Search the Community

This thread is for suggesting contest subjects for the forum to participate in!

The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel. —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements. Submissions will be accepted in USC only. Supplementary Out of Canon Information: I. Technology available: a. Armor: The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge. Structural materials: i. RHA/CHA Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). Density- 0.28 lb/in^3. ii. Aluminum 5083 More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness. Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches. Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE. Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE. Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel). For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended: For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit. Non-structural passive materials: iii. HHA Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch. Density- 0.28 lb/in^3 iv. Fuel Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE. Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE. Density-0.03 lb/in^3. v. Assorted stowage/systems Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE. vi. Spaced armor Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE. Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap. Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette. Reactive armor materials: vii. ERA A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects). viii. NERA A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage. The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1. b. Firepower i. Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960. ii. No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS. iii. Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D. iv. Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT. v. The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction. c. Mobility i. Engines tech level: 1. MB 838 (830 HP) 2. AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP) 3. Kharkov 5TD (600 HP) 4. Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP) 5. Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP) ii. Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled). iii. Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place). iv. There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right. d. Electronics i. LRFs- unavailable ii. Thermals-unavailable iii. I^2- Gen 2 maximum vi. Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits vii. Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio) viii. While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities. Armor calculation appendix. SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT Range calculator

@Toxn @Dominus Dolorem @Lord_James @A. T. Mahan @delete013 @Sten @Xoon @Curly_ @N-L-M @Sturgeon detailed below is the expected format of the final submission. The date is set as Saturday the 24th of July at 23:59 CST. Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL ENTRIES MUST BE SUBMITTED IN USC ONLY FINAL SUBMISSION: Vehicle Designation and name [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here] Table of basic statistics: Parameter Value Mass, combat (armor) Length, combat (transport) Width, combat (transport) Height, combat (transport) Ground Pressure, zero penetration Estimated Speed Estimated range Crew, number (roles) Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view. Vehicle feature list: Mobility: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features. 3. Transmission - type, arrangement, neat features. 4. Fuel - Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features. 5. Other neat features in the engine bay. 6. Suspension - Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features. Survivability: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Link to Appendix 2 - armor array details. 3. Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks - low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like. Firepower: A. Weapons: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Main Weapon- a. Type b. Caliber c. ammunition types and performance (short) d. Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features. e. FCS - relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on. f. Neat features. 3. Secondary weapon - Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise. 4. Link to Appendix 3 - Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached. B. Optics: 1. Primary gunsight - type, associated trickery. 2. Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order. C. FCS: 1. List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture. 2. Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system. Fightability: 1. List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability. Additonal Features: Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories. Free expression zone: Let out a big yeehaw to impress the world with your design swagger! Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long. Example for filling in Appendix 1 Example for filling in Appendix 2 Example for filling in Appendix 3 GOOD LUCK!

BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN SCOUT TRUCK The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Scout Truck. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Texan Free State Rangers, and the Texan Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Scout Truck (ATST) will be required to counter the new Mormon vehicles and weapons we are encountering in the frontier, while still being fully road mobile and easing conversion training and maintenance for the Lone Free State militias. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements. Submissions will be accepted in USC only. OOC Note: I recommend reading the lore segments, as they are stripped down to effectively present only relevant facts and context about the situation in Texas. You don't, strictly speaking, have to, but it's considered essential information. IS IT TIME FOR A LONE FREE STATE ARMY? The Lone Star by Captain Julio Rodgers of the Texas Free State Rangers March 15, 2240 As a Texan first and a Ranger second, I value the independence of Texans above all else. Historically, the Lone Free State has ensured the liberty and independence of all Texans by eschewing a traditional military organization, and instead leaving the common defense to local authorities, who are adequately funded from the national treasury and very well equipped. This has done exactly what it was intended to do, and sets the Lone Free State apart from other governments in a way that has made it the greatest nation in the Former United States. However, as we approach the middle of the 23rd Century, we will find ourselves up against enemies unlike any we have fought before. Even now, past the New Mexico territories, our rangers tell us a state of Cascadia is building a military force the likes of which this continent has not seen since before the War. Our current system for national defense cannot- THE LAND BEYOND THE MISSISSIPPI: LONE STAR EDITION The Post-New York Times Op-ed by Muhammad Alharris September 1, 2241 Past the quiet iron hills, the swamps of the Mississippi Commune, and the great river of the same name, lies a hard but beautiful place. Texas, the hardest hit of the 50 formerly United States, is even today no forgiving haven for weary travelers. Sweltering, 120 degree summers that last 9 months mean only men of grit and guts dare live there for very long. When my uber pulled into the station at Beaumont, I was already soaked with sweat. I checked my phone, 103 degrees, it read. It was 10 AM, in early May. Unlike in the East with its electric trains connecting the microcities that dot the coast, Texas is a place of roads. Great, spanning highways harkening back to the old world criss cross the country, with ubers flitting to and fro in chaotic swarms. What mass transit there is takes the form of large electric uber trolleys that seat 50, but I found that most people still drive their personally owned ubers - powered by diesel! - 1 to a person or two. Independence is the most important thing to Texans. No wonder, since it was so hard won in nuclear fire. And, I think (maybe a bit darkly), who else would put up with living here? FAST ENOUGH, BUT NOT ENOUGH Texas Patrol Weekly by Deputy Marshal Art Renner January 13th, 2243 There is no question that the G-12 Armored Truck has been the backbone of Lone Free State defense since the teen years of this century. Fast, with top speed of 70 mph, and long legged, with a range of almost 250 miles on a single tank, the G-12 was exactly what Texas needed to patrol its substantial and growing border. Was. The situation of today is not as it was. We're familiar with the scene, immortalized in the 2229 movie Lone Star, of Marshals charging into battle at 50 miles per hour against the bandit menace, triple machine guns blazing and almost out of fuel, but just in time to save the day, and a grateful settlement. Today, the machine gun is not The Decider anymore. That title now belongs to the recoilless and the autocannon, because we aren't just facing banditos anymore. Now, they have their own armored cars, their own machine guns, and even their own recoillesses from time to time. The G-12, Old Reliable, is now Old Liability. ALL ROADS LEAD TO AUSTIN Austin Standard by Marie Lemarre July 23, 2239 Texas is not the jewel of the United States as it once was, but in the 23rd Century it still remains a force to be reckoned with. The unquestioned source of Lone Free State power is its vast, soaring highways, which keep men and materiel flowing to where they are most needed. Trucks of every variety use these roads, but they are most critical as a national security asset. Would our borders be as safe as they are, would the productivity of the free Texas man be as great as it is, without the ability of the Texas Patrol to go from Amarillo to Corpus Christi in six hours? No! The lifeblood of the Texan state pumps over our soaring highways, and our highways protect that lifeblood all the same. Of all the former American member states, only Texas has maintained its highways, and it reaps the benefits. THE GROWING THREAT PAST THE BORDER The Lone Star by Hillum Dickens October 4th, 2242 Our border is once again threatened! A new fanatical enemy has appeared in Rockies, threatening our settlers in Moriarty, Wagon Mound, and Springer. Twelve settlements have been raided in the past eight months, with ten more reporting sightings of the "Mormon Menace". Just last week in Springer, cowherds were attacked by men with face cloths, wielding rifles and riding in trucks. They threw crude incendiary devices and torched several buildings, including a Post Office. The local Border Guard was alerted, but by the time they could ride over the men were gone, and 1200 head of cattle with them. These attacks cannot go- SHOCK AND AWE IN RATON The Lone Star by Hillum Dickens May 30th, 2243 The Sante Fe militias are defeated! Mormon forces, better equipped than any we have seen before, have crushed the Lone Free State militias ordered to reinforce Raton by Provisional Governor O'Connor. Initial attacks on the border town were met with local response, but results were inconclusive as the Mormons led the Sheriff's deputies on long chases through the mountains. Exhausted and drained, they returned only to find buildings burned, farms destroyed, and livestock and materiel stolen out from under them. Immediately upon receiving the news, Governor O'Connor ordered the Texas Free State Rangers to assemble and deputize across the state, and an immediate action by the Sante Fe mayor to mobilize the militias in the area and march on Raton in response. Once they arrived, they found not forces of elusive mountain men, but a war machine of hundreds of men armed with heavy weapons, and tens of powerful tracked armored trucks with high caliber cannons. The Santa Fe Command, convinced of its numerical superiority, attacked the Mormon forces with haste. The Mormons responded by firing salvos of powerful new recoilless weapons that turned armored trucks into scrap, and using their own, better armed and armored trucks to mop up defenders. The result was a massacre. INTELLIGENCE DOSSIER: CALIFORNIAN DEVELOPMENTS IN MILITARY TECHNOLOGY CONFIDENTIAL - CLASSIFICATION A TEXAS LONE FREE STATE RANGERS PUBLISHED: August 9th, 2244 RECEIVED: August 18th, 2244 DURING THE SECOND EXPEDITION INTO THE GONZALEZ CLAIM, INDEPENDENT RANGER DETACHMENTS WERE DISPATCHED TO LEARN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ABOUT TEXAS'S NEAREST NEIGHBOR AND THEIR MILITARY CAPABILITIES. WHAT WAS LEARNED IN THOSE SORTIES IS OF THE HIGHEST NOTE AND PRIORITY TO THE SECURITY OF THE LONE FREE STATE. CALIFORNIAN WEAPONS ARE ADVANCED FAR BEYOND OUR EXPECTATIONS, AND INCLUDE TRACKED, ARMORED TRUCKS ("TANKS") WITH POWERFUL GUNS COMPARABLE TO LIGHT ARTILLERY, AND ARMOR UP TO THREE INCHES THICK. THEIR AIR FORCES, THOUGH SOMEWHAT LESS TECHNICALLY SOPHISTICATED THAN OURS, ARE FAR MORE NUMEROUS AND CONTAIN A WIDER VARIETY OF AIR ASSETS, INCLUDING HIGH SPEED TURBOJET AND PISTON POWERED AIRCRAFT DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO COUNTER OTHER AIR ASSETS. THESE WOULD POSE AN EXTREME THREAT TO FREE STATE AIR GUARD UNITS, WHICH INCLUDE ONLY LIGHT AIRCRAFT INTENDED TO COUNTER GROUND TARGETS. THEY POSSESS A STANDING ARMY IN NUMBER EXCEEDING EVEN ALL MILITIA AND GOVERNMENT FORCES IN THE LONE FREE STATE BY MANY TIMES. THIS ARMY IS ALSO WELL EQUIPPED WITH A VARIETY OF WEAPONS CAPABLE OF PENETRATING VIRTUALLY ALL LONE FREE STATE GROUND ASSETS, SUCH AS THE G-12 ARMORED SCOUT TRUCK- GUNS OF TEXAS Encyclopedia of American Small Arms, 6th Edition Vienna Publishing, 2241 Despite having no formal military, the Lone Free State of Texas has an extensive arsenal of sophisticated small arms and artillery. Local militias are provided a stipend with which they can purchase arms from the government, up to and including recoilless rifles of 105mm bore according to reports. It is therefore worth examining the weapons of the Lone Free State. PISTOLS The primary pistol of the Lone Free State is the G-36. This recoil operated semiautomatic pistol holds 15 rounds and has a barrel length of 102mm. Bore diameter is 10.2mm and it fires a 10x22mm round that was developed in the pre-war United States. Standard ammunition is semi-jacketed with a steel core, with both penetrating and expanding characteristics. The slide and barrel are both hammer-forged steel, while the frame is steel with polymer panels. Unusually, the gun is fired with a cowboy-esque hammer, and not a striker as has been ubiquitous for nearly two centuries. This pistol is commonly seen in Texas, as it is the best weapon available for purchase using government funds for local militias and landowners. At the same time, many local shops turn out boutique pistols of numerous varieties, all of which are broadly similar in characteristics to the G-36. In most cases, like the A1 version of the G-36, they provide a slot on top of the slide for a rugged reflector sight, which is commonly attached. RIFLES The most common rifle is the G-15. This is a 10-shot, manually operated rifle with provision for an optical sight, normally a robust 1-8x being attached. Caliber is the relatively antiquated 7.62x51mm. The feed mechanism is a sturdy steel box magazine which sits below the action of the rifle. Unlike most manually operated rifles of the Americas, the G-15 is lever actuated, not operated via a bolt handle. Texan shooters feel this gives them a superior rate of fire without compromising range, although it must be said this compromises prone and concealed fire capability. The G-15 is being phased out in favor of the newer and semiautomatic G-38. MACHINE PISTOLS Pistol caliber automatic shoulder weapons are uncommon in Texas, but the numerous police and paramilitary forces of the state occasionally use "sub machine guns" as they call them. Virtually the only model available is the G-32, which fires the same 10x22mm round as the G-36 pistol. It is a select-fire, closed bolt weapon using an unusual gas operated mechanism. Capacity is 35 rounds. Reportedly, it is very expensive and usually requires local funds in addition to the stipend to afford. Occasionally these weapons find their way into criminal hands, and they have also been seen in the possession of settler citizens who have legitimately purchased them. STURMGEWEHRS Offsetting the lack of machine pistols somewhat, the Texas government has aggressively pursued the sturmgewehr concept as part of their arms program. The latest of many Texan weapons in this class is the G-42, a gas operated select-fire weapon with a capacity of 28 rounds. Caliber is 6.86x40mm, and muzzle velocity is over 900 m/s. This rifle has been made relatively inexpensive due to a large production rate and widespread adoption by the settler population, who use it primarily for homestead defense and hunting. Like its manually-operated predecessor, it is compatible with optics, and usually is found equipped with the same 1-8 optical sight. Numerous other weapons, including pre-war designs both reclaimed and newly manufactured, are also used by various Texas citizens and militias. MACHINE GUNS Although there is not much need for belt fed machine guns in cattle herding (the primary trade of the citizens of the Texas countryside) the Texas government has procured significant numbers for border control and to combat bandits. Most of these are contained in armories at the various outposts and post offices that run along the country's substantial highway system, but some are held privately. Despite most belt feds worldwide being based on designs from over 200 years ago, many of those in the Lone Free State are original designs dating to within the last 50 years. This is exemplified by the primary Texan belt fed machine gun, the G-17A4, which fires an advanced high pressure steel cased 7.62mm round with either an open or a closed bolt operation. Most remarkable is its weight, which is just over 8 kilograms. Stocked infantry variants, as well as more numerous fixed/vehicle stockless variants both exist. Texan heavy machine guns still fire the 322-year-old 12.7x99mm round, albeit in a greatly augmented form. Like the smaller 7.62mm machine gun round, it uses a steel case and relatively high chamber pressure of 4800 BAR, which results in a 3,150 ft/s muzzle velocity with its 750 grain armor piercing explosive projectile. The principal machine gun in this caliber is the G-19A2 which is gas operated and utilizes a soft recoil system and has a rate of fire of approximately 500 rounds per minute. These machine guns are usually seen mounted to government G-12 4x4 armored cars. AUTOCANNONS Only in the past 15 years as the Lone Free State invested heavily in autocannons. For most of its post-war history, there were simply not enough targets that required automatic cannons, with very few armored ground vehicles and aircraft being operated by non-state actors in the Texas region until recently, to necessitate development of new weapons. However, as the Lone Free State has expanded, it has begun to encounter better organized and armed natives, necessitating the development of a standardized suite of new large-caliber autocannons. Chief among these is the electric G-37 firing a 30.5x114mmB round with a muzzle velocity of about 820 m/s and a rate of fire of about 550 rounds per minute. Interestingly, this cannon is capable of being mounted on any of the same pintle mounts as the G-19A2, giving light Texan units potentially very good firepower. RECOILLESS ARTILLERY Despite not seeing the need for autocannons for many years, the Lone Free State has liberally used the recoilless artillery concept, with most local militias possessing some stockpile of recoilless weapons. Numerous variants of recoilless rifle exist in three primary calibers, 57.2x305mmR, 76.2x406mmR, and 105.4x610mmR. These recoilless cannons are commonly mounted to the light helicopters used by various Texan government entities. A Texan G-18A7 helicopter waits for routine maintenance outside the hangar. These helicopters are the primary aerial support asset across the Lone Free State of Texas. (Reader's note: This picture shows two quite shagged out Kiowas, but the G-18 is a unique indigenous design to the LFSoT. The Kiowa is only used here to represent the kind of helicopter that the G-18 would be.) Supplementary Out of Canon Information: I. Technology available: a. Armor: The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge. Structural materials: i. RHA/CHA Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA). Density- 0.28 lb/in^3. ii. Aluminum 5083 More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness. Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches. Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE. Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE. Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel). For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended: For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit. Non-structural passive materials: iii. HHA Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch. Density- 0.28 lb/in^3 iv. Fuel Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE. Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE. Density-0.03 lb/in^3. v. Assorted stowage/systems Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE. vi. Spaced armor Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE. Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap. Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette. Reactive armor materials: vii. ERA A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects). viii. NERA A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage. The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1. b. Firepower i. Bofors 57mm - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960. ii. No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS. iii. Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. iv. Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT. v. The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction. c. Mobility i. Engines tech level: 1. MB 838 (830 HP) 2. AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP) 3. Kharkov 5TD (600 HP) 4. Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP) 5. Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP) ii. Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled). iii. Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place). iv. There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right. d. Electronics i. LRFs- unavailable ii. Thermals-unavailable iii. I^2- Gen 2 maximum vi. Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits vii. Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio) viii. While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities. Armor calculation appendix.

So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process: Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board. Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.

This is the competition entry thread. Please submit your complete entries here (all entries will be judged complete when judging begins in the first week of November) and keep the other competition thread for discussion and chatter. Once judging is complete I will make a post here to discuss the entries and announce a winner. Best of luck! Update: final submissions should be in hand by the 22nd of November 2020.

You are an engineer at an Italian locomotive and tractor-making company in early 1943. The writing is on the wall for the Italian army in North Africa, with a lot of equipment having been lost and the enemy on the brink of kicking the axis out of Tunisia and then heading across the Mediterranean. In short, things are looking more than a little desperate. However, all is not lost. Il Duce himself has stepped in and, with the assistance of the Germans, procured both some of their finest captured vehicles for use in the upcoming defense of the homeland. Since many of these vehicles have been... gently used, and the existing firms like Ansaldo are flooded with orders, your firm has been asked to work on them in order to bring them up to the standards demanded by modern warfare. In addition to these vehicles, the Germans have also graciously agreed to sell weapons from their existing stock of captured equipment, as well as providing production licenses for some of their more modern equipment. You have also been given permission to work with local weapons manufacturers in order to modify existing artillery to suit your needs. Italian automotive and engine manufacturers are similarly available to help. Finally; your firm's experience in locomotives and tractors means that you can modify hulls and put together turrets and turret rings. You can also produce castings (although not very large ones) and weld armour plates. Your job, which you have no choice but to accept, is to choose a vehicle from among the captured stock being offered for sale, and propose a series of plausible fixes in order to give it a fighting chance against the American and British equipment currently in the field (specifically light tanks and light anti-tank weapons). It is not foreseen that any of these vehicles will be able to plausibly take on modern medium or heavy designs head-on. Instead, what is wanted are general, implementable improvements to the characteristics of the chosen vehicle. These improvements should be aimed at making these vehicles more useful in the initial battles which are foreseen taking place against airborne and landing forces, in general cooperation with infantry, and as scouts. The submission should include one or more drawings or blueprints (at least a side view of the vehicle, but preferably a 3-point view and isometric view), a description of the modified vehicle, a description of how the modifications would be accomplished and a description of how the modifications would improve the design overall. The text of the submission should short and descriptive rather than long and exhaustive, and should not exceed 1000 words in total. Images may be photoshopped using existing pictures. Judging will be done on the basis of plausibility and effectiveness, with innovative solutions being encouraged in order to get the most bang for buck out of the base vehicle. Beyond implementation, the fixes should prioritise combat effectiveness while also improving reliability, crew ergonomics, communication, mobility and protection as much as possible. The foreign vehicles available for modification are: Renault R35 (already in service) Hotchkiss H35/39 Somua S35 (already in use for training purposes) T-26 BT-5 T-28 (only available in very small numbers, so need to be extremely effective) Panzer II Ausf.C The foreign weapons immediately available for purchase are: 15mm ZB-60 25mm Puteaux and Hotchkiss 3.7cm KPÚV vz. 34/Pak 34 (t) 3.7cm ÚV vz. 38/KwK 38(t) 3.7cm Pak 36 4.0 cm Pak 192 (e) 45mm M1937 (53-K) 4.7cm KPÚV vz. 38/Pak 38 (t) 47mm APX 7.5cm Pak 97/38 7.62 cm F.K.297(r) and 7.62 cm PaK 39(r) 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 43 Licenses are also available for the manufacture of foreign engines (Maybach HL62 TRM, Maybach HL120 TRM and Praga Typ TNHPS/II), periscopes, sights, radios, cupolas and automotive subassemblies. All foreign vehicle weapons, subassemblies and components are available for reverse engineering and manufacture. IMPORTANT NOTE: This competition hasn't been finalised, and is waiting on your input! Vote to participate by giving this topic a 'controversial' (grapefruit-induced tears being the only currency of value), and if we get enough participants we'll pull the trigger. Ask any questions you want below, and when/if the competition goes forwards I will make a new thread for entries. Edit: thanks to excellent feedback, the competition proposal has been somewhat edited. If you want an idea of what my mindset is here, read up on the battle of Gela (bearing in mind that the wikipedia entry is shite) and ask how much better the counter-attack could have gone if the Italian vehicles had been equipped with radios and had the ability to move faster than jogging speed. Edit 2: since I failed to mention this above - this is not a one-man, one-entry sort of competition (although I'm not keen on the ten-men, one entry approach either). If you have two good ideas then you can submit twice. The only rules are not to test my patience and to keep it within the bounds of good taste.

We're holding a smaller, lower-effort competition while things simmer down enough for me to reboot the Texas competition to allow more people to participate. Those of you that choose to participate, enjoy. This competition is intended to be a brief 1-2 week long effort which should require only a handful of man-hours to complete, depending on skill level. Unlike a proper competition, this has one person who's judge, jury, and executioner (me!), to allow the maximum number of competitors. Consider this a brief interlude before the reboot of the Texas competition (which is likely to pick up more or less where it left off). Accordingly, there will be relatively little fluff and editorializing. Contestants will be given a basic setting and a set of requirements with a description of the unique mission needing to be solved. Beyond that, contestants will be responsible for filling in the gaps on their own, to whatever degree they see fit. Programs required: Solid modeling software, ammunition load development software, ballistic calculator, performance estimators (provided) Expected man-hours: 5-10 Deliverables required: Image of loaded cartridge and projectile, cutaway or exploded view of projectile or projectile + cartridge, cartridge data sheet, bill of materials (including all component masses and materials), ballistic charts (not required to be in graph form), completed performance estimate sheets, any supplementary materials the contestant chooses to provide. The competition will be largely conducted via the SH discord, if you're interested please PM me for a link if you don't already have one. BEGIN FLUFF After the War, the Great Plains became virtually cut off from the rest of the former United States. Governments fractured into small polities based around towns and cities, as local populations realized they no longer were enfranchised as part of a larger economy and logistical network. State governments began to be seen overwhelmingly as distant meddlers who offered nothing in return for their interference in local politics. The area around the Black Hills was no exception. The states of South Dakota and Wyoming disintegrated quickly once the Federal Government of the United States no longer took a direct role in state affairs. A loose government formed around Rapid City, supported by strong manufacturing jobs, traders, and a large ammunition plant that could support paramilitary operations ranging around the Black Hills region and securing the roads that remained passable. Due to this, their influence expanded well into Eastern Wyoming and north to Southeast Montana and North Dakota. The emerging Dakota Union became the primary, if thinly spread, force in the northern plains region. Their most famous agents would be the Sioux Scouts. Unlike most pre-war infantry forces, which operated as part of large combined arms units in a highly tiered structure, the Scouts are highly independent light infantry. Often, Sioux Scouts will travel hundreds of miles unsupported in units as small as pairs, or even the occasional single Scout. While on patrol, they are responsible for their own sustenance and upkeep, foraging for food and shooting with their rifles what they need to survive. For the moment, there are no other organized military forces in the region, and Scouts are tasked primarily with maintaining contact, trade, and awareness of the peoples living inside the Northern Great Plains, and the hills to the West. As part of their duties, they are sometimes called to settle disputes, mete out justice, or are even permanently stationed in affiliated regions to maintain law and order. In times of war, they function in larger units as an army to protect Black Hills from incursion, but this hasn't happened in many decades. There is no distinction between "officers" and "enlisted" in the Sioux Scouts, but there is a basic hierarchy, and Scout pairs will often have a subordinate and a superior. In times of greater trouble, Scouts are also expected to marshal and lead local forces in the local defense. Generally, Sioux Scouts travel on foot or on horseback. They are substantially made up of Indian peoples, although any residents of the Dakota Union may join the all-volunteer force. Currently, the Sioux Scouts are armed with a motley assortment of both manually-operated and semiautomatic rifles in various calibers. The Sioux Scouts have requested a new semiautomatic rifle to replace these, and it has been determined that they require a new caliber to go along with it, hopefully phasing out the assorted legacy calibers in the process. Thanks to the plant in Rapid City, this is a very feasible request for the Dakota Union (and helps sustain jobs in its largest city). You are an engineer at the Rapid City plant, tasked with creating a report on what the new caliber's characteristics should be. Resources, testing facilities, and reams of research are made available to you. The year is 2221. Get to work. END FLUFF The new round must: 1. Produce no less than 700 ft-lbs at 600 yards. 2. Penetrate twenty-four 1/2" pine boards at 600 yards (equivalent to a lethal penetrating shot on a quartered buffalo). 3. Drop no more than 96 inches at 600 yards (2.6in sight height, 100yd zero, 59.0F temperature, 29.92in Hg pressure). 4. Drift no more than 36 inches at 600 yards (2.6in sight height, 100yd zero, 59.0F temperature, 29.92in Hg pressure, 10mph 90 degree crosswind). 5. All performance requirements must be met at 200 ft/s below the spec velocity, except the 600 yard energy requirement, which can be met at 500 yards at -200 ft/s, instead. 6. Produce pressure no greater than 52,000 CUP (brass cased) or 50,000 CUP (steel cased). 7. Use a projectile composed only of any combination of the following: Copper alloy, bronze alloy, lead alloy, iron alloy, steel alloy, tin alloy, nickel alloy, and/or zinc alloys. Titanium, tungsten, aluminum, magnesium, and other exotic metals are not allowed. 8. Minimum magazine capacity must be 20, with a stack height no greater than 5 inches. 9. Cartridge overall length may not exceed 2.8 inches. 10. Cartridge recoil from a 10lb weapon may not exceed 12 ft-lbs. 11. Cartridge must meet performance requirements from a 22" barreled weapon. 12. Cartridge must cost as little as possible. You are provided with calculators to use to estimate these values for the competition. For trajectory, drift, and energy, you must use JBM Ballistics calculator here. Internal ballistics must be estimated via the Powley Computer (just check the pressure box and enter 52,000 CUP for brass or 50,000 CUP for steel). Also please see my guidelines for modeling steel cases here. The pine penetration value must be calculated with this spreadsheet, and the recoil energy with this spreadsheet. For the purposes of this competition, cost per round is determined solely by the materials used. Please reference the material cost sheet here. If you do not already have a solid modeling program, you can use Google SketchUp for free. @Toxn has a lot of experience with it, you might ask him.

