STT Vulcan - Tank Design & Development
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2024
- Today's video is on the Vulcan Tank Destroyer by the School of Tank Technology in 1951. Project Vulcan was an exceptionally powerful design comprising extremely heavy armour and firepower in a small low-profile tank with an external gun somewhat reminiscent of modern vehicles like T-14. But for all of its foresight it was held back by a fatally flawed aspect that was as bizarre as it was unique. Today the plans for the Vulcan can still be found at the Bovington Tank Collection.
#futuretankstudies #tank #experimental #fredsmum #STT #Vulcan #concept #tankdestroyer #123mm #badger #chimera #worldoftanks #armour #1982 #mbt #T-14 #Armata #premium #
"...Rocket assisted loading sequence..."
Me: **Rewinds the video ten seconds to double-check I heard that right**
That was a weird phrase to hear. What a wonderfully crazy idea.
I did the same thing!
Keep the crazies coming Ed. I always maintain that the UK has: fantastic designers, good engineers, decent manufacturing, poor managers, terrible strategists and no money. It explains much of defence industry over the past 100 years. TSR2 anyone?!
The TSR2 was a brilliant low level strike design but seems to lack multi role capabilities. Given that low level nuclear strike became less important in the future, I think it may have lost some use. Good strategic bomber, not so flexible it seems. Surely more advanced designs(albeit beginning with experience with the TSR2 and after) like the Tornado or Typhoon etc, that the aerospace industry has taken part in are better aircraft overall, yet because they were successful don’t see the same level of worship as the TSR2?
The UK has plenty of money. It is the great money laundering basket. London attracts money and sits on stockpiles of old money because it is quite ruthless with its investments. Terrible strategists? Hmm. Any strategist worth anything at all would say no to any project that required rocketry for a loading mechanism. Think of all the extra logistics, maintenance and things that can and will go wrong in the field. The UK's manufacturing is decent at best, but the issue is that the UK started to modernize early and than became nostalgic about itself and did not keep up the pace of modernization. Take for example how the Japanese car manufacturers produced cars in the UK; the UK had to beg them to come over and they said they'd only do it in a modern way. The lack of progress in the UK comes from two sides; not enough willingness to invest as well as on the union side where they do not want to lose jobs to further industrialization and automation. Which also traps its people in low wage jobs doomed to become increasingly out-of-date and inefficient thus endangering the job anyway. On the front of designers and engineers the UK also does not excel. All big, modern countries have good engineers and designers.
The one thing the UK is realy great at is exhibiting a superiority complex. But that is also a fantasy. See brexit and what happened to the assumption the EU needed the UK more than the UK needed the EU.
TSR2 was ambitious and had a slightly gold-plated specification. It was then cursed by a poor engine selection (the RR Medway turbofan was far more suitable than the Bristol Olympus turbojet for the mission profile) which was done for primarily political reasons and, further, the political drive to use the TSR2 project to force industrial consolidation within the aviation industry. However, despite the problems, if we had persevered with the project the RAF would have had an excellent light bomber for the 1970s, superior to the much-loved Buccaneer S.2 (at least after the inevitable initial teething problems were solved). It is likely that the Mk.1 version would have been below specification in a number of areas however, with further development, a TSR2 with Tornado-level avionics would have been an outstanding aircraft in the 1980s and 1990s offering superior range, altitude and speed in a combat configuration to the Tornado.
On the downside it is inevitable that TSR2, like its US cousins the F-111 and F-14, would have been expensive and manpower-intensive to run. In the post Cold-war world of tight budgets it is likely that TSR2 have been removed from service fairly quickly, either by the John Major government as part of 'Options for Change' in the early 1990s or later by the Blair government after the 1998 Strategic Defence Review. In the most optimistic case a small number would survive into the 2000s but there is no chance of them being still in operation after 2010.
@@oisnowy5368 Wondered when the B... word would rear its head. In case you hadn't noticed (or simply didn't want to see),the EU is in a bit of a pickle itself (in every respect you mentioned above) these days and is busy digging its own grave over increased expansion and federalism - the Russians will just love that....
@@Akm72 Retirement is an interesting one as TSR2 getting into service would have completely changed the landscape - no AFVG/MRCA project and therefore no Tornado. That could have led to a F14 & F16 combo or F15 buy to replace the Lightning (would we have bought Phantom?) - so TSR2 could have ended up killing the UK aircraft industry! Or maybe a Phantom radar integrated on a TSR2 carrying 8 Sparrows as the equivalent to the Tornado F3. All good fun to discuss! The F14 would have been the perfect Bear killer - the UK is after all 'the unsinkable aircraft carrier'.
