Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 9/3/2018 at 7:21 AM, Zadlo said:

 

What about aluminium, Doron and enamel?

And what about using bolts to make spaced armor?

 

Aluminum is available and can be worked in numerous ways, feel free to make an aluminum hulled tank.

As far as enamels and doron go (I initially assumed that was a misspelling of boron before looking it up), nylon and other synthetics from the late 40s are available. I also don't see a problem with using bolts to get standoff for armor plates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we've got an arms race, my tank has been showly shifting more and more towards Not An M41.  Going to improve the suspension.  Gave it a meaner gun and a better shaped turret, but made sure to keep all the comfort.  Turret's gotten pretty fat, may be able to trim some off the back half still.

 

hVEK54p.png

Spoiler

 

fNPfb5E.png

MjquySQ.png

RrK9qfJ.png

UuvIN2X.png

 

On second thought, it's entirely possible that I've also just got the turret itself at too large of a scale

 

Edited by ApplesauceBandit
beautified bustle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seriously thinking about entering a 35 tonne tank named after the Ampulicidae...

 

Update:

I remembered that the 8cm PAW 600 (and 10cm PAW 1000) existed. I was originally thinking about the 90mm GIAT F1 as well. Hrmmm. Choices, choices, choices...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here is what we have so far:

o6i2bZR.jpg

The suspension is supposed to get replaced at some point (with external torsion bars), and the rear hull needs reworking.

Plans to make the hull lower, shorter and thinner failed: I ended up using up all the freed space by putting in those crazy modular armour compartments and ended up haing to make the whole thing longer and taller to fit the driver's vision devices in (the poor bastard still has to enter/exit via the turret or the bottom escape hatch) once I'd lengthened the turret. The turret is currently missing the mantlet and coax.

 

The gun is a smooth-bore 120mm/L35 piece which is limited (for now) to firing modified mortar shells at lower velocities (~600 m/s) ala the 8cm PAW 600. The HEAT shell should be able to do ~240mm of penetration even with crappy WW2-era HEAT designs thanks to the lack of spin. The turret actually has 4 crew members crammed into it - one to act as a dedicated rangefinder operator. I have no idea what the elevation/depression on the gun is, but I plan to mess with the turret until it's -10/+30. The gun is massively overbuilt for what it's currently doing, and should be capable of slinging proper HEAT-FS and APFSDS whenever that comes online. The casing for the shell is about 850mm long, so there's lot's of room to play with.

 

The weight without anything in the armour compartments is about 25t, with all the suspension/transmission components rated for 45t. The armour compartments are designed to cover up to the rear of the turret ring in a 45' arc and attacks directly to the side of the crew compartment. The base armour is pretty much nothing (20mm, 500mm air gap and 10mm front plate) but will keep HMGs and early HEAT rockets out. When fully loaded up with modern NERA, however, this thing should be able to keep modern HEAT weapons and previous-gen APFSDS at bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current status of my light tank design, 7.6 tons total;

 

kM4ZnIZ.png

 

Will definitely gain a few more tons from addition of engine, rest of suspension, tracks, etc., but definitely should meet 15 ton target. Armor is 85mm LoS on the upper glacis, and 110mm LoS on the turret front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XM16 "Jewel Wasp"

zn0xtk1.jpg

Length: 6.8m (hull), 10.0m (total)

Width: 3.25m

Height: 3.05m

Weight: 27t (minimum combat weight), 45t (maximum combat weight)

Crew: 5 (commander, gunner, assistant gunner, loader, driver)

 

Armour:

  • 20mm RHA + 350mm gap +10mm RHA @ 45' (upper hull front)
  • 50mm RHA @ 45' (lower hull front)
  • 20mm RHA+ 500mm gap +10mm RHA (hull side forward)
  • 10mm RHA (hull side rear)
  • 10mm RHA (hull rear)
  • 20mm RHA (hull roof)
  • 15mm RHA (hull floor)
  • 20mm RHA + 500mm gap +10mm RHA (turret front)
  • 20mm RHA + 500mm gap +10mm RHA (turret side forward)
  • 20mm RHA (turret side rear)
  • 20mm RHA (turret rear)
  • 350mm RHA (mantlet)
  • 20mm RHA (turret roof)

