Your Nation's Main Battle Tank (No Mechs) [Part 1]

[Greater-Prussia]

stfu dude, i thought you were being a sarcastic ass.

no i was just throwing out old tanks still in use tbh

i think t-34 is as old as it gets still in use by modern army tho

there are tiny african dictatorships that use renaults fersrs

ocourse it doesnt take much where a wheel barrel with a machine gun is an ifv so point is moot

[The Kievan People]

A T-34 would be in serious danger from .50 cal SLAP fire. On a modern battlefield it would be a joke if you tried to use it as a tank, there isn't a single anti-tank weapon that wouldn't kill it with ease.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The T-34 has the exact same advantages it has against modern tanks as it did against the monstrous Tiger and King Tiger tanks of WWII - it's smaller and faster (those two I'm not 100% about), lighter, cheaper to produce, and faster to produce. En masse, I'd like to think they could obliterate NATO tank divisions, until you realise how 2,000 T-54 type tanks were obliterated in the 'Gulf by M1 Abrams and massed airstrikes without a single M1 lost to enemy fire. Then again, there was a lot of air power involved in that.

Nice 12,000 get as well.

It certainly isn't any faster than most modern tanks. Also, it will only be able to reliably penetrate , oh, an Abrams, from the rear.

Also, I really wouldn't be surprised if an Abrams could take out a T-34 with training ammo.

That's the exact thing that happened to both M4 Shermans and T-34s on the European battlefields against the Tigers and King Tigers. King Tigers especially could kill 3 or 4 T-34s/M4s before one managed to come behind and destroy it - but the M4 and T-34 could be built more than 3 or 4 times as fast as a King Tiger.
Which brings me onto one of my first points - able to be built in far greater numbers.

[Senestrum]

I'm not sure you realize how large of a disparity there is.

This is like pitting Sopwith Camels against an enemy with F-86s and saying they stand a chance because you can build more of them. Any tank developed in the last 30 years is going to be generations beyond the T-34 in literally every single attribute.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I'm not sure you realize how large of a disparity there is.

This is like pitting Sopwith Camels against an enemy with F-86s and saying they stand a chance because you can build more of them. Any tank developed in the last 30 years is going to be generations beyond the T-34 in literally every single attribute.

That's stretching the analogy a bit.
Aircraft have huge rifts between just 70 years of development when we went from exclusively prop-driven craft to jet powered craft.
Armoured vehicles have much less difference between generations. They still have tracks, big engines, a cannon and a moveable turret, just like older types.

[Licana]

1. Chobham doesn't like sloped armour, IIRC.
2. lolwut?
3. Get out.

Why should he get out? Is it because you automatically rage at FT?

This makes me lol, you make me lol. I assume you're one of the types that believes Future Tech wankery can solve a bad idea? Sorry mate, it can't.

Additionally, I think the analogy used by RRoan is quite fitting, as I would expect a tank. Sure, their advance hasn't (per my knowledge) been quite as rapid, but there have been a few major advancements in armoured vehicles in the past thirty years that would give a "modern" tank some serious advantages against the T-34 in (As RRoan said) just about every category relevant to combat. I highly doubt that the ability to cheaply produce it has any real merit simply due to how vastly outclassed it would be.

[United States of PA]

I'm not sure you realize how large of a disparity there is.

This is like pitting Sopwith Camels against an enemy with F-86s and saying they stand a chance because you can build more of them. Any tank developed in the last 30 years is going to be generations beyond the T-34 in literally every single attribute.

That's stretching the analogy a bit.
Aircraft have huge rifts between just 70 years of development when we went from exclusively prop-driven craft to jet powered craft.
Armoured vehicles have much less difference between generations. They still have tracks, big engines, a cannon and a moveable turret, just like older types.

Dude, your an idiot.

Forgetting where Advanced Fire Control System, Laser Rangefinders, high power compact engines, Composite Armor, Heavy Metal Penetrators, Gun Launched ATGMs, and many others came in?

Yeah, a T-34 is to an M1 Abrams as a Model T is to a Dodge Viper.

[Senestrum]

I'm not sure you realize how large of a disparity there is.

This is like pitting Sopwith Camels against an enemy with F-86s and saying they stand a chance because you can build more of them. Any tank developed in the last 30 years is going to be generations beyond the T-34 in literally every single attribute.

That's stretching the analogy a bit.
Aircraft have huge rifts between just 70 years of development when we went from exclusively prop-driven craft to jet powered craft.
Armoured vehicles have much less difference between generations. They still have tracks, big engines, a cannon and a moveable turret, just like older types.

Actually, the difference in deployment dates between the Sopwith Camel and the F-86 is only 32 years, which is a smaller span of time than that between the deployment dates of the T-34 and M1 Abrams (and the leopard 2, for that matter). And the F-86 still has wings, a big high-performance engine, lots of machine guns, and a cockpit, just like the Sopwith Camel. When you phrase it like that, you can draw comparisons between nearly anything. A Model-T could be favorably compared to a Bugatti Veyron in that manner.

The Abrams engine is several times more powerful than the T-34's and is part of a drivetrain of massively superior performance. The armor is obscenely far beyond anything in WW2; most of the side armor is equivalent or superior to the King Tiger's frontal turret armor. Armor, mind you, that was never penetrated in combat. The 120mm gun has higher performance and accuracy than the 12.8 cm Pak 44, yet is actually lighter and smaller. The ammo it fires makes anything developed in the 40's look like a bad joke; training rounds will be sufficient against T-34s, as the combat ammo is such overkill it could quite possibly go through more than one T-34. And despite that the fire rate is half again as high as a T-34 crew could manage. The gun is stabilized; the Abrams is able to fire reasonably accurately even while moving. Situational awareness for the crew is simply incomparable (especially on the M1A2), as is the fire control system. It's also extremely spacious inside, which will have a large effect on crew effectiveness (especially compared to the notoriously cramped T-34).

Even the steel the hull is made from is beyond anything from the '40s.

This might not be on quite the level of the Sopwith Camel going up against F-86s, but it's pretty damned close. And since you would be relying on raw numbers to carry the day, you won't even have better crews.

[United States of PA]

training rounds will be sufficient against T-34s, as the combat ammo is such overkill it could quite possibly go through more than one T-34.

Considering how there are records of M829A1s going through the turret of one T-72 to kill the one behind it in Desert Storm, im betting on 5 with the 829A3, from front to back in the hull nonetheless.

[Teddy Bear Republic]

Even though we would prefer a all-rounded armored fighting vehicle, the armed forces of the Teddy Bear Republic boasts a large variety of Main Battle Tanks.
The Challenger 2 - our main Main Battle Tank
The Merkeva, for high-risk missions.
The Stridsvagn 103, for defensive missions.
The AAI RDF Tank, for missions requiring a rapid deployment of armor.

That is about it. My Minister of Defense may get back to you if we have missed anything.

Not an expert, but isn't the Merkeva designed for low intensity conflicts?

Also, Four Main Battle Tanks? That'd be hell for your logistics. I'd stick with two maximum, personally.

Dear all,
I am not an expert in tanks. The Defence Minister asked me to tell you that the Merkeva is only used for high-risk missions, as it has a high crew survivability.We've got the S-tank 'cause it's got a low profile. Don't blame me on the decision, I'm only the messenger.
We also use all those tanks, as we hate putting all of our eggs in one basket. So we get tanks from various sources.

Thank you for your kind response.

Best regards,
The Minister of Communications of the Ministry of Communications Allied States of the Teddy Bear Republic

[United States of PA]

^ Thats the exact opposite of what the Merk is intended for.

Its intended for low intensity counter insurgency operations, not high intensity all out war.

Thats why Israel retains its upgraded M60 Fleet.

[Southrons United]

We use the M60-2000 as our MBT with the Bradley M2 as our Light Tank/Infantry support vehicle.
we own 1,300 of the M60-2000 and its still in production and we also own 560 Bradley's
Specifications for M60-2000:
Weight 56.52 tonnes (62.30 short tons; 55.63 long tons)
Length 9.55m (31ft 4in) (including gun)
Width 3.77m (12ft 5in)
Height 2.89m (9ft 6in)
Crew 4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)
Armor Composite (ERA, classified)
Primary
armament 120 mm M256 Smoothbore Cannon
Secondary
armament 2 x 7.62 (0.3in) MGs and 1 x 12.7mm (0.50in) MG
Engine GDLS (General Dynamics Land Systems) AVDS-1790-9A V12, air-cooled Twin-turbo diesel engine
895.5 kW (1200 hp)
Power/weight 22 hp/tonne
Suspension Torsion bar suspension
Operational
range 443 km (275 mi)
Speed 51.6 km/h (33 mph)

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Anyway, I am working on the writeup for mine and Banjamos' joint tank project, and we have already agreed on several things, one of them being the existance of an unmanned turret. However, I have an idea that may be a great idea, or literally cause the turret to collapse in on itself. My idea is to have two turrets so to speak, an inner unmanned turret, and an outer 'fake turret' the outer turret would be significantly wider than the inner turret and would simply be thin plates of armour, and empty space. My idea is that the 'fake turret' would allow my tank to have lolzy amounts of spaced armour, giving the side of the turret almost the same CE protection value as the front due to the massive amount of spaced armour.

My questions are

Is this even possible, or will the outer turret just collapse? What if I added support beams or something?
Will it actually add any real protection?
Will it add so much weight that it isn't even worth it?

In reality the main reason I thought of doing this is because unmanned turrets may be more practical, but they are ugly, and I want a sexy tank, not an ugly monster with a puny looking turret.

bump to my question.

[Rusikstan]

Anyway, I am working on the writeup for mine and Banjamos' joint tank project, and we have already agreed on several things, one of them being the existance of an unmanned turret. However, I have an idea that may be a great idea, or literally cause the turret to collapse in on itself. My idea is to have two turrets so to speak, an inner unmanned turret, and an outer 'fake turret' the outer turret would be significantly wider than the inner turret and would simply be thin plates of armour, and empty space. My idea is that the 'fake turret' would allow my tank to have lolzy amounts of spaced armour, giving the side of the turret almost the same CE protection value as the front due to the massive amount of spaced armour.

My questions are

Is this even possible, or will the outer turret just collapse? What if I added support beams or something?
Will it actually add any real protection?
Will it add so much weight that it isn't even worth it?

In reality the main reason I thought of doing this is because unmanned turrets may be more practical, but they are ugly, and I want a sexy tank, not an ugly monster with a puny looking turret.

If you have it connected to the main "inner" turret in some fashion it should be fine. Of course once it has a hole in it it would seen useless, IMO. I would add alternating layers of angled cermets and space to disrupt KE & CE, at least in my mind, b/c I can.
If you do straight up plates, it could go either way, if you do the faux slope ala Leo2A5+up would be, in my mind, better as an idea. Or my thought above. Of course to be straight forward it, it can work, AFAIK.
Sense you are loosing all that internal space inside the turret by going unmanned any reinforcement to the turret to beef it up should still be less than if it was manned. So doubtful it would add weight that wasn't already subtracted in the first place.

IIRC, the MCA-7 turret would be the be representitive the armored unmanned turret. As in, iirc that is, sumer has done this with his turret except with actual intent to armor up as a defensive not protective measure (difference being yours is spaced more so it sounds less built in than his is)

[Dostanuot Loj]

Because his ideas are awful, and after the 1950s the T-34 sucks no matter how you upgrade it.

So much that NATO tankers were specifically warned about it in the Balkans?

NATO tankers in the Balkans were specifically warned about WW2 German anti-tank guns firing modern (But developed from WW2 German) Yugo ammunition. The Russian stuff (T-34 especially) was an after thought when they realized the former Yugoslavians were actually using them.

But then again we are talking about a group of people who thought a T-55 would be better with the turret and gun of an M-18 Hellcat.

[The Scrin Collective]

Why should he get out? Is it because you automatically rage at FT?

This makes me lol, you make me lol. I assume you're one of the types that believes Future Tech wankery can solve a bad idea? Sorry mate, it can't.

Additionally, I think the analogy used by RRoan is quite fitting, as I would expect a tank. Sure, their advance hasn't (per my knowledge) been quite as rapid, but there have been a few major advancements in armoured vehicles in the past thirty years that would give a "modern" tank some serious advantages against the T-34 in (As RRoan said) just about every category relevant to combat. I highly doubt that the ability to cheaply produce it has any real merit simply due to how vastly outclassed it would be.

As an FTer that values realism [the irony cannot be expressed in words considering the circumstances] I have to agree there are situations when being FT simply does not cut it any fucking more and you're just shattering physics to be a douchebag.

[Rusikstan]

T-55 would be better with the turret and gun of an M-18 Hellcat.

Its not?

How about the reverse? Hellcat with T-55 turret?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Anyway, I am working on the writeup for mine and Banjamos' joint tank project, and we have already agreed on several things, one of them being the existance of an unmanned turret. However, I have an idea that may be a great idea, or literally cause the turret to collapse in on itself. My idea is to have two turrets so to speak, an inner unmanned turret, and an outer 'fake turret' the outer turret would be significantly wider than the inner turret and would simply be thin plates of armour, and empty space. My idea is that the 'fake turret' would allow my tank to have lolzy amounts of spaced armour, giving the side of the turret almost the same CE protection value as the front due to the massive amount of spaced armour.

My questions are

Is this even possible, or will the outer turret just collapse? What if I added support beams or something?
Will it actually add any real protection?
Will it add so much weight that it isn't even worth it?

In reality the main reason I thought of doing this is because unmanned turrets may be more practical, but they are ugly, and I want a sexy tank, not an ugly monster with a puny looking turret.

If you have it connected to the main "inner" turret in some fashion it should be fine. Of course once it has a hole in it it would seen useless, IMO. I would add alternating layers of angled cermets and space to disrupt KE & CE, at least in my mind, b/c I can.
If you do straight up plates, it could go either way, if you do the faux slope ala Leo2A5+up would be, in my mind, better as an idea. Or my thought above. Of course to be straight forward it, it can work, AFAIK.
Sense you are loosing all that internal space inside the turret by going unmanned any reinforcement to the turret to beef it up should still be less than if it was manned. So doubtful it would add weight that wasn't already subtracted in the first place.

IIRC, the MCA-7 turret would be the be representitive the armored unmanned turret. As in, iirc that is, sumer has done this with his turret except with actual intent to armor up as a defensive not protective measure (difference being yours is spaced more so it sounds less built in than his is)

Thanks, and the main reason my fake turret not having any real armour is because I simply cannot afford the cost in weight of having the outer turret armoured. I will try to make an image to show exactly what I mean, but you mostly have the idea right.

[Slauterers]

Unsatisfied with the performance of the RKVH Panzer X, the weaponsmasters of the anarchofascist dominion sought to create a tank with performance unrivaled by anything in service in foreign countries.

They succeeded.

New Picture:
http://i51.tinypic.com/2q22w7o.jpg

RKVH Panzer XI

Crew: 4

Length: 14 meters
Width: 4.2 meters
Height: 2.8 meters

Weight: 94 tonnes

Range: 550 kilometers

Armament:
1x Autoloading (11 RPM) 152mm L55 liquid bipropellant long-recoil RAVEN ETC cannon with electromagnetic rifling and pepperpot muzzle brake(32 rounds)
1x Coaxial 50mm ETC Autocannon (200 rounds)
1x Coaxial 20mm ETC Autocannon (500 rounds)
1x Coaxial 8mm ETI Chaingun (4000 rounds)
1x 15mm ETI Chaingun RWS (500 rounds)

Main Gun ammo:
M95 Superheavy bulk-metallic-glass cruciform APFSDS with 2500mm penetration
M96 quad-tandem HEAT round with 2700mm penetration from a gold-lined precursor charge, two main charges, and a DU backing charge
M97 advanced semiguided long-range Multipurpose munition with intelligent fuse and AP, HEAT, and HE effects
M98 top-attack GLATGM with internal DU LRP with 1100mm penetration
M99 multi-angle GLATGM with tandem HEAT with 1700mm penetration
M100 canister round with 8500 DU balls (1600m/s muzzle velocity)
M101 Flechette round with 1200 fin-stabilized flechettes with equivalent penetration to 35mm APFSDS rounds
M102 Atomic round with selectable yields of 10 or 120 tons of TNT
M103 Atomic round with selectable yields of 180 or 900 tons of TNT

Sensors:
Gunners Primary Sight 300x zoom
Gunners Thermal Sight 200x zoom
Gunners RADAR Sight Detection Range 60 Kilometers
Gunners advanced LASER multipurpose imaging system
Commanders Multipurpose Panoramic Hunting Sight with 200x zoom with 4k vision visual channel and 2 megapixel thermal channel
Sensor mast with visual, thermal, and LIDAR sensors (retractable)
IFF sensor system
360 degree camera and thermal coverage

Engine: 3700 HP W18 Six-Cycle engine
Engine Torque: 11000pound-foot
Transmission: Magnetic CVT
Top Speed: 120 Km/h
0-100 Km/h Time: 24 seconds
Running Gear: interleaved, 15 roadwheels per side
Suspension: Intelligent active magnetorheological fluid in-arm suspension with RADAR-based terrain imaging system to let the computer optimize suspension properties for superior performance
Track: advanced band track system

Active Protection System:
Radar and Electro-Optical sensors
VLS Missiles (700 meter range) (50 missiles)
Flare and chaff launchers (20 each)
Proximity-fused precision grenades (250 meter range) (40 rounds)
Explosive cassette launcher (40 meter range) (60 rounds)
Directed Energy Launcher (20 meter range) (15 rounds)

Armor:
Combination ERA/NERA system with advanced multihit capability
Spaced wedge armor with integerated Electric Reactive Armor
Superhard steel-base metal matrix composite plate
Advanced modular composite armor incorporating ceramics, cermets, heavy metal based cermet modules, foamed metals, and resilin with inert liquids filling void spaces in the armor. solid armor modules mounted in a flexible frame that absorbs projectile energy, induces severe yawing stresses on enemy penetrators, and feeds new material into HEAT jets while deforming.
Thick Superhard steel-base metal matrix composite backing plate
spider-silk spall liner
All structural parts are made from a titanium-based metal matrix composite to save weight while increasing strength

The advanced armor scheme allows its frontal arc to resist its own main gun at 500 meters and all other tank guns from point blank range.

Cost: 45 million

[Parallax Inc]

The security forces of the Parallax Corporation use the PX-MRAP-MK4 Multi-Role Assault Platform "Krios "
Should have a Pic shortly.

here is a picture of the MBT variant

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Unsatisfied with the performance of the RKVH Panzer X, the weaponsmasters of the anarchofascist dominion sought to create a tank with performance unrivaled by anything in service in foreign countries.

They succeeded.

