NationStates Jolt Archive

(OOC: this is still in the design stage)

R-1 Plasma Mammoth (Heavy commander tank)


13m length
4.5m width
4.10m height
3 turrets, 120mm M356 smoothbore cannon, and a two plasma jet turrets (Using technology from here) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554370)
2 x .50-caliber (12.7 mm) M2HB heavy machine gun
2 x .50-caliber M2HB automated AA heavy machine gun
1 x FIM-92 Stinger
A small cabin in the back to house a mobile command base for 3 people.

Driven by two MTU MB 873 Ka-501 12-cylinder diesel (one for front 2 tracks, one for the rear two)

Speed: ROAD: 65km/h (40mph) OFF ROAD: 32km/h (20mph)

Most of the hull and turret is covered in 6inch thick Chobham armour, using composites of steel, ceramics, plastic composites, and kevlar. The side skirts surrounding the tracks and the hull in between the tracks also have a layer of explosive reactive armour on top of this. Sloped armour on the hull in between the tracks is used to help deflect certain projectiles.

The Tracks themselves are made of 1.5m wide 4 inch thick steel with an inch of rubber covering them. The clever thing about having four tracks rather than two, is that if one trac either side are damaged the tank can keep going, albeit with reduced manouverabilty and speed.

The command centre in the rear can house three people with all the computing technology needed to view and coordinate a battle, as well as commuicating to other Mammoths and bases.

because it is too large and heavy to travel across a lot of bridges it can ford across rivers upto 3.6m deep.

http://www.freewebs.com/socialiststatesburtilana/Mammothtank.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/socialiststatesburtilana/Mammothtankannoted.jpg

Opinions?

I'd say it looks like a great target to drop a cruise missile on. The twelve foot height also makes it kind of vulnerable.
The comparativly low range of the flamethrowers (~1,000 feet according to Resi there) also means that their main purpose (clearing infantry, I would assume) is somewhat negated, since one would generally seek to be as far from infantry anti-tank weapons as possible.

I'm definitly not an expert, but again, this things main weakness would be its size. You've invested a lot of money in something which can be destroyed with a single bomb or missile.

Although this model is not good for commercial marketing, it's just too big and bulky, it's a great start for a beta version. Further compacting the weapons and other systems on the tank to make it smaller would make this one great machine.

The Flamethrowers will be bigger, with a longer range, and it's primary purpose is defence, hence the size, more intimidation.
Admitadly, it is rather on the big side, but we shall produce smaller and more varied types of flame vehicles.

OOC: Besides the fact that plasma can't be contained except by powerful magnetic fields that would render this tank's electronics worthless, and the fact that it explodes the minute it leaves its vacuum, flame tanks like this have been long replaced by flamethrower rockets (such like the TOS-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1)) have a range fives times that of it, and can be supplemented by a few other tanks and exceed the performance and versatility of this design.

And it can be put to a parade ground without crushing the asphault.

OOC: Besides the fact that plasma can't be contained except by powerful magnetic fields that would render this tank's electronics worthless, and the fact that it explodes the minute it leaves its vacuum, flame tanks like this have been long replaced by flamethrower rockets (such like the TOS-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1)) have a range fives times that of it, and can be supplemented by a few other tanks and exceed the performance and versatility of this design.

And it can be put to a parade ground without crushing the asphault.

Apparently the weapon has been NS daftroom approved
And due to the large tracks, with a layer rubber on, the finished tank is expected to have a PSI rating similar to that of a M1 Abhram, so it should be able to parade.

No.

No it has not.

Apparently the weapon has been NS daftroom approved
Not quite. It was talked about on Draftroom, and generally deemed feasible in mid-to-late PMT. In MT, it's basically impossible.

As for weight, the track pods greatly increase PSI, as does its rather tall silhouette. The wide tracks will also increase your turning radius, although I wouldn't expect the thing to be going anywhere in a hurry anyway...

Anyway, there's a hell of a lot more reasons why the thing wouldn't work, but I'm lazy. To hear them, I'd post the design on the ]Draftroom (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?act=idx).

Apparently the weapon has been NS daftroom approved
And due to the large tracks, with a layer rubber on, the finished tank is expected to have a PSI rating similar to that of a M1 Abhram, so it should be able to parade.

Please keep in mind that what I say is not intended to hurt anybody's feelings. I am merely offering my opinion on the tank itself.

The tank is a firepower wankfest. In terms of engineering and tactical application it is not a viable specimen. A vehicle of this size screams for the attentions of an attack helicopter with a tank-killing heavy missile.

