ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2024
- Let's take a closer look at the basics of tank design!
How do you start designing a tank?
How different are requirements from country to country?
What are the most important dimensions?
Let me know which one is your favorite tank design in the comments below!
#tank
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @bsport320
If you want to learn more about Aero Design in F1 check out my online course:
www.motorsportengineer.net/aero-design-in-f1
If you are interested in how to design complex F1 aero parts, check out this course:
www.udemy.com/course/f1-aero-...
Check out my eBay Shop for customized aero parts:
www.ebay.de/usr/buchan_motors...
Check out B_Sport merchandise and support the channel:
buchan-motorsport.creator-spr...
Twitter:
/ b_sport320
Instagram:
/ b_sport320
Pictures:
www.n-tv.de
www.berliner-zeitung.de
www.murtiedjokobayu.medium.com
www.nationalinterest.org
www.daspanzermuseum.de
www.defensenews.com
www.reuters.com
www.augsburger-allgemeine.de
www.rbth.com
www.stern.de
www.dbwv.de
www.tagesschau.de
www.deutschlandfunk.de
www.snanews.de
www.motor-talk.de
www.tag24.de
www.soester-anzeiger.de
I hope one crashes at Monaco so we can see the floor design
It would need one hell of a crane!
oh boy, that's eluding to the possibility of the Ukraine and Russian conflict getting to that point
I mean there is a tank called Leclerc
If one crashes at Monaco it becomes a submarine.
I just realized something. It would be REALLY cool if you can use your f1 aero background to talk about fighter aircraft designs, vortex flow, leading edge extensions, etc. That would be so awesome :D
Cool but can a tank take Eau Rouge flat out?
It can flatten out an F1 car
Maybe a wheeled tank like an APC derived one
A western mbt can easily do it
Not what I was expecting but still very interesting.
Better than l expected “
Was not expecting a Tank analysis video in your channel xD
As tank entusiast myself i loved this video, next you should make a video about fighter jets/planes i think that would be fun, i like them too xD
Sams bro hahaha
The design of a main battle tank (MBT) revolves around a combination of protection, firepower, and mobility. These three fundamental characteristics guide the design process, but there are a multitude of additional considerations to ensure an effective and operationally viable tank. Here are some of the most critical design considerations for a main battle tank:
Protection:
Armor: Effective against a range of threats, including kinetic energy (like armor-piercing rounds) and chemical energy munitions (like rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank guided missiles).
Shape: Sloped armor can increase the chance of deflecting rounds.
Active Protection Systems (APS): Systems that can detect and neutralize incoming projectiles before they hit the tank.
NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) Protection: Tanks need systems to protect the crew from these threats.
Camouflage and Concealment: Reducing the tank's visibility can be crucial in avoiding detection.
Firepower:
Main Gun Caliber and Performance: Choosing a suitable caliber and ensuring its performance meets the requirements for range, penetration, and accuracy.
Ammunition Types and Storage: A variety of ammo types (APFSDS, HEAT, etc.) and safe storage to minimize risks of internal explosions.
Secondary Armaments: Machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.
Fire Control System: Ensures accurate targeting, tracking, and firing on the move.
Stabilization: Allows for accurate firing while moving.
Mobility:
Power-to-Weight Ratio: The balance between engine power and the tank's weight is crucial for mobility.
Suspension and Ground Pressure: Ensures good off-road capability.
Range and Fuel Efficiency: Determines how far the tank can move without resupply.
Amphibious Capability: Some tanks are designed to be amphibious.
Transportability: The ability to be transported by aircraft, train, or truck can be a consideration for rapid deployment.
Ergonomics and Crew Comfort:
Crew Layout: Ensuring the crew can efficiently operate all systems.
Life Support: Especially important in extreme environments.
Ease of Maintenance: Simplifying and speeding up repairs and maintenance.
Communication and Situational Awareness:
Radio Systems: Effective communication with other units.
Optics and Sensors: Night vision, thermal imaging, and other sensors can give the crew better situational awareness.
Battle Management Systems: Digital systems that allow for better coordination with other units.
Modularity and Upgradability:
As technology advances, tanks should ideally be designed in a way that allows for easy upgrades.
Cost and Production:
Balancing the above features with the cost of production, especially if procuring in large numbers.
Survivability and Redundancies:
Multiple systems (like optics or sensors) ensure that the tank remains functional even if one system is damaged.
Stealth and Electronic Warfare:
Reducing thermal, radar, and acoustic signatures and having capabilities to counter enemy electronics can be essential in modern warfare.
Training and Doctrine:
While not a design feature, the training of the crew and the operational doctrine of the tank's use are essential for its effectiveness in battle.
When it comes to armor: the thickest armor on a tank is typically located on the front, especially the turret's frontal arc and the upper glacis (front upper hull). This is because tanks expect to face the majority of direct fire threats from the front.
For modern MBTs, the concept of armor has evolved beyond simple measurements of thickness. Contemporary armor is often composite in nature, involving layers of different materials such as steel, ceramics, and sometimes depleted uranium or other materials, designed to provide maximum protection against a variety of threats, like kinetic energy penetrators and shaped charge warheads.
Tanks such as the American M1 Abrams, Russian T-14 Armata, and the German Leopard 2A7 all possess advanced armor configurations that emphasize protection on the frontal arc. The exact performance, layout, and composition of this armor are not always publicly known, due to their sensitive nature.
Additionally, modern tanks often use modular armor packages, allowing for armor to be adapted based on the expected threat environment. Some tanks also employ reactive armor or active protection systems to further enhance their protection beyond the passive armor.
The title of the video says it all. It is just the basics of tank design, but more like "how to draw a realistic tank", than properly design one.
But most importantly which tank is the most aerodynamic and which one produces the most downforce?
T-80 actually has a lot of aero features for less dust ingestion into its turbine engine thru the intake. But aero drag on these dont matter at all, max they drive at is around 70 kmh, drag is minimal. Rolling resistance has a much more significant effect than aero drag on tanks
bob semple ;)
@@288gto7 Captain Oblivious to the rescue!
Cockerill i-X
It's based on an actual Dakar chassis, plus the RWS on top can retract flush with the roof
Leo 2a6 and T90ms xD
Oh God I can't wait for the engine analysis of the T-14 LMAO
God please no... That's already a can of worms that doesn't need opening again...
Bro covering the wrong type of porsche
Hahaha hahaha hahaha true
Although Porsche DID design numerous tanks. Not the fastest Porsches, but room for 5 men.
@@mverbaan3381 and an 88mm cannon
In Scotland there definitely is an additional commander in the tank - Gary!
If anyone wonders why the tank engine was nearly a square, as seen in the video. Then it is because it makes them very easy too pull out a broken engine and put a new engine in the tank. Then the pulled out engine can be fixed ALOT easier.
There was an ad for tank repair jobs in the German Bundeswehr:
"We bet we can change an engine faster than an F1 crew"
Finally. I can build Killdozer II.
Frankly, making a video about "tank design" is about as complicated as a video about "race car design", which... uh... means it's not really easy to distill into a short video like this with any sort of satisfying informative capacity. However, I do appreciate how it actually tackles the engineering side from the often-less-recognized angles of mechanical mobility (track length/width and ground pressure and etc.) and dimensional construction restrictions (turret ring size, hull widths, etc.), rather than the more obvious combat capability discussions.
I will say though, choosing the T-14 Armata as the thumbnail image is quite a choice, considering how it is the most dissimilar tank to the archetype of the common MBT in service everywhere else, what with its completely unmanned turret and all.
The ground pressure is not uniform across the entire track, but is highest below the road wheels and lowest between them. Due to the flexible nature of the track, the entire thing behaves more like a swimming bridge made of small swimming bits, where the tensioner of the track impacts the exact nature of the ground force distribution, i.e. the weight of the components on the swimming bridge.
That said: This felt more like a packaging exercise with a tank as the example, not specifically a tank design video - since you didn't really touch on armor at all, arguably one of the most defining characteristics of an MBT.
Next up: How to design a starfighter
Nice vortex generators
Very interesting. Tank you =)
Here the Israeli design is very interesting with crew-survivability as top priority, hence the engine in front to form an extra shield. Disadvantage is that the thermal optics are hindered by the heat of the engine. Advantage is that communication between the crewmembers is easier and that the tank can be used as a safe means of transport of wounded soldiers.
Thanks for this interesting subject! An engineers view on Tanks.
Another disadvantage of the drivetrain being in the front is that it limits how thick the composite armour can be on the front hull.
Half a meter of armour on the front isn't practical when the drive sprockets are on the front as a result of the drivetrains location and the sprockets still need to be as forward as possible, to ensure proper mobility over obstacles.
The result is that on the Merkava, the quite large lower hull front plate is quite thin, compared to other MBT's, while the upper front plate is highly angled to compensate
Quality as always
Can you do a series on the 83-to 01 GTP cars of IMSA
Post WW2, the Japanese began producing indigenous tanks (loosely based on American designs, I think) but adapted to suit the much smaller average frame of a Japanese person. 😭
I would have expected this topic for April fools, but alright madlad
Motorsport plus!!!
Thanks a lot”
I came here expecting a fuel tank 😂
I was looking forward to learning about tank aerodynamics. Oh well...
I think you missed too much on this one. Yeah you mentioned ground pressure and critical dimensions of a typical 3 crew turret, 1 driver manual-loading tank in deeper depth that I've seen previously, which is cool, but you completely missed alternative solutions and their pros and cons which is even more basic than critical dimensions.
For example 2-crew turret with autoloading like the Russian tanks that you feature a lot in the video, or uncrewed turret with multiple men in the hull like the T-14 armata that you also feature on your video. On the power train you also didn't mention front-mounted engines and transmissions, like the Israeli Merkava that has them on the front, or the old WW2 designs that tended to have engine in the rear and transmission on the front.
And that's just mentioning things related to the topics you covered, armor distribution and types of armor was also a big design consideration absent from the video.
i looked at the thumbnail, then looked at the channel.. and i was struck with confusion XD
Air goes up, tank goes down
So I would start with if there are any transportation limitations and that will dictate your tank maximum size and the operators dictate your minimum size
That was one reason for the weight of the M4 Sherman - loading crane limits.
One might even check for the limitations of the operational area, like bridge limits or road widths.
out of all the tanks why did you have to use the T 14 Armata for the pictures? it has a totally different design.
Just a look to the future…
Well, most of these calculations will of course be "turned on it's head" if it is a S- tank 😁!!
Gruße aus Schweden 👋🏻😄!
Some of the most expensive vintage Porsche vehicles 😅
But most importantly: can you design a tank more aerodynamic than a cow?
How is this sport?
2:27 thats why the driver mostly sits on the right and not the left side. That you can stow the ammo in front of the loader.
thats not really used anymore as ammo in most western tanks is stored in the turret bustle which incorporates blow out panels to jet exploding ammunition exhausts away from the crew, exactly what the soviet tank designs dont do...
@@theoonyoutube Leo2. He have two storages. The ready rack in the left rear turret and one in the left front hull next to the driver.
@@rexmcstiller4675 yeah its a huge design flaw that relies on the armour being impenetrable, however I doubt when it sees combat the hull stowage gets filled
Also, the commander on the right can communicate directly with the driver on the right, without depending on intercom technology or electric power availability.
i wonder why tanks arent unmanned yet .. is it just cheaper to have people in there?
Yes and no. Training the crew is expensive. Having an unmanned tank creates the problem of how to control it - automated cars are already difficult, automated offroad navigation even more so.
Mostly its a question of survivability. Armored warfare is extremely hostile to infantry, so having tanks controlled from the outside nearby kinda defeats the purpose of armoring it up, since that's supposed to protect the crew.
If you thought about controlling the tank from afar, you're now incredibly vulnerable to jamming or even losing control over the tank. Just look at how many US drones Iran has just hijacked and landed in their territory.
You want tanks to be controlled by someone close by, and the safest place to put whoever controls the tank is inside the tank.
thanks for the detailed answer .. yes that makes sense !@@zibingotaeam3716
No no no.
The thickest armour is on the front of the turret. Because that's always visible (or rather it has to be visible to the enemy if you want to shoot them)
Also RU tanks are not offensive. The 4 degree depression is because the terrain in Russia is flat, and they will be using prepared dug outs to shoot from.
Western tanks are attacking so they won't have prepared structures, and will have to rely on the terrain (which while flat, is not even, and there are still small hills)
Soviet tank design since the 50s has focused on an armored attack west into Europe through Germany. Defensive operations are at most a delay. The low depression is due to the low height of the turret. It wasn't seen as a problem because soviet tactics were supposed to use tanks in battalion formations, being in line formation at company and platoon level, cresting hills at the same time and not fighting with hull down, instead using tanks to advance close to the enemy, often with heavy artillery support.
Western MBTs were designed during a doctrine focusing on defense. They very much so were planned to fire from vehicle emplacements, but also hull down behind defilade which often requires good depression. They would be retreating continuously and real terrain geometry in Germany's east is quite complicated which requires high deflection to be able to always attain an effective hull down. Many European countries still adopt similar tactical thinking.
and then there's the strv103
The information that Russian tank barrels move down 4 degrees is not accurate, it is more like 8 degrees in modern tanks. Also the issue of autoloaders that are used in Russian tanks and not used in most NATO tanks was not adressed.
It's true that requirements changed for modern generations. I'm just giving a broad overview to understand the thinking behind tank design.
Russians don’t need manual loader.. they have autoload on all tanks
different doctrine.
Russian tanks are made to be "disposable" in the tactical sense.
if it breaks down, just wait for maintenance to catch up to you, meanwhile another tank takes your place.
Western tanks are supposed to be kept fighting by the crew to a degree, so a loader pulls double duty as a fourth pair of hands servicing the tank, camouflaging it, provisioning it etc.
The autoloader is a sensible choice for russian doctrine, where tanks and their crew are more disposable, whereas the western design is intended to stay on the battlefield as long as possible and return to it as quickly as possible and thus more hands are more important than a flatter hull and fewer tank crew per tank.
not what I expected from B sport, bro thinks hes redeffect now
although very interesting video
That would be a diminishment of his Intelligence so I don't think he wants that
Tanks are obsolete on todays battlefields. What is the point of tanks having very heavy armor when it is useless against javelin, for example?
What is the purpose of tanks on todays battlefield when they are sitting ducks. In the past, Tanks used to be formidable weapons and it actually made sense to use and produce. Nowadays, thanks to great anti tank weapon systems, tanks have become useless. If tanks start using Active Protection Systems such as the Trophy and start getting integrated anti air weapons that can take out drones or incoming missiles they would return to become a formidable weapon again.