NationStates Jolt Archive

Comrades, The Soviet Union has decided to unviel its newest and most high-tech MBT. As of now, exportation is limited to only allies and limited to an export version to even them. However, SNA wishes mild critizism on the ST-190 in order to progress and make even greater models for the future.

ST-190 'Vertigo'
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/images/t-84_line.gif
- Dimensions -
Length: 9.74m (Gun Forward); 7.75m (Hull)
Width: 3.5m (Over Tracks); 3.77m (Over Skirts)
Height: 2.76m
Ground Clearance: 0.515m
Track: 2.8m
Length Of Track On Ground: 4.29m
Crew: 3
Combat Weight: 60t
Power-To-Weight Ratio: 36hp/t
Ground Pressure: 0.93kg/cm2
Max Road Speed: 69-75km/h
Average Cross-Country Speed: 49-55km/h
Fuel Capacity: 1,200L
Battery Life: 72h (Constant Use); 22 Months (Mild Use)
Operating Temperature Range: -90 to +90 Degrees Celcius
Cruising Range: 650km (On Road); 550km (Cross-Country)
Power Plant: Model MTF-100K2 (Diesal-Electric Hybrid)
Power Output: 1,600hp
At Crankshaft Rotation Speed: 2,900RPM
Transmission: Mechanical; Epicycle Train With 7 Forward And 5 Reverse Gears
Suspension: Torsion Bar
Armament: 160MM ETC KVA-6 Gun (Main); 7.62mm KT-7.62 Machine Gun (Coaxil); 12.7MM KT-12.7 Machine Gun (Anti-Aircraft)
Ammunition: 40rds (28 In Autoloader; Main); 1,500rds (Coaxil); 450rds (Anti-Aircraft)
Hull: Composite (Depleted uranium, kevlar fibers, carbon fiber honeycomb on high-priority sections, ceramic plates)
Armor: Reactive (Explosive)
Developer: Soviet Nationalized Associates

Nice armor [bump]

Bump For International Interest

I wish to thank you for reminding me to look into 180mm guns. (this is a bump if you couldnt tell.)

OOC: I noticed.

[ :eek: Um, methinks you need to take another look at that gun. A tank that light weight couldn't handle a normal 140mm high velocity cannon, never mind a 162mm ETC. The turret would simply be ripped off. Also, it would be nice if you could give some armour ratings, that way we at least know how tough the tank is.]

It woiuldn't be able to take a 120mm. People tend to forget that ECT weapons are FAR bulkier and heavier than conventional weapons.

And why in the name of god is it rifled. Rifling means the barrel wears out faster, you can't fire APDS-FS, only lower velocity APDS, and HEAT shells simply won't work.

Also, chemical and explosive reactive armour are the same thing. GIve us some RHA figures, while you're at it. Other than that, an impressive attention to detail. Nicely done.

[It has less to do with the weight and more to do wtih the recoil. The shells on the experimental 140mm main guns tested on the NATO tanks were truly monstrous things that produced tons of recoil, even with conventional propellant. Something as big and powerful as a 162mm ETC you don't put on anything short of a 100+ ton superheavy tank.

[ :eek: Um, methinks you need to take another look at that gun. A tank that light weight couldn't handle a normal 140mm high velocity cannon, never mind a 162mm ETC. The turret would simply be ripped off. Also, it would be nice if you could give some armour ratings, that way we at least know how tough the tank is.]

Ripped off is a bit of an exaggeration, that takes an incredible amount of energy to do (tanks that lose turrets usually do so because ammunition stowed in the hull cooks off).

Hell, that thing could just be a 162mm gun-mortar (albeit with a rather exotic propulsion method for such ;)).

However, I'd agree that such a gun were most likely to be talking about would be very problematic, it may jam or damage the turret when firing.

OTOH, Hägglunds manage to mount a full-power 120mm L50 long-stroke recoil gun on a sub-40 ton chassi so (I think 36 tons combat loaded)...

IF you are willing to compromise the design with recoil dampers, long stroke recoil and similar things it CAN be done, see f e the US M110 with an 8"/ 203mm howitzer that easily surpasses the mE of any tank gun in use today placed on an itty-bitty 28½ ton chassi...

I don't see any such explanation at all though.


And I wonder when people will start to give actual ballistic figures for their wepons instead of just dropping "calibres"...

F e, my coming MBT141 will have a 140mm L52 ETC gun tossing a crowbar at an mE of 36 Mj.

It WONT have hugely unrealistic armour values, nor will the gun penetrate more than it should with a few advances in material sciences, and I'm still hesitant about calling it MT due to the ETC (wich in this case means ETC, not "rail-gun")... and a lot of "MT" items already out there are anything but... there's a lot of "envy-creep" going around here, people "upping" values just to have something better than everybody else, sometimes by a huge margin, without really knowing exactly how, or even if its possible, to achieve this, leading to some ridiculous claims circulating.

Like 6 ton APC's handling 2500mm CE threats all around... :rolleyes: