NationStates Jolt Archive

Tanks

Viper Mkk1 Main Battle Tank
Class: Light
Weight: 56 tons
Crew: 1 commander(driver), main gunner, radio man, machine gunner
Length: 20 feet
width: 10 feet
height: 15 feet
main weapon: 105mm cannon (regular and explosive rounds)
secondary weapon: .50 machine gun
armor: 2 feet grade A titaniam coating
top speed: 50 mph
cost: 3 million

Rhino Mk1 troop transport
class: troop carrier
wieght: 40 tons
crew: driver, gunner
passengers: 15 light troopers
speed 55 mph
weapons: dual .50 machine guns
cost: $2 million

Okay, at 3 tons the Main Battle Tank is way too light to be a tank, let alone an MBT. A modern sedan weighs about 2 tons, so your tank basically weighs the same as like a fully loaded station wagon.

Bump the tonnage up to somewhere in the 45-70 range, increase the armor, decrease the speed a tad and double the cost, and you should have a good start. Also, your crew is too big. I would suggest either a Commander/Driver/Gunner, or Commander/Driver/Gunner/Loader Crew complement. You can't fit 6 men inside a modern tank, without making it much, much larger.

Only Three tons?
No way, the Main gun weighs at least a ton if you count the stabilization gear.
Not to mention the shells each weigh almost fifty pounds, and fuel...
The Engine, and transmission...
Maybe it was a typo and he meant 30 tons, that would make more sense,
but would be a light or medium tank

So that there can be more imput lets keep it on page one!

Okay, at 3 tons the Main Battle Tank is way too light to be a tank, let alone an MBT. A modern sedan weighs about 2 tons, so your tank basically weighs the same as like a fully loaded station wagon.

Bump the tonnage up to somewhere in the 45-70 range, increase the armor, decrease the speed a tad and double the cost, and you should have a good start. Also, your crew is too big. I would suggest either a Commander/Driver/Gunner, or Commander/Driver/Gunner/Loader Crew complement. You can't fit 6 men inside a modern tank, without making it much, much larger.

They ( The Israeli's ) can put seven men in their Merkava 4 tank!
Also why not have an auto loader to help the gunner?

There isn't any mention about what kind of electronics it has,
communications systems. What about fire suppression systems?
Is there a crew evacuation hatch under it? How much fuel can it hold?

I have list of other questions but I don't think that the 101 Airborne wants
to hear them all.

They ( The Israeli's ) can put seven men in their Merkava 4 tank!
Also why not have an auto loader to help the gunner?

There isn't any mention about what kind of electronics it has,
communications systems. What about fire suppression systems?
Is there a crew evacuation hatch under it? How much fuel can it hold?

I have list of other questions but I don't think that the 101 Airborne wants
to hear them all.

As to the Merkava, that may be true, but the normal operating Crew is 4. Certainly 7 individuals serving in such a cramped compartment would be... prohibitive to extended operations. I believe that the (time-tested) crew size works out to be 3 or 4, depending on whether there's an auto-loader (generally less efficient and less useful than a manual loader).

True, there needs to be more information, but I only wanted to address the general points first, then move on to specifics.

Yes the crew should be kept lower in numbers.
And I dissagree with the asersion that Auto-loaders are some how inferior to manual.
There have been some issues in past. Like the Russian tanks used in Desert Storm,
But the Israeli's and I believe the North Korean's have made some very good peices.

Yes the crew should be kept lower in numbers.
And I dissagree with the asersion that Auto-loaders are some how inferior to manual.
There have been some issues in past. Like the Russian tanks used in Desert Storm,
But the Israeli's and I believe the North Korean's have made some very good peices.

I was under the impression that NK still used chariots...except people have to draw them.

And I certainly agree with Salz that manual loaders are superior.

Well...

I personally wouldn't trust any North Korean designs, specifically because no one really knows how well any of their domestic equipment will hold up in a full-scale war, since it hasn't been involved in any for 55 years.

As for the Israelis, their frontline tanks still use manual loaders, so I personally can't speak as to the effectiveness as their auto systems, but in practice they must still consider the benefits of including a manual loader as greater than using a mechanical system.

Oh Crap! Did I say North Korean?
NO NO!

South Koreans!

Oh Crap! Did I say North Korean?
NO NO!

South Koreans!

I kind of assumed that's what you meant.

Well...

I personally wouldn't trust any North Korean designs, specifically because no one really knows how well any of their domestic equipment will hold up in a full-scale war, since it hasn't been involved in any for 55 years.

As for the Israelis, their frontline tanks still use manual loaders, so I personally can't speak as to the effectiveness as their auto systems, but in practice they must still consider the benefits of including a manual loader as greater than using a mechanical system.

The Mark four Merkava will have a ten round revolver which allows the loader
to manually load if he wishes or choose from presorted specialty rounds.

I have no idea why I said North Korean.

I don't know the South Korean's could still produce some good gear,
even if it's crazy expensive.

North Korean equipment?
Well who knows, it probably resembles the Ork trucks in 40k!

The Mark four Merkava will have a ten round revolver which allows the loader
to manually load if he wishes or choose from presorted specialty rounds.

I have no idea why I said North Korean.

It's okay, everybody's entitled to a slip once in awhile ;)

As for the autoloader... mmm, well, if it works for the Israelis, good for them. In extended combat operations though, having an autoloader break down is a chance that (as a tanker) I would never want to take. Plus, as Tom Clancy once described it, having a human loader means one more person in the crew should the tank ever break down, and manual loaders are generally faster than machines. Every second counts in tank battles.

Perhaps why the Israelis went with a 10 round magazine, rather than a single shot system.

I personally would want a human loader because sure, the machines don't get morale damage but machines can't talk with you. You can't communicate with a machine without it being programmed to talk to you.

Besides that on average a trained human loader is usually faster than an auto-loader.

Also, I know that top part sounds weird but it's the truth. You want to be able to trust your crew and talk with them. Besides that, human loaders can't jam or malfunction can they?

Tom Clancy ?
Are you serious?
He's never been in a tank. Probably never met anyone who had either.
I realize that he's the Face everyone sees when they think of Military and covert
actions.
But I'd hardly take his word as the word of God.
I'd much rather ask some one who actually drove and operated a tank / artillery peice.
Also the US Army is going all auto loaders by 2015. And several of the European's are
going to do

You still keep the Loader as a crew man, but now he has the option of presetting
cartiges he's likely to use.
I'd never take a guy out of the fight.

Human's can totally jam or malfunction,
loads the wrong round. Gets injured in the loading process.
But still it's good to have him there.

Just a remark designed to lighten the mood, not intended as the Word of God.

I would like to see links though about the US and European nations going all-autoloader by 2015... because that would require a large investment in R&D for the new autoloader, which I have not been able to find a trace of in the quick Google search I just did.

Just for my own curiosity

Okay I'm just annoyed with people doing the " I have a Rainbow six team... ANd a
Red October Submarine..."
The list goes on .
Now it's funny.

I'll see if I could find them, I was watching the News hour or maybe it was future weapons?
Anyway the US Army is going to replace their howitzers as they are now with auto-loaders. Retaining the loader possition, and the Germans of course on the Panzerhaust
2000.

I don't know for sure but a friend of mine who's German said that the Lepard is an auto
loader.

I'll see if I can round up the evidence to back my claims.

Howitzers aren't tanks. They don't need to fire as fast to do as much damage.



Also, ever heard of 73 Easting?

It was during the first Gulf War.

In this battle, the faster rate of loading by the human loaders aboard the M1 Abrams main battle tanks coupled with generally superior technology allowed American cavalry to devestate a much larger Iraqi armor force, in a very short period of time, with almost no losses to the American forces.

The T-72s being used by the Iraqi forces were using auto-loaders which required ten seconds to prepare a shot. In contrast, a good Abrams loader can sometimes load as fast as once every four seconds. The Abrams can fire twice as fast (15 rounds) in one minute compared to the T-72's six rounds a minute.

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RekT_O7yneI

Self-Propelled Artillery, not tanks that's what that is.

It's a neat idea, but the gun can only hold enough rounds (24) for 4 minutes of fire, before it has to be reloaded manually. It's good for a self-propelled gun, in that it can get a high volume of fire out quickly, then move, reload and fire again, but there's still going to be a lot of down time as that entire rack of 24 one hundred pound shells is manually reloaded, one at a time.

I am actually aware of the self propelled artillery.
And the Nilos wasn't what I had in mind.
But it's a good episode too.

Howitzers aren't tanks. They don't need to fire as fast to do as much damage.



Also, ever heard of 73 Easting?

It was during the first Gulf War.

In this battle, the faster rate of loading by the human loaders aboard the M1 Abrams main battle tanks coupled with generally superior technology allowed American cavalry to devestate a much larger Iraqi armor force, in a very short period of time, with almost no losses to the American forces.

The T-72s being used by the Iraqi forces were using auto-loaders which required ten seconds to prepare a shot. In contrast, a good Abrams loader can sometimes load as fast as once every four seconds. The Abrams can fire twice as fast (15 rounds) in one minute compared to the T-72's six rounds a minute.


I watched the Gulf war from my living room, I remember the T-72's and
how they were no match for The American and British Tanks.
But that's not just a matter of inferior tank design
And I think we can all agree that the T-72 was out classed.
But that the Iraqi troops were wholly untrained for a "real tank fight"

OOC: The newest autoloaders can load a round in five seconds. A good Abrams loader can load one in eight. So the newest generation of autoloaders are faster, but not the previous generations.

Thanks for the youtube though,
I don't get cable unless I'm in the hospital.
It's been a while since I watched Future weapons.

OOC: The newest autoloaders can load a round in five seconds. A good Abrams loader can load one in eight. So the newest generation of autoloaders are faster, but not the previous generations.

It's nice to see you agian.

Thank's for the constructive criticizim?

(This is my first weapons thread sorry)

Maybe make the Main Battle Tank a little faster (~45-50 mph on open highways), and definitely thicken up the armor.

I did...

I would go with an autoloader. It may fire slower, but it would never have a mental break down in the heat of battle. If the tank damaged enough to disrupt or destroy the autoloader the human loading it would be scared and severely injured probably unable to lift a shell.

I understand it far away for the part about the AUTOLOADER is. I just wanted to share my thoughts

Sure. thanks

I hope some of our rambling has been useful to you.

They ( The Israeli's ) can put seven men in their Merkava 4 tank!
Also why not have an auto loader to help the gunner?

There isn't any mention about what kind of electronics it has,
communications systems. What about fire suppression systems?
Is there a crew evacuation hatch under it? How much fuel can it hold?

I have list of other questions but I don't think that the 101 Airborne wants
to hear them all.

The only way the Israelis can cram an extra four people into the Merkava is by removing all the ammunition from the thing except for the 8-10 ready-fire rounds in the turret basket. If you think your tank needs only a hundred rounds of ammunition for the machine gun, and a handful of rounds for the main gun, then by all means do it. But the Israelis rarely ever make use of that ability. They prefer to keep those extra 40 or so rounds in the rear of the hull. Likewise that door was not designed to carry troops, it was designed to put fresh ammo in the tank a lot faster. They learned in the Golan and Sinai fighting in previous wars that one major handicap to their tanks was always how long it took to restock them with ammo, meaning longer times out of the fight. So the Merkava is designed around a fast loading door, and palletised ammo bins, meaning it can be reloaded in half the time of a Centurion or M60.

Modern autoloaders (The Merkava Mk.4 does NOT have an autoloader of any sort) can out perform human loaders in everything except rapid burst fire. And humans loaders can only get a few seconds faster if they have one in the gun, one in their arms, and one ready waiting really close. And after 3-5 rounds the best human loaders are too exhausted to carry on. A round every three seconds for three rounds, or a round every five seconds untill you're completely our of rounds, you make the call. A huge issue with autoloaders (And why Israel will not adopt them) is they take a long time to reload. Watch videos of the reloading of a Type 90 or K2 or LeClerc, it's one round at a time into the system. Watch loading of a Merkava, it's like speed-stacking a kitchen cupboard.

And like I said, the Merkava Mk.4 does not have an autoloader. It has a protected four round (not ten) revolving magazine that is basicly a computer controlled container. It leaves only one opening to open and close to get a round, meaning only one small area that something could go wrong if those rounds go off (As opposed to the gigantic doors on the rear of the Abrams, the entirety of which has to be slid open to access all the rounds). It's a safety measure, plus hitting a button for "Round 4" brings round 4 up, and means you don't have to search through your rack for the cooresponding type of round (Which is a major slow down to a human loader). The Merkava's semi-automatic magazine is not an autoloader, nor is it even connected to the gun, the loader still must always take the round from it and place it in the gun.

I hope some of our rambling has been useful to you.

Yeah I might just start a new thread with all these ajustments.
But thanks for helping.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk4.html

CHECK THIS OUT!

Tank Weaponry

The Merkava 4 has a new all electric turret developed by Elbit and subsidiary El-Op. Only one hatch is installed in the turret, the commander's hatch.
The improved 120mm smooth bore gun has been developed by Israel Military Industries. The new gun is an advanced generation of the gun developed for the Merkava 3. A Vidco thermal shroud on the gun reduces bending of the barrel resulting from environmental and firing conditions. The gun can fire higher power munitions including new 120mm high penetration projectiles and guided shells. The loader can select semi-automatically the ammunition type. The tank carries 48 rounds of ammunition each stored in a protective container. An electrically operated revolving magazine contains 10 ready-to-fire rounds.

The range of ammunition includes APFSDS-T M711 (CL 3254), the HEAT-MP-T M325 (CL 3105) and the TPCSDS-T M324 (CL 3139) supplied by the Ammunition Group of Israel Military Industries. The gun is also capable of firing French, German or US 120mm rounds.

The tank is fitted with 7.62mm machine guns and an internally operated 60mm mortar system developed by Soltam Ltd. The mortar can fire explosive and illumination rounds to a range of 2,700m.

The protection suite includes an advanced electromagnetic threat identification and warning system.


10P Revolving Magazine of the Merkava Mk. 4

A microprocessor controlled, fully automated, electrically driven, 120 mm rounds magazine. The system is located in an isolated space of the turret and is designed to protect the crew in case of ammunition explosion. The system is easy to operate from the crew compartment. The loader can select proper ammunition out of four different types and 10 rounds total.

Yeah I might just start a new thread with all these ajustments.
But thanks for helping.

Well I hope these arugments are somewhat helpful.

yeah they did

If you really want to design a world class tank,
you should look at;

France's Leceric,

Germany's Lepard 2

The M1 Abrams,

The Merkava series of Israel.

Those are the ones which really lead the charge,
each is better at some thing the others lack.

Okay you could look at Russian designs, but they've yet to test well in a war.
( not that they suck, but they've had a bad track record )

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk4.html

CHECK THIS OUT!

Don't argue with Sumer about tanks. Just don't.

Don't argue with Sumer about tanks. Just don't.

And when I'm right, I'm right.

There's the evidence.

This isn't going to devolve into a "Will Gillis" kind of pointless argument is it?

Eh, I still think 76 millimeters is a tad light on armor for a Main Battle Tank, considering the frontal (thickest) armor for an M1 Abrams is estimated at roughly 2 feet.

Disclaimer: Per Wikipedia

PEOPLE I GET IT!!!
Plz just stop

Just trying to help, yeesh :(

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk4.html

CHECK THIS OUT!

Tank Weaponry

The Merkava 4 has a new all electric turret developed by Elbit and subsidiary El-Op. Only one hatch is installed in the turret, the commander's hatch.
The improved 120mm smooth bore gun has been developed by Israel Military Industries. The new gun is an advanced generation of the gun developed for the Merkava 3. A Vidco thermal shroud on the gun reduces bending of the barrel resulting from environmental and firing conditions. The gun can fire higher power munitions including new 120mm high penetration projectiles and guided shells. The loader can select semi-automatically the ammunition type. The tank carries 48 rounds of ammunition each stored in a protective container. An electrically operated revolving magazine contains 10 ready-to-fire rounds.

The range of ammunition includes APFSDS-T M711 (CL 3254), the HEAT-MP-T M325 (CL 3105) and the TPCSDS-T M324 (CL 3139) supplied by the Ammunition Group of Israel Military Industries. The gun is also capable of firing French, German or US 120mm rounds.

The tank is fitted with 7.62mm machine guns and an internally operated 60mm mortar system developed by Soltam Ltd. The mortar can fire explosive and illumination rounds to a range of 2,700m.

The protection suite includes an advanced electromagnetic threat identification and warning system.


10P Revolving Magazine of the Merkava Mk. 4

A microprocessor controlled, fully automated, electrically driven, 120 mm rounds magazine. The system is located in an isolated space of the turret and is designed to protect the crew in case of ammunition explosion. The system is easy to operate from the crew compartment. The loader can select proper ammunition out of four different types and 10 rounds total.

Sooo, your logic is that magazine = autoloader?
Try reading your own source, you'll see I'm right. An isolated electronicly controlled magazine, seperating the ready ammunition from the crew (All like I said). The loader still has to take the rounds from it, and put them in the gun, and he still has to press a button to get the round from the magazine. All it is is a better protected system of ready-round stowage then the Abrams or Leopard 2.

Or do you have proof it's also a magical autoloader and the Israeli army just keeps the Loaders there for lulz?

Did you look at the web site?
It is clearly next to the Gun, Magazine or auto loader.
It appears to be mounted directly to the main weapon.
and please refrain from the " lulz" I'm a human and I wish to converse with people.
If english isn't your langauge of choice than use a translator, because.
( IDK my l337zors ) isn't fit for sentient life.

101 I'm sorry we've over run your thread. I figure I won this pointless argument,
and I hope I've not offended the 101 with my posts.

Good day to all

Did you look at the web site?
It is clearly next to the Gun, Magazine or auto loader.
It appears to be mounted directly to the main weapon.
and please refrain from the " lulz" I'm a human and I wish to converse with people.
If english isn't your langauge of choice than use a translator, because.
( IDK my l337zors ) isn't fit for sentient life.

101 I'm sorry we've over run your thread. I figure I won this pointless argument,
and I hope I've not offended the 101 with my posts.

Good day to all

Uh....no you didn't win this argument. Arguing with Sumer about tanks is like arguing with a bird about the mechanics of flight.

And if you're doing to complain about how people write (and, for the record, as a total grammar snob, I see no problem with how Sumer used "lulz"), you should probably stop the weird line breaks.

Did you look at the web site?
It is clearly next to the Gun, Magazine or auto loader.
It appears to be mounted directly to the main weapon.
and please refrain from the " lulz" I'm a human and I wish to converse with people.
If english isn't your langauge of choice than use a translator, because.
( IDK my l337zors ) isn't fit for sentient life.

101 I'm sorry we've over run your thread. I figure I won this pointless argument,
and I hope I've not offended the 101 with my posts.

Good day to all

Yep, "isolated section of the turret" (Direct from your reference) happens to equate to being attached to the gun (Which also happens to be in the middle of the turret, not very isolated). What's next, war is peace? Hate is love? The only thing you've won is a laugh.

And for my own ammusement, here's a video of the Merkava IV, including internal shots clearly showing the magazine in question and the loader removing rounds from it to load into the main gun, not placing rounds in it to act like a revolver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-GKplzI0k

Once again I challenge you to find proof that it is an autoloader connected to the main gun, not just your own wild speculation (The image doesn't even look like it's attached to a gun).

Sorry to dig this back up, ran across it when trying to find anything regarding 101st's military...

It's a neat idea, but the gun can only hold enough rounds (24) for 4 minutes of fire, before it has to be reloaded manually. It's good for a self-propelled gun, in that it can get a high volume of fire out quickly, then move, reload and fire again, but there's still going to be a lot of down time as that entire rack of 24 one hundred pound shells is manually reloaded, one at a time.
NLOS fires a 155 mm gun-howitzer shell that wieghs ~8x as much as a 120 mm APFSDS, with 8x the "Ooomph" behind it so as to send shells over the horizon after compensating for added mass, so a ROF in the line of 6 or 10 RPM and a capacity for 24 shells is pretty fucking fantastic. Especially considering it's significantly lighter than the M109A4's 40+ tons ad 36 shell capacity (~25 tons loaded).

Also, there's an external power-loader for SP artillery that has been in service since ~1964 called the M992 FAASV...
Now for the South Korean entry... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csw-TpYmYiQ)

A complete Orbat thread or something would be appreciated.