NationStates Jolt Archive


Zeere seeks specialized anti-tank vehicle design

Zeere
07-06-2007, 21:48
To: all interested parties
From: Col. (retired) Alan Walker, Assistant Minister of Defense, Protectorate of Zeere

The Ministry of Defense has seen fit to seek an advanced "tank destroyer" design capable of defeating modern main battle tanks outside the range of engagement for 120mm to 155mm main cannons. Armament to be specialized cannon and targeting system.

The design is required to shoot and retreat, thus the vehicle should be able to drive in reverse at at least 3/4 of full forward speed. Other requirements include either a low-infrared signature, or features to conceal it and finally, the vehicle should be able to attach a variety of artificial camoflage/concealment to be produced by Zeerian sources. Zeere will share production rights to the vehicle with its original designer.

Regards,
Col. (retired) Alan Walker, Assistant Minister of Defense
Protectorate of Zeere

copy to: Executive Chancellor T.G. Darkwood
The World Soviet Party
07-06-2007, 22:06
Well, I suggest, if you are interested, you check out this AT gun designed by us, we are fairly sure it can me mounted on an armoured vehicle, and it'd make for a good tank-hunter: M06 Tank Buster Anti-Tank Gun
(http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12331903&postcount=40)
Firehelper
07-06-2007, 22:31
Message to Zeere:
We suggest that you use a MBT. This is more efficient and more cost effective than designing a new tank buster. You may also equip various vehicles with guided anti tank missiles. These missiles can usually penetrate most armor and destroy most tanks. However if you insist on still having a specialized tank destroyer re recommend that you use a heavy 105mm gun on a light chassis so as to have a good reaction force against MBTs.
----Government of Firehelper
Zeere
07-06-2007, 22:59
Message to Zeere:
We suggest that you use a MBT. This is more efficient and more cost effective than designing a new tank buster. You may also equip various vehicles with guided anti tank missiles. These missiles can usually penetrate most armor and destroy most tanks. However if you insist on still having a specialized tank destroyer re recommend that you use a heavy 105mm gun on a light chassis so as to have a good reaction force against MBTs.
----Government of Firehelper

OOC:this vehicle is intended to supplement my light Border Guard units until Regular Army units can respond - guided anti-tank missiles are in my experience bulkier than AT cannons and of more limited ammunition, please correct me if I am wrong.
Red Tide2
07-06-2007, 23:09
You are, the latest Anti-Tank Guided Missiles can be carried and used by a single person. Anti-Tank Guns, on the other hand, require at least the same amount of crew as a towed artillery piece. Not to mention being less manueverable and more visible.

EDIT: I would suggest in for border gaurds, using Jeep/Hummvee/whatever mounted anti-tank missiles.
Zeere
07-06-2007, 23:21
You are, the latest Anti-Tank Guided Missiles can be carried and used by a single person. Anti-Tank Guns, on the other hand, require at least the same amount of crew as a towed artillery piece. Not to mention being less manueverable and more visible.

EDIT: I would suggest in for border gaurds, using Jeep/Hummvee/whatever mounted anti-tank missiles.

OOC: those are man portable systems, with engagement ranges within a zone of return fire should the weapon fail to kill its target or the target has infantry support deployed ahead. Light infantry versus supported-armor units have a poor level of success.

The intended goal of these vehicles is to give my Border Guards self-propelled and concealed stand-off ability against advancing armored units, hopefully knocking out tanks and APCs before they can engage my infantry in entrenched positions - forcing unsupported infantry units to repeat the Battle of the Somme while my Regular Army units rush to reinforce the Border Guards.
The World Soviet Party
07-06-2007, 23:22
Well, I suggest, if you are interested, you check out this AT gun designed by us, we are fairly sure it can me mounted on an armoured vehicle, and it'd make for a good tank-hunter: M06 Tank Buster Anti-Tank Gun
(http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12331903&postcount=40)

QFT!
Zeere
07-06-2007, 23:24
QFT!

OOC: QFT? I don't understand.
The World Soviet Party
07-06-2007, 23:30
OOC: QFT? I don't understand.

Quoted For Truth.

Just hoping to see if you would answer my offer.
Zeere
07-06-2007, 23:39
Quoted For Truth.

Just hoping to see if you would answer my offer.

I like your cannon's capabilities, would you happen to have a light chassis, possibly from a self-propelled artillery piece or APC and sights/targetting from an MBT to throw together with it?
The World Soviet Party
07-06-2007, 23:40
I like your cannon's capabilities, would you happen to have a light chassis, possibly from a self-propelled artillery piece or APC and sights/targetting from an MBT to throw together with it?

Chassis? Yeah, Light? Nope

I do know someone who designed a self-propelled, and Czechalrus has certainly designed his fair share of light tanks and APCs.

So yeah, I guess there are some lying around that could serve your purpose.
Zeere
07-06-2007, 23:51
Chassis? Yeah, Light? Nope

I do know someone who designed a self-propelled, and Czechalrus has certainly designed his fair share of light tanks and APCs.

So yeah, I guess there are some lying around that could serve your purpose.

Excellent, if you could find some to throw together, I'd appreciate it
Velkya
07-06-2007, 23:52
You'd best go with a light, mobile wheeled vehicle (like a HMMWV) with a mounted multi-round ATGM system. It's much cheaper than a self-propelled anti tank gun, with less detectability and increased mobility than the latter system.

Or, for increased coverage, go with a long loiter UCAV equipped with whatever you nation uses for an air-launched ATGM.
Firehelper
08-06-2007, 00:06
OOC: MANPADs are those shoulder launched things... Im talking about a TOW missile (which on a side not is capabile of penetrating all known RL armor)
Zeere
08-06-2007, 00:09
You'd best go with a light, mobile wheeled vehicle (like a HMMWV) with a mounted multi-round ATGM system. It's much cheaper than a self-propelled anti tank gun, with less detectability and increased mobility than the latter system.

Or, for increased coverage, go with a long loiter UCAV equipped with whatever you nation uses for an air-launched ATGM.

I'm afraid that I can rule out the UCAV - putting it in the air all the time would violate my border agreements and launching the damn things would require an airbase nearby...which I don't have. Again, range is an issue...I don't think that ATGMs have the range I need to keep stand-off distance. The HMMWV w/ ATGMs would be good for closer in engagements, but the idea for the Mobile AT Cannon is to engage at long-range with high-accuracy.
The World Soviet Party
08-06-2007, 00:15
Here are some that might do the trick:
T-17A Urban Combat Light Tank (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517287)
T-7A Light Tank (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12286858#post12286858)
Mongoose MkI Halladi Light Tank (http://z13.invisionfree.com/HNAM/index.php?showtopic=4)
БКЧ-1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12229296#post12229296)
БКЧ-T (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12331728#post12331728)
Бронированый Курьер Человека-Самоходная Установка (БКЧ-СУ) Armored Personnel Carrier-Assault Gun (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12443733&postcount=1)
2S7A self-propelled artillery "Гигант Грома" (Thunder Giant) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12380738&postcount=1)
Type 95 Self Propelled Howitzer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12672648&postcount=534)

You'll just need to ask the designers for permission, as I only sell the vehicles via license.
The Phoenix Milita
08-06-2007, 00:16
OOC: I think this is a promising idea and a viable alternative to missiles which, aside from the range concern, also take much longer to reload.(that is if the system is even reloadable in the first place.) I will come up with a design and post an IC response shortly.
Zeere
08-06-2007, 00:17
OOC: MANPADs are those shoulder launched things... Im talking about a TOW missile (which on a side not is capabile of penetrating all known RL armor)

OOC: Yeah, MAN Portable Air Defense System, like the FIM-92 Stinger. TOW missiles are Tube-launched Optically guided Wire command line; they're relatively short-range and you need to stand still while guiding your missile into the armored vehicle you're aiming at AND they aren't capable of penetrating the newest Reactive Armor systems with complete reliability or side-mounted skirts because the missile explodes prematurely, splattering hot metal all over the side of the tank without killing it.
Firehelper
08-06-2007, 00:23
OOC:
Im afraid I still must disagree
the M06 Tank Buster Anti-Tank Gun has a range of 1200m or somthing (accordign to the stats)
the range for a BGM-71 TOW is 3000m or about 2x greater
there was a fire and forget version but they canceled it.....
The World Soviet Party
08-06-2007, 00:28
OOC:
Im afraid I still must disagree
the M06 Tank Buster Anti-Tank Gun has a range of 1200m or somthing (accordign to the stats)
the range for a BGM-71 TOW is 3000m or about 2x greater
there was a fire and forget version but they canceled it.....

It's actually more, if you hold still and aim good, you can achieve a kill at 7Km, but you have to be lucky.
Firehelper
08-06-2007, 00:34
OOC: likewise..... if you somehow develop a fire and forget tow with capabilities of a smart bomb than you can use a ballistic launch to propel it to a rage several times greater than that (well finish the development)
Zeere
08-06-2007, 00:37
It's actually more, if you hold still and aim good, you can achieve a kill at 7Km, but you have to be lucky.

OK, let me clarify things: I am not going to use ATGMs or TOW missiles as my long-range AT weapon. This also applies to HMMWV systems as the carrier system for my long-range AT weapon.
Zeere
08-06-2007, 00:42
OOC: this system is intended to be a self-propelled, self-contained mobile artillery unit specially designed to eliminate armored units at long range with high accuracy while maintaining simplicity of production, usage, training and maintenance.

The rounds themselves might be semi-guided or with a ramjet rocket booster.
The World Soviet Party
08-06-2007, 00:43
Here are some that might do the trick:
T-17A Urban Combat Light Tank (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517287)
T-7A Light Tank (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12286858#post12286858)
Mongoose MkI Halladi Light Tank (http://z13.invisionfree.com/HNAM/index.php?showtopic=4)
БКЧ-1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12229296#post12229296)
БКЧ-T (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12331728#post12331728)
Бронированый Курьер Человека-Самоходная Установка (БКЧ-СУ) Armored Personnel Carrier-Assault Gun (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12443733&postcount=1)
2S7A self-propelled artillery "Гигант Грома" (Thunder Giant) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12380738&postcount=1)
Type 95 Self Propelled Howitzer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12672648&postcount=534)

You'll just need to ask the designers for permission, as I only sell the vehicles via license.

Zee Bump
The Phoenix Milita
08-06-2007, 00:46
IC/OCC The World Soviet Party, would you be interested in perhaps coupling your cannon with a custom tank destroyer chassis from Phoenix Dynamix?
Zeere
08-06-2007, 00:48
Zee Bump

Who would I need to talk to get production rights for the "Бронированый Курьер Человека-Самоходная Установка (БКЧ-СУ) Armored Personnel Carrier-Assault Gun" chassis and turret?
Siriusa
08-06-2007, 00:50
Looks like Czechalrus (http://nationstates.net/czechalrus).
The Phoenix Milita
08-06-2007, 00:54
Phoenix Dynamix would like to develop an all new tank destroyer for this project.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/NS1/tankdestroyer.jpg
We have not finalized the design, but as a taste, here is an image of the prototype. We are considering a 140mm rifled cannon as the primary option, though we are also considering 128mm rifled, or a 140mm smoothbore cannon.
Our 200mm cannons may also be adapted for this design. We are eager to work with any/all nations who wish to advance this project into the production stage. It will be able to travel in reverse at full speed, due to steerable rear wheels.

-Field Marshall Maximus Seville II
The World Soviet Party
08-06-2007, 00:58
IC/OCC The World Soviet Party, would you be interested in perhaps coupling your cannon with a custom tank destroyer chassis from Phoenix Dynamix?

I dunno.

@ Zeere

Well, you can buy them by just posting in the storefront, there's a link in my signature, New Soviet Storefront.
Zeere
08-06-2007, 01:00
Phoenix Dynamix would like to develop an all new tank destroyer for this project.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/NS1/tankdestroyer.jpg
We have not finalized the design, but as a taste, here is an image of the prototype. We are considering a 140mm rifled cannon as the primary option, though we are also considering 128mm rifled, or a 140mm smoothbore cannon.
Our 200mm cannons may also be adapted for this design. We are eager to work with any/all nations who wish to advance this project into the production stage. It will be able to travel in reverse at full speed, due to steerable rear wheels.

-Field Marshall Maximus Seville II


To: Field Marshall Maximus Seville II
From: Col. (retired) Alan Walker, Assistant Minister of Defense, Protectorate of Zeere

Re: Tank Destroyer design

The Ministry of Defense is very eager to pursue this project with your venerable group.

Regards,
Col. (retired) Alan Walker, Assistant Minister of Defense,
Protectorate of Zeere
Zeere
08-06-2007, 01:03
I dunno.

@ Zeere

Well, you can buy them by just posting in the storefront, there's a link in my signature, New Soviet Storefront.

I have your storefront in my bookmarks, I've got plans for future purchases.
The Macabees
08-06-2007, 01:36
An anti-tank vehicle should be lighter than the main battle tank you're trying to defeat - and cheaper. I would suggest an improved version of the Swedish S-tank, for starters. It's going to require maneuverability and fire power is going to have to be acquired through more unconventional means (as opposed to using a large cannon). I would focus on using missiles, as opposed to cannon fire. A missile will be more expensive than a round, but it will also be more likely to defeat the target (as you will never be able to compete against tanks on open ground). You should use various types of missiles. These include:

- Your standard top-attack anti-tank CE [chemical energy] guided missile. Given the values of front armor of NS tanks [and even side and rear armor] this missile should most likely be top-attack, and should shoot for a steep angle of attack on the tank - most NS tanks have some sort of hard-kill active protection system, like Arena/Arena-e and Trophy. A more modern, more expensive (say, within the ~$350,000 range - although if you mass produce it and sell it enough the price would go down considerably) missile can penetrate around ~1,300mm of RHAe [rolled homogeneous armor equivalent] which is far more than what is required to penetrate the top of a tank. This would easily be able to penetrate the rear of any tank, and most likely the sides of the hull and turret as well.

- A longer range, lighter missile which can engage a target at ranges of up to 20kms [or possibly more]. The conventional CE warhead would be replaced by four to five radar guided anti-tank submunitions. Each of the munitions would have an explosively formed penetrator [EFP] which could penetrate ~150mm and attack the roof of a tank. In this method you could engage and defeat large amounts of armor from a distance.

You could fire these missiles out of a main cannon. The cannon can't be large because it wouldn't be able to fit in the vehicle of reduced size (although if this was the size of the S-tank you could probably fit a low-recoil 120mm gun, although a long cannon wouldn't be required [cold launch the missiles]. A short cannon could also fire certain rounds:

- HEAT. HEAT doesn't require muzzle velocity for penetration. The velocity that is relevant is that which the explosive and the density of the liner render it, consequently, the penetration of a HEAT round is not dependent on the velocity it's fired at. Short, non-powerful guns are fine for firing HEAT rounds. Ideally, you'd use these rounds for low armored targets, as opposed to tanks.

- HE. High explosive; for protection against infantry.

Such a vehicle would require maneuverability. I'd think you want a turretless vehicle, since there would be a fairly large drop in weight (turrets are heavy). Maneuverability can be achieved by decreasing the ratio of the length of the track which is touching the floor at any given time to the width between the inside side of the two tracks. This can be achieved by shortening the length of the chassis of the vehicle. It's done by the S-tank and the French Leclerc, for example. The Leclerc does sacrifice profile, but a turretless design shouldn't have a problem with profile [it will be lower than any other tank]. Finding an engine to power it shouldn't be difficult.

Stealth can be achieved in many ways:

- Angling parts of the chassis can protect it against radar.

- Certain types of netting will not only make it less visible from the human eye and optics, but will also reduce its radar signature and protect it from radar-guided submunitions (like the ones you would use to defeat other tanks).

- Side-skirts and rubber can decrease the heat signature displayed from under the tank. This concept has been used widely, including the Ukrainian T-84.

- The Abrams has one of the lowest heat signatures coming from its engine, except the exhaust, and so maybe a gas turbine would be your best engine choice. Gasoline consumption problems can be averted through the use of an under armor auxiliary power unit [UAAPU] which will allow the engine to turn off when idle and allow it to turn back on much quicker [gas turbines are also superior to diesels in the time required to turn the engine on]. Newer gas turbines have decreased full consumption by up to 33$ [LV-100, for example].

What do you think so far?
Zeere
08-06-2007, 01:54
An anti-tank vehicle should be lighter than the main battle tank you're trying to defeat - and cheaper. I would suggest an improved version of the Swedish S-tank, for starters. It's going to require maneuverability and fire power is going to have to be acquired through more unconventional means (as opposed to using a large cannon). I would focus on using missiles, as opposed to cannon fire. A missile will be more expensive than a round, but it will also be more likely to defeat the target (as you will never be able to compete against tanks on open ground). You should use various types of missiles. These include:

- Your standard top-attack anti-tank CE [chemical energy] guided missile. Given the values of front armor of NS tanks [and even side and rear armor] this missile should most likely be top-attack, and should shoot for a steep angle of attack on the tank - most NS tanks have some sort of hard-kill active protection system, like Arena/Arena-e and Trophy. A more modern, more expensive (say, within the ~$350,000 range - although if you mass produce it and sell it enough the price would go down considerably) missile can penetrate around ~1,300mm of RHAe [rolled homogeneous armor equivalent] which is far more than what is required to penetrate the top of a tank. This would easily be able to penetrate the rear of any tank, and most likely the sides of the hull and turret as well.

- A longer range, lighter missile which can engage a target at ranges of up to 20kms [or possibly more]. The conventional CE warhead would be replaced by four to five radar guided anti-tank submunitions. Each of the munitions would have an explosively formed penetrator [EFP] which could penetrate ~150mm and attack the roof of a tank. In this method you could engage and defeat large amounts of armor from a distance.

You could fire these missiles out of a main cannon. The cannon can't be large because it wouldn't be able to fit in the vehicle of reduced size (although if this was the size of the S-tank you could probably fit a low-recoil 120mm gun, although a long cannon wouldn't be required [cold launch the missiles]. A short cannon could also fire certain rounds:

- HEAT. HEAT doesn't require muzzle velocity for penetration. The velocity that is relevant is that which the explosive and the density of the liner render it, consequently, the penetration of a HEAT round is not dependent on the velocity it's fired at. Short, non-powerful guns are fine for firing HEAT rounds. Ideally, you'd use these rounds for low armored targets, as opposed to tanks.

- HE. High explosive; for protection against infantry.

Such a vehicle would require maneuverability. I'd think you want a turretless vehicle, since there would be a fairly large drop in weight (turrets are heavy). Maneuverability can be achieved by decreasing the ratio of the length of the track which is touching the floor at any given time to the width between the inside side of the two tracks. This can be achieved by shortening the length of the chassis of the vehicle. It's done by the S-tank and the French Leclerc, for example. The Leclerc does sacrifice profile, but a turretless design shouldn't have a problem with profile [it will be lower than any other tank]. Finding an engine to power it shouldn't be difficult.

Stealth can be achieved in many ways:

- Angling parts of the chassis can protect it against radar.

- Certain types of netting will not only make it less visible from the human eye and optics, but will also reduce its radar signature and protect it from radar-guided submunitions (like the ones you would use to defeat other tanks).

- Side-skirts and rubber can decrease the heat signature displayed from under the tank. This concept has been used widely, including the Ukrainian T-84.

- The Abrams has one of the lowest heat signatures coming from its engine, except the exhaust, and so maybe a gas turbine would be your best engine choice. Gasoline consumption problems can be averted through the use of an under armor auxiliary power unit [UAAPU] which will allow the engine to turn off when idle and allow it to turn back on much quicker [gas turbines are also superior to diesels in the time required to turn the engine on]. Newer gas turbines have decreased full consumption by up to 33$ [LV-100, for example].

What do you think so far?

OOC: I think we have a winner. Everyone, thank you for coming out, but I've got exactly what I had in mind. Macabees, if you could formalize this design, I guarantee a significant purchase of both vehicle and munitions.
The Phoenix Milita
08-06-2007, 02:07
Phoenix Dynamix started firing missiles out of 140mm cannons 4 years ago. :D
The Macabees
08-06-2007, 02:28
Give me tomorrow to write it up (although I have to grab a pit for a bonfire tomorrow early in the morning); I'll probably try to draw it, as well. But, I'll write up the information first.
Zeere
08-06-2007, 02:42
Give me tomorrow to write it up (although I have to grab a pit for a bonfire tomorrow early in the morning); I'll probably try to draw it, as well. But, I'll write up the information first.

Thanks, very much appreciated. Bonfire eh? I've gotta get one of those going sometime
The Macabees
11-06-2007, 16:51
I haven't forgotten about this! I've been busy over the weekend, but I will be able to get to it within the next couple of days (or today, even).
Firehelper
13-06-2007, 12:49
you forgot tandem HEAT..... or it would be very hard pressed to defeat reactive armor.
The Phoenix Milita
13-06-2007, 12:56
I left this thread, but since I did make the tank destroyer because of your initial request, even though you said you were going with The Maccabees "design" heres a link if you are interested in taking a look.
---
Phoenix Dynamix has completed tested and sold the M-124 Tank Destroyer. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529324)
We have already sold 1051 copies and are awaiting after action reports form real world combat exercises.
The Macabees
13-06-2007, 20:22
you forgot tandem HEAT..... or it would be very hard pressed to defeat reactive armor.

When I say HEAT I assume that it will be a tandem warhead.
The PeoplesFreedom
13-06-2007, 20:31
lol Mac, I am working on a design very similar to this.
The Macabees
13-06-2007, 21:20
http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=395