Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Xoon

Contributing Members
  • Content count

    347
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Xoon last won the day on September 21 2016

Xoon had the most liked content!

About Xoon

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

576 profile views
  1. Xoon

    Israeli AFVs

    Does this actually have to do with protection, or is it just for fashion? Because I feel a lot of armored car producers try to make their vehicles cool over practical in some cases:
  2. Xoon

    Israeli AFVs

    Does the vehicle have a reason to look so funky?
  3. Xoon

    Tank Layout

    There is really no point in having a transmission for a series hybrid electric tank. The PWM motor controller works as the gearbox, the gearbox would only cause a drop in efficiency and take up considerable space. All motors should be geared, as it is more efficient than adding poles to reduce the RPM and increase the torque. This is accomplished by the final drive. For wheeled death traps, it can be a pretty huge thing. Being able to remove the drive shafts under the crew compartment would mean a much lower vehicle. Being able to move the motors outside the chassis and inside the wheels would greatly increase space. Also, the vehicle can effectively torque steer. However, it comes at a cost. You can only fit a so and so big motor and reduction gear inside the wheel, limiting power. The motor and reduction gear is also more exposed to damage and the outside environment, leading to more wear and tear. Cooling can also be a issue. I would not expect more than 600hp combined. So no super heavy wheeled death traps.
  4. Xoon

    French flair

    I guessed it was Volvo Penta, since they had produced engines for tanks in the past, IKV 90 for example. The CB90 and CV90 shares engines by the way, as a example. But a Renault engine makes a lot more sense.
  5. Xoon

    Syrian conflict.

    I am curious, why do we see so many tanks in cities?
  6. Xoon

    European Union common defense thread

    "This obligation of mutual defence is binding on all EU countries. However, it does not affect the neutrality of certain EU countries and is consistent with the commitments of EU countries which are NATO members." I believe this is why Sweden signed it. Not sure what this line entails, but the only way of not affecting the neutrality of a nation, is that they can't promise to help. I am honestly not sure what the British were thinking with the "Norway model". They won't really get to take advantage of leaving the EU without another model. Unless they wanted to reduce immigration. Hopefully the EU will continue this development. A constitution better be made openly for people to critique and improve. There are so many ways a constitution can be exploited and used for evil. Simply copying the US constitution won't work this time. Part of the problem is the lack of protectionism for the member states. In my area for example, it is very common for a huge German business to sweep in and buy up a local company with a revolutionary new technology. Then move the company abroad, to Germany or Eastern Europe for cheaper labor. Then the local company is gone, the workers lose their job, and country loses another income source it has spent lots of resources developing. This really kills any industry development in the region, forcing us to import from abroad, which again, Germany which is one of our biggest trade partners, profit from. For the Eastern European countries, they get all their factories bought up by foreign companies. Essentially having everything bought up and dictated by foreign investors. A huge fear in Norway is that, large European companies could sweep in at buy up critical infrastructure like the energy sector and jack up the power cost. Ironically, the EU is extremely trade protectionist against outside members, meaning it conserves the companies that reside inside it, meaning the bigger companies in the more industrially advanced and technological advanced countries eat up the smaller ones in the smaller members without any competition from similar sized or larger companies outside the EU. As you said, nothing is free. Free trade creates large profits for the companies in the joining member initially, then it gets eaten by a bigger foreign company, killing local business. This is what the workers fear. While this is true, the US has a very good reason for keeping military presence in Europe. It makes a collective or regional less attractive (Nordic Defence Union, European Army). They provide protection for favorable trade deals and political support. It gives them political leverage in the countries in the affected countries, just watch when the US goes on another War on Terrorism or similar, right behind is the countries they provide protection for. We like to call them the coalition. If a country refuses, the US can pull out its military support, making the country vulnerable, and at the mercy of other regional powers (Russia for example, in the case of Europe). The fear is that the region loses any saying in laws and politics, and suffers economically as a consequence. This is a very sad truth. It would ease the tension in the Baltic sea and the killzone up in Svalbard. Though, the arctics are becoming increasingly more valuable and more and more nation are arguing over their claims. The idea was not to make them buffer states, but a large Neutral Union would make the Russians more at ease. Being trapped in the Baltic, or in at the Danish strait, or in North Sea encourages them to invade their neighbors to secure their core. Here is NATO's border with Russia. As you can see, they are completely boxed in: Blue= NATO. Light Blue= Possible Future NATO member. White= Neutral Orange= Russian Allies not forced to join a war with Russia. Here is the EU border with Russia, they in-boxing is even worse: Green= EU Yellow= EFTA/possible future EU members. Nordic Union, Russia suddenly has some breathing space in the North (economically), and the front line is only Latvia: Neutral= White Green= EU Orange = Russian Allies. Light Blue = Possible Future NATO. This is a great idea. This sounds like a good start. The biggest issue is the fear that the member country will lose control over the immigration into its borders. As long as the country can reliably handle it. Taking in too many only results in poor integration, which leaves many with poor language skills, poverty or homelessness. Also, refugees, as in people fleeing war, needing a asylum until the war or event in question is over, should not travel past several countries that give them asylum just to get to the richer welfare states. Equipment commonality is a good start. Fighters, ships, AFVs, infantry equipment etc. Probably the US or China.
  7. Xoon

    European Union common defense thread

    I am honestly very skeptical of the European Union. I love the idea, but it has several weaknesses that I can't ignore. Why hasn't anyone considered Sweden or Finland? Sweden has always been strictly neutral (ignoring their trade of course). They refused to join NATO, so why would they approve a European Army Alliance? Most EU members are a part of NATO, which are obliged to help any other member that is attacked. I assume the same would be for a European Alliance. This would break one of Sweden's core policies. Same goes for Finland, which will not join NATO, unless Sweden does, and I assume the same of a European Alliance. Post-war, Norway, Sweden,Denmark and Finland almost entered a Scandinavian Defense Alliance. However, because of Soviet influence on Finland, American influence on Norway, and Swedish neutrality, this failed. So I am not sure if EU will succeed. Though Norway is not part of the EU, we are part of the EØS/EFTA. Anti-EFTA and Pro-EU sentiment is growing. Some people want to leave EFTA, since they claim it controls too much of our trade and that we can benefit from controlling our own trade. Some people also feel it removes our sovereignty, because EU law supersedes national law. Simplified, it is a Brexit/Norxit question. On the other side, people want to join the EU, because they feel EFTA is basically like being a EU member without having a saying. They claim by becoming a fully fledged member, we can become more influential and profit even more from the trade with the EU. But most do not care, and are happy with the current situation. I for one am not very sure. The EU lacks unity, a proper leader and a solid economic system. Common issues people have seems to be: -Too much power around Germany/France. -Richer countries profit off poorer countries. -Lack of unity, no group identity, no nation building, people seem to scattered. -Lack of a known head of state, or government. People have no idea who leads the EU. The closest figure is Merkel. -Lack of consistency from politicians between countries. People don't trust politicians when they make grand promises in, for example France, while much milder suggestions in Eastern/Northern Europe. -Fear of imperialism. The EU for some feels like a power grab by larger European powers. People are afraid that agreeing will eventually lead to loss of sovereignty and and all power. -EU Immigration policy. -In the case of Norway, we have been the Danish sphere of influence until 1397-1814, the Swedish sphere of influence from 1814-1905, the English sphere of influence from 1905-1918, the German sphere of influence from 1918-1945, and currently under the American sphere of influence. Being transferred to the EU sphere of influence would not really be that attractive. I fun though experiment would be if Sweden,Denmark and Finland left the EU, and joined in a Nordic Union with Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Åland, Faroe Islands, Gotland and Svalbard. With combined economy, military and politics. Regarding the Baltic states (Lithuania, Estinoia and Lativa), I am not sure. Estinia has really tried to make itself a Nordic country, but it might crash with a European Union Army. Why this would be a fun though experiment is that a Nordic Union could declare Neutrality, acting as a huge (in size) buffer-state, and as a bridging state, improving relations between Russia and the EU. The same may be for the US and Europe, considering how relations are souring. Though not sure if this would ever happen. I wish for the EU to succeed, as long as it does not become the Franco-German union diplomatically annexing Europe.
  8. Xoon

    French flair

    Yes, it was what I was thinking. But wouldn't the electric motor give a much faster spool up time? Also, hooking it up the the main battery of the vehicle, it could use excess energy to power the motors, or use regenerative breaking the power equipment. Not necessarily, combining the power of the electric motor, with zero turbolag would be the best. Idea was to eliminate turbolag. But a electric compressor is also a great way of getting short bursts of power. What about a electrically assisted hyperbar turbo engine, with a electric starter/generator/regenerative break/electric motor. When the driver presses the accelerator, the electric motor in the turbo spools the turbo up to optimal RPM istantly, while the starter motor on the crankshaft provides high torque while the motor reaches its optimal RPM. The turbine helps the motor keep the turbo at optimal RPM. When the vehicle slows down, the excess energy in the turbo is scavenged, and the regenerative break recovers some of the energy and stores it in the battery. A exhaust scavenger system could also be used. When on overwatch, the turbine would power the equipment, and when one wants to silently change position, one can use the electric motor and battery for short, slow and silent movement.
  9. Xoon

    French flair

    Just out of curiosity, doesn't hybrids with electrically assisted turbochargers make the hyberbar engine obsolete?
  10. Xoon

    Tank Layout

    I was thinking about the fact that filling the wheels with water would reduce the effectiveness of the wheels, and the sandbags would weigh down the vehicle. Also about the psychological part, if the troops feel safe, then it is good enough makeshift measure. Reminds me of how the Norwegian Armed Forces used to sometimes fill the empty cavity in the doors of their cars with sand for extra bullet protection in the middle east.
  11. Xoon

    Tank Layout

    More mass to absorb the energy from the blast basically. To be honest, it sounds about as effective as track/concrete armor during WWII, or improvised slat armor in the Syrian Civil War.
  12. Xoon

    Tank Layout

    How does filling wheels with water act as a shock dampener?
  13. Xoon

    Tank Layout

    Has any design tried to simply make a huge shock dampener? I guess double hull bottom with air in between technically works as a pneumatic shock dampener, but has any hydraulic, hydro pneumatic or proper pneumatic shock dampeners been tried? So far it seems designers only use thick slabs of composite material, and some slope to direct away the explosions.
  14. Xoon

    Tank Layout

    I think this shape would be simple and effective: Belly is composed of two sloped plates, spaced apart with air between to work as a cushion. Preferably the plates would slope upwards until they are vertical, where they would be welded to the side armor. Either a cast or bent plate could be used. The underside of the sponsons are curved upwards and outwards to direct the blast away from the hull. Double hull could be used here, but I am not sure if it is worth it.
×