OOC: Ahah id missed that post about people ripping it in NSD, I shall terminate my contract with ResiCorps as it stands, but I will continue development of the tank with conventional flamethrowers

OOC: hehe ok tbh i was modifying the mammoth tank from c&c, I shall deign a smaller tank.

(OOC:
My advice, such as it is, is to abandon any ideas of a multi-turret design. The concept was pretty much proven to be ineffecient in WWII, considering pretty much every multi-turren tank deployed in that particular conflict had a poor or checkered combat record. I believe it was the Soviet T-28 ('medium' tank) that proved to be the best of a rather poor lot, which isnt really saying much.
Either mount it coaxial with, or replacing, the main gun, or in some kind of hull-mounted configuration.
The best idea I can think of is a small, fast, light tank (Like the UK's Scorpion), which can get in, spray fire everywhere, and get the hell out before anybody can bring serious AT weapons to bear on it, because you can bet that once these things get recognized, every AT weapon in the local area is going to get pointed at them. Infantry haet flamethrower.)

The MilNet of the Confederacy of Third Spanish States strongly suggests the employment of a coaxial 30mm ZM300 Portable Autocannon (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=2606), as an excellent, much more flexible and longer ranged replacement for a flamethrower. The ZM300 is our take on the concept of the M307 ACSW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM307), and asides from conventional high explosive dual purpose air-bursting ammunition and APFSDS autocannon rounds, it also can be loaded with with air-bursting, white-phosphorous ammunition, and even with gyrojet high explosive anti-tank rounds. White-phosphorous will continue burning even after an individual has bathed in water, and is also an excellent tool to dissipate the smoke from smoke grenades used by virtually all tanks of the world. Plus, with a few modifications which can be made in a question of hours with proper equipment and facilities, the ZM300 can be converted into a 14.5mm heavy machinegun, should it be more fitting for the operational needs at a moment.

(OOC:
My advice, such as it is, is to abandon any ideas of a multi-turret design. The concept was pretty much proven to be ineffecient in WWII, considering pretty much every multi-turren tank deployed in that particular conflict had a poor or checkered combat record. I believe it was the Soviet T-28 ('medium' tank) that proved to be the best of a rather poor lot, which isnt really saying much.
Either mount it coaxial with, or replacing, the main gun, or in some kind of hull-mounted configuration.
The best idea I can think of is a small, fast, light tank (Like the UK's Scorpion), which can get in, spray fire everywhere, and get the hell out before anybody can bring serious AT weapons to bear on it, because you can bet that once these things get recognized, every AT weapon in the local area is going to get pointed at them. Infantry haet flamethrower.)

OOC: Or you could take a high speed IFV and arm it with a larger version of the M202A1 FLASH.

OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION
of the
UNITED SOCIALIST STATES OF BURTILANA


I shall take in to consideration all of these suggestions whilst designing the new series of combat vehicles.

Head of Research,BDOTP
Dr Marcus Lovewright

because it is too large and heavy to travel across a lot of bridges it can ford across rivers upto 3.6m deep.


Yes indeed. This tank under water in the mud of a slow river bed, 3.6 meters deep. A very interesting idea. Muddy swamps used by nations against such gear, would the tank get through the swamps?

How long you think it would take the tank to cross the wide river? If it would come out at all... And How does the oxygen reach the engines and the crew?

This seem to be quite a fantastic tank and i want to see more of it, keep it up :)

Far too big, every bullet on the field would be going for it.

Chobham armour. This British design is regarded as the best armour at present.

BUT

No way could it protect a tank from concentrated air attack. Which, due to the size of the tank means it is likely to get struck.

50cals? air defence, nice ideal. Most aircraft are too fast to aim at or do too armoured to do damage with a 50cal. 20mm cannon would be better.

6inchs of armour, all over, huge size? not possible. The tank would to be far too heavy. The engine would have to be immensely powerful. To move this vehicle to the speeds you wish.

Rifle the main gun. M1 Abrams tanks used to have smooth bore weapons. All well and good, but no where as accurate as British tank guns on the challenger series. Why? Rifling. I believe the Abrams now has a rifled gun.

We are looking into buying good military equipment. At the moment we are not committing to this design but we will contact you in a few weeks.

Gen. Hayakushi

Rifle the main gun. M1 Abrams tanks used to have smooth bore weapons. All well and good, but no where as accurate as British tank guns on the challenger series. Why? Rifling. I believe the Abrams now has a rifled gun.

Err, the M1 Abrams first mounted the M68 rifled105mm gun, based on the British L7A3, but converted to Rheinmetall's 120mm L/44, renamed the M256. The M1 Abrams still uses Rheinmetall's smoothbore main gun. Rheinmetall also produces the 120mm L/55, which is currently mounted on the Leopard 2A6 [and versions thereof, including the Leopard 2E and the Leopard 2HEL], and it is smoothbore. In fact, the Challenger 2 is having its rifled guns converted to Rheinmetall's 120mm L/55 smoothbore guns. The rifled gun is accurate for spin-stabilized ammunition, but most ammunition today is fin stabilized. Spin stabilization effects the penetration capabilities of HEAT projectiles; for example, the French [i]OOC 105 F1[i] HEAT warhead had to be fitted in a second casing, which had ball bearings separating it and the charge, allowing the outer wall to be fin stabilized but the HEAT to not spin at the same time - this led to the round being extremely expensive. The French Leclerc uses as 120mm smoothbore main gun, based on Rheinmetall's 120mm L/44, so the issue is resolved.

Spin stabilization also has negative effects for armor piercing discarding sabots, since it limits the penetrator's length to diameter ratio to around 7:1. It's important to note that modern long-rod penetrators, such as the M829A3 have ratios approaching 30:1 and there are current developments to extend this to 40:1. The length of the rod effects its penetration against monolithic targets, although longer, thinner rods are less ideal against explosive reactive armor and even ceramic targets; rods with a diameter over 4 times as small as the thickness of the ceramic are at a disadvantage. Smoothbores achieve higher velocities than rifled guns, as well, and therefore can be more accurate at longer ranges.

The reason why the Challenger retained a rifled gun for so long was due to the investment in the HESH round. However, with the advent of the American HEP - which is the same thing, but fired from a smoothbore - and the lack of export sales of the Challenger, excepted to the United Arab Emirates, it's no longer economical for the British to continue producing their own, unique ammunition, especially when it's inferior to what it can export. As a consequence, as aforementioned, the Challenger 2s are being rearmed with Rheinmetal's 120mm L/55 smoothbore main gun. IIRC, the Challenger 2s will also receive a new MTU engine. I believe this is being done fleet wide, despite the fact that around 100 Challenger 2s will soon be retired from active service.


Most of the hull and turret is covered in 6inch thick Chobham armour, using composites of steel, ceramics, plastic composites, and kevlar.


This is an issue inherent in tanks of this size. The M1A2 SEP has an estimated 24 inches (600mm) of armor on the turret mantel, according to Michael Green, and has an RHAe (rolled homogenous armor equivalent) vs. KE threats of an est. 940mm. As it stands, your tank is less protected - by far - than a main battle tank, but this is not a design fault in regards to you not knowing. It's an inherent problem in large tanks, because an increase in thickness requires a decrease in surface area. IOW, the M1 Abram's turret front has about 28% (I forgot the exact figure) less visible surface area than the M60, which is how it gains such an extensive increase in armor protection. Because you're not an engineer, it's impossible to design a turret with such a decrease in surface area for such a large vehicle. This is especially true when you consider that the increase in vehicle size will increase the amount of threats it will be subjected to. As a result, you will have to armor more surfaces. This will result in less armor.

Err, the M1 Abrams first mounted the M68 rifled105mm gun, based on the British L7A3, but converted to Rheinmetall's 120mm L/44, renamed the M256. The M1 Abrams still uses Rheinmetall's smoothbore main gun. Rheinmetall also produces the 120mm L/55, which is currently mounted on the Leopard 2A6 [and versions thereof, including the Leopard 2E and the Leopard 2HEL], and it is smoothbore. In fact, the Challenger 2 is having its rifled guns converted to Rheinmetall's 120mm L/55 smoothbore guns. The rifled gun is accurate for spin-stabilized ammunition, but most ammunition today is fin stabilized. Spin stabilization effects the penetration capabilities of HEAT projectiles; for example, the French [i]OOC 105 F1[i] HEAT warhead had to be fitted in a second casing, which had ball bearings separating it and the charge, allowing the outer wall to be fin stabilized but the HEAT to not spin at the same time - this led to the round being extremely expensive. The French Leclerc uses as 120mm smoothbore main gun, based on Rheinmetall's 120mm L/44, so the issue is resolved.

Spin stabilization also has negative effects for armor piercing discarding sabots, since it limits the penetrator's length to diameter ratio to around 7:1. It's important to note that modern long-rod penetrators, such as the M829A3 have ratios approaching 30:1 and there are current developments to extend this to 40:1. The length of the rod effects its penetration against monolithic targets, although longer, thinner rods are less ideal against explosive reactive armor and even ceramic targets; rods with a diameter over 4 times as small as the thickness of the ceramic are at a disadvantage. Smoothbores achieve higher velocities than rifled guns, as well, and therefore can be more accurate at longer ranges.

The reason why the Challenger retained a rifled gun for so long was due to the investment in the HESH round. However, with the advent of the American HEP - which is the same thing, but fired from a smoothbore - and the lack of export sales of the Challenger, excepted to the United Arab Emirates, it's no longer economical for the British to continue producing their own, unique ammunition, especially when it's inferior to what it can export. As a consequence, as aforementioned, the Challenger 2s are being rearmed with Rheinmetal's 120mm L/55 smoothbore main gun. IIRC, the Challenger 2s will also receive a new MTU engine. I believe this is being done fleet wide, despite the fact that around 100 Challenger 2s will soon be retired from active service.



This is an issue inherent in tanks of this size. The M1A2 SEP has an estimated 24 inches (600mm) of armor on the turret mantel, according to Michael Green, and has an RHAe (rolled homogenous armor equivalent) vs. KE threats of an est. 940mm. As it stands, your tank is less protected - by far - than a main battle tank, but this is not a design fault in regards to you not knowing. It's an inherent problem in large tanks, because an increase in thickness requires a decrease in surface area. IOW, the M1 Abram's turret front has about 28% (I forgot the exact figure) less visible surface area than the M60, which is how it gains such an extensive increase in armor protection. Because you're not an engineer, it's impossible to design a turret with such a decrease in surface area for such a large vehicle. This is especially true when you consider that the increase in vehicle size will increase the amount of threats it will be subjected to. As a result, you will have to armor more surfaces. This will result in less armor.

Challenger 2 is equipped with an 120 mm/ 55 (in barrel length) calibre/4.724" , L30A1 tank gun [4], the successor to the gun used on Chieftain and Challenger 1. The gun is made from high strength electro-slag refining (ESR) steel with a chromium alloy lining and, like earlier British 120 mm guns, is insulated by a thermal sleeve. It is fitted with a muzzle reference system, fume extraction and is gyro-stabilised. The turret has a rotation time of 9 seconds through 360 degrees. Because the British Army continues to place a premium on the use of high explosive squash head (HESH) rounds in addition to saboted rounds, Challenger 2's cannon is rifled, making it unique among the NATO MBTs. HESH rounds continue to be used by the British for three reasons; they have a longer range than saboted penetrator rounds, they are more effective against buildings and thin-skinned vehicles, and are also cheaper than the CHARM 3.

Wikipedia.

Yes, 1 has been fitted with the German made gun.

But this is under trail.

This Tank is certainly one of the best in the world. Even with the British gun, it can still take out anything else, its extremely well defended, and mobile/agile

Its defiantly up there with the German designs and the Abrams.

Only two have been lost in action. one to friendly fire. 2 killed.
The other, the tank was recovered and repaired, 1 serious injury.

Challenger 2 is equipped with an 120 mm/ 55 (in barrel length) calibre/4.724" , L30A1 tank gun [4], the successor to the gun used on Chieftain and Challenger 1.

Congratulations, you have ignored what I said. I said that the Challenger 2s will be modified with Rheinmetall's 120mm L/55 smoothbore main gun. Here is the article from Janes:

__________________

he UK has begun a Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT) Capability Sustainment Programme (C2 CSP), which aims to keep the vehicles viable until their projected out-of-service date in about 2035.

Part of the UK's recently formed Defence Equipment and Support organisation, the Future Systems Group (FSG), has issued an invitation to tender (ITT) for the C2 CSP to BAE Systems Land Systems, which is the design authority for the Challenger 2. The short-term aim is to continue to derisk the programme before additional funding is released.

The Challenger Lethality Improvement Programme (CLIP), which includes the replacement of the current 120 mm L30 series rifled tank gun with a 120 mm L/55 smoothbore gun, will be rolled into the C2 CSP. The FSG has been funding CLIP for several years, and the first unmanned firing of the weapon installed in a Challenger 2 MBT took place in early 2006.

Of the original 386 Challenger 2 MBTs, one has been lost due to friendly fire in Iraq and at least two have also been damaged.

Another aspect of the integration of this weapon into the Challenger 2 turret is new ammunition racks. These must take into account 120 mm smoothbore ammunition, which is a one-piece type compared with the two-piece (projectile and charge) system of the current L30 rifled tank gun.

Additional turret areas to be studied include the all-electric gun control equipment and integration of the General Dynamics Land Systems Bowman digital communication system.

The propulsion system may also be subjected to upgrade.

The current powerpack of the Challenger 2 consists of a Perkins Engines Company CV 12 TCA 1,200 hp diesel, Davis Brown Engineering TN-54 transmission and associated cooling system.

This could be replaced by a more compact diesel powerpack, which could offer a number of improvements since the weight of Challenger 2 has increased over the years as additional equipment has been added. This has lowered the speed and power-to-weight ratio, which now needs to be restored.

Some years ago under Project Exmouth, an 1,500 hp diesel MTU EuroPowerPack was successfully integrated into a Challenger 2 MBT under an MoD-funded programme.

This formed the basis for the export Challenger 2E MBT, which included many other improvements, some of which could feed into the C2 CSP.

The MTU EuroPowerPack was fitted into all of the 436 French Nexter Systems Leclerc MBTs supplied to the United Arab Emirates and for trials has also been installed in the M1A1 and Leopard 2 MBTs.

A more compact diesel powerpack would free up space for one-piece 120 mm ammunition stowage and a new environmental/NBC control system. This would enable Challenger 2 to operate worldwide, which was not an original design requirement. The crew could also have cooling vests.

Other aspects are expected to include an enhanced thermal-imaging capability building on previous work and an upgrade of some other subsystems that are now obsolete.

The Challenger 2 MBT has already been upgraded in a number of areas to meet urgent operational requirements in Iraq, including additional armour, dust-reduction measures and an overhead weapon station.

Of the original 386 Challenger 2 MBTs, one has been lost due to friendly fire in Iraq and at least two have also been damaged.

It is possible that around 250 Challenger 2 MBTs could be upgraded and the 120 mm smoothbore gun also be installed in the direct-fire member of the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES).

© 2007 Jane's Information Group


This Tank is certainly one of the best in the world. Even with the British gun, it can still take out anything else, its extremely well defended, and mobile/agile

Do you want a medal? We're talking about smoothbore and rifled guns, not the Challenger 2. It just happens to be that the Challenger 2 is one of the few remaining tanks with a 120mm rifled gun (the Arjun also uses a 120mm rifled gun, but Indian T-90s use a 125mm smoothbore gun).

This Tank is certainly one of the best in the world. Even with the British gun, it can still take out anything else, its extremely well defended, and mobile/agile

Its defiantly up there with the German designs and the Abrams.

Only two have been lost in action. one to friendly fire. 2 killed.
The other, the tank was recovered and repaired, 1 serious injury.

Quoting casualty figures is essentially meaningless in the current environment of tank development, considering no modern western tank has ever faced anything more intimidating than last-gen Soviet designs (I dont recall an incident of a European or American current-gen tank facing anything above a T-72, and those in limited numbers, and in the hands of people with inferior training.)
Its like pitting a F-14 against a P-51. The P-51 MIGHT win if the F-14 pilot is increadibly stupid, but in this case the P-51 pilot has WORSE training than the F-14 pilot AND his plane is undermaintained.

Until there's a war between European nations or a war between the US and Russia, casualty figures dont mean much at all.

And the M103 heavy tank has never been destroyed by any kind of weapons fire! It must be the very best tank in history, right? Saying how many were destroyed means nothing.

And the M103 heavy tank has never been destroyed by any kind of weapons fire! It must be the very best tank in history, right? Saying how many were destroyed means nothing.
That would be true, exept for one small matter..No M103 has ever been used in actual combat..

But I'm guessing you already knew that.:)

That would be true, exept for one small matter..No M103 has ever been used in actual combat..

But I'm guessing you already knew that.:)

I think that may have been the point :P

I think that may have been the point :P
I'm fairly sure it was..But sometimes it's better to make one's points clear, is it not? (no offense meant to either you, or Binary+2, btw)

Can I have 50 of your R-1 Plasma Mammoth please

That would be true, exept for one small matter..No M103 has ever been used in actual combat..

But I'm guessing you already knew that.:)

That was the point. How few tanks of that type of been destroyed by weapons means nothing.

OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION
of the
UNITED SOCIALIST STATES OF BURTILANA


Can I have 50 of your R-1 Plasma Mammoth please


To: 101st paratroopers
Re: tank

This tank will not be mass produced for sale, but we can offer you 10 of our fully operational test beds with standard flamethrowers, rather than the ones mentioned, for $60million. ($6million each.)

We shall use all comments posted here to build a more conventional and fuctional tank.


Head of the USSB LA
High Marshall Frank Bear

Head of Research,BDOTP
Dr Marcus Lovewright