NationStates Jolt Archive

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd23/hellenicpride/knight.jpg
Height: 2.44m
Length: 10m (gun forward)
Width: 3.66m
Weight: 50 tonnes
Speed: 60 mph (on the road)
45 mph (off road)
Crew: 3( gunner, commander driver)
Power plant: MTU MB 873 Ka-501 12-cylinder diesel
Main Armament: 120mm smooth bore gun (50 rounds)
Secondary Armament: M240 machine gun
Armor: Type 1 composite armor (may contain ceramic components as well as some plastic)

Dear Arms Manufacturer,
There are exciting new opportunities for the future development of your weapons systems in The Holy Empire of The New True Cross. We have opened up a Military Advancement Sector (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542942) in our capital and we wish your presence to grace us. We hope that one day our Military Advancement Sector (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542942) will be a who's who of the Arms Industry and we are well on out way. There are very few restrictions in place, and no restrictions on what you produce. Please consider the oppurtunity to expand your business and profit greatly.

Sincerely,
Elector General William Tie
Secretary of Military Advancement

OOC: your photo link does not work.

OOC: Link has been fixed

The tank is too light for the gun involved. If you want to have a 150mm main gun and a tank armoured to engage vehicles of equal capability, it's going to weigh something a little more like 90-100 tonnes.

And change the M249 to an M240.

What can I say armor these days gets lighter and lighter...also the tank is mainly relies on its speed for it to survive in battle. Oh and thanks for the tip on the machine gun.

What can I say armor these days gets lighter and lighter...also the tank is mainly relies on its speed for it to survive in battle. Oh and thanks for the tip on the machine gun.

New Aryan State is correct. As of now your tank is too light. You need to decide exactly what you want: a heavy tank or a lighter faster tank. You can't cut it both ways.

What can I say armor these days gets lighter and lighter...also the tank is mainly relies on its speed for it to survive in battle. Oh and thanks for the tip on the machine gun.

Yeah, well...your speed isn't feasible either. About the only way you're gonna go 60 mph period is with your tracks getting torn up and ruining whatever road you happen to be on.

[ You'll want a diesel engine or gas turbine for the powerplant. Hydrogen fuel cells, while more efficient, aren't energy-dense enough for a tank's power requirements.

Do those track skirts extend all the way to the ground? ]

Where's the write-up? Not everyone has time, but most do, and it's still a neccessity in many people's eyes. (I'm tired of telling people what a write-up is, some-one else do it)

Oh, and even 50mph is kind of on the edge. I'm doing a light tank that I'm thinking of doing to 55mph, but I honestly wonder whether I'll need special tracks.

[ You'll want a diesel engine or gas turbine for the powerplant. Hydrogen fuel cells, while more efficient, aren't energy-dense enough for a tank's power requirements.

Do those track skirts extend all the way to the ground? ]

No they don't extend to the ground if they do then I am making an armored plow instead of a tank.

New Aryan State is correct. As of now your tank is too light. You need to decide exactly what you want: a heavy tank or a lighter faster tank. You can't cut it both ways.

Where's the write-up? Not everyone has time, but most do, and it's still a neccessity in many people's eyes. (I'm tired of telling people what a write-up is, some-one else do it)

Oh, and even 50mph is kind of on the edge. I'm doing a light tank that I'm thinking of doing to 55mph, but I honestly wonder whether I'll need special tracks.

Ok, I'll place in more info on my write up when I get the time.

OCC:
New Aryan State is correct. As of now your tank is too light. You need to decide exactly what you want: a heavy tank or a lighter faster tank. You can't cut it both ways.

Actually you can, Main Battle Tanks need to find the perfect balance between firepower, protection and mobility. You can have a heavy fast tank, but it's going to be lightly armed.

Firepower is the ability of a tank to identify, engage, and destroy a target. Protection is the tank's ability to resist being detected, engaged, and disabled or destroyed by enemy fire. Mobility includes tactical mobility over diverse terrain on the battlefield, as well as strategic mobility, the ability of the tank to be transported by road, rail, sea, and perhaps by air, to the battlefield.

Tank design is traditionally held to be a compromise between these three factors--it is not considered possible to maximize all three. For example, increasing protection by adding armour will result in an increase in weight and therefore decrease mobility; increasing firepower by using a larger gun will decrease both mobility and protection (due to decreased armour at the front of the turret).

However, technology is allowing those compromises to be taken ever further. For example, upgrading a tank later in it's life with a more powerful-lighter engine will increase it's mobility which then allows an increase of firepower and protection while maintaining the mobility of the earlier version tank. The Leopard 2 being a good example.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, well...your speed isn't feasible either. About the only way you're gonna go 60 mph period is with your tracks getting torn up and ruining whatever road you happen to be on.

Incorrect, it's feasible. Just not recommended unless you have the excess funds and spare equipment laying around to replace the damage your going to do to the tank in question.

Oh, and even 50mph is kind of on the edge. I'm doing a light tank that I'm thinking of doing to 55mph, but I honestly wonder whether I'll need special tracks.

Yes, you'll need special tracks or you'll just have to replace your tracks more often along with the transmission and other vital components. But, for quick bursts you shouldn't really have any problems especially if the tank stays under a certain weight limit. In fact, get the parts strong enough and the vehicle under a certain weight and you should have no problem getting up to 55mph for certain limited periods of time. A good example is the —18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat). That little beauty was able to reach speeds of 50-55mph and that was during the 1940s.

Actually you can, Main Battle Tanks need to find the perfect balance between firepower, protection and mobility. You can have a heavy fast tank, but it's going to be lightly armed.
Correction. You can have a heavily ARMORED fast tank that's lightly armed, but only because you're cutting out a lot of weight by removing the main gun and turret, thus making it both light and arguably not a tank.

However, technology is allowing those compromises to be taken ever further. For example, upgrading a tank later in it's life with a more powerful-lighter engine will increase it's mobility which then allows an increase of firepower and protection while maintaining the mobility of the earlier version tank. The Leopard 2 being a good example.
I've been looking around, but can't find anything about the Leopard 2 receiving a new engine. Or were you referring to the Leopard 2 compared to the Leopard 1? You ARE aware that they're two entirely different tanks, right?

In fact, get the parts strong enough and the vehicle under a certain weight and you should have no problem getting up to 55mph for certain limited periods of time.
Probably. But then you'd most likely have to sacrifice just about all the armor on the thing to manage it. For example, the Stryker can hit about 60 MPH, but it's a wheeled vehicle (inherently faster than a tracked design) and is only armored against 14.5mm rounds. One shot from an Abrams (god forbid a Nakil) and it'd go up like a roman candle.

A good example is the —18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat). That little beauty was able to reach speeds of 50-55mph and that was during the 1940s.
Yes, but said destroyer was designed from the ground up for speed, and has about a quarter of the armor of the Sherman, the same armament, and a lower range. Infantry weapons can penetrate the armor on a Hellcat rather easily.

[ Replace 'feasible' with 'sensible', if you're going to be pedantic about it, then.

@Besantinum: Why have the little bit beyond the upper skirt (what I've marked in red), then?

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/blast_archives/skirtoutline.png

Compare to the Chally 1 (I've marked the skirt in the same red):

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/blast_archives/chally1skirt.png ]

Hydrogen fuel cells make a horrible power supply for a tank - anything heavier than a car, really. Verdant Archipelago wrote a good post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403654) on the topic, although it could possibly be improved. I know there are articles that have to do with using hydrogen to power tractors, since my uncle wrote at least one, but I don't have my hands on one right now - but, my uncle says that it would be ridiculous to use hydrogen fuel cells to power something the weight of a tractor.

If you want to keep your threads uncluttered you can post your designs on the NS Draftroom (http://s4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom) to receive criticism, and then repost them here for sale or as a reference thread - or whatever.

Correction. You can have a heavily ARMORED fast tank that's lightly armed, but only because you're cutting out a lot of weight by removing the main gun and turret, thus making it both light and arguably not a tank.

:confused:How is that a correction? You just repeated what I said, but in a different way. Anyway, moving on...

Even though the main gun is gone it still can be a tank, a be it a light one. However, if don't like calling a tank with a 30mm/25mm gun (that doesn't carrying infantry as then it would be an IFV)-a light tank. You can always call it an armoured reconnaissance vehicle.

A real life example for you (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stormer30/)

I've been looking around, but can't find anything about the Leopard 2 receiving a new engine. Or were you referring to the Leopard 2 compared to the Leopard 1? You ARE aware that they're two entirely different tanks, right?

Yeah, sorry should have been more specify. The Leopard 2 hasn't been officially upgraded with the more powerful engine, but the engine in question has been trialled on the Leopard 2. Who knows in the future in might indeed be upgraded, but until then...it will remain a good example, not great mind you, but good.

Better examples would be the Challenger 2 and the Merkava 4. Those tanks actually went through the upgraded and saw an improvement from their previous engines. 1200hp to 1500hp.

Edit: The Leclerc already has an 1500hp engine.

Here's two good sites to allow you to compare the upgraded engines to their previous versions. Site 1 (http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-9086.aspx) and Site 2 (http://www.mtu-online.com/index.php?id=prodenprhmv&L=1&motfile=prdiepmihe.htm&cHash=f810c21891)

Probably. But then you'd most likely have to sacrifice just about all the armor on the thing to manage it. For example, the Stryker can hit about 60 MPH, but it's a wheeled vehicle (inherently faster than a tracked design) and is only armored against 14.5mm rounds. One shot from an Abrams (god forbid a Nakil) and it'd go up like a roman candle.

Agree with everything you said, again the Stormer 30 being the best example. It's only armored against 14.5mm rounds and artillery shell splinters, it's armed with a Bushmaster II 30mm automatic cannon. However, it can reach speeds up to 80 km/hour or 50mph. So, reaching 60mph is not out of the question. Difficult, but not impossible.


Yes, but said destroyer was designed from the ground up for speed, and has about a quarter of the armor of the Sherman, the same armament, and a lower range. Infantry weapons can penetrate the armor on a Hellcat rather easily.

Hence, it's designation-tank destroyer or TD.

[ Replace 'feasible' with 'sensible', if you're going to be pedantic about it, then.

@Besantinum: Why have the little bit beyond the upper skirt (what I've marked in red), then?

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/blast_archives/skirtoutline.png

Compare to the Chally 1 (I've marked the skirt in the same red):

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/blast_archives/chally1skirt.png ]

Hydrogen fuel cells make a horrible power supply for a tank - anything heavier than a car, really. Verdant Archipelago wrote a good post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403654) on the topic, although it could possibly be improved. I know there are articles that have to do with using hydrogen to power tractors, since my uncle wrote at least one, but I don't have my hands on one right now - but, my uncle says that it would be ridiculous to use hydrogen fuel cells to power something the weight of a tractor.

If you want to keep your threads uncluttered you can post your designs on the NS Draftroom (http://s4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom) to receive criticism, and then repost them here for sale or as a reference thread - or whatever.

Thanks you two for the tips I'll make the modifications in due time. :)

with that hydrogen fuel cell tecnology how would you intend to either store or create the hydrogen gas required for its operation.


as far as i can tell storing the gas in a off road batle situation one hit by another tank or a bump could cause a leak of the gas and then one spark and BOOM.

but some systems do create hydrogen gas through a chemical reation or through elctrolsis of water. these system would be safer as there is not large quanities of gas stored. But neiter of these processes would create hydrogen quick enough to power any think waying as much as a tank.

I have to agree with the growing chorus: hydrogen is a poor fuel to use. The post that Castilla y Belmonte covers all the basic objections and then some (perhaps, since the II stickies are now "Under Revision", someone should make a Fuel Comparison Sticky for all those nations that want to use some exotic power source or fuel, so that they'll know what they're getting into...)

Personally, if you're looking for a suitable "green" fuel, I would recommend methanol. It's liquid at room temperature (unlike Hydrogen), and has more in common with gasoline in terms of engine performance. You should be able to build methanol-specific or multifuel diesel engines for tanks easily enough. A warning, however: I've learned from some very experienced designers in the Draftroom that multifuel engines - when not running the fuel they were optimised for - will produce less power. Expect ground speed to decrease, as well as reduced ability to deal with obstacles in your path.

With a well-funded research program, your nation can probably build methanol-specific diesel engines that will get as close as possible to standard diesel engines, pound for pound - but such a program will take years to bear fruit. Or... you could enter into a trade deal with a nation (like Trivalvia, hint-hint, nudge-nudge) that has already made those advancements and import the engines... ;)

Would lower gear ratios improve performance (but a lower speed, obviously) on a multifuel running on another fuel it's not optimised for?

I'm currently doing the write up for the Marauder MBT in my armoury (I wish I could put an ad somewhere for my armoury (www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534597). No-one visits and I need feddback) and I'm using an more powerful than average engine with lower gear ratios in hope of doing what I said above. So, need to find out somewhere.

:confused:How is that a correction? You just repeated what I said, but in a different way.
My point is the tank still isn't heavy, just a bit better armored than one would expect, essentially trading the weight of it's gun for a couple tons more armor.

Even though the main gun is gone it still can be a tank, a be it a light one. However, if don't like calling a tank with a 30mm/25mm gun (that doesn't carrying infantry as then it would be an IFV)-a light tank. You can always call it an armoured reconnaissance vehicle.
Not really sure that the Stormer is a good example. After all, it's got jack in the way of armor, a light weapon useless against enemy armor, and STILL only hits 50 mph, on roads at that.


Better examples would be the Leclerc, Challenger 2 and the Merkava 4. Those tanks actually went through the upgraded and saw an improvement from their previous engines. 1200hp to 1500hp.

Here two good sites to allow you to compare the upgraded engines to their previous versions. Site 1 (http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-9086.aspx) and Site 2 (http://www.mtu-online.com/index.php?id=prodenprhmv&L=1&motfile=prdiepmihe.htm&cHash=f810c21891)
I'm seeing nothing in the first link but idle speculation by civilians about what upgrading the engine could do. As for the second, you've given me a table of numbers. Care to add some context? Because the only info I can find on the Leclerc says that it switched it's 1500 hp engine for the 1500 hp EuroPack in the tropicalized version, and it still only goes 40 mph on roads, 30 cross country. Too lazy to dig up said info on the Merkava or Challenger right now, but would love to read any links you can give me.


With a well-funded research program, your nation can probably build methanol-specific diesel engines that will get as close as possible to standard diesel engines, pound for pound - but such a program will take years to bear fruit. Or... you could enter into a trade deal with a nation (like Trivalvia, hint-hint, nudge-nudge) that has already made those advancements and import the engines...
Not really sure it's possible for methanol to be useful as a tank fuel. It's got about a third the energy density (15.2 mj/L compared to 38 mj/L) of diesel.

There were originally plans to upgrade the 1,500hp MTU EuroPack for a 1,800hp EuroPack. The new power pack was physically going to occupy much less volume, and I don't know what other improvements were foreseen. I haven't really heard any recent news about MTU's development of the engine. I don't think it would see widespread sales, since for most countries it would be far too expensive to modernize their tank engines. Spain is already thinking twice about replacing the Type 570 FT tracks in their Leopard 2Es for the lighter Type 570 POs because it would require changing sprockets, as well. Spain, right now, is in the progress of installing air conditioning systems throughout their Leopard 2E fleet, and maybe their Leopard 2A4s. I would think that the situation is the same in countries such as Greece and Turkey. The only fleets that I know of that have actively upgraded their Leopard fleets are the Danes and Dutch, even though the latter got rid of the majority of their Leopard 2A4s.

There is a foreseen upgrade of the M1A2 Abrams turbine engine, as well, in the form of the LV100. I thought that the LV100 turbine had canceled developement due to the cancelation of the Block III Abrams and the Crusader self-propelled howitzer, but last news in 2006 said that it was still be developed to replace the Abram's ageing AGT-1500 gas turbine.

OK guys keep the suggestions flowing so that I can make more improvements to the tank. :)

OK guys keep the suggestions flowing so that I can make more improvements to the tank. :)

On the NS Draftroom you can ask anything you want, and you'll get as many suggestions you desire.