Now here's a thing, when everyone is disagreeing with you (and that's pretty much the case here), take a step back and check whether it's not you who's talking crap.
edited 2nd Sep '15 8:10:39 PM by MattII
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
No matt your are still flat wrong. Fist all armor piercing quality is measured in RHA regardless of the presence of composite or not even the composite armor is rated in RHA equivalent again try to argue honestly and do remember the details instead of conveniently forgetting them. Second no the entire tank is not covered in composite only the front half of the bow and turret and significantly thinner layers on the side. Modern MBT's have been penetrated by HEAT weapons with comparable penetration of the M-77 through the sides, top, back, and even the under carriage. The only way they change that is by adding applique or ERA bricks and even they do not cover the entire tank for obvious reasons namely excessive weight addition. Again you would have had to actually bothered doing some research instead of making shit up to know that. It seems to me you can't even be bothered to do any real work to bring any real info to the table.
The only people against me are the three who know the least about the subject in the first place and had to be all reminded that yes you could do a lot of things you guys said couldn't be done and have in fact been done for quite some time and yes if you all bothered to get off your asses and do some real work you will quickly find we are moving beyond what we do now. But none of can seem to be bothered to do any of the work how mysterious. All three of you have either fabricated the info whole cloth or cherry picked it and conveniently leave out the actual details that poke numerous holes in your consistently sloppy arguments. I see three people with allergies to the facts.
edited 2nd Sep '15 9:09:49 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Sorry but no, the M1 is immune to its own weapon (yes, the APFSDS, made of depleted uranium) on the front of the hull and front and sides of the turret, and although the latest anti-tank weapons can penetrate them, man-portable ones generally don't have the punch to get through the armour and seriously maim the crew. Most modern tanks are similarly tough, so much so that even repeated hits have hard time destroying them. And that's more than 10 years ago, 20 or 30 years from now they're going to be even tougher, and there's only so much you can improve a miniature weapon before it becomes useless.
As for moving beyond the known, you only seem willing to apply that to the side using micro-drones artillery, not to anyone else.
But you know what, sod it, you're not interested in a debate, you're only interested in forcing your view on others, and I don't care for that sort of thing, so I'm outta here until we've moved onto a topic which doesn't involve a screaming, text-walling maniac.
edited 2nd Sep '15 10:41:27 PM by MattII
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
First no the Abrams is not immune to its own weapon and especially not from the side. Literally a few seconds on google could have shown you that. Or if your too lazy to use google go ask in the Armored Vehicle Thread. No seriously go ask I want to see this.
Not even the entirety of the front is immune and the sides of the body and the back half of the turret are vulnerable as well. You know why? The sides are way more thinly armored then the front of the hull and "cheeks" of the turret. The entire front also can't be completely armored unless they suddenly turn the Abrams into a casement tank. Only the front half of the tank, as in both turret and hull, has the thicker armor sections to begin with. Yes only about half the tank has any real armor and the stuff on the sides is a lot thinner then what is up front. The sides and the back of the tank have been perforated by small HEAT charges and Auto-cannonn fire on multiple occasions. Again this information is freely out there you only need a few seconds to look it up. The same applies for pretty much every single MBT out there and that armor layout has been in use since WWII with very few exceptions on the majority of tanks ever built. The top of the tanks are so thinly protected a guided chunk of concrete can do them in. Again your making shit up. What is it? You can't access google, bing, search engine of choice, or something? You behind a restrictive fire wall or have some crazy filter that keeps you away from those?
Considering I am pointing out technology it could use now that already exists try the known. That comment in general is pretty funny coming from a guy whose argument frequently was in the future this is what we see. Nice to meet you Mr Pot.
Who watches the watchmen?
One of the reasons you're impossible to deal with is that you'll post an entire paragraph decrying a statement that was never actually made. The first paragraph there for example, I clearly stated "The front of the hull and front and sides of the turret". At no point did I mention the sides of the hull. That you spend two whole paragraphs trying to deny something I never stated to begin with clearly indicates that you're not in a rational state of mind.
edited 2nd Sep '15 11:23:17 PM by MattII
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Oh look you can't pay attention again and your reading comprehension is abysmal. I pointed both sides of hull and turret because the design is the same across the entirety of the sides of the tank. Ooh big surprise you skip facts and details yet again.
Who watches the watchmen?
