Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Toxn

Competition: A modern medium AFV

Recommended Posts

STURGEON'S NOTE: THIS IS JUST FOR FUN, DON'T TAKE IT TOO SERIOUSLY.

 

Toxn's note: what he said. The in-character stuff is just to reflect how these sorts of proposals end up getting bloated all out of proportion as conflicting requirements get tacked on by committees. I'll also try to provide clarity on the requirements themselves as we go along, so ask away.

 

staq1mj.jpg

 

With a slew of regional conflicts threatening to metastasise and military expenditure rising for the first time in decades, military planners are once again pondering the role of AFVs on the modern battlefield. Recent conflicts seem to indicate that armed forces may be faced with lengthy conflicts in urban and peri-urban areas - places where tight confines and large numbers of anti-tank weapons have resulted in attritional warfare. In other areas, more open terrain has favoured the use of man-portable ATGMs against armoured elements. Finally, there has been a long-standing trend towards the use of IEDs and, on the other end of the scale, ever more sophisticated autonomous and semi-autonomous platforms as methods for inflicting casualties upon mechanised and armour forces.

 

These aspects, when combined with a long-standing trend towards more heavily armed and armoured IFV variants, have potentially created a niche for a class of AFV optimised for general combat rather than specific anti-armour or scouting operations. This class of AFV should ideally be air-transportable or air-deployable using existing transport aircraft, be capable of high mobility and survival against infantry-borne weapons, and should be capable of tackling other armed vehicles (up to and including AFVs of a similar configuration) as well as providing infantry support. Other considerations would include the use of the chassis as a basis for a number of specialised variants, the ability to upgrade and retrofit the design during its life cycle and, of course, the cost of the vehicles themselves.

 

As the head of a design team working within a massive defence conglomerate, your task is to come up with a design to pitch to defence departments around the globe. Your basic requirements are as follows:

  • Must be capable of protecting against small arms from all aspects, and must be capable of withstanding 20-30mm autocannon fire across the frontal arc.
  • Must be capable of engaging and defeating existing AFV designs (not including modern MBTs) at modern combat ranges.
  • Must be air-transportable using existing transport aircraft (preferably AC-130 or equivalent) in either a ready-to-run or partially disassembled state.
  • Must be capable of defending against at least one strike by man-portable anti-tank weapons, including ATGMs
  • Must include weaponry or equipment for engaging with dug-in infantry in urban areas
  • Must be capable of defending against mines, roadside bombs and IEDs
  • Must be highly reliable, including servicing at local depots.
  • Must cost the same or less than equivalent systems (around $4 million per unit maximum)
  • Must be capable of off-road travel

Finally, the design must use, wherever possible, existing components and processes in order to minimise development time. As our company specialises in armour arrays (including composites and the like) and electronics, some leeway will be allowed in terms of the armour package and electronic systems. Our extensive contacts within the defence sector mean that any weapon system currently being developed or fielded may plausibly be integrated with our product.

 

Advanced requirements are as follows:

  • May be capable of surviving multiple hits by heavy autocannon (40-60mm) across the frontal arc
  • May be capable of engaging low-flying aircraft and helicopters
  • May be directly air-deployable from existing transport aircraft
  • May be capable of surviving multiple strikes from anti-tank missiles (of all classes) from any angle
  • May include only COTs components
  • May be capable of being serviced in the field.
  • May be in the form of a family of vehicles sharing a common chassis
  • May cost significantly less than equivalent systems (under $3 million per unit)
  • May be capable of extreme off-road travel, including across anti-tank ditches and the like

 

Designs, including at least a picture, description and list of attributes, should be presented by the end of April 2016 for evaluation by a panel of experts. The winning design team will receive a small prize (cash and in-game currency for one of a number of games discussed on this forum) and the adulation of millions of imaginary fans.

 

Good luck!

 

pzdPUvs.jpg

 

IMPORTANT OOC NOTE:

 

The in-character post is sort of supposed to be maddening, as it reflects the tendency to propose a lightweight expeditionary vehicle (the absolute requirements viewed loosely) and then have everyone shove more and more stuff in until it turns into an MBT with an autocannon on top.  The absolute versus optional requirements (some of which simply cannot be reconciled) indicate this.

 

I advise the contestants to look at the trends (including real-life ones that I may not have examined in any detail) and pick their guiding philosophy - bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a vehicle for infantry support and general combat against anything smaller than an MBT. From there you should try to fulfil all of the absolute requirements (some leeway is allowed) and then argue the optional requirements as needed.

 

Above all - have fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions and comments:

1. Defending against ATGMs seems to indicate MBT-level protection. Maybe dropping this requirement or allowing loose interpretations of it would be well-advised.

2. "Defend against 20-30mm cannons across the frontal arc; pretty sure I get what you mean by this, but it would be worth clarifying. Are we to defend against 25mm APFSDS, for example, or just 30mm HEDP?

3. "Defend against mines/IEDs", what kind and to what degree? Are we designing an MRAP or a lightweight transportable expeditionary tank? Those are two different requirements sets. If it's up to interpretation, that's fine, but make a note of that. Your post is entirely in-character, and I think generally could use an OOC section where you let us know how rigidly you want the requirements interpreted.

Otherwise, I like it, and will be making a submission. Unless you need me as a judge, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reserved for bringing back the Teledyne Expeditionary Vehicle.

 

OK, I have come up with my design.  I'm going to use the hull of the old Teledyne Expeditionary vehicle since it has powertrain commonality with the Bradley family of vehicles and because it was originally designed to fit in a C-130.  Instead of the 105mm overhead gun, I'm going to put the 30mm remote gun station recently developed for the Stryker on this vehicle.  Maybe mount an ATGM on the turret as well if needed.  Cost permitting, I would mount the israeli trophy anti missile system on it to provide active protection against missiles. Modern camera and electronics equipment will help compensate for some of the situational awareness issues that the crew suffered from on the original version of the vehicle.  in a way, it would be a bit of a mini-armata, the two crew in the hull, sitting under the remote turret.  

 

There is no way I am going to get frontal arc protection against 20-30mm cannons on this thing and still be within the weight rules.  Therefore, probably some sort of modular armor that can be flown in separately and later attached will be included to meet this requirement.  

 

All in all, this would make a nice little light tank.  However, there really is nothing it could do that an IFV couldn't, other than be air portable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my starter worksheet for you guys, feel free to work off it:

 

 

 

C-130 cargo hold:
 
length, 40 feet (12.19 m); width, 119 inches (3.02 m); height, 9 
 
feet (2.74 m). Rear ramp: length, 123 inches (3.12 m); width, 
 
119 inches (3.02 m)
 
C-130 maximum payload weight:
 
20.40 tonnes
 
---
 
C-130J cargo hold:
 
length, 55 feet (16.76 m); width, 119 inches (3.02 m); height, 9 
 
feet (2.74 m). Rear ramp: length, 123 inches (3.12 m); width, 
 
119 inches (3.02 m)
 
C-130J maximum payload weight:
 
19.96 tonnes
 
---
 
"Small" goal:
 
8.65 tonnes
 
max 8 meters length, 3 meters width, 2.7 meters height, stowed
 
"Medium" goal:
 
17.3 tonnes
 
max 12 meters length, 3 meters width, 2.7 meters height, stowed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions and comments:

1. Defending against ATGMs seems to indicate MBT-level protection. Maybe dropping this requirement or allowing loose interpretations of it would be well-advised.

 

The absolute requirement is for something like an RPG or second-generation ATGM (ie: no tandem warheads or top attack). The optional requirement is for anything from a vampir to a hellfire. You can, as I mention below, argue some of the 'absolute' requirements away if they simply cannot be reconciled with each other. 

2. "Defend against 20-30mm cannons across the frontal arc; pretty sure I get what you mean by this, but it would be worth clarifying. Are we to defend against 25mm APFSDS, for example, or just 30mm HEDP?

 

20-30mm cannon fire would, in this case, mean AP or HEDP. The optional requirement for 40mm is for the hot stuff, of course. 

3. "Defend against mines/IEDs", what kind and to what degree? Are we designing an MRAP or a lightweight transportable expeditionary tank? Those are two different requirements sets. If it's up to interpretation, that's fine, but make a note of that. Your post is entirely in-character, and I think generally could use an OOC section where you let us know how rigidly you want the requirements interpreted.

 

See below, but the absolute requirement would be for something capable of hitting a mine and keeping the crew alive if nothing else. I personally can't forsee a future conflict where mines and IEDs aren't a big part of the mix one way or the other, but you may have a different opinion.

Otherwise, I like it, and will be making a submission. Unless you need me as a judge, that is.

 

The judges (you know who you are) should note that they can enter the competition - they will just be judged by the rest of the panel and a temporary judge. I will enter a submission strictly as a joke.

 

IMPORTANT OOC NOTE:

 

The in-character post is sort of supposed to be maddening, as it reflects the tendency to propose a lightweight expeditionary vehicle (the absolute requirements) and then have everyone shove more and more stuff in until it turns into an MBT with an autocannon on top.  The absolute versus optional requirements (some of which simply cannot be reconciled) indicate this.

 

I advise the contestants to look at the trends (including real-life ones that I may not have examined in any detail) and pick their guiding philosophy - bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a vehicle for infantry support and general combat against anything smaller than an MBT. From there you should try to fulfil all of the absolute requirements (some leeway is allowed) and then argue the optional requirements as needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's my starter worksheet for you guys, feel free to work off it:

 

-random bullshit-

 

 

This, by the way, implies 260 and 520 shp engines for each respective configuration, if you desire 30 hp/tonne (M1A2 Abrams is 24 shp/tonne).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also means that if you intend to meet the C-130 portability requirement, you're basically doomed for meeting a lot of the other requirements.

 

If however, your home nation uses Il-76s, you can go up to 60 tonnes because RUSSIA STRONK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, what transport does it have to fit in? C-130?

C-130 would be ideal, but it is also the grave of a bunch of these sorts of concepts.

 

Argue for another transport if you need to, but also remember that the absolute requirement allows plenty of weasel room for (for instance) shipping the thing without armour packages or in a state that requires some re-assembly before the vehicle is combat-ready.

 

You should, if you stretch things very cleverly, be able to propose something bumping up to the same weight class as a medium tank from WWII.

 

You can also, if you're feeling it, argue that the expeditionary requirements are useless and design something else entirely. Just bear in mind the spirit of the thing and, you know, provide the actual arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C-130 would be ideal, but it is also the grave of a bunch of these sorts of concepts.

 

Argue for another transport if you need to, but also remember that the absolute requirement allows plenty of weasel room for (for instance) shipping the thing without armour packages or in a state that requires some re-assembly before the vehicle is combat-ready.

 

You should, if you stretch things very cleverly, be able to propose something bumping up to the same weight class as a medium tank from WWII.

 

You can also, if you're feeling it, argue that the expeditionary requirements are useless and design something else entirely. Just bear in mind the spirit of the thing and, you know, provide the actual arguments.

 

OK, thanks. That means the weasel room is deliberately built-in, and I sound like a sperglord wearing a denim skirt and asking the teacher for homework. Gotcha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By N-L-M
      ATTENTION DUELISTS:
      @Toxn
      @LostCosmonaut
      @Lord_James
      @DIADES
      @Datengineerwill
      @Whatismoo
      @Kal
      @Zadlo
      @Xoon
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Wednesday the 19th of June at 23:59 GMT.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name

      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here)



      Table of basic statistics:

      Parameter

      Value

      Mass, combat


       
      Length, combat (transport)


       
      Width, combat (transport)


       
      Height, combat (transport)


       
      Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal)


       
      Estimated Speed


       
      Estimated range


       
      Crew, number (roles)


       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       

       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.

      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.

      3.     Transmission- type, arrangement, neat features.

      4.     Fuel- Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.

      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.

      6.     Suspension- Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.

      Survivability:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Link to Appendix 2- armor array details.

      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks- low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.

      Firepower:

      A.    Weapons:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Main Weapon-

      a.      Type

      b.      Caliber

      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)

      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.

      e.      FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.

      f.      Neat features.

      3.     Secondary weapon- Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.

      4.     Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using Soviet 1961 tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on extimated performance and how these estimates were reached.

      B.    Optics:

      1.     Primary gunsight- type, associated trickery.

      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.

      C.    FCS:

      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.

      2.     Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.

      Fightability:

      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.

      Additonal Features:

      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.

      Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.


       Example for filling in Appendix 1
    • By N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only

      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII

      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California

      Anno Domini 2250

      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank

      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.


       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:

      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank

      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.

      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM

      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.

      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.

      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.

      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.

      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.

      F.      IEDs

      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.

      2.      General guidelines:

      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.

      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.

      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.

      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.

      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.

      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:

      a.      Vehicle recoverability.

      b.      Continued fightability.

      c.       Crew survival.

      E.      Permissible weights:

      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.

      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.

      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.

      F.      Overall dimensions:

      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.

      b.      Width- 4m transport width.

                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.

                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.

      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.

      G.     Technology available:

      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:

                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA

      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.

                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083

      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.

       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).

      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:

      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure

      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:

                                                                  iii.     HHA

      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.

                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.

                                                                   v.     Fused silica

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.

                                                                  vi.     Fuel

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.

      Density-0.82g/cm^3.

                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems

      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.

                                                               viii.     Spaced armor

      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.

      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.

      Reactive armor materials:

                                                                  ix.     ERA-light

      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.

      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                  xi.     NERA-light

      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.

      b.      Firepower

                                                                    i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.

                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.

                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)

                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.

                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.

      c.       Mobility

                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:

      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)

      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)

      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)

                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).

                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).

                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.

      d.      Electronics

                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable

                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable

                                                                  iii.     I^2- limited

      3.      Operational Requirements.

      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.

      4.      Submission protocols.

      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
       
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • By EnsignExpendable
      Since I clearly have too much time on my hands, and Jeeps has a pretty cool tread going on, I decided that I'm going to do the same thing, but for T-34s. Here's a quick sample that I whipped up last night, I'm probably going to cover major exterior features of at least wartime T-34s and T-34-85s, then we'll see. I'll update the document in batches per organic time period rather than some arbitrary year-based cutoff. 
       
      Post constructive criticism and the T-34-iest pics you got
    • By Proyas
      Is there any way Sherman tanks could be upgraded at reasonable cost to still have a role on the battlefield? Assume that your military will never fight with a world-class army (U.S., Russia, China, etc.) and instead will only fight with second-rate armies using 1990s technology at best, or with terrorists, or go on peacekeeping missions. 
       
      I'm thinking that the Shermans could have their turrets removed and modern autoloading turrets from other armored vehicles--like the 105mm Stryker gun, or the 40mm autocannon from the CV10, or the 30mm from the BMP-2 (would any of these fit in the Sherman's turret ring?)--could be dropped in, along with their sensors and computers. ATGM launchers could be installed as well. Explosive reactive armor bricks could be attached to the outside, as is common among modern Russian tanks. 
       
      Assume that your Sherman fleet is 1,000 tanks, in various states of (dis)repair, so you have enough spare parts to last for many years. 
       
      What do you guys think? Thanks. 
       
×
×
  • Create New...