NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[The Soodean Imperium]

I forgot how much I love this thread

... You realize that's a CAD schematic of a miniature gasoline engine for a 1/9th scale RC model, yes?

e: from here

It's just an example, it's harder to see the internals from all the messy engine parts in real life. An empty bottom part of the tank shows just how much space the turret and the other parts would take up, but it's hard to tell from that angle and I can't find a better picture.

It is a remote-controlled 1/9th scale model.

Its internals are entirely unrelated to those of an actual Abrams tank. Or any tank really.

It's about as helpful as posting a Lego kit.

[Manokan Republic]

I forgot how much I love this thread

It's just an example, it's harder to see the internals from all the messy engine parts in real life. An empty bottom part of the tank shows just how much space the turret and the other parts would take up, but it's hard to tell from that angle and I can't find a better picture.

It is a remote-controlled 1/9th scale model.

Its internals are entirely unrelated to those of an actual Abrams tank. Or any tank really.

It's about as helpful as posting a Lego kit.

The problem is you've failed to actually counter the ideas, or address the big concepts, like the tank designs by the U.S. and the prototypes, and what's already being used by some of our allies, and even one of our enemies. Also the point of the picture was to show how the engine connects to the turret, which is typically about the same in most tanks. The way a tank turret moves is by attaching and detaching to the engine. Being caught up on one little detail (which was designed specifically to be a simple explanation) when I've provided information from TARDA, DARPA and so on is, quite frankly silly at best. Even if we want to say I'm wrong for showing one picture, that doesn't mean everything else I said is wrong.

We can talk about an appeal to authority fallacy or a deflection or anything else, or even about how stupid I supposed am, but there comes the vital question...

...am I wrong though?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Yes?

[Kassaran]

The problem is you've failed to actually counter the ideas, or address the big concepts, like the tank designs by the U.S. and the prototypes, and what's already being used by some of our allies, and even one of our enemies. Also the point of the picture was to show how the engine connects to the turret, which is typically about the same in most tanks. The way a tank turret moves is by attaching and detaching to the engine. Being caught up on one little detail (which was designed specifically to be a simple explanation) when I've provided information from TARDA, DARPA and so on is, quite frankly silly at best. Even if we want to say I'm wrong for showing one picture, that doesn't mean everything else I said is wrong.

We can talk about an appeal to authority fallacy or a deflection or anything else, or even about how stupid I supposed am, but there comes the vital question...

...am I wrong though?

Laughably wrong. Literally the entire thread is either holding their heads in pain at the headache you've caused, or holding their sides from laughing you caused.

[Celitannia]

Both simultaneously in several cases.

[The Akasha Colony]

I forgot how much I love this thread

(Image)

I haven't even seen any defense blogs posted, although I've stopped bothering to read his posts unless they're either really short or someone snips them in a response. It's just stuff like Popular Mechanics and The National Interest. At least most defense bloggers generally know what they're talking about.

[Dostanuot Loj]

The way a tank turret moves is by attaching and detaching to the engine.

Actually that has not been the case since, well, the 1940s.
Hydraulic and modern electric turret drives have been disconnected from direct engine input for about 60+ years now.

My only regret now is that I have to work the next four days 12 hours each, plus family time after that, so it will be a week until I can get back to playing with you. And by then I worry this glorious trollfest will have ended.

[Veikaia]

I don't have any immediate links regarding the use of civilian drones in the Ukrainian conflict, but Allanea might.

I will do you one better.

I researched the issue for a think-tank report back in 2014.

People used store-bought and home-built drones on both sides. Some of them have been refitted for primitive air strikes (effectively, dropping hand-grenades that were modified as sort of miniature unguided bombs). Both quadcopters/hexacopters and small fixed-wing drones were used. There was even an independent DPR Air Reconnaissance Squadron using drones and an motodeltaplane in the anti-air role (using a hunting shotgun and a large butterfly net to try and catch Ukrainian drones in mid-air, I am not making this up), however the unit's drones were seized by a competing DPR unit, its operators bribed away, and the commander arrested in Moscow on unrelated charges, and we were deprived of the no doubt amazing spectacle of motodeltaplanes fighting hexacopters in vicious close combat.

