Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

     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?

 

 

I thought this deserves its own thread.

 

Where do you see tank design going in the next few decades?  Where do you think it should go?

 

Here is where I think things will go:

 

 

-Western tank development will be depressing.  Every country will want their own indigenous tank design, and upon learning that they are lolnotevenclose to competent to actually make a first-rate MBT, they'll ask someone who is and end up making something that is practically identical to a Leo 2 or Leclerc, only without parts interchangeability.

 

-Except for the tracks, ammo and engine, because all new Western MBTs will have the same Diehl tracks, MTU powerpack and Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

 

-Anyone who deviates from this formula will soon learn that all the engineers who actually design tanks hung up their hats in the early 1990s, and that re-building that knowledge base is hard.  Being unwilling to put actual work into the problem, any tank designed that isn't based around these proven components will be a gigantic shitshow, and having wasted hundreds of millions of dollars, the country in question will throw up their hands and quietly buy T-90s or T-14s.

 

-The vast majority of tank armor will be increasingly refined NERA, possibly with perforated stand off screens or those wedge thingies from Leo 2A5 to improve performance against LRPs.  This fact, abundantly evinced by pictures of damaged tanks and tanks undergoing repair and overhaul, will continue to baffle and elude journalists.

 

-The USA, Turkey, Franco-German consortium, South Korea and Japan will be the only "Western" countries still able to produce MBTs, and all will heavily lean on German-designed tracks, engines and guns.  Turkish MBTs and other AFVs will be materially designed by South Korean firms to Turkish specifications.  Italy and the UK will both lose their ability to design MBTs, the UK will actually lose their ability to make them, which will be rationalized by saying that MBTs are obsolete.  Crystal ball cloudy for Poland, Czech Republic, and whatever tank production capability remains in Romania and former Yugoslavia.

 

-The Russians will re-acquire the lead they had in tank design throughout most of the Cold War, with the Chinese playing second fiddle.  Chinese first-line tanks will be quite good, but they will sell hilarious, hot-rodded type 59s to export customers (alongside hilarious hot-rodded J-7s) instead of their good stuff.  Russia will sell the good stuff, and once they manage to replicate the parts they needed to source from abroad, it will be really good.  The Ukrainian tank industry will remain gutted, and the glorious Kharkiv tank design lineage will fade into obscurity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

-The Russians will re-acquire the lead they had in tank design throughout most of the Cold War, with the Chinese playing second fiddle.  Chinese first-line tanks will be quite good, but they will sell hilarious, hot-rodded type 59s to export customers (alongside hilarious hot-rodded J-7s) instead of their good stuff.  Russia will sell the good stuff, and once they manage to replicate the parts they needed to source from abroad, it will be really good.  The Ukrainian tank industry will remain gutted, and the glorious Kharkiv tank design lineage will fade into obscurity.

500px-Russiaball.jpg

RUSSIA STRONK

 

UNMANED TURRENTS BEST TURRENTS

 

REMOVE L-55 FROM THE PREMISIES

 

all kidding aside colli, your right on the mark

 

and unless your a fucking Nazi pigdog, you spell if Kharkov, like real men

 

Kharkiv is the equivalent of talking about a T-64 while desencding an a large, swastika shaped dildo 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-The Russians will re-acquire the lead they had in tank design throughout most of the Cold War, with the Chinese playing second fiddle.  Chinese first-line tanks will be quite good, but they will sell hilarious, hot-rodded type 59s to export customers (alongside hilarious hot-rodded J-7s) instead of their good stuff.  Russia will sell the good stuff, and once they manage to replicate the parts they needed to source from abroad, it will be really good.  The Ukrainian tank industry will remain gutted, and the glorious Kharkiv tank design lineage will fade into obscurity.

 

Nonsense comrade, glorious Ukrainian arms industry will continue selling refurbished T-64s to third world countries for many years to come! Plus they almost managed to assemble an armoured car last I checked! Exciting news indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unmanned tanks will be produce in the US. It will perform subpar in combat against militia in the Middle East and Rand Paul will complain about them. Iran will capture one and sell it(after claiming they built it locally) to the Chinese who will build a version that is 10x as good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all of which will pale in comparison to the unmanned tank built by the Russians 30 years prior, which weighed less, had more armor, better engines, much larger guns and costed 1/3 of the competition, but remained a prototype due to obvious reasons (unmanned tanks?, who the hell will get out of the turrent and sing to internationale to the lamnations of liberated women) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense comrade, glorious Ukrainian arms industry will continue selling refurbished T-64s to third world countries for many years to come! Plus they almost managed to assemble an armoured car last I checked! Exciting news indeed.

 

Because it takes them forever to get anything done.  How long did it take them to fulfill that tiny Thai T-84 order?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

-The Russians will re-acquire the lead they had in tank design throughout most of the Cold War, with the Chinese playing second fiddle.  Chinese first-line tanks will be quite good, but they will sell hilarious, hot-rodded type 59s to export customers (alongside hilarious hot-rodded J-7s) instead of their good stuff.  Russia will sell the good stuff, and once they manage to replicate the parts they needed to source from abroad, it will be really good.  The Ukrainian tank industry will remain gutted, and the glorious Kharkiv tank design lineage will fade into obscurity.

Why retool your factories when you can make a ton of dosh from them without retooling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

-Anyone who deviates from this formula will soon learn that all the engineers who actually design tanks hung up their hats in the early 1990s, and that re-building that knowledge base is hard.  Being unwilling to put actual work into the problem, any tank designed that isn't based around these proven components will be a gigantic shitshow, and having wasted hundreds of millions of dollars, the country in question will throw up their hands and quietly buy T-90s or T-14s.

 

This is most certainly true when it comes to diesel tank engines in the US.  The only place that really could make one was Getty st. in Muskegon MI, and they lost all their talent years ago.  Now they can barely manage to make a functioning AVDS-1790, an engine that has been in production since the 1960's.  Part of the problem is that as production numbers have declined, many of the subcontractors have dried up.  Tank engines are pretty unique, they require specialized parts.  For example, only one company has managed to make a piston ring that really works in the AVDS-1790.  They tried other companies, the rings failed.  So now since production is so low, they can only put in an order for rings once a year or so in order to reach the manufacturer minimum.  So yeah, we are barely maintaining our infrastructure to be able to make the shit we have been making for years, let alone develop anything new.  The next US tank will have a goddamn German engine in it and that will make me cry.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are specific engineering and technological paths of development for anyone interested in making something other than a mediocre Leo 2A7 clone:

 

-Stereo rangefinders are retro and cool.  Advances in digital camera technology will obviate the need for a rigid optical connection.  Essentially, you'll have two high magnification cameras out on the sides of the turret, and software magic will tell you the range to things.  For extra super-duper precision, you can periodically re-calibrate against the laser rangefinder.  This technology already exists for smart phones, so putting it in a tank shouldn't be hard (also, something similar was initially planned for Leo 2).  Advances in laser detection and warning systems will necessitate some sort of passive rangefinding technology, in order to get firing solutions on targets without alerting them.

 

-Those German lubricated half-track track links were... um...

Vk4f7h1.jpg

 

Well, perhaps not a great idea, as implemented.

 

However, lubrication technology has come a long way.  It should be possible to make some sort of PTFE or POM-impregnation coating for track link pins that lasts as long as the pins themselves, and gives similar reduction in rolling resistance to the sealed needle-bearing design.  This will improve track life, fuel economy and top speed.  As an added bonus, it will make tanks less squeaky, which is obviously very important.

 

-LRPs will not be the most efficient way to kill tanks, but they will remain the most reliable.  Because they move so goddamn fast and do not rely on guidance of any sort, LRPs will remain completely immune to APS for years, and because the material in them is not under rheological conditions, breaking them up is much harder than HEAT jets.  Tank main armament should be, contra the military reformers, designed around flinging the biggest, baddest LRP, with all other functions secondary.  It'll still be a big fucking gun, it will do fine at secondary tasks even if it's a little inefficient at them.

 

-Pursuant to the above, research into advanced metallurgy, composite overwrap, and refractory liners should be accelerated in order to run breech pressures higher to keep the main gun ammunition as small as possible.

-Primary armament has such a gigantic overpressure danger zone:

M256_danger.png

 

And rifle-caliber MGs are deficient at reducing many types of obstacle in the infantry support role.  Some sort of intermediate armament should be investigated.  Mid-caliber autocannon?  Heavy machine gun?  Automatic grenade launcher?  Mortar?  I dunno.

-The gas turbines in the T-80 and Abrams are utter crap compared to what airliners have now.  Pressure ratios of 9:1 or 14:1, and TIT of 1100 degrees or so?  That's adorable.  What could a purpose-designed MBT turbine do?  There are goddamn magical SiC turbine blades now, 52:1 pressure ratios with better isentropic efficiency than the old ones, variable stators, FADEC, and if you want to get really fancy, science-fiction heat exchangers.  Turbines were good enough decades ago to be worth a looksee against diesels.  They should utterly clobber them now, because diesels haven't gotten that much better while turbines have gotten a whole lot better.

 

-Improvements in the efficiency of electrical motors and generators may make them attractive.  The biggest advantage would be redundancy.  With multiple engines and a mechanical transmission, you end up with goofy, bulky gearboxes like the M5/M24 family.  With electrical transmission, it would be fairly easy to have, say, two or three little turbines scattered around the tank, making it very hard to M-kill.  Also, for cruise only a single turbine would be needed, while the others could come online for combat.  This would overcome the poor part-load efficiency problem of turbines.  LoooSeR has mentioned this idea before.  A dinky, high-technology turbine with modest specific power but good SFC would be attractive for drones as well as tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just repost this here

gcv_hed_design.jpg

 

gcv_hed_layout.jpg

 

     Obvious use of this system is heavy IFVs. Like T-15. Another possible place to use this tech are tanks with unmanned turrets, those vehicles have bigger hulls than usual. In fact T-14 have sponsons, which are not so small near rear part of hull. WIth futher development of this system i think some tanks may lose their classical engine compartment, space could be used to store ammunition or it may became a crew working place.

     Anyway, with unmanned turrets and such engines tank designs maybe can become more diverse in future. I think we will not see a 2 man crew tank in serial production for a long time, so Western tanks could gain even more weight in future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see more focus on MGS type platforms. Possible resurrection of the M8 style AGS. Lighter, smaller, and more portable vehicles. Crew reductions, unmanned turrets, stand off weapons systems, urban suitability packages, with an emphasis on infantry support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see more focus on MGS type platforms. Possible resurrection of the M8 style AGS. Lighter, smaller, and more portable vehicles. Crew reductions, unmanned turrets, stand off weapons systems, urban suitability packages, with an emphasis on infantry support.

Canadian Operation experience in Afghanistan, (Not exactly tank friendly terrain) shows that some times, you just need a fucking tank because that's what works. Sometimes you need to get in your face with a big goddamned gun, heavy armor,  and nice thermal sights and fuck all the ATGM teams at 3 km with 120mm. It works.

Our army staff was arguing  hard for the Stryker MGS as a tank replacement for the Leo 1.   Then oops, we hit some real combat and then all of a sudden some used Leo2s became our General's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What that really shows is that the Canadian army needed an assault gun and had to resort to deploying what they had readily available in order to fill a the need, which was basically an infantry support role. Something a vehicle like the M8 would have filled perfectly.  In low intensity conflicts when the threat from enemy armor is close to 0, vehicles like the M1128 or the defunct M8 program are easier to deploy and support yet pack the punch needed to deal with any potential threats.  The M1128 has some pretty serious design flaws but the concept is pretty sound. 

 

I do not foresee the large tank and tank battles being the typical future conflict. 

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 Monochromelody
      IDF had kept about 100 Tiran-6/T-62s since 1973, and remain service until 1990s. 
       
      I wonder if there's any modification on Tiran-6, like changing the powerpack into 8V71T+XTG-411, adapting steering wheel. 
       
      I also heard that British ROF had produce a batch of 115mm barrel for IDF, while MECAR or NEXTER produced high-performance APFSDS for 115mm gun. Did IDF really use these barrels for original barrel replacement? 
       
      And about protection, did IDF put Blazer ERA on Tiran-6? Or they use more advanced APS like Trophy? 
       
      Thank you. 
    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     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 judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^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 4 inches.
      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- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in 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 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     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-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in 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.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 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- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
×
×
  • Create New...