Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Tank Layout


Collimatrix

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

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.

cLKp6sT.png

My issue is the huge empty space on each side of the gun, shouldn't it be possible to fit two drums on each side?

 

Roughly this size:
aaSuj1N.jpg

 

 

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 the forum James!

 

Zuk here used the Meggit autoloader as a example because the Leclerc autoloader only fits around 16 rounds, might be 21, but still way to low. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

Nice to see you as well.

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

This forum is growing fast.

 

Nice to hear that Tovarish might be coming over.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

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. 

A oscillating turret are quite tall, or has to have less gun depression/elevation.

 

I think a cleft turret would be a better bet.

strv2000_data.jpg

 

 

 

The Swedish tested several turret layouts and found the cleft turret to be the best, here's a comparison of a conventional turret, a autoloaded conventional turret, and a cleft turret. 

strv2000-modeller.jpg

 

 

Of course the overhead turret will turn out taller than on the picture, but it cuts out over a meter of length from the oscillating part, giving it much better elevation.

 

 

Here is a view of how the turret looks while depressed, though probably exaggerated:
strv_2000_t140_40__max_depression__by_ar

 

 

15 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

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. 

Good point, I do not think that a fuel tank/ammo rack combination would be a problem with a blow out panel. Same with wet racks. Though, I am pretty sure you can't use fuel as the "wet" part in a wet rack.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19.1.2018 at 4:54 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

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?

Got a simple hull drawing here:
35W0fLf.png

 

Going to make the turret later, got to improve my skills with Solid Edge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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.

 

Nope, that's not FastDraw. Meggitt's horizontal autoloader is actually more akin to the XM91 that was supposed to be included in the CATTB. GDLS' FastDraw had two horizontal bustle carousels, each equipped with its own actuator (the RALS or Robotic AutoLoader System) in order to extract and align the round with the breech.

 

Just for reference, the vertical autoloader carousel in the TTB could handle 44 120mm rounds, whereas FastDraw could take 36 (2 cylinders containing 18 rounds each, with what looks like loading ports built in the turret sides). A hypothetical FMBT autoloader (see figure 5) could have 40 rounds in a conical vertical carousel, with 23 reserve rounds in a rear compartment (though IIRC that was a paper tank designed for some DARPA study and not an Abrams successor project meant to produce an actual vehicle).

9hGziXh.jpg

---
NmzWTyz.png

---
5bDNMnj.png

---

L84SERi.png

---
03yjBjv.png

 


FastDraw:

ITEYuO1.png

 

The XM91 (note: 140mm ammo, not 120mm):

S92dokW.png

 

Meggitt's autoloader:

6nL9x2B.jpg

 

PyRJrUL.jpg

 

Apologies for the wall-o'-pictures.

 

 

Also, Tovarish here? My god...that means...the memes are coming! *dons flak vest and jumps into a foxhole*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Xoon said:

 

A oscillating turret are quite tall, or has to have less gun depression/elevation.

 

I think a cleft turret would be a better bet.

strv2000_data.jpg

 

 

 

The Swedish tested several turret layouts and found the cleft turret to be the best, here's a comparison of a conventional turret, a autoloaded conventional turret, and a cleft turret. 

strv2000-modeller.jpg

 

Oh, (from what I understand) like the T92, Ob'yekt 490A Buntar, and Stryker M1128. My thoughts were to maximize RoF, as the cleft turret has to reset the gun to reload, though if it means this fantasy tank can have the Buntar's awesome looking turret, I'm all in. :) 

 

Quote

Though, I am pretty sure you can't use fuel as the "wet" part in a wet rack.

I didn't know what else to call it, other than a "fuel tank rack". 

 

 

On a separate note; troop carrying MBTs: 

 

BTMP-84 

BTMP-84

 

BMT-72 

Related image

 

Made by those krazy Kharkovites. Discuss. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1)The fact that a turret has to reset, in itself lowers the actual RoF (not theoretical one) as it takes time to actually reset and then lay the gun on target again, even if it doesn't require any gunner's input.

 

How much is resetting? 1 second? Then laying takes about 2-3 secs. Make it 4-5 if the whole thing is designed so that the gunner loses his sight over the target during the loading sequence.

 

2)Tovarish's memes were stale anyway.

 

3)BTMP concepts were interesting but impractical in any possible way. Too low troop capacity, exit only from top, slow dismounting, hatches can actually be blocked, and the thing cannot give the infantry any proper support at the dismount stage at least on the level a proper IFV could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

1)The fact that a turret has to reset, in itself lowers the actual RoF (not theoretical one) as it takes time to actually reset and then lay the gun on target again, even if it doesn't require any gunner's input.

 

How much is resetting? 1 second? Then laying takes about 2-3 secs. Make it 4-5 if the whole thing is designed so that the gunner loses his sight over the target during the loading sequence.

 

 

The gunner's primary sight on a modern tank isn't attached to the gun tube.  It's independent, stabilized, and stays on target regardless of what the gun is doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

Oh, (from what I understand) like the T92, Ob'yekt 490A Buntar, and Stryker M1128. My thoughts were to maximize RoF, as the cleft turret has to reset the gun to reload, though if it means this fantasy tank can have the Buntar's awesome looking turret, I'm all in. :) 

Like Zuk pointed out, the gun needs to be laid, which takes time. And I am also concerned about the barrel overheating. 

 

Though,  a ready rack drum could be used for 5-10 rounds.

 

8 hours ago, Lord_James said:

On a separate note; troop carrying MBTs: 

 

BTMP-84 

BTMP-84

 

BMT-72 

Related image

 

Made by those krazy Kharkovites. Discuss. 

Weird project by the Ukrainians, I find the Merkava more practical to be honest. 

 

1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

 

The gunner's primary sight on a modern tank isn't attached to the gun tube.  It's independent, stabilized, and stays on target regardless of what the gun is doing.

Isn't the LeClerc's gun mechanically linked to the gunners sight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Xoon said:

Isn't the Leclerc's gun mechanically linked to the gunners sight?

 

It is, and AFAIK it was done to eliminate any alignment issue with the gun.

The designers went to great length to have an extremely stable gun so why not link the gunner sight to it? (Should be stable as well right?)

 

The problem it cause is obviously the infamous gunner sight weakspot.

 

Nowadays electronics and informatics have come a long way (Remember that when the Leclerc came out, having a tank fully digitalized and not relying on analogical devices at all was kinda rare) so I doubt they would bother with all those mechanical parts if they had to remake it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Xoon said:

Isn't the LeClerc's gun mechanically linked to the gunners sight?

 

I don't believe so, not in the way you're thinking.

 

The way modern fire-on-the-move fire control works is that the gun and gunsight are independently stabilized.  It's fairly feasible to stabilize a little piece of glass or mirror inside a gunsight so that it stays pointed at the target regardless of whatever sort of bouncing or pitching the tank is doing.  It is not particularly feasible to keep the gun tube pointed at the target all the time, at least, not pointed at the target so precisely that it would actually score a hit if it were to be fired at any given moment.

 

The gun tube simply has too much inertia and moment of inertia to be stabilized that precisely.  It is, after all, a multi-ton tube of steel.  So what is happening is that the gun tube is sort of wandering around as the gun hydraulics strain to keep it stabilized.  It will eventually pass through a point where it is pointed right where it needs to be pointed in order to score a hit, but most of the time it is only floating nearby that point.

 

So what the fire control system does is it figures out a fire solution for whatever target the sight is looking at and has lased, and then waits for the gun tube to come into alignment with the sight.

 

The trick is making sure that the fire control system knows the spatial relationship between the gun tube and the gun sight.  That's why there's a muzzle reference system, but even with that in place the system needs frequent re-calibration.

 

So yes, the primary sight on the Leclerc has a linkage of some sort to the gun tube, causing an aggravating weak point on the right side of the turret, but I suspect that this is an engineering shortcut to help ensure that the fire control computer knows the spatial relationship between the gun tube and the gunsight.  I would be very surprised if the gunner's crosshairs actually budge when the Leclerc's gun elevates while reloading.  That would be stupid and archaic.

 

The one I'm not sure on is the Chally 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

 

The gunner's primary sight on a modern tank isn't attached to the gun tube.  It's independent, stabilized, and stays on target regardless of what the gun is doing.

True, it doesnt have to be slaved. That's an error on my part. Still, laying the gun itself even if youre already pointing on the target takes time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mighty_Zuk said:

True, it doesnt have to be slaved. That's an error on my part. Still, laying the gun itself even if youre already pointing on the target takes time.

 

Watch footage of a Leo 2 firing.  On most tanks, even those with manual loading, the gun automatically elevates for reloading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

The gun tube simply has too much inertia and moment of inertia to be stabilized that precisely.  It is, after all, a multi-ton tube of steel.  So what is happening is that the gun tube is sort of wandering around as the gun hydraulics strain to keep it stabilized.  It will eventually pass through a point where it is pointed right where it needs to be pointed in order to score a hit, but most of the time it is only floating nearby that point.

 

I remember reading that they payed a particular attention on mass balance around the trunnion for the Leclerc's gun, so that the strain on the electric drive of the gun would be as limited as possible.

Spoiler

 

 

Don't know the final performance level they reached, but Nexter/GIAT commonly marketed the Leclerc as the only tank with a true fire on the move capability (describing the M1, Leo 2 and Challenger 2 as tanks that have merely acquired this capacity at limited speed and only in the frontal arc).

 

When reading on the history of it's development one have the really distinct feeling that they went full retarted on having the best stabilization possible.

The initial aluminum tracks that had awful service life were chosen for their light weight but mostly because they generated less vibrations, for example.

 

Dunno if the M1, Challenger 2 and Leo 2 still use an hydraulic drive for their guns or if their most recent versions switched to electric.

 

1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

So yes, the primary sight on the Leclerc has a linkage of some sort to the gun tube, causing an aggravating weak point on the right side of the turret, but I suspect that this is an engineering shortcut to help ensure that the fire control computer knows the spatial relationship between the gun tube and the gunsight.  I would be very surprised if the gunner's crosshairs actually budge when the Leclerc's gun elevates while reloading.  That would be stupid and archaic.

 

A sort of mechanical arm that would measure the angular difference?

Well that's a question for a crewman for once. Does the gunner lose the target when the gun is reloading?

@Serge Aren't you the one who knows an ex Leclerc TC?

Or was it @Laviduce?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

...

Apologies for the wall-o'-pictures.

...

There is spoiler button in post editor (an eye icon).

 

10 hours ago, Lord_James said:

BTMP-84 

Spoiler

BTMP-84

 

BMT-72 

 

Spoiler

Related image

 

 

Made by those krazy Kharkovites. Discuss. 

   Throw away troops, put all ammo that are inside of the tank but not loaded to autoloader in that troop compartment, add blow out panels. If possible - add mechanical loader for an autoloader, Object 477 Boxer/Molot - style, so you can autload your autoloader while autoloading main gun.

 

   You also can put T-72-120 turret on top, so you will have 3 autoloaders in 1 tank

880459_900.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

I don't believe so, not in the way you're thinking.

 

The way modern fire-on-the-move fire control works is that the gun and gunsight are independently stabilized.  It's fairly feasible to stabilize a little piece of glass or mirror inside a gunsight so that it stays pointed at the target regardless of whatever sort of bouncing or pitching the tank is doing.  It is not particularly feasible to keep the gun tube pointed at the target all the time, at least, not pointed at the target so precisely that it would actually score a hit if it were to be fired at any given moment.

 

The gun tube simply has too much inertia and moment of inertia to be stabilized that precisely.  It is, after all, a multi-ton tube of steel.  So what is happening is that the gun tube is sort of wandering around as the gun hydraulics strain to keep it stabilized.  It will eventually pass through a point where it is pointed right where it needs to be pointed in order to score a hit, but most of the time it is only floating nearby that point.

 

So what the fire control system does is it figures out a fire solution for whatever target the sight is looking at and has lased, and then waits for the gun tube to come into alignment with the sight.

 

The trick is making sure that the fire control system knows the spatial relationship between the gun tube and the gun sight.  That's why there's a muzzle reference system, but even with that in place the system needs frequent re-calibration.

