Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Indonesia's X18 tank boat.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Indonesia's X18 tank boat.

    Either this is pure genius or pure folly, the Indonesians will be building these boats. And the boat is configurable to have a main gun up to 105mm. And there are reports UAE want up to 100 of theses.
    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...rth-sea-boats/



    Lundin-X18-Antasena-3.png
    "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
    Ernest Hemingway.

  • #2
    Would the weight of a 105 main gun turret place a high center of gravity on such a vessel? How far down does the armor on the turret go down? It looks like AP Machine Gun ammo can readily pierce the hull. This may well serve in places that will not see opposition with heavy weapons, but the Persian Gulf is not such a place.

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #3
      Indonesia is made up of a lot of islands, meaning littoral combat, so this might work for attacking coastal strongpoints and pirate forces, but it seems kind of overkill considering what's already on the market and what the opposition has.

      Pirates like things like Boghammers which are fast but not armored, so the MBT turret isn't needed.

      Shore installations are not going to be bunkered or heavily fortified, so again this seems like too much gun for the fight. Would certainly work against freighters and tankers, but it's cheaper and just as effective to use RPG's, and I would think that gun stabilization and loading would be a problem while moving rapidly across water.

      Looks mean, though.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
        Either this is pure genius or pure folly,

        Lundin-X18-Antasena-3.png
        I think that it depends on what the target is. If the target is other small highly manoeuvrable boats like those used by IRGC, then this is folly because, although the main gun should have greater range than the machine guns mounted on the IRGC boats, the rate of fire will be fairly low. Shells do not arrive instantaneously on their targets. As long as the IRGC boats maintain evasive courses, it is unlikely the main gun will claim many of them before they can get within range of their own machine gun fire. There is a reason why the USN uses mounts with high rates of fire.

        If the target is some lumbering merchant vessel, then these small boats are fine. The ammunition should be relatively cheap, compared to self-propelled missile weaponry. With regards to Pruitt's concern over the high centre of gravity, I think it is valid. However, the heavier turret machinery can sufficiently lower the centre of gravity if it is housed in the lower portion of the hull.

        I doubt there would be much armour on the turret. While it could protect the gun mechanism, the fact that the shells that do not hit the turret are probably shredding the ship means that the turret would remain pointlessly intact while the ship sinks.
        ScenShare Guidelines:

        1) Enjoy creating it
        2) Enjoy playing it
        3) Enjoy sharing it
        4) Enjoy helping others create them

        The PlayersDB - The Harpoon Community's #1 Choice.

        FAQ http://www.harplonkhq.com/Harpoon/Fr...dQuestions.htm

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Herman Hum View Post
          I think that it depends on what the target is. If the target is other small highly manoeuvrable boats like those used by IRGC, then this is folly because, although the main gun should have greater range than the machine guns mounted on the IRGC boats, the rate of fire will be fairly low. Shells do not arrive instantaneously on their targets. As long as the IRGC boats maintain evasive courses, it is unlikely the main gun will claim many of them before they can get within range of their own machine gun fire. There is a reason why the USN uses mounts with high rates of fire.

          If the target is some lumbering merchant vessel, then these small boats are fine. The ammunition should be relatively cheap, compared to self-propelled missile weaponry. With regards to Pruitt's concern over the high centre of gravity, I think it is valid. However, the heavier turret machinery can sufficiently lower the centre of gravity if it is housed in the lower portion of the hull.

          I doubt there would be much armour on the turret. While it could protect the gun mechanism, the fact that the shells that do not hit the turret are probably shredding the ship means that the turret would remain pointlessly intact while the ship sinks.
          Turret mount cant be housed very low enough in a twin hull design.

          BTW, RPG's are cheap.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            Cool Tank boat

            I agree a swarm of boghammers with rpgs would be a problem.

            IMHO - 25mm would be better armament with grenade launcher and smoke

            Probably ends up too costly

            Comment


            • #8
              "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should...or that it's even a good idea."

              Jurassic Park
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #9
                The Japanese had the same idea but it didn't work. There have to be too many compromises
                Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                Comment


                • #10
                  Hi

                  There have been several vessels through the decades that have tried to utilize a tank turret, some more successful than others.
                  The current Romanian Kogalniceanu river monitors immediately spring to mind plus some Nordic examples, but I think the housed large mortars rather than tank barrels.

                  Regards

                  Andy H

                  "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

                  "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    the soviets were fond of tank turrets on boats for sure.

                    as for the IRGC boats a lot of people seem to think they only have MGs...they have rockets, missiles, and 20-30mm cannons on many as well.

                    personally i'd think these would be ok for use against chinese corvettes.
                    the answer is on the floor- john roseberry

                    A tiger dies and leaves his fur,
                    A man dies and leaves his name,
                    A teacher dies and teaches death.
                    Seikchi Toguchi 1917-1998

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      The only advantage I can conceive of is a powerful armor piercing round with a flat trajectory. Warship sides are often relatively thin.

                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        The only advantage I can conceive of is a powerful armor piercing round with a flat trajectory. Warship sides are often relatively thin.

                        no need for AP against a modern warship, it would likely overpen. HE, or airburst rounds are most effective against modern ships
                        the answer is on the floor- john roseberry

                        A tiger dies and leaves his fur,
                        A man dies and leaves his name,
                        A teacher dies and teaches death.
                        Seikchi Toguchi 1917-1998

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by General_Jacke View Post

                          no need for AP against a modern warship, it would likely overpen. HE, or airburst rounds are most effective against modern ships
                          Exactly,so why would anyone want to do this?
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X