If you exclusively reside in Mechanized Warfare, as many of you do, you might have missed that SH is holding its quasi-annual design competition, which is for an armored car to be developed for the future post-apocalyptic Lone Free State of Texas, circa 2245. Check out the thread here.

ATTENTION DUELISTS: @Toxn @LostCosmonaut @Lord_James @DIADES @Datengineerwill @Whatismoo @Kal @Zadlo @Xoon detailed below is the expected format of the final submission. The date is set as Wednesday the 19th of June at 23:59 GMT. Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit. FINAL SUBMISSION: Vehicle Designation and name [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here) Table of basic statistics: Parameter Value Mass, combat Length, combat (transport) Width, combat (transport) Height, combat (transport) Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal) Estimated Speed Estimated range Crew, number (roles) Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view. Vehicle feature list: Mobility: 1. Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features. 3. Transmission- type, arrangement, neat features. 4. Fuel- Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features. 5. Other neat features in the engine bay. 6. Suspension- Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features. Survivability: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Link to Appendix 2- armor array details. 3. Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks- low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like. Firepower: A. Weapons: 1. Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Main Weapon- a. Type b. Caliber c. ammunition types and performance (short) d. Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features. e. FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on. f. Neat features. 3. Secondary weapon- Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise. 4. Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using Soviet 1961 tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on extimated performance and how these estimates were reached. B. Optics: 1. Primary gunsight- type, associated trickery. 2. Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order. C. FCS: 1. List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture. 2. Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system. Fightability: 1. List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability. Additonal Features: Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories. Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long. Example for filling in Appendix 1

Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII The Dianetic People’s Republic of California Anno Domini 2250 SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank 1. Background. As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater. The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive. Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves: A. The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]). Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns. B. The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed. Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters. C. Deseret tandem ATR-4 series Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM. Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters. D. Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen. Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters. E. Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs. F. IEDs In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep. 2. General guidelines: A. Solicitation outline: In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted. B. Requirements definitions: The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal. Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal. Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that. Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications. C. All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit. D. The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows: a. Vehicle recoverability. b. Continued fightability. c. Crew survival. E. Permissible weights: a. No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons. b. Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time. c. Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport. F. Overall dimensions: a. Length- essentially unrestricted. b. Width- 4m transport width. i. No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement. ii. Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle. c. Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall. G. Technology available: a. Armor: The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge. Structural materials: i. RHA/CHA Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA). Density- 7.8 g/cm^3. ii. Aluminum 5083 More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness. Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm. Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE. Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE. Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel). For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended: For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure. Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit. Non-structural passive materials: iii. HHA Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm. Density- 7.8g/cm^3. iv. Glass textolite Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE. Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE. Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel). Non-structural. v. Fused silica Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE. Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE. Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel). Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work. vi. Fuel Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE. Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE. Density-0.82g/cm^3. vii. Assorted stowage/systems Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE. viii. Spaced armor Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE. Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap. Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette. Reactive armor materials: ix. ERA-light A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects). x. ERA-heavy A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects). xi. NERA-light A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage. xii. NERA-heavy A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage. The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1. b. Firepower i. 2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960. ii. Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS. iii. Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot) iv. Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT. v. The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK. c. Mobility i. Engines tech level: 1. MB 838 (830 HP) 2. AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP) 3. Kharkov 5TD (600 HP) ii. Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled). iii. Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place). iv. There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right. d. Electronics i. LRFs- unavailable ii. Thermals-unavailable iii. I^2- limited 3. Operational Requirements. The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet. 4. Submission protocols. Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time. Appendix 1- armor calculation Appendix 2- operational requirements Addendum 1 - more armor details Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!

Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk) The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely. Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted. The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future. The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily). California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter. The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender; (near the Californian border) The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse. Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho. (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco) Requirements As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire): Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Other relevant information: Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.

Since we've got the new AFV design competition going and not everyone has solidworks, I thought I would share this information from Technology of Tanks so those who do not have CAD/CAM programs could come up with a reasonable accounting of what a tank ought to weigh: -Armor usually contribute between 35% and 51% of the total mass of the vehicle. The lower figure is typical for light tanks, the higher for MBTs. If the armor were reduced to the minimum necessary for structural purposes it would still be about 20% of the total mass. The highest figure on record is 57% for the armor of the IS-3. -The tracks contribute about 8% to 10% of the mass of the vehicle in the case of steel link tracks. On a fast track-laying combat vehicle the tracks are getting slung around over all sorts of rocks and whatnot, so they need to be tough, which means that they're heavy. Band tracks weigh 25%-50% less than steel link tracks, but band tracks can only be used on lighter vehicles. The heaviest vehicle I know of that uses band tracks is the Turkish Tulpar IFV at 32 tonnes. -Suspensions contribute about 8% to 10% of the total mass of the vehicle. Hydropneumatic suspensions are the lightest, but not by an enormous margin. Higher performance suspensions weigh more. -The power pack, that is the engine and the transmission together, account for about 12% of the vehicle's mass. -Guns typically contribute 3% to 7% of the total mass of the vehicle, although cramming the very largest gun possible into the very smallest tank possible can bring this up to about 10%. -Ammo generally weighs less than the gun. Fuel weighs about the same as ammo. On any fictional or notional tank design, I'll be looking to see if the weight of the components are within these bounds. If they're not there had better be a damned good explanation.

The year is [year]. You are a [thing] designer working in/for [country/nation state/corporation]. The [things] of the rival [country/nation state/corporation] have recently *gotten meaningfully better in some specific way* and/or *the geopolitical and/or industry circumstances have significantly changed*. You have been tasked with designing a [thing] to meet the needs of this new and changing world! If that made you laugh, maybe you've participated in a design competition before, here or on another forum. I've been a contestant or judge five or six design competitions by this point, and I'd like to highlight a mistake I've seen people make often that I think could hurt your chances. And that is, designing something for the wrong time period, specifically designing something that is too early for the period in which the competition takes place. Quick: When you think about US rifles in World War II, what comes to mind? A lot if you would answer with the M1 Garand, I'd bet. If I went on another forum and started a "Design a Rifle: USA 1944" thread, I bet I'd get a lot of entries that took their cues from the M1 Garand - but the M1 wasn't designed in 1944, it was designed in the late 1920s. In attempting to "fit in" to the time period of the competition, they would have in fact submitted a design that is 15 years too late! The an appropriately dated entry would be something like a T25 Lightweight Rifle, which is associated mostly with the late Forties and early Fifties, but whose design began in the mid 1940s. Using the M1 Garand as a model for your 1944 design would result in something like a slightly refined Garand with a box magazine slapped on, putting you well behind the curve! The T25 was what 1940s designers thought the rifle of the future would look like. Keen SHitters will notice the joke about the M14 in the above paragraph. Tanks and other vehicles are the same way. The M48 is associated with the Vietnam era, but its development began in 1953. The Space Shuttle is associated closely with the 1980s, but design work on it began in the late 1960s, before the first man ever set foot on the Moon. The MiG-15 is associated with the Korean War, but Soviet jet fighter designers at that time were already putting pencils to paper on what would become the MiG-21. It's tempting to create a design that looks like it would fit right in to the battles we know and associate with whatever time period a competition covers. Yet, the real-world designers fighting those battles from their drafting tables were already imagining the next thing, and even what would come after that, in turn. Design competitions are just for fun, but in some ways they are also practice for the real thing, so don't get stuck in the past!

