Sabot_Up

The Russians thought of it first.

The only aircraft that I could see lifting four Abrams would either be an airship or a ground-effect aircraft like the Russian Ekranoplans or the Boeing Pelican. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Pelican Such an airship would have to be really, really huge. It takes a cubic meter of hydrogen to lift 1.2 kg of weight, so just lifting four abrams would take a hydrogen-filled airship with the same volume as the 800-foot-long Hindenburg. Then you'd need even more hydrogen to lift the structure, engines, etc. There are two major problems with a jet-powered VTOL of that size. The first is that it will require an absurd amount of fuel for takeoff and landing. The second is what you will take off and land on - the much smaller Harrier can't take off and land immediately from the same patch of runway due to heat, and the Navy has had to reinforce their ship's decks to deal with the heat of the Osprey's engines. For VTOLs I think one IFV or light tank is the limit. Even the C-130 size Mil Mi-26 can only carry 20 tons, and nobody else has ever bothered to make a real operational helicopter (ie not the V-12) anywhere near that size.

Ugh. I forgot about the range issue with the Stryker. Maybe in the future the US will have an A400M equivalent that can fly a significant distance with a 30-ton payload. Currently the Russians have the BMP-3 and BMD-3 fighting vehicles that are under 20 tons, but I assume that they aren't armored as heavily as the Bradley, Puma, or CV90 (and the BMD doesn't carry as many troops).

According to wikipedia the maximum weight of a Chinook is 22 tons. For something in this class I'd look more toward the C-130 for a size limitation. I believe the maximum payload for a C-130 is around 20 tons (you should also check on the internal dimensions of the C-130). The quad tilt-rotor (sort of like a Giant V-22 Osprey) is a possible future aircraft that may be as large as a C-130. A 20-ton vehicle would probably be perfect for such an aircraft. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/qtr.htm

I am still using SB Gold until I pony up the money for Pro PE.

I'm curious as to the TC's view. His hatch will be quite a bit lower than that on an (already low) T-72 or T-90, as well as being completely blocked by the turret in one direction. Also, will he have to watch out for the gun barrel when unbuttoned?

What about the T-80U's FCS? Is it equivalent to the M1/Leo 2 as simulated?

Wow. I need to go to Sweden.

Can we keep this on the original topic? The current debate has no relation to the original topic of the thread.

Armor has a future. Presumably we'll never see a Kursk again, but the tank will stick around. Improved armor might reduce weight to the 40-50 ton range, but I don't see armies going under that size for their MBTs. The West will probably adopt autoloaders. Jammers and hard-kill active protection systems will become widespread. The bottom line: I don't really see "light/medium tanks" making a comeback, because they simply won't be able to survive.

Wikipedia, the always 100% accurate storehouse of all human knowledge, says he was Welsh.

I'm also using the old Steel Beasts on XP, and I've never had any issues with it whatsoever. Can you post a screen shot of the problem?

I like the way Canada does it, where all the services are unified.

Is this sort of inter-service thing only prevalent in the US or does it happen elsewhere? It's such a complete waste.

If you click 'more info' it tells you: