Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[The Akasha Colony]

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.

Merkava and Abrams manage to do exactly that, though. Although Merkava only compartmentalizes its ready rounds in this manner.

[New Chilokver]

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.

I was referring to carousel autoloaders as used by the Soviets, which you were implying were no worse/better for tank survivability than any other type.

[The Akasha Colony]

I was referring to carousel autoloaders as used by the Soviets, which you were implying were no worse/better for tank survivability than any other type.

The position of the carousel autoloader isn't really the problem. Plenty of tanks (basically every tank but Abrams*) store ammunition in the hull, which is considered acceptable because the chances of it being hit are significantly lower than any ammunition in the turret. The problem was generally that extra rounds were stowed in the turret without any real protection or shielding.

*Abrams has some hull storage but it is compartmentalized with blowout panels and from what I have heard isn't even used all the time since it's only like 6 rounds and accessing it requires rotating the turret in a certain direction.

[Iltica]

How thin do blowout panels have to be? Can they be part of a steep upper glacis?

[Purpelia]

How thin do blowout panels have to be? Can they be part of a steep upper glacis?

Thin enough that what ever wall is on the inside of your tank between the crew and the shells is thicker. So that's a resounding no.

[Iltica]

Alright, do they need a lot of clearance? For example suppose there was a magazine in the hull that blows upward, would it damage the turret bustle if it was above it?

[Purpelia]

Alright, do they need a lot of clearance? For example suppose there was a magazine in the hull that blows upward, would it damage the turret bustle if it was above it?

The turret bustle is positioned over what is traditionally the engine. So I imagine loosing the engine would be a bit more important.

[Iltica]

You could conceivably have a small store of ammo just ahead of the firewall if the rounds were stored vertically or some other location where the bustle or part of the turret might pass over. It's not really important.

I was just wondering what happens if something is in the path of the explosion, like if it could push the turret off it's bearings or break the gun barrel or something.

[Purpelia]

You could conceivably have a small store of ammo just ahead of the firewall if the rounds were stored vertically or some other location where the bustle or part of the turret might pass over. It's not really important.

I was just wondering what happens if something is in the path of the explosion, like if it could push the turret off it's bearings or break the gun barrel or something.

If you intend to house your ammo underneath the turret I don't think you can have a safe blowout panel system. There is simply nowhere to vent the blast out to that isn't important.

[The Akasha Colony]

You could conceivably have a small store of ammo just ahead of the firewall if the rounds were stored vertically or some other location where the bustle or part of the turret might pass over. It's not really important.

I was just wondering what happens if something is in the path of the explosion, like if it could push the turret off it's bearings or break the gun barrel or something.

A handful of rounds won't dislodge the turret when ignited. An explosion that powerful almost certainly could not be protected against even with a blowout panel.

It should be noted that assuming modern ammunition with insensitive propellants and explosive filler, the chance of an outright explosion when breached is relatively low. The impacted rounds will ignite and burn violently but won't quite explode in movie-like fashion. This is still obviously a danger the crew needs to be protected from but the danger of a gigantic explosion is less than one might otherwise believe.

The dramatic after effects commonly seen in knocked-out tanks in the Middle East or Ukraine is due to a combination of shoddy workmanship, older fillers and propellant, and old ammunition stored onboard that has probably degraded into a much more unstable form.

If you intend to house your ammo underneath the turret I don't think you can have a safe blowout panel system. There is simply nowhere to vent the blast out to that isn't important.

Abrams has one.

[Purpelia]

You could conceivably have a small store of ammo just ahead of the firewall if the rounds were stored vertically or some other location where the bustle or part of the turret might pass over. It's not really important.

I was just wondering what happens if something is in the path of the explosion, like if it could push the turret off it's bearings or break the gun barrel or something.

A handful of rounds won't dislodge the turret when ignited. An explosion that powerful almost certainly could not be protected against even with a blowout panel.

It should be noted that assuming modern ammunition with insensitive propellants and explosive filler, the chance of an outright explosion when breached is relatively low. The impacted rounds will ignite and burn violently but won't quite explode in movie-like fashion. This is still obviously a danger the crew needs to be protected from but the danger of a gigantic explosion is less than one might otherwise believe.

The dramatic after effects commonly seen in knocked-out tanks in the Middle East or Ukraine is due to a combination of shoddy workmanship, older fillers and propellant, and old ammunition stored onboard that has probably degraded into a much more unstable form.

If you intend to house your ammo underneath the turret I don't think you can have a safe blowout panel system. There is simply nowhere to vent the blast out to that isn't important.

Abrams has one.

I was under the impression that the M1 blowout system was located in the bustle and works upward exploding up and away from the tank. Does it have something for the hull stowage as well? If so, where does the exhaust go that won't either damage something or immobilize the vehicle?

[The Akasha Colony]

I was under the impression that the M1 blowout system was located in the bustle and works upward exploding up and away from the tank. Does it have something for the hull stowage as well? If so, where does the exhaust go that won't either damage something or immobilize the vehicle?

There is a small ammunition storage bin behind the turret ring to the right. In 120 mm-armed Abrams (M1A1 and newer) it holds 6 rounds; in the 105 mm-armed models it held 8 rounds. It has a blowout panel both above and below. The detonation of six rounds isn't enough to cause serious damage to either the turret or the tracks; at least, not anything worse than whatever triggered the detonation in the first place. But because this storage area is hard to access (the turret has to be rotated to a certain direction) and it doesn't hold that much ammunition, it's often used to store other things unless the crew for some reason feels they need every single round they can cram into the vehicle, convenience be damned. The 30+ rounds in the bustle are plenty for the sort of work Abrams has actually had to do. I have heard crews commonly use the space to store MREs or water.

Earlier models had an additional 3-round pack in the turret basket without any blowout panel protection but this was removed because it didn't really help sustain the rate of fire and was an obvious safety hazard after the designers went through the trouble of insulating the rest of the rounds behind bulkheads.

[Iltica]

Could one make a bustle rack with the blowout panels on the rear face or underside of the bustle instead of the top?

[Austrasien]

Could one make a bustle rack with the blowout panels on the rear face or underside of the bustle instead of the top?

Yes but you don't want to.

Venting backwards would be extremely hazardous for anyone nearby. Venting down would likely wreck the engine.

[Purpelia]

It's random incomplete specification time: Comments requested.

Year: 1936-1942
Size: Mid way between T-34 and Panzer III
Armor: Medium. Not good enough for an infantry tank but more than a cruiser and sloped in the French style for extra protection. Fully cast hull and turret as well. Relatively weak sides and rear but reinforced front arc.
Gun: 40mm L60 or 63mm L25, one or the other. Same tank with two different variants male and female style basically.
Speed: Moderate, in between an infantry and a cruiser.
Range: Good for its time.
Purpose:
Tank to be thrown at recognized weak points in enemy lines to break through and than roll up the enemy. Has to be mobile enough to get anywhere on its own power, fast enough to do so in a reasonable time and powerful enough to break through. BUt is not intended to break strong points as it's not supposed to be sent at super strong prepared positions.

[Iltica]

Could one make a bustle rack with the blowout panels on the rear face or underside of the bustle instead of the top?

Yes but you don't want to.

Venting backwards would be extremely hazardous for anyone nearby. Venting down would likely wreck the engine.

Oh yeah.. those people... Just worried about losing half the ammo to a strafing run :/ but I guess anything that could do that would destroy the engine too so maybe it doesn't matter.

What about on the underside of the hull for the rest of the ammo? It would have to use something other than torsion bars obviously.

[The Akasha Colony]

Oh yeah.. those people... Just worried about losing half the ammo to a strafing run :/ but I guess anything that could do that would destroy the engine too so maybe it doesn't matter.

Not necessarily. Most engine decks these days are fairly well-armored against medium-caliber fire and shell fragments.

What about on the underside of the hull for the rest of the ammo? It would have to use something other than torsion bars obviously.

Why?

Torsion bars don't make floor hatches impossible, they just make human-sized hatches inconvenient. You could make a series of panels around the torsion bars without much difficulty. Abrams has an underside blowout panel for its hull storage.

[Iltica]

The Abram's hull mag is tiny though, this is more along the lines of the one in the Type 90 (the Japanese one). As long as having panels down there is allowed it should be fine though, I was gonna use a merkava-esque suspension anyway. Thanks.

Still a little worried about losing half the ammo from something shooting through the panels on the roof that really shouldn't be able to knock out an MBT normally... There's quite a few that already do this though so maybe it's not that big of an issue idk.

[Purpelia]

Just use hydraulic suspension than and you get to have the whole floor available for what ever you want. Or you know, belleville washers. The ultimate suspension system for the discerning watchmaker.

[The Akasha Colony]

The Abram's hull mag is tiny though, this is more along the lines of the one in the Type 90 (the Japanese one). As long as having panels down there is allowed it should be fine though, I was gonna use a merkava-esque suspension anyway. Thanks.

Still a little worried about losing half the ammo from something shooting through the panels on the roof that really shouldn't be able to knock out an MBT normally... There's quite a few that already do this though so maybe it's not that big of an issue idk.

There aren't really a lot of things that can do this though? Strafing runs from fixed-wing aircraft would be rare in a high-intensity conflict between two advanced powers given the danger SHORAD poses to aircraft. And helicopters are limited in the size and power of cannon they can carry.

Blowout panels don't have to be paper-thin anyway. They just have to break away (relatively) easily when pressure from within is applied.

[Austrasien]

It should always be recalled tanks get damaged a lot. Just by driving around, let alone when anyone is shooting at them. But it is surprisingly easy (not in terms of physical labour mind you least some tanker whack me; that is extremely strenuous but sweat is a renewable resource and armies generally have an abundance of manpower) and cheap to repair most damage. Preventing a tank from being disabled by things like sustained autocannon fire is very nearly impossible - even if you protect the ammo a barrage of 30 mm shells has a high chance of achieving a mobility and firepower kill - so you may as well just take it on the chin.

[Gallia-]

Track tension delenda est.

[United Earthlings]

It's random incomplete specification time: Comments requested.

Year: 1936-1942
Size: Mid way between T-34 and Panzer III
Armor: Medium. Not good enough for an infantry tank but more than a cruiser and sloped in the French style for extra protection. Fully cast hull and turret as well. Relatively weak sides and rear but reinforced front arc.
Gun: 40mm L60 or 63mm L25, one or the other. Same tank with two different variants male and female style basically.
Speed: Moderate, in between an infantry and a cruiser.
Range: Good for its time.
Purpose:
Tank to be thrown at recognized weak points in enemy lines to break through and than roll up the enemy. Has to be mobile enough to get anywhere on its own power, fast enough to do so in a reasonable time and powerful enough to break through. BUt is not intended to break strong points as it's not supposed to be sent at super strong prepared positions.

To vague to give a good assessment. Basic specifications are fine, see below as way of comparison.

Here's a quick WIP on one of the tank designs in service in the Commonwealth Army during the same time period.

Tortoise I cavalry cruiser
Year: Operational service in 1935
Dimensions: Length: 4.14 meters, Width: 2.4 meters, Height: 2.26 meters
Weight: 9.1 tons
Crew: 3
Armor: 6 to 16 mm, mostly welded with some elements of the armor riveted
Armament: One 12.7mm Browning machine gun and one 7.62mm Browning M1919 machine gun
Engine: UELS 7-cylinder 250 hp (190 kW) air-cooled radial gasoline
Suspension: Leaf spring with models A1 and on having Vertical volute spring suspension (VVSS)
Operational range: 160 kilometers
Speed: Up to 72 kilometers an hour on roads
Description {Brief}: A further refinement of the licensed Vickers 6-Ton design acquired by the Commonwealth in 1929, the Tortoise I incorporated new technological developments from both aboard and domestic. An interim Commonwealth tank design, though quickly rendered obsolete, was developed as part of the ongoing Commonwealth's army mechanization plan intended to help the Cavalry by exploiting enemy weaknesses in more of a breakthrough role, in contrast to the traditional role of tanks, which was supporting the Infantry.

[Purpelia]

To vague to give a good assessment. Basic specifications are fine, see below as way of comparison.

Basically I didn't want to figure out the details too much because I feel numbers would be pointless due to the fact that like all its contemporaries this tank is going to evolve and change during its period of service so that the armor values and stuff changes over time too much for me to pin numbers down. Like, the 1936 version isn't going to be comparable to the 1942 version in absolute numbers but their relative stats remain constant because the relative role remains constant. So I'd rather have vague descriptive values that tell you about that role and what to expect as a result as opposed to absolute armor values or weights that I'd have to list on a year by year and version by version basis. And which would still be semi useless even if I did on account of the fact I am not fighting real WW2 and thus am facing different AT guns and armor than I would IRL.

So in light of that let me just spell out my 30's armor doctrine and see if that helps. Basically I have this idea for how tanks are to be used. In particular, they are cavalry and cavalry alone. But not light cavalry. Tanks are Napoleonic cavalry. So you have your light cavalry (armored cars and light tanks) and your heavy cuirassiers (this tank). Light cavalry is supposed to screen, scout and do that sort of thing. Heavy cavalry on the other hand has two roles, that being penetration and advance.

In advance, heavy cavalry is meant to drive forward as part of cavalry formations in support of dragoons (motorized infantry) as they advance in front of the main army taking important positions like bridges, transportation hubs etc. where they dig in and wait for the infantry to catch up. So it's basically a mobile advancing force like a Panzer Division.

In penetration the cavalry is supposed to drive up to a detected weakpoint in the enemy lines and than charge through it lances fixed to overrun and rout the enemy there. It than turns sideways and rolls up the enemy front line forcing them to retreat and allowing my infantry and artillery to inflict casualties as they do. Notice that there is no plan for massive encirclement here. That's because in the 30's there isn't enough motorization to go around to make good on massive sweeping maneuvers. By 1941 or so there is, and doctrine changes to reflect that.

Finally, one thing you newer, ever, ever do with cavalry is throw them against a fortified strongpoint. Ask the light brigade how that works out. Thus, these tanks are not going to carry the armor needed to do that. They are breakthrough vehicles and thus need to resist some AT fire. But they are not meant to do the job of a Churchill or Tiger. If you have a line of concrete bunkers and dug in AT guns with good flanking fire facing you just have infantry pin it down with artillery so it can't reinforce the next sector where they ain't and these tanks will be.


Also, note the strict separation of infantry and cavalry. Only cavalry get tanks. Infantry get gun carriers. At the beginning of the war these are basically Zis-30/this sort of thing meant to bring field and AT guns quickly up to the front without needing horses. The idea being they need mobility but not heavy armor because infantry does not break through. If you hit a solid front line there is just no sense bashing your troops against it WW1 style and thus heavy armored assault guns just aren't required. But you do need and want to give infantry the ability to bring up the firepower they need to defend or sweep aside enemies that haven't had time to entrench yet quickly.

===========================================================
This being said. This tank does not die in 1942. It just changes form too much. Think a T-34-85 style overhaul. It includes a new 63mm L63 gun that can basically kill anything (it's based off the ZiS-2 in inspiration). And than later in the war it gets reclassified as a support/light tank whilst the role of medium gets taken over by the first of the Vikingr series. And those culminate in 1948 with the Vikingr 50 which is basically a MBT-ized AMX-13 (autoloader and all) meets T-55 with a 93mm main gun.

For reference my war is 1940 - 1950. So near the end you have massive armored offensives with MBT's and IFVs fighting it out cold war style with jet fighters flying over and chemical weapons everywhere.

[New Antonalia]