Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Type 27 Tank Destroyer by MikeDoscher Type 27 Tank Destroyer by MikeDoscher
Everything old is new again.

Faced with the threat-rich electronic warfare environment of Southeast Asia in the 2060's, defense budgets (both state and nonstate) faced of spiral of threat and expenditure from which there seemed no good escape. Intelligent mines, satellite assisted armored infantry, and a proliferation of automated weapon systems threatened to make what had been a border incident overflow into a wider settling of grudges between neighbors. The use of nonhuman systems threatened to remove accountability from the actors and invite further destabilization.

With this in mind, WESTSOC and some of the PMCs with larger research budgets came up with an elegant solution: The return of ballistic, direct-fire artillery to counter ground forces. Gun laying would be optical, with unaugmented crews and minimal electronic equipment. This would make them largely immune to the jamming and hacking by specialized systems that made the modern battlefield so uncertain. For border interdiction, the future lay in the past.

Based on a Chinese airmobile SPG, the Type 27 utilized a 128mm gun that could also fire a squeeze-bore sub caliber round when fitted with an adapter. While inaccurate, and even dangerous, to fire on the move, it proved an effective deterrent against light armor and armored infantry elements in multiple engagements. The example seen here is also fitted with a laser based CIWS for use against light drones and guided counter battery artillery.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconstugmeister:
StugMeister Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I'm loving the ww2/modern day mix on this AFV. :D
Reply
:iconcujonuke:
Cujonuke Featured By Owner Feb 9, 2017
Looks like the 2 said arms on the turret are a kind of reactive armor?
Reply
:iconmikedoscher:
MikeDoscher Featured By Owner 5 days ago  Professional General Artist
Optical rangefinder. :) The small bumps near the mantlet is another set, serving as backup. The turret can be fitted with ERA blocks though- they attach to those lugs.
Reply
:iconponentguy:
Ponentguy Featured By Owner Feb 8, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Uuuuuh dangerous and sexy Love 
Reply
:iconjlvfr:
jlvfr Featured By Owner Feb 8, 2017
Looks very cool, but you should really close the turret, imho. Open turrets are soooo vulnerable...
Reply
:icontexshi:
Texshi Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2017
That turret looks so sexy it's like a mix between a Battleship and M10 Wolverine and I LOVE both of those
Reply
:iconclayman8:
Clayman8 Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2017
Looking at the hull, it reminds me of one specific Soviet tank i saw at the Kubinka museum last time i was in Russia (worth it btw, if you get the chance to go to Russia try to visit the tank museum). I believe it was the IS2 and IS3 that had that center-mounted pilot nest and angled nose/hull center. Turret design reminds me of the german anti-tank platforms too, but i cant remember the name (there was one with the similar shape and open top).

Love the retro-future design, Mike. Always love taking apart your works for details and inspiration
Reply
:iconkodyyoung:
KodyYoung Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Awesome TD concept.
Reply
:iconrob-cavanna:
Rob-Cavanna Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017
That's brilliant, Mike. 
Reply
:iconcoffeepilot:
CoffeePilot Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
As someone who is a huge fan of WWII tank destroyers, and the American M10, M18, and M36 in particular, I love this so much! Question though, why the open turret in front? In American open-topped designs this was largely to facilitate easier movement and reloading of large rounds in an otherwise tight turret, but given a 3 man crew I'm assuming an auto-loader. I'd just do what the M36 did and have a fold-up/fold-down top for shrapnel protection when needed. Still looks awesome though and I really dig the side mounted optical sighting equipment.
Reply
:iconmechazoidfallen:
Mechazoidfallen Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017
Really awesome work. I love the mid cold war inspired look.
Reply
:iconfrozenwhitenorth:
frozenwhitenorth Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Hobbyist Writer
Great design and a well thought out concept. Technically, a gun stabilizer would still be fine though, since that is usually a gyro stabilization system. Its a small issue I have, but not a major one.
Reply
:iconcsp499:
Csp499 Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Complete with bulky coincidence rangefinders.
Reply
:iconmikedoscher:
MikeDoscher Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2017  Professional General Artist
It seems appropriate. My life is full of bulky coincidences.
Reply
:iconfriessner:
Friessner Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017
This looks awesome—especially the colour pallette. I do have a question, though: A gun that big has a lot of recoil, but it doesn't look like there's much room in that turret for a gunner and a recoiling barrel. How does it work?
Reply
:iconmetalsnail:
MetalSnail Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Very cool tank design!
Reply
:iconredwolfradolf:
redwolfradolf Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017
I like the soloution.  Everything too high tech?  All your drone-soldiers getting hacked or EMP'd?  Go back in time, and they have no idea how to handle it.
Reply
:icontomsymonds:
tomsymonds Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Professional Artist
sweet. Love the wide rangefinders.
Reply
:iconavarus-lux:
Avarus-Lux Featured By Owner Edited Feb 6, 2017   General Artist
return to the basics, i really like the description you gave here.




as for the people that are concerned with the grenades... they really are not a issue, it is acting as artillery or as long range fire support in engagements with troop support, preventing grenade chucking in the first place. (the binoculars protruding from the turret give away its more of a long range anti tank artillery and not a m10 clone like "closer ranged" tank destroyer, even though it can fullfill that role very likely as well)

the second remark about shrapnel being an issue;
A, most shrapnel loses its deadly and/or damaging energy fairly quickly and
B, its shrapnel... not explosives or targeted bullets and dont have the same effects or effectiveness, that srhapnel is what helmets and (light) body armor were designed for
C, if the tank is expected to have engagements that have the chance to encounter heavy shrapnel effective fire or grenade chuckers alike.... then there is always the few add-on options that enable a crew to cover the open top of the turret, options like the M10 or M39 tank destroyer lines had for example:

www.worldwar2aces.com/store/im…
www.somap.pl/images/assortment…




personally the only problems i see with this tank are currently that it is
A: a bit to long for its width (track to tank size ratio).
B: i know tanks are cramped and small, but this takes it tojust a bit to far imho, the crew should be scaled down just a little bit, as is with the tank... currently even the m22 locust or m24 chaffee look more comfy...

www.militaryfactory.com/armor/…

hell even the t-26 and such from the russians back then look more comfy XD...

c1.staticflickr.com/6/5643/210…


ah well, if the soldier fit... they sit, and if it works... don't change a winning formula :P
Reply
:iconblack-sweater:
Black-Sweater Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Hot dayum look at this sexy thang<3
that's a tank buster if i ever saw one.

and a gorgeous one at that!<3
Reply
:iconmacphersonscircus:
macphersonscircus Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017
A very interesting concept, Mike.  I like it!!!
Reply
:iconironclad00:
Ironclad00 Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Hobbyist Writer
It's okay, Mike.  I get it.  It's an artillery piece.  At that, it's a quick and dirty artillery piece.  Armor is a secondary consideration, since it should never be directly engaged anyway.  People are just thinking of it in terms of how they would handle it in the relatively short-range engagements of Battlefield with the 'grenade' thing.  I've seen real-world designs with an open top like that, and for a country like Burma, the quick and dirty solution is all the more believable.  TOMORROW IS YESTERDAY!
Reply
:iconbulletproofcheetah:
BULLETPROOFCHEETAH Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017
When in doubt return to the basics, well done!Ayato Fixation 50X50 GIF 
Reply
:iconbioazard:
bioazard Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017
really cool tank :)
and nice explanation !
Reply
:icontypeproton:
TypeProton Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017   Digital Artist
What are the tubes that jutted from the sides of the turret?
Reply
:iconmikedoscher:
MikeDoscher Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Professional General Artist
That's an optical rangefinder. It's like two periscopes on their sides. You use them to get a distance to your target via triangulation.
Reply
:iconfirest:
Firest Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017
I suspect they are periscopes for aiming.  This is supposed to be a low-tech weapon after all.
Reply
:iconexanju:
exanju Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017
Cool design, but... If the operators are 1:1 compared to the size of the tank then it is too small.. imo. Those guys would need to sit in fetus poses to fit in..  Still like eye said.. cool desing
Reply
:iconmikedoscher:
MikeDoscher Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Professional General Artist
Yeah, you're right. I'll fix that soon.
Reply
:iconneighborvoid:
neighborvoid Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Can't remember what it's called, but isn't there usually a thing in the middle of the barrel that prevents the gases from going back into the tank?
Reply
:iconmikedoscher:
MikeDoscher Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Professional General Artist
Fume extractor. Neat devices, but the even the small holes in the barrel they would need to work would be unsafe at the higher chamber pressures this beast uses.
Reply
:iconterranabassador:
TerranAbassador Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017  Student Digital Artist
That's a big gun for such a small vehicle.
Reply
:iconthesniperofaustraila:
TheSniperofAustraila Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
looks like a m10 or M36 tank destroyer
Reply
:iconthe-last-dragon-kni:
The-Last-Dragon-Kni Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Is that open topped or a glass roof?
Reply
:iconmikedoscher:
MikeDoscher Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017  Professional General Artist
Open top. They needed the gun depression.
Reply
:iconthe-last-dragon-kni:
The-Last-Dragon-Kni Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Poor guys, hello grenade magnet
Reply
:iconthelasthokuten:
TheLastHokuten Featured By Owner Edited Feb 5, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
That's why tanks always have infantry support, to protect them from close range engagements against mobile enemies where they would have the disadvantage. Tank destroyers being a vehicle with the specific role of engaging other armored vehicles, it would also typically be fighting at ranges (300-1000+ meters depending on the specs of the gun and ammunition) far beyond that possible with hand grenades.

The crews and the people supporting them were keenly aware of the vulnerabilities of the tank (both the open top and every other kind of vehicle) and did everything in their power to avoid letting the enemy get in a position to exploit whatever weaknesses were peculiar to them. Therefore, when this vehicle was in operation, if there was ever a discernible risk for grenades or gunfire to be directed to the inside of the turret when moving into an area, that tank would avoid it to mitigate that risk.

With these ideas in mind, I'd go so far as to say these kinds of tanks, never once, in all of history, were faced with the risk of a grenade being thrown inside. If not, then it was such a rare occurrence as to be statistically insignificant and not worth considering from a design standpoint. Keep in mind I am talking specifically about grenades, not other risks like gunfire or indirect fire weapons. Thanks.
Reply
:iconpachumaster:
Pachumaster Featured By Owner Edited Feb 5, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
to be fair, these are expected to engage at long range and it also has reactive defences.
Reply
:iconthe-last-dragon-kni:
The-Last-Dragon-Kni Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Reactive defences would be nearly as dangerous as a grenade seeing as they usually are grenades.
Reply
:iconpachumaster:
Pachumaster Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
this one's are lazers though
Reply
:iconthe-last-dragon-kni:
The-Last-Dragon-Kni Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
in that case you have high speed shrapnel coming at you as opposed to being blasted into near neutralization
Reply
:iconpachumaster:
Pachumaster Featured By Owner Feb 8, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
it would depend on the range really. at any rate it's better to have it explode far away than near.
Reply
:iconmikedoscher:
MikeDoscher Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017  Professional General Artist
If they're getting that close to enemy infantry unsupported, they're the textbook definition of Doing It Wrong. These are for destroying light armor and pinning down armored infantry 1K to 3K meters or so out.
Reply
:iconthe-last-dragon-kni:
The-Last-Dragon-Kni Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Fair enough, but then again in war Doin it wrong is usually standard operating for most people i've seen
Reply
:iconmikedoscher:
MikeDoscher Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Professional General Artist
True.
Reply
:iconthe-last-dragon-kni:
The-Last-Dragon-Kni Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Remember kids, war fuck you, you don't fuck war 
Reply
:iconsqualltemnov:
SquallTemnov Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2017
Just wanted to point out, that grenades, are not the only sourse of shrapnel on the battlefield. Any high explosive round with delayed fuse, or mid-air exploded bomb would be deadly.  Still, I do like your design. Sort of mix in betreen T-10, Kenig tiger and M18 Hellcat.
Reply
:iconmikedoscher:
MikeDoscher Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017  Professional General Artist
You're right. This design comes from a kind of weird place- the dominant anti armor systems are explosively formed penetrators from drones and missiles. The minimal top armor most MBTs have isn't much help against such. The designers felt that the additional gun depression and lower ground weight would be of more help.

I'm not sure it would really work, but it's a thought experiment. There's been so much convergence of light armor designs in the past two decades I was determined to try something weird.
Reply
:iconsqualltemnov:
SquallTemnov Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2017
If I understand your world setting correctly, that it is somewhat alike with "War of the Worlds" by Wells. I mean, humans from somwhere inbetween of WW1 and WW2 are fighting against technologically FAR superior alien enemy. That`s the reason I definitely would not try to convince, that your design is impractical. It can easilly be pretty solid in specified setting. 

As for gun depression, I got the impression, that vehicle, designed to engage enemy at 1 km minimum range, won`t require it that badly. On the other hand, weight reduction, combat compartment ventillation, ease of ammunition load, and crew evacuation, are definitely a thing to keep in mind.  Great work, as allways!

Just as a side note: Rounds on the ground are not to scale, aren`t they? 
Reply
:iconmikedoscher:
MikeDoscher Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2017  Professional General Artist
This vehicle is in a separate continuity. Stuff for Spacecraft of the First World War is on a completely different timeline, and takes place after the events in War of the Worlds. WWI tech with lots of reverse engineering of more advanced tech in a scattershot way.

The ammunition is to scale, but only the leftmost round can be used with the fitted squeeze bore adapter, being an APCNR round. The others would require removing the adapter at the end of the barrel.
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
February 5
Image Size
881 KB
Resolution
4500×2500
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
2,790 (8 today)
Favourites
324 (who?)
Comments
52
Downloads
73 (1 today)
×