Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  After 23 days of drinking booze and random disappearing, judges finally picked winners of this competition!

 

   In a 45 ton category we came to the conclusion that a member of this forum, who only recently joined to us, was able to surpass all other contestants with his tank design. He earns a title of The Glorious Tank Autist of SH - comrade @N-L-M!

   His XM-2239 "Norman" tank was chosen by all judges as the best submissions of this competition. His work was fighting with Toxn's heavy tank for a 1st place, and managed to overtake it.

 

tP8DKOD.jpg

 

   @Sturgeon's XM12 "Donward" was disqualified from the competition as it was not fitting into one of basic requirements (width, 3.35 meters without skirts vs 3.25 meters required). 

   @A. T. Mahan's 120mm gun tank T44 also was disqualified for use of armor tech that was out of competition-imposed industrial capabilities limitation (1940-1950s level of tech)

   @ApplesauceBandit's AFVs were also not in a competition as submission was lacking in any stats, so we couldn't understand if vehicle fits into basic requirements. 

 

 

   In 25 ton category a rivalry was stronger as more light tanks proposals managed to get through basic requirements. Judges examined several war vehicles proposed by A.T. Mahan, Sturgeon, NLM, Toxn, and made their choice. The winner of this category is no other than a Supreme Warrior of Napkinpanzers comrade @Toxn!*

 

*vehicle should receive a change in co-axial MG placement, as now it is a danger for driver's head when he is entering/exiting his station or anytime when he have his head outside of the hatch.

 

G6srlLM.jpg

Our Great AFV designer Toxn pictured with tank drivers that his tank is going to kill before modernization programm will be launched to reposition co-axial MG to a safer place.

 

3aWloAa.jpg

Place for a memorial is ready to accept new heroes of SH Tank design bureau.** 

**Not in Kharkov

 

   Winners of this competition now should receive their prizes, after that - locked in their houses and allowed to get out only to work on AFV designs until retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

  After 23 days of drinking booze and random disappearing, judges finally picked winners of this competition!

 

   In a 45 ton category we came to the conclusion that a member of this forum, who only recently joined to us, was able to surpass all other contestants with his tank design. He earns a title of The Glorious Tank Autist of SH - comrade @N-L-M!

   His XM-2239 "Norman" tank was chosen by all judges as the best submissions of this competition. His work was fighting with Toxn's heavy tank for a 1st place, and managed to overtake it.

 

tP8DKOD.jpg

 

   @Sturgeon's XM12 "Donward" was disqualified from the competition as it was not fitting into one of basic requirements (width, 3.35 meters without skirts vs 3.25 meters required). 

   @A. T. Mahan's 120mm gun tank T44 also was disqualified for use of armor tech that was out of competition-imposed industrial capabilities limitation (1940-1950s level of tech)

   @ApplesauceBandit's AFVs were also not in a competition as submission was lacking in any stats, so we couldn't understand if vehicle fits into basic requirements. 

 

 

   In 25 ton category a rivalry was stronger as more light tanks proposals managed to get through basic requirements. Judges examined several war vehicles proposed by A.T. Mahan, Sturgeon, NLM, Toxn, and made their choice. The winner of this category is no other than a Supreme Warrior of Napkinpanzers comrade @Toxn!*

 

*vehicle should receive a change in co-axial MG placement, as now it is a danger for driver's head when he is entering/exiting his station or anytime when he have his head outside of the hatch.

 

G6srlLM.jpg

Our Great AFV designer Toxn pictured with tank drivers that his tank is going to kill before modernization programm will be launched to reposition co-axial MG to a safer place.

 

3aWloAa.jpg

Place for a memorial is ready to accept new heroes of SH Tank design bureau.** 

**Not in Kharkov

 

   Winners of this competition now should receive their prizes, after that - locked in their houses and allowed to get out only to work on AFV designs until retirement.

I am honoured to accept lifelong house arrest and confinement in the name of designing glorious tanks for our sacred motherland.

 

I will place the coaxial machinegun in a more suitable position where it can wound all crewman equally, so as to enact the egalitarian principles of our supreme state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   So i will do a post about competition as a whole, about submissions, give some advices and cover some other minute things. Will update this particular post with my views of each proposed AFVs. 

