Giant/Monster Tank Query

[dy031101]

Thats out of Supreme Commander, its the Fat boy experimental tank. The Fat boy is also a mobile factory and when it goes into the sea, drives on the seabed. A bit like one of those german tank ideas with snorkels so thier engines can take in air. I would post a image of it but my "browse" bar for uploading images is not working.

I think I found a pic of it: scroll to the bottom of this page.

[G777]

I think I found a pic of it: scroll to the bottom of this page.
[/quote]

Yep, thats the one. Problem with a tank that big as everyone will probably know is that it would probably get stuck or be bombed very easily. A tank that big would be easy to spot from a distance. If you play the game it gives you an idea of what might happen if such a thing was built in real life. The mains guns have a ridiculous reload time, like a second!

If anyone plans on super tanks they should consider good and bad points. Cost of such a thing is vital. And time to build it.

[dy031101]

If anyone plans on super tanks they should consider good and bad points. Cost of such a thing is vital. And time to build it.

Well my idea would be pretty close to that of a Baneblade...... and then I'd very likely loose all the secondary AT guns and any MG not co-axial to the turret main gun or on a pintle mount for the turret crew.

And then the backstory would be like pitting the anime world of Valkyria Chronicles against our own modern world.  

[G777]

If anyone plans on super tanks they should consider good and bad points. Cost of such a thing is vital. And time to build it.

Well my idea would be pretty close to that of a Baneblade...... and then I'd very likely loose all the secondary AT guns and any MG not co-axial to the turret main gun or on a pintle mount for the turret crew.

And then the backstory would be like pitting the anime world of Valkyria Chronicles against our own modern world. 
[/quote]

That is a good idea removing all those secondary guns and machine guns. Baneblade reminds of the this... http://japan.greyfalcon.us/O.htm

That would have been impressive if that tank had been built.

[dy031101]

Here's another idea though: a 165mm (or bigger) demolition gun: one of those ultra-low velocity "dustbin chuckers" used on engineer tanks for obstacle breaching.

If I'm looking to merely stay within Superheavy category, is there something smaller but still reasonably effective for the hull-mounted demolition gun?

[Weaver]

Here's another idea though: a 165mm (or bigger) demolition gun: one of those ultra-low velocity "dustbin chuckers" used on engineer tanks for obstacle breaching.

If I'm looking to merely stay within Superheavy category, is there something smaller but still reasonably effective for the hull-mounted demolition gun?

Well it used to be mounted in the turrets of Centurions and M60s, so it's not that big, and you could always have an ever shorter-barrelled version of it (I have half a memory that there was one).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ordnance_L9

The French have a 142mm gun on the AMX Engineer vehicle that does the same job. I presume it's a bit smaller, but not by much. Any smaller, and it won't be significantly different to a HESH round fired from the main gun.

[Weaver]

Another thing to consider with big, tall tanks with top-mounted turrets is minimum engagement range, that is, there'd be a significant dead zone close the hull where targets couldn't be hit because the gun couldn't depress far enough. This is only partially addressed by increasing the maximum depression of the gun mounting, because the supertank's hull is also likely to be wider too, which will inhibit how far a centreline-mounted gun can depress however good it's mounting is. This might lead you to adding secondary anti-personnel weapons on the sides of the vehicle to prevent infantry teams from getting close.

[G777]

Here's another idea though: a 165mm (or bigger) demolition gun: one of those ultra-low velocity "dustbin chuckers" used on engineer tanks for obstacle breaching.

If I'm looking to merely stay within Superheavy category, is there something smaller but still reasonably effective for the hull-mounted demolition gun?

So you want a small gun mounted on the hull of your tank. Do you want a particular amount of explosive inside the projectile. Because you could just increase the shell length for a bigger bang and just give it a short barrel. Or to make it impact at a higher velocity at only short range use RAP rounds. RAP rounds but how many shells can your tank carry. Plus as weaver said the depression of the gun which would limit your internal space. But thats why you want a small gun.

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/technicallayout/armament/artillery105skc37.html

Its old but if you made a short barrel gun length and increased the length of the shell with maybe RAP to increase the range and impact velocity you could have a very effective Demolition Gun.

As in the picture that is a 105mm short barrel gun. Created in two minutes. Not very detailed tank though.

[dy031101]

Alright......

What I have in mind for the subject now is this: again, like a Baneblade, but looks like a Chieftain (re-sized as appropriate) with a hull-mounted 142mm or 165mm demolition gun and a turret-mounted 105mm anti-tank gun.

G777's proposal of compact 105mm AA gun reengineered into a demolition gun sounds interesting, too...... but I suppose Weaver's right in that it'd not be that different from firing HESH from the turret gun (unless there is a very-high-velocity 105mm gun that has a sorry HE shell that I can choose from).

Also, as previously suggested, I want to use late-WWII guns for turret armament to match as much as possible the firepower of modern MBTs- is the T8 good enough or should I really specify the use of 120mm AA gun derivatives (or the German 128mm gun)?

Thanks in advance.



======================================================================



Two video game examples from "Valkyria Chronicles".

First one is a more of a heavy tank and just a slight tad more in line with what I'm thinking of.  It has an anti-tank gun turret and a hull-mounted mortar (as in Petard Mortar from the look of it).

The second one is perhaps more in line with the strict meaning fo the topic and a moving fortress with a BFG.  It also addresses Weaver's point on close-in defense by mounting MGs just above the tracks.

[deathjester]

Why don't you Google 'Bolo super heavy tanks', as this might give some ideas on actually putting together such a super heavy....

[G777]

Allright, i have been looking into a Demolition gun for either 105mm and 120mm. And this sums it up. Demolition gun for blowing stuff up. Aka. Need lots of TNT.

There fore the 105mm would be too small to contain enough TNT even if the projectiles length was increased.

The 120mm, well its more powerful.

The modern day M120 Mortar

"The effect of a direct hit from a 120-mm round is equivalent to almost 10 pounds of TNT 'or 4.54 kg's (I will use this)' , which can crush fortifications built with commonly available materials."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_tank#Specialist_vehicles

This tank has one of the first HESH rounds. The AVRE 290mm mortar fired a 40lb projectile. But does not say how much TNT it contained.

I came down to a conclusion that if you wanted a 120mm Mortar gun to fire a big HE projectile somewhere the same explosive power of the Royal Ordnance L9 the projectile  would have to be atleast 5 feet long for near 20 kg of TNT effect. The mortar projectile would weigh somthing like 60 or 70 kgs (Using weight ratio from M30 Mortar). Its big. Plus the barrel for decent 8 to 12 feet length.

So there you have it, a bloomin long mortar which is the only thing you can get. If you use a shell that means a heavier projectile. Use Mortar Projectile. And unfortunatly the gun cannot turn, only elevate but not by much.

If you want i could make a mock tank on my computer so it gives you an idea of what the gun size needs to be and shell length.

I would also need the max length, width and height of your tank. And what your idea is where to put this gun.

Anyways give me your thoughts about this.

You could always put on one of these guns...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N5dodQo-Dk

[G777]

I like the Imperial Heavy. Its low and long enough to accomodate such a long 120mm gun. And its just right for keeping such large mortars.

[jcf]

120mm mortar?
Time wasting puny crap. 


Now this is a mortar:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_defense_mortar

[G777]

120mm mortar?
Time wasting puny crap. 


Now this is a mortar:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_defense_mortar

That 120mm mortar (if he puts it on his tank) will have excellent destructive power for its size. He could have a good 7 rpm and a good 10 to 15 yards blast radius. Plus not to mention it could fire possibly 3000 to 4000 yards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formidable_class_battleship

Can fire up to 15,000 yards. Accuracy is probably crap on the ship and the reload rate is probably like 1 rpm. But it can still hit those mortars. So many guns in one fixed place is dangerous. The Mallets Mortar was BIG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallet%27s_Mortar

[dy031101]

For information purposes only: the "Imperial Heavy" is armed with a high-velocity 76mm AT gun in the turret and a 122mm mortar in the hull (the game's setting kind of corresponds to our own inter-War and early-WWII timeframe, meaning the "Imperial Heavy" is at best the equivalent of KV-1 against enemy armours).



==============================================================================



Just asking: how do you think of this as a basis for the HE/HESH-thrower?  Haven't thought about using it but would be interested in its suitability.



==============================================================================

Anyways give me your thoughts about this.

The hull of this preliminary drawing is about 9.32m in length without the demolition gun and 4.31m in width (I did not work out the top view, but since I got the impression from earlier discussions that there is a certain length-to-width ratio a tank should follow, I tried approximating that of the M1).  Height is 1.91m to the top of the hull and 3.06m to the top of the turret cupola.  I also did not bother illustrating the 105mm gun and instead left the Chieftain's 120mm alone just for the time being.

EDIT: According the length-width ratio given by Weaver, the width can be as little as 3.87m although his point of increased width giving room to a bigger engine bay is also valid...... ah, decision decision......  

Fighting compartment for the demolition gun, which would likely have a mantlet in the finalized form, is offset to the starboard side and the driver's seat to the port side.  Also the Hortsmann suspension might end up getting ditched altogether in favour of a torsion bar suspensions set pending the finalized size of the tank.

The demolition gun is still planned to be between 120mm and 165mm.  Real weapons exist for patterning 142mm and 165mm; long-barrelled 120mm mortar might be good in terms of firepower but I don't want to leave too much of an overhang from the hull gun mount.

Actually, would you nevertheless do a mock tank based on the info provided in this post?  Could be a valuable exchange of opinions.  

The thing is for now just slightly narrower than a T28 and slightly wider than an applique-armoured Challenger 2...... any suggestion on if and how I can cut into the hull size?  I realized that a Baneblade-like heavy tank is very likely to end up bigger than a Challenger 2, but I still want to try limiting that growth in size as much as possible......