NationStates Jolt Archive

'eve all. I'm thinking about delving into the world of Tank Design...but to be completely honest, I have no clue how folks come up with armor confiurations, or for that matter, armor ratings. I come to you all, with this question: What would make the best non-composite armor? And, what would make the best/most advanced composit materials to use for armor?

Thank you

Well, i reckon (of course) ive got the damn best armour in all of nations states. Nanofabricated - way better than any steel or titanium composites.

Though (Of course) Its classified

A carbon nanotube based armour reinforced with boron would work wonders, removes the radiological threat, and carbon nanotubes may be the strongest configuration of atoms in the universe. Of course its ungodly expensive. As in cheaper to build 10,000 cheap tanks for your 1 super tank.

Hmm, Nanofabricated, aye? Would that be PMT?

Nope - the technology is available now. I am doing a bachelor of science in Nanotechnolgy (actually at uni now)

Nice...so you know, you know...*winks* Feel like hookin' me up with even a smidgeon of the tech? For a nominal IC fee, of course.

Well, it is still technically a titanium alluminum composite but it is made through a process which allows it to self construct (add adds in two other elements) resulting in a really cool arse hard metal with massive hardness and strength - meaning its resists huge impacts and bends a hell of alot before breaking. (ie excellent protection against KE and HE)

You could always become a protectorate state of the Infinite Empire of Yallak if you want my tech on stand to defend you.

The technical stuff:

High grade carbon steel: Tensile strength around 1000 N mm-2 and a hardness of about 280 Hv.
- Tiranaide: Tensile strength of about 2500 N mm-2 and a hardness of 3000 Hv.

Appreciate the offer, but I don't feel like being a protectorate, haha.
I also appreciate the help. Would a Titanium-Alluminum Composit be a good armor for a 5-ton Light Armed Vehicle? Based off of the Wiesel-2, but better. That'll be the first tank/vehicle domestically designed or built in my Nation.

I like Chobham on my tanks, especially my favorite tank, M1 series MBTs

Chobham is useless against the larger guns and advanced weapons people in NS are making.

However for a 5 ton vehicle a titanium-aluminium composite might be too heavy unless the armour is REALLY thin - so Chobham might be better for that.

What would make the best non-composite armor?Steel...I forget the name of the particular type of steel (It's not RHA.), but AFAIK steel is the best if you don't want to use a composite.
And, what would make the best/most advanced composit materials to use for armor?I'm not sure, and the answer may be different if you want the armor to be better against CE or KE projectiles.

Whatever you choose to do, please don't copy the tanks on NS that stack Chobham, tungsten, ceramics, et cetera.Chobham is useless against the larger guns and advanced weapons people in NS are making.Would you mind elaborating?

Appreciate the offer, but I don't feel like being a protectorate, haha.

You sure? You wouldn't be alone ive got more.

What I'm most confused about when it coems to armor, is this armor rating thing...how do people calculate it, and its weight?

Steel...I forget the name of the particular type of steel (It's not RHA.), but AFAIK steel is the best if you don't want to use a composite.
I'm not sure, and the answer may be different if you want the armor to be better against CE or KE projectiles.

Whatever you choose to do, please don't copy the tanks on NS that stack Chobham, tungsten, ceramics, et cetera.Would you mind elaborating?

Well al these people now days are putting 140 mm or big guns on tanks (me included with 140 mm) with tungesten and depleted uranium shells. Added with the fact that many people also now use ETC guns/ railguns which propel shells 5 times faster than normal - chobham just doesn't cut it unless its really really really thick which then makes your vehicles fat and slow.

What I'm most confused about when it coems to armor, is this armor rating thing...how do people calculate it, and its weight?I'm curious about that, too, because I'm not sure if I've yet seen a tank on NS with a good level of armor. If you're going with Chobham, you might want to just copy the Abrams's protection.
http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm <--- not entirely accurateWell al these people now days are putting 140 mm or big guns on tanks (me included with 140 mm) with tungesten and depleted uranium shells. Added with the fact that many people also now use ETC guns/ railguns which propel shells 5 times faster than normal - chobham just doesn't cut it unless its really really really thick which then makes your vehicles fat and slow.Well, big guns are overrated, tungsten isn't very good, depleted uranium is no longer the best, and ETC guns and railguns use a lot of electricity, so I don't see anything to worry about. (Unless my information is out of date, an ETC gun gets about 20% of its energy from electricity. If you want a reasonable rate of fire, your tank will have to sit still.)

Edit: Apparently tungsten is used in the better-than-DU KE penetrator material...

I take it the boards had a hickup? And as for being a Protectorate...what would the pros/cons be? What benefits would be given/taken away?

