HOME | DD
SteamTank — SdKfz 214 Schneeleopard
Published: 2012-07-16 07:17:45 +0000 UTC; Views: 11854; Favourites: 127; Downloads: 161
Redirect to original
Description
SdKfz 214 "Schneeleopard" was designed and produced by Schwarzwald military organisation.Stats:
Armor type: reinforced polymer.
Front 120-200 mm.
Side 120mm + 50mm shields
Rear 150mm
Weapon: 2x120mm. smoothbore semi-automatic cannons. 14.5mm. machinegun.
Engine: 8 cylinder diesel Maybach HL 870.
Transmission: hybrid electromechanical for all wheels.
Top speed: 180 km/h.
Acceleration 0-100: 12 seconds.
Equipped weight: 25 tonns.
Dimensions:
Height: 3.4 meters
Length: 8.4 meters
Wigth: 3.6 meters
Wastelands report:
Cruisers are the result of an attempt to create a vehicle, which combines the mobility of a guntruck with armor and firepower of a tank. The result exceeded expectations, and cruisers became a force to be reckoned with. Fast, manuverable and deadly, this vehicles are able to deal with any enemy. But if they are not - then it's time for tanks.
Related content
Comments: 52
todys armored vehicles can go over 100 kmh, so why the fictional one cant go 180& XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually most armored vehicles an tanks don't go more then 60MPH in fact tanks don't go more then 55MPH and armored vehicles with physics defying engines can go 60/70MPH but I'm pretty sure nothing can go 180KMH XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
60MPH = just under 100 KMH
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
FNSS Pars makes 100 kmh on the road. I bet it is not the fastest APC in the world today.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well its just an APC not an AFV or a tank :/
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Unless its a fast car
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Based on the description, the prevalence of matte black on the hull and turret, and previous comments, I take it that this is some sort of tank destroyer which is supposed to operate primarily in and around urban centers where there are lots of roads?
This is somewhat curious, as fighting in built-up areas usually dictates caution (not so much speed) and close cooperation with infantry elements--in which case, a smaller 105mm gun, would be be more suitable for general-purpose, direct fire support.
Depending on the environment, even a tank like the Israeli Merkava wouldn't entirely be amiss, either. The Russian BMPT or BTR-T would provide even better fire support (with the bonus of being able to elevate guns to engage low-flying aircraft and targets on the higher floors of multi-story buildings, which was a problem frequently encountered in Chechnya).
Unless this vehicle operates in a purely defensive role, there's little reason for speed when fighting in an urban or even suburban environment. Mines, IEDs, VBIEDs, EFPs, and so on.
On the topic of the twin 120mm guns, such designs generally seem comical to me. That is, unless they're on some kind of super-heavy chassis, like the classic Mammoth Tank from Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn (C&C95, etc.). Is there an in-universe reason that ATGMs or unguided missile launchers are not more prevalent?
Looking at the dimensions, ammunition looks to be pretty limited, as well--especially since the ostensible misuse of "semi-automatic" seems to imply that the vehicle uses an auto-loader of some kind. Not much room for crew, either, it would seem. So would it be the driver with the vehicle commander serving as the gunner?
Furthermore, what is it supposed to do against infantry forces without even a co-axial machine gun, let alone an autocannon or grenade-launcher?
On an aesthetic note, it's a curious choice to leave the gun barrels and other parts shiny when the hull is flat/matte. Part of camouflage and low-observability is the reduction/elimination of shiny objects, after all. Shape, shine, silhouette,...
Just some things to think about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
OK, for a beginning, let's say, that this vehicle was designed for a fictional postapocaliptic world, where there are no cities like nowadays. So the firefight in built-up areas was not counted while designing it.
Matte black colour is because of a material (reinforced polymer)
Twin 120mm guns, well it's all about tastes. Low recoil, other tech progress, and they become real.
Guns use 5 shots mags. Spare mags are inside the hull. Crew is two people - driver and commander/gunner.
There really an in-universe reason that ATGMs or unguided missile launchers are not more prevalent. Production of them did not recover after the "apocalypse".
Infantry forces are no more on a battlefield. War became a vehicle-to-vehicle fight.
As for aestethics - it needs to be recognisable. It's like a sign of belonging to a clan.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If it's not intended for use in and around population centers, then why use wheels? Wheels have a lower surface area, which results in higher ground pressure. This leads to the vehicle getting stuck in difficult terrain such as sand or mud.
Historically, the Tiger Tank had proportionally narrower treads and had piss-poor cross-country performance on the Russian steppes. The T-34s, on the other hand, were both lighter and had broader treads, so they performed quite well, despite the lack of crew comforts (also: lol, no periscope for the tank commander with early production models).
This vehicle is roughly ten tonnes heavier than the baseline variant of the Stryker, and even the Stryker has mobility problems (tactical and strategic). In fact, the U.S. Army adopted the Stryker simply for the fact that it is easier to maintain and has a higher road speed. That fact, alone, contradicts the assertion that this vehicle is not intended for fighting in built-up areas.
Furthermore, it is logical to assume that in a post-apocalyptic society, people will band together to form communities or even take up residence in abandoned towns (if they are habitable)--or they will simply enter ruined cities to scavenge for supplies. Thus, FIBUA is pretty much inevitable.
The matte black coloration isn't my main concern--it's the shiny bits. Granted, a vehicle would be painted before or upon entering service, to reduce the chances of it being spotted from afar.
>As for aestethics - it needs to be recognisable. It's like a sign of belonging to a clan.
No. No, no, no, no, no. Do you not understand the point of camouflage? You don't want recognition. You don't want to be detected. The whole point is to avoid detection, whether it be for maintaining the element of surprise for an ambush, or gathering intelligence on the enemy, or calling in fire support.
Magazine-fed guns? That doesn't make sense for AFVs. A detachable magazine for tank rounds would not only be ridiculously heavy for the gunner, it would severely reduce tactical flexibility. One of the reasons the M1 Abrams doesn't use an auto-loader is so that the gunner can load different rounds for engaging different types of targets (APFSDS rounds for enemy armor, HE-DP HEAT rounds for just about everything else). Even auto-loaders (which used to be criticized for their lack of tactical flexibility) are beginning to change to systems (like a carousel, from what I've heard) that allow the gunner to load different munition types on demand.
Furthermore, space in the fighting compartment of your average armored fighting vehicle is already at a premium. Even if the crew has, say, cybernetic enhancements or some powered exoskeleton to deal with the extra weight--there simply wouldn't be any room to maneuver those clunky magazines into place, let alone ensuring that they feed reliably. Make more space? Well, prepare to pack on more weight to compensate, because you need to maintain your armor coverage. More weight means either less fuel, less ammunition, or a smaller and less powerful engine. Say good-bye to that ridiculously high road speed, and forget off-roading. Oh, and all of this requires additional resources--oh wait, this is the post-apocalypse. Available resources aren't what they used to be. And yet they have the resources to maintain fancy electric-hybrid engines, mass-drivers, coil guns, and super-heavy tanks.
In addition, it's been found that two-man AFV crews aren't as effective, as it places an excessive work load on the vehicle commander. On a typical three-man crew, the vehicle commander has to communicate with his/her superiors and keep an eye on the tank and its role in his company's battle plans. There were World War I, Interwar, and World War II tank designs that tried this, and these examples either failed or were not as capable as vehicles with more crew. I suggest you do a little more research.
Let me get this straight. In this universe of yours, mass drivers and coil guns are used in super heavy tanks. Tanks have hybrid-electric engines that are capable of powering over-weight armored fighting vehicles (which isn't exactly something that exists even today with such runaway technological advancement). But anti-tank missiles somehow dropped out of production?
That seriously doesn't make a lick of sense. Not from a technological standpoint, nor from an economic one. I'm not talking about Javelins and other fancy ordnance with bugger-off price tags that take top-down or top-attack trajectories. Even something like scoring a mobility-kill with an AT-4 or a TOW missile would be cheaper than trying to match the enemy, vehicle-for-vehicle. That would mean the enemy would have to divert additional resources to recover the vehicle, or they would destroy the sensitive components of the vehicle and render it inoperable, before baling out.
Armored fighting vehicles are indispensable, but they're not the end-all, be-all. Just like how you can't hold a town with aircraft alone, you can't clear a room with an armored fighting vehicle. Unless, y'know, you're some kind of gormless lunatic who actually thinks leveling entire city blocks and indiscriminately destroying infrastructure is a sound strategy and the key to winning a war.
Waitaminute...this just one big fantasy-wank of gratuitous tank battles akin to the glorious cavalry charges so prevalent prior to the twentieth century, isn't it? That'd certainly explain the "recognition of vehicles through aesthetic style" thing. That's the same kind of logic used in the days when army standards were actually carried into battle.
11/10. Well played. Your trolling is maximum.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
And one more thing, super heavy tanks with coilguns and mass drivers are from another universe)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
At last you got a point) Drive me closer, so i can hit it with my sword!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I stand corrected on the use of "semi-automatic."
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually there was German project of wheeled tank [link]
But even with single gun in lightened leopard turret it was about 35 tons as far as I remember.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow! Thanks for the link. I've never seen that before.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I like it,abit boxy but still impressive, it looks like a troop transport but lemme guess, all that space is for say ammo?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All that space is for ammo, fuel and a little bit for loot)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm impressed, keep trying
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks a lot) Glad to know that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
SolidWorks 2011
PhotoView 360 render
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
would be best to have caterpillar tracks, as they are designed for rough terrain more than flat. also, the wider the track, the better. other than that, marvelous work. nice touch to add buildings in background. thanks for sharing
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Caterpillar tracks can not give the needed speed. Cruiser's purpose is patrol and first encounter with enemy. Firepover and armor is good enough to destroy most of vehicles. If they can not win - they hold the enemy untill tanks come along. Oh, and you are welcome
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ok, just experience tells me that tracks can go at high speeds, as the modern tanks can get upwards of sixty miles an hour if needed. anyway, just a thought. your tank, after all. nice job, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know that, I'm a fan of tanks) Cruiser was created for a specific world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ok, sorry for my nose going in, and thanks for being so kind as to not rip my head off for suggesting it, lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
XD I'm to kind for ripping heads off)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
so glad for that, lol. my bride to be would have felt a little bit confused as to where to kiss a headless groom. lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LOL. That would be a strange looking scene))))
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
get yer mind out of the gutter, lol )))))
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For mobility purposes, I'd suggest you let the rear wheels turn as well, because this design may hinder the velocity of the vehicle
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Turning of rear wheels is activated when it is needed. On march turning rear whels can make the vehicle unstable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
these are some of my favourite tanks. I ove the dual cannoned ones
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Glad you like it) It's one of my favorites too
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And to be honest, I am not sure if two barreled tanks exist or if, they are just movie and game fictional?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Two barrels, eh...how about six?)))[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh you tease... *looks* Oh wow... that is amazing..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm thinking of making a rastyle of that pretty panzer)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>