Liberty Tank

Its the year 2030, 4 years into the war between NATO and the Sino-Russian alliance. The war is going well, but NATO is running low on armor. The US has enough M1A2s for the army, but its National Guard units and its allies in Europe are desperately low on tanks.

You are tasked with designing a "liberty tank" to meet this demand for armor. It must be cheap, expedient to build, and use a minimal amount of silicone components.

What does this tank look like

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >War between NATO and 2 nuclear powers
    >Going on for 4 years
    kek

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      MAMMOTH TANK

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Uhh probably just a downgraded version of the Abrams without the high end stuff.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The engine would be a problam, the DU armor too

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Build more of the Egyptian export Abrams, they lack the DU armor and use a diesel IIRC.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Not a single export abrams uses a diesel engine. You can put diesel in the turbine though. ADF does that

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Just make more Abrams but with economies of scale tweaking for things like the armor package. Have limited amounts of simplification and streamlining where changes don't impact usability/performance for big production gains. Powerpack options should be explored to allow for localized substitution with MTU diesels in the region.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Literally just a heavily upgunned Leo 1.

    You want something cheap, not too heavy, without exotic materials, and with just enough armor to laugh off IFV cannons.

    Or just go full economy of scale on an IFV chassis and only swap turrets

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You think a bradley could fit a 120mm gun?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        If the CV90 can do it, why not Bradley.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        If the M4 Sherman can be made to accept it, the Bradley can too.
        Though to be honest

        The engine would be a problam, the DU armor too

        DU armor wouldn't be a problem to procure as we get so much of that shit from power plants most of it is thrown away.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This. If the slants are using a Tanks + ATGMs that can regularly penetrate a Leo-2 and a Abrams in a war, then the extra armor and weight is useless. At that point, the correct more is to downgrade to the lowest level of armor that can laugh off autocannons. It would have a diesel engine, a proven design, the ability to equip a cannon that can penetrate the enemy tanks, and the ability to mount whatever optics I needed.

      That sounds like a Leopard I

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It wouldn't be a Leopard I though, it would just be a tank that resembles it in performance.
        It'd probably be based on an existing chassis made by the US in order to save time and resources.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The newest American Tank (Mobile Protected Firepower) is based on the GDLS Griffin II which is based on the ASCOD which is basically an IFV chassis where GDLS replaced the autocannon with an actual cannon.

          So, probably that.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        even if it only used steel armor, it wouldnt be 30mm APDS protected
        it would at least have 600mm of frontal armor to resist RPGs along a 30-degree frontal arc, which is possible using steel with ERA

        but it wouldnt need to restrict itself to plain steel even if cost was a major concern
        80s era composite armor was literally just rubber and steel
        70s era composite armor was just textolite sandwiched between steel
        it would entirely possible to make 600mm+ steel-equivalent armor by just piling on NERA

        you would probably end up with a modernized version of the M1 IP with a diesel engine and commercial thermal sights strapped on

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It would be up being a really boring tank using the most widely available existing chassis

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    An IFV turret mounted on a small unmanned chassis, controlled via a nearby CyberGavin mobile command center.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >minimal amount of silicone components
    I quit

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    already proven artillery, mobile drones and gun emplacements are superior for the cost

    >pic maybe related, ran off an old VW engine

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You can also put a ATGM launcher mount on the top if you need to engage something without moving the hull.
    Otherwise it's saving cost/complexity on turret components. A casemate would also allow for different guns if you desired.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >You are tasked with designing a "liberty tank" to meet this demand for armor. It must be cheap, expedient to build, and use a minimal amount of silicone components.
    If the goal is to pump out thousands then probably just an IFV with a 105mm or 120mm cannon and armored to withstand 30mm cannon frontally. Maybe a side mounted ATGM launcher to deal with enemy main battle tanks. I feel the ATGM's would probably be the real enemy tank killers at that point while the cannon providing direct fire support. Maybe build them at 1/4 or 1/5th the rate of standard IFV's.
    I will be honest, I think IFV's have surpassed the tank as the modern militaries work horse. I don't think MBT's should be replaced/retired, just that in a long conventional war building new ones to replace losses won't be the focus of industry. They'll be valuable units built up in peace time that will be expended and not be replaced in large numbers by new wartime production. Instead most wartime production will move to lightly armed vehicles in the 25-35ton range.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      ATGM is redundant if you have a 120mm gun
      120mm APFSDS can destroy just about anything the ATGM can, and unless youre fighting in open desert, then the missiles advantage of 5+km range isnt a game breaker, the gun is just as accurate and just as deadly at closer ranges

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *