Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

 

edit: I'm dumb, I thought I had put 10 foot 8  in the contest instead of 10.8. So that's entirely my fault.

 

 

Relevant. 

 

 

Also, I like the idea of controversy built into our fictional military procurement program.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so some thoughts.   First, everyone put in a lot of effort, and it was a hard call to have to eliminate the ones that didn't meet the requirements.  My pics would have been different, had there not been the problem with dimensions and or armor that if feasible seems like the kind of thing that would cause production delays and cost overruns. 

 

On the Mediums

I was disappointed theSturgeons got eliminated, it was a cool design, and would have been competitive.  Very cool looking too!

 

For Toxn, what I really liked was the idea that the design was the same for the light and Medium, with minor changes and a switch in armor material. It seems like that would give you a lot of options to improve the vehicles, with parts from the other version.  

 

NLMs design seemed like the best balance of tech/armor/gun and just edged Toxn out in my mind.  I liked his design approach, of just fixing and improving all wrong with a solid design. 

 

Now the lights I have to say my considerations were a little different because I think Sturges light was a little better than Toxn's but Toxns has the advantage of the factory being able to produce a solid medium if the need arises, or a highbred light/medium.  

 

NLM and light proposal was not brought over by enough three breasted hoo- Assistants for serious consideration!

 

I was disappointed no one came up with a multibank motor!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Ok so some thoughts.   First, everyone put in a lot of effort, and it was a hard call to have to eliminate the ones that didn't meet the requirements.  My pics would have been different, had there not been the problem with dimensions and or armor that if feasible seems like the kind of thing that would cause production delays and cost overruns. 

 

On the Mediums

I was disappointed theSturgeons got eliminated, it was a cool design, and would have been competitive.  Very cool looking too!

 

For Toxn, what I really liked was the idea that the design was the same for the light and Medium, with minor changes and a switch in armor material. It seems like that would give you a lot of options to improve the vehicles, with parts from the other version.  

 

NLMs design seemed like the best balance of tech/armor/gun and just edged Toxn out in my mind.  I liked his design approach, of just fixing and improving all wrong with a solid design. 

 

Now the lights I have to say my considerations were a little different because I think Sturges light was a little better than Toxn's but Toxns has the advantage of the factory being able to produce a solid medium if the need arises, or a highbred light/medium.  

 

NLM and light proposal was not brought over by enough three breasted hoo- Assistants for serious consideration!

 

I was disappointed no one came up with a multibank motor!

 

 

 

 

I was tempted to include a monkey-model version with the medium's armour package and the light's gun, engine etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here goes the light tank round i hope i got everyone!
 

Light tanks:

Sturgeons Sandys:

 

E4:

his one is a very neat idea and would have been a very good winning candidate if this competition would have been about airdroppable tanks even though the MG on the loaders side is a bit of a hazard. Sadly, however its competitors just outclass it

 

E6:

Well at the first glance this awesome turret armour combined with a pretty decent main and secondary armament is looking pretty good, the big problem however is that the hull is so lightly armed that probably a decent HE shot form an enemy tank on the turret is going to shred the hull.

Then the 20mm gun is is probably better to do away with it because in general in combat the gunner is engaging anything remotely tank looking, be it IFV, MBT or just some crazy jihadyota with his main gun due to visibility and target ID aswell as to make sure you really destroy the target since 20mm is not exactly all that powerfull

 

NLM:

I got to be honest, I really liked that wheeled death trap for some reason but sadly it has some problems with its cross-country mobility due to it being a wheeled vehicle.

Also your choice of Armament while cool is not exactly that powerful as for example sturgeons entry, sure your ATGM is going to be a lot better against heavy armour but due to it being MCLOS for now it really is hard to hit anything, and while the 35mm gun is a well balanced system it does not provide as much single shot HE potential as heavier gun from the opponents.

 

A.T. Mahans:

First of all, bold text is pretty straining to read, especially on mobile but well i guess since these were your first posts its not that big of a deal and now you know

The tank is pretty solid though it ofcourse does have problems aswell, first the idea with RR is not that bad though with only 2 shots and risky reloading from the outside does not make it as effective as for example the ATGM solution or gun solution of other competitors.
 

Applesauce Bandits:

While it is a very pretty boy it sadly never made it into the judging area since there was basically very sparse info.

 

Toxns:

Even though the MG is on the wrong side this tank was choose because it basicly is the best allrounder, decent armour, mobility, gun and if shit really hits the fan you can make nearly the same tank but just in heavy.
Another great advantage of this tank was that its upgradeability was emphasized, since the initial version does lack things like rangefinder etc. it however is designed to use tech that will become available in the near future.

What I personally really like (which i will explain more in the heavy tank section) is that your engine is very service friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also add an addendum for future competitions:

 

One of the things that really annoyed me was feeling like one of the tools I was using for my design (the tank designer excel spreadsheet) seemed much more conservative in its weight estimates than it needed to be. For instance, if you mock up a T-44 using the spreadsheet, you get a weight estimate of 37-40 tonnes rather than the 32 tonnes that is commonly cited. I think part of the discrepency is that the spreadsheet uses estimates for every component and goes into quite a bit of detail about what it puts in. So any error gets magnified as it gets totted together.

 

I don't really know what the solution is here, as I don't want to go back to manually estimating my weight only to massively underestimate due to not taking minor components into account. But it might be nice for the next competition to specify a standard means for estimating weights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Zyklon said:

Toxns:

Even though the MG is on the wrong side this tank was choose because it basicly is the best allrounder, decent armour, mobility, gun and if shit really hits the fan you can make nearly the same tank but just in heavy.
Another great advantage of this tank was that its upgradeability was emphasized, since the initial version does lack things like rangefinder etc. it however is designed to use tech that will become available in the near future.

What I personally really like (which i will explain more in the heavy tank section) is that your engine is very service friendly.

Thanks for the feedback.

Share this post


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

E4:

his one is a very neat idea and would have been a very good winning candidate if this competition would have been about airdroppable tanks even though the MG on the loaders side is a bit of a hazard. Sadly, however its competitors just outclass it

 

Seems like a bit of a narrow interpretation, but fair enough I guess.

Share this post


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

 

Seems like a bit of a narrow interpretation, but fair enough I guess.

Well due to its weight constriction it just wasn´t able to keep up with its heavier opponents, we speak about having wayy less armour, less upgradeability in terms of firepower FCS etc. 

It all in all is a fine vehicle if you have the limitations that air mobility has in your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2018 at 11:27 AM, Zyklon said:

Well due to its weight constriction it just wasn´t able to keep up with its heavier opponents, we speak about having wayy less armour, less upgradeability in terms of firepower FCS etc. 

It all in all is a fine vehicle if you have the limitations that air mobility has in your mind.

 

Yeah I mean air drop was sorta the point. My logic was that there wasn't much reason for Cascadia to even have a light tank in the Chaffee class unless it offered a unique capability. Air drop was the best thing I could come up with. If you're not gonna do that, you might as well use a Roach.

Share this post


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

 

Yeah I mean air drop was sorta the point. My logic was that there wasn't much reason for Cascadia to even have a light tank in the Chaffee class unless it offered a unique capability. Air drop was the best thing I could come up with. If you're not gonna do that, you might as well use a Roach.

 

I sort of conceptualised the light tank requirement as a Type 62-esque thing where range and rough country ability was more important than speed or exotic forms of strategic transport. I also felt that the light tank and medium tank should share as many components as possible in order to get the most out of Cascadia's small industrial base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zyklon some notes: (I was the designer of Mahan's light, he did a chunk of the engineering work and buggered the formatting)

 I'm fairly sure I mentioned that the Recoilless Rifles are mainly to provide direct HE / Cannister / APERS fire support, with only a secondary HEAT capability, to offset the lackluster HE performance of the primary armament. While I can't see a technical problem with mounting NLM's or another design of ATGM, I wasn't sure of how to indicate this within the competition. In addition I'm not sure how the practical difference works out between reloading recoilless rifles and ATGMs.

 

@LoooSeR and @Jeeps_Guns_Tanks I'd love to hear your feedback as well, I'm not sure what went wrong, per-se? I realize it's a little naive to expect to win on the first go-round but yeah, onwards and upwards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Detailed look at each submission.

 

   Finally, my expanded review of each submission of this competition was put together, and now it is here. During 2nd phase of judging, all 3 judges were exchaning their opinion on vehicles, some of points made here could be covered in other judges posts, but i am still leaving them here for sake of completion. 

   Each vehicle was reviewed based on models shown (general level of skills of poster with 3d modelling was taken into account), description given and my own knowledges of subject. In those reviewes i will generally not get into stats or direct comparisons with other submissions much, but look at features of each design, viewing them in relation to requirements, basics of AFV design and common sense.

 

   @A. T. Mahan, @Whatismoo

57mm Gun Full Tracked Light Tank M48A4E4 “Koskiusko”

 

Spoiler

   General

  • Managed to fit into all requirements regarding stats
  • Weight allow for 4-5 tons upgrade potential
  • 57 mm cannon is not a bad option for main gun for a light tank for anti-tank work
  • Very good power/weight ratio
  • Not bad suspension (ground pressure, clearance, etc)
  • 3 man crew is good way to make this vehicle cheaper to operate and train personal.
  • Turret size is a bad side of this vehicle

   Weapons

  • 57 mm is too specialised on AT role, HE perfomance is not that great. This AFV is more of light TD instead of general purpose light tank. Taking into account that majority of targets (like up to 80%) needs some form of HE shells to deal with, general purpose gun is more desired option.
  • Main weapon system is awkward in general. Feeding systems needs a lot of space, forcing not optimal geometry of turret with gun being located in lower part of turret, forcing vehicle to expose a lot of its profile in order to fire main gun. On top of that HE/AP rounds switching is not going to be easy task compared to conventional cannons. Lack of loader also means crew will have hard time with changing ammunition type without seriously decreasing situational awareness and it also leaves commander/gunner to reload recoilless rifles.
  • 2 106mm Recoilless rifles would not be needed if main weapon system was capable to fire adequate HE rounds, on level of generap purpose guns. As was noted in submission "57mm O-271U HE shell was historically lackluster. To offset this, and provide additional close-medium range firepower, M40 106mm Recoilless Rifles are mounted". 
  • Taking into account that majority of targets need HE rounds, this vehicle have effectively only 2 good HE shots per engagement, as there is no good visible way to reload them from inside of this vehicle.
  • Location of those recoilless rifles also not that great, combination of their long profile and thin tube walls, they will be rather easily damaged by fragmentation.
  • It looks like they are located beyond the dimensions of the hull sides, they are more likely to be damaged while driving through ruins and some other terrains.
  • Both weapons don't have thermal sleeve, while having long thin barrels. 1950s level of tech doesn't mean 1950s level of knowledge about AFV design in our AH universe. 
  • .50 HMG exposed on top of the roof, could be some sort of protected cupola.

   FCS

  • Generally not bad for this vehicle
  • Hunter-killed capability
  • For light tank it should have better optics kit to work as recon vehicle
  • Other equipment should be considered, like IR/night vision systems, IR illumination detection kits if possible, etc.

   Protection

  • Terrible level of protection
  • Several tons (until 25t weight reached) were left unused, could be dedicated for protection
  • No use of spaced/NERA armor at least on frontal part of vehicle
  • Not sure how well ERA will work on such ligtly armored vehicle. Needs more sophisticated mounting system than usual to avoid damage to vehicle from ERA block detonation. 
  • Turret is most likely place to be hit on a tank, making it soo big is terrible design choice that make sure this vehicle with catch even not well aimed shots, especially from  the side.
  • No sideskirts to protect vehicle even from AT rifles
  • No actions taken against IED/mines

   Mobility

  • Very good p/w ratio
  • Expected high tactical mobility
  • Adequate/good for light tank

   Other

  • Driver may have obstructed escape from vehicle in many positions of the turret
  • Turret bustle and stowage bin also obscure access to engine deck roof, which will make servicing it inside of buildings/protected shelters to be either harder task or not as safe (turning turret to the side inside of buildings doesn't increase safety).

 

   Conclusion

   This light tank is not fulfilling requirements as much as it could on both weight and firepower sides, with main weapon system more optimised for Tank destroyers. Vehicle have  protection level of APC but with bloated profile thanks to oversized turret. For general purpose light tank M48A4E2 have awkward weapons, low frontal protection. For recon vehicle it have unnecessary big profile and no advanced recon/observation kit. Only tactical mobility is good on this vehicle, and maybe not bad FCS. 