 

   In general

   Overal level of submissions was both higher and lower than previous time. Best designs of this competition were more detailed and thought out compared to last time, but we also had a surprising number of proposals that didn't even get through basic requirements, which were more generous than they were before. Several members of this forum who wanted to participate, didn't managed to finish their submissions, sadly. Combination of those 2 factors left judges with a strange situation when only 2.5 tanks designs in 45 ton category were available for actual judging.

   Submissions themselves also varied in quality. Lack of at least basic guidlines is probably one of reasons. Some of them were simply hard to read, others had way too much useless information for judges to go through. In my personal case this isn't really a problem, but we have people who have not much time for going through internet stuff. I will propose few things here. @A. T. Mahan's and @Sturgeon's posts are what i am thinking right now. Writing all text in bold IMO is just a step less obnoxious than writing everything IN CAPS. Writing a War and Peace is not needed for short description of your submissions, either.

   During disussion of vehicles, i also found hard to find specific values that were needed for one or another reason. We need some sort of general layout for submission that will allow for judges to compare designs more... fairly, i guess. Even location of description of features is sometimes confusing when jumping from bookmarks/pages between 3-5 different vehicles. In my case, i managed to miss a feature of gunner optics of @N-L-M Norman.

 

   Improvements for submissions

   First of all i propose to introduce a general layout of submission, that will help to orginize and standartize each entry in this competition, and will help for competitors to better represent their creations. For judges this will allow for easier comparison between entries/submissions. 

 

  Submission (Name, etc)

  1. Short description of what the fuck is this thing and why it have 5 tracks, 3 main guns and rotor blades in the bottom
  2. List or table of stats, matching with list or table of requirements. Will allow you to understand if you fucked up something as basic as size and for judges it will help to see if they need to pay attention to everything below this part of submission
  3. Nice MS Paint pics of your creation
  4. Description of design, general features and some thoughts
  5. List of features, maybe a place for "advanced" requirements stats. Stats should go in this order - Protection Survivability, Armament, FCS, Mobility, etc
  6. Few more pics and detailed stats
  7. Trashbin for everything else, in spoiler.

 

   This should allow for less random or strange crap from happening and generally will help to improve quality of our time spend on competitions.

 

 

   About designs that were eliminated from competition.

   In this contest judges (i was one of 3 judges) threw several vehicles outside of our SH bar because they were too drunk, and left them under cold rain of non-acceptance, drugs and diseased prostitutes. I already posted about this, but some people wanted more details.

 

  • ApplesauceBandit for lack of any stats to work with
  • Sturgeon's Donward was too fat for requirements, even with side skirts removed.
  • A.T. Mahan's T44 was proposed by me to be disqualified based on number of features that will be covered in more details. 

   I want to point out that all i will say here were my thoughts on this subject, other judges could have their own view on a submission.

 

   1) Armor was one of reasons why this vehicle was outside of general level of tech, suggested in a competition.

Quote

Central to our design is the incorporation of highly advanced composite armors...

/.../

we have managed to develop an armor package similar in concept to the BRL-1 and HAP-1 armor packages used on various models of early model pre-war M1 Abrams tanks.

/.../

The Type IIIA, used on the turret face, ......a layer of depleted uranium

/.../

It is worth mentioning that this armor design package more-or-less requires the production of a gaseous-diffusion uranium enrichment cascade and the production of weapons-grade uranium.

   As was discussed several times on different forums depleted uranium is a type of material that is very hard to work on safely. They are problems with it during machining process and other crap which would make it too hard or too costly to produce with 1940-1950s level of industry. Making just M1 Abrams-type armor is directly going against the background/backstory of contest. Simple ERA like Kontakt-1 or Kontakt-5 is ok for me, as those could be produced in given timeframe (they were not produced in 1940s or 50s for other reasons). But if we are going with ceramic-polymer layered armor with DU and similar, all other contestants could start to put MERAs, Active cell T-80U-like armor packages, APS, jammers and so on, on their basic vehicles. This is 100% sure against proposed timeframe quoted by Lost.

 

   2) WTF is happening with a weight of T44?

Quote

In summary, the T44 medium tank meets all of the required design specifications:

  • It is 90,000lb unloaded, and 128,000lb at combat weight.

   So it is 41 metric tons unloaded, and 58 tons loaded. Does this mean that you need to strip 17 tons of equipment from a vehicle in order for it to fit into required weight? Did you know that T-90A weight as much as M4 Sherman?*

 

*if you strip 17 tons from it by removing ammunition, fuel, ERA, turret, autoloader and probably an engine as well.

 

 

   3) This reason was less of a problem from requirements point of view, but cemented my view of this vehicle as Abrams wankery.

Quote

The second powertrain is derived from prewar work on gas turbines.

   Why would anybody even look at gas turbines while having 1950s level of tech? Gas turbines have reason to exist only with level of tech of around 1980s or now, with computerized control. In 1950s nobody had 1000 HP compact gas turbine on a 40-50 tons tank in serviceable condition.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this template idea too.  I already mentioned the main reason for me not bothering to figure out any hard stats (some classes I'm in right now already having a lot of this same sort of work), but seeing how much math and detail everyone else was putting into their submissions at the time was giving me the impression that I'd have to calculate out all sorts of junk if I wanted to have a chance to compete with them.  One of my classes I'm in has me designing some gadget down to the last nut and bolt, so I wasn't exactly feeling too motivated to go do nearly the same thing in my free time too.  I've got little knowledge when it comes to designing cartridges or understanding engines, so going into serious detail about either of those was a worry as well.

 

A lot of those restrictions I felt were self-imposed on my end, but I'd have probably felt more motivated to complete my submission if I had a clearer idea of when the math would stop giving credence to the design and would start becoming mere fluff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had already said that it was evident my decision to do a fake history on this one counted against me. I'm not sure I like this fact (I deliberately chose to do a fake history since I did a fake proposal last time), but it should have been obvious to me ahead of time since LoooSeR was one of the judges. I did include a full spec sheet based on those in Hunnicutt for reference.

 

I'm a little annoyed that the Roach got dropped down the memory hole since it was my primary submission for the 45t requirement. Why was the Roach disqualified, @LoooSeR?

 

And as I've said many times before on the Discord, I didn't expect to win anyway, but it is something of an itch for me.

Share this post


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

I had already said that it was evident my decision to do a fake history on this one counted against me. I'm not sure I like this fact (I deliberately chose to do a fake history since I did a fake proposal last time), but it should have been obvious to me ahead of time since LoooSeR was one of the judges. I did include a full spec sheet based on those in Hunnicutt for reference.

 

I'm a little annoyed that the Roach got dropped down the memory hole since it was my primary submission for the 45t requirement. Why was the Roach disqualified, @LoooSeR?

 

And as I've said many times before on the Discord, I didn't expect to win anyway, but it is something of an itch for me.

Roach wasn't disqualified. My memory was wrong, it was.

 

Quote

Medium / Heavy Tank

  • Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters)

 

Quote

Width: 3.29 m

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LoooSeR said:

I am metrics guy, don't know those feets and inches. And Roach as it is was a worse design compared to NLM's and Toxn's (i reviewed it anyway).

 

I bet it was. @N-L-M's was a great design, and I knew I couldn't compete. Kinda weird to hear no feedback, though.

Share this post


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

 

I bet it was. @N-L-M's was a great design, and I knew I couldn't compete. Kinda weird to hear no feedback, though.

As i said, i will update a post above with my reviews of vehicles (Donward was also examined even if it didn't made through requirements). 

 

Quote

Hey @LoooSeR, divide 10.8 by 3.28 for me.

   This is another reason why we need some sort of standart. Width was given in both metrics, you posted stats in metrics and i went with metrics in requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

As i said, i will update a post above with my reviews of vehicles (Donward was also examined even if it didn't made through requirements). 

 

Ah. I thought your post of 7 hours ago was the review. Pardon me.

Share this post


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

 

Ah. I thought your post of 7 hours ago was the review. Pardon me.

   I reviewed almost all vehicles, but it usually was done late at nights and only few short notes are left. They need to be rewritten and expanded a lot, don't really want to do this now.

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
      This thread is for suggesting contest subjects for the forum to participate in!
    • 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:
       

×