Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)

 

The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.

 

Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.

 

The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.

 

The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).

 

California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;

Klamath-River-2-credit-Matt-Baun_USFWS.j

(near the Californian border)


The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.

 

Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.

trbigsouthernbuttedsc-0883jpg-efd6c10e61

(a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)

 

Requirements

 

As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):

 

  • Medium / Heavy Tank
    • Weight: No more than 45 tons
    • Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters)
    • Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness
    • Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire)
    • Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton
    • No more than 6 crew members
    • Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds
  • Light tank
    • Weight: No more than 25 tons
    • Width: No more than 10.8 feet
    • Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness
    • Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness
    • Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton
    • No more than 6 crew members
    • Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds

 

Other relevant information:

  • Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret)
  • The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged.
  • The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst)
  • Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic.
  • Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level)
  • The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design.
  • Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important.
  • Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)

 

The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.

 

Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.

 

The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.

 

The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).

 

California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;

Klamath-River-2-credit-Matt-Baun_USFWS.j

(near the Californian border)


The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.

 

Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.

trbigsouthernbuttedsc-0883jpg-efd6c10e61

(a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)

 

Requirements

 

As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):

 

  • Medium / Heavy Tank
    • Weight: No more than 45 tons
    • Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters)
    • Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness
    • Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire)
    • Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton
    • No more than 6 crew members
    • Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds
  • Light tank
    • Weight: No more than 25 tons
    • Width: No more than 10.8 feet
    • Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness
    • Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness
    • Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton
    • No more than 6 crew members
    • Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds

 

Other relevant information:

  • Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret)
  • The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged.
  • The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst)
  • Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic.
  • Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level)
  • The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design.
  • Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important.
  • Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.

 

 

 

 

 

Could I ask for some extra information?

 

1. What is the name/designation of the previous tank? This is just so that my naming/numbering scheme is good in-universe.

 

2. What are the most common threats on the California/Deseret side? This breaks down into infantry anti-tank weapons, anti-tank guns and tank guns. Here I'm guessing something like the following, but you must please correct me:

  • California: bazooka analogues (~75mm penetration), 75-85mm anti-tank guns (~135mm penetration), 35-60mm light tank guns (50-75mm penetration), 75-85mm medium tank guns (~135mm penetration).
  • Deseret: bazooka analogues (~75mm penetration), 50-60mm anti-tank guns (50-75mm penetration), 35-60mm guns (50-75mm penetration) for heavier armoured cars, 20-40mm guns (25-50mm penetration) for lighter armoured cars.
  • Both: anti-tank rifles in the 12-15mm range (~25mm penetration), other primitive hollow charge weapons in the 50-80mm range (~75mm penetration).

 

3. What are the expected threats in the near future, at least according to Cascade's best intel? I'm guessing that the hardest-hitting weapons are moving to the 150-200mm penetration range, but that most weapons will move up to the 100-150mm penetration range. Again, you must correct me here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Toxn said:

Could I ask for some extra information?

 

1. What is the name/designation of the previous tank? This is just so that my naming/numbering scheme is good in-universe.

 

2. What are the most common threats on the California/Deseret side? This breaks down into infantry anti-tank weapons, anti-tank guns and tank guns. Here I'm guessing something like the following, but you must please correct me:

  • California: bazooka analogues (~75mm penetration), 75-85mm anti-tank guns (~135mm penetration), 35-60mm light tank guns (50-75mm penetration), 75-85mm medium tank guns (~135mm penetration).
  • Deseret: bazooka analogues (~75mm penetration), 50-60mm anti-tank guns (50-75mm penetration), 35-60mm guns (50-75mm penetration) for heavier armoured cars, 20-40mm guns (25-50mm penetration) for lighter armoured cars.
  • Both: anti-tank rifles in the 12-15mm range (~25mm penetration), other primitive hollow charge weapons in the 50-80mm range (~75mm penetration).

 

3. What are the expected threats in the near future, at least according to Cascade's best intel? I'm guessing that the hardest-hitting weapons are moving to the 150-200mm penetration range, but that most weapons will move up to the 100-150mm penetration range. Again, you must correct me here.

 

1. The previous tank was the Light Tank M6, plus various unofficial nicknames.

 

2. Time for bullet points

 

  • California
    • In service
      • Heavy tank / heavy towed anti-tank gun: 89mm (3.5 in) gun with ~140mm RHA pen at 100 meters, ~80mm using HEAT
        • Much less common than medium / light guns
      • Medium tank / medium towed anti-tank gun: 70mm (2.75 in) gun with ~100mm pen at 100 meters, ~55mm using HEAT
      • Light tank / light towed anti-tank gun: 51mm (2 in) gun with ~75mm pen at 100 meters
      • Anti-tank rocket: 70mm diameter warhead, ~90mm penetration, effective range ~200 meters
        • Common infantry anti-tank weapons
    • In development
      • Improved 89mm gun with ~160mm pen (likely to be used on next generation Californian heavy tanks in early development)
      • Very heavy towed 108mm (4.25 in) gun with ~215mm pen at 100 meters (also to be used for indirect fire)
      • Improved 70mm gun with ~125mm penetration (expected to be used on next generation Californian tanks in early development)
      • Improved HEAT warheads with penetration up to 1.5 diameters when fired from existing rifled guns
      • Improved 70mm anti-tank rocket with ~110mm penetration
  • Deseret
    • In service
      • Heavy armored car armament: 57mm (2.25 in) gun with ~75mm pen at 100 meters
      • Medium armored car armament: 30mm autocannon with ~55mm pen at 100 meters
        • Most common vehicle armament, also used by Deseret's small force of light tanks
      • Anti-tank rocket: 76mm (3 in) rocket with ~60mm armor penetration (HEAT), effective range 400 meters
        • Most common infantry / cavalry antitank weapon, also limited use as vehicle mounted weapon
      • Medium 90mm recoilless rifle with ~75mm penetration
        • Towed, also vehicle mounted
      • Anti-tank rifle: 20mm single shot rifle with ~40mm penetration at 100 meters
        • Being phased out in favor of anti-tank rockets, retained for use against lightly armored targets
    • In development
      • Lightweight 76mm gun with ~90 mm penetration, for use as mobile artillery, heavy armored cars, and next generation light tanks
      • Improved antitank rocket with ~90mm penetration, coupled with longer range and shorter flight time
      • Heavy 120mm recoilless rifle with ~155mm penetration (HEAT)
        • Both towed / vehicle mounted (multiple to be mounted on wheeled anti-tank platform in development)
  • Common to both nations
    • Heavy machine gun with ~25mm penetration (it's an M2)
    • Various other weapons with limited / situational anti-tank capability (mortars, fragmentation/high explosive grenades, incendiary devices)
    • Mines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

