NationStates Jolt Archive

Based on years of research in urban armored combat, the RX-1250 represents a revolutionary synthesis of tactics and technology. Unlike the tanks of old, the RX-1250 is designed for mobility and combat prowess in confined areas(which is not to say it can't fight like a traditional tank), making it incredibly well suited to urban combat situations. The RX-1250 is currently in prototype stage and may undergo changes before it becomes a production model, but it performs remarkably well already.

Crew Setup: The gunner and commander sit one behind the other helicopter style in the right side of the turret. The driver sits central in the hull. All crew have full immersion OLED displays that show composite visual, color night-vision, IR, and Millimeter Band Radar, along with directional audio feeds. As backup there are armored periscopes, typically kept shuttered. Each crewmember gets a small personal locker, a holster for weapons up to assault rifle size located on the side of the seat for quick retrieval, and a personal chemical toilet. Each crew position is technically capable of taking over for another.

Drive Systems: A 2,000 HP Quasiturbine capable of being run on any combustible liquid fuel charges the electric drivetrain. The vehicle utilizes 8 tires, segmented and based on spring tension rather than inflation, mounted in fully rotatable housings. The electric engines are located inside the wheels. The tank maneuvers on 4 'legs' which can pivot through 110 degrees of rotation to the side, and 25 degrees of rotation inward, combined with the completely free-facing wheels to allowing sideways strafing without rotating the hull and extremely powerful bracing and braking. The legs also can be raised 60 degrees up or down allowing for massive vertical obstacle clearance. Braking is regenerative. Suspension is provided by solenoid shocks and maneuvering on the leg's part.

Armament Setup: The primary weapon consists of an 80mm Automatic High-Velocity Gas-Gun, achieving muzzle velocities around 3km/s and firing at rates of up to 120 rounds per minute(gas-guns operate based on compressing and flash-detonating reactive gasses, the action of the gun is similar in nature to an internal combustion engine allowing it to quickly cycle). 6 Imp micromissiles, reconfigured with penetrator heads and higher velocity engines for anti-armor work, are stored in an armored box on the left of the turret. In an unprecedented move, each crewmate has control of a 12.7mm minigun, one on a microturret for the commander, one coaxial for the gunner, and one glacis mount for the driver, in order to allow large volumes of anti-infantry and light vehicle fire to be directed anywhere in the combat sphere. The 4 Karasu miniturrets are typically guided by a combat AI but may be commandeered for manual control. 9 smoke grenades in preset launchers are multi-functional, containing irritants for crowd suppression, phosphorus ashes for IR blocking, and fine metallic powders for radar and lidar interferrence.

Armor Setup: The primary armor is a nanotube reinforced polymer with amorphous titanium alloy shape plates. It is extremely tough to break or tear into but can deform enough to disperse energy even from super-high velocity weapons, the carbon nanotubes also conduct heat and electricity rapidly away from the impact area. The amorphous titanium shape plates are angled to cause penetrating projectles to dump their energy sideways and/or fragment. Next is a layer of heavium(non-reactive metal nanocluster heavier than DU) powder suspended in aerogel, which serves as a non-reactive energy dump especially suited for catching small caliber penetrators. A thin vapor wall of cold plasma absorbs harmful EM fields and electricity before it can reach the crew. The innermost layer is carbon nano-chainmail which prevents spalling in all but catastrophic armor failures. The interior is heavily partitioned with nearly full value armor seperating the crew from combustibles. The tank has a high ground clearance, segmented tires, and almost full armor to protect against mines.

Reactive Armor Setup: Hexaplate reactive armor (HexERA) can be equipped to deal with large missile threats, thanks to its large spread it is capable of intercepting numerous attempts at the same area. Segemented Electric Reactive armor is used to defeat HEAT warheads, it is segmented meaning it is capable of taking many simultaneous hits between recharge cycles.

Active Countermeasures: 4 Karasu miniturrets use 5mm caseless flechette miniguns (6000rds per) to shoot down incoming missile fire of all types and kill infantry. 4 Mimir laser blinders are used to burnout or distract laser seeker warheads and blind infantry, NV, and IR systems. The Carnival infantry supression system utilizes disturbing patterns of flashing lights and ultrasonic-subsonic sounds to confuse and disorient infantry, prolonged exposure causes vomitting and seizures.

http://tinypic.com/16gd47
[Above: Front view of the RX-1250, a very bad place for infantry to be standing. Below: Side view of the RX-1250, showing better view of leg articulation]
http://tinypic.com/16gdva

RX-1250 Prototype Armored Combat Vehicle
Crew: 3; Driver, Gunner, Commander

Weight: 45 tons
Powerplant: 2,000 HP Quasiturbine, Hybrid Electric System. Signifigant heat-to-electric recovery systems minimize IR plume to almost nothing.
Drivetrain: 8 Wheel-Drive using 8 electric motors
Suspension: Solenoid shocks, mechanical leg movement
Range: 1,100 miles
Vertical clearance: With a pause it can lift itself over barriers of its own height.
Max Speeds:
Road; 130mph
Grassy Plains; 70mph
Desert Sands; 40mph
Amphibious Characteristics: 7 hour underwater operating time, 250 ft maximum depth

Armor Scheme:
Prototype carbon nanotube reinforced polymer, with amorphous titanium alloy shape plates. Heavium powder suspended in aerogel provides non-reactive, non-heat conductive barrier. Cold-plasma inner barrier proofs against EM weapons. Nano-chainmail fabric prevents spalling.

Countermeasure Setup:
Segmented Electric Reactive Armor(SERA): Protection from HEAT warheads
Hexaplate Explosive Reactive Armor(HexERA): Protection from missile weapons
4 'Karasu' Miniturrets (5mm caseless flechette miniguns): Protection from missile weapons, grenades, infantry
4 'Mimir' Laser Blinders: Protection from laser-guided weapons, stun/blind infantry
'Carnival' Infantry Suppression System: Uses light and sound to induce vomitting and confusion in nearby infantry

Survivability Features:
NBC protection with air-supply for 4 days without power
Heavily segmented interior, no explosives in the same partition as the crew
High ground clearance, armored bottom, segmented tires requiring no inflation counteract mine threat

Sensor Equipment:
Full 360 Visual(via fluid superlenses), color night-vision, IR, and Millimeter Band Radar for all crew, combined in a composite image at all times.
Crystal encoded LIDAR on demand
Holographic, Crystal Encoded Radar array monitors air threats and gives long-range warning on flat land

Armament:
1x 80mm Automatic High-Velocity Gas-Gun(100 rds)
6x Imp MiniMissiles, anti-armor version
3x 12.5mm Miniguns(2,500 rds per), 1 turreted, 1 co-ax, 1 front-mounted
4x 5mm Caseless Flechette Miniguns(8,000 rds per)
9x Combination smoke grenades
~~~~~
OOC: So whats everyone think?

If you made that picture yourself, I think I'm in love...

awsome pic (OOC: i suck at paint and all paint related subjects i just ggoel rip my stuff ;) )

Will it be going on sale? I am very interested in buying one. If you decide to sell one, telegram me and we'll work out a price and quantity. I will spend up to 80 billion. No more than that.

absolutely magnificent i espcially love the miniguns concept beutiful i wish i was as creative as u. :)

Thanks for the comments everyone, yes I made the picture myself using DoGA (http://www.doga.co.jp/english/), this exact tank probably will not go on sale as it is just a prototype model. Right now I'm looking for reactions, corrections, and potential buyers before I refine it to a production model.

Nice design... Many rectangular shapes to catch rounds... Ahem. Where was I? Ah, yes.

How exactly does a nation with an IMPLODED (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=Sileetris) economy build this thing or, to use different examples, RAWR, Brainchips! (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=358424), high- Mach UAV's (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361508), Air Superiority Fighters in the Mach 3+ range (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343891), Other Supertanks (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=366599) (Without doing the math, amusing engineering idea...), Flying Arsenal Ships (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=358974), Even more supertanks? (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=368822), Fascinating Toys (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342237), AAAAAAAAAND RAWR! COMPUTERS! (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=385075) which need quantumphysics and relativity combined?

Sincerely,

~ Ingo Appelt, Minister for asking questions

http://www.meininger-kleinkunsttage.de/%20Bilder/Appelt.jpg

Wheels are a no-no for heavy MOUT fighting, traction is just to low and ground pressure to high once the streets get covered by rubble. I also miss a big thrower that can put a lot of explosive on a target. While that gun could kinetically penetrate walls, it'll have problems clearing buildings out within a reasonable timeframe. It also seems teh main gun will have problems elevating to target those higher up floors unless the stand off distance is high.

And, as a premptive strike, the Stryker is NOT intended for heavy fighting in MOUT, nor involved in that, so it does NOT prove wheeled vehicles will perform this mission well. ;)

When engaging difficult terrain, tracks rule.

This is a future tech design, yes?

The Empire of a Thousand Alliances has choosen a speaker to reply on this matter:

Incredibly awsome, the best most detailed design and model I've ever seen. Amazing model, great imbedded technologies, exellent overal design!!!! I have yet to figure out how the money thing works, but as soon as the first operational design is released, I would like to buy 4 of them, and then buy another 6 around the second block, and another 4 around the time the forth block is released. Absolutly astounding creation, you lost me on some of those countermeasures, but I cant think of anything I'd add to it. One thing is, on the model, the COAX gun isnt on the turret! That needs to be paired next to the main gun.. Also, I'd want a versian with a crew of at least 4, the tank commander is going to have a buttload full commanding everything and firing his weapon, the gunner is going to be busy firing his main gun, and the driver is gonna be hellua busy driving (dont bother giving him a gun to shoot), and I'd add another guy to work the countermeasures and other weapons like the Carnival anti-infantry device. A crew of 3 aint gonna handle that, the M1A1 tank uses 4 and everybody sure is busy with that layout!!

Absoulty astounding though, exellent work!!!

Der Angst, believe me when I say that no one wishes that entire supertank debacle to go away more than me. =p

Sileetris, how would it handle continuous fire from 20mm linear guns?

How will this react to PAK-artillery?
Does it realy have a weapon to take out enemy tanks?
How about choppers? They are after all a tanks worst enemy.

How will this react to PAK-artillery?
Does it realy have a weapon to take out enemy tanks?
How about choppers? They are after all a tanks worst enemy.

You stop choppers by having other units to give your tanks air cover. =p

Der angst: Its hard to slope armor in a program that doesn't let you create your own stuff :P. And you think I pay for all my development costs? I have a good deal of international investors and I actually have a rich puppet free economy zone but since the forum change it hasn't been allowed to post.

Footpads: Woudln't the ground pressure being high tend to counteract the traction problems.......? In any case those are minor concerns as the main gun doesn't recoil enough to push it back substantially and the combination of other systems means it doesn't need to be able to flee at a moments notice. I also know about the usefulness of a big gun in urban combat but I feel the other systems of the tank make up for it, the miniturrets shoot anyone that dares peek out and the carnival systems make people want to leave anyway. The 80mm gas-gun does have provisions to fire cannister shells which should penetrate most walls at the velocity they'll be travelling at. The production model may give the commander control of an automatic grenade launcher. The gun goes back in the turret for a bit and actually pivots down into the hull slightly to achieve a 38 degree elevation, technically the vehicle can rear up on its front legs to bring this to 54 degrees. This is a post-modern/supermodern vehicle.

So far a tactic that seems to work exceedingly well is to send a few of these down one street then have some infantry(ours are wearing combat suits that protect against the carnival system) on the adjacent street. The psychological impact of these usually causes soldiers to flee their positions and they typically either surrender or are cut down by waiting MG positions. This vehicle is not designed to work extremely closely with infantry; it is designed to clear a path for them or fragment enemy forces.

A Thousand Alliances: The coax is there, its the little grey thing next to the gun in the first picture, the little turret on top is the commander's minigun. The commander directs the countermeasure systems(which are largely automated) and maintains squad communications. The gunner aims and fires the primary weapon and the missiles. The driver drives. The 4th person in an M1A1 is the loader, which is eliminated entirely due to the nature of the gun, and while it is nice to have a spare hand around for repairs etc. there is no role a 4th person could serve in combat in this vehicle, and no space to boot. The driver will indeed see his gun as useful and it is documented in many places that front-mounted MGs are great for fire support of friendly vehicles.

Axis Nova: Depends on the angle and power of the linear guns in question. If it was the man portable version you field and on a level firing angle it could probably take 7-8 hits before inner systems were compromised and an effective kill was scored(assuming you are aiming for the turret, if you hit a leg until it no longer functions it can still limp around with the wheels in neutral). If it was the airship mounted ones and hitting from an above angle you're looking at 2-3 hits, still pretty good all things considered(with the amount of power and ammo an airship has to work with nothing will really be able to survive a weapon like that, especially if it decides to rapid fire).

Comunistic Scandinavia: I've never actually heard of PAK artillery before except for the German PaK series of field guns so I'll just say it has above average roof armor. The 80mm gas-gun is more than enough to deal with any armor fielded due to its high velocity. Besides using combined arms tactics as AN said, the tank has radar, lidar, and parabolic microphones so it will be harder for a helicopter to sneak up on it. The commander's chaingun can cover close air threats pretty well, the Imp micromissiles can lock on to air targets, and the counter-measure systems can down large anti-tank missiles fairly well. If you had to be in a tank when a helicopter attacked you would want to be in one like this.

Im writing your name on a post-it note and sticking it to my computer moniter. I am buying whatever your next product is. I don't care if it is a nuclear powered toilet, I'm buying.

Woohoo! I can sell my nuclear toilets and my next military product! I should probably mention that I don't use DoGa for really anything unless I positively can't find a picture of it.

http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/images/nuclearToilet.jpg
^ Money not included.

Im writing your name on a post-it note and sticking it to my computer moniter. I am buying whatever your next product is. I don't care if it is a nuclear powered toilet, I'm buying.

Fluffywuffy is stuck in a logic loop, and I'm just an idiot. This could go on forever :).

Since this is capable of running on any sort of combustible fuel... Would this prototype engine accept vegetable oil? Serious question here.

Yes, the fuel economy might suffer but it could.

The Socialists of Woofenville are impressed with your design. We wish to know whether it would be possible for you to release your design to us, of course with the confidence that this design would not be used against you or your allies, nor would it be disclosed to any other nation.

-The WoofenCouncil

This is a prototype proof-of-concept design that will be revised based on critiques made in this thread, as such it will not be sold or mass produced in its current incarnation(nor would you want to, it would be prohibitively expensive without some simplifications).

bump for input

Why not use a linear gun instead of a gas-gun? You get a better fire rate, better penetration, and a smaller weapon overall due to the simpler firing and feed mechanism. On top of that, since you wouldn't need to store hydrogen on board, but just metal slugs, the turret itself could be a bit smaller.

A nice tank. I'm not really fond of some of your design choices, I think you made this tank much more complicated than it has to be, but I guess that's personal preference speaking.

As for the wheels, I'm going to have to agree with the earlier comment. You simply can't match the ground pressure of treads using wheels. I also think that using wheels is asking to have your tired shot out from under you, it doesn't really matter if it's on purpose or accidental.

Footpads: Woudln't the ground pressure being high tend to counteract the traction problems.......? In any case those are minor concerns as the main gun doesn't recoil enough to push it back substantially and the combination of other systems means it doesn't need to be able to flee at a moments notice.

Tactical mobility is very important, and handling an AFV doesn't boil down to take a position and slug it out with everything in LOS, thats a good way to get killed, just consider how accurate artillery will be, and how dispersed AO's and FO nodes will be at the technology level this vehicle becomes feasible.

And my point about surface floatation had nothing to do with gun recoil btw. :)

High ground pressure makes you wheels dig in in soft surfaces when you apply power, if to high. Think of it as walking on a beach, your foot will dig in and the sand absorb energy by moving away. Wheels have a smaller contact area to the ground than tracked vehicles (well... generally, you know what I mean), and therefore the mass of the vehicle is concentrated into that smaller area, and the "digging" effect becomes worse. Imagine running on that same beach, just now you're wearing high heels. That is really high "ground pressure", but how much use is that ground pressure for traction... ;)

I'll see if I can dig up an article about floatation, since this is a very important concept regarding mobility for tanks and how they interact with the surface they drive over.

You'd have to put mammoth tires on the vehicle to get the effect you're looking for, as is this thing can move slowly, on a reinforced road, without bumps in it unless it stops to apply its segmentated suspension (I'm exaggerating a bit to make my point).

Ability to effectively traverse over difficult terrain is necessary in any AFV. The more limited you are in the terrain mobility, the easier time your enemy have to predict you movement. The more your enemy can predict you...

Well, lets say if they know what roads uyou will use they dosn't have to dig in as many 500kg improvised mines...

Of course, since the vehicle weighs 45 tons and it only got 8 rather small wheels its a possibility that even ordinary or smaller roads will crack under it.

While the concept is workable on hard surfaces, once the terrain switches to rubble or anything that can move, that thing will dig its own grave. Also, as I see it your layout you have not given the vehicle any good ability to climb "curbs". As i see it this one will run into trouble if somebody puts up a rather simple roadblock, one that most tracked vehicles would just climb over.

Of course, my points adhere to real life conditions, I'm not trying to put you down, just providing info on why things do not look like that IRL. ;)


I also know about the usefulness of a big gun in urban combat but I feel the other systems of the tank make up for it, the miniturrets shoot anyone that dares peek out and the carnival systems make people want to leave anyway. The 80mm gas-gun does have provisions to fire cannister shells which should penetrate most walls at the velocity they'll be travelling at.

Canister and penetration is an iffy issue... either you have many small and light flechettes (gives better range than ordinare round shot) that will cover an area effectivley but wont penetrate more than light walls (that would be more effective than they are today btw), or you have fewer heavy flechettes that will penetrate a wall or two, but not saturate the area nd guarantee the destruction of infantry in the targeted area.

Lightweight penetrators dont work to well on concrete walls, they bleed off their energy to friction much to fast to do anything than pockmarks.


Regarding the armour;

Armour covers surface. The more surface to cover, the less effective thickness per total armour mass. This is so regardless of the armours relative effectiveness, since you would still be able to armour a lesser surface more effectively considering the total mass.

Therefore segmented chassi with convoluted surface area such as yours, as well as walker type AFV's will always be inferior in protection compared to a more boxlike tank chassi and turret utilizing the same armour and protection technology, simply because it can be more effectively distributed.

Your vehicle will have lots of weakspots to target as well as unefficient armour distribution compared to a conventional tank, and since we can assume that enemy targeting and penetrator technology have evolved at the same rate armour has, that looks bad for the survivability of your vehicle.

All other things being equal (gun, mass available, targeting systems), a conventional tank with the same armament and armour will most likely be able to defeat this vehicle at ranges where itself is immune to the weaponry involved (unless the weapons are so overwhelmingly powerful armour is irrelevant, lending to the question 2why armouring at all"). This since it can more effectively armour its front relative to mass, recieving a superiour frontal protection by simply having a smaller area that needs to be armoured.

There is actually a reason tanks look like they do. ;)

As for the wheels, I'm going to have to agree with the earlier comment. You simply can't match the ground pressure of treads using wheels. I also think that using wheels is asking to have your tired shot out from under you, it doesn't really matter if it's on purpose or accidental.

To be honest, wheelies do have advantages as well.

They wear roads down more slowly.

They have greater strategic mobility (road speed is higher, fuel consumption is lower).

They're easier to make "mine resistant" since the standoff distance between the hull and ground is greater (mine resistant means that the vehicle usually is trashed, but that the crew/passengers stand a better chance to walk away alive). In actuality, once the wheels become individually powered (by individual engines or axles) the vehicle stands some chance of actually being able to drive away after detonating a mine. Won't be as fast or maneuverable most likely, but it can limp back to the batallion workshop for repairs if lucky.

Most of these factors however do not outweigh the disadvantages when considering the suspension type for AFV's.

They have a higher silhoutte and are therefore easier to detect.

They easily become top-heavy and are therefore harder to armour and arm as heavily without hurting mobility and maneuverability.

The suffer from worse tactical mobility. They cannot handle as diverse or tough terrain as a comparable tracked vehicle. They are therefore forced to appear in a more predictable manner, making them more vulnerable to ambushes and minings.

AN: Because I'm cheap :P and linear gun technology might not be widely accepted among diehard ETCers. Also as a sidenote, the reactive gas is no longer hydrogen but something with a bit more kick to it because shockwave speed no longer matters with flash-detonation.

SS: Its a concept vehicle so its going to be complex like this for now. These tires can't be popped or deflated because they aren't based on air pressure.

FP: Do you know of any tanks that can apply full torque almost instantly because they use electric acceleration, have a HP:ton ratio of almost 45, can run silently with their engine turned off, can run underwater, or can move sideways while only exposing their frontal armor? It can go over curbs and vertical obstacles by elevating its legs which actually allows it to go over obstacles treads couldn't reach the tops of(abrams only has a vertical clearance of 3.5ft, this would be closer to 6-7ft if it slowed down for a good starting angle). I'd like to add that this has belly wheels so it doesn't stick on things.

The cannister subprojectiles will probably be around .50cal, and at the high velocity they'll acheive from the gas-gun they should have no trouble penetrating anything but bunkers.

The inner surfaces(4 inner legs) don't need as much armor since they are A: not related directly to crew survivability, and B: unlikely to be hit by full-caliber weapons. The angle needed for a tank cannon to hit the inner leg is very unlikely to occur and in all likelyhood liable to deflect the shell into the frontal armor because of the high effective sloping that would result. With all the specialized anti-rpg measures and reactive systems, hits there would also be unlikely or inneffective.

Armor will always be behind guns and its true in this case as well. It is impossible to practically defend against anything in the power range of the gas-gun or high caliber ETC at the ranges the crew would be capable of engaging at. So we don't try. What we do insure is that this is protected from outdated weaponry, hence the anti-penetrator armor scheme designed to deflect or absorb shots from APFDS rounds or to a lesser extent small ETC guns. The substantial anti-rpg and mine measures are important to us because they seem to be central problems in modern geurilla and urban occupation style warfare.

FP: Do you know of any tanks that can apply full torque almost instantly because they use electric acceleration, have a HP:ton ratio of almost 45, can run silently with their engine turned off, can run underwater, or can move sideways while only exposing their frontal armor?

This vehicle cannot do that either without digging its wheels in. Read my statements about floatation.

As for hybrid electric drive, Hägglunds are developing their SEP, so there are vehicles wich can drive with its (combustion/fuel cell) engine off from batteries alone, yes.

The "legs" will show their flanks while moving laterally, and these are sensitive (much surface area to cover with armour), so a mobility kill is not unlikely...

As for driving underwater... you'd need darn better be sure not to drive on silt, becuase this thing will sink in and become unrecoverable.


It can go over curbs and vertical obstacles by elevating its legs which actually allows it to go over obstacles treads couldn't reach the tops of(abrams only has a vertical clearance of 3.5ft, this would be closer to 6-7ft if it slowed down for a good starting angle). I'd like to add that this has belly wheels so it doesn't stick on things.

These were not mentioned in the original description. 8 wheels where, and with four "legs" with two each...

Drive Systems: A 2,000 HP Quasiturbine capable of being run on any combustible liquid fuel charges the electric drivetrain. The vehicle utilizes 8 tires, segmented and based on spring tension rather than inflation, mounted in fully rotatable housings. The electric engines are located inside the wheels. The tank maneuvers on 4 'legs' which can pivot through 110 degrees of rotation to the side, and 25 degrees of rotation inward, combined with the completely free-facing wheels to allowing sideways strafing without rotating the hull and extremely powerful bracing and braking. The legs also can be raised 60 degrees up or down allowing for massive vertical obstacle clearance. Braking is regenerative. Suspension is provided by solenoid shocks and maneuvering on the leg's part.


You also stated that the articulated terrain handling only was available after a time of immobility. Were talking very high stress tolerances for the chassi driving around here now... While I can agree to pivoting the main body, starting to "walk" the legs while driving will only worsen the already lousy ground pressure attributes.

Have you thought about replacing the wheels with four tracked pads instead, it solves some of the groundpressure issues (not main chassi stress of articulation while driving though).


The cannister subprojectiles will probably be around .50cal, and at the high velocity they'll acheive from the gas-gun they should have no trouble penetrating anything but bunkers.

You may think that contradicts my statement on the issue, but it doesn't. Remember also that these projectiles drag will interact with each other and cause really fast dispersion of the "swarm". At hypersonic velocities I'd give it a 90 degree dispersion cone... effective range is perhaps 100-200 meters after cannister detonation, maximum. IF you solve a bunch of problems.

Also, do you use balls or flechettes, what sectional density are they? Modern SABOT are usually no more than 25-50mm thick (approximately 1-2", the thicker ones actually perform worse and are used in earlier ammunition) At "practical" velocities a ".50" ball will probably penetrate a single thin thickness concrete wall ,and bounce on anything heavier. A flechette will most likely penetrate a normal to heavy concrete or reinforced concrete wall, but break up or tumble badly after that, making penetration poor. Also, we are talking rather low saturation rate here...



The inner surfaces(4 inner legs) don't need as much armor since they are A: not related directly to crew survivability, and B: unlikely to be hit by full-caliber weapons. The angle needed for a tank cannon to hit the inner leg is very unlikely to occur and in all likelyhood liable to deflect the shell into the frontal armor because of the high effective sloping that would result. With all the specialized anti-rpg measures and reactive systems, hits there would also be unlikely or inneffective.[/QUOTE]

Are you aware of the concepts of "mission kill" and "mobility kill"?

And "full calibre weapons" hit where the vehicle is vulnerable. How else do you think Bradleys knocked out T-72's with their peashooters?


Armor will always be behind guns and its true in this case as well. It is impossible to practically defend against anything in the power range of the gas-gun or high caliber ETC at the ranges the crew would be capable of engaging at. So we don't try. What we do insure is that this is protected from outdated weaponry, hence the anti-penetrator armor scheme designed to deflect or absorb shots from APFDS rounds or to a lesser extent small ETC guns. The substantial anti-rpg and mine measures are important to us because they seem to be central problems in modern geurilla and urban occupation style warfare.

It is if you build a design that have to armour this much surface area anyway.

Also, in "future" insurgencies, what tells you the insurgents will use 20th century weaponry?

If "ETC" and "gas-guns" are available, why shouldnt man-portable kinetic kill missiles be available as well? Sweden was developing a KKM system called "Buster" that was nearly man portable, and that was the early '90's...

Building "supertanks" to beat up on insurgents only when equipped with RPG's with PG-7 warheads ain't hard, and considering the mobility of this vehicle due to poor floatation, I'd say its unsuitable to serious MOUT against a qualified foe.

This vehicle cannot do that either without digging its wheels in. Read my statements about floatation.

I've yet to see a hummer being bogged in rubble nor have I seen rubble deep enough to do that where the crew has tried to drive over it. Tanks can drive over large piles of rubble, but also consider how much speed a tank loses on slopes. I'm certain that if this was to take the pile at low speed(as a tank is limited to regardless of traction) it could get over it. Other surfaces, such as deep mud and loose sand inclines I could see becoming a problem but in the case of loose sand, there are many tanks that simply sink from weighing 55+ tons. Flatland desert can be easily handled by wheels

The "legs" will show their flanks while moving laterally, and these are sensitive (much surface area to cover with armour), so a mobility kill is not unlikely...
The legs don't need to move for the vehicle to move laterally, in fact since the wheels are mounted in fully-rotatable housing the vehicle can travel in any direction independant of its forward face.

As for driving underwater... you'd need darn better be sure not to drive on silt, becuase this thing will sink in and become unrecoverable.
The capacity to drive underwater at all should be at least respected from a technical standpoint.....

I had forgotten to include the belly wheels in the writeup but they are a pretty common feature on many of my AFVs since they're cheap as hell for the utility you get out of them.

You also stated that the articulated terrain handling only was available after a time of immobility. Were talking very high stress tolerances for the chassi driving around here now... While I can agree to pivoting the main body, starting to "walk" the legs while driving will only worsen the already lousy ground pressure attributes.
Actual climbing with the legs must be taken at low speeds, but their function as suspension is always on.

Have you thought about replacing the wheels with four tracked pads instead, it solves some of the groundpressure issues (not main chassi stress of articulation while driving though).
I use such a setup on another vehicle of mine, but when you consider the two systems you realize how different they would handle. Without independantly rotatable wheels, it would be forced to move the legs for sidesteps, exposing weaker armor etc. Having 8 minitracks would strain logisitics and would probably have around the same ground pressure, plus being harder to rotate from a standstill.

You may think that contradicts my statement on the issue, but it doesn't. Remember also that these projectiles drag will interact with each other and cause really fast dispersion of the "swarm". At hypersonic velocities I'd give it a 90 degree dispersion cone... effective range is perhaps 100-200 meters after cannister detonation, maximum. IF you solve a bunch of problems.

Also, do you use balls or flechettes, what sectional density are they? Modern SABOT are usually no more than 25-50mm thick (approximately 1-2", the thicker ones actually perform worse and are used in earlier ammunition) At "practical" velocities a ".50" ball will probably penetrate a single thin thickness concrete wall ,and bounce on anything heavier. A flechette will most likely penetrate a normal to heavy concrete or reinforced concrete wall, but break up or tumble badly after that, making penetration poor. Also, we are talking rather low saturation rate here...

Stop to consider how wide 90 degrees is and realize that would mean projectiles would be travelling at 45 degrees sideways on the outer edges. You probably mean around 45 degrees because any wider and projectiles will be moving against their shape. 100-200 meters is way too short considering they will start at around 3 times as fast as an AM-rifle. Anything travelling around 3km/s will take much longer than 100-200 meters to slow down. They are flechettes and are heavy, they do not need to penetrate thick concrete because that is the type of structure that would be engaged with standard shots(logic dictates that reinforced structures are not candidates for cannister shells).

And "full calibre weapons" hit where the vehicle is vulnerable. How else do you think Bradleys knocked out T-72's with their peashooters?
Those Bradleys taking out T72s was just weird, apparantly they didn't have much trouble going through the actual turret armor..... If they were to try that on the abrams, I'm sure the only kills they would get would be from disabling the tracks or destroying the engine.

It is if you build a design that have to armour this much surface area anyway.
No, its just impossible to armor enough to stop the kind of weapons in this tech range at the engagement distances being faced. A tank with enough armor to stop an 80mm slug travelling at 3km/s would be so massive as to be completely useless tactically or strategically.

This still has anti-missile and anti-penetrator capabilities to the best it can have them. If advanced KKM missiles are used, this will be in trouble just as much as anything else, hopefully less so with the countermeasures, but still threatened. But it can defend against outdated weapons extremely well which is still helpful.

If you were dealing with a competent enemy using man-portable KKMs that could defeat your armor or easily knock out your mobility, would it honestly matter what you were using? If a tank loses its treads to a hit it probably won't be able to keep going, at least with this it can limp off.

Future armored combat will show a trend toward increasing immunity to older weapons and an increasing vulnerability to new ones. Nothing can be done about the latter. Also given these circumstances, the difference between mobility kills and mission kills will become increasingly scholarly. As old weapons typically only capable of mobility kills become almost totally ineffective, these types of kills will become much less common. As newer weapons become increasingly more prone to overkill, a hit that would usually result in only a mobility kill will often become a mission kill because of overpenetration especially in cases where the mobility element lies in the main chassis like a standard tank design. Sensors, and smart projectiles will also be upgraded to the point where moving targets will essentially be just as vulnerable as stationary ones.

Are you all forgetting that Bradleys are armed with TOW missiles? The 25mm gun on the Bradley aren't exactly designed for anti tank use and i think it would be safe to assume the Bradley crew are aware of this.

Anyways, its nice to see another wonderful (and expensive) product from sileetris, keep up the good workl.

Woohoo! I can sell my nuclear toilets and my next military product! I should probably mention that I don't use DoGa for really anything unless I positively can't find a picture of it.

http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/images/nuclearToilet.jpg
^ Money not included.

That got me hooked. You're my new favorite person.

Industrial Experiment: TY, and nods to another fan of atomic waste removal.

Project update: Work on the production model goes well, so far the major changes include:

Bridging the gap between the legs, resulting in a wraparound articulated piece incapable of being angled side-to-side(retains elevation ability). Increases forward/rear armor and allows for better sloping. This makes the vehicle more closely resemble a conventional tank, but with articulation.

Increasing the number of wheels to 12(6x6) to alleviate ground pressure issues. Wheels retain full rotatability so sidestepping maneuver is still possible.

The addition of a 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher to an undetermined location(either glacis or commander subturret)

Optional addition of a telescopic probe boom tower, endpiece will have as of yet undetermined sensors, will be used for looking over walls and as a high-powered antenna. Possible this will only be on command or scout versions.

Fixture of permanent bars to place ghillie netting to break up sharp lines.

Hmmm....

*pops your tyres*

Hehe!

Anyway, looks pretty damn good, although I wouldnt give it tyres and I would ditch the layers and layers of nanotube armour. You dont give a price for the tank, but right now raw nano-tubes cost $200 per gram. 1 tonne costs $1bn. Now if you're applying them for armour the price shoots through the roof... you begin to see how it isnt practical?

*pops your tyres*

Hehe!

Anyway, looks pretty damn good, although I wouldnt give it tyres and I would ditch the layers and layers of nanotube armour. You dont give a price for the tank, but right now raw nano-tubes cost $200 per gram. 1 tonne costs $1bn. Now if you're applying them for armour the price shoots through the roof... you begin to see how it isnt practical?

If I recall correctly, the tires on this thing are filled with springs so that they CAN'T be popped.

OOC: Good god...what a monster...such beauty in a tank, of course, the amazingly well done pic helps a bit! I had no idea you could something like that with DoGA!

Expect to hear from me as soon as this tank comes out...I want an armored leviathan patrolling my streets, ASAP!

If I recall correctly, the tires on this thing are filled with springs so that they CAN'T be popped.
Still, a few seconds of machinegun fire will rip the springs to shreds.

Beautiful Tank ... we are very interested in purchasing some as soon as they
become available.

Praetonia: It would be like trying to take out the roadwheels on a tank because the rubber doesn't slip off like a popped tire could. You would have to actually erode the rubber off with sustained firing along multiple segments before a flat spot occurred. For the same amount of effort it would take to
disable a couple tires on this, one could have possibly shot a side of a tank's treads off, especially if a HMG was used. Another cool feature with this system is the fact that individual sections can be replaced instead of the whole tire, lightening logistics a bit. The tires look something like this although the springs aren't visible, and the sides have metal reinforcement inside.
http://www.airbosspolymer.com/ABOver3.jpg

BUMP

Anyone want anything special for the production version?

Are you all forgetting that Bradleys are armed with TOW missiles? The 25mm gun on the Bradley aren't exactly designed for anti tank use and i think it would be safe to assume the Bradley crew are aware of this.


There is a minimum range issue with the TOW, it also cannot be fired over waterways since it is wire guided.

The engagements I talk about were against stationary (and possibly unmanned) Iraqi T-72's with the 25mm M242 gun, and it has proven that at least these export or indigenously built verions of the T-72 have several "weakspots" in the front and side turret and hull vulnerable against the 25mm APFSDSDU-T, and that these can be targeted at shorter ranges under favourable conditions at least.

Iraq's inventory of T-72 was the T-72A, T-72Q and T-72QM1, but they also built an indigenous variant called Assad Babylon (Lion of babylon).

Which exact type/types of T-72 was engaged I am not aware of yet.

I've yet to see a hummer being bogged in rubble nor have I seen rubble deep enough to do that where the crew has tried to drive over it.

In that case you haven't looked enough...

Not that the hummer suffers from exceptionally poor floatation that your design does... so far noone has had the idea to encumber the hummer with 30 tons of armour and weaponry.


Tanks can drive over large piles of rubble, but also consider how much speed a tank loses on slopes. I'm certain that if this was to take the pile at low speed(as a tank is limited to regardless of traction) it could get over it. Other surfaces, such as deep mud and loose sand inclines I could see becoming a problem but in the case of loose sand, there are many tanks that simply sink from weighing 55+ tons.

Haven't you seen the famous "jumping T-90" films yet?

And I'd bet the house you sit in weighs more than 55 tons... has it sunk into the ground yet? As a rule EVERYTHING with a mass desnity higher than a surface it sits on sinks, but it sinks SLOWLY.

I actually find this "oh, it weigh more than X-tons, it immediately sinks into the ground" ludicrous... it does, just as you car would if you left it on the lawn for 50 years...

There are mobile German mining machines used for stripmining coal that weigh a lot more than 55 tons...