That's actually really interesting and I didn't know about it, tbh, you learn something new every day. But how much damage do you believe these primitive air strike drones could do to enemy positions or maybe infrastructure? I understand we're talking hand grenades in this case, but how much ordnance could you drop on an enemy position using small drones before you sacrifice too much speed and agility? Could mortar rounds be used maybe or would it be too much weight for such a small drone? Maybe just rig the entire thing to explode and smash it against enemy light fortifications?

[Weimarer Reich]

I don't have any immediate links regarding the use of civilian drones in the Ukrainian conflict, but Allanea might.

I will do you one better.

I researched the issue for a think-tank report back in 2014.

People used store-bought and home-built drones on both sides. Some of them have been refitted for primitive air strikes (effectively, dropping hand-grenades that were modified as sort of miniature unguided bombs). Both quadcopters/hexacopters and small fixed-wing drones were used. There was even an independent DPR Air Reconnaissance Squadron using drones and an motodeltaplane in the anti-air role (using a hunting shotgun and a large butterfly net to try and catch Ukrainian drones in mid-air, I am not making this up), however the unit's drones were seized by a competing DPR unit, its operators bribed away, and the commander arrested in Moscow on unrelated charges, and we were deprived of the no doubt amazing spectacle of motodeltaplanes fighting hexacopters in vicious close combat.

Sounds like Eastern European Robot Wars.

[The Akasha Colony]

That's actually really interesting and I didn't know about it, tbh, you learn something new every day. But how much damage do you believe these primitive air strike drones could do to enemy positions or maybe infrastructure? I understand we're talking hand grenades in this case, but how much ordnance could you drop on an enemy position using small drones before you sacrifice too much speed and agility? Could mortar rounds be used maybe or would it be too much weight for such a small drone? Maybe just rig the entire thing to explode and smash it against enemy light fortifications?

On their own? Not much.

But they're primarily used to spot for artillery, which is in no short supply in that conflict.

Why carry a single mortar bomb when you can have the actual mortars just fire several dozen? Saves you the cost of a new drone, too.

[Veikaia]

That's actually really interesting and I didn't know about it, tbh, you learn something new every day. But how much damage do you believe these primitive air strike drones could do to enemy positions or maybe infrastructure? I understand we're talking hand grenades in this case, but how much ordnance could you drop on an enemy position using small drones before you sacrifice too much speed and agility? Could mortar rounds be used maybe or would it be too much weight for such a small drone? Maybe just rig the entire thing to explode and smash it against enemy light fortifications?

On their own? Not much.

But they're primarily used to spot for artillery, which is in no short supply in that conflict.

Why carry a single mortar bomb when you can have the actual mortars just fire several dozen? Saves you the cost of a new drone, too.

True, idk why I even asked tbh, I guess I've concentrated so much on dumb ideas that I completely skipped the good ones.

[Allanea]

Small drones that can spot for artillery and only carry a camera can be much smaller than a mortar bomb.(DJI Mavic is used by the IDF, for instance).

On the other hand, these are quite real.

[Austrasien]

Using modern higher strength materials you can reduce the weight of the armor quite a bit. For example, modern day ceramics are much stronger than they used to be, such as those used in the Chobham armor, as are metal alloys. AMAP for example has developed steel that is 30% lighter, titanium that is only 38% of the weight of steel, and nano-ceramic armor which is 70% harder and 30% lighter-weight than what is traditionally used by NATO, as well as materials that are more fracture resistant and durable to repeated impacts. As it's already being used on light APC's, although as add-on armor, it's not a theoretical material, but already in widespread use. "The new high-hardened steel needs 30% less thickness to offer the same protection level as ARMOX500Z High Hard Armour steel.[1] While Titanium requires only 58% as much weight as rolled homogeneous armour (RHA) for reaching the same level of protection, Mat 7720 new, a newly developed Aluminium-Titanium alloy, needs only 38% of the weight.[1] That means that this alloy is more than twice as protective as RHA of the same weight. AMAP is also making use of new nano-ceramics, which are harder and lighter than current ceramics, while having multi-hit capability. Normal ceramic tiles and a liner backing have a mass-efficiency (EM) value of 3 compared to normal steel armour, while it fulfills STANAG 4569. The new nano-crystalline ceramic materials should increase the hardness compared to current ceramics by 70% and the weight reduction is 30%, therefore the EM value is larger than 4.

