SW-HAV-2 "King David" MBT, Samozniy mainline MBT

Unlike the HAV-3, this has very little on it so far. So yay! Design free-for-all!
It does however use the hull of the HAV-2, so when I lineart the HAV-2 (one year, one year), I'll finally ditch the pic of the HAV-3 and lineart that too.

Statistics:

So, the gun - a 52 calibre 125mm. Smoothbore or rifled? A rifled would be more ammunition flexible, and be able to pack HESH rounds for accurate, long-range anti-building/light anti-armour. However, it necessitates that the APFSDS, HEAT and possibly GLATGM rounds require slip rings to maximise their own effectiveness. If I were to go smoothbore, would there be any point in retaining HESH rounds?

Co-ax - wasn't sure if I should bother with a Co-axial weapon or not. I was considering either another CSW-1 (a 14.5x114mm heavy machine gun), or some kind of light autocannon. Perhaps give it co-axial autocannon capability, which reduces maximum primary armament. 20, 25 or 30mm would be what I would think of for that.

POWAH: it's the same hull and thus the same diesel-electric drive as the HAV-3, so we still have the 2250bhp we've been umming-and-aahing about. However, I did reduce the range to a less lolworthy figure than before. That said, it's still well above the ranges of several modern Main Battle Tanks with lower weights and lower engine powers, and is probably what the HAV-3's range ought to be reduced to. This may end up with a range of less than 350mi
Reduced road and off-road speed to reflect much heavier weight - off-road speed was reduced by less than road speed. Given it 1800hp compared to the original 2250, so bhp/tonne is 24.7, which is much more reasonable.

Writeup:

This post has been edited by Samozaryadnyastan on Aug 24 2012, 10:57 PM

Use HE. It's kinda like HESH. But better.

With a modern multi-function (impact, delay, time) fuze it can do everything HESH is traditionally used for about as well, is much more effective against targets like dismounts and doesn't place limits on muzzle velocity.

It's also fully compatible with both smoothbore and rifled guns.

Though go rifled. Even mortars get rifling now.

HE as in High Explosive? Sure, HESH AoE is more limited, but it's a point weapon, and is probably going to be much more effective against a bunker, which will have been hardened against something like straight-up HE.

Also, I figured smoothbore was part of mortar doctrine. Someone on NS once said that an 81mm mortar round has the same explosive filling as a 120mm artillery shell because its walls are thinner, not having to engage with rifling.
If it's possible to apply the same logic here - then I could (in theory) have a much more powerful shell.

The fill weight of a 120mm mortar shell and a 122mm howitzer shell is almost identical and about 3x that of an 81mm mortar shell.

An HE shell fuzed to detonate after penetrating into an obstacle will do a lot more damage to structures than a HESH shell.

why do you need 30hp to the tonne

Because the engine's overpowered, because I've not fixed it yet.
If you think this is a lot, don't look at my other tank 0_0

After some considerable time, coming back to this.
Thinking of HEAT warheads. Copper is a common liner, right?

What about using brass? Brass is a copper/zinc mix, similar density of copper, but highly ductile and fluid. So to my uneducated mind, it sounds like it would make an effective HEAT liner.
If I were to do this, would it be better to have it as straight brass lining, or a copper/zinc mix that becomes brass in flight - or would that second option not work?

Also, looking at diesel engine design to make the Type-29 work. Power on both this and the HAV-3 is probably going to come down to the 1800-2000bhp marker.

Why do you need such a hugely heavy tank, are you aware of the restrictions this imposes on you (cannot be moved by most railways, for instance) and are you aware of how severe ground pressure problems are for tanks like the Abrams without adding 11 more tonnes to a similar-sized platform?

The 73 tonnes was arbitrary as many NS tanks are in the ~70 tonnes range.
Many of these stats are, unfortunately, arbitrary.

Two possible engines for the diesel that powers the electric engine - either a 12-cylinder opposing pistons layout, single turbo.
The second option is a straight-eight M4+2-type six-stroke (which is technically a form of opposing piston, but I'm sure you could have the crank run off only the larger of the two pistons making a multi-stage inline).

How is 73 tons to heavy for a rail car?

A quick google indicates normal rail cars can carry up to 100 tons.

i would think this could be moved on railways easily enough

unless it is a problem less with railcar and more with railway/bridge

Width is really the defining metric for rail transportability, and this tank is very wide unless "hull width" is actually supposed to be "width with side skirts"; 3.5 m over tracks is generally considered the practical limit for rail transport.

I hear by European and many international standards, most railway wagons and the rails they run on are limited to 64,000kg. Of course, I expect the rails can take more and special cars are available, and you can just handwave it all, but it depletes the vital ability to run on civilian infrastructure.

I have no clue where you got that number.
http://www.worldtraderef.com/WTR_site/Rail...o_Rail_Cars.asp

None of the railcars in that are wide enough to accommodate an M1 Abrams, without hanging over the sides of the flatbed dangerously. The Chally 2 is 4.2m wide with add-on armour and 3.5m standard.