HOME | DD
SixthCircle β HT9A8 'Istrenyr' Urban Combat Package [Coloured]
Published: 2013-09-26 03:38:07 +0000 UTC; Views: 24663; Favourites: 231; Downloads: 293
Redirect to original
Description
What it says on the tin. Changes to the base HT9A8 include a thicker forward ERA array, full NERA coverage by lowered and thicker side-skirts, slat armour around the engine block, a 360 degrees camera mounted on the Multipurpose Sensor Mast, the use of a 25mm airburst AGL in the RWS block, modifications to allow wireless communications with infantry within 200m of the vehicle and a universal electronics recharge point and provisions for the storage of up to 400kg of equipment at the back of the tank.E: And here, a brief timeline of the HT9A8's development -
- 1971: Directorate of Armaments and Procurement (DAP, now the Army OTD) initiates studies into the development of a deep modernisation package for the HT6A4 Alentyr C Main Battle Tank, then in development.
- 1975: The 120mm armed HT6A5 Alentyr D 'Artal' enters production. The DAP approves the formation of a number of small scale study groups under the auspices of various state arsenals to look into conceptual developments towards an eventual successor for the second generation HT6 series.
- 1978: A full scale development group is established under Section 2 of the DAP's Land Warfare Office to develop the HT6A6 upgrade package for the Alentyr D.
- 1979: Senior members of the DAP go on record as having serious reservations about plans to retain the HT6 as a mainline battle tank into the 1980s.
- 1980: Direct intervention by the Chief of the Army Staff leads to the full closure of the 1975 study groups, the then commander of DAP's Land Warfare Office (Colonel Tersi Solendyr) and twenty-four additional officers tender resignations over the decision.
- 1981: Introduction of the Alentyr D2 (HT6A7) upgrade package into service.
- 1983: An inquiry by Imperial mandate (headed by Baron Illen) finds that the Alentyr D2 is significantly inferior to numerous 'third generation' main battle tanks then entering service in areas ranging from armament and protection to electronics and mobility.
- 1984: Following an internal consultation by the Imperial Army, the DAP is instructed to pursue the immediate development of a third generation main battle tank.
- 1985: Study of concepts for the YT7 is produced, DAP Section 2 establishes a separate research group with corporate branches towards the development of principles of technology for a future main battle tank.
- 1988: The initial technical trialing vehicles are completed.
- 1990: The first eleven production prototypes are presented to the DAP, an extension of the trial period is requested by the DAP but rejected by the Army.
- 1992: Initial deliveries of the new tank to the Imperial Army, enters service as the HT7 'Fyrdestyr'. The new tank's performance reports are not released to the Imperial Staff as scheduled.
- 1993: The 15th Brigade of Heavy Horse's commanding officer refuses to re-equip his unit with HT7 tanks and is dishonourably discharged.
- 1994: Announcement of the 'Millenium' armed forces modernisation project and the establishment of direct Crown oversight into the modernisastion process itself. The forced release of the HT7's performance figures and financial irregularities point to significant misconduct concerning procurement at higher levels of the army, culminating in the then-Chief of the Army Staff's suicide and forced resignation of half of the Army Staff in its wake. The emergency procurement of the HT8 (Leclerc) Main Battle Tank is approved.
- 1997: First Leclerc-equipped brigade is rotated out of training into active service.
- 1998: An internal agreement is reached between the new Army Staff and the Army's new Office of Technological Development concerning the development of a successor to the HT8, whereby the initial development of a successor would be carried out by a state-owned corporate conglomerate from design principles established by the DAP's research groups while a longer-term developmental project would be pursued by a production group formed and headed by the OTD.
- 1999: Army issues official Request For Information for a domestically designed MBT to replace the HT8.
- 2001: Fierei-Oblastinei Automotives and Metalworks Group established via the intervention of the Army and secures the production contract for the now designated YT9 tank.
- 2003: Conceptual studies produced by the OTD for 'Tank 2015'.
- 2004: Technical prototypes for the HT9 series completed and presented to the Army by FOAM.
- 2006: First production prototype of the HT9 (the HT9A6 model) dispatched for field testing in Asakura. Following reservations voiced by the OTD concerning the proposed 140mm armament for the HT9, a prototype 128mm high performance gun is built to the OTD's specifications and tested on an HT9A6 chassis as the HT9-128.
- 2008: Finalisation of the HT9A7 design and delivery of the first production prototype to the Army.
- 2009: OTD completes production of first four technical prototypes (three automotive and one for basic armament testing) for the then-designated 'HT9-2015' in early 2009, followed by two additional prototypes for electronics and FCS testing.
- 2010: First deliveries of the HT9A7 to frontline units.
- 2011: Completion of the final SC12.4 128mm cannon design.
- 2012: First delivery of the OTD's 'HT9-2015' production prototype vehicle to the Crown Army, accepted into service as the HT9A8 and entering production within two months.
- 2013: First deliveries of the HT9A8 to frontline units.
Related content
Comments: 36
Great tank design. The specs are great btw. Would love to see these bad boys rolling on today's battlefields. I'm guessing the penetration ranges and KE of the 128mm gun are superior to the current 120 and 125mm smooth bore guns.
π: 0 β©: 1
Many kind thanks! The concept behind the whole thing was essentially to maximise the penetration potential of the 128mm gun - hence the incredibly long tailored propellant geometry rounds, amongst other things. The KEPs were designed with lateral stresses in mind, so in theory they should also be more resilient to the current generation of MBT protection (HERA, Leo 2A5 wedge, etc).
That having been said, the whole package looks a bit too big for my liking, so my current objective is to fit all that into a decisively smaller package (erring closer to 60t rather than 70, ideally). Sadly, I have ideas aplenty but not all that much time to put them into action! :,)
π: 0 β©: 1
A inproved 128mm gun would have a devastating effect on any armored target. The KE delivered with APFSDS rounds would be devastating.
It also offers capacity for larger guided missiles if avaliable.
I remember the first version of the HT9A8 and if you compare it with the latest version you can see the changes are no little and protection/survivability of crew plus passive, active and reactive defences have been upgraded to a whole new evel.
The new package may look a bit too big for urban warfare but not for open theaters of operations. The main gun is optimized for long range fire and the vehicle itself is configured to be used ideally in open areas.
You could make a smaller/compack package for urban warfare maybe with shorter gun and as said a more compact shape keeping maximun weight in the order of 60tons.
My tanks were made with the possibility of reaching up to 80 tons in most cases and up tp 100 tons in a few prototypes. However max weight is kept in 60 to 70 tons as maximun for obvious reasons.
I have the same problem here. Plenty of ideas, lots of stuff half done and no enough time to put them all to roll.
π: 0 β©: 1
That was effectively the plan, indeed. But I did do this a long time ago, and since then my thinking has shifted somewhat (ironically enough, much like the Bundeswehr's thinking changed in the 80s) towards min-maxing my tank designs so that they can be kept in a reasonable size/weight range while still maximising punch and protection. I have some broad concepts in mind, but sadly drawing a new MBT is the trickiest project of them all - hopefully I'll be able to make something of it sooner rather than later!
π: 0 β©: 1
Drawing a new BTW is challenthing, specially if you are going for a whole new track, suspension wheels... I find it to be the most time-consuming part of tanks.
π: 0 β©: 1
God, yeah, I heartily agree. Thankfully I'm quite happy with the drivetrain of the HT9 series, which means I wouldn't have to work on tracks for a new MBT, but I have at least two projects that have stalled because I just can't find the willpower to draw those damn parts
π: 0 β©: 1
I have a hull with wheels, tracks and suspension which was used for my first tank hunters. It's the hull alone, nothing have been added but some minor details. I can give you that and you can build up anything you want, add side skirts and all. May work your new models of tanks or other tracked vehicles that you had in mind.
Β
I draw my vehicles and tanks with a simple design adding new parts later. I call it modular drawing. I generate a large amounts of parts every time I'm drawing something. Also some parts like suspension are drawn separately and assembled in modules which are added to the hull later.
I could show you one of my raw drawing. It's full or shapes and parts. I like to experiment with shapes and stuff. It gives the advantage of using parts for new vehicles enhancing modularity and saving up time.
π: 0 β©: 0
Would it be ok if I used your artwork to represent a tank I designed for a role playing gameΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
Which roleplaying game?
π: 0 β©: 1
in which case the answer will have to be no, as I've designed all of these for Nationstates
π: 0 β©: 0
Like to roll a few hundred of these into Keiv.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, I am because I dont like it when Nazis are in power. Also I would not mind rolling these bad boys into the Crimea.
π: 0 β©: 1
Neo-Nazis. Not Nazis.
It's not as though things were much better before Euromaidan anyway - or before Yanukovych. When all the cards in your hands are bad, what can you possibly play?
π: 0 β©: 2
I count Ukranians as NAZIS, why? The sided with Hitler...
π: 0 β©: 0
That last line is going on Twitter. And I am considering a RP of the Ukraine crisis, Anemos Major would be invited.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ack, and here I was planning to use it in an essay.
I'm afraid I'll have to pass - no time!
π: 0 β©: 1
Its a good quote
And well I would expect at least a short Paragraph on the weekend. And i have not fleshed it out.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you.
I'm afraid I won't be able to participate, I'm too busy with revision.
π: 0 β©: 1
You dont have to participate that much. I have not spread it that much. Shit, gonna have to perhaps do that.
π: 0 β©: 0
All about the context. Thanks kindly!
π: 0 β©: 0
LooksΒ good.Β TheΒ commandersΒ weaponΒ should be a 25mm and the loaders shouldΒ be a m134 mingun
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks!
As for the suggestions, well - with the commander on this tank, the RWS (Remote Weapons Station) effectively operates along modular block principles, which allows different weapons to be swapped in and out of the system as desired. The standard configuration HT9A8 actually uses a 20mm autocannon on the high elevation mount used here - 25mm rounds tend to be large, and sticking with a 20mm lets the weapon do most of what I need it to do without having to store the additional bulk of 25mm cans inside the tank (not to mention reloading them). Bear in mind that the round used is a fairly large 20mm CTA round with high performance propellants; compared to the M242, this thing's going to be able to achieve similar, if not superior, levels of target penetration. In this configuration, the 25mm isn't actually an autocannon, it's a 'smart' automatic grenade launcher; since it's an urban warfare tank, being able to lob airburst grenades into buildings is probably going to be a bit more useful than having 20mm's worth of armour penetration power.
With the loader's gun, there're two points; firstly, this tank doesn't actually have a loader. Unlike the Abrams, or the Chally II, the Ariete, Leopard 2 and so on, the HT9A8 actually uses an autoloader system in the back of the tank and runs on a three-man crew; the 128mm rounds used in this tank are fairly large and single-piece, so much so that a human loader might have trouble loading them. This is the 21st century, and autoloaders have improved correspondingly; for the most part, especially as an engagement draws out, the autoloader gives the HT9A8 higher rates of fire than a corresponding tank with a human loader would. If I had a loader? M134's not the best choice; miniguns spend a whole lot of electricity and ammunition spraying rounds nowhere. On aircraft, it means you can fire off loose bursts and trust that at least one round will hit your target; on the ground, especially if you've invested in a somewhat stable mount, an average MG's going to be a lot more useful.
π: 0 β©: 0
Most impressive. HM Government of the Kingdom of Mcnernia would be most inclined to purchase vehicles of this class, urban kits and vehicles without urban kits.Β
---------------
A most beautiful vehicle.
π: 0 β©: 0
Thank you very much
π: 0 β©: 0
Looks like the perfect mix bewteen a Leopard and a Challenger
π: 0 β©: 1
Does it? 
(but I guess it *does* look a bit like a Challenger or one of the fancier Leopard types, now that I think about it!)
π: 0 β©: 1
I tought of the Leclerc at first.... but to be frank that long cannon reminds me of a Chally
π: 0 β©: 1
A-ha! I guess it's a bit on the long side, as tank cannons go.
(bit more dangerous than the L30, though!)
π: 0 β©: 0