Uh. I don't believe Midway was a slugging match. You must have some other battle in mind.Roger wrote:Very true. FDR ordered a 200 ship in late 1937. Vac tube computers interfacing with radar on battleships meant the New Jersey @ 5 miles of range could not just Jap ships, they aimed for the bridge to decapitate command. If the first salvo missed the second very likely scored. The Navy got every hi tech gadget it wished for and this was often decisive. @ midway the same 16 in guns on the New jersey fired 165 salvoes, vs the virginia which gave up after 35 salvoes. No keel funded after Dec 8th 1941 saw front line action.Antice wrote:[ war's are often won or lost on the planning table.
Has any thought been given to a polywell powered BOLO?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
electricity from poly is exactly what you need to make a weapons grade laser. electricity is the sole input you need in a FEL system.
it's already going up towards the MW range. so a 10MW FEL laser is not inconceivable.
A tank with a polywell power-plant is going to be pretty large. adding a FEL in an automated turret is not hard. match it with twin barreled 60mm hypervelocity rail guns and you are set to kill just about anything. each AP sabot shot can have a cluster of 3 or 4 10mm 1 meter long depleted uranium rods capable of going trough armor like it was butter. or you can fire off a 60mm frag or heat round. 60mm is more than large enough to do some major damage with explosives since the rounds are far longer than standard chemical ammo.
you can have couple of secondary light rail-turret as well. each firing off 5mm 5cm long DU needles. the turret will be capable of doing about the same job as the coaxial machine-gun does today, except it will be able to act independently of the main turret.
And there you go. add in some hover capability and you have a tank matching that of the hammer's slammers
it's already going up towards the MW range. so a 10MW FEL laser is not inconceivable.
A tank with a polywell power-plant is going to be pretty large. adding a FEL in an automated turret is not hard. match it with twin barreled 60mm hypervelocity rail guns and you are set to kill just about anything. each AP sabot shot can have a cluster of 3 or 4 10mm 1 meter long depleted uranium rods capable of going trough armor like it was butter. or you can fire off a 60mm frag or heat round. 60mm is more than large enough to do some major damage with explosives since the rounds are far longer than standard chemical ammo.
you can have couple of secondary light rail-turret as well. each firing off 5mm 5cm long DU needles. the turret will be capable of doing about the same job as the coaxial machine-gun does today, except it will be able to act independently of the main turret.
And there you go. add in some hover capability and you have a tank matching that of the hammer's slammers
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
USS New Jersey was never in a battle. She shelled a couple islands at the end of WWII but basically she missed the war.MSimon wrote:Uh. I don't believe Midway was a slugging match. You must have some other battle in mind.Roger wrote:Very true. FDR ordered a 200 ship in late 1937. Vac tube computers interfacing with radar on battleships meant the New Jersey @ 5 miles of range could not just Jap ships, they aimed for the bridge to decapitate command. If the first salvo missed the second very likely scored. The Navy got every hi tech gadget it wished for and this was often decisive. @ midway the same 16 in guns on the New jersey fired 165 salvoes, vs the virginia which gave up after 35 salvoes. No keel funded after Dec 8th 1941 saw front line action.Antice wrote:[ war's are often won or lost on the planning table.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Nope. Solid-state lasers have been the primary laser for the various laser programs since the tech for multi-kilowatt modules became feasible.GIThruster wrote:You're quoting figures I haven't seen, unless those are for chemical lasers.
Grumman reached the 100kW at combat durations goal last year, Textron reached the goal this year.
http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/02/19/34 ... eld-tests/
Many projects that formerly planned to use chemical lasers have been switched to solid-state modules. Chemical laser are still being researched for certain projects, usually megawatt+ projects, but, again: the solid-state modules are still increasing in power.
At the moment IEDs and UXBs in Iraq and Afghanistan.GIThruster wrote:Certainly interested to see these Hummvee add-opns and such. I wouldn't have guessed a 10kW laser had much use. What are they for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZEUS-HLONS ... on_System)
A 10kW beam cuts steel when focused at close range (10kW is common in industrial lasers) and can kill human targets at a distance but the power demands make using it for that purpose less mobile and efficient than a soldier with an m-4 carbine.
Give the lasers the needed power and everything changes. A polywell or a even a DPF won't fit on a Humvee but I think we've already established that a notional first-gen FAFV will be... er... somewhat larger
The Maus seems to have wound up at 200 tonnes after some design iteration. It was rejected at least partly because it had no machine guns and was thus useless in close combat.WizWom wrote:The 110 ton tank they DID make (jokingly called the Mouse) had such a heavy ground loading it was basically worthless.
There was a much larger design (1000 tonnes) called the Ratte, which was called a "Landkreuzer" rather than a tank, possibly due in part to the fact that it used a naval turret...
Even larger was the 1500-tonne Monster, which used an 800 mm Dora-class siege gun as its main weapon...
THEL in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1pkTMCZ0M
The news reports on Isreali missile defense have them with a two-layer system now, Patriots behind an "Arrow 2" - and calls for the THEL (or Skyguard) to be deployed.
The news reports on Isreali missile defense have them with a two-layer system now, Patriots behind an "Arrow 2" - and calls for the THEL (or Skyguard) to be deployed.
Wandering Kernel of Happiness
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
Lol yeah BOLOs do vaguely remind me of ridiculous Nazi super-tanks. Even the German Tigers were too large for their own good, and constantly broke down because the 60 ton weight was too much for the engine and drivetrain. They were also nice targets for Allied fighter-bombers.
This is one of the simple trade-offs in combat vehicle design. Yes, you want more more passive protection (armor), and more firepower, but you also need mobility and you have to avoid making yourself too large a target.
A 100+ ton tank, let alone a 1000+ ton tank, just ain't gonna move around efficiently. It's also going to be a lucrative target for the enemy.
This is one of the simple trade-offs in combat vehicle design. Yes, you want more more passive protection (armor), and more firepower, but you also need mobility and you have to avoid making yourself too large a target.
A 100+ ton tank, let alone a 1000+ ton tank, just ain't gonna move around efficiently. It's also going to be a lucrative target for the enemy.
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
Nah, you're forgetting about "jointness" here. An aircraft can only remain over target for a certain amount of time. A tank, with accompanying infantry, can control ground for an extended period of time. The tank isn't obsolete, it just needs to be combined with an air force that can achieve air superiority. If it's air force is defeated it becomes uncovered and is just a target for aircraft - pretty much been this way since WWII.Yeah. That is why tanks are obsolete until someone invents a power-source capable of supporting a high power laser system capable of downing aircraft like it was swatting flies.
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
A small reactor that could be fitted into a 60-70 ton tank of similar proportions to what we currently have (Abrams, Leopard II, Challenger II, Leclerc, or Merkava) would be a real breakthrough. The possibilities are endless...But smaller power units such as Focus Fusion DPFs would shine there, though...
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Last I heard THEL was working just fine, but it's chemical. Limited shot ability and expensive as all get out.
When I get the time I want to see what Kitty posted about the solid state lasers. Given a Poly, they're suddenly attractive. . .
When I get the time I want to see what Kitty posted about the solid state lasers. Given a Poly, they're suddenly attractive. . .
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Some retrofit specs for the Abrams: Weight = almost 62 metric tons - Engine Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine 1,500 shp (1,120 kW) - Power/weight 24.5 hp/metric ton - Operational range 289 mi (465.29 km)[5] With NBC system: 279 mi (449.19 km)CaptainBeowulf wrote:A small reactor that could be fitted into a 60-70 ton tank of similar proportions to what we currently have (Abrams, Leopard II, Challenger II, Leclerc, or Merkava) would be a real breakthrough. The possibilities are endless...But smaller power units such as Focus Fusion DPFs would shine there, though...
As for size - Length Gun forward: 32.04 ft (9.77 m)[4]
-Hull length: 26.02 ft (7.93 m)
-Width 12 ft (3.66 m)
-Height 8 ft (2.44 m)
A Polywell powered tank would need to be a little larger perhaps, but not very much. Radiation shielding is another matter, though.
And a ~ 1 to 10 MW polywell is iffy, maybe the DPF power plant is more appropriate. Still, once polywells are fielded, designing a reliable 10 MW plant should be doable so the questions then revolve around operations and other similar issues, I would guess.
Aero