Flatland desert can be easily handled by wheels

Depending on ground pressure (weight per surface area between and vehicle), Yes and No...

The capacity to drive underwater at all should be at least respected from a technical standpoint.....

I'm sorry, but the claim is ridiculous...

I had forgotten to include the belly wheels in the writeup but they are a pretty common feature on many of my AFVs since they're cheap as hell for the utility you get out of them.

But they add to the logistic stress you're so afraid of later... ;)

And IMHO, they do not give any more "utility" than having a pair of skids mounted...

Actual climbing with the legs must be taken at low speeds, but their function as suspension is always on.

...

Make up your mind, eh...


I use such a setup on another vehicle of mine, but when you consider the two systems you realize how different they would handle. Without independantly rotatable wheels, it would be forced to move the legs for sidesteps, exposing weaker armor etc. Having 8 minitracks would strain logisitics and would probably have around the same ground pressure, plus being harder to rotate from a standstill.

No, with the ground pressure the wheeled one attain, it will not be mobile worth a nickle.

And I am talking about 4 tracks, one for each "leg", not 8. The way the wheels would wear out it would not imply a significantly lesser logistic strain.

Stop to consider how wide 90 degrees is and realize that would mean projectiles would be travelling at 45 degrees sideways on the outer edges. You probably mean around 45 degrees because any wider and projectiles will be moving against their shape. 100-200 meters is way too short considering they will start at around 3 times as fast as an AM-rifle. Anything travelling around 3km/s will take much longer than 100-200 meters to slow down. They are flechettes and are heavy, they do not need to penetrate thick concrete because that is the type of structure that would be engaged with standard shots(logic dictates that reinforced structures are not candidates for cannister shells).

No, I am refering to the supersonic shockwave and how it will interact with the flechettes, inducing tumble until the swarm is sufficiently dispersed or speed sufficiently lowered. And I think I astateed that I was speculating and to some exaggerating. But, supersonic APERS, HIVE or "canister" is unfeasible when referencing to large number of units per volume. There are supersonic aerial rockets carrying flechettes, but they contain a much more limited number units per volume than this design would need to be effective. Those systems use a few heavy flechettes and are intended for anti-vehicular work.

Have you considered to have a two-tier weapons system? A coaxial or externally mounted low-recoil high calibre mortar f e? Or to replace the 80mm with one of those and rely on externally podded KKM's for anti-armour missions, or just simply a general purpose high caliber gun? The "80mm" could probably throw a decent bomb (especially considering future explosives), but
is it optimal for the task intended?

Those Bradleys taking out T72s was just weird, apparantly they didn't have much trouble going through the actual turret armor..... If they were to try that on the abrams, I'm sure the only kills they would get would be from disabling the tracks or destroying the engine.

Actually, it is likely that an Abrams was knocked out by a 57mm RCL HEAT warhead just last year (err... well, I meant to say 2003...), wich is a 1940's weapon, when the warhead struck the side hull just below the side hull Chobham armour. The penetrator entered the vehicle and struck a fuse box, effectively disabling the tank (mission kill). No fatalities but an injury caused to the crew was in the way of the penetrator stream.

Purely a lucky shot.

Its probably the similarthing with the T-72, its all about gathering the intel and informing the troops about specific vulnerabilities on specific designs.

No, its just impossible to armor enough to stop the kind of weapons in this tech range at the engagement distances being faced. A tank with enough armor to stop an 80mm slug travelling at 3km/s would be so massive as to be completely useless tactically or strategically.

Claiming it will be impossible to armour against future weapons is IMHO less than interesting. The lack of ideas probably stem mainly fromy the fact that knowledge of armour materials and how they work and interact with penetrators more limited than that of how penetrators work (well, the concepts are, and most people know less about how penetration works than they think), and therefore less "fun" to speculate about.

IMHO it should be assumed that if someone invents a "3000mm RHA-equiv" SABOT, it shouldn't be automatically disallowed to invent "3000mm RHA-equiv" armour capable of being carried by a state of the art MBT...

Assuming things will remain the same (the eternal struggle between Defense and Offense continues" is inherently more credible and balanced than just assuming either side will reign supreme, and doing so will inherently force situations and assumptions on other players and IMHO thereby become an instrument of godmoding.

And you'd better stop thinking that the diameter of the penetrator is deciding... well... it is, "generally" a thin, long and heavy penetrator works better than a short, fat and light one...

I could shoot an 80mm in diameter projectile thats 1mm thick weighing 0.5kg at 3km/s and I promise you it would suck against most armoured targets

This still has anti-missile and anti-penetrator capabilities to the best it can have them. If advanced KKM missiles are used, this will be in trouble just as much as anything else, hopefully less so with the countermeasures, but still threatened. But it can defend against outdated weapons extremely well which is still helpful.

If you were dealing with a competent enemy using man-portable KKMs that could defeat your armor or easily knock out your mobility, would it honestly matter what you were using? If a tank loses its treads to a hit it probably won't be able to keep going, at least with this it can limp off.

It could still do that if your "legs" carried treads instead of wheels (4, one per "leg", not 8). With treads you would lower your ground pressure with at least half, probably more. I'm usually not stingy with details and an avid "what iffer", but its just that you asked for input and this concept is way too extreme considering mobility capability... just look at the speeds you attribute to it. You'd need a reinforced runway to achieve them, and since the energy transfer must come through the wheels, you'd better step on the accelerator damn carefully or rip through the tarmac or shed the wheels...

Future armored combat will show a trend toward increasing immunity to older weapons and an increasing vulnerability to new ones. Nothing can be done about the latter. Also given these circumstances, the difference between mobility kills and mission kills will become increasingly scholarly. As old weapons typically only capable of mobility kills become almost totally ineffective, these types of kills will become much less common. As newer weapons become increasingly more prone to overkill, a hit that would usually result in only a mobility kill will often become a mission kill because of overpenetration especially in cases where the mobility element lies in the main chassis like a standard tank design. Sensors, and smart projectiles will also be upgraded to the point where moving targets will essentially be just as vulnerable as stationary ones.

Amazing... I'd suspect you are in the employ of a Pentagon think tank with access to a time machine since you so clearly know exactly what the future will bring... perhaps "I think that..." ould be an approriate start for your "prognosticating"? ;)

The way you use the mission kill/mobility kill terms show that you are most likely unfamiliar with them. You seem unaware that there is a third pillar in that concept, but still you pretend to have known this all along...

You fail to understand the concepts and implications of ground pressure and floatation, or accept any limitations this will have on your design. I am no expert, and still I find your, to be honest, clumsy attempts of defending this "darling" yours rather poor...

You want to imagine you can build a vehicle capable of a feat comparative of running at olympic sprinter speeds and pivot at will while wearing high heels on a sandy beach? Fine, you go and do that.

That's your perogative, this is after all free form.

My suggestion is to do as the wise say, kill your darlings. One simply do not apply sufficient scrutiny towards them...

Not meaning you should kill the design, just perhaps defend it less zealously.

First off I'd like to say that I have no clue what my vehicle would weigh and the current number is an estimate intended to seem fair for something that could take on MBTs. Being made of polymers, nanotubes, and titanium with a dash of heavy nanoclusters gives it an interesting change from the plain steels typically found on other wheeled vehicles. I'm not going to change it at this point and I really can't calculate it, so its a moot point. In any case, I'll say that the production version(12 wheels) will have a ground pressure somewhere between 35-45 psi, which suits my needs just fine because this is designed for urban combat.

The jumping tanks have nothing to do with climbing slippery or unstable surfaces at combat speeds. Notice how they had a running start and were going up ramps that weren't made of loose gravel? Had they been aiming at a ramp of loose gravel they may have just kept going into the ramp...

Something left sitting for a long time(or similarly something that immediately sinks to maximum depth) will only sink so far because the ground can only compress so much, once whatever it is sinks to a certain depth, the ground becomes a virtual tread that spreads pressure further than the tire and ground material can no longer overcome the friction of compression and move. Anyway, that basically means something will only sink so far into the ground depending on what type of ground it is. As long as this thing stays away from stupidly deep quicksandesque situations it should be alright. And the idea is that this vehicle is designed for urban combat situations so it shouldn't come into this type of problem if employed in the role it's meant for. (Outskirts VTOL insertion city invasion is the precise role). Now what I'm trying to say is anyone using this for awkward terrain combat should be slapped, and should have another vehicle for that, like an MBT(or light-medium tanks if used right).

I don't see why underwater operation is ridiculous, it has electric drives, the quasiturbine is easily sealed up (or drained with the starter), it has only three crew hatches and a few maintenence hatches that never open in combat, if absolutely necessary a tank of compressed helium could be kept in some corner, but honestly do you expect a tank to be crushed at that depth? Looking at dive cameras you'll see they aren't made of thick armors and don't have tough frames. Not that being able to go to 250ft will ever matter in any imaginable circumstances. The submersibility is there though for underwater river crossings, and I have short disposable reels of instant metal roads(like the temporary runway laying vehicles of ww2 pacific theatre) made just for the purpose of it....

Honestly they would be of almost no logistical importance, how fast are they going to accumulate mileage? Are they absolutely vital to fix? Not very and no. Skids don't work in any direction.

Like I said, when being used as suspension(bumps in road) it can be at all speeds. When climbing something particularly difficult it must slow down so it can articulate fully.

If there were 4 tracks, it couldn't drive in any direction without moving the legs to face that direction because the tracks couldn't be mounted in rotating housing. It is also very difficult to slide tracks sideways across the ground(as they would do when the leg pivots) and they couldn't help by applying power. The tracks would also be more vulnerable to mines and more stressful logistically(all the small wheels and suspension related to them, retightening the tread links{not so in the case of rubber treads but again with the mine resistance}, high pressure washing to remove caked dirt) leading to more downtime.

All I know is the various types of anti-infantry shells created over the years have seen success when well designed. I don't see the problem in having one for my tank and I assume my scientists are capable of developing a competent design.

If I had room outside I would attach a recoilless cannon of some type. I wouldn't make a large caliber weapon the primary because I would lose rapid fire capability, ammo capacity, and velocity(unless I really pushed an ETC, still the other points stand). I already have some semi KKM type missiles in an external pod, but I wouldn't rely on them for anti-armor work because they are more expensive and more easily countered(plus they don't work at point blank). A low velocity primary gun would have almost no effect on post-modern era MBTs and even though they aren't particularly suited to urban combat they could pose a very dire threat from a good position. And yes, an 80mm could throw a decent bomb, and really always could anyway.

Lucky shots don't tend to matter in the overall picture, they're bound to happen at some point but they are lucky shots.

Seeing as we can't effectively armor against todays weapons, I'm thinking once high velocity ETC weapons come into play we will have caught up with today in terms of effective armor. Kinda like how if an abrams was attacked by a panzer. Armor will increasingly fall behind as we run out of materials and practical space while guns will become more effective as power sources are made more compact(hooray FT railguns). Until we invent force fields.

No one ever said my 80mm shot is short and light....

Regarding the max speeds remember this is a concept showcar type vehicle, the production model will probably hit about 80 max. Also remember that since these are electric motors, the top speed will be very much higher than usual because they aren't limited by things like gearboxes..... Apply power, move, apply more power, move faster, until you reach a very inefficient and pointless speed.

I'll admit I was confused by your terminology, I usually just use mobility, firepower, and catastrophic kills so I wasn't really sure which one it fit best...

So what would you do to the design, and what do you think of the changes on the drawing board?

*BUMP* for anyone that followed this thread, the production model has been released!

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7971427#post7971427

I would like to buy production rights

How much are they? Do you need an Investor?

How exactly do the motors in the wheel work? are the motors completely free of the engine, or are they powered by the engine or what? I sort of confused in that aspect. Also am I correct in assuming that the motors are located in the wheel house or are they on some type of axel or what?

Other than those two queries I belive this would be a great investment once you do indeed get an export version built.

PS: What tech is this? I rp arou 2010-2020 tech and would probably like to buy some if the tech (and the price) is right.

umm you guys, read the whole thread before posting. Sileetris' last post is a link to his production model buisness thread

tag