GIRXRpo.jpg

Weapons:

  • 120mm L/35 cannon:

               - HEAT: 14kg, 600m/s, ~240mm RHA penetration (90’)

               - HE: 16 kg, 600m/s

               - Vertical movement: -8/+15 degrees

  • Browning M2 heavy machine gun (turret roof)
  • Browning M2 heavy machine gun (coaxial)

 

Engine: 29L 650 HP (485 kW) V12 turbocharged petrol engine (Continental AV1790 derivative)

Power/weight: 10.8-19.4 kW/t tonne

Max speed (road): 50km/h

Max sustained speed (offroad): 30km/h

Range: 200km

BdYqbaa.jpg

Description:

 

Stay tuned

DTC0QH9.jpg

Share this post


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

@Toxn, maybe lose the sponsons? Also, can you fit an AVDS1790? It looks like your tank could use the horsepower.

 

She already has an AV1790 derivative inside, I'm just being conservative with the power output given the era. She's got a better power/weight than a M48 (which she is very dimensionally close to) in any case.

 

The sponsons are essentially air (the hull is actually very slim inside all that padding), so I'm not too worried on that front.

 

Edit: except for the turret. That thing really got chubby and took the tank's overall dimensions with it.

 

tpvWqIm.jpg

This is the current XM16 hull, just to give you an idea of the interior volume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since my XM16 design ended up ballooning dimensionally into something larger than my original XM8, I think I'm also going to roll some of the improvements backwards and see what they look like.

 

Edit:

This is a comparison of the existing XM8 and XM16 versus a T-55 and M48

JyyyBPL.jpg

nd0ZV34.jpg

As an aside: the driver of the XM-16 is basically sitting on the hull floor to shave a few cm off the height.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the reworked XM8, in the light configuration:

gzFLtuB.jpg

The hull optimisation allowed the weight to stay the same even with slightly thicker turret armour and the extra 10mm of side armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Toxn said:

Here is the reworked XM8, in the light configuration:

gzFLtuB.jpg

Just to make sure I'm seeing this right- the commander and gunner sit abreast on either side of the breech, and the loader is behind them, and each has his own hatch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Just to make sure I'm seeing this right- the commander and gunner sit abreast on either side of the breech, and the loader is behind them, and each has his own hatch?

Yup, although some of the hatches are a bit offset from the positions (gunner's is a bit behind, for instance).

 

I refined the placement at some point with seated person models to make sure that there was space for everyone.

 

Anything amiss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, N-L-M said:

No problems, just a moderately unusual arrangement.

One @Collimatrix and I were discussing as possible for heavy tanks a few days ago, with 2 loaders.

Huh, I would have thought that it would be more common. What's the standard layout?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually you have the gunner down in front on one side, commander slightly higher and behind him, loader on opposite side.

t-54k+radio.jpg

T-54 turret, with gunner front left, commander rear left, loader right.

Loader usually goes on left, where he can ram rounds into the breech with his dominant (right) arm.

The turret interior opposite the gunner is usually full of ready racks, electronics or hydraulics, all reachable to the loader for operation. The loader needs a lot of room to work, more so than the gunner or commander. In a large turret, particularly with 2 loaders, the joint space behind the gun makes a lot of sense to me, with the gunner and commander in front of the breechface out of the way. This does however require a large turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Usually you have the gunner down in front on one side, commander slightly higher and behind him, loader on opposite side.

t-54k+radio.jpg

T-54 turret, with gunner front left, commander rear left, loader right.

Loader usually goes on left, where he can ram rounds into the breech with his dominant (right) arm.

The turret interior opposite the gunner is usually full of ready racks, electronics or hydraulics, all reachable to the loader for operation. The loader needs a lot of room to work, more so than the gunner or commander. In a large turret, particularly with 2 loaders, the joint space behind the gun makes a lot of sense to me, with the gunner and commander in front of the breechface out of the way. This does however require a large turret.

Thanks for the explanation - I know a lot about tanks but tend to slip into the bad habit of viewing the crew members in fairly abstract terms. I'm also a leftie, so the loader's placement isn't intuitive to me.

