Lord_James

I’m sure a lot of you have had similar experiences:

I found an interesting doc on DTIC, about the performance of DU alloy, long rod penetrators at high velocity (>2000m/s). https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a236191.pdf in brief, it states DU is noticeably better than tungsten alloy rods below 2000m/s, but above that velocity, their penetration seems to converge (for a given penetrator design). I thought DU performed best at lower velocity, and WHA maintained its performance at high velocity - or, at least, that’s what I heard. Would this mean that if the 120mm L/55 users stopped being hippies and used DU rods, they would have better performance? Is there something else going on (I remember something about DU ‘self sharpening’ at ~1600m/s or below) that makes DU less suitable for high velocity long rods? Is the ‘Ban DU Weapons’ crowd so strong that they can handicap the military of some countries by forcing them to use sub-optimal materials? Also, the Ballistics Research Laboratory has (or had) a 120mm “Double Travel” gun with a barrel length of 9.4m (L/78), and all I want in life is to see that behemoth slapped on a Uralmash-1 (Su-101) like tank, and test fired

My new addiction: https://www.satisfactorygame.com/ factory building and management game, made by the same people who made goat simulator! Looks good, plays pretty good (it is alpha, though), and is surprisingly satisfying (forgive the unintentional pun) to get everything properly running. Would recommend at least a look at it.

Would Jordanian armored vehicles go in this thread, or just the general AFV thread?

Hope this is the thread to post: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a637030.pdf “Dwell, interface defeat, and penetration of long rods impacting silicon carbide”.

@N-L-M, is alumina, aluminum carbide, boron ceramics, or other types of silica ceramics available for armor?

I think we might also be experimenting with composite side armor because we also have more than ~60 tons to work with. I’m sure if you told tank designers that they could have a 120 ton vehicle, they would armor the hell out of every possible surface.

New pics of updated Chassis: I moved the driver up 750mm, which allows me to move the turret forward a little bit, or increase the thickness of the forward turret array... or maybe both. Unfortunately, this means I can no longer vent exhaust out the port sponson, so the floor exhaust opening has been widened to accommodate. The hull is 40mm wider (the sponsons and tracks will be reduced by a similar length, to keep the width requirements), and the place for the rear idler and track storage were added (each box can hold at least 4 track links). This is to increase the turret ring diameter, and comfort for the turret crew. Added the 8th road wheel back on, and other changes will be slightly reduced road wheel diameter. There is also a new grill, just above the engine, for additional air flow; it is composed of 4 layers of 25mm wide bars, with composition: 20mm RHA 20mm FHA 20mm FHA 20mm FHA each with a 20mm air gap between them (reference picture 3 in the spoiler for details). the 155mm gun is giving me a little trouble, being so damn big. I might downsize to a 140, but I would prefer the 155 is I can make it work.

You can see the bearings and their tracks near the front and rear of the main body. Bah, requires dosh to read. Though, I did find a free one, that covers pretty much the same topic https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327940101_Mechanism_of_hermetic_single-cell_structure_interfering_with_shaped_charge_jet @N-L-M, is this technology accepted for use?

I cannot, for the life of me, find the document about fluid filled armor on this forum, DTIC, or the internet at large. I remember it describes storing fluids (could be fuel, like a gas tank, or something else) in long, thin containers and when struck, the shockwaves from the projectile are transferred through the fluid, reflected off the container walls, and erodes the penetrator via hydrodynamic ram effects by the fluid. The only thing I found on DTIC was a study: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/848937.pdf Which does remark, in the conclusions, that smaller cavities of fluid (as well as using non-Newtonian fluids) could produce better results. If anyone knows where that study is, I would appreciate it. My my idea is for the side armor around the engine: it would be composed of hexagonal tubes, 50mm between opposing faces, and vertically arranged, so when looking down, it looks like honeycombs. After 2-3 layers, there is a back plate, then a real fuel tank, then the engine.

I started drafting up the IFV and APC versions: APC (SH-1A) Crew: 4 + 10 Armament: either 23mm + 7.62mm machine guns in a low profile turret, or a 107mm recoilless rifle and 7.62mm coax (and 12.7mm spotting gun), with below armor reload. The SH-1A is a modified version of the SH-1T MBT, trading the large turret and ammo racks for a small, 2 person turret and 10 dismount seats. It still incorporates the same armor cavities, but with a lighter array utilizing more spaced components and no special materials (non steel). The crew consists of the Driver, the Gunner and Commander in the turret, and a thespian assistant who removes spent MG and autocannon shells, or loads the RR if that turret is equipped. A third turret is in the works, similar to the RR turret, equipping an ATGM with under armor reload potential. IFV (SH-1V) Crew: 5 Armament: 2x 45mm autocannons (SM-7 or NS-45 derivatives / maybe 4 if I think I can fit them) + 4x 107mm RRs + 107mm mortar (same as SH-1T) + 2x 7.62mm MGs (coax and commander’s MG). Also based off the SH-1T, the SH-1V is a heavily armed supplement vehicle to armored forces in the DPRC. Fulfilling a role similar to the ancient BMPT, it is designed to assist infantry and act as heavy armor in urban or mountainous environments, and to provide rapid and heavy suppressing fire for armor groups moving through hostile terrain. The crew consists of a Driver, Gunner and Commander in the turret, and 2 thespian assistants to clear the vehicle floor of spent casings, and to reload the externally mounted RRs. As ATGMs mature, the RRs can easily be replaced with missile systems on a volumetric basis (probably 2 RRs to 1 ATGM). Also in the drafting phase are an AA variant, an artillery variant, a heavy mortar variant, and CiC, medevac, CBRN, radio relay, EW, and others. PS. SH-1(x) is the company designation for the vehicle; military designations will be given when/if these vehicles are accepted for service. PSS. I’ve been either too busy, or unable to access the internet for the past couple of days, which has lead to delays. But I should be getting back on track later today or tomorrow, now that all of the shit is out of the way.

I’m ~80% sure this is photoshopped, as I cannot find anything else about this vehicle, and the 100mm loading system would need a major overhaul to fit in the Rooikat hull. But, I could always be wrong.

I liked Republic Commando, my only real criticism (at the time) is that some enemies are just too tank-y, especially “elite” enemies like Super Battle Droids, which, iirc, could eat 2 whole magazines worth of ammo if you’re not careful.

Now that it doesn’t feel like I have an ice pick slowly being pushed into my head, I can elaborate. My engine is closer to the Nomad 2, except the axial compressor is literally the super and turbo chargers. After the compressor, it splits into the ignition air ducts and cooling air ducts. After the cooling air ducts make their way through the engine, they reconnect to the exhaust, then go through the power recovery turbines. The supercharger is used at all speeds, and instead of disconnecting at high speeds, it “shifts down a gear” and acts as a second compressor stage to the turbo. I might have mixed up dual clutch and CVTs, but yes I want a CVT. I think I’m going to have 5 gears: continuous forward, high torque forwards, neutral, high torque backwards, continuous backwards.

@Militarysta, in each of your pictures, there doesn’t seem to be a hole, but a cavity for armor / ERA. Unless the bottom of that cavity is really thin (which I doubt, since it’s suppose to support armor / ERA), it wouldn’t perform like a blowout panel. One question, though: does it say anywhere that it has a blast door near there? It doesn’t look like there is an any of those pictures or Lav’s diagram.

Pretty sure, the super charger is run via a mechanical system, and the turbocharger is powered by one of the turbo scavengers. Not quite, but it’s not suppose to vary past 1600-1850 rpm. More precise control? Idk

Care to read this thread from start to finish?

I realized, while writing this, that those pictures could not have been from IDEF... anyway, it’s nearing the end of April, and my excitement for close-up pictures of a developing arms industry’s toys is rising! Good luck and have fun while there! And don’t get arrested for getting to close to the vehicles

On another thread, some people came to the conclusion that the titanium was not used as armor, but as mounting brackets for the NERA arrays. Due to the problems you mentioned, it would be illogical to use Ti as armor, but it would be completely sound to use it to support the armor. Lol, quora... Interesting though, I always assumed BRL-1 (Ballistic Research Laboratory; where the armor was made and tested) was the M1 array, and the M1 IP and M1A1 had the BRL-2, since their volume was similar, if not the same, but I could easily be wrong.

Alright, so, the D18 engine (and its transmission / intakes / exhaust), I’m theorizing as such: the D18 itself is a 2-stroke, 18 cylinder, opposed piston, uniflow scavenging, turbosupercharged, turbo-compound, mixed cooling, diesel engine limited to 1850 rpm per shaft, and 2000hp; this should give a hp/t of 23.5 for an 85 tonne vehicle, and 22.2hp/t for a 90 tonne vehicle, which is pretty good if I do say so myself. The engine is placed in a similar location as my first picture (underneath the hump), with the turbo and super chargers above it, the transmission in the V shaped area between the lower and upper armor cavities, with other systems placed where I can fit them. The chargers are fed from intakes on the starboard sponson (and possibly the section of roof forward of the front propellant rack). These provide the air for ignition as well as cooling; cooling air ducts run along the piston tracks, both inside and outside, while ignition air ducts input from the outside of the engine. Ignition ducts may have a water/methanol system connected to them. Ignition air ducts also run through the liquid cooling system, functioning as a radiator and pre-warming the air. The liquid cooling system is a basic type using a water/glycol, water/betaine, castor oil based fluids, or other similar mixtures (just water if an emergency), with a pump circulating fluid from around the ignition air ducts, along the combustion chambers of the engine (both inside and out), and back to the ducts. Fuel is pumped from the tanks in the sponsons, underneath the crew compartment, and in 3 (or 4) forward fuel tanks and input through the middle of the engine. Fuel is typically 40-45 cetane diesel or bio-diesel. Exhaust is released from ducts on the outside of the engine, each with an expansion chamber for better fuel economy. 6 exhaust ducts (one row of pistons) merge into a single duct, where they pass through small power recovery turbines, (a la R-3350) each recovering 50-60hp, and connect to the turbocharger, the vehicle’s general electrical system and batteries, and a hydraulic assist on the crankshaft, separately. Afterwards, 2 ducts are taken through the bottom of the tank, through lightly armored pipes parallel to the tracks, and outputting along the rear 1/4 of the suspension, perpendicular and positively inclined to the tracks (so not to kick up excessive dust). The third exhaust is ducted into the port sponson, and exhausts horizontally, and to the rear, between the driver and the turret ring. The transmission is a semi-automatic, continuously variable transmission with “5 forward and 3 reverse” gears. By this, I mean the driver manually puts the transmission into a gear, but the transmission itself has different gears which switch automatically, to smooth out acceleration and power to the sprocket*. The first 2 forward and reverse gears are low speed, high torque gears, and the final 3 forward and last reverse are for higher speed. *There are 2 sets of gears: one set the driver controls, and the other is automatic via the transmission. The driver has his 8 manual, main gears, and the transmission has 10 automatic, intermediate gears. The driver inputs a gear, and the transmission automatically applies it’s gears in sequence. It looks like this, for speeding up: F1-1 F1-2 F1-3 ... F2-1 F2-2 F2-3 ... and so on. The transmission always reverts to its first gear when the driver switches his gear, and gears are ratio-ed so that the [X]-10 gear is similar to (but not the same as) the [X+1]-1 gear. This is to minimize lurching, making the ride smoother for the crew. There is also a 80hp 2-stroke, 1 cylinder opposed piston diesel APU mounted in the starboard sponson midway between the propellant rack and turret ring, which powers the electrical system when the D18 is off. Im also looking into OPOC, OP V, and a Wankel engine, but for now, it’s the OP Delta.

Because they did lie, A LOT! There were a whole 70 or so *Russians* fighting in DNR and no Armata tanks, unlike the “thousands of elite soldiers, and hundreds of Armatas” the Ukraine government was saying. Like the boy who cried wolf: no one will believe you when you are known as a liar.

Well, the D18-120 fits pretty well in the front of my tank: location is only preliminary, I'll optimize it better, later. Also, here's the new turret: yes, I know the mantlet is going to be big, but that's a given with a 6" gun. Completely off topic:

That’s just flavor I think initial torque is a more valuable thing to have when you’re 10+ tons; those super cars might have some awesome speed, but they also weight like 200kg or something silly. Diesel provides that high starting torque to get moving, which is also why (when not using a turbojet) many MBTs use Diesel engines (I think). Oh, my intake and exhaust are going to be through the sponsons (intake on the starboard, exhaust on the port). For cooling, I was thinking of oil cooling, with an optional water/methanol system. Anyway, I’ve found some funny engine designs, like axial internal combustion, wankel, and opposed piston, opposed cylinder. I’m really tempted to use a wankel or an opposed piston axial engine because I like exotic, niche designs.

The problem with ethanol as fuel is all the crunchies will try to drink it on a serious note, diesel has a higher energy density per volume than most fuels that have ethanol in them (from pure ethanol to E10 gasohol). Anyway, I was messing around with numbers and if I change: piston diameter = 120mm Stroke = 125mm 18 cylinders (3 banks of 6) 39 kW/L i would have an engine outputting ~1950kW (2600hp), but still be surprisingly compact. For reference, I could simply stack 3 Jumo 205s on top of each other and place them in the front section of my vehicle, and still have enough room for a transmission/drives and some random air/fuel ducts (though cooling the middle engine would be hard).

Is the 5TDF version of the 5TD engine available? Edit: Can we use the Napier Deltic (or similar) for our vehicles? Also, can I use polyurethane for insulation? Or are we limited to Urea-formaldehyde and asbestos? Edit 2: Ok, so, I know literally nothing about engines except "fuel and air go in, there is big boom, exhaust and heat come out" and during all that, power is generated. Well, in my general "smack-my-face-against-the-wall-and-see-what-happens" experiment style, I went for a 2-stroke, 21 cylinder, Turbosupercharged diesel engine similar in design on the Napier Deltic, with dimensions (for one bank) as follows: (technology is roughly comparable to the Jumo 205) 980mm height 257mm depth 1770mm width ~1.4 mT 14x 130mm diameter pistons 7x 390mm cylinders (195mm stroke) 36.2L ~35 kW/L or 1267kW (1700hp) total … but all that's for 1/3 of the intended engine. I'm not looking for a 5100hp behemoth powering my 85 ton tank (however funny that might be), so should I downsize my engine, or is there any other alternatives I can use? Or just use the linear opposed section I have now and screw the delta? This is only for the engine, not the chargers, or the cooling, or transmission and drives.