First off I would have had a Gun carrier, a mortar carrier, a personnel carrier, survailence, command , AT and AA. It would have been tracked with a turbine engine and electric drive, with a straight turbine as back up if electric didn't pan out. Armoured to resist 14.5 all round with 30mm protection in the frontal arc. A range of say 500km. Amphibious optional. Gun Carrier - 30mm auto-cannon in a stabalised 2 man turret. Standard armour protection. Mortar Carrier - 120mm breach loading mortar. Personnel Carrier - able to carry a squad plus 2 men, with added armour around the troop cabin. Survailance - Added sensors,radar,radio and navigation aids, larger water and fuel supply. Room for 4 scouts. Command - Additional radio and command equipment(?). AT- TOW missile launcher or maybe Hellfire if it were possible. AA- 8 IR missiles ready to fire. 20-30mm rapid fire cannon with laser ranging and aiming.

AE Would a turbine be effective in a small armoured vehicle?

I think a Hybrid electric turbine would be very fuel efficient. I'm not sure about fuel efficiency for a strictly turbine powered one, but it would have a very high power to weight ratio. A problem that just came to mind though is the exhaust gases. With the turbine mounted in the front any exhaust ported forward of the driver and turret could play havoc with thermal imaging sites. So an exhaust cooling would have to be used and preferably it would be exhausted out the sides at the front. So on further consideration, I would probably stick with a turbine-electric system and use a diesel as back up, if the turbine proved to be unworkable.

AE I think the TD hybrid is the better option. Have you seen this? http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sep/

I had seen that a long time ago. But the reason I suggested a hybrid system is because we did a feasability study on a diesel-electric system for a 42 ft flybridge cruiser. All the research into DE systems led me to conclusion that DE would be much more efficient compared the standard twin diesel set up. During my research I found that turbine engines had a much high power to weight ratio, I wanted to include a turbine option but it was outside the criteria. The main efficiency advantage was gained by running the diesel at optimum RPM. I believe a lot of efficiency can be gained out of a turbine engine running at optimum load. I think one of the reasons the Abrams is so fuel thirsty is because it doesn't run the turbine at optimum RPM while cruising. But yeah, that vehicle is a good example of the sort of drive system I would be aiming for.

AE How small could you get the turbine?

I think commonly you can get them around 500 shp and up.

They may have smaller ones though, I'm thinking of the ones that are used in GA aircraft like the Cessna Caravan and Pilatus Porter.

So it'll be about the size of a car engine?

power wise or in dimensions?