Shipbucket

You'll need return rollers if you want the track to stay on. (The small wheels above the road wheels.)
Also, leaving aside the fire hazard, those oil drums on the rear to make even small obstacles hard, if not impossible, to navigate.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

I think i will go with the bottom one. I agree that a V12 will fit pretty good back there.
When you mentioned how hard it is to man military units, I decided to keep the crew to an absolute minimum, so I went with the autoloader. I agree that they will get better and more reliable, to the point where it will rival human loaders.
I do wonder about the 20mm being on top though. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea of the belt feed, but how does it work if the remote turret goes completely in a circle?

Thiel, if you look at quite a few russian tanks, you will see that they do not have return rollers. They are not needed, but can be used. Return rollers tend to be more expensive to maintain and operate, comapred to tanks without it.
Like I said before, the fuel tanks are protected from small arms fire and self sealing. Also, the tank is run on diesel, so the fire hazard is not as high as if it were gasoline. The fuel tanks are removeable, and only the top one can be kept on if the operators do desire.

As of now, I have 3 more vehicles I am working on.
TEL, based on the Topol-M
8-wheel APC
Amphibious Airborne Light Tank
and this tank's variants.

-EZ-

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.

It would have to be sort of like a turret within a turret, so the internal magazine for the auto cannon would rotate with the gunmount. I have no idea if you'd have enough room in your turret for that, or how well it would work, but that's the only way I can think of to make it work, really.

You might also consider doing a coaxial autocannon along side the main gun sort of like some of the Russian BMPs and BTRs have. However, they've only ever done it with smaller caliber, low-pressure main guns, so I have no idea how you'd make it work with a large-caliber, high-pressure main gun, but it seems like it'd be possible, if somewhat complicated. If neither of those 2 options sound good, you may just have to drop the autocannon idea.

Ok, that makes sense. I didn't think about that, but I think it would make the tank heavier than it needs to be. I'll probably just drop the idea for now, and stick with what I've got. I did consider the coaxial autocannon, but didn't know if it would be feasible enough.

So I'm starting work on my 8 wheel APC/IFV and I'm torn between the Stryker and the BTR series. I like them both equally, but I don't know what to base mine off of.
Basically my requirements are: Amphibious capability, 2/3 crew with troop carrying capability of 10 to 15 soldiers and a single turret housing an autocannon or 50 cal machine gun. I know the Stryker is based off of the LAV, which in turn is based off of the amphibious Pirahna, and it has a rear door, whereas in the BTR, troops dismount from the top of the vehicle, and the vehicle is more angular allowing for better deflection of enemy fire (compared to the nearly vertical sides of the Stryker). Also another thing to consider is the hydrojets in the back of the hull. I was thinking of a twin door setup, like the BMP-1, but I'm not sure. Any thoughts?

-EZ-

EDIT:
I am getting very close to being satisified with my tank. I still have a few nitpicks, but I think I can get them sorted. Here is an update. Not much detail added,but I have 3 different versions.

The top one is the same as the last update (but with a single fuel tank).
The middle one has a smaller turret (because there is an autoloader), and looks more along the lines of what I was shooting for (T-72/Abrams-esque )
The bottom one is a shortened variant, with 6, rather than 7 road wheels. I like this as well, but the middle version is my favorite. I estimate the tank to weigh around 50-65 tons for the middle variant, and 40-55 tons for the bottom variant. It's all a matter of opinion now. I will most likely go for the middle one, but I'd like to know what you think.

-EZ-

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.

you know many modern tanks has their fuel tank aft for the tower.

I like your versions of the tank. I think I would have kept the longer turret, even with an autoloader just for more main gun ammo storage, but all of the versions of your tank are viable. Now you just need to put the skirting back on.

For your APC, be advised that the Stryker is NOT amphibious even though it's based on the amphibious LAV. The BTR series are good vehicles, but as a former infantryman, the idea of having no choice but to exit out the top of the vehicle while under fire makes me hate it. Plus, that pretty much eliminates its potential for carrying any meaningful amount of cargo or serving as a medivac vehicle. You might look at the Pandur II, the Patria AMV, or the AV-81 Terex. The Pandur II and AV-81 are amphibious. I don't know if the basic version of the Patria AMV is amphibious, but they're making a version of it to compete for the US Marine Personnel Carrier contract that is amphibious. All of them allow troops to exit from the rear or top of the vehicle. For the rear doors, twin doors work, but a ramp-style door is much easier for troops to get in and out of quickly. The US Marine Corps uses the LAV that has twin doors, and Amtracks that have the ramp. I always hated getting in and out of LAVs, whereas you can simply stand up and run out of the back of an Amtrack. Also, as a practical matter, I've been told by LAV crewman that the twin doors are easily damaged, and any damage to them immediately eliminates the vehicle's amphibious capability since they have to be able to seal for the vehicle to float. That's not a huge issue, but it's something to think about. Anyway, hopefully that helps you get a decent start on your APC.

I know the stryker is not amphibious, but I feel that it has better lines than the LAVs and the Pirahnas. I agree with you on the BTR series, about having to get out through the roof. That's why I wanted to go with a twin door setup on the back. The reason I would go with the twin door setup is to clear the hydrojet outlet that would be in the middle. I assume I could make the ramp work, but that can always be figured out later.

-EZ-

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.

Ok, here is the basic hull shape. After I complete the side view I will draw a front and rear view to show the angle of the hull. Basically, think of a Stryker with the upper hull angled in at about a 60* angle. Like I said this is just the basic hull shape. In the rear is the hydrojet (well, the coverplate) and up top is the snorkel? I have seen it on the BTR-80s and I know it is for either engine air intake or passenger air, but I do not know what it is called. I may have to move it to a different location depending on where the turret goes. Since I don't have a scale bar yet, the hull is 25 feet.

For weaponry, I was thinking about a 50 cal or a 20mm autocannon. I was also considering offseting it, to the right or left side (like on the Pindad Panser)
As for troop capactiy, I was thinking in the area of 10-12 troops with a 2 man crew (Driver, Commander) and then one of the troops could operate the turret.

Thanks for your feedback,
-EZ-

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.

That's a pretty good basic layout for your APC. I don't quite understand your "hydrojet" set up. How many hydrojet units are you using and where are they located? I'm sure once you post rear-view, that'll clear things up. You may wish to make your vehicle either shorter or wider than the Stryker. One of the main reason the Stryker and related vehicles are not amphibious is because they're taller than the LAV-25, so in the water they'd be more top heavy and less stable. The air tube up on the top is called a snorkel, although the LAV-25 doesn't require one, but I know some APCs do use them during amphibious operations.

On the weapons, since the vehicle will support infantry, you might go with something like the Up-Gunned Weapon Station on the US Amtrack that has a .50 cal and a Mk 19 40mm grenade MG. Or you could go with a cannon in a compact turret like the 30mm Mk 44 turret that was going to be used on the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. And of course, there are always remote mount options. As far as weapon placement, since your vehicle is going to be amphibious, I don't recommend using an offset weapon station. Putting a turret on one side could make the vehicle list to that side and make the vehicle unstable in the water. Amtracks overcome that by being wider, and the commander and driver are on the left side of the vehicle while the gunner is in the turret on right, so the weight distribution is more balanced.

The hydrojet is set up like the BTR, with one right in the middle. Considering the BTR is rear engined, that's not a problem, but for this it may be. Maybe I could mount 2 smaller units, one on either side, and that wouldn't create a large hump in the floor of the troop compartment. The setup depends on the seating as well.
The reason I was thinking of an offset turret was to offset the engine, because I presume that the engine is a little offset to the right side. The width of the vehicle will most likely be 9 to 9.5 feet, so somewhere in between the Stryker and BTR. I will probably go with a 9.5 foot hull width, to increase stability, both in the water, and on uneven surfaces.
For the weapons setup, once again, I was going to follow the route of the BTR and have a small, protruding, armored turret armed with an autocannon or 50 cal. A grenade launcher also seems like a good idea as well, and for a pure APC with no turret, I would go with a remote turret. Also, concerning troop seating, I was thinking of having the troops sit with their backs toward the center, and have firing ports in the side. Even if I went with the troops sitting with their backs out, they could probably still access the firing ports by turning around, but I have no military experience, so I wouldn't know.
Concerning the proportions, I am following the size of the BTR, but the basic shape of the stryker (although with a little more slope on the side).
-EZ-

_________________
Salide - Denton - The Interrealms

I am not very active on the forums anymore, but work is still being done on my AUs. Visit the Salidan Altiverse Page on the SB Wiki for more information. All current work is being done on Google Docs.
If anyone wishes for their nations to interact with the countries of the Salidan Altiverse, please send me a PM, after which we can further discuss through email.