And likely, composites won't be used in the LAV I design, but will be used in heavier designs that are also being planned. So steel or Chobham (if I go that route) will be used. Survivability won't be the biggest factor, as it's not expected to go against tanks. It's mostly targeted towards Corporation Security duty. However, there might be other versions in the future that will include front-line warefare dependability.

I plan for it to be relatively cheap, extremely easy to maintain and repair. The engine will likely be a small, 150 or so horsepower Diesel, with an option for a Bio-Diesel conversion kit. The engine, witht he right equipment, well-trained mech. crew, could be replaced with a new one in less than an hour.

Larger vehicles will of course, be designed for better survivability, so all of you are helping with your comments on the various armor types.

The problem with using a railgun on a tank is that the railgun is designed for long range bombardment, meaning beyond three hundred kilometers, not direct fire [within six kilometers], meaning using a rail or coil gun on a tank isn't exactly useful. So, it's not really a problem with electricity [the electrical power to run most of the systems on NS tanks is more than required for a rail gun], but a problem with the concept of design.

Oh, for a LAV you might want to use some sort of ceramic. I think they do fine on their own against small arms fire.

The Macabees, IIRC I estimated a tank would have to devote its engine to just powering up for an ETC shot for >10 seconds...With a rail gun it'd be more like a minute assuming perfect efficiency.
I take it the boards had a hickup?Yep.

Edit: Woah, apparently a rail gun shot could use less fuel for the electric generator than a conventional gun uses explosive propellant...I think it'd take a while to get enough electricity to make the shot, though.

Yes carbone nano tubes are extremely strong and light, it is even Theorized that carbon nano tubes could be used to build a "space lift". titanium tower for instance can only go as high as 5 miles before it would lose stability and fall over, carbon nano tubes by comparison can go over 30,000miles high and be paper thin!

Well al these people now days are putting 140 mm or big guns on tanks (me included with 140 mm) with tungesten and depleted uranium shells. Added with the fact that many people also now use ETC guns/ railguns which propel shells 5 times faster than normal - chobham just doesn't cut it unless its really really really thick which then makes your vehicles fat and slow.


Eek... a 140mm ETC gun on a piece of armor weighing less than 90 tons will flip the tank over due purely to the recoil and amount of force being put into that electro-chemical propellant. You won't want to go past 135mm ETC on a MBT, and a 105mm ETC on a light armored vehicle.

For a light armored vehicle you should go into MEXAS, which gives very high CE values, but low KE values. But it's good for lightly armored vehicles.

This is interesting really....I'm trying to make specifications for the Generals Crusader Tank, yet I'm not sure what they are. But I do know it is supposed to be the successor to the Abrams line. Can someone help?

Yes carbone nano tubes are extremely strong and light, it is even Theorized that carbon nano tubes could be used to build a "space lift". titanium tower for instance can only go as high as 5 miles before it would lose stability and fall over, carbon nano tubes by comparison can go over 30,000miles high and be paper thin!

Unfortunately, the tank would cost you about 10 billion per tank, because there just too damned expensive.

This is interesting really....I'm trying to make specifications for the Generals Crusader Tank, yet I'm not sure what they are. But I do know it is supposed to be the successor to the Abrams line. Can someone help?


What exactly do you need help with?

Mainly about the armor, and the fact that it is supposed to be driven by one person.

Armor: It's a main battle tank correct?

Crew: All tanks are driven by one person. In most modern main battle tanks the concept of the loader has been replaced by hydraulic re-loading systems, but that increases your logistical personnel number because of possible machinery problems. The tank must have a commander, because the driver won't have the time to drive, look through a series of LCD screens and watch out for incoming shells and tanks, and command the tank. While you're going to need a gun operator because the commander needs to command, not fire, and the driver needs to focus on driving, consequently, an independent gunner is extremely important. And regardless, the addition of more automated systems will just increase the logistical personnel needed to maintain each tank, so either way you need the same amount of human labor.

Mainly about the armor, and the fact that it is supposed to be driven by one person.The armor's RHA equivalent, some materials you can say it includes, or its exact composition? And for the one-man crew, you want ideas on how to make that a more feasible idea?

Have any of you played Generals?

Not I.

Have any of you played Generals?Command & Conquer: Generals? I played the demo, but I wasn't impressed and I haven't played the full version.

I see. Anyway, even though I know it is not a part of the C&C story, it's nevertheless a fun game. I do know it has composite armor, and when the tank reaches critical damage, the tank has an interior titanium cockpit that ejects out the Pilot.

Then the tank is purely fantasy; the size of an ejection seat within the tank would make the driver's compartment vastly more crowded, which isn't better for a tank driver. Also, the gunnery can't be automated if you want it to work effeciently, and the commander can't be automated, unless you have a really good fire and control and tank assessment computer that will literally spell out any threat to the driver and gunner. Again, for your tank, I suggest you just go with the three personnel crew, without the ejection seat.

the gunnery can't be automated if you want it to work effeciently, and the commander can't be automated, unless you have a really good fire and control and tank assessment computer that will literally spell out any threat to the driver and gunner.
That was what I was planning.

Eek... a 140mm ETC gun on a piece of armor weighing less than 90 tons will flip the tank over due purely to the recoil and amount of force being put into that electro-chemical propellant. You won't want to go past 135mm ETC on a MBT, and a 105mm ETC on a light armored vehicle.
depends on the vehicle layout, a low mount, like in My Urban Stealth Tank (http://tinypic.com/ehmyoj.jpg) could handle more recoil than a turret mounted gun. or, you could build it recoiless, and live with the reduced range and greater operating expenses inherent to recoiless designs

depends on the vehicle layout, a low mount, like in My Urban Stealth Tank (http://tinypic.com/ehmyoj.jpg) could handle more recoil than a turret mounted gun. or, you could build it recoiless, and live with the reduced range and greater operating expenses inherent to recoiless designs

The rail gun works a bit difference from a regular conventional gun, and requires copper [or a superconductor] rails in order to function, lined with a series of magnets, consequently, a recoiless gun, which would more accurately be a muzzle which would retract into the larger barrel, to avoid the massive recoil, could not be designed as effeciently...not to mention the recoil of a coil or rail gun is ten times as massive as that of a conventional gun, consequently, the effects would be the same.

By the way, that picture game the picture of a dumpster.

Well, any tips?

We'll, the idea of the tank gun been automated isn't really plausible, since it would be terribly inefficient, even by the year 3000. Simply said, a RADAR/LIDAR system simply won't be effecient enough to turn the gun, point, calculate and fire; while a system of RADAR/LIDAR/LCD screens showing every blind spot of the tank, with a commander directing the driver and gunner, will be effecient. Although you could make a system to make the driver's life a bit easier...nonetheless, a conventional three man crew is the best way to go.

Very interesting. But I still love the Abrams. Even though we use big ass gun for our tanks. We still need to think about mobility. Mobility is still important if the tank has to evade the enemy or flank the enemy. Armor is partly designed to protect the crew. Even if the round punches and disables a tank, the crew must survive. It would be a waste of human life.

The rail gun works a bit difference from a regular conventional gun, and requires copper [or a superconductor] rails in order to function, lined with a series of magnets, consequently, a recoiless gun, which would more accurately be a muzzle which would retract into the larger barrel, to avoid the massive recoil, could not be designed as effeciently...not to mention the recoil of a coil or rail gun is ten times as massive as that of a conventional gun, consequently, the effects would be the same.

By the way, that picture game the picture of a dumpster.
well, a recoiless Rail gun is impractical. however, ETC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrothermal-chemical_technology) weapons are not railguns.
and I know what the tank looks like, that is why It's a stealth tank, not many people really pay any attention to it.

Hmm...perhaps I should've also asked which kidn of cannon would be best to use too, haha. I've worked out a rough-sketch for the LAV - heavy APC and tank to follow.

Link to the Corporate Defence Light Armed Vehicle: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449239

Again, rough sketch, so I'm looking to fine-tune the design, so nitpick if you want. Already been told to up the price.

And as for being a Protectorate...what would the pros/cons be? What benefits would be given/taken away?

Pro's - All the benifits of an Imperial citizen, the protection of the Empire
Con's - Your nation must comply with Imperial laws. (But you get to keep your own government and all that stuff).

well, a recoiless Rail gun is impractical. however, ETC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrothermal-chemical_technology) weapons are not railguns.
and I know what the tank looks like, that is why It's a stealth tank, not many people really pay any attention to it.


Nobody ever said that ETC guns were railguns...the two concepts are totally different.

Hmm...perhaps I should've also asked which kidn of cannon would be best to use too, haha. I've worked out a rough-sketch for the LAV - heavy APC and tank to follow.

Link to the Corporate Defence Light Armed Vehicle: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449239

Again, rough sketch, so I'm looking to fine-tune the design, so nitpick if you want. Already been told to up the price.


Well, you have different variants, so that's good; same chassis, different function, so as far as I can tell the armament loadout is alright.

Well, you have different variants, so that's good; same chassis, different function, so as far as I can tell the armament loadout is alright.

Thank you, means a lot coming from a Nation of your calibre. Is the Armor okay? I know it's very light, I want to change that in the Mk. II, as well as bring a couple of new variants.