NationStates Jolt Archive

V1 Panther Main Battle Tank

Length: 11.5 meters
Width: 4.0 meters
Height: 2.8 meters
Weight: 80 tonnes

Crew: 3 (commander, driver, gunner)

Armament: ETX-98 135mm electrothermal chemical smoothbore main gun w/ autoloader
40mm coaxial CTA gun
M312 commander's gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM312)
Ammunition Capacity: 25 135mm rounds in autloader, 25 additional in hull
500 40mm rounds
1,500 .50 caliber rounds
Depression/Elevation Range: -10?/+35?

Engine: Voltaire-Wallace V145-H7 Diesel w/ 2,200hp, 5 forward gears, 2 reverse
Power-to Weight Ratio: 33.8 hp/tonne
Fuel Capacity: 2100 Liters
Kilometers Per Liter: .6 kpl
Max Speed: 75 km/h road, 55 cross-country
Range: 450 km

Armor: (thanks, Nianacio!)
Steel + spall liner: the hull glacis and the bottom front hull
Titanium + spall liner: floor, lower hull sides, turret roof & rear
Composite + titanium + spall liner: hull front and upper front sides, turret front and sides, mantlet
Integral composite: hull upper rear sides, roof, and rear

RHAe protection vs KE:
Mantlet, turret front: 1600mm
Turret sides: 700mm
Turret roof: 50mm
Turret rear: 75mm
Glacis: 555mm
Hull front: 840mm
Lower hull sides: 40mm
Front upper hull sides: 215mm
Rear upper hull sides, hull rear, hull roof: 50mm

RHAe vs. HEAT
Mantlet, turret front: 1200mm
Turret sides: 525mm
Turret roof: 50mm
Turret rear: 75mm
Glacis: 615mm
Hull front: 630mm
Lower hull sides: 40mm
Front upper hull sides: 60mm
Rear upper hull sides, hull rear, hull roof: 50mm

Price: $12 million USD

OOC:
Wait, you have an electrothermal gun, but it is apparently being sighted manually (usually why tanks have coaxial guns for is to fire tracers to target the main gun)

Edit: Wait why have you a coxial mounted 40 mm CTA gun?

And with that amount of titanium...way to cheap...

OOC:
Wait, you have an electrothermal gun, but it is apparently being sighted manually (usually why tanks have coaxial guns for is to fire tracers to target the main gun)

Yes, maybe in the 1940s. Most medium tanks by the 1960s, including the Soviet T-55, were using coincidence rangefinders, and now use laser rangefinders. This write-up doesn't mention a particular fire control system, so giving benefit of the doubt it uses a relatively modern fire control system.

Edit: Wait why have you a coxial mounted 40 mm CTA gun?

I tried (http://z13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/index.php?showtopic=3618) and failed.

Mhh... shouldnt the protection against HEAT be more than that against KE?

My guesses:

40 mm because he wanted a cannon like the AMX-30 had but doesn't use anything smaller than a 40. Problem is that such a gun will take up 4x to 8x the space as the 20 mm coax of the AMX-30. Plus the Ammo will be similarily larger in dimensions.
============
Chances are he's skrimping on the titanium thickness, and making it more a mesh of titanium rather than plate. These rods are most likely parallel strand bias.
===========
Ranging Machine guns are no longer used, it was a development awhile ago, but it required the tank to give away its location and stop moving, pretty much it was a 'kill me' sign. Luckily, other tanks either had to do the same thing, or eyball it.

Nowdays, laser rangefinders and ballistic drop calculators are used, inertial guidance also sometimes is used to figure out how tank movement and target movement will effect the aim, all one then has to do is point the sight (not necessrilly the gun) at the target, track it, then lay the gun upon the aimpoint specified.

Though this sounds more complicated, it is actually quicker, and more discrete, since the 'here I am' sign is now only visable on the IR spectrum, and can be aimed before the gun is laid, or when the gunlayer is targeting another targetr while the commander locks onto the next. Plus, all this can be done on the move...
==========
Still... an anti-personel gun would be nice, even though the commander's gun could do that, the turret roof tends to get in the way, and that gun should be able to target aircraft (helicopters); something the M312 can't really do as well as the old M2HB.

A field expident during vietnam was to fit claymore mines to the hull front/sides/rear as an improvised bow MG to deal with infantry. It has been suggested to wire certain ERA plates to be manually detonated as an AP self-defense feature. Though one should remember that friendly infantry will try and hide behind these things.
========
I'd suggest bringing in a 4th man to the crew, since your commander can easily become to distracted acting as a gunplotter and spotter to effetively command, therefore, this task would be taken by the 4th man and the commander, while operating some sort of secondary anti-personel turret with missiles as secondary armarment, so that he may deal with tanks in an emergency. Oddly this 2nd turret could be given the 40 mm and both the main and secondary issued AP coaxial guns.

Oddly, this places the commander in a position similar to the loader's station, since he no longer has the prominent above turret position, and this person still has his work cut out for him, as he'll function as radio operator, 'backseat' gunlayer, scout, commanding officer, mechanic, and if all else fails, loader.

This however, gets into the hazy region between MBT and HBT due to increased dimensions, mass, and the secondary turret.

One could just toss the commander into the secondary turret, and leave out the 4th man, but hieght will be increased slightly, and should be made sufficient so that the commander can shootat targets less than 50 meters away and target aircraft either with his chaingun, HMG, or missiles.

To get an idea what that would look like, take an IFV turret, and slap it atop the commander's coupal on a Lecrec MBT... This turret could be remotely controled, and thus, unmanned and even operated by the driver, since he'll be twiddling his thumbs when hull down and keeps complaining he can't see what is going on... Commander gets manual override though...

Mhh... shouldnt the protection against HEAT be more than that against KE?

Nianacio provided the armor scheme, ask him.

Think 16 million would be a better price?

I'd suggest bringing in a 4th man to the crew, since your commander can easily become to distracted acting as a gunplotter and spotter to effetively command, therefore, this task would be taken by the 4th man and the commander, while operating some sort of secondary anti-personel turret with missiles as secondary armarment, so that he may deal with tanks in an emergency.

Not necessarily a wise decision. If you are suggesting replacing the autoloader with a human loader, then the human loader will be too preoccupied preparing a round in the breech to lend a hand for the tank commander. Furthermore, because the loader has not necessarily taken a command course at armor school chances are he will not be a good commander. It is within the commander's job description to help the gunner look for targets, and the commander is trained to do his job. The only real advantages having a human loader have are:

A. Another man to do quick fixes on the tank, although with the commander quick maintenance work with three-men is not necessarily more difficult or more time consuming.

B. Each crew member will technically get more sleep since there are more men to stand watch.

But, the autoloader, IMO, has more advantages than disadvantages, including the fact that the robotic loading arm can be designed to load the gun when it's either elevated or depressed. The autoloader is not effected by G-forces when the tank is on the move, and especially maneuvering - which is more likely to occur in NS due to the nature of tank combat. The autoloader will reduce the weight of the vehicle, including in this tank (although the potential weight loss is negated by the use of such a large co-axial gun, the tank would weigh even more with a human loader), and it will be cheaper (a human loader is more expensive to train and to maintain).

If you are suggesting keeping the autoloader but adding a fourth crewman anyways, the only thing that would do is increase weight by around 10 tonnes and negate the fact that he has an autoloader.

as he'll function as radio operator, 'backseat' gunlayer, scout, commanding officer, mechanic, and if all else fails, loader.

What is a 'gunlayer'? He already functions as a radio operator - interestingly enough, on the M1A2 they communicate through a program similar to AIM. Since there is an autoloader the commander is not the loader.

Actually, the final conclusion I reached was to put a coupala turret above the main turet in order to mount the 40 mm chaingun.

The '4th man' was supposed to aim and fire this gun, allowing the commander to do his job, rather than become merely another gunner...

Then I speculated 'why not let the driver use that gun in his free time?' or at the very least, use its guncam for improved situational awarness.

And since the driver will be instinctively looking forward to see where he is going, either the main gunner or commander could check the flanks and rear, giving all-round coverage. The commander could take-over the 40 mm in emergency or when the driver is more focused on driving than on shooting.

This of course, is if you decide to mount the massive 40 mm in a remotely operated turret.

This solves internal space problems, improves AA engagement range, and allows one to target 2 meduim/soft targets simultaniously with coaxial MGs, or cannons.

The 'gunlayer' lays the gun on target, a backseat gunlayer uses commander's override to take over the gunner's job to such a degree that all he has to do is keep the crosshairs on target. (Comander picks target, gunner lays gun, commander meanwhile picks and tracks a 2nd or 3rd target, gunner fires, gun automaticly traverses to engage 2nd and 3rd targets in sequentail order.)

A little special feature of the M1A1... This is also sometimes called 'rapid-fire engagements'

Such a tank, by nature of carrying both a heavy and meduim cannon in addition to HMGs, would qualify as a Heavy Battle Tank.

Simply, you are trying to run a 5 or 6 man tank on 3 men... Assuming the 40 mm operates like a Bofors or Rarden... One could fit 2 autoloaders, one for the 40 and the other for the 135, but you'd still be short a dedicated gunner... That or you have 3 coaxs and a massive single turret... Or you drop the 40/let the 40 go without a dedicated gunner and split the job amongst the driver and commander...

The '4th man' was supposed to aim and fire this gun, allowing the commander to do his job, rather than become merely another gunner...


Which doesn't make sense. The TC already has command of the commander's weapon station which is remotely controlled (except for the case of the M1A2, although the SEP reestablishes remote control). The TC is given command of a heavy caliber weapon for a reason.

Then I speculated 'why not let the driver use that gun in his free time?' or at the very least, use its guncam for improved situational awarness.

The driver's controls the co-axial gun already. On the Challenger 2 the trigger is behind one of the handles of the control - Chally controls resemble that of the PS2.

The 'gunlayer' lays the gun on target

The target is lased by an FCS, or an independent commander's sight normally, and is done automatically.

A little special feature of the M1A1... This is also sometimes called 'rapid-fire engagements'

It's not a special feature - it's a technique.

Agreed with everthing meantioned, since my know-how on tanks is rather dated and slightly inaccurate/biased.

Just attempting clarification:
The driver's controls the co-axial gun already. On the Challenger 2 the trigger is behind one of the handles of the control - Chally controls resemble that of the PS2.

Now, I may not be the most knowlagable person on modern British tanks, but why is the driver of the Chally given controls to the Main gun turret and its coax?
Since, traditionally, the driver drives a tank blind... So how would he be able to drive and shoot?
A bow gun is different from a coax.
As a seprate turret isn't a coax of the main gun.
===
So, the 40 mm chaingun gets shoved into the TC's turret/cuopala?

And without autoloaders, this could easily become a 6 man heavy tank...

My biggest problem with the 40 mm gun was it was coaxial....having your main gun and a 40 mm gun stuck at pointing at the target seemed to be either too much or too limited....

I perhaps could see the value of a semi-independent mount with the 40 mm primarily designed to engage aircraft/helio's....especially the slow moving, tank killer types that are 'armored'.

Now, I may not be the most knowlagable person on modern British tanks, but why is the driver of the Chally given controls to the Main gun turret and its coax?

You are absolutely right - I apologize. The same controls I'm talking about are not even for the driver. I meant the gunner.

OOC: So coaxially mounted just means in line with the main gun? o.O lol.

The cost seems about right to me, $13mil max, the Nakil(best MT MBt around) goes for $9mil and thats Mac's pricings, although without an ETC gun i must admit.

My main issue is the 40mm cannon, seems a waste to me, and its pretty quick, but that said it has a very powerful engine in there. Weight is possibly a bit low for the size, but i expect with the armour as is its ok(im not imagining it to be as think as some?)

Price of the Nakíl 1A1 is largely based on the huge production it has - if Sovereign California still wants his order fulfilled it will surpass 2 million produced.

Price of the Nakíl 1A1 is largely based on the huge production it has - if Sovereign California still wants his order fulfilled it will surpass 2 million produced.

I see, but was it not always that low or had you pre based it on that?

Oh, and any ideas when/if the A2 will be available for export? If stats come out i might want a look at them :P

I see, but was it not always that low or had you pre based it on that?


It used to be 13 million.

Oh, and any ideas when/if the A2 will be available for export? If stats come out i might want a look at them :P

Exports have actually already been established - exports were green lighted for six people on a first come, first serve basis. But an upgrade for the 1A1 will be released soon after which will upgrade it to near A2 status for a limited amount of people, as well. Then a general upgrade will be released for everyone else.

You are absolutely right - I apologize. The same controls I'm talking about are not even for the driver. I meant the gunner.

Ah, I see...

My biggest problem with the 40 mm gun was it was coaxial....having your main gun and a 40 mm gun stuck at pointing at the target seemed to be either too much or too limited....

I perhaps could see the value of a semi-independent mount with the 40 mm primarily designed to engage aircraft/helio's....especially the slow moving, tank killer types that are 'armored'.

OOC: So coaxially mounted just means in line with the main gun? o.O lol.

My main issue is the 40mm cannon, seems a waste to me, and its pretty quick, but that said it has a very powerful engine in there. Weight is possibly a bit low for the size, but i expect with the armour as is its ok(im not imagining it to be as think as some?)

Yes, Coaxial is a method of mounting where the gun is slaved to another gun.
Mostly to save in gunsights/gunners...

Someone along the way found that certain M2 ammo ballisticly matched the 90 and 105 mm cannon.

And one must remember, that the coax's are extremely accurate, like a fully automatic, 60 ton, sniper rifle... Not surprisingly, some planners have postulated giving the IFV turrets to designated marksmen... Then one is reminded of when the Americans decided to use 8" towed artillery as (counter) sniper rifles... Something later repeated with 106 mm recoiless rifles in Vietnam... Nowdays, they use 155 mm artillery, MLRS, and airstrikes. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip4L0RPfPm4)
Lesson: Don't let Snipers in your house.

A 40 mm has its uses, just not as a main gun coax. Since doing so limits its capabilities more than anything else and the volume it takes up makes for a rather large turret.

True, a meduim sized turret atop a large turret is going to raise the profile a bit, but now the 40 mm can engage both land and air targets, while the main gun is mostly limited to ground targets unless the CAS pilots get rather crazy or you develop a gun launched SAM.

Titanium armor doesn't mean the tank has to be very expensive; it's $15-20/lb using conventional production technologies, down to around $10 using the latest technologies (see this (http://stinet.dtic.mil/stinet/jsp/docread.jsp?K2DocKey=http%3A%2F%2Fstinet.dtic.mil%2Fstinet%2FXSLTServlet%3Fad%3DADA403327%40trA-search&Format=1F&Custom=&querytext=%28titanium+and+armor%29+%3Cand%3E+%28ftloc+%3Ccontains%3E+pdf%29&AD=ADA403327&TI=Welding+of+Electron+Beam+Single+Melt+Ti-6Al-4V+Plate&RD=May+01%2C+2002&DC=%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+01+-+APPROVED+FOR+PUBLIC+RELEASE&XPC=&PAG=38+Pages%28s%29&MC=&PE=) if you want a cost breakdown).

The 40mm CTA gun isn't very big (0.07 cubic meters including room for elevation and depression). Ammunition will be limited, and I don't think the gun is large enough to require a coaxial autocannon, but it's not going to require a huge tank. Let's say you add an extra cubic meter of internal volume (far more than necessary) for carrying ammunition for the autocannon; that's probably only another 1.3-1.7 tons of armor according to Ogorkiewicz. Even if the turret is scaled up some to accept the autocannon's ammo, the tank doesn't have to weigh nearly this much.

Titanium armor doesn't mean it has to be very expensive; it's $15-20/lb using conventional production technologies, down to around $10 using the latest technologies (see this (http://stinet.dtic.mil/stinet/jsp/docread.jsp?K2DocKey=http%3A%2F%2Fstinet.dtic.mil%2Fstinet%2FXSLTServlet%3Fad%3DADA403327%40trA-search&Format=1F&Custom=&querytext=%28titanium+and+armor%29+%3Cand%3E+%28ftloc+%3Ccontains%3E+pdf%29&AD=ADA403327&TI=Welding+of+Electron+Beam+Single+Melt+Ti-6Al-4V+Plate&RD=May+01%2C+2002&DC=%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+01+-+APPROVED+FOR+PUBLIC+RELEASE&XPC=&PAG=38+Pages%28s%29&MC=&PE=) if you want a cost breakdown).

The 40mm CTA gun isn't very big (0.07 cubic meters including room for elevation and depression). Ammunition will be limited, and I don't think the gun is large enough to require a coaxial autocannon, but it's not going to require a huge tank. Let's say you add an extra cubic meter of internal volume (far more than necessary) for carrying ammunition for the autocannon; that's probably only another 1.3-1.7 tons of armor according to Ogorkiewicz. Even if the turret is scaled up some to accept the autocannon's ammo, the tank doesn't have to weigh nearly this much.

I still consider coaxing a gun as big as a 40 mm as a step backwards.

And at an additional cubic meter, one is tempted to use that space as a seprate turret.
1^3 meter is really big... about twice the size of the one man turret I proposed and 8x (.5^3 meters) the size of the remote turret...

And I'd up the mass 2 tons if you plan on using a second turret (the 40 mm would need it own autoloader anyways) That or 10 tons for the 40 mm manual loader...*

*I'm also including the mass of an M-2HB and M312 .50 cal coaxials /w/ ammo. And fittings for ATGMs/SAMs...

It's a step forward, really. When your main gun ammunition capacity is severely limited by its size, a medium-caliber coaxial gun becomes very useful for medium targets, and anything much smaller than 40mm wouldn't be very useful against modern IFVs. It's just that 135mm isn't quite big enough to require that.

It's a step forward, really. When your main gun ammunition capacity is severely limited by its size, a medium-caliber coaxial gun becomes very useful for medium targets, and anything much smaller than 40mm wouldn't be very useful against modern IFVs. It's just that 135mm isn't quite big enough to require that.

I wasn't saying that mountin a 40 mm secondary gun was backwards, I was reffering to your insistance to slaving it to your main gun and limiting its maximum and minimum elevation, making it useless in AA, the M312, likewise, shoots too slowly to be an effective AA.

Hence why I'm strongly suggesting that you have the 40 mm and an M2HB coax in a secondary turret while you slave a M312 to the 135 mm main gun as a coax.

The secondary turret would allow for an on the spot AA platform and with the addition of ATGMs along the turret's sides, you essentaily have 2 tanks stacked atop each other with almost zero increase in manpower (though I also suggested adding another gunner for the 40 mm).

Why would you even want an AA 40mm gun and external ATGMs on an MBT, though? They wouldn't be of much use, would increase the tank's height, reduce the commander's FOV, and, if in a separate turret, would make targeting a problem, defeating whatever purpose they had.

Edit: I noticed you edited your previous post after I'd replied. As I said, a cubic meter is far more space than would be necessary -- 40 rounds of 120mm ammunition take up less space than that! A secondary turret would be a much greater packaging problem -- >=1.2m^3 for the extra man + the space for the guns and ammunition + the space for the extra turret ring, traverse and elevation motors, et cetera.

I was guessing you could keep the secondary turret's size down to that of the M60's remote commander's coupala (or more correctly, the dual 40 mm Mk 19/M2 mount fitted atop the M3 Bradley)

Fitting the second turret with autoloaders would still take up less space than no 40 mm or autoloaders and replacing it with a manual loader for the 135 mm.

Your already calculated 1.3^3 meters vs the 0.5^3 meters for the turret and autoloader itself.

All other space considerations (ammo storage, and autoloader) are ignored since I'm assuming those have already been considered when you planned on fitting a 40 mm in the first place.

Reasoning for an independent 40 mm rather than a coax:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12418686#post12418686
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12419530#post12419530
Edit: that or just read post 17

Plus, now he can effectivly track and engage 2 targets (maybe more) simultaniously. And as noted many times elsewhere, the M312 is pretty useless as an AA gun, and even more useless in NS. So the weight savings are pretty much more than canceled out by the disadvantages of mounting the 40 mm in a limited traverse coax mount and mounting the M312 as a pintle.

Just splurge the added height and mass rather than go through the difficulties of mounting a 40 mm and only reap a tiny portion of its benifits.

Much like why bother mounting a pintle gun when it can't effectively engage what the main gun can't aim at (planes), and if the main gun can effectively acquire said target, a coax MG could do the same job with less risk to your well trained commanders.

If it was a 20 mm, then it wouldn't matter as much, but this is a 40 mm cannon capable of shooting miles, and capable of shooting down attack helicopters.

I can lineart a picture of you MBT if you want me too.

I can lineart a picture of you MBT if you want me too.

You can give it a shot if you want, although I think Macabees or Gurguguvnit (however you spell it) might be doing also.

I was guessing you could keep the secondary turret's size down to that of the M60's remote commander's coupala (or more correctly, the dual 40 mm Mk 19/M2 mount fitted atop the M3 Bradley)How is a second turret with a man, an autocannon, an HMG, and the ammunition for both supposed to be no bigger than a very cramped cupola with only an HMG, a small amount of ammunition, and enough space for a man to squeeze through (there is no dual Mk19/M2 mount on the M3)?
Fitting the second turret with autoloaders would still take up less space than no 40 mm or autoloaders and replacing it with a manual loader for the 135 mm.

Your already calculated 1.3^3 meters vs the 0.5^3 meters for the turret and autoloader itself.I'm not sure what you mean here.
All other space considerations (ammo storage, and autoloader) are ignored since I'm assuming those have already been considered when you planned on fitting a 40 mm in the first place.Putting some ammunition up against the wall in an existing turret is a lot different from adding an extra turret that has to be large enough to carry all that ammunition.
Reasoning for an independent 40 mm rather than a coax:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12418686#post12418686
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12419530#post12419530
Edit: that or just read post 17Those don't really answer the question. 'It can do more' The same could be said for slapping on a karaoke machine. Now, why is that karaoke machine worth it? It'll make the tank bigger, more expensive, and, if stuck on the roof, interfere with the commander's FOV and be vulnerable. Besides all that, the crew won't even be able to karaoke while shooting up other tanks, and the same goes for engaging air targets; a second turret does not mean the gunner can engage two targets at once. He'll have to switch back and forth between the two, severely limiting his effectiveness in each role or ignoring one of them. AA capability on tanks is a last-ditch measure (at least in part for psychological reasons like the karaoke machine) for emergency situations, not an extra role to add on, and does not require nearly as powerful a gun, anyway; there's a reason it's usually integrated with the AP role.
40 mm in a limited traverse coax mount and mounting the M312 as a pintleCoaxial weapons have no inherent limitation in traverse, and when did Ezaltia say the M312 is on a pintle mount?

You can give it a shot if you want, although I think Macabees or Gurguguvnit (however you spell it) might be doing also.

Alright, what style of tank is it? Does it have sloped armor?

Coaxial weapons have no inherent limitation in traverse, and when did Ezaltia say the M312 is on a pintle mount?

The M312 is mounted right in front of the commander's cupola, and can be remote-controlled when he is inside.

If the M312 is so bad, then what do you recommend for commander's guns?

Alright, what style of tank is it? Does it have sloped armor?

It's got a turret like a Leopard 2A6 (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Pics/LEOPARD2A6-BIG-svg-08.jpg) (but with a bigger gun and coaxial) but a body like a Challenger II or Abrams, albiet bigger.

The M312 is mounted right in front of the commander's cupola, and can be remote-controlled when he is inside.

If the M312 is so bad, then what do you recommend for commander's guns?It should go on a ring mount; putting the gun on a pintle mount ahead of the cupola would make it rather difficult to shoot to the rear when standing in the hatch.

The XM312 isn't exactly bad, but if it's on a powered mount you don't need a very lightweight gun, so you can afford to use something with a higher ROF like the CIS 50MG. Something a bit more powerful (e.g. 14.5mm) would improve performance against lightly armored vehicles a bit, but the KPVT is more a very light autocannon than a heavy machine gun, so it'd be a bit redundant.

How is a second turret with a man, an autocannon, an HMG, and the ammunition for both supposed to be no bigger than a very cramped cupola with only an HMG, a small amount of ammunition, and enough space for a man to squeeze through (there is no dual Mk19/M2 mount on the M3)?
My mistake on naming the correct armored people carrier, I was reffering to the US Marine AAVP7 Urban warfare retrofit turret.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/aav_060111-n-5588m-007.jpg

Putting some ammunition up against the wall in an existing turret is a lot different from adding an extra turret that has to be large enough to carry all that ammunition.
Who said anything about putting ammo in the turret?
I was just going to let the linked ammo feed through the roof...

Those don't really answer the question. 'It can do more' The same could be said for slapping on a karaoke machine. Now, why is that karaoke machine worth it? It'll make the tank bigger, more expensive, and, if stuck on the roof, interfere with the commander's FOV and be vulnerable. Besides all that, the crew won't even be able to karaoke while shooting up other tanks, and the same goes for engaging air targets
You already have the karaoke machine (the 40 mm) the only differance is where you put the beast.

The whole tank is vulnerable, the question is: "to what?"

How the commnder's coupala will interfere with his own FOV gets rather illogical of an arguement.

You're being 'penny wise and dollar foolish'. You are building a 60+ ton combat vehicle with 135 and 40 mm cannons both are autoloaders, with considerable amounts of top grade electronics (which are mounted on the roof and are extremely vulnerable), armor, a massive engine, and a sizeable ammo supply and you are nitpicking over an increase of less than 4 tons, and a volume increae less than the one you proposed to fit the 40 mm in the main turret?

NS airstrikes are generally made when there are almost no enemy ground vehicles around (to keep the RP simple). And I guess the importance of organic AA defenses onboard every vehicle depends on how much you percieve CAS as a threat.

a second turret does not mean the gunner can engage two targets at once. He'll have to switch back and forth between the two, severely limiting his effectiveness in each role or ignoring one of them. AA capability on tanks is a last-ditch measure (at least in part for psychological reasons like the karaoke machine) for emergency situations, not an extra role to add on, and does not require nearly as powerful a gun, anyway; there's a reason it's usually integrated with the AP role.
Why is the gunner the only person being given the turrets? Logic figures 2 turrets equals 2 people, the gunner and commander. True, both positions should be able to control either turret in case one of them is incapacitated/distracted, anyways.

Anyways, the 'commanders' of M113s and M3s (which are actually squad leaders/NCOs) didn't seem to have too much trouble aiming a MG or chaingun and commanding both the driver and the rest of his squad... (at least in theory, some may disagree that the current IFV is fundamentally flawed)

Coaxial weapons have no inherent limitation in traverse, and when did Ezaltia say the M312 is on a pintle mount?
The Main gun cannot elevate 75 degrees, and cannot depress by more than 45... And if the main cannot reach it, the cax definately won't.
Commander's gun/Pintle mount, same place, only difference is if he gets a gun shield/turret.

I also consider it odd that you consider a wieght savings of less than 50 kg worth getting rid of almost any AA capability your vehicle has (unless there is a nearby ditch/hill to ride the main gun up on [reffering to prefferance of M312 over M2HB]).

Edit:
Anyways, as a coax, the 40 mm can't engage air targets under normal conditions, in a seprate turret, it can, and is more capable than any .50 cal you'll slap on it, but it may 'distract the crew'. The volume and mass increase is negligeable. Consider the risks.

Would you rather give your infantry man just an AWP, or an AWP and a pistol, maybe a few grenades, and a shovel? Though heaven forbid what may happen if he tries using the AWP and pistol at the same time... It also adds to the wieght in his rucksack and makes him a bigger target, and slows him down a bit...

(you also replied 40 minutes after my last edit in your previous post)

My mistake on naming the correct armored people carrier, I was reffering to the US Marine AAVP7 Urban warfare retrofit turret.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/aav_060111-n-5588m-007.jpgThat's hardly small.
Who said anything about putting ammo in the turret?
I was just going to let the linked ammo feed through the roof...Feed through, into what? A turret basket.
You already have the karaoke machine (the 40 mm) the only differance is where you put the beast.The secondary turret is the karaoke machine. The analogy for the coaxial gun is playing MP3s through the tank's existing audio system.
The whole tank is vulnerable, the question is: "to what?"For the secondary turret, everything that's likely to get shot at it?
How the commnder's coupala will interfere with his own FOV gets rather illogical of an arguement.You keep using completely different terms; you need to pick one and stick to it or admit the problems of some in addition to listing the advantages of others.
You're being 'penny wise and dollar foolish'. You are building a 60+ ton combat vehicle with 135 and 40 mm cannons both are autoloaders, with considerable amounts of top grade electronics (which are mounted on the roof and are extremely vulnerable), armor, a massive engine, and a sizeable ammo supplyWell, Ezaltia hasn't said anything about electronics, I designed the armor and it's really not really extravagant, and the engine isn't necessarily huge just because it's powerful. The ammunition supply is on the high side, but this is part of the reason it's such a bad idea to waste space on an additional turret; that space isn't there!
an increase of less than 4 tons, and a volume increae less than the one you proposed to fit the 40 mm in the main turret?You keep repeating that it'll add little volume and mass, but you never provide any proof (even when I directly asked for it); if you want to convince me of anything, you'll need to do so. As I already said, the interior volume required for the gun and its elevation (+35 degrees) and depression (-10 degrees) is only 0.07(4) meters (as measured by the Army Research Laboratory).
NS airstrikes are generally made when there are almost no enemy ground vehicles around (to keep the RP simple). And I guess the importance of organic AA defenses onboard every vehicle depends on how much you percieve CAS as a threat.Part of the problem is it wouldn't even give you proper AA capability. You're basically saying 'let's hamper the vehicle's purpose for being so it can have a completely inadequate secondary role'.
Why is the gunner the only person being given the turrets? Logic figures 2 turrets equals 2 people, the gunner and commander. True, both positions should be able to control either turret in case one of them is incapacitated/distracted, anyways.You tell me; you're the one who said "he can effectivly track and engage 2 targets", which doesn't make sense unless "he" is the gunner. However, it's the same if the commander has the turret. APC and IFV commanders don't shoot at highly difficult-to-hit targets (e.g. aircraft), move around their vehicles, command their dismounted squads (why aren't they with them?), and do everything else they need to do as commander all at once.
The Main gun cannot elevate 75 degrees, and cannot depress by more than 45... And if the main cannot reach it, the cax definately won't.
Commander's gun/Pintle mount, same place, only difference is if he gets a gun shield/turret.Elevation and depression are not traverse, and ring and pintle mounts are completely different.
I also consider it odd that you consider a wieght savings of less than 50 kg worth getting rid of almost any AA capability your vehicle has (unless there is a nearby ditch/hill to ride the main gun up on [reffering to prefferance of M312 over M2HB]).I never said those things.
Would you rather give your infantry man just an AWP, or an AWP and a pistol, maybe a few grenades, and a shovel? Though heaven forbid what may happen if he tries using the AWP and pistol at the same time... It also adds to the wieght in his rucksack and makes him a bigger target, and slows him down a bit...That's a false dilemma, and doesn't really help you, anyway -- infantrymen are already overloaded w/o pistols and .3xx-caliber sniper rifles.
(you also replied 40 minutes after my last edit in your previous post)And now I'm replying several hours later. What difference does it make?

A turret less than 12" tall and 36" wide by 48" long is massive?

Feed through the roof to the gun, no ammo storage in remote turret.

I'm only figuring in the mass of the traversing/elevation gears, aiming, and armor plating, the rest of the volume is coming from what would otherwise have been the main turret.

Thus, I'm excluding the gun, feed, and ammo storage.

I already admited that a second turret (and if it is located as a coupala, it is still a turret) controled by one of the existing crew members would risk them getting distracted. Adding a 4th man increases the size of the tank [presumably by a margin greater than you wish to allow].

Extra ammo vs Turret...

I have no direct proof, since I do not know of any remotely controled chaingun mounts (of 40 mm caliber) and their respective volume/mass/effectiveness.

Making an argument like this also means you haven't bothered to look into the idea much.

Therefore, I guess any further attempts to convince you would be pointless.
Perhaps my suggestion was flawed, although why then, would 2 other people suggest it?

If you REALLY don't want an independent mount for the 40 mm then there really isn't much I can do to stop you, or convince you otherwise. This is the internet, and you are entitled to voice your own ideas. As am I free to voice my own suggestions.

It will be an interesting tank nonetheless.
PS I was using 'your' in 2nd person plural.
'He' can also reffer to inanamate objects, such as the tank...

A turret less than 12" tall and 36" wide by 48" long is massive?What's your source for its dimensions (and again, how could something carrying more be the same size)? And yes, that is massive. Assuming you're not going to offset the main gun (due to length required for loading and recoil and the problems of off-axis forces during firing), you'll need at least 0.91m on each side for that turret (taking 36" to be its ring diameter, which actually fits nicely between the minimum requirements for 1-man turrets w/a single MG and 2-man turrets with a light cannon as stated by Ogorkiewicz), plus a large space in the center for the gun. RUAG's 120 mm Compact Tank Gun is 568mm wide; let's pretend a 135mm gun would be only 15mm wider (in reality, the greater internal pressures would require heavier and bulkier construction). In a diagram in RUAG's brochure for the gun, it appears the trunnions add about 110mm. Let's round the resulting turret ring diameter up to 2.5m to give ourselves a few spare millimeters to work with (we should probably actually have more). That's more than a third of a meter wider than the Challenger's turret ring. The distance from the Challenger 2's hull floor to its turret roof is 1.99m (based on data from the MOD's website); that's slightly more than 2.48 extra cubic meters to armor, which works out to around 3.2 to 4.2 extra tons of armor. Not much, right? Actually, although a small number, it's still significant, especially for a tank that's already heavy, since it's already severely limited in where it can go (bridges) and what can carry it, and we're not done, yet. Let's make the hull wider by the same amount (0.341m) to avoid making the tank horribly disproportional, and say the average hull height is 0.8m (probably on the low side). That's more than 1.63m^3 internal volume, or about 2.13-2.78 tons of armor. The hull also needs to be made longer since the larger turret ring eats up interior space; that's about another 0.71m^3 internal volume or 0.92-1.21 tons of armor. In total, that's approximately 6.25-8.19 extra tons of armor just so your 'little' turret can even fit; it will of course, add some more weight. You should also strengthen the suspension, use a more powerful engine, and increase the track ground contact area to accommodate all this, which will add approximately 63-78% the increase in armor mass (these components generally weigh about that much of a tank's armor weight, again drawing from Ogorkiewicz's Technology of Tanks).
We're still not done, though; let's go back to the width increase and ignore the increase in track width to make this easier. The new tank will be more than 3.8 meters wide without any side skirts (I assume Ezaltia's original specs were the vehicle's extreme dimensions, not hull length and width over tracks), so just about whenever you want to take it anywhere by train you'll need to take off the tracks and wheels (3.5m is roughly the limit for rail transport).
Remember that all of this was without even adding a fourth crew member.
Feed through the roof to the gun, no ammo storage in remote turret.If the ammo doesn't follow the gun (isn't in the turret), it can't enter it w/o a complicated feed system.
I already admited that a second turret (and if it is located as a coupala, it is still a turret) controled by one of the existing crew members would risk them getting distracted.Cupola, one-man turret, hatch MG w/under-armor control capability, OWS, and RWS refer to five different things. I'm not sure which you mean since you keep changing your terminology.
Making an argument like this also means you haven't bothered to look into the idea much.I didn't do the math until now, but yes, I did think about it.
Perhaps my suggestion was flawed, although why then, would 2 other people suggest it?Argumentum ad populum
If you REALLY don't want an independent mount for the 40 mm then there really isn't much I can do to stop you, or convince you otherwise. This is the internet, and you are entitled to voice your own ideas. As am I free to voice my own suggestions.I don't really care who's right; I care what's right. My opinion can be changed, but substantial facts and logical arguments are (generally) necessary for that.

What's your source for its dimensions (and again, how could something carrying more be the same size)? And yes, that is massive. Assuming you're not going to offset the main gun (due to length required for loading and recoil and the problems of off-axis forces during firing), you'll need at least 0.91m on each side for that turret (taking 36" to be its ring diameter, which actually fits nicely between the minimum requirements for 1-man turrets w/a single MG and 2-man turrets with a light cannon as stated by Ogorkiewicz)
-snipping math: Summary, thing'll be huge and bridges won't carry the extra straw-
We're still not done, though; let's go back to the width increase and ignore the increase in track width to make this easier. The new tank will be more than 3.8 meters wide without any side skirts (I assume Ezaltia's original specs were the vehicle's extreme dimensions, not hull length and width over tracks), so just about whenever you want to take it anywhere by train you'll need to take off the tracks and wheels (3.5m is roughly the limit for rail transport).
Remember that all of this was without even adding a fourth crew member.
I estimated turret size by head and arm lengths in the picture, unless those Marines are 2 meter tall giants. Plus, the turret is mounted atop a standard hatch, 24 to 36" diameter, more likely 24" ring diameter.
Plus I recall a comercial on a manned/remote mounted 30 mm gun for the M113 hatch... It's not a 40 mm though, so I didn't think it was relevant to my suggestion. Mounted on standard Comander's hatch.
So I'm wondering why you are using 2.4 meter turret rings to mount a 40 mm.

Rail transport is whatever standard you make it, 3.5 meters is the American Railway standard, South American nations and some european nations use narrower track, Russia uses utterly massive track widths when compared to most other European rolling stock. Not Sure about the rest of the world.

Me, my tracks have a width limit of 3 meters, anything wider just won't fit.
My roads and bridges are similarily built, makes it rather hard for the enemy to use HBTs, or even MBTs in my nation.

If the ammo doesn't follow the gun (isn't in the turret), it can't enter it w/o a complicated feed system.
It could be made to follow the gun in a basket-esque mount, following the turret from below the roofline, this causes the ammo to be less of a target to shoot at in an unarmored gun mount (armor can be added as needed in the field).

Cupola, one-man turret, hatch MG w/under-armor control capability, OWS, and RWS refer to five different things. I'm not sure which you mean since you keep changing your terminology.
I'm not even sure how it would be mounted, it could be mounted on the commander's hatch/coupala, or it could be mounted completely seprate with sensors mounted on top, or any manner of methods.

I guess a RWS with dual operation would fit the description of the most proscetive mount on this tank, since it wieghs the least, and interferes reletivly little with the crew.

Though I'd make the 40 mm mount optional for non-command tanks, rather than outfit them all wholesale.

I didn't do the math until now, but yes, I did think about it.
Argumentum ad populum
I don't really care who's right; I care what's right. My opinion can be changed, but substantial facts and logical arguments are (generally) necessary for that.
Thank you for looking, as it is clear you have greater resources at your dispossal than I do.

I'll try finding a valid link for info on the RWS mounted 30 mm on a 24" ring...
http://www.geocities.com/STRATEGICMANEUVER/sld031.htm
Video links no longer work, but it was rather impressive.

I just looked at the diagrams for the Panther2 that the germans were devaloping in 1945..


it is a bit like the stalin IS3, but (in theory) much better

Ever since Guderian's tank-revolution I would put five(5) crew in my tank...and give them ROOM

left front driver
right front co-driver (and hull gunner)
left center main gunner
right center loader and co-ax gunner
commander has communications and commands the firing and aiming.

the commanders weapon is usually LMG(you have to be able to MOVE the damn thing) and mounted on a ring-mount around the hatch giving all round fire-arc

this being modern times visuality is easy through pin point cameras and head-up display (360degrees in the cuppola interior, on a 6 inch band)

with modern laminate and composite armour's weight could be reduced to 50 tons abouts, and that includes countermeasure and an enging to make an M2A4 Abrahams look yellow with jealousy

skimping on nothing the tank would cost anywhere from $30 mil to $60 depending on what you want it for.

The main weapon would be a modern gun ranging from 4 to 6 inches (depending on role on the battlefield, a long range tank will have benefit of having MORE ammo, whereas a heavier gun will do more damage)
I would favour a few one-shot missiles over a co-axial weapon, given there being proper targeting systems and all.

Our Workshops have so far built 120 of these...mainly for export to custom desires of the buyer(s)

in OUR Armed forces they go in squads of four, one six-incher to every squadron, and in keeping with russian tradition the tank can move without tracks as well, over roads by preference, but not necessarily

just looked at the diagrams for the Panther2 that the germans were devaloping in 1945..


it is a bit like the stalin IS3, but (in theory) much better

Ever since Guderian's tank-revolution I would put five(5) crew in my tank...and give them ROOM

left front driver
right front co-driver (and hull gunner)
left center main gunner
right center loader and co-ax gunner
commander has communications and commands the firing and aiming.

the commanders weapon is usually LMG(you have to be able to MOVE the damn thing) and mounted on a ring-mount around the hatch giving all round fire-arc

this being modern times visuality is easy through pin point cameras and head-up display (360degrees in the cuppola interior, on a 6 inch band)

with modern laminate and composite armour's weight could be reduced to 50 tons abouts, and that includes countermeasure and an enging to make an M2A4 Abrahams look yellow with jealousy

skimping on nothing the tank would cost anywhere from $30 mil to $60 depending on what you want it for.

The main weapon would be a modern gun ranging from 4 to 6 inches (depending on role on the battlefield, a long range tank will have benefit of having MORE ammo, whereas a heavier gun will do more damage)
I would favour a few one-shot missiles over a co-axial weapon, given there being proper targeting systems and all.

Our Workshops have so far built 120 of these...mainly for export to custom desires of the buyer(s)

in OUR Armed forces they go in squads of four, one six-incher to every squadron, and in keeping with russian tradition the tank can move without tracks as well, over roads by preference, but not necessarily

So I'm wondering why you are using 2.4 meter turret rings to mount a 40 mm.I'm not; I'm using a 0.91m ring, which forces the main turret to be 2.5m for it to fit to the side of the gun, even with no spare room to the sides (those extra millimeters I mentioned would be needed for the secondary turret's construction).
I did overestimate the first increase in volume/mass, though; most of the volume above the turret ring is probably already there. "2.48 extra cubic meters to armor, which works out to around 3.2 to 4.2 extra tons of armor" probably should've been closer to "1.12 extra cubic meters to armor, which works out to around 1.46 to 1.91 extra tons of armor".
OTOH, when I looked for RWS under-armor volume to reply to something farther down, I found a diagram of Rafael's OWS 25, which carries a 25mm autocannon (similar under-armor intrusion to 40mm CTA, although much smaller ammunition) and a 7.62mm MG, and its under-armor dimensions are 1050mm (length) by 1067mm (width) by 1375mm (height), which would further increase the volume (back up to 2.35m^3 and 3.06-4.00 tons, with an even larger turret ring demanding further increases elsewhere). FWIW, it weighs one metric ton w/o the gunner.
Rail transport is whatever standard you make itTrue; that 3.5m limit is for most of Western Europe and Russia and at the high end IRL (and, FWIW, is already enough to require special planning of movements -- the tanks hang off over the edges of the railway). It'd be ridiculous to redo your entire rail network (or claim to already have a special wide-gauge one) just to put an AA turret on a tank, though.
It could be made to follow the gun in a basket-esque mount, following the turret from below the roofline, this causes the ammo to be less of a target to shoot at in an unarmored gun mount (armor can be added as needed in the field).That's what I was assuming; I've been ignoring the volume above the main turret's roof.
I guess a RWS with dual operation would fit the description of the most proscetive mount on this tank, since it wieghs the least, and interferes reletivly little with the crew.It'd require the least under-armor volume, but it would require some, reducing or negating the already minimal advantage of moving the gun outside the turret (Rafael's Mini - Samson - RCW has a 20kg below-deck assembly, but I don't know what its dimensions are), and it'd need to be rather sturdy to support a 40mm autocannon -- it'd probably be a bad idea to put a RAVEN autocannon on the roof of a manned compartment, and FOOB guns may have accuracy problems, which'd be very bad in an AA gun.
Thank you for looking, as it is clear you have greater resources at your dispossal than I do.No problem.
http://www.geocities.com/STRATEGICMANEUVER/sld031.htmHow many sites does that man have? O_o


I hate Jolt. (It logged me out while posting.)

I'm not; I'm using a 0.91m ring, which forces the main turret to be 2.5m for it to fit to the side of the gun, even with no spare room to the sides (those extra millimeters I mentioned would be needed for the secondary turret's construction).
A 0.91 meter ring sounds a bit large for an RWS 40 mm lightwieght meduim cannon.

It'd require the least under-armor volume, but it would require some, reducing or negating the already minimal advantage of moving the gun outside the turret (Rafael's Mini - Samson - RCW has a 20kg below-deck assembly, but I don't know what its dimensions are), and it'd need to be rather sturdy to support a 40mm autocannon -- it'd probably be a bad idea to put a RAVEN autocannon on the roof of a manned compartment, and FOOB guns may have accuracy problems, which'd be very bad in an AA gun.
Yes, all the gears, motors, running gear and junk will take up more mass than you just slung the gun alongside the main gun.

I'll look into RAVEN and FOOB (Fire out of battery)...
FOOB=~Disappearing gun
RAVEN appears synonomous with a gatling type GAU-8 derrivitive gunpod used by the F-4C...
I did find stuff about the RARDEN though...
Ah, you mean CROWS (http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/CROWS.htm)
('RAVEN' is just visable in picture)
http://www.defense-update.com/events/2006/summary/eurosatory06-rcws.htm

How many sites does that man have? O_o
Yeah, that guy is a bit eccentric, still, the gun and mount are real.
And it could be aimed and fired remotely.

Though I guess one would have to look yet again at arcraft (helicopter in particular) aircraft mounts to find a compact turret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ah-64
Armament
Boeing M230 Chain Gun 30 mm automatic cannon, located between the mainwheel legs in an underfuselage mounting with Smiths Industries electronic controls. Normal rate of fire is 625 rds/min of HE or HEDP (high-explosive dual-purpose) ammunition, which is interoperable with NATO Aden/DEFA 30 mm ammunition. Maximum ammunition load is 1,200 rounds. New `Sideloader' system demonstrated June 1994 and now installed in starboard forward avionics bay; cuts normal loading time of 30 minutes by up to half and reduces number of personnel required from three to one. Gun mounting is designed to collapse into fuselage between pilots in the event of a crash landing.
New electric turret under development by Boeing, which received two year, US$5 million contract in first half of 1999; objective is to achieve accuracy of 0.5 mrads compared with current 3.0 mrads. Gun, mount and feed system to be retained in conjunction with redesigned mechanical system featuring electric rather than hydraulic drive as well as digital control; result should be at least 10 per cent lighter and require one instead of two electrical boxes. HR Textron responsible for controls, with Boeing providing the rest. Prototype delivery is scheduled for September 2001

CROWS accuracy:
90% accuracy, moving target, moving mount, 30 mm autocannon, 2.7 Km.
Remotely operated weapon stations are not limited to the small arms - GIAT is pursuing similar capabilities with the TOUTATIS 40mm remote-controlled turret (http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/Toutatis.htm)demonstrator designed for integration in current or future combat vehicles (EBRC and FRES are currently being considered as platforms for this design). The system utilizes the CDI 40mm automatic, case telescopic weapon system firing at a maximum rate of 200 rounds per minute.
TOUTATIS is armored and holds 68 shells, and therefore wieghts something a bit under 1.5 tons with gun. 80-95% hit probability.

The gun looks a bit larger than I thought... And is that an RCW MG strapped to its side?

Dang... 1.2 meter turret ring, but that is with ll the 'frills' of having a crew hatch run through it and an independent RCS MG mount(s), Grade III armor, and internal ammo storage...
Dang you GIAT for making your gun so big...
Appears they made it smaller sometime later (http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/cti40.htm)
Think it could be shaved down to complete RCWS with an access hatch for changing belts?
Something around 0.5 meter ring diameter?
Gun could be located above or in front of a crewman's hatch.

A 0.91 meter ring sounds a bit large for an RWS 40 mm lightwieght meduim cannon.The OWS 25 is even larger with lighter armament; my estimate (from your turret dimensions estimate) turned out to be too low.
I'll look into RAVEN and FOOB (Fire out of battery)...RAVEN stands for rarefaction wave gun. Put simply, if you time it right, you can open the breech of a gun while the projectile is still in the barrel to significantly reduce recoil forces without affecting muzzle velocity. Of course, you don't want to be standing behind one when it's fired.
You're right about what FOOB stands for, but not what it actually is; basically, you throw the gun forward and fire it while it's moving to partially offset the recoil forces.
Yeah, that guy is a bit eccentric, still, the gun and mount are real.
And it could be aimed and fired remotely.He doesn't really provide any useful information in this regard, though...There's no way of knowing how much space it actually requires inside (same w/the AH-64's turret). This method of mounting will also have a very limited ammunition capacity.
Think it could be shaved down to complete RCWS with an access hatch for changing belts?Sure (w/o a hatch for belts; it should be linkless), but it'll be bulkier than anything for a 30mm gun; although a 40mm CTWS can fit in the space occupied by a 25mm M242, its recoil will be much greater. The 30mm M230 has a recoil force of 13,334N, while the 40mm Bushmaster IV has a recoil force of 62,272N. There'll be a further difference between the Bushmaster IV and the CTWS; the former weights 365kg and the latter weighs only 218kg despite firing more powerful ammunition. Ammunition varies between producers, but MLM International provides a projectile mass of 960g and MV of 1,005m/s for 40mm L/70 ammunition, while 40mm CTA HE is 1,000g @ 1,000m/s.

So, RAVEN is a fancy high performance recoiless rifle? (with recoil)

And foob is (almost) the equivilent to leaning into the gun when firing to offset recoil...

Hmm, if mounted forward of a crew hatch, it would become the world's most expensive pintle mount in a power failure...

FOOB would be better suited for heavy guns, rather than light guns firing HV ammo.
And nobody wants a RAVEN's breech pointed at their delicate head.

I suppose standard 24" recoil length would be sufficent, since the 90mm HV of some variants ofthe M36 had a (shortened) recoil length of only 36". Ring diameter was about a meter, since it was based on the M4 Sherman hull. The turret rocked when firing though, not a good thing.*

Same thing happened when they mounted 105 mm howitzers and 17 pdrs on the M4 turrets...

The Americans had a similar problem when developing their 75 mm pack howitzer (recoil length, wieght, and springs), they solved this by employing a lead 'sled' atop the barrel.

edit:
*3" AA gun M10, original 43" recoil length shortened to 19" so that it would fit turet ring.