Xoon

What is this? The image description says Leopard 2 VT2000, any information on it?

The arguments I have seen revolve around fighting in an NBC environment.

You're not just supposed to be able to operate the machine gun from the cupola.  *In theory* you can actually reload it from in there, and clear stoppages and suchlike all from the comfort of an under-armor, NBC-protected little bubble!  Ken Estes insists that he actually did manage to reload the MG from inside the cupola.  Once.
 
The designed-for-tanks MGs, M73, M85 and M219 are really not the proudest moments in US automatic weapons design.  In fact, the entire post WWII era leading up to the elimination of the US Army Ordnance as the chief development center for new weapons was terrible.
 
Also, the commander's head might be inside that cupola even if he were not operating the MG.  Because of the wonky eggshell-shaped hull, the M48's turret basket wasn't as deep as the height of the hull would suggest:
 

Now with full sideskirts and ERA:

Taking the Object 187's glacis as a basis for frontal hull layout, combined with the T-14s and from what we learned about composite armor, how well do you think this would work?

Black - RHA.
Grey - NERA plates.
Orange - High Hardness shatter plate (ex. DU).
Yellow - Lighter High hardness shatter plate (ex. ceramics).
Dark blue - Backing plate (ex. HHS, HH aluminum alloy.)
Light blue - Absorbing material (ex aluminum).
Green - Liquid cell.
 
Front layout is similar to the Leopard 2, with a thinner LFP, but not massively thinner like on a T-64. A sloped roof plate like on Object 187, with a closely grouped NERA plates and ceramics to shatter and take out LRP and stop top attack munition.  On the the flat part of the roof, the liquid cells are used instead to provide maximum protection against top attack CE.  The bottom of the crew capsule is covered with a absorbing layer against landmines and IEDs. 

My guess is quite simple:

When the ammo rack ignites, the gases would go wherever to escape. Including any hole in the blast door. However, since the entire roof of the rack blows out and lifts the rack halfway out of the isolated compartment, the expanding gas gets more room to move freely, this causes the gas going through the hole in the blast door to act like a blowtorch. Anyone standing between the hole and the wall gets perforated or sliced in half by the flame. 

Worst case scenario the hole could rupture the entire door and kill the crew.
And welcome to SH, Renegade.

That is a prototype of BAE/Sweden's SEP-AMV/AMV 8x8 universal platform.
 
 
Projekt SEP was a project to unify all the different armored platforms under a single platform:

 
 
The plaform would be divided into 3 sub catagories:

 
 The tracked version also came in two types, the T1:

 
 
And the T2:

 
 
And it was designed to be modular:

 
 
And appears to use a hybrid electric system as we can see here, with the side sponsons mounted exhaust, which hint sponsons mounted engines:

 
And the drivers station here:

 
 
More info here:
http://www.ointres.se/projekt_sep.htm

Here you have your suggested layout, in a high and low capacity variant. 

 
 
I find the high capacity variant the most logical, considering the fact that you have enormous space for fuel. Maybe even a ultra high capacity variant would make more sense, which would come out with something like 66 rounds. However, the ultra high capacity and maybe the high capacity version depending on hull width would need a frontal layout like the M1 series or fuel in the sponsons.
 
 
But since you are talking about using fuel as armor here is the estimated protection the fuel tanks would provide in a hull which is 1,8m wide on  the inside:
For the high capacity version: 32mm of RHAe at 0 degrees, 64mm at 60 degrees. 
For the high capacity version: 75mm of RHAe at 0 degrees, 150mm at 60 degrees. 
 
This is estimated with the claim that a fuel tank is 1/7 as effective as RHS, which supposedly comes from the designer of the Merkava series. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. 
 
 
If we take the Leopard 2A4 are a basis here,  the estimated protection on each side of the ammunition rack would be:
 
For the high capacity version:
At 0 degrees: 13+40+32= 85mm of RHAe.
At 60 degrees: 23+80+64= 167mm of RHAe.
 
For the low capacity version:
At 0 degrees: 13+40+75= 128mm of RHAe.
At 60 degrees: 23+80+150= 253mm of RHAe.
 
This does not however take into consideration the spacing or the armor the roadwheels would provide. Or a steeper angle for that matter.
 
 
And with this layout, would it be possible to quickly reload the ammo rack by lower the rack though the roof with a crane? Like a quick reload method. 

I am not sure if this should be posted in the software section or here. So I chose this section since I found it the most relevant. 
 
But on point: Collecting data. 
 
AFV designs are based on data right? These are usually battle reports, which some times may be misleading, but has helped shape AFV design. 
 
For example:
*The frontal 30 degree section of a tank will take 50% of the hits. Thereby, lets up armor the front 30 degree to resist the threat the vehicle is designated to stop, which in the case of a MBT, is AT-rounds.
*The turret is going to be hit the most. That's why we are going to armor it the most. 
*The UFP and the Lower section of the turret is hit the most, therefor let's have them as the most armored parts. 
 
So I was wondering, does developers of games like Steel Beasts collect information on the areas the AFV has been hit, the range the shot was fired from, and the type of ammunition used?
This information could be given/sold to AFV developers for them to further enhance their designs. 
 
The data could be separated into two groups:
Military.
Civilian.
 
 
The military group would be data from actual AFV crews training in a simulator, while the Civilian group would be data collected to anyone playing the game outside training, where skill, proper training, or seriousness may lack. A example here is how WT players will often pick the KV-2 for shits and giggles simply because it has a giant cannon, disregarding how useful this actually is. 
 
Further, the two groups could be separated by country, as well as if they are conscripts or not. 
 
To increase the variety of data, the civilian version at least could include a "deathmatch mode" and the usual game modes where battles are often and intense. 
 
 
A more experimental way could also be used. Using neural networks, we could have a AI evolving to adept perfectly to the opposition. This could be done via Steel Beasts. You simply load up a scenario, and hook either one AI to all of the AFVs or even one AI for each crewmember.  After several "evolutions" the AIs would have figured out the perfect way to take out the enemy opposition.   This would also be a excellent way of finding bugs in the game, since neural networks will use any advantage they can. 
 
Hook this up with a AFV building program, with limiters of course, the neural network could also develop the perfect design to counter the threat. Repeat this over several, if not all scenarios and it could come up with a lot of interesting designs. 
 
But note, I am not saying we should let a neural network design a AFV all by itself, it should rather serve as a guideline or a reference for what AFV designers can improve.
 
Here is a example of neural networks:

 
 
Mvh
Xoon

I am not sure if this should be posted in the software section or here. So I chose this section since I found it the most relevant. 
 
But on point: Collecting data. 
 
AFV designs are based on data right? These are usually battle reports, which some times may be misleading, but has helped shape AFV design. 
 
For example:
*The frontal 30 degree section of a tank will take 50% of the hits. Thereby, lets up armor the front 30 degree to resist the threat the vehicle is designated to stop, which in the case of a MBT, is AT-rounds.
*The turret is going to be hit the most. That's why we are going to armor it the most. 
*The UFP and the Lower section of the turret is hit the most, therefor let's have them as the most armored parts. 
 
So I was wondering, does developers of games like Steel Beasts collect information on the areas the AFV has been hit, the range the shot was fired from, and the type of ammunition used?
This information could be given/sold to AFV developers for them to further enhance their designs. 
 
The data could be separated into two groups:
Military.
Civilian.
 
 
The military group would be data from actual AFV crews training in a simulator, while the Civilian group would be data collected to anyone playing the game outside training, where skill, proper training, or seriousness may lack. A example here is how WT players will often pick the KV-2 for shits and giggles simply because it has a giant cannon, disregarding how useful this actually is. 
 
Further, the two groups could be separated by country, as well as if they are conscripts or not. 
 
To increase the variety of data, the civilian version at least could include a "deathmatch mode" and the usual game modes where battles are often and intense. 
 
 
A more experimental way could also be used. Using neural networks, we could have a AI evolving to adept perfectly to the opposition. This could be done via Steel Beasts. You simply load up a scenario, and hook either one AI to all of the AFVs or even one AI for each crewmember.  After several "evolutions" the AIs would have figured out the perfect way to take out the enemy opposition.   This would also be a excellent way of finding bugs in the game, since neural networks will use any advantage they can. 
 
Hook this up with a AFV building program, with limiters of course, the neural network could also develop the perfect design to counter the threat. Repeat this over several, if not all scenarios and it could come up with a lot of interesting designs. 
 
But note, I am not saying we should let a neural network design a AFV all by itself, it should rather serve as a guideline or a reference for what AFV designers can improve.
 
Here is a example of neural networks:

 
 
Mvh
Xoon

Design a Volks/folke AFV.
 
 
Main focuses:
It has to be cheap, VERY cheap, as cheap as possible. This includes maintenance costs.
It has to provide better or equal capabilities to Infantry Mobility Vehicles.
Has to be able to be mass produced.
Man power is readily available, use it. 
It has to be able to operate in Arctic climates, which means -50 degrees and a lot of snow and frost. 
It has to be able to operate off road, so it can't be a Ferrari with a Minigun.
 
 
Infrastructure and cost restrictions:
It has to be easy to use, requiring minimal training. 
Has to be very reliable and require minimal maintenance. 
It can't use guided munition or FCS. 
Everything has to be off-shelf, no fancy weapons. 
You have to use infantry based weaponry. No AMOS mortar systems or MBT guns. Exception: Mothballed or dirt cheap equipment with tons of ammunition available. 
Max weight: 12 ton
 
Dimension restrictions:
Max width: 3,1m
Max height: 3,6m
Max length: 5,5m
 
 
Hardcore restrictions:
Has to have some anti-tank capability.
Can't use mothballed or dirt cheap non infantry weaponry. 
Has to be based on a existing vehicle.
 
Max length: 5m
Max width: 2,5m
Max weight: 8 ton.
 
 
 
This competition was inspired by my countries Homeguard. It uses 3% of the total defense budget, and still has 45 000 (to be reduced to 32 000 in 2017) combat ready soldiers at a 7 hour notice, it also defends all of the country.  Much cheaper compared to the Army with it's measly 4000 soldiers.
 
This causes everything in the Homeguard to only use the cheapest and most cost effective of equipment. This caused the army to scrap 100 Iveco LMVs instead of giving them to the Homeguard. Simply because they are too expensive to operate. 
 
So instead we got this thing, recently donated from the Special forces:

 
We still use this thing. The MB G-wagon. And it still works, even though it is outrun by a tank and they are literally falling apart.
But the amazing thing about these is that they function as:
 
IMVs
Cargo transport.
Command post.
Command vehicle.
Forward observing vehicle.
Mortar carrier.
Ambulance. 
Tank destroyer.
Engineering vehicle. 
 
 
And this Multi III seen above, can mount a 12,7mm BMG or a 84mm Carl Gustav RFK and a MG-3 or a Minimi. It can also be modified to carry a mortar.

Design a Volks/folke AFV.
 
 
Main focuses:
It has to be cheap, VERY cheap, as cheap as possible. This includes maintenance costs.
It has to provide better or equal capabilities to Infantry Mobility Vehicles.
Has to be able to be mass produced.
Man power is readily available, use it. 
It has to be able to operate in Arctic climates, which means -50 degrees and a lot of snow and frost. 
It has to be able to operate off road, so it can't be a Ferrari with a Minigun.
 
 
Infrastructure and cost restrictions:
It has to be easy to use, requiring minimal training. 
Has to be very reliable and require minimal maintenance. 
It can't use guided munition or FCS. 
Everything has to be off-shelf, no fancy weapons. 
You have to use infantry based weaponry. No AMOS mortar systems or MBT guns. Exception: Mothballed or dirt cheap equipment with tons of ammunition available. 
Max weight: 12 ton
 
Dimension restrictions:
Max width: 3,1m
Max height: 3,6m
Max length: 5,5m
 
 
Hardcore restrictions:
Has to have some anti-tank capability.
Can't use mothballed or dirt cheap non infantry weaponry. 
Has to be based on a existing vehicle.
 
Max length: 5m
Max width: 2,5m
Max weight: 8 ton.
 
 
 
This competition was inspired by my countries Homeguard. It uses 3% of the total defense budget, and still has 45 000 (to be reduced to 32 000 in 2017) combat ready soldiers at a 7 hour notice, it also defends all of the country.  Much cheaper compared to the Army with it's measly 4000 soldiers.
 
This causes everything in the Homeguard to only use the cheapest and most cost effective of equipment. This caused the army to scrap 100 Iveco LMVs instead of giving them to the Homeguard. Simply because they are too expensive to operate. 
 
So instead we got this thing, recently donated from the Special forces:

 
We still use this thing. The MB G-wagon. And it still works, even though it is outrun by a tank and they are literally falling apart.
But the amazing thing about these is that they function as:
 
IMVs
Cargo transport.
Command post.
Command vehicle.
Forward observing vehicle.
Mortar carrier.
Ambulance. 
Tank destroyer.
Engineering vehicle. 
 
 
And this Multi III seen above, can mount a 12,7mm BMG or a 84mm Carl Gustav RFK and a MG-3 or a Minimi. It can also be modified to carry a mortar.

Design a Volks/folke AFV.
 
 
Main focuses:
It has to be cheap, VERY cheap, as cheap as possible. This includes maintenance costs.
It has to provide better or equal capabilities to Infantry Mobility Vehicles.
Has to be able to be mass produced.
Man power is readily available, use it. 
It has to be able to operate in Arctic climates, which means -50 degrees and a lot of snow and frost. 
It has to be able to operate off road, so it can't be a Ferrari with a Minigun.
 
 
Infrastructure and cost restrictions:
It has to be easy to use, requiring minimal training. 
Has to be very reliable and require minimal maintenance. 
It can't use guided munition or FCS. 
Everything has to be off-shelf, no fancy weapons. 
You have to use infantry based weaponry. No AMOS mortar systems or MBT guns. Exception: Mothballed or dirt cheap equipment with tons of ammunition available. 
Max weight: 12 ton
 
Dimension restrictions:
Max width: 3,1m
Max height: 3,6m
Max length: 5,5m
 
 
Hardcore restrictions:
Has to have some anti-tank capability.
Can't use mothballed or dirt cheap non infantry weaponry. 
Has to be based on a existing vehicle.
 
Max length: 5m
Max width: 2,5m
Max weight: 8 ton.
 
 
 
This competition was inspired by my countries Homeguard. It uses 3% of the total defense budget, and still has 45 000 (to be reduced to 32 000 in 2017) combat ready soldiers at a 7 hour notice, it also defends all of the country.  Much cheaper compared to the Army with it's measly 4000 soldiers.
 
This causes everything in the Homeguard to only use the cheapest and most cost effective of equipment. This caused the army to scrap 100 Iveco LMVs instead of giving them to the Homeguard. Simply because they are too expensive to operate. 
 
So instead we got this thing, recently donated from the Special forces:

 
We still use this thing. The MB G-wagon. And it still works, even though it is outrun by a tank and they are literally falling apart.
But the amazing thing about these is that they function as:
 
IMVs
Cargo transport.
Command post.
Command vehicle.
Forward observing vehicle.
Mortar carrier.
Ambulance. 
Tank destroyer.
Engineering vehicle. 
 
 
And this Multi III seen above, can mount a 12,7mm BMG or a 84mm Carl Gustav RFK and a MG-3 or a Minimi. It can also be modified to carry a mortar.

Actually, I am pretty sure the reason why wheeled APCs can sport better belly protection is because of their drivetrain.  Since a 8x8 requires a driveshaft going to each wheel, this makes the vehicle taller. In a tracked vehicle the tank only requires the two sprockets.  
 
Just a example:

 
 
And since it is relatively thin it makes it easy to have a V-shaped belly on wheeled APCs. 
Notice how the suspension elements are at the bottom of the belly:

 
A tracked vehicle which is completely flat on the bottom however would just get higher and higher, the more of an angle you add to the belly armor and the thicker you made it.
 
 
 
 
For comparison here is the SEP-W and SEP-T:

Nice article Collimatrix! I learned quite a bit. 
 
And considering this: "The transmission and final drives are not perfectly efficient either, and waste a significant amount of the power flowing through them as heat.  As a result of this, the actual power available at the sprocket is typically between 61% and 74% of the engine's quoted gross power.".
 
Does this mean that a hybrid electric system is more efficient? 
The efficiency of a normal electric engine is more than 90%, same for a generator, frequency modulator and transformer. The loss from resistance in the cable should be close to zero, considering the length. 
I may not be a engineer (yet), but from my understanding, making a hybrid-electric propulsion system would be simpler and easier than a current day tank transmissions. But when it comes to cooling i have no idea how that would turn out in a tank, since most electric engines are self-cooled. Or how any mayor component would act for that matter inside a tank, I am more used to the industrial standard equipment. 
 
I could draw up something for you, but the steering system would be quite basic, considering I have no expertise in that field. 
 
Oh and, from what I remember, the CV9030C2 is actually 35-36 ton, and it uses rubberband tracks, so a 40 ton vehicle might be able to use rubberband tracks in the future. 
 
 
Mvh
Xoon.

Nice article Collimatrix! I learned quite a bit. 
 
And considering this: "The transmission and final drives are not perfectly efficient either, and waste a significant amount of the power flowing through them as heat.  As a result of this, the actual power available at the sprocket is typically between 61% and 74% of the engine's quoted gross power.".
 
Does this mean that a hybrid electric system is more efficient? 
The efficiency of a normal electric engine is more than 90%, same for a generator, frequency modulator and transformer. The loss from resistance in the cable should be close to zero, considering the length. 
I may not be a engineer (yet), but from my understanding, making a hybrid-electric propulsion system would be simpler and easier than a current day tank transmissions. But when it comes to cooling i have no idea how that would turn out in a tank, since most electric engines are self-cooled. Or how any mayor component would act for that matter inside a tank, I am more used to the industrial standard equipment. 
 
I could draw up something for you, but the steering system would be quite basic, considering I have no expertise in that field. 
 
Oh and, from what I remember, the CV9030C2 is actually 35-36 ton, and it uses rubberband tracks, so a 40 ton vehicle might be able to use rubberband tracks in the future. 
 
 
Mvh
Xoon.

They aren't needed if the road wheels are big enough; plenty of T-55s, M109s and M113s out there.  Per Ogorkiewicz the full diameter road wheel with no return roller configuration has the lowest rolling resistance.
 
But for best suspension performance on rough terrain the suspension needs a lot of travel distance.  Road wheels that are big enough to not need return rollers are already rather tall, and giving them adequate space to travel up and down enough to damp out the bumps from high-speed off-road travel will make the hull taller.

I am not sure if you folks noticed:


 
We got two images of the new gun and it shell. It's a 130mm L51 tank gun.
From the looks of it, the new shell is roughly 1200mm high.
 
What concerned me is the size of the shell. It rules out the carousel autoloader in any future western tank with this gun and a unmanned turret, unless you want a tank that makes the T-14 look short. I also wonder if they have the extend the ammunition rack for the old vehicles to make it fit.
 
If this is already posted or something like that, feel free to notify me and delete the post.
 
 
Mvh
Xoon.

I am not sure if you folks noticed:


 
We got two images of the new gun and it shell. It's a 130mm L51 tank gun.
From the looks of it, the new shell is roughly 1200mm high.
 
What concerned me is the size of the shell. It rules out the carousel autoloader in any future western tank with this gun and a unmanned turret, unless you want a tank that makes the T-14 look short. I also wonder if they have the extend the ammunition rack for the old vehicles to make it fit.
 
If this is already posted or something like that, feel free to notify me and delete the post.
 
 
Mvh
Xoon.

I am not sure if you folks noticed:


 
We got two images of the new gun and it shell. It's a 130mm L51 tank gun.
From the looks of it, the new shell is roughly 1200mm high.
 
What concerned me is the size of the shell. It rules out the carousel autoloader in any future western tank with this gun and a unmanned turret, unless you want a tank that makes the T-14 look short. I also wonder if they have the extend the ammunition rack for the old vehicles to make it fit.
 
If this is already posted or something like that, feel free to notify me and delete the post.
 
 
Mvh
Xoon.

I am not sure if you folks noticed:


 
We got two images of the new gun and it shell. It's a 130mm L51 tank gun.
From the looks of it, the new shell is roughly 1200mm high.
 
What concerned me is the size of the shell. It rules out the carousel autoloader in any future western tank with this gun and a unmanned turret, unless you want a tank that makes the T-14 look short. I also wonder if they have the extend the ammunition rack for the old vehicles to make it fit.
 
If this is already posted or something like that, feel free to notify me and delete the post.
 
 
Mvh
Xoon.

No. It;s not ETC.
 

We have this thread - "Tank layout" topic in Mechanized Warfare subforum.

Now with full sideskirts and ERA: