Tank Layout

[Serge]

It depends on what you want to achieve but the rule is the following : when heavy load must be carried, use track drive train. 

It more compact by a 1/3.

 

Considering just the weight, if you want to put Leclerc MBT on wheels, you will have 6 more tons. Abrams or Leopard will be higher by 2t. I don’t want to think about Challenger 2 or Merkava Mk4.

And I don’t think about cross country capability. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

If you guys don't mind, I'd like to revive an old debate about which layout would be the best for the next generation of MBTs.

 

What I had in mind is an MBT that necessarily places its crew, inside a protected capsule, at the very rear of the vehicle.

What this gives them is a rear access door through which they can escape, rather than try to escape through the top hatches or a floor escape hatch. This, in order to both improve mine protection and allow more comfortable operation when the tank is stationed in a ready hull-down position.

What's left of this is to locate the powerpack and the turret. Since a forward placed turret may be problematic to handle in almost any type of terrain or combat area, it'd be best to put the engine at the front and the turret in the middle.

The batteries for the engine would be located all across a double V floor (between the two floors) to save space and keep the engine bay as small as possible.

 

@Xoon, you're the top authority on making neat sketches. What's your take on this?

[Bronezhilet]

Orrrr.... you could ask one of the engineers here to make it for you.

 

But I don't have Solidworks on this PC, so I can't.

[Andrei_bt]

https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/229131.html

http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_komponovka.htm

 

http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1991_komponovka.htm

 

 

http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1981_05.htm

 

http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt88us.htm

[Andrei_bt]

 

 

 

225 -

[Andrei_bt]

Object 450 and US future tank -

 

 

 

 

https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/369343.html

 

 

[Domus Acipenseris]

https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3837.html

 

This 1991 RAND Corporation study goes into some detail on tank layouts.

[Collimatrix]

13 hours ago, Domus Acipenseris said:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3837.html

 

This 1991 RAND Corporation study goes into some detail on tank layouts.

 

Interesting that they were still recommending liquid propellant guns in the 1990s.

[Serge]

It stopped only with the Crusader. 

[Collimatrix]

On 1/28/2018 at 9:43 AM, Serge said:

It stopped only with the Crusader. 

 

Liquid propellant for Crusader was only in the very initial stages of development.  The liquid propellant gun was dropped by 1996.

[Serge]

Yes. 

[Steelninja333]

Whilst not exactly concerning tanks, do 20mm autocannons need a coax MG in your opinion, a lot of cold war APC/IFV seem not to have one, like the HS.30, Schutzenpanzer 61/73,  the US 20mm M113 prototypes and then there are the swedish APC´s.

[Mighty_Zuk]

3 hours ago, Toimisto said:

Whilst not exactly concerning tanks, do 20mm autocannons need a coax MG in your opinion, a lot of cold war APC/IFV seem not to have one, like the HS.30, Schutzenpanzer 61/73,  the US 20mm M113 prototypes and then there are the swedish APC´s.

coax MGs are always good as a backup rangefinder. In some cases I believe it would be best to use a smaller armament like HMG/MMG rather than a cannon. 

Though considering footage I've seen of 30mm HE rounds, it doesn't seem like 25mm or let alone 20mm rounds are that much lethal. How much filler could there possibly be?

[Xoon]

Has this layout ever been considered?

 

Instead of placing the engines in the sponsons, we could place the electric motors in the sponsons, and in this way have a rear sprocket drive while also having a front mounted engine, or wherever you want.

(Gearbox is a reduction gear).

 

Also, has a industrial robot arm like autoloader ever been considered? 
It would be quite flexible and be able to use normal racks like a loader.
And do we have a place for discussing autoloader designs?

[Mighty_Zuk]

I believe this is the most suitable place to debate autoloader designs. I personally believe it should be as minimalistic as possible.  What I envision is a tank powered by a hybrid engine, with the bulk of the powerpack sitting at the front-middle, crew capsule in the middle-rear, a rear access hatch, and an unmanned turret being completely overhead, positioned in a way that protects the crew from top attack munitions. For a turret to be designed this way, it will need a very compact autoloader.

[Xoon]

19 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I believe this is the most suitable place to debate autoloader designs. I personally believe it should be as minimalistic as possible.  What I envision is a tank powered by a hybrid engine, with the bulk of the powerpack sitting at the front-middle, crew capsule in the middle-rear, a rear access hatch, and an unmanned turret being completely overhead, positioned in a way that protects the crew from top attack munitions. For a turret to be designed this way, it will need a very compact autoloader.

Do you know any autoloader that would fit in the turret and house 42 120x570mm NATO shells? 

Or preferably 130mm.

 

Because I am having a hard time designing an autoloader that accomplishes this.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Not 42. Meggitt designed one with 34 rounds, which seems to be as optimal a use of available space as it can get. A 44 round system requires a turret basket.

On second thought, the design I proposed would culminate in a very short tank, and a very high center of mass, so it would probably be a good idea to stay with a turret basket.

[Xoon]

32 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Not 42. Meggitt designed one with 34 rounds, which seems to be as optimal a use of available space as it can get. A 44 round system requires a turret basket.

On second thought, the design I proposed would culminate in a very short tank, and a very high center of mass, so it would probably be a good idea to stay with a turret basket.

This autoloader? 

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Xoon said:

This autoloader? 

Yep. You could extend such a design to accommodate a couple more rounds, but it's made for the Abrams turret, which is already pretty wide.

[Lord_James]

On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 5:52 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

For a turret to be designed this way, it will need a very compact autoloader.

 

Why not have a bustle loader like the Leclerc or T-84 Yatagan? Would allow for a roof mounted turret and a long bustle over the crew capsule. 

 

 

Also, first post from a ~2 month lurker. Hey Xoon, Alzoc, Ramlaen and Zuk  

[Mighty_Zuk]

7 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

Why not have a bustle loader like the Leclerc or T-84 Yatagan? Would allow for a roof mounted turret and a long bustle over the crew capsule. 

 

 

Also, first post from a ~2 month lurker. Hey Xoon, Alzoc, Ramlaen and Zuk  

The QuickDraw autoloader that Xoon showed here is supposed to be in the bustle.

 

And hello there James. Nice to see you migrated.

[Alzoc]

26 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

Why not have a bustle loader like the Leclerc or T-84 Yatagan? Would allow for a roof mounted turret and a long bustle over the crew capsule. 

 

 

Also, first post from a ~2 month lurker. Hey Xoon, Alzoc, Ramlaen and Zuk  

 

Nice to see you as well.

I also saw that even Tovarish is starting to think about joining as well

[Lord_James]

2 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The QuickDraw autoloader that Xoon showed here is supposed to be in the bustle.

 

And hello there James. Nice to see you migrated.

 

The problem I see with that loader is the shells are stored in reverse, which would require another assembly to flip the shell over, which would reduce the load time. Though, the gears in my head are spinning, and I wonder if something like a hybrid of that Meggitt loader (turned so the shells face forward) and an oscillating turret could happen; would have a great RoF while still retaining the 34 round rack [see AMX-50 Surbaisse autoloader]. 

 

 

PS. I also adhere to the design philosophy of the front mounted engine and rear crew compartment, which (managed properly) can provide additional crew survivability, IMO the most important part of a tank. 

[Belesarius]

2 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

Why not have a bustle loader like the Leclerc or T-84 Yatagan? Would allow for a roof mounted turret and a long bustle over the crew capsule. 

 

 

Also, first post from a ~2 month lurker. Hey Xoon, Alzoc, Ramlaen and Zuk  

Welcome to SH!

 

[Lord_James]

On 10/28/2016 at 6:36 PM, Xoon said:

So while I was tinkering with the engine compartment layout I came up with these three layouts inspired by Soviet design:

 

Layout 1:

 

This layout has the advantage of being the shortest of the three. This is because the rounds lie along the length of the engine on each side.  The total ammunition count here was about 36 rounds when using the 120x570mm NATO shell, with the entire engine compartment being 1,8m wide and about 1m tall. One potential I see with this design is that it could possibly be retrofitted on a Leopard 2. By shrinking the fuel tanks on each side of the engine, and isolating the ammunition and modifying the engine deck, this should be possible.  This layout also works with the 130mm without being any longer, at the cost of even smaller fuel tanks in the engine compartment. 

 

 

 

Layout 2 and 3:

 

 

Layout 1 here is just for almost for the fun of it. Put simply, it is longer than layout 1, but gives you a ludicrous ammunition capacity. You can fit about 72 shells of 120x570mm NATO ammunition in there! Any tanker that thinks that a tank with over 72 rounds of ammunition has to little ammunition deserves a slap.

 

Layout 2 here is a bit more realistic, sacrificing ammunition capacity for space for fuel and/or a APU or whatever you want to fit there. With identical length to layout 1 by the way. However, this layout still sports a pretty solid amount of ammunition, around 54 rounds in fact!

 

 

Of course, all of these layouts use isolated ammunition with blowout panels and a blast door, so in case of a penetration the crew will survive. Also, if I am not mistaken, tanks with all of their ammunition in the hull experienced less cook offs after penetration. And of course, this design allows for smaller turret, with either a 16 rounds ready rack bustle, a Leclerc style autoloader with 16 rounds, or the glories Soviet carousel autoloader. 

 

 

Any questions?

 

Couldn’t you (theoretically) place that extra ammo in a wet rack? I mean, if fuel could become an issue, why not just add that extra capacity by placing a fuel tank around the ammo? I’m not saying remove the blow out panels, but integrate the wet storage into the safe storage.