calm and joy your videos bring me on an equally frequent time frame. I don't understand how, but thoughts of suicide are reduced to a manageable humm. If I had money to offer you, it would be in your pocket, but I don't so instead I offer you my thanks.
Thank you for existing. Thank you for deciding to do what you do!
Thank you Lloyd, You will never understand the difference you made in my life, but understand this: It was massive!
Thank you!!!!!!!!!
12:10
"And the plug would keep coming out"
xD
actual when the Mythbusters tested hovercraft on mines you can drive over a minefield with a hovercraft. Weight distribution doesnt trip most at mines and some ap mines
If it trips AP mines wouldn't the AP mines just destroy whatever you're using to hover, thus immobilizing your tank?
+DamnedUsernameThing "If it trips AP mines wouldn't the AP mines just destroy whatever you're using to hover,"
*IF* it trips the mine. The pressure below a hovercraft can be less than the pressure required to set off an AP mine.
Even then I don't think it would be very hard to make anti-hovercraft vehicles, like Lindy said in the video
Those would probably be much more dangerous after the war is over though
For a simple purpose hovercraft I got to a pressure of just 4 grams per cm². For a large military landing vessel I came to 23 grams per cm². With a 60t tank you either end up with close to 200 gram per cm² when sticking to similar dimensions or a vehicle of 17m length and width at 23 grams per cm². Buried mines can quite often exceed 100 cm²-sized pressure sensitive areas, where a hover-tank with the dimensions of a 'real' tank would affect with ca. 20kg of weight, enough for almost all AP-mines. All non-dug mines would be prone to beeing detonated by coming into contact with the skirt of the vehicle.
Mythbusters dropped the ball on that episode. Modern mines aren't set off by pressure, better triggers use magnetism, vibration, sound or temperature. A running hovercraft is loud, has a combustion engine, and you can feel it in the ground when it runs past you. It would easily set off a mine.
Hovertanks do have problems for sure, but they actually do have much wider distribution of ground pressure than wheeled or tracked vehicles, and probably wouldn't set off mines that were only sensitive enough to trigger on wheeled or tracked vehicles.
Oddly enough you never mentioned the potential for improving armour... This was the bit that I was waiting for.
I served in the 1st Cavalry Division during my time in the army, so I have a fair appreciation for the A1 Abrams. That being said 1st Cav is phasing out the tank for vehicles like the Stryker because they are far more versatile, faster, and able to serve a similar purpose. On that note I don't think tanks are going anywhere anytime soon, they will probably just become more specialized in the future.
It's about picking the tool for the job. I could see MBT inventories being greatly reduced in favour of other vehicles in the future, but I doubt that the entire concept is going to go away for some time
What do you mean with more specialised? What is there to specialise? If were a soldier or had any military training I might know, but I would like to know how you could improve something that, at its best, isn't good enough
2 things never going away...infantry and tanks.
@N1 the captain
If you cannot count on air-support, (which sometimes is a factor EVEN for super-powers for like the U.S.A?) you’re definitely going to need them.
The problem with IFV’s & APC’s is that they can only hold their own for so long. Bradley’s & Warriors, though capable, can get gang-banged by 4 T-62’s. Yes, T-62’s. Everybody likes to praise the Bradley because of it’s performance against the shitty Export version of the more advanced T-72 in Desert Storm, but that was mainly because they caught them completely by surprise alongside the complete lack of Infantry support, spotters, & overall abysmal leadership of the Iraqi leadership.
Had they had better leadership & strategy, they would have smoked the Bradley’s with ease. However, when you cannot rely on your IFV’s & APC’s, send in the MBT’s & you’ll give them a hard time. & that’s exactly what happened in Desert Storm & why they still service tanks now.
@@jaunvonsokoloveoldchannel7215 thanks, I didn't know that, so basically tanks are still important, but other things are more versatile? Is that correct or am I wrong again
My hovercraft is full of eels.
that´s quite interesting
I will not buy this record, it is scratched.
Didn't myth busters prove you could go over a minefield in a hover craft
My nipples explode with delight!
If i said you had a beautiful body would you hold it against me
"We have infrared, which is not the future, we have thermal imaging, which possibly is the future"
Lindy, I ... they're the same thing, all thermal imagers are IR, the difference here is between passive and iluminated imaging. Saying that is like saying radars are a thing of the past because radio waves but then saying PESA is the future.
Horseshit. Infrared cameras detect high infrared, just below visible frequencies. Thermal imaging uses low infrared, since that's what's emitted as thermal radiation from warm objects.
@@ParaSpite They're both infra-red based, though, so how exactly is it "horseshit?"
@@antred11
Oh, so an infrared camera is the same thing as an x-ray machine then?
Because those are both subspectra of EM-radiation just like visible light, infrared and freaking _radio waves._
An infrared camera works in different, separate subspectrum from a thermal camera. Hot surfaces do not show up in an inrared camera, but they light up like a christmas tree on thermal imaging. The technologies work fundamentally differently, too, because, SHOCKINGLY, different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation behave differently! Who would have thought?!
@@ParaSpite That was a very pointless rant.
@@antred11
>ask a question
>get an answer
>"DURR Y U ANSAH MEE LUL"
Spookston has an amazing channel that talks about all sorts of tanks being it real life, video games or futuristic designs
Eventually, tank developers will create the _BANEBLADE_!
doubtful.think about it from the prospective a military.a baneblade is massive (thus hard to conceal in almost any terrain), it has a large crew compliment (I believe 13 is the number given in IA1), it would be a logistical nightmare (not only do you have to provide fuel, ammunition, and spare parts but you would have to provide for the crew as well).land battleships are and always have been a waste of time and money.
METUL BAWKSES!
MrOiram46 "Look, Rhinos! _Rhinos_! Our enemies hide in METAL BAWKSES! The Cowards! The fools! We... we should take away their metal boxes..."
I HAVE FACED MORE FEARSOME TANKS!
+pantherace1000 A baneblade can't be viewed as a normal tank. it's a superheavy designed to not hide, to take fire (except for the heaviest of guns). If we assume their engines run better and with a higher energy density fuel (promethium/prometheum) it could run further before needing to refuel than if we assume it's using current engine tech. Many of the armaments are ammo-less, lascannons and volcano cannons come to mind. What I'd be most worried about is how a tank wouldn't get stuck when weighing over 250 tonnes (I can't remember where I read it but if you compare it to an m1 abrahams then it makes sense), sure wide tracks can compensate but it it's not an off-road tank so I guess it'll only drive in cities anyways (where it's most likely to be used and where the fire-sponge capabilities comes to mind)
Walking tanks with a rail gun you say?
*Gruffy groany voice: "Metal Gear!?"
METAL GEAR?!?!
*_METAL GEAR!!!!!_*
Caldera A bipedal tank?!
shagohod?
Caldera a walking tank???
the plug would keep coming out XD
Tank idea: no driver, operational from a distance like a drone, rail gun barrel with automatic loader, rest of the tank is just a giant lithium battery surrounded in thick metal on top of a track. Maybe solar panels on top. I call it the Cybertank
There are a few problems with this. First of all, lithium batteries explode, which is not something you want in a tank. Second, you wouldn't be able to easily stop a fire from spreading or repair the tank without any crew members.
Lloyd's sidetracks are the best part
Well, tanks pretty much outlived their usefulness... TIME FOR GIANT ROBOTS!
Alex S Jiant robots dont work. Oh, SPOILERS
AlHoresmi NOOOOOOOOO!!!!... Even Metal Gears?
Alex S yup, none of them
But-but! Shagohod! Soviets already developed it and been testing it in 80s!.. Though there are rumors that some american spy blew it up and the project was closed... But still!
***** yeah. Wait... They also have walking tanks! :D
"now some of you have perhaps lived all the way through the James Bond film Die Another Day, in which case, well done..."
just brilliant
26:45 - the part about momentum and so...
Yeh, that is a problem for the ball-shaped wheels for cars too. Cars that ride on balls for wheels are a fantastic idea for parking and other stuff about maneuvering slow, but once going onward fast you got a problem to change movement direction. They tend to just turn their facing and remaining with same trajectory : they spin while moving a straight line.
"I've looked at...penetration" sorry but this made me laugh a bit 😂
Lewis Keats *penetration tables
"If youve got an *extremely* hard... erm... missile" lol poor Lloyd this video is full of this stuff. And the hand gestures just sell it xD
"There's still the danger that you're going so fast and so hard that you go all the way through" D: D: D:
You should watch the "Using the butt" video from Scholagladiatoria. It's about bayonets, penetration and using the butt, of a weapon...
That short pause before "penetration" was excellent.
On the topic of diamond, diamond actually isn't scarce from my understanding. The only reason it seems that way is the cartels that govern the diamond trade.
Mahbu right, but it doesn't come in the sizes that we'd need it for tank rounds. We'd need to be able to make a big diamond bullet, and those just don't exist yet.
diamonds are one of the most common stones..... De Beers has limited the supply to the market to artificially increase the value of the stone.
im not sure that depleted uranium, titanium, or even tungsten are that inferior to diamonds at penetrating.
Actually diamond wouldn't made such good anti tank projectiles. It isn't dense enough. One of the reasons depleted uranium or tungsten carbide is used is that they have a high density. Diamond on the other hand only has density of about 3.52g/cm^3. This means it would lose it's kinetic energy really fast after the projetile has left the barrel.
great comments from +Sagrotan and +shi0, I was going to mention the same thing.
24:58 I'd say that those "other things", being a SF tank, are anti gravity engines or whatever. That give the effect of magnetic push only that it's gravity. So not only that we can reproduce gravity, switching it on or off, we can reverse it on a variable force that we require to hover or fly. All of this without mass fluctuation, with only a bit of energy needed and of course without affecting the crew or any other objects on the ground.
The most practical future tank design is, in absolute essence, a STUG that was modified to use cutting-edge standards and materials.
Nothing says "Merry Christmas" like discussing the future of death dealing war machines. Good show!
Did you know that Santa is actually Rommel.
Himmler was the tooth fairy --- he always crossed ditches with his hovercraft-- no problem.
Henrik Nykvist
santa is actually a pommel
Fuck Christmas, celebration of a religious fairy story!! Religion is the cause of most human conflict, the sooner people afflicted with religious belief realise there is no god or other supernatural being, the better mankind will be.
turboslag you must be really fun at parties
The weird thing is.
The tanks we have now were Sci-Fi in the past.
You know what i mean? ;)
The tanks we have now would've been *"DEMONS"* a couple of centuries back, methinks.
:D
RuSosan, i want too see the look on their faces when they see a tank coming from a distance in Medival time.
i somehow feel like playing civ now...
If you went back in time and told anybody about any of the things we have today, they'd probably laugh at you. Why do I feel like I shouldn't be laughing at the idea of hover-tanks with quad railguns anymore?
They would probably think it's a dragon. The muzzle flash is the fire, it is made of metal which sort of looks like scales especially if you're considering the composite armor on an Abrams and it makes rumbling noises.
Ahhh some parts didn't age so well. Thermals are pretty small now, and can cool via electricity, and amplifiers are quite small too. You don't need holes for sights if you have remote cameras (on drones or on the tank) with wired or wireless comms, etc. Nailed crewless tanks at least ;).
The tank does have a future, at least in my opinion, the tank will live on but it must be extremely stealthy, fast and be able to pack a punch. I see future tanks being much faster and harder to detect and no longer manned by people but remote controlled or possibly *partially* controlled by AI with a human "master" having the final say.
Tank you for this video.
For hover tanks who travel in a frictionless movement. Guess what happens when you fire a main gun on a platform that slides? Yes your vehicle skews and slides all over the place. Binary liquid explosives used as propellants exert massive forces throughout the breech assembly. As you stated the rounds then travel at a fantastic rate of speed. Fast enough if they do not have some sort of ballistic coating the friction of their passage through air, causes them to literally vaporize shortly after leaving the barrel. So they have to slow those weapon systems down to speeds slightly faster than what we have currently. Which brings us back to a technology that might be finicky and a bit dodgy. So why use it when we have systems that actually works 98% as well at 98% of the speed? Railguns are being developed and field tested...On ships. Until such time as power generation and batteries along with capacitance discharge rates can be made faster, more efficient and much more smaller. They also have the same issues of speeds travelled causing deformation and even melting of the ballistic round. Railguns are very much still a system to be dreamed of. Laser systems have the same technological limitations as railguns. (Discharge rates, coherence/attenuation/propagation rates. recharge or how fast you can fire your weapon system.)
The tanks of the future, will have active and passive systems to defend against or defeat ATGMS, and or Main Gun rounds from other Main Battle Tanks. Their propulsion systems might change. Armour plating will change and adapt. Autoloaders or even "cassette" style munition systems for an auto cannon might be developed. Here is something many forget. Tanks are machines. Complex machines designed to overcome obstacles and kill people in a variety of ways. But because they are machines, they require maintenance. Oftentimes massive amounts of maintenance. And until such time as robotics remain at the level they are at... this means people to fix the tank when it breaks. Oftentimes it can be fixing a simple thing in the field which means you can keep on fighting. But if you have Google Tank. when it breaks or is damaged it is out of the game. I don't see tanks leaving the battlefield anytime soon. I do however see fewer countries able to afford them, and an ensuing arms race to defeat all the developments currently being poured into modern tank designs.
Are you saying that they wouldn't add breaks on a hover tank?
David Baker Depleted Uranium Kinetic Penetrators
Swazi-APFSDS. Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabots. Many have DU cores. There is this little button on the Ammo Select panel to use one. :-D
i sort of assume there are computerized stability controls to deal with stuff like that. " repulsive force stability control"
How?
12:30 and the crew...
"War has changed." Solid Snake when Lindy's future tank designs get made, probably.
AAH-DIBLE
Stanley!
I heard Aah-dibble
edible??
Every time I see a lindybeige video about tanks in my subscription feed, i let out a little squeal
Hi Lloyd, Thank you for all your work. I thoroughly enjoy your videos. I have a comment about rail guns. Today, after parking my electric car, your video came to mind, and I did the following (naive) back of the envelope calculation. I asked myself: How much energy would it take to accelerate a APFSDS "dart" (Google tells me that some weigh 8.5 kg) to the same muzzle velocity at which it would leave a conventional gun (~1700 m/s)? That comes out to roughly 20 MJ. My car's battery holds roughly 200 MJ, so roughly enough for 10 shots, assuming 100% efficiency (of course not true). Of course you'd need large capacitors for discharging the energy fast enough etc etc. But my point is that since you made this video, battery capacity is approaching the range where a tank could conceivably carry enough energy for a nontrivial number of shots.
One real problem with hover tanks is that when you fire a tank gun you have no traction. So you would literally shoot backwards.
I vote giant robot chicken legs.
Well, most hover tanks in Sci fi tend to run on anti-grav technology of some description. I think this renders gun recoil absolutely moot because the engineers have managed to selectively ignore aspects of physics just for locomotion.
Pesticus Veno Fair point. But if they can control inertia like that they don't need guns. they can just send the ammo flying.
why fire the gun when you can fling entire bullet just as effective.
+Sagrotan
That's assuming it's a fan-powered hovercraft. Which isn't futuristic at all. Almost every sci-fi media with hovercraft will tell you they use anti-grav or some sort of special repulsor tech
Why not have the hovertank use a recoilless rifle setup then? Or use it primarily as a missile launching platform? The recoil could be mitigated either of those ways, yes?
Otherwise you could use some sort of turret mounted retrothruster and/or a special gun breach that shoots the weapon exhaust backwards.
Oh, or maybe a ...what to call it... some sort of flywheel-rail setup. Flywheel is charged up and when the tank fires, a gryoscopic-esque counter-force is applied with some sort of internal weight catapult.
Dude, you should've included a clip from the movie Sgt. Bilko in which it showed one severe flaw on a hovertank, recoil!
That could probably be overcome with a balanced recoil piston located on the barrel.
It's an issue if you aren't travelling in the same direction you are shooting, but remember that the key newtonian word is *equal*. The tank still outweighs the shell by a massive fraction and will be accelerated to a much lower opposing velocity.
If they made systems to make huge ships "anti wave" when the weather is bad. I think they can create a recoil reducing system good enough for the hovertank. You have to realize that the hovers today are really old. It's not a technology that has been greatly pursued in recent years.
Sonny Knutson
Sorry but hover tanks are nonsense where is the massive benefit they bring that outweighs all the huge problems? I can't see any really apart from mines but mines can be triggered magnetically or via a radio connection with someone watching the tank and triggering the trap at the right moment
max mustermann They make great amphibious landing craft. That's why every large army has "hover tanks" if they have amphibious assault troops or marines.
The day tank tracks are replaced with six spider legs for mountain traversing, I can die in peace.
In RE hovering craft: except their armaments be truly recoilless, they're going to make quite the entertaining spectacle as they lob rounds towards each other, and recoil from their respective firing positions -- and if turrets are added: "oh, my!"
We need a rail gun on the space station
Eh..... kinda. There's three things I see that are going to actively improve over the next few years, next generation of tanks.
Protection - It's not just going to be about armour, it's going to be a multispectrum protection package. I mean things like Active Protection systems. You won't just see passive measures or ERA, but systems that actively track, engage incoming projectiles, before the cage armour, before the ERA, all of that assuming you can even lock onto the tank in the first place.
So we might also see reduced thermal profiles and signal discipline, so as not to give away their position in the first place.
Firepower - the issue is that gun technology is often in competition with armour technology. If armour technology develops, so will gun technology. So the question is less method of delivery, but what the expected threat is. Theoretically, if we do see gauss/coilgun/rail guns, all of which are electromagnetic in nature, we don't notable advance any sort of protection (rounds are already inert and so they would be in railguns). I think what we are going to see in the next generation of penetrators, ie Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilised, Disgarding Shot/Sabot rounds, is multi stage munitions, that can still strike the target after some form of protection system, such as ERA. Another option is a round that has multiple diversionary sections, to distract active protection systems from the actual penetrator.
So in theory, we could see a return to chemical based explosives or some form of reactive material to penetrate.
As for the too much velocity is a bad thing, well, tell that to the tank crew in Gulf War 1 who knocked out two Iraqi T72's with one shot. Again, it's about what the gun is shooting at more than anything else.
Command and control - Command and control of a tank is very much the challenge of any tank designer. It's not just about the systems you use to drive it, to aim the gun or to load it. It's about how the crew can work it. Potential paths including higher degrees of automation, including autoloaders, computer assist systems, RADAR warning systems, remotely operated secondary weapons systems and again, multispectrum tools. As well as that, we might consider direct satellite interactions.
Finding the target is a challenge, but if you've got an overhead view, it becomes much easier. Especially if you can co-ordinate information directly into the sighting mechanisms. Not only that, transferring this information between the crew and managing that flow of information is going to become a big issue. You don't need your driver to know the location of every target, but friendly vehicles and infantry? Certainly. If the gunner needs to co-ordinate with the platoon, or company, it needs to be a clear signal. Not only that, in the case of active protection systems, you might want to have multiple guns on target. Knowing who is aiming at who, makes this easier.
I'd also consider this a way to a call in and manage divisional assets, MLRS systems, long range artillery and even close air support. Down the line, if we also considering low grade conflict against armoured, mechanised forces, we may also have access to the enemy communication channels from overhead electronic attack or strike assets.
As a side note, we could also add drone intelligence feeds or the ability to control drones as part of a mobile strike force.
Armour penetrator being too fast is actually a thing. Even with a ballistic cap it may still shatter upon impact if the velocity is too high.
And i think your points exactly illustrate why today's generation of tanks may be the very last. All those things can be upgraded upon existing tanks. And i doubt the physical chassis design will ever get much better than the t14
I have a vague mental image of something like a landbound apache. vertical launched hellfire cells ..a remote turret with a 30mm and 7.62 chaingun ,, periscope with a laser
Andrew Fortune Not a bad idea, but it still has issues. Namely, all it's some software to allow the 30mm gun, or even the 7.62 to engage incoming missiles.
Add in some oblique angles and odd shapes, so that homing RADAR, lasers want to 'slide' off the tank and reduce the effect of any weapon strike.
I think the big issue is more going to be the nature of the tank in operations. Tank on tank combat is a given, but the question is more the how of tank on tank combat. We can't make any bets on that, especially with composite materials and more. Lobbing missiles at each other is what I think is the less likely option. Gun technology may be reduced in size, reduced in calibre. We may see experimentation in smaller calibres for main guns. More ammunition carried and less obvious blast always a good thing.
+PierreDolphin The T14 still has pretty big issues for a war fighting vehicle. Fine the crew is more protected, but maintenance of the gun and autoloader systems, maintenance of other components becomes that much harder as well. A focus on electronic systems means the need to maintain and harden those systems. What it gains in some aspects, it loses in others. Like in everything, trade offs and limitations.
As to answer the question of penetrators and velocity, maybe. It's a hard thing to talk about, especially in the future. We have composite material and far more technology than just to be putting hardened caps on rounds.
More SABOT/APSDS shot just look plain weird, but the effect can't be doubted. Especially ones tipped with depleted uranium. That does cause fire and it does cause explosions, if propellant goes up, secondary explosions.
It may simply be enough to drive a crew from a vehicle. The goal isn't to leave nothing but burning vehicles, it's to make the vehicle unfightable. Large calibre holes through it and causing the vibrating the hell of all those delicate sights, might be enough. Disabling a vehicle to prevent it from being used, is great. Stopping one gun shooting at you, is more than enough.
The more you say what penetrators will do, the more you need to define. Especially when you consider that shot these days are composite materials, just like the armour.