 

My logic in this case was to give the loader space to work in the bustle (most of which is empty), as the (large) commander's hatch needs a side to itself to fit on the turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I'm also a leftie

Same here. There's just so much equipment designed to be operated by right-handers that I've learned to adapt. But you have to account for the "man" in the man-machine interface, as he's an inseparable component of the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Same here. There's just so much equipment designed to be operated by right-handers that I've learned to adapt. But you have to account for the "man" in the man-machine interface, as he's an inseparable component of the system.

The designers of the Hetzer disagree :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

And it was, objectively, not very good.

Coincidence? I think not.

 

BuT TEh HetZ iS dUH BeST ToNk eVAR!!!!! 

 

REEEEEEEEE!!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

28 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

And it was, objectively, not very good.

Coincidence? I think not.

Hey, there's more than enough interior volume to fit four people in there. People are essentially fluid, right?

 

More seriously: I do pay attention to crew placement and orientation, but sometimes don't think as much as I should about task-related movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I suggest watching Nick Moran climb in and around vehicles, gives a nice sense of proportion and movements required by various duties.

 

On this note, one of the least discussed or appreciated aspect of armored vehicles is how you get on and off of them. They're really tall, and usually have very poor footholds and handholds.

The worst offender I have ever experienced was a Centurion BARV. Climbing up on to that thing seemed positively unsafe. And jumping off tanks regularly isn't good for your knees. The Soviet tanks are relatively easy to climb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, N-L-M said:

Fair enough. I suggest watching Nick Moran climb in and around vehicles, gives a nice sense of proportion and movements required by various duties.

 

On this note, one of the least discussed or appreciated aspect of armored vehicles is how you get on and off of them. They're really tall, and usually have very poor footholds and handholds.

The worst offender I have ever experienced was a Centurion BARV. Climbing up on to that thing seemed positively unsafe. And jumping off tanks regularly isn't good for your knees. The Soviet tanks are relatively easy to climb.

I watch most of his videos. Still failed to notice the crew layouts, though, so I guess I'm a slow learner.

I suspect sitting in a turret gets you to appreciate the ergonomic issues very quickly.

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 Sturgeon
      The year is [year]. You are a [thing] designer working in/for [country/nation state/corporation]. The [things] of the rival [country/nation state/corporation] have recently *gotten meaningfully better in some specific way* and/or *the geopolitical and/or industry circumstances have significantly changed*. You have been tasked with designing a [thing] to meet the needs of this new and changing world!
       
      If that made you laugh, maybe you've participated in a design competition before, here or on another forum. I've been a contestant or judge five or six design competitions by this point, and I'd like to highlight a mistake I've seen people make often that I think could hurt your chances. And that is, designing something for the wrong time period, specifically designing something that is too early for the period in which the competition takes place.
       
      Quick: When you think about US rifles in World War II, what comes to mind? A lot if you would answer with the M1 Garand, I'd bet. If I went on another forum and started a "Design a Rifle: USA 1944" thread, I bet I'd get a lot of entries that took their cues from the M1 Garand - but the M1 wasn't designed in 1944, it was designed in the late 1920s. In attempting to "fit in" to the time period of the competition, they would have in fact submitted a design that is 15 years too late! The an appropriately dated entry would be something like a T25 Lightweight Rifle, which is associated mostly with the late Forties and early Fifties, but whose design began in the mid 1940s. Using the M1 Garand as a model for your 1944 design would result in something like a slightly refined Garand with a box magazine slapped on, putting you well behind the curve!
       

       
      The T25 was what 1940s designers thought the rifle of the future would look like. Keen SHitters will notice the joke about the M14 in the above paragraph.
       
      Tanks and other vehicles are the same way. The M48 is associated with the Vietnam era, but its development began in 1953. The Space Shuttle is associated closely with the 1980s, but design work on it began in the late 1960s, before the first man ever set foot on the Moon. The MiG-15 is associated with the Korean War, but Soviet jet fighter designers at that time were already putting pencils to paper on what would become the MiG-21.
       
      It's tempting to create a design that looks like it would fit right in to the battles we know and associate with whatever time period a competition covers. Yet, the real-world designers fighting those battles from their drafting tables were already imagining the next thing, and even what would come after that, in turn. Design competitions are just for fun, but in some ways they are also practice for the real thing, so don't get stuck in the past!
       
       
    • By Sturgeon
      The idea for a design competition predates SH itself, actually going all the way back to the 2011-2012 timeframe on the World of Tanks North American Forum. Before the Exodus of 2014, there were several tank design competitions, two of which I entered. Earlier today, I found my entries to those competitions saved in various forms on my computer, and I thought I would post them here for people to reference moving forward.

      Entered in: Design a Tank - 1938 Germany
       
      The Early History of the Mittlerer Panzer Greif
       

       
      In 1936, as Heinz Guderian was writing Achtung – Panzer!, he was solicited by the Heereswaffenamt Wa Prüf 6 to create a specification for light, medium, heavy, and super-heavy tanks, as part of Germany's ongoing re-armament. The tanks then in development, the Panzer III and IV, were seen as adequate for future needs, but the purpose of Wa Prüf 6's solicitation was to gain a greater understanding of upcoming panzer technologies and tactics.

      Guderian's submission eliminated the heavy and super-heavy categories entirely, in favor of fast light and medium tanks requiring large engines and excellent suspensions. Wa Prüf 6 immediately began design studies on panzers to fill these needs, while still allocating some effort towards a heavy breakthrough tank design.
      Early panzer designs focused on improving the existing Panzer III, but a special division of Wa Prüf 6, the Spekulativpanzerabteilung, was tasked with pushing the limits of what was possible. One design, the Mittlerer Panzer K, was selected for further study.
       
      The original MPK design used a forged armor steel hull welded together into an elliptical shape, which the Spekulativpanzerabteilung determined would give the best internal volume to weight ratio, providing the best protection, but still maintaining the high power-to-weight ratio specified by Guderian's white paper. Armor at the front was 30mm thick, sloped at around 45 degrees, for the hull. The turret was a simple welded design, mounting the latest 5cm L/60 high velocity cannon, while the suspension was torsion bar similar to the Panzer III, but with more roadwheel travel. Sighting was with stadia reticles, and the tank was powered by a 300 horsepower Maybach HL 120TR, which gave 15 hp/tonne to the 20 tonne tank.
       
      As Spekulativpanzerabteilung improved the design, it morphed beyond recognition. To improve the cross-country performance, the suspension was changed to an early form of hydropneumatic suspension, with more roadwheeltravel, mounted in units bolted to the side of the hull. A tank's mobility, SPA reasoned, was greatly affected by its ability to stay in repair, and thus the modular suspension was developed. Due to marginal increases in weight, the engine was modified to mount a supercharger, increasing the engine power to about 400 horsepower. A mockup was built, but a prototype was never completed.
       
      In early 1938, Germany intercepted Russian plans to build a tank in the 100 tonne range, with upwards of 100mm of armor. A requirement was set to build, as quickly as possible, a panzer that could counter such a behemoth. SPA's medium panzer design suddenly went from a low-priority technical study, to a full procurement program. No guns in the German arsenal could reliably penetrate 100mm of armor at combat ranges without special ammunition, so immediately a new gun was sought. Eventually, it was decided that a Czechoslovakian artillery piece, the 8cm Kanon 37, would form the basis of the new medium tank's armament. Production was licensed from Skoda immediately, and it entered service as a towed anti tank gun in June of 1938 as the 7.65cm Kanone 38. The Kanone 38 differed from the K37 by firing the same projectiles as the 7.5cm KwK 37, which had been adopted a year earlier for German AFVs, but at nearly three times the velocity (900 m/s). 
       
