Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

N-L-M

Forum Nobility
  • Posts

    732
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Posts posted by N-L-M

  1. https://m.facebook.com/100007271371085/posts/2983147658604251/?sfnsn=mo

    The COV, a very rare vehicle we discussed here a while back, was in fact located in the Levant when I found it, and is now being transferred to Latrun to be put on display.

     

    And by a while back I mean over 2 years. How time flies.

    https://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1462-united-states-military-vehicle-general-guns-gvins-and-gas-turbines/?do=findComment&comment=158790

  2. The Koreans are likely to bid low in an attempt to get their foot in the door, and on the other hand the Leo can likely be had at a fairly low cost cause pretty much all the NRE is done and parts are produced in quantity. This means the Norwegians are likely to get a good deal either way.

    I wonder how much APS integration is important to the Norwegians, and how much the German integration of Trophy on Leo affects that. 

  3. I suppose if you insist on making a fool of yourself in public, we can only cooperate.


     

    15 hours ago, delete013 said:

    Where is it too thin?

    The belly, being 0.6" RHA with an extra 0.4", is not a single plate and will therefore not have nearly the stiffness of a single plate. The rest of the hull and turret structure, likewise, by using 0.8"-1" base plates onto which the thinner armor packs are tacked on, are all very thin for a vehicle of this weight. Especially when one uses a form of suspension which applies high bending loads to the hull sides, and a powerful gun applying high structural loads. The roof too, at 0.4" base with an extra box structure on top, leaves a lot to be desired.
    Stiffness scales with the cube of the plate thickness, and the allowable bending moment with the square. In this context, therefore, 2 thin plates, even if rigidly welded into a box structure, are not equivalent to one thick one.
     

     

    15 hours ago, delete013 said:

    My claims about the hull for mission kill are indeed wrong, for the crew compartment are right. The distinction between immobilised tank and crew killed was not specified, afaik. Maybe it is a common knowledge?

    Bottom is combined 1.25" in two layers. That is too thin for mine protection?

    No such distinction was offered because no such distinction was requested. The LFS does not look kindly upon this cavalier attitude to vehicle survivability.
    Also last time I checked 0.6" plus 0.4" with an air gap between them is less than 1.25" of steel, as well as being significantly less stiff as explained above.

    15 hours ago, delete013 said:

    What are growth threats?

    Cascadian 3.54" HEDP, Cascadian BGM-1 tandem ATGM, and Mormon 2"/4" tandem warhead. at various elevations.
    Kudos to @Fareastmenace for correctly guessing 2 out of 3, and being real close on the third.
     

     

    15 hours ago, delete013 said:

    I had MTU 873 (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/5713483/twelve-cylinder-diesel-engine-mb-873-for-heavy-mtu-shop) main block without turbochargers in mind (turbo would have to be relocated). This leaves about 8 inches of space to the side for some sort of connection with a gearbox of the size of Renk HSWL 295. None of the two are 60ies tech so 1000 HP is more realistic and still fulfills the requirements. The side arrangement is known from T-55 so I assumed it would be possible. Coolers are pushed into sponsons to each side, the 4 big black squares. None of this was exactly decided, but likely indeed too small for existing engines.


    The problem is not the concept of transversely mounted engines, but rather your desire to mount one alongside the driver. there is not enough width, this will not fit.
    Also, the named engine block will not fit by itself in a 1.5 m^3 engine bay you assigned to it. So again, the point stands, a lack of basic spatial reasoning skills.

    If however you mean to put a transverse engine in front of the driver as your model suggests, the question of where all the bits and bobs you've removed from the engine to squeeze it in go, and just how far back a driver has to sit to comfortably fit. The meaning for the length of the engine deck and the position of the turret ring are both clear and negative.
     

     

    16 hours ago, delete013 said:

    The tracks I used are also sturdier (and heavier) that the usual double pin tension tracks. Since mines are the easiest and likely the most common denial method in the imagined low-tech societies, it was hoped to give more robustness to the vehicle. The speed was limited for the purpose of compensation. I have no feeling how much tnt tracks can survive.

    Mines are a distinctly secondary concern to getting places in one piece in the first place, and mines will break single pin tracks too. The much higher wear of a single pin track limits the deployability of the vehicle, as well as its lower energy efficiency lowering both speed and range.
     

     

    16 hours ago, delete013 said:

    This gives 23.228 - (6.7" x 3 + 0,984" (plate thickness roof/bottom)) = 2.14" space.

    a roughly 0.5" top and 0.5" bottom are both very very thin, and even then there's not enough room for the kind of rack mechanism proposed. Shells don't just exist in midair, and the mechanism proposed does not have enough space for the kinds of rails needed. In fact, it hardly has enough space for a static rack. It's also worth noting that 4.7" Kraut, by its nature, has fairly fragile ammunition which needs to be babied to prevent it from falling apart, and so rack solutions such as that used on the IS-7 load assist are not very applicable. Even there, however, the structure to support the rounds was substantial:
    autoloader-1.jpg
    This of course being the closest system to that which you propose.
    One would note that the autoloader must support the ammunition in all the various accelerations and shocks of driving and combat, which with heavy ammunition means a substantial structure is required, one for which you left no room. This structure is also the reason why the proposed mechanized magazine reload is nothing but a joke.
    Perhaps by reducing the turret load to 20 rounds such a system could be contemplated, but again the need to protect the combustible case from damage during travel or handling would not be addressed at all.
     

     

    17 hours ago, delete013 said:

    There is enough space because the trunion is pushed forward over the turret ring. That would make it quite out of balance, so the cannon with the front axle is inbedded in a frame holding the rear axle and the second stage autoloader with the drum. The weight is distributed all the way back to the rear end of the turret ring with the 1200 lbs autoloader weight. That would further mean a lot of weight on the turret ring so the latter is about 10" broad. If that is feasible goes beyond my, let's say,0 engineering imagination. Might as well be wishful thinking but that is the price of of elevated reloading?

    2035092_800.png
    You appear to have missed quite a bit of the gun's length inboard of the trunnion. Note too that the breech ring extends down quite a bit from the cradle, and the breech block even more when open. All of which speak against the forwards trunnion location even if we ignore the 2-ais solution which is still a farce. The broadly accepted view in the business of armored vehicles is that returning to a loading elevation is perfectly acceptable, and that all-angle loading isn't all that important.
     

     

    17 hours ago, delete013 said:

     

    Why is that the ugly?

    Because it is neither good nor truly bad,  as the minimum requirement is met. And all must be divided up between the good, the bad, and the ugly.
    tumblr_mjoeczwgV11rylr5to3_400.gifv
     

  4. The claimed risk has always been that of a slippery slope plus reduced oversight.

    "If we export HEU reactors to our allies, what's to prevent the other side doing the same, and what's to prevent exporting of fresh fuel rods which may or may not be used for their intended purpose?".

    With current gen "life of ship" cores which do not need refuelling the question of spare fuel assemblies is no longer relevant, of course.

  5. FROM THE FILES OF LFS ORDNANCE DEPT.
     - Lone Free State proprietary information -
    9.18.2247 

    To: LFS central command

    SUBJ: RE: candidate heavy armored truck designs

    Kind sirs,
    In conclusion of the evaluation process, LFS Ordnance would also like to share its in-house design for consideration.

    It was assumed that the Ordnance Dept was being put together to meet the failure of industry to meet the old armored truck requirement, and that the new requirements were in addition to those of the previous competitive bidding process. As a result, we were somewhat surprised to discover an RFP had been sent out and that industry had not only replied with multiple proposals, many of them with caterpillar tracks rather than the usually accepted pneumatic tires! Nevertheless, attached is the Ordnance proposal for the heavy armored truck requirement, and Ordnance welcomes its new role as a more advisory body in the acceptance trials of the industry prototypes.
    See attached proposal.

     

     

    Ordnance Design Proposal HT-1 “Howling Retriever” Main Battle Truck

     

     

    pI7OMXY.png

    oE9TbdP.png

     

    xUDsWVI.png


    v6kN6Za.png

     

    Table of basic statistics:

    Parameter

    Value

    Mass, combat (armor)

    94,600 Lb (47,300 Lb armor)

    Length, combat (transport)

    369” = 30’ 9”

    Width, combat (transport)

    142” = 11’ 10”

    Height, combat (transport)

    114” = 9’ 6” to top of commander’s sight, 99” = 8’ 3” to turret body roof

    Ground Pressure, zero penetration

    1986 PSF NGP (25” tire width, 24” rolling radius on 55” dia tires for 28” length contact patch)

    Estimated Speed

    Up to 60 MPH on hard ground

    Estimated range

    526 Miles at 40 MPH (690 HP and 2,200 Lb fuel)

    Crew, number (roles)

    3-5 - Commander, gunner, driver, 2 optional dismounts/waist gunners.

    Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)

    5”/45 high pressure gun, 17 ready, 0-27 stowed 5”x24.6” semi-combustible case.

    Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)

    Coaxial .30 MG - 2,000 ready, 6,000 stowed
    Over-gun .50 HMG - 100 ready, 800 stowed
    Commander’s .30 MG - 600 ready, 1800 stowed

    4x .30 waist guns - 500 rounds ready per gun, none stowed, not intended for reloading in combat.

    Grenade projectors - 24 ready, 24 stowed 3” smoke grenade launchers may be armed with HE grenades for close in defense against infantry. WP smoke grenades also have substantial anti-infantry effects.

     

    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.     Appendix 1 - performance spec

    2.     Engine- V8 AVDS- 1200 - From the early-war documentary series Mad Max, it is clear that the optimal engine type for long range motorized conflict or patrolling is the V8. featuring intercoolers, large radiators, and a PTO at the rear to power the truck’s pneumatics, as well as a 650 Amp alternator, this engine is conservatively rated at 700 HP and not the 900 HP one would expect from cutting down a 1790 with the same mods. This is intentional, the de-rating intended to boost the reliability and lifetime of the engine, allowing longer ranged patrols with less frequent maintenance or replacement required. The air-cooling is likewise very reliable and very robust, being mostly immune to damage to the fans or fins, and potentially even to the loss of a cylinder or two.

    3.     Transmission - Copy of the pre-war Allison 4700 SP, uprated to 700 HP, with the coolant running through the radiators on the engine as is typical for AVDS engines. Also modified to have 2 reverse ratios rather than one, the combination of torque converter and a large number of gear ratios allows good torque delivery at any power output.

    The transmission connects to a 2-range transfer case, which also contains the AWD selector clutch. Rear wheels (axles 4 and 5) are always engaged, axles 1-3 selectable. Ranges and speeds are estimated as in low range, with those in high range being proportionally greater.

    The transfer case feeds the lengthwise drive shafts, which then in turn feed the (pneumatically lockable) diffs on each axle.

    Steering is accomplished via a pneumatic assist, feeding the second axle with Ackerman bars, with the rest being connected by H-style linkage bars as well as cross-bars to prevent the loss of one wheel preventing the steering of others.
     

    4.     Fuel - Diesel, approximately 2,200 lb, stowed in the front hull left behind an 0.4” bulkhead, and in the engine compartment under the V engine. Fuel is the lifeblood of the vehicle’s mobility, and is therefore stowed entirely under armor yet also separate from the crew. Range is estimated as 526 miles in low range, using the formula for tracked vehicles as requested. It is however noted that a good rule of thumb is that tracked vehicles have half the fuel efficiency of a wheeled vehicle at the same weight and power, so actual range will likely be much greater. Being behind an armored bulkhead, the front fuel tank can also participate ballistically against threats which make it through the frontal armor or through the wheel well gap in the frontal arc. In such a case, the rear engine compartment tanks should provide enough emergency range to get out of trouble.

    5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.
    The powerpack, featuring the engine, transmission, cooling, and pneumatic system, slides out on rails around 45” before lifting, to clear the dismount compartment tunnel the transmission is located in.
    Air filtration is located in the left large sponson box, along with 4  6T size 12V batteries, with the right large sponson box featuring a small 15 HP APU also driving the compressor for the crew’s AC. 

        Engine features a pneumatic start feature for high starting reliability.

    6.     Suspension - 10x10 Double wishbone with twin coil spring suspension on large off-road tires, featuring a travel of 10” jounce (in addition to additional tire compression), ground clearance of 15” minimum at the wishbones, 28” to the center of the V-hull, mounted to hull outriggers stiffened by the driveline components themselves.

    7.    CTIS fed off truck pneumatic system for best suiting the ground pressure to the terrain.

    Survivability:

    1.    Appendix 1 - performance spec

    2.     Appendix 2 - armor array details

    3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks
    A. The armored truck features an extremely low profile in firing position.

    2ZcdKXg.png
     

        B. The armor is fully modular, allowing both easy replacement of damaged modules, as well as easy future upgrades.

        C. All flammable materials other than the optional stowed ammo are separated from the crew behind blast bulkheads.

        D. The design features very thick roof armor, to help defend against valley ambushes, mountain combat, indirect fire, air attacks, or the like.

        E. The ability to dismount a scout section of 2 men to scout ahead of the vehicle in close terrain or beyond cover allows the vehicle to avoid situations it may otherwise have blundered into. It is suggested that should platoon or larger formations be used, that a mix of gun-trucks and troop-trucks be employed for an optimal carrying capacity of both men and ammunition to be achieved.  

        F. The side doors both allow dismounting under fire and quick resupply and return to the fight.

        G. Dedicated waist gunners offer a much more comprehensive ability to lay down suppressive fire along the flanks than alternatives.

        H. The thick bottom, V-shape, and extreme standoff offer very good protection against mines and IEDs.

        I. All equipment is mounted to the sides or roof, not the floor, to prevent whiplash from mines.

        J. Driveline is immune to the loss of any single wheel, and likely all 2-wheel - loss combinations.

        K. Sponson boxes are made of 0.4" HH, to protect both their contents and the wheels from small arms fire and fragmentation threats.

        L. Large quantity of smoke or HE grenade launchers (24+24 for 4+4 salvos of 6). Fired from the commander’s position. 

           M. Sufficient electronic overhead to accept warning systems as well as softkill and potentially hard-kill active protection means when those mature. It is not seen as necessary to mount such a system yet, as current threat weapon systems are not SACLOS. 

    Firepower:

    A.    Weapons:

    1.     Appendix 1 - performance spec

    2.     Main Weapon-

    a. Type: high pressure, long recoil stroke smoothbore with vertical sliding breech.

    b. Caliber: 5” L/45 

    c. ammunition types and performance:

        1) DU slug, steel body, spool sabot, subcaliber fin, APFSDS. The performance of this round cannot possibly be worse than that of the 3BM22 of yore, boasting 17” of penetration at 1.25 miles. Likely, the performance is substantially better, but even if not, the gun is sufficiently powerful that substantial growth potential exists to rounds more powerful than any fielded by the Kraut 4.7” gun from ages long forgotten. MV of at around 6,000 ft/s.

        2) Multi purpose HE, featuring a hardened body capped with a ballistic cap and pre-formed frag, nose fuze with 2 modes and a backup tail fuze. MV of at least 3,000 ft/s, with an all-up weight of 59 lb.
    Mode 1 - Super Quick - for use in the open against soft targets or very hard targets where penetration isn’t considered likely. In this mode, the tail fuze acts only as a backup.
    Mode 2 - Point Detonating Delay - for use against semi - hard targets such as bunkers, lightly armored trucks, and troops in cover. In this mode the nose fuze is disabled and only the delay tail fuze acts, to detonate only after penetration or ricochet.
    As a future growth option, a selectable time fuze is proposed.

    HEAT ammunition is not considered worth the effort, as it is expected that any targets resistant enough to the HE round will also feature a reactive armor kit serious enough to render such a round moot.
     

    d. Ammo stowage arrangement- 17 ready in autoloader in turret bustle blowout compartment, up to 27 stowed in fire-resistant sleeves in dismount compartment instead of dismounts. Spare MG ammo stowed in spaced armor pockets along turret roof sides, and inside turret under crew seats and floor.

    e. FCS - Fully independently stabilized gunsights, with “3-switch” style firing, with gun hydraulically stabilized in closed loop via gun resolver. Hydraulics for gunnery and autoloader live in turret bustle, under the autoloader, with only thin lines running into the fighting compartment. Commander’s independent fire control cupola, featuring stabilization piggybacked off the turret stabilization, and laser rangefinder. Commander has override ability and controls.
    Gunner’s sight features dual channel (space claim for thermal optics when they are ready), 2-axis stabilized mirror, plus laser rangefinder and 1X periscope forwards. 

    f. Neat features:

        1)  The main gun features a very high max elevation of +30 degrees, to better aim at targets in annoyingly high places, like mountain passes.

        2) Autoloading and independent stabilization allow true fire-on-the-move capability.

    3.     Secondary weapons.

    a. Coax .30. Rigidly tied to the main armament, internally operated, can hot-swap barrels or be reloaded (by the gunner). 

    b. Overhead .50. Rigidly tied to main armament, externally loaded but fired from within the vehicle.

    c. Commander’s .30  MG - fired from within the cupola, fed from 600 round banana box above the periscopes behind the hatch.

    d. Waist MGs - 4, servo-driven and controlled either by the waist gunners via joystick, periscope, and tracer, or by driver, via automatic sweep in traverse and elevation using limit switches (as featured in the documentary Breaking Bad). 500 rounds each, to be reloaded out of combat, likewise limit switch limits may be set out of combat.

    e. WP or HE 3” grenades in the smoke grenade launchers for immediate, close-in, destructive fire in a 60 deg arc. Fired from the commander’s position in salvos of 6.

    f. Dismount weapons.
    Typically, scouts are equipped with self-loading rifles or auto-rifles, including scoped variants, but are also capable of operating most infantry weapons, including dismounted machine guns from the vehicle. The ability to provide fire and maneuver in conjunction with a base of fire laid down by the parent vehicle allows the solving of usually complex tactical situations.

    4.     Appendix 3 - weapon system magic

    B.    Optics:

    1.     Primary gunsight:

        Type: 2 axis, independently (electrically) stabilized mirror head, 2-channel, with integrated LRF and 1X direct vision periscope. Due to lack of space in the turret, there is no direct extension for the commander to see through, for the thermal sight a repeater will be installed in the commander’s position.

        Second channel is currently occupied by a 2nd-gen I2 device, to be replaced by thermals as soon as possible.

    2.     Commander’s independent sight:

        Part of the FCS cupola, featuring single channel day/ I2 optics (with potential thermal upgrade down the line), stabilized by piggyback off the turret gyro unit and a coarse resolver around the cupola ring, intended to balance cost and quality. Solution is unlikely to be useful for long range gunnery, but sufficient for close range gunnery and for selecting targets for the gunner to interrogate and engage with his superior optics.

    3.    Commander’s peripheral periscopes:

        Give the FCS cupola good all-around vision when buttoned down, especially over the right of the turret.

    4.     Gunner’s peripheral periscopes:
    Give the gunner a good view over the left, (both a bit forwards and a bit aft of 9 oclock), of the turret when buttoned down, complementing the commander’s field of view.

    5.     Driver’s periscopes:

        Positioned at the edge of the 15 degree slope, give the driver a good field of view in front of the vehicle with few obstructions. Center periscope may be equipped with I2 devices for night driving. Periscopes for this position are of the split type, with one reflective surface in the hatch and the other in the hull to allow easier opening of the driver’s hatch.

    6.     Mk 1 eyeball. Commander’s hatch features an open protected position, and the angles of the roof allow him good all-around vision without having to stick his head too far out.

    7.    Waist gunner periscopes. These periscopes offer a good field of view to the front quarter of each side, especially upwards, to allow the waist gunners to direct their fire against targets in those likely ambush sectors.

    8.    Dismount scouts.

        Better than any other vision system, and capable of operating all infantry optical devices, as well as self-deploying short distances away to scout dangerous terrain before the vehicle advances.

    C.    FCS:

    1.     2-axis stabilized 5” L/45 smoothbore

    2.     Independently 2-axis stabilized gunner’s sight with dual channel operation and LRF

    3.     Independently stabilized commander’s FCS cupola with built-in MG

    4.     Electronic computer for controlling turret systems.

    5.     Servo drives for waist MGs

    6.     Appendix 3 - weapon system magic

    Crew comfort:

    1.     Air conditioning - a must have, particularly for the dismounts who have no hatches for use while in motion. Located in the right large sponson box along with the APU, feeding the crew compartment via the dismount compartment.
    Aircon also aids in maintaining the life of electronic components, an important feature for such an electronically-rich vehicle.

    With flow reversal, the aircon unit heats the crew compartment during the winter, with none of the dangers of a fuel-powered crew heater.

    2.     Drinking water. There is a tank for drinking water installed, between the frontal fuel tank and the turret basket.. With a capacity of 47 gallons, this allows the tank to operate in the desert and support infantry for extended operations without supply. Additional external stowage is of course possible. A heat exchanger with the driver’s aircon pipe allows drinking water below ambient temperature.

    3.     Diesel -powered burner stove for cooking hot meals outside the vehicle.

    4.     Height. All seats are adjustable and suitable to the above-average Texan recruit. There is sufficient headroom and elbow space in every crew position.

    5.     Fume extractor on the barrel greatly reduces the flow of gas into the fighting compartment when the gun fires.

    Upgradeability:

    1.     Suspension capable of taking both current weight and potential weight growth without excessive wear, though at higher ground pressure. Ground pressure can be reduced via CTIS at the cost of increased tire wear.

    2.     Armor upgradeability, as the armor is modular.

    3.     Powerpack allows upgrades as they become available, and rear wheel position allows extending the hull rearwards should more space be required in the powerpack compartment. 

    4.     Spare internal volume for more vetronics.

    5.     Frontally removable gun, allows easy maintenance and upgrading.

     

    Additional Features:

    1. Current development of variants includes:

    a. HAPC/HIFV (similar in concept to a heavy BTR-82A), as well as sub-variants for command, MEDEVAC, recovery, and other purposes.

    b. SPAA (Shilka-like turret, with twin 1.5” guns, and basic air search and ranging radars; plenty of space for more advanced electronics when available. Also useful for bullying mormonhideen off of mountains)

    c. Howitzer truck - Similar chassis, but with outrigger stabilizers, less heavy armor, and a larger turret with an unstabilized 6" gun capable of even higher elevation and an enlarged autoloader, for providing maneuver forces with the requisite heavy artillery support they may require.

    d. Medium armored truck - by removing much of the modular armor from the HR, substantial mobility potential is unleashed. It is recommended that a few vehicles be so used in long range patrols where heavy weapons are not expected to be encountered.

    2. The compressed air system connects to a pneumatic joint in the engine bay, to which air-powered tools can be attached. Current supplied tools as basic vehicle equipment include a pressure blower for cleaning air filters and the like, a pneumatic bolt-driver, a pneumatic jack, and other assorted goodies.

     

     

    Free expression zone:

    Certain members of the Ordnance design team are convinced that tracked armored trucks will never catch on, whereas others are convinced that tracks are the one true way whereas wheeled vehicles are inherently less survivable. Isolating these two groups has taken substantial development effort, as well as the classification of the term "death trap" as fightin' words.

     

     

  6. The LFS knows of reactive armors, and indeed the competition features them heavily. 

    The opponents of the LFS are however also aware of these armor types.

    The only kinds of target against which HEAT is more useful than plain HE is thick monolithic or spaced RHA, but any such target will also most likely feature some layers of reactive armor and so HEAT will not be useful to keep around.

  7. judge's opinions:

    For the sake of convenience, these are posted in order of posting in the submission thread.


    XG-48E3 Comanche Battle-cruiser
     

    Spoiler

    This tank was an interesting combination of features which were very sensible and some which left us scratching our heads.
    the good:
    -Sensible choice of good automotive components, with sufficient overhead for future growth or derating in case of developmental issues with stated engine power output.
    -extreme range
    -well suited to operation in dusty environments
    -Hull appears very solid
    -whole model is very well put together, especially the design logic of integration before armor design.
    -FCS looks very sensible on the whole
    -Very healthy gun with a lot of ammunition
    -healthy gun depression arcs
    -Load assist
    -Optics placement doesn't create a weak spot
    -lots of MGs

    the bad:

    -The protection doesn't meet the basic requirements - Mormon martyrtube to the hull sides will go through.
    -protection is only very marginally effective against future threats - Fairly good protection against horizontal attack by Cascadian 3.54" HEAT, but no real protection against tandem threats or diving threats.
    -Turret base structure is too thin, and likely will break apart as a result of the gun firing. Said thin base also limits the effectiveness of the reactive elements, as there's little there to soak up residual penetration. 
    the ugly:
    -the tank has nearly all the complexity of an autoloader yet still retains a man in the loop, where he could be done away with and the volume and weight freed up for other things.
    -Very complicated commander's sight, instead of simply putting the sight near the commander, where he may operate it directly.
    -Somewhat inconsistent armor, using cassette arrays with thin plates in some places and massive plates thicknesses in others.
    -It is somewhat unclear what purpose plain HEAT ammo serves over straight HE when every target for which it is relevant is likely to also be sporting ERA.
    -It is entirely unclear that there is enough space for the sheer size of the APU desired and a downgrade may be needed, but even a substantial downgrade in APU size would still be reasonable.
    -integral rather than modular armor packs limit upgradeability.
    -Turret corner guns obscure fields of view and are best given to commander and loader to operate.
    -flat turret roof is sub-optimal for fields of view for the commander, particularly off the left but also to the right.
    -HHA in the belly is likely worse than straight RHA as it's primarily a shock loading.


    Main Battle Tank, 2247, project names "Derebus" and "Derebus-M"
     

    Spoiler

    The Derebus, in both its variants, are fairly austere designs, with a few interesting features, which ended somewhat overtaken by the other submissions.
    the good:
    -good weight and ground pressure
    -reasonable quantity of ammunition, especially in 4" version.
    -Powerpack is a sensible choice, made mostly of sensible parts.
    -High-low mix is an interesting concept to apply to MBTs, especially given the kinds of fight the LFS is likely to get into.
    -Fuel is properly protected by armor
    -the turret flanks are fairly well "tucked in" behind the cheeks.
    -fully separated ammo
    the bad:
    -Turret appears to be poorly balanced with the enormous gun tunnel and gun in the front as well as the heavy frontal armor.
    -Single axis stabilized gunsights are not as good as 2 axis ones, and it's unclear why this was chosen.
    -LRFs on the cannon are only stabilized as well as the cannon, which is not as good as the sight, which may lead to unnecessary errors.
    -Using 2 V6 engines instead of a single V12 with similar components (or even sub-assemblies) is highly unusual.
    -The gun bulge leaves gaps in the armor protection.
    -The armor does not meet the requirements for side protection, nor does the front provide protection against emerging tandem threats.
    The cassette design allows reasonable attacks normal to the cassettes, which reduces their effectiveness rather sharply.
    -not very many MGs
    -the extremely tall periscope is asking for trouble.
    -very obstructed fields of view, commander must stand up very high to see over gun.
    the ugly:
    -the armor is very heavy in backing and fairly light in cassettes, which gives somewhat poor protection for the weight.
    -the purpose of gearing in the torsion bars, as opposed to merely having traditional torsion bars, is entirely unclear.
    -The purpose of adding a liner made of the worst metal to the powerpack is also unclear, and would complicate maintenance procedures when the powerpack is outside the vehicle.
    -Aluminum is also poorly suited for use in belly applications owing to poor shock properties.
     


    Brownsville Armour Engineering Systems FV601 “Cossack”
     

    Spoiler

    As you know from the previous post, this entry won, and for good reason.

    Before we even get into the details, the submission itself deserves great praise for the graphs, which are a result of a program written specifically to check armor values with this ruleset. The level of effort put in to this as well as to 3d modelling is laudable.

