Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

N-L-M

Forum Nobility
  • Content Count

    537
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Reputation Activity

  1. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Domus Acipenseris in Unified Naval Documents Thread   
    I hope you like submarines.
     
    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a059747.pdf
    The submarine equivalent to Technology Of Tanks. By the chief engineer at Kiel when Germany restarted production. I know a few mechanical engineers involved in subs who say that this is about as good as books on the subject get.
     
    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/342338.pdf
    Unconventional sub propulsion methods.
     
    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a213542.pdf
    Submarine electric propulsion
     
    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a538633.pdf
    AIP
  2. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from That_Baka in The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines   
    Single-pin tracks are much harder to break by torsional forces on the track, thanks to the large number and size of points where the pin is subjected to shear forces under such a loading.

    Double-pin tracks are easier to break by loading like this as they only have the center guide connector and end connectors.

    That in my opinion is the case. I Don't have any hard evidence to back it up right now.
    This is also in my opinion why single-pin tracks are preferred for hard, broken ground where the track is liable to ride on large rocks unevenly, applying torsion to the track.
  3. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from That_Baka in The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines   
    The 64 has narrower knife wheels, which remained intact and effectively 'cut' the track. The 219 has wider wheels, the outer one of which got wrecked. The wider wheels support the track more against uneven loading, and the energy spent on breaking the wheel prevented it from breaking the track.
     
    Again, this is just informed conjecture.
  4. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Zyklon in Anti-air thread: Everything that goes up must come down, and we'll help you go down   
    Command guidance is out of the question at least for the terminal phase, you cannot get the required accuracy- your accuracy is limited by the accuracy of the fire control radar, which has both range estimation errors the the target and interceptor, and time delay (long pulses for good gain at range and things)
    Lower quality standards may account for it, but Sidwinders, AMRAAMs and ESSMs are also mass produced. Just how much did RAFAEL throw QC into the trash to literally make a missile an order of magnitude cheaper?
    Or are Sidewinders just not that expensive? 
    Having just gone through GIS, I note the following: the opaque ogive on the Tamir is split into half clamshell-style, and it looks like the halves can separate to expose the seeker.

    If so that'd mean that when switching to terminal the seeker head gets exposed, but until then it's not, which keeps it cool. This would allow the use of uncooled IR seekers, which are indeed much cheaper.
    Combined with the peripheral IR, this could also solve the odd engagement geometry fuzing problem critics like to harp on about.

    Like the seekers in the Spike-SR, which is cheaper than Javelin. With a terminal engagement range of 1-2km, that's good enough.
    That nose seeker is either a small uncooled IR head or a very small simple SARH reciever. And I'm currently tending towards the first.
  5. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to SH_MM in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)   
    German concept proposed during the Kampfpanzer 3 / FMBT project to the UK via https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/928203.html
     
    Twin-gun casemat tank from Maschinenbau Kiel:



     
    Low-profile turret tank with driver in turret by Krauss-Maffei (similar to MBT-70, but with 120 mm smoothbore gun and manual loader - maybe derived from the Eber concept):


     
    Data:


     
    Armor is spaced steel plates, sometimes with fuel inbetween them. The MaK design has 727 mm thick armor, but the actual steel thickness is just 259 mm...




     
    Note that according to Krapke a third concept (AFAIK either turretless or with unmanned turret?) was proposed.
  6. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Ramlaen in Anti-air thread: Everything that goes up must come down, and we'll help you go down   
    Command guidance is out of the question at least for the terminal phase, you cannot get the required accuracy- your accuracy is limited by the accuracy of the fire control radar, which has both range estimation errors the the target and interceptor, and time delay (long pulses for good gain at range and things)
    Lower quality standards may account for it, but Sidwinders, AMRAAMs and ESSMs are also mass produced. Just how much did RAFAEL throw QC into the trash to literally make a missile an order of magnitude cheaper?
    Or are Sidewinders just not that expensive? 
    Having just gone through GIS, I note the following: the opaque ogive on the Tamir is split into half clamshell-style, and it looks like the halves can separate to expose the seeker.

    If so that'd mean that when switching to terminal the seeker head gets exposed, but until then it's not, which keeps it cool. This would allow the use of uncooled IR seekers, which are indeed much cheaper.
    Combined with the peripheral IR, this could also solve the odd engagement geometry fuzing problem critics like to harp on about.

    Like the seekers in the Spike-SR, which is cheaper than Javelin. With a terminal engagement range of 1-2km, that's good enough.
    That nose seeker is either a small uncooled IR head or a very small simple SARH reciever. And I'm currently tending towards the first.
  7. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Karamazov in Documents for the Documents God   
    https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498195.pdf
    CIA T-72 breakdown, includes loads of details
  8. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from EnsignExpendable in Documents for the Documents God   
    https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498195.pdf
    CIA T-72 breakdown, includes loads of details
  9. Metal
    N-L-M got a reaction from Sturgeon in Competition: Tank Design 2239   
    nice, but seems to have limited coverage.
    In other news:

    >hull armor improved
    >Hull spaced armor added
    >sideskirts added
    >Sponson boxes added
    >slight experimentation with the sand colors.
    The 145mm gun is still in because it's the worst-case for sponson clearance.
    Like the turret, the hull spaced armor contains stowage space. The frontal slope would probably be used for stowage of tools, or alternatively layers of glass textolite. The other boxes will be described at some length later. All can of course be fitted with ERA when ready, and the all the thick plates are high-hardness for the shattering effect.
  10. Metal
    N-L-M got a reaction from LoooSeR in Competition: Tank Design 2239   
    nice, but seems to have limited coverage.
    In other news:

    >hull armor improved
    >Hull spaced armor added
    >sideskirts added
    >Sponson boxes added
    >slight experimentation with the sand colors.
    The 145mm gun is still in because it's the worst-case for sponson clearance.
    Like the turret, the hull spaced armor contains stowage space. The frontal slope would probably be used for stowage of tools, or alternatively layers of glass textolite. The other boxes will be described at some length later. All can of course be fitted with ERA when ready, and the all the thick plates are high-hardness for the shattering effect.
  11. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from LoooSeR in Competition: Tank Design 2239   
    The turret now sports spaced high-hardness armor to shatter those pesky ultra-high velocity APCR rounds our engineers are convinced will be all the rage in the near future.
    These are bolted and easily replaceable with, say, ERA arrays when it becomes available. The internal pockets have roof doors and are intended to hold small-arms ammo or ration boxes.

  12. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from LoooSeR in Competition: Tank Design 2239   
    Driver's hatch is now a thing:

    Turret had to be slightly raised and enlarged to ensure the gun clears the hatch and periscopes at full depression.
    For those wondering, yes the driver is mildly supine. I didn't model an IR-capable hatch because I'm lazy and didn't want to make yet another component so I just used the standard periscopes.
    This swinging hatch design with the periscopes mounted  is inspired by the Leclerc and Leopard 2. The problem with it is that the resulting access hole is smaller than the hatch dimensions would suggest, as the periscopes must remain within the hull. For early IR, which is much larger than natural-light periscopes, the solution is to have the driver dismount the scope before opening the hatch. The IR periscope needs a rotating mount as there's only one, with a limited FoV.
    but maybe that can be handwaved as the head being the same as the daylight periscope and therefore fitting in the same well.
    Clearance illustrated:

    The commander has some, if limited, vision over the GPS even at full depression, allowing H-K operation. The cupola is fitted with commander's traverse and elevation override, with slew-to-cue.
    I'm really liking how this is shaping up.

    EDIT: current weight, including hull, turret, gun, extras, final drives (modeled as part of the hull for now) tracks and suspension come out at 30 tons.
    To do this some densities were rectally extracted (wheel hubs include ball bearings and quite a bit of air, I approximated it as half empty, likewise most of the volume of the wheels are rubber)
    So assuming suspension is 8-10%, tracks 8--10%, armor 50%, and the gun 5-7%, this means I've got around 70%-75% of the weight accounted for. This in turn leads me to a final weight of around 40-42 tons. Good.

    The tank now also has a name:
    XM-2239 "Norman"
    Named for General Stormin' "did you hear he died" Norman Schwarzkopf.
  13. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to LostCosmonaut in General Naval Warfare News/Technology thread.   
    Random fun fact: the Soviets did some testing of the Kh-80 on a converted Yankee class sub


     
    I believe it was that one (K-420, aka Yankee Sidecar)
  14. Controversial
    N-L-M got a reaction from Donward in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)   
    Clearly, a "paratrooper" variant of the taller infantrymen is needed, so they can be folded for stowage.
  15. Funny
    N-L-M got a reaction from Serge in ATGMs and RPGs for infantry - a thread for rebels around the world to choose their ATGM supplier.   
    Homo Sapiens develops tools to hunt mammoths, Schoningen, 300,000BC [artist's impression]
  16. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Jeeps_Guns_Tanks in The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread   
    This is a thread I wanted to post in for a while, and now I'm getting around to it. Spoilered to avoid wall-of-text syndrome.

    *weapons-grade naval autism warning*
     
    The reason the US carriers are the size they are is pure capability. The 90kton carriers have significantly more capability than their smaller bretheren, for a few reasons.
    There are a few notes I want to address on this point.
    1. Deck size
     

     
    2. Survivability
     

    3. Force concentration
     

    4. Why then, if big is so good, aren't they larger?

    5.  Are carriers the future? 
     
    There is more to say, and I may have a follow-up post at some point.
  17. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Toxn in The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread   
    This is a thread I wanted to post in for a while, and now I'm getting around to it. Spoilered to avoid wall-of-text syndrome.

