NationStates Jolt Archive

Mer des Ennuis, as part of new military reforms, is in need of a new tank! Currently, we are happy with the Merkava 4 tank, but could use a more capable system. Any and all tank designs submitted must meet the following quallifications and must be tank-dedicated vehicals (i.e. a tank should not be a variant of a multi-role vehical). We currently do not believe in the effectiveness of an ETC gun, as it is extremely fragile due to electronics that need to be maintained, the bulk of the gun itself, and the power that is required to drive this system.

-Modular armor, to lower maintenance costs
-Able to be outfitted with ERA.
-Internal mortar: Mer des Ennuis does not use infantry-borne mortar systems, and the merkava currently fills this gap
-Internal machine gun
-Rear escape hatch to allow for soldiers to exit to either fight or, should the tank be hit, flee
-Compartmentalized through fireproof segments to avoid ammunition explosions
-Thicker than normal armor along the sides and top for urban combat
-NBC protection and airconditioning
-Digitized system to aid crewmembers in completing their tasks (the merkava has a flatpanel for each crew member)

The following are not required, but we would like to see them if at all possible
-Front mounted engine
-The merkava 4 has the ability to see 360*, we would like to see this
-We would like to see a battle management system capable of taking in information from other vehicles in a battle
-500k/m range + or -
-60 k/m burst speed + or -

When responding, please tell me a little about the tank rather than just a storefront link. Also, please post a price per tank for 41,200, or how much for a DPR.

While we do not have the ability to design a completely new tank at the moment, we will direct you to the Type 42 and its customizable options ability, as it was designed nearly entirely on your requiremnts, is actually more manuvarable and durable than the Merkeva, better armed, and customizable to your requirements(It was orginally designed to mount a mortar, although this was later abandoned, but the mount is still there.)

The tank itself is now only availiable on the CSI Storefront, located here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10989994&posted=1#post10989994

The Type 42 seems interesting, and looks as though it might meet my requirements in full. What is the maximum speed and range of the tank? How durable is the gun compared to a smoothbore, and how good is the penetrating force compared to an enlarged/longer smoothbore barrel? If we were to remove the ETC gun and replace it with an extended, enlarged smoothbore, would the price go down? Finally, for the number of tanks, could a discount be conferred? These tanks, as is, are rougly 2.5 times as expensive as a Merkava 4.

The Type 42 seems interesting, and looks as though it might meet my requirements in full. What is the maximum speed and range of the tank? How durable is the gun compared to a smoothbore, and how good is the penetrating force compared to an enlarged/longer smoothbore barrel? If we were to remove the ETC gun and replace it with an extended, enlarged smoothbore, would the price go down? Finally, for the number of tanks, could a discount be conferred? These tanks, as is, are rougly 2.5 times as expensive as a Merkava 4.


1. The Maximum speed and range of the Type 42A1 are 70km/h and 425km respectively.(Although up to 500km could be reached with additonal fuel tanks)

2. The Type of gun does not nessicarly relate to it's durability, but i can assue you it is far supeior to the smoothbore durability wise.

3. Replacing the ETC gun with a smoothbore would be suicidal in NS, sort of like removing a Sidewinder and replacing it with a Unguided rocket. ETC guns are superior to Smoothbore and Rifled guns in every way. The cost of the the gun itself is more expensive...but a discounted price could be decided upon.

We would like to put up the Nakíl (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=478771) as a possible contender for the contract. The armor is fully modulated, and already includes hull integrated explosive reactive armour. Armament wise it includes large calibre grenade launchers that act for illumination purposes, like the mortar on the Nakíl, but this can be replaced with a full fledge 60mm to 80mm mortar if you'd like. Although we do not agree with your analysis of electrothermal-chemical technology, we're happy to say that the Nakíl doesn't take advantage of an ETC and reaps greater muzzle energy. Instead, the Nakíl has a 120mm high pressure breech dual-caliber gun; the AGS 175, using a superior solid propellant with a down bore liquid propellant booster. We would be more than happy to prove the effectiveness and survivability of such a design, if any such questions should arise. The tank uses a series of firewalls, as well as blow panels for ammunition stowage, and is fully digitised and has air conditioned nuclear, biological and chemical protection. The only thing it lacks is a foward mounted engine, meaning the crew has escape hatches on the belly and near the roof. Given the fact that the Nakíl probably has the best armour in the world, we were also able to redistribute much of the armour to the rear and sides, as well as mount low weight roof mounted light explosive reactive armour, which is again, modulated and integrated.

The link provided should answer all of your questions, but as we said before, in the event that you should not want to read all of this we can simply state our case through a series of questions that we would be more than happy to reply to.

[signed]Kriegzimmer Board

OOC: Errr, small side-note. Electrothermal-chemical guns are smoothbore. Smoothbore and rifling refers to the internal shaping of the gun, in which for anti-tank purposes smoothbore is superior, and even newer fin stabalised HEP rounds are superior to the British HESH - the only reason the Challenger II still has a rifled gun [which is going to be swapped for the Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 soon]. The conventional gun should be referred to as a conventional solid propellant cannon, not a smoothbore or a rifled bore. Electrothermal-chemical technology is actually rather mature, excepting better propellants and a plasma cartridge that actually works to the expectations of engineers. The way it works is that an electrical switch sparks the plasma cartridge which then regulates the expansion of the solid propellant, meaning expansion of the gas is much more uniform. The end result is more muzzle energy - currently thought to be about double, or from 9MJ to 18MJ for the penetrator. The gun on the Nakíl, which is a conventional solid propellant gun, but with different configurations, should reap around 17MJ, but grows well beyond this with the down bore liquid propellant booster.]

[size=1]OOC: [which is going to be swapped for the Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 soon]

Thats if the MoD doesnt scrap the Challenger II first. Were dumping them for lighter armour, and its not as if we can afford it either

Thats if the MoD doesnt scrap the Challenger II first. Were dumping them for lighter armour, and its not as if we can afford it either

[OOC: IIRC, it's already been decided.]

I'm liking the look of the Nakil so far (i will read all of it!) though the cost, at least now, appears prohibitivley high. That and you put a cap at the number that can be bought. Would this cap be waved? ETC guns are generally more fragile than smoothbores due to the electrical nature of the firing system, as well as the bulk. This 120/140mm gun, correct me if i'm wrong, but the description basically states that it is as powerful as an ETC, but without the cost/bulk? I am also a little confused; if the barrel wears out relatively quickly, how do I go about replacing them? The propellents: are those for the rounds?

Is there a mount for a turrent machine gun? If so, can we get it outfitted to hold an XM-312 (despite a slower rate of fire, it is extremely accurate and can be outfitted with a variety of technologically superior rounds). I'm on the 2nd post now (Half way through), but for now: what items on the tank are not necessarily needed but add a high cost to the tank itself?

I'll answer the questions semi-IC and semi-OOC, so bear with me. The procurement maximum can be waved - that was kept their as a safeguard that I can easily avoid and simply sell more of, and to be perfectly honest the Nakíl that's going to see production in my own armies is going to be slightly different [Nakíl 1A2], which I believe I'm going to exchange the heavy explosive reactive armour for the slightly less effective spaced configuration, which should decrease weight to 60 or so tons. I'm not exactly sure about that, mind you - it's an ongoing research program. Other changes are going to be relatively minor. So anyways, off to the questions.

On the matter of electrothermal-chemical guns. The current gun on the Nakíl, of course minus the wonderful barrel materials and the liquid propellants might be chosen as an interim solution, and it was an option put forth for the upgrades of the M1A1. I have a deep believe that the Merkava IV has something similar, but there's really no hard evidence suggesting anything more than a 120mm solid propellant smoothbore. But I won't bore you with irrelevent details! In any case, the electrothermal-chemical gun is most likely going to be the future armament for future main battle tanks, to tell you the truth. It is the most reliable of gun systems on the drawing board that can achieve the muzzle energy a Swiss armament symposium decided was the mininum [18MJ]. I decided to not use to be unique, as electrothermal-chemical guns are used by everyone and their mothers on NationStates, and some without even knowing how it works.

So anyways, the high pressure breech dual-caliber gun is basically a magnum configuration, although I suspect it's a little bit different than that. To be honest however, the articles I have on tank gun systems simply don't go into detail, and I couldn't find anything worthwhile on the internet. I'll have to simply wait until I come across a written source, and that might take a while seeing as I spent 18 dollars the other day on an article on liquid propellants. :( And yes, I use these articles for other reasons than NS design. :) I'm [going to be... in about two months...] a tanker for the Spanish Army - Leopard 2Es. Barrel wear would be nominally high, but I took advantage of the chrome lining Rheinmetall decided to make public on their 105mm, as well as generally better barrel materials. In other words, you should get 800-1000 shots out of this gun before you need to replace the barrel. A conventional smoothbore gets ~1000 shots. In terms of liquid propellants it's actually be proven that they cause less barrel wear.

Now, the solid propellant would be placed into a semi-combustible cartridge behind the round, like in modern rounds. However, this variant has the base plate, which is the only part of the cartridge that isn't combustible, return to the autoloader, meaning full rate of fire can't be achieved. It is nonetheless faster, but not really what it could achieve. On the 1A2 the base plate will be ejected through a hatch at the rear of the turret - like the T-72. I can give you and early production of this, if you'd like. The liquid propellants are stored in small armoured tanks behind the breech, linked to injection nozzles through a simple pump. Of course, more expensive than your common M1A2 SEP gun, or even the 120mm L/55, but it has three times to muzzle energy - when faced on NS with tanks with armoured ratings of 2000mm+ rolled homogenous equivalent, I see that as a wise trade off.

Finally, all the machineguns and secondary armaments can be replaced if you'd like. We've sold tanks without machineguns and just the ports and overhead mounts, so that shouldn't be a problem.

I do like the tank alot. I don't think I'll need the grenade launcher, since an 80mm mortar should be able to do the same yet provide shorter range fire support (i currently use a 155mm M777A1 and the AS-90). Again, what can be used to lower the cost (500 billion IS a bit much). Can I also presume that maintenance costs are lower on the Arca IV?

Maintenance on the Abrams is about 450 dollars for each battalion of tanks for every mile. The Nakíl's maintenance costs are up to 750 dollars for every 125 tanks for every mile - on average, at least. But not put this up against maintenance costs on the ST-39K, which are absolutely horrid for desings that don't even work! Or even comparing it to maintenance costs of other tanks, and I don't mean to bang on other designs, but the Nakíl should be respectfully cheaper to maintain than other high end main battle tanks. All of this for what should also be somewhat clear cut superiority.

Now, to cut procurement costs. What I suggest is that you buy the tank without the engine and without the secondary armaments - that could possibly bring it down to around 12 million or so per tank. You'd replace the engine with a multifuel diesel power plant at maybe around 1800 horsepower - the future Nakíl 1A2 will have 1800 horsepower, as opposed to 1690. If produced en masse the cost should also be reduced to around 10 million I'd say. The current projected cost of the M1A2 SEP is somewhere near 6 million, but would it be produced in far greater numbers the actual cost would be much less. Other than that I couldn't really say much. My argument is that the increased cost is worth it. I guarantee that under a normal situation two or three Merkava IVs could not defeat the better NS tanks, Nakíl included. And beyond that I think it's best to compare prices between NS tanks. So I'll put some down. The ST-37K1 costs 38.5 million, and even the 'downgraded' ST-37K2 costs 21.8 million - by downgraded that means the actual combat version used by the designer... in other words, without the crap. Sarzonia's Z-34 Bonham costs 28.5 million, and even the new UDEC Lion/Puma by Isselmere and some other parties of the Woodstock Pact is twenty million dollars. Ironically, the latter of the three is probably the most up to par with the Nakíl, although the Bonham is a good tank as well - if too many disturbing extraneous designs that were borrowed from the ST-39K ... like dynamic gas assist *shudders*.

