Your Nation's Main Battle Tank [Part 2]

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Sheridan used a 152mm. If one had more guts than they should, they might mount a 155 on a tank chassis.

But anything above 125mm isn't really used in modern combat. I mean, 140mm is probably going to show up somewhere down the road, but not for at least a decade.

The Sheridan's 152 was a gun-launcher, not a gun per se.
It was very low powered. Sort of like a demolition mortar that could fire ATGMs.

And well, the Russians have mounted oodles of 152mm full-power guns onto tank chassis, so a 155 should be no problem at all. In fact, I do.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Please link the tank with a 150mm gun with a lower mass than 40 tonnes.

Hummel. WW2 tech.

149mm. Still larger then my gun still.
24 Tons. Less then the F.A.T
10-20 rounds. This is the only thing that gets me. So I'll take into and lower my Ammo rack from 30 rounds to maybe around 18 rounds.
20-30MPH. I'm comparing to WW2 tech so this doesn't really matter.

The Hummel's gun had about 25% the muzzle energy of the M1A1/2 Abrams' 120mm gun firing a similar shell, because it had such a poor muzzle velocity. The case of the round fired by the Hummel's gun is about half the length of those used on the M256-compatible lines of ammunition.
Senestrum could probably calculate the difference in recoil impulse put onto the tank, but the Hummel's gun isn't powerful at all. Not by modern standards. After all, there were much more powerful guns of the same calibre and power in both the German, American and Russian arsenals.

Ok... My Math shkills blow hard. But I know smaller space, Plus bigger ammo means you can hold 10 max rounds.

That This Tank WILL flip when fired because its so damn light. The Stryker (Why they put a 105 on it...) Will flip without it's stabazling supports lowered and it weighs 30*40 tons its self... Much smaller gun.

The Engine in this thing is...Well ist the same engine used in teh Challenger 2 and Other tanks...And Weighs nearly 5 tons on its own i think.

See the above.

Seriously if I can compare my tank to a tank or SPG from World War freaking 2! Then most of the problems I'm getting is the ammo capacity. And I'll gladly lower that to 15 or 18 rounds.

Bad choice. WWII tanks faced radically different threats to tanks today.
Modern tanks feature ERA, spall liners, armour cavities, composite armours (as opposed to solid steel plate), active and passive protection systems, and armours capable of providing almost a metre of steel-equivalent armour - in additional much bigger guns, ATGM capability, bigger engines and automatic loaders. WWII tanks could provide none of those. Because the threats that required this level of protection didn't exist.

>shrugs
Like I said. It'd need to be crewed by midgets.

Midgets? How small you talking? Graditorans average heights are only bout 5'3" to 5'7"

This could probably fit two people max, and only if they were sat in the turret ring. Because that can be the only place that allows a person to exist in the vehicle and have appreciable front glacis armour. And the tank probably isn't big enough to carry any 150-something-mm rounds, due to an all-round lack of space. There is no appreciable bustle, and the hull can't be large enough either. The turret ring could carry a number of rounds in a carousel fashion, but not many.

[Ularn]

Modern tanks feature ERA, spall liners, armour cavities, composite armours (as opposed to solid steel plate), active and passive protection systems, and armours capable of providing almost a metre of steel-equivalent armour

Out of interest, does anyone have a table anywhere with the equivalent steel penetration thicknesses (or whatever you call them) for various guns and ammo? Ideally I'd like them for both small arms and tank guns if that's possible; I'm trying to figure out what would be reasonable figures for my FT rifles and tanks.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Rule-of-thumb equation for a HEAT penetration is 6-8x the diameter of the warhead for a copper liner (affected by the length of the cone as well - more exotic liner materials such as gold might bump this to 10-12x diameter), EFP is 1-2x the diameter (affected by the shape formed - some EFPs can form complex projectiles in flight, and MEFP form multiple small projectiles from a single warhead, so obviously has much reduced penetration).

