How is such a monstrocity supposed to be powered, nuclear testicles?
It would weight way too much to be that well protected ...whats to stop it from sinking in the mud or better yet whats to prevent if from falling over
When you project into the future one can look into the past by the same amount as a yard stick to see how far you can reasonably expect to go.
Emphasis of modern armor design is on reducing mass to increase strategic deployablity without sacrificing fightablity. The key is internal volume to
The German Leopard -1 tank weights ~41 tons ,has an internal volume of 18m^3 and houses 4 crew ; a 105mm gun plus 60 rounds & ammo for 2 x MGs. This
also includes a 830 Hp diesel engine plus 1000L fuel to give it a radius of 600km road. THis gives it a frontal protection of ~ 17cm Steel and
allround protection of around 4cm.
Now about the same time the LEO-1 was in development the french developed a competitor design , the AMX-30 . This duplicated alot of the LEO-1 design
but had an allround armor of ~ 5cm steel and a frontal arc protection of ~20cm steel armor and only weight 37 tons! How day do DAT!
The AMX-30 internal volume was only 13 m^3 ,so the overall weight dropped to 90% of the German tank. However the AMX-30 tank would be cramped and the
ROF would have only been 8 RPM when the german tank could do 15 RPM, so there was no way the germans were going to touch the AMX-30 tank.
Mean while the Brits toyed with a tinny tank. It weight 16 tons and also had an allround protection of ~ 4cm spaced armor as well as a frontal armor
of around >22cm steel ! The allround protection could stop a contemporary RPG-2 HEAT warhead and would offer good protection against RPG-7! That was
alot better than either of the French or German designs.
The key was that there was only one man in the tank, thus it only had an internal volume of around 4-5m^3. So despite its small size , it was
protected better than the 37-41 ton tanks.
The main weapon was an externally mounted gun pod and thus didn't have to be armored or included in the armor volume mass. To do this it mounted two
auto loaded 120mm Wombats [like recoiless rifles] each with 7 rounds of HESH or HE . Attached to each wombat was a HMG with its own ammo supply.
Thus not only did it help to reduce internal volume to be armored [and thus AFV mass] , all the dangerous ammo was stored externally . With the auto
loader it could theoretically do ~16 rpm ...even though it would run out of ammo after about a minute ;-)
For the late 1950s time period , this was a brilliant concept! The british however dropped the idea as too impractical in the context of a NATO/WARPAC
conflict , but it remains as a benchmark of the alternative thinking of the late 1950s early 1960s.
In truth thats a good thing cause the the first time the tank got hit by a 100mm APC round the single crew member would have been injured if not even
knocked unconsious....cause a 16 tonner just can't absorb the KE of such an impact.
The point is that after 40-50 years of development the basic situation has not changed or improved. With ATGM you could double or quadrupple the
killing power of the main weapon, by using HELLFIRE type ATGM...but you'd still run out of ammo in a minute.
With modern armor technology one could double or even quadrupple the effectiveness of the armor potential of such a one man tank, which would be
enough to stop a 125mm APFSDS...but whats the point , the KE of an 125mm round would probably still kill the crew, or atleast disable the tank on the
Best one can hope for is an active defence systems, but no one has yet fielded one that can stop an APFSDS ever time!
[Edited on 29-3-2004 by psteel]