Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[The Akasha Colony]

Using Abrams style might be uneconomical, and might be incompatible with autoloaded Rh 120mm L/55. Ditto for Leopard 2. OTOH, Russian style means it would have a big chance to suffer flying turret syndrome.

There have literally been several different autoloader proposals to fit in the Abrams turret. It's probably the easiest of the Western non-autoloading tanks to convert to an autoloader because the entire bustle is used for ammunition storage and is thus available for use, unlike Leopard 2 which places some of the turret drive and radio equipment in the bustle.

It would be inefficient for a tank designed with an autoloader though because there's still a big empty space for the human loader who isn't needed.

[Theodosiya]

Using Abrams style might be uneconomical, and might be incompatible with autoloaded Rh 120mm L/55. Ditto for Leopard 2. OTOH, Russian style means it would have a big chance to suffer flying turret syndrome.

There have literally been several different autoloader proposals to fit in the Abrams turret. It's probably the easiest of the Western non-autoloading tanks to convert to an autoloader because the entire bustle is used for ammunition storage and is thus available for use, unlike Leopard 2 which places some of the turret drive and radio equipment in the bustle.

It would be inefficient for a tank designed with an autoloader though because there's still a big empty space for the human loader who isn't needed.

Could the internals got modified? Maybe more armor, maybe reduce the size, maybe adding more ammo, etc.

[The Akasha Colony]

There have literally been several different autoloader proposals to fit in the Abrams turret. It's probably the easiest of the Western non-autoloading tanks to convert to an autoloader because the entire bustle is used for ammunition storage and is thus available for use, unlike Leopard 2 which places some of the turret drive and radio equipment in the bustle.

It would be inefficient for a tank designed with an autoloader though because there's still a big empty space for the human loader who isn't needed.

Could the internals got modified? Maybe more armor, maybe reduce the size, maybe adding more ammo, etc.

Well yes, a turret is just a bunch of welded plates with equipment stuffed inside and it can be moved around as required.

But doing all that would leave it with little of the original structure left, so again, it would be a new turret.

[Theodosiya]

Could the internals got modified? Maybe more armor, maybe reduce the size, maybe adding more ammo, etc.

Well yes, a turret is just a bunch of welded plates with equipment stuffed inside and it can be moved around as required.

But doing all that would leave it with little of the original structure left, so again, it would be a new turret.

Acceptable. Slightly more armor and more ammo capacity. Better than having a T-72 masquerading as western tank.

[Laritaia]

So what you want is the Black Eagle?

[Questers]

change the title or ill tk u with ATACMS next time we play RD

[Gallia-]

change the title or ill tk u with ATACMS next time we play RD

no

the title stays

i cant fit "adventurous" in the title with the full name as i will demonstrate

besides the theme of this thread is adventure

[The Soodean Imperium]

So what you want is the Black Eagle?

What he wants is SuChŏng-6. Or possibly SuChŏng-8 but I don't have lineart for that yet.



Using a literal Abrams turret with an autoloader would be space inefficient, but if you're designing the tank from the ground up, there's no reason you can't use a more smaller but still Abrams-shaped turret which eliminates the loader's chair.

It's technically possible to have a turret which retains frontal armor like the M1 but a bustle that grows steadily narrower. This was apparently the rationale for Challenger 1's turret shape. If it's going to get narrow as quickly as the T-90A turret, though, you have no space to stow ammunition in the turret rear. And if you want to avoid "flying turret syndrome," a bustle autoloader or ammo rack with a bulkhead in front, blowoff panels on top, and a loading hatch in the rear is the best option. T-series ammunition cookoffs had less to do with turret armor thickness per se, and more with the fact that spare ammunition and propellant is wedged into every available free space in the interior.

[Laritaia]

So the Black Eagle then.

[Austrasien]

Using Abrams style might be uneconomical, and might be incompatible with autoloaded Rh 120mm L/55. Ditto for Leopard 2. OTOH, Russian style means it would have a big chance to suffer flying turret syndrome.

The Universal Turret is basically what you want. This was a very promising tank modernization project in Russia that proposed a single modern turret which could be fitted to most existing Soviet tank bodies. Sadly it was from the Omsk design bureau (also behind the Black Eagle, which is why they are so similar) and not UVZ (makers of the T-90 and T-14) so it never went anywhere.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Universal Turret

Thank you for the link, I found that page ages ago but haven't been able to track it down since.

[Imperializt Russia]

So what you want is the Black Eagle?

What he wants is SuChŏng-6. Or possibly SuChŏng-8 but I don't have lineart for that yet.



Using a literal Abrams turret with an autoloader would be space inefficient, but if you're designing the tank from the ground up, there's no reason you can't use a more smaller but still Abrams-shaped turret which eliminates the loader's chair.

It's technically possible to have a turret which retains frontal armor like the M1 but a bustle that grows steadily narrower. This was apparently the rationale for Challenger 1's turret shape. If it's going to get narrow as quickly as the T-90A turret, though, you have no space to stow ammunition in the turret rear. And if you want to avoid "flying turret syndrome," a bustle autoloader or ammo rack with a bulkhead in front, blowoff panels on top, and a loading hatch in the rear is the best option. T-series ammunition cookoffs had less to do with turret armor thickness per se, and more with the fact that spare ammunition and propellant is wedged into every available free space in the interior.

Why would you do this to yourself? In such a small scale!
Looks amazing though.

[Purpelia]

And if you want to avoid "flying turret syndrome," a bustle autoloader or ammo rack with a bulkhead in front, blowoff panels on top, and a loading hatch in the rear is the best option. T-series ammunition cookoffs had less to do with turret armor thickness per se, and more with the fact that spare ammunition and propellant is wedged into every available free space in the interior.

I think that I have a decent alternative solution to that that works with having rounds in the hull actually. If you look at the renders I did of my tank back in the day you'll notice that the turret is narrow and the rounds are in the hull but that the hull storage has a big cover that sort of mushrooms under the hull at the turret bottom. Basically I've built blowout panels into that. So if the shells were to cook off the gases would vent out the top of the cover but be safely diverted at an angle away from the turret.

Big images: 1, 2

Note that in the final variant the panels will extend across an even wider area of the outer cover.

[Gallia-]

if the turret is unmanned it doesnt matter

your idea will just result in the turret creating a lot of unnecessary shrapnel when it flies out of the tank

[Purpelia]

if the turret is unmanned it doesnt matter

your idea will just result in the turret creating a lot of unnecessary shrapnel when it flies out of the tank

It matters in that it makes the difference between a depot repair and a return to factory to buy a new turret repair. Also, the crew is seated in a pod right in front of the ammo so I wanted some extra security for them as well.

[The Soodean Imperium]

So the Black Eagle then.

Well yes but Black Eagle is u g l y : (

Why would you do this to yourself? In such a small scale!
Looks amazing though.

IMO, small scale actually makes it easier. If I'm ever unsure about how some rare or complex part should appear, especially if I don't quite understand its function, I can just throw in some ambiguous pixels, zoom out, and it looks fine.

Reason behind it was to easily show the built-in bustle autoloader, bulkhead, and below-floor spare round storage - and to make sure I could fit the driver in a hull that's slightly more cramped than T-72.

I'm not going to repeat it on my other vehicles, though,* unless I'm in an especially spergy mood. It was just a one-off detail for my first and favorite tank design.

*e: this is actually not quite true. I did make a partial cross-section of my BSCh-5HSD but this was just to make sure the CTA-40 copy fits in the new turret form.

[Gallia-]

if the turret is unmanned it doesnt matter

your idea will just result in the turret creating a lot of unnecessary shrapnel when it flies out of the tank

It matters in that it makes the difference between a depot repair and a return to factory to buy a new turret repair.

no it doesnt because neither of these are true

replacing a robotic turret (or any turret) is not especially hard

what youve "invented" is a fancy way of turning a turret blowout into a small fragmentation bomb

it wont work like you think it does

[Purpelia]

My main concern really is just venting the gases away somewhere so that the resulting explosion does not burst through the bulkhead and murder my crew. The turret not falling of is, if it happens, a bonus.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Moving this here:

anyone have any idea how I can put my 12 sherman tanks to full use in an African jungle environment

and no I'm not looking to go buy new tanks we're too poor

Since this is what you're starting with an autoloading AMX-13-105 turret comes to mind, since is unlikely you'll be facing any serious NBC threat and being a sherman... no NBC-protection to compromise.
-If you're encountering something nearly a half-dozen shermans with autoloading L7 tank-cannons cannot deal with, your entire nation is pretty much getting steamrolled as it is.
--IIRC, the foriegn-aid model of Sherman was a bit easier to maintain than the AMX-13, anyways. At the very least RL examples exist with FL-10 turrets that are capable of handling a 90mm HV gun. Although there are better things to put these turrets on.



You'll also want some sort of armored recovery vehicle. Because you do NOT want to lose a precious sherman just becuase some dweeb drove it off a cliff.
-Also, have them tow some artillery, or spare ammo... something...

Side note: AMX-13 vs M50 Ontos. Ontos wins.

[Gallia-]

My main concern really is just venting the gases away somewhere so that the resulting explosion does not burst through the bulkhead and murder my crew. The turret not falling of is, if it happens, a bonus.

how does a t-72 not vent its engine out its ass?

youve just done what hand grenades did and weakened parts of the turret, so those will fail and make even more shrapnel when the magazine explodes

putting the blowout panels on the bottom of the hull would help

[Fordorsia]

Moving this here:

(Image)]

I can't decide if they look good or not

[Purpelia]

how does a t-72 not vent its engine out its ass?

I was under the impression that it does. It vents it forward, backward, sideways and just generally blows up like a firecracker.

youve just done what hand grenades did and weakened parts of the turret, so those will fail and make even more shrapnel when the magazine explodes

I have to do that anyway with loading doors. That's how this thing started off anyway.

putting the blowout panels on the bottom of the hull would help

Won't that hideously immobilize the tank rendering it unable to escape? My ideal situation here would be a contained explosion that goes up and out and the tank can drive away from.

[Gallia-]

how does a t-72 not vent its engine out its ass?

I was under the impression that it does. It vents it forward, backward, sideways and just generally blows up like a firecracker.

youve just done what hand grenades did and weakened parts of the turret, so those will fail and make even more shrapnel when the magazine explodes

I have to do that anyway with loading doors. That's how this thing started off anyway.

putting the blowout panels on the bottom of the hull would help

Won't that hideously immobilize the tank rendering it unable to escape? My ideal situation here would be a contained explosion that goes up and out and the tank can drive away from.

1) It's just upwards.
2) A loading port and a carousel magazine seems unnecessarily complicated.
3) No.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Moving this here:

I can't decide if they look good or not

Is sexy, no?

[Purpelia]

I can't decide if they look good or not

Is sexy, no?

It sort of looks like the daughter of a fisherman.

2) A loading port and a carousel magazine seems unnecessarily complicated.

So how do you reload it than? Through the barrel? There literally needs to be a door that you can open to shove rounds through and into the carousel.

3) No.

So it will be able to drive off safely?