 

1. The previous tank was the Light Tank M6, plus various unofficial nicknames.

 

2. Time for bullet points

 

  • California
    • In service
      • Heavy tank / heavy towed anti-tank gun: 89mm (3.5 in) gun with ~140mm RHA pen at 100 meters, ~80mm using HEAT
        • Much less common than medium / light guns
      • Medium tank / medium towed anti-tank gun: 70mm (2.75 in) gun with ~100mm pen at 100 meters, ~55mm using HEAT
      • Light tank / light towed anti-tank gun: 51mm (2 in) gun with ~75mm pen at 100 meters
      • Anti-tank rocket: 70mm diameter warhead, ~90mm penetration, effective range ~200 meters
        • Common infantry anti-tank weapons
    • In development
      • Improved 89mm gun with ~160mm pen (likely to be used on next generation Californian heavy tanks in early development)
      • Very heavy towed 108mm (4.25 in) gun with ~215mm pen at 100 meters (also to be used for indirect fire)
      • Improved 70mm gun with ~125mm penetration (expected to be used on next generation Californian tanks in early development)
      • Improved HEAT warheads with penetration up to 1.5 diameters when fired from existing rifled guns
      • Improved 70mm anti-tank rocket with ~110mm penetration
  • Deseret
    • In service
      • Heavy armored car armament: 57mm (2.25 in) gun with ~75mm pen at 100 meters
      • Medium armored car armament: 30mm autocannon with ~55mm pen at 100 meters
        • Most common vehicle armament, also used by Deseret's small force of light tanks
      • Anti-tank rocket: 76mm (3 in) rocket with ~60mm armor penetration (HEAT), effective range 400 meters
        • Most common infantry / cavalry antitank weapon, also limited use as vehicle mounted weapon
      • Medium 90mm recoilless rifle with ~75mm penetration
        • Towed, also vehicle mounted
      • Anti-tank rifle: 20mm single shot rifle with ~40mm penetration at 100 meters
        • Being phased out in favor of anti-tank rockets, retained for use against lightly armored targets
    • In development
      • Lightweight 76mm gun with ~90 mm penetration, for use as mobile artillery, heavy armored cars, and next generation light tanks
      • Improved antitank rocket with ~90mm penetration, coupled with longer range and shorter flight time
      • Heavy 120mm recoilless rifle with ~155mm penetration (HEAT)
        • Both towed / vehicle mounted (multiple to be mounted on wheeled anti-tank platform in development)
  • Common to both nations
    • Heavy machine gun with ~25mm penetration (it's an M2)
    • Various other weapons with limited / situational anti-tank capability (mortars, fragmentation/high explosive grenades, incendiary devices)
    • Mines

Thanks, updating my design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primary entry, SPG and SPAAG to follow:

 

XM8 “Elk”

 

mhjYK82.jpg

 

Length: 6.6m (hull), 8.6m (total)

Width: 2.65m (hull), 3.25m (total)

Height: 2.7m

Weight: 41/22 t (combat weight)

Crew: 4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)

 

Armour:

  • 100/25mm (upper hull front)
  • 100/25mm (lower hull front)
  • 65/25mm (hull side forward)
  • 25/15mm (hull side rear)
  • 25/15mm (hull rear)
  • 25/15mm (hull roof)
  • 25/15mm (hull floor)
  • 100/25mm (turret front)
  • 100/15mm (turret side forward)
  • 65/15mm (turret side rear)
  • 25/15mm (turret rear)
  • 100/25mm (mantlet)
  • 25/15mm (turret roof)

 

Weapons:

  • 80mm L/45 cannon:

               - APHE: 7.1kg, 820m/s, ~130mm RHA penetration (90’, 500m)

               - APCR: 4.3kg, 1045m/s, ~160mm RHA penetration (90’, 500m)

               - HEAT: 4.8kg, 500m/s, ~90mm RHA penetration (90’, any range)

               - HE: 6.1 kg, 500m/s

  • Browning M2 heavy machine gun (turret roof)
  • M240 machine gun (coaxial)

 

Engine: 18L, 450 HP (340 kW) V8 petrol engine (Ford GAA derivative)

Power/weight: 11.3 kW/t or 21.4 kW/t

Max speed (road): 45km/h or 60km/h

Max sustained speed (offroad): 30km/h or 40km/h

Range: 300km/550km

 

XOc9Y47.jpg

frRRUDt.jpg

 

Description

 

The M8 “Elk” was the result of a proactive design process intended to provide a ‘universal’ tank optimised for fighting a defensive war against Californian forces and serving in a more mobile role in the Oregon/Idaho sector. The design is also intended to have reserve capacity for upgrades as they become available.

The core of the vehicle is a simple hull with a clean, sloped front and a large engine bay in the rear separated from the crew compartment by a 25mm or 15mm (depending on the version) armoured bulkhead. The armour layout emphasises frontal engagements and crew protection, with the forward side armour (covering the crew compartment) being significantly thicker then the rear side armour.

