Tweet
Based on the idea in the Soviet Vehicle Guide 2.0
-
-
Updated version
Now with more technical details. If anyone can spot any flaws in the technology please let me know as this isn't my specialty. -
Excellent piece and I think you caught the technical problems to a T!
Liquid propellent for tank guns has been argued for a long time, and the general view was that it just was unworkable for tanks with today's technology.
Never thought about its use in artillery, but actually makes a lot of sense, the issues that tankers have with LP can be ignored for the most part with artillery.The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.Comment
-
Thanks - I think I even understood some of what I wrote!Originally posted by dragoon500ly View Post
Actually IRL the closest it got to production was artillery.Comment
-
Back when the US-German MBT-70 was being worked on, there was some discussion/development with a LP gun. Never went much beyond the lab test phase, and it was dropped in favor of the 152mm Gun/Missile Launcher.
It seems that every few years or so, the LP comes up (sort of like the lunch room's "Hamburger Surprise", LOL), but the problem of storing a high pressure tank of hazard chemicals and protecting it from hostile fire pretty much stops it could.
A lot of tankers are of the opinion that the electromagnetic (or rail) gun will be the next gen of tank main armament. Now if they can get just get the thing down to a useful size!
Still excellent work! Looking forward to your next paper!The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.Comment
Comment