Off the top of my head, BMG is capable of 10-15mm penetration, 14.5x114 has double the energy of BMG so possibly has close to double the penetration (BS and B-32, armour piercing variants [BS is an incendiary armour-piercing] were both capable of 32mm penetration at 500m), while 30mm DU rounds can penetrate between 30 and 100mm RHa (from 1000-500m respectively).

Does anyone have a clue why 14.5x114's accuracy "degrades rapidly at ranges in excess of 1000m"?

[Bears Armed]

Any one want to point in the way of some Exotic substances I can use as armor for a FT tank?

'Collapsed matter'. Not actual Neutronium, or even as dense as the 'degenerate matter' of 'white dwarf' stars, but a material within which intense levels of [artificial?] gravity have been used to force the atoms closer together until they have assumed a significantly denser arrangement than exists in 'normal' matter. Maybe this process has even reduced the atoms' average radius.
No, I don't know whether this would actually ever be achievable in RL, even if the gravity-controlling technology needed were to be proven possible, but it's what my own FT nation's toughest AFVs (and their naval starships) use.


_______________________________________________________________________


Talking of high-calibre/low-power 'Assault Guns', how many of you already knew about the 'Churchill AVRE' that the British used on D-Day and its "flying dustbin" projectiles?

A petard mortar was the demolition weapon fitted to the Churchill AVRE tank. It was a mortar of a 290 mm bore, known to its crews as the "flying dustbin" due to the characteristics of its projectile: an unaerodynamic 20 kg charge which could be fired up to 100 m. This was sufficient to demolish many bunkers and earthworks and even disable a Tiger tank.

[Ularn]

Any one want to point in the way of some Exotic substances I can use as armor for a FT tank?

Going for relatively hard sci-fi, I use layers of titanium diboride and tungsten carbide, and some other ceramics on my tanks (and starships). Wikipedia's got more info on them; at least the former is already being prototyped on some tanks, I believe.

[Graditora]

*sigh*
The crew is only 3
The gun is a 144mm or a 140mm
I said I would be willing to make changes to the size to fit requirements.

Well double the weight first off, and increase the dimensions.

If I were to double the weight then it mine as well be larger then the Leopard.
I just want a tank that fits the requirements of

144mm Cannon or 140mm
60MPH on road
50MPH off road
Armor that deflects 100mm rounds
And a crew of 3

[Ularn]

Well double the weight first off, and increase the dimensions.

If I were to double the weight then it mine as well be larger then the Leopard.
I just want a tank that fits the requirements of

144mm Cannon or 140mm
60MPH on road
50MPH off road
Armor that deflects 100mm rounds
And a crew of 3

And I think everyone's basically saying that's not possible in a package as small as you're asking for, or if it is, it would still be useless on a modern battlefield where everyone has guns bigger than 100mm.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Not to mention, this would survive no ATGM impacts, and very little cannon fire.

[Sucrati]

Here:

Bobcat LAV



Type: Light Assault Vehicle

Speed: 105 Km/Hr
Weight: 3 Tonnes

Length: 5 Meters
Width: 3 Meters
Height: 2 Meters
Crew: 3 (Driver, Commander aka Shotgun, and Gunner) 2 other passengers if need be
Primary Armament: 1 Armor Piercing Missile Launcher/N-233 MAIRFW
Engine: 8 Cyl. Fuel Cells 6.2 L
Suspension: Veri Independent Suspension System
Fuel capacity: 5 Fuel Cells (Equiv of 120 liters of standard fuel)
Operational Range: 800 Km

Goliath HBT



Type: Heavy Assault Tank/Heavy Battle Tank

Speed: 60 Km/Hr
Weight: 98 Tonnes

Gun forward length: 12 Meters
Hull length: 12 Meters
Width: 8 Meters
Height: 6 Meters
Crew: 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Armor: Titano-Ferric Armor Plating
Primary armament: 1 150 mm M85 rifled cannon
Secondary: 1 N-233 MAIRFWs/1 Anti-Air (6 pod) Missile Launcher
Engine: Freti-Industries ARI-22280 Multi-Fuel Turbine Engine 2,000 hp (1,471 kW)
Power/weight: 24.5 hp/metric ton
Transmission: Bellit 12140-3X
Suspension: Bellit 34452-2I
Ground clearance: 2.0 Meters
Fuel capacity: 4,500 liters
Operational range: 675 Km

