TankSharp

[MarkSheppard]

So here's something I've been developing over a week or two so that my future science fiction story has somewhat realistic vehicles that when you do the numbers on them; they come out as being 90 percent "About right", rather than me just pulling numbers out of my ***.

And as I developed it more, and added more detail after buying a Jane's Armor and Artillery Upgrades 95-96 book, I thought: "Why not call it TankSharp?", and further thought "I wonder how far we can go with it?"

So here's the link:
Link

It's a 532 kb ZIP which includes:
TankSharp (Tracked - BMP-1).xls (MS Excel 2000 format I think)
TankSharp (Tracked - BMP-1).ods (Open Office 2.2.0 Format)
TankSharp Manual.pdf (Da Manual)

Resized Pic of the Print Sheet in an Early version of TankSharp

I know that there are probably some limitations in it; most notably:

• Does not allow for Side or Rear Hull Sloping. (see last number)
• Does not allow Curved Armor (such as Cast RHA Gun Mantlets).
• There is "missing" armor on the turret whose weight is not accounted for if you slope all four sides; because I did not have the knowledge or skill to figure out the calculations required to do that (I only passed basic High School Algebra a looong time ago). I decided to allow complete sloping of all four sides on the turret, since the area that goes "missing" is very little compared to what would go "missing" with it applied to the hull.

Basically, Take a look and see how it works; and please be kind to me this is my first attempt :

---------------

In SPCAMO game terms, the BMP-1 of the datasheet has a rating of:

Hull (front Sides, rear)
4/2/2

Turret (front Sides, rear)
3/2/2

On a combat weight of 13.81 tons.

However, if we add 12.7mm (1/2" of SHS) applique armor, with it's 1.23 efficiency rating against KE attacks to the front and sides for a total of 1.58 metric tons additional weight; that rating goes up to:

Hull (front Sides, rear)
10/4/2

Turret (front Sides, rear)
5/4/2

However, SHS is not cheap, it's something like twice the cost of conventional RHA, and can only be rolled in relatively thin layers.

[RecruitMonty]

Hi, Mark. I don't quite understand what this bit of kit is for. Is it used for predicting Armour values and such? Do you have to get it from Rapid share?

[MarkSheppard]

Hi, Mark. I don't quite understand what this bit of kit
is for. Is it used for predicting Armour values and such?

You can use it to predict armor values; but you can also use it to design an armored fighting vehicle to your own specifications.

Do you have to get it from Rapid share?

Ooo thanks for reminding me about the attach feature here; I'll attach v0.2 later tonight, which will have more features.

[Marek_Tucan]

Thanks, Mark, already DLed it and its a neat thingie for what-if vehicles

[PlasmaKrab]

Thanks for all the work, Mark, I think I'll make extensive use of this!

[MarkSheppard]

Thanks for all the work, Mark, I think I'll make extensive use of this!

May I suggest for the future US AFVs which share a common chassis across all lines, like the IFV, SP Artillery, Tank etc; in that you design them so that they all have the same basic protection, perhaps 50mm of Rolled RHA (outer frontal hull), followed by about 650mm of void space then 50mm of Rolled RHA (Inner hull).

And basically the void space is filled with materials of different densities depending on your protection requirements?

E.g, the MBT variant gets 650mm of Chobham Generation IV; while the IFV gets several layers of honeycombed aluminum, while the SPA gets filled with kevlar anti spall layers...

[Marcello]

The protection needs of a MBT and a SPA are too much different for a standardized armor scheme to make sense. A SPA need all around protection against shells fragments, top protection against DPCM (be it ERA blocks or some composite) and maybe provision for some appliquè just in case it is pushed in situations which exceeds its normal mission. That's it. Everything else is superfluos, only a waste of money and useless strain for the mechanical systems.

[MarkSheppard]

The protection needs of a MBT and a SPA are too much different for a standardized armor scheme to make sense.

With 1950s and 1960s technology, yes; but not with 1970s and onward tank technology.

Essentially, tanks have become Rolled Homogenous Armor enclosures for slabs of fairly thick secret armor inserts, which can be swapped out to improve protection when needed.

In fact, in order to get maximum protection from most modern composite and ceramic armor systems, you need a dense cover and backing for the ceramic/composite, because the backing and cover plate actually help increase the resistance of the plate to KE by 25% over what it should be.

So if you take the armor insert technology to it's logical end, modular armor; it opens up new design approaches:



What if you simply design a common 40 ton tracked vehicle chassis; and then mix and match armor to each role?

The tank can have the 9 ton 600mm thick ceramic/composite chobham frontal armor insert; while in the SP Artillery piece, the 600mm thick insert space in the frontal armor are is left empty, and the weight is instead allocated towards:

5 tons of 25mm SHS Steel Armor plates bolted onto the top armor for artillery fragment protection; followed with 4 tons of ERA bolted on top of the SHS plates to protect against DPICM.

[MarkSheppard]

And version 0.3 is done!

[PlasmaKrab]

May I suggest for the future US AFVs which share a common chassis across all lines, like the IFV, SP Artillery, Tank etc; in that you design them so that they all have the same basic protection, perhaps 50mm of Rolled RHA (outer frontal hull), followed by about 650mm of void space then 50mm of Rolled RHA (Inner hull).

That's exactly what I had figured out for now. Without the metrics, of course, and that's where Tanksharp will be helpful.
If you look at my OOB, most Block-III combat vehicles have exactly the same hull armor levels.

Now I hope your latest version is advanced enough to include crew-in-hull ergonomics, advanced ERA and NERA, hybrid drives, DE weapons...