NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: WIP. Comments and suggestions welcome.


http://kryogenix.xangans.com/nationstates/t-08.gif

The Type-08 Tank destroyer was based on the design of the Swedish Stridsvagn 103. Faced with the growing threat of enemy foreign tanks with powerful guns and heavy armor, the Type-95 tank which is currently in service would be no match. In response, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has designed a unique vehicle with defense in mind.The Type-08 lacks a traditional traversable turret, meaning the entire vehicle has to rotate in order to aim the gun (although, the gun can move a few degrees in all directions in order to find tune the aim). The gun also cannot fire very well while moving. However, this design provides several key advantages. The first and most obvious is a very low profile (compare this to the M1A2 abrams at nearly 8 feet high!). This makes the tank much harder to hit. The tank destroyer is also easily made water proof, and can be floated. This allows quick mobilization of anti armor weaponry in a difficult environment, which is perfect for homeland defense. Finally, the Type-08 is very fast and light. It can achieve a blistering 80 km/h on land (although this is limited while driving on asphalt), as well as 8.5 km/h on water. It's mobility allows the tank destroyer to almost always face the enemy it is engaging. Because of this, much of its armor is concentrated in the front. Other features include an auto loader and ruby laser, proprietary ceramic composite layered armor, as well as a similar FCS to the Type-95.

Stats

Length: 6.4m (21 feet)
Width: 3.4m (11.1 feet)
Height: 2m (6.5 feet)
Weight: 41 tons
Powerplant: Mitsubishi Diesel Engine 1,200 HP
Speed: 80 km/h (50 mph) Land
8.5 km/h (5.2 mph) Water
Armament: 1 135mm rifled Main gun (ETC)
1 7.62 machine gun
1 12.7 machine gun
HVATM launcher
Armor: need help with this

Please help me out.

bump help please.

Generally, tank destroyers would have a main gun capable of knocking out most modern MBTs. A 105mm won't cut it, even if it is ETC. A 105mm ETC, while capable of taking out any IRL MBT, won't do well against NS MBTs. As for the anti-tank missile, I'd recomend a LOSAT-type KE missile.

thanks, bump

What type of rounds are you gonna be using the most, HEAT, or APFSDS rounds, If you're gonna use APFSDS I suggest using a smooth bore cannon as APFSDS rounds tend to wear outthe rifleing on the barrel, Also maybe you should consider using a ETC cannon as it would speed up the velocity of your AP rounds.

Your tank destroyer seems a tad underweight may I suggest a weight of a little over 40tons it sounds more reasonable.

How much?

What type of rounds are you gonna be using the most, HEAT, or APFSDS rounds, If you're gonna use APFSDS I suggest using a smooth bore cannon as APFSDS rounds tend to wear outthe rifleing on the barrel, Also maybe you should consider using a ETC cannon as it would speed up the velocity of your AP rounds.

Your tank destroyer seems a tad underweight may I suggest a weight of a little over 40tons it sounds more reasonable.

Ok, changing it to smoothbore. I'll increase it to 41 tons as well.

bump, need help with armor sloping, penetration rating and all of that jazz.

The Generalissimo wishes to purchase some of these vehicles.

-Aileen Jao (http://www.geocities.com/mr_whud/AileenJao.JPG), RB's ambassador to Japanese Antarctica

The Generalissimo wishes to purchase some of these vehicles.

-Aileen Jao (http://www.geocities.com/mr_whud/AileenJao.JPG), RB's ambassador to Japanese Antarctica

this isn't IC.

this isn't IC.

(OOC: Oh, sorry.)

A tank destroyer should have relatively light armor, as mobility is more important than protection-- it's job isn't to slug it out, but to cap enemy tanks from a safe distance. I'd reccommend stickng a VERY big gun on it.

A tank destroyer should have relatively light armor, as mobility is more important than protection-- it's job isn't to slug it out, but to cap enemy tanks from a safe distance. I'd reccommend stickng a VERY big gun on it.

how big? 135mm is not good enough?

A 135mm is bigger than what I have on my current MBT, but then again, the weapon on that thing is a bit more powerfull than a ETC...

Anyways, a 135mm should be able to take out most NS tanks, but I'd go with a 140mm just to be sure.

Actualy, I was designing a tank destroyer with a 205mm ET gun before, but I scrapped that idea for some reason. Can't remember why...

...why stop there? why not just add six 150mm cannons on it? lol,m just kidding. Anywho, good design, I like it.

Actualy, I was designing a tank destroyer with a 205mm ET gun before, but I scrapped that idea for some reason. Can't remember why...

Isn't Electro Thermal considered future tech? Maybe that's why.

Your instincts were right, go with a small high velocity gun like a 105mm. Larger barrel diameter does not nessisarily translate into more killing power when dealing with modern cannon. ETC is a possibility, but I'd uise a magnium charge instead, because, contrary to what my collegues believe, a tank destroyer's key feature isn't mobility, it's cost and complexity. Tank destroyers are made when the arms industry cannot create enough tanks because of budget or materials constraints. By removing the turret, the vehicle becomes much much cheaper. A 105mm smoothbore with a 120mm charge should reach velocities in excess of 2000m/s even without ETC tech, which is bulky, expencive, heavy, and prone to malfuncitoning. A penetrator with that velocity should have a good chance of knocking out any MBT.

GIven mass and cost constraints and all that... you could probably armour the bow to about 1200 RHA against APDS and 1600 RHA against HEAT, assuming you're willing to use ERA. Sides perhaps to 400 RHA vs KE and 700mm against HEAT because I'm assuming it's slabsided. Rear and top would be more like 200mm.

how big? 135mm is not good enough?

Most tank designs I see have 125-135 ETC guns, and are armored to resist such weapons.

...why stop there? why not just add six 150mm cannons on it? lol,m just kidding. Anywho, good design, I like it.

Oddly enough that isn't too far away from the US marine's Ontos support vehicles, except they were 105mm recoilless rifles IIRC...

Isn't Electro Thermal considered future tech? Maybe that's why.
No, electro-thermal just requires a bit more power, it's rail guns (tank mounted ones) that are considered future tech.

No, electro-thermal just requires a bit more power, it's rail guns (tank mounted ones) that are considered future tech.

Hehe, and I consider them impossible until at least 2500!

An ETC gun is somewhat like a railgun (whcih has already been used by the US army on a test bed for the FCS, the ETC gun was exprimented in the US army during the 80's), an ETC gun uses a electrical charge (usually less then 20kw, I think) to zap a small piece of metal which heats up to a super high temp while turing directally into a gas (the thermal-chemical part) which propells the round down the barrel, it also uses a small electrical charge to increase velocity a small bit.

So what's the common consensus on when ET will be available? Is it postmodern or future?

To me it's post modern, not that really advanced compared to other FT stuff.

It is actually usually considered modern, or modern+1. You see, ETC guns currently exist, for research purposes. The technology was actually developed about 20 years ago, and simply has never been implimented in the military, for a variety fo good reasons. However, it would be possible today, if enough money was spent, to build a tank with an ETC gun... therefore, it's modern, by my definition. Certainly more modern than scramjets.

It is actually usually considered modern, or modern+1. You see, ETC guns currently exist, for research purposes. The technology was actually developed about 20 years ago, and simply has never been implimented in the military, for a variety fo good reasons. However, it would be possible today, if enough money was spent, to build a tank with an ETC gun... therefore, it's modern, by my definition. Certainly more modern than scramjets.

Aren't scramjets in use now?

the only thing I thought was wrong with ET guns was that there was no way you could provide enough power on something that needed to be somewhat compact like a tank. i thought that even with post modern tech, ET guns would require so much power that it would not be feasible, but ETC guns would be feasible because they require less power than ET.

In fact, that is why rail guns (which are essentially cousins of ET/C) haven't made it to ships yet. The power required is too great for a ship to power both engines and several railguns.

Scramjets are being tested now. Ramjets are in use.

ET guns, it's assumed that you can hide a capaciter somewhere in the tank with enough juice for one firing, then recover the energy from the recoil.

Railguns are something else entirely. ETC uses an electrical pulse to vaporise metal, providing propulsion. Rail guns are accelerated by the magnetic fields of the rails generated by the electricity. And there are other problems with railguns... inability to save the rails from getting destroyed, problems with the projectile getting vaporized, the fact that you can only fire solid slugs instead of explosive shells...

I'm going to add a ram accelerator, which will make the barrel longer, but will increase the speed of the projectile to mach 4.

Are there any problems with me doing so?

OOC: a Ram Accelerator or a Ramjet round?

Ram accelerators require atleast one sealed section of barrel ahead of the rounds normal propellant and require a combuistive gas inorder to provide the accellerant effect. This is not even covering that outside of a lab, ram accelerators are one shot weapons that would require the resealing of both sections, and pressuring the combustive gas between the two sections, as well as finding a means to divert the original propellant gasses away while still maintaining a sealed barrier between the first and second acceleration stages... Its a complicated design and not well suited to repeated shots.

-But im assumeing (read: hoping) you mean a ram jet round.

OOC: a Ram Accelerator or a Ramjet round?

Ram accelerators require atleast one sealed section of barrel ahead of the rounds normal propellant and require a combuistive gas inorder to provide the accellerant effect. This is not even covering that outside of a lab, ram accelerators are one shot weapons that would require the resealing of both sections, and pressuring the combustive gas between the two sections, as well as finding a means to divert the original propellant gasses away while still maintaining a sealed barrier between the first and second acceleration stages... Its a complicated design and not well suited to repeated shots.

-But im assumeing (read: hoping) you mean a ram jet round.

nope, i was just reading about ram accelerators and wanted to try it out. guess that won't work after all. thanks.

They are a nifty design but you cant just shove hydrogen gas infront of a properly shaped round and expect a tank killer...

for a rame accelerator to work you have to meet certian critera.

* The propellant gasses that accelerate the projectile must be diverted before the round enters the first stage so as to prevent the powder gases dfrom destroying the first stage seal and thereby destroyign the atmosphere of the first stage.

* The round must eight use a set of fins for stabilization ro a set of rails, both of which prevent spin stabalization.

* Each stage must be pressurized for best effect.

* The entrance seal of each stage must be light weight enough so as to not impede the passage of the round but must be strong enough to prevent a loss of pressure.

I toyed around with the idea of self sealing seals and gas injection but in the end it would just be heavier, less effective, and more prone to damage than a conventional gun... atleast for any sort of repeated fire, and even then the RPM would suck.

However... Im still toying with the idea of a recoliless single shot Ram accelerator man portable anti-tank weapon. <_< >_> be alot lighter than an anti-tank missile with similar penetration.. but the thing would be quite a doosey in length so im still not sure of its possible usefulness.