 

The M8 is offered in two variants: a 40t ‘medium’ version and a 20t ‘light’ version. The medium version is designed to resist current-generation heavy anti-tank weapons across the hull front and turret frontal arc from any distance, with current generation medium anti-tank weapons being resisted across a 45 degree arc covering the crew compartment. The medium is expected to remain well protected against medium anti-tank weapons for the foreseeable future, and is expected to resist heavy anti-tank weapons across the hull front and turret front at ranges beyond 1000m. The light version sacrifices nearly all of its armour in favour of lower weight, retaining only 25mm plate to cover the frontal arc and crew compartment. This is, however, expected to provide protection against 20 and 30mm Deseret weapons at combat ranges. Some of this lightening is achieved through the use of aluminium components (most notably the road wheels) where possible. Although much less well protected than its medium cousin, the light version gains very good cross-country mobility and greater range. It also retains the excellent 80mm gun used by the medium, which is expected to remain effective against light and medium vehicles for the foreseeable future. The hull and turret are both of welded constuction, with castings only being used for a few components (most notably the gun mount and mantlet).

 

The engine bay is designed to facilitate service and repair, and has large rear doors for access to the engine and transmission. The engine and transmission, in turn, are mounted using a rail system so that they can be easily pulled. The radiators and fans are mounted in hinged doors on the hull roof, which also double as access points for service. The emphasis on ease of maintenance continues to the suspension system, which is a widened derivative of the historical HVSS designs used on the pre-war Sherman series of tanks. Each suspension unit mounts to hardpoints which protrude a bit below the hull proper, resulting in a very respectable 50cm of ground clearance. Due to the forward-heavy nature of the tank, the suspension units on the medium model are not evenly spaced. Instead the middle unit is positioned somewhat closer to the front unit than the rear unit. The engine, a 450-500 HP design based on the pre-war Ford GAA, drives vehicle through a rear sprocket. The medium and light versions use different transmission designs; with the medium’s being a more robust mechanical unit with a lower gear ratio, while the light uses a hydromatic unit based on that of the M24. Both vehicles are equipped with multiple reverse gears to facilitate shoot-and-reposition tactics.

 

The turret is roomy thanks to a large 1.8m turret ring, which is also expected to facilitate upgrade programs going forwards. It’s shape is six-sided, somewhat sloped, and contains generously-sized hatches for the crew. The turret is equipped with a full basket. The commander’s hatch is equipped with multiple vision blocks to provide good visibility while buttoned up. The commander and gunner also have access to periscopes (based on the M10 design) for the purposes of target acquisition and rough lay-in. The gunner’s periscope is selectable for 3X and 6X magnification, and has various reticles for the main ammunition types. A telescopic sight, based on the M70-series sights, is provided for fine lay-in. An azimuth indicator and gunner’s quadrant is provided for ranged fire missions. The rear of the turret houses the radio set – a new transistor design based on the pre-war SCR-500 series. This set includes an intercom system, and is expected to be less maintenance-intensive than our existing sets. The rear side sponson contains a small telephone, linked to the intercom system, to allow infantry to communicate with the crew.

 

The 80mm main gun has merely average elevation and depression: +20 to -9 degrees. This is something of a flaw, and may need to be corrected on future models of the vehicle. The turret drive is electric, and manages a full rotation in around 15 seconds. The electric unit does not allow for very precise movement of the turret at present, so the gunner’s handwheel is necessary for fine adjustment. In terms of power, the main gun is able to penetrate any commonly-encountered armoured vehicle from the front at combat ranges using the present APHE and APCR shells. It is expected to remain viable against most light and medium vehicles for the foreseeable future. The gun also sports a very good HE shell, which is fired using a low-velocity charge. The coaxial M240 machine gun provides a reliable level of firepower for anti-infantry work, while the roof-mounted M2 heavy machine gun provides a useful level of auxiliary firepower against soft-skinned vehicles, as well as a rudimentary anti-aircraft capability.

 

Overall the M8 offers good firepower, good protection (in the medium variant, at least) and decent mobility. It also offers a platform with significant margin for further development.

 

Acknowledgements

  • Jeeps (the Sherman site is freaking goldmine)
  • Various Sketchup users (especially Sketchy@Best, Stefan F., M L. and zdanwoj)
  • Whoever came up with that Tank Designer spreadsheet that Sturgeon posted

 

WxA75nk.jpg

C6u5cGW.jpg

Edit: I'm going to ask the Judges to use their imagination in regard to towing eyelets and radio aerials. Because I completely forgot to put those in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We now have our three judges, @Jeeps_Guns_Tanks, @LoooSeR, and @Zyklon.

 

We're really winging it this time, but here are the "rules" (more like guidelines) for contests:

 

On 4/29/2016 at 11:32 PM, Sturgeon said:

However, there are some ground rules. They are:

1. The contest must be a design contest of one kind or another. Just about any subject is fair game, such as armored fighting vehicles, fighter jets, cargo aircraft, small arms, electronics, radars, whatever.

2. There are four different kinds of participants. The first is the Solicitor. He creates the requirements for the contest that the Contestants must fulfill, and he also selects the three Judges for the contest. Solicitors may apply to me (the Admin) to create a contest, which I may approve if I like it. He then sets requirements to his liking (and individual requirements may be mutually exclusive with others), and the Judges evaluate the submissions created by the Contestants according to criteria outlined below.  The fourth type is the Sponsor, who provides the cash prize.

3. Submissions must include a graphic of some kind that incorporates some form of art or engineering. Examples that I consider to be acceptable are: A. A piece of original shaded and colored art showing the vehicle, B. A 3D drawing in Google Sketchup, C. A 3- or 4-view drawing in AutoCAD or scanned from drafting paper, D. A render of a solid model in Solidworks. Anything roughly equivalent to this level of effort is acceptable. What I would not consider to be acceptable would be: a. A Pimp-My-Gun "render", b. an MS Paint photomanip, c. a drawing in a sketchbook, etc. It's true that any one of these mediums could be used in a highly creative way, but the examples shown here do not really reflect the minimum level of effort we're looking for. I highly encourage judges to dismiss (i.e. not judge) submissions that do not meet this criteria.

4. Judges should further evaluate submissions based on their technical merit, conceptual creativity and cleverness, and the maturity of the overall concept. Often, contests will include requirements that cannot all be met except through pseudoscientific wankery (which should count against a submission, unless the contest calls for it explicitly), so Judges should consider submissions according to their own concept, so long as it at least attempts to meet some of the original requirements.

5. While the Solicitor selects the three Judges, he himself cannot be one. Further, the Judges selected may be vetoed by the Admin (me). The Solicitor may select more or less than three Judges, with Admin approval.

6. The Solicitor and the three Judges may submit their own designs to the contest, but they cannot take any place or win any money. The Sponsor may also submit a design, and may place and win (his own) prizes.

7. The top prize should be approximately $50 cash or equivalent. Prizes should be monetary only.

 

8. Sponsors are not selected, they must volunteer. Sponsors may also be the Solicitor, but they then follow Solicitor rules for submitting designs. Likewise for Sponsors also being Judges.

That should be about it, folks!

 

Basically, we still need our Sponsor, but that's detail shit IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very long-time lurker, this competition finally got me to register.

I have an idea which will be ironed out and hopefully posted within a week.

Two question though-

1. other than the M2 and M240, are there any other Cascade standard-issue items to consider? Fuels (80 octane gasoline? 40 cetane diesel? Personal equipment?)

2. What is the industrial base capable of steel-wise? (Thicknesses rolled, weights cast, guns forged)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Very long-time lurker, this competition finally got me to register.

I have an idea which will be ironed out and hopefully posted within a week.

Two question though-

1. other than the M2 and M240, are there any other Cascade standard-issue items to consider? Fuels (80 octane gasoline? 40 cetane diesel? Personal equipment?)

2. What is the industrial base capable of steel-wise? (Thicknesses rolled, weights cast, guns forged)

 

Thanks for joining, and welcome to the forums! In response to your questions, and a few I've been asked by other people;

 

  • The standard grade of gasoline is 87 octane (Some prewar refining capacity survived, and kept making fuel for prewar automobiles. Even though there's new-build refineries now they've decided to stick with 87). Most diesel is actually biodiesel, so the cetane ratings are a bit higher than expected.
  • The current gun calibers in service are 20mm, 40mm, 55mm, 80mm, 95mm, and 120mm. However, since we're assuming a new gun is going to be developed, don't limit yourself to just those calibers.
  • Things that aren't available at the current technology base: computerized FCS, ATGMs (electronics just aren't advanced enough for anything except maybe an X-7 clone).
  • Manufacturing capabilities:
    • The Cascade Republic's ability to cast steel is pretty good; test castings up to ~35 tons and the size of a medium tank hull have been done. Likewise, RHA up to about 6 inches thickness is readily produced. A big limitation is stamping; something like the stamped T-34 turret isn't readily producible (though the cast version is).
    • Plastics are at about early 1950s technology; notably aramids like kevlar and nomex aren't in production (though they are known obviously).
    • Tungsten is available (there are mines in Canada, controlled by friendly nations). DU is not (what can be salvaged from prewar isn't enough for any real use, and gotta have EU to make DU).
  • Any publicly available research from prewar (OOC: now) can be used. If you want to crack open Technology of Tanks and distill it into a CAD model, feel free.

 

Let me know if you/anyone else has questions. Also, a big thank you to Loooser, Jeeps, and Zyklon for judging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

We now have our three judges, @Jeeps_Guns_Tanks, @LoooSeR, and @Zyklon.

 

We're really winging it this time, but here are the "rules" (more like guidelines) for contests:

 

 

Basically, we still need our Sponsor, but that's detail shit IMO.

We also need a time frame for a competition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Very long-time lurker, this competition finally got me to register.

I have an idea which will be ironed out and hopefully posted within a week.

Two question though-

1. other than the M2 and M240, are there any other Cascade standard-issue items to consider? Fuels (80 octane gasoline? 40 cetane diesel? Personal equipment?)

2. What is the industrial base capable of steel-wise? (Thicknesses rolled, weights cast, guns forged)

 

Awesome, welcome aboard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Toxn said:

Primary entry, SPG and SPAAG to follow:

 

M8 “Elk”

 

mhjYK82.jpg

 

Length: 6.6m (hull), 8.6m (total)

Width: 2.65m (hull), 3.25m (total)

Height: 2.7m

Weight: 45/25 t (empty weight)

Crew: 4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)

 

Armour:

  • 100/25mm (upper hull front)
  • 100/25mm (lower hull front)
  • 65/25mm (hull side forward)
  • 25/15mm (hull side rear)
  • 25/15mm (hull rear)
  • 25/15mm (hull roof)
  • 25/15mm (hull floor)
  • 100/25mm (turret front)
  • 100/15mm (turret side forward)
  • 65/15mm (turret side rear)
  • 65/15mm (turret rear)
  • 65/15mm (mantlet)
  • 25/15mm (turret roof)

 

Weapons:

  • 80mm L/45 cannon:

               - APHE: 7.1kg, 820m/s, 134mm RHA penetration (90’, 500m)

               - APCR: 4.3kg, 1045m/s, 162mm RHA penetration (90’, 500m)

               - HEAT: 4.8kg, 500m/s, 90mm RHA penetration (90’, any range)

               - HE: 6.1 kg, 500m/s

  • Browning M2 heavy machine gun (turret roof)
  • M240 machine gun (coaxial)

 

Engine: 18L, 450 HP (340 kW) V8 petrol engine (Ford GAA derivative)

Power/weight: 7.6 kW/t or 13.6 kW/t tonne

Max speed (road): 45km/h or 60km/h

Max sustained speed (offroad): 30km/h or 40km/h

Range: 300km/550km

 

XOc9Y47.jpg

frRRUDt.jpg

 

Description

 

The M8 “Elk” was the result of a proactive design process intended to provide a ‘universal’ tank optimised for fighting a defensive war against Californian forces and serving in a more mobile role in the Oregon/Idaho sector. The design is also intended to have reserve capacity for upgrades as they become available.

The core of the vehicle is a simple hull with a clean, sloped front and a large engine bay in the rear separated from the crew compartment by a 25mm or 15mm (depending on the version) armoured bulkhead. The armour layout emphasises frontal engagements and crew protection, with the forward side armour (covering the crew compartment) being significantly thicker then the rear side armour.

 

The M8 is offered in two variants: a 45t ‘medium’ version and a 25t ‘light’ version. The medium version is designed to resist current-generation heavy anti-tank weapons across the hull front and turret frontal arc from any distance, with current generation medium anti-tank weapons being resisted across a 45 degree arc covering the crew compartment. The medium is expected to remain well protected against medium anti-tank weapons for the foreseeable future, and is expected to resist heavy anti-tank weapons across the hull front and turret front at ranges beyond 1000m. The light version sacrifices nearly all of its armour in favour of lower weight, retaining only 25mm plate to cover the frontal arc and crew compartment. This is, however, expected to provide protection against 20 and 30mm Deseret weapons at combat ranges. Some of this lightening is achieved through the use of aluminium components (most notably the road wheels) where possible. Although much less well protected than its medium cousin, the light version gains very good cross-country mobility and greater range. It also retains the excellent 80mm gun used by the medium, which is expected to remain effective against light and medium vehicles for the foreseeable future.

 

The engine bay is designed to facilitate service and repair, and has large rear doors for access to the engine and transmission. The engine and transmission, in turn, are mounted using a rail system so that they can be easily pulled. The radiators and fans are mounted in hinged doors on the hull roof, which also double as access points for service. The emphasis on ease of maintenance continues to the suspension system, which is a widened derivative of the historical HVSS designs used on the pre-war Sherman series of tanks. Each suspension unit mounts to hardpoints which protrude a bit below the hull proper, resulting in a very respectable 50cm of ground clearance. Due to the forward-heavy nature of the tank, the suspension units on the medium model are not evenly spaced. Instead the middle unit is positioned somewhat closer to the front unit than the rear unit. The engine, a 450-500 HP design based on the pre-war Ford GAA, drives vehicle through a rear sprocket. The medium and light versions use different transmission designs; with the medium’s being a more robust mechanical unit with a lower gear ratio, while the light uses a hydromatic unit based on that of the M24. Both vehicles are equipped with multiple reverse gears to facilitate shoot-and-reposition tactics.

 

The turret is roomy thanks to a large 1.8m turret ring, which is also expected to facilitate upgrade programs going forwards. It’s shape is six-sided, somewhat sloped, and contains generously-sized hatches for the crew. The turret is equipped with a full basket. The commander’s hatch is equipped with multiple vision blocks to provide good visibility while buttoned up. The commander and gunner also have access to periscopes (based on the M10 design) for the purposes of target acquisition and rough lay-in. The gunner’s periscope is selectable for 3X and 6X magnification, and has various reticles for the main ammunition types. A telescopic sight, based on the M70-series sights, is provided for fine lay-in. An azimuth indicator and gunner’s quadrant is provided for ranged fire missions. The rear of the turret houses the radio set – a new transistor design based on the pre-war SCR-500 series. This set includes an intercom system, and is expected to be less maintenance-intensive than our existing sets. The rear side sponson contains a small telephone, linked to the intercom system, to allow infantry to communicate with the crew.

 

The 80mm main gun has merely average elevation and depression: +37 to -8 degrees. This is something of a flaw, and may need to be corrected on future models of the vehicle. The turret drive is electric, and manages a full rotation in around 15 seconds. The electric unit does not allow for very precise movement of the turret at present, so the gunner’s handwheel is necessary for fine adjustment. In terms of power, the main gun is able to penetrate any commonly-encountered armoured vehicle from the front at combat ranges using the present APHE and APCR shells. It is expected to remain viable against most light and medium vehicles for the foreseeable future. The gun also sports a very good HE shell, which is fired using a low-velocity charge. The coaxial M240 machine gun provides a reliable level of firepower for anti-infantry work, while the roof-mounted M2 heavy machine gun provides a useful level of auxiliary firepower against soft-skinned vehicles, as well as a rudimentary anti-aircraft capability.

 

Overall the M8 offers good firepower, good protection (in the medium variant, at least) and decent mobility. It also offers a platform with significant margin for further development.

 

Acknowledgements

  • Jeeps (the Sherman site is freaking goldmine)
  • Various Sketchup users (especially Stefan F., M L. and zdanwoj)
  • Whoever came up with that Tank Designer spreadsheet that Sturgeon posted

 

WxA75nk.jpg

C6u5cGW.jpg

 

What program did you use to make the model, and did it just have an HVSS suspension in it already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LostCosmonaut and I discussed some additional specifics for Cascade:

 

Global trade, especially across the Pacific

Rubber not an issue, may want steel alternative parts

Aircraft industry capable of making advanced piston engined aircraft, early turbines

Cacade Republic does have a domestic source of aluminum

None of the countries currently has nuclear capability

Gun metallurgy late '40s equivalent - could not make Rheinmetall 120 even for testing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

@LostCosmonaut and I discussed some additional specifics for Cascade:

 

Global trade, especially across the Pacific

Rubber not an issue, may want steel alternative parts

Aircraft industry capable of making advanced piston engined aircraft, early turbines

Cacade Republic does have a domestic source of aluminum

None of the countries currently has nuclear capability

Gun metallurgy late '40s equivalent - could not make Rheinmetall 120 even for testing

My understanding is that, in a post-apocalyptic world, aluminium will actually remain one of the most commonly used metals for a long time due to post-urban mining and recasting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      The year is [year]. You are a [thing] designer working in/for [country/nation state/corporation]. The [things] of the rival [country/nation state/corporation] have recently *gotten meaningfully better in some specific way* and/or *the geopolitical and/or industry circumstances have significantly changed*. You have been tasked with designing a [thing] to meet the needs of this new and changing world!
       
      If that made you laugh, maybe you've participated in a design competition before, here or on another forum. I've been a contestant or judge five or six design competitions by this point, and I'd like to highlight a mistake I've seen people make often that I think could hurt your chances. And that is, designing something for the wrong time period, specifically designing something that is too early for the period in which the competition takes place.
       
