Dominus Dolorem

A slightly better image of the BMP-3 with the Epokha 

It reminds me of this one image I have seen a few times of someone having tea on the roof of a tank with an umbrella installed on it.

Perhaps it is for mounting soft pack ERA? Or operating in unpleasant weather?

20 hours ago, Gun Ready said:

 

Probably for marginal side protection considering the appearance of thoes side modules.

I guess they are trying to meet the minimum side protection requirements of export customers.

22 hours ago, Beer said:

 

That thing is incredibly ugly. 

Not as ugly as the other armored cars next to it though.

18 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Yes, it is man portable in concepts.

Damn if they can minimise the size of a KE ATGM to that extent just imagine how terrifying the larger ones for IFVs and helicopters will be.

On 8/7/2021 at 2:47 AM, LoooSeR said:

   3D models of kinetic energy ATGM that KBP is still working on.

 

  Hide contents

 

Will this thing be portable?

On 8/6/2021 at 2:18 AM, LoooSeR said:

   Where Russians should use Vasilek instead of breachloading mortar?

I was talking about the Drok.

Surely a self propelled Vasilek would be a much better 82mm light self propelled mortar. 

Why have the Russians not used the Vasilek instead of that strange breachloading mortar?

East Oil Company MBT-1 Monolith

Final

Vehicle feature list:
Mobility:

1.      Link to appendix 1

2.     Engine: Object-770 engine

3.     Transmission: Object-770 transmission

4.     Fuel - Type: Diesel

5.     The radiators are deep inside the engine bay with air supplied to them via two ducts mounted along the sides of the engine bay.

6.     Suspension: The suspension is derived from that of the T-10M.

Survivability:

1.    Link to appendix 1

2.   Link to appendix 2

3.     The Monolith has a gun a vertical travel of -12 to +15 degrees. For enhancing its survival in an ambus situation it is equipped with 8 MON-90 anti personnel mines to protect against and deter infantrymen and 2 2B9 Vasilek 3¹⁵/₆₄" automatic mortars with 21 bombs each to bombard ATGM positions. Furthermore the tank is equipped with two large IR dazzlers.

Firepower:

A.    Weapons: 1x 7 ³/₃₂" L/60 (24 rounds), 2x 3¹⁵/₆₄" automatic mortars (copy of Vasilek) (42 rounds), 3x .50cal HMG (copy of KORD) (1200 rounds)

1.     Link to appendix 1

2.     Main Weapon:  1x 7 ³/₃₂" L/60

a.      Type: Smoothbore high velocity gun.

b.      Caliber: 7 ³/₃₂"

c.      ammunition types and performance: APFS, AFSDS(steel), APFSDS(segmented DU core), HEATFS(normal),HEATFS(tandem), HEFS (AIX-2)

d.     Ammo stowage: 24 round belt tpe autoloader with chan rammer.

3.     Secondary weapon  2x 3¹⁵/₆₄" automatic mortars (copy of Vasilek)

b.     3¹⁵/₆₄"

c.     The full range of the Vasilek's ammunition.

d.     21x2 (42)

e.     Slaved to the gunner's main sight, two plane stabilised.

f.      Both can be set to fire at once or separately allowing for two different types of ammunition to be loaded.

4.      Link to appendix 3

B.    Optics:

1.     Two plane stabilised 1.5-30x main sight with built in laser rangefinder and image intenisfier.

2.     Two plane stabilised 4-8x backup sight with built in image intensifier, 3 plane stabilised 1.5-30x commanders sight with built in  image intensifier.

C.    FCS:

1.     The commander can mark the azimuth of targets and their priority on the gunner view (achieved through a rotating wheel with lights on it) or alternatively rotate the turret to face what he is looking at, in the event of the gunner being incapacitated the commander can override his controls and slave the turret to the commanders sight.   

2.     Link to appendix 3

Fightability:

1. The vehicle includes an airconditioning system (below the gunners seat) allowing for the crew to remain at a comfortable temperature

2.    The autoloader can be reloaded by two people at once allowing for more rapid reloading and cranes for handling the ammunition are built into the tank (not depicted)

3. The crew are completely isolated from the ammunition and outside environment.

4. The Monolith has been designed so that with relatively minor modernisation it cab even match tanks such as the pre war T-14 Armata, to this end it has massive armor cavities and it's autoloader can accomadate very long projectiles.

Additonal Features:

5. Multiple variants are planned including an APC, IFV and combat engineering vehicle.

6. Its APHEFS shell will cause extreme amounts of damage to lesser armored tanks such as the Californian and earlier Cascadian tanks aswell as light/medium armored vehicles.

The centre of the turret bustle, containing the ammunition belt of the aoutolaoder can be entirely removed to allow for rapid reloading if the appropriate equipment is present, if it is not there are two hatches in the rear of the turret bustle to allow for reloading in field conditions. The crew are provided with two light cranes fixed to the turret rear (not shown on the model) to assist in reloading.

Link to appendix 1

Link to appendix 2

Link to appendix 3

@ Judges, if you have any question please feel free to ask.

2 hours ago, delete013 said:

It does use similar tracks to Tiger 1 and weight is near to that of tiger 2. And I made a rough design for a 1000 tonne fortress..

 

However, I think anything at 100 tonnes with 60ies tech is a specialised tool and not a principal fighting vehicle. With weak air component I admit the weight would offer neat potential. But it would run into problems at navigating some of Texas' terrain and Texan tactics are not well known to me. Not sure if their combined arms would offer sufficient protection for fewer large and expensive vehicles. Maybe for another contest.

Perhaps after this we could have a private competition to see who can create the best wunderwaffle.

it has a 3d printing plugin that can calculate volume

4 hours ago, delete013 said:

I suppose a battleship contest won't be needed anymore.

 

I am honestly surprised that you managed to make a smaller tank than I did.

Especially considering that you were talking about widened E100 tracks and 60+ ton armor masses.

 Above is the Monolith with its close range anti infantry defences.

The latest version of the Monolith

The design team has been forced to make some unusual decisions due to the board's insistence that the tank be designed around the 71 line 6 3/4 pooder "tank gun" in order for it to be able to engage enemy shipping.

As a result of this in addition to the hp/ton ratio requirement we now have a 16 1/2 foot monstrosity.
 

I have had some issues with my laptop and as a result have been unable to work on my submission for A while. 

I may not be able to finish it in time.

On 6/22/2021 at 2:28 PM, delete013 said:

Why is 70 a limit?

I am looking forward to seeing where this goes.

On 6/16/2021 at 12:17 PM, delete013 said:

But that was just a wooden mockup for the.. regional boss. He said he wants a bigger gun and much more armour.

I would be careful if I were you my tanke ended up having an armor mass of over 70 tons prompting a redesign.

Why would they have a sherman in their parade???

East Oil company report no279.

The development of the new MBT is going smoothly. Our design team has finally sent the first images of the prototype currently under construction.

The tank has been designated the MBT1 Monolith.

The Monolith is intended to be able to take on any existing or prospective threat on the continent and also to act as the basis for a heavy IFV.

46 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Something to note: with the change in ME/TE of HHA, textolite is now the supreme form of non-reactive armour. Build your arrays accordingly.

Is textolite more mass efficient than NERA?

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Virtually every serious tank armed with something larger (which still fired solid steel shot) had some sort of load-assist, if not an autoloader.

SU/ISU152, Stumtiger, Yagdtiger, ect. They are not quite tanks, but they were manually loaded.

48 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

No for either but you have to remember that the Texas government would like to actually be able to use these things.

Would an 80-90 ton tank with 15 rounds for the main gun be acceptable to the military?

Quote

I would recommend so, yes, hahaha.

Our designers believe that they can achieve vastly superior frontal protection if this minor detail is neglected.

They claim that a floor mounted escape hatch would offer the driver better chances for the driver to get out alive in an emergency and thus believe that a drivers hatch would offer no real advantage.

I also forgot to ask, are there any width restrictions?

Is there a weight limit or minimum number of rounds required?

I was also wondering if it is necessary for the driver to have his own hatch?

10 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

@Dominus Dolorem I would like to put this competition back together. In your opinion, would you rather the requirements stay as they are, or shift more towards a tank?

Well tanks do allow for more flexability in terms of what you can mount on them, but wheeled vehicles could end up hilarious.

Though I know more about tanks so I suppose I would have to say that I would rather work on a tank.