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

Competition: A modern medium AFV


Recommended Posts

Light Combat Vehicle(Tracked)  LCV(T)


At Priory General Technology, we have taken the proven and reliable FV 100 series of vehicles and have made them more suitable for the 21st century. We accomplished this by adding the latest Cummins B-Series engine that ups the horsepower from ~190 to ~350, replacing the majority of the exposed aluminum hull with layered Boron Carbide and a derivative of AMAP, we also have made the LCV(T) optimized for a varying array of electronic, weaponry, and add-on armor packages. 


The overall weight of the LCV(T) is expected to 8.5 tons. We emphasize the strategic mobility of the LCV(T) as we can transport 3 LCV(T)s in a single C-130 and they can even by lifted in by a CH-53 or equivalent. When having to fight in areas where heavy transportation is extremely limited, it is important the capability to deploy armored vehicles in sizable numbers in short order. 


The new armor for the LCV(T) is a combination of Boron Carbide and Aluminum that covers the sides, rear, and some of the belly of the vehicle and AMAP-B(medium) armor covering the frontal arch of the vehicle. The Boron Carbide/Aluminum armor provides a lighter alternative that purely aluminum while increasing the efficiency of the ballistic protection against heavy gunfire and shrapnel. The AMAP-B on the front of the vehicle is heavier than the original aluminum due to the sheer thickness of the new armor, however this armor protects the LCV(T) against most small cannon fire(<35 mm) and gives some protection against some lighter AT rocket propelled grenades. A variant of the AMAP-M(mine) covers the bottom of the crew compartment of the LCV(T) to protect against IEDs. The AMAP armor is projected to add some additional weight to our original chassis, but this is deemed minimal by our engineers due to the weight savings by the Boron Carbide armor and the increased horsepower. 


Additional armor can be placed on the vehicle including optional slat or net armor coverings that increase 360 degree protection against AT warheads, RHA steel plates to cover the frontal hull and the turret, NERA slabs, and has potential to have other varieties of armor packages. 


We have also tried to make the LCV(T) compatible with APS systems such as AMAP-ADS/SC, Iron Curtain, and Trophy. These will allow the LCV(T) to be able to fight in more high intensity environments with less casualties. 


Other hull modifications include improved driver viewing ports/hatch. Improved engine ventilation to make way for armor increase. Additional points on the hull were boxes for spare parts and tools can be held or can be used to attach floatation devices or even parachutes. And latches on the bottom of the vehicle wear V-shaped add-ons can be placed for IED rich environments. 


Our prototype turret also features modifications. First off the gun is a Cockerill 90 mm which is used around the world so ammo is common and is known to be effective against light armor. A coaxial FN 7.62 is also present. The mantlet of the vehicle has been modified to increase protection and to prevent clipping with the driver's hatch. A ballistics computer is integrated into the firing system to increase target acquisition speed and accuracy. The commander's hatch has also been improved in a similar way to the driver's and an adjustable post has been placed in order to provide the commander with firepower suited to his mission. The rear of the turret has been extended in order to store the 30-35 rounds of 90 mm. 


We plan to develop more turrets with varying arrays of weapons including light autocannons, mortars, ATGMs, AA guns + light MANPADS/SAM, 40 mm grenade(for riot control), and are even looking to develop a 105 mm gunned version of the LCV(T). 


We here at PGT have used modern armor and automotive technologies in order to improve the combat tested FV 100 series of vehicles. Our prototype LCV(T)-90 is faster(can reach speeds up to 55 mph), tougher, and hits harder than its predecessors did and has built-in room to grow to become suited for its combat role. 


Original Requirements:

  • Must be capable of protecting against small arms from all aspects, and must be capable of withstanding 20-30mm autocannon fire across the frontal arc.- CHECK
  • Must be capable of engaging and defeating existing AFV designs (not including modern MBTs) at modern combat ranges. - CHECK
  • Must be air-transportable using existing transport aircraft (preferably AC-130 or equivalent) in either a ready-to-run or partially disassembled state. - CHECK
  • Must be capable of defending against at least one strike by man-portable anti-tank weapons, including ATGMs - CHECK* 
  • Must include weaponry or equipment for engaging with dug-in infantry in urban areas - CHECK
  • Must be capable of defending against mines, roadside bombs and IEDs - CHECK*
  • Must be highly reliable, including servicing at local depots. - CHECK
  • Must cost the same or less than equivalent systems (around $4 million per unit maximum) - CHECK**
  • Must be capable of off-road travel -CHECK

Other Requirements:

  • May be capable of surviving multiple hits by heavy autocannon (40-60mm) across the frontal arc - X 
  • May be capable of engaging low-flying aircraft and helicopters - CHECK***
  • May be directly air-deployable from existing transport aircraft - CHECK
  • May be capable of surviving multiple strikes from anti-tank missiles (of all classes) from any angle - CHECK****
  • May include only COTs components - CHECK
  • May be capable of being serviced in the field. - CHECK
  • May be in the form of a family of vehicles sharing a common chassis - CHECK
  • May cost significantly less than equivalent systems (under $3 million per unit) - CHECK**
  • May be capable of extreme off-road travel, including across anti-tank ditches and the like - CHECK 

* - not guaranteed protection, but optimal protection. Vulnerable to heavier ordinance.

** - We estimate that the LCV(T)-90 is to be in the range of $2.5 million USD, however other variants and upgrade packages could increase the cost to ~4-5 million depending on the package. Advanced APS systems are costliest upgrade

*** - AA variant can engage aircraft

**** - With added slat/net, RHA, and APS systems we predict the LCV(T) can survive engagements even after being hit multiple times by AT missiles. However we cannot guarantee the success of these systems.



(OOC: poorly drawn)Artist Rendition of the LCV(T)-90




Weight: 9.25 tons 

Height: 2.11 m 

Width: 2.135 m 

Length: 5.3 m

Crew: 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SW makes it really easy to do turret rotation and gun elevation/depression:


The rear of the turret is actually clipping into the hull. I expected this, because the rear of the turret isn't really finished yet. However, you can see I have a mantlet now!




Weight is up to 23.56 tonnes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is now my official submission post. I'll update it as I go along. I'm gonna publish my worksheet and keep it up to date so you guys can follow along.

Neomedi Tank AKA "Baebrams" AKA OMGwell

Load 2 into C-17

Maximum figures:

Width: 5.28m

Height: 3.61m

Length: 25.96m / 2 = 12.98, / 1.1 = 11.8m

Weight (objective): 33 tonnes

Weight (do not exceed): 40 tonnes gross


MTU 871 Ka-501

1200 shp, 2,600 RPM

Length: 1.350m

Width: 1.955m

Height: 1.085m

Mass: 1.700 tonnes, 4.300 tonnes (powerpack)


Must protect against 30mm HEDP, 25mm RHA at 50deg penetration at 500m

39mm LOS thickness will be penetrated

AH-64 gun depression: -60deg

AH-64 attack angle for strafing run: -5deg

Tank needs 50mm armor plate sloped at 30 degrees from horizontal

40mm plate sloped at 6 degrees from horizontal





75mm Autocannon L/50

240 rounds/min


150 rounds carried


long-recoil operation, fully recoiling barrel


fully stabilized


coaxial .30 caliber machine gun


Turret ring: 2.150m (same as M1)

Width: 3.350m, 3.920m w/ Relikt-L ERA

Hull height: 1.240m

Hull width: 2.160m


Hull length: 7.140m


Max elevation: 25 degrees

Max depression: -12 degrees

Uses standard Bradley 21" tracks and suspension elements, 7 per side





Hull weight, bare: 11.82 tonnes 
Turret weight, bare: 6.37 tonnes
Mantlet weight, bare: 0.86 tonnes
Total armor percentage: 55%
ERA weight: Probably about 1.7-1.9 tonnes
Fender/side skirts weight: 0.49 tonnes
Gun weight: 1.144 tonnes (3.3%)
Ammunition weight: 0.810 tonnes
Fuel weight (230 US gallons): 0.696 tonnes
Powerpack weight: 4,300 kilograms (12.4%)
Track and suspension weight: 0.196 tonnes per roadwheel assembly (including torsion bars; 14 total, equals 2.744 tonnes), plus 3.560 tonnes for all track links. (18.2% for both tracks and suspension)
Total estimated weight (current): 34.7 tonnes
What a fat little baby.


Leopard 2:

Weight 2A6: 62.3 tonnes (68.7 short tons)
Length 2A6: 9.97 metres (393 inches) (gun forward)
Width 2A6: 3.75 m (148 in)
Height 2A6: 3.0 m (120 in)


Weight 22.6 metric tons
Length (With gun forward) 9.3 meters
Width 3 meters
Height 2.7 meters

ERA brick:

25 x 13 cm Kontakt-5

10.5 cm wide by 23.0 cm long by 7.0 cm thick

10.35 kg

Kontakt-5 (4S22): 251,9х131,9х13 mm 1.37 kg
I have made the turret not clip into the hull now. Consequently, weight was reduced by 0.1 tonnes.




Size, weight and TNT equivalent of Kontakt, Kontakt-5 and Relikt light



Normal Relikt is 5.8 kg per sandwich. Length and width is the same as Kontakt-5, but thickness is unknown.



Also, the bottom one is actually Relikt 'light' (4S24), made for BMP-3s and such. Relikt (4S23) for heavy vehicles is, as I said, 5.8 kg per sandwich.


4S20 = Kontakt

4S22 = Kontakt-5

4S23 = Relikt

4S24 = Relikt 'light' (I dont know the official name)



BMP-3 with a lighter variant of Relikt.



Stats and dimensions of those boxes:


550x270x285 mm, 37 kg




Protection - eq. to 600 mm of RHA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check the contact length of the track and the centre-centre distance of the tracks. With centre-centre distance I mean the distance between the centres of both tracks. That's basically the width of the hull, the width of the area between the (actual) tracks and half the width of the tracks. Contact length is, well, the length of the track that contacts the ground under normal loads.


Divide contact length by centre-centre distance and tell me the number. 


The higher it is, the worse. The optimum is 1, higher than 1 means difficulty with turning, lower than 1 means instability issues. But lower than 1 will never happen anyway, and higher than 1 will happen but isn't that big of a problem until you're into the higher numbers.

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.

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...