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

[Husseinarti]

Object 447 was the prototype for the fucking T-64B once the Soviets had learned of the M60 Patton.

[The Teutonic Republic]

Object 447 was the prototype for the fucking T-64B once the Soviets had learned of the M60 Patton.

My bad, I mean't the object 477.

[New Vihenia]

Well Ob 477 has no relations whatsoever with Armata (Ob-148) In fact it was made by entirely different design bureau.

The 477 was the initiative from Kharkiv Morozov in Ukraine for future Soviet MBT. The T-14 however were based on Ob-195 (or T-95) Made by Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)

There was however another advanced tank but somewhat rarely mentioned, the OB-299 "Leader" Which basically Russian version of US "Tank Block-3" This tank by concept and implementation was the closest to armata (unified chassis between tank, heavy IFV and engineering vehicle and missile tank) Ob-299 was initiated by Leningrad Kirov plant (LKZ) It even have prototype for mechanical testing and personnel carrier. However after fall of Soviet Union.. nothing was ever came out of this outstanding concept.

Nonetheless..i found Ob-477 looks way cooler than Ob-299

[The Teutonic Republic]

Well Ob 477 has no relations whatsoever with Armata (Ob-148) In fact it was made by entirely different design bureau.

The 477 was the initiative from Kharkiv Morozov in Ukraine for future Soviet MBT. The T-14 however were based on Ob-195 (or T-95) Made by Uralvagonzavod (UVZ)

There was however another advanced tank but somewhat rarely mentioned, the OB-299 "Leader" Which basically Russian version of US "Tank Block-3" This tank by concept and implementation was the closest to armata (unified chassis between tank, heavy IFV and engineering vehicle and missile tank) Ob-299 was initiated by Leningrad Kirov plant (LKZ) It even have prototype for mechanical testing and personnel carrier. However after fall of Soviet Union.. nothing was ever came out of this outstanding concept.

Nonetheless..i found Ob-477 looks way cooler than Ob-299

I found this page which has some good pictures and info on some 1970s-1980s Soviet experimental tank designs. It looks like the Object 299 was similar to the later Armata platform in concept although it looks like it was intended to mount a 152mm gun in place of the more conventional 125mm.

[Fordorsia]

How does the commander reload his .50 in the M60 Patton? Does he only have one long belt and has to hope it doesn't jam? How would he even load that belt if the top cover can't be opened?

[Nachmere]

How does the commander reload his .50 in the M60 Patton? Does he only have one long belt and has to hope it doesn't jam? How would he even load that belt if the top cover can't be opened?

Are you talking about the M60 with the enclosed copula?

[Imperializt Russia]

M60 used the M85 machine gun, rather than an M2 variant. The M85 had a short receiver and was built around the idea of being used inside the cramped confines of an armoured vehicle.
The M85 was very unreliable, supposedly.

[Nachmere]

M60 used the M85 machine gun, rather than an M2 variant. The M85 had a short receiver and was built around the idea of being used inside the cramped confines of an armoured vehicle.
The M85 was very unreliable, supposedly.

not supposedly, the thing was shite according to any IDF tank commander I asked.

[Fordorsia]

M60 used the M85 machine gun, rather than an M2 variant. The M85 had a short receiver and was built around the idea of being used inside the cramped confines of an armoured vehicle.
The M85 was very unreliable, supposedly.

Googled it. It's hideous. So the top cover is much shorter? Still, you'd probably have to elevate it it all the way to open it.

How does the commander reload his .50 in the M60 Patton? Does he only have one long belt and has to hope it doesn't jam? How would he even load that belt if the top cover can't be opened?

Are you talking about the M60 with the enclosed copula?

Yep

[Imperializt Russia]

M60 used the M85 machine gun, rather than an M2 variant. The M85 had a short receiver and was built around the idea of being used inside the cramped confines of an armoured vehicle.
The M85 was very unreliable, supposedly.

not supposedly, the thing was shite according to any IDF tank commander I asked.

Yes, but without personal experience of any firearm, I'm afraid I'm restricted to use of the terms "supposedly", "ostensibly" and "purportedly" with regards to the apparent combat record of most equipment

[Nachmere]

M60 used the M85 machine gun, rather than an M2 variant. The M85 had a short receiver and was built around the idea of being used inside the cramped confines of an armoured vehicle.
The M85 was very unreliable, supposedly.

Googled it. It's hideous. So the top cover is much shorter? Still, you'd probably have to elevate it it all the way to open it.

Are you talking about the M60 with the enclosed copula?

Yep

I am repeating what I have said here many times but I firmly believe the FN-MAG is a superior commanders armament to 0.5 machine guns. I have never fired a 0.3 browning but knowing the size and general layout of the weapon, I have a hunch it 2 is superior in this role to the mighty HMG.

Also Imperializt Russia , fair enough. to me the fact the IDF threw the things to the trashbin as soon as possible and actually removed the cupola speaks volumes.

[Fordorsia]

Googled it. It's hideous. So the top cover is much shorter? Still, you'd probably have to elevate it it all the way to open it.



Yep

I am repeating what I have said here many times but I firmly believe the FN-MAG is a superior commanders armament to 0.5 machine guns. I have never fired a 0.3 browning but knowing the size and general layout of the weapon, I have a hunch it 2 is superior in this role to the mighty HMG.

Well I was asking for my M43, so no MAGs. I could do an M1919 though.

If it did have an enclosed cupola, would it be an issue if it can't rotate 360 degrees because of the main turret's layout? Could the one on the M60 rotate 360?

[Imperializt Russia]

The .50 on tanks is for a wide variety of purposes. The FN MAG may be superior for the general defence of the vehicle from enemy infantry - effective to about a kilometre, lightweight, light and low-bulk ammunition (relatively), reliable.

However .50s are used for defence against helicopters, suppression at greater distances than .30s can reasonably reason, destruction of materiel such as ATGM groups, harassment of lightly armoured vehicles etc.

[Gallia-]

Why use a .50 caliber gun when you have a 120mm gun?

[Imperializt Russia]

Because you look more badass with a .50 (also elevation and ammunition expenditure issues. I imagine that engaging helicopters with the main gun wasn't very practical until FCS was big)

[Nachmere]

The .50 on tanks is for a wide variety of purposes. The FN MAG may be superior for the general defence of the vehicle from enemy infantry - effective to about a kilometre, lightweight, light and low-bulk ammunition (relatively), reliable.

However .50s are used for defence against helicopters, suppression at greater distances than .30s can reasonably reason, destruction of materiel such as ATGM groups, harassment of lightly armoured vehicles etc.

I would say it is far easier to aim and traverse the 7.62 at high targets such as helicopters. It also has a higher rate of fire and much much more ammo stowage. As for anti-material role, this is why we have guns. If you really insist on a 0.5 for long range anti material, mount it coaxially above the gun.

[Nachmere]

mounted coaxially the 0.5 is a fearsome sniping weapon up to 1.5 km. mounted on a turret top mount it really is no more useful in long range than a 7.62. The targets you shoot at with a machinegun at such ranges are so small to the naked eye you end up firing bursts, and at that point i would rather have a weapon that has smaller rounds and more of them. again, i am a known hater when it comes to the 0.5. I really never liked shooting the thing or cleaning it or doing anything with it.

[Gallia-]

Because you look more badass with a .50 (also elevation and ammunition expenditure issues. I imagine that engaging helicopters with the main gun wasn't very practical until FCS was big)

Practically, anything you listed would be a target for the 120mm, not a coaxial or 12.7mm.

An AGL would be better than a .50 caliber gun probably. Same range, bigger round, it can actually kill LAVs and dismounted infantry with HEDP or airburst 40mm or sth. The 12.7mm is somewhere awkward between .30 cal and cannon, where it's not big enough to defeat trucks and stuff so you're stuck to engaging infantry, but has way, way less ammo than 7.62mm. Functionally, it's a worse version of the 7.62mm.

[Nachmere]

Because you look more badass with a .50 (also elevation and ammunition expenditure issues. I imagine that engaging helicopters with the main gun wasn't very practical until FCS was big)

Practically, anything you listed would be a target for the 120mm, not a coaxial or 12.7mm.

An AGL would be better than a .50 caliber gun probably. Same range, bigger round, it can actually kill LAVs and dismounted infantry with HEDP or airburst 40mm or sth. The 12.7mm is somewhere awkward between .30 cal and cannon, where it's not big enough to defeat trucks and stuff so you're stuck to engaging infantry, but has way, way less ammo than 7.62mm. Functionally, it's a worse version of the 7.62mm.

An AGL makes no sense either. A tank has a gun. A big gun. The other guns are there for supression and for killing tiny insects known as infantry. There are alot of the buggers, and you need something with a high rate of fire and lots of ammo. Also I fear for the reliability of AGLs compared to 7.62.

[Imperializt Russia]

AGLs are very effective weapons that can deal with enemy light fortifications and light vehicles at up to two kilometres. Sure it's much easier to put a 120mm shell through that same target, but you don't have as much 120mm as you do 40mm and sometimes it's just not worth putting such a shell through it.

Not that this stopped tank crews in Iraq from putting DU KEPs through enemy infantry to grisly effect.

[Nachmere]

AGLs are very effective weapons that can deal with enemy light fortifications and light vehicles at up to two kilometres. Sure it's much easier to put a 120mm shell through that same target, but you don't have as much 120mm as you do 40mm and sometimes it's just not worth putting such a shell through it.

Not that this stopped tank crews in Iraq from putting DU KEPs through enemy infantry to grisly effect.

I am not saying they are bad weapons, I am just saying that if they belong on a tank, they should be in a stabilized mount tied to the FCS.

[The Teutonic Republic]

So I'm designing some armor for a MT-PMT tank. Here's what I have so far:

Armor protection consists of spaced layers of ceramic tiles 4 inches in diameter and 2 inches thick made from layers of rhenium diboride, aggregated diamond nano-rods, and aggregated boron nitride nanocomposite embedded into a Ti-64 metal matrix composite. Rhenium diboride is used for its extreme vickers hardness of 48 GPa (1.25 times that of boron carbide) and high elastic modulus of over 700 GPa (1.5 times that of boron carbide) while being relatively easy to synthesize in comparison to other hard synthetic materials. Aggregated Diamond Nano-Rods (ADNR), with an isothermal bulk modulus of 491 GPa and a vickers hardness of 310 GPan, is the least compressible and hardest material ever synthesized. ADNR is synthesized from fullerine C60 at 20 GPa amd 2,200 degrees C through a multi-anvil technique with individual diamond nanorods having a diameter 5-10 nanometers and a length of 1 micrometer. Aggregated Boron Nitride Nanocomposite (ABNNC) is the last ultrahard armor layer and consists of 14 nanometer diameter boron grains formed into hexagonal and cubic structures at the nano and sub-nano level. ABNNC has a maximum hardness of 85 GPa while also having a high fracture toughness of K=15 MPa as well as a thermal stability in excess of 1600 degrees K in air. The combination of layers of Rhenium diboride, ADNR, and ABNNC provides for an extremely dense and hard ceramic tile that can shatter DU or Tungsten Carbide KE penetrators on impact. The brittleness of rhenium diboride as well as the ADNR and ABNNC also serves to disrupt the entrance channel of shaped charge jets by causing extreme asymmetric pressures which disturbs the geometry of the molten metal jet and thus compromises its penetrative capability. Additional heavy metal modules consisting of tungsten disulfide nanotubes and depleted uranium alloy are woven into a wire-mesh blanket encased by a nanocrystalline steel shell and serve as the backing plates for the composite matrix. Nanocrystalline steel provides ultrahigh strength, hardness, and super-elasticity properties compared to conventional alloy steel and is constructed from milled iron and graphene grains less than 100nm in diameter synthesized through Spark Plasma Sintering (SPS). The yield strength of the Fe-C nanocomposite alloy is over 2000 MPa and its ultimate strength is over 3500 Mpa. Tungsten disulfide nanotubes are formed from the thermolysis of tungsten sulfides and are embedded into a Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) nanofiber matrix through electrospinning. Tungsten disulfide nanotubes encased in the nanofiber matrix have a superior Young's modulus, compression yield strength, flexural modulus, and flexural yield strength compared to carbon nanotube reinforced nanocomposites. The depleted uranium U3/4Ti alloy is composed of 96.5% DU and 3.5% Titanium by weight and has increased strength compared to unalloyed depleted uranium. The backing plates serve to reflect the energy of kinetic penetrator impacts back through the ceramic tiles into kinetic penetrator, essentially using the kinetic penetrators energy against it. Thin graphite layers on the face of the ceramic tiles help to prevent spalling when energy from the heavy metal backing plate is reflected back onto the ceramic tiles during KE penetrator impact. The hexagonal ceramic tiles are inserted into the titanium metal matrix by heating up the titanium matrix and then pressing in the ceramic tiles.

My Questions:

• What would be an effective way to compress the ceramic tiles in the vertical axis? the matrix already compresses the tiles in the horizontal axis but I want a way a way to compress the tiles in three dimensions. So far I've looked into using molten metal spray forming to encapsulate the ceramic tiles but I was wondering if they were any other effective methods for this.
  
  
• Should the heavy metal modules constitute the backing plate or should I use a deformable composite backing plate while the heavy metal modules are combined with the ceramic armor matrix? My concern is that the heavy metal module backing plates will reflect too much energy back onto the ceramic armor matrix and cause excessive damage to the ceramic tiles.
  
  
• Any additional concerns or comments about the armor that I've overlooked would also be appreciated.

Edit: fixed some typos and removed the part about the epoxy.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm dying to death from buzzwordy-sounding materials.
This will either be impractical generally (for various reasons), or prohibitively expensive and in no way substantially better than more "conventional" manners of protection.

[Fordorsia]

The .50 on tanks is for a wide variety of purposes. The FN MAG may be superior for the general defence of the vehicle from enemy infantry - effective to about a kilometre, lightweight, light and low-bulk ammunition (relatively), reliable.

However .50s are used for defence against helicopters, suppression at greater distances than .30s can reasonably reason, destruction of materiel such as ATGM groups, harassment of lightly armoured vehicles etc.

Keep in mind my M43 is WWII. Not many helicopters or ATGMs about.

[Imperializt Russia]

The argument about ATGM teams is still valid, just that the ranges are much shorter and the hit probabilities reduced. You will have to face anti-tank teams with high-velocity guns, low-velocity guns, light guns and handheld unguided launchers. Aside from posing a dizzying variation in the size and capabilities of the target, and the crews required to operate them, any position of one of these teams is analogous to today's ATGM team.