Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, VPZ said:

Two types of interceptors for APS?

 

 

It sure does seem like it could be related to the APS, but it isn't. It's part of the vision block. Notice how there are 2 identical vision blocks placed at the front and sides of the vehicle, but nothing to cover the sides. The lower circle shows what is supposed to give vision for the sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

It sure does seem like it could be related to the APS, but it isn't. It's part of the vision block. Notice how there are 2 identical vision blocks placed at the front and sides of the vehicle, but nothing to cover the sides. The lower circle shows what is supposed to give vision for the sides.

 

It's APS, in the video this thing launches interceptor to destroy RPG (2:30)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post from here: https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5197154648992459577#editor/target=post;postID=3802146867857306860;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=postname

 

On 11/02/2019 Jane's posted a video from IAV (International Armored Vehicles), showing an interview given by Shmulik Olanski, Head of Innovation Programs Center, Land and Naval division.

 

In the interview, Olanski talks a lot about Rafael's evolving future armored vehicle suite intended to provide mission support to the two crewmembers, also known in Israel as the Carmel.

In the Carmel project, three teams, or three companies, were pitted against each other in a $100m competition between Rafael, IAI, and Elbit, to design a cockpit for the next generation AFV of the IDF.

 

 

 

One of the key aspects of the cockpit are the ability of the crew to observe their surroundings almost seamlessly and thus prevent casualties from small arms fire when crewmembers stick their heads out of the vehicle.

 

I remind that the concepts are as following:

 

Elbit - IronVision helmet mounted system.

Rafael - Panoramic wide screen setup.

IAI - Combination of wide screens and a helmet.

 

IAI has still not presented its concept in a visual way, nor has publicly revealed any details about it, other than it being a combination of Elbit's and Rafael's concepts.

 

Elbit's concept was also revealed a while ago:

 

 

 

Elbit has also presented a prototype at roughly when Rafael only began working on their solution, but that won't seem to be an issue, except for one thing:

Elbit's solution has already been picked for the Merkava 4 Barack MBT, Eitan IFV, and presumably also the Namer AFV.

 

This may create some bias within the IDF for Elbit's system for the Carmel, however the Carmel is supposed to be a clean sheet design, and the competition is only supposed to examine various concepts, not the end product's performance.

 

It is also in my belief that Elbit's control of the BMS market will not affect the competition.

 

The purpose of this post is to provide a brief summary of the pros and cons of each of the presented solutions.

 

Rafael

Pros

  • Crewmen can point to the other crewman on the screen, and be sure they are observing the same thing. Especially useful in ambush scenarios, or in recon duties when the BMS is not yet fed with the target data or cannot pick up the target.
  • Easy data input via touching the screens.
  • More intuitive for a larger crew - a 3rd human crewman may be added for special missions.
  • More rugged.
  • Can possibly display other critical mission data when external cameras are offline.
  • May be used to interface with other systems in the tank during the mission, when cameras are online.
  • Stimulates team-work.

Cons

  • Coverage is limited to the location of the screens, requires movement of the independent panoramic sights to observe high elevation targets, which may take up some of the visual space for the other crewman.
  • Either analog and thus inferior movement of the independent sights or complex eye tracking technology.

Elbit

Pros

  • More intuitive for the single crewman, seeing everything right in front of his eyes.
  • Easier to operate the independent (TC or gunner's) sights.
  • Possibly less complex technology to move the independent sights (inertial navigation vs eye tracking).
  • May interface with different sights without interfering with the work of the other crewman.
  • Higher coverage.

Cons

  • Harder to communicate with the other crewmen over shared objectives.
  • Stimulates solo operation.
  • Less rugged.
  • If external cameras go offline, the vehicle's backup interface and systems may be more difficult to operate.
  • Difficult data input, may require separate computer or only allow commander to do so via less intuitive methods.

 

Those were just the pros and cons I could think of in the total span of maybe 5 minutes. 


 

Carmel

Now onto examining the video itself:

Screenshot_1.png

 

Here we can see one of the points I was talking about earlier. The man on the left points for the guy on the right, allowing easy interaction between the two crewmembers who can easily be distracted by vast amounts of incoming data.

Touching the screen also allows the crewmembers to easily lay new data for each other and on the BMS. For example selecting a target and classifying it as hostile/non-hostile.

 

Screenshot_2.png

 

The Carmel in this video, seems to be more clearly defined as a tankette, rather than an IFV, which on the concept level seems to replace the MBT altogether, or rather add a brand new vehicle which is yet unknown how it will fit in existing formations.

It could be an organic addition to infantry or recon battalions, but no doctrine has been developed for such a vehicle. Even in the Russian army where they have at least once considered purchasing BMPT vehicles as tank escorts, there is no solid doctrine proposal.

 

Screenshot_3.png

 

Same old Trophy system with no changes may indicate that no serious work has yet been done to integrate Iron Fist's launchers onto the Trophy system, even though the IDF required it for the Barack MBT.

Or it could just be a matter of editing choice, choosing to focus on the situational awareness technologies rather than unrelated APS development.

 

Screenshot_4.png

 

Another image here shows that Rafael chose to use 2 independent cameras, one for each crew member, which may be a result of the requirement to allow every crewmember to assume the role of the other in case the other is incapable of fulfilling his mission (injury/death). 

But what's more interesting is that Rafael proposed using 2 RCWS as well. 

 

The merits of such a proposal are disputable, but if two separate sights are already required, then adding an RCWS is considered an inexpensive upgrade, and could make engagement of targets more comfortable for the crew, knowing each one can control an MG at any given time for self defense in tight areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

It's APS, in the video this thing launches interceptor to destroy RPG (2:30)

It's just poor animation, that's all. If you look carefully, you can see that it's identical in shape to the sights located at the front of the turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Adraste said:

The ATK 50mm gun as shown in the Griffin demonstrator would be a more promising fit for the Carmel even if it means slightly lenghting the turret to accomodate the bigger ammos. The Carmel deserves a next-gen gun.

As far as we know, the plans on switching to a larger caliber gun remain in place. 

I have estimated, and still believe, that there will be an exceptionally high level of cooperation between Israel and the US in the Kaliya and OMFV programs, due to the high degree of similarity between the two projects.

In the previous video, posted by the Israeli MoD about a year ago, they showed a larger caliber gun, although it seems they were still ambiguous about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This 'Carmel' future armored vehicle project seems to me more and more a worderful compact 'turtle', with amazing situational awareness (the Rafael solution is largely the best concept I've ever seen), great firepower (even better with the ATK 50 Supershot), mobility and probably also great protection, passive (a so compact 36 ton AFV could be over Stanag 6 level) and active, with its APS. 

 

I think it could be a perfect platform for ISR and strike missions, in the role of forward echelon / covering force of the heavy armored brigades. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VPZ said:

Are they going to install tank cannon on Carmel? Because, after all, army will need a replacement for Merkava.

The Kaliya program, which birthed the Eitan in 2014 before separating from it, is supposed to create a whole family of vehicles, but they don't necessarily have to be the vehicle you see in this video. It may definitely include an MBT as well.

The Carmel is a feasibility test, and anywhere between early 2020 and late 2027, the IDF should bunch up all the technologies they want for this program, and decide how to design the next family, or families, of vehicles. 

A tank to replace the Merkava 4 Barack will eventually be made. Whether it's going to be some form of evolution of the existing concept of Merkava tanks or a design that is radically different, is not yet known. Only that it will exist, and that it will incorporate Kaliya technologies.

 

What you're seeing in this video is basically just a Wiesel-tier vehicle with all the latest and greatest situational awareness gadgets. This is a vehicle type for which the IDF does not have a doctrine, and likely does not plan to develop one for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

What you're seeing in this video is basically just a Wiesel-tier vehicle with all the latest and greatest situational awareness gadgets. This is a vehicle type for which the IDF does not have a doctrine, and likely does not plan to develop one for.

 

That vehicle looks a lot larger and higher than 5 tons and 2 meters and packs a lot more firepower. Seems more something along the Russian Terminator line of CONOPs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aroud 3:42-3:43 when they replace 3d model of that vehicle to 3d model of Boxer - one can somewhat compare those two.
jTNUp03.jpg
To me it looks like that thing was about 20 feet long and 6 feet 3 - 6 feet 7 high by hull's roof excluding turret, and (as seen on 3:36) rather wide,
FXOh3Vn.jpg
- overall, hull allmost as big (mere feet-and-a-half shorter) as that of the Bradley.
It looks smaller in earlier part of the video, when it materializes around 2 soldiers - but than it shoul have gun barrel length of like 5 or 6 feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following news should warm the hearts of every IDF armor's enthusiasts:

 

According to the latest bulletin of the DSGA Agency, the US has approved Namer engine sale to Israel, 270 "APC-MT883" without transmission for $238 million. 

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/israel-namer-armored-personnel-carrier-apc-mt883-power-packs-less-transmissions

 

If the DSCA is correct (and I bet they are) , that would mean the Namer will benefit from the same powerpack as the Merkava MK4. The smaller and more powerful MTU engine will allow the Namer to keep the pace with the Merkava mk4 and could possibly lengthen the crew compartment to allow more available seats for the dismounted infantrymen from 9 to 10-12?

 

PS: Jane's is also reporting the news

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Adraste said:

The following news should warm the hearts of every IDF armor's enthusiasts:

 

According to the latest bulletin of the DSGA Agency, the US has approved Namer engine sale to Israel, 270 "APC-MT883" without transmission for $238 million. 

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/israel-namer-armored-personnel-carrier-apc-mt883-power-packs-less-transmissions

 

If the DSCA is correct (and I bet they are) , that would mean the Namer will benefit from the same powerpack as the Merkava MK4. The smaller and more powerful MTU engine will allow the Namer to keep the pace with the Merkava mk4 and could possibly lengthen the crew compartment to allow more available seats for the dismounted infantrymen from 9 to 10-12?

 

PS: Jane's is also reporting the news

 

 

Transmissions are probably produced in Israel (at least, it was so in the past).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, VPZ said:

It has to be 30-35 tons, like modern light tanks.

 

I'd think it's probably closer to 20-25 tons, it looks like it has a pretty elevated V-hull, which makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind folks that the MT883 engine is what allowed the IDF to finally get the Merkava's frontal hull armor from piss poor on the Mark 3 to rock solid in the Mark 4.

The Namer already got armor as thick as that of the Merkava 4's at the front, but could further be enhanced.

 

I am inclined to believe, however, that the AVDS engines are no longer supported, or just improlerly supported. 

A 9-man squad is already achieved in the Namer, and the troop compartment is relatively very spacious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MRose said:

 

I'd think it's probably closer to 20-25 tons, it looks like it has a pretty elevated V-hull, which makes a lot of sense.

 

The chassis in the video is not what will really be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

A 9-man squad is already achieved in the Namer, and the troop compartment is relatively very spacious.

"relatively"
It's much narrower, compared to what could be expected given Namer's width when measured by tracks -
partly because of those antimine seats and because of whatever is located behind them on this pic:
7mSdfaJ.jpg 
MKhRGoQ.jpg

in the end soldiers seat in wery tight knee-to-knee configuration, although on those two pics its partly because of backpacks they wearing.
YBlz9wU.jpg
vAKbycj.jpg
VlN8DGF.jpg

different seats + not wearing backpacks inside = much more spacious, look at this Bradley photo:
QEYHcNH.jpg
or T-15 Armata, to that matter:
5LEc49E.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, VPZ said:
14 hours ago, MRose said:

 

I'd think it's probably closer to 20-25 tons, it looks like it has a pretty elevated V-hull, which makes a lot of sense.

 

The chassis in the video is not what will really be.

 

You don't think the two independent RCWS are significant? From where I'm sitting it looks like the IDF wants something along the lines of the Terminator's ability to fight in an urban and mountainous environment for the Carmel program. Why else the focus on suppressing multiple targets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MRose said:

 

You don't think the two independent RCWS are significant? From where I'm sitting it looks like the IDF wants something along the lines of the Terminator's ability to fight in an urban and mountainous environment for the Carmel program. Why else the focus on suppressing multiple targets?

 

A was talking about chassis. But this vehicle concept is quite strange (for now). Maybe it will be a light/medium tank (to replace Merkava).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VPZ said:
3 hours ago, MRose said:

 

You don't think the two independent RCWS are significant? From where I'm sitting it looks like the IDF wants something along the lines of the Terminator's ability to fight in an urban and mountainous environment for the Carmel program. Why else the focus on suppressing multiple targets?

 

A was talking about chassis. But this vehicle concept is quite strange (for now). Maybe it will be a light/medium tank (to replace Merkava).

 

The whole more guns than crew hasn't struck you as a little odd?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MRose said:

 

You don't think the two independent RCWS are significant? From where I'm sitting it looks like the IDF wants something along the lines of the Terminator's ability to fight in an urban and mountainous environment for the Carmel program. Why else the focus on suppressing multiple targets?

I personally think that they added 2 RCWS simply because they already want 2 independent sights (current AFVs only have 1 at best), so attaching an RCWS with is really cheap and simple. This way both crewmembers get a sight of their own, and the ability to engage targets independently of who uses the main gun.

 

It can also be used to emulate the concept of Bright Arrow without burdening the interceptors/launchers themselves with the added weight of an RCWS.

Bright Arrow is basically a derivative of the Iron Fist LC in which an MG is attached to each launcher, and fires a burst immediately after the launcher fires. This way, in short range engagements it has a very high chance of eliminating the personnel who fires at the vehicle. At the cost, of course, of traverse speed of the launcher and thus increasing its reaction time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Mighty_Zuk
      I realized we don't have a topic for a proper discussion of what future AFVs should look like, in the style of a general AFVs discussion rather than country-specific threads.
       
      I spotted a revived potential need for future MBTs - a coaxial autocannon to replace the coaxial MG. The reason? An APS neutralizer. 
      Here's my short post on why I think it should happen:
       
      I didn't add it there, but I see lasers as a potential alternative. However, I don't think they're viable because of the power required to properly neutralize an APS's components, especially if these components are dispersed, or worse yet, effectively camouflaged. An autocannon will be able to disable not only the APS but other external components all at once. 
      Similar to the engagement method showcased by Russia where they fired 2 Kornet missiles (almost) simultaneously to defeat an APS, a hypothetical mode of operation could include firing a burst of 2 KETF shells at a target prior to firing a main gun shell.
       
      An additional alternative could be to use a single main gun ABM shell that would initiate outside the scope of the APS's engagement range (e.g engagement range is 30m so it initiates at 50m), but it would have 2 main issues that are a longer time to kill a target and a greater consumption of ammunition (up to a 3rd of ammo would have to be allocated to ABM munitions strictly for anti-armor operations).
    • By 2805662
      The following is derived from various wanderings, discussions, & tyre kicking, and covers an opinion on the forthcoming Land 400 Phase 3 Request for Tender, and is as per June 2018.
       
      General: Phase 2 will significantly shape participation in Phase 3. Costs for the two bidders that weren’t short listed for the Risk Mitigation Activity (GDLS & Elbit Systems) ran into the tens of millions of dollars. Costs for the losing BAE bid could rightly be assessed as double that. Combined with Rheinmetall’s Phase 2-driven “perceived incumbency”, nobody wants to waste money to be a stalking horse on the Commonwealth’s behalf. There is a plausible risk that only Rheinmetall will bid.
       
      Reorganisation of infantry sections: When Land 400 was conceived, Australian infantry sections consisted of two fire teams of four. This drove the initial “eight dismounts” requirement that has subsequently been relaxed. Now comprising three fire times of three, one of those teams will be the vehicle crew, the other two will dismount, for a total of six dismounts. Recent operational experience has highlighted the need for temporary attachment of specialist personnel, so a platform that has some spare seating could still count for it. 
       
      GFE Turrets: One possible tactic that the Commonwealth may seek to use is that of mandating that the Lance Turret, as used on the Phase 2 Boxer CRV, be used as Government Furnished Equipment (that is, purchased from Rheinmetall and provided to suitably configured hulls by competitors). This would simplify the turret training and offer spares commonality across both phases. Perceived savings for “buying in bulk” were (apparently) unable to be realised as Rheinmetall was reluctant to discount its turret. Costs aside, if an offerer has a GFE turret, who owns the systems integration risk? Who does the customer turn to solve potential issues between the turret and the hull when they, the customer, has mandated that particular turret? Commercially, this is a high risk proposition. 
       
      Unmanned turrets: Only GDLS offered an unmanned/remote turret for Phase 2, the Kongsberg MCT-30, as has been adopted in small numbers (81) by the US Army to meet an immediate operational need. A bias against unmanned turrets is unlikely to manifest itself in Phase 3 due to the likely presence of the PSM Puma IFV. Of course, that’ll likely to open the door to GDLS bidding the ASCOD fitted with Elbit’s optionally manned/unmanned MT-30 turret....should they decide to bid at all. 
       
      Likely bidders: This brings us to the inevitable list of potential bidders and their platforms. 
       
      BAE: Unlikely to bid. If they win SEA 5000, that may get them off the bench, as would a requirements set that looks a lot like CV90. In the event that they do bid, the CV90 Mk4 is the most likely platform. 
       
      GDLS: More likely to bid than BAE, but still waiting to see what the RFT looks like. (Tellingly?) Their ASCODs at Eurosatory we’re painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australian disruptive pattern.
       
      Rheinmetall: likely to offer the Lynx and maybe also the Puma. With the reorganisation of Australian infantry sections (see above) the eight dismounts of the KF41 version of the Lynx are less relevant. Still, the modularity of the KF41 demonstrated at Eurosatory 18 definitely left an impression.  
       
      PSM: As a JV between KMW & Rheinmetall, Puma may be offered separately (unlikely if the Boxer =\= ARTEC in Australia model is followed). In the event that it is offered separately, its high unit cost, without the associated modularity of Boxer, may be a disadvantage. Also, PSM has no experience with industrial partnerships in Australia: a significant disadvantage. 
       
      Hanwha Defense Systems: Korea has been a bit “off” Australian defence opportunities, largely due to the cack-handed way in which the cancellation of the K-9/AS-9 was handled in 2012. The AS-9 was viewed as a loss-leader, primarily as Australia has a reputation of being a discerning (aka difficult) customer. If Hanwha bids their K21, it’ll be interesting to watch. 
       
      Whilst no means exhaustive, the above outlines some less-obvious factors currently at play for the 450-vehicle opportunity that is Land 400 Phase 3.
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)
       
      The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.
       
      Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.
       
      The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.
       
      The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).
       
      California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

      The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;


      (near the Californian border)


      The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.
       
      Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.


      (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)
       
      Requirements
       
      As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):
       
      Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds  
      Other relevant information:
      Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.  
       
       
       
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


×