Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Fordorsia]

In that case feel free to replace it with one of the late 40's 90mm tank guns like those on the M48 or even the 8.8cm KwK 36 from the Tiger 1. Basically something that's big and nasty but can still be easily loaded from one piece and would leave way more room in the turret.

The logic is basically to make it the ultimate heavy tank by taking an awesome vehicle and getting rid of its one weak point (few shells + slow reload + cramped insides) by giving it a less awesome but still big and nasty gun so as to not have to modify the outline of the bits people are inside of in any meaningful way. Basically think IS-2-85 or something.

IS-2 is cramped full stop. Switching the gun out won't change that. Same with ammo capacity. 28 isn't really a small amount, but you won't be getting much more with late war single piece AT rounds.

In fact because you will get like, a hand full in the bustle next to the TC, the rest will have to be in boxes under the turret. I'd be surprised if you could get any meaningful amount more than IS-2's 28 rounds. IS-2 has the advantage of having smaller individual components for the shells for its smaller internal space. Loading a Kwk 43 or M3 or anything that big inside there would suck major ass.

[Connori Pilgrims]

In that case feel free to replace it with one of the late 40's 90mm tank guns like those on the M48 or even the 8.8cm KwK 36 from the Tiger 1. Basically something that's big and nasty but can still be easily loaded from one piece and would leave way more room in the turret.

The logic is basically to make it the ultimate heavy tank by taking an awesome vehicle and getting rid of its one weak point (few shells + slow reload + cramped insides) by giving it a less awesome but still big and nasty gun so as to not have to modify the outline of the bits people are inside of in any meaningful way. Basically think IS-2-85 or something.

Ugh just go with the IS-100. Yes, they trialled a version of the IS-1/2 which took the D-10 100mm/53.5 gun that the SU-100 and T-54 would take on. They didn't go through with it because the 100mm HE shell had less boom than the 122mm (Ford already mentioned how much big booms was important to the IS tank's tactical breakthrough role) and the D-10 at the time was just starting to enter production (i.e. wouldn't be available in quantity quickly).

[Purpelia]

In that case feel free to replace it with one of the late 40's 90mm tank guns like those on the M48 or even the 8.8cm KwK 36 from the Tiger 1. Basically something that's big and nasty but can still be easily loaded from one piece and would leave way more room in the turret.

The logic is basically to make it the ultimate heavy tank by taking an awesome vehicle and getting rid of its one weak point (few shells + slow reload + cramped insides) by giving it a less awesome but still big and nasty gun so as to not have to modify the outline of the bits people are inside of in any meaningful way. Basically think IS-2-85 or something.

Ugh just go with the IS-100. Yes, they trialled a version of the IS-1/2 which took the D-10 100mm/53.5 gun that the SU-100 and T-54 would take on. They didn't go through with it because the 100mm HE shell had less boom than the 122mm (Ford already mentioned how much big booms was important to the IS tank's tactical breakthrough role) and the D-10 at the time was just starting to enter production (i.e. wouldn't be available in quantity quickly).

That's probably what I'll do. Start off with a IS-2-85 and upgrade it to a IS-2-100 at some point in 45-46. This thing is basically intended to be a foil for my own heavy tanks more than anything so AP > HE anyway.

[Anemos Major]

bear witness to my heroic effort to keep this thread alive WHILE shamelessly reposting this for the umpteenth time

[Hrstrovokia]

^ verrrrry nice, well done!

[Iltica]

In that case feel free to replace it with one of the late 40's 90mm tank guns like those on the M48 or even the 8.8cm KwK 36 from the Tiger 1. Basically something that's big and nasty but can still be easily loaded from one piece and would leave way more room in the turret.

The logic is basically to make it the ultimate heavy tank by taking an awesome vehicle and getting rid of its one weak point (few shells + slow reload + cramped insides) by giving it a less awesome but still big and nasty gun so as to not have to modify the outline of the bits people are inside of in any meaningful way. Basically think IS-2-85 or something.

Wouldn't that just be an IS-1?

[Connori Pilgrims]

In that case feel free to replace it with one of the late 40's 90mm tank guns like those on the M48 or even the 8.8cm KwK 36 from the Tiger 1. Basically something that's big and nasty but can still be easily loaded from one piece and would leave way more room in the turret.

The logic is basically to make it the ultimate heavy tank by taking an awesome vehicle and getting rid of its one weak point (few shells + slow reload + cramped insides) by giving it a less awesome but still big and nasty gun so as to not have to modify the outline of the bits people are inside of in any meaningful way. Basically think IS-2-85 or something.

Wouldn't that just be an IS-1?

Basically yes.

[Iltica]

Been doodling tanks again and was wondering, do tanks with bustle loaders have smaller turret rings? It doesn't really look like they do, so I'm not seeing how it reduces volume.

