The Tigerwolf may look vaguely similar to contemporary MBTs, such as the ubiquitous M1-series Abrams, but is in fact wrapped around a lot of design features and technology that are comlpetely alien to today's tanks.
For starters the crew is quite large, with a Commander, Driver, Gunner, TWO loaders, and an Engineer. Many designers favor a smaller crew, usually adding an autoloader to eliminate the Loader from the crew (like in the Russian T-64 through 90, the French Leclerc, and the Chinese Type 85 through 99). Some concept designs even reduce the crew to 2!
However, there are a lot of problems with a smaller crew. First, autoloaders work at a painfully slow pace (14 seconds to reload in a T-72), which gives manual-loading tanks a huge rate-of-fire advantage (just 4 seconds in the M1A1 Abrams). Second, any crew members who get killed, wounded, etc., force the vehicle to retreat --- a crew of 4 can manage if they lose one man, and a larger crew would be even better off. Third, Less crew members means less men to conduct repairs, fight fires, etc., during a mission.
There's no autoloader either, as that only slows the ROF, requires smaller, less powerful and versitile ammo to be used, adds another complex, delicate set of moving parts to break, and only serves to expand the guantlet of things that can hurt you inside the vehicle.In fact, the Tigerwolf's main gun ammo is extremely large and heavy, and probably would break an autoloader --- it's would be an incredible feat of strength for a single Loader crewman to load in under 10 seconds.
The engineer is useful as well, because the large size of the Tigerwolf --- coupled with it's simple drivetrain (most modern tracked vehicles have a deceptively simple drivetrain) and small, flat engine (compred to a "Vee" or gas turbine) make for easy engine maintnance and repairs from inside the tank --- there's no need to abandon it if you lose a sparkplug while under small arms fire.
As for the armor, instead of using a large amount of steel and other metals, most of the Tigerwolf's armor is made up of thick panels and blocks of woven fabric Carbon 60 and 70 --- which are genarically known as "Fullerine".
Fullerine has ove 100 times the tensile strength of steel, it's 10's of times lighter, and theoretically could be manufactured quickly and inexpensively. Essentially, the Tigerwolf has a sort of "Super Kevlar" armor, but unlike current Kevlars (which are made of polimers or composites), fullerine does not have a molecular structure that distorts or melts under heat or pressure --- a single piece of this new type of armor can withstand MANY direct hits from rounds with tank-killing power, KE and CE alike.
And because it's so light, the large amounts of Fullerine give the Tigerwolf armor that is not only hundreds of times stronger than steel, but much thicker than on any current or projected tank. Even though it's much larger than an M1A1 Abrams, the Mk.75 Tigerwolf is over 30% lighter, and can swim over water obstacles, rather than slog though on the bottom. And because it floats, there are no depths that it cannot cross.
Also important is it's low ground pressure, stemming from it's low 40-ton weight, super-wide tracks, low height, and enourmous horizontal size --- it has the ground pessure of a "Light Track" vehicle, like the M113 Gavin. This is important because almost half the world's surface is closed to heavy tracks (again, the M1A1 Abrams), due to thier height, ground pressure, and high centers of gravity.
The Tigerwolf can directly cut across many areas that no existing or projected MBT will ever be able to --- not to mention traverse certain terrain features, such as bridges and paved roads, without damaging them.
It is said that the most important part of a Tank is it's engine. If it breaks down too easily or can't get you going fast enough, you're as good as dead. Current piston engines (like the V-12s on T-72s and Leopard 2s) do not give as much power, torque, or revs as Gas Turbines, and are very noisy (compromising surprise), while Gas Turbines (Swedish Strv 103, US M1-series Abrams, and most Russian T-80's) are notorious gas-guzzlers, easily ingest too much dust of other foriegn matter (which suffocates them), and spew out searing hot exhaust --- the rear horizontal exhaust of the M1 prevents friendly troop from following it, while the T-80's vertical exhaust is an indicator of it's position (via thermal imaging that today's tanks use), even at great distances. So, if both of these engines are lemons, then what does the Tigerwolf have?
The Tigerwolf MBT uses a 5-liter Wankel "Pistonless" Rotary Engine, a type of engine known for being both quiet and powerful. As a Mazda 1.3 liter single-rotor Wankel almost effortlessly produces the power (and efficiency) of much higher displacement V-8's (more than 215hp), a supercharged 5-liter 3-rotor Wankel could produce over 2000hp without much trouble.
It would also have greater fuel-efficiency, in the order of a 2-4 miles-per-gallon (versus a gallon-per-mile in the M1's). Coupled with the lower tonnage to propel, the Tigerwolf has well over twice the range of the M1, with the same fuel capacity. So, the Tigerwolf can be used to attack deep inside enemy territory, or operate at the same ranges as contemporary tanks, with much greater loiter time and freedom of movement.
As the Tigerwolf has 40% more power and torque than the M1, and weighs 30% less, it is 40% faster and could probably accelerate as quickly as a Humvee. This would make contemporary tanks very hard-pressed to cut-off a Tigerwolf, and no current or projected tanks could ever hope to pursue a Tigerwolf.
Other advantages offered by the powerpack include a small number of moving parts, extremely low vibration and ocillation (inherent to Wankel Rotaries; not in piston engines), low heat emissions (less than in 700+ degree piston engines, or 1500+ degrees in Gas Turbines), a very small, flat, light engine block, and stonger individual components than in any current or projected tank engine, and a 5-speed AT, to take advantage of the high engine output.
All tanks require high firepower, and the Mk.75 Tigerwolf has plenty of it. The large size of the Tigerwolf's hull and turret enables a heavier-caliber howitzer to be used than on any tank currently in service --- a 145mm Smooth-Bore Howitzer. Because the German-designed M256 120mm smoothbore (M1A1, M1A2, Leopard 2, etc.) has a 40% larger punch than the British-designed M67 105mm Rifled-bore (the standard to which ALL other tank guns are judged --- used on too many tanks to list), the Tigerwolf's gun probaly has at least 20% more punch than the M256 --- enough to outrange any of today's tank guns, with enough penetration to destroy an M1A1 from well beyond it's maximum gun range.
It can also superelevate lower than any current tank gun (allowing the Tigerwolf to hit any current tank from above it's Max. evevation), and higher than any current tank (resulting in the reverse of above). Because the Max. elevation is so high, it is also possible to produce indirect fire as well, much like a Self-Propoelled Howitzer would (though with a lower vareiety of ranges and angles).
The real driving force of The Tigerwolf's fire power, however, is not so much the main gun as much as it's ammunition. *That's a whole story in itself, which I will cover in a later post*
The Co-Axial MachineGun (COAX) fires 7x50mm rifle rounds, which combine the low cost and recoil of the 5.56x45mm NATO round, with the accuracy and penetration of the 7.62x51mm NATO round. 7mm rounds would also have a smaller casing daimeter than a 7.62mm round, which when coupled with significantly larger magazines and canisters, means the Tigerwolf totes one hell of a lot of MG ammo. As such, it is unlikely that a Tigerwolf will have to resupply MG ammo during a battle, and may even have thousands of rounds to spare --- if it is supporting friendly troops, the Tigerwolf may be able to spare a few thousand rounds for them.
The Auxillary MG on the roof (used by the one of the Loaders) uses the same 7mm ammo.
Other targets may require a bigger gun than the MGs, but the Main Gun may not be adequate (it may even be overkill). To dispose of these, the Tigerwolf uses a 20mm autocannon (not pictured), instead of a Heavy MG. The problem with Heavy MGs, such as the .50cal (or 12.7x99mm, if you prefer the metric system) M2HB, is that even though they remain effective against troops, light armor, unarmored vehicles, and choppers, they are now useless in thier original role --- the lack the range, penetration, and shell velocity to sufficiently fend off marauding Fixed-Wing aircraft. HMGs cannot throw explosive shells that are effective against said targets, either. Defeating them requires an autocannon.
Having thier own personal 20mm AA guns, tanks have less reliance on aircraft, SPAAGs, and SPSAMs for thier air defence, and 20mm shells are also effective on choppers, light armor, and soft targets (like exposed INFANTRY!), giving the AA gun a lot of utility. In fact, it could be used to clear out buildings that the 7mm MG cannot penetrate, and the main gun would needlessly flatten.
The Tigerwolf also has several smoke mortars, as even in the 21st century battlefield requires the ability to create quick concealment.
A smooth ride and steady aim are achieved through hydropneumatic suspension and stabilization (versus the comparatively rougher torsion and hydraulics used in current and projected tanks) . The gun, turret, and hull each have thier own stabilization. While each of these are mechanically independant, they are balanced and co-ordinated via computer (which also feeds stability data to the gunnery computer, adjusting the GPS crosshairs in real time). This is unlike current tanks, whose ballistics comuters only react indirectly to the actual stability of the vehicle.
The heavy stabilization also gives the Tigerwolf a smoother ride, even at high speeds, greatly decreasing the strainand workload on the crew --- most tanks ride like bucking broncos at speed, making loading, map-reading, and keeping a steady hand on the controls very difficult.
The added stability also makes the vehicle stealthier, as well. All the rocking, bouncing, and ocillation created by a moving tank can give away it's position, or at least it's presence. The Tigerwolf, however, practically "floats" over terrain imperfections, mainaining a low noise profile.
The front and rear suspension can also be manually overridden and set to extremes in height. For example, in order to hit a target that is too low for the main gun alone to superelevate to, the rear supension may be raised, while the forward suspension is lowered. This allows the Tigerwolf to easily fire very low-angle shots, while at the same time keeping it's vulnerable underbelly covered. The inverse may be used to hit targets too high to normally hit, or to extend the reach or angle of indirect fire.
Most importantly, the Tigerwolf's stability allows for "firing-on-the-move" with very high accuracy, even at distant moving targets.
The high speed, long range, low profile, low noise, and low IR cross section all combine to form a vehicle with unprecedented potential in what most stategists consider the importand design element of a tank --- Surprise. The Tigerwolf can apporach, attack, and destroy any current MBT, then egress, without ever being detected. It can attack from distances any current tank gun cannot return fire from. It can also use long range indirect fire from behind cover, without ever entering the enemy's LOS.
Even without surprise, the Tigerwolf's mobility, defense, and firepower are still too great for current tanks to keep up with.
*I'm tired of chattering about this vehicle on my own. If you want to know anything else about the "T-Wolf", then post a comment.
Conversing is more fun than lecturing, anyway!*
For starters the crew is quite large, with a Commander, Driver, Gunner, TWO loaders, and an Engineer. Many designers favor a smaller crew, usually adding an autoloader to eliminate the Loader from the crew (like in the Russian T-64 through 90, the French Leclerc, and the Chinese Type 85 through 99). Some concept designs even reduce the crew to 2!
However, there are a lot of problems with a smaller crew. First, autoloaders work at a painfully slow pace (14 seconds to reload in a T-72), which gives manual-loading tanks a huge rate-of-fire advantage (just 4 seconds in the M1A1 Abrams). Second, any crew members who get killed, wounded, etc., force the vehicle to retreat --- a crew of 4 can manage if they lose one man, and a larger crew would be even better off. Third, Less crew members means less men to conduct repairs, fight fires, etc., during a mission.
There's no autoloader either, as that only slows the ROF, requires smaller, less powerful and versitile ammo to be used, adds another complex, delicate set of moving parts to break, and only serves to expand the guantlet of things that can hurt you inside the vehicle.In fact, the Tigerwolf's main gun ammo is extremely large and heavy, and probably would break an autoloader --- it's would be an incredible feat of strength for a single Loader crewman to load in under 10 seconds.
The engineer is useful as well, because the large size of the Tigerwolf --- coupled with it's simple drivetrain (most modern tracked vehicles have a deceptively simple drivetrain) and small, flat engine (compred to a "Vee" or gas turbine) make for easy engine maintnance and repairs from inside the tank --- there's no need to abandon it if you lose a sparkplug while under small arms fire.
As for the armor, instead of using a large amount of steel and other metals, most of the Tigerwolf's armor is made up of thick panels and blocks of woven fabric Carbon 60 and 70 --- which are genarically known as "Fullerine".
Fullerine has ove 100 times the tensile strength of steel, it's 10's of times lighter, and theoretically could be manufactured quickly and inexpensively. Essentially, the Tigerwolf has a sort of "Super Kevlar" armor, but unlike current Kevlars (which are made of polimers or composites), fullerine does not have a molecular structure that distorts or melts under heat or pressure --- a single piece of this new type of armor can withstand MANY direct hits from rounds with tank-killing power, KE and CE alike.
And because it's so light, the large amounts of Fullerine give the Tigerwolf armor that is not only hundreds of times stronger than steel, but much thicker than on any current or projected tank. Even though it's much larger than an M1A1 Abrams, the Mk.75 Tigerwolf is over 30% lighter, and can swim over water obstacles, rather than slog though on the bottom. And because it floats, there are no depths that it cannot cross.
Also important is it's low ground pressure, stemming from it's low 40-ton weight, super-wide tracks, low height, and enourmous horizontal size --- it has the ground pessure of a "Light Track" vehicle, like the M113 Gavin. This is important because almost half the world's surface is closed to heavy tracks (again, the M1A1 Abrams), due to thier height, ground pressure, and high centers of gravity.
The Tigerwolf can directly cut across many areas that no existing or projected MBT will ever be able to --- not to mention traverse certain terrain features, such as bridges and paved roads, without damaging them.
It is said that the most important part of a Tank is it's engine. If it breaks down too easily or can't get you going fast enough, you're as good as dead. Current piston engines (like the V-12s on T-72s and Leopard 2s) do not give as much power, torque, or revs as Gas Turbines, and are very noisy (compromising surprise), while Gas Turbines (Swedish Strv 103, US M1-series Abrams, and most Russian T-80's) are notorious gas-guzzlers, easily ingest too much dust of other foriegn matter (which suffocates them), and spew out searing hot exhaust --- the rear horizontal exhaust of the M1 prevents friendly troop from following it, while the T-80's vertical exhaust is an indicator of it's position (via thermal imaging that today's tanks use), even at great distances. So, if both of these engines are lemons, then what does the Tigerwolf have?
The Tigerwolf MBT uses a 5-liter Wankel "Pistonless" Rotary Engine, a type of engine known for being both quiet and powerful. As a Mazda 1.3 liter single-rotor Wankel almost effortlessly produces the power (and efficiency) of much higher displacement V-8's (more than 215hp), a supercharged 5-liter 3-rotor Wankel could produce over 2000hp without much trouble.
It would also have greater fuel-efficiency, in the order of a 2-4 miles-per-gallon (versus a gallon-per-mile in the M1's). Coupled with the lower tonnage to propel, the Tigerwolf has well over twice the range of the M1, with the same fuel capacity. So, the Tigerwolf can be used to attack deep inside enemy territory, or operate at the same ranges as contemporary tanks, with much greater loiter time and freedom of movement.
As the Tigerwolf has 40% more power and torque than the M1, and weighs 30% less, it is 40% faster and could probably accelerate as quickly as a Humvee. This would make contemporary tanks very hard-pressed to cut-off a Tigerwolf, and no current or projected tanks could ever hope to pursue a Tigerwolf.
Other advantages offered by the powerpack include a small number of moving parts, extremely low vibration and ocillation (inherent to Wankel Rotaries; not in piston engines), low heat emissions (less than in 700+ degree piston engines, or 1500+ degrees in Gas Turbines), a very small, flat, light engine block, and stonger individual components than in any current or projected tank engine, and a 5-speed AT, to take advantage of the high engine output.
All tanks require high firepower, and the Mk.75 Tigerwolf has plenty of it. The large size of the Tigerwolf's hull and turret enables a heavier-caliber howitzer to be used than on any tank currently in service --- a 145mm Smooth-Bore Howitzer. Because the German-designed M256 120mm smoothbore (M1A1, M1A2, Leopard 2, etc.) has a 40% larger punch than the British-designed M67 105mm Rifled-bore (the standard to which ALL other tank guns are judged --- used on too many tanks to list), the Tigerwolf's gun probaly has at least 20% more punch than the M256 --- enough to outrange any of today's tank guns, with enough penetration to destroy an M1A1 from well beyond it's maximum gun range.
It can also superelevate lower than any current tank gun (allowing the Tigerwolf to hit any current tank from above it's Max. evevation), and higher than any current tank (resulting in the reverse of above). Because the Max. elevation is so high, it is also possible to produce indirect fire as well, much like a Self-Propoelled Howitzer would (though with a lower vareiety of ranges and angles).
The real driving force of The Tigerwolf's fire power, however, is not so much the main gun as much as it's ammunition. *That's a whole story in itself, which I will cover in a later post*
The Co-Axial MachineGun (COAX) fires 7x50mm rifle rounds, which combine the low cost and recoil of the 5.56x45mm NATO round, with the accuracy and penetration of the 7.62x51mm NATO round. 7mm rounds would also have a smaller casing daimeter than a 7.62mm round, which when coupled with significantly larger magazines and canisters, means the Tigerwolf totes one hell of a lot of MG ammo. As such, it is unlikely that a Tigerwolf will have to resupply MG ammo during a battle, and may even have thousands of rounds to spare --- if it is supporting friendly troops, the Tigerwolf may be able to spare a few thousand rounds for them.
The Auxillary MG on the roof (used by the one of the Loaders) uses the same 7mm ammo.
Other targets may require a bigger gun than the MGs, but the Main Gun may not be adequate (it may even be overkill). To dispose of these, the Tigerwolf uses a 20mm autocannon (not pictured), instead of a Heavy MG. The problem with Heavy MGs, such as the .50cal (or 12.7x99mm, if you prefer the metric system) M2HB, is that even though they remain effective against troops, light armor, unarmored vehicles, and choppers, they are now useless in thier original role --- the lack the range, penetration, and shell velocity to sufficiently fend off marauding Fixed-Wing aircraft. HMGs cannot throw explosive shells that are effective against said targets, either. Defeating them requires an autocannon.
Having thier own personal 20mm AA guns, tanks have less reliance on aircraft, SPAAGs, and SPSAMs for thier air defence, and 20mm shells are also effective on choppers, light armor, and soft targets (like exposed INFANTRY!), giving the AA gun a lot of utility. In fact, it could be used to clear out buildings that the 7mm MG cannot penetrate, and the main gun would needlessly flatten.
The Tigerwolf also has several smoke mortars, as even in the 21st century battlefield requires the ability to create quick concealment.
A smooth ride and steady aim are achieved through hydropneumatic suspension and stabilization (versus the comparatively rougher torsion and hydraulics used in current and projected tanks) . The gun, turret, and hull each have thier own stabilization. While each of these are mechanically independant, they are balanced and co-ordinated via computer (which also feeds stability data to the gunnery computer, adjusting the GPS crosshairs in real time). This is unlike current tanks, whose ballistics comuters only react indirectly to the actual stability of the vehicle.
The heavy stabilization also gives the Tigerwolf a smoother ride, even at high speeds, greatly decreasing the strainand workload on the crew --- most tanks ride like bucking broncos at speed, making loading, map-reading, and keeping a steady hand on the controls very difficult.
The added stability also makes the vehicle stealthier, as well. All the rocking, bouncing, and ocillation created by a moving tank can give away it's position, or at least it's presence. The Tigerwolf, however, practically "floats" over terrain imperfections, mainaining a low noise profile.
The front and rear suspension can also be manually overridden and set to extremes in height. For example, in order to hit a target that is too low for the main gun alone to superelevate to, the rear supension may be raised, while the forward suspension is lowered. This allows the Tigerwolf to easily fire very low-angle shots, while at the same time keeping it's vulnerable underbelly covered. The inverse may be used to hit targets too high to normally hit, or to extend the reach or angle of indirect fire.
Most importantly, the Tigerwolf's stability allows for "firing-on-the-move" with very high accuracy, even at distant moving targets.
The high speed, long range, low profile, low noise, and low IR cross section all combine to form a vehicle with unprecedented potential in what most stategists consider the importand design element of a tank --- Surprise. The Tigerwolf can apporach, attack, and destroy any current MBT, then egress, without ever being detected. It can attack from distances any current tank gun cannot return fire from. It can also use long range indirect fire from behind cover, without ever entering the enemy's LOS.
Even without surprise, the Tigerwolf's mobility, defense, and firepower are still too great for current tanks to keep up with.
*I'm tired of chattering about this vehicle on my own. If you want to know anything else about the "T-Wolf", then post a comment.
Conversing is more fun than lecturing, anyway!*
Category Designs / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 960 x 699px
File Size 116.7 kB
Wow, nice design. Only problem with it (as of right now) is that there might be problems with large-scale production of the armor.
As best I can recall, buckminsterfullerenes are difficult to produce on a laboratory scale, much less in sheets of the size you're talking about. Plus, C60 and C70 molecules tend to form spheres, rather than fibers. However, carbon nanotubes (nanoscale threads formed of single carbon molecules) would have a similar low weight and high strength, and CAN be woven into fabric. The only problem (still) is difficulty of manufacture.
However, if you go with "conventional" carbon fiber composites, there would be less difficulty in manufacture. The armor would be heavier, but still nowhere near steel-plate heavy. The primary difficulty is the fact that carbon fiber composites tend to be brittle. Layering them in a manner such that they ablate with successive impacts might help, but it would be difficult to repair with any rapidity. You could also do composites sandwiched between metal, which might decrease the brittleness.
Just a thought. :P
As best I can recall, buckminsterfullerenes are difficult to produce on a laboratory scale, much less in sheets of the size you're talking about. Plus, C60 and C70 molecules tend to form spheres, rather than fibers. However, carbon nanotubes (nanoscale threads formed of single carbon molecules) would have a similar low weight and high strength, and CAN be woven into fabric. The only problem (still) is difficulty of manufacture.
However, if you go with "conventional" carbon fiber composites, there would be less difficulty in manufacture. The armor would be heavier, but still nowhere near steel-plate heavy. The primary difficulty is the fact that carbon fiber composites tend to be brittle. Layering them in a manner such that they ablate with successive impacts might help, but it would be difficult to repair with any rapidity. You could also do composites sandwiched between metal, which might decrease the brittleness.
Just a thought. :P
Actually, nanotubes are what I had in mind --- they are made (to the best of my memory) by unraveling those spheres (known genarically as "Bucky Balls").
Using a combination of "sludge" pools(containing Bucky Ball-rich matter) with populations of self-replicating nanomachine robots, fullerine threads and fabrics could theoretically be "grown" at a very rapid pace. Possibly so rapidly that the challenge won't be making it quickly or cheaply enough, but trying to pack and sell it fast enough.
As for carbon composite fibers, they strike me as being crude, imperfect, and fragile compared to Fullerine. I also doubt composit fiber armor would hold up well to the impact of an M129A1 APFSDS, which is said to have the kinetic energy of a 12-ton truck, moving at 75mph, crammed into a space 2in wide --- this is a job for Fullerine.
If you want to learn more about Fullerine threads in more detail, I suggest asking Richard J. Bartrop about them.
Using a combination of "sludge" pools(containing Bucky Ball-rich matter) with populations of self-replicating nanomachine robots, fullerine threads and fabrics could theoretically be "grown" at a very rapid pace. Possibly so rapidly that the challenge won't be making it quickly or cheaply enough, but trying to pack and sell it fast enough.
As for carbon composite fibers, they strike me as being crude, imperfect, and fragile compared to Fullerine. I also doubt composit fiber armor would hold up well to the impact of an M129A1 APFSDS, which is said to have the kinetic energy of a 12-ton truck, moving at 75mph, crammed into a space 2in wide --- this is a job for Fullerine.
If you want to learn more about Fullerine threads in more detail, I suggest asking Richard J. Bartrop about them.
Well, nanotubes would sure do a dandy job of what you're talking about. And if we ever get nanomachines working, that's only one of the super-materials that we'll be able to produce en masse (sheets of synthetic diamond for you windows, for example).
Carbon composites are getting better, but you're right, they have a long way to go. Ironically enough, though, Fullerene would be where they're likely to end up. :P Or something pretty close to it. Nanotubes embedded in resin, for instance.
I was trying to think of high-strength, low-density materials when I suggested composites, but most high-strength, low-density materials are also exceedingly brittle under certain conditions. Take titanium for instance.
I would ask Mr. Bartrop, if I knew how to get in contact with him. :P
Carbon composites are getting better, but you're right, they have a long way to go. Ironically enough, though, Fullerene would be where they're likely to end up. :P Or something pretty close to it. Nanotubes embedded in resin, for instance.
I was trying to think of high-strength, low-density materials when I suggested composites, but most high-strength, low-density materials are also exceedingly brittle under certain conditions. Take titanium for instance.
I would ask Mr. Bartrop, if I knew how to get in contact with him. :P
Nanotubes imbedded in resin? That's an interesting idea!
As for Richard Bartrop, either he has gone quiet lately, or he is using a moniker I'm not familiar with. If you want to E-mail him, his personal webpage can be found here; http://bartrop.purrsia.com/
As for Richard Bartrop, either he has gone quiet lately, or he is using a moniker I'm not familiar with. If you want to E-mail him, his personal webpage can be found here; http://bartrop.purrsia.com/
Thanks for both parts of your response. :)
As far as the nanotubes in resin goes, you could also do buckeyballs if you couldn't get them to unravel. Problem is, the resin is the brittle part, so it might not give you much of an advantage over conventional carbon-fibers. Or I could just be talking out my ass on any of this, seeing as I'm kind of sleepy right now. :P
Again, thank you for the web address. Now I'd just need to work the courage up to contact him. :)
As far as the nanotubes in resin goes, you could also do buckeyballs if you couldn't get them to unravel. Problem is, the resin is the brittle part, so it might not give you much of an advantage over conventional carbon-fibers. Or I could just be talking out my ass on any of this, seeing as I'm kind of sleepy right now. :P
Again, thank you for the web address. Now I'd just need to work the courage up to contact him. :)
Nice piece of work there, but we can't quite get fullerenes in quantity...and isn't sticking with common, albiet weaker cannon types a better idea to maintain a more practical supply train. After all, the King Tiger was done in by supply shortages as much as by the Thunderbolts and Mustangs that had air superiority. The Wankel engine is a definite plus, though.
Interesting. Maybe I should have the Haven Federation Army deploy a few of these against the North American Union Army's M1A4 Next-Gen Abrams MBTs and M8A2 Buford MGS (a tracked air-droppable tank utilizing a 105mm autoloading howitzer, and not the junk on the Stryker MGS) next-gen light tanks. Of course, that's dependent on your permission and my ability to get started with outlining/writing up the Omega Wars.
(Tombfyre Kraken definitely cheats the game, without his and the rest of the Big Eight's access to the Omega Nannite Grid (I'll go into depth about this. Not only is it the "furry plague" of the 21st Century and the enabler of macros, but it also allows for the production of exotic materials, ranging drom such things as self-aware plastics to exotic metal alloys that allowed the HF-17 Starfig's engines to put out such impressive performance with such a crude design without melting like taffy), no Furry Coalition force (1981-1986 Technological Equivalent Year) could get access to fullerene materials in quantity, even the more-advanced United Earth industries (2031 TEY) can only use buckytube in limited amounts. Gee, that sure was a mouthful there.)
Interesting. Maybe I should have the Haven Federation Army deploy a few of these against the North American Union Army's M1A4 Next-Gen Abrams MBTs and M8A2 Buford MGS (a tracked air-droppable tank utilizing a 105mm autoloading howitzer, and not the junk on the Stryker MGS) next-gen light tanks. Of course, that's dependent on your permission and my ability to get started with outlining/writing up the Omega Wars.
(Tombfyre Kraken definitely cheats the game, without his and the rest of the Big Eight's access to the Omega Nannite Grid (I'll go into depth about this. Not only is it the "furry plague" of the 21st Century and the enabler of macros, but it also allows for the production of exotic materials, ranging drom such things as self-aware plastics to exotic metal alloys that allowed the HF-17 Starfig's engines to put out such impressive performance with such a crude design without melting like taffy), no Furry Coalition force (1981-1986 Technological Equivalent Year) could get access to fullerene materials in quantity, even the more-advanced United Earth industries (2031 TEY) can only use buckytube in limited amounts. Gee, that sure was a mouthful there.)
Fullerine may be exeedingly hard to manufacture in the present day, but as recently as 1800, iron was hard to produce. Thanks to the "Industrial Revolution", by 1850, iron was so cheap and easy to produce that the British built "Iron Bridge" (entirely made of iron) to commemorate that accomplishment.
In the midst of the "Information Age", where technology evolves exponetntially faster than even in the Industrial Revolution, it is only a matter of time before cheap, plentiful, mass produced fullerine becomes a reality. It may not be long, either.
The T-Wolf is not nearly as vulnerable to aircraft as other tanks are, due to it's 20mm autocannon and some of it's main gun ammo (as you'll see in my nest post). In fact, the aircraft may be in more danger than thier "target"!
As for logistical issues, the Tigerwolf is only one cell of a much larger range of weapons and equipment. All of it requires different logistical tactics and equipment than any used today. I.e., bigger cargo vehicles with more mobility, range, and cargo capacity, and new re-supplying methods.
Fielding the T-Wolf using previous logistical methods would not be practical, because they are designed to service a previous generation of tanks, and thier successors. The T-Wolf is completly different --- it is not simply an "Evolution" of the prior designs it is inteded to fight, but rather a "Replacement" for them. It is a "Strong" tank design, that automatically trumps "Weak" tanks, as it is made completely to destroy them all with ease. Using "Weak" ammo and parts form any previous designs compromises the T-Wolf's ability to be a "Strong" tank --- a vehicle that instead of wrestling with enemy tanks, hunts them down like dogs.
This is what the T-Wolf is designed to do, and any compromise in it's design could throw it's potential abilities dangerously out of balance --- after all, look at what happened with the M60A2.
As for your request... Though I won't relinquish the T-Wolf for your story, I am willing to create a new design for you that reflects a lot of the same ideas I put into the T-Wolf(and uses more technically practical equipment and components for the setting you describe).
I also appreciate your disdain for the Stryker --- every time the Stryker gets dissed, an angel gets its wings!
In the midst of the "Information Age", where technology evolves exponetntially faster than even in the Industrial Revolution, it is only a matter of time before cheap, plentiful, mass produced fullerine becomes a reality. It may not be long, either.
The T-Wolf is not nearly as vulnerable to aircraft as other tanks are, due to it's 20mm autocannon and some of it's main gun ammo (as you'll see in my nest post). In fact, the aircraft may be in more danger than thier "target"!
As for logistical issues, the Tigerwolf is only one cell of a much larger range of weapons and equipment. All of it requires different logistical tactics and equipment than any used today. I.e., bigger cargo vehicles with more mobility, range, and cargo capacity, and new re-supplying methods.
Fielding the T-Wolf using previous logistical methods would not be practical, because they are designed to service a previous generation of tanks, and thier successors. The T-Wolf is completly different --- it is not simply an "Evolution" of the prior designs it is inteded to fight, but rather a "Replacement" for them. It is a "Strong" tank design, that automatically trumps "Weak" tanks, as it is made completely to destroy them all with ease. Using "Weak" ammo and parts form any previous designs compromises the T-Wolf's ability to be a "Strong" tank --- a vehicle that instead of wrestling with enemy tanks, hunts them down like dogs.
This is what the T-Wolf is designed to do, and any compromise in it's design could throw it's potential abilities dangerously out of balance --- after all, look at what happened with the M60A2.
As for your request... Though I won't relinquish the T-Wolf for your story, I am willing to create a new design for you that reflects a lot of the same ideas I put into the T-Wolf(and uses more technically practical equipment and components for the setting you describe).
I also appreciate your disdain for the Stryker --- every time the Stryker gets dissed, an angel gets its wings!
Also, upon further perusal of your document, I have to disagree with your rationale of a larger crew.
With sudh a heavily armored vehicle, any hits which penetrate to the crew compartment rarely, if ever, kill one or two of the crew. Often, if there is a sole casualty, it is the commander being the victim of a sniper, or the driver being unlucky enough to be killed by a minor breach of the glacis.
With a smaller crew, you can afford to field more tanks, which does wonders to offset the relatively slow rate of fire caused by incorporating an autoloader, and also limits the loss of life of a destroyed vehicle.
Though, unless there is sophisticated automation at work, I would stick with a crew of around three. Driver, gunner, and commander/communications.
With sudh a heavily armored vehicle, any hits which penetrate to the crew compartment rarely, if ever, kill one or two of the crew. Often, if there is a sole casualty, it is the commander being the victim of a sniper, or the driver being unlucky enough to be killed by a minor breach of the glacis.
With a smaller crew, you can afford to field more tanks, which does wonders to offset the relatively slow rate of fire caused by incorporating an autoloader, and also limits the loss of life of a destroyed vehicle.
Though, unless there is sophisticated automation at work, I would stick with a crew of around three. Driver, gunner, and commander/communications.
The large crew is a technical neccessity. The T-wolf needs a driver to move it around, a gunner to shoot, 2 loaders (because the 145mm shells are so F#*^ing heavy), and an engineer to make adjustments and/or repairs on various gizmos, and a commander to oversee the whole operation.
This is an exeptionally large tank with only modest automation --- more automation means more parts, more parts mean more things that can break, and more things that can break means they will be breaking more often. Further more, tank warfare involves more than just excanging fire with other tanks. If an MBT needs to dig in, take on supplies or fuel, or pull into a concealed position for repairs, every man you have available counts. The more people you have working on these thing, the faster and more efficiently they get done, and there aren't always going to be troops or mechanics around to help you out with everything.
Also, any penetration of the armor by any anti-tank weapon in existance (if anything can actually perforate 5 inches of Fullerine Ballistic fabric to begin with)will not have very much fore by the time it reaches the interior. The "blow-off" top panels cancel out overpressure, the Halon would quickly nullify any incendiary effect, and the Fullerine spall liner absorbs any spalling. Thus, any thing that DOES pierce into the fighting compartment won't have much punch, so crew injuries will be far lighter than today's primarily metal-armored "Peanut Brittle" tanks --- any casualties would be light.
If one crewman is wounded in a T-62, that's a third of the crew, and someone must drive while the other goes back and forth between the gun and the radio. If two crewmen are killed and/or incapacitated, the survivor must take the wheel and flee.
In the T-Wolf, however, only a sixth of the crew is lost if one crewman goes down, and it can still operate almost normally for the rest of the battle. If two are lost, then one can drive, two can load, and one can shoot. If HALF the crew is lost, then one can drive, and the other two can load while one of them gos to and from the gunner's seat. If only two remain, then one can drive, while the other (very slowly) can load and shoot a round or two.
Don't even get me started on autoloaders --- the only MBTs that use those are the ones that don't fight (the Leclerc comes to mind), or the ones that creamed (T-72.
This is an exeptionally large tank with only modest automation --- more automation means more parts, more parts mean more things that can break, and more things that can break means they will be breaking more often. Further more, tank warfare involves more than just excanging fire with other tanks. If an MBT needs to dig in, take on supplies or fuel, or pull into a concealed position for repairs, every man you have available counts. The more people you have working on these thing, the faster and more efficiently they get done, and there aren't always going to be troops or mechanics around to help you out with everything.
Also, any penetration of the armor by any anti-tank weapon in existance (if anything can actually perforate 5 inches of Fullerine Ballistic fabric to begin with)will not have very much fore by the time it reaches the interior. The "blow-off" top panels cancel out overpressure, the Halon would quickly nullify any incendiary effect, and the Fullerine spall liner absorbs any spalling. Thus, any thing that DOES pierce into the fighting compartment won't have much punch, so crew injuries will be far lighter than today's primarily metal-armored "Peanut Brittle" tanks --- any casualties would be light.
If one crewman is wounded in a T-62, that's a third of the crew, and someone must drive while the other goes back and forth between the gun and the radio. If two crewmen are killed and/or incapacitated, the survivor must take the wheel and flee.
In the T-Wolf, however, only a sixth of the crew is lost if one crewman goes down, and it can still operate almost normally for the rest of the battle. If two are lost, then one can drive, two can load, and one can shoot. If HALF the crew is lost, then one can drive, and the other two can load while one of them gos to and from the gunner's seat. If only two remain, then one can drive, while the other (very slowly) can load and shoot a round or two.
Don't even get me started on autoloaders --- the only MBTs that use those are the ones that don't fight (the Leclerc comes to mind), or the ones that creamed (T-72.
It seems as though a better integration of the ammunition bay and the gun would help combat some of the deficiencies of auto-loading.
And..large...I can't quite get that concept from a tank thatis only forty tons. On the other hand, carbon generally floats...
Perhaps it's a mental deficiency on my part, but I just don't favor the use of carbon as armor in ground units, it's the weapons I'm used to.
And..large...I can't quite get that concept from a tank thatis only forty tons. On the other hand, carbon generally floats...
Perhaps it's a mental deficiency on my part, but I just don't favor the use of carbon as armor in ground units, it's the weapons I'm used to.
Tanks that use autoloaders are inevitably more thinly armored than manually-loaded tanks in the same performance class. For example, the M1A1 Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, and the (Japanese) Type 90 are about the same size, carry the same class of gun, use roughly the same composition of armor, and (exept for the M1A1) use the same size and weight engine.
BUT...
The Type 90 is 10 tons lighter than the others --- it's autoloading system is so large and complex that in order to stay within the size constraints of the rest of the above mentioned vehicles, it's turret has much thinner armor.
The Type 90, BTW, has the best autoloading system yet implemented on an MBT --- it just has dangerously thin turret armor as inevitable compromise.
As for the notion that the Tigerwolf floats, the M2 Bradley is "Amphibious" as well --- when it's floatation screen is raised. Like the M2, the T-Wolf has such a device to cross deep water (note the lack of room on the image to type that in). If the screen is not raised, neither the M2, nor the T-Wolf will float.
Also, the T-Wolf is very light not only due to it's use of fullerine, but also because of it's bomposition as a whole. About a third of the overall armor mass is metal, and much of the machinery is metallic carbon. Everything in the interior that isn't subject to significant stress is made of alluminum, and the banded tracks are almost 20% fullerine, and rubber-padded.
The M1A1 Abrams weighs arond 64 tons, but it's machinery and weaponry are almost entirely steel, as is it's thick metal armor. Thus, the T-Wolf weighs 30% less than the T-Wolf, while it is 30% larger.
This gives the T-Wolf bouanancy almost equivalent to the M2 Bradley, which can float if it's screen is opened. Thus, the T-Wolf has limited amphibious capability, which is almost unheard of in an MBT.
I wouldn't worry about the fullerine catching fire, either --- the outermost layer of armor on every side is chobham, and the "core" of the armor is titanium.
BUT...
The Type 90 is 10 tons lighter than the others --- it's autoloading system is so large and complex that in order to stay within the size constraints of the rest of the above mentioned vehicles, it's turret has much thinner armor.
The Type 90, BTW, has the best autoloading system yet implemented on an MBT --- it just has dangerously thin turret armor as inevitable compromise.
As for the notion that the Tigerwolf floats, the M2 Bradley is "Amphibious" as well --- when it's floatation screen is raised. Like the M2, the T-Wolf has such a device to cross deep water (note the lack of room on the image to type that in). If the screen is not raised, neither the M2, nor the T-Wolf will float.
Also, the T-Wolf is very light not only due to it's use of fullerine, but also because of it's bomposition as a whole. About a third of the overall armor mass is metal, and much of the machinery is metallic carbon. Everything in the interior that isn't subject to significant stress is made of alluminum, and the banded tracks are almost 20% fullerine, and rubber-padded.
The M1A1 Abrams weighs arond 64 tons, but it's machinery and weaponry are almost entirely steel, as is it's thick metal armor. Thus, the T-Wolf weighs 30% less than the T-Wolf, while it is 30% larger.
This gives the T-Wolf bouanancy almost equivalent to the M2 Bradley, which can float if it's screen is opened. Thus, the T-Wolf has limited amphibious capability, which is almost unheard of in an MBT.
I wouldn't worry about the fullerine catching fire, either --- the outermost layer of armor on every side is chobham, and the "core" of the armor is titanium.
Too inefficient. Besides, the tank tends to ground itself. Useful when aliens try to zap you.
And yes, directed energy weapons aren't all that, which is why I use coilguns. All the ammunition variations of a standard tank, but delivered at a higher velocity, and well...it's just so much easier to load something that uses a magnetic field to suspend most of the ammunition's weight.
And yes, directed energy weapons aren't all that, which is why I use coilguns. All the ammunition variations of a standard tank, but delivered at a higher velocity, and well...it's just so much easier to load something that uses a magnetic field to suspend most of the ammunition's weight.
The aromr is full of that kind of stuff --- just not in large enough amounts to warrant listind in the armor composition. Also, a lot of metal is still used in the Tigerwolf. You cant make a howitzer out of woven carbon, after all!
In fact, some of the hollow spaces betwwen layers of metal and/or fullerine are used as diesel fuel storage.
Diesel is said to be an effective form of "armor" when used in this fashion.
Essentailly, the T-Wolf actually has "composite" armor.
In fact, some of the hollow spaces betwwen layers of metal and/or fullerine are used as diesel fuel storage.
Diesel is said to be an effective form of "armor" when used in this fashion.
Essentailly, the T-Wolf actually has "composite" armor.
My God...it's a tinderbox waiting for the match of a laser or particle beam.
Hell, I wonder if a kinetic energy weapon launched from a satellite wouldn't be effective? It seems as though it suffers from the same vulnerability as other tanks. Above and below, the armor isn ot nearly so thick as the frontal or lateral armor.
Hell, I wonder if a kinetic energy weapon launched from a satellite wouldn't be effective? It seems as though it suffers from the same vulnerability as other tanks. Above and below, the armor isn ot nearly so thick as the frontal or lateral armor.
Diesel oil is incapable of burning --- it can put out a matchstick. Only when atomised in a small, enclosed, oxygen-rich space can it even explode. So, in essence, it can only combust in an engine.
But don't just take my word for it, read about it here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_oil
As for Directed Energy (DE) weapons Vs. heavy armor, DE weapons are extremely inefficient. They create a high power drain, refract over distance (which sheds off most of thier potential power as heat) in an atmosphere, they can only be fired briefly (to avoid melting the barrels, lenses, etc.), they have an extremely low ROF (while thier batteries recharge), and the facilities needed for a non-disposable DE wepon are extensive. For all that, you don't get much of a punch.
Missile weapons projected by Chemical Energy (CE) are always more efficient and less cumbersome than any equal power DE weapon.
EM missile weapons (Coil and Rail Guns) suffer from similar problems, but one one is unique to them; because so much electricity must transfer to the magnets to exert as much KE on the shell as a CE powder charge would, the cables that carry this current tend to flash-melt.
Regarding a KE weapon thrown from space, first of all, getting something into space that is supposed to STAY there for more than a few minutes is a very slow and expensive operation. Second, because of the above issues with satellite weapons, they will inevitably be equiped with armament designed for use against either something much bigger and/or tougher than a mere tank, or at least something a lot more important than a tank.
Now, regarding the vertical armor thickness of the T-Wolf, it's roof and floor armor are both more than 4 inches thick, and have the same Fullerine+Chobham+Titanium composition as the rest of the vehicle.
On average, the vertical armored protection of the T-Wolf is more than 10 times the strength of the hull-side protection of the M1A1 Abrams.
Existing AT mines and ATGMs don't have much effect on the T-Wolf.
But don't just take my word for it, read about it here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_oil
As for Directed Energy (DE) weapons Vs. heavy armor, DE weapons are extremely inefficient. They create a high power drain, refract over distance (which sheds off most of thier potential power as heat) in an atmosphere, they can only be fired briefly (to avoid melting the barrels, lenses, etc.), they have an extremely low ROF (while thier batteries recharge), and the facilities needed for a non-disposable DE wepon are extensive. For all that, you don't get much of a punch.
Missile weapons projected by Chemical Energy (CE) are always more efficient and less cumbersome than any equal power DE weapon.
EM missile weapons (Coil and Rail Guns) suffer from similar problems, but one one is unique to them; because so much electricity must transfer to the magnets to exert as much KE on the shell as a CE powder charge would, the cables that carry this current tend to flash-melt.
Regarding a KE weapon thrown from space, first of all, getting something into space that is supposed to STAY there for more than a few minutes is a very slow and expensive operation. Second, because of the above issues with satellite weapons, they will inevitably be equiped with armament designed for use against either something much bigger and/or tougher than a mere tank, or at least something a lot more important than a tank.
Now, regarding the vertical armor thickness of the T-Wolf, it's roof and floor armor are both more than 4 inches thick, and have the same Fullerine+Chobham+Titanium composition as the rest of the vehicle.
On average, the vertical armored protection of the T-Wolf is more than 10 times the strength of the hull-side protection of the M1A1 Abrams.
Existing AT mines and ATGMs don't have much effect on the T-Wolf.
I wasn't speaking of the fuel when I said it was a tinderbox. It's just that carbon sublimates when dealing with weapons with which I am used to.
As far as energy requirements, you might want to consider replacing the diesel engines with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor I love nuclear power, and this is so much easier to fit into a tank than a bulky fusion plant.
As far as energy requirements, you might want to consider replacing the diesel engines with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor I love nuclear power, and this is so much easier to fit into a tank than a bulky fusion plant.
Or a third nut and no eyes --- which wouldn't be much better.
Seriously though, non-combatant aircraft are low on Gomer's hitlist. They mostly hang around the rear areas, and even when the enemy is near they are less likely to be targeted, not being an immediate threat.
That, and it would also be handy to deploy an AAR tanker that doesn't have to dip into the till at longer ranges, if you catch my drift.
Seriously though, non-combatant aircraft are low on Gomer's hitlist. They mostly hang around the rear areas, and even when the enemy is near they are less likely to be targeted, not being an immediate threat.
That, and it would also be handy to deploy an AAR tanker that doesn't have to dip into the till at longer ranges, if you catch my drift.
'Thor' was a never implemented prototype weapon, a space-based kinetic impactor. Basically, it was a twelve-foot crowbar with a rudimentary sensor module one end, and steering vanes on the other. It had an ablative sheild for the nose, and the computer would have been programmed to ident a target-shape, top of a tank, airplane or ship.
They were to have been put in orbital 'busses', and if you had a problem, say an enemy incursion on an ally, you just told your ally to stay home, and dumped as many 'Thor's as was neccessary.
The impact would punch a hole in any vehicle.
They were to have been put in orbital 'busses', and if you had a problem, say an enemy incursion on an ally, you just told your ally to stay home, and dumped as many 'Thor's as was neccessary.
The impact would punch a hole in any vehicle.
I'm not overly fond of bipedal AFV concepts. The legs are too vulnerable to warrant the inevitably high cost and maintnance. They can also trip too easily --- or BE TRIPPED for that matter. Also, you're screwed if your biped loses a leg, whereas a tracked vehicle can at least drag itself away if the ground isn't too soft/loose.
Also, tracks are the most effective means of supporting and/or spreading weight, which allows heavy upgrades, kits, etc to be fitted with little hindrance to mobility and servicability. US Army crews operating rubber-tired Stryker trucks in Iraq are now learning this the hard way.
Bipeds would be phenomenally worse, with 10-50 tons of weight concentrated into 2 metal "soles", in two pressure-points only a few square feet each.
Also, tracks are the most effective means of supporting and/or spreading weight, which allows heavy upgrades, kits, etc to be fitted with little hindrance to mobility and servicability. US Army crews operating rubber-tired Stryker trucks in Iraq are now learning this the hard way.
Bipeds would be phenomenally worse, with 10-50 tons of weight concentrated into 2 metal "soles", in two pressure-points only a few square feet each.
Do you mean on the Stryker? That's easy to do even at a long range, because it's RWS has no stabilization and takes 16 seconds to slew 360 degrees.
The Tigerwolf is a whole different matter. Consider that the 40-ton turret M1 Abrams takes just 8 seconds to slew 360 degrees --- similar turret motors on the Tigerwolf, with it's 20-ton turret --- would result in 4 seconds through 360 degrees.
The Tigerwolf is a whole different matter. Consider that the 40-ton turret M1 Abrams takes just 8 seconds to slew 360 degrees --- similar turret motors on the Tigerwolf, with it's 20-ton turret --- would result in 4 seconds through 360 degrees.
It probably could, but I don't care much for Smoothbore guns after doing enough research --- they have trouble firing anything other than HEAT and APFSDS, which can be slip-ringed for a Rifled gun with equal terminal effect Also, in many respects even the current 120mm and 125mm guns are overkill against Heavy Armor.
There's also a bigger, better, BADDER gun already in existence that could be used for a rooftop AA Gun --- the ASP-30;
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3643.html
There's also a bigger, better, BADDER gun already in existence that could be used for a rooftop AA Gun --- the ASP-30;
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3643.html
I have a comment about the armor that doesn't only have to do with buckminsterfullerines. Chobham has some very unique characteristics compared to other armors, two of the most prominent being that it works best when presented at shallow or no angles, as an incoming projectile will damage fewer ceramic plates, and therfor preserve more of the armor integrity, and it is very bulky. Where exactly is the Chobham supposed to be in this tank, and how much are you using? Because Chobham is also heavy and this tank is pretty dang light. Also, how the hell do you intend to keep the weight down to a measly 40 tons when (even with light armor) with such insanely thick armor covering every side of the vehicle? Keep in mind that a T90 weighs 11 tons more than this, is significantly smaller, has much less armor, and has a smaller gun and two less crew members. Also, wouldn't it be more economical for space as well as more efficient to use an autoloader for such monstrously large shells like the ones designed by the Brits and the Americans for 140mm guns in the 90s? Also finally, buckminster fullerines may be stronger than steel, but how do they fair against HEAT charges?
Sorry for taking so long to respond to your comment. I don't spend as much time on FA as I probably should these days.
"I have a comment about the armor that doesn't only have to do with buckminsterfullerines. Chobham has some very unique characteristics compared to other armors, two of the most prominent being that it works best when presented at shallow or no angles, as an incoming projectile will damage fewer ceramic plates, and therfor preserve more of the armor integrity, and it is very bulky."
That's only if the ceramic plates inside the armor array are arranged paralel to to it, rather than perpendicular. Moreover, not to diss you or anything, but it's sort of pointless to discuss the precise composition and geography of the Composite Armor in any tank introduced since the 1970s --- accurate published information in that regard doesn't exist.
I know that's not much of a response, but you would have to present me with a hypothetical example.
Also, sloped armor is still highly advantageous for AFVs, because of all the CE (Chemical Energy) threats they face, like HEAT and HESH rounds. These are delivered by rockets, recoilless rifles, missiles launched by aircraft, helicopters, vehicles, infatry, and stationary launchers, and even by a few thrown grenades --- all of which will fail to detonate if striking at a steep angle, and will likely glance-off instead. This doesn't mean much with high-velocity KE (Kinetic Energy) ammunition like an APFSDS round, but in the grand scheme of things, they're so rare in proportion to CE threats that KE weapons don't decerve much attention.
"Where exactly is the Chobham supposed to be in this tank, and how much are you using? Because Chobham is also heavy and this tank is pretty dang light."
It's been so long since I designed this tank, that I've forgotten (I finalized this design a decade ago!). If I designed it today, the Chobham would be on the glacis plates of the hull and turret, and possibly on the flanks of the turret as well.
"Also, how the hell do you intend to keep the weight down to a measly 40 tons when (even with light armor) with such insanely thick armor covering every side of the vehicle? Keep in mind that a T90 weighs 11 tons more than this, is significantly smaller, has much less armor, and has a smaller gun and two less crew members."
Carbon is a LOT lighter than Steel, and you wouldn't need much Fullerine to defeat any existing or projected anti-tank munition. The armor on most sides of the Tigerwolf isn't much thicker than it would be on an APC, as it serves mostly as it's only real function is to keep the Fullerine in place. The armor in a T-90 is mostly solid Steel, with some composites, ceramics, and spall liners mixed-in; the armor on the Tigerwolf is the polar opposite.
"Also, wouldn't it be more economical for space as well as more efficient to use an autoloader for such monstrously large shells like the ones designed by the Brits and the Americans for 140mm guns in the 90s?"
If you think the ammunition is huge, imagine how large the autoloader and replenisher would be, that you would need to cycle munitions this bulky. To put it another way, compare the available interior volume of an M109 to a PzH 2000, both of which have a 155mm weapon. An autoloader and replenisher for a weapon this large also start looking even less attractive when you consider how the crew would cycle such heavy ammunition manually, with less crew members to heft it around, less space to work with, and all that heavy machinery to cycle by hand. The more you automate something, the more complexity, unreliability, and potential problems you introduce.
"Also finally, buckminster fullerines may be stronger than steel, but how do they fair against HEAT charges?"
The way shaped charge warheads work is that they turn a copper or other soft metal charge liner into a needle-like penetrator when they explode. I've mentioned before that a HEAT round's penetrator turns to liquid, but this isn't entirely accurate; it moves like a fluid, but it isn't heated by the process long enough to actually melt. In short, a HEAT round would still have to tear through all of those fibers to penetrate the steel plate on the other side.
Let's say we're using the 9M133 Kornet (AT-15 Spriggan), which penetrates 1000mm to 1300mm or RHAe, depending on the variant. If we're talking about three inches of Steel (about 76mm), you're definitely going to penetrate it, but if it's one inch of Steel and 2 inches of Fullerine, that's the penetration resistance equivalent of 48,000mm of RHA, before you even get to the metal backplate, and those fibers will rip that penetrator apart something fierce. To put that into pserpective, the most armor penetration that any tank ever built can withstand is the equivalent of about 1200mm, and only at ideal obliquity against the thickest plates.
When you're dealing with materials this strong, armor penetration stops being a "thing" altogether, and you need to devise different approaches to destroying such a vehicle. This is also why I designed the "Impactor" round for the Tigerwolf, rather than an APFSDS round --- if a tank like this one really were developed, it wouldn't be to long before all sorts of others with similar armor start popping-up all over the world, and if you can't penetrate their armor, you can always *smash them* instead. :D
Finally, don't judge me too harshly for the design of this tank. Since I first posted this, I've done a series of presentations on Youtube called Failed Tanks, and in the process of researching what makes a tank a success or a failure in numerous case studies, I've learned a LOT more about tank design.
I've also made a few obvious mistakes in this design, some of which have been pointed-out by my pundits;
http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/i.....-design/page-4
Of course, there are some they are clearly wrong about, as you can sea by my above replies. There are also some serious mistakes I've made which none of thise savants of armored vehicle engineering have been smart enough to notice after nearly a year of blog posts cpread over 5 pages (as of early November 2016) --- like the fact that the diameter of the roadwheels on the Tigerwolf is too large. LoL
Also, note how they mock me first for knowing so little about tank design at first, then later about the complexity of the jargon I used in an article I wrote for Military Today.
"I have a comment about the armor that doesn't only have to do with buckminsterfullerines. Chobham has some very unique characteristics compared to other armors, two of the most prominent being that it works best when presented at shallow or no angles, as an incoming projectile will damage fewer ceramic plates, and therfor preserve more of the armor integrity, and it is very bulky."
That's only if the ceramic plates inside the armor array are arranged paralel to to it, rather than perpendicular. Moreover, not to diss you or anything, but it's sort of pointless to discuss the precise composition and geography of the Composite Armor in any tank introduced since the 1970s --- accurate published information in that regard doesn't exist.
I know that's not much of a response, but you would have to present me with a hypothetical example.
Also, sloped armor is still highly advantageous for AFVs, because of all the CE (Chemical Energy) threats they face, like HEAT and HESH rounds. These are delivered by rockets, recoilless rifles, missiles launched by aircraft, helicopters, vehicles, infatry, and stationary launchers, and even by a few thrown grenades --- all of which will fail to detonate if striking at a steep angle, and will likely glance-off instead. This doesn't mean much with high-velocity KE (Kinetic Energy) ammunition like an APFSDS round, but in the grand scheme of things, they're so rare in proportion to CE threats that KE weapons don't decerve much attention.
"Where exactly is the Chobham supposed to be in this tank, and how much are you using? Because Chobham is also heavy and this tank is pretty dang light."
It's been so long since I designed this tank, that I've forgotten (I finalized this design a decade ago!). If I designed it today, the Chobham would be on the glacis plates of the hull and turret, and possibly on the flanks of the turret as well.
"Also, how the hell do you intend to keep the weight down to a measly 40 tons when (even with light armor) with such insanely thick armor covering every side of the vehicle? Keep in mind that a T90 weighs 11 tons more than this, is significantly smaller, has much less armor, and has a smaller gun and two less crew members."
Carbon is a LOT lighter than Steel, and you wouldn't need much Fullerine to defeat any existing or projected anti-tank munition. The armor on most sides of the Tigerwolf isn't much thicker than it would be on an APC, as it serves mostly as it's only real function is to keep the Fullerine in place. The armor in a T-90 is mostly solid Steel, with some composites, ceramics, and spall liners mixed-in; the armor on the Tigerwolf is the polar opposite.
"Also, wouldn't it be more economical for space as well as more efficient to use an autoloader for such monstrously large shells like the ones designed by the Brits and the Americans for 140mm guns in the 90s?"
If you think the ammunition is huge, imagine how large the autoloader and replenisher would be, that you would need to cycle munitions this bulky. To put it another way, compare the available interior volume of an M109 to a PzH 2000, both of which have a 155mm weapon. An autoloader and replenisher for a weapon this large also start looking even less attractive when you consider how the crew would cycle such heavy ammunition manually, with less crew members to heft it around, less space to work with, and all that heavy machinery to cycle by hand. The more you automate something, the more complexity, unreliability, and potential problems you introduce.
"Also finally, buckminster fullerines may be stronger than steel, but how do they fair against HEAT charges?"
The way shaped charge warheads work is that they turn a copper or other soft metal charge liner into a needle-like penetrator when they explode. I've mentioned before that a HEAT round's penetrator turns to liquid, but this isn't entirely accurate; it moves like a fluid, but it isn't heated by the process long enough to actually melt. In short, a HEAT round would still have to tear through all of those fibers to penetrate the steel plate on the other side.
Let's say we're using the 9M133 Kornet (AT-15 Spriggan), which penetrates 1000mm to 1300mm or RHAe, depending on the variant. If we're talking about three inches of Steel (about 76mm), you're definitely going to penetrate it, but if it's one inch of Steel and 2 inches of Fullerine, that's the penetration resistance equivalent of 48,000mm of RHA, before you even get to the metal backplate, and those fibers will rip that penetrator apart something fierce. To put that into pserpective, the most armor penetration that any tank ever built can withstand is the equivalent of about 1200mm, and only at ideal obliquity against the thickest plates.
When you're dealing with materials this strong, armor penetration stops being a "thing" altogether, and you need to devise different approaches to destroying such a vehicle. This is also why I designed the "Impactor" round for the Tigerwolf, rather than an APFSDS round --- if a tank like this one really were developed, it wouldn't be to long before all sorts of others with similar armor start popping-up all over the world, and if you can't penetrate their armor, you can always *smash them* instead. :D
Finally, don't judge me too harshly for the design of this tank. Since I first posted this, I've done a series of presentations on Youtube called Failed Tanks, and in the process of researching what makes a tank a success or a failure in numerous case studies, I've learned a LOT more about tank design.
I've also made a few obvious mistakes in this design, some of which have been pointed-out by my pundits;
http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/i.....-design/page-4
Of course, there are some they are clearly wrong about, as you can sea by my above replies. There are also some serious mistakes I've made which none of thise savants of armored vehicle engineering have been smart enough to notice after nearly a year of blog posts cpread over 5 pages (as of early November 2016) --- like the fact that the diameter of the roadwheels on the Tigerwolf is too large. LoL
Also, note how they mock me first for knowing so little about tank design at first, then later about the complexity of the jargon I used in an article I wrote for Military Today.
Okay, lets go through the clownery that you managed to call a "good tank"
TLDR: crime against tankmen of any nation, impractical more than maus is.
CREW:
Hyperinflated crew. No comments.
ARMAMENT:
145mm. For a tank. The only tank similar to this is assault (anti-bunker) modification of T-14, bearing 152mm cannon, though the turret is 100% unmanned and has a good autoloader bringing reload to 6 seconds. And this 145mm monstriosity has... manual loading. Loaders would be strained way too much , which would lead to this cosplay of a tank having reload speed worse than FV-4005's. Also, manual loading makes the tank unusable incase a nuclear war says a loud "hello" - weight lifting is prohibited when you got irradiated, even "slight" dosage - internal bleeding will start otherwise. 145mm is heavy as hell, so guess what? Right, incase the area is contaminated, its just one shot from the main cannon. And thats if those two poor guys somehow managed to load the 145mm shell in before going into the area. Thats why autoloaders are a thing.
20mm, additional weight to the tank and more pain for the crew! Plus no FCS for it, making it basically useless.
7x50...yeah this is next level bullshit. Gotta put all the 7.62 NATO making factories refocus on this then? NATO standarts exist.
And oh god finally, GPS crosshairs. Thing thats used only with strategic-level weaponry, for a tank. No comments.
ARMOR:
No, just f---ing no. Fullerine? Titanium? You know a 120mm APFSDS can slice through five blocks of 100mm titanium at once? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWDoPRW24EY&ab_channel=XDYN) OH ALSO Fullerine wont be used for armor...logistics say hello. Its useless for tank armour, as just about any post 1972 tank APFSDS would slice through it. Especially modern ones that come near to a meter of RHA penetration...mhm. You put 380mm of that bullshitty armor? Okay, M829A1 has 610mm penetration. A3 got 765mm. 3BM44 got 650mm penetration, 3BM46 got 760mm penetration.
STEALTHINESS:
Abrams but worse. Way worse. No else comments.
MANEUVERABILITY:
The weight thing is 101% bullshit, you put 380 cm of armor, abrams-like turret, 145mm with 80 shells. M60A3, which is smaller, somehow weighs more. Mhm, you know where this is going. Also... rotary engines tend to overheat. Also the "t-wolf" couldnt be amphibious - 40 tons simply dont allow for such a machine to go amphibious, its not a ship. Its a tank.
SUMMARY:
Modernized Maus and KV-2 in one. Bullshitty armor values and materials that were never used for tank armor, likely will fail at that purpose. Failure-prone engine. Inadequate reload times. Profile bigger than that of M1A2. Even with TUSK, where it adds a CROWS M2 to the commander. Elevating the main gun too high or too low and firing will give entire crew a very fun time; also dont even try firing it on the move. Finally, inadequate price for even one unit - will not reach mass production, ever. God forbid this meets a T-72B obr. 1989, the crew of T-wolf would be paste. You tell me Abrams is a shitty tank? I show you this crime against my (and probably anyone who likes tanks) eyes. Nothing else to say here, I refuse to go any deeper into this.
TLDR: crime against tankmen of any nation, impractical more than maus is.
CREW:
Hyperinflated crew. No comments.
ARMAMENT:
145mm. For a tank. The only tank similar to this is assault (anti-bunker) modification of T-14, bearing 152mm cannon, though the turret is 100% unmanned and has a good autoloader bringing reload to 6 seconds. And this 145mm monstriosity has... manual loading. Loaders would be strained way too much , which would lead to this cosplay of a tank having reload speed worse than FV-4005's. Also, manual loading makes the tank unusable incase a nuclear war says a loud "hello" - weight lifting is prohibited when you got irradiated, even "slight" dosage - internal bleeding will start otherwise. 145mm is heavy as hell, so guess what? Right, incase the area is contaminated, its just one shot from the main cannon. And thats if those two poor guys somehow managed to load the 145mm shell in before going into the area. Thats why autoloaders are a thing.
20mm, additional weight to the tank and more pain for the crew! Plus no FCS for it, making it basically useless.
7x50...yeah this is next level bullshit. Gotta put all the 7.62 NATO making factories refocus on this then? NATO standarts exist.
And oh god finally, GPS crosshairs. Thing thats used only with strategic-level weaponry, for a tank. No comments.
ARMOR:
No, just f---ing no. Fullerine? Titanium? You know a 120mm APFSDS can slice through five blocks of 100mm titanium at once? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWDoPRW24EY&ab_channel=XDYN) OH ALSO Fullerine wont be used for armor...logistics say hello. Its useless for tank armour, as just about any post 1972 tank APFSDS would slice through it. Especially modern ones that come near to a meter of RHA penetration...mhm. You put 380mm of that bullshitty armor? Okay, M829A1 has 610mm penetration. A3 got 765mm. 3BM44 got 650mm penetration, 3BM46 got 760mm penetration.
STEALTHINESS:
Abrams but worse. Way worse. No else comments.
MANEUVERABILITY:
The weight thing is 101% bullshit, you put 380 cm of armor, abrams-like turret, 145mm with 80 shells. M60A3, which is smaller, somehow weighs more. Mhm, you know where this is going. Also... rotary engines tend to overheat. Also the "t-wolf" couldnt be amphibious - 40 tons simply dont allow for such a machine to go amphibious, its not a ship. Its a tank.
SUMMARY:
Modernized Maus and KV-2 in one. Bullshitty armor values and materials that were never used for tank armor, likely will fail at that purpose. Failure-prone engine. Inadequate reload times. Profile bigger than that of M1A2. Even with TUSK, where it adds a CROWS M2 to the commander. Elevating the main gun too high or too low and firing will give entire crew a very fun time; also dont even try firing it on the move. Finally, inadequate price for even one unit - will not reach mass production, ever. God forbid this meets a T-72B obr. 1989, the crew of T-wolf would be paste. You tell me Abrams is a shitty tank? I show you this crime against my (and probably anyone who likes tanks) eyes. Nothing else to say here, I refuse to go any deeper into this.
FA+

Comments