      Quick: When you think about US rifles in World War II, what comes to mind? A lot if you would answer with the M1 Garand, I'd bet. If I went on another forum and started a "Design a Rifle: USA 1944" thread, I bet I'd get a lot of entries that took their cues from the M1 Garand - but the M1 wasn't designed in 1944, it was designed in the late 1920s. In attempting to "fit in" to the time period of the competition, they would have in fact submitted a design that is 15 years too late! The an appropriately dated entry would be something like a T25 Lightweight Rifle, which is associated mostly with the late Forties and early Fifties, but whose design began in the mid 1940s. Using the M1 Garand as a model for your 1944 design would result in something like a slightly refined Garand with a box magazine slapped on, putting you well behind the curve!
       

       
      The T25 was what 1940s designers thought the rifle of the future would look like. Keen SHitters will notice the joke about the M14 in the above paragraph.
       
      Tanks and other vehicles are the same way. The M48 is associated with the Vietnam era, but its development began in 1953. The Space Shuttle is associated closely with the 1980s, but design work on it began in the late 1960s, before the first man ever set foot on the Moon. The MiG-15 is associated with the Korean War, but Soviet jet fighter designers at that time were already putting pencils to paper on what would become the MiG-21.
       
      It's tempting to create a design that looks like it would fit right in to the battles we know and associate with whatever time period a competition covers. Yet, the real-world designers fighting those battles from their drafting tables were already imagining the next thing, and even what would come after that, in turn. Design competitions are just for fun, but in some ways they are also practice for the real thing, so don't get stuck in the past!
       
       
    • By Sturgeon
      The idea for a design competition predates SH itself, actually going all the way back to the 2011-2012 timeframe on the World of Tanks North American Forum. Before the Exodus of 2014, there were several tank design competitions, two of which I entered. Earlier today, I found my entries to those competitions saved in various forms on my computer, and I thought I would post them here for people to reference moving forward.

      Entered in: Design a Tank - 1938 Germany
       
      The Early History of the Mittlerer Panzer Greif
       

       
      In 1936, as Heinz Guderian was writing Achtung – Panzer!, he was solicited by the Heereswaffenamt Wa Prüf 6 to create a specification for light, medium, heavy, and super-heavy tanks, as part of Germany's ongoing re-armament. The tanks then in development, the Panzer III and IV, were seen as adequate for future needs, but the purpose of Wa Prüf 6's solicitation was to gain a greater understanding of upcoming panzer technologies and tactics.

      Guderian's submission eliminated the heavy and super-heavy categories entirely, in favor of fast light and medium tanks requiring large engines and excellent suspensions. Wa Prüf 6 immediately began design studies on panzers to fill these needs, while still allocating some effort towards a heavy breakthrough tank design.
      Early panzer designs focused on improving the existing Panzer III, but a special division of Wa Prüf 6, the Spekulativpanzerabteilung, was tasked with pushing the limits of what was possible. One design, the Mittlerer Panzer K, was selected for further study.
       
      The original MPK design used a forged armor steel hull welded together into an elliptical shape, which the Spekulativpanzerabteilung determined would give the best internal volume to weight ratio, providing the best protection, but still maintaining the high power-to-weight ratio specified by Guderian's white paper. Armor at the front was 30mm thick, sloped at around 45 degrees, for the hull. The turret was a simple welded design, mounting the latest 5cm L/60 high velocity cannon, while the suspension was torsion bar similar to the Panzer III, but with more roadwheel travel. Sighting was with stadia reticles, and the tank was powered by a 300 horsepower Maybach HL 120TR, which gave 15 hp/tonne to the 20 tonne tank.
       
      As Spekulativpanzerabteilung improved the design, it morphed beyond recognition. To improve the cross-country performance, the suspension was changed to an early form of hydropneumatic suspension, with more roadwheeltravel, mounted in units bolted to the side of the hull. A tank's mobility, SPA reasoned, was greatly affected by its ability to stay in repair, and thus the modular suspension was developed. Due to marginal increases in weight, the engine was modified to mount a supercharger, increasing the engine power to about 400 horsepower. A mockup was built, but a prototype was never completed.
       
      In early 1938, Germany intercepted Russian plans to build a tank in the 100 tonne range, with upwards of 100mm of armor. A requirement was set to build, as quickly as possible, a panzer that could counter such a behemoth. SPA's medium panzer design suddenly went from a low-priority technical study, to a full procurement program. No guns in the German arsenal could reliably penetrate 100mm of armor at combat ranges without special ammunition, so immediately a new gun was sought. Eventually, it was decided that a Czechoslovakian artillery piece, the 8cm Kanon 37, would form the basis of the new medium tank's armament. Production was licensed from Skoda immediately, and it entered service as a towed anti tank gun in June of 1938 as the 7.65cm Kanone 38. The Kanone 38 differed from the K37 by firing the same projectiles as the 7.5cm KwK 37, which had been adopted a year earlier for German AFVs, but at nearly three times the velocity (900 m/s). 
       
      Fitting this monster cannon to the MPK required a total redesign. The ambitious elliptical hull was kept, but everything else changed. The turret ring swelled to a (then-enormous) 175cm, and accommodated an advanced turret, mounting a reduced-weight variant of the 7.65cm PaK 38, the 7.65cm KwK 38 to sturdy forward-mounted trunnions, with low-profile recoil recuperators. The turret was a semi-elliptical tetrahedron shape, constructed from welded forgings, with dual stabilized, stereoscopic rangefinders for both the commander and gunner, something seen only on battleships at that time. The commander's cupola sported 360-degree panoramic periscopes with a Leiteinrichtung - or slaving device, to slew the turret onto new targets. Armor on the new turret consisted of eighty millimeters of frontal armor on the mantlet, with fifty millimeters all around protection. The hull armor's slope was increased to 60 degrees, and thickened to fifty millimeters to cope with the new generation of guns. The weight of the tank ballooned to 34 tonnes, and the suspension was completely redesigned as a new compound hydropneumatic/Horstmann design, called Schwebesystem, which utilized 60cm wide tracks. The old 400 horsepower turbocharged Maybach was not deemed sufficient to power this new tank, and so the suspension was lengthened by a roadwheel to accommodate the new Jumo 250 engine, a two-stroke turbocharged diesel, which produced 650 horsepower. Transmitting this power to the roadwheels was a brand new compact Merritt-Brown-derived transmission, with an automatic planetary gearbox, which allowed the tank to steer in place, as well as travel in reverse at 30 km/h. Upon an early prototype demonstrating this ability, Guderian exclaimed "sie bauen es!" - "build it!"
       
      The first prototypes of the newly renamed Mittlerer Panzer Greif rolled off the line in January of 1939. These new panzers were the last to be produced by Germany by the old method of batch production, and as a result, each was slightly different than the next. Full rate production would begin once testing was concluded in August of 1939, at the brand new WPW plant in Obendorf.
       
      Specifications, Mit.PzKpfw. V Greif Ausf. A:
       

       
      Dimensions
      Weight: 34 t
      Length: 6.95 m
      Width: 3.00 m
      Height: 2.85 m
      Armament
      Main armament: 7.65 cm KwK 38
      Caliber length (KwK): 55
      Tube length (KwK): 4.053 m
      Tube life: 500 shot
      Secondary armament: 1 × MG 34
      Cannon ammunition: 45 
      MG ammunition: 2700
      Armor
      Upper Hull: 50 mm / 60 °
      Lower Hull: 30 mm / 45 °
      Rear Hull: 25 mm / 90 °
      Hull Roof: 20 mm
      Hull Floor: 20 mm
      Turret Mantlet: 80 mm / 90 °
      Turret Front: 50 mm / 90 °
      Rear Turret: 50 mm / 75 °
      Turret Roof: 20 mm
      Mobility
      Engine: Jumo 250 six-cylinder turbocharged opposed two-stroke diesel, 650 hp
      Displacement: 16.63 L
      Gears (F / R): 7/5
      Power to weight ratio: 19.2 hp / t
      Top speed: 55 km / h
      Fuel storage: 720 l
      Reach: 525 km (road), 350 km (off road)
      Track width: 65 cm
       
      Leichter Panzer IV


       
      (The writeup for this one appears to have vanished into the aether, but I do recall that it was armed with a short 7.5cm gun and an autocannon!)
       
      Entered in: Design a Tank - NATO 1949
       
      NATO Medium Tank
       
      Concept: License-produceable medium tank "kit"
      By 1949, it had become clear that not only were tensions between the Warsaw Pact and NATO going to escalate, but that Soviet-aligned countries were actively readying for a full-scale conventional conflict. Because of this, the then-new civilian Operations Research Office was tasked with development of new weapons to be proliferated throughout - and, if possible license produced by - NATO member nations. The Armored Vehicles Team of the initiative, which was dubbed Project FOUNDRY, contained a scant seven members who began brainstorming ideas for a cheap, easy to produce, and eminently maintainable NATO-wide tank.
       
      Such a tank, it was reasoned, would not need to necessarily be the standard and only fighting vehicle of all NATO forces, but would allow less industrially capable NATO nations to defend themselves independently, as well as member nations who so chose to fast-track development of their own customized versions of the basic vehicle, without need for multiple lengthy, independent, and redundant tank development programs.
       
      While many concepts were explored, the one that gained the most traction was for a generously roomy welded chassis, with standardized turret ring dimensions, so that turrets and hulls could be exchanged at the depot level. Running contrary to current Army thinking, which emphasized small hulls with advanced, efficient transmission layouts, the concept had a large hull rear, supporting space inefficient, but widely available automotive components.
       
      As the AVT refined the design, they worked closely with British and American automotive engineers to try and create a design that could easily be adapted for the different automotive components then available, and projected. The design was intended from the outset to contain at least the British Meteor engine, and the Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission used in the Centurion. Because of this, the tank could not be made very much smaller than the Centurion, but this was deemed acceptable.
       
      The hull design received the most attention initially, and design of the turret and armament initially languished. The AVT had to solve, satisfactorily, the problem of producing specialized fighting vehicle components - the gun, turret, and sighting systems - in a variety of nations. Eventually, it was decided that the facilities in more developed countries, such as the US, Britain, France, and Germany, that could produce armed turrets and rings for all users, to be shipped abroad and mated to locally produced hulls.
       
      One further problem facing the AVT was ensuring the transportability of the new tanks by the various trucks, ships, and railcars that were in use at the time by member nations. The solution was to limit the weight of the new tank to 40 tonnes, enabling it to be transported by the majority of surplus wartime infrastructure.
       
      The resulting hull design was highly convergent with, but distinct from the British Centurion tank. The armor plates were to be rolled, heat-treated, and cut to shape by industrially capable member nations with the industrial capacity, and then shipped along with automatic welding equipment, if needed, to member nations for assembly. Each welded part assembled together using dovetails - like a cardboard model - to improve the strength of the welds, allowing for somewhat expedited welding practices. The turret ring race and other senstitive contact areas were finished before the plates shipped. When assembled, the hull used a series of mounting rails for engine and transmission, which approximated very nearly the modern "powerpack" concept, albeit in a much less space-efficient form. The driver's position was accommodating, with appreciable space as well as adjustable controls and seating, and power-assisted steering levers and shifter.
       
      Armor on the hull consisted of a two three-inch plates joined at a 60 and 45 degree from the normal, attached to side plates two inches thick set at an angle of twelve degrees, like the Centurion. Top and bottom armor plates were one inch thick, while the rear armor plate was 1.5" thick. Like the Centurion, there was provision for .25" thick standoff plates mounted to the side of the hull, encasing the suspension.
       
