Interesting video, brilliant as always. Very interesting to see PANTILI featured so prominently on all these designs, sometimes even in unusual and non conforming arrangements, and what appears to be the VISS smoke system. A video on PANTILI would be greatly appreciated by myself due to its history, also looking forward to see what vickers came up with however I’m assuming it’ll revolve around the MK5 light tank if it involves FMC?
Fascinating stuff! Access to the engine in B seems particularly troublesome, but necessary because the ammo has to fit _somewhere_. I'm not sure exactly where the engine fits in C, but assuming it's partially underneath the turret ... that would be annoying. But I suppose when studying unconventional layouts, it's certainly worth seeing if the benefits of compactness or crew safety could be worth cramming the engine in an annoying location.
@@samgeorge4798 Okay, but in which direction could the power packs be removed, with the B and C options? Straight up isn't a good option because the turret is in the way. To the rear isn't an option because the rear ammo is in the way. To the sides isn't an option because the tracks are in the way. Forward isn't an option because the crew and main armor is in the way. Down isn't an option because the ground is in the way ... or is it? Maybe if you tow the tank onto a raised platform ...
@@IsaacKuo usually (Abrams Leppard) they are sort of pulled up and out from the back. The back and top panels open up and pulled out the back. The turet is moved looking to the side so the turret bustle is not in the way. A and b could probably do this but. C would need the turret to come off. Making it much harder
@@samgeorge4798 The ammo magazine seems to get in the way, but I suppose any crane strong enough to lift the engine is strong enough to first remove the magazine.
The Carousel auto loading concept is a great idea 💡👍 the Russians use them as ejection systems in all their tanks! 😳🔥 their crews can bail out up to a hight of 50m it's complex and unorthodox but spectacular!!! 🤣
Maybe this has already been fixed, but at the time I'm watching, the title seems to be "MBT -95 - Leopard 2 hybrid" etc when I expect it should be more "MBT -95 - Royal Ordinance". Gotta admit, out of the three concepts, I'm surprised that it was Concept B that got furthest. Concept B would've been my second choice, so I guess it makes sense it made it furthest. Not a fan of slapping ATGMs onto MBTs, so Concept C would've gotten a skip from me. Not entirely sure why Concept A did so poorly, as it's not like they could point to the turret popping antics of T-72s in Desert Storm as reason to avoid the carousel ammo storage. Maybe it was too conventional while the other concepts (including Alvis's) went with a low profile turret or external gun?
I'd toss Concept C based less on the ATGMs and more its other features: sticking with the 105mm past the time when that was obviously marginal for an MBT, the rather nutty hull layout, and most importantly the 2-man crew. Deleting the loader in favor of an autoloader is one thing. You can make valid arguments for or against that. But a 2-man crew increases the workload entirely too much. Having the commander also be the gunner means it's impossible for him to look for the next target while the current target is being dealt with. And the alternative, having the driver also be the gunner is simply insane because he's too busy *driving the bloody tank* to also operate the gun. So a 2-man tank is either tunnel-visioned on one target at a time, or has to come to a complete stop every time it engages a target.
@Phht its not a carousel autoloader that caused turret popping, but unprotected ammunition in general, which was a problem designers were well aware of before desert storm infact its a problem know since ww2 or even earlier. the solution (venting the ammunition, useualy through blowout pannels) did not appear in the ussr untill after they had already committed to the T-64/T-72 (and P.S. T-72s turrets popped in desert storm due to ammunition stored outside the carousel but inside the turret, not the carousel itself which only became an issue with top attack munitions [atleast according to both american and russian studies of nocked out T-72s and T-80s in the middle east and checknya]) the british on the other hand new about ammunition venting as a solution long before the point of MBT-95, which is probably why concept A was rejected early on (as from the video no venting system for the carousel seems to have been developed)
So much money spent on concepts, I suppose they are hoping that a future war-winning design is going to unexpectedly spring from the design drawing board. Still elements of the old British Empire bureaucracy fighting for their corner of an ever-shrinking pie. Missiles and turretless designs WERE the future, they just needed a lot more computing power to fill the gaps. The trouble is you can't see the missing components in your minds-eye, if they haven't been invented yet.
I think the basic idea was to actively encourage unconventional novel design concepts, to avoid only getting the same feedback of more of the same. As for missiles and turretless designs ... well, it looks like that future still has yet to arrive. The Type 10, T-14, K2, KF-51... all have gun main armament and turrets. In contrast, warships have largely moved to VLS cells, with only smaller turrets for secondary armament. Will we see a similar transition for tanks?
@@IsaacKuo Ships and tanks are rather different on account of ships being a lot bigger. It's relatively easy to put a VLS farm of a ship. The room on a tank is a lot more limited. And warships generally aren't expected to get anywhere near as close to the enemy as tanks do. A warship's survivability comes primarily from not getting hit in the first place (via shooting down incoming missiles and aircraft), rather than from being able to survive a hit. Though with the introduction of hard-kill APS, that's starting to become a factor in tank design as well.
@@RedXlV Yes, that all makes sense, at least so far. There's also a self selection effect going on ... we do, in fact, have tracked vehicles which launch long range rockets or missiles at the enemy, and which rely upon not getting hit rather than heavy armor (using terrain/distance to avoid direct fire and "shoot and scoot" tactics to avoid indirect fire). But we don't call them main battle tanks. Anyway, my guess is that hard kill APS is not going to be the driving factor away from heavy armor. The engagement ranges are short enough that they still need to be backed up with thick armor to work. What drove warships away from heavy armor was simply the fact that anti-ship weapons were getting too powerful for it to really be viable. There wasn't a way to provide enough top armor to protect against bombs, and the development of anti-ship missiles just made the situation even worse. Proliferation of top attack weapons might drive tank design away from heavy armor. For example, I've been thinking of the possibility of a 2.75" (70mm) rocket with a linear shaped charge to form a bar moving downward at 2km/s. The warhead sets the bar slowly spinning so it has rotated 70 degrees in 50m. You aim 50m above the tank for optimal top armor penetration. I'm not sure exactly how much armor penetration we're talking here, but a dumb kinetic bar with no explosive charge behind it, and less than half the speed, was apparently able to penetrate T-72 frontal armor. How could you protect the top of a tank from that sort of armor penetration? Maybe something on the order of a 105mm APFSDS coming straight down? I'm not sure it's possible, even with hard kill APS and ERA. The top armor would be so thick and heavy that the tank would just sink into the ground.
@@dougstubbs9637 Of course the colonies are improved from where they where, unless specifically removing the great policies that advanced them. They learned how to improve themselves, and the processes therein not be the continual dependant copier of others.
Lol scorpion tank goes brrrrrt. This thing is ugly as sin,considering the British government lack fo forethought on military spending good luck on getting anything good for the army soon.
![Future Main Battle Tank [FMBT] - Tank Design & Development](/img/n.gif)
I love your illustrative animations for the politics.
Soon to be seen in a certain not-pay-to-win game
The hull down tank nobody needed but the game wanted
Concept 1B is already in the game and is harsh to play against
@@hownotto6733 Look at the turret
"Doesn't have any weakspots at all"
none of the vehicle in this list are in WOT :)
@@armouredarchives8867 just realised this is Concept B, not Concept 1B… its a different thing overall. Thank you, sir!
excellent - another vehicle of which i have been previously unaware 😊 cheers!
Glad you liked it!
Thank you. What goes around, comes around!
Fascinating as always!
Interesting video, brilliant as always. Very interesting to see PANTILI featured so prominently on all these designs, sometimes even in unusual and non conforming arrangements, and what appears to be the VISS smoke system.
A video on PANTILI would be greatly appreciated by myself due to its history, also looking forward to see what vickers came up with however I’m assuming it’ll revolve around the MK5 light tank if it involves FMC?
Wonderful and interesting video.
Thanks
Many thanks!
Fascinating stuff! Access to the engine in B seems particularly troublesome, but necessary because the ammo has to fit _somewhere_. I'm not sure exactly where the engine fits in C, but assuming it's partially underneath the turret ... that would be annoying.
But I suppose when studying unconventional layouts, it's certainly worth seeing if the benefits of compactness or crew safety could be worth cramming the engine in an annoying location.
In the age of power packs that can be removed In 30m already going into production. I can imagine it going anywhere
@@samgeorge4798 Okay, but in which direction could the power packs be removed, with the B and C options? Straight up isn't a good option because the turret is in the way. To the rear isn't an option because the rear ammo is in the way. To the sides isn't an option because the tracks are in the way. Forward isn't an option because the crew and main armor is in the way. Down isn't an option because the ground is in the way ... or is it? Maybe if you tow the tank onto a raised platform ...
@@IsaacKuo usually (Abrams Leppard) they are sort of pulled up and out from the back. The back and top panels open up and pulled out the back. The turet is moved looking to the side so the turret bustle is not in the way. A and b could probably do this but. C would need the turret to come off. Making it much harder
@@samgeorge4798 The ammo magazine seems to get in the way, but I suppose any crane strong enough to lift the engine is strong enough to first remove the magazine.
3:49 single frame jumpscare!
The Carousel auto loading concept is a great idea 💡👍 the Russians use them as ejection systems in all their tanks! 😳🔥 their crews can bail out up to a hight of 50m it's complex and unorthodox but spectacular!!! 🤣
👍👍👍👊👊
Maybe this has already been fixed, but at the time I'm watching, the title seems to be "MBT -95 - Leopard 2 hybrid" etc when I expect it should be more "MBT -95 - Royal Ordinance".
Gotta admit, out of the three concepts, I'm surprised that it was Concept B that got furthest. Concept B would've been my second choice, so I guess it makes sense it made it furthest. Not a fan of slapping ATGMs onto MBTs, so Concept C would've gotten a skip from me.
Not entirely sure why Concept A did so poorly, as it's not like they could point to the turret popping antics of T-72s in Desert Storm as reason to avoid the carousel ammo storage. Maybe it was too conventional while the other concepts (including Alvis's) went with a low profile turret or external gun?
ahh cheers fixed
I'd toss Concept C based less on the ATGMs and more its other features: sticking with the 105mm past the time when that was obviously marginal for an MBT, the rather nutty hull layout, and most importantly the 2-man crew. Deleting the loader in favor of an autoloader is one thing. You can make valid arguments for or against that. But a 2-man crew increases the workload entirely too much. Having the commander also be the gunner means it's impossible for him to look for the next target while the current target is being dealt with. And the alternative, having the driver also be the gunner is simply insane because he's too busy *driving the bloody tank* to also operate the gun. So a 2-man tank is either tunnel-visioned on one target at a time, or has to come to a complete stop every time it engages a target.
@Phht its not a carousel autoloader that caused turret popping, but unprotected ammunition in general, which was a problem designers were well aware of before desert storm infact its a problem know since ww2 or even earlier. the solution (venting the ammunition, useualy through blowout pannels) did not appear in the ussr untill after they had already committed to the T-64/T-72 (and P.S. T-72s turrets popped in desert storm due to ammunition stored outside the carousel but inside the turret, not the carousel itself which only became an issue with top attack munitions [atleast according to both american and russian studies of nocked out T-72s and T-80s in the middle east and checknya])
the british on the other hand new about ammunition venting as a solution long before the point of MBT-95, which is probably why concept A was rejected early on (as from the video no venting system for the carousel seems to have been developed)
1:40 Did Ned Flanders work for RARDE then?
Royal Ordinance needs to be re-establish
Please take a look in the Swedish site ointres
Under the subject "pansar" I think you will find things very intresting 🇸🇪😀👍
Why does the last vehicle look like an Abrams
❤️
So much money spent on concepts, I suppose they are hoping that a future war-winning design is going to unexpectedly spring from the design drawing board. Still elements of the old British Empire bureaucracy fighting for their corner of an ever-shrinking pie. Missiles and turretless designs WERE the future, they just needed a lot more computing power to fill the gaps. The trouble is you can't see the missing components in your minds-eye, if they haven't been invented yet.
I think the basic idea was to actively encourage unconventional novel design concepts, to avoid only getting the same feedback of more of the same.
As for missiles and turretless designs ... well, it looks like that future still has yet to arrive. The Type 10, T-14, K2, KF-51... all have gun main armament and turrets.
In contrast, warships have largely moved to VLS cells, with only smaller turrets for secondary armament. Will we see a similar transition for tanks?
@@IsaacKuo Ships and tanks are rather different on account of ships being a lot bigger. It's relatively easy to put a VLS farm of a ship. The room on a tank is a lot more limited. And warships generally aren't expected to get anywhere near as close to the enemy as tanks do. A warship's survivability comes primarily from not getting hit in the first place (via shooting down incoming missiles and aircraft), rather than from being able to survive a hit. Though with the introduction of hard-kill APS, that's starting to become a factor in tank design as well.
@@RedXlV Yes, that all makes sense, at least so far.
There's also a self selection effect going on ... we do, in fact, have tracked vehicles which launch long range rockets or missiles at the enemy, and which rely upon not getting hit rather than heavy armor (using terrain/distance to avoid direct fire and "shoot and scoot" tactics to avoid indirect fire). But we don't call them main battle tanks.
Anyway, my guess is that hard kill APS is not going to be the driving factor away from heavy armor. The engagement ranges are short enough that they still need to be backed up with thick armor to work.
What drove warships away from heavy armor was simply the fact that anti-ship weapons were getting too powerful for it to really be viable. There wasn't a way to provide enough top armor to protect against bombs, and the development of anti-ship missiles just made the situation even worse.
Proliferation of top attack weapons might drive tank design away from heavy armor. For example, I've been thinking of the possibility of a 2.75" (70mm) rocket with a linear shaped charge to form a bar moving downward at 2km/s. The warhead sets the bar slowly spinning so it has rotated 70 degrees in 50m. You aim 50m above the tank for optimal top armor penetration. I'm not sure exactly how much armor penetration we're talking here, but a dumb kinetic bar with no explosive charge behind it, and less than half the speed, was apparently able to penetrate T-72 frontal armor.
How could you protect the top of a tank from that sort of armor penetration? Maybe something on the order of a 105mm APFSDS coming straight down? I'm not sure it's possible, even with hard kill APS and ERA. The top armor would be so thick and heavy that the tank would just sink into the ground.
ONce again good british engineering abandoned to foreign influence. be it the continent. or the colonies.
As in ‘colonies’ (undeserving of capitalisation, apparently) you imply Improved Britian, then I resemble that remark.
@@dougstubbs9637 No i mean the 13 problems. that devoled to a united fates.
@@dougstubbs9637 Of course the colonies are improved from where they where, unless specifically removing the great policies that advanced them. They learned how to improve themselves, and the processes therein not be the continual dependant copier of others.
Lol scorpion tank goes brrrrrt.
This thing is ugly as sin,considering the British government lack fo forethought on military spending good luck on getting anything good for the army soon.