Shop More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

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

Stats

Views
18,775 (13 today)
Favourites
185 (who?)
Comments
41
Downloads
711

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:
 
: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
Add a Comment: