Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mark 8

[Gallia-]

Don't worry about it, the turret would function as a 20 tonne blow off panel in that case.

Something that can't happen with the tanks currently in use?

Der beste panzer in der welt:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... 283%29.jpg

Any sort of blow out panel would vent downwards or upwards like in Abrams, since venting out the front would create a pretty serious weak spot in the front armour, consume a lot of volume next to the driver, and not carry very much ammunition to begin with.The fighting compartment in the Abrams carries a whopping whole 3 rounds of 120mm in a blowout compartment.

Escape hatches and doors on tanks are put on the floor of the turret so you can crawl underneath the tank (or climb out if you flip over) or go out the back to quickly reload ammunition, not go out the front. There are good reasons why this is so.

[Tule]

Something that can't happen with the tanks currently in use?

Der beste panzer in der welt:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... 283%29.jpg

Any sort of blow out panel would vent downwards or upwards like in Abrams, since venting out the front would create a pretty serious weak spot in the front armour, consume a lot of volume next to the driver, and not carry very much ammunition to begin with.The fighting compartment in the Abrams carries a whopping whole 3 rounds of 120mm in a blowout compartment.

Escape hatches and doors on tanks are put on the floor of the turret so you can crawl underneath the tank (or climb out if you flip over) or go out the back to quickly reload ammunition, not go out the front. There are good reasons why this is so.

Alright then. Front engine it is.

[Doppio Giudici]

Does anyone know a thing about the French ERA?

[Vancon]

Does anyone know a thing about the French ERA?

Shine the Anemos Signal, and hope for the best.

[Doppio Giudici]

*puts the Anemos symbol infront of the spotlight*

[Freihafen]

Could I ostensibly retrofit Leopard 2s with a turbocompound diesel engine outputting 1500hp in the early 2000s?

[Imperializt Russia]

Depends on the tank in question and the support infrastructure. With the help of an engineering vehicle, you can replace the powerpack on a Leclerc in thirty minutes or less.

The reason why I am asking is, if you wish to know a vehicle design (or rather a few) I am working on. The vehicles in question all basically have the same layout. The crew is in the front, the engine behind them and a large cargo bay behind the engine still. And I was thinking that with a quick detach engine and a set of rails on the floor I could rapidly remove the engine without any cranes. You just uncouple it and slide it out. And the space inside the cargo area should be more than enough to perform any maintenance you wish to do short of swapping the whole unit out. Something which again is a slide in - slide out affair. And I wanted to know how quick and practical this would be. Obviously, light maintenance like changing the oil and stuff would just be done in place without removing the engine.

Car engines still require cranes. They're weighty beasts.

You need to crane to take the engine once it's been removed from the chassis. Rails are nothing new, the M18 Hellcat had railed mounting for its engine, to be taken out by crane, because it was otherwise inaccessible.

Don't worry about it, the turret would function as a 20 tonne blow off panel in that case.

Something that can't happen with the tanks currently in use?

Come on, they're describing "not being literally invulnerable" as "failures".
Why are you even using that article?

[Anemos Major]

*puts the Anemos symbol infront of the spotlight*

I assume you're talking about the BRENUS kits that were applied to the AMX-30s in the '90s?

There're two types of ERA bricks in the BRENUS system (as labelled by Nexter/GIAT, respectively) - BSG2 for protection along the frontal arc (including the frontal section of the roof), and BSG3 for protection against attacks from above, primarily against AT grenades. AFAIK, only BSG2 was applied to the AMX-30 - in this guise, it's also known as MURAT (which is the label applied to it by the DGA). BSG2 (plus its U12 container) offers RHAe 400mm against HEAT warheads at an angle of 60 degrees, while BSG3 offers around 100mm RHAe against grenades. They use insensitive explosives and containers to prevent their accidental detonation under battlefield conditions - anything over .50 rounds will penetrate the system and the bricks will detonate, but anything below that, incendiary weapons, the application of weight/pressure etc up to a point won't set off the bricks. The overall system as applied to the AMX-30 constituted 112 modules that added some 1.7t to the tank (and required an engine refit for the tanks to which it was applied that remained in French service) - GIAT promotional material points to the fact that the individual bricks provide the RHAe equivalent of steel armour 9 times its weight.

In principle, they're based conceptually off Blaser ERA (like so many Western forays into ERA at the time), so they don't offer protection against KEPs in the same way that heavy ERA along the lines of Kontakt-5 do. That said, impact by a KEP will detonate the bricks, so they'll provide some modicum of protection against those.



The system was also developed for export, and thus for other vehicles. Obviously, it (the BSG2 series here, the BSG3 series additionally if roof protection is desired) can be applied to tanks -




- less obviously, they also developed a number of other modules (A-series, B-series) for specific application to a number of other lighter vehicles (M113 and BMP-series, respectively).




Is this what you were looking for?

[Tule]

Something that can't happen with the tanks currently in use?[/quote]
Come on, they're describing "not being literally invulnerable" as "failures".
Why are you even using that article?[/quote]

Because of where specifically the armor was penetrated, the lower front hull.

[Anemos Major]

Because of where specifically the armor was penetrated, the lower front hull.

I feel as though they've learned their lessons from that particular incident.

[Purpelia]

Car engines still require cranes. They're weighty beasts.

That I know. I am looking into using real engines for this thing. Most notably this one. And at just a tad over 1.1 Mg it's not the lightest thing in the world.

You need to crane to take the engine once it's been removed from the chassis. Rails are nothing new, the M18 Hellcat had railed mounting for its engine, to be taken out by crane, because it was otherwise inaccessible.

That's really all I want.

[Anemos Major]

Car engines still require cranes. They're weighty beasts.

That I know. I am looking into using real engines for this thing. Most notably this one. And at just a tad over 1.1 Mg it's not the lightest thing in the world.

You need to crane to take the engine once it's been removed from the chassis. Rails are nothing new, the M18 Hellcat had railed mounting for its engine, to be taken out by crane, because it was otherwise inaccessible.

That's really all I want.

Put the entire powertrain under the vehicle, like the Alvis Stalwart. :>

[Imperializt Russia]

1135kg for a tank-rated engine?

The difference in weight between a diesel and petrol engine option in the VW Tuareg is about a third of a tonne, this sounds like witchcraft.
But I bet it doesn't include drivetrain.

[Purpelia]

1135kg for a tank-rated engine?

The difference in weight between a diesel and petrol engine option in the VW Tuareg is about a third of a tonne, this sounds like witchcraft.
But I bet it doesn't include drivetrain.

It's not for a tank. The mobile bridge thing I am designing only needs about 515kW. Hence the 530kW engine.

[Imperializt Russia]

1135kg for a tank-rated engine?

The difference in weight between a diesel and petrol engine option in the VW Tuareg is about a third of a tonne, this sounds like witchcraft.
But I bet it doesn't include drivetrain.

It's not for a tank. The mobile bridge thing I am designing only needs about 515kW. Hence the 530kW engine.

Tank as in shorthand for AFV. I did see the classification for "light-medium vehicle".

Still though, 16L V8 that's pretty much a metre cube. It's hefty.

[Purpelia]

It's not for a tank. The mobile bridge thing I am designing only needs about 515kW. Hence the 530kW engine.

Tank as in shorthand for AFV. I did see the classification for "light-medium vehicle".

Still though, 16L V8 that's pretty much a metre cube. It's hefty.

Quite. That's why I like it. Apparently it's what's used on the M3 as well.

Also, here is an image of the setup as I have imagined it:

The engine would be underneath the cabin floor, just like in that truck whose image I posted yesterday. With easy removal out the back via rails. Air would be ingested from above via a set of snorkels when the vehicle is pruning in water.

[Imperializt Russia]

Then why not just have a trucklike leaning cab? Or bottom-access?

[Purpelia]

Then why not just have a trucklike leaning cab? Or bottom-access?

Because a leaning cab does not mesh well with a vehicle that's supposed to be amphibious. The engine in this design is well under the water line. Also, the thing has a huge deployable bridge on its roof with one half being mounted on the cab. If you lean the cab forward the extra several Mg would be problematic.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, when you said it was in the middle, I was expecting a vehicle about IFV size with an engine where one may expect to find the turret basket. The engine mount could then slide along the floor a metre or two into the cargo bay, where a crane could lift it out.

This looks... kinda weird.

[Purpelia]

Well, when you said it was in the middle, I was expecting a vehicle about IFV size with an engine where one may expect to find the turret basket. The engine mount could then slide along the floor a metre or two into the cargo bay, where a crane could lift it out.

That actually describes another design I am working on. But that one is for its own time.

This looks... kinda weird.

The alternative is to mount the engine right behind the cabin. This said, how do you feel about the general design? Do you think the engine layout is workable? Would you prefer the alternative setup? Why? Just poor your thoughts about it out, all of you. I need as much input as I can get at this stage.

[Ragnarum]

Any educated judgements on the Chinese Type 99 MBT?

[Purpelia]

Any educated judgements on the Chinese Type 99 MBT?

Overall I'd say it's on par with the T-90 and various T-72 modernizations out there like the M-84 or PT-91. It's not bad but I don't see it being uber either.

[Imperializt Russia]

If it doesn't even have a muzzle reference sensor, it's pretty lacking in capability.

[Anemos Major]

Finished with my IFV reboot, featuring a brand new turret. With the original IFV for comparison.

[New Oyashima]

panzer

https://data.archive.moe/board/a/image/1423/33/1423332082026.jpg