[The Akasha Colony]

Been doodling tanks again and was wondering, do tanks with bustle loaders have smaller turret rings? It doesn't really look like they do, so I'm not seeing how it reduces volume.

You don't need to reduce the turret ring diameter to reduce internal volume.

Turret ring diameter is largely driven by the weight of the turret and the need to provide enough space for gun recoil at certain elevations. Three-man turrets were already possible with diameters of 1,400 mm; the 2,000+ mm diameter of modern turret rings is driven mostly by the gun.

[Purpelia]

In that case feel free to replace it with one of the late 40's 90mm tank guns like those on the M48 or even the 8.8cm KwK 36 from the Tiger 1. Basically something that's big and nasty but can still be easily loaded from one piece and would leave way more room in the turret.

The logic is basically to make it the ultimate heavy tank by taking an awesome vehicle and getting rid of its one weak point (few shells + slow reload + cramped insides) by giving it a less awesome but still big and nasty gun so as to not have to modify the outline of the bits people are inside of in any meaningful way. Basically think IS-2-85 or something.

Wouldn't that just be an IS-1?

Surface vise yes. But with the caveat that the actual KV-1 was just overall worse on account of the fact that it did not benefit from the extra several years of development. So this thing would be decisively better than a KV-1 but have a superficial similarity.

[Iltica]

Been doodling tanks again and was wondering, do tanks with bustle loaders have smaller turret rings? It doesn't really look like they do, so I'm not seeing how it reduces volume.

You don't need to reduce the turret ring diameter to reduce internal volume.

Turret ring diameter is largely driven by the weight of the turret and the need to provide enough space for gun recoil at certain elevations. Three-man turrets were already possible with diameters of 1,400 mm; the 2,000+ mm diameter of modern turret rings is driven mostly by the gun.

How does removing the loader reduce volume then? I can't figure out how to get any smaller than the original leopard 2 turret except maybe making it asymmetrical.

[Purpelia]

You don't need to reduce the turret ring diameter to reduce internal volume.

Turret ring diameter is largely driven by the weight of the turret and the need to provide enough space for gun recoil at certain elevations. Three-man turrets were already possible with diameters of 1,400 mm; the 2,000+ mm diameter of modern turret rings is driven mostly by the gun.

How does removing the loader reduce volume then? I can't figure out how to get any smaller than the original leopard 2 turret except maybe making it asymmetrical.

Well basically it depends on the design of the system you replace said loader with. If it happens to be smaller than a human and all the room said human needs to manhandle rounds into the gun (and they typically are) than you need less space on the inside of your tank to fit it in.

[The Akasha Colony]

You don't need to reduce the turret ring diameter to reduce internal volume.

Turret ring diameter is largely driven by the weight of the turret and the need to provide enough space for gun recoil at certain elevations. Three-man turrets were already possible with diameters of 1,400 mm; the 2,000+ mm diameter of modern turret rings is driven mostly by the gun.

How does removing the loader reduce volume then? I can't figure out how to get any smaller than the original leopard 2 turret except maybe making it asymmetrical.

I have no idea what actual design particulars you are working with.

But the point of an autoloader isn't that it makes the turret smaller. Indeed, depending on the configuration it may make the turret larger by storing more ammunition in the turret, in which case more of the volume savings would be found in the hull which no longer needs to accommodate the extra ammunition etc.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

How does removing the loader reduce volume then? I can't figure out how to get any smaller than the original leopard 2 turret except maybe making it asymmetrical.

I have no idea what actual design particulars you are working with.

But the point of an autoloader isn't that it makes the turret smaller. Indeed, depending on the configuration it may make the turret larger by storing more ammunition in the turret, in which case more of the volume savings would be found in the hull which no longer needs to accommodate the extra ammunition etc.

While we're on autoloaders let me add the addendum that the Soviet design bureaus solved the "make turret smaller" problem by storing all the ammo in a ring around the turret basket, which can have some spectacular effects should this ring of ammo be violently disturbed. (Kyiv may want to correct me because I know fuckall about Soviet tanks beyond the memes) <.< >.>

[Iltica]

How does removing the loader reduce volume then? I can't figure out how to get any smaller than the original leopard 2 turret except maybe making it asymmetrical.

I have no idea what actual design particulars you are working with.

But the point of an autoloader isn't that it makes the turret smaller. Indeed, depending on the configuration it may make the turret larger by storing more ammunition in the turret, in which case more of the volume savings would be found in the hull which no longer needs to accommodate the extra ammunition etc.

You could move just as much ammo, probably more out of the hull just by having a large ready rack in the bustle.
What do you guys think about the idea of an asymmetrical turret? With the gunner and commander on one side of the gun and either nothing, or an autoloader on the opposite side separated by a blast-proof panel. A bit like this?:


Object 490A Supposedly had a similar setup considered but idk what the actual mechanism was.

