Tank Layout

[Donward]

Oh, hey! The Mauler M.B.T. was actually based on something real after all. 

[Xlucine]

I like that way of arranging ERA, you get the most protection (i.e. airgap) where you're hit the most.

[LoooSeR]

I like that way of arranging ERA, you get the most protection (i.e. airgap) where you're hit the most.

It is true until enemy have some elevation or projectile approach tank at angle.   

BTW, frontal armor "pockets" are quick-replaceable units.

[Collimatrix]

On those statistics about hits to the turret on T-72s during the Gulf War; weren't a bunch of the Iraqi T-72s dug into defensive positions with just the turrets showing?  I wonder if that threw off the numbers by some amount.

[Xlucine]

Tank commanders are meant to deploy such that turret hits are more likely, although it would be harder if you have to move.

[Collimatrix]

Yes, and I suspect that the T-72 and T-64's designers were aware of this.  They both have crazy thick composite glacis plates.

[LoooSeR]

On those statistics about hits to the turret on T-72s during the Gulf War; weren't a bunch of the Iraqi T-72s dug into defensive positions with just the turrets showing?  I wonder if that threw off the numbers by some amount.

      Yes, it did. Although designers does not use this information without understanding reasons why stats are such. According to "certain comrade", each vehicle have different "danger zone", i.e. different point, where enemy will aim (gunners usually are trying to aim at center of visible mass), different mathematical expectation of where majority of hits would be, their spreading according to range and environment, etc.

 

 

 

      I was thinking - Russia could upgrade Syrian T-72s with Burlak, lol. It would be relatively cheap, IMO. Bustle autoloader, RCWS and APS would certainly help.

[Collimatrix]

IMO, from combat footage in Syria, thermal optics would make the biggest difference.  Those ATGM anti-tank kill teams would be just be picked off from long range if they were highlighted in white in the commander's optics.  Just turn the coax or RCWS to bear on them and mow them down.

 

 

Cleft turrets are an interesting idea.  Most of the advantages of oscillating turrets, but few of the disadvantages.

[LoooSeR]

I think those pictures should be posted here from other threads.

 

Ukrainian FMBT - a T-64-Yatagan/Leclerc-Merkava combination/abomination.

 

 

Unmanned turret with turret bustle autoloader (Leclerc/Yatagan-like), frontal engine and transmission, crew of 3 (driver in the front, others are little bit behind him somewhere under turret or near), side fuel tanks, rear door (sounds like Merkava, lol).  

 

 

Soviet paper future tank layout from 1980s.

 

Crew of 2 in the rear section of vehicle, middle-mounted 2 engines, autoloader between crew compartment and engines, near rear part of hull.

 

 

 

 

Object 477A picture (don't know if it is accurate).

 

 

3 "revolver" autoloaders, isolated from crew, AFAIK. Turret is unmanned according to picture, although IIRC several different turrets were planed to be tested/prototyped.  

[LoooSeR]

Some more pictures about tank layouts.

 

Object 299, Gun, gun mount and autoloader are located in the rear, engine in the front with not very good armor, crew compartment in the middle, between weapon and engine compartment.

     Crew is located in the middle, in rather dangerous place in general - where enemies will aim at from any angle - center of mass. But from the front engine and some armor give additional protection to crew capsule. Rear part of crew capsule is also protected by weapon and ammunition system and additional 75 mm capsule rear plate (at least). Engine and ammunition compartments are not very well protected as i understand from this scheme.

     According to this picture this tank can have low survivability as a system, but very high crew survivability (major tank parts are located around crew capsule). Basically designers striped out from armor some parts to increase crew protection, sacrificing with ability of the tank as whole to resist AT fire, but gaining lower human casualties.  

 

 

Object 490A "Rebel"/(Buntar')

Low-profile turret, externally mounted gun. Crew is located usually.

 

 

Turret armor modules and side hull armor are interesting.

 

     That vehicle can act pretty well as hull-down. Note how gun and sights are located above turret roof and crew compartment. Rebel is not so unusual as Leningrad's 299, but still have some interesting ideas with turret, weapon mount and observation (TV cameras are visible on turret roof on those photos). Side hull armor together with side mounted modules would be able to provide a formidable protection from sides against RPGs and HEAT warheads.

     Also, 490A continue T-64's "dense layout" - with gun moved out of turret, designers managed to decrease needed internal volume for gun breech to elevate/depress. This mean that overall tank gained more efficient armor layout, i think. At first they kicked out loader and in this case - gun itself.

 

 

I want to see actual Object 477A inside, with 3 autoloader drums. If it survived.

[Collimatrix]

Ob 490 reminds me a bit of the black eagle.  The turret is crewed, but the crew sits at the very bottom.

 

Similar concept to M60A2, but the goofy hull shape of the M60 precludes this from working well, since the turret basket can't be deep enough.

[LoooSeR]

This is test rig for suspension and engine. Crew is on the left part of the tank (yes, whole crew in on the left side of the tank), while right part is for fuel tanks and autoloader for ~40 rounds. This is a bit unusual.

[Collimatrix]

 

US training videos from the '70s mention that if you shoot the left side (their right from the front) of the T-62, you stand good odds of killing the driver, gunner and commander.

[LoooSeR]

 

US training videos from the '70s mention that if you shoot the left side (their right from the front) of the T-62, you stand good odds of killing the driver, gunner and commander.

 

That test rig had pretty serious armor. It also seems that they had special rear plate to catch fragments.

[LoooSeR]

Early Abrams 3D model

[Collimatrix]

Yes, early abrams had a small amount of ammo stowed in the hull, not under the blow-out panels in the isolated turret compartment.

 

IIRC, they got rid of this later.

 

You can also see in this how the fuel tanks (yellow) are used to protect the driver.

[Xlucine]

Yes, early abrams had a small amount of ammo stowed in the hull, not under the blow-out panels in the isolated turret compartment.

 

IIRC, they got rid of this later.

 

You can also see in this how the fuel tanks (yellow) are used to protect the driver.

 

AFAIK it's still there, and I believe it also has blowout panels. Chieftain didn't use it, he only had a bustle full of M830A1, whereas someone on TN (IIRC DKtanker) did use it during the run into iraq

[LoooSeR]

     So, unmanned turrets... how future tanks will look like after unmanned turrets? What is your opinion on "future" tanks possible layouts?

     

     As i understand crew will be no less than 2, because driving is hard and commander wrok is even harder for computers. Aiming - not as much as driving. Crew in the turret (again), or in hull with minimalistic turrets are 2 opposite possibilities, but is there anything else?

[Sturgeon]

They'll all be nuclear-powered hovercraft made entirely of iridium alloy.

[LostCosmonaut]

Good thing nuclear reactors have shrunk to the size of trash cans.

[Mike E]

How will tanks look with an unmanned turret? *cough* like T-14 *cough*

In all seriousness, I think the Type-10 represents a lot of future design elements outside of the manned turret.

[Tied]

Why?

The Abrams, Type-96, K1A1 all seem to be better

 

no way in hell the Type-10 got decent enough armor for battling first world armies with that weight

 

only Russians have unlocked the ultra light weight and ultra effective Stalinium armor 

[Mike E]

For a lot of different reasons;

- Super advanced FCS system and sighting systems.

- Extremily compact and light weight. This makes it easy to transport, work on etc.

- It is built for a specific ourpose; to work Japanese ridge lines and defense urban areas.

- Modular armor, easily upgraded and adaptable.

- Very mobile.

I don't think this makes it a great tank by default...but it represents a lot of "the tank of the future".

It won't have crazy amounts of armor but I'd put it above the Type-96.

[LoooSeR]

But Type-10 does not have anything new with its layout. It is pretty usual vehicle in that regard. IIRC Leclerc have modular armor, Merkava (from model 3 AFAIK) have modular armor, even T-72B for some degree had "modular" armor.

[Mike E]

But they don't combine much of the other segments. 

 

I'm not saying the Type-10 is revolutionary, just that it represents what is to come of future Western (manned turreted) designs.