T950A3 Eagle, Fail tank pic is fail

Picture

Yes it's an awful picture, I know. I suck at drawing.

Specifications
Weight: 67.5 tonnes
Length: 8.4 metres to hull; 9.8 metres gun forward
Width: 3.75 metres
Height: 2.34 metres
Crew: 3 (Gunner, Commander, Driver)

Armament:
Primary Armament: M790 95mm L/60 Hypervelocity Coilgun
Primary Gun Ammunition: 70x 95mm APFSDSBC, HESH, HE-Frag, HEAT-MP
Coaxial Armament: 1x M252 30x114mm autocannon | Possibly changing this to an MG \:
Coaxial Gun Ammunition: 320x 30x114mm HEI, HE, APDS, HEI-T, HE-T, HEDP, APSE
Tertiary Gun Armament: Modular RWS (14x110mm M21H HMG or 25x56mm M77D AGL)
Tertiary Gun Ammunition: 1,740x 14mm API, AP, HEIAP or 820x 25x56mm HEDP

Powerplant:
Engine: 1,800 HP diesel turbine
Power/weight: 24.1 hp/ton
Suspension: Torsion bar
Operational range: 650 km paved in optimum conditions; 520 km off-road in optimum conditions
Speed: 70 km/h paved; 42 km/h off-road

Armour:
Top: 320mm RHAe v. KE; 640mm RHAe v. HEAT
Side: 750mm RHAe v. KE; 1,500mm RHAe v. HEAT
Front: 900mm RHAe v. KE; 1,800mm RHAe v. HEAT
Rear: 360mm RHAe v. KE; 720mm RHAe v. HEAT

Dat be rly thin armor for FT

most NS tanks in MT have >1m RHAe on the glacis

Why are you using diesel in an FT tank? Microfusion or any other suitablely wanktastic power supply does nicely coupled with super compact electric motors.

A 1800 hp diesel turbine isn't going to give you enough energy for a coilgun or railgun to be an effective weapon.

This is upper level PMT, not FT.

the only thing that seems at all FT about this thing is the main gun, and that is almost more PMT...

I'm just going to answer these without the hassle of trying to quote with this weird forum system >_>

@Sat: I know. Mine doesn't. Enh.

@Binaria: Really? An almost 2,000 HP engine wouldn't be able to fire a railgun...okay that's dumb, yeah probably not. Can I say it has superdense batteries that are good for 75 rounds?

@Mon: My FT military is specifically designed around semi-plausible/sorta-wankish late PMT. This is why I have chemically fired assault rifles, diesel MBTs and waveriding fighters.

I don't why, but I like having inferior tech to everyone else.

It also has to move the tank. That is the main job of the engine.

I forgot there was a women on d.

I WOULD suggest Ring Carbon to solve you armor issue, but as I've not seen anyone else use it in NS FT I get to claim it as Feazanthian proprietary


...I kid of course.

A bit of an overview for RC armor. Pulled it from SD.net so take it with a grain of salt.

Strength (N/cm^2)
Tensile: 1.0E+15
Compressive: 9.30E+14
Shearing: 9.3E+12

Density: 2.4 g/cm^3


It's basically several billion times that of RHA while remaining a low mass. Disadvantage? Hard as balls to manufacture reliably without the use of molecular manufacturing, nanites, and all sorts of technobabble.


As for power, I used methanol fuel cells for my Shamshir power armor. Unless you're going for "microfusion" (which, I'm told, is not possible given our current knowledge of the process) that's the best alternative I can think of.

Perhaps fuel cells for the engine and a separate battery system for the main cannon?

And I'm assuming this is for urban/suburban conflict, yes?

I never claimed it was possible in hard FT.

I said its something you could use.

You'll want to make this thing either wider or shorter, otherwise it'll have problems turning.

That or she's using some form of FT-tech to allow this snake-tank to turn.

Nice to know we didn't scare you away from our last encounter.

I'm just offering a "Hard" alternative. No insult was meant.

@HT: How much wider? I was actually based the dimensions on the M1 Abrams, but it was either FAS or OnWar that gave me the proper pwr/wgt ratio and then I realised I was a bit high. (Still not higher than the M1IP, apparently.) \:

@Feaz: So...why does this sound kinda like buckypaper? Anyways, how would I go about using this in my tank's armour? Would it be part of a composite metal matrix, or would I just use giant layers of it like buckypaper, encased in RHA or W? Oh, and would a methanol fuel cell engine provide enough power to fire the coilgun AND drive the tank, or would it have be used as an APU to power the gun itself?

Also,

Should I just use a railgun as the main gun, since they seem more feasible, or at least cheaper, than a coilgun. Certainly they're more simple...at least I think they are, since the projectile acts directly on the magnetised rails instead of being pulled forwards by Lorentz Forces from the coils outside the barrel. After all, we have railguns in prototype production for warships (Blitzer) that can fire multiple rounds out of a single barrel, but no large-scale coilguns. \:

Are there any serious disadvantages to using a coilgun, besides the magnetic saturation leading to decreased efficiency (I think...?), and possibly power requirements (Idk about this one, since coilguns can be powered by batteries).

It was also recommended to me on NSArms that I should change the coaxial armament from a 30mm cannon to a 14mm MG like the commander's gun. There were a few reasons given. Most notably: that my turret's elevation/depression angles means that the 30mm would only be able to engage light infantry and light armoured vehicles, which is uneconomical since my 14mm fires API and AP rounds. This meant that I wouldn't be able to engage low-flying aircrafts or helicopters (my tank apparently has the same elevation/depression angles as the M1 Abrams) Also, because it would help simplify logistics since I would only need to transport two different types of ammunition instead of three.

Both buckypaper and ring carbon are the same general idea, but RC is much tougher than buckypaper AFAIK.

Because molecular manufacturing and nanite foundries are prevalent in both iterations of my nation, I always used it in its pure form; just using a centimeter or two for the "hard" suit plates and creating a power armor system immune to anti-tank rounds (unfortunately, the squishy humans inside the suit were still vulnerable to impact force. Stupid meatbags).

If you're going for the lower tech variety, I would recommend using RC armor as a reinforcement for more conventional (and cheaper!) materials. A few dozen grams spread throughout an armor composite would do wonders for its survivability and weight.

As for the fuel cell - I have no idea. Typically when confronted with this challenge I use this calculator. It should give you the energy-per-shot required if you know (coughballparkcough) the shot mass and weapon efficiency.

I believe that railguns are more energy efficient than coilguns, but coilguns produce higher velocity per joule and last longer (less friction as the round isn't contacting anything). Railguns are also easier to build than coilguns.

Depending on your FT level I wouldn't worry about your tank being able to engage low-flying aircraft. If you're worried about them, strap a few fire-and-forget missiles on there. Most of the time, if the enemy is able to field air assets they're going to not be anywhere near your armor's LOS, and I will always argue that most FT ground engagements will take place in urban/suburban environments where close air support will be difficult at least. And unless this tank is part of a guerilla defense force, you'll always have orbital support with which to swat annoying air assets.

It's compressive strength is over 90,000 times the pressure in the core of the sun?

DOUBT.

Yeah, it looks like "ring carbon" is just some random guy's weird idea for making flawless (i.e. Impossible. Seriously.) diamond sound futuristic, and of course diamond's strong, but orders of magnitude below that.

http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht10strength.htm
http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht15poweredarmor.htm
http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht34carbontubes.htm


edit: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php...562026#p2562026