I'm intrigued. I feel that moving the gunner to the hull would be a good idea, especially if that will allow additional ammunition capacity. At the same time, what are the chances of slapping a .50cal to replace the MG3 in the turret? Comparing this to a real life doctorine say Malaysian (where I'm somewhat familiar with) defensive doctorine, all it really needs are some additional ERA, more smoke grenade launchers, and maybe ATGM as a bonus on the side where the gunner used to be (assuming they were moved to the hull). Other than that, it looks perfect for jungle warfare.
Oh hey, nice, we finally have machine guns. Though the useage of this tank still baffles me. There's really not a lot of optics and vision ports for a scout tank, and its heavily armed while being pretty slow for the role of a scout. Remember, tracks are hard-capped in terms of speed, whereas wheels can go as fast as they like. To me it feels more like a 1930s light tank than a 1990s one with this heavy armament and tracked chassis. For a 90s tank you'd expect a smaller gun (75mm like the american prototypes, or smaller still to save weight) to deal with light vehicles and a pair of missile launchers like the TOW to serve as its anti tank platform.
@@dan-oh7jo Its not, no, but most main battle tanks can reach a similar speed only 10-15 kph slower. Which brings into question what the scout brings to the table if its only slightly faster than the heaviest hammer in the workshop, thats what i mean. From what i know even wheeled platforms arent used much for scouting, most militaries use IMVs for it instead- Hummers, Jeeps, etc, something with a lot of speed, small profile and a LOT of vision to all directions.
Probably better suited for combat support role like the XM-8 or TCM AGS-3. You will be surprised by how Americans love their big guns (90-105mm) on small tanks. In fact, they are reviving the program.
I think that unmanned turrets work well for lighter vehicles such as Light Tanks and IFVs, thanks to what is mentioned in 1:18, meaning that it can possibly engage more dangerous targets without endangering the crew. Not only that, the smaller and more lightly armored turret will mean that you can have a lighter vehicle or spend the weight budget elsewhere.
I wish militaries would explore the '3 crew in the front of the hull' concept more, you can save so much weight by removing volume in the turret. It's also probably not impossible to implement a carousel autoloader in a separate compartment with blow out panels (through the bottom of the hull).
The thing is about the size and weight of the real world TH301/TAM. And in the 1990s the unmanned turret design was not really working. So if some western army wanted such a tank (and none did - they went wheeled recon in the late 70s and had stuff like Centauro available and in service) they would have bought a TAM.
Some ERA, an APS and some better armour on that UFP maybe some internal spalling protector what the fuck ya call it would be ballin too, really fuckin cool project btw
hmm it is kind of expected with a cramped compartment but wouldnt it be better to put the turret crew in an inclined posistion to reduce the height needed for the turret? that way it would leave less volume for potential hits. other idea is maybe to put a larger engine. even tho the V8 is capable it wouldnt hurt to have a V12 with atleast 1,400hp to give it the extra kick for high mobility. and maybe reduce the weight by switching to aluminium for the engine covers. keeping a Steel Front, Aluminium rear. just ideas tho.
Actually i think the creator of this concept got the inspiration from an old soviet tank object 477 "Nota". This tank even was built in real "steel" but back then the soviet union collapsed and the tank wasn't ran in the serial production.
I do think many can be improve, especially if this is from the 90s. Increase the max width to 3.2m. 3m is too limiting. If you insist on 3m, use a bigger turret ring and rearrange something. Maybe the crew can sit a little further back and be more comfortable. Don't forget your 7.62 also need ammo stowage. Armor. As of the current config, it is not good. Marder and Leo is not a good hull to based your project on. Of course armor is full of compromises and stuff, but If you want to sacrifice armor, the top, then the bottom, then the back. But you should try to aim for immunity against 14.5 BS41 all around protection. Raw thickness would not work since it can get through roughly 40mm/0 point blank. As far as base armor goes, it often is a thin very hard metal strike surface (or thick ceramic composite based striking surface) and a thicker softer buffer surface to catch the broken projectile. A common solution is HHS + RHA, they are comparatively cheap but not necessary the most weight efficient. The internal plate can be other material such as aluminums if it can reach a higher weight efficiency. There is also armor that make use of very hard material both the strike face and buffer face, and the internal was supplement spall liner of some sort. For the side armor, it has 2 section. Above or below the track. Above track portion. Increase the angle. I am not sure about how much fuel contribute to the performance against ap, but if you want to use fuel tank as armor, you have to make sure it fully stop anything gets into it and not crack the inside. Below track portion obviously cannot have an angle. So you have to put armor on the other side of the track. You would need to cover everything and get into the engine compartment slightly. As low as a the leg of the crew of course. Front Hull. The slope. Unless you want protection against rod projectile, increase the front slope to 80 degree. Non steel metal alloy tend to do better for a given weight against non rod projectile. You might even be able to get away without needing a secondary reinforce layer. The mid section. The 30-30 array is not optimal. Refer to the strike surface + buffer layer design. Weather it should be 35 degree depends on material choice. I recommend adopting a hull shape similar to Abrams type hull shape. The lower 1/5 or 1/6 (ratio hased on the hull height) of the hull can be a 75 degree slope plate that sandwich the mid section. However it is possible a more modest slope with layer design might offer better internals space, and layer armor might be required at that point. Holyshit this is getting out of hand.
Reminds me of AGS prototype from america but on a marder(?) hull. Some other unmanned turreted tanks are out there as well like that one modified challenger 1 from middle east. I think it is a great design.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 you took marder chassis and put on it uninhabited module same as Americans did with Abrams chassis which used on TTB , so it's same in my eyes, different mostly in protection and movement characteristics, but concept is the same
Interesting design, though it seems to me though that the crew and ammunition are still all in one compartment, even if that compartment lower down. If the turret takes a hit, it looks like the blast will travel down into that compartment, potentially killing the crew and cooking off the ammo. The reduced profile is obviously a big plus but I wonder if there is a way to provide greater separation between the crew and the ammunition/gun. But for a 90s design it looks perfect. Stryker MGS turret on a Marder-ish hull.
Thank you! Ive already altered the design, like I mentioned at the end of the video, but I dont think having some kind of blow-out panels would help, because there would be just too many angles from which hitting the tank would penetrate both the crew and ammo compartments, rendering blow-out panles useless.
i dont think moving the gunner to the hull could help but make it more harder to use the tank because the gunner (if in the turret) can help the commander to spot enemies since the sommander has a blindspot the left side of him since hes at the right, right? and the gun is at his left thus blocking his vision to the left side of the tank and i think it should have like "split controls" for the gunner and the commander both can look for enemies and both can fire the gun also a question, how does the crew replenish the autoloader magazine the magazine being at the hull would give the crew a hardtime to replenish its magazine well thats just my opinion i really dont know how french tanks replenish the ammo in their magazines so... but TBH other than the problems i can think off its a very nice design
The commander's periscopes do cover only one side, but his main optic is the rotatable scope on the roof, which gives him full view with zoom/thermals etc. As for the magazine replenishment, in the current config, it's right behind the crew, so it would be pretty easy.
Cool concept, kinda _artillery style_ in that it has a transfer arm that enables the gun to be loaded in any position. As far as suggestions go, I feel like moving both the gunner and commander to the hull would be a good idea, as well as making the turret wider to enable access from the inside of the vehicle (something that's really important in case of any malfunction).
Germany doesn't use the .50 cal, so for realism sake (it's supposed to be a German vehicle) I used a 7.62. But I'm working on fitting a 20mm coaxial for even more firepower!
It's made in Fusion 360, it's a great free CAD programme for all kinds of things ;). It has some built in animating, and then I improved it with some editing magic XD
Was it a German concept? Germany should consider using the Puma ICV chassis to produce such a light tank for its light infrantry, and air borne forces.
Well, the fact that the armor is worthless is one thing, it needs to be strengthened and dynamic protection units installed, that’s one point, but regarding the engine, the D17A780 engine is a 780 hp with 3800 Nm, 17.3 liters,but in a modified version, reduce the height as much as possible, that is, a version with a dry sump and the most flat cylinder head,the result is an engine that has excellent liter power and acceptable fuel consumption and, most importantly, very small dimensions, especially if it is made together with a transmission unit.
@@matyasgrohmann Yeah I was wondering about that, the armor seems incredibly thin, like not really usable against any amount of heavy fire if not under cover with the hull down position. Also the turret mechanism seems quite vulnerable, it wouldnt be hard to mission kill the tank even covered in an earth ramp with the hull down position... Heck with such armor, unless it's freaking graphene, I'd even worry about things like HESH or cannon fire that wouldnt even be attempted to use against an MBT front given the option (and they do a lot more damage than darts!) while speed-armor is hard when relying on hull-down cover, being vulnerable to artillery too... Also many ATGMs or infantry AT weapons dont go on a straight line and thus better top protection may be desired. Other than the defense aspect though, I love the design, specially with the gunner moved to the hull, I may try to improve that aspect hehe, I see quite a bit of potential as the unmanned turret really cuts on a lot of surface to be armored...
@@antaresmc4407 It is a light tank, after all. The armor itself protects only against heavy MGs. However, adding some E.R.A protection would surely be useful
@@matyasgrohmann In my view, any tank should be able to stand at least non-AP rounds, IEDs and fire from things like IFVs; after all they're suposed to provide direct fire support close yo infantry and to enemy forces, a BMG is not all they'll be pitted against... Also ERA won't really help against a cannon firing once a second, it should stand enough to allow to fire back and shut up up the gun ;P One thing that I've thought about in this while to not add much weight would be to use a deep NERA behind a MG-proof shield (which could just be the ERA itself) and in front of the armor per se. For the already crammed hull I've no idea how could you could do that, but placing it around the turret would offer great protection against top attacks while not even adding a ton. I have a few ideas for the hull, but trying to keep it sub-36T (w/ ERA) (I like the number :P) without sacrifizing any turret depression or making it even more crammed. Got some ideas, but none cheap. (Note: Im assuming the armor is a composite as heavy as RHA but with twice the effectiveness against solid shot and 3x against HE, I won't bother to try and do anything about darts or missile warheads. It is optimistic, but being so thin and small surface wise you can afford more expensive materials without skyrocketing costs)
@@matyasgrohmann Update on my nerding: One way I've figured out to stop HE would be to push the seats a little bit back and with the legs a little bit lower, then make the spaced platesof the bottom taper slightly toguether to make up the space (after all, if something hits that low it's not going in penetrates or not :P), then add a little plate with a lower angle in the front to rise the top hull armor about 10cm, rising its angle to not increase height. This should, if my looking at the vehicle is right (it's obviously not easy to measure) make an extra 30ish cm in the front, with the space gain reducing evenly all the way towards 0 as you go towards the turret... Now what you do is: - Revert the hull armor to its original position - In the tiny extra front plate added, place a thick beam of something tough (say a layered composite of WC and maraging) meant to deflect rounds down into the higher angle, spaced lower hull (ERA would be very ineffective there to the small size and low angle) - On your upper hull you add something very hard and stiff, no thicker than 1-2cm (cemented carbide laminated with U would work for that, tho I guess there's some fancy super-classified stuff that might be less heavy or costly). - Fill the remaining space between the two plates with something collapsable (either a tough metal sponge, or simply very perforated steel with plastic if cost>weight) to absorb the pressure, prevent the brittle plate from spalling and slow down cannon rounds. As the space tapers down, the highest point would need to be covered with the turret-attached NERA to save from top attacks. - Add a thin ERA on the top and a thicker one with spacers and such on the sides... If my math isnt wrong here (assuming WC upper plate, no tapers or reduction in the original one, 1/3 dense Al sponge and my shitty video-measurements), that whole addon would weight about 4-6T: ~ Up to 1T for the spacer. ~ Up to 1T for the turret NERA (which should be about as good as an MBT side armor, only on front and sides and for the first hit tho, based on thickness, I couldnt find much so pile of salt). ~ Up to 2T for the ERA (couldnt find proper weights or composition so grain of salt. It could quite easily be a single T as its a small area and thin bricks). ~ Around 1T for the added plates, depending on how thick and which material you assume it'd range from 1/2T to 2T roughly. Adding some extra variability for possible weight cuts or heavier reinforcement, I'd place the range on plus three to seven tons. I think the 36T target is possible but optimistic. Gee this was a textwall... It was really fun to think about and calculate, hope it was helpful or at least gave fun thoughts ;)
The purpose of this concept is to protect the crew and ammo, if you were using it right you'd never show the hull to the enemy. Putting ammo in the turret would make the whole point redundant and make the turret bigger (aka easier to hit).
@@MangustaCBT misconception, russian tanks are not more prone to 'spectacular turret enucleation' due to hull ammunition stoage but turret ammunition stoage. the abrams is the only tank that has separate hull ammunition stoage in service (all other tanks do not bother to separate hull amuntion from crew, the only other tanks are ones not in active service like T-14 or T-95 for examples), more modern american vehicles don't even bother with it. the vast majority of tank designers see it as pointless because its turret ammunition that has a reasonable chance of actually getting detonated while still haveing the crew survive. in the vast, vast majority of situations were hull amunition brews up, the crew is killed by the cause anyway. so its unnecessary complexity and added weight and reduced stoage capacity.
What if you put the ammo inside the turret like a Russian tank and insert the crew into the hull under the front of the turret where the driver is and then your crew would be almost impossible to kill using murder drones unless it is a kamakazi drone with a shallow angle of attack. Modern nato tank guns like the 105 and 120mm are already etc compatible guns which allows just the cap to be remaining after firing to free up space but this also allows for ammunition types that dont blow up when shot which are often used. Obviously not all rounds are the etc rounds which is why export leopards with their non etc ammo always get blown up very easily but the guns are compatible so for this concept lets just say it is etc ammo. This would make the tank even more survivable in a hull down position and the crew very difficult to kill via drone which is pretty much one of the biggest threats on the modern battlefield.
Seria legal uma torreta remota de 40mm HE junto com aquela Mg3 ambas armas na mesma torreta remota, assim facilitando a proteção da tripulação contra a infantaria moderna. Para finalizar com um toque Sci-fi, adicione na torreta um laser de 50-150w para derruba pequenos drones de observação.
@@F76986jhg Poderia ser Kontakt 5, e quem sabe até um APS, poderia ser o Drozd ou Trophy, assim ficaria mais leve só usando o APS, mas também mais caro
Hi pal. Me again. So... this is great. But can be greater. Firstly, I don't know how you came up with the weight and engine horsepower spec. But my feeling is that you overestimated the weight and underestimated the power. WT's very own TAM 2C: 4 crew, 50 rounds of 105. Seems way more volumous and with maybe a smaller engine. And yet: 30.5 tons with 720HP. Your vehicle, let us dream, could have instead: 27 tons with 800HP, thus giving it nearly 30 HP/ton. Plus a full dual drive transmission. Like the TAM. Secondly. Yes. Clear the bustle of crew. Fill it up with the ammo. The ammo needs to be there, close to the gun. All of it loaded to be fed to the gun. Consider not having a commander. If the priority is light weight. Or having the 3 crew side by side, Armata style on the hull front. Also... consider a much larger and more well protected vehicle. Even if it's trying to be something from the 90s. Consider an upper hull glacis of high hardness steel at a 83 degree slope. With a more pronounced frontal hull section. To defeat HEAT and APFSDS. I missed you placing a fuel tank inside the frontal spaced armored plates. Not a huge fan of fuel close to the crew compartment myself. An ammo bustle behind the turret, as suggested, may defeat the dry turret intention, but would allow the vehicle to fight from the open without fear of an ammo cookoff. With blow out pannels obviously. It could be a double bustle. With all of the ammo there. One shot in front of the other for the whole lot of them. Increases ammo capacity, crew survivability, and reload speed. At the obvious cost of a larger and more vulnerable upper profile... But it makes sense, because if a dry turret is hit, it generally means the gun is done for anyway. It certainly needs more gun elevation. 😋
Strange Reconnaissance Tank Concept. A Reconnaissance Tank should be tyred because the Tank should be silent. The Germany Reconnaissance Tank Luchs is a tyred Tank with complex noise reduction. The Durch/German Reconnaissance vehicle Fennek is agile, small, lean and silent but without the complex noise reduction of the Luchs. A Reconnaissance Tank/vehicle is Not developed for offensive Combat. Such a Concept as shown is to Draw Back into Russian terrotory First and then Attack in the areas of deep Forrests and boggish Terrain. Boggish Like some areas in North-East/East Ukraine. Maybe a Russian Special Military Mission Reconnaissance Tank ?! A shorten Armata Platform?!
completely useless concept. Cannon has too little penetration for t72 frontal armour. The gun's own frontal armour is too thin against the 125mm t72 main gun. the ammunition for the main gun is stored in the fighting compartment, plus an automatic loader. the slightest penetration and the crew is dead. It is a 30 years old conzept. In every conflict, the T72 looked extremely bad with this configuration. Why do you think most t72 turrets lie next to the tank after battles? There are now drohnes for recon.
This is supposed to be a light reconnaissance vehicle, the armor isn't design to withstand any tank round... The main protection this has is not to be shot at in the first place thanks to its low profile (as mentioned in the video). Of course today there are many better recon options, but this tank was not made for today's standarts...
I'm intrigued. I feel that moving the gunner to the hull would be a good idea, especially if that will allow additional ammunition capacity. At the same time, what are the chances of slapping a .50cal to replace the MG3 in the turret?
Comparing this to a real life doctorine say Malaysian (where I'm somewhat familiar with) defensive doctorine, all it really needs are some additional ERA, more smoke grenade launchers, and maybe ATGM as a bonus on the side where the gunner used to be (assuming they were moved to the hull). Other than that, it looks perfect for jungle warfare.
i agree, a .50cal or a shortened 20mm auto would be better
@@alexwhite578 I'd go with a .50 with how much bullet you can store, more than a 20mm shorts. Still, depending on usage and enemies
And some ATGMs
That's pretty good, looking forward to your future concepts!
If War Thunder’s Spähpanzer Mager A1 Was Realistic
Oh hey, nice, we finally have machine guns.
Though the useage of this tank still baffles me. There's really not a lot of optics and vision ports for a scout tank, and its heavily armed while being pretty slow for the role of a scout. Remember, tracks are hard-capped in terms of speed, whereas wheels can go as fast as they like.
To me it feels more like a 1930s light tank than a 1990s one with this heavy armament and tracked chassis. For a 90s tank you'd expect a smaller gun (75mm like the american prototypes, or smaller still to save weight) to deal with light vehicles and a pair of missile launchers like the TOW to serve as its anti tank platform.
75-45 Kph aint that slow? Especially, in offroad no tank can reach the topspeed
@@dan-oh7jo Its not, no, but most main battle tanks can reach a similar speed only 10-15 kph slower.
Which brings into question what the scout brings to the table if its only slightly faster than the heaviest hammer in the workshop, thats what i mean.
From what i know even wheeled platforms arent used much for scouting, most militaries use IMVs for it instead- Hummers, Jeeps, etc, something with a lot of speed, small profile and a LOT of vision to all directions.
Probably better suited for combat support role like the XM-8 or TCM AGS-3. You will be surprised by how Americans love their big guns (90-105mm) on small tanks. In fact, they are reviving the program.
@@benlex5672 Well the Griffin II is being adopted, but i didnt know that when i wrote this comment.
Good music selection
Excellent technical description and explanation
I think that unmanned turrets work well for lighter vehicles such as Light Tanks and IFVs, thanks to what is mentioned in 1:18, meaning that it can possibly engage more dangerous targets without endangering the crew. Not only that, the smaller and more lightly armored turret will mean that you can have a lighter vehicle or spend the weight budget elsewhere.
Very very good concept 👏
We're waiting for your next
Beautiful, getting better
I wish militaries would explore the '3 crew in the front of the hull' concept more, you can save so much weight by removing volume in the turret. It's also probably not impossible to implement a carousel autoloader in a separate compartment with blow out panels (through the bottom of the hull).
Damn, this looks cool, imma build it in Lego!
Really? Nice! Looking forward to it.
The thing is about the size and weight of the real world TH301/TAM. And in the 1990s the unmanned turret design was not really working. So if some western army wanted such a tank (and none did - they went wheeled recon in the late 70s and had stuff like Centauro available and in service) they would have bought a TAM.
Some ERA, an APS and some better armour on that UFP maybe some internal spalling protector what the fuck ya call it would be ballin too, really fuckin cool project btw
I'm planning on adding some ERA protection and maybe some slat armour. Thanks!
@@matyasgrohmann ballin on them 24/7 I see
This is spectacular!
hmm it is kind of expected with a cramped compartment but wouldnt it be better to put the turret crew in an inclined posistion to reduce the height needed for the turret? that way it would leave less volume for potential hits. other idea is maybe to put a larger engine. even tho the V8 is capable it wouldnt hurt to have a V12 with atleast 1,400hp to give it the extra kick for high mobility. and maybe reduce the weight by switching to aluminium for the engine covers. keeping a Steel Front, Aluminium rear. just ideas tho.
If the Mager A1 was historically accurate
Oh no! Spare me of engine and suspension reliability issues and crew fatigue! XD
Actually i think the creator of this concept got the inspiration from an old soviet tank object 477 "Nota". This tank even was built in real "steel" but back then the soviet union collapsed and the tank wasn't ran in the serial production.
I am the creator of this concept, however I've never heard of objekt 477 before. (Googled it) Wow, it really does look similar, thanks!
Wouldn't it be possible to make a revolver type chamber where the cylinder itself is the chamber?
Damn!This is awesome!
Music from “Halo” :-)
I do think many can be improve, especially if this is from the 90s.
Increase the max width to 3.2m. 3m is too limiting. If you insist on 3m, use a bigger turret ring and rearrange something. Maybe the crew can sit a little further back and be more comfortable. Don't forget your 7.62 also need ammo stowage.
Armor. As of the current config, it is not good. Marder and Leo is not a good hull to based your project on. Of course armor is full of compromises and stuff, but If you want to sacrifice armor, the top, then the bottom, then the back. But you should try to aim for immunity against 14.5 BS41 all around protection. Raw thickness would not work since it can get through roughly 40mm/0 point blank.
As far as base armor goes, it often is a thin very hard metal strike surface (or thick ceramic composite based striking surface) and a thicker softer buffer surface to catch the broken projectile. A common solution is HHS + RHA, they are comparatively cheap but not necessary the most weight efficient. The internal plate can be other material such as aluminums if it can reach a higher weight efficiency. There is also armor that make use of very hard material both the strike face and buffer face, and the internal was supplement spall liner of some sort.
For the side armor, it has 2 section. Above or below the track.
Above track portion. Increase the angle. I am not sure about how much fuel contribute to the performance against ap, but if you want to use fuel tank as armor, you have to make sure it fully stop anything gets into it and not crack the inside.
Below track portion obviously cannot have an angle. So you have to put armor on the other side of the track. You would need to cover everything and get into the engine compartment slightly. As low as a the leg of the crew of course.
Front Hull.
The slope. Unless you want protection against rod projectile, increase the front slope to 80 degree. Non steel metal alloy tend to do better for a given weight against non rod projectile. You might even be able to get away without needing a secondary reinforce layer.
The mid section. The 30-30 array is not optimal. Refer to the strike surface + buffer layer design. Weather it should be 35 degree depends on material choice.
I recommend adopting a hull shape similar to Abrams type hull shape. The lower 1/5 or 1/6 (ratio hased on the hull height) of the hull can be a 75 degree slope plate that sandwich the mid section. However it is possible a more modest slope with layer design might offer better internals space, and layer armor might be required at that point.
Holyshit this is getting out of hand.
At this point you should just design your own tank lol
Reminds me of AGS prototype from america but on a marder(?) hull. Some other unmanned turreted tanks are out there as well like that one modified challenger 1 from middle east. I think it is a great design.
Yes, I was inspired by the AGS. Thank you very much
War Thunder staring at the Spähpanzer Mager A1 on the table
Ow they researched the TTB nice job
its not similar to the TTB, if its similar to any american tank its similar to the TCM-20
@@matthiuskoenig3378 you took marder chassis and put on it uninhabited module same as Americans did with Abrams chassis which used on TTB , so it's same in my eyes, different mostly in protection and movement characteristics, but concept is the same
Me in a complete mental breakdown state:
"yeah let me just watch Shuhehshzuhes light battle tank concept"
I hope it made your day just a little better ;). Stay strong
It's very interesting....
Nice!
Interesting design, though it seems to me though that the crew and ammunition are still all in one compartment, even if that compartment lower down. If the turret takes a hit, it looks like the blast will travel down into that compartment, potentially killing the crew and cooking off the ammo. The reduced profile is obviously a big plus but I wonder if there is a way to provide greater separation between the crew and the ammunition/gun.
But for a 90s design it looks perfect. Stryker MGS turret on a Marder-ish hull.
Thank you! Ive already altered the design, like I mentioned at the end of the video, but I dont think having some kind of blow-out panels would help, because there would be just too many angles from which hitting the tank would penetrate both the crew and ammo compartments, rendering blow-out panles useless.
Really cool, I think i'll try to build it in Stormworks Build and Rescue
If I do so, I'll post a video about it
i dont think moving the gunner to the hull could help but make it more harder to use the tank because the gunner (if in the turret) can help the commander to spot enemies since the sommander has a blindspot the left side of him since hes at the right, right? and the gun is at his left thus blocking his vision to the left side of the tank and i think it should have like "split controls" for the gunner and the commander both can look for enemies and both can fire the gun also a question, how does the crew replenish the autoloader magazine the magazine being at the hull would give the crew a hardtime to replenish its magazine well thats just my opinion i really dont know how french tanks replenish the ammo in their magazines so... but TBH other than the problems i can think off its a very nice design
The commander's periscopes do cover only one side, but his main optic is the rotatable scope on the roof, which gives him full view with zoom/thermals etc. As for the magazine replenishment, in the current config, it's right behind the crew, so it would be pretty easy.
unmanned tower ... somewhere I have already seen it.
Amazing
Looks similar to the Begleitpanzer, what Modeling programm was used for this ?
Motor to Front, gun and ammo in the middle, men at the back with escape door
Machine gun cannot cover it's 1-6 O'clock position?
Cool concept, kinda _artillery style_ in that it has a transfer arm that enables the gun to be loaded in any position.
As far as suggestions go, I feel like moving both the gunner and commander to the hull would be a good idea, as well as making the turret wider to enable access from the inside of the vehicle (something that's really important in case of any malfunction).
That secondary could be better with a
.50cal gun than a 7.62
Germany doesn't use the .50 cal, so for realism sake (it's supposed to be a German vehicle) I used a 7.62. But I'm working on fitting a 20mm coaxial for even more firepower!
How do these animations made or even models, I always think about this type of things.
It's made in Fusion 360, it's a great free CAD programme for all kinds of things ;). It has some built in animating, and then I improved it with some editing magic XD
I shall check it out
It's a bit like an Argentinian TAM. Is the hull inspired from Marder?
Yes, it is.
Was it a German concept? Germany should consider using the Puma ICV chassis to produce such a light tank for its light infrantry, and air borne forces.
I was thinking the same.
The Puma chassis is perfect for a 105 mm cannon for infantry suport.
Ever seen the Swedish S tank?
How much time did you spend on this model?
I was working on it over the course of 2 months I think 🤔
Well, the fact that the armor is worthless is one thing, it needs to be strengthened and dynamic protection units installed, that’s one point, but regarding the engine, the D17A780 engine is a 780 hp with 3800 Nm, 17.3 liters,but in a modified version, reduce the height as much as possible, that is, a version with a dry sump and the most flat cylinder head,the result is an engine that has excellent liter power and acceptable fuel consumption and, most importantly, very small dimensions, especially if it is made together with a transmission unit.
Now strap some ATGMs onto it and give me the entire stock
Would you also like some extra ERA and slat armor protection package? Just in case ;)
@@matyasgrohmann Yeah I was wondering about that, the armor seems incredibly thin, like not really usable against any amount of heavy fire if not under cover with the hull down position. Also the turret mechanism seems quite vulnerable, it wouldnt be hard to mission kill the tank even covered in an earth ramp with the hull down position...
Heck with such armor, unless it's freaking graphene, I'd even worry about things like HESH or cannon fire that wouldnt even be attempted to use against an MBT front given the option (and they do a lot more damage than darts!) while speed-armor is hard when relying on hull-down cover, being vulnerable to artillery too... Also many ATGMs or infantry AT weapons dont go on a straight line and thus better top protection may be desired.
Other than the defense aspect though, I love the design, specially with the gunner moved to the hull, I may try to improve that aspect hehe, I see quite a bit of potential as the unmanned turret really cuts on a lot of surface to be armored...
@@antaresmc4407 It is a light tank, after all. The armor itself protects only against heavy MGs. However, adding some E.R.A protection would surely be useful
@@matyasgrohmann In my view, any tank should be able to stand at least non-AP rounds, IEDs and fire from things like IFVs; after all they're suposed to provide direct fire support close yo infantry and to enemy forces, a BMG is not all they'll be pitted against...
Also ERA won't really help against a cannon firing once a second, it should stand enough to allow to fire back and shut up up the gun ;P
One thing that I've thought about in this while to not add much weight would be to use a deep NERA behind a MG-proof shield (which could just be the ERA itself) and in front of the armor per se. For the already crammed hull I've no idea how could you could do that, but placing it around the turret would offer great protection against top attacks while not even adding a ton.
I have a few ideas for the hull, but trying to keep it sub-36T (w/ ERA) (I like the number :P) without sacrifizing any turret depression or making it even more crammed. Got some ideas, but none cheap.
(Note: Im assuming the armor is a composite as heavy as RHA but with twice the effectiveness against solid shot and 3x against HE, I won't bother to try and do anything about darts or missile warheads. It is optimistic, but being so thin and small surface wise you can afford more expensive materials without skyrocketing costs)
@@matyasgrohmann Update on my nerding:
One way I've figured out to stop HE would be to push the seats a little bit back and with the legs a little bit lower, then make the spaced platesof the bottom taper slightly toguether to make up the space (after all, if something hits that low it's not going in penetrates or not :P), then add a little plate with a lower angle in the front to rise the top hull armor about 10cm, rising its angle to not increase height.
This should, if my looking at the vehicle is right (it's obviously not easy to measure) make an extra 30ish cm in the front, with the space gain reducing evenly all the way towards 0 as you go towards the turret...
Now what you do is:
- Revert the hull armor to its original position
- In the tiny extra front plate added, place a thick beam of something tough (say a layered composite of WC and maraging) meant to deflect rounds down into the higher angle, spaced lower hull (ERA would be very ineffective there to the small size and low angle)
- On your upper hull you add something very hard and stiff, no thicker than 1-2cm (cemented carbide laminated with U would work for that, tho I guess there's some fancy super-classified stuff that might be less heavy or costly).
- Fill the remaining space between the two plates with something collapsable (either a tough metal sponge, or simply very perforated steel with plastic if cost>weight) to absorb the pressure, prevent the brittle plate from spalling and slow down cannon rounds. As the space tapers down, the highest point would need to be covered with the turret-attached NERA to save from top attacks.
- Add a thin ERA on the top and a thicker one with spacers and such on the sides...
If my math isnt wrong here (assuming WC upper plate, no tapers or reduction in the original one, 1/3 dense Al sponge and my shitty video-measurements), that whole addon would weight about 4-6T:
~ Up to 1T for the spacer.
~ Up to 1T for the turret NERA (which should be about as good as an MBT side armor, only on front and sides and for the first hit tho, based on thickness, I couldnt find much so pile of salt).
~ Up to 2T for the ERA (couldnt find proper weights or composition so grain of salt. It could quite easily be a single T as its a small area and thin bricks).
~ Around 1T for the added plates, depending on how thick and which material you assume it'd range from 1/2T to 2T roughly.
Adding some extra variability for possible weight cuts or heavier reinforcement, I'd place the range on plus three to seven tons. I think the 36T target is possible but optimistic.
Gee this was a textwall... It was really fun to think about and calculate, hope it was helpful or at least gave fun thoughts ;)
but rear bustle autoloader is more realistic if german would use autoloader light tank
In my opinion place the ammo inside the hull is a deadly mistake, these should go In the rear of the turret with blow-off panels.
Storing extra ammo in the hull allows for quick replenishment of the autoloader magazine and many modern MBTs have ammo stored in the front hull.
@@matyasgrohmann The trend is to place the ammo in a separate compartment to avoid the spectacular turret enucleation of the russian tanks
The purpose of this concept is to protect the crew and ammo, if you were using it right you'd never show the hull to the enemy. Putting ammo in the turret would make the whole point redundant and make the turret bigger (aka easier to hit).
@@lebien4554 If you want to protect de crew is not a good idea to put the ammo in the same compartment
@@MangustaCBT misconception, russian tanks are not more prone to 'spectacular turret enucleation' due to hull ammunition stoage but turret ammunition stoage.
the abrams is the only tank that has separate hull ammunition stoage in service (all other tanks do not bother to separate hull amuntion from crew, the only other tanks are ones not in active service like T-14 or T-95 for examples), more modern american vehicles don't even bother with it.
the vast majority of tank designers see it as pointless because its turret ammunition that has a reasonable chance of actually getting detonated while still haveing the crew survive. in the vast, vast majority of situations were hull amunition brews up, the crew is killed by the cause anyway. so its unnecessary complexity and added weight and reduced stoage capacity.
Well, mager in germany for light tank
Meanwhile mager in indonesia is malas gerak "lazy to move"
Why not just upgrade a M4 Sherman instead?
It would be cheaper to upgrade a tank than to build a new one. And plus that M4 Sherman is battle tested.
Oh my god!! How did I not think of that... The M4 was, is and forever will be the ultimate tank chassis! :D
the interior is very cramped, even leopard 2 has a cramp interior in turrer
mager🥶🥶🥶🥶
🥶🥶🥶
Add an ATGM tube!
Hello sir,a very good tank concept,would you mind if a roblox game called cursed tank simulator or tanmk add this thing?
Honestly bro.... Try show this to the Bundeswehr and let's see if they will accept it or not 😏
Hstvl, Wolfpack and begleitpanzer hybrid
What if you put the ammo inside the turret like a Russian tank and insert the crew into the hull under the front of the turret where the driver is and then your crew would be almost impossible to kill using murder drones unless it is a kamakazi drone with a shallow angle of attack. Modern nato tank guns like the 105 and 120mm are already etc compatible guns which allows just the cap to be remaining after firing to free up space but this also allows for ammunition types that dont blow up when shot which are often used. Obviously not all rounds are the etc rounds which is why export leopards with their non etc ammo always get blown up very easily but the guns are compatible so for this concept lets just say it is etc ammo. This would make the tank even more survivable in a hull down position and the crew very difficult to kill via drone which is pretty much one of the biggest threats on the modern battlefield.
next month it'll be in war thunder because germany suffers
Seria legal uma torreta remota de 40mm HE junto com aquela Mg3 ambas armas na mesma torreta remota, assim facilitando a proteção da tripulação contra a infantaria moderna.
Para finalizar com um toque Sci-fi, adicione na torreta um laser de 50-150w para derruba pequenos drones de observação.
Eu acho que seria interessante adicionar armadura reativa em volta do veículo
@@ILeprechaun Uma tipo a "ERA" russa? Seria realmente interessante, Pra ser sincero nem pensei muito na proteção😅.
@@F76986jhg Poderia ser Kontakt 5, e quem sabe até um APS, poderia ser o Drozd ou Trophy, assim ficaria mais leve só usando o APS, mas também mais caro
Hi pal. Me again. So... this is great. But can be greater.
Firstly, I don't know how you came up with the weight and engine horsepower spec.
But my feeling is that you overestimated the weight and underestimated the power.
WT's very own TAM 2C:
4 crew, 50 rounds of 105. Seems way more volumous and with maybe a smaller engine.
And yet: 30.5 tons with 720HP.
Your vehicle, let us dream, could have instead:
27 tons with 800HP, thus giving it nearly 30 HP/ton. Plus a full dual drive transmission. Like the TAM.
Secondly. Yes. Clear the bustle of crew. Fill it up with the ammo. The ammo needs to be there, close to the gun. All of it loaded to be fed to the gun.
Consider not having a commander. If the priority is light weight.
Or having the 3 crew side by side, Armata style on the hull front.
Also... consider a much larger and more well protected vehicle. Even if it's trying to be something from the 90s.
Consider an upper hull glacis of high hardness steel at a 83 degree slope. With a more pronounced frontal hull section. To defeat HEAT and APFSDS.
I missed you placing a fuel tank inside the frontal spaced armored plates.
Not a huge fan of fuel close to the crew compartment myself.
An ammo bustle behind the turret, as suggested, may defeat the dry turret intention, but would allow the vehicle to fight from the open without fear of an ammo cookoff. With blow out pannels obviously. It could be a double bustle. With all of the ammo there. One shot in front of the other for the whole lot of them.
Increases ammo capacity, crew survivability, and reload speed. At the obvious cost of a larger and more vulnerable upper profile...
But it makes sense, because if a dry turret is hit, it generally means the gun is done for anyway.
It certainly needs more gun elevation. 😋
Thanks for the feedback!
U should change the name because „Mager“ is the german word for health demaging slim lol
indonesian harimau tank opponent
looks like a german knockoff AGS
Tank mager, tank rebahan.
🧎♀️👏
Just one NLAW
If munition expload y’all dye
Sorry but the cannon looks like a russian tank cannon
Strange Reconnaissance Tank Concept.
A Reconnaissance Tank should be tyred because the Tank should be silent.
The Germany Reconnaissance Tank Luchs is a tyred Tank with complex noise reduction.
The Durch/German Reconnaissance vehicle Fennek is agile, small, lean and silent but without the complex noise reduction of the Luchs.
A Reconnaissance Tank/vehicle is Not developed for offensive Combat.
Such a Concept as shown is to Draw Back into Russian terrotory First and then Attack in the areas of deep Forrests and boggish Terrain.
Boggish Like some areas in North-East/East Ukraine. Maybe a Russian Special Military Mission Reconnaissance Tank ?!
A shorten Armata Platform?!
Marder nicht Mager!
Нарисовать такой херни можно целый альбом а вот создать и воплотить в жизни хер картинки только и можете стряпать
completely useless concept. Cannon has too little penetration for t72 frontal armour. The gun's own frontal armour is too thin against the 125mm t72 main gun. the ammunition for the main gun is stored in the fighting compartment, plus an automatic loader. the slightest penetration and the crew is dead. It is a 30 years old conzept. In every conflict, the T72 looked extremely bad with this configuration. Why do you think most t72 turrets lie next to the tank after battles? There are now drohnes for recon.
*What do you say about it?*
ruclips.net/video/jpPpCWEZjSo/видео.html
This is supposed to be a light reconnaissance vehicle, the armor isn't design to withstand any tank round... The main protection this has is not to be shot at in the first place thanks to its low profile (as mentioned in the video). Of course today there are many better recon options, but this tank was not made for today's standarts...