‘Panther’ seems a logical successor to the preceding ‘Leopard’, but as far as animals are concerned, ‘panther’ isn’t a separate species - it’s a term often used for black leopards. And the official Latin names of all the big cats start with Panthera, including Panthera tigris. So from that perspective, a Tiger is a Panther.
My tank
-
The picture attached is of a tank I modeled in AutoCAD. I was wondering what otherW would think of it. If anyone wants more perspectives than the current one, let me know and I can get them.
The turret is designed to be capable of turning, something that will be tested when I get it 3D printed on Wednesday.
-
It looks horrible. :|
-
Are you in CAD school or something?
-
IT doesn’t look like it would go very fast.
-
My main issue is the turret run distance…
It already extends beyond teh rear of hte tank, and when turned 90 degrees, the thing would be a lot wider than it is long, creating instability due to the high center of gravity of the extended sides, and of course the large amount of clear space needed to transverse the turret.
-
About the turn distance, I think it is just the view. I have a decent amount of room if you look from a top view.
About the speed, why would you think that?
-
About the turn distance, I think it is just the view. I have a decent amount of room if you look from a top view.
About the speed, why would you think that?
it looks un aerodynamic
-
Tanks don;t go THAT fast that air resistance is a major issue…
Otherwise, it is not too disimilar from the M1-A2
-
I know you are right. All modern MBT’s essentially look the same.
-
YOU DARE CALL THAT A “TANK” THAT MONSTROSITY IS NO COMPARISON TO TRUE ARMORED ASSAULT VEHICLE! :x :x :x
-
If i was an insurgent, I would be circleing the tank while planting sticky bombs. :evil:
-
@M36:
YOU DARE CALL THAT A “TANK” THAT MONSTROSITY IS NO COMPARISON TO TRUE ARMORED ASSAULT VEHICLE! :x :x :x
OMG LIEK J00 ARE A MONSTROSITY TOO.
Seriously, explain why.
-
Speaking for myself…
I already mentioned the transverse issues.
Beyond that, you have some track protection issues due to the design of the skirt. You also ahve some turret jamming issues due to the combined impact of both the turret and the main body. These may just be an issue of it being a CAD design that would get “fleshed out” in clay, etc. But as drawn, there are some serious issues.
I’ll leave it to you to determine the cause in each case (or ask if you are unsure).
-
@ncscswitch:
But as drawn, there are some serious issues.
needs a biger gun :evil: but how does a tank turn?
-
A tank turns by moving one tread but not the other. Since one side of the tank is moving, and the other isn’t, it effectively rotates around the non-moving side, thus moving the tank.
To ncsc:
There is a space between the turret and the body. You just are incapable of perceiving that from the view I provided.
About the skirt, can you elucidate? I don’t see where any protection is skimped.
-
The gap in the turret IS the issue.
Most notably the overhang of the turret cokmbined with the gap. Shrapnel, debris from moving through obstructions, etc. are going to be an issue, especially while in transverse since things can catch the bottom of the overhanging turret and be dragged into the tighter space between the main body and teh turret as it transverses back.
The skirting issue is 2 fold.
The first is that the back appears to have a different skirting configuration than the front, with a much longer skirt over the tread than is true in the front. It has also been squared off instead of angled as it is in the front. While this is good for treat protection (voering more tread with the skirt), it creates movement problems in uneven or boggy terrain when operating in reverse.
Second, the skirting is too squared off. There is no deflection angle in the skirting. This means you are either going to have to go with VERY heavy skirting in order to protect the treads, or you might as well leave the skirting off since it is vulnerable to even low-grade weapons like a LAW that could penetrate the skirting more easilly since the rounds can hit 'square" and penetrate to damage the treads beneath. If you add a deflection angle, you reduce the force of impacts on the skirting by an order of magnitude, increasing your tread protection at no cost of weight.
Lastly, following up on the transverse overhang… Imagine a simple IED going off next to the tank while the turret is transversed and the underside of the turret is exposed to the ground below… Explosive force going UP and hitting what is certain to be a very thinly armored portion of the vehicle. I’d call this an Achilles Heel on the modern battlefield.
My recommendations:
Angle the skirting
Re-engineer the rear skirting to allow for reverse movement in rough terrain (same config you used in the front would work)
Shorten the turret to elliminate the transverse overhang issue
Suggested Topics