New Picture:
http://i51.tinypic.com/2q22w7o.jpg

RKVH Panzer XI

Crew: 4

Length: 14 meters
Width: 4.2 meters
Height: 2.8 meters

Weight: 94 tonnes

Range: 550 kilometers

Armament:
1x Autoloading (11 RPM) 152mm L55 liquid bipropellant long-recoil RAVEN ETC cannon with electromagnetic rifling and pepperpot muzzle brake(32 rounds)
1x Coaxial 50mm ETC Autocannon (200 rounds)
1x Coaxial 20mm ETC Autocannon (500 rounds)
1x Coaxial 8mm ETI Chaingun (4000 rounds)
1x 15mm ETI Chaingun RWS (500 rounds)

Main Gun ammo:
M95 Superheavy bulk-metallic-glass cruciform APFSDS with 2500mm penetration
M96 quad-tandem HEAT round with 2700mm penetration from a gold-lined precursor charge, two main charges, and a DU backing charge
M97 advanced semiguided long-range Multipurpose munition with intelligent fuse and AP, HEAT, and HE effects
M98 top-attack GLATGM with internal DU LRP with 1100mm penetration
M99 multi-angle GLATGM with tandem HEAT with 1700mm penetration
M100 canister round with 8500 DU balls (1600m/s muzzle velocity)
M101 Flechette round with 1200 fin-stabilized flechettes with equivalent penetration to 35mm APFSDS rounds
M102 Atomic round with selectable yields of 10 or 120 tons of TNT
M103 Atomic round with selectable yields of 180 or 900 tons of TNT

Sensors:
Gunners Primary Sight 300x zoom
Gunners Thermal Sight 200x zoom
Gunners RADAR Sight Detection Range 60 Kilometers
Gunners advanced LASER multipurpose imaging system
Commanders Multipurpose Panoramic Hunting Sight with 200x zoom with 4k vision visual channel and 2 megapixel thermal channel
Sensor mast with visual, thermal, and LIDAR sensors (retractable)
IFF sensor system
360 degree camera and thermal coverage

Engine: 3700 HP W18 Six-Cycle engine
Engine Torque: 11000pound-foot
Transmission: Magnetic CVT
Top Speed: 120 Km/h
0-100 Km/h Time: 24 seconds
Running Gear: interleaved, 15 roadwheels per side
Suspension: Intelligent active magnetorheological fluid in-arm suspension with RADAR-based terrain imaging system to let the computer optimize suspension properties for superior performance
Track: advanced band track system

Active Protection System:
Radar and Electro-Optical sensors
VLS Missiles (700 meter range) (50 missiles)
Flare and chaff launchers (20 each)
Proximity-fused precision grenades (250 meter range) (40 rounds)
Explosive cassette launcher (40 meter range) (60 rounds)
Directed Energy Launcher (20 meter range) (15 rounds)

Armor:
Combination ERA/NERA system with advanced multihit capability
Spaced wedge armor with integerated Electric Reactive Armor
Superhard steel-base metal matrix composite plate
Advanced modular composite armor incorporating ceramics, cermets, heavy metal based cermet modules, foamed metals, and resilin with inert liquids filling void spaces in the armor. solid armor modules mounted in a flexible frame that absorbs projectile energy, induces severe yawing stresses on enemy penetrators, and feeds new material into HEAT jets while deforming.
Thick Superhard steel-base metal matrix composite backing plate
spider-silk spall liner
All structural parts are made from a titanium-based metal matrix composite to save weight while increasing strength

The advanced armor scheme allows its frontal arc to resist its own main gun at 500 meters and all other tank guns from point blank range.

Cost: 45 million

this is so wat?

so awesomely wat?

picture awesome btw

[Coltarin]

-snip-

I highly doubt owning one makes it your main battle tank

this is my main battle tank i also have a medium battle tank

[Parallax Inc]

The security forces of the Parallax Corporation use the PX-MRAP-MK4 Multi-Role Assault Platform "Krios "
Should have a Pic shortly.

Here are the MBT, Artillery, and AA variants

[The Soviet Technocracy]

-snip-

I highly doubt owning one makes it your main battle tank

it is my other MT nation's MBT...

so...

wat

[RandomGuyNation]

RandomGuyNation Military Industries Main Battle Tank-90 (RMI-MBT90), popularly called the "Lancer"
Information is classified by the RGN Ministry of Defense.