    the good:
    -Excellent level of protection, both against specced threats and growth threats, including heavy tandems. 
    -large number of MGs in a wide selection of mounts
    -Sensible automotive layout and choices, including reasonable margin for engine power should projected power not be available.
    -Retains desired automotive performance even with the extra armor installed.
    -Great attention to detail, including FCS, automotives, and so on
    -good crew comfort features
    -large powerful autoloaded cannon with reasonable quantity of ammunition.
    -Softkill APS a very forwards-thinking solution.
    -Fuel not stowed in the crew compartment, but in armored external boxes. Option for properly armored fuel inside protected volume of engine bay.
    -Reasonable FOV from commander's station.
    -H-P suspension is very good if the seals available can cope with the weight of such a vehicle.
    -relatively small dimensions are good for keeping weight down and for maneuverability. 
    -fully separated ammo
    the bad:
    -As presented, all the fuel is only lightly protected.
    -Active H-P suspension requires a high pressure hydraulic system in the suspension, a problem where mine protection is concerned. 
    -Mantlet armor leaves a lot to be desired, relative to the rest of the armor.
    -Turret roof is also fairly poorly protected, relatively, and won't stop threats which are stopped by the main armor at high elevations.
    -use of video cameras for gunnery is not really good enough given the tech at hand.
    the ugly:
    -The armor cassettes are inboard of the major air gaps in the armor. Per the rules this is technically more efficient, but in reality the opposite is true.
    This is of course my fault, for putting together rules which do not always properly reflect reality.
    -The proposed mix'n'match of electronics seems very optimistic for the tech level.
    -RDF equipment likely of very minor utility
    -Presence of 4th crewmember possibly superfluous, and may be better replaced by more ammunition.
    -Softkill false alarm rate may be quite high given available tech


    VK-55.01 - Versuchsträger NK
     

    Spoiler

    This submission was, by agreement of all the judges, the worst of the complete submissions.
    Even before getting into the details of the design itself, there were a couple of basic failures to read which on their own would give adequate cause to disregard the submission and go no further:
    1. Submission was handed in in unrecognized and unsolicited units of measurement, in clear contradiction of the requirement laid out.
    2. The armor design is not in accordance with the accepted practices accepted by LFS Ordnance. Specifically, in several places cassettes were not given adequate room to function (being attached to HHA plates), and in others cassettes were arranged in such a manner which would not result in clean hits going in one side of the sandwich and out the other, but rather out the edges.
    Nevertheless, the Ordnance committee persisted in examining the other features of this design as presented.

    the good:
    -Powerful cannon with large ammunition capacity claimed
    -Citadel concept for improving crew protection is interesting
    -use of Merkava style coil springs is sensible enough.
    -Merkava style rear access door is sensible.
    the bad:
    -Hull structure insufficiently thick for structural reasons
    -armor does not reach required or claimed protection level (side threat, mine threat, frontal protection of powerpack)
    -armor does not provide protection against growth threats.
    -engine compartment far too small for the desired powerpack.
    -attempting to mount a transverse V12 1500HP engine alongside the driver speaks of a lack of spatial reasoning skills.
    -Use of an overlapped and interleaved suspension is an incredibly poor choice for a fairly far-travelling and maintenance light force like the LFS Rangers, for reasons known to all since the mid 1940s. This choice boggles the mind given the conversations already held on this forum on this topic. 
    -Use of single pin, unbushed, tracks gives poor track life, particularly in sandy environments, and is therefore unsuitable to long range self-deploying operations. It is difficult to choose a track link less suitable to the operating environment of the LFS, and along with the overlapped and interleaved suspension speaks of blind cargo culting without understanding the tradeoffs involved.
    -there is a contradiction between the stated height of the turret, roughly 22", and the stated ammunition capacity of 33 rounds of 4.7" ammo. The case head diameter of 4.7" Kraut is roughly 6.7", which cannot be fit 3 deep with armor above and below and in an autoloader within those dimensional limitations.
    -The autoloader, as described, is unworkable. Doubly so for the replenishment mechanism. 
    -The gun, as modelled, appears to lack the recoil mechanism. The original Kraut 4.7" gun has a length of approximately 54" from the trunnion to the rear of the breech ring. With this length, and at least 12" for recoil taken into account, we end up with 66" of length from the trunnion to the end of the gun stroke. Even within a fairly large 85" ring, this leaves no room for the 40" , at least, needed for the proposed drum autoloader. 
    -2-axis elevation pretty much by definition makes stabilization impossible, as at least one, if not both, of the axes are nowhere near the center of gravity of the elevating mass, greatly increasing to unmanageable levels the power required of the elevation drive. Such a system has never before been proposed for a stabilized gun, and for very good reason, namely that it is absurd.
    -claimed turret roof height and gun depression don't mesh well.
    -hatch under driver is a net negative for mine protection.
    -retractable optics are absolutely awful for alignment.
    -Very basic mil scale reticle cargo culted off the Tiger and stereoscopic rangefinder are poor choices, compared to laser rangefinders or even a coincidence rangefinder.
    -the proposed use of active IR is an extremely poor choice when threats are also expected to be using IR optics.
    -the proposed new ammunition type is nonsensical. The penetration which can be achieved by a ~0.6" shaped charge is extremely low, and attempting to boost a core by rocket at impact is likewise farcial.
    -flat turret roof is poor for commander vision.
    -Low number of independent MGs.
    the ugly:
    -The volume which is supposed to be dedicated to fuel is entirely unclear.
    -0.8" autocannon have been tried many times on tanks, and broadly have never been truly considered a success. 
    -Claimed range is less than desired.

    All in all, this submission is a great example of how not to do things, and of a great lack of actual engineering sense. 
    The only way I could possibly see this thing being a success was if its purpose was to waste my time.

    Persson Engineering Solutions and Brewing, Main Battle Tank, MBT-01, "Gigan"
     

    Spoiler

    This design is, in one word, "insano". 
    the good:
    -Good gun and ammo load
    -loads of MGs everywhere
    -sensible automotives even if downrated
    -borderline excessive armor against horizontal threats, including large ones.
    -Good crew comfort features
    -Very serious and well modelled FCS
    -fuel in frag-protected sponsons as well as in real protected volume
    -properly separated ammo, with the warheads pointing away for extra safety
    -Softkill dazzlers are a forwards-thinking system
    the bad:
    -Borderline unmanufacturable. Extremely complex shapes of both turret and armor packs, extensive use of Titanium, and so on lead to a vehicle which would be very expensive to produce, even in quantity. This more than anything else gave the Cossack the edge over this submission, which is otherwise very competitive.
    -flat roof with some obstructions gives fairly poor fields of view for commander.
    -The primary gunsight is only stabilized in one axis for reasons which are unclear.
    -frontal armor does not protect well against diving attacks.
    the ugly:
    -the protection level is somewhat inconsistent, owing to a large number of "weak spots", which are however still strong enough for it not to be an issue.
    -The ammunition types look strange, but I can't fault a man for going above and beyond. Again not sure why anyone would bother with a plain HEAT round given the prevalence of reactive armors.
    -The belly uses HHA where it's generally unsuited.
    -Currently, there are few or no enemy ATGMs vulnerable to dazzlers. The Cascadian BGM-1A and 1B are improved MCLOS, the BGM-1D is (or will be) laser beam riding, the Mormon JS-1 is MCLOS, and various "dumb" weapons are of course unaffected. Of the current threat systems, only the BGM-1C is even possibly vulnerable.
    -the ability for seals for H-P suspension to cope with this weight is an open question.


    East Oil Company MBT-1 Monolith
     

    Spoiler

    Far and away the largest of the proposals, but also very capable, despite how ridiculous it is.
    the good:
    -absolute unit frontal armor, reasonable enough side armor
    -insanely powerful main gun
    -Lots of secondary automatic HE firepower for bullying anyone and everyone
    -close-in defenses against infantry
    -use of softkill dazzlers is a forwards-thinking feature
    the bad:
    -XBAWKSHUEG
    -turret side armor leaves something to be desired, thin outer layer will not protect auto-mortars well from damage
    -Gun and turret do not look well balanced.
    -Mantlet protection is just silly, and would benefit greatly from being brought up to the level of the rest of the frontal armor. 
    -View from the turret roof isn't good.
    -roof doesn't stop diving attacks
    the ugly:
    -Many of the ammo types should not exist, there's very little that an HE round from that gun won't just obliterate. 
    -a meme on tracks
    - moving around unitary ~7" ammunition is the stuff legends are made of
    -Repair and upkeep of such a massive vehicle is not going to be easy.
     

     

  8. FROM THE FILES OF LFS ORDNANCE DEPT.
     - Lone Free State proprietary information -
    9.18.2247 

    To: LFS central command
    CC: relevant industrial concerns

     

    @Sturgeon

    @Toxn

    @Fareastmenace
    @delete013

    @Sten
    @Dominus Dolorem

    SUBJ: RE: candidate heavy armored truck designs


    Kind sirs,
    we apologize for the delay in responding to the technical request in your last communication on this topic. As you are no doubt aware, the LFS Ordnance dept. was set up only recently, and administrative affairs have delayed the trials and testing of the proposed vehicle designs.

    With the above said, enclosed are our recommendations for the selection of a new heavy armored truck for the newly formed 1st Heavy Ranger Brigade.

    FIRST PLACE: 
    Brownsville Armour Engineering Systems FV601 “Cossack”

    hq7BZSH.jpg

    LFS Ordnance was very impressed with this design, featuring a very good blend of features both for the current threat environment and for future threat environments.

    Congratulations, @Fareastmenace!

     

    SECOND PLACE:
    Persson Engineering Solutions and Brewing, Main Battle Tank, MBT-01, "Gigan"

    03u4wuJ.png

    Another very impressive beast, again featuring a design focused not only on the current threat environment but on the future as well.

    @Sten, very well done.

    THIRD PLACE:
    East Oil Company MBT-1 Monolith

    758db1f2ccf0.png

    An extremely large, extremely powerful beast, which while perhaps somewhat poorly tailored to the requirements of the LFS nevertheless would offer substantial performance in service.

    @Dominus Dolorem, good show.

    Detailed opinions on all designs to follow shortly.
     

×
×
  • Create New...