US ARMY next generation tank prototype, page 2

Originally posted by Vekar
As usual no one understood a word I said and are accusing me of things I am not, how pathetic.
Alright my last post here since you accuse me and do not listen:

Noone so far accused you of anything, its your personal choice to be offended by what I would call valid criticism. Especially since many of your points have obvious flaws.

#1: PRICE

So? A new system costs more money than a 30 year old product, which in its time cost more than ITS predecessor. Big deal.

#2: 1 Anti-tank round to a cabin with 2 people in it means they will make a stronger anti-tank round that will nullify your tank ten times faster

And how exactly would a "traditional" tank with the aforementioned negative characteristics of many crew members be better against such a development?

#3: You cannot reach the ammo-reloader to do it manualy if something goes wrong in combat, you have to abandon the tank

Similarly you cant reload the gun when something happens to the human reloader (which may include something as simple as him banging his head during an emergency brake). And one can just retreat, you dont have to abandon the whole vehicle.

#4: All the electronics is going to cause machine dependance, people need to be able to do two things: manual and electronic, go read my post again instead of skimming it. This tank is only electronic.

A tank already is completely machine dependent. No tank whose important subsystems have a failure is still in battleworthy condition. Try turning that heavy MBT turret with the hand pump, its not something one should do. Thats why all vital systems have multiple redundancy. I agree that a manual control is a helpful backup. But I also say that a backup can be electromechanical as well.

#5: The size cuts down on backup systems, being smaller it cannot hold as many unless you have to ditch something else.

Now thats a gross generalization. Or do you have the blueprints of such a new tank prototype?

#7: maintance, think about it, all those computers are not going to be easy to maintain, the technology is not here, even plugging in a laptop will not help the problem in the long run

You accuse people of just skimming your post while you apparently dont read well yourself. Of course a computerized system is easier to maintain because of such nifty things as self-diagnosis (that does NOT say they are failuire-proof). The difference however is that to solve a software error, you only need that laptop and not 100kg worth of specialized tools; and if the computer breaks you just swap out standardized modules.

#9: Hull, the current is 3 layers, if you keep the 3 layers on this you either have to:
1-make the hull thinner for the extra computers since the tank is half the size.
2-ditch ammo and computers so you can have a thicker hull

Again this unfounded size comparison. I wonder where you have the impression from that a computer has to be the size of a car?

#10: Being able to do things manualy as well makes the tank more versital, computer crashes, no big deal, keep going.

No, you don´t keep going, you retreat ASAP and try to get the main systems back to work. Because when a vital system fails, you have an emergency, and you should NOT fight under emergency status. I say again, I´d like to see the commander boldly driving his tank into battle while they have to turn the turret and aim the gun manually. NOT.

Nuke proof tank, bull! Try and withstand a modern nuke in a tank and your but is TOAST! The heat is over 20,000F which will melt the tank and turn you to ASH! Most of what they like to boast is bull just to make it look tough.

Of course no tank can withstand the actual nuclear reaction. Thats why the proper term is "NBC proof", and means that the tank is able to operate in a contaminated area AFTER an attack. And thats a necessity and has been a standard feature of most armored vehicles for decades, its not something to "make it look tough".