And my claim was for the APFSDS, not, as you claim, the M77. Still waiting on the evidence of that BTW.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Look it up yourself quit being lazy. I am not going to hold your hand.
edited 2nd Sep '15 11:51:08 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
The M77 has a penetration of 4 inches against RHA, except that that's not enough to penetrate the front or sides of either turret or hull of an M1, because the front of the hull and front and sides of the turret are too heavily armoured, and the sides of the hull are covered by tracks, which act in the same way as slat armour, forcing a detonation away from the main body (albeit at the cost of wrecking the tracks. From the top it might be enough, or maybe not, it depends if the they decide to stick slat/spaced plated over the top of the hull. it's a light-weight solution, but would offer significant protection from light (warhead <1 lb) HE attacks.
Also, it's not me who's being lazy, you make the claim, the onus is on you, not me to chase up the evidence.
Oh, and I don't have enough invested in this to bother, the last 4 pages have been a waste of time that could have easily been spent on actual constructive discussion rather than pointless arguing.
edited 3rd Sep '15 12:08:33 AM by MattII
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
My claim? Your the one claiming the Abrams is immune to it's own weapons and you go off on a tangent about the M-77. Also if you bothered to spend the time to look up the armor lay out you would note there are three spots where 100mm of penetration does go through and the Abrams has been struck there in combat and penetrated into the cabin. Make up your mind what your talking about. You spent 4 pages making shit up and using sloppy arguments and lazy work. I handed you large bodies of info and the best you could do was go "nuh uh". Try again when you know what your yapping about.
Who watches the watchmen?
Actually, the debates started out being about the M77, and then I moved it on to the APFSDS to show you that in fact there were plenty of points at which the M77 would do exactly jack.
Also waiting for news of how you intend to defeat spaced armour with firecrackers.
Oh, and yeah, I have been lazy, because this argument isn't worth the time, either to do proper research, or to read the screeds and screeds you posted up.
edited 3rd Sep '15 1:45:34 AM by MattII
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Openly admitting to be a wholly dishonest participant ooh colour me surprised. Thanks for confirming your a certified bullshit artist.
Who watches the watchmen?
Not complete BS, and even if it was, who gives a sh*t? This is a forum for discussing sci-fi, fantasy and even weirder stuff, not contributing to the future of the world.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Yes you are full of complete BS and you openly admitted to being a dishonest participant got any other manure to shovel or you going to truck it where it belongs?
Who watches the watchmen?
I was ready to move on about three pages ago, you're the one who'd been yabbering on, posting up screeds of text and insulting peoples' intelligence. Oh and take your sedatives, this thread, it isn't worth getting worked up about.
And one final line of the subject, spaced armour, you have an actual way of getting past it with firecrackers?
edited 3rd Sep '15 2:19:44 AM by MattII
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Funny story from someone who chronically fabricated facts or cherry picked them and couldn't be assed to be honestly involved. If you wanted simple discourse you should start by being honest but that is clearly too much for you. If by screed pointing out the facts that you conveniently ignore sure. Keep shoveling.
Who watches the watchmen?
So I'm not ready to move on because I can't be bother to look up actual facts beyond wikipedia? Yeah, not really sure what the link is there.
Also, you say I didn't do research. sure, I'll admit to that (because this isn't worth spending five minutes cross-checking every little detail, 'cause, you know, this isn't worth it), but it was you making the claims, so the onus was on you to provide evidence. Also, there's the fact that you disregarded a lot of stuff (like the idea that convoys could put up any sort of credible defence), which basically told me you were on your hobby-horse and that it just wasn't worth arguing that much.
Also, space armour. It doesn't even have to be plate, simple chip-pan mesh would do it, since that would allow the shock to dissipate better.
edited 3rd Sep '15 2:34:41 AM by MattII
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
You made a heap pile of them yourself and in case you missed it I did agree with you on some of those points and even offered some possible alternatives.
Tell you what agree to disagree and we find something far more entertaining to discuss like Future Cyberntic/Robotic Animals or something crazier.
Who watches the watchmen?
Okay then. What do you think for the future power-plant in L S3s? Batteries (can be partially recharged by solar panels carried by the unit itself), or fuel cell? I'm counting out combustion engines because I just don't see that they'd work, partly because of the noise, and partly because they're mechanically more complex that fuel-cells with little real gain.
Of course, by fuel cells I'm not talking necessarily hydrogen, there are other types of fuel other there that are easier to work with, but which haven't had the publicity as yet.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Wasn't there some crazy gellied fuel cell liquid they were testing? I think it was for the one that used that Molten carbonate fuel cell. I think the idea was to lower the operating temperature because the current cells run really hot but can use things like gas based fuels. The gelling was somehow supposed to improve the density and under pressure release the gas. I vaguely remember something about it floating around before either that or it is from a short I read.
