HOME | DD

Published: 2016-02-18 15:30:38 +0000 UTC; Views: 16708; Favourites: 216; Downloads: 160
Redirect to original
Description
(Because dA loves sprites. For )A paradigm that E Pluribus Axioma's military contractors have found difficult to get rid of is aerial warfare, as most of them started as aerospace manufacturers that branched out into land systems following large cash injections from EPA without giving them the time to build a more conventional scientific base with hired professionals. This means that, like several other EPA tanks, the CCZ-99 main battle tank is envisioned as more of a land gunship than the more conventional view on armor of other factions. This was only compounded by EPA's extreme weight restrictions and airmechanized doctrine, leading to the use of many techiques from aircraft designing.
Crew:
Both its crewmembers, designated pilot and co-pilot have the same level of control over both the tank's movement controls and its weapons systems. While the tank enters combat with the pilot as its designated gunner-commander, both crewmembers can swap out their functions at any point with simple digital commands, allowing for both sets of eyes to react quickly to sudden threats by either painting or shooting. Driving is largely relegated to an "autopilot" cued by the crewmembers' heads-up-displays and maneuvering around obstacles with cameras and radars linked to local topological and combat reconaissance surveys to notify the pilots of advantageous positions in their surroundings. At any point this autopilot can be overriden by the crew by simply manipulating the controls or expanded to the fire control system to allow for remote operation.
Sensors:
This, however, results in a massive information flow for both crewmembers, which is facilitated by the use of digital transparency to allow the crewmembers to see out in all directions at once through a redundant system of retinal screens, heads-up-displays and holographic emitters. Meant to enable the undermanned tank to have the same reactivity and awareness in urban scenarios as more conventional vehicles, this control system draws its sensor data from a large planar phased array LIDAR-Radar hybrid grafted onto the face and sides of the turret with several thousand modules in addition to passive infrared cameras. This gives both crewmembers a constant artificial color TV channel and a radar channel for most of the tank's front and sides even through smokescreens and IR decoys, the construction of this device means that sniper shots or shrapnel will destroy very few modules, leaving the tank's sensors operative and ready for retaliation. It however also means that accumulation of dust, dirt, mud or snow on the highly-sloped turret face will obstruct the sensors, which was resolved by crude if effective field modifications adding large wipers and cleaning sprays based on the automotive industry. In addition to the large frontal radar, swiveling 260° coverage is also provided by the APS radar on the turret bustle. The APS is highly integrated with the main radar/LIDAR sensor, as it provides finer detection than its own smaller radar while providing additional laser and muzzle flash-detection with real-time spectrum analysis as well as analysis of the IR signature of muzzle blasts, allowing the system to immediately know if the shot detected was aimed at itself to cue the APS. Both the LIDAR and radar can simultaneously set components to either passive, communicating or active mode, giving the tank's fire and control systems the track-while scan, multiple target tracking, direct target sharing capabilities as well as the ability to simultaneously track and analyze up to 250 simultaneous contacts from infantry to low-flying aircraft, traits only commonly seen in high-level fighter craft.
An additional large set of optics atop the turret provide a wide-field 200x zoom infrared, UV or TV channel automatically cued by either crewmember or target-recognition software and motion detectors in automatic search mode.
The largest sensor of the tank is a highly sensitive magnetic anomaly detector found on the upper hull and turret roof, arranged along the vertical plates of the whipple shields (see armor) to form a fractal antenna. This allows the tank to detect vehicles, aircraft and (at much shorter ranges) infantry on the other sides of certain obstacles such as hills and buildings or mines hidden under the ground. While much lower-resolution than the main sensor, the so-called "anti ambush system" (AAS) allows the tank to engage targets without having a line-of sight, giving it a tremendous advantage against low-flying gunships behind cover whose electrogravitic, ion or plasma engines have highly visible magnetic signatures; partly reversing the advantage such craft have historically had over tanks. At short range the system is sensitive enough to detect, if unobstructed by interference, the nervous systems of living beings and electronic activity from computers or smart mines.