      The hull was to be furnished with automotive components in-situ, so there was no standard engine or transmission. However, most studies were done with either the British Meteor engine and Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission of the Centurion, or the AV-1790 engine with CD-850 transmission of the T40 experimental US medium tank. Special mention, however, should be made of the design study of the tank using a Ford GAA engine and syncromesh transmission from an M4A3 Medium, intended as a backup configuration in the event that a member nation could not obtain more modern engines and transmissions. In this configuration, the mobility of the tank would be significantly decreased.
       
      Suspension was provided via a series of mounting points to which suspension elements could be attached. The "default" suspension configuration was for an individually sprung Horstmann derivative, but the design accomodated both single and bogied forms, as well as internal and external torsion bar, Bellevile washer, and volute spring methods of suspension. Track pitch, width, and design were likewise left up to member nations, but most early scale models used standard US 6" pitch 24" wide T81 tracks.
       
      Ancillary components, such as stowage boxes, lights, fuel tanks, and other minor details, were to be produced by the receiving nations, with stamping equipment and technical know-how distributed as needed. 
       
      With all of the allowed variation, AVT realized it would need to publish an "engineering guide" to the new tank design, by early 1950 somewhat uncreatively christened the "NATO Medium Tank". This was accomplished with the first trials of automotive pilots, and "AN ENGINEERING GUIDE TO THE NATO MEDIUM TANK" was published by ORO on July 21st, 1950, and distributed to member nations. As the document only detailed the dimensional and production aspects of the tank, it was not considered a security risk, as member nations couldn't possibly leak any sensitive information from it that they did not already possess.
       
      By 1950, the first mild steel turret mockups had been created, giving two of the automotive pilots a "proper" look, even though they were no more combat capable than before. The turrets were cast in a single piece, and fitted with a 90mm high-and-low velocity gun based on the British 20 pdr but utilizing experience gained from the American 90mm series of cannons. It was determined that for member nations, the most common type of shot available would be solid APC shot. Because of this, a high velocity conventional AP round would be needed to deal with anticipated Soviet vehicles. The resulting round fired essentially the same T33 AP shot as the 90mm M3 gun, but at a much higher velocity of 3,200 ft/s. Testing revealed the round could penetrate a 100mm RHA plate at 60 degrees from normal 80% of the time at 500m. This was considered, initially, sufficient to defeat the anticipated armor of Soviet medium and heavy tanks.
      In order to allow more fragile, and thus higher capacity HE and utility (smoke) shells, ammunition was also developed for the gun that used a foam-lined, reduced volume case loaded with a smaller charge. This high explosive round produced 2,100 feet per second with its unique 22 pound shell, loaded with 2.6 pounds of Composition B high explosive. The technical data packages for these two types of ammunition were widely disseminated to member states, for their local production.
       
      The new 90mm gun was also compatible with any projectiles for the older M3 series of cannons, including HEAT and HVAP. Further, it was expected that the cannon would serve as the basis for a new 100-120mm gun, designed to fire a new generation of HEAT and APFSDS projectiles.
       
      Also included with the armament were three unity periscopes for each crewman, a single-plane stabilization system for the main gun, and a gunner/commander cowitnessing system. The turret had two ready racks of five rounds a piece, with additional ammunition stowage planned to be in the floor of the vehicle, and adjacent to the driver.
       
      The turret was cast with 3.5-3.6" all around armor, improving to six inches at the front. A large, wide mantlet/gun shield of 6" thick was provided, partially to help balance the gun in its cradle. The turret ring was 74".
      NBC protection was available through a "kit" modification that was distributed to member nations upon request.
       
      Specifications, NATO Medium Tank:
       

       
      Crew: 4
      Dimensions
      Weight: 39.4 t
      Length (Hull): 7.2 m
      Width: 3.4 m
      Height: 3.05 m (without roof MG)
      Armament
      Main armament: 90mm T104E3/M56
      Caliber length: 62
      Tube length: 5.60 m
      Tube life: 500 shot
      Secondary armament: 1 × M1919, M60, MAG, MG3, etc GPMG
      Cannon ammunition: 65
      MG ammunition: 3200
      Elevation: +25/-12
      Penetration with T53 Shot, 10.9 kg at 976 m/s:
      100 m: 22.2 cm
      500 m: 20.0 cm
      1000 m: 17.9 cm
      2000 m: 14.3 cm
      Armor
      Upper Hull: 76.2 mm / 30 °
      Lower Hull: 76.2 mm / 45 °
      Rear Hull: 38.1 mm / 90 °
      Hull Roof: 25.4 mm
      Hull Floor: 25.4 mm
      Turret Mantlet: 152.4 mm / 90 °
      Turret Front: 152.4 mm / 90 °
      Rear Turret: 90 mm / 90 °
      Turret Roof: 50.8 mm
      Mobility
      Engine: Depends on variant, often AV-1790 w/ CD-850 transmission or Meteor with Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission. Variant with Ford GAA and syncromesh transmission also trialled.
      Displacement: Depends on variant
      Gears (F / R): Depends on variant
      Power to weight ratio: Depends on variant
      Top speed: Depends on variant
      Suspension: Depends on variant
      Fuel storage: Depends on variant
      Range: Depends on variant
      Track width: Depends on variant
       
       
    • By Alzoc
      Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
      I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
       
      Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
       
      Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
       
      The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
       
      Akatsiya :
       

       
      T-72:
       


       
      A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
       

       
      Stryker:
       

       
      Jackal:
       

       
      HMMWV:
       

       
      Cougar 4x4:
       

       
      LAV:
       

    • By Jamby
      Sooooo...after doing a site-wide search and perusing Google, I'm surprised not to have found anything about tank suspension, other than a somewhat doubtful thread on the WoT forums. Would my learned colleagues of SH be able to assist me in understanding and identifying the different types of tank suspension? I think I've got leaf-spring more or less mastered, as well as both VVSS and HVSS (thanks, JGT!) but was somewhat embarrassed not to be able to differentiate between the suspension of a Type 97 Chi-Ha and an FV4201 Chieftain.
       
      UPDATE: I think I understand tank suspension better now. Thanks, everyone!
×