NationStates Jolt Archive

(UNDER CONSTRUCTION:

I still haven't finished the work on the vehicle's fire control and other electronic systems, just the basic stats and armor. This is also my first try at heavy armored design, since most of my experience has been in low-observable aircraft. Criticsm and suggestions are welcome and appreciated.

The reason I posted this only 70%-complete is because I'd like a critique of how well this tank is in its current incaranation)

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/type-90-japan-ground3-s.jpg

MVT-6 (Mobile Vehicle-Tracked) "Acolyte" MBT

Abstract:

The MVT-6 design project was a direct response to the perceived inferiority of Tyrandisan heavy conventional forces to those of foreign countries. In a comprehensive internal study by the Department of Defense, it was determined that the Merkava Mk. V in-service for almost a decade was far too light and flimsy for use on the modern battlefield. To remedy this problem, Southwind Defense Systems was contracted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to construct a new Main Battle Tank for the Armed Forces of the Militant Imperium. The result of this effort was the MVT-6 ‘Acolyte’, which has recently entered service with the AFMI’s armored divisions. This machine is the embodiment of Tyrandisan military science; elegant, innovative, and effective.

Technical Data:

Type: Advanced Main Battle Tank

Contractor: Southwind Defense Systems

Personnel: 3

Armor:

Exterior Layer: TZMR series Explosive Reactive Armor

Mounted in front of the MVT-6 'Acolyte' is a revolutionary armor concept known as Momentum Transfer. Considering the great threat that Kinetic Energy munitions (SABOT) represent to the modern armored vehicle, the TZMR uses modularly installed projectiles of aluminum/titanium on its front armor in tandem with embedded threat warning sensors. These detect and process the disposition of the incoming projectile, and launch one of the TiAl bars to interdict at an exact 90 degree angle. The result is that the oncoming weapon is deflected from the tank. However, this system takes up a great deal of space, and is usable only on the vehicle's front. On the sides and rear of the Acolyte, blocks of Self-Limiting ERA are used in its place.

Secondary Layer: TQMV series NxRA (Non explosive Reactive Armor)

Behind the TZMR is a layer of NxRA, designed to deal with HEAT-type ammunition. It uses several plates of composite tiles, which are manufactured of a mosaic of ceramics and carbon nanotubing in concrete matrixes. It is covered in a rubber insulation layer, used to dissipate the initial impact and minimize the damage to the internal mosaic, thus retaining TQMV's multi-hit protection capability.

Tertiary Layer: 'Silver Pearl' Advanced Metal Laminate (see below)

Great care was taken into the design of the Acolyte's primary armor system. Although studies of Depleted Uranium and other ultra-dense materials traditionally used in the construction of protection for tanks was done by DARPA and Southwind, the Acolyte breaks with conventional design and uses a relatively lightweight but extremely strong metal alloy in its place.

This material is officially codenamed 'Silver Pearl', and has proven its worth in laboratory and field testing. About half as dense as refined steel, it just as stiff and tough. Derived from titanium, aluminium, and vanadium, production of the metal alloy begins with nanometers-thick foils of the aforementioned elements. From there, they are carefully stacked together in alternating layers, and compressed at a high temperature. The resulting reaction creates the desired Silver Pearl laminate plate and some residual waste products. The inspiration for Silver Pearl comes from the red abalone. It creates a hard shell from extremely thin layers of brittle calcium carbonate between even thinner layers of a biological adhesive. Mimicking the abalone is Silver Pearl, whose vanadium layers intermesh with the other metals, creating a stable and resistant armor plate.

Silver Pearl has very good ballistic-resistant properties; a 1.8 cm thick sample can shrug off a tungsten-alloy projectile fired at roughly Mach 3. The bullet penetrated into just half of sample's thickness. Although modern SABOT rounds fired from ETC cannons travel at a much higher speed, larger quantities of Silver Pearl is expected to turn even these KE penetrators away.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2005/03/050309103057.jpg

Photograph of the Silver Pearl armor test, conducted in the Socotra Institute of Technology.