    *weapons-grade naval autism warning*
     
    The reason the US carriers are the size they are is pure capability. The 90kton carriers have significantly more capability than their smaller bretheren, for a few reasons.
    There are a few notes I want to address on this point.
    1. Deck size
     

     
    2. Survivability
     

    3. Force concentration
     

    4. Why then, if big is so good, aren't they larger?

    5.  Are carriers the future? 
     
    There is more to say, and I may have a follow-up post at some point.
  18. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Collimatrix in The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread   
    This is a thread I wanted to post in for a while, and now I'm getting around to it. Spoilered to avoid wall-of-text syndrome.

    *weapons-grade naval autism warning*
     
    The reason the US carriers are the size they are is pure capability. The 90kton carriers have significantly more capability than their smaller bretheren, for a few reasons.
    There are a few notes I want to address on this point.
    1. Deck size
     

     
    2. Survivability
     

    3. Force concentration
     

    4. Why then, if big is so good, aren't they larger?

    5.  Are carriers the future? 
     
    There is more to say, and I may have a follow-up post at some point.
  19. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Krieger22 in The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread   
    This is a thread I wanted to post in for a while, and now I'm getting around to it. Spoilered to avoid wall-of-text syndrome.

    *weapons-grade naval autism warning*
     
    The reason the US carriers are the size they are is pure capability. The 90kton carriers have significantly more capability than their smaller bretheren, for a few reasons.
    There are a few notes I want to address on this point.
    1. Deck size
     

     
    2. Survivability
     

    3. Force concentration
     

    4. Why then, if big is so good, aren't they larger?

    5.  Are carriers the future? 
     
    There is more to say, and I may have a follow-up post at some point.
  20. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Lord_James in The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread   
    This is a thread I wanted to post in for a while, and now I'm getting around to it. Spoilered to avoid wall-of-text syndrome.

    *weapons-grade naval autism warning*
     
    The reason the US carriers are the size they are is pure capability. The 90kton carriers have significantly more capability than their smaller bretheren, for a few reasons.
    There are a few notes I want to address on this point.
    1. Deck size
     

     
    2. Survivability
     

    3. Force concentration
     

    4. Why then, if big is so good, aren't they larger?

    5.  Are carriers the future? 
     
    There is more to say, and I may have a follow-up post at some point.
  21. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from LostCosmonaut in The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread   
    This is a thread I wanted to post in for a while, and now I'm getting around to it. Spoilered to avoid wall-of-text syndrome.

    *weapons-grade naval autism warning*
     
    The reason the US carriers are the size they are is pure capability. The 90kton carriers have significantly more capability than their smaller bretheren, for a few reasons.
    There are a few notes I want to address on this point.
    1. Deck size
     

     
    2. Survivability
     

    3. Force concentration
     

    4. Why then, if big is so good, aren't they larger?

    5.  Are carriers the future? 
     
    There is more to say, and I may have a follow-up post at some point.
  22. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from That_Baka in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)   
    Clearly, a "paratrooper" variant of the taller infantrymen is needed, so they can be folded for stowage.
  23. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Donward in The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread   
    This is a thread I wanted to post in for a while, and now I'm getting around to it. Spoilered to avoid wall-of-text syndrome.

    *weapons-grade naval autism warning*
     
    The reason the US carriers are the size they are is pure capability. The 90kton carriers have significantly more capability than their smaller bretheren, for a few reasons.
    There are a few notes I want to address on this point.
    1. Deck size
     

     
    2. Survivability
     

    3. Force concentration
     

    4. Why then, if big is so good, aren't they larger?

    5.  Are carriers the future? 
     
    There is more to say, and I may have a follow-up post at some point.
  24. Funny
    N-L-M reacted to Toxn in Competition: Tank Design 2239   
    Loader's position:

  25. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from LoooSeR in Competition: Tank Design 2239   
    Turret details are now in.

    The turret and hull were slightly enlarged to improve ergonomics, the tank looks a bit strange now.
    The depicted optics are a bit of a "how much optic can I stuff in here anyway" sort of deal, I'm not sure it's even possible to make the rangefinder in the cupola work. But the idea is that when IR optics become a thing they can be seamlessly integrated. Also the gunner's line of sight is stabilized in elevation (by the magic of mirrors and electric servos), the gun drive (hydraulic) is slaved to follow it. This allows good LoS stabilization, and firing on the move can be regulated by the difference between LoS and gun (MG only, main gun from short stop).
    Next up on the agenda:
    -Sideskirts
    -Hull armor improvements
    -Sponson goodies
    -driver's hatch
    -hull interior details.
    It may however be a while until my next post.
×
×
  • Create New...