LT-1 Jackal

The LT-1 Jackal was developed by Koznovod Land Dynamics (KLD) for the Integrated Coalition Army and Naval Assault Corps. The Coalition had several requirements for the KLD developers including: air-drop capability, resistance to low to even medium caliber autocannon fire, anti-tank and infantry support capabilities, excellent mobility over armor if necessary. With the cancellation of the MBT-3 project, the Coalition was in dire need of a fast, mobile, air-deployable infantry support vehicle that was more durable than any wheeled IFVs or MRCV variants.

KLD's first submission was the LT-1 Jackal, which was a failure to most of those requirements.

Spoiler:

The Jackal was incapable of air-drop. It's armor was much stronger than originally planned, making it slower and less maneuverable than had been intended. While it was faster than both the Prowler and Panther MBTs, it was not fast enough for the operations that NAC commanders had planned for the LT project and its armor, while strong, did not outweigh the significant loss of mobility. However, the one role that it had definitely fulfilled was in the anti-tank and infantry support category.

Armed with a powerful 120 mm AT-13 coilgun designed by Shelton Arms, it was capable of penetrating most tanks on the battlefield. In addition, the Jackal was armed with a twin ATGM launcher, allowing it to knock out tanks that it could not penetrate with the main gun. Finally, a co-axial mounted 20.2 mm autocannon, 12.7 mm Dikita Komarov machine gun, and two quadruple tube multi-munitions dispensers (MMD) rounded off its armaments.

The 120 mm gun, while not the highly successful 130 mm gun or the devastating 165 mm gun, was more than adequate for taking out enemy tanks or killing large amounts of infantry. Like most Shelton designed AT guns, the 120 mm can fire API (armor-piercing incendiary), SAPHE (semi armor-piercing high explosive), HE (high-explosive), or HEP (high-explosive plastic for anti-fortification). Its large selection of ammunition allow flexibility on the battlefield depending on the target.

120 mm AT-13
Developer: Shelton Arms
Caliber: 120 mm
Type: coilgun
Ammunition: API, SAPHE, HE, HEP
Shell velocity: ~23%c
Rate of fire: ~25.46 rounds/min
Maximum effective range: ~150000 km

The twin ATGM launcher is designed to supplement the firepower of the 120 mm gun. When API isn't enough, the launcher's AT missiles can usually be relied upon to finish the job.

The 20.2 mm autocannon is probably the trademark of both Coalition tanks and gunships and dropships. It's high rate of fire, excellent accuracy, reliable penetration, and effectiveness against most aerospace craft, drone fighters, and other soft-skinned targets like infantry or light vehicles has earned it a place as one of the most commonly used autocannons in the Coalition.

Co-axially mounted, the 20.2 mm cannon's job is to shoot down enemy fighters or tear apart ground targets that the 12.7 mm machine gun cannot. While a couple shots might not be enough to penetrate a vehicle, its high rate of fire will quickly rip it apart.

The 12.7 mm machine gun is also remotely-operated/computer handled. Its general use is to enhance the AA abilities of the tank and to cut down enemy infantry.

Finally, the two MMDs are usually utilized to deploy fog grenades. However, it can be loaded with flash-bang, flare/illuminator, or standard anti-infantry grenades.

The tank features a single nanufacturer. While it cannot continuous resupply ammunition during combat, it is capable of slowing down ammo loss. It is capable of nanufacturing ammunition for each weapon, though 120 mm shells take the longest (obviously).

Turret:

The LT-1 Jackal features moderately good protection, especially on the turret. It's front is sloped, although the lower glacis plate is still quite vulnerable. However, the turret armor of the Jackal is extremely difficult to penetrate. Aside from being thickly armored, the turret is also well sloped and angled and the armor is spaced, making it difficult to penetrate for kinetic penetrators and shaped charges alike.

The side armor is spaced, though not as thick as the frontal glacis. However, the armor protecting the road wheels, then the thick tracks, and finally the actual side hull armor excel at defeating HEAT rounds and ATGMs, which means if you can outflank a Jackal, don't be surprised by a non-penetration.

Finally, the rear armor of both the turret and hull is extremely thin. It is just enough to withstand heavy machine gun fire but can easily be penetrated by most high-caliber autocannons.

The entire tank is equipped with the Minsk Mk. 2 Protection System. This includes advanced and extremely durable composite armor for the entire tank, ERA, and the active point-defense PD-EBP, or energy beam projector. The PD-EBP is designed to knock out projectiles and missiles before they can even reach the tank. While it cannot eliminate simultaneous fire, it can, at the least, minimize the chances of the tank being knocked out.