      Fitting this monster cannon to the MPK required a total redesign. The ambitious elliptical hull was kept, but everything else changed. The turret ring swelled to a (then-enormous) 175cm, and accommodated an advanced turret, mounting a reduced-weight variant of the 7.65cm PaK 38, the 7.65cm KwK 38 to sturdy forward-mounted trunnions, with low-profile recoil recuperators. The turret was a semi-elliptical tetrahedron shape, constructed from welded forgings, with dual stabilized, stereoscopic rangefinders for both the commander and gunner, something seen only on battleships at that time. The commander's cupola sported 360-degree panoramic periscopes with a Leiteinrichtung - or slaving device, to slew the turret onto new targets. Armor on the new turret consisted of eighty millimeters of frontal armor on the mantlet, with fifty millimeters all around protection. The hull armor's slope was increased to 60 degrees, and thickened to fifty millimeters to cope with the new generation of guns. The weight of the tank ballooned to 34 tonnes, and the suspension was completely redesigned as a new compound hydropneumatic/Horstmann design, called Schwebesystem, which utilized 60cm wide tracks. The old 400 horsepower turbocharged Maybach was not deemed sufficient to power this new tank, and so the suspension was lengthened by a roadwheel to accommodate the new Jumo 250 engine, a two-stroke turbocharged diesel, which produced 650 horsepower. Transmitting this power to the roadwheels was a brand new compact Merritt-Brown-derived transmission, with an automatic planetary gearbox, which allowed the tank to steer in place, as well as travel in reverse at 30 km/h. Upon an early prototype demonstrating this ability, Guderian exclaimed "sie bauen es!" - "build it!"
       
      The first prototypes of the newly renamed Mittlerer Panzer Greif rolled off the line in January of 1939. These new panzers were the last to be produced by Germany by the old method of batch production, and as a result, each was slightly different than the next. Full rate production would begin once testing was concluded in August of 1939, at the brand new WPW plant in Obendorf.
       
      Specifications, Mit.PzKpfw. V Greif Ausf. A:
       

       
      Dimensions
      Weight: 34 t
      Length: 6.95 m
      Width: 3.00 m
      Height: 2.85 m
      Armament
      Main armament: 7.65 cm KwK 38
      Caliber length (KwK): 55
      Tube length (KwK): 4.053 m
      Tube life: 500 shot
      Secondary armament: 1 × MG 34
      Cannon ammunition: 45 
      MG ammunition: 2700
      Armor
      Upper Hull: 50 mm / 60 °
      Lower Hull: 30 mm / 45 °
      Rear Hull: 25 mm / 90 °
      Hull Roof: 20 mm
      Hull Floor: 20 mm
      Turret Mantlet: 80 mm / 90 °
      Turret Front: 50 mm / 90 °
      Rear Turret: 50 mm / 75 °
      Turret Roof: 20 mm
      Mobility
      Engine: Jumo 250 six-cylinder turbocharged opposed two-stroke diesel, 650 hp
      Displacement: 16.63 L
      Gears (F / R): 7/5
      Power to weight ratio: 19.2 hp / t
      Top speed: 55 km / h
      Fuel storage: 720 l
      Reach: 525 km (road), 350 km (off road)
      Track width: 65 cm
       
      Leichter Panzer IV


       
      (The writeup for this one appears to have vanished into the aether, but I do recall that it was armed with a short 7.5cm gun and an autocannon!)
       
      Entered in: Design a Tank - NATO 1949
       
      NATO Medium Tank
       
      Concept: License-produceable medium tank "kit"
      By 1949, it had become clear that not only were tensions between the Warsaw Pact and NATO going to escalate, but that Soviet-aligned countries were actively readying for a full-scale conventional conflict. Because of this, the then-new civilian Operations Research Office was tasked with development of new weapons to be proliferated throughout - and, if possible license produced by - NATO member nations. The Armored Vehicles Team of the initiative, which was dubbed Project FOUNDRY, contained a scant seven members who began brainstorming ideas for a cheap, easy to produce, and eminently maintainable NATO-wide tank.
       
      Such a tank, it was reasoned, would not need to necessarily be the standard and only fighting vehicle of all NATO forces, but would allow less industrially capable NATO nations to defend themselves independently, as well as member nations who so chose to fast-track development of their own customized versions of the basic vehicle, without need for multiple lengthy, independent, and redundant tank development programs.
       
      While many concepts were explored, the one that gained the most traction was for a generously roomy welded chassis, with standardized turret ring dimensions, so that turrets and hulls could be exchanged at the depot level. Running contrary to current Army thinking, which emphasized small hulls with advanced, efficient transmission layouts, the concept had a large hull rear, supporting space inefficient, but widely available automotive components.
       
      As the AVT refined the design, they worked closely with British and American automotive engineers to try and create a design that could easily be adapted for the different automotive components then available, and projected. The design was intended from the outset to contain at least the British Meteor engine, and the Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission used in the Centurion. Because of this, the tank could not be made very much smaller than the Centurion, but this was deemed acceptable.
       
      The hull design received the most attention initially, and design of the turret and armament initially languished. The AVT had to solve, satisfactorily, the problem of producing specialized fighting vehicle components - the gun, turret, and sighting systems - in a variety of nations. Eventually, it was decided that the facilities in more developed countries, such as the US, Britain, France, and Germany, that could produce armed turrets and rings for all users, to be shipped abroad and mated to locally produced hulls.
       
      One further problem facing the AVT was ensuring the transportability of the new tanks by the various trucks, ships, and railcars that were in use at the time by member nations. The solution was to limit the weight of the new tank to 40 tonnes, enabling it to be transported by the majority of surplus wartime infrastructure.
       
      The resulting hull design was highly convergent with, but distinct from the British Centurion tank. The armor plates were to be rolled, heat-treated, and cut to shape by industrially capable member nations with the industrial capacity, and then shipped along with automatic welding equipment, if needed, to member nations for assembly. Each welded part assembled together using dovetails - like a cardboard model - to improve the strength of the welds, allowing for somewhat expedited welding practices. The turret ring race and other senstitive contact areas were finished before the plates shipped. When assembled, the hull used a series of mounting rails for engine and transmission, which approximated very nearly the modern "powerpack" concept, albeit in a much less space-efficient form. The driver's position was accommodating, with appreciable space as well as adjustable controls and seating, and power-assisted steering levers and shifter.
       
      Armor on the hull consisted of a two three-inch plates joined at a 60 and 45 degree from the normal, attached to side plates two inches thick set at an angle of twelve degrees, like the Centurion. Top and bottom armor plates were one inch thick, while the rear armor plate was 1.5" thick. Like the Centurion, there was provision for .25" thick standoff plates mounted to the side of the hull, encasing the suspension.
       
      The hull was to be furnished with automotive components in-situ, so there was no standard engine or transmission. However, most studies were done with either the British Meteor engine and Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission of the Centurion, or the AV-1790 engine with CD-850 transmission of the T40 experimental US medium tank. Special mention, however, should be made of the design study of the tank using a Ford GAA engine and syncromesh transmission from an M4A3 Medium, intended as a backup configuration in the event that a member nation could not obtain more modern engines and transmissions. In this configuration, the mobility of the tank would be significantly decreased.
       
      Suspension was provided via a series of mounting points to which suspension elements could be attached. The "default" suspension configuration was for an individually sprung Horstmann derivative, but the design accomodated both single and bogied forms, as well as internal and external torsion bar, Bellevile washer, and volute spring methods of suspension. Track pitch, width, and design were likewise left up to member nations, but most early scale models used standard US 6" pitch 24" wide T81 tracks.
       
      Ancillary components, such as stowage boxes, lights, fuel tanks, and other minor details, were to be produced by the receiving nations, with stamping equipment and technical know-how distributed as needed. 
       
      With all of the allowed variation, AVT realized it would need to publish an "engineering guide" to the new tank design, by early 1950 somewhat uncreatively christened the "NATO Medium Tank". This was accomplished with the first trials of automotive pilots, and "AN ENGINEERING GUIDE TO THE NATO MEDIUM TANK" was published by ORO on July 21st, 1950, and distributed to member nations. As the document only detailed the dimensional and production aspects of the tank, it was not considered a security risk, as member nations couldn't possibly leak any sensitive information from it that they did not already possess.
       
