Way too frigging time on my hands....

[Steelwolf]

Okay, my second civil war campaign is coming along nicely thanks for the help and advice I have recieved.

However, instead of stopping and working on the campaign, I had to go and do some more research.

Ever since the 1980's this trend in the US steel industry called "Micro" foundries have been steadily eating away at steel imports and replacing it with american made product.

Most of these Micro foundries are located in states not normally associated with the steel industry. Using 1/3 new ore, and the rest recycled, quality steel is being produced.

Now for the kicker.

The facilities needed for tank "CONSTRUCTION" are not that complicated. Any firm that manufactures or has the capability to manufacture heavy construction equipment can produce tanks. All that is needed is a smelting facility, foundry and forging plant.

Granted, the High tech equipment is still needed, but should a state leave the union with the manufacturing facilities for such items, the entire package is available.

Now, who wants to design a new tank?

[PlasmaKrab]

So...

You're looking at an embargo tank, made mainly from US parts (why bother reinventing the wheel when you have plenty spares lying around?). Make that an Abrams or Patton!
Frankly, that's the most logical solution for the short term (until the spares run out). I think regular/NG armor bases and/or storages are still more numerous than qualified plants in the US, so any seceding state or group of states would have enough running tanks and spares to go for some years. They could also rush to capture some from hapless neighboring states.

The problem is, you can smelt everything you want, with decent foundries and heavy motor plants (making trucks, tractors, mining vehicles), you can probably come up with some old-style armor good enough to invade Connecticut or Mexico, but to replicate modern MBTs from scratch, you also need advanced technologies.
A 120mm smoothbore gun isn't exactly low-tech, nor is Chobham armor, not even mentioning the active parts (FC computers, stabilizers, thermal sights...).

I think you should look into what the Israelis came up with in their early years and post-embargo period, before they had the industry buildup to go Merkava-level (btw, consider that they took 30 years to come up with an indigenous tank). Also take a look at the Yugoslavian armor industry post-breakup, when the factories building the various parts had been taken by the different independent republics.

Now if you want a couple of homemade designs, let's get going!

[serg3d]

PlasmaKrab said:

The problem is, you can smelt everything you want, with decent foundries and heavy motor plants (making trucks, tractors, mining vehicles), you can probably come up with some old-style armor good enough to invade Connecticut or Mexico, but to replicate modern MBTs from scratch, you also need advanced technologies
....
Now if you want a couple of homemade designs, let's get going!

For homemade composite armor:
Marvin Heemeyer' killdozer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killdozer_%28bulldozer%29
It seems killdozer was resistant to at least some HE, though it's not clear what kind and amount of explosive was used.

[PlasmaKrab]

Wow!
Thanks for the info, that's really something!
Concrete armour makes sense, actually I recall now granite being once tested for MBT armor in some countries.
Only bear in mind the fact that police officers were in several cases able to climb on top of the dozer while it was running. Is that the kind of mobility you expect from a tank?

There is something to be recalled from this story though. There could probably be ways to design efficient homemade battlefield armor, like by pouring rubber or reinforced glass between hardened steel sheets, cutting the result and mounting it at high angles (in several layers?) on the sides of a turret. That would give you a makeshift equivalent of the KWS2 frontal armor of the Leo2A5.

[pdoktar]

You could simulate some form of anti-HEAT armor by using ceramic tiles and/or just normal packaging plastic, to make material liquidice and flow when struck by HEAT jets, thus cutting the jet to pieces and thus reducing its penetrative power. Also spaced armor could be improvised very easily in a manufacturing plant. However their effectiveness is in doubt concerning the power of modern warheads.

And maybe ad-hoc NERA could be devoleped too..?

[serg3d]

PlasmaKrab said:
Wow!
Thanks for the info, that's really something!
Concrete armour makes sense, actually I recall now granite being once tested for MBT armor in some countries.
Only bear in mind the fact that police officers were in several cases able to climb on top of the dozer while it was running. Is that the kind of mobility you expect from a tank?

Don't forget, what was inside the armor was essentially unmodified dozer. And it was made by one man on a small budget in home workshop. If we are talking of the state/county scale budget and medium/small factory, some more radical design could be made. For example put two diesel on one vehicle. Russian did similar thing during WWII with SU-76. It had two parallel car engines. It was a hell to drive, but was effective enough to produce around fourteen thousand.
With two diesels, improvised NERA, composite and slate armor, TV cameras, remote controlled weapon mounts built using consumer robotics kits, night vision devices, weapon control software on the consumer laptop we are talking about serious fighting vehicle here. In fact the only important thing it luck is modern gun and stabilizer. However if insurgent got modern ATGMs and infantry SAM somehow that may be formidable foe even for regular army...

[Marcello]

"Concrete armour makes sense, actually I recall now granite being once tested for MBT armor in some countries."


Concrete isn't the best option.A controlled deformation structure using steel/rubber/aluminium layers, like the one employed in the T-55 Enigma or the T-72B is simple to make and quite effective.The BDD armor of the T-55AM should be another solution.You could use the former for the front turret armor and the latter for the glacis.
A factory churning out bulldozers should be able to churn out tanks without problems.Some sort of stabilizer should be within the capability of such facility, I guess, as bulldozers use hydraulics too.
Indicatively something roughly comparable to the T-62M1 in performances.Dead meat against an Abrams but better than no tanks.

[Steelwolf]

While modern armour is a challange, I was checking into some of the R&D going into the next generation MBT.

Anyone famaliar with the portable runway mats used by the Airforce? 4x4 mats which are a sandwich of honeycombed aluminum between two 1/8" steel plates. Once set on flat ground, they are equivalant to 2ft of concrete, able to handle anything up to the C5A Galaxy.

Well it seems some firms are looking into the same idea for armour. Another Idea is actually a rehash of an old idea from ww2, plates of steel with a space between them and the main armour. The round expends itself on the outer armour.

There is research into lamanated armour which actually uses steel, graphite, glass, rubber and steel.

But I would feel that it would be better to use up all the spares until one came up with an industrial base to come up with a unique design.

As far as the Merkava goes, the fact it is an MBT that can carry 8 troops in addition to the crew, has the engine mounted forward to add to the protection of the crew, and has the lowest frontal target picture of any MBT in use today.

[serg3d]

About Merkava - I thought it in fact has highest silhouette of all modern tanks (2.4 m). An I think it can only carry troops if the ammo rack removed, and the only ammo is that in the autoloader. So in fact it can be used in tank mode or gun APC mode with reduced ammo. Anyway after recent Lebanon war, I think there will be drastic changes in the Merkava design. Mk2 and Mk3 which performed so badly in the war will probably be converted to Namer APC, and both Mk4 and Namer will be uparmored and upgraded with active defense system. I also think it's possible that some Merkava will be converted to supporting fighting vehicles, like russian BMPT(tank support fighting vehicle) - turret removed and replaced with remote controlled autocannon (possibly dual), with some additional wepon - CMG or ATGM or like.

[Marek_Tucan]

I'd say it is a stretch claiming the Mk2 and 3 performed badly - AFAIK rather contrary - atleast the uparmored versions (all of deployed Mk3 and most of Mk2 in later stages) - the total losses were usually due to BIG IED's, not to ATGM's, and it seems many ATGM kills were crew members standing in opened hatches hit by shrapnel, not results of penetration. From what I've seen the NERA packages worked as they should.
As for the Merk as APC, it's more like the Mi-28 which, IIIRC, has a capability of carrying two people, inteded for rescuing shot down wingmen.