   Combination of negatives for me did not outweighted positives, so this is why i considered this light tank as worse than several other submissions. Although, i thank use of not totally boring loading system on this vehicle, haha :D

 

 

120MM GUN TANK T44

   As this vehicle was eliminated from competition i didn't made any serious/deep review of this vehicle. Leaving some questinable stats and features of this submission, few other things that jumped out for me:

Spoiler
  • Turret bustle completely cover engine deck, same problem as on light tank
  • TC and gunner (or loader) hatches are too close to each other, create a weakspot for mortar/artillery HE rounds (edge effect)
  • ERA is used for increased protection, which is good. And yes, i am ok with it as 1940-50s level of tech allows to build it.
  • Good ERA coverage of UFP, where it have probably high efficiency tanks to angle
  • Bad ERA positioning on LFP and turret frontal armor
  • No protection by ERA package of lower side armor
  • ERA protection of at least part of the roof and part of turret sides
  • ERA protection of turret ring from the side
  • Don't like geometry of tracks in the rear part of tank. Angle at which track leave last roller and go to drive sprocket is too step, which leave less contact surface of tracks for a drive sprocket to grab on.
  • First roller and front sprocket swing arms are (as i see it right on schematics) attached almost in the same place, which mean this part of side hull armor is weakened by joints.
  • Serious level of firepower
  • Such long barrel is not good thing for vehicle use in rough terrain and in urban conditions

 

   Conclusion

   This vehicle is outside of capabilities of industry to produce it with reasonable price. Some of features are not bad - extensive use of ERA is not a bad way to increase protection of vehicle while keeping inside of weight limitation. There are questions to main weapon very long barrel, but it does provide serious firepower that would allow to not bother with armament upgrades for long time. 

   But i can't say more on this vehicle as it jumped out for me as more of Abrams wankery than a submission for requirements, i felt it went against spirit of this competition.

 

 

@ApplesauceBandit

   Even if submission was not taken for "competitive judging", i looked at what we had on hand and made some notes about it.

 

   XM42 "Prettyboy"

Spoiler

Positives

  • Some details were modelled - like splash guard on UFP and collapsible mount for turret roof mounted HMG
  • Gunner sight moutned high enough to work in hull down position
  • Turret shape is good for ballistic protection if backed with enough LOS armor thickness
  • Easy access to engine deck
  • Did not forgot to put muzzle brake to decrease recoil
  • Good depression/elecation for main weapon
  • Appears to be compact light tank, and to make it more compact UFP was sloped well enough to the point that driver needs a special hatch to make space for him.
  • Reasonable crew number
  • Ventilation system in turret mentioned and modelled
  • SPG on proposed tank chassis
  • Side hatch for ammunition loading/getting rid of spent cases on SPG turret

Negatives

  • Driver needs a special hatch that can compromise frontal protection (lower angle of frontal section of driver cabin + edge effect)
  • Optics mounted in UFP is terrible for protection, especially in a place that is likely to be weakspot
  • It appears that escape route for driver is obstructed by turret, when it is facing forward
  • Driver's sliding hatch is worse for fast evacuation that more "classis" openable designs, that could be opened simultaneously with driver moving out of his place, while in sliding design driver needs to wait for hatch to slide and clear a path.
  • Gunner sight obstructs commander view of although small, but still a section of frontal area, especially in hull down position
  • Commander hatch doesn't have optics facing 90 degr to the right/side
  • Additional proposed protection against HEAT-warhead based weapons was not modelled
  • Turret frontal section shape will make it harder to mount any add-on protection kit or ERA
  • Gunner doesn't have his own hatch
  • It appears that gunner also doesn't have general-purpose observation optics to search big arc, only main sight for shooting at certain targets
  • No thermal sleeve

   

   Conclusion

   This submission would have been a solid entry in this competition if more time was given to completing basic requirements. Turret shape could be changed for expected future upgrades with layered armor/NERA. Only you bothered to model SPG based on proposed tank chassis, too.

 

 

@Toxn

   As both vehicle have plenty of similarities, i made a combined notes on both.

 

 XM8 “Elk”

Spoiler

 Interesting idea - he uses same size and layout for medium/heavy and light tanks, but different material

 

Positives:

  • Both medium/heavy and light tank fits into all requirements
  • Relatively well protected frontally (medium)
  • Uses fuel tanks under frontal armor to increase protection
  • Side armor around crew compartment is increased compared to rest of side armor
  • Driver hatch protection wasn't compromised by periscopes
  • Upgrade potential and models of proposed/expected upgrades
  • Interesting and easy to implement upgrade against APCR even on basic vehicle
  • Balanced crew of 4 for both vehicles
  • Good/balanced firepower for both vehicles
  • Vert Stabilizer for main gun and FCS in general (incl. upgrades)
  • Compressed air bore evacuator
  • Wet ammoracks
  • 50 rounds carried is pretty good
  • High energy / good hp/t ratio
  • Very high max range for light tank
  • Commander and loader have rotatable periscopes
  • Easy service of engine
  • Vent system
  • For the most part suspension have mature layout/design

Negatives

  • Suspension uses inversed swing arm on 2 rollers (1 per each side), which might be bad for driving offroad - increased wear and higher probability to damage it
  • This arrangement of swing arms is used to decrease overal hight of this vehicle, but it is 2.7 meters tall (0.6 meters higher than T-54)
  • Ammunition location, including near driver station, not isolated from crew
  • Gunner doesn't have rotatable periscope, or any wide-angle optics to search for targets
  • HMG location
  • Uses all-aluminium design where it isn't really necessary or even compromising protection (like UFP) on light tank
  • Internal fuel tanks, which could have been moved outisde of the hull, for example on top of upper mudguards, similar to T-72
  • Gunner sight is in the way of commander's periscope when in hull down position
  • No significant protection of sides even in proposed upgrades
  • No ERA upgrades
  • Turret shape is not that good for more volume/weight efficient armor upgrades as base armor can't be removed or changed easily
  • Gun mantlet sits near gun mounting system. Even non-penetrating hit can probably jam it
  • Coaxial MG location
  • No thermal sleeve on gun barrel

 

   Conclusion

   Well, Toxn's heavy was close 2nd place in 45t category and his light varaint was a winner in 25t category. Both vehicles are reasonable machines, but in few places those tanks are too "1940-50s" level of design (for example - wet ammorack instead of separated ammunition compartment). I liked first armor upgrade that could easily be used on basic proposal. Both vehicles were more mature and detailed in design and were more focused on requirements and their spirit.   

 

 

@N-L-M

   As your heavy tank won, i will begin with light AFV that didn't managed to repeat a success of his bigger brother.

 

XM-2240 RED FOX

Spoiler

Positives

  • Fits into requirements
  • Light and small (1.95 meters turret roof, 2.3 with optics)
  • 35 mm caliber AC with HE/AP load is balanced in terms of autocannons
  • 500-600 rounds for AC are carried
  • ATGMs are used as additional anti-armor weapon
  • ATGMs can be used in hull-down as launcher is raisable
  • 4 missiles in ready to launch configuration
  • Missiles are located inside of launcher unit with at least some sort of protection for ATGMs
  • Uses combination of steel and aluminium for armor
  • V-shaped hull bottom
  • Smoke grenades
  • FCS and optics same as on Norman
  • Upgradability of armor + ERA proposed
  • firefighting system as on Norman
  • Spaced armor on hull sides, front and turret rear/sides in form of stowage bins with thicker walls
  • Turret have protective mantlet on the autocannon
  • Crew comfort, air conditioning, water+food
  • Variants of chassis use
  • Wheels/suspension probably can be built using civilian products or civilian-grade equipment to decrease cost

Negatives

  • Wheeled death trap, high mobility is possible before first puddle of mud
  • No spaced armor on turret front even if design is using it on sides
  • Wheels 
  • ATGMs are MCLOS
  • ATGMs can't be reloaded without leaving vehicle
  • Different types parts are used for suspension of front and rear wheels
  • Turret shape is complicated, probably needs more welding that it really needs
  • Limited HE capabilities of main weapon, same as with A.T. Mahans light tank. Actually it is probably worse, as 35 mm cannon rounds likely to have less HE payload than 57 mm high velocity rounds
  • ATGMs are too expensive to use as good HE shell substitute, which is total make it worse compared to A.T. Mahans proposal to use 106 RRs
  • Driver hatch in UFP compromise protection against direct AP/HE rounds hit
  • Vehicle uses wheels which make it a wheeled death trap