[Purpelia]

I have no idea what actual design particulars you are working with.

But the point of an autoloader isn't that it makes the turret smaller. Indeed, depending on the configuration it may make the turret larger by storing more ammunition in the turret, in which case more of the volume savings would be found in the hull which no longer needs to accommodate the extra ammunition etc.

While we're on autoloaders let me add the addendum that the Soviet design bureaus solved the "make turret smaller" problem by storing all the ammo in a ring around the turret basket, which can have some spectacular effects should this ring of ammo be violently disturbed. (Kyiv may want to correct me because I know fuckall about Soviet tanks beyond the memes) <.< >.>

TLDR if you hit the autoloader, any autoloader the thing is going to go up like an bomb. No helping that. At least with the Soviet model you can't easily hit it. I mean, how often are you going to have hull side penetration?

I have no idea what actual design particulars you are working with.

But the point of an autoloader isn't that it makes the turret smaller. Indeed, depending on the configuration it may make the turret larger by storing more ammunition in the turret, in which case more of the volume savings would be found in the hull which no longer needs to accommodate the extra ammunition etc.

You could move just as much ammo, probably more out of the hull just by having a large ready rack in the bustle.
What do you guys think about the idea of an asymmetrical turret? With the gunner and commander on one side of the gun and either nothing, or an autoloader on the opposite side separated by a blast-proof panel. A bit like this?:


Object 490A Supposedly had a similar setup considered but idk what the actual mechanism was.

Too small ammo capacity. You need way more ammo than just the 5-6 rounds you can store in a drum like that.

[The Akasha Colony]

You could move just as much ammo, probably more out of the hull just by having a large ready rack in the bustle.

And this explains why Abrams has such a large turret. Putting lots of things in the turret with or without an autoloader leads to a larger turret.

What do you guys think about the idea of an asymmetrical turret? With the gunner and commander on one side of the gun and either nothing, or an autoloader on the opposite side separated by a blast-proof panel. A bit like this?:
(Image)

Object 490A Supposedly had a similar setup considered but idk what the actual mechanism was.
(Image)

Asymmetric turrets lead to asymmetric loads.

[Iltica]

The 8 rounds is just me being too lazy to model a complex mechanism, it doesn't have to be a drum and could extend below the hull roofline.
Replinishing it could be difficult though.

Idk enough about the weight and balance to address it sorry.

[Gallia-]

An offset drum is literally the most complex autoloader scheme ever devised. There's a reason it took the United States 30 years to perfect such a device and it's not because American engineers are some sort of idiot-savants.

The simplest method is to put the shells immediately behind the gun in a spinning drum like Merkava does. The second simplest is a ribbon chain rammer, which can use the whole rear of the turret to store ammunition, and is not so much more complex than the spinning drum that it offsets the massively increased ammunition payload.

[Iltica]

I thought the Merkava was manual??? But ok, maybe I'll just move the turret face inward and go down to 7-8 degrees of gun depression. Thanks.

[Gallia-]

The two things it lacks are a chain rammer and guide, which are common with a ribbon chain loader. It's simpler, mechanically, than a ribbon chain because all it needs is a single rotary motor-encoder rather than an indexing chain.

[Iltica]

Oh ok, it's just a rotating magazine then?

[The Akasha Colony]

Oh ok, it's just a rotating magazine then?

Yes. It holds a number of ready rounds for the loader to pull out of storage and then manually ram into the gun. That's why it is sometimes called "semi-automatic."

[New Chilokver]

While we're on autoloaders let me add the addendum that the Soviet design bureaus solved the "make turret smaller" problem by storing all the ammo in a ring around the turret basket, which can have some spectacular effects should this ring of ammo be violently disturbed. (Kyiv may want to correct me because I know fuckall about Soviet tanks beyond the memes) <.< >.>

TLDR if you hit the autoloader, any autoloader the thing is going to go up like an bomb. No helping that. At least with the Soviet model you can't easily hit it. I mean, how often are you going to have hull side penetration?

The difference is that unless you go with the crew capsule design used by the Armata, there's no way to compartmentalise the autoloader+ammunition away from your crew.

[Purpelia]

TLDR if you hit the autoloader, any autoloader the thing is going to go up like an bomb. No helping that. At least with the Soviet model you can't easily hit it. I mean, how often are you going to have hull side penetration?

The difference is that unless you go with the crew capsule design used by the Armata, there's no way to compartmentalise the autoloader+ammunition away from your crew.

Sure there is. Just put it on the back of the turret in a mostly isolated bustle like the M1 does with its ammo storage bustle. Combine that with an AMX-13 style rear autoloader and you're set. That's pretty much what my tanks do throughout the period between 47 and 2000.