Tank Layout

[Mighty_Zuk]

21 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

 

On a separate note: what kind of (preferably free) drawing software could I get, or what do you guys use, for making some of these designs? Or would my Mk.1 Hand and Mk.2 Ruler suffice, and I could just scan it into my computer? 

The ol' reliable:

Spoiler

MS Paint

 

If you want something free and easy to learn, I've been using SketchUP for a short while on small projects I made. It's free, and much easier to learn if you don't want to spend hours just getting somewhat accustomed to the more 'professional' programs.

[skylancer-3441]

On 4/30/2018 at 8:39 PM, Sovngard said:

 

I demand to see the transmission of this thing.

photo of this model with open rear door:

 

 

it's a vehicle based on Kharkovite's tank with compact "suitcase"-shaped Kharkovite engine and two gearboxes
T-84 cutaway:



T-80UD:

Achzarit has passageway above some parts of the transmission, and next to both an upper half of its transversely-mounted engine (which is shorter than V2-derieved diesel, so it leaves some space for lower part of passageway) and cooling system

On the other hand it seems like if this Kharkovite BTMP-84 has passageway (judging by what it shown on model's photo above - it's floor panels are entirely horizontal, unlike some of those on Achzarit) located above left part of its engine and one of the gearboxes, and next to a cooling system. Which sould've been redesigned to make it narrower (albeit higher, probably, - but passageway's roof should be somewhat higher anyway), and also they've probably removed that red boxy thing and put it somewhere else

[Xoon]

9 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

I would think it's similar to the Achzarit's transmission, considering they both have a rear transmission and door: 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

On a separate note: what kind of (preferably free) drawing software could I get, or what do you guys use, for making some of these designs? Or would my Mk.1 Hand and Mk.2 Ruler suffice, and I could just scan it into my computer? 

I would say, if you intend to do proper, advanced drawings, use a proper CAD. SketchUP is  very easy to use, however, it is also quite a pain in the ass when making more advanced models. I am currently learning Solid Edge, which is free. It can generate drawings too, so that you can get a drawing like the one of the BMPT-84. 

 

Welcome to the forum by the way.

[Bronezhilet]

Solidworks, Spaceclaim or riot.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2015 at 5:31 PM, LoooSeR said:

Photo from Afghanistan, T-55s with Drozd.

 

I believe that picture is actually from a depot in Baku, Azerbaijan, here's another one:

 

 

I'm actively searching for confirmation that the T-55AD actually served in the Afghan conflict and (due to the constant mislabelling of images) I'm having serious doubts that it ever did.

 

PS - Apologies for dragging this back from the distant past, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the Drozd in Afghanistan story once and for all.....I figure if anyone can discern the truth/untruth of this, it'll be you lot. 

[LoooSeR]

5 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

I believe that picture is actually from a depot in Baku, Azerbaijan, here's another one:

 

 

I'm actively searching for confirmation that the T-55AD actually served in the Afghan conflict and (due to the constant mislabelling of images) I'm having serious doubts that it ever did.

 

PS - Apologies for dragging this back from the distant past, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the Drozd in Afghanistan story once and for all.....I figure if anyone can get to the bottom of this, it'll be you lot. 

Yeah, after some time that photo was found to be from Azerbaijan. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Are there any pictures of the T-55AD that are provably from Afghanistan? 

 

Gur-Khan seems adamant that the T-55AD never went there, based on his comments in a couple of forums that I've visited.

[Lord_James]

Which of these hull designs would be best for under-belly blast protection? 

 

https://imgur.com/I8U9JDW

 

I have a feeling it's between 5 and 6. My gut is saying 5 is better, but I'm slightly partial to 6's shape... and I don't know why... 

 

 

Also, I'm having a weird bug where when I try to post a picture, it overlaps the message box. Any suggestions? 

[Bronezhilet]

 

5 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Which of these hull designs would be best for under-belly blast protection? 

 

https://imgur.com/I8U9JDW

 

I have a feeling it's between 5 and 6. My gut is saying 5 is better, but I'm slightly partial to 6's shape... and I don't know why... 

 

 

Also, I'm having a weird bug where when I try to post a picture, it overlaps the message box. Any suggestions? 

5.

 

6 is actually the worst because you trap the overpressure below your vehicle and because you focus the pressure on a single seam.

 

[Xoon]

4 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

 

5.

 

6 is actually the worst because you trap the overpressure below your vehicle and because you focus the pressure on a single seam.

 

Don't you mean number 3?

 

Also, out of curiosity, does a curve spread the force better than a V.  Doesn't the tip experience more force and risk breaking the weld, also a slightly sideways explosions would hit a flat side?

 

Wouldn't this theoretically make the rounded belly the best shape?

[Mighty_Zuk]

The round shape is theoretically better for the entire armored profile of the tank, but it's highly impractical.

[Ramlaen]

Is the goal to make the vehicle as robust as possible or to minimize the acceleration felt by the people inside?

 

With those designs I agree on 5. 3 and 6 seem to be based on double V hulls.

[Lord_James]

1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

Is the goal to make the vehicle as robust as possible or to minimize the acceleration felt by the people inside?

