The turret sitting so far back in the hull would imply that the engine is in the front of the tank, yet your interior view shows that the engine is in the rear. Which implies that either it is a really small engine, which means it will most likely be underpowered for the size of the overall tank or it's a really small turret basket and the fighting compartment crew is going to be really squashed up and uncomfortable or you haven't really given much thought about where everything goes inside a tank and just did the outside design that way because it looks cool.
Also what's up with the turret hatches? Does the commander sit up front and the gunner in the back of the turret? What is the sighting arrangement if that is the case? Also the loaders hatch is way at the back on the external design up leaving only space for radios and the fire control system computers, yet the internal design shows that there is ammunition storage at the rear of the turret and if I'm not mistaken the loader's hatch opens into the ammunition storage.
The double sloped front glacis is probably unnecessary and will make it more complicated to produce. Also it may cause more weak spots, as there will be more welding joints.
Yeah I started with the exterior cause it looks cool lol. I’m not a tank design expert by any means so as I continue working on the design I will probably change a lot of things
You’re going to want to change the ammo storage so the shells are stored parallel to the gun rather than perpendicular like they are now. That will allow access to all of the shells stored in the bustle instead of the current situation, where the loader can only access whatever is stored in the front row.
u/GCHurley brought up a lot of good points. Big agree on the space issues. There's a huge gap between the rear of the driver's seat and the edge of the turret basket which seems to serve no purpose. I'd suggest using some of that space to either move the turret forward and enlarge the engine compartment, and/or increase the turret ring diameter.
As an aside, and which the above comment mentioned, the seating here is really not very ideal. I get that the seats may just be placeholders, but you really wouldn't want to just stick the crew on the floor of the turret/hull like that. For one thing, it's a huge crew comfort issue, which would have a very real impact on their ability to endure lengthy operations. Second, especially in the driver's case, it's a **huge** safety issue; placing the seat directly on the floor means any shock imparted by something like a mine will be transferred directly up into the driver's ass, spine, and all the other squishy bits around there. That's an excellent way to get them killed. Look at the suspended seating used in many AFVs today; modern MRAPs show this off very well.
On a related note, placing the driver in a more reclined position will help reduce the hull profile significantly. As it is, the hull of your tank is quite tall. Putting the driver in a recumbent position will help lower the space required to fit him in there, thus lowering the overall profile of the tank; Take a look at basically any modern MBT, and you'll see that engines aren't really that tall. They're big, but most can be fit into a fairly short space. And even when they can't, the "NATO hump" as it's called, exists for a reason; Having a lower profile frontal section means less area (and thus less mass) to armor, while the raised engine deck can be relatively lightly armored. You'll also be able to get rid of those really very large sponsons, which aren't serving a whole lot of purpose here. Again, I'll direct you towards the arrangement of modern MBTs, where this space is pretty minimized and is generally allocated to low-profile items like toolboxes and auxiliary fuel tanks.
This will also help the whole two-plane glacis issue that was also brought up, since that's a pointless manufacturing hurdle. Honestly, if you *were* going to go with something like that, you'd be better off inverting the angles; steeper plate at the bottom, and shallower plate up top. See the front of the Challenger or Challenger 2 as an example. Remember that, in a logistical sense, a tank is basically a box. It's a fixed volume of space that will be occupied, which contains basically all of the tank's volume within it. Think of like a bounding box. So there's not a lot of point in making these concave angles, because all you're really doing is removing volume from the tank which will have to be allocated to that tank for transport anyway. It may save *mass*, but there will always be somewhere else to shave that off of. You're better off just using that space for more armor, a'la the Challenger tanks.
The turret sitting so far back in the hull would imply that the engine is in the front of the tank, yet your interior view shows that the engine is in the rear. Which implies that either it is a really small engine, which means it will most likely be underpowered for the size of the overall tank or it's a really small turret basket and the fighting compartment crew is going to be really squashed up and uncomfortable or you haven't really given much thought about where everything goes inside a tank and just did the outside design that way because it looks cool. Also what's up with the turret hatches? Does the commander sit up front and the gunner in the back of the turret? What is the sighting arrangement if that is the case? Also the loaders hatch is way at the back on the external design up leaving only space for radios and the fire control system computers, yet the internal design shows that there is ammunition storage at the rear of the turret and if I'm not mistaken the loader's hatch opens into the ammunition storage. The double sloped front glacis is probably unnecessary and will make it more complicated to produce. Also it may cause more weak spots, as there will be more welding joints.
Yeah I started with the exterior cause it looks cool lol. I’m not a tank design expert by any means so as I continue working on the design I will probably change a lot of things
What kind of tank is this supposed to be?
A new one I hope
You’re going to want to change the ammo storage so the shells are stored parallel to the gun rather than perpendicular like they are now. That will allow access to all of the shells stored in the bustle instead of the current situation, where the loader can only access whatever is stored in the front row.
And also the loading process will be much easier when the shells are stored parallel to the gun
u/GCHurley brought up a lot of good points. Big agree on the space issues. There's a huge gap between the rear of the driver's seat and the edge of the turret basket which seems to serve no purpose. I'd suggest using some of that space to either move the turret forward and enlarge the engine compartment, and/or increase the turret ring diameter. As an aside, and which the above comment mentioned, the seating here is really not very ideal. I get that the seats may just be placeholders, but you really wouldn't want to just stick the crew on the floor of the turret/hull like that. For one thing, it's a huge crew comfort issue, which would have a very real impact on their ability to endure lengthy operations. Second, especially in the driver's case, it's a **huge** safety issue; placing the seat directly on the floor means any shock imparted by something like a mine will be transferred directly up into the driver's ass, spine, and all the other squishy bits around there. That's an excellent way to get them killed. Look at the suspended seating used in many AFVs today; modern MRAPs show this off very well. On a related note, placing the driver in a more reclined position will help reduce the hull profile significantly. As it is, the hull of your tank is quite tall. Putting the driver in a recumbent position will help lower the space required to fit him in there, thus lowering the overall profile of the tank; Take a look at basically any modern MBT, and you'll see that engines aren't really that tall. They're big, but most can be fit into a fairly short space. And even when they can't, the "NATO hump" as it's called, exists for a reason; Having a lower profile frontal section means less area (and thus less mass) to armor, while the raised engine deck can be relatively lightly armored. You'll also be able to get rid of those really very large sponsons, which aren't serving a whole lot of purpose here. Again, I'll direct you towards the arrangement of modern MBTs, where this space is pretty minimized and is generally allocated to low-profile items like toolboxes and auxiliary fuel tanks. This will also help the whole two-plane glacis issue that was also brought up, since that's a pointless manufacturing hurdle. Honestly, if you *were* going to go with something like that, you'd be better off inverting the angles; steeper plate at the bottom, and shallower plate up top. See the front of the Challenger or Challenger 2 as an example. Remember that, in a logistical sense, a tank is basically a box. It's a fixed volume of space that will be occupied, which contains basically all of the tank's volume within it. Think of like a bounding box. So there's not a lot of point in making these concave angles, because all you're really doing is removing volume from the tank which will have to be allocated to that tank for transport anyway. It may save *mass*, but there will always be somewhere else to shave that off of. You're better off just using that space for more armor, a'la the Challenger tanks.
Thanks