In other words, the cost of the Nakíl is actually cheap with what others consider top of the line main battle tanks, and not to be cocky... probably better. But given the tank without engines or secondary armaments, and large production, I'd say 10 million is a possibility.

Have a few more questions: what are the differences (cost and capability wise) between the version you intend to use for yourself and the top-of-the-line production module? With an 1800hp instead of a 1690hp? What would the cost be with mounts for the XM312 and an 80mm mortar? You mentioned somewhere that you were switching to a spaced armor solution for your personal army. What are the benefits/disadvantages? And would you consider 42,100 a large production run?

Would you be interested in the Morgians latest battle tank? The D-1 Black Hawk.

With the need for a main battle tank the Morgian scientists were put to work to develop a capable and affordable main battle tank. Complete with thermal imaging, allowing for optimal viewing and recognition. The MIS, which gives automatic updates and positions of enemy units. As well as map read outs, battalion and regiment communication.

Crew: 4
Armor:10.4 inches
Powerplant:two-stroke 10-cylindered diesel engine
Maximum Speed: 40 mph
rang: 300 miles
Engagement Range: 4,175 meters
Armament

1-120mm smooth bore gun
1- 11.4 (Cal .45) heavy machine gun
1- Coaxial 11.4 (Cal .45) heavy machine gun
3- smoke launcher/ grenade launcher(interchangeable)

The D-1 Black Hawk is out fitted with the MIS communication system as well as the thermal imaging system. Featuring 8-multi level periscopes to give optimal viewing capabilities to the driver and gunner. To help in locating and dispatching targets laser range finders are an integral part of the Black Hawk.

The grenade/smoke launcher are under the control of the secondary gunner with a hatch in the rear of the tank for easy access to rear targets as well as the rear machine gun.

Would you be interested in the Morgians latest battle tank? The D-1 Black Hawk.
snip

What is the cost? And do you have armor ratings for the front/sides/top/rear? Pictures would be nice as well, along with a link to a storefront (if available).

The version I intend to use for myself is actually a conglomeration of things I either forgot to put on the Nakíl, thought of after I posted it, or want to change just because of my RPing style. One of the things I didn't think about was what to do with that base plate - the Nakíl 1A2 will eject it through a hatch on the turret; right now it just returns to the autoloader, a la T-80 and T-64. The spaced armour is really sacrificing the magnificent values of armour with the explosive reactive armour + ceramic armour, for reduced weight. I would simply thicken the confining layer of steel around the ceramic, and especially on top of it, and then place a thinner layer of steel in a spaced array above that - the idea being that if a HEAT projectile was to hit it the standoff of the jet would be affected, meaning it wouldn't penetrate, and it would render the HESH useless almost - the HESH is designed to shatter armour with a series of shockwaves; the spacing would make sure those shockwaves don't transfer to the main armour - and would give yaw to the APFSDS. The ERA does all that and probably better, but at the expense of cost and weight. What I'm thinking right now is that by spacing the armour instead I save around ten tons, increase speed and range, make this much more manueverable, at the expense of protection of course. What I need to do is start comparing protection with spaced armour to other tanks and see if it's really worth it, because given the current armour the ratings are very high, meaning maybe I can sacrifice some armour for weight and it would still be superior.

With a production run of 42,100 and the mounts for the 80mm internal mortar and the XM312 I could probably reduce the cost of the tank to a good, clean 10 million USD.

The version I intend to use for myself is actually a conglomeration of things I either forgot to put on the Nakíl, thought of after I posted it, or want to change just because of my RPing style. One of the things I didn't think about was what to do with that base plate - the Nakíl 1A2 will eject it through a hatch on the turret; right now it just returns to the autoloader, a la T-80 and T-64. The spaced armour is really sacrificing the magnificent values of armour with the explosive reactive armour + ceramic armour, for reduced weight. I would simply thicken the confining layer of steel around the ceramic, and especially on top of it, and then place a thinner layer of steel in a spaced array above that - the idea being that if a HEAT projectile was to hit it the standoff of the jet would be affected, meaning it wouldn't penetrate, and it would render the HESH useless almost - the HESH is designed to shatter armour with a series of shockwaves; the spacing would make sure those shockwaves don't transfer to the main armour - and would give yaw to the APFSDS. The ERA does all that and probably better, but at the expense of cost and weight. What I'm thinking right now is that by spacing the armour instead I save around ten tons, increase speed and range, make this much more manueverable, at the expense of protection of course. What I need to do is start comparing protection with spaced armour to other tanks and see if it's really worth it, because given the current armour the ratings are very high, meaning maybe I can sacrifice some armour for weight and it would still be superior.

With a production run of 42,100 and the mounts for the 80mm internal mortar and the XM312 I could probably reduce the cost of the tank to a good, clean 10 million USD.

Liking what i'm seeing alot, though could you install the 80mm factory-side? I'm going to wait to see what else comes in, though this seems like the best option for a combat tank (until we choose to advance beyond MT/PMT).

6.8 million for the tank, there is currently not a store front. But the picture along with armor strengths will be included below.

http://http://www.battletanks.com/images/T-90.jpg

Front: Relatively strong due to the enforced titanium inserts.
Sides: Same as above.
Top: Built to with stand RPGs, Shelling ,mortars, etc.
Rear: Weakest area of the tank due to the weakening of the armor because welding of areas around the rear hatch.

Yea, we can install the 80mm factory side - should be no major rise in cost. I would put up cheaper tanks, but unfortunately I don't have any. :( The Nakíl isn't going to begin production [in my calendar] until February 2017, and for me in my roleplays it is currently August 2016. The tanks I have right now are the Broadsword and the Cougar; the former is one I designed in 2004 and was when I really didn't know much about tank technology [although in 2003 I was designing tanks that resembled 1940 Panzers], and the Cougar is more recent but I didn't really think it through. The Cougar is getting turned into the Cougar 1A3 - a heavy tank [~150 tons]. I'm actually importing thousands of UT-1s which are produced by DPUO and resemble older Soviet tanks [I have a feeling it's largely based off the T-64] - I'm exchanging the turret for my own variant. But that would have been a much cheaper tank. But I haven't written the write-up for it yet, and probably not going to get to it any time soon. It also has two huge shell traps to add some colour to my tank force - I can't have all perfect tanks! Just thought this would be an interesting note... and plus I'm bored. :)

Yea, we can install the 80mm factory side - should be no major rise in cost. I would put up cheaper tanks, but unfortunately I don't have any. :( The Nakíl isn't going to begin production [in my calendar] until February 2017, and for me in my roleplays it is currently August 2016. The tanks I have right now are the Broadsword and the Cougar; the former is one I designed in 2004 and was when I really didn't know much about tank technology [although in 2003 I was designing tanks that resembled 1940 Panzers], and the Cougar is more recent but I didn't really think it through. The Cougar is getting turned into the Cougar 1A3 - a heavy tank [~150 tons]. I'm actually importing thousands of UT-1s which are produced by DPUO and resemble older Soviet tanks [I have a feeling it's largely based off the T-64] - I'm exchanging the turret for my own variant. But that would have been a much cheaper tank. But I haven't written the write-up for it yet, and probably not going to get to it any time soon. It also has two huge shell traps to add some colour to my tank force - I can't have all perfect tanks! Just thought this would be an interesting note... and plus I'm bored. :)

know the feeling. you could always take the older ones and bury them up to the turrent, linking the turrents via tunnels underground like russia has on the far eastern front!

This should do the trick nicely...mount a .50 cal on that bad ass and your good to go!!

http://www.honda.ca/HondaCA2006/Models/CivicCoupe/2006/default.asp?L=E

know the feeling. you could always take the older ones and bury them up to the turrent, linking the turrents via tunnels underground like russia has on the far eastern front!


Most of them are going to get knocked out at a battle known as Ishme-Dagan. Think Kursk but with ~50,000 tanks alone.