NationStates Jolt Archive

This isn't a storefront or a place to buy the thing(although if I know you from a ways back, and the idea isn't killed through critisicm, I may be willing to talk). Anyway, I routinely do a lot of stuff on the boards, then get bored and leave for a few months then come back. I'm back for a few more months now, and after reading the Bolo series of books I realized that the Mk I-III might be practical for the NS world. They might be practical in real life, but only if you had a military budget like those of some of the larger NS nations. They're expensive as hell to buy and maintain, but what do you think of my version of the Mk I, Mk II and Mk III Bolos. You're going to criticise anyway, so I might as well accept it with aclarity.

(Note: Bolo(s) is owned by the estate of Keith Laumer and all the authors that wrote books or short stories about Bolos)

----------------------

Bolo Mk I

Crew: 3
-Gunner
-Commander
-Driver

Weight: 150 tons

Length(Gun Forward) : 22m

Turret Height: 5m

Width: 8m

Ground Pressure: 14 PSI

Obstacle Crossing: 35 in

Vertical Trench: 3.1m

Engine: GM-4000 Gas Turbine

Horsepower: 4000 HP

Power-to-Weight Ratio: 26.67 HP/ton

Speed Max: 80 kph

Speed Cross Country: 65 kph

Speed 10% Slope: 40 kph

Speed 60% Slope: 10 kph

Acceleration (0-40 kph): 6.7 seconds

Cruising Range: 300 miles

Armor Weight: 65 tons

RHA Ratings (http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm):
-Turret KE: 2000mm
-Turret CE: 2750mm
-Glacis KE: 1300mm
-Glacis CE: 2200mm
-Lower Hull Front KE: 1400mm
-Lower Hull Front CE: 1800mm

Armaments:
-1 150mm ETC DSFSLRP *(30 rounds carries)
-2 15mm 6-Barrelled CIWS(1 forward on turret, 1 rear on turret)(5,000 rounds each)

*(discarding sabot, fin-stabilized, long-rod penetrator rounds)

Sensors:
-1 3rd Gen FLIR/LowLight Sensor
-2 CIWS mounted IR sensors
-2 CIWS mounted millimeter wave Radar
-1 Central LADAR mount center-back of turret

Unit Replacement Cost: $12,000,000

Descriptions

General: The Bolo Mk I is the first in a series of powerful heavy battle tanks produced by Scellia, the lightest despite being more then twice as heavy as the M1A2 MBT. It features more then twice the weight of the Abrams armor(30 tons) and includes a slightly improved version of the Abrams armor for greater protection. The room created by the much heavier weight and advanced materials allows for an increase in power to weight ration allowing the Bolo to achieve a higher tops speed then the Abrams despite the larger size. Though the Bolo weighs twice as much as the Abrams the Bolo features tracks nearly four times the width of the Abrams giving an overall ground pressure less then that of M1A2.

However it is in the weaponry department that Bolo changes itself from a target to a true powerful fighting machine, as featured in the next section. The armor of the Mk I is some of the heaviest in the world, and while it is possible to pierce the armor with conventional main guns it requires a direct hit, sometimes more then one.

Armament/Sensors: The main 150mm gun gives the Mk I Bolo the punch needed to take out tanks of similar size and power, and utterly destroy smaller and less well protected units. The fact that the gun is ETC makes it all that much more powerful, and the LADAR array on top of the turret gives a 360 degree battlefield view. The gun aiming system also includes a laser rangefinder and targeting apparatus that is only used when the LADAR is off. The 150mm guns uses a unique revolver system of loading, a three cylinder revolver rotates around creating a fast in space consuming reloading system. Once a round has fired the cylinder rotates loading a new round and ejecting the old one. It rotates again placing a new round in the empty slot, it rotates a final time to bring the new round into the chamber. This allows the Bolo to fire a round every 2.5 seconds, unlike previous reloading equipment the revolver reloader is fairly reliable.

The two 15mm CIWS are what makes the Bolo true impressive, and able to fight on the modern battlefield. Each CIWS is connected to the main LADAR array, however each has its own IR and millimeter wave radar detectors independent of the LADAR array. Whenever a threat is detected the CIWS targets and engages independently of the tank crew, with its threat profile including missiles, rockets and enemy infantry. If the infantry isn’t registers as friendly and is armed then the CIWS will engage. If it is unsure whether they subjects are armed it will request commander permission first. In urban areas the infantry feature is turned off to limit civilian casualties.


----------------------


Bolo Mk II

Crew: 2
-Gunner
-Commander

Weight: 200 tons

Length(Gun Forward) : 26.5m

Turret Height: 7m

Width: 13m

Ground Pressure: 13.2 PSI

Obstacle Crossing: 32 in

Vertical Trench: 3.1m

Engine: GM-5200 Gas Turbine

Horsepower: 5200 HP

Power-to-Weight Ratio: 26 HP/ton

Speed Max: 80 kph

Speed Cross Country: 65 kph

Speed 10% Slope: 40 kph

Speed 60% Slope: 10 kph

Acceleration (0-40 kph): 6.7 seconds

Cruising Range: 360 miles

Armor Weight: 80 tons

RHA Ratings (http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm):
-Turret KE: 2200mm
-Turret CE: 2900mm
-Glacis KE: 1450mm
-Glacis CE: 2350mm
-Lower Hull Front KE: 1500mm
-Lower Hull Front CE: 1900mm

Armaments:
-1 150mm ETC DSFSLRP (45 rounds)
-4 25mm Caseless Infinite Repeaters(2 forward main hull, 2 back main hull)(3000 DU round each, 3000 Millennium Gun round each)

Sensors:
-1 3rd Gen FLIR/LowLight Sensor
-4 InfRpt mounted IR sensors
-4 InfRpt mounted millimeter wave Radar
-1 Central LADAR mount center-back of turret

Unit Replacement Cost: $17,500,000

General Description: The Mk II is more then an uparmored Mk I, due to the fact that it incorporates a primitive AI that functions as the driver and in some circumstances the gunner. If the tank identifies an enemy vehicle it will engage on its own instead of allowing the human gunner to do so, the same ROE applies to the Infinite Repeaters of the Mk II as those of the Mk I. Other then that the Mk II remains virtually unchanged from the Mk I, beside the heavier armor and increase from CIWS to Infinite Repeaters. The Mk II includes the same back up laser rangefinder/targeting system found on the Mk I, for the same reasons..

Armament: The 25mm InfRpt is a large step up from the CIWS mounted on the Mk I, not only is it 10mm larger and thus able to engage heavier targets it can choose between DU and antimissile rounds. This variety allows for it to successfully engage heavy bombs from the air and missiles on the ground, and the low flying helicopter needs to be wary of more then the main gun now.


--------------------


Bolo Mk III

Crew: 1
-Commander

Weight: 300 tons

Length(Gun Forward) : 55m

Turret Height: 12m

Width: 18m

Ground Pressure: 18 PSI

Obstacle Crossing: 30 in

Vertical Trench: 3.1m

Engine: GM-6000 Hybrid Gas Turbine Lithium Ion Batteries

Horsepower: 6000 HP

Power-to-Weight Ratio: 20 HP/ton

Speed Max: 50 kph

Speed Cross Country: 40 kph

Speed 10% Slope: 25 kph

Speed 60% Slope: 3 kph

Acceleration (0-40 kph): 13.5 seconds

Cruising Range: 420 miles

Armor Weight: 140 tons

RHA Ratings (http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm):
-Turret KE: 4000mm
-Turret CE: 5500mm
-Glacis KE: 2700mm
-Glacis CE: 4400mm
-Lower Hull Front KE: 2900mm
-Lower Hull Front CE: 3600mm

Armaments:
-2 120mm ETC(30 rounds each)
-8 25mm Caseless Infinite Repeaters(4000 DU rounds each, 4000 Millennium Gun rounds each) (2 front, 2 back, 2 each side)
4x5 VLS system(20 assorted VLS missiles)


Sensors:
-1 3rd Gen FLIR/LowLight Sensor
-8 CIWS mounted IR sensors
-8 CIWS mounted millimeter wave Radar
-1 Central LADAR mount center-back of turret

Unit Replacement Cost: $25,000,000

General: The Lithium Ion hybrid addition to the Mk III Bolo allows for a much greater cruising range with the batteries being continually powered from the engine, brake and even recoil from the twin howitzers. The VLS system, while nowhere near the size of VLS ship missile, does give the Mk III abilities hitherto denied to the Bolo. The lack of a main gun relegates the Mk III to a support role at worst, and a mixed taskforce of Mk II and Mk III Bolos are a nearly unstoppable mass of metal. If nessecary the Commander can act as a gunner, however in general the AI will spot and engage targets before the human element is aware they exist.

Armaments: The VLS system of the Mk III is the main weapon, and most of the VLS cells contain SAMs suitable for downing low to mid altitude fighters and bombers. Above the Bolos engagement envelope enemy aircraft will have trouble using precision munitions made for tank killing. The Mk III is the first to use outright railgun technology, featuring two 120mm ETC guns on independant turrets. Each railgun is mount on an indepedant turret, one front and one back on the hull with the VLS system inbetween. While smaller then the main guns on the Mk I and Mk II for use on heavily armor targets the twin guns can fire in tandom, with a higher ROF then the 150mm ETC guns mounted on the first two Bolos.

bump

Updates to the Mk III, and bump.

Last bump, no comments here and little on the NS Draftroom, so these are officially part of my arsenal.

Noooooo!

Seriously, you expect tanks weighing 150 to 300 tons to be used on a battlefield? I will concentrate on the MkI and MkIII, as the MkII has the same flaws as the MkI muliplied.

My heaviest tank, classed as a heavy battle tank and much ostracised by people for it's hugeness is only 78 tons (using ultra-lightweight armour, so not huge amounts of protection. My tank has a top speed of 32mph (51.5km/h), and that is downhill on a reinforced road. The weight of your tank is unpractical and unrealistic, probably impossibly so.

Mk I

Your MkI tank does a max speed of 50mph, to a weight of 150 tons, a ratio of 1:3. A M1A1 does 42mph to a weight of 70 tons (ratio of 1:1.7), so you are producing twice the ratio as an M1A1.

"The room created by the much heavier weight... allowing the Bolo to achieve a higher top speed." - How does that work? More weight means lower speed. Perhaps you put in a bigger engine, but that would mean still more weight. You would need something more powerful than a gas turbine, such as a miniaturised nuclear reactor or hydrogen fuel cell (both PMT).

RHA: Fine

Armament: Mainly fine, although the CIWS is wasted on a tank, you could use much smaller systems to acheive the same effect.

Overall, the MkI is way to fast, and is simply to big to have any practical applications. It would not win any wars, and would be a disaster. An easy way to combat it would be airstrikes, or an air-burst Neutron bomb. It would be unable to cross bridges, unable to ford rivers (it would get stuck) and it would destroy the roads.

Mk III

Again, the weight issue is insane, this time a ratio of 1:10! The Lithium-ion battery is redundant, it does not have enough power to be of any use. Plus, it ages, and is very expensive.

You say this tank does not have a main weapon, it has 2 120mm ETC cannon, these are main weapons, and two of them is unesscessary. You also have room for 20 missiles launch tubes, and 8 25mm cannon. Where will you put all the ammunition? If you fire both guns at once the recoil will break things inside the tank.

You have two turrets, wasted, and unesscessary. ETC is not railgun technology. ETC use a dot of metal which is subjected to a strong electromagnetic force to cause the atoms to jump suddenly, turning the metal to plasma (the fourth state of matter) and using the expanding gas to fire the round. Railguns use a system of a sliding EM field, to push the slug along a rail with increasing velocity. Railguns require huge amounts of power, and your tank does not have anything (or room) to produce the power.

Radar: Radar is useless on this vehicle. It is close to the ground, and many objects get in the way. It will not work.

Prices

This need's it's own section. My best tank, packed with technology and definately PMT, costs $22 million. Your's has much more weapons and systems and should hence cost a lot more, yet your cheapest is $12 million, and the most expensive $25 million. I would double all the prices, after all the RL Leclerc MBT costs around $8 million.

I hope I have helped in clearing things up a bit.

Mk I

Your MkI tank does a max speed of 50mph, to a weight of 150 tons, a ratio of 1:3. A M1A1 does 42mph to a weight of 70 tons (ratio of 1:1.7), so you are producing twice the ratio as an M1A1.

"The room created by the much heavier weight... allowing the Bolo to achieve a higher top speed." - How does that work? More weight means lower speed. Perhaps you put in a bigger engine, but that would mean still more weight. You would need something more powerful than a gas turbine, such as a miniaturised nuclear reactor or hydrogen fuel cell (both PMT).

I have an upscaled engine, plus the room I save on the missing crewmember. Add that to the fact the 150 tons easily encompasses a heavier engine with more horsepower then you have more speed. I based the speed off the HP/ton ration, which is higher then the M1A2, plus the stats gas turbine engine which is not PMT(M1A2 uses a turbine engine).


Overall, the MkI is way to fast, and is simply to big to have any practical applications. It would not win any wars, and would be a disaster. An easy way to combat it would be airstrikes, or an air-burst Neutron bomb. It would be unable to cross bridges, unable to ford rivers (it would get stuck) and it would destroy the roads.

Unless you use really armored bombs, the unpowered ones, then the is a higher chance of CIWS intercept and even greater with the higher models using InfRpts. However it is incredible hard to hit tanks with unpowered munitions, and a lot of current powered munition will have trouble defeating the heavy armor.

You're right, it could cross all but special bridges, however it could ford. It has a much better fording compacity then the M1A2. You're making the classic mistake of weight versus ground pressure, if it weighted 32,000 tons but had 32,000 times the area of track then it would have a lower ground pressure then the M1A2. It also tears up roads less.

You say this tank does not have a main weapon, it has 2 120mm ETC cannon, these are main weapons, and two of them is unesscessary. You also have room for 20 missiles launch tubes, and 8 25mm cannon. Where will you put all the ammunition? If you fire both guns at once the recoil will break things inside the tank.
In a battlefield where there will be 2-5 other tanks for every 1 Bolo it becomes an excellent idea to have more then one main gun. Not only that but this is a huge tank, I have room because it is 300 tons and 55m with gun forward. Not only that but it has signifcantly lower HP/ton then the previous two models and a lower speed to go with it. It also has a lower track area to size increasing the PSI, but only a couple PSI over the Abrams. This saved space allows for and ammunition storage and the independant turrets. Since each turret takes the majority of the recoil firing at the same time is possible.

This need's it's own section. My best tank, packed with technology and definately PMT, costs $22 million. Your's has much more weapons and systems and should hence cost a lot more, yet your cheapest is $12 million, and the most expensive $25 million. I would double all the prices, after all the RL Leclerc MBT costs around $8 million.

FAS has the unit replacement cost of the M1A2 at $5.? Million, which is what I based my prices off of.

Radar: Radar is useless on this vehicle. It is close to the ground, and many objects get in the way. It will not work.

LADAR has better resolution, however range will only be something like <100m. Good for PD/AP work but the FLIR/Lowlight IR will be the main targeting array for antiarmor use.

I have an upscaled engine, plus the room I save on the missing crewmember. Add that to the fact the 150 tons easily encompasses a heavier engine with more horsepower then you have more speed. I based the speed off the HP/ton ration, which is higher then the M1A2, plus the stats gas turbine engine which is not PMT(M1A2 uses a turbine engine).

An upscaled engine would only have an effect if the weight did not increase. You have double the weight, so an engine over twice as powerful would be required to acheive the same speed (bigger engine = more lost energy). You are going faster than the M1A1, so you would need an engine over twice the size. The horsepower to ton ratio (power per ton) proves this point, an engine will exert differing amounts of horsepower depending on how much the object it is moving weighs, if it weighs more, the HP per ton will be the same.

Gas turbines are not PMT, I never said they were. The fact is they would not be powerful enough and if you had a massive engine as you claim, then it mean the tank would have a huge IR signature, an easy target.

Unless you use really armored bombs, the unpowered ones, then the is a higher chance of CIWS intercept and even greater with the higher models using InfRpts. However it is incredible hard to hit tanks with unpowered munitions, and a lot of current powered munition will have trouble defeating the heavy armor.

Armoured bombs? Are you telling me that the CIWS system, which cannot actually see or target anything (radar/LADAR/FLIR ineffective) would be able to shoot down dumb bombs or missiles travelling at mach 6? With the dumb bombs, what would you lock onto? No emissions, and randomly firing will just waste your precious little ammunition. With the missile, even if it is hit, and the warhead broken, it would still fall onto your tank. It is very unlikely you would hit a top-attack missile, as the target is so small (missile is head on). With ships, the missiles can be hit as they are a lot slower and a lot bigger, as well as flying directly at the sides, not from above.

The tank would not be hard to hit, a carpet bomb or even a MOAB would rip the tanks apart. In WWII, a particular heavy bombardment by the allies using regular bombs actually flipped Tiger 2 tanks over onto their backs. Imagine what could be done today. Neutron bombs would be air detonated, and kill all the crew, without any possibility of interception. A tactical nuke would have the same effect. Powered munitions could breach that armour easily, I have seen much thicker armour. Anyway, one shot to the tracks would immobilise it, leaving it vulnerable to an airstrike or enemy tanks.

You're right, it could cross all but special bridges, however it could ford. It has a much better fording compacity then the M1A2. You're making the classic mistake of weight versus ground pressure, if it weighted 32,000 tons but had 32,000 times the area of track then it would have a lower ground pressure then the M1A2. It also tears up roads less.

No, I am not. In water the ground is a lot less solid, plus the huge tracks will churn up debris, piling it around the tracks. And what special bridges are there in foreign nations specially built for you? On land or fording, a mound higher than your clearance, but thinner than the distance between the inside of the tracks will beach your tank, get it stuck. With smaller vehicles this is much less of a problem, but in your case it would happen frequently. Your tank would tear up roads more. It is very large with big tracks, great for softer ground, but the treads are bigger and do more damage to solid ground. I don't know of many roads (except motorways/highways) wider than 8m.

In a battlefield where there will be 2-5 other tanks for every 1 Bolo it becomes an excellent idea to have more then one main gun. Not only that but this is a huge tank, I have room because it is 300 tons and 55m with gun forward. Not only that but it has signifcantly lower HP/ton then the previous two models and a lower speed to go with it. It also has a lower track area to size increasing the PSI, but only a couple PSI over the Abrams. This saved space allows for and ammunition storage and the independant turrets. Since each turret takes the majority of the recoil firing at the same time is possible.

It is still not slow enough, as explained above. With multiple guns it does not mean that it is better equiped to fight against greater numbers. While your tank's computer system is simultaneously targeting two tanks, multiple missiles/other soft targets and firing missiles, each of the enemy tanks will be concentrating on one thing. You. They can easily outmanuevre you, and fire shots quicker as well (your fancy autoloader is no match for three tanks firing at you). Have you seen a video of a tank firing? It rocks back quite a lot, and that is only with a 120mm cannon, you are using two 120mm ETC (or railgun, you have not explained), hence it would rock back loads! If as you say the turret takes the strain, then the turret would likely break after a few shots from the stress involved.

AS has the unit replacement cost of the M1A2 at $5.? Million, which is what I based my prices off of.

Yes, but the M1A1 is half your size, does not have CIWS, ETC cannon, LADAR, radar, IR, FLIR, VLS systems or hardly anything your tank supposedly fits in.

LADAR has better resolution, however range will only be something like <100m. Good for PD/AP work but the FLIR/Lowlight IR will be the main targeting array for antiarmor use.

LADAR takes quite a long time to aquire an image, that's why it is not suitable for your tank. Way too slow, and would be distorted by foliage and dust etc. FLIR is only useful at night, and is useless if used from ground level in the middle of a battle, the flashes all around would disrupt it's already limited range.

You have not attempted to address the issues regarding ammunition/fuel storage, the engine, the railgun and the lithium ion battery.

An upscaled engine would only have an effect if the weight did not increase. You have double the weight, so an engine over twice as powerful would be required to acheive the same speed (bigger engine = more lost energy). You are going faster than the M1A1, so you would need an engine over twice the size. The horsepower to ton ratio (power per ton) proves this point, an engine will exert differing amounts of horsepower depending on how much the object it is moving weighs, if it weighs more, the HP per ton will be the same.

Gas turbines are not PMT, I never said they were. The fact is they would not be powerful enough and if you had a massive engine as you claim, then it mean the tank would have a huge IR signature, an easy target.

Mk II HP/ton: 26
M1A2 HP/ton: 21.6

I might want to decrease the horsepower I get out of my engine as +5 HP/ton will most likely result in a more then 8 mph increase in speed. OK, it has a huge IR sig, so do almost all tanks when running.

rmoured bombs? Are you telling me that the CIWS system, which cannot actually see or target anything (radar/LADAR/FLIR ineffective) would be able to shoot down dumb bombs or missiles travelling at mach 6? With the dumb bombs, what would you lock onto? No emissions, and randomly firing will just waste your precious little ammunition. With the missile, even if it is hit, and the warhead broken, it would still fall onto your tank. It is very unlikely you would hit a top-attack missile, as the target is so small (missile is head on). With ships, the missiles can be hit as they are a lot slower and a lot bigger, as well as flying directly at the sides, not from above.

Dumb bombs, pretty much no unless I get really lucky, but anything but a direct hit is unless anyway and you'd have to be damn lucky to get that. If there is a Mk III around then it is unlikely that the aircraft gets anything but a high altitude run which is notoriously inaccurate. Neutron bomb, I launch my nuclear arsenal and they launch theirs and we both cease to exist. If its a small country then I intercept most of theirs and they cease to exist, ground forces are useless on plains of glass.

It would be hard to intercept a KEM, however it is possible and the armor is thick enough to withstand a glacing hit and maybe a square blow, depends if its using a DU or tungsten round(survival increase dramitically with tungsten, which the LOSAT uses). The Mk II and III would have much better chances due to the increased coverage. The top attack only applies with a straight down profile, meaning that the launch vehicle would have to be straight above the tank. This also assumes complete control of the air and no ADF vehicles around to make life complicated for the launching craft.

Prove that LADAR and millimeter wave radar is useless when on the ground. Then say why tank hunter missiles use it as a target acquistion system.

No, I am not. In water the ground is a lot less solid, plus the huge tracks will churn up debris, piling it around the tracks. And what special bridges are there in foreign nations specially built for you? On land or fording, a mound higher than your clearance, but thinner than the distance between the inside of the tracks will beach your tank, get it stuck. With smaller vehicles this is much less of a problem, but in your case it would happen frequently. Your tank would tear up roads more. It is very large with big tracks, great for softer ground, but the treads are bigger and do more damage to solid ground. I don't know of many roads (except motorways/highways) wider than 8m.

Depends on what kind of ground/bottom, plus if M1A2 can ford so can a Bolo. You're going against emperical evidence saying that a tank can't ford a river, it is limited by the slope of the bank and the depth but much less limited by the bottom then you're implying. Special bridges as in engineers construct one or major bridges that support the weight of hundreds of cars at once. The treads will do less damage then most other MBT because it is the PSI that does the damage, but yes they will do damage to roads. Clearance might be an issue for stuff it can't plow through, although the treads are unusually wide and it takes only mild intelligence to figure out that you shouldn't go straight over something you can't plow through and your treads won't touch.

It is still not slow enough, as explained above. With multiple guns it does not mean that it is better equiped to fight against greater numbers. While your tank's computer system is simultaneously targeting two tanks, multiple missiles/other soft targets and firing missiles, each of the enemy tanks will be concentrating on one thing. You. They can easily outmanuevre you, and fire shots quicker as well (your fancy autoloader is no match for three tanks firing at you). Have you seen a video of a tank firing? It rocks back quite a lot, and that is only with a 120mm cannon, you are using two 120mm ETC (or railgun, you have not explained), hence it would rock back loads! If as you say the turret takes the strain, then the turret would likely break after a few shots from the stress involved.

Yes, I have seen the videos. This tanks weighs more then five times as much and is much more stable, the chart says ETC, and it depends on what kind of tanks they are. The armor on the Mk III is heavy enough that it would take a 150mm ETC or bigger to pose serious threat (or multiple 120mm ETC near the same place). If the tank is heavy enough to mount that much weaponry then three of them would cost more twice as much as the Mk III(or should). Even then the Mk III would stand a fair cahnce of winning if its first volley takes out two of the opposing tanks.

Yes, but the M1A1 is half your size, does not have CIWS, ETC cannon, LADAR, radar, IR, FLIR, VLS systems or hardly anything your tank supposedly fits in

I won't double the prices, but I'll tack on a few extra million to each.

You have not attempted to address the issues regarding ammunition/fuel storage, the engine, the railgun and the lithium ion battery.
Read last post for ammo/fuel for Mk III(most arguements apply to other), read last post in for the Mk III engine(same as above), read intial post for ETC not railgun, Lithium Ion batteries are useful for high compacity for size allowing an increase in engine efficiency because it is hybrid.