NationStates Jolt Archive

Since people aren't reading the replies, I'll say it here: Canceled.
[Section I: Introduction]
In 20** the Pre-Draka UCSNE completed the Ogre Mk I Superheavy tank as a weapon for use in the Mainland plains and the [Earth III] South African War. The Ogre was highly successful, provided it had ample joint forces support. The Mk II was not heavier than that monster, but it incorporated improved weaponry, systems, and drivetrain. But both of these vehicles were limited in range and speed due to the original hydrogen engines and QNFR reactors. Furthermore with the increasing spread of advanced heavy tanks and systems to destroy them. The Ogre Mk III is a new (postmodern) project to control the armored battlefield.
[Section II: Specifications]
Weight: No more than 850 tons full load
Speed: No less than 40 km/h
Height: As low as possible. Design will preferably be 'squat' in profile.
[Section III: Propulsion]
The Romawa-Johannes Nereus II has been contracted as as method to provide the Ogre Mk III with long range and excellent power for both propulsion and armarment systems. Other suggestions include an auxilliary hydrogen engine or purchasing the QNFR-L reactors from other nations.
[Section IV: Defenses]
This is the area that the Ogre project needs the most help in. Because this vehicle is so massive, it requires an extremely efficient point defense system to protect it. Other passive and semi-active defenses will be included, such as WASP III (A deriative of ARENA), MAHEM reactive armor, Electric reactive armor, and a host of advanced building materials.
[Section V: Armarment]
The armarment of the Ogre is still under debate. Some feel an upgrade to the 155mm guns of past Ogres or an increased caliber would do the best, while others favor a electromagnetic railgun primary battery powered by the possible Nereus pebblebed. Secondary battery suggestions include: Metalstorm guns, medium caliber autocannons, gatling weapons, Tactical lasers, and more. Tertiary weapons will likely be the same as the PDS. It is probable the Ogre will be equipped with ATGMs and SAM racks as well.
[Section VI: Contracting]
More information on the development will be released if significant foreign intrest is shown in the development of the Ogre Mk III.

OOC: Just ideas floating around... Basically a thread for input, comments, flames.

850 TONS
CHRIST!

That's bigger than my 150 ton DT-114 Drone Tank with dual railguns.

OOC: Indeed it is. The original Ogre, Mk I, was 350 tons and mounted 3 high velocity 155mm ETC guns.

This one is supposed to be a bit more self sufficient in terms of propulsion and support from other ground units.

Your format hurts my eyes and this thing, unless it was so stupidly huge that it couldnt really maneuver on anything but completely flat ground for miles around, will simply sink into the earth.

My only thought is about its protection against mines and scramjet propelled missiles. Is it capable of fending those off?

Besides of course, how to propel such a monstrosity.

OOC: Bah... I'll just go back to the Mk II and figure out how to fit the Pebblebed in there.

Anyways, how would it do against a tactical 80 megaton warhead?

OOC: Tactical 80 MT warhead? Is that an oxymoron?

OOC: HAHAHA! Im sorry, but all i can do is laugh! 850 tons!?!

Something of that weight would be able to move unless it had a stupidly high amount of power, and that would take something like a ships engine to work that. Something like that cant be "squat", it would be so high it would be visible above a bungalow, to say the least!

No offence NE, but a 80 MT warhead sounds about right to me. i think what you really want is a MASSIVE fort on wheals! hehe(sorry for spelling mistakes)

How does 80MT sound right to you? That statement right there voided your entire post. Smooth.

Anyways, 850t can be easily handled with a small PSI (Hyland-Nikolaas can handle this quite well) and what we call a "QNFR" which is a miniature nuclear engine running on halnium. IE the power of a ships engine. Besides, all we'd have to do is put a battery of Dublin-600 SAMs on the back, and suddenly your 80MT ICBM doesn't look very threantening at all, especially when the tank can return the favour.

OOC: HAHAHA! Im sorry, but all i can do is laugh! 850 tons!?!

Laugh this off:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm

A prototype turret was built for it and ended up as part of the Atlantic Wall, so obviously someone thought it was realistic.

Laugh this off:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm

A prototype turret was built for it and ended up as part of the Atlantic Wall, so obviously someone thought it was realistic.
Realisitic as a turret, not as a vehicle. Also note the pathetic armour values. If you want ship guns then use wheeled or even self-propelled artillery, dont build some stupid tank that will barely be able to move..

Realisitic as a turret, not as a vehicle. Also note the pathetic armour values. If you want ship guns then use wheeled or even self-propelled artillery, dont build some stupid tank that will barely be able to move..

Being a bad idea doesn't actually preclude something being built. See, for example, the Sheridan.

Well, that was world war two. Welcome to Post 2020, where nuclear tanks are a staple, and all missiles are scramjet. Armour is going to be a lot better with less space, making this tank a lot more feasable.

That thing couldnt drive down a road without crunching it to pieces ...

I'll give you a little hint, most tanks can't go at speed down roads without tearing them up.

OOC:

Actually, the primary problem here is treads and armor. Propulsion is easy. I don't even have to go outside RL tech. Look up the Nereus Reactor. Portable Pebblebed Reactors. I planned on mounting a few of them here, around 20 MW power.

In any case, while 850 tons might be too high, I'm going to keep working on the 400 ton Ogre II.

Hotdogs, do you know what the word tactical means? That it's battlefield deployable. A tactical nuclear warhead is 20kt, not 80 MT. Few ICBMs can mount 80MT warheads.

Furthermore, Hotdogs, next time be coherent.

This is a massive target that can easily be destroyed by an air to surface missile attack, a SCRAMjet round or a top-attack ATGM.

OOC: As I stated earlier, the project is canceled until further notice...

And part of the project was to develop a CIWS for the vehicle that exceeds the version designed for Ogre MK II

[*sigh* Praetonia, I don't know what crawled up your butt and died where tanks are concerned, but please stick to ships, they're more your forte.

NE: You're just going to have to do what the Germans planned, there's no way around it. I don't know what you see in these massive tanks, but I hope you do it right.]

OOC: A CIWS that can intercept SCRAMjets... interesting...

@SS: I dont know. Everything I seem to be seeing these days are OMFG t3h uberzorz tanks"!11!!1 that can pwn everything with their massive gunz, have armour that can stop a nuke and travel as fast as helicopters... it's not just you, in fact yours is better than some... Ive seen tanks with 6,500mm of arm...

actually you're right. Im just going to drop tanks because the world has gone mad.

*starts writing IPS v2.0*

OOC: Well, about the massive tanks, personally while they are feastible, they do have their own downsides, especially those that deals with logistics, manufacturing rate, and actual mobility. Personally if I were in an engineering unit, I am not the one who wants to lay a temporatory bridge or repair a blown up bridge for the tank to cross, or carry damaged ones out of combat.

As for the scramjet rounds, I can say that I'm not really a fan of them either, considering how you could just get the same performance from a high performance >130mm ETC gun, and considering that the scramjet is actually a type of jet engine which also requires places for fuel, intake(s), and a combustion chamber - which means that it probably wouldn't leave much room for a huge sabot or a HEAT. I would also be worried about the condition of the engine after experiencing such impact once it is fired out of an ETC, aside from the obvious high cost.

Ogres are an interesting future tech possibility.... the stories from Keith Laumer (Bolo series), and the old wargame (Ogre, dates back to the late 1970s) had them. In my view they are only really practical with small but powerful nuclear power systems (fission or fusion will work), superdense armor, intergrated data links with other vehicles allowing it to concentrate fire on incoming missiles and aircraft and artillery shells, linear accelerator type weapons, plus lasers and particle beams etc...

and it has to be ground effect (hover) to move reasonably instead of tracked (as in Hammer Slammers series by David Drake), as no feasable bridge would hold them for example...

I used them in a thread I had going (New Shiron is invaded)... they are not really a superweapon, and all of the vulnerabilities described are accurate, but as part of a combined arms team they would be scary as hell

I think I might just drop the whole Ogre project... They were really created as counters to the ubertanks that pretend they are 80 tons. The Ogres were only to be used in direct assaults and defenses against said tanks.

As for the CIWS to intercept scramjets... A tactical laser. That's about all I can think of.

I'm going back to the Bolo and Lionhound (And when I say Bolo, I don't mean 30k ton tanks with antiship guns. I mean a 90 ton Heavy Tank.)

I've utilized a few supertanks myself in the past (mostly WH40K copies) and aside from being the mother of all pyschological weapons they are rather limited in deployment. I tend to only deploy them in penny-packets against poorly armed natives, or my friend whose most advanced AT weapon is a giant claw (he's biological, you see).

Not that I'm telling you to not develope supertanks. Just bear in mind that you can never make a self-sufficent war machine and that its going to need infantry and air support for it to have any hope of surviving. Attach a regiment of panzer-grenadierrs to each Ogre, have a few dedicated fighter squadrons, and for god's sake don't deploy it in your own cities. If your going to crash into the sewer system it might as well be the enemy's.

OOC: Intercepting scramjet weapons isn't that hard at all once you actually hit the round (think of fuel, and think of igniting it), but the problem is that scramjet rounds will definately travel much faster, which could provide a side problem.

About the tank itself however, mobility and logistics is always a major factor in any major engagement/operation. While this tank itself uses a nuclear reactor, you would still have to worry about ammunition and spare parts, aside from the maintenance of such tank. Even if it will be engaging other tanks in small numbers, the lack of true mobility in combat conditions will be a true downside, aside from the level of maintenance required - I still personally wonder how you are going to deploy this thing, and from what I can think the only true feastible way is to deploy it via huge sealift ships, unless you want to crush the bottom of a cargo aircraft or sink a huge landing craft. And then you are going to worry about how you are going to get a 400-800 ton monster onto the ship without damaging something. Even the standard cargo containers wouldn't be as heavy.

What you should do is find smaller nations that have good economies and few human rights that could masively build a movement system, while your forces focus down on the weapons and armorment. Smaller nations that have a good econ don't have the resources to make the big weapons, but they do have the money and man power to produce the needed parts to push an army into the next level of combat.

Wow, you guys just through out nuclear power as if it'd be really easy to toss one into a tank. Hell, the US Navy doesn't even use them on Cruiser-class ships anymore because it's not economically feasible, let alone on something as small and needed in such high numbers as tanks. Plus, reactor systems are extremely complex and require a massive amount of training before anyone is allowed to operate them. The economics of using reactors for tanks, especially once you count the time and money needed to train operators, is insane. Of course, now you'll all just say that it's 20-30 years in the future, which is all well and good as long as we assume a huge leap forward in science that eclipses anything seen in the last 50 years.

850 tons eh, not that much considering the Germans were actually planning to build a monster heavier than that during ww2. Not talking about the Maus either, but the land cruisers. Two versions, a 1000 and 1500 ton model, with a lot of possible weapon loadouts, one being twin 280mm cannon. Not to mention the 8 naval diesels they were going to put in the thing so that they could get it up to 42km/h. Check them out at www.achtungpanzer.com

This is a massive target that can easily be destroyed by an air to surface missile attack, a SCRAMjet round or a top-attack ATGM.

So is an aircraft carrier. Well, switching 'ATGM' for 'really big ASM.'

Wow, you guys just through out nuclear power as if it'd be really easy to toss one into a tank. Hell, the US Navy doesn't even use them on Cruiser-class ships anymore because it's not economically feasible, let alone on something as small and needed in such high numbers as tanks. Plus, reactor systems are extremely complex and require a massive amount of training before anyone is allowed to operate them. The economics of using reactors for tanks, especially once you count the time and money needed to train operators, is insane. Of course, now you'll all just say that it's 20-30 years in the future, which is all well and good as long as we assume a huge leap forward in science that eclipses anything seen in the last 50 years.

All told, it's a damn shame for your argument that the USSR built nuclear powered satellites during the Cold War.

As I've said, this is canceled... The Ogre project will basically be dedicated to putting naval type systems (Point Defense, Advanced Fire Control, Advanced Propulsion) in MBTs and HBTs.

Sliano... What? Sorry, but that's kind of irrelevant to the discussion. If this is feasible, I can afford it. That's what we're debating. Whether or not it's practical.

Khan, you're talking about pressurized water reactors. We're talking about Helium cooled Pebblebeds and Hafnium reactions.

So is an aircraft carrier. Well, switching 'ATGM' for 'really big ASM.'
Yeah you're right... but that doesnt make this less vulnerable. Whereas, a normal tank wouldnt be so, as it would be smaller, more maneuverable and faster.

Yeah you're right... but that doesnt make this less vulnerable. Whereas, a normal tank wouldnt be so, as it would be smaller, more maneuverable and faster.

...Assumes the same battlefield role for the supertank as the normal tank. It's the classic 'battleships are useless' fallacy of assuming that the supertank will be operating alone. Regular tanks are no less vulnerable to air-delivered weapons.

This is a low-end landcruiser and entirely feasible in terms of building the thing. It's true that such vehicles aren't hugely effective unless given full air cover and supported by their own land battlegroups [as a real 'landship' should be!], but nobody should field a perfect army anyway, it's wanky and horribly unrealistic.

Now, it's when you get them up to warship sizes that the real fun with Ground Battleships starts...

Yeah the fun that if there's a small boulder in the way they get stuck, and the fun where the ground has to be entirely level or they get cuaght in the middle. Sorry but ship sized things I just wont accept, and these things ARE useless. If you want a 280mm gun in the enemy lines (err... why?) then just get a self-propelled gun. Much faster, more maneuverable etc with the same firepower.

I know the project is cancelled, thus making this thread defunct, but that never stopped a good arguement.

Yeah the fun that if there's a small boulder in the way they get stuck, and the fun where the ground has to be entirely level or they get cuaght in the middle. Sorry but ship sized things I just wont accept, and these things ARE useless. If you want a 280mm gun in the enemy lines (err... why?) then just get a self-propelled gun. Much faster, more maneuverable etc with the same firepower.

With its immense weight its probably quite capable of simply crushing boulders, walls, trees, or anything else that happens to get in the way. A simple plow would allow it to push smaller boulders out of the way, or you could mount a dedicated howitzer for the purpose of removing obstructions.

Screw it, I'm going back to superheavy tanks.

The Mark XXXIII is the highest mark for which we have reliable data, the largest, the fastest, the most heavily armed, and the smartest Bolo of all. Introduced in the mid-third millennium, at about the time of the so-called "Final War" and the onset of the Long Night, it masses 32,000 tons. Its main armament consists of three 200cm hellbores, mounted separately in three turrets. Secondary armament includes sixteen 30cm hellbore infinite repeaters in two lateral batteries, ten 40cm BL mortars, four 240cm howitzers, and a heavy VLS missile system. Road speed is approximately 110 kph; sprint speed is much higher, since internal contragravity generators can allow the machine to become airborne. In fact, the Mark XXXIII was designed to serve as its own landing boat for planetary assault. Where earlier Bolo marks were occasionally known as "continental siege units," the Mark XXXIII was, in fact, a planetary siege unit, capable of engaging enemy warships in near-space space.

Gotcha.

Hee, can't see why your genuine Ground Battleship [50-70kt articulated chassis semi-mobile bastard-device moved by rail and assembled at-site] would have any real problems with rocks...Flat ground, that's why you bring horrible amounts of combat engineering along for the ride.

The real problem in that scenario is what kept you on the path to building such a thing, if the will's there there's not much that would stop it being built and deployed.

As far as what superheavy tanks shoot at...The battleship mission, other superheavy tanks? Or failing that, tanks? I'm aware of a Sturmtiger's 14-inch gun being credited with killing three Shermans in one shot in WW2...

Screw it, I'm going back to superheavy tanks.

The Mark XXXIII is the highest mark for which we have reliable data, the largest, the fastest, the most heavily armed, and the smartest Bolo of all. Introduced in the mid-third millennium, at about the time of the so-called "Final War" and the onset of the Long Night, it masses 32,000 tons. Its main armament consists of three 200cm hellbores, mounted separately in three turrets. Secondary armament includes sixteen 30cm hellbore infinite repeaters in two lateral batteries, ten 40cm BL mortars, four 240cm howitzers, and a heavy VLS missile system. Road speed is approximately 110 kph; sprint speed is much higher, since internal contragravity generators can allow the machine to become airborne. In fact, the Mark XXXIII was designed to serve as its own landing boat for planetary assault. Where earlier Bolo marks were occasionally known as "continental siege units," the Mark XXXIII was, in fact, a planetary siege unit, capable of engaging enemy warships in near-space space.

Gotcha.

Seems alright, aside from an incredibly high road speed. The fact that modern light tanks rarely exceed half of that, and the fact that the Mark XXXIII probably requires a 8-lane high way to serve as a road makes this figure look suspicious.

Perhaps the fact that a MkXXXIII is a future tech 3000s era tank powered by several fusion reactors will assure you?

Or that it was a joke?

Perhaps the fact that a MkXXXIII is a future tech 3000s era tank powered by several fusion reactors will assure you?

Or that it was a joke?

Honestly I wasn't aware it was one. I would have no problem with such a beast being fielded, though with a drastically lowered speed. The problem is that no matter how much power you have in it, you still have to apply that power to moving 32,000 tons. I don't think there's a transmission system capable of moving that much weight at such speed.

Wish there was though.

Maybe 'Gotcha' wasn't obvious enough...

In any case I think it involved nanofactured materials and gravitic generators to hold the stuff in place without friction.

Gonna pop off a question...

I'm making a new (2010-2020) MBT... Would a 2 man crew be possible?

Gonna pop off a question...

I'm making a new (2010-2020) MBT... Would a 2 man crew be possible?

I'd say 3 [driver, gunner, loader] at minimum. Autoloaders are fine and good until they break down.

Ok... But a question... If I were to use a railgun weapon, would I need an autoloader or loader and be able to use a machinegun style feed?

Ok... But a question... If I were to use a railgun weapon, would I need an autoloader or loader and be able to use a machinegun style feed?

I'd think a railgun would have pauses between firing [especially in near-future] to recharge capacitors, so an autoloader would be pretty pointless because loading wouldn't be the limiting factor in your fire rate.

its very heavy!!!! and its a easy target for the anti tank fire.... artillery and aircrafts too

Gonna pop off a question...

I'm making a new (2010-2020) MBT... Would a 2 man crew be possible?

Considering that the 60's Swedish Strv 103, or S-Tank was almost just that would suggest that it already technically is possible, but if fighting one would be effective is IMHO questionable (and me being a very patriotic Swede that feels hard to admit to... ;)).

The Strv103 had a three man crew consisting of commander, gunner-driver and radio man-rear driver... it was completely possible to fight the tank with only two crew.

The commander and gunner could also perform each others functions if need arose. That the driver also served as gunner was actually a necessity due to the design since the entire tank had to be "aimed" at the engaged target, the main gun could not be swiveled at all, but was "fixed" to the chassi. You aimed the gun by aiming the vehicle.

The main problem with low crew numbers would be battle management, f e French two man tanks fared very bad in WW2 because the tank commander, who had to man a single man turret had to both spot targets, aim the gun and then reload it. While he was aiming the gun his FOV was so narrow he would not be able to spot other targets or threats, and even worse, when reloading he would not be looking outside at all, and the tank effectively blind except for the driver.

Another issue is that even three crew is small when it comes to maintenance... or putting back a thrown track... tanks need to be almost cuddled along, and has always been so for their existence so far, why would that change in a few decades. ;)

While the difficulties are or would be "different" in modern or future small-crew vehicles some are intrinsic to the design of such, wether the TC is busy with reloading a gun, aiming it or watching a screen depicting the tactical situation, he is not scanning the horizon for targets... if there are automated systems capable of this, why risk a human life fighting the vehicle to begin with? Make it a drone, you'd still have "remote" control of the vehicle.



Stridsvagn 103
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/STRV/strv103c.jpg
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/STRV/s_komp.gif

The '103 "elevating" its main gun by using its suspension as can be clearly seen.
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/STRV/strv103_4.jpg

Hee, can't see why your genuine Ground Battleship [50-70kt articulated chassis semi-mobile bastard-device moved by rail and assembled at-site] would have any real problems with rocks...Flat ground, that's why you bring horrible amounts of combat engineering along for the ride.

The real problem in that scenario is what kept you on the path to building such a thing, if the will's there there's not much that would stop it being built and deployed.

As far as what superheavy tanks shoot at...The battleship mission, other superheavy tanks? Or failing that, tanks? I'm aware of a Sturmtiger's 14-inch gun being credited with killing three Shermans in one shot in WW2...

I heard 7, 3 KK (catastrophic kills, unrecoverable), 2 repairable at a workshop and 2 that could be repaired in the field.

What happened to the crews I don't know, but if any hatches were open I can guess that the cleanup crews weren't that happy about their choice of profession that week...

However, this was a freak occurence, on the defensive the Sturmtiger was a fiasco. It was designed for offensive siege work (strongpoint removal) and was an answer to German experiences from their assault on Stalingrad. The long reload times wasn't such a nuiscance when the Sturmtiger could wait in the rear and only roll forward when a strongpoint was detected by others.

That thing is more of an assault gun that a tank, and with such a low gun its range would be very limited. That being said, I think you would be better off with a 3 or 4 man crew NE, for the same reason Footpads gave.

On a side note, whats the projectile speed on the railgun you plan on using? I've contemplated using them on my tanks, but the problem I see is that their projectile travels so fast it'd be practically impossible to hit things over the horizon, if you so desired. Of course, that's really the artillery's job and tanks are supposed to engage things up close, so maybe I'm making too big of a deal out of it.

I'll think I'll go with 3 man crew... Although they will have the option to slave weapons to fire control computers (Usually AA guns, PDS).

As for the railgun, I meant just a simple machinegun/belt style feed, for the sake of more ammunition in the turret. The railgun, if I did use it, would be no more than 90mm, but able to fire around Mach 5-6 (I believe the Rhinemetall 120mm on the Leopards and Abrams can belt out APFSDS at Mach 4)...

Gonna pop off a question...

I'm making a new (2010-2020) MBT... Would a 2 man crew be possible?

OOC: Well, autoloaders are reasonably reliable, but also somewhat slower than a human. This difference is reduced, however, with larger loads. If you go the railgun route, the difference would be problematic. The projectiles are smaller, and thus easier for a human to handle. A 'machine-gun' style feed would not be practical, because you need to be able to load any given type of round at a given time--Fire HEAT or Sabot rounds at armor, then frag/HE against infantry, then canister against close-in infantry--It would be impractical in a linked round format, as you would need several chains capable of feeding into the weapon selectively.

You could probably combine the commander and driver positions or the commander and gunner positions, but even with modern-era command and control systems, such combinations have drawbacks. A commander-driver would be distracted from the attention-intensive tasks of driving in rough terrain, or would lose much of the direct control he/she has over the operation of the main gun.

On the other hand, a commander/gunner would lose much of his ability to direct the driver, needing to dedicate attention to the operation of the gun. The time taken between firing the gun, aquiring a new target, ordering an appropriate round loaded, and firing would be increased, because the gunner/commander would have to find one target at a time.

Well, enough of a diatribe. Hope this helps get you thinking about crewing issues.

As for the railgun, I meant just a simple machinegun/belt style feed, for the sake of more ammunition in the turret.

Um, maybe I'm just being stupid here, but since you need a hatch in the turret anyway unless you have some kind of ass-backwards means of entry...How does having a belt feed system [which takes up space] increase the space available for ammo?

That thing is more of an assault gun that a tank, and with such a low gun its range would be very limited. That being said, I think you would be better off with a 3 or 4 man crew NE, for the same reason Footpads gave.

On a side note, whats the projectile speed on the railgun you plan on using? I've contemplated using them on my tanks, but the problem I see is that their projectile travels so fast it'd be practically impossible to hit things over the horizon, if you so desired. Of course, that's really the artillery's job and tanks are supposed to engage things up close, so maybe I'm making too big of a deal out of it.

"Stridsvagn" literally means "tank" (well... "battle chariot"... but anyway... we use it for tanks). "Assault gun" is "Stormartillerivagn". Our Leopard 2S is called "Stridsvagn" as well. It was designated a tank and used as a tank, so I'd call it a tank. ;)

As seen in the last picture, the gun could be elevated by elevating the entire chassi and suffered no "range" penalty" compared to turreted tanks. If anything the 103 would outrange the competition (carrying 105mm guns) since it had a superior barrel giving higher mV.

When it was designed there was no real effective gun stabilization, so being unable to effectively fire on the move wasn't such a drawback, nobody else could either. Time did however run away from the 103 when effective gun stabilization became available, and the tank was at a disadvantage in mobile fighting against those.

The 103 was actually capable of precision klutch-brake turns, so it could lay its gun against a detected threat really fast even without a turret. The low profile made it harder to detect, and also made it very weight efficient to armour (less area to cover). For its weight this was the best armoured vehicle until the T-64 and later the invention of Chobham.

It was also amphibious and carried a dozer blade as standard equipment! :cool:

It was revolutionary, but not perfect. ;)

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/STRV/strv103_8.jpg

Um, maybe I'm just being stupid here, but since you need a hatch in the turret anyway unless you have some kind of ass-backwards means of entry...How does having a belt feed system [which takes up space] increase the space available for ammo?
The belt feed systems in aircraft don't need loaders, so you don't have a guy sitting in there taking up space.

Well, that was world war two. Welcome to Post 2020, where nuclear tanks are a staple, and all missiles are scramjet. Armour is going to be a lot better with less space, making this tank a lot more feasable.

All missiles actually couldn't be scramjet-- the size of the equipment needed to attain such velocities would preclude their use by anything but dedicated launch platforms.

I gave up on the giant tank idea, since pretty much everyone around here screams and cries no matter how hard I try to do a design properly and fix problems with it *shrug*

If you want to make a big tank, by all means do so. I'd certainly RP against it.

Though, since I got tired of people flaming me, I just dropped the supertank and instead now use fast light units equipped with large calibre linear guns-- they're cheap to produce and can easily smash just about anything else at their tech level. *shrug*

The belt feed systems in aircraft don't need loaders, so you don't have a guy sitting in there taking up space.

Um...It's a slightly different situation. In your turret you'd presumably need a hatch, crew access and so on through the turret unless you have a big fat body for them to crawl through a surface hatch into. This mean there is already a big hole in the middle of your turret, unlike on aircraft where the pilot has no access to the gun in-flight at all and the belt-feed is something of a necessily because of that and his gun's fire rate.

This mean in the case of your tank a feed belt would occupy the same space the ammo would, wouldn't greatly increase performance because the railgun's recharges would limit the speed of repeat firing, and would thus represent a couple of shells not carried. Would also need to be powered somehow which would eat into your reactor / battery life, and would be another thing that could go wrong.

Um...It's a slightly different situation. In your turret you'd presumably need a hatch, crew access and so on through the turret unless you have a big fat body for them to crawl through a surface hatch into. This mean there is already a big hole in the middle of your turret, unlike on aircraft where the pilot has no access to the gun in-flight at all and the belt-feed is something of a necessily because of that and his gun's fire rate.

This mean in the case of your tank a feed belt would occupy the same space the ammo would, wouldn't greatly increase performance because the railgun's recharges would limit the speed of repeat firing, and would thus represent a couple of shells not carried. Would also need to be powered somehow which would eat into your reactor / battery life, and would be another thing that could go wrong.

To get around the recharge problem with railguns, I just use high-energy capacitors, charged by external sources before deploying the tank. That way, the needed amount of energy can be instantly supplied, ensuring a decent fire rate-- and in addition, if the vehicle has a fusion reactor or a quantum isomer power source on board, it can (very slowly) recharge it's capacitors over time when not in combat.

To get around the recharge problem with railguns, I just use high-energy capacitors, charged by external sources before deploying the tank. That way, the needed amount of energy can be instantly supplied, ensuring a decent fire rate-- and in addition, if the vehicle has a fusion reactor or a quantum isomer power source on board, it can (very slowly) recharge it's capacitors over time when not in combat.

Aye, but he's on a 2010-2020 kick here, so he's probably down for recharging his whole bank every one shot or couple of shots if he's lucky.

All missiles actually couldn't be scramjet-- the size of the equipment needed to attain such velocities would preclude their use by anything but dedicated launch platforms.

I gave up on the giant tank idea, since pretty much everyone around here screams and cries no matter how hard I try to do a design properly and fix problems with it *shrug*

Well, scramjets on missiles aren't that limited, but the problems are still the following:
1. I'm not sure how many people know this, but you'd need to be in supersonic speed in order to have the scramjet working, and that doesn't mean Mach 1.00 either, and if you have noticed, even many ramjet missiles/aircraft also have a booster in order to get the airflow. With this, since it is also a fact that supersonic performance at low altitudes is poor compared to such performance at high altitudes, scramjet tends to work better on a high-speed, high altitude cruise missile or a large round fired from a naval or artillery gun rather than something like an anti-tank round.
2. Scramjet takes space, which wouldn't make it a really good round unless you are going to put such engine on a huge round such as those of an artillery gun. Which means that not only would tank-fired scramjet rounds would be actually counterproductive if you fire it from something like an ETC gun, but it also restricts the actual size of the sabot or HEAT or whatever.

About the giant tank, I don't ignore it, but one problem that I see some people ignore is that such tank will not be as mobile as something like a light tank or a LAV, and also think that it would not be a logistical nightmare when you use it in big formations. While such large "supertanks" would be qutie effective actually when used with smaller (and mobile) MBTs and in smaller numbers in armoured engagements, it will be horribly immobile and will eat away most of your fuel and ammunition when you use it in large formations as if it is actually a replacement for MBTs (from what I've seen).

Also just for reference, from what I've seen, the muzzle velocity of the Rheinmetall 120mm L55 is about 1750m/sec when firing a KE projectile - Mach 5.14; and for the L44 firing the same projectile, a 1,670m/sec muzzle velocity - Mach 4.9.

ooc:

Ok, of railguns, high powered capcitators and direct charging from a power source linked right to the railguns will suffice.

Variable drive autoloading and computer selectable round choices take away the discrepancy in speed.

Scramjet missiles? Hell no. Maybe on a plane, but if you really want a fast moving missile, i suggest you try a solid fuled hydrogen missile with a miniaturized Saturn V booster.

well, you see, a scramjet missile travels at around 10,000kmph not 1,000,000 kmph.

And a scramjet missile, if you read my previous post, is impractical as too much space will be wasted attaching the required air intakes.

*shakes head sadly* If you attempted to attach intakes to a scramjet missile like you would a ramjet missile, the intakes would be ripped off well before the missile ever reached top speed. The only practicle way to make a scramjet work is to make sure that the scoop is a part of the missile body itself and the only way to do that is to make the scoop in the nose section.

Also, the loss of fuel space and warhead is nowhere near as severe as you seem to be implying. Yes, there is some loss, but that is compensated by making the missile bigger.

And all you need is a nice dense rod for your penetrator, cause lets be honest here, HEAT ain't gonna work against modern tanks such as those utilized by SS, New Empire, or I.

And all you need is a nice dense rod for your penetrator, cause lets be honest here, HEAT ain't gonna work against modern tanks such as those utilized by SS, New Empire, or I.
Well that's definately true (I utilize an imported system that defeats HEAT as well), but keep in mind that when compared to HEAT, Sabots are still generally restricted to armoured vehicles only, whereas HEAT is also more useful against other targets like low-flying helicopters or even unarmoured vehicles (though the US have a variant called MPAT to do that). Which is why I also utilize a lot of standard both high explosive rounds and flechette rounds against infantry (especially considering when most of my mechanized infantry divisions are going to end up defending cities and other places against infantry), though special concrete-busting rounds and other stuff like HESH and those long-range STAFF rounds won't hurt either.

Of course, I was merely talking about my missiles/ATGM's. Tanks would carry all sorts of rounds and reserve the SCRAMjet-KE penetrator for tank battles.

*shakes head sadly* If you attempted to attach intakes to a scramjet missile like you would a ramjet missile, the intakes would be ripped off well before the missile ever reached top speed. The only practicle way to make a scramjet work is to make sure that the scoop is a part of the missile body itself and the only way to do that is to make the scoop in the nose section.

Also, the loss of fuel space and warhead is nowhere near as severe as you seem to be implying. Yes, there is some loss, but that is compensated by making the missile bigger.

Which means it will be too big to be a tank shell. Scramjet rockets are best used in an air-launched role.

I was talking about missiles, AN. Tank shells are another matter altogether. I don't like them myself, but they certainly aren't infeasable.

I am considering an "intelligent" Automated driver for my newest tank... the commander has a map on a screen in his seat, clicks on his destination choice and using mm/nm band radar and some other systems the tank drives to its destination... is this feasable in the eyes of others, for a 2010-2020 tech level? (And by feasable i mean reliable and functional not just doable- i know i cant be done, re that race with the fully automated vehicles 3 or 4 months ago...)

Ah, ok.

Though, I dislike how people treat scramjet rockets as magic bullets that can kill anything.

A scramjet tank shell won't kill a target because it's a scramjet, it'll kill it because the kinetic energy is so massive that the impacted tank's armour will at the very least crumple and at the very worse be turned into very dense shards that will tear everything up inside.

*shakes head sadly* If you attempted to attach intakes to a scramjet missile like you would a ramjet missile, the intakes would be ripped off well before the missile ever reached top speed. The only practicle way to make a scramjet work is to make sure that the scoop is a part of the missile body itself and the only way to do that is to make the scoop in the nose section.

Also, the loss of fuel space and warhead is nowhere near as severe as you seem to be implying. Yes, there is some loss, but that is compensated by making the missile bigger.

Actually, SCRAMjet tank rounds are already being developed...

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2003/Aug/Army_Tests.htm
http://www.asc2004.com/23rdASC/summaries/c/CP-09.pdf

And all you need is a nice dense rod for your penetrator, cause lets be honest here, HEAT ain't gonna work against modern tanks such as those utilized by SS, New Empire, or I.

I'll feel free to ignore bad science and Godmoding thankyouverymuch... and "immunity" vs whatever is definately Godmoding unless based on an at least somewhat credible "SciFi" claim in my book. Just make a warhead large enough and it would penetrate if/when it hits. :P

And please write the entire national names so I can look up what their claims are. I have seen no system so far I'd say claimed "invulnerability" against HEAT.

I'm "new" to playing around on these forums and don't know you people just yet. :)


What is the purported difference between a kinetic penetrator formed by explosives and a crowbar launched from a guntube (HEAT doesn't "melt" its way through anything, its a kinetic penetrator formed by an explosion)? While the "liquid" penetrator formed is more sensitive than a stiff rod penetrator to "interactive" armours (f e Chobham), its not useless in any way...

Also, reactive armour and active defense systems will always be vulnerable to roll out attacks, hit it with cluster or HE munitions to strip those off and you're clear to go with a HEAT round, and that is assuming a 100% efficiency rate of the defenses. The best guesses regarding the contemporary Russian stuff never claim an efficiency rate above 50-75%, ie every other to fourth attack will get through the defensive system. Introduce them on an ECM-intensive battlefield and I'd hazard a guess you'd see them fail at an even greater rate.

A scramjet tank shell won't kill a target because it's a scramjet, it'll kill it because the kinetic energy is so massive that the impacted tank's armour will at the very least crumple and at the very worse be turned into very dense shards that will tear everything up inside.

"Spalling" of the armour is mainly a problem for vehicles with homogenous armour plate, something that is very rare today. F e, the main effect from HESH (HEP to 'mericans) was to induce armour spalling and death or injure to the crew by that. Today the rounds are nearly useless in an anti-armour role and relegated to use against soft vehicles, personell and fortifications. Any penetrator that "spreads" its energy will most likely fail, it needs to concentrate its energy at as small an area as possible, as well as be stiff so the interaction with the armour is as small as possible.

"Crumpling armour" effects are easily negated by using spaced armour, so nobody is trying that...

The idea is really to make an ordinary long-rod penetrator with higher amount of energy, just as magnetic accelerators and electro-thermal combustion guns. Today the rounds used are limited by the expansion of burning propellant (around 2000m/s).

Although the SCRAMJet round has another advantage, it sustains its power longer since it actually has a motor, and is therefore more efficient at range.

Its not an "uber-weapon" of any kind, and to be frank, its not completely clear just how feasible the system will become. Accuracy for rounds with sustaining motors have always been a bit iffy f e.

Accuracy for rounds with sustaining motors have always been a bit iffy f e.

See Gyrojets for the very worst example...

See Gyrojets for the very worst example...

IMO that could have worked, but the materials and manufacturing tech of the time was just not up to the job.

IMO that could have worked, but the materials and manufacturing tech of the time was just not up to the job.

That and firing rockets out of a pistol is just, well, silly.

The HEAT killer is a new British system. Electric Reactive Armor, the jets of molten metal complete a circuit in the armor that vaporizes the shaped charge material and confines the explosion outside the vehicle in a premature detonation.

There's an article, but I'm lazy. Sorry everyone...

Oh, and on the tank I'm developing... For criticism...

So far we've got three people, a gunner, driver and loader/commander. If the autoloader is functioning, he controls the remote or manual operated light autocannon (20-40mm) and PDS weapon on top of the tank. This turret can be slaved to missile defense by the tank. The loader/commander can also control any ATGM racks that may be attached to the vehicle.

Gun will be 140mm or 150/152mm...

Haven't quite figured out engine, but we're leaning towards a hybrid or hydrogen engine...

The commander should not have to worry about loading rounds. There should be an extra crew member, so as to allow the commander to complete his duty, that is to command the tank...

The commander only loads if the Auto breaks down...

Still, considering the size of your thing, its better to have a loader specifically assigned to take over from the autoloader if it fails...

And in addition, you can use the land version of my naval hydrogen-electric generator if you need it, since I am joining the joint-venture corp.

Ways to destroy/prevent HEAT using systems on an Artitsan Tank:

1. NxRA detonates the HEAT shell using a non-exposive reaction. This was designed by "ze germans" as is much more efficiant and effective than Kaktus 3rd Gen ERA.

2. Another RA package underneath, that escapes my memory. Testing by US, and it fires a rod out to intercept KE penetrators and knock them off course/ render them useless.

3. MAHEM reactive armour, which is like a HEAT shell but used as defence. Im to lazy to get the definition.

4. EleRA, Electric Reactive Armour, detonating the HEAT shell prematurely.

5. Now onto actual Armour: Ceramic first layer, backed by chobham /w tungsten support rods, and another ceramic layer. Between the first ceramic layer and the chobham, is "Coil". Coil uses aluminum to absorb a great deal of heat, but also there is free fluid in this layer, used to cool (read: VERY COOL) the area's down, preventing serious damage from a penetrator formed from Plasma.

6. 6km direct fire 152mm gun to knockout your tank before it see's ours. 15km ATGM to reap havoc before you know we were even there.

[CE rounds aren't as effective because copper lacks the density and speed, thus the punch, necessary to penetrate modern armour. My tanks aren't immune to CE by any stretch of the imagination, but it's likely that if one of my tanks came under attack from another tank using CE rounds, that tank would be dead before it punched a round through one of my tanks' armour.]

Exactly. By the time it would take to kill a tank of such caliber, three of your tanks would more than likely be destroyed. Its like the Iraqi's against the Abrams. Is it godmodding if the Iraqi's cannot kill an Abrams everytime they fire their gun?