The idea for a design competition predates SH itself, actually going all the way back to the 2011-2012 timeframe on the World of Tanks North American Forum. Before the Exodus of 2014, there were several tank design competitions, two of which I entered. Earlier today, I found my entries to those competitions saved in various forms on my computer, and I thought I would post them here for people to reference moving forward. Entered in: Design a Tank - 1938 Germany The Early History of the Mittlerer Panzer Greif In 1936, as Heinz Guderian was writing Achtung – Panzer!, he was solicited by the Heereswaffenamt Wa Prüf 6 to create a specification for light, medium, heavy, and super-heavy tanks, as part of Germany's ongoing re-armament. The tanks then in development, the Panzer III and IV, were seen as adequate for future needs, but the purpose of Wa Prüf 6's solicitation was to gain a greater understanding of upcoming panzer technologies and tactics. Guderian's submission eliminated the heavy and super-heavy categories entirely, in favor of fast light and medium tanks requiring large engines and excellent suspensions. Wa Prüf 6 immediately began design studies on panzers to fill these needs, while still allocating some effort towards a heavy breakthrough tank design. Early panzer designs focused on improving the existing Panzer III, but a special division of Wa Prüf 6, the Spekulativpanzerabteilung, was tasked with pushing the limits of what was possible. One design, the Mittlerer Panzer K, was selected for further study. The original MPK design used a forged armor steel hull welded together into an elliptical shape, which the Spekulativpanzerabteilung determined would give the best internal volume to weight ratio, providing the best protection, but still maintaining the high power-to-weight ratio specified by Guderian's white paper. Armor at the front was 30mm thick, sloped at around 45 degrees, for the hull. The turret was a simple welded design, mounting the latest 5cm L/60 high velocity cannon, while the suspension was torsion bar similar to the Panzer III, but with more roadwheel travel. Sighting was with stadia reticles, and the tank was powered by a 300 horsepower Maybach HL 120TR, which gave 15 hp/tonne to the 20 tonne tank. As Spekulativpanzerabteilung improved the design, it morphed beyond recognition. To improve the cross-country performance, the suspension was changed to an early form of hydropneumatic suspension, with more roadwheeltravel, mounted in units bolted to the side of the hull. A tank's mobility, SPA reasoned, was greatly affected by its ability to stay in repair, and thus the modular suspension was developed. Due to marginal increases in weight, the engine was modified to mount a supercharger, increasing the engine power to about 400 horsepower. A mockup was built, but a prototype was never completed. In early 1938, Germany intercepted Russian plans to build a tank in the 100 tonne range, with upwards of 100mm of armor. A requirement was set to build, as quickly as possible, a panzer that could counter such a behemoth. SPA's medium panzer design suddenly went from a low-priority technical study, to a full procurement program. No guns in the German arsenal could reliably penetrate 100mm of armor at combat ranges without special ammunition, so immediately a new gun was sought. Eventually, it was decided that a Czechoslovakian artillery piece, the 8cm Kanon 37, would form the basis of the new medium tank's armament. Production was licensed from Skoda immediately, and it entered service as a towed anti tank gun in June of 1938 as the 7.65cm Kanone 38. The Kanone 38 differed from the K37 by firing the same projectiles as the 7.5cm KwK 37, which had been adopted a year earlier for German AFVs, but at nearly three times the velocity (900 m/s). Fitting this monster cannon to the MPK required a total redesign. The ambitious elliptical hull was kept, but everything else changed. The turret ring swelled to a (then-enormous) 175cm, and accommodated an advanced turret, mounting a reduced-weight variant of the 7.65cm PaK 38, the 7.65cm KwK 38 to sturdy forward-mounted trunnions, with low-profile recoil recuperators. The turret was a semi-elliptical tetrahedron shape, constructed from welded forgings, with dual stabilized, stereoscopic rangefinders for both the commander and gunner, something seen only on battleships at that time. The commander's cupola sported 360-degree panoramic periscopes with a Leiteinrichtung - or slaving device, to slew the turret onto new targets. Armor on the new turret consisted of eighty millimeters of frontal armor on the mantlet, with fifty millimeters all around protection. The hull armor's slope was increased to 60 degrees, and thickened to fifty millimeters to cope with the new generation of guns. The weight of the tank ballooned to 34 tonnes, and the suspension was completely redesigned as a new compound hydropneumatic/Horstmann design, called Schwebesystem, which utilized 60cm wide tracks. The old 400 horsepower turbocharged Maybach was not deemed sufficient to power this new tank, and so the suspension was lengthened by a roadwheel to accommodate the new Jumo 250 engine, a two-stroke turbocharged diesel, which produced 650 horsepower. Transmitting this power to the roadwheels was a brand new compact Merritt-Brown-derived transmission, with an automatic planetary gearbox, which allowed the tank to steer in place, as well as travel in reverse at 30 km/h. Upon an early prototype demonstrating this ability, Guderian exclaimed "sie bauen es!" - "build it!" The first prototypes of the newly renamed Mittlerer Panzer Greif rolled off the line in January of 1939. These new panzers were the last to be produced by Germany by the old method of batch production, and as a result, each was slightly different than the next. Full rate production would begin once testing was concluded in August of 1939, at the brand new WPW plant in Obendorf. Specifications, Mit.PzKpfw. V Greif Ausf. A: Dimensions Weight: 34 t Length: 6.95 m Width: 3.00 m Height: 2.85 m Armament Main armament: 7.65 cm KwK 38 Caliber length (KwK): 55 Tube length (KwK): 4.053 m Tube life: 500 shot Secondary armament: 1 × MG 34 Cannon ammunition: 45 MG ammunition: 2700 Armor Upper Hull: 50 mm / 60 ° Lower Hull: 30 mm / 45 ° Rear Hull: 25 mm / 90 ° Hull Roof: 20 mm Hull Floor: 20 mm Turret Mantlet: 80 mm / 90 ° Turret Front: 50 mm / 90 ° Rear Turret: 50 mm / 75 ° Turret Roof: 20 mm Mobility Engine: Jumo 250 six-cylinder turbocharged opposed two-stroke diesel, 650 hp Displacement: 16.63 L Gears (F / R): 7/5 Power to weight ratio: 19.2 hp / t Top speed: 55 km / h Fuel storage: 720 l Reach: 525 km (road), 350 km (off road) Track width: 65 cm Leichter Panzer IV (The writeup for this one appears to have vanished into the aether, but I do recall that it was armed with a short 7.5cm gun and an autocannon!) Entered in: Design a Tank - NATO 1949 NATO Medium Tank Concept: License-produceable medium tank "kit" By 1949, it had become clear that not only were tensions between the Warsaw Pact and NATO going to escalate, but that Soviet-aligned countries were actively readying for a full-scale conventional conflict. Because of this, the then-new civilian Operations Research Office was tasked with development of new weapons to be proliferated throughout - and, if possible license produced by - NATO member nations. The Armored Vehicles Team of the initiative, which was dubbed Project FOUNDRY, contained a scant seven members who began brainstorming ideas for a cheap, easy to produce, and eminently maintainable NATO-wide tank. Such a tank, it was reasoned, would not need to necessarily be the standard and only fighting vehicle of all NATO forces, but would allow less industrially capable NATO nations to defend themselves independently, as well as member nations who so chose to fast-track development of their own customized versions of the basic vehicle, without need for multiple lengthy, independent, and redundant tank development programs. While many concepts were explored, the one that gained the most traction was for a generously roomy welded chassis, with standardized turret ring dimensions, so that turrets and hulls could be exchanged at the depot level. Running contrary to current Army thinking, which emphasized small hulls with advanced, efficient transmission layouts, the concept had a large hull rear, supporting space inefficient, but widely available automotive components. As the AVT refined the design, they worked closely with British and American automotive engineers to try and create a design that could easily be adapted for the different automotive components then available, and projected. The design was intended from the outset to contain at least the British Meteor engine, and the Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission used in the Centurion. Because of this, the tank could not be made very much smaller than the Centurion, but this was deemed acceptable. The hull design received the most attention initially, and design of the turret and armament initially languished. The AVT had to solve, satisfactorily, the problem of producing specialized fighting vehicle components - the gun, turret, and sighting systems - in a variety of nations. Eventually, it was decided that the facilities in more developed countries, such as the US, Britain, France, and Germany, that could produce armed turrets and rings for all users, to be shipped abroad and mated to locally produced hulls. One further problem facing the AVT was ensuring the transportability of the new tanks by the various trucks, ships, and railcars that were in use at the time by member nations. The solution was to limit the weight of the new tank to 40 tonnes, enabling it to be transported by the majority of surplus wartime infrastructure. The resulting hull design was highly convergent with, but distinct from the British Centurion tank. The armor plates were to be rolled, heat-treated, and cut to shape by industrially capable member nations with the industrial capacity, and then shipped along with automatic welding equipment, if needed, to member nations for assembly. Each welded part assembled together using dovetails - like a cardboard model - to improve the strength of the welds, allowing for somewhat expedited welding practices. The turret ring race and other senstitive contact areas were finished before the plates shipped. When assembled, the hull used a series of mounting rails for engine and transmission, which approximated very nearly the modern "powerpack" concept, albeit in a much less space-efficient form. The driver's position was accommodating, with appreciable space as well as adjustable controls and seating, and power-assisted steering levers and shifter. Armor on the hull consisted of a two three-inch plates joined at a 60 and 45 degree from the normal, attached to side plates two inches thick set at an angle of twelve degrees, like the Centurion. Top and bottom armor plates were one inch thick, while the rear armor plate was 1.5" thick. Like the Centurion, there was provision for .25" thick standoff plates mounted to the side of the hull, encasing the suspension. The hull was to be furnished with automotive components in-situ, so there was no standard engine or transmission. However, most studies were done with either the British Meteor engine and Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission of the Centurion, or the AV-1790 engine with CD-850 transmission of the T40 experimental US medium tank. Special mention, however, should be made of the design study of the tank using a Ford GAA engine and syncromesh transmission from an M4A3 Medium, intended as a backup configuration in the event that a member nation could not obtain more modern engines and transmissions. In this configuration, the mobility of the tank would be significantly decreased. Suspension was provided via a series of mounting points to which suspension elements could be attached. The "default" suspension configuration was for an individually sprung Horstmann derivative, but the design accomodated both single and bogied forms, as well as internal and external torsion bar, Bellevile washer, and volute spring methods of suspension. Track pitch, width, and design were likewise left up to member nations, but most early scale models used standard US 6" pitch 24" wide T81 tracks. Ancillary components, such as stowage boxes, lights, fuel tanks, and other minor details, were to be produced by the receiving nations, with stamping equipment and technical know-how distributed as needed. With all of the allowed variation, AVT realized it would need to publish an "engineering guide" to the new tank design, by early 1950 somewhat uncreatively christened the "NATO Medium Tank". This was accomplished with the first trials of automotive pilots, and "AN ENGINEERING GUIDE TO THE NATO MEDIUM TANK" was published by ORO on July 21st, 1950, and distributed to member nations. As the document only detailed the dimensional and production aspects of the tank, it was not considered a security risk, as member nations couldn't possibly leak any sensitive information from it that they did not already possess. By 1950, the first mild steel turret mockups had been created, giving two of the automotive pilots a "proper" look, even though they were no more combat capable than before. The turrets were cast in a single piece, and fitted with a 90mm high-and-low velocity gun based on the British 20 pdr but utilizing experience gained from the American 90mm series of cannons. It was determined that for member nations, the most common type of shot available would be solid APC shot. Because of this, a high velocity conventional AP round would be needed to deal with anticipated Soviet vehicles. The resulting round fired essentially the same T33 AP shot as the 90mm M3 gun, but at a much higher velocity of 3,200 ft/s. Testing revealed the round could penetrate a 100mm RHA plate at 60 degrees from normal 80% of the time at 500m. This was considered, initially, sufficient to defeat the anticipated armor of Soviet medium and heavy tanks. In order to allow more fragile, and thus higher capacity HE and utility (smoke) shells, ammunition was also developed for the gun that used a foam-lined, reduced volume case loaded with a smaller charge. This high explosive round produced 2,100 feet per second with its unique 22 pound shell, loaded with 2.6 pounds of Composition B high explosive. The technical data packages for these two types of ammunition were widely disseminated to member states, for their local production. The new 90mm gun was also compatible with any projectiles for the older M3 series of cannons, including HEAT and HVAP. Further, it was expected that the cannon would serve as the basis for a new 100-120mm gun, designed to fire a new generation of HEAT and APFSDS projectiles. Also included with the armament were three unity periscopes for each crewman, a single-plane stabilization system for the main gun, and a gunner/commander cowitnessing system. The turret had two ready racks of five rounds a piece, with additional ammunition stowage planned to be in the floor of the vehicle, and adjacent to the driver. The turret was cast with 3.5-3.6" all around armor, improving to six inches at the front. A large, wide mantlet/gun shield of 6" thick was provided, partially to help balance the gun in its cradle. The turret ring was 74". NBC protection was available through a "kit" modification that was distributed to member nations upon request. Specifications, NATO Medium Tank: Crew: 4 Dimensions Weight: 39.4 t Length (Hull): 7.2 m Width: 3.4 m Height: 3.05 m (without roof MG) Armament Main armament: 90mm T104E3/M56 Caliber length: 62 Tube length: 5.60 m Tube life: 500 shot Secondary armament: 1 × M1919, M60, MAG, MG3, etc GPMG Cannon ammunition: 65 MG ammunition: 3200 Elevation: +25/-12 Penetration with T53 Shot, 10.9 kg at 976 m/s: 100 m: 22.2 cm 500 m: 20.0 cm 1000 m: 17.9 cm 2000 m: 14.3 cm Armor Upper Hull: 76.2 mm / 30 ° Lower Hull: 76.2 mm / 45 ° Rear Hull: 38.1 mm / 90 ° Hull Roof: 25.4 mm Hull Floor: 25.4 mm Turret Mantlet: 152.4 mm / 90 ° Turret Front: 152.4 mm / 90 ° Rear Turret: 90 mm / 90 ° Turret Roof: 50.8 mm Mobility Engine: Depends on variant, often AV-1790 w/ CD-850 transmission or Meteor with Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission. Variant with Ford GAA and syncromesh transmission also trialled. Displacement: Depends on variant Gears (F / R): Depends on variant Power to weight ratio: Depends on variant Top speed: Depends on variant Suspension: Depends on variant Fuel storage: Depends on variant Range: Depends on variant Track width: Depends on variant

STURGEON'S NOTE: THIS IS JUST FOR FUN, DON'T TAKE IT TOO SERIOUSLY. Toxn's note: what he said. The in-character stuff is just to reflect how these sorts of proposals end up getting bloated all out of proportion as conflicting requirements get tacked on by committees. I'll also try to provide clarity on the requirements themselves as we go along, so ask away. With a slew of regional conflicts threatening to metastasise and military expenditure rising for the first time in decades, military planners are once again pondering the role of AFVs on the modern battlefield. Recent conflicts seem to indicate that armed forces may be faced with lengthy conflicts in urban and peri-urban areas - places where tight confines and large numbers of anti-tank weapons have resulted in attritional warfare. In other areas, more open terrain has favoured the use of man-portable ATGMs against armoured elements. Finally, there has been a long-standing trend towards the use of IEDs and, on the other end of the scale, ever more sophisticated autonomous and semi-autonomous platforms as methods for inflicting casualties upon mechanised and armour forces. These aspects, when combined with a long-standing trend towards more heavily armed and armoured IFV variants, have potentially created a niche for a class of AFV optimised for general combat rather than specific anti-armour or scouting operations. This class of AFV should ideally be air-transportable or air-deployable using existing transport aircraft, be capable of high mobility and survival against infantry-borne weapons, and should be capable of tackling other armed vehicles (up to and including AFVs of a similar configuration) as well as providing infantry support. Other considerations would include the use of the chassis as a basis for a number of specialised variants, the ability to upgrade and retrofit the design during its life cycle and, of course, the cost of the vehicles themselves. As the head of a design team working within a massive defence conglomerate, your task is to come up with a design to pitch to defence departments around the globe. Your basic requirements are as follows: Must be capable of protecting against small arms from all aspects, and must be capable of withstanding 20-30mm autocannon fire across the frontal arc. Must be capable of engaging and defeating existing AFV designs (not including modern MBTs) at modern combat ranges. Must be air-transportable using existing transport aircraft (preferably AC-130 or equivalent) in either a ready-to-run or partially disassembled state. Must be capable of defending against at least one strike by man-portable anti-tank weapons, including ATGMs Must include weaponry or equipment for engaging with dug-in infantry in urban areas Must be capable of defending against mines, roadside bombs and IEDs Must be highly reliable, including servicing at local depots. Must cost the same or less than equivalent systems (around $4 million per unit maximum) Must be capable of off-road travel Finally, the design must use, wherever possible, existing components and processes in order to minimise development time. As our company specialises in armour arrays (including composites and the like) and electronics, some leeway will be allowed in terms of the armour package and electronic systems. Our extensive contacts within the defence sector mean that any weapon system currently being developed or fielded may plausibly be integrated with our product. Advanced requirements are as follows: May be capable of surviving multiple hits by heavy autocannon (40-60mm) across the frontal arc May be capable of engaging low-flying aircraft and helicopters May be directly air-deployable from existing transport aircraft May be capable of surviving multiple strikes from anti-tank missiles (of all classes) from any angle May include only COTs components May be capable of being serviced in the field. May be in the form of a family of vehicles sharing a common chassis May cost significantly less than equivalent systems (under $3 million per unit) May be capable of extreme off-road travel, including across anti-tank ditches and the like Designs, including at least a picture, description and list of attributes, should be presented by the end of April 2016 for evaluation by a panel of experts. The winning design team will receive a small prize (cash and in-game currency for one of a number of games discussed on this forum) and the adulation of millions of imaginary fans. Good luck! IMPORTANT OOC NOTE: The in-character post is sort of supposed to be maddening, as it reflects the tendency to propose a lightweight expeditionary vehicle (the absolute requirements viewed loosely) and then have everyone shove more and more stuff in until it turns into an MBT with an autocannon on top. The absolute versus optional requirements (some of which simply cannot be reconciled) indicate this. I advise the contestants to look at the trends (including real-life ones that I may not have examined in any detail) and pick their guiding philosophy - bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a vehicle for infantry support and general combat against anything smaller than an MBT. From there you should try to fulfil all of the absolute requirements (some leeway is allowed) and then argue the optional requirements as needed. Above all - have fun!

Dear [iNSERT NAME OF COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE HERE], Congratulations! Your company has been selected to partake in a competition to design an aircraft for the Republic of Kerbalia. The competition will be in the form of a fly-off, with entrant designs being assessed relative to each other and the current front-line multirole fighter of the Republic (specifications included in data pack attached hereto). Should you choose to partake in this process, initial development funds of up to 40 000 Kerbalians will be made available to you. Technological limitations being what they are, the use of speculative engine designs (SABRE et al.) will not be accepted as a means of achieving competition goals. The aircraft submitted must be of the multirole fighter type, with the ability to perform a variety of missions while still being able to outfight current aircraft on a 1-to-1 basis. Significant leeway will, however, provided as to the details of the design. If required, a flyable example of the current front-line aircraft will be provided for internal comparison. Submissions must include, at minimum: - A name and internal design number (a prototype designation number will be assigned) - A full list of specifications - A background and detailed description - One or more images of the submission We wish you the best of luck with your undertakings in this regards. Yours Sincerely, Lotho Kerman Head Company Wrangler, Department of Defence, Republic of Kerbalia