---

Vehicle Data

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/type-90_japan_4-line.gif

Weight: 68t (tons)

Length: 8.8 meters
Width: 3.5 meters
Height: 2.95 meters

Combat Radius: 820 km

Maximum Speed: 55 mph on pavement

Weapons:

Primary: 125mm Electro-Thermal-Chemical main gun w/ 65 rds ammunition
Secondary: 7.62mm coaxial MG, .50 cal machine gun on turret dome, optional ATGM/SAM pods mountable.

Engine:

Mk. 560 Hybrid Diesel/Electric engine, providing 1,600HP

Tag

OOC: My T-4 used a Type 90 for its pic too.

OOC: My T-4 used a Type 90 for its pic too.

Yeh... I couldn't find all that many good tank pictures, since Leclerc is ugly, everyone knows about the M1/Leopards, etc.

Bump... I badly need to know if this design is feasible or not.

So far, i'd say it is. My NT-12 Triarri NGBT(Next-Generation Battle Tank) is quite like yours, only bigger and more guns, a engine that puts out a bit more hp, and a second mini-turret.

(I'm glad to see someone else looks to real sources for new armor materials :))

How does it handle a 90mm linear gun shot to the front slope?

e: Axis Nova is interested in this new, lighter armor material, and wishes to inquire if it is possible to purchase the data neccesary to produce it ourselves.

If money is not sufficient, we are willing to trade our linear gun technology.

Sileetris: Yep. :D I also plan on using a modified version of Silver Pearl to build aircraft, since it's extremely strong and quite light.

Axis Nova: I'm not all that familiar with railguns and how well they'd operate against my tank. Perhaps you can clarify?

Bump.

Sileetris: Yep. :D I also plan on using a modified version of Silver Pearl to build aircraft, since it's extremely strong and quite light.

Axis Nova: I'm not all that familiar with railguns and how well they'd operate against my tank. Perhaps you can clarify?

A linear gun is a weapon which, like a railgun, uses electromagnetic forces rather than gunpowder to fire its projectiles. However, the conductive projectiles fired from a linear gun don't come into physical contact with the firing mechanism, and are instead accelerated using attractive and repulsive magnetic forces, as in a maglev train. Although the acceleration produced is relatively small compared to that of a railgun, a linear gun can yield similar muzzle velocities if its barrel is long enough, and the lack of physical contact eliminates friction heat and wear on the barrel.

Basically, you can achieve a higher muzzle velocity than you could ever get with conventional ammo that uses chemical propulsion (gunpowder, etc, what have you) since you don't need to worry about using too powerful a round and blowing up your gun, or about friction or overheating. Maintenance is also simple since there are very few moving parts.

What you do need, however, is one hell of a lot of power, which is why almost all of the ground units in my inventory that mount linear guns tend to store the neccesary power in hyper capacitors (my term for extremely high capacity capacitors, which is a bit of a mouthful :p)

The projectile size of the linear guns in my inventory tend to range from 20mm (Hound FMB and shoulder-fired weapon) all the way up to a big 180mm version that gets mounted on my air battleships.

The standard size for my tank destroyers is 90mm as that's sufficient to take out any main battle tank currently in production in one shot (even the Admiral A-1 Mk III can be taken out by this, which is why we don't produce them any more).

Smaller projectiles may need multiple hits in some cases (in the 20mm's case, definitely, unless it gets a side or a top hit).

You may wish to note that I count this as postmodern tech since I do not believe current modern-tech capacitor technology is sufficient for these, but as you know battery and capacitor tech is improving all the time. :)

OOC: AN, I think this tank is modern tech, whereas tank-mounted railguns and "flying battleships" are not. Therefore I don't think he has much to worry about...

Ummm... Yeah, I don't think I can even mount one of those things on this tank due to a lack of space, not to mention it being wayyyy into the future.

I'll stay with my Hf-178 shells instead :D

OOC: Railguns are not future tech, but the means of powering one that would itself fit inside a tank is. Nice tank btw. It all looks very realistic.

OOC: Railguns are not future tech, but the means of powering one that would itself fit inside a tank is. Nice tank btw. It all looks very realistic.

Thanks. I'm almost done with the fire control systems, but I still need to type up the various electronics... bah.

...a 1.8 cm thick sample can shrug off a tungsten-alloy projectile fired at roughly Mach 3...

FYI this sentence doesn't really mean anything, you can fire "mach 3 tungsten penetrators" out of a modern 7,62mmN sniper rifle (sub-calibre ammunition), that doesn't mean you can go MBT-hunting with them exactly...

High hardness armour material is not in itself a positive attribute since hard materials have a tendency to shatter. Hit an abalony shell with a ball-pen hammer and see for yourself.

18mm LOS thickness of any contemporary or near contemporary material would be able do defeat what I think you are implying (tank gun APFSDS), the claim is not in the realm of reality. 18mm of the latest stuff available today only barely protects against heavy machineguns firing API or SLAP... that your material should be at least 500 times more effective than RHA against KE is a "bit" of an extreme claim, when modern high-tech materials do not reach twice the LOS thickness effectivity of same...

(edit)
Note that armour don't "shrug" off attacks, it "absorbs" them.

Exterior Layer: TZMR series Explosive Reactive Armor

Mounted in front of the MVT-6 'Acolyte' is a revolutionary armor concept known as Momentum Transfer. Considering the great threat that Kinetic Energy munitions (SABOT) represent to the modern armored vehicle, the TZMR uses modularly installed projectiles of aluminum/titanium on its front armor in tandem with embedded threat warning sensors. These detect and process the disposition of the incoming projectile, and launch one of the TiAl bars to interdict at an exact 90 degree angle. The result is that the oncoming weapon is deflected from the tank.


You'll be darned hard pressed to actually "deflect" a high energy projectile fired from a tank gun completely away from your vehicle. What this type of reactive armour attempt is to "yaw" the penetrator so that it doesn't hit at an optimal angle (to simplify and exaggerate, the "dart" (APFSDS penetrator) hitting the dartboard (armour) "sideways" on the board, instead of point first), giving the passive armour of the defending an easier job of disippating and absorbing the penetrator energy.

OOC: I'd note that ETC guns are not really modern tech either, or else someone would use them in real life or have them in testing :p

Anyways, I'd still like to purchase the armor formula if possible.

OOC: I'd note that ETC guns are not really modern tech either, or else someone would use them in real life or have them in testing :p

Anyways, I'd still like to purchase the armor formula if possible.

So what do you call the various ETC demostrators that United Defense mention on thier website, or the research papers about 120mm ETC gun systems?

They aren't quite ready to actually mount on a tank but even the extremely pessimistic germn research didn't put them much beyond 2015 depending on the type...

OOC: I'd note that ETC guns are not really modern tech either, or else someone would use them in real life or have them in testing :p
ETC guns were tested in the 1980s.

Footpads:

This is where I got the idea for Silver Pearl: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050309103057.htm

According to that page...

In order to test the bullet-stopping capability of his new material, Vecchio fired a heavy tungsten alloy rod into a three-quarters-inch (2 centimeters) thick sample at a velocity of about 2,000 mph (900 meters per second). The rod penetrated only half the thickness of the test sample.

Basically, I just added an extra layer of vanadium and cut the sheets a bit thinner.

Footpads:

This is where I got the idea for Silver Pearl: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050309103057.htm

According to that page...



Basically, I just added an extra layer of vanadium and cut the sheets a bit thinner.

As can be seen in this picture;

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/graphics/images/2004/VecchioColor_lg.jpg

... from the test the penetrator is small (I estimate 5x10mm if every layer is around 1mm as is described in the text, ie combined with the velocity a projectile comparable to 5.56mm NATO round), so this would mean that the material would be reasonable proof against small arms at 2cm, not tank gun rounds. While messing with the details could increase the protection values some fractions in one direction or the other, it wouldn't start being hundreds of times more effective than steel.

Its still an interesting armour compound (mainly due to the low weight/thickness ratio, the protection is only good compared to the weight, not material thickness). But, 20mm of it won't stop cannon. It will probably not even stop 7.62mm NATO SLAP.

I definately see that this very well could have its place in armour matrixes, but not used as an homogenous compound.

:)

ETC, Rail, and Linear guns have been used by the army, heck they've even made a rail gun turret/gun system that fires a mix of 20mm-30mm gattling gun style, they used DU rounds and achieved a muzzle velocity of some where between 8000mps-10000mps(meters per second) and over heating was no problem at all, linear guns are different, in order to make sure the projectile does not touch the barrel they use a methane gas system that propelles the projectile into the barrel where it is then fired using attractive/repsulsive Electromagnetic forces.

An ETC gun is a combination of a railgun and a convential gun, it uses electromagnetic forces AND chemical reactions to propel the projectile (thus using less power) the only problem with ETC guns is storage and logistics, since they fire shell similar to KE (which us discarding sabots) they are prone to breaking and leaking out propellent (shells used in auto-loaders have this problem also) thus making them very dangerous to keep in a tank, so none of these weapons can be considered anything more then operational in the next 3 years, heck the army has even made a MBT just for rail/linear guns (FCS- Future Combat System, they haven't decided which one to use, rail, or linear.)

This tank looks great, can't wait to see it in combat (ok, read it in combat) :D

ETC, Rail, and Linear guns have been used by the army, heck they've even made a rail gun turret/gun system that fires a mix of 20mm-30mm gattling gun style, they used DU rounds and achieved a muzzle velocity of some where between 8000mps-10000mps(meters per second) and over heating was no problem at all, linear guns are different, in order to make sure the projectile does not touch the barrel they use a methane gas system that propelles the projectile into the barrel where it is then fired using attractive/repsulsive Electromagnetic forces.

An ETC gun is a combination of a railgun and a convential gun, it uses electromagnetic forces AND chemical reactions to propel the projectile (thus using less power) the only problem with ETC guns is storage and logistics, since they fire shell similar to KE (which us discarding sabots) they are prone to breaking and leaking out propellent (shells used in auto-loaders have this problem also) thus making them very dangerous to keep in a tank, so none of these weapons can be considered anything more then operational in the next 3 years, heck the army has even made a MBT just for rail/linear guns (FCS- Future Combat System, they haven't decided which one to use, rail, or linear.)

This tank looks great, can't wait to see it in combat (ok, read it in combat) :D

Actually ETC guns aren't really a combination of rail/linear tech and conventional propulsion at all. The systems being studied generally rely on a alrge eletrical charge to set of a "plasma inducer/injector" that generates a plasma that then sets off the propellant at a higher tempreature and preasure and thus velocity than could be created conventionally. ETC guns will indeed use APFSDS ammo, but they would be by no means restricted to using it. ETC gun propellant is also far safer than conventional propellant as it requires a huge amount more energy to set it off.

Some links to articles regaurding problems with propellant leak from APFSDS ammo would be nice.

Argh! :mad: Damn, I everytime I see ETC I always think about a different (yet slightly similary) system that uses Electromagnets AND liquid fuel (I'm stupid, yes i know) that often has leak because it uses discarding sabots and is similar to autoloader shells (very bad mix) and yeah, no leaks from APFSDS ammo. Sorry.

But my point strikes home, NONE of these systems are anywhere past 3-5 years before seeing combat.

ETC, Rail, and Linear guns have been used by the army, heck they've even made a rail gun turret/gun system that fires a mix of 20mm-30mm gattling gun style, they used DU rounds and achieved a muzzle velocity of some where between 8000mps-10000mps(meters per second) and over heating was no problem at all, linear guns are different, in order to make sure the projectile does not touch the barrel they use a methane gas system that propelles the projectile into the barrel where it is then fired using attractive/repsulsive Electromagnetic forces.

Ok, unless you provide a source that a "turret system" with anywhere near that capability has been produced...

The testbeds I've read about are all fixed and need a not so small powerplant to operate...

The hypervelocity (4000mps+) accelerators I've noticed are all huge, linked to heavy duty power grids, tosses a few grams of projectile only and are used for physics and materials tests. They usually need to have a vacuum in the barrel to operate (the shockwave of a 10 000 mps projectile WILL heat whatever material it passes through quite a bit, better not have anything conductive).


An ETC gun is a combination of a railgun and a convential gun, it uses electromagnetic forces AND chemical reactions to propel the projectile (thus using less power)

Weird, in my texts ETC uses eletricity to heat propellant to a plasma state that expands quicker than ordinary gas expansion as used today, nothing else... i e it can continually burn propellant (and add pressure in a controlled way during the entire burn phase), achieve greater energy in a set gun tube volume relative to gas expansion, and use relatively inert propellant (a guy I know suggested water... talk about steam punk, but that would require a wee bit much of the juice IMHO, better use something that gets further to the higher energy state on itself and just use the electricity to "push it over the edge"). :p

Nowhere is there any electromagnetic propulsion involved, you use electricity to combust propellant to a higher energy state, thereby indirectly using electricity to propel a projectile (the electricity adds energy to achieve the plasma state).

the only problem with ETC guns is storage and logistics, since they fire shell similar to KE (which us discarding sabots) they are prone to breaking and leaking out propellent (shells used in auto-loaders have this problem also)

Well, you need to be able to store the energy for a an EM gun some way... you see, propellant can be seen as stored "energy" that you can get through a chemical reaction, while the rounds in an EM gun lacks propellant attached to the projectile itself, it still needs to get the energy from somewhere.

As of now, no power source, battery or capacitator mobile enough to be placed in a reasonably sized vehicle (MAYBE on large ships, I'd bet it would still be more effective use of displacement to use alternative propellant tech for the forseeable future however) is as effective as chemically stored energy.

As for the propellant "leakage" problem, why do you say that its a "problem" for ETC and "autoloaders" specifically? Its just as much of a problem for manually stored rounds, burning propellant spilling around is nasty wether its a mechanical loader or Billy-Bob tossing it around... If its the T-64/T-72 autoloader family you're referinjg to its just its specific loader design and small size forces the ammunition to be improperly stored (three unprotected rounds behind the TC's head... nice...), its not the ammunition itself. A Leclerc is just as safe if not safer from a ammunition storage perspective f e.

OTOH, for the EM what will happen when a 800mj (what is required for 40 shots equivalent to a 120mm L44 tank gun) capacitor, battery or generator plus fuel gets gets hit and starts to "leak" into the crew compartement, wouldn't that be a problem as well?

No, rail guns, linear accelerators and such needing huge powerplants to power fielded within the short term are NOT probable.

heck the army has even made a MBT just for rail/linear guns (FCS- Future Combat System, they haven't decided which one to use, rail, or linear.)

1; FCS is NOT an MBT, its "FCS"... a MBT/IFV/multipurose vehicle replacement (yes, the FCS is projected to be a series of types of vehicles).

2; FCS is NOT made "just for linear/rail guns", its intended for "future projected weaponry". Official information gives no indication of what type, it could be a death ray for all that is "real" information given on the subject.

3; FCS is in trouble if you haven't noticed (partially because "new tech" hasn't materialised as hoped for yet), f e the weight limitations have just been dropped (in fact doubled, meaning the entire concept failed to achieve specifications as set)... there is no FCS as yet, there is a project trying to figure out what FCS could or should become.

Then again it may well go the way of the Comanche and just be cancelled...

Actually ETC guns aren't really a combination of rail/linear tech and conventional propulsion at all...SNIP...

You beat me to the trigger, no regurgitating intended. :)