      By 1950, the first mild steel turret mockups had been created, giving two of the automotive pilots a "proper" look, even though they were no more combat capable than before. The turrets were cast in a single piece, and fitted with a 90mm high-and-low velocity gun based on the British 20 pdr but utilizing experience gained from the American 90mm series of cannons. It was determined that for member nations, the most common type of shot available would be solid APC shot. Because of this, a high velocity conventional AP round would be needed to deal with anticipated Soviet vehicles. The resulting round fired essentially the same T33 AP shot as the 90mm M3 gun, but at a much higher velocity of 3,200 ft/s. Testing revealed the round could penetrate a 100mm RHA plate at 60 degrees from normal 80% of the time at 500m. This was considered, initially, sufficient to defeat the anticipated armor of Soviet medium and heavy tanks.
      In order to allow more fragile, and thus higher capacity HE and utility (smoke) shells, ammunition was also developed for the gun that used a foam-lined, reduced volume case loaded with a smaller charge. This high explosive round produced 2,100 feet per second with its unique 22 pound shell, loaded with 2.6 pounds of Composition B high explosive. The technical data packages for these two types of ammunition were widely disseminated to member states, for their local production.
       
      The new 90mm gun was also compatible with any projectiles for the older M3 series of cannons, including HEAT and HVAP. Further, it was expected that the cannon would serve as the basis for a new 100-120mm gun, designed to fire a new generation of HEAT and APFSDS projectiles.
       
      Also included with the armament were three unity periscopes for each crewman, a single-plane stabilization system for the main gun, and a gunner/commander cowitnessing system. The turret had two ready racks of five rounds a piece, with additional ammunition stowage planned to be in the floor of the vehicle, and adjacent to the driver.
       
      The turret was cast with 3.5-3.6" all around armor, improving to six inches at the front. A large, wide mantlet/gun shield of 6" thick was provided, partially to help balance the gun in its cradle. The turret ring was 74".
      NBC protection was available through a "kit" modification that was distributed to member nations upon request.
       
      Specifications, NATO Medium Tank:
       

       
      Crew: 4
      Dimensions
      Weight: 39.4 t
      Length (Hull): 7.2 m
      Width: 3.4 m
      Height: 3.05 m (without roof MG)
      Armament
      Main armament: 90mm T104E3/M56
      Caliber length: 62
      Tube length: 5.60 m
      Tube life: 500 shot
      Secondary armament: 1 × M1919, M60, MAG, MG3, etc GPMG
      Cannon ammunition: 65
      MG ammunition: 3200
      Elevation: +25/-12
      Penetration with T53 Shot, 10.9 kg at 976 m/s:
      100 m: 22.2 cm
      500 m: 20.0 cm
      1000 m: 17.9 cm
      2000 m: 14.3 cm
      Armor
      Upper Hull: 76.2 mm / 30 °
      Lower Hull: 76.2 mm / 45 °
      Rear Hull: 38.1 mm / 90 °
      Hull Roof: 25.4 mm
      Hull Floor: 25.4 mm
      Turret Mantlet: 152.4 mm / 90 °
      Turret Front: 152.4 mm / 90 °
      Rear Turret: 90 mm / 90 °
      Turret Roof: 50.8 mm
      Mobility
      Engine: Depends on variant, often AV-1790 w/ CD-850 transmission or Meteor with Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission. Variant with Ford GAA and syncromesh transmission also trialled.
      Displacement: Depends on variant
      Gears (F / R): Depends on variant
      Power to weight ratio: Depends on variant
      Top speed: Depends on variant
      Suspension: Depends on variant
      Fuel storage: Depends on variant
      Range: Depends on variant
      Track width: Depends on variant
       
       
    • By Alzoc
      Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
      I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
       
      Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
       
      Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
       
      The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
       
      Akatsiya :
       

       
      T-72:
       


       
      A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
       

       
      Stryker:
       

       
      Jackal:
       

       
      HMMWV:
       

       
      Cougar 4x4:
       

       
      LAV:
       

    • By Jamby
      Sooooo...after doing a site-wide search and perusing Google, I'm surprised not to have found anything about tank suspension, other than a somewhat doubtful thread on the WoT forums. Would my learned colleagues of SH be able to assist me in understanding and identifying the different types of tank suspension? I think I've got leaf-spring more or less mastered, as well as both VVSS and HVSS (thanks, JGT!) but was somewhat embarrassed not to be able to differentiate between the suspension of a Type 97 Chi-Ha and an FV4201 Chieftain.
       
      UPDATE: I think I understand tank suspension better now. Thanks, everyone!
×