Way too frigging time on my hands....

[serg3d]

PlasmaKrab said:
Wow!
Thanks for the info, that's really something!
Concrete armour makes sense, actually I recall now granite being once tested for MBT armor in some countries.
Only bear in mind the fact that police officers were in several cases able to climb on top of the dozer while it was running. Is that the kind of mobility you expect from a tank?

Don't forget, what was inside the armor was essentially unmodified dozer. And it was made by one man on a small budget in home workshop. If we are talking of the state/county scale budget and medium/small factory, some more radical design could be made. For example put two diesel on one vehicle. Russian did similar thing during WWII with SU-76. It had two parallel car engines. It was a hell to drive, but was effective enough to produce around fourteen thousand.
With two diesels, improvised NERA, composite and slate armor, TV cameras, remote controlled weapon mounts built using consumer robotics kits, night vision devices, weapon control software on the consumer laptop we are talking about serious fighting vehicle here. In fact the only important thing it luck is modern gun and stabilizer. However if insurgent got modern ATGMs and infantry SAM somehow that may be formidable foe even for regular army...

[Marcello]

"Concrete armour makes sense, actually I recall now granite being once tested for MBT armor in some countries."


Concrete isn't the best option.A controlled deformation structure using steel/rubber/aluminium layers, like the one employed in the T-55 Enigma or the T-72B is simple to make and quite effective.The BDD armor of the T-55AM should be another solution.You could use the former for the front turret armor and the latter for the glacis.
A factory churning out bulldozers should be able to churn out tanks without problems.Some sort of stabilizer should be within the capability of such facility, I guess, as bulldozers use hydraulics too.
Indicatively something roughly comparable to the T-62M1 in performances.Dead meat against an Abrams but better than no tanks.

[Steelwolf]

While modern armour is a challange, I was checking into some of the R&D going into the next generation MBT.

Anyone famaliar with the portable runway mats used by the Airforce? 4x4 mats which are a sandwich of honeycombed aluminum between two 1/8" steel plates. Once set on flat ground, they are equivalant to 2ft of concrete, able to handle anything up to the C5A Galaxy.

Well it seems some firms are looking into the same idea for armour. Another Idea is actually a rehash of an old idea from ww2, plates of steel with a space between them and the main armour. The round expends itself on the outer armour.

There is research into lamanated armour which actually uses steel, graphite, glass, rubber and steel.

But I would feel that it would be better to use up all the spares until one came up with an industrial base to come up with a unique design.

As far as the Merkava goes, the fact it is an MBT that can carry 8 troops in addition to the crew, has the engine mounted forward to add to the protection of the crew, and has the lowest frontal target picture of any MBT in use today.

[serg3d]

About Merkava - I thought it in fact has highest silhouette of all modern tanks (2.4 m). An I think it can only carry troops if the ammo rack removed, and the only ammo is that in the autoloader. So in fact it can be used in tank mode or gun APC mode with reduced ammo. Anyway after recent Lebanon war, I think there will be drastic changes in the Merkava design. Mk2 and Mk3 which performed so badly in the war will probably be converted to Namer APC, and both Mk4 and Namer will be uparmored and upgraded with active defense system. I also think it's possible that some Merkava will be converted to supporting fighting vehicles, like russian BMPT(tank support fighting vehicle) - turret removed and replaced with remote controlled autocannon (possibly dual), with some additional wepon - CMG or ATGM or like.

[Marek_Tucan]

I'd say it is a stretch claiming the Mk2 and 3 performed badly - AFAIK rather contrary - atleast the uparmored versions (all of deployed Mk3 and most of Mk2 in later stages) - the total losses were usually due to BIG IED's, not to ATGM's, and it seems many ATGM kills were crew members standing in opened hatches hit by shrapnel, not results of penetration. From what I've seen the NERA packages worked as they should.
As for the Merk as APC, it's more like the Mi-28 which, IIIRC, has a capability of carrying two people, inteded for rescuing shot down wingmen.