Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mk.V

[San-Silvacian]

wow cv90 you have a 40mm gun your gay this baby rocks manly 57mm fuck you guys

[Anacasppia]

This is probably kind of outlandish, but anyway...

M.70A4 'Mars' Main Battle Tank
Type: Main Battle Tank
Unit Cost: $16,750,000 NSD
Variants: M.70/ARV, M.70/AVLB, M.70/CEV

---

Weight: 54.5 tons
Length:

• Hull: 8.8 m
• Gun-Forward: 9.1 m

Width: 3.5 m
Height: 2.2 m
Crew: 3

---

Armor: RHA, Composite

• Modular Applique: RHA/Composite/NERA/ERA

Protection:

• Frontal: 120mm APFSDS, 155mm HEAT
• Side: 30mm APFSDS
• Top: 15.5mm AP, 155mm HE Shrapnel
• Rear: 15.5mm AP

Passive Protection: Radar-Absorbent Paint, Multi-Spectral Camouflage Netting
Active Protection: MUSS, AMAP-ADS

---

Main Armament: 150mm L/30 Smoothbore Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun (64 Rounds in Bustle, Ready)
Secondary Armament:

• 15.5mm Coaxial Machinegun (1,200 Rounds)
• 7.62mm RWS Machinegun (600 Rounds)

---

Engine: 1600 hp Multifuel Turbine
Power/Weight Ratio: 29.36 hp/ton
Transmission: Hydromechanical Variable
Suspension: Hydropneumatic
Ground Clearance: 0.5 m (± 0.3 m)
Operational Range: 500 km
Speed:

• Road (Governed): 75km/h
• Off-Road: 60km/h

Propellant is stored in an isolated compartment beneath the floor of the crew compartment, while ammunitions are stored in the bustle.

Will probably do away with safety measures like blow-off panels for bustle since the only explosive stuff left would be warheads of some of the rounds, and as far as I understand it modern explosives are extremely difficult to be set off by accident/attack.

[The Kievan People]

1. 65, not happening.
3. You have your safety measures backwards. The propellant, not the warheads, is what you really need to worry about and what needs to be kept isolated from the crew. Having the shells in the bustle also complicates and slows the loading cycle. If the shell is stored in the compartment it can be brought into line with the propellant charge in the bustle and the complete round is rammed in one action. But if the shell is in the bustle it needs to be rammed, then the propellant charge needs to be brought into line and rammed again.

[Anacasppia]

The gun is actually RLPG, thus the 'outlandish' remark. I was under the impression that RLPG could provide for an increase in ammunition capacity of up to 50% or so, so I gave it a more conservative 33% increase, from 48 to 64.

The loading issue isn't a problem anymore in such a case, I hope, since the liquid propellant would be injected into the breech separately?

E: Apparently I goofed on the division of rounds, though - it is supposed to be 32 ready, 32 stowed.

[The Kievan People]

:P
The gun is actually RLPG, thus the 'outlandish' remark. I was under the impression that RLPG could provide for an increase in ammunition capacity of up to 50% or so, so I gave it a more conservative 33% increase, from 48 to 64.

The loading issue isn't a problem anymore in such a case, I hope, since the liquid propellant would be injected into the breech separately?

E: Apparently I goofed on the division of rounds, though - it is supposed to be 32 ready, 32 stowed.

Right, right...

Those just don't work properly. Unsolved problems with unpredictable propellant ignition.

[Anacasppia]

:P
The gun is actually RLPG, thus the 'outlandish' remark. I was under the impression that RLPG could provide for an increase in ammunition capacity of up to 50% or so, so I gave it a more conservative 33% increase, from 48 to 64.

The loading issue isn't a problem anymore in such a case, I hope, since the liquid propellant would be injected into the breech separately?

E: Apparently I goofed on the division of rounds, though - it is supposed to be 32 ready, 32 stowed.

Right, right...

Those just don't work properly. Unsolved problems with unpredictable propellant ignition.

Guess I'll just make this '2020 main battle tank (concept?)' or something then, while considering what the presently in service 'A3' should look like.

[Virana]

Showing off my tank again.



Modified a few things - moved back the reactive armor, increased the opacity of the shading, among a few other things. And of course, as I showed last time, a complete evolution of the M9 tank ever since I first colored it.

Criticism/comments?

Also, I was considering the implementation of a few upgrades for the latest version of the tank, but I'd like to know if they're practical. Turkey wants to integrate an electric engine into the Altay MBT to make the tank less glaringly visible on infrared cameras. However, an electric engine introduces a number of questions - can electric engines produce as much power for as long and would it not require an extensive replacement/overhaul of armored formation support elements to facilitate electrically charging them rather than a simple refuel? Would it be better than a more conventional diesel hyperbar or gas turbine engine in terms of performance and fuel/energy efficiency?

Additionally, I've seen several sources call the Japanese Type 10 a "fourth generation main battle tank". The characteristics that supposedly lend it this title include hydropneumatic suspension (which is already in some other tanks, like the Leclerc), autoloader (also in a ton of other tanks for decades), day/night sights providing a 360° view around the turret ("MBT EODAS"?), and an advanced communication/networking suite (which sounds like it can be implemented into an existing tank). I honestly don't think any of these characteristics warrant an entirely new generation of tanks (especially when comparing 2nd and 3rd gen tanks), and some of the "innovations" have been present in previous tanks (as I believe Anemos said earlier in this thread).

But what the Type 10 does have that is unique is its continuously variable transmission, which purportedly allows it to travel at 70 km/h forward or backward. I vaguely remember someone saying CVT is not practical for application in a tank, so I was wondering if it's even possible? Also, even though it seems to be a tank based on western philosophy, the Type 10 only weighs 48 tonnes with a standard armor load. Is it because of its "nano-crystal steel armor" (which is what Wiki called it), use of an autoloader instead of another crew member (which makes the Leclerc weigh significantly less than other western tanks), or an amalgamation of these and other factors?

[Yezidistan]

I'm toying with ideas for armament for my not-BMP-23 MT-LB/2S1-based IFV. Should I go with a 23mm autocannon and 7.62mm coaxial MG, or should I rock a 12.7mm HMG with coaxial 35mm AGL?

[Spirit of Hope]

Showing off my tank again.

(Image)

Looks good. I don't think electric engines would have he power output for the same mass/size as a diesel motor and they take longer to recharge. Plus recharging in the field would be complicated, requiring massive additional power generators to be carried to the front to recharge your tanks, so in the end probably not saving you much fuel or logistic elements.

Now as to they Type 10, most of its electronics stuff could probably be easily added to other modern MBT's. I have actually seen 360 NV cameras offered that can be added to most vehicles.Probably its weight is due to a number of factors, plus maybe just less armor or something else, wasn't part of its design requirement light weight for use on certain Japanese islands?

[Anacasppia]

Showing off my tank again.

(Image)

Modified a few things - moved back the reactive armor, increased the opacity of the shading, among a few other things. And of course, as I showed last time, a complete evolution of the M9 tank ever since I first colored it.

Criticism/comments?

Also, I was considering the implementation of a few upgrades for the latest version of the tank, but I'd like to know if they're practical. Turkey wants to integrate an electric engine into the Altay MBT to make the tank less glaringly visible on infrared cameras. However, an electric engine introduces a number of questions - can electric engines produce as much power for as long and would it not require an extensive replacement/overhaul of armored formation support elements to facilitate electrically charging them rather than a simple refuel? Would it be better than a more conventional diesel hyperbar or gas turbine engine in terms of performance and fuel/energy efficiency?

Additionally, I've seen several sources call the Japanese Type 10 a "fourth generation main battle tank". The characteristics that supposedly lend it this title include hydropneumatic suspension (which is already in some other tanks, like the Leclerc), autoloader (also in a ton of other tanks for decades), day/night sights providing a 360° view around the turret ("MBT EODAS"?), and an advanced communication/networking suite (which sounds like it can be implemented into an existing tank). I honestly don't think any of these characteristics warrant an entirely new generation of tanks (especially when comparing 2nd and 3rd gen tanks), and some of the "innovations" have been present in previous tanks (as I believe Anemos said earlier in this thread).

But what the Type 10 does have that is unique is its continuously variable transmission, which purportedly allows it to travel at 70 km/h forward or backward. I vaguely remember someone saying CVT is not practical for application in a tank, so I was wondering if it's even possible? Also, even though it seems to be a tank based on western philosophy, the Type 10 only weighs 48 tonnes with a standard armor load. Is it because of its "nano-crystal steel armor" (which is what Wiki called it), use of an autoloader instead of another crew member (which makes the Leclerc weigh significantly less than other western tanks), or an amalgamation of these and other factors?

Looking good, man! I sure look forward to the statblock.

IIRC Anemos himself has mentioned that the label of '4th generation tank' stemmed from TRDI itself, which is hardly an impartial source when it comes to this, and that 'nano-crystal steel' is more of an exaggeration from translation than actual h1gh t3chn0l0gy.

CVT is more efficient (relative to other tank transmissions in use), allows equally fast forwards and backwards travel, and makes for a smoother ride owing to stepless transitions from gear to gear. Again, Anemos has mentioned that, from TRDI documents, CVT has only been tested for vehicles weighing up to around ~50 tons, and therefore its effectiveness and feasibility for heavier vehicles is unproven and questionable.

I'd think the weight is due to the use of autoloader (eliminating 4th crew member and corresponding space and weight) plus the modular armor, with a lighter base armor configuration and the capability to tack on more armor as needed.

*totally hopes Anemos will not slap me if I've misrepresented him in any way, bear in mind this is all IIRC*

E: To be frank I have never heard about electric engines before so I can't help you with that, but if Honeywell's proposed turbine engine for the FCS is anything to go by, modern turbines can be lighter, smaller, quieter, less hot, and less smoky than contemporary diesels, as well as being a lot less maintenance intensive.

Fuel efficiency will never be able to match that of diesels though, due to fundamental reasons.

[Virana]

Showing off my tank again.

(Image)

Looks good. I don't think electric engines would have he power output for the same mass/size as a diesel motor and they take longer to recharge. Plus recharging in the field would be complicated, requiring massive additional power generators to be carried to the front to recharge your tanks, so in the end probably not saving you much fuel or logistic elements.

Now as to they Type 10, most of its electronics stuff could probably be easily added to other modern MBT's. I have actually seen 360 NV cameras offered that can be added to most vehicles.Probably its weight is due to a number of factors, plus maybe just less armor or something else, wasn't part of its design requirement light weight for use on certain Japanese islands?

Regarding the electric engine, that's the biggest issue I was concerned about: the fact that I'd need to replace my entire support infrastructure for armored formations in order to facilitate an electric engine rather than a conventional one. And then I'd still have to keep normal refueling trucks to support other vehicles in the formation and... ugh, that sounds like a logistical mess.

And yeah, now that I think about it, a lighter weight tank with less armor makes a lot of sense for Japan's position.

Looking good, man! I sure look forward to the statblock.

IIRC Anemos himself has mentioned that the label of '4th generation tank' stemmed from TRDI itself, which is hardly an impartial source when it comes to this, and that 'nano-crystal steel' is more of an exaggeration from translation than actual h1gh t3chn0l0gy.

CVT is more efficient (relative to other tank transmissions in use), allows equally fast forwards and backwards travel, and makes for a smoother ride owing to stepless transitions from gear to gear. Again, Anemos has mentioned that, from TRDI documents, CVT has only been tested for vehicles weighing up to around ~50 tons, and therefore its effectiveness and feasibility for heavier vehicles is unproven and questionable.

I'd think the weight is due to the use of autoloader (eliminating 4th crew member and corresponding space and weight) plus the modular armor, with a lighter base armor configuration and the capability to tack on more armor as needed.

*totally hopes Anemos will not slap me if I've misrepresented him in any way, bear in mind this is all IIRC*

I assumed the "fourth generation" designation was applied by heavily biased sources, so it definitely makes sense if TRDI themselves called it that. And I was also was skeptical about "nano-crystal steel", since, as you said, it just sounds like an exaggerated buzzword.

As for the statblock, the only information I've established on it so far (including some preliminary dimensions) is here. Those stats are subject to change though, particularly the fact that it uses CVT. I'll have to do some research on the practicality of CVT for vehicles exceeding 50 t, though.

[Anemos Major]

(I'll put up a more comprehensive response later, since I'm a bit busy right now - for now, I just need to point out for the record that the Type 10 doesn't use a CVT, but an HMT designed to mimic the transmission characteristics of the CVT without the glaring advantages of the latter system when paired with higher output powerplants on heavier vehicles (in this case, tanks). If you can read Japanese, there're some TRDI papers lying around here and there on what they found in testing the pre-Type 10 HMT.)

[Vitaphone Racing]

Also, I was considering the implementation of a few upgrades for the latest version of the tank, but I'd like to know if they're practical. Turkey wants to integrate an electric engine into the Altay MBT to make the tank less glaringly visible on infrared cameras. However, an electric engine introduces a number of questions - can electric engines produce as much power for as long and would it not require an extensive replacement/overhaul of armored formation support elements to facilitate electrically charging them rather than a simple refuel? Would it be better than a more conventional diesel hyperbar or gas turbine engine in terms of performance and fuel/energy efficiency?

First things first, I doubt Turkey is going to create an electric-only tank or that they're serious about trying it. It's about a decade too early to be thinking about that yet. Can electric motors produce as much power as internal combustion engines? Yes. Can electric drivetrains handle as much power as mechanical drivetrains? Yes

If you're looking for fuel efficiency, look away from hyperbars altogether and only consider turbines if you're looking at creating a range-extender hybrid drivetrain, where there is no mechanical transmission present. There are countless other options available though.

But what the Type 10 does have that is unique is its continuously variable transmission, which purportedly allows it to travel at 70 km/h forward or backward. I vaguely remember someone saying CVT is not practical for application in a tank, so I was wondering if it's even possible?

The Type 10's transmission is a hydraulic transmission, not technically the same as the CVT but produces similar effects. They aren't well suited for high torque applications due to cooling problems, the Type-10 represents the upper limit of what you can extract from these transmissions. There are advantages to infinitely geared transmissions which is why HMTs were developed, to bring these advantages to farm vehicles and such, but it is an extremely complicated transmission. Being able to travel at 70km/h in forward or reverse isn't that great of an advantage, more of a by-product of the other advantages.

[The Akasha Colony]

Also, I was considering the implementation of a few upgrades for the latest version of the tank, but I'd like to know if they're practical. Turkey wants to integrate an electric engine into the Altay MBT to make the tank less glaringly visible on infrared cameras.

I'm not sure what the Turks actually intend, but it wouldn't work out that way in practice. For one, whether you use an electric or a mechanical transmission, you still need an engine, and this is where the exhaust comes from. Unless you go 100% battery, but batteries also get hot and you will get pitiful range.

In any event, a tank's largest thermal signature is from the running gear. An Abrams after running for a while can exhibit temperatures exceeding 300 F on the roadwheels and inner surface of the tracks.

[Purpelia]

The Type 10's transmission is a hydraulic transmission, not technically the same as the CVT but produces similar effects. They aren't well suited for high torque applications due to cooling problems, the Type-10 represents the upper limit of what you can extract from these transmissions. There are advantages to infinitely geared transmissions which is why HMTs were developed, to bring these advantages to farm vehicles and such, but it is an extremely complicated transmission. Being able to travel at 70km/h in forward or reverse isn't that great of an advantage, more of a by-product of the other advantages.

If you really want to have the same speed forward and reverse why not just go with the ancient way of having a separate transmission and gearbox? As in, you have a gear box that lets you pick gears and than a separate transfer unit that connects it to a separate set of gears in the final drive to drive either forward or reverse. So instead of say 5 gears forward and 1 reverse you have 5 gears, period and can direct them either forward or reverse as you will.

See example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNTVp9z0YHE

[Immoren]

([url=http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/713/gxww.png]Image)[/url]

wow cv90 you have a 40mm gun your gay this baby rocks manly 57mm fuck you guys

BRB Making CV9057 IMM with 57mm bofors shoved into its turret.

[Imperializt Russia]

([url=http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/713/gxww.png]Image)[/url]

wow cv90 you have a 40mm gun your gay this baby rocks manly 57mm fuck you guys

I know the AU-220 is pretty slender, but I can't help but feel your gun is a little thin for a 57mm piece.

[Questers]

Five decades of T-64s this year, so I have made something, a little 'tribute' to Kharkhiv and Morozov.

SA-19U 'GENET'

STIRRUP
The tankist's magazine

Thirteen years ago the Revolution that transformed our country had just begun. Already it had entered its critical phase. The Army and Unionists had secured the reigns of the Government only for hero of the revolution, Richard Eliot, to be shot dead in the street by counter-revolutionaries and an abortive coup d'etat followed the next week, sponsored by foreign capitalists. The Royalists of our country escaped with their lives. Nothing was secure. The Republic faced enemies on all sides. They might at any time have attacked our country, and we would have been in serious danger.