The tank is operated by a single crew member with the turret remotely operated (although it is accessible by a ladder from the hull or a cupola from the outside). Every single weapon of the tank is completely automated with a specialized fire control system although it can be manually operated by the driver.

Spoiler:

The LT-1 Jackal features a good acceleration but suffers from poor top speed (for a light tank) of only about 100 km/h (~60 mph) and inadequate maneuverability with a hull traverse of only 39 degrees/sec.

Specifications:
Model: LT-1 Jackal
Developer: Koznovod Land Dynamics
Nanufactured: 2605 - present
In service: 2605 - present
Combat service: Second Interstellar War
Crew: 1 (driver)

Armor: Minsk Mk. 2 Protection System (advanced composite armor, spaced armor, ERA, PD-EBP, mine resistance)

Main Armament: Shelton Arms 120 mm AT-13 coilgun
Secondary Armament: twin tube ATGM launcher, co-axial 20.2 mm autocannon, 12.7 mm Dikita Komarov heavy machine gun, 2x quadruple tube MMDs

Top speed: ~100 km/h (~60 mph) on well-paved road

Credits: to Jace and Kojan for ERA (the gold bars), to a Challenger 2 MOC I found online for idea for the road wheels

Designer's Notes:
Well...yeah...this was one of those projects gone wrong again. It started off really well, all the road wheels fit together perfectly, and, believe it or not, the tracks actually connected!   And then it all went wrong...the sides had to be redone multiple times, and it still feels way too thick. The whole tank seems too tall. It's profile isn't low enough.

When I finally got to the turret section, I was quite demoralized, but I continued on anyway. Of the entire tank, the turret is my favorite. It just worked out miraculously. I was really happy with the angling and sloping and the way the guns and stuff all fit together. My favorite is probably the missile launcher or the top mounted 12.7mm. I was also very happy with the PD-EBP and the driver's port on the hatch for the driver (not the turret hatch).

I think that, while I wasn't completely happy with it, it could have been much worse, and I'm just glad that the guns and turret turned out how I wanted them too (relatively).

As for LDD, it's up to its same old tricks again. Anything new there?

For the hull design, I took a lot of inspiration from the Stingray, the CV-90120T, Expeditionary Light Tank. For the turret, a lot of inspiration came from the M1 Abrams and Challenger 2, especially the gun. The missile launcher was inspired by the M2 Bradley's TOW missile launcher.

In reality, the tank would be much more realistic with an autoloader system for the main gun, a lot more compartmentalization between the engine, the turret ring, the ammunition racks, etc, but it's LDD.

Well the Abrams is 8ft tall, that thing looks 12 feet tall, so adjust for using legos and it's actually a pretty good height. it looks more like a MBT than a LT though. Looks like a sci-fied Abrams/Patton mix, I love it. Makes my tank look terrible by comparison, great turret and inner detailing! Amazing job sloping the armor!

Very nice! I really like all the details you added, especially the interior; as you said, the turret and tracks are quite good too. A lot of the angling is also pretty good.

A few minor things, though: firstly, the front of the tracks have virtually no armor. Secondly, as you said, it's probably a bit too high, though that's not a huge issue IMHO. All that said, however, my main issue with the tank is that is seems a bit... busy. Maybe it's just me, but it looks like there's just too much going on....

Still, great tank!

@Ant: I see what you mean about it being more of an MBT. Originally, it was supposed to be much smaller with a lower profile. I'm thinking about building an MBT with 5 to 6 roadwheels, which is why this is only considered a LT. But I think I definitely need to change that sometime. Maybe not an MBT but a TD/MGS or something more appropriate.

And thank you!

@Tetra: Thanks!

Yeah, the no armor on tracks is definitely an issue that I'm still trying to figure out how to solve, but I see exactly what you mean. The thing is too tall, and I don't know how to fix that. As for the busy part, what does that mean?

Thank you again.

Spoiler:

Ta-da! Frontal track armor added. Not sure if it makes the front seem too bulky now though, although, tbh, it already was.

Sorry if this counts as double-posting, but I wanted people to see the revision.

So this makes the new tanks I just built look like a young child produced them... Seriously, this is great stuff, and it sounds like someone's been playing World of Tanks a lot, or watching YouTube videos about said game.

My sole issue with this is the single-person operation, relying almost solely on automation. I can understand an auto-loader, and even a RC-operated co-axial MG. Automation on the PD-EBP makes sense, and to en extent having a computer targeting system for the ATGMs also makes sense. But driving, aiming the cannon, maintaining communications and situational awareness, among other things, seems like way too much for one person to do. However, I also understand the press for space and the desire to have internal realism (that engine looks awesome and I hope you don't mind if I steal elements of its design at some point) likely leading to that decision. But that's just my two cents' worth.

As for looking bulky, well...is tenk. Tenk not sports car, tenk doesn't have to look sleek. If tenk look big and bulky, tenk strike fear into hearts of enemies. Now, I will say that the number of weapons seems a mite excessive. Mainly just the addition of the point-defense and ATGMs. One or the other, totally makes sense...both? With what I said earlier? Thaaaaaat's a harder sell for me, if only because everything on the top of the turret looks slapped-on and like a very inviting target to shoot off.

@Jace: Both actually. And quite frequently, as far as watching Youtube videos go, I've quite given up on the World of Tanks matchmaker. And thank you!

I totally agree with what you said. Ideally, I would have liked two people, a driver and a gunner, but, as you said, the engine took up too much space. Originally, the gunner would control the main gun and co-ax while the rest is semi-automated with maybe the top mounted MG operated by the driver except, there is no gunner. And that would be fine, glad you like the engine!

As for weapons, I see what you mean. Maybe I'll remove the ATGM launcher and keep the PD-EBP since the 120 mm should be adequate as far as enemy tanks are concerned.

PXR, YOU'RE ALIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!


Also, nice tank thingy. BUT YOU'RE ALIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!

@J-red: LOL. And thanks. Btw, congrats and good luck! (Yes, IK, I'm a bit late )

PXR wrote:@Jace: Both actually. And quite frequently, as far as watching Youtube videos go, I've quite given up on the World of Tanks matchmaker. And thank you!

I totally agree with what you said. Ideally, I would have liked two people, a driver and a gunner, but, as you said, the engine took up too much space. Originally, the gunner would control the main gun and co-ax while the rest is semi-automated with maybe the top mounted MG operated by the driver except, there is no gunner. And that would be fine, glad you like the engine!

As for weapons, I see what you mean. Maybe I'll remove the ATGM launcher and keep the PD-EBP since the 120 mm should be adequate as far as enemy tanks are concerned.

Yeah, MM is evil... As for crew, since I don't have the file I can't tell - where does the one man have a hatch through which to enter/exit the tank? I saw the one for access to the engine (a dangerous hatch to have, indeed...) but not one for him. But, of course, there is the dilemma of minifig proportions...or, rather, the lack thereof.

Especially for a "light" tank, 120mm is definitely enough.

Yeah, I grinded up to my T-54 with the stock 100 mm gun with 175 mm pen with standard AP, and it gets into tier 10 matches all the time. And I suck at driving the IS-7; you can't angle the lower glacis without the upper glacis getting shot to pieces all the time. Still, I love my Russian tanks because Russian tenks are stronk tenks!

Driver's hatch:

The hatch is *a bit* (very) small, and the part with the binocs (it's supposed to be another sensor/viewport thing) doesn't open completely since it can't get hinged. But that's the hatch. The rear "hatch" isn't supposed to be an access way to the engine, I just built it so that it's sloped. And yeah, totally agree with your last point.

Yeah, the gun was originally going to be a 95 mm coilgun, but the hull and turret became much bigger than I had intended, so I just decided to go ahead with a 120 mm gun. I'm hoping to use the 95 mm coilgun for a "lighter" light tank (), but we'll see how it goes.

Also, there's a slight change above the gun mantlet since I had to take out that little plate so that the gun can traverse 50 degrees up. In reality of course, it would be completely armored with no gaps, but I couldn't fill it in without preventing the gun from traversing.

@PXR:

Nice. I think the highest I ground up to is the M6. I can't stand that thing because it only has frontal armor, and even then it's not that great, and the guns...oh, the headache I have just thinking about the M6... Don't even get me started on the KV-2, when I'm used to the Churchill III. I'm trying to work up to the T-150 or KV-85 (haven't decided which, probably T-150 'cause I only derp on my Hetzer) but the KV-1 just is not the Churchill III. But, we could talk WoT for pages upon pages.

That's always been my problem with my Lego cannons: vertical traverse. The fact that for some reason LDD refuses to allow turntables in my models to, y'know, actually turn has me beside myself, but it does get annoying trying to get realistic gun depression on a tank and then realizing "oh, LDD, you so silly" because it can't do that due to the set scales of the bricks, studs, etc. and the limitations thereof.

Also, you seem to have a setting where the stock bricks in LDD are grey, rather than red. *funny voice* How u do dat?

The bottom of the brick panel should have a color-selection option:

Like this:

Tetrahedron wrote:The bottom of the brick panel should have a color-selection option:

Like this:

*Caboose voice* I did not know that. (Obviously.)

@Jace: I'm currently also grinding the Leo 1 out though I haven't been really active about it; I've driven the Vk 30.01D at tier 6 once before I got sick of the garbage 110 mm pen and the terrible acceleration. I'm also grinding for the T110E3, and I recently bought the M36 Jackson, although I haven't driven it once. I really liked the M10 at tier 5 though, the 76 mm gun, the surprisingly well-sloped armor, and the decent mobility.

Haha, I love seeing M6's, I just go omnomnom. I might consider going for the American heavies if not for the T-1 and M6. It seems painful. And, oh come on, KV-2 is stronk tenk! Btw, I play mobile, so there might be some differences, but the trees and grinds are similar (but smaller) and there's other slight differences but the pen, spotting, and etc all work similar if not the exact same.

I generally just drive my KV-1S with the troll 122 and my beloved T18 or T82 TDs and sealclub down at the lower tiers now. I'm not proud of it, but at least I find refuge from the horror of higher tiers and brutal grinds.

Sorry I got so off-topic in my own topic.

Anyway, back on topic, I agree. There are just weird but frequent cases where LDD does not allow you to turn or elevate something even when it would be able to as an actual model. Oh LDD, y u do dis?

ARC: As to your tanks' vertical traverse hinges not working, sometimes LDD ends up being really buggy with joints and there ends up being that one joint that refuses to budge even if you have no idea why.

Some troubleshooting ideas that might work though:
-Make sure it's all attached. This one used to be killer for me, given my past reputation for not getting everything properly attached. But yeah, if there's a piece not attached, it'll basically be "in the way", impeding the moving section's turn radius, rather than moving with it. That's definitely the first thing I'd check in situations like this.
-Check if you have multiple joints for the same thing. Kinda like this sort of:

Spoiler:

...where the thing attached to the two joints (I used the yellow tube to represent that) basically "drags" on them because LDD has to calculate both joints in the mix. LDD can be really weird about this, and it might be worth checking out.
The best way to solve it for me is usually to pull off one of the two joints temporarily and then rotate it, before reattaching it.
-Also, while this usually isn't it, check to make sure NOTHING is in the way of it. LDD pretty annoying with all of its ever-so-slight misalignments that allow for little bits of pieces that shouldn't be in the way to catch on it. (Ughh, the price we pay for building with no gravity... )

That's the main things I'd check for. Not that I can guarantee they'll work, since LDD's annoying that way sometimes.

Arik: It's turntables, not vertical traverse. I was complaining about the realism of the vertical traverse, but in almost all of my tank designs the turrets refuse to turn, and I've checked for blockage...and found none.

Also use the "selected all connected bricks" tool and select your tank, then move it over to the side and see if any bricks are left behind that might be getting in the way of the turret, as the turret will be trying to move but these unconnected bricks won't be, and will be then an obstruction. I've had that happen a few times.

The only thing not attached to the tank are the tracks. Everything else is properly connected. Still no turning. I'm gonna see about sticking them on Brickshelf or something so you guys can look at them.

EDIT: Or...Brickshelf can refuse to work. Any other places I can put the .lxf files?

Dropbox? New general Lego gallery? Those are the only other two I can think of...

Um...can I get a link to the gallery then? I don't feel like searching on the LEGO site. *war flashbacks*

Here you go:

http://www.us.lego.com/en-us/gallery?categoryId=64929898-C52F-49D8-B106-C0C36314093C

I just thought of this, but Google Drive might work (kinda like Dropbox does probably). You get a free 15 GB of storage with your Google account.

For that matter, I already have all my files on Google Drive, so if it works then I should probably switch to that over using Brickshelf...

Let's see if this works:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9URh4Q5NX-FRmFXQUQ1eFVCN3M&authuser=0

Lord Admiral Ariklego wrote:I just thought of this, but Google Drive might work (kinda like Dropbox does probably). You get a free 15 GB of storage with your Google account.

For that matter, I already have all my files on Google Drive, so if it works then I should probably switch to that over using Brickshelf...

Let's see if this works:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9URh4Q5NX-FRmFXQUQ1eFVCN3M&authuser=0

I have all of my stuff of Google Drive as well. But one needs to give permission to access the files on Drive, and if they do so incorrectly or without care, they essentially give someone access to all of the files they have on Drive.

So basically you'd need the Gmail for each person you want to grant access to your LDD Drive. And make sure it's ONLY that set of files. And be aware that they will have access to the version of the files you have unless you're working on a set only on your hard drive and not in Google Drive on your desktop.

TL;DR? Great idea, could be dangerous, will be complicated.

Well, probably not doing that, then...