Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
November 27, 2012
Image Size
2.5 MB
Resolution
2400×1600
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
24,200 (32 today)
Favourites
202 (who?)
Comments
42
Downloads
756

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
×
Pamerian Main Battle Tank: 'Eithelfeld' Rev.A by EumenesOfCardia Pamerian Main Battle Tank: 'Eithelfeld' Rev.A by EumenesOfCardia
For more details on this tank before the revision, go here [link].

I decided, thanks to helpful criticism, to remodel the Eithelfeld and fix some of the problems suggested. Firstly, this design is slightly smaller with less rounds but a larger engine. I also completely redesigned the turret to have more sloped armor and to accommodate a 45cm gap between the cannons, which I have reduced to 160mm. This decrease in cannon size shouldn't change its supremacy on the battlefield, however, and it should still destroy most targets in a single blow. The doubling of the rotary gun caliber was actually a correction of my earlier design as I mistakenly measured radius instead of diameter. This also caused my weight measurement to be off... *sigh*.

Aside from that, I also included the typical urban deployment payload, 20000 14.5mm rounds, and 51 160mm tank rounds (18 LRP, 18 HE, 9 HESH and 3 Cannister). The rounds each weigh between 26-30 kg(57-66 lbs) (I feel sorry for the loader).

I found the 2d soldier here [link] but re-did the textures. The rest is my own design.

Let me know what you think, but hopefully nothing requiring another redesign :P (just kidding, that's the reason why I upload here :)).
Add a Comment:
 
:iconfanatictvzombie:
FanaticTVzombie Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2014
Crew of three? 2 guns? 70 tons? No auto loader? I'd love to see that thing in action. Ready! Aim! Fi- wait, what do you mean were out of gas? What do you mean you can't lift that 120lb shell in a sitting position twice? What d- BOOM! M1 A2 Abrams reporting!!
Reply
:icondraconiusbarrett:
DraconiusBarrett Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2013
I see one other problem that nobody else on here pointed out.  Recoil.  Firing one barrel at a time, using the autoloaders, would increase refire rate immensely, but giving any target both barrels at the same time would trash the tank.  On a 150mm howitzer (which would be using similar shells, though probably a few kilograms lighter (your estimation would give really stubby, rather weak rounds as a 150mm round is 35.9 kg.  You'd be looking at around 40kg.)  Maintaining an adequate muzzle velocity for a penetrating kill shot (at least as high as the Mortar, which uses gravity assist for the damage, a luxury you won't have with 5* vertical travel, a 120mm uses 1500+m/s))  You are ultimately looking at a per-barrel recoil of 60,000 kg.  60 tons.  Firing one would put insane stress (slightly less than the weight of an M1A1 Abrams at 61.3 tons metric) into the shear forces acting on the turret ring.  The M1A1 uses 120mm as the largest size it can handle, because the recoil of the 30ish kg shell at 1500+ m/s is enough to make it kick off the ground, and puts severe stress into the [reinforced] turret ring.
Fire both of your cannons simultaneously, and, if the turret manages to not get sheared off, the tracks will, and you'll lose all mobility.

Maybe pneumatic blast-back suppressors could help alleviate some of the problem, and utilizing the hydraulic dampers from the Abrams, you could potentially suppress it enough to guarantee that you don't shear off the turret, but without recoil-plows, you'll lose traction and skip backwards.

Just suggestions to improve the design here, and explanation for why.
Reply
:iconcrabtasterman:
CrabTasterMan Featured By Owner Aug 19, 2014
Good point, never thought about recoil on these things.

Lol. I don't know if this would work, what if the guns were recoilless? You know, apertures at the back... It's not like the tank will survive a hit to the back of the turret anyway, so apertures decreasing integrity wouldn't matter? I think.

Another thing I noticed, was, should a tank with two guns get destroyed, that's a waste of two guns. 
If it was up to me, I'd just produce many more of simpler tanks with a single barrel, albeit bigger, if there was a need to increase firepower in the first place (apparently so, as dual barrels were required here to do just that). That or rely more on Attack Helicopters. If that's not an option, then more tanks. They are loads cheaper than aircraft anyway. And a mass produced line of tanks can even be sold to allies or anyone already using common logistics (like NATO irl *cough*), which makes each tank cheaper too, and strings allies on a constant addiction of spare parts for periodic maintenance. Economic victory is the most efficient victory, hurrah!
Reply
:icondraconiusbarrett:
DraconiusBarrett Featured By Owner Aug 19, 2014
The apertures would actually cost the guns muzzle velocity.  That's why modern recoil-less rifles use barrel back-blast dampers.  On a tank gun, like this one, the tank would be better off actually not having a direct dampener system.  The ideal way would actually be to use a Recoil-Delay system.  It would add a few thousand pounds in pistons, but rather than the tank kicking back and having turret shear, the air in the recoil-pistons would be redirected into the back of the barrel, providing slightly more thrust.  Springs in the pistons would actually catch the weight.
It's part of how they account for the three-barrel recoil in a battleship turret (where the recoil on the 16" barrels can be measured in feet).
This way the overall recoil could be reduced, because you wouldn't need as much powder, and the barrel would actually be moving slightly forward at first.  Initial recoil forces would carry the turret back an inch or two before the breech reaches the recoil valves and the expansion catches it and cycles it back.  Total, the barrel would travel +-2inches.  At this point, independent hydraulic dampeners would be used to control resonance.
Reply
:iconkingpin2007:
Kingpin2007 Featured By Owner Jun 9, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Maybe I'm just missing a detail everyone else knows, but I have to ask anyway, for the sake of knowing:

How would the turret guns aim upwards or downwards with a solid, squared off base?
Reply
:iconeumenesofcardia:
EumenesOfCardia Featured By Owner Jun 9, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Its actually an illusion somewhat. The gun is farther in then it appears and so is the pivot for the barrels. As this picture shows, even when the tank has a protruding and squared base, the barrel bends into the center "turret ring" area. Aiming downwards is a different story as there is no room in the turret for the barrel to move, so most tanks can only aim at most 5 degrees in that direction.
Reply
:iconcrabtasterman:
The gun is farther in than conventional design? I've seen that. But that means more space required for the gun's operation. MBTs are terribly cramped contraptions as they are. Now have that for Two guns, now even more spaced out.
Reply
:iconkingpin2007:
Kingpin2007 Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
mm. Thanks for the clarification.
Reply
:iconparakitteh:
parakitteh Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Twin-gun tanks don't really work. The Germans tried it in the 1970s, and concluded it didn't have any merits. And this is before you get into the problems of fitting two guns into a /turret/ as the VT 1-2 mounted both of its guns in the hull.

They offer literally nothing over a single gun. They just take up a lot of space and weight.
You also wouldn't have a human loader with a 160mm gun. proposed 140mm ammunition was supplied in two or sometimes /three/ parts and was far too heavy for any kind of sustainable rate of fire. You would need an autoloader for 160mm ammunition.

20,000 14.5mm rounds? This is hugely excessive. You'd be lucky to fit a thousand. The 14.5mm cartridge is larger than many /autocannon/ cartridges. Its only viable use is for dedicated armour penetration. For the use a commander gun sees, an autocannon would be a better option, since you'd use it for suppressing infantry and light vehicles. The Russians actually have a cartridge known as the 23x115, which is the 14.5 cartridge necked up to accept a 23mm autocannon round.
Rotary guns on tanks also serve no viable use whatsoever.
Reply
:iconeumenesofcardia:
EumenesOfCardia Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The VT 1-1 and 1-2 actually validate my reasons for designing this tank. Twin barrels have improved hit-capability, kill-capability and shorter response times. That, combined with an advanced modern fire-control system, means this is not only viable but could also be an improvement, allowing greater survivability in tank-tank combat with similar weight class. The reason why the VT 1-2 was scrapped was not because of feasibility but rather tactical limitations with the design, a lack of a fire-control system (which they couldn't afford to custom-make for a test tank) and that the Germans already had the Leopard 2 which, comparatively was the better tank.

You will see that in my later design that I removed any crew loading altogether and used a robotic crane operated internal autoloading system with a carouselle-style autoloader (modified for two barrels of course). This actually reduced its weight since my original design used two individual autoloaders (since I had the barrels originally sandwiched together.

While 20000 rounds is quite excessive, it isn't undo-able. Admittedly this is an approximation. I took the volume of the container, divided it by the volume of a round and that resulted in 27000. Factoring in the fact that the container itself would reduce its own volume, the need for the belt feed and the volume requirements of spacing, I figured 20000 was a good approximation. I'll revisit this when I make the REV.B version at some point.

The 14.5mm cartridge and rotary gun was not designed for infantry suppression but rather for anti-air (helicopters etc.) and anti-missile defense (similar to the Phalanx CIWS). This tank is far too expensive to be used on its own (it is very susceptible to ambush). As such its place is in a convoy, used in blitzkreig/tank assaults, or as part of a line of fortifications. This wouldn't be as viable unless it came with additional counter-measures to combat common threats, both to itself and to its charges, in these environments.

As for that last sentence, do you even know what "viable" means? It means it is unrealistic or incapable of success. Rotary guns are in common use in mounted on vehicles like the US humvee, and in helicopters and is used SPECIFICALLY for its infantry suppression capabilities, so its hardly inviable.
Reply
:iconparakitteh:
parakitteh Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
"The field trials with the two test vehicles VT 1-1 and VT 1-2 have shown did the concept of a twin-barrel casemate tank can be realized with the Appropriate engineering effort, yet, there are substantial problems during tactical missions and in the field."

If you gave it a third gun, it'd also have greater kill probability and response time. On paper.
It doesn't mean that this will actually occur on the battlefield. Typical ammunition expenditures would expect one kill (or even hit) per three rounds fired. With modern fire control. In the Gulf, we got lucky because the Iraqis could not into armoured warfare, giving the force an average expenditure of 1.2 rounds per kill.
Twin guns in the /turret/ is also a bad idea, as this will exert large amounts of torque on the turret mechanism from the recoil forces. Hence why the Russians, with the Koalitsyia-SV artillery project, went for an over-under configuration. Not only will this wear out the mechanism, but will /prevent/ the use of a 'double tap' style attack (which will expend ammunition at a fantastical rate, for no actual tangible effect), as the aim will drift on firing. Your two guns, already not fantastically accurate at combat ranges, now have two different aiming points for fire control to consider. It complicates everything for no /actual/ gains.

You can't really arrive at that sort of maths when working out capacity. Without great mechanical complexity (which will reduce the internal volume of the stowage), you'd be limited to only one depth of ammunition. You'd also need to consider the 'volume' of the cartridge as an oblong shape with a square face at minimum 27mm across and 156mm in length. In practice, the square face will be a rectangle, of slightly over 27mm in height and significantly wider due to the feed links.
[link]
As such, to stow 20,000 rounds one-deep, you'd need a box with a square face about 24 square metres in area.

If you want to deal with helicopters, then you'll want an autocannon, not a high-RoF gatling gun that will sap power and maintenance hours. Like I said, 14.5 is only /really/ preferable in a situation where you want armour penetration. Helicopters aren't really armoured except the cockpit. You want autocannons for everything else and have no real excuse not to, since 14.5mm ammunition is comparable in weight and bulk to autocannon ammunition, and ditto the guns.
This will never work for missile defence. It will never react quickly enough. Try a missile defence system that's actually used or proposed on tanks.

It's mounted on helicopters because helicopters are jolly fast. It's mounted on Humvees because US troops love SHAWK 'N' OAR
An M2 is no less 'suppressing' than a gatling gun. Nor is an M240.
You're expending drastically more ammunition specifically in a role where you know you're not hitting anything.
Why bother?
Reply
:iconeumenesofcardia:
EumenesOfCardia Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I am still unconvinced as to why you stated that two barrels are "unviable". I read that article, same as you (I sent it after all) but I did so to list the benefits. What it doesn't mention is WHY this design failed. The VT 1-2 could fire on the move in zig-zag movement and the fire-control system would fire whenever the tank was lined up with the target. It also had a lower silhouette and thicker armor. The Svidsvagn 103, like this tank, could fire on the move and had even been proven superior multiple times in 1968 over the chieftain and leopard 1 tanks but was rejected by both
the Germans and the British. I would suspect that their militaries had a bias for turretted tanks. Admittedly there are major drawbacks in water crossing, urban warefare, weight, etc. Is it an all-around superior tank? No. Does it have a niche market? Yes. Is it "unviable"? I don't buy it. The same can be said for this design. The main difference comes in that the design moves the barrels into the turret.
As you said, a major concern here is the rotational stress from the gun firing but there are several ways to dampen and remove the stress. One way off the top of my head is to have fixed dampening springs attached to the hull and use hydraulics to lock the turret to them before firing. The turret will rotate a bit as the springs compress but will return to its previous position within milliseconds and within a degree of its initial position. I'm studying as an electrical engineer and have done much lab-work with robotics. I've seen hydraulic components withstand 100's of KN of force without damage. To say a cannon could damage a properly constructed hydraulic dampening system is fallacy (especially over such a short period of time).
Just because the design never came out of the testing phase, doesn't mean it is without merits. If 1 missile can destroy a tank, why not put 10 on a platform? If a 15 inch gun can destroy a ship, why not put 8 on a ship? If 1 machine-gun can kill infantry, why not put 2 on a tank? The same goes for this design. If the tank can handle the stress, and make up for the weight of the second gun with improved accuracy, rate-of-fire and increased tank kills, why not?

You have convinced me that the drawbacks of a 14.5mm rotary gun with radar and electronic guidance outweigh the benefits as a missile and AA defense system (at least on this type of platform). In my REV.B design I will go with a Trophy-style anti-armor defense system and the remote-operated 12.7mm auto-cannon I used in my other tank design (unless you have any objections :))
Reply
:iconcrabtasterman:
"If 1 missile can destroy a tank, why not put 10 on a platform?"
Chain gun vs. Gatling gun. Can you fit the weight and size of the extra barrels, or just have enough room for the ammo?

Why do you even need "high rate of fire" on a tank? The tank is most always going to fight in groups, and even with support from, or supporting other units. If the main focus of a tank is to destroy the enemy tank, it just needs to spot it fast, and kill it, MOST PREFERABLY in 1 hit. Because even if you weakened the hull in one spot but didn't kill it, you are not going to hit that same spot again ever, because it's on the move and going to take cover and so are you. If there is need for more firepower to take that out in one hit, you'd just give a bigger gun, not two.

And both these guns are fixed on one turret. They are going to be facing the same direction, at one enemy tank at a time anyway. So why have both guns? And not being on the same radial position, they aren't going to hit the same spot either, even if the target was a sitting duck. Hitting on the same spot would be best if you actually could use two guns.

And can you imagine calculating trajectory and all that for two guns? And what if one of them can't even make a valid shot anyway due to obstacles or the position of the firing tank on a sloped terrain (:P like there IS any flat terrain in combat situations anyway, and do you even WANT to be in a flat terrain, without cover, in a combat situation??!)? And the added bulk would make tea timing harder cuz one of the barrels are gonna get in the way in a corner. But I don't know if Tea Timing is even valid in modern tank warfare, so... :P 

I wouldn't be around shooting two rounds at the enemy tank, I'd just shoot one big one and scoot away behind some cover, reload and pop out elsewhere for another shot at a different one. cuz the first one is already dead from the first shot too big for its armor to handle.
Reply
:iconparakitteh:
parakitteh Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The S-103 was a fantastic tank, in the very specific environment that was Finnish terrain. Finland is full of very long sight lines, enforced along roads by woodland. It effectively turns all major roads into massive choke points for kilometre after kilometre.
In the rest of Europe, consisting of either city or rolling plain, it would have been highly vulnerable to flanking and encirclement tactics classic of Soviet Deep Battle strategies. Hence why turreted tanks would have proved superior, in those environments. I say would, because unfortunately (for their technology) they've never been combat-proven.

As for the 'twin gun' issue...
[link]
On that board, in that thread, twin-gun tanks come through often. Under that admittedly provocatively titled spoiler is a rather exhaustive list of reasons why dual-gun tanks, especially in turrets.
The poster who made those posts, Dostanut Loj, has a fair bit of experience in the field and has in fact been to the Bundesarchiv and viewed, amongst others, the actual research topics into the VT 1-1 and 1-2.
Reply
:iconeumenesofcardia:
EumenesOfCardia Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well, I unfortunately cannot compete with that. I can solve the stress issue with hydraulics and springs, the blast spread issue with redirecting muzzle-breaks (the breaks positioned outwards, to the left/right of the left/right barrels) but barrel vibration, weight and the other factors mentioned, when combined, are too much for my meager tank experience and engineering know-how to cope with. I simply do not have the time to spend hours researching my design validity AND develop 3d models on top of university work and part-time employment.

You've been very helpful so far, I'm hoping you could bear with me a little more. What would you propose then as an alternative?

The design scenario I need is a tank that could stand up to T-90 -style machines in nation-nation combat. This opposing nation would be the aggressor with this tank providing heavy-fire support along with the smaller, slower but heavily armored brunhild tanks that would make the bulkwork of the nation's defence. The idea being that once the enemy's initial blitzkrieg is finished and absorbed, mechanized infantry along with this tank would flank and entrap the enemy in a hammer-and-anvil while air-support would pummel them into submission. The nations are on equal terms militarily with this nation being economically and technologically superior.

TL'DR, could you help me design a tank that can withstand 125mm smoothbore fire, do sustained 60-70kmph long-term (to outflank and keep up with mechanized infantry) and still be powerful in tank-on-tank combat? I would greatly appreciate it.
Reply
:iconparakitteh:
parakitteh Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Genuinely, single tube best tube.
Practical rate of fire of a twin-gun beast will only be as fast or less than that of a single gun. All these fixes you would have to make to negate the issues of twin guns are now no longer needed, which will simplify manufacturing and drive cost down.

If all you're dealing with is T-90s (frankly, a T-72 derivative) all you especially need as a fighting load is a penetrating warhead and a explosive-based general purpose cartridge. HESH, despite my own country's fappery to it, doesn't have anti-armour advantage anymore, and hasn't since the advent of the spall liner. HEAT's pretty good for this, or look into the US Army's proposal for an all-purpose HE cartridge. It works by have fancy fuses to do all the work that specialised cartridges used to be meant for.
If you decide to stick with 160mm cartridges, even if only 120mm sort of length, you could end up with something very interesting. I'm afraid I don't have links for this sort of thing, but research into APFSDS in the Cold War showed that big-bore guns launching such rounds were able to generate some fantastic chamber pressures and thus velocity (using test barrels in the range of 8" bore). Plus, with those explosive GP rounds, you'll be able to launch fat warheads for those - or, saboted sub-calibre munitions for better flight profile. It's a world of choice by this point.

If you're trying to deal with T-90s, then a 160mm gun launching a fat APFSDS (such as M829A3 - itself actually derived from 140mm gun research) will kill absolutely anything at any range, unless it's cool enough to have an ERA system like Nozh - something theorised to literally cut APFSDS rounds into pieces, in flight.
Reply
:iconeumenesofcardia:
EumenesOfCardia Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well, the reason why I chose 160mm was because I could fit 50 of them in the tank. I was wondering "why is everyone complaining about 160mm, I can easily fit that many in" until you noticed the size disparity. With that, my nice power/speed/weight ratio is all wrong as I now have to make the tank much larger to store those 160mm rounds. If I make the tank longer and wider, I think I could accommodate the same number of 140mm rounds and maybe even a larger fuel tank (which I had to skimp out on for weight and space requirements). Would you think that would be enough?

My "Mk 1009" round (the light blue one) is actually a modified M829 round for use with a rifled barrel (the "arrow" needs to be skinnier to accommodate a bearing mechanism to prevent spinning). Before you tell me the benefits of smoothbore over rifled, I already know but the in-world canon is that another company (the one aiding in the design of the T-90 style tanks) patented smoothbore design and this company, a competitor, now is biased against it to avoid the costs of royalties.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconeumenesofcardia:
EumenesOfCardia Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
*Sorry meant 12.7mm Machine Gun, not auto-cannon (.50 cal is not exactly a "cannon" :P)
Reply
:iconparakitteh:
parakitteh Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Your main gun rounds are also very small for 160mm cartridges. They're about the same size, maybe slightly longer, than 120mm cartridges. Proposed 140mm cartridges I mentioned earlier were more than a metre and a half long, fully assembled. I'd expect a 160mm cartridge to be taller than a person, and no less than nine or ten inches at the cartridge base.
Note that not including the rim, 120mm cartridges are over 150mm in diameter.
Reply
:iconeumenesofcardia:
EumenesOfCardia Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I think you are right about this. I used a 120mm blueprint as reference and scaled it to the 160mm size but the reference was just a picture and didn't come with dimensions. I did some additional research and you're right. I didn't know about the rim-sizing of the rounds, these rounds here would actually be classified as 125mm. I'll change my statistics when I make my REV.B tank (at some point). Until then I'll edit my description.
Reply
:iconxadrik-xu:
Xadrik-Xu Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Nice Work.
Reply
:iconeumenesofcardia:
EumenesOfCardia Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks, thanks also for the :+fav: :)
Reply
:iconxadrik-xu:
Xadrik-Xu Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
No Problem.
Reply
:iconcommander-fillmore:
Commander-Fillmore Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012
oh my it's a really big sexy
Reply
:iconmacpaul:
MacPaul Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
You never get two guns inside the turret, not to mention 51 rounds and such rounds don't weigh 30kg, that's the weight of a 120mm HEAT already (27.8kg), 160mm would have at least twice.
Reply
:iconeumenesofcardia:
EumenesOfCardia Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I'll be making a picture of the turret interior soon. The 51 rounds are in the chassis (you can see their rough location in the picture) and are loaded into the turret's 24-round turnstile auto-loader by a human loader (this is similar to that in the T-84 [link]). Also I had several references [link] & [link] citing 19 kg weight for the 120mm round, could you give me your source? Also note that rifled rounds weigh less than smoothbore ones as they do not need fin-stabilization.
Reply
:iconmacpaul:
MacPaul Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
You don't get 51 rounds this size in a MBT; Panzerhaubitze 2000 has 60 155mm rounds, but it's a howitzer, not much armour here. 120mm AP weighs ca. 18kg, HEAT 28kg, look it up. 155mm 45kg give or take 2-3kg. And fins are so heavy, aren't they?
Reply
:iconeumenesofcardia:
EumenesOfCardia Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Relax. I'm not a military engineer so I have to look these values up and make assumptions, I saw 18.7kg and I went with it, I'll make the corrections when I have more time. On your other point however, this tank's chassis is roughly the same size (mine's a bit wider and taller) then the PzH 2000. Even with its 115mm armor plating, I can tightly pack a 7,7,7,6 rack of 160mm shells in the hull, the remaining 24 are in the auto-loader turnstile. I'm not familiar with the interior design of the PzH 2000 but I would assume that its sophisticated auto-loader capable of 1 round per 3 seconds would require far more room then mine.
Reply
:iconmacpaul:
MacPaul Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
No, it can not. It's a MBT, not bigger than todays and they have less rounds with smaller calibre. You cannot store so many rounds with that calibre in an MBT.
Reply
:iconeumenesofcardia:
EumenesOfCardia Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
This tank has more volume (96.25m^3) then the T-90 (57.83m^3), Leopard II (85.47m^3), M1A2 Abrams (70.82m^3), or even the Merkava (75.2m^3), the last of which can store 10 people and 48 120mm rounds. You have not cited a single source but rather have left me to prove everything you say (which I find very annoying and in poor taste). This whole exchange has been a bad experience. I cannot argue when you do not give me anything but your opinion that "this tank doesn't conform to current designs therefore it is wrong". Well, until I finish modeling the interior we'll have to agree to disagree.
Reply
:iconmacpaul:
MacPaul Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2012
Are you not able to find your own sources? Is it so difficult to look up weight and volume of rounds? Have you ever seen the interior of a tank? If so, please show me how to store these rounds. And Merkava cannot store 48 rounds *and* infantry; carrying them reduces number of rounds. So please, do your research first.
Reply
:iconjerryyeh712:
JerryYeh712 Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
This looks awesome, nice work!
Reply
:iconeumenesofcardia:
EumenesOfCardia Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks :)
Reply
:iconjerryyeh712:
JerryYeh712 Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
No problem man! :w00t:
Reply
:iconthe-last-dragon-kni:
The-Last-Dragon-Kni Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Rule of cool is present and god's damn this is very cool.
The Gatling gun looks to Bulky, Most of them (Besides the A-10's) Are compact with the barrels nearly touching.
Reply
:iconeumenesofcardia:
EumenesOfCardia Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks for the favorite :)

You're may be right about the spacing issue. With the new General Dynamics M134 [link] the barrels might be close but there was next-to-no reference images I could find for it so I based the design off the old 1960s GE M134 [link] which has fairly spaced out barrels (there is at least enough room for barrels between the barrels, if anything, mine seem closer together than that).
Reply
:iconthe-last-dragon-kni:
The-Last-Dragon-Kni Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Yeah The newer ones have about 1 and a half inches of spacing between the barrel's with the shroud on the front.
The one on the bottom is an old one they didnt have as high speed motor's or strong materials thus the spacing.
Reply
Add a Comment: