NationStates Jolt Archive

INTRO
As can be expected from a game like this, there is a significant tendency for players to tinker around and design their own original units. However, something many such players fail to realize is what kind of limitations there are on such units. As such, this post is here to give some information on the capabilities and limitations of armored vehicles, which pertains both to real and original designs. It's intended to help designers by showing what can and can't be done; and sellers and buyers by showing some advantages and deficiencies that are not found in basic statistics.


ARMOR
With that out of the way, I think that we should start with a look at one of the most important features of a tank: armor. Tank armor has evolved quite a bit since they were first employed in WWI, as better materials became available and protection requirements increased to keep up with evolving antitank weapons. Though the basic steel armor from WWI and WWII can still be found on many tank designs still in service, it has shifted to layers of steel and composites in most modern units.
Despite the better materials used, steel armor is still used as the base for measuring protection, in the form of RHA. Basically, 14mm of armor protection means that the protection is equivalent to a plate of rolled homogenous steel that's 14mm thick. The actual armor could be much thicker or much thinner, depending on the materials used. However, things do get complicated as the two different types of tank-killing rounds, Sabot and HEAT, are affected differently by other materials. As such, separate values are required for both. As composite armors were designed primarily against HEAT warheads, it's not surprising that they're more effective against them. The armor on the M1 for example, has 800mm of protection against Sabots, but an impressive 1300mm of protection against HEAT. A modern or near-future main battle tank will usually have in the range of 400-1000mm of ballistic (Sabot) protection, and 600-1700mm of HEAT protection, with the difference between the two varying according to the amount of armor and the materials used.

Now, for armor design. This is one of the most common areas for someone to slip up, as many people refuse to accept just how this goes. So here, we will look at features and limitations for armor. Pay attention.
One of the most significant advances in armor in WWII was the idea of sloping it, which would often cause rounds to bounce off rather than penetrate. Since WWII, armor slope has increased significantly, from 45-60 degrees to 65-80, which means that rounds are increasingly likely to be deflected, unless they have sufficient energy, which sabot rounds often do. Another effect from sloping is increasing the thickness of armor that must be penetrated without increasing the armor itself. However, as is quite obvious, only the front armor can be really well sloped. Side and rear armor, because of limitations on size and space, are never very well sloped, which greatly reduces protection. In addition to this, those same limitations drop the amount of armor that can actually be put there, so side and rear armor are not only less sloped, but thinner than frontal armor. Now, many players thing that dropping the side armor by 25%, and the rear to 50% of the front is sufficient. This is not true. A tank with 450mm of frontal armor protection will likely have less than 150mm of side armor, and even less for rear. By WWII, even without sloped armor, side protection was often only 1/2 that of frontal protection. With modern armor, side armor would only be 20-30% as good as the front armor, tops. The fact is, most tanks are vulnerable to just about any infantry-fired weapon if they're not engaged head-on.
Another advance in armor design was first employed in the late-1960s, and this was layered composite armor. Steel armor, while not bad, is actually relatively soft and easy to penetrate. While this can be hardened, there are limitations (it's more brittle and likely to fragment), and it's still not as good as many other materials used today. Originally, tanks would use just steel, which was later replaced by a layer hardened steel over one of RHS. With this, the hardened steel would protect better against penetrating rounds, and the softer RHA would stop the fragments. HEAT warheads changed this, as they could easily blow through both types of steel. To defend against HEAT, newer materials were developed, which were harder than steel, and more resistant to HEAT warheads, though many vehicles still use a layer of RHA to protect against fragmentation. The new layered composites are used in most modern tanks, which have widely varying degrees of protection depending on the exact ratio and type of composite used.
Another form of defense against HEAT warheads was ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor). ERA is applied in blocks, comprised of two thin sheets of armor around an explosive charge. These blocks are then attached to the armor of the tank, with a small space between the bottom sheet and the tank's own armor. The idea here is that, when a HEAT round strikes the ERA plate, the charge detonates, which sends the first sheet flying into the warhead to help disrupt it. At the same time, the second sheet is pushed into the armor, which it bounces off of to provide a second buffer to disrupt the HEAT's jet even further. Now, the limitations of ERA are not very well known, but they are significant. For one thing, the angle of the strike is a major factor in determining the effectiveness of the pack. At optimum angles, over 75% of the HEAT warhead’s jet may be disrupted, and thus used up. However, this can be dropped to less than 10% when the attacking warhead strikes the armor at a perfect 90-degree angle. As such, missiles that fly a top attack profile, and air launched weapons, are much more effective against ERA than normal ground-launched weapons. Another weakness is that standard ERA has only extremely limited effectiveness against sabot rounds. While there is a heavier version for deflecting those, it is less effective against HEAT warheads and can actually cause some damage to the vehicle itself as the plate rebounds off the armor. ERA is also, naturally, a one-use defense. Once a pack is used up, that area is perfectly vulnerable to further attack. Finally, ERA produces lethal fragments, so dismounted infantry cannot effectively escort a unit equipped with ERA. That’s just suicidal.


ANTI-TANK ROUNDS
The next thing to look into is related to armor, and that’s the weapons that are designed to defeat it. There are two primary methods of beating armor: long-rod penetrators (sabots), and HEAT warheads. Virtually all modern anti-tank weapons use one of these. One thing to remember here is that, regardless of the type of round used, it must have greater penetration capability than the armor it strikes to take out the target. This means that, if a round with exactly 400mm of penetration strikes exactly 400mm of armor, there will often be no effect other than a hole in the armor, as there was no energy left to cause internal damage. There is a chance of fragmentation, but I wouldn’t be betting on it.

A sabot round has a sub-caliber projectile. In other words, the actual round has a smaller diameter than the gun that fires it. Generally, the actual penetrator is 1/3-1/4 the diameter of the gun (30-40mm for a 120mm gun). The penetrator is surrounded in the cartridge by a sabot, which keeps it centered as it travels through the barrel, amd peels off after exiting the breach (hence DS – Discarding Sabot). As it’s using the same propellant as a full-caliber round, the penetrator can achieve significant velocities in the range of 1650 m/s (over Mach 4). The penetrator, in order to maximize effect, is made of strong, heavy metal, usually either tungsten or depleted uranium. Of these, DU is significantly more effective, as it’s slightly harder. It also tends to have particles that flake off and ignite upon penetration, causing fires within the enemy tank-always a good thing. The problems with DU are that 1) it’s slightly radioactive, 2) the dust created when a round hits is extremely toxic, causing environmental problems as well as making the area hazardous to unprotected troops, and 3) it’s very difficult to work with safely. Tungsten, on the other hand, is much safer and cheaper, but less effective. The penetrator is very long and thin, with a lengh to diameter ratio of 15-20 to 1, and up to 30 to 1 in some rounds. This forces greater mass into a smaller focal point, greatly enhancing penetration. However, the higher the ratio, the more likely the penetrator is to break up on impact (greater relative stress) and thus become useless. The greatest weakness of long-rod penetrators is that, with modern sloping and composites, they must fly perfectly straight and strike the armor squarely, or run the risk of losing up to 80% of their penetration. Another is that the round’s effectiveness is based on its energy at impact, which means that the further away the target is, the less effective the round will be. This is why heavier ERA can be effective-it throws them off just slightly, but enough to dramatically reduce penetration. While this type of round is found primarily in tanks, there are a few missiles that use the same idea. The most notable of these is the US LOSAT (Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank) missile, which accelerates to extreme velocities to use a penetrating rod, rather than the traditional warhead, to engage the tank. Another important thing about these rounds is that they’re primarily fired from smoothbore guns, as the extreme velocities involved will wear out a rifled barrel very quickly.
The second primary type of round is the HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) warhead. HEAT rounds use chemical, rather than kinetic, forces to achieve penetration. A HEAT warhead has an explosive charge packed around a metallic liner (usually copper or aluminum). When the round detonates, the liner is collapsed inward, then heated and compressed into a molten jet with a velocity in the range of 8000-9000 m/s (around Mach 25!). This stream is still solid, but behaves like a fluid due to the pressures involved, and uses a combination of heat and localized kinetic energy which deforms and pushes the armor aside, burning a hole. To allow the jet to achieve optimum form before striking the armor, the fuse is set at the end of a long probe that extends in front of the actual charge. As one might expect, the value of ERA is that it disrupts the jet before it has had a chance to reach its optimum form, but the angled strike is needed to actually deflect part of the jet away. Otherwise, it still strikes with only slightly reduced force. The greatest advantage of the HEAT round is that the actual velocity of the round is completely irrelevant, as all penetration is caused by the warhead (this is why it’s used on most missiles). It’s also more effective against RHA than kinetic penetrators. As a rule of thumb, a tank’s HEAT round can generally penetrate 4-7 times the warhead’s diameter in RHA, depending on the liner and armor struck. The main weakness is that modern armor composites are more resistant to HEAT, do in no small part to the much higher melting point compared to steel.
A cousin of the HEAT warhead is the EFP (Explosively Formed Projectile). This uses a similar concept, but has a shallow dish instead of the conical liner. This explosive deforms this into a solid slug (rather than a jet) with a velocity of about 2000 m/s. Though this is nowhere near as effective as a HEAT warhead, the slug is fired downward as the round flies above the target, thus striking the thin top armor. Penetration is only about equal to the warhead’s diameter, but that’s still more than enough for most tanks. Examples of this kind of warhead are the Swedish Bill and US TOW-2B anti-tank missiles, and the US STAFF tank round. This kind of warhead is also only marginally by ERA due to the angle and method of attack, making it doubly dangerous.
A fourth type of round, and one that is both little known and increasingly uncommon is the HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) or HEP (High Explosive Plastique) round. This round has a thin case that spreads out an explosive filler on impact. As this filler detonates against the armor, it sends shockwaves through, which breaks fragments off of the interior of the armor and sends them flying around inside to cause damage. This round is especially effective against thinner armor and bunkers, but is of only limited use against modern tanks.


WEAPONS
Naturally, the primary weapon of a tank is a big gun, though it will always have several other systems to back that up and provide protection against threats that a gun would be wasted on. We will look into all of these.
To start with, the primary firepower of a tank, once again, comes from it’s main gun. These will usually be smoothebore guns, as those are far better for firing most current anti-tank rounds. Rifled guns would have better range, but Sabot, HEAT, and EFP rounds would be much more difficult to use effectively, and only other types of rounds would have the range advantage. In modern tanks, the bore diameter is usually going to be a 105 or 120mm (Western), or 125mm (Soviet Bloc). This effectively covers the armament of most tanks that have entered service in the last 35 years. Generally speaking, the larger the gun, the greater the range and penetration. However, there are limits, particularly to the size of a weapon. While some players like to put them on, a 155mm tank cannon is huge, and will be bigger than most artillery guns. As one might expect, the tank will have to be massive indeed to use it effectively, and would suffer significantly in mobility. On the other hand, a 135mm or 140mm gun is much smaller, but still bigger than current weapons, and much more doable (in fact, has been done). One can also increase effectiveness by increasing barrel length. The use of a 25% longer gun on the Leopard 2 (55 cal instead of 44 cal) has dramatically improved performance, and keeps the tank as a viable unit without increasing weight so much. Another thing to note is that these still have limited range, and strikes at maximum range will be difficult to achieve, as well as likely to fail to penetrate (when sabots are used). Now, 120mm guns have been known to take out enemy units at over 5 km. However, the actual effective range is closer 3-4 km. Much further than that, and the round becomes difficult to control, and is far less likely to penetrate modern armor upon impact. Now, this can be increased with larger guns, but claiming that you can take out any known tank at over 10km is a bit beyond acceptable limits, even for the big guns. Another thing to consider with the main gun is that a tank will usually have some reason for growth. The M48 was upgunned from 90 to 105mm, and there are now versions of the M60 with 120mm guns instead of 105. Likewise, the Leopard 2 has been tested with a 140mm weapon replacing its 120mm gun. So remember, you won’t necessarily be stuck with the gun you initially use.
While the main gun is the star of the show, there are a slew of secondary weapons that a tank must have to fight effectively. One of the first things to note here is something that virtually all tanks have, and that is a coaxial weapon. This means that it’s alongside the main gun, and moves with it, pointing wherever the main gun points. On most tanks, this is going to be a 7.62mm machine gun, but some like the AMX-30 can have up to a 20 or 30mm cannon instead. In addition to that weapon, there’s often an anti-aircraft machine gun (for helicopters). This is usually a heavier 12.7mm (.50 cal) machine gun, though a 7.62mm weapon is not unheard of. In addition to this, most tanks have banks of smoke grenade launchers on the turret to help counter some attacks, though a number Soviet designs forgo this as they can dump diesel fuel into the engine exhaust to achieve the same smokescreen effect. While that is the extent of what can be found on most vehicles, some will have an additional machine gun operated by the loader or another crew member, and the Israeli Merkava an Sabra tanks have 60mm mortars. However, when mixing weapons is is essential that one keep in mind that there’s limited internal space, and too many weapons will mean that there’s less ammunition for each one.


FEATURES
While layout for most tanks is similar, many incorporate unique features that enhance, or in some cases, inhibit, performance.
One feature to consider is size (and weight, which is obviously related). Soviet tanks are much smaller and lighter than their western counterparts, and this does mean that they present a much smaller target, making them more difficult to see and hit. However, this can be extremely bad. Because of the smaller size, these tanks have about half of the internal space, meaning many features are left out. Among these is protected racks for the ammunition, which is stored in the open where it’s very likely to be detonated if the armor’s penetrated. Another major disadvantage is that a smaller internal space makes it much more likely that a penetrator or spalling fragment will hit something critical, thus knocking out, or at least significantly degrading the performance of the tank. In addition, these units feature autoloader, which is less effective than a human loader in most cases. The main reason is that the space that would be taken up by a fourth crewman is needed for other things. All this means that Soviet tanks tend to be deathtraps when hit, and harder to maintain in the field (less people to help) than western ones. Western tanks, on the other hand, are much larger and heavier, and that means that there’s much more space, which can be used to house ammunition in blast-resistant bustles with blowout panels, which are used by most. What those do is reduce the chance of an ammunition explosion, and in the event of one happening, they vent the blast out of the tank, leaving the interior relatively intact. This means that the tank will be salvageable. Naturally, western tanks, though easier to hit, are much more likely to survive a hit. Something to think about. The main disadvantage with them is the high weight. Western tanks are heavy, and that means that they’re a pain to move around and deploy.
Another feature, and one that’s much more unique, is that of the Israeli Merkava tank. This tank, rather than having it in the rear like most, actually has the engine in the front of the vehicle, where it not only is better protected, but itself provides additional protection for the more critical components, like crew and ammunition. In addition, the tank features a rear compartment that can be used to store provisions, additional ammunition, or even a squad of infantry (for urban combat). Occasionally, this could also be used to protect the crew of a disabled tank after they evacuated. The main drawback is more constricted engine space, which limits the size and power.
Another very unique tank is the Swedish Stridsvagn 105 (aka S-Tank). This vehicle, though designated a tank, is probably better described as an assault gun. The reason is that the main gun is completely fixed. This is something that’s excessively rare, as even WWII tank destroyers had limited traverse. The tank aims the gun by turning, and adjusting the suspension for elevation. The benefit is a significant decrease in weight and cost, as well as a much better suspension than many comparable units. The down side, obviously, is that it’s much more limited in engagement capability than other tanks.
Now that we’ve looked into some current features, lets look at a few from the past that didn’t exactly pan out. The most notable of these is multiple turrets, which was used on several Soviet heavy tanks in the 1930s. These tanks had a main gun (usually 76.2mm) and a few smaller guns (MGs and 45mm) on smaller turrets. The first, and most obvious, problem is that, in order to give the main gun full traverse, the turret had to be tall, which made for a significantly higher profile. Another problem was, as space had to be saved for the other turrets, all of these were very small and cramped. Yet another serious problem was the vulnerability of the secondary turrets, which were much less armored, but still susceptible to ammunition explosions and the like. Because of this, the idea of secondary turrets was generally left behind.
Now there are some that have a secondary turret on top of the main turret, but it suffers from most of the same problems. It increases profile, is much less protected by simple nature, and is prone to ammunition explosions, which stand a good chance of damaging the interior of the tank proper, even if the turret is fully automated. And in the case of the occasional attempt to use a Phalanx ship-based system, they should just be ignored. The Phalanx is too big to be used by a tank.


INTO THE FUTURE
Naturally, as NS has no fixed timeline, there are many that will like to use slightly, or even extremely futuristic equipment to make their tank work better. Things like ETC guns (aka rail guns) and advanced armor composites are popular. However, one must still recognize the limitations of these add-ons.
An ETC (electro-thermal chemical) gun is a forerunner to the more powerful ET (electro-thermal) gun. The value of the ETC is that it doesn’t rely entirely on the electromagnetic acceleration to propel the round, and thus requires much less power. The benefit of the gun lies in the significantly higher muzzle velocities that can be achieved, and the subsequent increase in the penetration capabilities of rounds fired from it. However, the gun has several weaknesses. For one thing, the ETC gun requires a great deal of power, much more than most tanks can generate, to be effective. Additionally, ETC guns are larger than traditional guns with the same bore diameter, and they’re also much more expensive. The final weakness is that ETC guns are more prone to damage, with delicate electronics and objects that can be thrown loose being in the barrel. This means that there are several notable limitations to ETC guns. The first is size. No, you will not see a 140mm ETC gun on a 50 ton tank, nor will you see a 120mm version on a light tank-the gun would be too bulky and require too much power to operate effectively. Another is cost, you will easily be adding several hundred thousand dollars, if not a few million, to the cost of a unit by putting in an ETC gun and the required systems. Additionally, there is the susceptibility to damage. ETC guns will not work well on anything that’s airdropped, as the shock upon landing will likely be too great. Likewise, an object striking the gun could easily disrupt it enough to significantly degrade performance. Still, with unrivaled penetration, these can be quite useful.
The other extremely common thing is improved armor. Now, this is perfectly fine as long as a few things are remembered. First, the same rules that apply to modern armor protection (with sides and rear being so much less) will still be there. Also, the increase won’t be that great. In other words, you might get a 10-25% increase without too much difficulty, but a single advance is not going to double the effectiveness, so near future tanks should not be there with well over 2000mm of ballistic protection. That would require you to be decades into the future, at least. Additionally, the armor can’t be perfect. No matter how good it is, it has to be really far in the future to be completely immune to current weapons. And again, new armor composites will often be very expensive, and will jack up the price of the tank considerably.


PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
For starters, one can't design an ubertank (or any other unit for that matter) that will do everything better than any unit around. With realistic design limitations, there will always be several things that must be sacrificed. If you want a bigger gun and better armor, you can expect it to be lacking in speed and strategic mobility. Likewise, if you want to increase speed or strategic mobility, you're going to have to drop some weight in the form of armor and firepower. If you want a turbine engine rather than a diesel, you will have to make deal with the greater fuel consumption. If you want all the best systems, you'll have to be prepared for a very steep price. If you want a smaller profile, you will have to make do with less internal space. A tank's design, like that of any other type of unit, is a series of compromises.

So, what's the best combination? Well, that's entirely based on your requirments. Different nations need different features based on geographical features and how they intend to use them (tactics, deployment, etc). Israel, for example, designs their tanks for maximum survivability and defensive engagements. As such, Israeli tanks are quite slow, but powerful and well-armored. The Soviet Union places emphasis on low cost, weight, and profile. As such, Soviet units are smaller and lighter, but far less sophisticated and survivable than western units. The UK, again, is geared toward defensive engagements, so their tanks are very slow, but exceptionally well armed and armored. Nations with significant mountainous, marshland, or jungle regions will make heavy use of light tanks. Greek trials favored the Leopard 2 primarily for its deep fording capability, and so on. The variety of tanks stems from the variety of requirements, so be sure to fit your tank to your requirements, and at the same time, try to give it something that its contemporaries lack. Selling points are always good.

Now that you’ve decided on the features that your tank will have, the general layout, and the general size and tech level, how do you figure out how much it should cost? Well, for starters, you should find the tank(s) that it’s most based on, and find out how much those will cost. That should be your base. Now, after that, you will want to look into what additional features you put in. Did you improve electronics and defensive systems? How about armor and firepower? And the engine (top speed)? Did you increase size and weight? After answering these, it goes entirely to guesswork, but on average, a new unit will have at least 1.5 times the cost of the one it’s replacing, and more if new technologies (ETC, new armor, etc) are added. Also, consider how much further you are into the future. If a tank costs $4 million today, it’ll be a bit higher than that 50 years from now.


NOT QUITE THE END
I’ve decided to post this now, but there’s much more that I will add later, including price and armor protection for a number of tanks. Until then, thanks for reading this (assuming you didn’t just skip down to here :wink: ), and good luck.


This has been another informative post by Clan Smoke Jaguar

This has been another informative post by Clan Smoke Jaguar

True, very true :P

That was one heck of a post...

*bows down in worship*

Pretty good! Some1 either has a very expensive hobby or access to too many military mainframes! :)

Plus TAG for future reference.

Impressive, even I laerant something, I wast thinking about doing the same with aircraft but gave uo after a paragraph.

One question;

Which is mor eeffective smoothbore or rifled barrel?

i have stopped reading it after "As can be expected from a game like this", too long, but nice work anyways :P

:idea: This topic should become a Sticky or an Announcement!

:idea: This topic should become a Sticky or an Announcement!
I'd say it should be linked at the "View these great threads" stickey, as this is more "specialized".

Yeah 1 question, how do you change the size of the font your typing in and it's color. :oops: Just wanting to know

Nice post. Gave me a few ideas on how I should change my guns.

edit:Tanks

:idea: This topic should become a Sticky or an Announcement!
I'd say it should be linked at the "View these great threads" stickey, as this is more "specialized".

Yeah, that'd be better, but still it should be made available really easily. Wow do live on NS Omz222!

Impressive, even I laerant something, I wast thinking about doing the same with aircraft but gave uo after a paragraph.

One question;

Which is mor eeffective smoothbore or rifled barrel?
With modern ammunition, a smoothebore barrel is better. I belive rifled ones can now fire APFSDS and HEAT, but it's much more complicated. At the velocities they use, normal APFSDS rounds whould trash the barrel (wear out the rifling after only a few shots). HEAT rounds, on the other hand, can't spin. If the round is spinning in flight, centrifugal force will bleed off some of the jet, significantly decreasing penetration.
However, on pretty much all other types of ammunition, a rifled gun is better.

Yeah 1 question, how do you change the size of the font your typing in and it's color. :oops: Just wanting to know
So did I, once upon a time. However, I'm a little sneakier so I used the "quote" option to see how others did everything.
Color is text
Size is text

:idea: This topic should become a Sticky or an Announcement!
I'd say it should be linked at the "View these great threads" stickey, as this is more "specialized".

Yeah, that'd be better, but still it should be made available really easily. Wow do live on NS Omz222!
Unfortunately, linking it on the "View these great threads" sticky might not help much, as many would only look at the first post, which isn't going anywhere.
However, I only need one sticky, which I currently do have. I can easily put the links to everything else I do there.

You left out weight.

Over a certain tonnage vehicles will simply sink into the earth, destroy roads, and eat gas like mad.

OOC:
My country resides in Novaya Zemlya, Ostrov Komsomolets, Zemlya, Ostrov Bol'shevik, Novosibirskiye Ostrova and Zemlya Frantsa - Iosifa islands north of Russia and Siberia. Originally claimed by Russia. The climate's extremely cold, my people have learned to adapt to them. Now, any advice on tanks suitable for such a cold and harsh environment?

Very good.

..But but but (no one else cares, but New Eastgate still has these machines to come in its far distant future..) the Soviets need to get less credit (if that's even the word) for the massive multi-turreted tanks, since it was a British design (Vickers A1E1 Independent) that sparked off that whole short-lived fad.

(And arguably the lunatic Germans who would have finished it, had they held out long enough.)

Damn it, now I want to skip my industrial revolution and get to building absurd tanks. Heh.

OOC:
The Germans did make the most massive tank in the history of mankind.

Panzerkampfwagen VIII 'Maus'
Measurements:
Length (with gun) 10.09m
Length (without gun) 9.02m
Width 3.67m
Height 3.63m
Weight 188 tons
Automotive specifications:
Engine Daimler-Benz MB 509 gasoline
Horsepowers 1540 @ 2500 rpm
Transmission
Track length
Track contact surface 5.88m
Track width 1100mm
Tread surface
Links per track
Track type
Suspension type
Number of roadwheels on each side 24
Road wheel type ??
Road wheel size ??
Automotive capabilities
Speed (maximum) 20 km/h
Speed (on road) 18 km/h
Speed (cross-country) ??
Range (on road) 160 km
Range (cross-country) 62
Climbing (step) 0.75m
Climbing (degrees) 35°
Trench crossing 3.48m
Fording depth 2m (6m with submersion kit)
Ground clearaence 0.57m
Ground pressure (hard surface) 1.45 kg/cm²
Ground pressure (when sinking 10cm) 1.27 kg/cm²
Steering ratio 2.52:1
Power to weight ratio 8.2 hp/ton
Fuel capacity 1650+1000 liters
Fuel consumption on road 16.56 liters/km
Fuel consumption off road 42.74 liters/km
Minimum turning radius 5m
Weapons data:
Primary weapon 12.8cm KwK L/55
Ammunition 55 grenades (two-part)
Gun sight 'T.W.Z.F.1' 3x10
Elevation ??
Traverse 360°
Firing height ??
Secondary weapon(s) 7.5cm KwK L/36.5
7.92 MG 42
Ammunition 200x7.5cm grenades
??x7.92mm
Gun sight ??
Elevation ??
Traverse ??
Others:
Manufacturer Porsche
Radio (internal) ??
Radio (external) Fu 5 (and Fu 8 )
Crew 6 (Commander, driver, radiooperator, 2 loaders, gunner)
Armour Front upper hull: 200mm/55°
Front lower hull: 200mm/-35°
Hull roof: 50-100mm/9°
Rear upper hull: 150mm/37°
Rear lower hull: 150mm/-30°
Front floor: 100mm/0°
Rear floor: 50mm/0°
Hull upper side: 180mm/90°
Hull lower side: 100+80mm/90°
Front turret: 220-240mm/rounded
Mantle: 250mm rounded
Turret roof: 60mm/0°
Rear turret: 200mm/75°
Turret side: 200mm/60°

You left out weight.

Over a certain tonnage vehicles will simply sink into the earth, destroy roads, and eat gas like mad.
I did say it's not complete, didn't I.
You are correct. Even at 70 tons, a tank is at the point where it's in trouble. The later Abrams versions needed a whole new range of scissors bridges, ribbon bridges, recovery vehicles, and armored vehicle transporters because we had nothing capable of supporting them prior.
The Maus, which was the heaviest tank ever built, weighed 188 tons, and was so heavy that it did sink, collapsed buildings as it drove by, and could not cross any known bridge (ouch).
The sinking can be helped some with more and larger tracks (better pressure distribution), but on a really large tank. The others can't be helped.

Very good.

..But but but (no one else cares, but New Eastgate still has these machines to come in its far distant future..) the Soviets need to get less credit (if that's even the word) for the massive multi-turreted tanks, since it was a British design (Vickers A1E1 Independent) that sparked off that whole short-lived fad.

(And arguably the lunatic Germans who would have finished it, had they held out long enough.)

Damn it, now I want to skip my industrial revolution and get to building absurd tanks. Heh.
Almost every design the Soviets used in WWII can be traced back to a foreign design that was stolen, even the T-34. Also, the Germans wouldn't have finished it. The only designs that really had multiple turrets were conceptual ones that lived only in Hitler's head, and would never have been built. The Maus had two guns, but they were coaxial.

I don't belive they actually made it- wasn't it put together by the Soviets after the war? 's in Russia.. or Belarus now. I have a model of it sat behind me, actually :)

I was making a reference though to a planned project which never came to be- a 1,500 ton multi-turreted tank with four submarine-type disel engines, two 115mm gun turrets and an 88mm gun in the front.

Okay- forget I said half of that.. they built two Maus prototypes, didn't they?

And I've found that apparently the surviving one (rebuilt I think ) is near Moscow.

[whistles]

Correct, but it's believed to be the hull of one prototype with the turret of the other. hmmmm

"The only designs that really had multiple turrets were conceptual ones that lived only in Hitler's head, and would never have been built"

Yeah. Quite right. They had enough to work on with the E-100 line.

Anyhoo, I'll try to stop mis-directing this thread now. Sorry!

Correct, but it's believed to be the hull of one prototype with the turret of the other. hmmmm

Ahh, I did not know that.

I'd like to go and see it none the less. I thought the Jagdtiger was impressive when I saw one of those up close... although to be fair I had just been looking at a Type-97 Te-Ke, and had nearly gone through the thing when I lent on it- a Mini would have looked quite impressive at that moment.

A wonderful thread, and very informative. I've learned more (useful) information reading this than I learned over the course of the research for all five of my previous tank designs.

OOC:
No Maus were ever in combat. Many reports states so, but evidence shows that the Maus with a turret was blown up, destroying the hull. The testing hull was then equipped with the turret, and exhibited in the Kubinka tank museum (I believe that's in Russia, right?). It is stripped of all equipment, and is nothing but an empty shell. It was for a while used as a target, but was not destroyed (which would probably have taken too long time).

Holy hell... this thread gets the great Resian tag for referance.

Damn-Nice work! *Official Guanyan stamp of "DAMN THAT'S GOOD!"*

A wonderful thread, and very informative. I've learned more (useful) information reading this than I learned over the course of the research for all five of my previous tank designs.
I'm not entirely surprised, as one of my primary sources wasn't online.
The first chapter in Tom Clancy's ARMORED CAV: A Guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment is 12 pages of information on armor and anti-armor rounds, and the bulk of my information in those areas came from there.


And thanks to everyone for another warm reception. Now I just have to figure out what I'm going work on next.

Very nice.

BTW, a turretless tank is generally known as an Assault Gun.

Impressive, even I laerant something, I wast thinking about doing the same with aircraft but gave uo after a paragraph.

One question;

Which is mor eeffective smoothbore or rifled barrel?
With modern ammunition, a smoothebore barrel is better. I belive rifled ones can now fire APFSDS and HEAT, but it's much more complicated. At the velocities they use, normal APFSDS rounds whould trash the barrel (wear out the rifling after only a few shots). HEAT rounds, on the other hand, can't spin. If the round is spinning in flight, centrifugal force will bleed off some of the jet, significantly decreasing penetration.
However, on pretty much all other types of ammunition, a rifled gun is better.

Challenger II has rifled barrel and can fire APFSDS but tehy are going to change them to smoothbore soon they can fire non DU rounds.

Well, I know where this came from, but I won't comment. Perhaps you could give the creator some credit. Another frequent reader of how to make war I see.

Well, I know where this came from, but I won't comment. Perhaps you could give the creator some credit. Another frequent reader of how to make war I see.


I don't see how this post has been copy and pasted, I think that I can see some typos here :P

Well, I know where this came from, but I won't comment. Perhaps you could give the creator some credit. Another frequent reader of how to make war I see.

I did credit the only major source I used, just not in the initial post. You only need to check three posts above yours. If you're thinking of something else, than you're wrong, as that's the only source that accounted for more than a few sentences.

Well, I know where this came from, but I won't comment. Perhaps you could give the creator some credit. Another frequent reader of how to make war I see.

I did credit the only major source I used, just not in the initial post. You only need to check three posts above yours. If you're thinking of something else, than you're wrong, as that's the only source that accounted for more than a few sentences.
Good Job Jaguar! I see you are another Tank enthusiast like myself. I am glad you cleared things up for those who are not as "educated" as us.*EDIT* Why are we typing so small again?? :P

Good guidelines

Stop typing so small

So... looking over and evaluating my tank designs, which I must admit have not been as well thought out, could I have any comments or help? Admittedly, I've thrown some cutting edge modern toys into my descriptions - like electric armor system, which works very well against RPGs specifically, although of limited utility against many other weapons - but, well... here, let me show you my scant notes as of the moment.

TJMBT-1 Goliath:
As you may note, the Tahar Joblissan main tank role is intended for versatility and fording capability rather than straight slugging ability. Armor is a nice plus, although not much of a priority, but the gun is clearly as big as it's ever going to get. I see I need to flesh out some details though... and the TJMBT-2 may even require some dimensional changes to make sure it's worked out right.
Mass: 40 tons
Length: 31'0"
Width: 11'6"
Height: 7'1"
Speed: 40 mph top speed; maximum of ~8 mph submerged.
Main Gun: 125 mm smoothbore cannon
Secondary armament: 7.62mm machine gun and high pressure flamethrower (same coax system), AP shrapnel system (explosives w/shrap mounted and pointing outside and around the tank), twinned AA missile tubes (think Stinger missiles), some mine clearance/terrain clearance equipment. Carries better electronics and night vision equipment than anything else in the Tahar Joblis ground army.
Crew: 3
Now upgraded to TJMBT-2 Goliath, with .50 cal machine gun and electric armor protection against RPGs.


Great Toad tank:
I must admit this design seems rather... well, primitive in some respects now... perhaps I should throw on a coax 7.62mm without too much harm to the design?

The Toad is designed robustly and simply while incorporating advanced fire control systems. Controlled in entirety by only two people - a driver and a gunner - the operational aspect of the tank is remarkably simple. Massing 25 tons and capable of reaching speeds of 40 mph on level ground, the Toad mounts a fearsome 100mm smoothbore cannon and a variety of munitions, from standard HEAT and AP rounds to small missiles and even several 100mm torpedo rounds. Capable of firing on the move, fully submersed operations, and cushioning the crew in sudden drops (or low air drops) the Toad is clearly capable of handling any terrain. It even mounts an emergency internal deployable parachute for driving off short cliffs (or, again more likely, low air drops) which, when combined with its massive shock absorbance and internal padding, allows the two man crew to survive highly damaging maneuvers. Unlike nearly all other tanks built of its weight class, the Toad does not mount secondary AA or antipersonnel machine guns; some critics decry the loss, while Tahar Joblis high command vehemently asserts the tank isn't intended for either purpose.

Now in upgrade featuring electric armor against RPGs.

So... looking over and evaluating my tank designs, which I must admit have not been as well thought out, could I have any comments or help? Admittedly, I've thrown some cutting edge modern toys into my descriptions - like electric armor system, which works very well against RPGs specifically, although of limited utility against many other weapons - but, well... here, let me show you my scant notes as of the moment.

TJMBT-1 Goliath:
As you may note, the Tahar Joblissan main tank role is intended for versatility and fording capability rather than straight slugging ability. Armor is a nice plus, although not much of a priority, but the gun is clearly as big as it's ever going to get. I see I need to flesh out some details though... and the TJMBT-2 may even require some dimensional changes to make sure it's worked out right.
Mass: 40 tons
Length: 31'0"
Width: 11'6"
Height: 7'1"
Speed: 40 mph top speed; maximum of ~8 mph submerged.
Main Gun: 125 mm smoothbore cannon
Secondary armament: 7.62mm machine gun and high pressure flamethrower (same coax system), AP shrapnel system (explosives w/shrap mounted and pointing outside and around the tank), twinned AA missile tubes (think Stinger missiles), some mine clearance/terrain clearance equipment. Carries better electronics and night vision equipment than anything else in the Tahar Joblis ground army.
Crew: 3
Now upgraded to TJMBT-2 Goliath, with .50 cal machine gun and electric armor protection against RPGs.


Great Toad tank:
I must admit this design seems rather... well, primitive in some respects now... perhaps I should throw on a coax 7.62mm without too much harm to the design?

The Toad is designed robustly and simply while incorporating advanced fire control systems. Controlled in entirety by only two people - a driver and a gunner - the operational aspect of the tank is remarkably simple. Massing 25 tons and capable of reaching speeds of 40 mph on level ground, the Toad mounts a fearsome 100mm smoothbore cannon and a variety of munitions, from standard HEAT and AP rounds to small missiles and even several 100mm torpedo rounds. Capable of firing on the move, fully submersed operations, and cushioning the crew in sudden drops (or low air drops) the Toad is clearly capable of handling any terrain. It even mounts an emergency internal deployable parachute for driving off short cliffs (or, again more likely, low air drops) which, when combined with its massive shock absorbance and internal padding, allows the two man crew to survive highly damaging maneuvers. Unlike nearly all other tanks built of its weight class, the Toad does not mount secondary AA or antipersonnel machine guns; some critics decry the loss, while Tahar Joblis high command vehemently asserts the tank isn't intended for either purpose.

Now in upgrade featuring electric armor against RPGs.
Electric armor is not really well explained, but my guess is you're referring to early ERA (reactive armor), which is a little more useful than that.

As for the rest, it looks okay, though the TJMBT-1 is going to be rather shy on armor protection, as well as ammunition. There's only so much internal space, and you've put a bit more on than I would have for a tank that size. Most notably, I'd steer clear of the SAM launcher. An automated one would not be the best idea, as it would need additional fire control and sensors, which you simply would have no room for; and a manual one, you might as well stick a Stinger (or Igla) launcher on the outside of the tank, as that's about as useful. However, as you've only slightly upgraded them from existing units, there's not too much trouble.

For the Toad, one thing of note is that the gun shouldn't be firing torpedoes. The systems for launching a torpedo and a shell are different, and a 100mm torpedo that could fit in there would be too small to be very useful. Stick to a helicopter-dropped 324mm. The vehicle's also a bit on the heavy side for air drops, and the parachute shouldn't be used for going off a cliff, as said cliff might get in the way of it opening properly.

Don't forget HESH warheads, they'd often used by tanks that have rifled barrels. They'd designed to kill crew by fragmenting the armor on the inside of the tank.

Don't forget HESH warheads, they'd often used by tanks that have rifled barrels. They'd designed to kill crew by fragmenting the armor on the inside of the tank.
Last paragraph under Anti-Tank rounds. Lumped it with the similar HEP.

Don't forget HESH warheads, they'd often used by tanks that have rifled barrels. They'd designed to kill crew by fragmenting the armor on the inside of the tank.
Last paragraph under Anti-Tank rounds. Lumped it with the similar HEP.

Oh,ok, sorry.

Hm. I can see your point about internal space and the SAM system... I hadn't quite considered the ammunition space issues well enough, indeed. If we, say, operate the TJMBT-2 on the assumption of about a 41-42 ton weight, dispense with the SAMs, and operate on the basis of a coaxial flamethrower/.50 cal MG and a secondary AA .50 MG replacing the SAMs (and yes, have a relatively light ammunition load, it isn't really a very high endurance tank role) would you give me a good estimate on cost and rough degree of frontal ballistic armor protection in mm? (ie, given the M1 rates at 800mm ballistic protection, would the Goliath sound reasonable at, say, 600-640mm of ballistic protection?)

Well, one "pop-sci" style article is found here, (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F19%2Fnmod19.xml) although just googling ["electric armor" RPG UK] or some similar such will get you plenty of explanations. It's a relatively recent development as far as specific application goes, and fairly specific to RPGs and other shaped-charge devices.

Similar to ERA, the electric armor system consists of two thin plates of armor with a filler; unlike ERA, it doesn't explode; it's a capacitator around the tank, effectively. As RPGs (along with many other shaped charge devices) use jets of highly conductive molten copper or aluminum liner as an initial penetrator, a stiff current is highly effective at dispersing the penetrating jet (more so than an explosion, which may not be as effective at some angles; I also suspect copper to be diverted more than aluminum, although I could be wrong...)

The electric armor would indeed work against most HEAT warheads, and would provide protection against most ATGMs as well. However, as it's a very new system, it's not likely to have too much pricing information available yet, so you'd have to estimate for that, though it's probably not going to be too much unless it's added on as an upgrade.
On another note, Clan Smoke Jaguar would probably offer quite a bit for that, in technology or currency. :wink:

For the armor and pricing. A T-72's armor would give it about 520mm ballistic and 950mm HEAT protection, and you could probably get away with a $2-3 million price tag, which isn't all that much.

For the light unit, I'm not entirely sure on the pricing, as I don't have information on similar vehicles readily available, but I'd guess around $1-1.5 million. Armor would be in the range of 30-50mm.

OOC: Looking at similar size light tanks - there aren't many - of a modern persuasion, I'm going to file the Great Toad down in the 100-150mm range against ballistic for front armor plate hits for the moment, although I should wrap up the details first. Thank you for the help here.


ICly speaking:

We may be willing to exchange this technology, but we are curious about what you would have to offer us in return in technology, resources, or possibly finished goods.

http://www.tank-net.org/ has forums to discuss historical, modern, and near future tanks, as well as other military affairs.

I don't belive they actually made it- wasn't it put together by the Soviets after the war? 's in Russia.. or Belarus now. I have a model of it sat behind me, actually :)

I was making a reference though to a planned project which never came to be- a 1,500 ton multi-turreted tank with four submarine-type disel engines, two 115mm gun turrets and an 88mm gun in the front.

Incorrect. The main weapon on the P1500 [which Albert Speer called 'Monster'] was to have been an 80 centimetre gun as mounted on the Schwerer Gustav / 'Dora' railway gun.

Also, that would have been more self-propelled gun than tank. The P-1000 Ratte is probably the biggest tank ever concieved, at an estimated 1,000 tons [with 2,000 apparently a more likely calculation based on it's track area] It was to have been armed with a double turret built by the Kriegsmarine mounting two 14-inch guns. Supposedly a mock-up turret was built in mild steel before the project was cancelled, the turret ending up in the Atlantic Wall.

A good thread but a few points to add:

A high weight doesn't always mean you will sink, you just need either very long or very wide tracks to maintain an acceptable ground preasure but bridges are still an issue. most rapid deployment heavy bridges aren't really expected to hold up for more than a few days at most, basically just enough time for a division or 2 to get across or for the engineers to biuld soemthing more perminant.

HESH and rifled guns: the only reason that the british still use a rifled 120mm gun is that it offers far superior performance with HESH rounds. And why do they still use HESH rounds? well mainly because under the UK's main operational plans at the moment they aren't going to be facing much in the way of modern tank forces so cheap easily produced HESH rounds that still work wonders against older tanks and are excellent for blowing up bliudings still have a role.

Armor: One thing that TC and thus CSJ missed is the factor of spacing, many modern armor schemes (ie mainly on western tanks such as the M1A2, challenger 2 and late model leopards but alos on soem soviet designs) include some degree of spacing in the armor, these are simply empty (or liquid/foam filled) gaps that serve to cause the plasma jet to disapaite to some degree. it is interesting to note that the forward fuel tanks of the M1A2 alos seem to serve this role somewhat not soemthing too far out considering that in western designs the entire tank can really be considered part of the armor.

Wonderfull thread. I can only say that Clan Smoke Jaguar has made a very good job of presenting this... real good stuff.

Now to make a tag look usefull to the thread:
Rifled guns fire APFSDS using a slip-ring: a thin plastic ring around the sabots that engages the barrel's rifling and slips around the shell, thus minimising the shell's rotation.
Fin-stabilisation and spin-stabilisation don't go together, that being the primary reason for only needing a smoothbore, plus spinning seriously reduces the coherence of the copper-jet of a HEAT warhead.

Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs) are divided into three main types:
APCs (Armoured Personnel Carriers) are lightly armoured and usually wheeled. They are designed to maximise strategic mobility and protect troops in transit from small arms & shell fragments. They usually just have a self-defence weapon in the form of a 7.62 mg and really aren't intended to be driven into the battle.
IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles) are bigger and more dangerous... easily mistaken for tanks to the untrained eye, they have a turreted cannon (generally in the 25-50mm range) and a coax mg, of course. The primary weapon system of an IFV is the troops it carries in the back. It will often be used to drive onto an objective, using its guns to supress the enemy before the men dismount. It has the armour and weapon to take on anything shy of a proper MBT, though they generally get tank support for an assault.
MBTs (Main Battle Tanks) are the big guys. Big gun, thick armour... see the original post of this thread.

Contemporary tank design theory puts an absolute maximum of 80 tons on a viable tank... most MBTs are smaller, c.50-60 tonnes. Analysis shows that Main Battle Tanks have approximately 50% of their weight in armour.
Armour is commonly distributed according to Whittaker's DPV (Directional Probability Variable), which has been proven as a fairly accurate representation of the proportion of fire they take. The DPV is the estimated proportion of fire to come at the tank from each angle, based on driving 100m forwards towards a 100m line with enemy distributed evenly along it (the rear component is a bit of a fudge, but never mind).
In terms of dimensions, a tank's length should be between 1.4 and 1.8 times its width, otherwise it doesn't handle right. Combine that with the rail considerations (the minimum area to be provided for a train passing through a location) and you have effective maximum limits on the size of an armoured vehicle. Some modern armoured vehicles have as little as 12cm (total) sideways clearance through railway tunnels.

MBT tracks are designed to distribute the weight of the tank and the pressure is low enough that they can often drive across terrain (e.g. mud) that a person could not walk across. Plastic track pads inserted into the tracks of western tanks mean that they are less damaging to the road surface than the average truck (but the pads wear out). A 30-ish Tonne AFV should be able make 70-ish mph on a road, likewise 50mph on roads is not beyond most c.50 tonne MBTs.

*phew* Thats all I could think to add... not all of it is necessarily relevant.

Very good post. I don't think the folks who really need it will bother reading it, but very well done, nonetheless.

I did notice that the original post left out one of any modern tank's primary vulnerabilities- the treads.

Using current technology (and for the foreseeable future), tanks are going to be track-laying vehicles. This allows such heavy vehicles to travel over what is (at best) marginal terrain (i.e- not paved) without sinking up to the cupola into the dirt.

Even when protected by steel skirts (the WWII German PZKW IV among others), the treads, drive wheels (the big sprockety-looking wheels that actually drive the treads), and idler wheels are extremely vulnerable to weapons carried by infantry. As you correctly pointed out, the side of a tank has far less slope to the armor than the front or the cupola. The treads (and their skirts- if present) are essentially vertical surfaces with no slope at all and only marginal (at best) protection.

Several varieties of man-portable antitank weapons are designed specifically to attack this achilles heel. This will not destroy a tank, but it can mission-kill a tank (even if the treads are merely unlinked, it takes a great deal of time and energy- and frequently tank-recovery vehicles- to repair ... something hard to do when everyone is shooting at everyone else). US armor of all sorts in Vietnam threw their treads fairly often if they tried to maneuver too sharply or hit something fairly substantial. While a tank's armor and firepower are really impressive, an immobile tank has essentially become a fixed gun position.

Damaging the drive wheels is even more useful, since repairing them is beyond the capabilities of the crew in the field. Again, the vehicle is now immobile and vulnerable to all manner of low-tech weapons.

This concept is one reason why anti-tank mines are so popular (the other reason is the fact that the bottom armor on a tank is usually even thinner than the back and sides). Blow off a tread, and that tank is stuck in place. Blow off a tread in a natural choke point (bridges, narrow mountain passes, etc), and you effectively block the passage of other tanks unti the damaged tank is removed.

BTW- Mission-kill refers to damaging an enemy asset enough to prevent it from accomplishing its mission- something usually far easier to do than destroying it. One of the purposes of the .50 sniper rifle is to fire a single round into the trunnions of a tank's cupola to prevent it from rotating. This isn't quite a mission-kill, but it is close, and makes the targeted tank extremely vulnerable.

This gets Calcednie's 'Sofaking Cool' award.

(Say it a few times)...

Point well made, Mr. Overlord.

Though commonly, a 'kill' is classified as either a M-kill, F-kill or K-kill. Being a Maneouvre-kill, Firepower-kill or, er... (K)Catastrophic-kill.

Obviously an M-kill happens when you lose the ability to move, likewise an F-kill is when you lose the capacity to fire the main gun effectively. A K-kill is when the tank brews up and is destroyed. Thus it is possible to have a MF-kill on a target, without it being a K-kill. (Confusing, huh?)

Mission-Abort kills depend on what the mission is: an M-kill wont affect a tank in a dug-in defence position and the loss of the main gun might not stop an 'F-killed' tank from gunning down infantry with its coax.

Random info: mine-fields? Mine-fields aren't actually meant to kill tanks with the mines themselves... they are meant to threaten the tanks so that they go slowly and make easy targets for the ATGW or Anti-Tank guns covering the field. Not that a track-cutting mine isn't bad for your tank, its just that having no track is much worse when you have a TOW team out there pointed at you.

Mine-fields aren't actually meant to kill tanks with the mines themselves... they are meant to threaten the tanks so that they go slowly and make easy targets for the ATGW or Anti-Tank guns covering the field. Not that a track-cutting mine isn't bad for your tank, its just that having no track is much worse when you have a TOW team out there pointed at you.

There are several varieties of anti-tank mines in use. True, the most frequent result of such a mine detonating is to disable the tank rather than destroy it, but tanks- even modern tanks- have been known to 'brew up" when hull integrity is breached from below by a mine. Some of these mines are control-activated, others are magnetically detonated, and still others are activated only when physically contacted by the tank. Since the mine does not have to travel, it can be packed with a lot of explosives, and most of these mines are Directed Energy (shaped charge) or self-forging armor-piercing.

Once a tank loses mobility, it is a sitting duck (albeit an armed and armored sitting duck) for all manner of attacks. On a battlefield, very litle draws fire as much as an obviously helpless target. Weapons normally of little utility against tanks (incendiaries, satchel charges, etc) suddenly become far more effective, since the attacker has the leisure of choosing the point of attack.

kool

You can fit AT mine with all sort of wonderful fusing devices, double and tripple switchs are a lot (or not if you are a tanker) as it really panicks people when the 2nd or third tanks in line gets hit.

Said I would post this eventually:

Some prices for various tanks:
Merkava 4: $4.3 million
Upgrade of M60 to Sabra or M60-2000): $2.2 million
M1A2: $6.7 million (2002), $6.21 million (1999), $6 million (1998)
M1A1: $4.3 million (November 1990)
M1: $2.2 million
M48A5: $175,000 (early 1970s)
M60: $200,000 (early 1970s)
Leopard 2A5: $4 million
Leopard 2A4: $2.9 million (1990), $1.4 million used (2002)
Challenger 2: $6.4 million (1999)
Challenger 1: $3.5 million (1987)
Chieftain: $290,000 (early 1970s)
Arjun: $5.6 million (2001 est), $4.2 million (initial production), $1.6 million (1985 est)
Leclerc: $8 million (!)
T-90: $2.78 million (going for as low as $2 million in 2000)
T-80UD: $2 million
T-72: $1.2 million
T-72M4 CZ: $4 million
T-72 (Iraqi version): $1.5 million


Maximum Armor Protection for various tanks (extremely hard to get good info on). Note that the number in parenthesis is the armor value against HEAT warheads. This is only different from ballistic protection when composite armor is present. The ones with a question mark in the parenthesis are tanks with composite aremor that I couldn't find the HEAT protection for.
Leopard 2A4: 700mm (1000mm)
Leopard 1A1: 120mm
Sk105: 80mm
M1A2: 800mm (1300mm)*
M1: 450mm (?)
M60A3: 250mm
M60A1: 205mm
M48A5: 120mm
Centurion: 152mm
Chieftain: 300mm
T-72S: 520mm (950mm)
T-64: 450mm (?)
T-62: 242mm
T-55: 203mm
AMX-13: 25mm
PT-76: 14mm

Links:
http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm - gives some very good information on armor protection and weapon penetration for a wide variety of tanks and tank/anti-tank guns. However, this is based on some guesswork in some areas and may occasionally be off by a bit in some cases. It's best to look for another source to back the figures up, though that will usually be quite difficult, so this is the best guideline available.

Also note that many sources will only give the actual plate thickness of the armor (ie 70mm for Leopard 1, 120mm for M48, etc), rather than the protection it really offers. No one said this would be easy :P

*This is the standard by US figures. However, they measure it by how much protection is would offer at a 30 degree arc. The actual slope for most modern tanks, including the M1, is 80 degrees, so it's actually better than officially listed.

Said I would post this eventually:

*This is the standard by US figures. However, they measure it by how much protection is would offer at a 30 degree arc. The actual slope is 80 degrees, so it's actually better than officially listed.

Excellent post. Good hard data is always tough to come by here. Good work.

I too would like to thank Clan Smoke Jaguar, based on this page I will be making some modifications to Grimdale's M-93 Wolverine MBT to make it more playible. Three cheers for this thread, it should be stickyed.

Excellent thread....one question. How do I tag this thread so I can come back to it later, without having to watch it for replies?

Excellent thread....one question. How do I tag this thread so I can come back to it later, without having to watch it for replies?
You already did. "Tagging" is nothing more than putting a post on the thread. Once you've done that, you can find it simply by searching for your own posts.

I'd just like to run some ideas I've had past you guys, see what you think of them.

1. Moderntech/Modern+ Hovertank

The method of hovering will be your traditional air-blowing skirt thingies, as I don't want to play around with exotic propulsion systems I know nothing about. The areas in which I intend to deploy these units will be rolling plains and desert, as well as mudflats and boggy areas... apart from the plains and desert, anywhere you wouldn't expect to see a tank.

The tanks will be lightly armed and lightly armored - their speed would be their greatest virtue. I'm thinking about a single coaxial machinegun, possibly operable from within the armored confines of the tank, and a single main gun, around the range of 35-50mm.

I intend to have light armor, but having it a little heavier to counteract the recoil of the gun might be neccesary, yes? Just want some C&C on my idea, and possibly provide some realistic statistics eg. basic dimensions, speed.

2. Light Tank

Doesn't sound startlingly original, does it? Well, what I'm thinking of here is a light, fast tank that operates, indeed, excels in lightly forested environments. I'm not sure if that's possible, but I think a sufficiently narrow tank could get through a light forest without that much difficulty. Fast, agile and packing a respectable punch. 80 mm with a coaxial weapon, healthy complement of smoke grenades for those ambushes. What sort of statistics might be appropriate?

Thanks.

I was actually just discussing the issue of recoil and hovertanks in another thread... :D So perhaps I can help here, although the question is much more specific. I think you could well stick a 106mm recoilless rifle on your light hovertank - another possibility, higher tech and more expensive, is to stick a few anti-tank or other surface-to-surface missiles/rockets on there. Recoil isn't a problem with such systems at all, and I think you'd get a better punch out of it than a regular 35mm-50mm cannon of some variety. You might want to give some consideration to protecting the skirts, though.

only thing with the light tank is that trees are bloody strong, and they hurt anything moving at speed into them... Also most forests are not planted in straight lines, therefore you may find areas you cannot get through.

I know trees are a pain to armored forces. Thus I mentioned lightly forested areas - within the realms of possibility for a narrow tank with a smaller base area to get around, but would force a regular MBT to find the nearest road.

Regarding the recoiless rifle, how does that work? I've heard of recoiless rifles for infantrymen, but how would this be adapted to a turret?

I know trees are a pain to armored forces. Thus I mentioned lightly forested areas - within the realms of possibility for a narrow tank with a smaller base area to get around, but would force a regular MBT to find the nearest road.

Regarding the recoiless rifle, how does that work? I've heard of recoiless rifles for infantrymen, but how would this be adapted to a turret?

Everything about the 106mm RR as an infantry weapon. (http://www.mst2-vietnam.info/Stoner_ordnance_notes/RECOILLESS_RIFLE.htm) However, there have been some turret adaptations. The Ontos, a ten ton tank, carried six of them; I've also seen a design somewhere for an enclosed turret mounting two, and it's been mounted on jeeps on up to APCs.

I don't recall a two-gun turret using RRs. However, the Japanese Type 60 assault gun has twin 106mm recoilless rifles (mounted in an open turret structure with limited traverse). These weapons are more popularly mounted on jeeps though. Remember that big single-shot gun on the jeep in Black Hawk Down? That was a heavy recoilless rifle. The weapons have also been equipped on APCs like the M113.
However, one should note that most vehciles that had recoilless rifles tended to be rather light on ammunition, generally only about 2-5 rounds per gun. Also, all of them have their guns loaded from outside. To my knowledge, there's no vehicle with a recoilless rifle that can be loaded without someone having to expose themselves to enemy fire.

So basically, to load one of these things you've got to shove the shell down the barrel? Not something someone would like to do in the middle of a shitstorm.

So basically, to load one of these things you've got to shove the shell down the barrel? Not something someone would like to do in the middle of a shitstorm.
Not quite. Recoilless rifles are breach loaded weapons, and are loaded from the rear (think like a break open shotgun or grenade launcher). However, they do have some serious drawbacks aside from having to be loaded in the open. The main one, and the reason why there are none that are loaded from within a turret, is the backblast. The serves to prevent the weapoon from being fired in enclosed spaces, means that infantry don't want to take cover behind the vehicle, and the backblast is extremely visible, tending to draw significant enemy fire when the weapons are used in lower light.

On the other hand, recoilless rifles are cheap, have good firepower, and have the largest variety of shells of any direct fire weapon, making them quite versatile.

An internall loaded recoiless rifle could perhaps be biult with you used a loading breach that opened from the side (you could possibly even use a revolver system) but sealing the breach etc might be a problema breach back/exhaust system that move backwards to disengage from the barrel assembly could also allow for protected loading. just some wild idea that likely really need drawing to explain.

Mmm. Putting aside the question of recoiless rifles for a moment, how would a rocket/missile system for the main armament fare, overall?

Hmmm.... what would happen if you took the concept of the M2A3 Bradley and applied it to a hovercraft? Dual feed 25mm autocannon with a choice of HE and AP rounds, externally mounted 7.62mm machinegun, and a TOW antitank rocket pod.

Strip out the infantry carrying capacity for the basic model to reduce size and weight. No treads, some sort of armor on the skirt. A Bradley weighs in at a hefty 50 000 pounds, so it might be neccesary to cut down on armor.

Possible variations include a personnel carrying variant.

Mmm. Putting aside the question of recoiless rifles for a moment, how would a rocket/missile system for the main armament fare, overall?

Depends on if you are talking a pure missile or a missile/gun system. The former is the primary tank killer system of many armies. The later has been tried by both the US and USSR (Russia). Both pretty much failed.

My tanks are very unique. They have an unmanned turret, only the autoloader and ammo are stored there. Under the turret in the hull is a 3 man crew compartment with a rear exit (like on the Merkava). The engine is placed in front of the crew compartment (like on the Merkava). The crew is sat one in front of the other, making the crew compartment roomy but not that big and allowing more armor on the sides with a little slope higher up (like on the T-34). The armor is made from spaced, layered, and all around thick DU, ceramics, and titanium. There isn't any steel in the design. Also Kaktus-20 ERA protects the tank. How does that sound?

There are some very notable problems with that design. Most notably is the lack of awareness. Even in the modern battlefield, tank commanders often ride with the commander's hatch open (and their head sticking out) so that they can look around. The reason is that there's an extremely limited view from the inside of the tank, and the only real way to get a good idea of what's around you is to stick your head out and look. Naturally, the commander pulls down and closes the hatch once an engagement starts, but a "buttoned up" vehicle is easy to blindside. This is such an important thing that the Israeli Merkava has a hatch that can be set in a semi-closed position, still granting significant protection while allowing the commander to survey the surrounding area.
A tank with a fully automated turret not only eliminates that vital viewing method, but restricts other viewing methods as well, and no matter what you do, you will have a unit that is very easy to ambush or sneak up on. You'll also have increased vulnerability to obstacles, including mines, ditches, tree stumps, etc. The driver's view is quite limited, and he often relies on the commander to help him avoid obstacles.

There's also the fact that a human loader is usually more effective than an autoloader, and the reduced crew combined with more automated systems also means that there will be fewer crewmembers to do more (maintenance) work, a complaint that has been heard from Soviet tankers ever since autoloaders were first put in.

Yes, I'm aware of that problem and have solved it with a very advanced viewing system. Six cameras around the tank provide a constant 360 degree view, each camera has a x15 zoom, thermal imaging, and nightvision. I know it's expensive, but it's worth it. Each camera can be used by any of the crewmembers.

About the autoloader, I know humans are more effective. But the loader's very simple and maintains a rate of fire of one round every 5 seconds.

All in all the tank comes out to be 8 million dollars.

Yes, I'm aware of that problem and have solved it with a very advanced viewing system. Six cameras around the tank provide a constant 360 degree view, each camera has a x15 zoom, thermal imaging, and nightvision. I know it's expensive, but it's worth it. Each camera can be used by any of the crewmembers.

About the autoloader, I know humans are more effective. But the loader's very simple and maintains a rate of fire of one round every 5 seconds.

All in all the tank comes out to be 8 million dollars.
Even assuming you can find enough internal space for three decent-sized screens with good resolution (a very big if), the problem will still persist, as your crews will miss things that they wouldn't if someone was actually looking in person. The system is also extremely likely to get disabled by shrapnel in any artillery or air bombardments, or an enterprising sniper for that matter.

Criticisms noted.

Mmm. Putting aside the question of recoiless rifles for a moment, how would a rocket/missile system for the main armament fare, overall?

Depends on if you are talking a pure missile or a missile/gun system. The former is the primary tank killer system of many armies. The later has been tried by both the US and USSR (Russia). Both pretty much failed.

Pure rocket/ missile.

Is it possible to mount a TOW system on a turret, and have it manually loaded from the inside? I don't know, just a thought.

And any comments on my proposed Bradley conversion from all comers would be nice.

Mmm. Putting aside the question of recoiless rifles for a moment, how would a rocket/missile system for the main armament fare, overall?

Depends on if you are talking a pure missile or a missile/gun system. The former is the primary tank killer system of many armies. The later has been tried by both the US and USSR (Russia). Both pretty much failed.

Pure rocket/ missile.

Is it possible to mount a TOW system on a turret, and have it manually loaded from the inside? I don't know, just a thought.
Is it possible? Probably
Has it ever been done? Not to my knowledge
All vehicles that have mounted TOW missiles either had a manually operated launcher mounted on the vehicle (ie: Jaguar, HMMWV), or had a turret mounted system that swung back to a hatch where it was reloaded by troops in the troop compartment (Bradley, ITV). The latter is close to what you're thinking, but still leaves a small vulnerability to fire.

Hmm. About the latter one, the system used in Bradleys - they just open a hatch and stick the rockets into the pod from behind?

What I see right now.... a five ton or less hovercraft, a rotating turret with a dual feed automatic 25mm weapon, and a pair of TOW pods mounted either on either side of the turret or below the turret on the sides of the vehicle, with handy access hatches to allow reloading.

Hmm. About the latter one, the system used in Bradleys - they just open a hatch and stick the rockets into the pod from behind?

What I see right now.... a five ton or less hovercraft, a rotating turret with a dual feed automatic 25mm weapon, and a pair of TOW pods mounted either on either side of the turret or below the turret on the sides of the vehicle, with handy access hatches to allow reloading.
That's pretty much how it works, and the vehicle sounds reasonable.

Here is my new tank design (its experimental right now, and has no officialy nickname)

IET-50

Armament

The IET-50 is expected to be armed with a 120mm ETC main gun, two 30mm coaxial guns, and a 40mm autocannon. The gun is going to be designed for long range kills, and might have an effective range of 7-8 kms

Armor

With an Electric Reaction Armor system, HEAT rounds will have trouble harming the IET-50; however, SABOT rounds will have a much easier time hurting this tank. SABOT protection is rated at 100mm. Gotta make room for my fancy weapons...

However, the hatch will be protected by a "crows nest"; that way the commander wont die so easily when he decides to open the hatch in messy situations.

Weight

Im guessing this tank would way in at 60 tons

Extra Stuff

As made mandatory back in the UN days, this tank is powered by a hybrid electric/hydrogen engine.

Also, some type of radar jamming device will be incorporated.

Cost

I am guessing $6,000,000, give or take a million or so.

Crew

This tank will have 4 crew members.

Speed

With a max speed of 30 mph, this tank is slow. It makes up for this with its armament.


So....is this tank feasable? If so, is it crap, or is it not?

Here is my new tank design (its experimental right now, and has no officialy nickname)

IET-50

Armament

The IET-50 is expected to be armed with a 120mm ETC main gun, two 30mm coaxial guns, and a 40mm autocannon. The gun is going to be designed for long range kills, and might have an effective range of 7-8 kms

Armor

With an Electric Reaction Armor system, HEAT rounds will have trouble harming the IET-50; however, SABOT rounds will have a much easier time hurting this tank. SABOT protection is rated at 100mm. Gotta make room for my fancy weapons...

However, the hatch will be protected by a "crows nest"; that way the commander wont die so easily when he decides to open the hatch in messy situations.

Weight

Im guessing this tank would way in at 60 tons

Extra Stuff

As made mandatory back in the UN days, this tank is powered by a hybrid electric/hydrogen engine.

Also, some type of radar jamming device will be incorporated.

Cost

I am guessing $6,000,000, give or take a million or so.

Crew

This tank will have 4 crew members.

Speed

With a max speed of 30 mph, this tank is slow. It makes up for this with its armament.


So....is this tank feasable? If so, is it crap, or is it not?
KE protection is a bit low. You'd be vulnerable to WWII era guns with only 100mm. There's also way too many guns. You don't need more than one main cannon, and possibly one coaxial light cannon. More than that is just wasting valuable internal space. The only reason to mount extra weapons is to go against infantry, but even there, light cannons are going way overboard when a 7.62mm or 12.7mm machine gun can do the same job more cheaply and without taking up as much space.
Price is also a bit low. ETC guns aren'e cheap after all.

OOC: I beleive I found a way to have low sloping armor on the sides of turrets as well.

How heavy is DU compared to steel. If I were take a Merkava design and replace all of the steel in the armor with DU, how heavy would it get?

OOC: I beleive I found a way to have low sloping armor on the sides of turrets as well.

Exactly like in the Merkava

No... the Merkave doesn't have sloping armor on the turret sides. Hell, it's armor slopes like crap.

So if I took off one(or both) of the 30mm cannons and replaced it with a 50 calibre machine gun, that would be better?

And as for the gun...if i replace the gun with a conventional(smoothbore) gun, is it possible for me to still have the range I want?

Finally, what should my SABOT round protection's rating be?

edit:price upped to $7,000,000

No... the Merkave doesn't have sloping armor on the turret sides. Hell, it's armor slopes like crap.

The Merkava Mk 4 does.

http://sus304l.hp.infoseek.co.jp/merkava/merkava_Mk4_front.jpg

AAU-12 Sandstorm

Armor Ratings:

Frontal:

HEAT: 300mm RHA

Sabot: 200mm RHA

Side/Rear/Undercarriage/Top:

HEAT: 125mm RHA

Sabot: 75mm RHA

Skirts:

(I have no idea. Kevlar weave, with plates of lightweight composite hinged to the tank itself? Maybe ERA. Maybe I'll cover the whole tank with ERA.)

Weaponry:

2 TOW Anti-Tank Rocket pods

1 Dual Feed 25mm autocannon

Ammunition:

16 Anti Tank Rockets

3500 x 25mm Armor Piercing
3500 x 25mm HE

Speed:

Cruising: 65 kp/h

Maximum: 85 kp/h

Range: 500km?

Weight: 4 tons

Crew: 1 Driver
1 Gunner
1 Loader

How does that look?

A bit too much ammo.

Rockets or the 25mm?

Both.

Finally, what should my SABOT round protection's rating be?

Edited.

If you want to excell in that area 1000+

So if I took off one(or both) of the 30mm cannons and replaced it with a 50 calibre machine gun, that would be better?

And as for the gun...if i replace the gun with a conventional(smoothbore) gun, is it possible for me to still have the range I want?

Finally, what should my SABOT round protection's rating be?
Modern tanks generally have in the range of 700-900mm of KE protection (it's not called SABOT protection, as it's the value for other types of KE rounds as well). Even a T-72 has over 500mm. 100mm protection is equivalent to better late-WWII medium tanks, and Tiger IIs had over twice that.

As for the gun, you can achieve the range you want with 120mm guns, just not with sabot rounds (you need to use indirect fire, and such rounds are already in development). However, even with ETC, that range is seriously pushing the edge of what's possible. The reason is that the horizon starts to get in the way, making direct fire, quite simply, impossible.
For the record, the distance to the horizon is 8 km at a height of 4.2 meters. This means that at a range of 8 km (and considering the height of the gun), there will need to be an elevation difference of 2 meters between their respective locations for the tanks to even see each other, let alone shoot. Technically speaking, 8 km is considered indirect fire.
There are other factors that limit the range of the gun, but I don't want to go into too much detail over a somewhat minor thing, especially if it's still within reason.

Do you know how heavy DU is compared to steel

How heavy is DU compared to steel. If I were take a Merkava design and replace all of the steel in the armor with DU, how heavy would it get?

That's a horrible idea. Depleted Uranium is used for ammunition because of its high density. It does not have the sort of strength needed to be of much use as armor (quite aside from the residual radiation issue).

TEO

Then why does the M1A2 have 2-4 inches of the stuff on the sides of it?

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/index.html

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm

How does Tungsten and Ceramic armor compare in KE protection to Depleted Uranium?

I know that DU is better then tungsten and ceramics in against both KE and HEAT protection. But ceramics are very good against HEAT. So ideally you'd want DU and ceramics sandwhiched together, incased in tungsten to prevent DU from leaking out.

DU is slightly better (i have heard around 4-5%), however it has the bonus of a C-kill if it is damaged or exposed to the inside of the tank... :-)

Any more critques on the feasibility of my proposed hovertank design?

I use a number of 1000-ft Fusion-Powered Hover Carriers from Unum Veritas' store. They are fun. http://www.sc3000.com/forums/images/face1.GIF

Hmm....

sa·bot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-b, sb)
n.

1. A wooden shoe worn in some European countries.
2. (sbt) A sandal or shoe having a band of leather or other material across the instep.
3. A lightweight carrier in which a projectile of a smaller caliber is centered so as to permit firing the projectile within a larger-caliber weapon. The carrier fills the bore of the weapon from which the projectile is fired; it is normally discarded a short distance from the muzzle.


[French, from Old French çabot, alteration of savate, old shoe, probably of Turkish or Arabic origin.]

[Buy it]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

sabot

\Sa`bot"\ (s[.a]`b[=o]"), n. [F.] 1. A kind of wooden shoe worn by the peasantry in France, Belgium, Sweden, and some other European countries.

2. (Mil.) A thick, circular disk of wood, to which the cartridge bag and projectile are attached, in fixed ammunition for cannon; also, a piece of soft metal attached to a projectile to take the groove of the rifling.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

As the Republic of Creplachia is still small, the smart people back at HQ decided that almost ALL surrounding nations would have larger, bigger and more powerful armies.
The defence plans combated this with a few interesting tricks.

Creplachia is mostly an Island state with large mountains to the North and East. To invade, tanks have to get through them.
Large amounts of the national service army would get extensive training that would place them in special ops units in other countries. Split up into small sniper units, they would then be given tank/ vehicle hunter roles.
Two man teams. A spotter and a sniper. The spotter has a laser rangefinder and field glasses. He locates the vehicle/tank and paints it with an infrared beam, located on the fuel tank or ammunition bin. The laser finder, moves the spot as required by the targets movement. The sniper then fires an AP, guided high explosive round, that will hit the mark and disable the target. The sniper does not have to be exceptionally accurate as the round can do in flight adjustments and, with a lot of force over a small area (small round) should penetrate. A one bullet per horrifically expensive vehicle ratio would stop most attacks.
Any replys, please telegram the CDF. cheers

As the Republic of Creplachia is still small, the smart people back at HQ decided that almost ALL surrounding nations would have larger, bigger and more powerful armies.
The defence plans combated this with a few interesting tricks.

Creplachia is mostly an Island state with large mountains to the North and East. To invade, tanks have to get through them.
Large amounts of the national service army would get extensive training that would place them in special ops units in other countries. Split up into small sniper units, they would then be given tank/ vehicle hunter roles.
Two man teams. A spotter and a sniper. The spotter has a laser rangefinder and field glasses. He locates the vehicle/tank and paints it with an infrared beam, located on the fuel tank or ammunition bin. The laser finder, moves the spot as required by the targets movement. The sniper then fires an AP, guided high explosive round, that will hit the mark and disable the target. The sniper does not have to be exceptionally accurate as the round can do in flight adjustments and, with a lot of force over a small area (small round) should penetrate. A one bullet per horrifically expensive vehicle ratio would stop most attacks.
Any replys, please telegram the CDF. cheers
With current technology, there is no way for an infantry-fired penetrator to exist. There are no rounds with anywhere near sufficient mass and velocity to threaten any but the lightest tanks. The most powerful infantry gun fires a Sabot round that can penetrate 40mm of RHA at 1 km. The minimum armor on current MBTs is several times that. Also, it is physically impossible to use a guided Sabot round, as it must strike the target perfectley or lose most of its penetrating power (easily 80% or more). Besides, at such speeds, it's not really possible to maneuver the round to begin with.

A better plan would probably be to set explosive charges every mile or so in the mountain passes, and if someone tries to invade, detonate them, thereby blocking the pass and trapping any opponents. Another possibility since there are only a few places they can attack through, would be to construct bunkers housing anti-tank guns and supporting elements to cover the few passages. Just a suggestion.

Smoke Jaguar:
With current technology, there is no way for an infantry-fired penetrator to exist. There are no rounds with anywhere near sufficient mass and velocity to threaten any but the lightest tanks. The most powerful infantry gun fires a Sabot round that can penetrate 40mm of RHA at 1 km. The minimum armor on current MBTs is several times that. Also, it is physically impossible to use a guided Sabot round, as it must strike the target perfectley or lose most of its penetrating power (easily 80% or more). Besides, at such speeds, it's not really possible to maneuver the round to begin with.

A number of points.
To get up to sufficient speeds, have a second stage in the bullet, in effect a very small rocket, making the bullet maybe longer (rethink the loading mechanism) but the same bore and can attain the speed, therefore the force.
As it is guidable, it will be able to strike 'perfectly' An advantage of the second stage is that over longer distances, the sniper fires upwards, the second stage directs it downwards, perhaps at a better angle to the sloping target surface.
The journey, to alter its trajectory, there are memory materials that have fast enough response times. (that can be used antagonistically as wires - small, light and cheap enough).

Smoke Jaguar:
With current technology, there is no way for an infantry-fired penetrator to exist. There are no rounds with anywhere near sufficient mass and velocity to threaten any but the lightest tanks. The most powerful infantry gun fires a Sabot round that can penetrate 40mm of RHA at 1 km. The minimum armor on current MBTs is several times that. Also, it is physically impossible to use a guided Sabot round, as it must strike the target perfectley or lose most of its penetrating power (easily 80% or more). Besides, at such speeds, it's not really possible to maneuver the round to begin with.

A number of points.
To get up to sufficient speeds, have a second stage in the bullet, in effect a very small rocket, making the bullet maybe longer (rethink the loading mechanism) but the same bore and can attain the speed, therefore the force.
As it is guidable, it will be able to strike 'perfectly' An advantage of the second stage is that over longer distances, the sniper fires upwards, the second stage directs it downwards, perhaps at a better angle to the sloping target surface.
The journey, to alter its trajectory, there are memory materials that have fast enough response times. (that can be used antagonistically as wires - small, light and cheap enough).

Smoke Jaguar:
With current technology, there is no way for an infantry-fired penetrator to exist. There are no rounds with anywhere near sufficient mass and velocity to threaten any but the lightest tanks. The most powerful infantry gun fires a Sabot round that can penetrate 40mm of RHA at 1 km. The minimum armor on current MBTs is several times that. Also, it is physically impossible to use a guided Sabot round, as it must strike the target perfectley or lose most of its penetrating power (easily 80% or more). Besides, at such speeds, it's not really possible to maneuver the round to begin with.

A number of points.
To get up to sufficient speeds, have a second stage in the bullet, in effect a very small rocket, making the bullet maybe longer (rethink the loading mechanism) but the same bore and can attain the speed, therefore the force.
As it is guidable, it will be able to strike 'perfectly' An advantage of the second stage is that over longer distances, the sniper fires upwards, the second stage directs it downwards, perhaps at a better angle to the sloping target surface.
The journey, to alter its trajectory, there are memory materials that have fast enough response times. (that can be used antagonistically as wires - small, light and cheap enough).

Smoke Jaguar:
With current technology, there is no way for an infantry-fired penetrator to exist. There are no rounds with anywhere near sufficient mass and velocity to threaten any but the lightest tanks. The most powerful infantry gun fires a Sabot round that can penetrate 40mm of RHA at 1 km. The minimum armor on current MBTs is several times that. Also, it is physically impossible to use a guided Sabot round, as it must strike the target perfectley or lose most of its penetrating power (easily 80% or more). Besides, at such speeds, it's not really possible to maneuver the round to begin with.

A number of points.
To get up to sufficient speeds, have a second stage in the bullet, in effect a very small rocket, making the bullet maybe longer (rethink the loading mechanism) but the same bore and can attain the speed, therefore the force.
As it is guidable, it will be able to strike 'perfectly' An advantage of the second stage is that over longer distances, the sniper fires upwards, the second stage directs it downwards, perhaps at a better angle to the sloping target surface.
The journey, to alter its trajectory, there are memory materials that have fast enough response times. (that can be used antagonistically as wires - small, light and cheap enough).
Overly complicated, and won't work. Infantry-fired weapons are too small for that kind of application. There is no room for a guidance package, there is no room for a boosted warhead, and if there were, it would still not be powerful enough to penetrate tank armor. The anti-tank rifle was dead by WWII, and there is simply no way to revive it right now. It may be viable when we get to the point that we can have a portable EC gun, but that's a looong way off, and that's assuming that armor will not improve much, which is a big if. If there were, it would have already been done. Try investing instead in rocket launchers such as LAWs, RPGs, and Recoilless Rifles.
And remember, just because it looks plausible to you doesn't mean it is. That's one of the most common errors that leads to godmodding equipment.

Edit: Also, if the round fires a sabot with a top-attack profile, you're pretty much guaranteed not to get a good hit because of the angle of attack. The round will stand a very good chance of being deflected completely due to its lack of size, doing no damage at all. The thickness of the armor would be irrelevant in deflection.

Well, I saw the aircraft thread pop up, so I figured this thread needed a BVMP for people to see.

tasg

TAG

OOC: CSJ always come up with good stuff to post! Keep up the good work.

OOC: Anyone want to buy or comment on my tanks?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=354946

*tag*

Preasure per area not tottal mass is what is important. You can have a 2000 ton vehicle but as long as you have a 500 square metres of tracked surface on the ground its still only 2 tons a metre.

Having spent quite a lot of time playing around with a particular roleplaying game that will remain nameless *coughGURPScough*, I've had a bit of experience designing various weird and wonderful vehicles, with perhaps a hit-and-miss relationship to reality :p.

My two favourite designs in the 'weapon of war' category were the "Jackal" light tank (designed for low cost of manufacture and large numbers to be deployed in the field) and the "Robert E Lee" class hovertank (designed for an alternate world where the Confederate States of America is a nation in its own right).

Oh, and I also designed the "Biggest Damn Tank Ever" but that came to 27,000 tons, was powered by a nuclear reactor, and had an aircraft hangar in the turret. Let's not go there...

"Jackal" Light Tank
This is an extremely light, cheap (some might say ‘throw-away’) tank. It is suited for third-world countries that lack the industrial base and cash resources to make or buy more sophisticated machines – or possibly corporations that wish to outfit their security forces with something more impressive than a Hummer. The main advantage of buying this tank is that you will have money left over to buy other things. More tanks come to mind. As wimpy as they look individually, the cash that will buy one M1 Abrams MBT will net roughly 13 Jackals, and the tank has this in common with its namesake: it is deadly in packs.

The Jackal makes use of tried and true technology; the main gun is a 20th century vintage 105mm cannon, while a 7.62mm M60 proudly adorns the Scarff ring atop the turret (the mounting has a 360 degree traverse, and can elevate to the vertical; this is presumably so that the machine-gun can fulfill a nominal anti-aircraft role, though it would be hard put to damage anything big enough to hit). The gunner, seated half in the turret, operates both the 105mm cannon and the M60, though he has to stand up in his seat to do the latter. Seated below and to the gunner’s right, the commander helps load when the cannon is in use; he has to stand up into the turret in order to do this.

One Jackal is no match for a modern MBT; it would be the height of lunacy for a Jackal commander to attempt a one-on-one confrontation unless he was very stupid or very, very good. The Sherman tank fulfilled a role like this in WWII, hunting using pack tactics. In a fight involving a main battle tank and a number of Jackals of equal total cost, one or more Jackals may well be lost during the altercation, but the volume of incoming fire would almost certainly be sufficient to doom the enemy tank.

The Jackal has only a standard air-conditioning and heating unit. In the case of NBC attack, the crew can ‘button up’ and live off the air within the tank itself; this will last a little while, but in the meantime it is wise to leave the area as expediently as possible.

===

Now in its third generation, the Jackal is being produced in three models; "T" for Training, "S" for Standard and "I" for Improved. Each model is essentially identical, from the outside anyway, and spare parts that fit one will certainly fit another. The main difference is in the amount of care and attention that goes into building them.

T-models, meant for training troops, are more or less thrown together; they break down more quickly than the other two models, but they are also much cheaper to produce. S-models, meant for the rank and file, are given the same attention as the average car on an assembly line. On the other hand, I-models are much more expensive, as meticulous care and attention goes into building them; they are meant for officers and the like.

All models have a largish turret atop a squat body, mounting a 20th-century cased-ammo 105mm cannon as its main offensive weaponry. A Scarff ring on top of the turret has a 7.62mm M60 machine-gun; venerable though it might be, it is by no means obsolete. The ammo belt for the M60 is held in a box also mounted on the Scarff Ring, comprising some 2,000 rounds. Ammunition for the cannon is stored within the turret.

The electronics used by the Jackal are stored in two modules; one (the targeting module) fits into a socket in the turret and the other (the sensor/comm module) into a socket in the body of the tank. Each is encased in an extremely sturdy casing of high-impact ceramic, to minimize the possibility of incidental damage. While the modules used by different tank models may differ in internal componentry, they are all of a size; the targeting module from a T-model Jackal will work perfectly well in the appropriate socket of an S-model tank, and vice versa. This is so that a malfunctioning module can be swapped out for a functioning one with a minimum of fuss, or the modules from a disabled tank can be removed and put to use in another tank.

Each module has a carrying handle, as well as a locking system that reduces the chance of falling out of the socket during rough movement. T-model modules have a simple twist-knob which pushes a locking bar into slots on either side of the socket. S-model sockets have the same slots, but the modules have removable keys for locking purposes. I-model modules not only have removable keys, but the users are also enjoined to carry the keys on their persons so that unauthorized users are unable to make off with the high-end modules.

Characteristics shared by all three models:
Weight is very similar, ranging from 22.5 tons for the T-model to 22.7 tons for the I-model. Each model carries 15 tons of armour, with some specifically allocated to the tracks. The turret is heavily sloped on the front, while the chassis is also sloped, but to a lesser degree. A multifuel engine (usually running on diesel fuel) supplies 470 horsepower, driving the tank (over good terrain) at up to 45 mph. Each tank carries 10 HE and 10 HEAT rounds in turret magazines, with the option to carry more in storage (if the battle lasts more than 20 shots, they've either won or lost...).

S-model: 105mm cannon has Partial Stabilisation.
I-model: 105mm cannon has Full Stabilisation.

Modules
The T-model, S-model and I-model Jackals use modules that are outwardly identical apart from the color-coding; this is so that modules can be swapped between tanks at a moment's notice. Sensor/comm modules are distinct from targeting modules, and all modules are shaped so that they cannot be forced in the wrong way without the aid of a sledgehammer.

Sensor/Comm Module
T-Model: Basic Radio, basic computer for datalink (IVIS), basic radar/laser detection system
S-Model: Scrambled radio, IFF, GPS module, improved radar/laser detection system, improved computer for purposes of datalink
I-Model: Scrambled multichannel radio, IFF, military-grade GPS, advanced radar/laser detection, advanced hardened computer for use as datalink node for battlefield management.

Targeting Module
T-model: Passive IR with an effective range of 1 mile. Laser Rangefinder (2.5 miles). Basic computer assist for targeting 105mm Cannon.
S-model: Passive IR with an effective range of 2 miles. Laser Rangefinder (2.5 miles). Basic computer assist for targeting 105mm Cannon.
I-model: Thermograph with an effective range of 4 miles. Laser
Rangefinder (2.5 miles. Improved computer assist for targeting 105mm Cannon.

Note: the practice of 'liberating' modules from I-model tanks for the use of those in S-models and T-models (for sometimes 'training' tanks see battlefield action too) is frowned upon, and culprits are dealt with severely -- if they are ever caught. However, it is every supply sergeant's dream to lay his hands on a 'loose' I-model module.

T-model Jackals go for just under $150,000. S-models are about twice that, while I-model Jackals go for nearly 1.3 million. However, it must be noted that I-model Jackals can go forever and a day without needing serious maintenance, while T-models need maintenance after about every day or so of service.

On the other hand, you can get dozens of S-model Jackals for the price of one advanced main battle tank, and while one-on-one they are a little lacking, all it takes is one lucky shot...

Next up: the "Robert E Lee" class Hovertank...

Someone go and get the mods to make it so