The Republican Government, for all its faults and squabbles, was not going to be caught unawares. Production lines which had been dormant, strategic preservation being perhaps the only good policy of the Royalist government, were quickly restarted. Within months the Republic was churning out arms at an unprecedented level. And still, there were gaps. Production of weapons such as surface to air missiles, long-distance communications systems and counter-battery radars, to be precise, all lagged. But in one other, more conventional areas, production was still under-pace.

In the first six months of the revolution the GSR produced a meagre hundred tanks, as production lines were restarted, raw materials were purchased and technical goods and personnel were formed. The tanks produced were of the familiar SA-19 "Mink" type, a design some twenty years old and designed by the Softham Arsenal to be quickly produced in the event of war. Since the revolution some ten thousand of these vehicles have been built, and more for export, or in foreign plants. Yet the design was not completely up to scratch. Especially early versions of the vehicle had not been worked on. Ammunition was of poor quality. The fighting systems of the tank were inadequate.

That is where researchers and designers from the Softham Arsenal came in. Timothy Redwood, Chief Designer of the Tracked Vehicles Bureau from 1995-2005, filled us in. "The SA-19 was, is a good design. But it had some problems at that time. Ammunition quality for the 12.5-centimetre gun was of a poor design. We did, however, have one other gun, a 13.7-centimetre design that stemmed from a design requirement early in the '90s. And this weapon technically had some advanced munitions that we could produce. Most of it was blueprinted. We had the gun, and the autoloader system. There were maybe half a dozen working examples, including the laboratory-factory version with its ammunition, which we had been testing for years. So one day in July I received a call asking if we had any working examples of the 13.7-cm gun. We did, I replied. Then: prepare them for production! I was shocked. We had no tank design, only that for an autoloader - which was complex - and a gun and its munitions. So we took the nearest thing, an SA-19. We had to widen the chassis a little. The first prototype was built and was underpowered, so we replaced it with a gas turbine engine that had also been in the design stage for years. Since this was all done on the original SA-19 chassis, using many SA-19 components, including the drivetrain, suspension etc, and much of the armour constructions, we named it the SA-19U."

By late September of 2001 the SA-19U was in production. The first units rolled out of the factory in late december. And in the last six months of that year the GSR produced over five hundred tanks. Ultimately, the SA-19U had a small impact. The gas turbine was unreliable. The design was difficult to produce. And by 2002 it was being vastly outproduced by other SA-19 variants and after a year of production, the factory was retooled and the SA-19U was no more. It may have been a technically impressive design, but for the early rearmament years, what mattered was quantity. In the end, what shocked the foreign powers into leaving our country alone was the massive rate of expansion of our arms and the demonstrations of strength that showed, resolutely, that we would use them skilfully and decisively.

Today, all SA-19Us have been placed in reserve. Some are in museums. None were ever exported. But for those engineers involved in tank production in the early years of the revolution, the SA-19U was an unforgettable memory.

[Questers]

Russian AFV design is complex around the 90s.
There was the 152mm-armed T-80, the Objekt-195 with a 152mm gun and the T-95, which was theorised to have either a 125mm or a 152mm gun.

Supposedly, just about all of them have fallen by the wayside and coming relatively soon is the T-99. Probably less is known about T-99 Armata than all of these previous projects, but it has the advantage of two decades more technology.

Im just calling it now, the Armata is going to have a 125mm gun.

[Imperializt Russia]

I implied nothing to the contrary

[Immoren]

On T-64 autoloader: Some how expected that the propellant and shell would've been stored as mirror image from how they are, but I guess that would've been too logical.
I guess that might not be mechanically suitable then.

[The Kievan People]

On T-64 autoloader: Some how expected that the propellant and shell would've been stored as mirror image from how they are, but I guess that would've been too logical.
I guess that might not be mechanically suitable then.

That would defeat the main advantage of the design: Only one ramming motion required.

[Immoren]

On T-64 autoloader: Some how expected that the propellant and shell would've been stored as mirror image from how they are, but I guess that would've been too logical.
I guess that might not be mechanically suitable then.

That would defeat the main advantage of the design: Only one ramming motion required.

Because I had this notion that because you had warhead on top of propellant in 90 (more or less) degree angle , it would allow ramming it in in motion.

[Independent Islands]

we use the M2A3 Juggernaut, a custom M1A1 Abrams

like that but with more guns.

[The Akasha Colony]

we use the M2A3 Juggernaut, a custom M1A1 Abrams
(Image)
like that but with more guns.

The M1 Abrams has enough guns as it is.