The enormous information flow from the sensors and external datalinks requires heavy usage of psychedelic nootropic drugs by the crew during combat operations to better interface with the system and one another. These are normally ingested orally ten minutes before operations, but for ambushes and sudden deployments intravenous "combat shots" are at the crew's disposition.
Armor:
The shape of the tank is mainly dictated by its relative lack of armor, making it rely on cover and extreme low hull-down positions to deflect most incoming fire in open engagements. The whole front of the hull is sloped backwards, tilting the turret ring in respect to the floor. The unconventional shape, aided by the lack of a driver's station in the hull, give the tank's feeble integral armor a high degree of sloping (useful against hypervelocity projectiles that do not normalise) and, more importantly, an extreme gun depression angle of -17°, allowing the tank to fire from hilltops and defilades while leaving the crew and every single vital system unexposed. The lower turret plate presents a reversed slope to allow the lidar/radar gunsight to keep functioning when in turret-down position where the upper plate is almost flat and unable to see to the front of the tank.
To fit in large numbers inside EPA's transport aircraft weight had been massivly restricted to under 40 tons, most of which was already taken by the tank's weaponry, engines and electronics. The small crew further reduced the weight but the tank remained too light to fit any armor beyond a thick layer of hollow superalloy whipple shields encased in ballistic nanofiber and pointed to protect the front of the tank, giving it an effective protection little above (and sometimes below) the level of concurrent IFVs. While effective against EFP, autocannon fire and giving a modicum of protection against lasers and medium caliber hypervelocity shells that would vaporize against the thin sheets of armor and diffused by the highly-sloped spaced armor, slower shells, high-explosive rounds and large caliber railguns would punch straight through.
The poor structural armor resulting from the weight restriction did not stop a workaround from being developped. Taking advantage of the plentiful space between the whipple shield plates, several mixtures were developped made from powderized diamond, graphite and a shear-thickening ballistic gel of varying densities. These mixtures could be poured into the tank's armor through dedicated openings, significantly increasing its protection against enemy fire and simply be pumped out of the tank (or even drained with removable caps on the bottom of the tank) at any moment. Tanks could be then armored with different mixtures depending on where they were deployed, with added protection against a variety of weapons; all while remaining light enough to be airmobile when no mixture was added. This simple solution was later developped into a full internal pumping systems, allowing tanks to load or unload mixture by themselves from external jettisonable canisters, ressuply vehicles or other tanks and even pump congealing agents into ruptured sections of armor to prevent the armor from dripping out.
Protection:
Above its armor, however, the tank relies mainly on its active protection system which acts as an extension of the large integrated sensors all over the tank, equipped with cross-checking protocols to discard enemy countermeasures and jamming. The system is split in two, with a low-level airbursting grenade launcher located in a small turret on the turret. This weapon is normally used as a commander's gun to fire at infantry and can be slaved to either crewmember, but when an incoming projectile is detected this control is overriden as the APS takes over the 25mm gun. While normally electrically-operated, when the APS is activated the turret switches to a pneumatic traverse mode drawing from compressed air tanks that can bring the gun to bear in a fraction of a second against incoming missiles, low-velocity shells and rockets.
The heavier component of the composite APS system consists of large launcher tubes to the sides of the tank's turret and hull, loaded with quick-reaction countermeasure missiles to intercept both top- and direct-attack missiles as well as railgun shots with enough energy to completely neutralize them. Mounted externally on disposable pods and cold-fired, these beam-riding missiles are guided wither wired or wirelessly by the tank's own radar. Like the armor underneath them, these missiles largely conentrate on defending a fairly narrow arc in the fronts of both hull and turret.
Related content
Comments: 60
Endy001 [2019-05-13 03:11:52 +0000 UTC]
HERA. HERA solves all your armor problems.
Mag Anomaly Sensor. Ineffective vs IEDs, 3d printed explosives, Faraday cage affected weapons...
Gun depression:
Hmm... Sketchy. The turret roof is significantly higher angle than the ring, but turret armor exists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to Endy001 [2019-05-13 12:25:01 +0000 UTC]
Magnetic anomaly sensors would be pretty effective against all the things you mentioned given that they still cause disruptions in a magnetic field; like metal detectors
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Endy001 In reply to VoughtVindicator [2019-05-16 03:17:57 +0000 UTC]
So, it'd set off for anything? Even decoy metal lumps?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to Endy001 [2019-05-16 15:28:09 +0000 UTC]
Better to have it set off by random metal lumps than for it to ignore mines lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Endy001 In reply to VoughtVindicator [2019-06-16 03:35:59 +0000 UTC]
Enemy: sets up a triple line of possible mines, you know they aren't all real, but...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to Endy001 [2019-06-16 09:39:08 +0000 UTC]
Well, to set up mines you gotta know where they're going to pass
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Endy001 In reply to VoughtVindicator [2019-06-24 11:50:26 +0000 UTC]
Advanced radar. Unless you can pull some PL-01s out of your ass, well...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to Endy001 [2019-06-24 12:00:46 +0000 UTC]
I don't see how a radar helps with laying a minefield. Minefields only really work in conjunction with something like artillery or defensive positions that forces the enemy to walk through it, you don't just lay mines in random places and hope the enemy goes over them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Brijeka In reply to VoughtVindicator [2019-06-24 13:00:48 +0000 UTC]
Possibly they use radar to track the armoured formations, determine where they are going and hence deploy minefields along probable routes of advance. I assume that's what Endy is talking about with regards to their radar...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to Brijeka [2019-06-24 13:26:17 +0000 UTC]
I think his whole point about setting up a "triple layer" minefield with decoys is kind of strange since that works against any vehicle regardless of whether they have mine detecting equipment or not...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Chinevion [2017-04-27 14:28:06 +0000 UTC]
I just realized that if the ring is on an angle, the turret would rotate on an angle, meaning they would be incapable of firing behind it as the gun would point up into the sky.
I also just looked back at the photo, the turret would not be able to rotate to behind, but the turret could rotate a little more then a 180 degree angle. At the ranges the tank would be engaging targets, it might not mater if the turret could rotate directly backwards, but it is a major detriment to the design. What I'm thinking the you were thinking is the ring itself is angled, but the turret does not rotate on an angle.
Still a terrible design. Additionaly, the training drive will have to exert progressively more force as it tries to rotate the turret towards the rear. How do you get around these detriments?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to Chinevion [2017-04-27 15:38:18 +0000 UTC]
The gun's maximum depression is -15° and the turret ring is angled at 10° so it's actually capable of having the gun level while pointing backwards, which is more than the Abrams or Leopard 2 can. It cannot fully depress it because of the engine bay but the same goes for every tank. The turret bustle acts as counterweight to balance out the gun when it's rotating so the drive mechanism isn't too stressed while rotating at an angle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LukaPavlic In reply to VoughtVindicator [2018-10-15 20:03:00 +0000 UTC]
I like that you have a retort for the criticism, but there's no way it would be capable of -15° of gun depression. It sounds impressive to just say it outright, but the gun's breech would literally have to stick out through the upper slope and roof, which is also at exactly 15° (I checked). Unless it's a magic breechless cannon, I don't know, I didn't see you describe a single thing about this tank's main armament :^)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to LukaPavlic [2018-10-17 10:34:54 +0000 UTC]
That's counting the turret ring tilt, the gun itself only depresses to -5°. So it has a maximum depression of -15° to the front and 0° to the back.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LukaPavlic In reply to VoughtVindicator [2018-10-17 12:32:17 +0000 UTC]
That makes no sense. The tilt of the turret ring is pretty much irrelevant in this case, I'm just talking about the frontal gun depression. The gun is at 0° to the horizontal in the default position in the picture, and there's no way it could go to -15° to the horizontal. -5°, okay, maybe not even that much. Unless you mean the turret ring oscillates too, I doubt that. Another option is that you're adding the -10° tilt of the turret ring to the gun depression, but that's not how that works. The gun at rest is at +10° relative to the turret ring so that it's 0° to the horizontal. Look, some of your designs look awesome and good (BT-6R for example), but this one just isn't one of them. You could get around this in two ways - one is similar to the American T92 light tank prototype, where the roof above the gun breech is affixed to it and moves along with it, essentially splitting the turret in half; the other (imo better) way is to implement a hydraulic suspension such as on Swedish Strv 103 and Japanese Type 74 tanks, so the entire hull tilts to help depress and elevate the gun.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to LukaPavlic [2018-10-17 13:57:23 +0000 UTC]
Yeah I'm adding the -10° tilt of the turret ring to the total depression. In the image the gun is at +10° relative to its mounting and therefore 0° relative to the ground. It only needs to depress -5° in order to be pointing -15° in front. The elevation mechanism alone isn't actually capable of depressing down to -15°.
Also the BT-6R is meh. Old design, pointless ultra-sloped armor and no panoramic sight
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LukaPavlic In reply to VoughtVindicator [2018-10-17 14:46:17 +0000 UTC]
That's simply wrong. If it only depresses -5°, it'll be pointing down at -5°. And it's incapable of point down at -15° as it stands now, because that's the exact same angle of the turret front, so the breech has no room to go that high (barrel goes down = breech goes up just as much). Even if you somehow managed to squeeze the breech right up against the upper plate of the turret, the recoil from the gun would make the breech punch a hole into the roof.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
BusterBuizel [2016-05-13 02:51:12 +0000 UTC]
How would this tank fair against energy weapons? Specifically:
Plasma?
Lasers?
and Holographic Weapons?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
VoughtVindicator In reply to BusterBuizel [2016-05-13 13:25:51 +0000 UTC]
Let me specify since I am no longer rolling around the bed being lazy:
Lasers:
What lasers do is kill a target by heating it with a beam of light. The beam of light may be visible or not depending on frequency and ambient conditions. The surface it hits is heated to such an enormous degree it expands very rapidly and hits the part of the armor underneath it hard enough it generates a shockwave. Think of it as sci fi HESH. However, this tank's armor isn't one solid block but rather many thin plates separated from one another by a couple centimeters and the space between them is filled with either air or a mixture of graphite powder and ballistic gel. This means that the shockwave generated by the outermost plate of the armor isn't going to transfer to the plate behind it very well, it's spaced armor. You'll blow a huge hole in the first couple or so plates but after that your laser beam is going to be diffuse and is going to have a hard time transferring enough energy per square inch to the plates behind it. Especially now that there is a ton of aerosolized graphite in the air. Smoke dischargers could also begin diffusing your laser even before it hits the tank at all.
Lasers can be rapid fired but by the time you blow through every layer and hit the crew cabin this thing would have had ample time to put a shell through your face.
Plasma:
The problem with plasma weaponry as far as this tank is concerned is that it goes very fast and has quite a lot of mass unlike a laser pulse. If you manage to get some good sci fi magnetic containment for the plasma bolt (so it doesn't diffuse two inches away from your muzzle and kill you) you could blast through all of the thin plates and keep enough plasma left over to go into the tank. Though at least generating such massive magnetic fields could make you very easily detected by the AAS magnetometer. E Pluribus Axioma tends to use a lot of plasma spheromak-based weaponry (essentially their version of futuristic EFPs) so one idea would be to swap out the hardkill missiles for disposable, ejectable magnetic coils fed by capacitors onboard the tank with wires. This would generate its own plasma bolt to disrupt the containment of your plasma weapon before it hits the tank, though reaction time would have to be insane. Armor is useless either way, it would have to rely on its ADS.
Holographic weapons:
whut
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BusterBuizel In reply to VoughtVindicator [2016-05-13 23:20:03 +0000 UTC]
You sir are a genius. Although I will have to explain holographic weapons in another comment as they are a very rarely used type of energy weapon similar to photon beams.
You definitely know your subject in regards to armored warfare. Even I wouldn't have thought of doing many of the things you just suggested from smoke grenades defusing laser weapons to powdered graphite and electromagnetic defensive grenade launchers against plasma bolts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
VoughtVindicator In reply to BusterBuizel [2016-05-13 07:16:32 +0000 UTC]
-Pretty badly
-Pretty well, since laser weapons can be ablated
-There's no such thing as holographic weapons
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BusterBuizel In reply to VoughtVindicator [2016-05-13 23:28:59 +0000 UTC]
Okay, about holographic weaponry. Holo weapons rely on what is called "hard light" technology. Although it's mostly theory the basic premise is that after a bolt of light leaves the muzzle of an NRG weapon it somehow collects artificial mass though photon absorption or something along those lines. What got me thinking about these weapons is the Holorifle from Fallout: New Vegas and Symmetra from Overwatch, as both of these games use this rather uncommon NRG weapon type.
I think how is works is that the beam or bolt of light has such a strong electromagnetic field that it acts as artificial mass, repelling any molecules that make contact thereby acting like a solid bullet, but traveling at the speed of light.
And that to me is scary. The Holorifle from Fallout: New Vegas was specifically designed to sever limbs as the Ghost People in the DLC could only be killed in that manner as they could regenerate any attached body part through a radioactive red fog.
What do you think is a good countermeasure for this? The only thing I could have come up with is the classic plasma shield and it's photon diffusion properties.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to BusterBuizel [2016-05-13 23:42:54 +0000 UTC]
That is so ridiculously energetic that to think of it being used against a tank is absurd. It's like using the Tsar Bomba to kill a Toyota. You're getting so much electromagnetic energy into so little space that it's actually bending spacetime like the mass of a heavy object. That would be so hot that your own gun and the air around you would just undergo fusion and both you and the tank would explode with a yield of several gigatons and wipe out whatever poor continent the fight took place in.
If you have that kind of tech you shouldn't even have tanks at all, you should just be killing your enemmies by shooting spacetime loops at them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BusterBuizel In reply to VoughtVindicator [2016-05-13 23:49:11 +0000 UTC]
And that's why they're in theory, not practice XD.
Good work! Good work! I actually enjoyed that conversation with you.
Thanks for the insight on sci fi tank development.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
jjp158 [2016-04-19 19:37:39 +0000 UTC]
I wish I could draw my tank like that... and I love the design good for facing the enemy head on but what happened if he gets to the side? and here is the tank I designed: jjp158.deviantart.com/art/Jagd… (pardon the horrible handwriting)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to jjp158 [2016-04-19 19:57:46 +0000 UTC]
Pretty much every main battle tank is completely screwed if it gets hit from the side by full-caliber tank guns, so in that aspect it's not that different.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
jjp158 In reply to VoughtVindicator [2016-04-19 20:40:49 +0000 UTC]
that is true... good thing mine is a tank destroyer lol. I designed mine have "good" ballistics for all sides even rear and bottom, downside is that it is slower them most modern tanks but thankfully not by much thanks to the special engine and with a 165mm auto-loading anti tank gun it can pen just about everything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to jjp158 [2016-04-19 21:22:52 +0000 UTC]
Looking at your design it doesn't seem like it could resist shots from the sides either. The thing with modern tank guns is that they fire at such high velocities that you can't try to bounce the projectile like WWII tanks did. The only real way to stop them is to shatter/blunt the round so it loses its penetrating power, which is only possible with a lot of layers of different materials, usually ceramics, hard metals, spaced armor and ballistic fibers. This means that you need a huge ammount of space to fit all that armor in, so unless your tank is shaped like a cube it's probably not going to survive a shot from the rear.
Seems like your tank has some kind of revolver autocannon, which is fairly badass.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
jjp158 In reply to VoughtVindicator [2016-04-19 22:50:15 +0000 UTC]
my tank does have many layers of armor and it has a lot of space to put it do to the design I based it off of and the angles of it just add more thickness to the layers and the possibility of adding more (albeit thinner) layers and the angle of it would add to the thickness of the individual layers. and as for the rear part its pretty think there and the engine is there as well.
and its not exactly a revolver (if you want to know more about it just ask) but thanks! that is actually the first complement I have ever gotten on my designs!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to jjp158 [2016-04-20 07:01:21 +0000 UTC]
Well it's just 10 inches thick, which means modern shells will punch through it like butter. The Abrams has close to double of that for example. Furthermore, sloping does very little against modern APFSDS shells which are designed to dig into the slope and normalize. So not only is it around four times heavier than an Abrams but it has less frontal armor, which matters a lot more than rear or side armor in tank-to-tank fighting.
It's why modern tank destroyers are jeeps or APCs with ATGMs on them, so they're agile and easy to relocate and ambush with. Something that is bigger, slower, heavier and less armored than a tank will never destroy a tank.
If not a revolver cannon, what is it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
jjp158 In reply to VoughtVindicator [2016-04-20 13:54:28 +0000 UTC]
well the 10in figure was a minimum armor thickness (I think it was for the top) but I forgot to update it because I was still thinking about it and how it would affect the tank because I now realized that with 10in armor even on all side, for a tank its size it would have a rather large interior which would be armor wasted (although the crew would like the extra space) so I have been rethinking the armor thickness but have yet to update the design on it. and the reason it is heavy is because of the armor/main gun would be thicker and I now realize that the weight would be much lower if the armor were to stay as is so now I will be updating the armor thickness and weight and thank your for pointing that out because I totally forgot about updating it.
and its a auto loading system that reloads and ejects via the recoil of the gun and has no mechanical parts to break other then the firing mechanism and it loads directly from the main magazine so it can fire as fast as a tank with a magazine (like the amx 50 100) but with out the lengthy reload time
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to jjp158 [2016-04-20 14:53:23 +0000 UTC]
Having the same ammount of armor all-around only really makes sense for lightly armored APCs and jeeps, or perhaps some urban warfare vehicles. After all, a good tank commander can compensate for the lack of side or rear armor by moving cleverly and taking good positions, but if you just put slabs of armor everywhere, even the best commander isn't going to be able to compensate for their vehicle being very underpowered and very heavy.
From what you said, your gun would actually have a ton of moving parts. You need the automatic breech, a mechanical or electrical system to move the shells out of ammo storage and into the gun and a hydraulic rammer to shove them into the breech. Small arms have springs and gas-operation for that, but springs aren't strong enough to handle big tank shells and a gas-operated autoloader would probably explode.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
jjp158 In reply to VoughtVindicator [2016-04-20 15:56:35 +0000 UTC]
that is true but I like having good armor all round makes for durability and it can take a hit an keep going and it most certainly will not be underpowered because the engine is made for heavy machines.
the moving the shells from storage is a wip but for now a person will do it(hence the 5 person crew). the gun breach itself is a rammer the "arms" work with a suction based system or in short the force of the gun firing would cause a vacuum to form which would then close the breach after loading, kinda like a reverse gas system only instead of have pressure it has a vacuum. here is another view of the gun breach jjp158.deviantart.com/art/Tank… idk why all the pics are upside-down they just are....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to jjp158 [2016-04-20 16:06:27 +0000 UTC]
I dunno, the whole thing feels like a bit of a mediocre design. From the bad armor layout and massive weight (unless you use a naval engine it'll be underpowered since even heavy duty tank engines don't deal with that much weight) to the weird, overly complicated autoloader. It's labeled as anti-M1A2, but the feel that I get is that an M1A2 would utterly destroy your design. Not to put you down of course, we all start somewhere.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
jjp158 In reply to VoughtVindicator [2016-04-20 16:17:13 +0000 UTC]
here is the engine I am talking about jjp158.deviantart.com/art/main… and its not overly complicated its quit simple, seeing how it only has 6 parts to the breach itself(not counting the barrel or part connecting the barrel to the tank) and only 2 of those parts move. and can you define bad armor layout for me? and indeed we all start somewhere.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to jjp158 [2016-04-20 16:35:35 +0000 UTC]
Bad armor layout is just encasing the tank in an all-direction cocoon of armor to the point it's going to weigh like 150 tons just so you can defend from hits coming from all directions instead of armoring the front and trusting your crews to use that armor to its greatest effect.
The engine wouldn't work either. Having two pistons, nevermind three pushing against one another is going to cause problems with timing, plus there's no place to put the valves other than placing them in the travel of the pistons which is a terrible idea. Not to mention one of the crankshafts is perpendicular to the other two, so you'd need an entire gearbox to actually use the energy that the third useless piston is generating on top of the tank's normal gearbox.
As for the autoloader, it looks like it's loaded from a vertical gravity-fed clip like a ZSU-57 or Bofors, which is terrible for a multitude of reasons. Not only it'll need a ton of overhead clearance to fit the massive clip inside the turret (meaning no gun depression whatsoever) but the poor loader is going to have to wrestle 165mm shells on top of it. Considering that 140mm shells on the Leopard 2-140 were already considered too heavy to be effectively handled (and those were two-part ammo, yours appears to be single shells) he's going to be completely incapable of even reloading the gun unless he has some kind of crane stuffed inside the turret. It's pointless for it to be an autocannon if your loader isn't even going to be able to feed it. Besides, even with a gravity-fed clip you still need a hydraulic rammer, vacuum is nowhere near strong enough unless you have an industrial pump inside.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
jjp158 In reply to VoughtVindicator [2016-04-20 17:51:10 +0000 UTC]
ah ok then... *redesigning armor*
i have the timing issue solved but as for the gearbox (i lost one of my designs that fixes the gearbox issue so i can't really show you... best i can do is kinda describe it, there are 2 designs that might fix it both of which are lost atm) design 1: all 3 piston fire at once(newer idea) design 2: 4 gears would connect the camshaft to the transmission, one for each camshaft and one to connect them all (original idea now considered obsolete) (and here is another possible engine for the tank jjp158.deviantart.com/art/engi… )
gun depression issue: jjp158.deviantart.com/art/Jagd… and the clip only holds 1 round and it does not nessorly have to be on top it can be on the side. and as for the vacuum strength issue it use the firing recoil to cause a vacuum not a pump and when it closes the breech it loads the shell with it
btw you have skype? it would be easier to explain via talking than typing...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
jjp158 In reply to VoughtVindicator [2016-04-20 22:23:37 +0000 UTC]
note received, confirmed, deleted
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
678091 [2016-04-13 22:56:38 +0000 UTC]
Turret profile is quite high but its gun depression is excelent as a result
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to 678091 [2016-04-17 21:30:37 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, figured that in the future any advantage of having a low profile would be nullified by the sheer precision of enemy FCS, so a ton of gun depression would help more
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
678091 In reply to VoughtVindicator [2016-04-17 21:36:06 +0000 UTC]
But that gets nullified by the ease of aiming at the cupola, overall it is great for long range but its defense is weaker as a result
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to 678091 [2016-04-17 21:45:55 +0000 UTC]
Cupola? There's no cupola, unless you mean the periscopes on top, which wouldn't do anything significant to the tank if hit with high-velocity munitions, they'd just go right through and out the other side. Plus while on hull-down those aren't exposed anyways.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
678091 In reply to VoughtVindicator [2016-04-17 21:47:46 +0000 UTC]
A perfectly placed dispersion shot would direct the shrapnel downwards into the turret
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to 678091 [2016-04-17 22:00:52 +0000 UTC]
In my opinion, even in the context of futuristic FCS hitting the tiny periscopes seems like a stretch, especially in battlefield conditions where the area might be blanketed in jamming and tanks might be firing on the move at multi-kilometer ranges
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
678091 In reply to VoughtVindicator [2016-04-17 22:04:24 +0000 UTC]
Ever heard of manual precision aim?, all tanks and vehicles must have that as a standard in case of Hydraulic failure or other wise
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VoughtVindicator In reply to 678091 [2016-04-17 22:07:19 +0000 UTC]
If it's at several miles and both the shooter and target are moving (or the target is hull down or popping smoke/chaff) you'd have a hard time hitting the broad side of a barn with manual unstabilized aim, nevermind the tank, nevermind the tank's periscopes
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
678091 In reply to VoughtVindicator [2016-04-18 01:50:18 +0000 UTC]
Unless you have experienced crew :3...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
TacticalCrash [2016-03-13 07:04:54 +0000 UTC]
Nice reminds me of a tank I used in Mercenaries 2 which was based off of the real life Stingray light tank.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>