NationStates Jolt Archive

Deleted, Causes Too Many Problems And People Dont Realize That This Is A Real Tank And Its Part Of The Armys Future Combat Systems. Please Do Not Keep Posting, Let This Die. Thank You.

cool tank, good job.

It takes 600 volts, alone, to power an 120mm ETC, on average. You're proposing to power that, as well as every other individual system on a tank, as well as the 60 ton + tank itself, and then the armour, on a purely electrical engine... and you expect 300 miles range? I would change that to having a huge reactor, putting a plug that connects to the tank, and maybe then you'll get that range. Beyond that, the electric armour itself is designed to stop HEAT rounds; it's utterly worthless against KE threats, which is what you'll be facing, most likely, with this tank.

Woah! That Tank has some good specs!

However, I would suggest not using the Smoothbore cannon as it doesn't provide optimum accuracy! :sniper:
Instead, use a rifled cannon like the Challenger II tank.

Woah! That Tank has some good specs!

However, I would suggest not using the Smoothbore cannon as it doesn't provide optimum accuracy! :sniper:
Instead, use a rifled cannon like the Challenger II tank.

The smoothbore is actually more accurate at firing APFSDS than a rifled bore; the only advantage the rifled bore offers is in firing HESH rounds, which the smoothbore can do just as well when firing straight HE rounds.

Its big guns look pretty swell to me, but I'm concerned by the lack of any close-in weapons for use against infantry, light vehicles, and so forth. Also, where are the smoke dischargers? Those are a venerable staple of main battle tanks, and have numerous uses.

I'll purchase 5.

$12 is way too low for a Main Battle Tank.

A. This isnt the 18th Century. We can use rifles now.
B. Two Crew? Wont you need a gunner, commander, driver? ATLEAST 3.

$12 is way too low for a Main Battle Tank.

A. This isnt the 18th Century. We can use rifles now.
B. Two Crew? Wont you need a gunner, commander, driver? ATLEAST 3.

I think he put $12,000,000 which is still kinda low but theres a big difference.

a crew of two is possible but unlikley, gunner and commander could do the driving but thats still kinda pushing it.

For close weapons instead of the rail guns, I would use this http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_DREAD,,00.html
it requires less power.

Um, 12 million is not cheap for a tank. Thats more than an F-16 fighter. Thats expensive. And supposedly if its a next-gen tank then it could be remodified to use a 2 crew if u incorporated AI...which reminds me those 5 i bought i want the ability to modify them to my own specs.

By $12, I meant $12,000,000

The concept of AI-assisted vehicles and weapon systems always has intrigued me. Still, I'd want a human operator (or two) in them regardless. Given all the science fiction implications of the past, I wouldn't trust an AI too far.

If u linked it to a base command, in where it would be extensions of commanders, then it would be efficient.

Um, 12 million is not cheap for a tank. Thats more than an F-16 fighter. Thats expensive. And supposedly if its a next-gen tank then it could be remodified to use a 2 crew if u incorporated AI...which reminds me those 5 i bought i want the ability to modify them to my own specs.

Thats actually a pretty good price. Yah exactly also using a automated loader, and a computer aided control system. I assume they would be able to be modified.

If u linked it to a base command, in where it would be extensions of commanders, then it would be efficient.

depending on the capability of the AI system you use, you might not need to do that

I'll purchase 5.

Order Confirmed, yes you can modify them to your needs.
Thanks.

Um, 12 million is not cheap for a tank. Thats more than an F-16 fighter. Thats expensive. And supposedly if its a next-gen tank then it could be remodified to use a 2 crew if u incorporated AI...which reminds me those 5 i bought i want the ability to modify them to my own specs.

OOC:
Please have some clue about what you're talking about before you post. An F-16 costs around $19.5M dollars.

Anyway, the whole concept of this thing is just rediculous. A 2 crew, totally electric tank with a range of 300 miles? Just silly. *tsk*

whats the range for a electric tank?

Look, if its some type of futuristic tank, whats stopping it from having a longer range if its made with new improvements to tech?

Im pretty sure its pmt.

The only thing i find a little odd is the 1000 mm of armor...thats 1 m of armor which is way too much for any fast tank.

Um-
Twice as many less crew than a Challenger 2,
Weighs less,
More RHA value,
AND has an electric engine,
AND has 300km range.

Really, get real. More like;
68 Tons
150km range
250-500 RHA
3 crew

Unless you'd like to explain how you got three times the RHA value of Chobham/Leopard 2 armour?

Amazonian Beasts
That's not the thickness of armour, that's the RHA value. Basically how much it's *worth* not how *thick* it is.

O...thought that was a little off.

Have you guys ever heard about the division of NS RP between FT, Future Tech, and MT, Modern Tech? This obviously belongs in the latter. Though it should be mentioned in the first post, otherwise it'll be taken as MT and laughed at because of it's utter impossibility in the nowadays technology level.

I still fail to see how being PMT breaks phsyics. 1000mm RHA value is alot considering he hasn't pointed out how the armour *works*

I still fail to see how being PMT breaks phsyics. 1000mm RHA value is alot considering he hasn't pointed out how the armour *works*


It's electric armour; his RHAe ratings against KE would be b.s. regardless of what he gave it. Electric reactive armour can break up a HEAT warhead, but it's utterly worthless against a APFSDS - I've already adressed several points in the first page, but he ignored them. In the end, I don't really care because I doubt I'll ever face this tank in combat, and if I do - it's not like it's going to survive for long anyways.

I dont think he ignored them, he still can change it.

OOC: The armor is still insanely thick. The pure horsepower needed to power something like this is immense. Especially draining on electric engines, which don't have a lot of torque.

With that kind of armor, the thing should weigh at least another 10 tons.. either that, or be SO small you can only fit 2 people inside, and downsize the huge engine, and cut the ammo in half, and strip out most of everything in it.. but then again, a human loader weighs less than an autoloader. But takes up more room. >_>

Were you not listening or something? It's not the armor thickness, it's how much armor equivalency his armoring scheme has.

Of course, until he explains how it works, the debate is basically academic in nature. -_-