Viper LBT



Type: Light Assault Tank/Light Battle Tank

Speed: 90 Km/Hr
Weight: 50 Tonnes

Gun forward length: 8 Meters
Hull length: 6 Meters
Width: 4 Meters
Height: 3 Meters
Crew: 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Armor: Titano-Ferric Armor Plating
Primary armament: 1 120 mm M82 rifled cannon
Secondary: 1 N-233 MAIRFWs/1 Anti-Air (6 pod) Missile Luncher
Engine: Freti-Industries ARI-22109 Multi-Fuel Turbine Engine 1,500 hp (1,119 kW)
Power/weight: 24.5 hp/metric ton
Transmission: Bellit 12140-3X
Suspension: Bellit 34452-2I
Ground clearance: 3.5 Meters
Fuel capacity: 3,500 liters
Operational range: 750 Km

[Ularn]

Snip

Your light tank looks bigger than your heavy tank...

As for the stats, they look bad, and I'm guessing you're not clear on what some of them mean. On the other hand, explaining it all would take me a while and I'm meant to be writing a dissertation right now. Also I don't know a great deal about tanks so it's probably better if someone with more time and knowledge goes through it to save me making mistakes.

[The Planet of Scalia]

http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/11/10527/Hover_Battle_Tank_AFF_by_ikarus_tm2.jpg

[Sucrati]

Snip

Your light tank looks bigger than your heavy tank...

The Viper is smaller, the Goliath is the Paladin Tank from CnC Generals

Basically, the pictures aren't representative of their respective scales.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/11/10527/Hover_Battle_Tank_AFF_by_ikarus_tm2.jpg

As cool as it looks (which is frankly, quite), twin gun battle tanks actually perform worse than single gun tanks. Also, hovertanks aren't that great a concept either.

[Ularn]

hovertanks aren't that great a concept either.

LIES!

Actually, what're the problems you see with them? I'm going to be doing a redesign of this thing at some point and could try and see if any of them could be addressed while I'm at it.

[Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia]

http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/11/10527/Hover_Battle_Tank_AFF_by_ikarus_tm2.jpg

As cool as it looks (which is frankly, quite), twin gun battle tanks actually perform worse than single gun tanks. Also, hovertanks aren't that great a concept either.

Indeed. Although hovertanks could be an interesting idea for amphibious operations in my opinion.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

hovertanks aren't that great a concept either.

LIES!

Actually, what're the problems you see with them? I'm going to be doing a redesign of this thing at some point and could try and see if any of them could be addressed while I'm at it.

Well, if a regular tank runs out of fuel, or takes a round to the engine, it just stops. If this runs out of fuel or takes a round to the engine, it crashes.
Plus, I don't think it would actually be that good at navigating rough ground unless it wasn't just hovering but physically flying, at which point it's no longer a tank but a ground attack aircraft.

The wheel and the track I think are actually too good to be replaced with hovering, partly because hovering is IMO a flawed concept.

[Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia]

LIES!

Actually, what're the problems you see with them? I'm going to be doing a redesign of this thing at some point and could try and see if any of them could be addressed while I'm at it.

Well, if a regular tank runs out of fuel, or takes a round to the engine, it just stops. If this runs out of fuel or takes a round to the engine, it crashes.
Plus, I don't think it would actually be that good at navigating rough ground unless it wasn't just hovering but physically flying, at which point it's no longer a tank but a ground attack aircraft.

The wheel and the track I think are actually too good to be replaced with hovering, partly because hovering is IMO a flawed concept.

Nuclear powered.... hovertanks... /non-serious proposal

[Orussia]

Does anyone have a clue why 14.5x114's accuracy "degrades rapidly at ranges in excess of 1000m"?

Honestly? No idea. I do have an idea, though, and I think that a loss of velocity causes the bullet to 'tumble' slightly, reducing the accuracy.
>Shrugs
That's just an opinion, though. No hard facts were involved in developing that.

[Ularn]

LIES!

Actually, what're the problems you see with them? I'm going to be doing a redesign of this thing at some point and could try and see if any of them could be addressed while I'm at it.

Well, if a regular tank runs out of fuel, or takes a round to the engine, it just stops. If this runs out of fuel or takes a round to the engine, it crashes.
Plus, I don't think it would actually be that good at navigating rough ground unless it wasn't just hovering but physically flying, at which point it's no longer a tank but a ground attack aircraft.

The wheel and the track I think are actually too good to be replaced with hovering, partly because hovering is IMO a flawed concept.

Ah, so you just feel that there aren't enough advantages for it to be worthwhile. I was wondering if there were perhaps any recurring mechanical/tactical issues with them or something that keep cropping up in artwork by people who don't understand tanks, but if I'm making a grav tank (and I am) then there's not much I can do about the problems you describe.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Yeah, I'm taking a logical view of the possible problems. However, unless your nation's universe has literal anti-gravity technology, the only way of getting that vertical propulsion would be from a physical jet engine, or some type of engine powered directly by one of those mini-reactors they've got waiting for licencing.

[Annez]

The Annezian Defense Force uses the Merkerva Mk. IV and is developing the Merkerva Mk. V, currently.

[The Akasha Colony]

I added hovering capability to an otherwise normal tank; hovering usually has the advantage of allowing much greater speeds without the problems of track wear that normally occur in vehicles. Yes, sci-fi could just as easily invent handwavium materials that have much greater durability and lower wear, but low-level flight will still likely be faster. My tank still has treads though, which are more commonly used in battle since they help anchor it when firing and being fired upon.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I added hovering capability to an otherwise normal tank; hovering usually has the advantage of allowing much greater speeds without the problems of track wear that normally occur in vehicles. Yes, sci-fi could just as easily invent handwavium materials that have much greater durability and lower wear, but low-level flight will still likely be faster. My tank still has treads though, which are more commonly used in battle since they help anchor it when firing and being fired upon.

Well, aside from being a vulnerable and difficult-to-manoeuvre hovercraft, the only other sensible option is 'ground effect' flight, a la ekranoplan. However, ekranoplans are just as if not more difficult to manoeuvre than a hovercraft, and require their terrain to be flat - therefore being relegated to waterborne travel.

But by the time we arrive at a suitable method for low-level flight, we've probably arrived at full flight capability, a la Futurama ships. Capacity to hover, and to fly. I designed a tank like this, it had eight massive thrusters to hover, and two even bigger ones for actual motion.

[Ularn]

Yeah, I'm taking a logical view of the possible problems. However, unless your nation's universe has literal anti-gravity technology, the only way of getting that vertical propulsion would be from a physical jet engine, or some type of engine powered directly by one of those mini-reactors they've got waiting for licencing.

We do have antigrav. It's pretty much the only major handwavium I allowed myself when deciding my techbase and I spent a good while thinking about all the things we could use it for apart from making tanks float and keeping crew stuck the the floor of their starship. As an example, a lot of my airborne vehicles have gravitic ramjets, which use antigrav to compress the air and then expel it out the rear of the tank.

I added hovering capability to an otherwise normal tank; hovering usually has the advantage of allowing much greater speeds without the problems of track wear that normally occur in vehicles. Yes, sci-fi could just as easily invent handwavium materials that have much greater durability and lower wear, but low-level flight will still likely be faster. My tank still has treads though, which are more commonly used in battle since they help anchor it when firing and being fired upon.

That is one big advantage of a grav tank; since you're not limited by the friction of tracks and roads and whatnot you can move and manoeuvre much more easily. A grav tank can strafe without repositioning the hull and if you stick some jet engines on it like I did then you can probably get some pretty impressive top speeds.