 

So yes, the primary sight on the Leclerc has a linkage of some sort to the gun tube, causing an aggravating weak point on the right side of the turret, but I suspect that this is an engineering shortcut to help ensure that the fire control computer knows the spatial relationship between the gun tube and the gunsight.  I would be very surprised if the gunner's crosshairs actually budge when the Leclerc's gun elevates while reloading.  That would be stupid and archaic.

 

The one I'm not sure on is the Chally 2.

Would a high speed puls counter connected to the trunnion be good enough? Or would the barrel flex too much?

 

 

Also, the frenchies made (almost) Zuk's wet dream:
0068Ayuagy1fc6cc044tej31kw16ou0z.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Watch footage of a Leo 2 firing.  On most tanks, even those with manual loading, the gun automatically elevates for reloading.

That compensates for the laying time by reducing the time it takes the loader to complete his sequence. With an added bonus of less strain on his back of course.

In tanks with autoloaders this isn't really an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the mass balance topic, here's a citation of a book I (and probably other French speaking members) own.

Even if you don't speak French it's quite a nice book to have with plenty of pictures (all those pictures of the various early EPC concept comes from here), though you have the impression that nobody ever proofread it (screw grammar and the orthograph^^).

 

P58:

 

Comme pour la fonction mobilité, une mécanique de haute technologie est requise pour la fonction feu. Celle-ci est entièrement conçue pour faire du tir en roulant le mode normal d'engagement des cibles.

La précision de la stabilisation est donc au cœur des performances du système. Stabiliser un objet dans l'espace (en l’occurrence la tourelle et son canon) est un défi technique qui requiert de la part de l'ingénieur en mécanique le respect des trois règles d'or:

 

-La recherche des équilibres ;

-Le contrôle des élasticités et des déformations dynamiques ;

-La chasse au jeu entre les pièces.

 

Ces équilibres sont obtenus par conception du canon de 120mm et de la tourelle dont les centres de gravité sont respectivement situés sur les axes de rotation site et gisement.

 

Canon et tourelle sont mis en mouvement à l'aide de moteurs électriques transmettant leur puissance à des boîtes mécaniques de pointage dont les élasticité sont contrôlées en permanence grâce à un montage utilisant des barres de torsion.

Enfin des roulements à billes sans jeu assistent le mouvement du canon dans l'axe vertical.

Sans ces technologies mécaniques particulières, la meilleure électronique du monde ne saurait conserver le canon en direction de la cible sans une débauche de puissance peu compatible avec les contraintes d'emport dans une tourelle.

 

Google trad doesn't make too bad of a job translating it but the main points are:

 

-The gun center of gravity lay on the level of the trunnion

-The turret center of gravity is on the axis of rotation of said turret

-The elasticity of the mechanical parts driving the gun and the turret are monitered in real time using torsion bars (don't know exactly how)

-Ball bearings with minimal backlash (and same apply for most moving parts) are used.

-No hydraulics, everything is electrically driven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

I remember reading that they payed a particular attention on mass balance around the trunnion for the Leclerc's gun, so that the strain on the electric drive of the gun would be as limited as possible.

Yes.

The Leclerc MBT barrel is very rearward compared the manualy loaded turret. This way, artillery is naturally balanced. 

 

Quote

Don't know the final performance level they reached, but Nexter/GIAT commonly marketed the Leclerc as the only tank with a true fire on the move capability (describing the M1, Leo 2 and Challenger 2 as tanks that have merely acquired this capacity at limited speed and only in the frontal arc).

Yes.

Leclerc MBT was the first tank designed to achieve fire on the move at hight speed. Firing off road at 40km/h to a mobile target is basic.

Maybe Type-10 and K2 are better today. Maybe. 

 

Quote

When reading on the history of it's development one have the really distinct feeling that they went full retarted on having the best stabilization possible.

The initial aluminum tracks that had awful service life were chosen for their light weight but mostly because they generated less vibrations, for example.

Yes. 

Aluminium tracks can’t last as long as classical steel ones. They were found too much expensive to support for peace time. 

 

Quote

 

A sort of mechanical arm that would measure the angular difference?

You have such a mechanical link. I don’t know the exact purpose. 

 

Quote

Well that's a question for a crewman for once. Does the gunner lose the target when the gun is reloading?

@Serge Aren't you the one who knows an ex Leclerc TC?

Or was it @Laviduce?

 

I was AMX-10RC tank commander. I never served with Leclerc MBT. So, I can’t help for very detailed data. 

In France, you have Leclerc, Darklabor, Totochez, Rescator. They are not bullshiting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Serge said:

-snip-

What did you dislike about the AMX-10RC, or armored vehicles in general? 
Everything counts, even lack of space for snacks for that matter. 

 

 

 

Also, could a modified version of this turret be used as a modular turret for medium weight AFVs?
0068Ayuagy1fc6cc044tej31kw16ou0z.jpg

 

 

It does appear to be almost completely overhead, and by hanging the bustle over the rear we get around the issue elevation.

 

I could imagine a modernized and modified version of this fitted on IFV chassis for fire support missions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Xoon said:

It does appear to be almost completely overhead, and by hanging the bustle over the rear we get around the issue elevation.

 

It isn't.

It's a low profile turret.

 

Also note that the ammo containers are lowered, hidden behind the hull, most of the time.

They are only raised when reloading the primary drum.

 

(Sorry for the quality of the pic, lighting isn't exactly good in my flat)

Wyw9atU.jpg

c2a0af58e19ef91f9b4d00ae3e3d6659

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

3)BTMP concepts were interesting but impractical in any possible way. Too low troop capacity, exit only from top, slow dismounting, hatches can actually be blocked, and the thing cannot give the infantry any proper support at the dismount stage at least on the level a proper IFV could.

 

The BMT-72 is the only one with roof hatches only, the BTMP-84 has a rear hatch like the Achzarit: 

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/btmp_84_images.htm

Though it could be semi useful for pier vs. pier wars as you can carry infantry within the heavy armor of the MBT and have those infantry right there instead of having a less armored (and typically slower) APC/IFV following. Idk, I might be trying to justify others ignorance/idiocy again. 

 

 

On a side note: how do you post something directly from your computer? I have a (mediocre) paint drawing of a change to the Leo 2 but I don't know how to post it :( What am I missing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

The BMT-72 is the only one with roof hatches only, the BTMP-84 has a rear hatch like the Achzarit: 

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/btmp_84_images.htm

Though it could be semi useful for pier vs. pier wars as you can carry infantry within the heavy armor of the MBT and have those infantry right there instead of having a less armored (and typically slower) APC/IFV following. Idk, I might be trying to justify others ignorance/idiocy again. 

 

 

On a side note: how do you post something directly from your computer? I have a (mediocre) paint drawing of a change to the Leo 2 but I don't know how to post it :( What am I missing? 

Image uploading site, like imagur.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

It isn't.

It's a low profile turret.

 

Also note that the ammo containers are lowered, hidden behind the hull, most of the time.

They are only raised when reloading the primary drum.

 

(Sorry for the quality of the pic, lighting isn't exactly good in my flat)

Wyw9atU.jpg

c2a0af58e19ef91f9b4d00ae3e3d6659

 

Oh well, I guess the French needs their quirks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Oh well, I guess the French needs their quirks.

 

The AS 40 is completely overhead however and the concept is actually very close to the T-14:

 

3 Men in the front sitting together, overhead turret with a carousel autoloader and even less armor than the T-14 on the turret.

Basically there was nothing but the gun completely exposed.

 

First mock up on this video:

 

From left to right: AS 40 ; AS 12 ; AS 22 ; AS 21 and I would say TC 3 and TC 2 (rear engine layout)

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1nMgOih.png

 

Here you go, I took the transverse engine idea and moved the ammo to the rear (with a blow out panel and armored door) as well as replaced the front ammo rack with a fuel tank to make up for the displaced fuel. I call it the "Leopard 2S" (S for safe). 

 

 

Edit: could also add an inert gas replacement system to the fuel tanks to help reduce fuel fires (I saw some concern about that in the "Western Tank Rumble" thread). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...