Let's have a tank thread that's not about outdated designs, but about vehicles so fresh they only exists in our heads. So not outright sci-fi tonks, but something that could be built in the coming decades.
For example, how about a tank that, instead of a traditional engine, uses electric motors integrated to the running gear, and the energy is provided by free-piston linear generators distributed in the hull of the tank. You could place some of them in the bottom of the hull, while some more could be in the sides, over the tracks. This way it would be practically impossible to take out the engine, because you'd have to destroy all the pistons for that. And they have a better fuel economy, and are easier to repair or replace. Best of all, if you made a free-piston linear generator that develops around 100 horsepower, then you could use that in nearly all of your ground vehicles. You'd just need 4-5 in a truck and about 15 in a tank.
The future is actually from the past. Diesel-Electrics would be a far more efficient way of tapping into the power, giving you not only fucktons more power but also range.
Zachary Bailey
About a tank that has heavy auto-guns, plenty of ammo, some additional MG/GL and ATGM in case it runs into another tank (or possibly thermobaric ATGM to be used as assault gun). It would serve to curb stomp entrenched infantry. That's exactly what would be needed in Syria…
Best way to fight such a vehicle is through swarm tactics. 20 light vehicles with ATGMs aboard could seriously fuck up a few better armed, and more expensive, armored vehicles.
Southfront published an article speculating on the SAA using the Terminators they received in the advance near Palmyra/DeZ.
Charles Flores
I hate to be the one to point this out, but actually the Terminator 2 is pretty damn cheap and can be used on the T-55 or T-62 chassis if they wanted to
Ryan Nelson
Fine by me. Say, the turret is unmanned, right? Because then it will be a great field test for that concept. And how are the grenade launchers operated?
Related to the BMPT is that the Russkies themselves want to use the T-15 for the same role. Now, if you want to go with a heavy IFV instead of a tank, then with the free-piston system described in the OP you don't have to worry about the placement of the engine compartment, because you don't even need to have a traditional engine compartment.
Aren't electric engines shit for dragging things? And wouldn't it be more efficient to use directly?
Ayden Bailey
Trains are all about dragging things, and modern trains are either electric or use diesel-electric systems. You'd need a crankshaft and a transmission system for that. One of the goals here is to replace all those things with a few cables that go to the electric motor, because that means less parts to manufacture and maintain. And the engine itself is a lot simpler. Actually, I think you could even made the pistons out of polymer.
Sauce are the pics, some SAA guy on twitter. The question is how many since officially they only made a real batch for Kazakstan (Algerian order isn't done) and UVZ only has like maybe 3 protos on hand. So unless they made a small batch for syria more or less in secret, those are the protos (or it's not impossible the kazaks sent theirs).
It's also not the BMPT-72/terminator 2 but the older version with the new missiles pods (newer prototype doesn't have the side 30mm grenade-launchers and has less crew). With that it's pretty clear now that the pods are just an armored sleeve for the missiles, nothing fancy.
Yeah let's send 20 light vehicles against something that has a twin 30mm loaded with hundreds of APHEI shells and a shitload of advanced optics… I'm sure nothing bad will happen.
ATGMs work great because the infantry can lug them everywhere, hide them then use them against tanks, then re-hide/run before the other tanks can realize what happened. On vehicles you still need terrain access and LOS and the 2A42 is effective up to 4 000m (so TOW range…).
Not on this version, only the newest. By a gunner/loader… Yes… it's crew is: Commander, Gunner, Gunner, Gunner, Driver. Which is why the Russians didn't order any, the one they will probably get (or not if they think T-15 are enough) will be unmanned turret, 3 crew, no GLs.
Why do you think the armata platform has full modularity including engine placement? Guess what power their new range of heavy movers Kamaz "Platform-O" (that will replace all soviet era ones)?
The tech isn't ready yet but it's pretty clear it's on the near future upgrade plan.
Thomas Fisher
Also it has twin autocannons so I doubt any motorcycle ATGM swarm would do shit to it.
Hudson Brown
It's a pity, I'd like to know if those claims about the crew not seeing shit are true or not. More precisely, it would be nice to just some some webms of these in combat to disprove them. I mean they are over the tracks, if I'm not mistaken. Seems to be a bit inconvenient if the gunners have to operate them "manually". I've found nothing in English about the subject, but I take it's a diesel-electric system. I take if they already had linear accelerators or something comparably advanced then we would have heard of it already. My technophilia makes me want to say how great it is that at least some people want to make it real.
Zachary Stewart
As sexy as the BMPT is, the cannon are way too wobbly. Sure, one could argue that they aren't meant to be for precision engagements, but I'd want more rigidity in the barrel. I would suppose that either heavier barrels or a lower fire rate could improve accuracy in burst fire.
Kayden Robinson
Can you even call that a tank anymore? It's a counterinsurgency vehicle that can defend itself if pressed. Fundamentally the BMPT is an IFV that can't carry infantry.
That thing would get absolutely smashed by an actual tank. ATGM's are an ambush weapon not a frontline combat weapon. They don't work on the move or if the enemy can see you and return fire before being hit which they'll have plenty of time to do. Also four missiles available to launch at any given time is a joke. 15 AT rounds in the ready rack is a more acceptable number considering each kill will probably require multiple shots (in rapid succession, I don't think the BMPT can do that either).
Samuel Scott
Calling it a tank is definitely incorrect. It could perhaps be most accurately called an assault vehicle, though the Russians call it a "tank fighting vehicle" which makes reasonable sense. It is supposed to be an intermediate between MBT and softer IFV and infantry. It carries a similar armament to the typical IFV and is therefore better suited to engaging soft targets, but has increased survivability. It's an IFV that traded infantry for armor. That said, the AT-9 is probably one of the more potent anti-tank missiles around. It is supersonic and capable of upwards of 800mm penetration after ERA.
Eli Hughes
It is, that's the main reason why Russia hasn't bought any, they do want a vehicle like that (in doctrinal papers they even call to change the 4 tank basic cavalry unit by 3 tanks and 1 "tank escort vehicle" which is what a BMPT is) but they felt the BMPT concept wasn't mature enough, the T-15 isn't actually in line with the BMPT but with the BTR-T that was briefly adopted (like one batch I think).
I've found nothing in English about the subject, but I take it's a diesel-electric system. I dunno I know they have motors in the wheels and the engine is just an electrical generator. And that that particular 8x8 version with the engine in the wheels is suppose to lug things around from 75 to 165 tons…
No we wouldn't. Russian academia doesn't publish stuff in English. Never has, never will be. So many papers in advanced medicine and engineering from the soviet era aren't even yet translated, including ground breaking stuff (I'm talking public data here). For example the soviets had entire collection of man made viruses to kill bacteria… for decades (viral phage therapy… it's something that basically renders antibiotics obsolete. No biggie). Only reason the rest of the world heard about it is the lead hospital doing the research ended up in Georgia when the USSR broke up and their students started to put things out in English.
Well it's on a tank hull being heavily armored is part of it's job, breaking infantry formation, storming entrenched positions and fighting the occasional heavy vehicle too… It's basically EXACTLY was a tank is, a WWI one that is. It's not a Main Battle Tank, sure, but it's still a tank.
The opposite, they have instatorque and alot of it
Brayden Adams
Will we see advancements in river crossing? With diesel-electric drive it would make sense to use a battery and some bottled air instead of a snorkel, because you don't need air to run the engine. It would also increase the depth of the river a tank can cross underwater. The only problem I can see that if the tank breaks down, then the crew will die a horrible death, if they were crossing a body of water that was too deep. Although, if the crew hatches have motors to open them, then they might be able to get out. And they could be also provided with life jackets.
Why dont you look up the definition of tank first, and differentiate it from MAIN battle tank, which is what youre conflating it with.
Aiden Ward
The closest original term would be female tank.
Charles Perry
I'd call it iron maiden due to old men/female tank classification, but I suspect calling it combat support vehicle might be more reasonable. What was that American Ontos thing classified as? You know the m113 modification where it had like 6 recoilles anti tank rifles/guns attached to it, and it was used in Vietnam.
Liam Baker
it was classified as a practical joke kidding, ontos are awesome
Alexander Evans
The difference is that male tanks had cannons while females were machine guns only. And both male and female tanks were used against fortified enemy lines, so the distinction isn't based on their intended use, it only refers to the weapon configuration. Even more, those cannons had a calibre of 57mm only. I'd argue that a 30mm autocannon has more firepower, and then you also have to add the missiles. Not to mention that the Russians might make a similar tank with an 57mm autocannon in the future.
Rifle, Multiple 106 mm, Self-propelled, M50 It's a self-propelled rifle.
Did you just assume Terminator's gender identity? I'll have you know that clang, preferred pronoun, is an armament-fluid pan-armorous MBT-kin. Check your privilege.
Ian Davis
Now add in that the Mark IX tank only had 2 machine guns and it could carry 30 people. Therefore a BMP-1 with its 73mm cannon must be more of a tank that the BMPT.
Yes but electric drives are usually bigger, also they have energy storage problems. Ever see someone put a nail through a charged cellphone battery?
Nolan Morgan
actually no
Ryan Cooper
You nearly got me here.
Again, most trains use electric motors to haul hundreds-upon-hundreds of tons of material. Of course they have an easier time because they run on tracks.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_hub_motor tl;dr: The electric motor is integrated into the wheel itself, therefore it takes up less space. Of course you'd have to integrate the motors into the sprockets in this case. That whole video is about a potential solution to this problem.
Lets just say that a battery that powers a tank would cause the mother of all cookoffs if it was hit.
When potential becomes real, and battle tested, we might start seeing hybrids showing up.
Ryan Lopez
Diesel-electric doesn't need batteries, the motors are connected directly to the generator.
Jonathan Hughes
and power generated in generator is stored in …?
gun tank is better name then anything pentagon will think of.
I believe that electric engine is too much, but electric transmision in a tank would be possible
Austin Phillips
The energy is stored in the diesel, the diesel generator turns the diesel power into electricity that can be used by the motor. Pulsed electrical currents through water does speed up electrolysis and can be harnessed but you need to keep your mouth shut about it or you'll find yourself in a woodchipper. Safe, dry capacitors can also be used but you'll have to conduct the research as nobody really wants to bring down the various monopolies we've got going, and even then you've got yourself the risk of getting caught in a woodchipper.
Josiah Barnes
How do people not know basic shit about basic shit? Diesel locomotives are hybrid electric and have been around since the late 40's. The germans had a hybrid electric tiger prototype during WWII, but it cought fire and burned before it could be tested. Learn some shit about the world before you spout shit off people.
Jaxon Bell
Jesus christ thats retarded…
Jason Jenkins
know whats the difference between trains and other vehicles? one of them is connected to reliable power source constantly, while the other is not. the fact that something is possible doesnt mean it should be done or is aplicable in all cases.
Joseph Smith
...
Jayden Jackson
well, he isnt wrong, mostly
Hudson Green
You seem to be knowledgeable about this type of "stuff", care to share some for us?
I though you have trains over there. If that is so, then observe them for a bit and you will notice that electric trains are only used in lines made specifically for them, while diesel-electric trains are used on every line.
Henry Parker
Fun fact. James May from Top Gear brought the idea of Diesel Electric cars to the general public. Although their homemade car was a joke it's engine setup wasn't. Why literally a year after the car was shown on television there was several diesel electric cars in the pipeline. Its a very efficient way of harnessing power from fuel.
Asher Jenkins
i am pretty sure that all our lines are electric then again i am silesian so my point of view might be skewed
the longer i think about it the more sense does electric tank make. shit this might be actually good idea
Angel Morgan
Well, it's hardly mine, even some of the earliest tank experimented with electric drives. I'm just excited because after more than a century we will finally have the technology to make them work in the field. Which actually says quite a lot about technological development in our times: everybody is busy perfecting already existing technologies, but there are no people stepping up to actually utilize them for ideas that have existed for decades.
It's all out there on the internet, and if you're interested in gathering materials you can always make everything out of literal garbage.
Cooper Bennett
You would think it's easy to fit 30 people inside it, but I've been in one and I can't even begin to imagine how shitty it must've been to ride in one of those things, I was on my hands and knees most of the time (granted I am 6ft 5).
Sometimes old technology is better, the only reason we haven't gone back to a lot of things was due to them being often oversized which isn't an issue today.
the future combat tank that US canceled was hybrid electric
Henry Hughes
It's a deactivated/replica museum piece they tried to pose as if it was being fired. Or did you think the MkV Ferret was designed to have one missile just kinda hanging out there?
Jayden Jackson
i know but, come on, it's so sad looking. missile half chub.
that hardly proves anything since it was insane project based on taking all new and experimental tech and putting it in one vehicle, even thought half of it barely worked
What about making amphibious car with diesel electric engines? that sounds logical
Adrian Rogers
All these years I thought that was shopped
Nathaniel Green
Indeed, they could use the electricity to power either the wheels or the propulsion they use in water. An other benefit of this system with wheel hub motors is that you could use a tube chassis and build the car the way you want, because you don't need a transmission system, just a few cables that run from the generators to the wheels. Manufacturing cars would be a lot easier that way.
With this electric propulsion system it would be possible to make a practical tracked self-propelled gun that only has a casemate instead of a rotating turret. The electric motors and the generators can be turned on and off quickly, so you wouldn't have to waste fuel by idling the engine, and the vehicle would turn at a decent pace due to the torque the motors have. The SPG should have a navigational computer with a compass anyway, so you'd just tell it which direction to face, and it would turn that way automatically. Without a turret you have more space, so it can carry more ammo. Or you could use smaller, lighter vehicles to carry the same amount of ammo. Something like this Italian wonder, just with tracks and a casemate instead of wheels and that goofy-looking turret. An other good point is that the autoloader has an easier time if the gun only moves vertically. Lastly, I think it would be easier to armour up a casemate against enemy artillery fire. Imagine an SPG that can take direct hits on the roof from most artillery weapons.
Yeah, I was gonna say wasnt the King Tiger an electric tank?
Levi Green
IIRC the original Porsche designed king tiger was… except it didn't work, because they simply didn't have the tech to make it actually work.
Julian Myers
its like a dream come true.
Thinking about it that concept is perfect
Lucas Roberts
The Maus was, too.
William Ward
It did work, but it was shit. Nevertheless, they rebuilt those prototypes into the Ferdinand (lather Elefant) tank destroyers, and they kept exactly one Porsche Tiger to be the command vehicle of the unit. Hopefully kikepedia is a good enough source in this case: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant#Drive
And remember, you don't need one big engine block on the front, therefore you could wrap the vehicle in a very aerodynamic shell if you wanted to. Or an actual boat hull.
Adam Reed
Tech for electric vehicles existed before the tech for internal combustion engines, or even steam power if you ignore ancient greek advances.
The problem has always been energy storage…. electric cars store their energy in a complex battery, whereas combustion cars store their energy in a liquid you can carry in a bucket.
Joshua Lopez
The Tiger(P) aka VK45.01(P) was. The VK45.02(P) was the Porsche-developed contender for the King Tiger contract, which was designed with the lessons from the Tiger(P) in mind. It never got away from prototype status (high maintenance, used strategic copper), however one may have still existed at wars end: Soviet documents mention finding a Posche-built Tiger on the Kummersdorf proving grounds but no further documentation or photos have been found to confirm whether it was a Tiger(P), a King Tiger with the round Porsche turret or a VK45.02.
Michael Perez
Soviets presumably scrapped everything that came out of Kummersdorf to fight them. Nobody will ever really know.
Andrew Murphy
Not everything, the Maus still exists in Kubinka after all. But yeah, unless somebody gets really goddamn lucky in the archives or Grandpa Vladimirs photo album it's a thing lost to the mists of time.
Sebastian Morales
I meant the task force made up of everything from Kummersdorf that could move under its own power that got wrecked was scrapped. I still don't believe the Maus moved with what they had onboard.
Lincoln Thomas
Now that I think about it, you could hook up one of these to a wood gas generator and use it to power a house. Or you could even put the whole system on a vehicle.
Also it has a link to this post about the ultimate M113 Gavin?: below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.hu/2015/06/pmmc-g5-ultimate-m113.html And that has a link to this page: Splitterskyddad_EnhetsPlattform The later is a diesel-electric vehicle developed by BAR Systems for Sweden.
It's quite interesting how unmanned turrets are getting ahead. At last I know for a fact that there is at least one design that can be accessed and reloaded from inside the hull. The people who developed the 40mm telescopic autocannon for France and Britain also made a non-penetrating unmanned turret that holds 40 rounds. I think the "ultimate" IFV of today would have that autocannon in an unmanned turret that can be reloaded from inside the hull of the vehicle.
The combustion engine part might be more effective than the standard combustion engine but having the stored energy in fuel moved to a battery then to an electric motor will have some large losses.
22-32% of the potential energy is lost in a regular car.
Multiply that with the loss in en electric motor which is at around 30%
On top of that you have the added weight of a spare fuel tank and generator.
Eli Russell
idealy engine part and generator part would be incorporated in a single cylinder then again shit would probably get hot as fuck So yeah problem is still efficency and energy storage. i doubt we will ever fix these problems. also we could design it without additionall oil/energy storage. Hell, even a capacitor is up to debate
Jace Ramirez
I swear one day every single armored fighting vehicle will be a CV90 underneath with just different modules and attachments.
Carson James
That's why you should skip the battery and hook it up directly to the motor. After all, we don't want to build a glorified golf car here. Actually, you could have a small(ish) battery unit incorporated into every engine unit, that way you'd distribute the potential fire hazard too. Tesla already uses thousands of small batteries in one box instead of a single big one, so might as well copy that. Also, you only need electricity from this system, therefore you could increase the output by converting waste heat into more electricity with thermoelectric materials or systems. Even more, you could use the exhaust fumes to drive turbochargers that could also drive some smaller electric generators for even more power.
The future is optionally manned turrets with bustle autoloaders, because these autoloaders can fold into the bustle and leave enough room for a manual loader.
I envision future tanks will have distributed piston engines across the floor of the tank, these angines can be any shape as the pistons are independent. Also if a bomb or hit damages a piston, the others are unaffected so you just lose a percentage of power. The pistons feed a small battery, which directly powers the electric motors for the tracks.
Above that a crew of 4 is possible. Two ahead of the turret ring, and two behind there is no big rear engine, it is flat and under their feet! the turret ring. Both pairs of crew are in armored capsules, and are cross trained in their duties.
The turret ring is accessible from either capsule, and there is enough room in the turret for manual loading, or safe turret-top observation while the bustle autoloader is working.
rate /10
Jordan Price
Damn, the way we think is indeed scarily similar. Although personally I'm thinking about the idea of replacing tanks with IFVs that have high-calibre autocannons and hypervelocity missiles. I know there should be a flaw somewhere, but I don't see where, because all the obvious ones are gone with these technologies. So personally I'd go with this: >the floor is lava engines, as you've described
The idea is of course that this whole thing wouldn't be bigger than a current MBT, an autocannon is fine against everything that isn't a MBT, and guided hypervelocity missiles should have a better chance at killing a tank than a high-calibre tank cannon. And it's easier to have 5 vehicles carrying up to 40 people to battle than using 9-12 tanks and IFVs for the same job. You aren't supposed to send forward tanks without infantry anyway.
What is the idea behind this crew arrangement? I guess one in the back acts as a lodaer in lulls of the fight, but what is his job otherwise? And who is the commander by default? The other one in the back? I get that they are cross-trained, but I'm not sure if 2 people can reliably do the work of 3.
Nathan Adams
...
Gavin Price
The physical layout lowers surface area that needs to be armored, while breaking up into individual compartments reducing the chance that the entire crew will get taken out by one shell. An enemy tank can penetrate both turret and one capsule, and still leave rank operational. Also its for comfort and access to turret.
As for crew duties primary positions are driver and gunner. Loading is automatic, and theres a semi-automatic combat map. During low intensity conflict, two guys work as gunner and driver, while two guys take turns observing up top vs resting. During high intensity conflict the guy who rests on low intensity conflict becomes radio man, thus removing that burden from driver.
Seating arrangement, with MOS in order of proficiency: Front left - Driver/radioman/scout/loader Front right - Commander/gunner/scout/loader Rear left - Radioman/driver/loader/scout Rear right - Gunner/commander/scout/scout
The idea is to train guys on two skills in intoductory tank training - scouting and loading. This helps weed out the pussies (loading is HARD) and unaware retards.
Then second level trainkng is on radio, drive, weapons, and command of the tank. All four disciplines at once. AS SOON AS a recruit shows interest or skill at any of these MOS, they get extra instruction in that MOS.
Third level training is basic combat training & teamwork within tank, and fourth level is large scale unit cohesion.
The future is no tanks. It's light armor and FAV's along with infantry bristling with enough cheap ATGMs to fuck over any force retarded enough to use the now obsolete weapons that are tanks.
Jose Morris
it's don't
ATGMs have the upper hand right now, but as soon as hard-kill APS systems start becoming widely used it will be a whole new round of offensive vs defensive developments like it's been since WW1
IDF trophy system has been very successful in intercepting kornet/metis/RPG-29/konkurs without problems so far, and pretty much every new tank is being developed with some kind of hard-kill APS now
Julian Hill
I might have come up with a way to make it even worse better: Of course the missiles should be hypervelocity ones to make it really sci-fi, but for something immediately available (and expensive) imagine it with Hellfires.
Future is Heavy IFV's geared for Kebab Removal using ATGM's for when the sandniggers manage to get a rusted T-55 working.
Luis Hill
Not only that, but for longer ranges you are better off with salvos of hypervelocity missiles, because they have a better chance to destroy a tank with APS. And if they get close to each other (a few kms), then an autocannon is better than a slow-firing cannon, because it can damage the optics and whatnot. It might even take out the APS itself. So tanks built around one big cannon are a dead concept, and yes, you might as well make IFVs instead of them.
If that is true why don‘t see we any in Syria or Iraq? The Merkava was once though as a combination of MBT and IFV. Didn‘t work because the space inside was needed for supplies. IFV with heavy protection are considered as to expensive, few are made like the Puma.
An IFV like an Puma with an auto canon can not touch an MBT like an Leopard 2
because syria is poor as all fuck and doesnt have its own manufacturing capacity? but seriously this is good point. everything that can be said about tank armor can be said doubly about APC armor.
Landon Ward
Poland NO! We know why there hasn't been any in Iraq cause the West can't into Kebab Removal There actually has been usage of such vehicles in Syria, in particular Russians testing the Terminator We've seen the Israeli's use Heavy APC's oppressing Sandniggers so they have more space to build a new Holocaust Museum And Russians have been using them for decades already when they were still dealing with Chechnya
Ryan Morales
And an M113 would stand no chance against a Panzer IV. But how is that relevant here? Try something like a Leopard 2 against a T-15 with Ataka missiles and a 57mm autocannon.
Yes and the BMP “armour” is so thin, I suspect Syrian soldiers are not so keen to assemble in a tinbox as target.
For that sort of fight even the armor of an M1 is too thin everywhere but the front
That argument has been made since a long time, decades, slap some missiles on it and it is as good as the real thing, same with ships and missiles. Problem is, good armor is expensive regardless of the weapon used, fire control too. Gun barrel and support, stabilizer is more expensive than a missiles rack, but each missile is more expensive than most gun projectiles. Gun shoots are much faster than missiles.
Jaxson Ward
Show me a vehicle that tried to realize this concept and failed in combat. The criteria:
