Authors: Vollketten and Madestcat

Hello everyone,
this is another patent archive gem, brought to you by the two authors named abov
e. Enjoy!
DjgxxiD
Paul-Werner Krapke proposed this vehicle in or around 1983. Krapke was connected
to the design of the Leopard tank series, as he was Chief of the Leopard II des
ign team, so expect this vehicle to be heavily based on the Leopard II tank unde
rneath. The task of the vehicles was primarily to fight enemy MBT s and armoured v
ehicles and to improve the anti-tank capabilities in the range of up to 2000m wh
ile being capable of defeating current and next generation tanks.
It is described thus
an anti-tank destroyer consisting of a tank chassis with no t
urret but equipped with a tank cannon
The name is: Panzerabwehrkampfwagen or roughly

Anti-Tank Combat Vehicle

Design features from Concept to Solution

Firepower
- Crew of 3 with the driver doubling as the gunner (so Commander, Loader, Driver
/Gunner)
it s worth noting no automatic loader is specified. With the driver doubl
ing as the gunner, the optics are arranged in such a way as to allow him to see
where the commander is aiming and thus he can steer in that direction, aim and f
ire.
Fighting with a limited gun arc requires the driver to take part in the battle
ch would mean Commander, Driver/Gunner and Loader as the crew.

whi

- Low profile to maximise concealment and thereby reduce the size of the target
it presents to the enemy with a final design height goal of only 2.3 metres and
the firing height of 1.7 metres.
- Specified is a gimbal mounted 120mm gun, capable of firing both KE (Kinetic En
ergy APFSDS-T) and CE (Chemical Energy
HEAT) ammunition.
- 15 degrees of traverse each side, depression of -10 and elevation of +15 were
planned, but only a traverse of +13 with depression and elevation of -8 and +20
could be achieved with movement controlled by an electric drive.
- Optical sights connected to the gun and a simplified fire control system (it s n
ot designed to fire on the move so this makes the systems a lot simpler and pres
umably cheaper), although night fighting equipment is also specified.
- A remotely operated machine gun is mounted too and is controlled by the loader
.
- A coaxial machine gun is also possible to be added if required.
- Ammunition is stored in the lowest part of the vehicle outside the crew statio
n, below and to the side of the engine. Due to the layout of the interior, more
ammunition can be carried than in a main battle tank too with storage of at leas
t 50 rounds.
Protection:
- The vehicles is described as having Quite good survivability
- Frontal protection is adequate and starts 900mm above the ground and specifica

lly must have greater frontal protection that a main battle tank and a side and r
oof protection against known enemy artillery
Since a casement design assures improved frontal protection by lowering the silho
uette and allowing thicker frontal armour to be used particular attention has be
en paid to these two aspects
Paul Krapke
- So its not just thick but the glacis is sloped which is split to accommodate the
cannon at 30 degrees from the horizontal with an underlayer of special armour
- For the sides of the tank above the level of the skirting plates the hull slop
es inwards sharply and must be sufficient to keep out shell fragments from artil
lery.
- Top of vehicle is bomblet proof and has only a single hatch for the commander.
- The originial plan is for a total vehicle mass 40
50 tonnes and protection aga
inst ATGM like PARS- 3 and most tank cannons .
- The actual design though comes out at 50 tonnes with the protection required.
- Engine air intakes and exhausts are located at the sides and back respectively
with the engine in the rear leaving enough space for the crew to access and egr
ess the vehicle via a rear door. Ammunition can also be resupplied via this door
.
- An NBC overpressure system keeps the crew safe in a chemical environment and a
n explosion suppression system was designed for the battle station and engine comp
artment.
- At the front, there is a large bulldozer type blade fitted so the vehicle can
dig itself into cover.
Mobility
- The vehicle is not meant to be as mobile as MBT s, as the combined use of the ve
hicle with MBT s is not planned
- Centre of gravity must be centrally located to avoid barrel strike where the gun
hits the ground, which on the 6 wheel set-up means the centre being approximate
ly at the third wheel.
- Suspension should be identical to the MBT (Leopard 2), so its a six wheeled Le
opard 2 suspension.
- Must be capable of following the IFV in use though
- The engine itself is not specified but the output must be between 600 and 750k
W in order to deliver 20 horsepower per tonne and use an automatic 4 speed gearb
ox. In general terms, it will be mechanically similar is the means of delivering
drive to the wheels as the Leopard 1 or 2.
- Unusually, this engine is to be mounted at one side in the rear and to have am
munition stowage under it.
- The driver is provided with a video camera displayed on a monitor so he can re
verse quickly into cover without instructions from the commander.
- Top reverse speed is to be 30 kmh.
Overall
Project is concluded that it is:
- Less complex than an MBT
- More reliable than an MBT
- Lower maintenance than an MBT
- Significantly (30%) cheaper than an MBT
- Estimates a need to 1700 of such vehicle to meet the needs of the 1990's.
In a nutshell, it s a take on the old fashioned casement TD, putting heavy emphasi
s on protection and an attempt to produce a cost effective vehicle. Sadly, it se
ems it was never tested or built and lacks the flexibility an MBT brings to an a
rmy.

Sources:
Medium Anti-Tank Defense by Major James Cope, US Army, December 1988
Leopard 2
Paul Krapke
International Defense Review March 1983 Design Concept for a Heavy Tank-Destroyer