self propelled AT guns and assault guns today

Sure, but we were talking about the effectiveness of AT missiles on modern tanks. And Hizballah's AT missiles are not that modern.

Well there can be always a Golden Bullet ... US M1A2 being penetrated by a normal RPG-7 AT shot. Other M1A2 got more than 3-4 shoots and still nothing happend ...

Getting back to the main topic...
the reason why I suggested a turretless tank is because it's more affordable. and as you know Romania isn't exactly in position to buy a modern tank...
Germans proved that turretless tanks or assault guns are effective on any type of terrain, offensively and defensively. German units operating the Sturmgeschutz claimed 20,000 kills in 4 years. Can any other vehicle claim the same?

"Hauptmann Peter Franz also the Knights Cross holder and the commander of Stug.Abt. "Grossdeutschland" destroyed some 43 Soviet T-34/76 tanks during the Battle for Borissovka on March 14th of 1943."

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/stug.htm

Again, can any other vehicle claim the same?

Right now we can't mount a larger gun on the TR-85 M1 because its turret doesn't allow it, a 105mm at best. But if we built a turretless tank using the TR-85's chassis we could liberate enough space and weight to allow a larger gun and increase the protection to the front because this is where it counts. Also, I don't understand why you two keep insisting that ATGM's are any good against modern tanks... None of you tried to tackle my points and I repeated myself twice so far and going for a third time...

- an ATGM team usually carries 4 missiles
- our TR-85 M1 can carry 41 shells and a turretless tank could carry even more because of the additional space

- ATG missiles use HEAT penetrators. the ceramic plates found in modern composite armour lower very much the effect of HEAT penetrators. spaced armour like the one from Leopard 2 also eats HEAT penetrators for dinner.
- a tank (regardless if it's turretless or not) can fire SABOT rounds (kinetic energy penetrators) which are by far more effective than chemical energy penetrators like HEAT. I even bothered myself to post a table from www.fprado.com regarding armour protection on Leopard 2A6 to prove it...



wtf. between 1,730mm and 1,960mm (front turret) protection against CE penetrators like the ones found in ATG missiles! Our silly AT-5 can only go as far as 600mm LOL? Where is this efficiency you are talking about? I don't see it. Even the new Spikes (MLI-84, IAR-330 SOCAT) we bought from Israel are estimated to have a max penetrating power of 900mm...

- ATGM's travel sloow.. Spike has a travel speed of 130-180 m/s... and because of this there are MANY countermeasures against them. Russian ARENA aps has VERY good chance of destroying the missile and it can be used TWICE. So of the 4 missiles carried 2 automatically can be forgotten. The other two can miss and if they hit chances are very high that it won't be put out of action unless it's hit in rear or sides, which must have been the case with the Merkava or the press has gotten it wrong.
- with SABOT rounds there are no hypothetical scenarios because there are only two ends... it misses or you're done for... with an average travel speed of 1800m/s... ten times faster than an ATGM... you can't stop this...with a clean shot from a M1A2 SEP, it can stop ANY tank dead in its tracks no matter where it hits

now a turretless TR-85 will have several advantages... TR-85 M1 is 3.1m tall.. I don't know if tanks get any taller making it very hard to avoid detection... STRV 103 is only 2.14m tall.. and can support a bigger gun... we could probably use a 120mm (maybe we can get a good deal with the US since we are close allies) or 125mm as well as increase the frontal hull armour by a lot if we take that stupid turret off. 3.1m tall tank + turret loaded with ammo = crematorium especially since it's not all that well protected..

By NCR
"Seems each country builds tanks for their own needs first and then tries to adapt them for other locations around the world."

I perfectly agree... I don't expect Israel to switch to a turretless tank soon.. they already have a top notch tank.. low profile... excellent protection, mobility and firepower. But at the moment Romania is stuck with the TR-85 M1 and it can't afford to buy or make anything else and it sucks pure and simple. 100mm gun is not enough. well, it could be enough if we used DU rounds but we don't. so we can only increase caliber. but we can't because the turrent can't hold 120mm or 125mm guns... and at the same time we could lower the hight because at the moment the tank is too f***ing high (TR-85 M1 is 3.1 meters... for comparison T-80 is 2.2 meters).. might as well paint the tank in fluorescent paint to attract attention. and the tank is TOO heavy as well... 54 tons... wtf.. T-84 weighs much less and it's light years ahead of TR-85 M1 so at the moment we can't increase protection either... if we take the turret off this means bigger gun, more protection, low silhouette (a tank this high only asks to be hit...) and better mobility...

If an RPG-7 projectile can pierce the armour of our TR... we can stat thinking to melt them ourselfs just to save the money for fuel & whatever... spendings for keeping them.

Iama

So what you're saying is that they are no good against modern tanks?

We can have hundreds of ATGM teams. If one is neutralised apart from the unfortunate cost in human life we only lose 4 ATGM missiles worth maybe 40000$. If we lose a TR-85 we lose 41 shells besides the cost of the tank and a crew whose training I imagine costed a lot more than the training of the ATGM team. The ATGM teams are elusive and can be included in guerilla style actions, the tank can only be employed in conventional actions, and once air superiority is lost, it's very much useless.

From what I've read ARENA can be used more than twice.
But I am curious what would happen to the ARENA if small caliber shots start hitting its radar cone. Maybe a .50 caliber sniper rifle?

It is very difficult for a tank these days to avoid detection, especially if it wants to be active in a way. Something will detect it, no matter how small you try to make it.

That is indeed a funny logic.

That is indeed a funny logic.

How is it funny dear?
Achzarit uses a modified T-55 chassis. Just like TR-85 M1. The Achzarit is turretless and it can house 3 crew and 7 soldiers. Amazing what you can fit inside.

That is indeed a funny logic.

How is it funny dear?
Achzarit uses a modified T-55 chassis. Just like TR-85 M1. The Achzarit is turretless and it can house 3 crew and 7 soldiers. Amazing what you can fit inside.

1 tank body mc3 + 1 tank turret mc3 > 1 tank body mc3 ,dear.Simple math.
Now, if you would say something like : "once the turret is removed,the weight on chassis decreased and that allows ammo space to be built", I would have said nothing.

So what you're saying is that they are no good against modern tanks?

We can have hundreds of ATGM teams. If one is neutralised apart from the unfortunate cost in human life we only lose 4 ATGM missiles worth maybe 40000$. If we lose a TR-85 we lose 41 shells besides the cost of the tank and a crew whose training I imagine costed a lot more than the training of the ATGM team. The ATGM teams are elusive and can be included in guerilla style actions, the tank can only be employed in conventional actions, and once air superiority is lost, it's very much useless.

From what I've read ARENA can be used more than twice.
But I am curious what would happen to the ARENA if small caliber shots start hitting its radar cone. Maybe a .50 caliber sniper rifle?

It is very difficult for a tank these days to avoid detection, especially if it wants to be active in a way. Something will detect it, no matter how small you try to make it.

1. Yes

2. Imagine how the US/UK invasion of Iraq would've turned out if you extract the M1A2 and Challenger 2 out of their forces.

3. "The APS is protected against bullets and splinters and protective ammunition does not detonate in siloes when fired at by small caliber projectiles."

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html

4. Perhaps, but being 1 meter smaller certainly helps. And it's not just about avoiding detection but becoming harder to hit.

1. Weird. A lot of countries buy them.

2. Does Romania plan to invade anyone?

3. Yes, on paper sounds good. But I doubt it's invincible.

Intresting point of view...
It seems that all the military minds after WW2 where wrong in dumping tank destroyer and addopting the ATGM.... cool

You haven't really defined in this thread what you expect your tank to do. The answer to that question should drive the design decisions.

Is it offensive? Or defensive?

The German assault guns and the Strv 103 made sense because they were designed for defense against tanks. You knew where the enemy was coming from. That's not the case in normal offensive operations, or peace enforcement. The turret is almost essential if you plan on engaging targets while moving, or responding to a threat on your flank.

Are you planning on fighting a conventional war? Or low-intensity conflict?

If it's a low-intensity conflict, there is no need to spend lots of money on tanks. Just use what you have. The differences between them are not that great in that environment. The fact that you have them at all is what matters (for an example, look at the US forces in Somalia without armor(in "Black Hawk Down") compared to those in Iraq, where the US had lots of M1s and Bradleys).

As for airborne tanks, there are good reasons we have not seen much of use of the Scorpion, AMX-13, M551 Sheridan and so on as air-delivered tanks. They're too big for helicopters to carry... actually dropping them from a plane often disables the optics and electronics... they use lots of fuel... and they're very maintenance intensive. All the same problems would apply to a turrretless tank too.

Regarding ARENA and its radar, could the radar be disrupted/confused by some type of cartridge/pod that would explode near or above the tank and expell hundreds of metal pellets before the ATGM gets close? Would that work?

I think that Scorpion is mostly used as reccon asset by British army these days.