Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Tank Layout


Collimatrix
 Share

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

So what happened to Tal's rule of thumb that 7cm of diesel equals 1cm of RHA? (i.e factor of 7:1, not 3:1).

 

 

 

That's thickness efficiency, not mass efficiency, but a TE of 1/7 is still a mass efficiency of 1.4 (given the density of diesel is ~1/10th steel)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 2 years later...
On 12/4/2016 at 10:55 AM, Xoon said:

 

This is exactly what I was thinking about:

http://i.imgur.com/6G3eeOO.png

 

 

The US is considering hybrid electric drives, and they talk about what I proposed above:

 

I know it's really late.

But I just saw this and signed up today.

I thought about this myself, a couple years ago (but after 2016 - so you beat me to it - lol).

I think it is a fantastic idea.

Not only is crew protection massively enhanced? But escaping from the vehicle is INCREDIBLY easy.

And - if you are prepared to lose the tank to save the crew? All protection can be concentrated in the very front and on the crew module (just 20mm/splinter protection for the rest).

And - it would be simple to manufacture heavily armoured APC's/IFV's from this design.

Finally - Just expand the tank rearward 5 or 6 feet? And you have a combination MBT/IFV all in one.

I think your way is the future for MBT's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh, Jesus Christ... MBT and IFV memembination. "Just expand the tank 5 or 6 feet" is something that you don't "just" do.

 

And this is not exactly way for future MBTs, becoming even bigger and heavier is not what modern MBT design needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who has been a tank commander . . .  Adding another five feet or so of length to any IFV or MBT is something that’s both avoidable and unnecessary.  And would little to no benefit. 

 

There’s a reason most MBTS and IFVs are only so big, regardless of country of origin, and why western MBTs are are all roughly within the same general parameters for size and height.  
 

And adding length also changes up things like mobility, weight goes up, the amount of track you have to work on and runs afoul of design hard limits.  Things like how many you can fit on a HETT, how many a flatcar can carry, etc. 

 

 

EDIT:

 

The IFV/CFV and MBT have different and unique roles on the battlefield.  What works for say Israel’s threats, doctrinal philosophy and broader situation doesn’t readily apply elsewhere.

 

Trying to mix tanks and IFVs/creating an all in one AFV generally means you’ve created something that, instead of working as a combined arms team and being good at one or two things, is just equally shitty at every role it’s trying to fulfill all at once. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, McRocket said:

I know it's really late.

But I just saw this and signed up today.

I thought about this myself, a couple years ago (but after 2016 - so you beat me to it - lol).

I think it is a fantastic idea.

Not only is crew protection massively enhanced? But escaping from the vehicle is INCREDIBLY easy.

And - if you are prepared to lose the tank to save the crew? All protection can be concentrated in the very front and on the crew module (just 20mm/splinter protection for the rest).

And - it would be simple to manufacture heavily armoured APC's/IFV's from this design.

Finally - Just expand the tank rearward 5 or 6 feet? And you have a combination MBT/IFV all in one.

I think your way is the future for MBT's.

 

It's not a fantastic idea. Not at all.

 

A powerful enough engine is much larger than that box on the picture.

Cooling of an engine in front is extremely painful (Izraelis know).

The armor protection of the engine is compromised by the size of the engine and by the requirement to make engine and gearbox accessible for mainteanance or replacement (!) and by the need to put exhaust somewhere. 

The volume requiring heavy protection is larger, not smaller than with the conventional layout, i.e. the vehicle is a lot heavier. 

Such vehicle would be most likely very front-heavy which compromises driving performance and brings potential issues with suspension or tracks.

Driving of such vehicle is entirely dependent on cameras, there is no way to drive it by head sticking out of the hatch even in emergency. Crossing of rough terrain would likely be pretty awkward. 

Etc. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2021 at 4:48 PM, Beer said:

 

It's not a fantastic idea. Not at all.

 

A powerful enough engine is much larger than that box on the picture.

Cooling of an engine in front is extremely painful (Izraelis know).

The armor protection of the engine is compromised by the size of the engine and by the requirement to make engine and gearbox accessible for mainteanance or replacement (!) and by the need to put exhaust somewhere. 

The volume requiring heavy protection is larger, not smaller than with the conventional layout, i.e. the vehicle is a lot heavier. 

Such vehicle would be most likely very front-heavy which compromises driving performance and brings potential issues with suspension or tracks.

Driving of such vehicle is entirely dependent on cameras, there is no way to drive it by head sticking out of the hatch even in emergency. Crossing of rough terrain would likely be pretty awkward. 

Etc. 

 

 

Imo, you are clearly just guessing or making stuff up as you go.

 

1) Fine. Show me a link that proves 100% that the Israeli's are having all kinds of trouble cooling their Chariot engines?

2) The Merkava (Chariot) is considered one of the best, protected tanks in the world.

https://forums.eugensystems.com/viewtopic.php?t=58379&start=20

Go down to the image of the front of the Merkava armor protection in the 7'th post in the above link.

It's armour protection is not compromised AT ALL.

3) Many tanks in history have had their transmissions and final drives in the front...so you had to access them already. Just more so for the engine. Yes...it is probably more of a pain. But it also means more 'stuff' between the crew and the front.

4) An engine only ways about 2 tons. MBT's today weight over 60t (in the West). The frontal armor will weigh FAR more than that. Plus, the turret would be farther back then on a regular tank...so they should not be any more nose heavy. Or if so...not by much.

5) Cameras? Big deal. Many drivers are 'buttoned up' during combat anyway. And I bet you the vision on a screen from dozens of different camera's mounted all over the chassis/turret would be FAR better then looking through a small, periscope with limited viewing angles.

 

Now answer my this, please?

 Which tank would you rather be a crew member in?

A standard tank?

Or a tank where ALL the crew are in an armoured cell in the back and egress if the tank is on fire is INCREDIBLY easy?

Think hard now?

 

So who am I going to believe - when it comes to whether front mounted engines on a MBT are 'not fantastic at all'?

Some, faceless, nameless guy on the internet?

Or the INCREDIBLY experienced and respected, IDF?

Who have manufactured (so far) 4 'Mark's' of the 'Chariot' and almost 2,000 vehicles in total?

Hmmmm?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which tanks have transmissions or final drives in front? Last mbt with front drive and rear engine was Sherman.

Powerpack size in western MBT is close to 8m3 so its hard to pack in front , and engine doesn't provide as much protection as armor can. Front engine also makes the hull higher in front , needing more armor to protect the increased volume vs the typical powerpack hump in the lightly protected back.

Given the volume and weight i have my doubts that Merkava is coparatively well protected,

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

1) engine cooling would NOT be more difficult with a front mounted vs. rear-mounted engine. That does not even begin to make sense. Where is your link to proof of your statement on that?

Where would you put the radiator on a front engine tank? In a rear engine tank the radiator just sits at the engine deck where it doesn't compromise any protection.

 

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

Go down to the image of the front of the Merkava armor protection in the 7'th post in the above link.

It's armour protection is not compromised AT ALL.

For starters large pockets in spaced armor are not that effective. A bunch of much smaller gaps are proven to be much more effective, and really can't compare to ceramics.

Spoiler

FOvZLJD.png3iGMSd0.png

 

Also lets not forget about this

Spoiler

What's so special about the IDF's Merkava MBT? - Quora

 

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

3) Many tanks already have their transmissions and final drives in the front...so you have to access them already. Just more so for the engine.

No they don't, front mounted transmissions died in the 60s and the only AFVs you actually see with such a layout are APCs and IFVs that need the space in the back to carry troops and aren't meant to be taking shots from MBTs in the first place.

 

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

4) An engine only ways about 2 tons. The frontal armor will weigh FAR more than that. Plus, the turret would be farther back then on a regular tank...so they should not be any more nose heavy. Or if so...not by much.

Once again lol no. One of the lightest engines on an in service MBT belongs to the Type 10 and it's 4.2 tons. You have absolutely 0 concept of weight distribution if you think you could just slap an extra 2 tons up front, let alone 4.2 tons, then think you could move the turret back like 1.5 meters and everything would be fixed.

 

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

Cameras? Big deal. Many drivers are 'buttoned up' during combat anyway. And I bet you the vision on a screen from dozens of different camera's mounted all over the chassis/turret would be FAR better then looking through a small, periscope with limited viewing angles.

Lets just ignore how cameras can get damaged or dirty. There is a reason why all MBTs still retain periscopes for the driver and even old WW2 style telescopic sights for their gunners.

 

40 minutes ago, McRocket said:

So who am I going to believe - when it comes to whether front mounted engines on a MBT are 'not fantastic at all'?

Some, faceless, nameless guy on the internet?

Or the INCREDIBLY experienced and respected, IDF?

Who have manufactured (so far) 4 'Mark's' of the 'Chariot' and almost 2,000 vehicles in total?

Hmmmm?

If the Merkava was some ultimate god tank that was as amazing as you claim it is wouldn't every single country in the world adopt a similar style? Who am I to believe, some nobody JIDF shill or every other tank engineer outside of Israel. In reality where everyone else lives, we understand that the Merkava is an incredibly niche tank that only makes sense for Israel combat. Also 2000 tanks across 4 different tanks isn't even all that impressive. Even Japan has roughly around those numbers. Still the Merkava is still 10x better designed than your fantasy super tank that just casually extends out an extra 2 meters in an era where everyone is trying to shed weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McRocket said:

Now answer my this, please?

 Which tank would you rather be a crew member in?

A standard tank?

Or a tank where ALL the crew are in an armoured cell in the back and egress if the tank is on fire is INCREDIBLY easy?

Think hard now?

 

So who am I going to believe - when it comes to whether front mounted engines on a MBT are 'not fantastic at all'?

Some, faceless, nameless guy on the internet?

Or the INCREDIBLY experienced and respected, IDF?

Who have manufactured (so far) 4 'Mark's' of the 'Chariot' and almost 2,000 vehicles in total?

Hmmmm?


1. We all have faces and names, m8. Just because you haven’t seen them doesn’t mean we don’t have them... 

 

2. Your tone comes off as aggressive and arrogant. Please try to be a little more humble, or your stay here may be cut short... 
 

1 hour ago, McRocket said:

Imo, you are clearly just guessing or making stuff up as you go.

 

1) Fine. Show me a link that proves 100% that the Israeli's are having all kinds of trouble cooling their Chariot engines?

2) The Merkava (Chariot) is considered one of the best, protected tanks in the world.

https://forums.eugensystems.com/viewtopic.php?t=58379&start=20

Go down to the image of the front of the Merkava armor protection in the 7'th post in the above link.

It's armour protection is not compromised AT ALL.


There’s a reason most western MBTs have big square fronts and engines in the back. 
 

Also Merkava 4’s hull front armor isn’t that impressive, but the hull side armor is better than pretty much all MBTs out there. The turret’s also not that out of the ordinary, except for the built in trophy APS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Atokara said:

Where would you put the radiator on a front engine tank? In a rear engine tank the radiator just sits at the engine deck where it doesn't compromise any protection.

 

For starters large pockets in spaced armor are not that effective. A bunch of much smaller gaps are proven to be much more effective, and really can't compare to ceramics.

  Reveal hidden contents

FOvZLJD.png3iGMSd0.png

 

Also lets not forget about this

  Hide contents

What's so special about the IDF's Merkava MBT? - Quora

 

No they don't, front mounted transmissions died in the 60s and the only AFVs you actually see with such a layout are APCs and IFVs that need the space in the back to carry troops and aren't meant to be taking shots from MBTs in the first place.

 

Once again lol no. One of the lightest engines on an in service MBT belongs to the Type 10 and it's 4.2 tons. You have absolutely 0 concept of weight distribution if you think you could just slap an extra 2 tons up front, let alone 4.2 tons, then think you could move the turret back like 1.5 meters and everything would be fixed.

 

Lets just ignore how cameras can get damaged or dirty. There is a reason why all MBTs still retain periscopes for the driver and even old WW2 style telescopic sights for their gunners.

 

If the Merkava was some ultimate god tank that was as amazing as you claim it is wouldn't every single country in the world adopt a similar style? Who am I to believe, some nobody JIDF shill or every other tank engineer outside of Israel. In reality where everyone else lives, we understand that the Merkava is an incredibly niche tank that only makes sense for Israel combat. Also 2000 tanks across 4 different tanks isn't even all that impressive. Even Japan has roughly around those numbers. Still the Merkava is still 10x better designed than your fantasy super tank that just casually extends out an extra 2 meters in an era where everyone is trying to shed weight.

1) Wherever the rad is in the Merkava - duh.

2) Show me a link to unbiased, factual proof that the Chariot frontal armor sucks? Because your opinion holds zero weight with me.

3) Sorry...I forgot the transmission and the drive train. The engines themselves weight 2 tons (like with the Leopard 2's.) But the Power Pack weighs much more.

 But you didn't know either - because you also said 'engines' not 'power packs'.

And 'no'. The 'engine of NO battle tank weighs that much. And a tranny and drive gear is NOT part of an 'engine...but part of a 'power pack' or 'drivetrain'.

4) And I changed it to 'Many tanks in history' before you posted your 'post about front drive gears on tanks'.

5) Cameras get dirty? What? Periscopes don't? Again...DUH?

 

I said no where that the Chariot was a tank god. That is pure strawman, BS.

I simply am using it as an example of front engined tanks working. 

Throw a strawman out again at me - and I will waste no more time on you.

 

Now answer the question I put out - and answer it first thing in your (inevitable) reply to me of I will not read it.

 

Now answer my this, please?

 Which tank would you rather be a crew member in?

a) A standard tank?

b) Or a tank where ALL the crew are in an armored cell in the back and egress if the tank is on fire is INCREDIBLY easy?

Think hard now?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mr.T said:

Which tanks have transmissions or final drives in front? Last mbt with front drive and rear engine was Sherman.

Powerpack size in western MBT is close to 8m3 so its hard to pack in front , and engine doesn't provide as much protection as armor can. Front engine also makes the hull higher in front , needing more armor to protect the increased volume vs the typical powerpack hump in the lightly protected back.

Given the volume and weight i have my doubts that Merkava is coparatively well protected,

 

 

 

 

Read my post again...I changed it almost immediately about front final drives/trans

 

Guess how much weight your 'doubt' holds with me?

Show me a link that proves your doubt with unbiased, factual evidence or your words mean nothing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:


1. We all have faces and names, m8. Just because you haven’t seen them doesn’t mean we don’t have them... 

 

2. Your tone comes off as aggressive and arrogant. Please try to be a little more humble, or your stay here may be cut short... 
 


There’s a reason most western MBTs have big square fronts and engines in the back. 
 

Also Merkava 4’s hull front armor isn’t that impressive, but the hull side armor is better than pretty much all MBTs out there. The turret’s also not that out of the ordinary, except for the built in trophy APS. 

I will speak anyway I wish.

It's called 'free speech'.

If it gets me banned - so what?

Won't be the first or last time.

Any board that cannot handle the truth?

Ain't worth being a part of.

 

And, again, I don't even begin to care what people on chat forums 'think' about anything on this. 

All I care about is facts.

So please post a link to unbiased, factual proof that the frontal, lower glacis protection of the Merkava is inadequate.

I have shown 'facts' on it's composition.

All I have from you people is guesses.

 

BTW - The fact that no other tank is built like the Chariot means NOTHING.

No other tank is built like the Armata?

And lots of people/tankers are raving about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, McRocket said:

I will speak anyway I wish.

It's called 'free speech'.

If it gets me banned - so what?

Won't be the first or last time.

Any board that cannot handle the truth?

Ain't worth being a part of.

 

And, again, I don't even begin to care what people on chat forums 'think' about anything on this. 

All I care about is facts.

So please post a link to unbiased, factual proof that the frontal, lower glacis protection of the Merkava is inadequate.

I have shown 'facts' on it's composition.

All I have from you people is guesses.

 

BTW - The fact that no other tank is built like the Chariot means NOTHING.

No other tank is built like the Armata?

And lots of people/tankers are raving about it.

 

I feel like there is a discrepancy between the actual definition of discussion and fact and your definition of those two things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, McRocket said:

I will speak anyway I wish.

It's called 'free speech'.

If it gets me banned - so what?

Won't be the first or last time.

Any board that cannot handle the truth?

Ain't worth being a part of.

 

And, again, I don't even begin to care what people on chat forums 'think' about anything on this. 

All I care about is facts.

So please post a link to unbiased, factual proof that the frontal, lower glacis protection of the Merkava is inadequate.

I have shown 'facts' on it's composition.

All I have from you people is guesses.

 

BTW - The fact that no other tank is built like the Chariot means NOTHING.

No other tank is built like the Armata?

And lots of people/tankers are raving about it.

 

Nobody has replied here, because there is an entire dedicated thread to IDF vehicles - including lots of in depth photos of all key areas. The hull protection ranges from an absolute joke (Merk I/II - directly inferior to the M60A1) to merely sub-par (IV). Nobody is going to copy over hundreds of posts documenting this into this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/04/merkava-4-damaged-during-training.html

 

Merkava is not something others wan't to emulate, i don't think Israelis convinced of its top dog either , there are considerable trade offs due to its layout . It helps if your known and potential enemies have nothing approaching a modern tank , and only have modern missiles so protection can be tailored towards that. Protected volume alone indicates its not the best armoured tank out there, not to mention it lacks the safe ammo storage of M1 

 

Armata while its new its not unique and similar layouts have been experimented with before but it likely only now that optronics are sophisticated enough to replace glass optics and make it work.

M1 Tank Test bed was kinda same base concept to Armata . 

ttb_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, McRocket said:

I will speak anyway I wish.

It's called 'free speech'.


Oh boy... 

 

25 minutes ago, McRocket said:

If it gets me banned - so what?

Won't be the first or last time.

Any board that cannot handle the truth?

Ain't worth being a part of.


Hmmm, perhaps it’s not “the truth”, or even your version of the truth, that’s getting you banned from those boards... 

 

30 minutes ago, McRocket said:

And, again, I don't even begin to care what people on chat forums 'think' about anything on this. 

All I care about is facts.

So please post a link to unbiased, factual proof that the frontal, lower glacis protection of the Merkava is inadequate.

I have shown 'facts' on it's composition.

All I have from you people is guesses.


If you “don’t care what people on chat forums think”, why are you here? Also, you seem to care what the people on that “chat forum” thought... 

 

I took a look at the sources in your link... and I have to say, a lot of them are guesses and speculation, as well. 
 

45 minutes ago, McRocket said:

BTW - The fact that no other tank is built like the Chariot means NOTHING.

No other tank is built like the Armata?

And lots of people/tankers are raving about it.


It is indicative of what works “best”. Best insomuch that it is best for their doctrine, manufacturing ability, average height an weight of the population, expected adversaries, expected terrain when fighting said adversaries, et cetera ad nauseam. 
 

There have been several tanks built like the Armata, just none that made it past the prototyping phase, for one reason or another. The “crew in a capsule” idea is from the 80’s, IIRC. 
 

Lol, the Armata as it is barely works like they advertise after 5+ years of development. And even after she “shocked the world”, most of the west hasn’t changed much to combat this “new menace”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Korvette said:

 

I feel like there is a discrepancy between the actual definition of discussion and fact and your definition of those two things. 

And I feel like I don't care a whole lot what you think about these things, at this point.

 

But, for the record, here is my definition of both:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/discussion

https://www.lexico.com/definition/fact

 

Have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lord_James said:


Oh boy... 

 


Hmmm, perhaps it’s not “the truth”, or even your version of the truth, that’s getting you banned from those boards... 

 


If you “don’t care what people on chat forums think”, why are you here? Also, you seem to care what the people on that “chat forum” thought... 

 

I took a look at the sources in your link... and I have to say, a lot of them are guesses and speculation, as well. 
 


It is indicative of what works “best”. Best insomuch that it is best for their doctrine, manufacturing ability, average height an weight of the population, expected adversaries, expected terrain when fighting said adversaries, et cetera ad nauseam. 
 

There have been several tanks built like the Armata, just none that made it past the prototyping phase, for one reason or another. The “crew in a capsule” idea is from the 80’s, IIRC. 
 

Lol, the Armata as it is barely works like they advertise after 5+ years of development. And even after she “shocked the world”, most of the west hasn’t changed much to combat this “new menace”. 

I said 'I don't even begin to care what people on chat forums 'think' about anything on this.'

'This' meaning discussions about armor.

Not on everything.

 

If you are going to quote me...please use the entire quote...not just the parts you feel like.

 

 

Again...this is exactly my point.

All you are doing is spewing forth opinions. And you are not even posting links.

They mean NOTHING.

Just as my opinions should mean NOTHING to you on this.

 

And you are guessing why tanks are still built as they are. You just assume - clearly. You do not take into account inertia, pride, greed, profit, ignorance, etc.

 To assume anything about something you have no direct connection to, without facts to back it up, is, IMO, simplistic, ignorant and arrogant. 

And a waste of time.

 

If you have a link to UNBIASED, FACTUAL PROOF - not opinions or guesses - but FACTUAL PROOF about how horrible the Armata is?

 

Then please post it or stop wasting my time with your 'theories and opinions'.

 

If your next post to me does not include a link to HARD DATA from UNBIASED SOURCES to back up your position?

Then I will not stop wasting my time with you on this subject as you are offering me NOTHING of substance but the rambling's of a faceless, nameless nobody on a chat forum.

 

Have a nice day

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Nobody has replied here, because there is an entire dedicated thread to IDF vehicles - including lots of in depth photos of all key areas. The hull protection ranges from an absolute joke (Merk I/II - directly inferior to the M60A1) to merely sub-par (IV). Nobody is going to copy over hundreds of posts documenting this into this thread.

Well, thank you.

 

But if people are going to call me on my opinions about another post - which several have?

Then I expect them to back it up.

If they don't - they will be ignored.

 

But I appreciate you pointing out the facts you did to me.

 

Good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mr.T said:

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/04/merkava-4-damaged-during-training.html

 

Merkava is not something others wan't to emulate, i don't think Israelis convinced of its top dog either , there are considerable trade offs due to its layout . It helps if your known and potential enemies have nothing approaching a modern tank , and only have modern missiles so protection can be tailored towards that. Protected volume alone indicates its not the best armoured tank out there, not to mention it lacks the safe ammo storage of M1 

 

Armata while its new its not unique and similar layouts have been experimented with before but it likely only now that optronics are sophisticated enough to replace glass optics and make it work.

M1 Tank Test bed was kinda same base concept to Armata . 

ttb_1.jpg

1) that is not entirely true about the Merkava.

It was first designed in the 1960's. And the first prototype was in 1974...only 1 year after Yom Kippur.

So, clearly, they were designed for large tank battles - not urban tank battles with terrorists.

 They have since modified it more for urban environs though.

Also, I disagree with their armament stowage as well.

IMO, the idea of a dude shoving a main round into an MBT gun is dinosaur stuff.

Also, turrets should have become fully automated decades ago as well.

 

2) Fair enough.

But, no offense, testing means little.

I mean, the Germans tested the Maus. 

But they just did it to please Hitler.

No way it ever would have been produced.

But the Armata is actually in production

- it's just that Russia is so broke...they cannot afford to build many.

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.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By kvnovasco
      ...actually nevermind i found this amazing site https://www.cybermodeler.com/armor/t-72/t-72_all.shtml  and it has LOADS of pics and i'm happy...still how do you find high res images of tanks online ?
      i looked and looked but rarely found any,it can't be possible that people didn't take millions of 6000x4000 pics of tanks...right?
    • By N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only
      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII
      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California
      Anno Domini 2250
      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank
       
      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.
       
       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:
      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank
      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.
      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM
      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.
      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.
      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.
      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.
      F.      IEDs
      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.
      2.      General guidelines:
      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.
      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.
      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.
      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.
      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.
      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:
      a.      Vehicle recoverability.
      b.      Continued fightability.
      c.       Crew survival.
      E.      Permissible weights:
      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.
      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.
      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.
      F.      Overall dimensions:
      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.
      b.      Width- 4m transport width.
                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.
                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.
      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.
      G.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure
      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.
                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.
                                                                   v.     Fused silica
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.
                                                                  vi.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.82g/cm^3.
                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               viii.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  ix.     ERA-light
      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy
      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  xi.     NERA-light
      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy
      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)
                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- limited
      3.      Operational Requirements.
      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.
      4.      Submission protocols.
      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
      Addendum 1 - more armor details
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • By N-L-M
      ATTENTION DUELISTS:
      @Toxn
      @LostCosmonaut
      @Lord_James
      @DIADES
      @Datengineerwill
      @Whatismoo
      @Kal
      @Zadlo
      @Xoon
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Wednesday the 19th of June at 23:59 GMT.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name

      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here)



      Table of basic statistics:

      Parameter

      Value

      Mass, combat


       
      Length, combat (transport)


       
      Width, combat (transport)


       
      Height, combat (transport)


       
      Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal)


       
      Estimated Speed


       
      Estimated range


       
      Crew, number (roles)


       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       

       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.

      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.

      3.     Transmission- type, arrangement, neat features.

      4.     Fuel- Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.

      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.

      6.     Suspension- Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.

      Survivability:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Link to Appendix 2- armor array details.

      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks- low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.

      Firepower:

      A.    Weapons:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Main Weapon-

      a.      Type

      b.      Caliber

      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)

      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.

      e.      FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.

      f.      Neat features.

      3.     Secondary weapon- Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.

      4.     Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using Soviet 1961 tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on extimated performance and how these estimates were reached.

      B.    Optics:

      1.     Primary gunsight- type, associated trickery.

      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.

      C.    FCS:

      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.

      2.     Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.

      Fightability:

      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.

      Additonal Features:

      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.

      Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.


       Example for filling in Appendix 1
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...