Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[The Akasha Colony]

I removed the camera dont know why it autocorrected to revived, I'm going to either design a tethered UAV or redesign the camera. The vision block is the gunners sight, it is electronic. How should it look.

Much larger, and not facing to the side. It also shouldn't be mounted all the way down there on the turret face, it should probably go on the turret roof.

Here is an example of the gunner's sight on the Leclerc. Notice how large the box housing it is, and how it is mounted on the roof the turret, not on the front. Notice how it also has two apertures, for the daysight and for the thermal sight. This is one of the reason why gunner's sights and most periscopes are so large.


The M1's sight can be seen just above the gun in his picture, it's the rectangular box with the shutters closed to the left of the RWS:

[Chinevion]

I imagine a unit with dedicated reconnaissance UAVs would prove a better investment than equipping every tank with a rather mediocre one. A

That's what i was thinking, one or two every battalion has a dedicated electronic warfare vehicle that will fill this role, and the Raksha can keep the telescopic camera or one tank in a four tank squad has the UCAV module, the others have the camera

[Chinevion]

I removed the camera dont know why it autocorrected to revived, I'm going to either design a tethered UAV or redesign the camera. The vision block is the gunners sight, it is electronic. How should it look.

Much larger, and not facing to the side. It also shouldn't be mounted all the way down there on the turret face, it should probably go on the turret roof.

Here is an example of the gunner's sight on the Leclerc. Notice how large the box housing it is, and how it is mounted on the roof the turret, not on the front. Notice how it also has two apertures, for the daysight and for the thermal sight. This is one of the reason why gunner's sights and most periscopes are so large.


The M1's sight can be seen just above the gun in his picture, it's the rectangular box with the shutters closed to the left of the RWS:

Ok will change, I'm going to implement some t-14 like features like the hardkill system and what I'm assuming is traverible smoke launchers

[The Akasha Colony]

Ok will change, I'm going to implement some t-14 like features like the hardkill system and what I'm assuming is traverible smoke launchers

T-14's hardkill system (Afghanit) is actually pretty mediocre, it's only there because the Russians already had a very similar system (Drozd) in service already. Its coverage is limited to the tank's frontal arc and it has no ability to engage top attack threats at all (which are a growing threat). And it is questionable whether it can engage LRPs, like some other APS designs out there. A system like Trophy, Iron Fist, or even the former AMAP-ADS would be superior as they provide much greater coverage against a wider variety of threats.

[Rhodesialund]

I'm not sure if this comment was meant to be facetious, but ETC is a dead end technology that hasn't gone anywhere despite decades of research in multiple countries and every new advance in solid propellant comes with significant drawbacks, usually to barrel life.

This doesn't mean that the age of the big tank gun is dead, but the Germans at least have concluded that it's time to simply step it up to a bigger gun (and in the interim, to adopt higher-pressure 120 mm guns), which is technologically a simpler and safer solution to the question of increasing penetration than ETC or bulk-loaded propellants or railguns or whatever. The US Army seems to be of the mind that they can still squeeze more performance out of their guns through better ammunition and novel penetrators and once flirted with guided shells before cancelling them, but in the end it's only delaying what looks to be an increasingly inevitable solution.

The US hasn't been interested in muzzle velocity improvements anyway. The MV of subsequent M829 generations has decreased substantially in response to various threats and both DU and tungsten have optimal penetration velocities. Exceeding these reduces their penetration efficiency, so there's an upper limit to desired impact velocity unless you're willing to go all the way to hypersonic speeds or something like a HEAT jet where the penetration physics are different.

There have been claims that this reduction in muzzle velocity in M829 generations is in part meant to reduce the likelihood of triggering ERA on impact, and the rest is likely because of the heavier penetrator needed to resist yawing and snapping while penetrating, which is more important than maximizing MV.

Wasn't intending to be facetious with the question, just curious.

Also, didn't realize ETC was scrapped. Thought it was put on hold because it wasn't technologically convenient to implement. As to dealing with ERA, shouldn't the effectiveness of ERA be negated by the velocity of the penetrator or are we really having to deal with making the projectile bigger?

[Chinevion]

Ok will change, I'm going to implement some t-14 like features like the hardkill system and what I'm assuming is traverible smoke launchers

T-14's hardkill system (Afghanit) is actually pretty mediocre, it's only there because the Russians already had a very similar system (Drozd) in service already. Its coverage is limited to the tank's frontal arc and it has no ability to engage top attack threats at all (which are a growing threat). And it is questionable whether it can engage LRPs, like some other APS designs out there. A system like Trophy, Iron Fist, or even the former AMAP-ADS would be superior as they provide much greater coverage against a wider variety of threats.

Right, pluse I'm assuming using it leads to less armor there? My problem is I dont think i can draw one very well. It leads to an interesting aesthetic though, could an advantage be gained by having a combination of and Afghanit like system for a second layer of frontal protection in addition to a trophy like system in case of a rpg-30 type weapon? I'm guessing no.

[Gallia-]

There have been claims that this reduction in muzzle velocity in M829 generations is in part meant to reduce the likelihood of triggering ERA on impact, and the rest is likely because of the heavier penetrator needed to resist yawing and snapping while penetrating, which is more important than maximizing MV.

Those are just dumb Internet myths. The obvious explanation is that it's slower because it's much heavier than older penetrators.

If America had its choice it'd have an M829A4 flying as fast as M829A0. But M256 would explode if they used a powder charge with that much pressure.

[The Akasha Colony]

Also, didn't realize ETC was scrapped. Thought it was put on hold because it wasn't technologically convenient to implement.

Despite what the old ETC essay on Draftroom might say or even the Wikipedia article, ETC technology hasn't panned out. Its proponents claimed it would provide muzzle energies similar to a 140 mm gun (~100% more than existing 120 mm guns) without the bulk of a 140 mm gun, and that the bulky electronics and capacitors could be shrunk down to a very compact size. Neither of these things panned out; ongoing experiments managed to eke out something like a 10-20% increase in muzzle energy and the electronics bank never shrank to the size promised despite plenty of time and effort. A 10% increase in muzzle energy could be achieved more cheaply and simply by just making a higher-pressure 120 mm gun and slightly increasing the propellant charge, so it's pretty clear that ETC isn't the alternative.

As to dealing with ERA, shouldn't the effectiveness of ERA be negated by the velocity of the penetrator or are we really having to deal with making the projectile bigger?

Not really. There are several ways of trying to defeat ERA. The best is just trying to ensure it doesn't detonate in the first place, and there are several possible ways of achieving this. Reducing velocity is one, reducing the tip cross section is another.

One of the other ways of defeating ERA which is also believed to be incorporated in M829A3 (and presumably M829A4 as well) is to use a sacrificial steel tip in a segmented penetrator, allowing the steel to detonate the ERA and be sheared off by its effects while leaving the larger, heavier DU/tungsten segment unscathed to continue penetrating the passive armor beneath.

Right, pluse I'm assuming using it leads to less armor there? My problem is I dont think i can draw one very well. It leads to an interesting aesthetic though, could an advantage be gained by having a combination of and Afghanit like system for a second layer of frontal protection in addition to a trophy like system in case of a rpg-30 type weapon? I'm guessing no.

No. Trophy can already cover the entire firing arc of Afghanit so there's no need for Afghanit in the first place. And it wouldn't improve effectiveness against RPG-30.

[Chinevion]

I removed the camera dont know why it autocorrected to revived, I'm going to either design a tethered UAV or redesign the camera. The vision block is the gunners sight, it is electronic. How should it look.

Much larger, and not facing to the side. It also shouldn't be mounted all the way down there on the turret face, it should probably go on the turret roof.

AUUUUUU I'm an idiot if you can see the apatures of it it means it is pointing at you. *face palms*

Got it Akasha, I'm going to also implement an EHF radar system on the front where i had my sideways gunsight like on the k2

[Questers]

Despite what the old ETC essay on Draftroom might say or even the Wikipedia article,

They were written by the same person.

[Gallia-]

makkk
atakkk

[Questers]

makkk
atakkk

(cur | prev) 20:34, 3 November 2006‎ Catalan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,203 bytes) (+3,864)‎ . . (How it works) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:33, 3 November 2006‎ Catalan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,339 bytes) (+5,625)‎ . . (The need for power) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:41, 3 November 2006‎ Catalan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,714 bytes) (+4,540)‎ . . (Getting prepared ... jotting down all sources ... article to come next) (undo)
(cur | prev) 21:27, 3 November 2006‎ Catalan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,756 bytes) (+4,563)‎ . . (Fiction or reality) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:30, 4 November 2006‎ Catalan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,331 bytes) (+1,295)‎ . . (→‎The need for power) (undo)

[Gallia-]

land surface area is power

big
bores
now

[Fordorsia]

no comments on super reasonable super practical super realistic half track TD :0

[Chinevion]

I used the K2 as my base, criticism welcome, tear it apart if need be.
FCS&Optics
The Raksha uses the Dala Sabhee Sait FCS system. The Advanced system links the dhaar F/F-12T EHFR (extremely high frequency radar) housed in the front of the turret. The Raksha also uses the LRF-2BT laser rangefinder and the crosswind sensors. Capable at acquiring and tracking at up to a range of 10.8km. Targets are acquired using the Sateek Hava CWC-1G Cross Wind compensator. Targets are acquired by using the CAW developed TGS-12 Hok Takatakee variable regular/thermographic camera at a range up to 10.3 kilometer and posses 60X zoom with high fidelity. Due to rough terrain in the usual region of operation, the Raksha is linked to a advanced gun stabilization system and a trigger-delay system. This system is used to optimize accuracy even while moving at rapid speeds over extremely rough terrain. In the event of the gunner firing at the moment of the tank encountering a irregularity in the terrain, the oscillation of the gun barrel will cause a temporary misalignment between the laser emitter on the barrel and the sensor on the base. In this event, the FCS will not activate until the beams are re-aligned allowing for a greatly improved chance of hitting the target.

[Austrasien]

As to the weight of tanks, I was thinking around the 40-50 ton range. Not too heavy to be like MBTs, but light enough to not be a strategic pain. Although the concept of light tanks has been shifted over to assault guns mounted on Strykers or other AFVs with similar armament.

The US concluded in the early 90s that by using all the best volume and weight saving technologies (mainly: autoloader, compact turret, compact powerpack) then available a ~50 ton vehicle could meet or exceed the performance of the M1 in all areas.



This conclusion remains valid.

[Gallia-]

God bless Future Combat System.

Singular.

Based TARDEC.

[Austrasien]

Top secret DARPA Institute of Steel T-14 design document do not steal.

[Gallia-]

A classic Mammoth Meme.

[Purpelia]

Try sixty. Or fifty five.

That's not futuretank. It's moderntank. The T-14 is the first and only in the proper modern generation of tanks and everything else like the M1 are oldtank.

[Gallia-]

Try sixty. Or fifty five.

That's not futuretank. It's moderntank.

It's definitely a futuretank.

Futuretanks are the same as oldtanks, but the oldweight of oldtanks.

Tanks as objects will probably never surpass the 55-70 ton barrier.

You will make tanks that are 55 tons. They grow to 70 tons. Then you make a tank as good as the 70 ton tank, but it's 55 tons. Repeat.

[Laritaia]

making a sub 50 ton tank requires the designers to deliberately skimp on protection, which tends to end badly in asymmetric combat

AMX-30, MCS, T72 etc etc

[Gallia-]

T-72 skimped on space. Not so much on protection.

[Laritaia]

T-72 skimped on space. Not so much on protection.

it does but uses armour arrangement to compensate for the lack of side protection on the turret

[Gallia-]

Yes it has atrocious side protection but it's also an Asian tank so what can you do I guess?