 

3 and 6 seem to be based on double V hulls.

 

Yes, the goal was for crew safety. 

 

That's what I based 3 and 6 off of. I wonder why they use double-V hulls on the new Strykers if it would cause problems like the hull splitting open, unless there's something else going on. 

[Ramlaen]

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

 

Yes, the goal was for crew safety. 

 

That's what I based 3 and 6 off of. I wonder why they use double-V hulls on the new Strykers if it would cause problems like the hull splitting open, unless there's something else going on. 

 

To clarify, 3 and 6 are more of an inverted V hull than a double V.

 

Double V allows you to retain ground clearance without being excessively tall.

 

I’m phone posting so I can only point you at cursory reading material.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Ramlaen

[TokyoMorose]

6 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

Yes, the goal was for crew safety. 

 

That's what I based 3 and 6 off of. I wonder why they use double-V hulls on the new Strykers if it would cause problems like the hull splitting open, unless there's something else going on. 

 

I am not sure why you would think that 3 or 6 would be a double-V hull. Mirroring that design to produce a full hull would result in an inverted trough running down the middle of the vehicle, a great weakness. 5 is the best, and a true double-V.

[Xoon]

I think this shape would be simple and effective:

Belly is composed of two sloped plates, spaced apart with air between to work as a cushion. Preferably the plates would slope upwards until they are vertical, where they would be welded to the side armor. Either a cast or bent plate could be used.  The underside of the sponsons are curved upwards and outwards to direct the blast away from the hull. Double hull could be used here, but I am not sure if it is worth it.

[Ramlaen]

4 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

I am not sure why you would think that 3 or 6 would be a double-V hull. Mirroring that design to produce a full hull would result in an inverted trough running down the middle of the vehicle, a great weakness. 5 is the best, and a true double-V.

 

A double V has a trough.

 

[TokyoMorose]

25 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

A double V has a trough.

 

 

I stand entirely corrected, and yet this design baffles me. That central trough is going to act as a stress concentration for the blast wave.

[Collimatrix]

16 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

I stand entirely corrected, and yet this design baffles me. That central trough is going to act as a stress concentration for the blast wave.

 

Hazell explains the "W" hull thus:

 

Quote

For vehicles where it is simply not possible to introduce a V-shape to the hull due to height and handling problems that may arise, it is possible to introduce a ‘double V’-shape (or essentially a ‘W’-shape). With this concept, instead of the blast being solely directed to the outside of the vehicle, a double V–shaped arrangement means that some of the blast is directed into the centre of the vehicle (Lee 2013). The blast is then spread fore and aft along the vehicle’s central axis using a suitably reinforced ‘duct’ that is concave downward. The deformation of the internal angled parts leads to a downward ‘pull’ on the central concave part thereby countering some of the upward impulse from the blast. Therefore, this provides a route to provide some meaningful blast protection in vehicles that would otherwise not be able accommodate a full ‘V’-shape.

 

[TokyoMorose]

16 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

For vehicles where it is simply not possible to introduce a V-shape to the hull due to height and handling problems that may arise, it is possible to introduce a ‘double V’-shape (or essentially a ‘W’-shape). With this concept, instead of the blast being solely directed to the outside of the vehicle, a double V–shaped arrangement means that some of the blast is directed into the centre of the vehicle (Lee 2013). The blast is then spread fore and aft along the vehicle’s central axis using a suitably reinforced ‘duct’ that is concave downward. The deformation of the internal angled parts leads to a downward ‘pull’ on the central concave part thereby countering some of the upward impulse from the blast. Therefore, this provides a route to provide some meaningful blast protection in vehicles that would otherwise not be able accommodate a full ‘V’-shape.

 

Hmm, that weight penalty for reinforcing the duct seems to be a disadvantage, I wonder if it is really worth it vs raising the vehicle.

[Alzoc]

4 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

Hmm, that weight penalty for reinforcing the duct seems to be a disadvantage, I wonder if it is really worth it vs raising the vehicle.

 

Probably because on some older design (understand before IED protection became a major concern) with low ground clearance, you simply can't raise the suspensions (or not easily at least).

[Xoon]

Has any design tried to simply make a huge shock dampener? 

I guess double hull bottom with air in between technically works as a pneumatic shock dampener, but has any hydraulic, hydro pneumatic or proper pneumatic shock dampeners been tried?

So far it seems designers only use thick slabs of composite material, and some slope to direct away the explosions.

[Xlucine]

Raise it too far and the vehicle will roll over on slopes/turns, or not fit in train tunnels/aircraft

[Toxn]

35 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Has any design tried to simply make a huge shock dampener? 

I guess double hull bottom with air in between technically works as a pneumatic shock dampener, but has any hydraulic, hydro pneumatic or proper pneumatic shock dampeners been tried?

So far it seems designers only use thick slabs of composite material, and some slope to direct away the explosions.

I know that it was/is common practice to fill the tires of vehicles with water and stack sandbags on the hull floor specifically to act as shock absorbtion.

[Xoon]

7 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I know that it was/is common practice to fill the tires of vehicles with water and stack sandbags on the hull floor specifically to act as shock absorbtion.

How does filling wheels with water act as a shock dampener?