This one is definitely an interesting one. I wasn't expecting an animated demo of this loading mechanism. so over complicated but so satisfying. Could only be English or German for this level of detail. 😂 It also feels like a design drawn in a pub over one to many beers as much as the whole concept is innovative with the other tech it uses.
In 1951 though, that's incredible.
@@MostlyPennyCat Exactly!
Back in 1953, Frank Marquardt designed simular system for feeding 30-mm ammo in experimental T168 autocannon. Instead of rockets, he used detonation of electrical primers to send ammo backward from belt into revolving chambers. And it worked. M. Chinn's "The Machine Gun" holds full description of project.
What a really interesting design concept! The amount of research that you put into each of the subject vehicles really brings them to life! The 3D model is amazing. Please keep up the great work!
Interesting concept. It is pehalps intersting for some, that one of the three initial proposals for what would become Leopard 1 in the late 1950 in west Germany also was a crewless turret or rather outside gun proposal. From memory I think it had a carousel loader under the gun, the engine in the front and the crew compartment at the back of the vehicle.
The Proposal by the Borgward company of Bremen was however rejected and the project was continued using the propoals from the two other groups of companies. Given the tecnology of the time that was probably a wise move, but the concept was forward thinking nontheless.
Ha ha - for one moment there I thought you said 'Rocket assisted loading' !! 😂
As several other commenters have said an interesting concept. Definitely falls into the 'very odd from the neck up' (as one character describes the MBT-90 in "Uncle Target'.) category. Leaving aside the complexity issue with that loading system, the backblast from the rocket loader might have been a visibility problem in some conditions. Definitely looking forward to the video on the COMRES-75 development prototype when it drops.
What a concept ! Very impressive . Years ahead of its time . Thank you for the video .
That 3D art was fantastic! Where can we find more renders from *LSAL?* I tried searching without any luck. Thanks for another really interesting video. I really like this one. You've really been hitting it out of the park with your videos lately.
Prototype tanks are very interesting. Please keep it up!
Looking at the obvious massive advantages of this system the oddball loading method seems to have been easily replaced with something more grounded in reality, it's odd this wasn't pursued. So many of these design exercises seem to have been methods of keeping tank designers out from under foot as their interesting ideas never seem to be pursued onto other systems. It would be an interesting thought experiment to find the best subsystems on each design and further it into the next.
That said, it's unlikely the computer would have survived the shock of that mondo gun being fired. (cf. M551)
I dunno, if you can make valves survive the 20,000Gs of acceleration in early proximity fuses you can make a computer survive that.
Informative and entertaining as usual.Fascinating design,even with the obvious flaws
7:10 what could possibly go wrong?
Kudos to the artist That’s some good work and a very interesting tank ahead of its time
For sure
That's one of the most sci-fi looking tank concept I've ever seen.
I would definatelly have liked to seen this one built. The loading system needed to have been sorted out but with such a low profile it would have given the T-54 and T-55 a run for their money.
Yes, keep the crazy, unique, and fantastical tank design's coming.
This is better than the Bovington tank museum channel!
Fantastic. Many, many thanks to you all! 👍✨🇬🇧
I love these videos on concept vehicles, this one looks as if it wouldn't be out of place in a Sci Fi film.
Split turret design. Don’t recall having seen that before. Thanks for the video.
Interesting…I’ve heard the description,“heavy gun tank” & “gun tank”, quite a few times now. When I joined the RAC (QOH), in 1989, and all through my humble service, I never heard that phrase mentioned. Is it a new thing?
more an old thing tbh, pre MBT - heavy gun tank - such as conq was popular, while gun tank was for the likes of cent
@@armouredarchives8867 ahhh, thank you.
Apart from the loading system (that is…….) this looks like a very good design. Thanks for bringing this up.
Wait, so the 5 inch gun discussed on the Chimera wasn't a 127mm but instead an 123mm ?. Damn I would wish you made a video covering the STT Chimera and the semi fantasy FV 217 (207 Actually) Badger that WG sold to us in World of Tank.
i was involved in both, so yup will do at some point, problem is chimera has alsomost 0 images, 95% is done from text only in the desc as bovvy tossed all the plans years ago.
@@armouredarchives8867 Can't figure out a proper British insult for those guys after dumping all of the materials. But then again, these guys only designs to serve as studies and explorations of concept so It's hard to resist the urge to just dump them files instead of archiving them
123mm is such an oddball caliber that I wonder how that came about.
A perfectly balanced tier 9 tank destroyer!
W OMEGALUL T
@@dustbargames6371 Very balanced yes
excellent. keep them coming .
The stranger the better 😄
I have a feeling that the British are exeptionally good at being borderline creative in tanks and other stuff.
The best thing about British tanks is the heat exchanger (water boiler). No matter how bad things get, you can always *make a nice cup of tea.*
Thank you, Ed, for another dose of weird. At least it had some practical aspects i.e., the sighting equipment.
I did "like this video and want to see more cooky-crazy vehicles"!
Direct hit! I'm on board for any weird shit you post
Good day chaps. Glad you made it back from Jockland!
Please cover more of these lesser known designs.
Everyone & his gerbil has crawled over the more "famous" stuff.
Has WG seen this yet? I can imagine this as their next premium tank!
Huh, and here I thought that Wargaming completely made up the "OQF 123mm" they put on the FV217.
Though they took "QF 5-in." more literally and gave the Chimera a 127mm gun.
👍Lovely stuff. Rockets were a solution to every problem from about 1950 to 1980 when all the rocket boffins retired.
Very interesting... if built and equipped with modern munitions and other available tech it would be a highly capable vehicle. .. could probably use it for guided artillery displacement as well...
We want we want👍
The way this concept could have been redesigned was to change the 'turret' to a larger cylindrical shape. That would allow the use of a auto hoist/loader from ammo stored in the rear with it's own ammo rear resupply door. A very effective, survivable and practical setup retaining the many advantages of the original.
Excellent stuff - but Lootenant Colonel?????
Good God Sir!
Mind you it might be my hearing (ex Arty...)
This thing sounds like a legit candidate to add in World of Tanks video game :)
Rocket powered loading? What could possibly go wrong?
The "drive along and fire" sort of a Vulcan🖖
In _1951_
That's incredible.
I love these design studies
Many good ideas have been lost in paper archives. Something current designers should be made aware of on their first day in the job.
More Please!
Interesting, the concept has a few similarities with the S-tank designed 1955->
Fascinating tank.
Rockets?!?
Thank you.
☮
Great video on a very odd vehicle indeed ^^.
4:15 this gives me ELC EVEN vibes
Having rounds loaded by a small rocket engine sounds like something out of Warhammer 40k.
Or Kerbal Space Program. 😂
Sweden also had a similar concepttank. It differed buy having 2 hulls.
Imagine a team of amour vehicles without any turrets, but they each houses 5-10 compact high altitude hovering targeting drones. All these drones hover at high altitude covering vast area and form a targeting network, and rely any targeting information to nearby precision artilleries, mobile missile launchers or fighter jets.
looks like a fine new tier 8 premium
I have always believed that , the Armed forces should have the say in what kit for purpose should be developed and acquired , Not Politicians and Civil-servants . The concept of this Vehicle was to pick off as many Ts as could at a distance and then move back to a new firing point , and to do this repeatedly .
👍👍👍👊👊
Is this in WoT yet?
not yet...
Excellent as ever, similar to what the Russians are doing with the tmpt terminator vehicle,what goes around comes around,all good ideas have their day,cheers Ed
Needs KISS applied, Other than that weird loading system it is interesting.
Would be interested in your solution for a 21st century mbt.
Sounds like they were planing to use a mobile artillery piece as a tank.
Given a 21 # projectile + case, nose cap, & rocket, the all up weight of one round was what - 40, 50, 60 #? The loader-codriver would need to have the strength of a gorilla to wrestle the 56" LOA ammunition into place within the confines of the vehicle. Or did loading require exposure a la the AMX-13?
Among the things that could go awry with the loading scheme are mud, dirt, foliage, etc. One imagines crews being instructed "not to travel off paved roads" to prevent the loading system being rendered inoperable. Kinda defeats the ldea battle tanks having X-country mobilty.
Cheers on pronunciation of “Coincidence” rangefinder. Some speak it like it is pure luck that anything is on target.
More cooky tonks pls!
i like kooky, crazy vehicles - the kookier/crazier, the better! 😊
It's probably just me but when I hear lewtenant colonel about the brits (half scottish half yorkshire myself) it sort of grinds. If he wasn't USA could we please have leftenant colonel?
Thanks
I would like to see a fast tank with the same 30 mm gun as the A-10 aircraft as the main gun that can hold 100k rounds of AP rounds. That way it can take out a group of enemy armor very quickly. Imagine one hidden tank taking out a whole tank column with a continuous burst of armor piercing rounds before the enemy can even load and fire the first round.
that won't work, because the only reason that 30mm actually does anything (and the reason why javelins also work) is because it's firing from up high, hitting top armor that isn't very thick. put it on the ground then you won't be hitting anything it can pen.
@@basketcase1235 ok thanks for the info
What this tank needs is more rocket!
We need to open a new tank school to rebuild the British tank Industry
true, but i think too late for this sadly
@@armouredarchives8867 It is not to late yet it can still be done as there are still people that have design British Tanks so it is possible but if it not done soon the only way it will he possible is with outside help it would definitely be expensive in the short term but it would pay off in the long term
Fantastic video as always sir. I know you've done two videos with ConeofArc. Have you looked at doing any other work with any other CZcamsrs?
Rube Goldberg would be amazed.
This again directly contradicts the theory that weed has been getting stronger in modern times.
hhaha - geunine lol
Do you just do British tanks or are hope for others? I like oddball stuff 😁
working and using various archives, UK stuff is best to access, which is why this stuff is all original source materail and not just stuff read on blogs etc. - if i find other nations stuff il use it
@@armouredarchives8867 thank you for the response, most don't bother 😁😁😁😁
yeye. duders are drawing up ftl space battleships today, too. waaay ahead of our time!
Why on earth would you not just have a giant bustle containing the rounds and an autoloader??
It moves with the gun so you never have to worry about misalignment.
Because the autoloader follows the gun this don't have to take your aim off the target.
You can have a split magazine on either side with the two ammo types.
It can be fully enclosed to keep dirt and shrapnel out.
Sure you have to get out to reload the magazine but you can probably fit a bunch of rounds in there.
What an utterly bizarre choice.
I'm sorry. It has a rocket... to load the round? That's it? What drugs were the designers on that came up with that?
The weirdest turrets/Oscillating turret I have ever seen!
This tank d seems...logical
um... having just enough rocket booster to get projectile inside barrel... i dont know that seems to be the biggest problem. also cost of ammo..
Anyone know if Warthunder is planning on adding this one?
Feels like Command and Conquer...
Was this almost exclusive concentration on frontal armor justified by battlefield data? I've shot my fair share of actual tanks and I've seen a lot destroyed and its almost been universally from the side (the sight picture at least). Even a relatively weak weapon like the AT4 won't care at all about a couple of inches of side armor and all of the top attack stuff like the Javelin, TOW2B and Hellfire (I've never shot a Hellfire missle) care even less.
I've seen and worked on M1s that have survived hits from anti-tank weapons of some kind but I've never seen or heard of a foreign tank (mostly cold war soviet stuff) surviving a hit from even Korean war era anti-tank weapons.
well this was still in that phase were missies were not quite there yet. - the armour would withstand almost any conventional AP attack but the real protection was the tiny profile when hull down
@@armouredarchives8867 Its just kind of funny that the amount of personal armor decreased for about 200 years once firearms were developed but has skyrocketed since the Vietnam war with materials that can stop anything short of an anti-materiel round. Tank armor has done nothing but go up since their creation but now its going back down because the guns have finally gotten too big and the missiles too versatile and smart. (you know, where "smart" here means "can hit the tank from the top")
Ah the STar Trek VULCAN, where are the pointy ears and I'm a Dr not a gun tank.
Have seen less become a premium OP tank in WoT
This could either have been magnificent or a complete death trap.
Leave it to the British to put a Naval Cruiser Gun on an Army tank.
"they say we can't bring our ships to the battlefield. I say balderdash!!!"
And the new World of Tanks premium British tank destroyer is......
WG....chokes on this.
So .... it's a tank destroyer or self-propelled gun. Whatever the categorization, it's certainly not a 'tank', is it?
Given that there is no international or even nationally defined acceptance of what a tank is over the decades, then yes it is.
WoT Xmas loot boxes!
alright i'm gonna say it
Gaijin when?
Ah yes, rocket assisted projectiles - what whut
Yeah.. toodaloo to you too 🇬🇧 Englishman
6:19
Sorry but this design was an “exercise” as stated and shown at the very beginning of the video. It was a “study” by serving army officers, but was not “engineered” . It’s nonsense.
SO, at this point in 'reasoning' the "development" was it simply Not Feasible, to put the 'Turret-less Gun auto-loader Inside a 'dummy' Turret, which had light armour, but deception cues? Really? You tank designers need WAY MORE TIME WAY from draft-boards, and MUCH more TIME inside an M-60!!
I THOUGHT ONLY GERMANY COULD BUILD TANK DESTROYERS??? BRITAIN ONLY HAS SNIPERS...
Coming soon to WoT. With a 90mm gun with 198mm of pen, 100mm of armour that includes large weak point holes. Because WG hate the British and won't let them have nice things. At the same time, the will release another Object 268/4/2 that they "found discussed during lunch once by two drunk Russian High School boys in 1952" with a 130mm gun, 6 second reload, 400mm pen and 1500m/s velocity, and 350mm of frontal armour with no holes.
that russian one sounds a bit weak for their usual fare, maybe add a few more guns the ability to teleport too
@@armouredarchives8867 Jeez, you clearly don't understand game balance. :-)
Can't wait to see what shit show wargaming come up with when they put this vehicle in world of tanks .