M8A1 Tiamat MBT, transferred from NSD

Designation
M8A1 Tiamat MBT


An M8A1 Tiamat of A Company, 1/27 Armor (3rd Infantry Division)
(Another image update done, large version here)

Dimensions
Hull length: 7.76 m
Length (gun forward): 11.49 m
Height (to turret roof): 2.62 m
Height (to CITV top): 2.97 m
Height (to RCWS top): 3.1 m
Width: 3.9 m
Mass: 79.5 t
Ground Clearance: Variable, 0.5 m default

Key Data
Crew: 3
Fuel Capacity: 1350 liters (2 x 675 liter tanks)

Drivetrain
Power Pack: IMC MD12V1630
Engine type: Diesel engine (Multi-fuel capable)
Layout: 90° V12
Power: 1630hp at 3000rpm
Displacement: 27.4 liters (total)
Turbocharger: twin-stage
Transmission: Electrically Variable Transmission

Running Gear
Suspension: In-Arm Active Hydropneumatic Suspension
Road Wheels: Seven Per Side, Rubber-Tired
Length of Track on Ground: 6 m
Width of Track: 0.5 m

Performance
Maximum Speed: 60-70 km/h
Power to weight Ratio: 20.5 hp/ton
Range: 450km max.
Ground Pressure: 1.325 kg/cm²

Armament
Main Armament: Allied Armament Inc. 140 mm L44 smoothbore gun (36 rounds)
Coaxial: Browning M2HB 12.7 mm machine gun (1,500 rounds)
Additional weapon: Browning M2HB 12.7 mm machine gun in RCWS (500 rounds)

Armor, Protection, and Countermeasures
Armor type: Dorchester armor
NBC Protection: Heating/Air-conditioning system capable of providing 4 mbar overpressure with STANAG 4447 compliant filter
APS: AMCMS III (courtesy of Lamoni)
Countermeasures: 12 76mm smoke dischargers

Sensors
360° CCTV system with Image Intensifiers instead of vision blocks
CITV with Image Intensifier and Thermal Imager, Laser Rangefinder, continuous zoom up to x5
GSS (Gunner's Sight System) with Image Intensifier and Thermal Imager, Laser Rangefinder, continuous zoom up to x15
MGBS (Main Gun Backup Sight) with Image Intensifier, stadiametric rangefinder, 3x magnification

Electronics
3 digitally encrypted radio sets
WARRIOR III Battlefield Management System (courtesy of Lamoni)
Tank-Infantry phone at the rear of the tank

I still think that that turret front might have the same problems that the one on the Leo 2A4 had... maybe you could try frontal turret wedge armor?

Updated the image, I'm going with the K2/Type 10/Leo 2SG look.

Okay, your power to weight comes to ~25.16 hp/tonne, which is pretty good. Now you need to specify what type of engine that you are running.

Here are some ideas for that:

Flat engine
Opposed Piston engine
V engine
Gas Turbine engine
Hyperbar engine

***

Your armor system will also need work, and I will tell you that that is one of the hardest things to do when designing a tank.

I was thinking of using a V16 diesel engine, probably based off the MTU MT 883 (A V12 diesel with 1500-1630hp which fits easily in the engine compartment, so there's room for a larger engine.)

Yeah, that's why I left everything regarding armor open. I'm pretty bad at that stuff. Guess the easiest (but not the best) way would be to use an armor scheme similar to an existing tank?

Armour is always difficult. But I think something like a hard material (RHA, IRHA, Wolfram or Titanium) would be best for your main layer in this weight class, followed by a DU or Wolfram mesh, followed by more metal and a spall liner.

That's rather basic however. Others should be able to explain the details much better.

Just one thing, if you're using MTU 890, don't think you can improve on that. All the NSery you can bring combined will only result in making it worse. These engines are absolute state of the art, and art doesn't like being messed with. What Sumer does is pretty far-fetched and really falls into the same category as my Aeolus engine. Which means, if you don't go by the name of Sumer, forget it.

Okay, any alternatives? (And yes, you caught me there - the engine is based on the MT 883)
Because 1630hp in an 80-ton tank seems a bit... weak.

21hp/t is more then enough for a tank. Going higher gives no advantages unless you have shit transmissions.

As per what my crazy engine does. People tend to overlook the, hilariously, maintenance-intensive nature of it. I did it for the hell of it, and realistically, would never stick it in a tank. You really can't do the same with modern tank engines. As to the whole drive train, that's just taking the hell-of-it one step further.

But it could be even more crazy. The powerplant I had planned for the now-suspended-again AAT is still cooler.
It's a non-airbreathing engine that requires the tank to carry liquid oxygen aboard. After calculating filter requirements, resulting filter size, air intake volume, combustion characteristics, etc, it turned out to be more compact to just carry an oxygen tank.

Okay, then I'll go with the 1630hp version MT 883. Are 1250l of fuel enough or should I enlarge the fuel tanks?

Depends on how much range that you want. Best way to calculate that is to determine how much fuel (per a set amount of distance) that your engine uses.

Okay, either there is an error in my calculation or this beast really would use 5 litres of fuel per kilometer.
To get a decent range anyways, I'll probably have to enlarge the fuel tanks.

Talk about armor: Chobham armor like Chally 2, Abrams and other, perforated armor like Leo 2 or something completely different? What's the opinion of our tank experts?

You don't run at full power all the time, so wrong math.

Actually, it was the earlier Leo2 variants that used perforated armor. They now seem to use a spaced RHA/Tungsten/Plastic/Ceramic mix. As the Leo 2 has never really gotten into a full shooting war, we can't tell how the Leo 2's armor would really do against modern AT weapons (I know that the RHA rating for Leo 2 variants is out there, but as to how accurate it is? That I don't know.).

We do know that Chobham seems to have a pretty good record in war. The exact composition is a secret, but lots of people have guesses.

Here's a list of armor materials that you can play with:

Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA)
Rolled Homogeneous Armor (RHA)
Aermet 100
Non-Explosive Reactive Armor (NERA) (essentially rubber)
Titanium
Silicone Carbide (SiC) Ceramic
Titanium Diboride (TiB2) Ceramic
Kevlar
Dyneema
Tungsten
Depleted Uranium (DU) alloy mesh (I use U-3Ti) (lighter, and just as much protection than solid slab)
Aluminium (burns)

***

Have fun, and i'm sure that you'll get lots of advice.

For me, ERA is not an option because of the fact that it tends to endanger nearby infantry.
How about this? (starting from the outside)

- RHA
- Tungsten
- Titanium Diboride
- RHA
- High-ductile steel
- Kevlar spall liner

TiB2 is difficult to sinter, however, so I'd check first if there really is any advantage over SiC or B4C.

I don't remember for sure, but shouldn't the heavy metal layer be placed behind the ceramic, to allow for interface defeat effects?

Just looked it up - if I'm not reading the article the wrong way, the heavy metal layer has to be on top of the ceramic.

New version:

- Outer protective hull (material TBD)
- Tungsten
- Silicon Carbide
- RHA
- Kevlar spall liner

That article doesn't seem to mention DU/tungsten armor layers at all.

My bad, I forgot something.

- Outer protective hull (material TBD)
- Tungsten
- Steel
- Silicon Carbide
- RHA
- Kevlar spall liner

That should be the correct arrangement. Or is the tungsten layer too much?

"Steel" and RHA are the same thing, tbh.

Also, ceramics and heavy metals work better when encased. I can provide reasons for that, if needed.

Everything that i've seen shows SiC working better than TiB2, fwiw.

So, what you're suggesting would be this?

- RHA
- Tungsten
- RHA
- Silicon Carbide
- RHA
- Kevlar spall liner

For my tastes, something like this:

- RHA
- NERA
- RHA
- Silicon Carbide
- RHA
- Tungsten (or DU mesh)
- RHA
- Kevlar spall liner
- RHA

You'll also want a hard-kill APS, in addition to the armor, and soft-kill APS. Yes, the NERA is worth it.

***

*cough*Please reduce that to a more sane number*cough*

Yeah, I was also thinking about using NERA.
About hard-kill APS - isn't there there the same issue with endangering the accompanying infantry?
Soft-kill APS is already included.
How about 12 dischargers?

IRHA > RHA, just for improved effectiveness if you dont mind the increased costs and production requirements incurrent thereof.