NationStates Jolt Archive

U-3A1 Tank

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/M51-Isherman-latrun-1.jpg
Weight: 46.5 Tonnes
Armor: 3 Layers of Armor; Kontakt-5 armor, then Chobham armor, and then another layer of Kontakt-5
Armament: 120mm Rheinmetall L55
Secondary Armament: 1 top mounted Rheinmetall MG3, one front-mounted M2 Machine Gun
Storage Ability: 35 Rounds
Crew: 3 (Driver, Gunner, Commander)
Operational Range: 225 Miles
Maximum Range: 290 Miles
Speed: 40mph
Price: $2,000,000

The U-3A2 is Urcea's own tank. Designed from some studies of other tank,s it looks very similar to the Sherman tank but shares nothing in common. This tank has been tested against T-64s, T-72s, M-60s, and Chieftains. It has been proven affective against them all. It excels at direct fire, and it acceptable at indirect fire.

bump

bump

The Armed Republic of Lurparl Wishes to by 340 of this tanks

OOC: You should probably have cropped the pic so you couldn't see the little kids playing in the other one :P

Nice design, though.

[Okay lemme see here. Armor wise, you don't want explosive reactive armor (Kontakt-5) under anything cause it goes boom. Your range and speed could be upped a bit, and the Sherman has a rather large profile compared to modern tanks, but if you really want it...]

OOC: i plan to replace the second Kontakt-5 layer with another Chobham layer and its a tank their all pretty big

Well ok, three layers of Chobham armor will be equipped with the models instead of two Chobham layers and Kontakt-5.

OOC: While I'm normally happy to see people learning how to design tanks, there are times that basic design principles are ignored, and I die a little on the inside. I would recommend Mac's Basic Guide to Tank Design (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=457235) as a starting point.

And yes, all tanks are fairly large. However, the Sherman has a rather substantial silhoutte, this makes it an easy target. However, the advantage of this is that it enables it to fire over the heads of supporting Infantry easily, it allows it to fire from defilade more easily, and gives it superior 'Reverse Slope' capability compared to shorter vehicles. Everything in tank design is a tradeoff, and you don't need to layer Chobhom armour if that's all you're putting on. I'd highly recommend the link I provided you with in the initial paragraph.

OOC: So you're saying that I shouldn't have all that Chobham armor on it?

OOC: So you're saying that I shouldn't have all that Chobham armor on it?

The K-5 underneath the chobham will damage the chobham during the reaction, and will possibly not even degrade the performance of the penetrator or the HEAT jet. The Israelis are working on a ERA/steel/ERA design for an upgrade of the Sabra tank, but it has not been released and there's not much information about it, except for a caption to a picture of the Sabra in a recent Armada International issue. K-1 and K-5 simply cannot physically be placed in layers - you have to have 1 layer on top of the rest of your armor. Furthermore, whether or not the vehicle is not meant to be a Sherman, the fact of the matter is that sloping is the same as the Sherman, as well as the profile and as the dimensions of the vehicle - it's still an unsuited shape for a modern main battle tank. The size of the chassis will also restrict the size of the turret ring and therefore the size of the main gun. Your weight should also be higher, and that means so should your ground pressure and with this thing looking like a Sherman I don't think it will be very successful.

It isn't supposed to be the Sherman. It is bigger. It can support the larger gun.

No, I removed the K-5 armor.

MBT? No, not really. This is more of a heavy/super-heavy tank.

It isn't supposed to be the Sherman. It is bigger. It can support the larger gun.

Then you should state the dimensions and it should be heavier. You are going to need more armor to have similar levels of protection because of the fact that you have inferior sloping.

No, I removed the K-5 armor.

Not according to the write-up.

MBT? No, not really. This is more of a heavy/super-heavy tank.

... a super-heavy tank with a gun inferior by NS standards, and much lighter than Western main battle tanks since the 1960s?

MBT? No, not really. This is more of a heavy/super-heavy tank.

Superheavy tank is a bracket starting at about 180 tons and finishing at about 12,000 tons, when you get into being a Ground Battleship.

This tank is a heavy tank by ww2 standards(40-65 tons)

Then you should state the dimensions and it should be heavier. You are going to need more armor to have similar levels of protection because of the fact that you have inferior sloping.



Not according to the write-up.



... a super-heavy tank with a gun inferior by NS standards, and much lighter than Western main battle tanks since the 1960s?

What are NS standards? The gun I'm using is the same gun equipped by the M1 Abrams.

What are NS standards? The gun I'm using is the same gun equipped by the M1 Abrams.

No, the M1A2 is equipped with Rheinmetall's 120mm L/44 gun, and there's no clear evidence that it for sure will be replaced by the Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 (as opposed to an indigenously designed L/55, such as the XM360). The only tank insofar that uses that gun is the Leopard 2 (and I believe the British had more or less agreed to replace the L30A3 with the 120mm L/55). Therefore, you have a tank with a gun that is inferior to existing guns in the real world (Rheinmetall L/55; the strength of the M1A2's firepower is the M289A3 APFSDS), with poor sloping, high weight due to that poor sloping and a high profile. You have inferior ballistic protection, a much larger frontal arc target and a strained suspension.

Tanks in NationStates have begun to assume that the future generation of tank design is the present generation of NS design (and it makes sense; the future generation of tank design is the only generation that is capable of defeating the current generation). Even then, magnum configurations are still popular for main guns. Otherwise, people have begun to use newer ceramic technologies, electrothermal-chemical gun propulsion technology, superior electronics, et cetera.

Mostly, I would suggest looking into newer chassis and turret designs and designing from there. I think the main quirk is that you're basing this design off the looks of a Sherman.

o(ut)o(f)c(haracter):People tend to stick bigger guns than that into their tanks, either by increasing the powder charge (like Mac did with his Nakíl, for instance), or using what is called "electro thermal chemical enhancement"..

Of course the simplest way to up gun any tank is still to stick a longer barrelled version of the same gun on it, that much hasn't changed since ww2..

OOC: Alright, I've decided that this won't be my main tank, but it will still take to the battlefields.