Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

Submitted on
December 11, 2011
Image Size
910 KB
Resolution
1920×1280
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
12,100 (9 today)
Favourites
157 (who?)
Comments
20
Downloads
464

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
×
M200 Mongoose by Ergrassa M200 Mongoose by Ergrassa
M200 / M203 Mongoose MBT
type: Main battle tank
manufacturer: Shelorr Aerospace
in service: M200 — from 2520; M203 — from 2523
origin: Eior Technocracy
used by: Eior Technocracy, The Greatest Star Empire of Nippon
unit cost: about 750'000 Geo

length: 7.7 meters (8.9 with gun forward)
width: 4.2 meters (6.4 wingspan)
height: 2.1 meters (2.2 for M203)
weight: 43 tonnes (40 for M203)
crew: 3

armor: front: 700
rear: 700
top: 500
bootom: 550
side: 1600 (700 w/o screens)
tower front: 1000
tower rear: 700
tower side: 700

energy shield: 1ื4 MJ/sec (4 MWt total)

armament on M200:
primary: 93mm L49 particle railgun
secondary: 20mm gatling gun, dual M72 machinegun
guided: 2 ื M35 Stinger AAM
defencive: dual 60mm launchers; 16 ื 52mm smoke grenades

armament on M203:
primary: 130mm HEPT
secondary: 2 ื dual 1.5 MWt UV lasers
guided: 4 ื M35 Stinger AAM
defencive: 2ื dual 60mm launchers

propulsion: hover engines, glider plates
maximum velocity: 350 kph (290 for M203)
energy source: aphratium powercore (15 MWt normal, 17.8 MWt overload)
range of operation: up to 800 km (900 for M203)

variants:
M200 Rail
M201 Mobile SAM
M203 Plasma
M204 Siege cannon

M200 was developed under new Eior cluster land troops concept - "Minimum quantity, maximum mobility". Due to the concept, armored and infantry PDF divisions correlated as 1:1. The key features of new tank should be high mobility and firepower, ease of learning to use and low cost. Development was directed to "Ocelot Works" design department of Shelorr Aerospace. The irony is that before the direction the only tanks developed by the department were the orbital ones.

All the paperwork was made in the Bureau's primiary station in Oo-Raksh starsystem. The prototype was ready in april'2522 - it was a chopper-like hovertank propulsed by four glider plates and two low-power turbofans. The primiary weapon was 93-mm L49 electromagnetic particle accelerator cannon with 8 MWt output power. What of defensive systems, well-proven Eior Arms LVS-4 Class II ECHO shield was a good addition to innovative double-layer simplified corthosis armor (so-called "C.73 polymer"). Armored vehicle operation was supplied by 15 MWt aphratium reactor.

At the moment the Technocracy of Eior independence was claimed, M200 was ready for production. But on February 12 2523 Larku Ersherr, the newly assigned Lead Defense Expert visited "Ocelot Works". He proposed the following construction chanhges:
- Additional powerful turbofan booster
- Replace specialized MRM-LV tank missiles with standard MRM-65 air missiles
- Make an alternate tank configuration with 130-mm HEPT as primiary weapon
- Attach anti-cumulative screens to side armor

When all these changes were applied, M200 "Mongoose" with FP-59 particle accelerator cannon was adopted for Eior PDF on May 16 2523. Two weeks later, M203, the simplified version with Mitsubushi Typhoon HEPT was also adopted.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconeikka492:
eikka492 Featured By Owner Apr 2, 2013
is and how is having that much angling bad? Explain please. And try shooting at the turret of a Type-59 or IS-3, and you'll see that a round shape isn't bad.
Reply
:iconunknownmarksman115:
Unknownmarksman115 Featured By Owner Mar 29, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Seems pretty exposed and under powered with a bad gun depression and elevation and seems pretty easy to penetrate with AP shells without its shields and due to the lack of angled armor. Other than that, pretty good design!
Reply
:iconeikka492:
eikka492 Featured By Owner Apr 1, 2013
You call 700mm a lack of armor? And if you look at the pictures It is incredibly well angled. The shield is pathetic, yes. It's enough to counter a 14kg shell flying at 750 m/s.
Reply
:iconunknownmarksman115:
Unknownmarksman115 Featured By Owner Apr 1, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Seeing that this is a futuristic design, what makes you think that there wouldn't be any weapons that can counter that much armor? And angled armor? Sure it maybe in an angle, but it's too curvy, that can be very easy to penetrate. If the armor was more straight and had more angles, not the whole tank bein in an angle, shells woild ricochet off, but a curvy bubble like tank wouldbe easy to penetrate as a needle can to a balloon.
Reply
:iconeikka492:
eikka492 Featured By Owner Apr 2, 2013
How is having that much angling bad? Explain please. And try shooting at the turret of a Type-59 or IS-3, and you'll see that a round shape isn't bad.
Reply
:iconunknownmarksman115:
Unknownmarksman115 Featured By Owner Apr 2, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
The way that tank is angled, it will get penetrated, and the lack of "angled armor" like a T-34. The IS-3s turret has some angled armor but it's more smoother. The type 59 however, did pretty horrible. Go look how horrible it did in the Middle East. And if you think a round shape is a good idea? Go see the horrible history of the M4 Sherman against a Tiger, Panther, and the PzKpfW IV.
Reply
:icondiadumenian:
diadumenian Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2013
the Sherman sucked because it had no armor. also, the only somewhat "rounded" part on the thing was the turret. the front was a giant wedge (which can be called angling I guess...) the rest of the tank was a freaking box. seems to me a rounded design is better because it is angled regardless of which way you choose to look at it and your balloon analogy makes no sense to me. imho, that is a more exaggerated version of the Sherman argument; it doesn't matter how "angled" you make a balloon, it is ultimately still an obscenely thin layer of rubber being penetrated by a very sharp, HARD needle.
Reply
:iconunknownmarksman115:
Unknownmarksman115 Featured By Owner Sep 13, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I see where you're coming at and I understand what you mean, but from what I meant from my balloon analogy is that judging by the sides and how exposed some important areas seem, this tank seems like a perfect target. Especially if one were to use a SABOT round on it as there are a few spots on the tank that it would easily penetrate, especially the center where the turret and hull meet perfect for any round. Another thing is that the "engine" (well it seems like it) is pretty exposed on the back and exhaust areas in the front of the tank are also exposed and easy to notice. Once again, perfect targets for tanks. I do notice that the front is pretty sloped, but what I'm concerned is that since it's basically a hovering blob (no offense to the artist), there are multiple targets to hit if hit at a good angle. Other wise, if fighting from the front, it would be basically like fighting the AMX 40. And if fighting on different terrains like a mountain one, the way it's shaped won't really help, especially that it can't defend itself as well since gun elevation and depression seem like a problem.
Reply
:iconsevenofeleven:
sevenofeleven Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2013
Looks great.
Reply
:iconwittyusername816:
WittyUsername816 Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013
Very nice design. I'm not a fan of how it looks, mostly because I enjoy the angular beauty of tanks, rather than the rounded look, but I can see this as being an effective design. Keep up the good work!
Reply
Add a Comment: