NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Gallia-]

Quick question, so. Can a non penetrating turret be built in typical battle-tank caliber e.g 120-155 mm ?

I was thinking of a tank in the manner of Ob-488 but with enhanced personnel capacity to say 6 or 8 with crew of 3. Conventional turret basket takes about 30% of hull volume of typical AFV's. So, yeah. If non penetrating turret can be build. That 30% can carry more people. Potentially without need to make the tank longer or wider.

Probably, but I don't think anyone has. The closest is the Falcon turret and that has a reduced footprint but isn't quite non-penetrating.

[The New California Republic]

It'd also likely make it far more vulnerable, as the entire shell stock would need to be in the turret.

I dont think that would be a huge deal, with proper blow out panels and modern munitions you probably wouldn't loose the whole turret even if the ammunition took a direct hit.

I suppose it depends how this fictional turret with no protrusion into the tank body would be laid out, as there is really no precedent for it. The closest thing I am imagining is a stubbier Abrams turret, with the ammo stock sitting much closer to the breech than in a normal Abrams, since the crew positions in the turret have been eliminated.

[The Akasha Colony]

It'd also likely make it far more vulnerable, as the entire shell stock would need to be in the turret.

This is already the case with Abrams? Except for like a half dozen rounds in a hard-to-access hull compartment that often isn't even used because it's... hard to access.

If the turret is sealed at all times from the fighting compartment (which it presumably would be because that's kinda the whole point) then it would be the safest ammunition arrangement possible (for the crew/passengers). It would require additional armor to protect the ammunition from enemy fire (vs located it in the hull, which is less likely to be hit) but Abrams already does this so it's hardly a deal-breaker.

[Gallia-]

It's three rounds in the crew compartment.

They're not usually used not because they're "hard to access" but because they're stowed for emergency use if the main magazine detonates. Aside from the rounds right in the middle of the loader's rack they're the easiest rounds to get at in the tank. That's assuming they're stowed at all. It's only three rounds. Hard to access are the rounds in the corner of the ammo bunker, when you start needing to disassemble the ammo racks or whatever after the first dozen or so shots.

[The New California Republic]

It'd also likely make it far more vulnerable, as the entire shell stock would need to be in the turret.

This is already the case with Abrams? Except for like a half dozen rounds in a hard-to-access hull compartment that often isn't even used because it's... hard to access.

If the turret is sealed at all times from the fighting compartment (which it presumably would be because that's kinda the whole point) then it would be the safest ammunition arrangement possible (for the crew/passengers). It would require additional armor to protect the ammunition from enemy fire (vs located it in the hull, which is less likely to be hit) but Abrams already does this so it's hardly a deal-breaker.

Yeah we weren't talking about an Abrams-style turret initially when the post was made, it just sort of got steered in that direction.

[The Akasha Colony]

It's three rounds in the crew compartment.

I'm pretty sure it's six rounds in the 120 mm Abrams hull compartment, two racks of three in the space where two racks of four went in the 105 mm Abrams, plus two 17- or 18- round racks in the bustle for the 120 mm versions for a total of 40 or 42 rounds for A1/A2.

They're not usually used not because they're "hard to access" but because they're stowed for emergency use if the main magazine detonates. Aside from the rounds right in the middle of the loader's rack they're the easiest rounds to get at in the tank. That's assuming they're stowed at all. It's only three rounds. Hard to access are the rounds in the corner of the ammo bunker, when you start needing to disassemble the ammo racks or whatever after the first dozen or so shots.

From everything I've heard, they're regularly not even stocked with rounds because access requires turning the turret in a specific direction and the loader then needs to crawl down to get them since they're behind the commander's normal position if the turret is at the 12 o'clock position. They're either left empty or used as convenient storage for whatever the crew wants unless they expect they're going to need every single round for a heavy engagement or something.

[Kassaran]

Alright, riddle me this guys, a tank with a configuration of four crew, the Driver and Commander in the hull, and the Gunner and Loader in the Turret. Commander uses a 360 camera/sensor suite and their RCWS. What are some issue we're looking at in such a design? Is there even really a reason to do this? I'm just thinking of a design I toyed with at earlier age when I was really big on the minimal turret designs.

[The Akasha Colony]

Alright, riddle me this guys, a tank with a configuration of four crew, the Driver and Commander in the hull, and the Gunner and Loader in the Turret. Commander uses a 360 camera/sensor suite and their RCWS. What are some issue we're looking at in such a design? Is there even really a reason to do this? I'm just thinking of a design I toyed with at earlier age when I was really big on the minimal turret designs.

The commander is probably the last one who should be in the hull because he is the one who derives the most benefit from being in the turret. If you must move one crewman into the hull (and assuming you don't just get rid of the loader), it would probably be the gunner because all he does is look through an electronic gunsight most of the time so you can just route that video feed into a crew station in the hull. The commander is the one who benefits from the improved situational awareness derived from being in the turret.

[Kassaran]

Alright, riddle me this guys, a tank with a configuration of four crew, the Driver and Commander in the hull, and the Gunner and Loader in the Turret. Commander uses a 360 camera/sensor suite and their RCWS. What are some issue we're looking at in such a design? Is there even really a reason to do this? I'm just thinking of a design I toyed with at earlier age when I was really big on the minimal turret designs.

The commander is probably the last one who should be in the hull because he is the one who derives the most benefit from being in the turret. If you must move one crewman into the hull (and assuming you don't just get rid of the loader), it would probably be the gunner because all he does is look through an electronic gunsight most of the time so you can just route that video feed into a crew station in the hull. The commander is the one who benefits from the improved situational awareness derived from being in the turret.

Okay, well that's easy enough. The design for the Kassaran MBT I've been playing with has a single-crew turret anyways. I wanted an autoloader, but didn't know where the commander should sit. I didn't know if being able to turn out was that big of an advantage in combat situations if you have an extensive enough sensor suite. So if I kick the loader, work with extra-heavy caliber rounds (150mm+), then can I have an armored bathtub be where the commander sits and have it partitioned off from the main gun bay? Basically have him offset from turret center, but still present. Also, had some questions regarding thermal decoys and missile countermeasures. From what I can tell, the majority of fire-and-forget technologies used against Tanks are thermal-tracking. Smoke is generally the go-to, is that just because it's easier than suddenly letting loose a refrigerant or coolant gas to flow over the treads and engine deck? I assume there's also damage that would be sustained and the longer I think about it, the more problems I see, but just want to know I'm kicking it out of my mind for the right reasons given that I've never even seen or heard of it being done before.

[The Akasha Colony]

Okay, well that's easy enough. The design for the Kassaran MBT I've been playing with has a single-crew turret anyways. I wanted an autoloader, but didn't know where the commander should sit. I didn't know if being able to turn out was that big of an advantage in combat situations if you have an extensive enough sensor suite. So if I kick the loader, work with extra-heavy caliber rounds (150mm+), then can I have an armored bathtub be where the commander sits and have it partitioned off from the main gun bay? Basically have him offset from turret center, but still present.

If the goal is just to protect the commander from ammo cookoffs it doesn't need to be that "armored."

Though at that point there's an argument to be made toward just putting him in the hull anyway. That frees up a lot of volume flexibility in the turret. There's a lot of back-and-forth about whether sensors have advanced enough to fully replace a commander's ability to peek out of his hatch, and whether some trade-off in awareness is worth an improvement in survivability. Lots of existing tank crews argue vociferously that a bunch of cameras/RWS aren't enough to replace the level of awareness you can get by poking your head out of the hatch, but none of them have seriously tried the alternative (except maybe a handful of Russian crews) for a fair comparison. Just like how US crews still swear by the importance of the fourth crewman (loader) even though plenty of countries have been able to make three-man crews work well enough.

Also, had some questions regarding thermal decoys and missile countermeasures. From what I can tell, the majority of fire-and-forget technologies used against Tanks are thermal-tracking. Smoke is generally the go-to, is that just because it's easier than suddenly letting loose a refrigerant or coolant gas to flow over the treads and engine deck? I assume there's also damage that would be sustained and the longer I think about it, the more problems I see, but just want to know I'm kicking it out of my mind for the right reasons given that I've never even seen or heard of it being done before.

Infrared isn't quite "thermal tracking," so dispersing a bunch of refrigerants aren't guaranteed to fool an IR-guided missile. There is something of a correlation between heat and visibility in the useful IR bands, but it is also possible to mask an IR signature without violating thermodynamics and somehow "canceling out" the heat. This is how IR camouflage netting is made. Conversely, it's also how IR identification tags are made, which are usually not physically any warmer than the object they are attached to.

Smoke is preferred because it is cheap, quickly and reliably deploys, smoke grenades are easy to store, and it works in both the IR and visible-light bands. Rather than try to cool the vehicle, it specifically targets the IR bands used in seekers and FLIRs to impede visibility. It's even possible to do this with water mist since some IR bands are easily blocked by water vapor, but it doesn't have the same visible-light benefits and doesn't block all IR bands.

[Austrasien]

Quick question, so. Can a non penetrating turret be built in typical battle-tank caliber e.g 120-155 mm ?

I was thinking of a tank in the manner of Ob-488 but with enhanced personnel capacity to say 6 or 8 with crew of 3. Conventional turret basket takes about 30% of hull volume of typical AFV's. So, yeah. If non penetrating turret can be build. That 30% can carry more people. Potentially without need to make the tank longer or wider.

I don't see why not. There is a simple and elegant 105mm remote gun pod concept from the 50s in Hunnicutt's books I am too lazy to extract now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIXfTENDtHU

[New Vihenia]

I don't see why not. There is a simple and elegant 105mm remote gun pod concept from the 50s in Hunnicutt's books I am too lazy to extract now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIXfTENDtHU

Kind of good news, as if it's not possible or impractical then one have to resort to nonconventional solutions like RAVEN or Recoilles. That means a whole new ammunition production line have to be developed and build.

[Theodosiya]

65t 3 man crew MBT, with soft and hard kill APS and 155mm smoothbore main gun with autoloader. Layout still classic gunner and commander in turret, driver in hull, with no separation between fighting and driving compartment. Or should go all in hull?

[Austrasien]

Also, had some questions regarding thermal decoys and missile countermeasures. From what I can tell, the majority of fire-and-forget technologies used against Tanks are thermal-tracking. Smoke is generally the go-to, is that just because it's easier than suddenly letting loose a refrigerant or coolant gas to flow over the treads and engine deck? I assume there's also damage that would be sustained and the longer I think about it, the more problems I see, but just want to know I'm kicking it out of my mind for the right reasons given that I've never even seen or heard of it being done before.

Yes much easier. A big cloud of coolant would more likely than not just produce a big negative contrast target.

A typical brass flake infrared smoke cloud results in everything fading out to "gray" just like smoke in the visible range. Smoke can also be maneuvered around, which is typically necessary to actually avoid being hit after breaking a lock.

[Immoren]

65t 3 man crew MBT, with soft and hard kill APS and 155mm smoothbore main gun with autoloader. Layout still classic gunner and commander in turret, driver in hull, with no separation between fighting and driving compartment. Or should go all in hull?

Put them all in turret. *nods*

[New Vihenia]

Put them all in turret. *nods*

Hellooooo

[Gallia-]

Don't bully hydrocephalic children.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Is it realistic that highly-interventionist landlocked nations have a navy?
Sharifistan used to be landlockrd

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Is it realistic that highly-interventionist landlocked nations have a navy?
Sharifistan used to be landlockrd

A navy where?

[Gallia-]

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Is it realistic that highly-interventionist landlocked nations have a navy?
Sharifistan used to be landlockrd

A navy where?

In a harbour subject to a mutual military access treaty.
We have one with Turkey.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

(Image)

Tag yourself.

I'm the naval ensign still flying.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Alright, riddle me this guys, a tank with a configuration of four crew, the Driver and Commander in the hull, and the Gunner and Loader in the Turret. Commander uses a 360 camera/sensor suite and their RCWS. What are some issue we're looking at in such a design? Is there even really a reason to do this? I'm just thinking of a design I toyed with at earlier age when I was really big on the minimal turret designs.

Weird.

The commander's job is 1. command and control, which can be done from hull.

2. Spotting targets. Uh oh !

You could have a 360 degree hunter killer optic on the turret obviously that he can use. but if its dmgd, he becomes unable to spot targets that aren't directly forwards. he also can't even use binos in that situation either.

also tanks often use the front space for storage of ammo, or for storage of fuel. well ok I can see you can put the ammo in the turret instead but that means the tanks ammo is constantly exposed.

it's a weird setup. MBT70 all crew in turret is better. ideally, cmdr should be able to unbutton and look around.

[Gallia-]

(Image)

Tag yourself.

I'm the naval ensign still flying.

bottom port (viewer's starboard) torpedo tube

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Tag yourself.

I'm the naval ensign still flying.

bottom port (viewer's starboard) torpedo tube

you would be a torpedo tube lOL