You are taking numbers out of context. Ceramic tiles on a backing are a common armour solution for stopping medium caliber threats, they are not used as the main armor in main battle tanks because the performance of ceramic armour is inferior in several ways to special armor. A very specific claim like 30% better than some other armor steel against some standard threat cannot be extrapolated to mean better protection against anything you want, this is laundry detergent advertising. Better protection from medium caliber penetrators in general cannot be extrapolated to large caliber penetrators either. And AMAP is just a brand name. It does not refer to any specific armor technology or form of armor.

Now while I don't know the exact strength of M1 abrams chobham ceramic tiles nor it's steel armor (which is technically classified), I'm willing to hazard a guess that since it was developed in the 1980's, and modern materials that the AMAP are replacing are stronger than what was used in the 1980's, especially with emerging nanotechnology, that the AMAP materials are at least that much stronger than the M1 abrams armor. A 20% drop in weight from newer composite materials is a conservative estimate, with 30-40% not being unreasonable. So, the chobham frame and the outer armor could be lighter (likely would still be steel, though, as titanium is far more expensive/harder to get ahold of), and the ceramics would be lighter and stronger as well. As the ceramic tiles would also be more fracture resistant, you wouldn't need as much rubber backing but, likely would still use it anyways. On top of all of this, you could also reduce the necessary protected volume of the tank, which would shrink it's size further. A big chunk of the size is due to the turret design, which current turrets must have a crank shaft going to the engine, and require a person to be able to fit in and out of it to crawl in and out of the vehicle. Furthermore the recoiling space needed for the cannon to be utilized can be reduced by something like a muzzle break. Traditionally saboted rounds have trouble using muzzle breaks, but with a pepper-pot style muzzle break (used on some Russian vehicles) that would prevent the sabot from being removed until after it exited the muzzle break, we can likely remove this issue, combined with a better hydraulic recoil system, reducing the necessary size of the turret and some internal spacing in the vehicle to absorb that recoil, chiefly here.

Special armor is not based on ceramic. This is a common myth. Special armor is what is usually called NERA or bulging plate armor. Of contemporary MBTs only the fairly backwards Oplot is known to use ceramic tiles as the main protective element. And there is more here but you are talking as if a muzzle brake firing sabots was a hot new thing and turrets were powered by crankshafts so...

[Purpelia]

Am I the only one getting the impression that his weight numbers assume a tank is a homogenous block of armor?

[Immoren]

Service battalion as not tag.

[Celitannia]

Am I the only one getting the impression that his weight numbers assume a tank is a homogenous block of armor?

Let's be honest, the weight numbers were pulled out of his arse.

[Rich and Corporations]

We're talking semantics here, I'm talking about large areas needed to house the crew being removed, and allow the crew to move, which would reduce he volume of the vehicle. There is lots of room to be cut, as you suggest below as well, so saying there is no room to be cut is quite ridiculous. You don't need these areas designed to allow the crew to move, nor areas typically where crew have to be (I.E. at the front of the vehicle to see the target), when much of this is automated, and you use a system of cameras to see instead. You can reduce the amount of crew you need by one automatically be removing the need for a loader by using an autoloader (and thus the amount of space needed for this soldier, as well as things like food and water requirements), as well as remove the crawlspace needed for a turret hatch by automating the machine gun, as well. This reduces the size of the turret, and thus it's weight.

Then you remove the driver's compartment, which is only present so the crew member can physically see out of the window of the tank. With a 360 degree camera system, you not only have better situational awareness ,but you also remove the need for the driver's compartment. Theoretically, 3 soldiers should be able to be housed in something as small as an area as this. The only reason why crew are spread out as much as they are is to be able to operate the different systems, such as cannons, or to be able to physically see out of the tank's turret or aim down it's barrel and so on. With a system of cameras instead, this is no longer necessary, and the tank can shrink down in size. Then there's the areas for the crew to move inside the tank, which also make up extra volume. Volume is an exponential thing, so if you make something just a little bit bigger around, you typically lose a lot of the weight. Something with half the dimensions of something else, such as a 4 x 4 x 4 cube vs. a 2 x 2 x 2 cube, is not half the size, but 8 times smaller. So, if you shave the dimensions of the tank down only by a few feet all over the tank, let's say shrinking it's overall dimensions by 25%, you'd actually drop the weight of the tank by half it's weight. So for example, a 3.2 foot cube is half the size of a 4 foot cube. You don't need to shave off that much space to drop the volume of something dramatically, and thus the protected volume.

No you can't theoretically fit three crew into a space that size, because they need their controls. Which are not insubstantial in size, even if they are using cameras or something similar and not directly next to the system they are controlling.

This also ignores the fact that while crews in modern armored vehicles are spread out, the space around them is not wasted, moving the crew to the same location could very well actually waste space inside the vehicle because of other systems requirements. As an example the Abrams turret is shaped the way it is, not just because of the crew but also because the gun needs a given distance to recoil and to elevate and depress.

The most bizarre part of this is that above the quote tree (Dostanuot Loj) designed a tank with two meters RHAe that hasn't been withdrawn or even discuss design trade-offs within the sales material.

Special armor is what is usually called NERA or bulging plate armor.

I mean, now that the CIA declassified special armor, it's NERA with springs, no rubber.
(of course I wonder about resilience against APHE, but APHE has such long travel times)

Small drones that can spot for artillery and only carry a camera can be much smaller than a mortar bomb.(DJI Mavic is used by the IDF, for instance).

On the other hand, these are quite real.

ah, you are talking about a rotor powered missile!
yes, low budget missiles exist for a long while now https://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml
maybe every vehicle will have a complex ecm suite, already developed to deal with non-mobile explosives (remote detonated vehicle mines)

[Purpelia]

Am I the only one getting the impression that his weight numbers assume a tank is a homogenous block of armor?

Let's be honest, the weight numbers were pulled out of his arse.

Well yes, obviously. But the way he presents them is like X% less weight of armor = X% less weight of vehicle. Or, as another site I frequent likes to say: If we assume that it (anything we are talking about) is a homogenous block of iron...

That's what I am referring to.

[The Corparation]

I'm just going to drop this here. Manokan Republic it's great that you're enthusiastic about all this but their comes a time to admit when you're wrong and learn a thing or two. I think its very important for you to realize that right now you are someone who has (or more probably thinks they have) read a lot about tanks. I don't know the exact specifics of Dostanuot Loj's day job but if I recall correctly it involves tanks. You are a amateur arguing with an expert and you aren't going to win.

[Rich and Corporations]

I'm just going to drop this here. Manokan Republic it's great that you're enthusiastic about all this but their comes a time to admit when you're wrong and learn a thing or two. I think its very important for you to realize that right now you are someone who has (or more probably thinks they have) read a lot about tanks. I don't know the exact specifics of Dostanuot Loj's day job but if I recall correctly it involves tanks. You are a amateur arguing with an expert and you aren't going to win.

I really hope someone points out weight ratios for tanks.
Like how much each part is supposed to be.

I think you all have very destructive criticism.

[Weimarer Reich]

I just avoid stating weight cause I know I'll mess up.

[Purpelia]

I'm just going to drop this here. Manokan Republic it's great that you're enthusiastic about all this but their comes a time to admit when you're wrong and learn a thing or two. I think its very important for you to realize that right now you are someone who has (or more probably thinks they have) read a lot about tanks. I don't know the exact specifics of Dostanuot Loj's day job but if I recall correctly it involves tanks. You are a amateur arguing with an expert and you aren't going to win.

I really hope someone points out weight ratios for tanks.
Like how much each part is supposed to be.

I think you all have very destructive criticism.

A good suggestion. Personally I don't know what the ratio is but if I had to take a guess I'd say that the armor is probably around 50%.

I mean, you have the gun which in its own right is several tons^[1]. Than you have the engine which usually masses between 1.7 and 2.8 tons^[2], probably near the high end of that spectrum for a MBT. So that alone adds up to around 5 tons. And than you add another 1.8-2 tons for the transmission^[3] probably just as much if not more for the tracks and road wheels. So that alone is around 10 tons for just the gun and drive train. Probably closer to 15 bit more once you add the exhausts, APU, fuel tanks, oil tanks and other auxiliary components like the suspension.

Now, I can't find any good data on electronics, both in terms of optics, communications equipment and sensors but I would be very surprised if you could get away with under 10 tons total for those. And than you add the coaxial MG, ammo storage racks (or an autoloader system if you want to add yet more weight) and various other bits and bobs like air conditioning and fire extinguishers and it adds up.

So I'd be surprised if out of those 60 something tons of a modern western MBT at least 30 was not stuff other than armor. Especially if the numbers cited online for these things are not empty weight but combat weight, as in with fuel and ammo included. I genuinely don't know if they are though.

[The Akasha Colony]

A good suggestion. Personally I don't know what the ratio is but if I had to take a guess I'd say that the armor is probably around 50%.

I mean, you have the gun which in its own right is several tons^[1]. Than you have the engine which usually masses between 1.7 and 2.8 tons^[2], probably near the high end of that spectrum for a MBT. So that alone adds up to around 5 tons. And than you add another 1.8-2 tons for the transmission^[3] probably just as much if not more for the tracks and road wheels. So that alone is around 10 tons for just the gun and drive train. Probably closer to 15 bit more once you add the exhausts, APU, fuel tanks, oil tanks and other auxiliary components like the suspension.

Now, I can't find any good data on electronics, both in terms of optics, communications equipment and sensors but I would be very surprised if you could get away with under 10 tons total for those. And than you add the coaxial MG, ammo storage racks (or an autoloader system if you want to add yet more weight) and various other bits and bobs like air conditioning and fire extinguishers and it adds up.

So I'd be surprised if out of those 60 something tons of a modern western MBT at least 30 was not stuff other than armor. Especially if the numbers cited online for these things are not empty weight but combat weight, as in with fuel and ammo included. I genuinely don't know if they are though.

You're actually correct. Modern MBTs generally devote approximately half their mass to armor. This ratio tends to slowly increase over time on a given vehicle as additional armor gets added over time, with the expected reduction in mobility and such unless a more in-depth overhaul to the powertrain and running gear is also undertaken.

After the armor, the running gear (suspension and tracks) eat up another 20-25% (split almost 50/50 between them), and the propulsion system itself is about 12%. Guns and armaments generally take up much less than 10% of vehicle mass unless the vehicle is a light tank or something.

Fuel usually weighs between 750 to 1,500 kg depending on quantity; Abrams is at the high end of this spectrum because it carries so much jet fuel but conversely it has a lower engine weight because the turbine is much lighter than diesels of comparable age. Ammo for a 120 mm-armed tank with 40 rounds is about 800 kg. The crew, their gear, and various other miscellaneous equipment can add up to 2 tons to the tank when fully loaded for combat.

[Republic of Penguinian Astronautia]

Hello, I have a question that is more FT related, I was wondering just how effective and efficient of a weapon an AR-15 style weapon would be for a military that has to protect a civilization which spans multiple planets, and also has to conduct ship-to-ship boarding actions in space, would it be sufficient or are there better weapons for the job?

What do you mean by ar-15 style?

[Purpelia]

You're actually correct. Modern MBTs generally devote approximately half their mass to armor. This ratio tends to slowly increase over time on a given vehicle as additional armor gets added over time, with the expected reduction in mobility and such unless a more in-depth overhaul to the powertrain and running gear is also undertaken.

After the armor, the running gear (suspension and tracks) eat up another 20-25% (split almost 50/50 between them), and the propulsion system itself is about 12%. Guns and armaments generally take up much less than 10% of vehicle mass unless the vehicle is a light tank or something.

Fuel usually weighs between 750 to 1,500 kg depending on quantity; Abrams is at the high end of this spectrum because it carries so much jet fuel but conversely it has a lower engine weight because the turbine is much lighter than diesels of comparable age. Ammo for a 120 mm-armed tank with 40 rounds is about 800 kg. The crew, their gear, and various other miscellaneous equipment can add up to 2 tons to the tank when fully loaded for combat.

Out of curiosity just how much weight goes into things like the individual road wheels or the tracks in total in terms of absolute mass?