Which LS 3 you referring to? The Acronym soup is pretty thick on that one.
There was something about new battery tech namely the air gap battery that got mentioned a year or so ago. I need to find out where that came from again.
This was in my favs under Batteries
Tiny battery designs have been the next big thing. There was some ridicuosly tiny 3d printed battery that cropped up in another thread.
For charging there is a possible quantum solution
I stand corrected it isn't the gap battery but the Molten Air Battery A rechargeable high cap battery and it was two years ago.
edited 3rd Sep '15 3:23:12 AM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Dreams of Revenge
@Batteries:
Cool! I've always been under the impression that battery technology has been especially hard to advance due to several limitations.
I'd try to help with figuring out a powerplant, except I know nothing about the LS3... in fact, this is the first I've heard of it! 
Also, since I think it kind of got lost under all the discussion:
Does that sound like it would be useful? What features would be ideal for such a design?
Artisan of Auspicious Artifacts
@Tuefel
You're going to have to accept that you aren't going to convince anybody that your idea is a good one. Nobody is supporting you and there are at least two people arguing against you.
@Flanker
It certainly would be useful but since there's No Stealth In Space you're going to have to keep it from getting shot down. At the very least the radio is going to generate some heat.
If you can figure out how to get the drone close enough it can give you a good look at what you're fighting and intelligence is a useful thing.
Dreams of Revenge
Ah, I should clarify it's a land system. Although the idea of a space based version of the drone is awfully tempting (how would you even translate Assault Breaker style weaponry to space, anyway?).
Locking you up on radar since '09
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Flanker: They actually made a small piston drone for Assault Breaker. Several drones now and some in the past have the ability to designate. As for shape well drones are about as diverse as aircraft that and the US and other countries have been making them since just before the end of WWI. There is even a tilt rotor VTOL craft. True flying wing for low RCS seems a popular choice and flying with prop and jet exist or have existed in the past. Designator systems are usually just a rather small pod either on a pylon or under belly of the craft.
DARPA has some crazy 5 year loiter time drone in the works complete with camera load.
Who watches the watchmen?
Try again Tom. As usual you like to skimp on the details. How low was that aircraft again? Here is a hint way too low. That and it wasn't exactly throttling through the attack and had slowed down and took the entire unit firing at something significantly bigger then what we are talking about and it was considered lucky not skill or really feasible beyond a desperation tactic. Details details you should still pay attention to them.
Actually the JLTV is supposed to be able to do all those things. HUMVEES do them too. It is a lot better protected then any of our standard soft vehicles in service and it takes a LAV to be better armored in the first place. That is quite a few steps beyond the HUMVVEE Or the 5 Ton. Details again tom.
The inflation adjust is rather small and still happened across a large stretch of time. Keep stretching you might get there someday.
Except to achieve possible starvation the enemy has to have no reserves, no stockpiles, and no supply lines period. It is rather hard to do that these days considering you can store something MRE's in huge quantities anywhere. You might get a medal for blowing up someone's MRE's.
Considering you can easily launch guided cluster munitions from well beyond the range of a .50 cal I think not.
The laser guided bullets require human input to work and rely on humans for accuracy fire and forget they are not.
Hey tom yes there is a munition that can wipe out an entire convoy, it has done exactly that, we have used several times in the not so distant past, and have mentioned it in this thread multiple times now. But hey details bother you. It even wiped out a multi-vehicle dug in position on the first pass. It is way more effective then any of your suggestions by a huge margin. You ready for this. It can be carried by an F-16 and has max deployment ceiling of 40,000 feet. Let me know when a .50 cal can KO an entire convoy in three seconds flat then you can talk. It is not limited to a B-52 or other heavy bombers it also is not limited to being in just airplanes either you should know better by now.
No you can't use a law from any angle it is dumb fire weapon there is only one LAW that is the LAW-72 and it has max effective range of only 200 meters. You can shoot further with an M-16.
Matt's argument doesn't hold water and yours almost never do. The MK-19 has to expend hundreds of rounds and it is unlikely to knock any tanks care to try making a real assessment or actually bothering to look up how these weapons work for a change?
Your also very wrong on guided munitions again. Try many thousands of meters without any appreciable interruption. A Wall Eye Mark 1 Camera Guided weapon a 1963 era weapon had a data link range of 30km. There were data link weapons in WWII that had multi-kilometer ranges. Try actually looking stuff up instead of making it up.
edited 2nd Sep '15 7:25:56 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?