       

   Conclusion

   This wheeled death trap is focused on AT work and dealing with low-protected vehicles but leaves HE capabilities to be less than other proposed vehicles managed to show. MCLOS ATGMs also were considered to be not good enough compared to more boring classic medium caliber cannons for AT work, although they could be mentioned for future upgrades of this vehicle, when they would be SACLOS. All this combined with 10 tons of unused weight (15t vs max 25t) and generally low level of protection, bad cross country capabilities, this vehicle is too specialised on narrow type of warfare and losses in several key areas to other designs. 

   Wheeled death trap was pretty solid entry in this competition and unique compared to other proposals.

 

 

   XM-2239 NORMAN

Spoiler

Positives:

  • Fits into requirements
  • Relatively lower than several previously revewed design with 2.32 meters to turret roof.
  • Frontal projection of the turret isn't as bad as few other designs because of optics-gun positioning in the turret and turret design itself
  • Good hull down capabilities
  • Good frontal protection
  • Armor designed with upgradability in mind with removable section of armor attached with bolts
  • Hull lower protection incorporate fuel tank and an internal armor plate
  • Uses different hardness steels
  • Uses spaced armor
  • Proposes NERA and ERA
  • Have protective sideskirts
  • Ammunition is separated from crew and have blow out panels
  • Big amount of smoke grenade launchers
  • Fire fighting system in crew and engine compartment
  • Able to mount spall linear
  • Avaliable and proposed guns provide good firepower
  • 56 rounds is pretty good
  • Advanced optics kit
  • Loader have not bad optics
  • Optical rangefinder with ballistic computer
  • Rangefinder is operated by commander, to increase speed of first shot at a spotted target 
  • Hunter-killed system
  • Gun follows sight system
  • Commander can override controls of main weapons
  • Crew comfort - water, food, air conditioning
  • APU, also works as engine heating system
  • Compressed air 
  • Big engine bay for better colling of the engine
  • Ammo loading hatch in the turret side
  • Fume extractor
  • Externally removable barrel of the main gun
  • Sprung hatches
  • Upgradability of components like ammoracks, plus ability to build different vehicles on this chassis (as it is overbuilt)
  • Easy to maintain/repair suspension (external, coil springs)
  • Strategical mobility is taken into account

Negatives:

  • Loader optics is fixed, could be suplemented with rotating optical station to look directly behind the vehicle, or to cover frontal arc if needed
  • Commander's main sight is blocked by gunner sight in hull down position, not sure about qulity of picture in stereorangefinder
  • Driver hatch appears to have optics fixed into the hatch, this compromise protection of already relatively weak part (HE blast on turret frontal armor can push hatch, weakened by holes for periscope, and periscopes themselvs into the driver station)
  • Driver probably have not very good visibility from optics that is mounted in the rear section of the hatch, which is already located on hull roof
  • Location of both MGs on turret roof
  • Lack of additional protective mantlet for main gun, current one looks to be located near gun mounting system, probably it is prone to jamming even for non-penetrating hits
  • Uses external suspension, that decrease possible increase of internal volume and make increase of side armor and add-on modules on hull sides a harder design problem
  • Rangefinder base is short-ish, so it probably is less accurate
  • Very low protection of LFP (30 mm of armor), means that if it is hit, fuel tanks are likely to be damaged as well

 

   Conclusion

   Norman is most detailed and mature design with a lot of attention given to a crew and their working space. Well protected with balanced mobility, firepower and means for easy upgrades being built-in, this submission won first place for a reason.

 

 

@Sturgeon

   Now we came to a part of this post that you apperently really wanted to see. Let's begin with light tank

 

"Sandy"

Spoiler

Positives

  • Fits all requirements
  • Light, can be transported by air/good strategical mobility
  • Relatively small vehicle
  • Height is 2.13 meters (TC's optics), which is rather good compared to other submissions
  • Good ground clearance
  • Upgrade potential, variant with 3 man turret
  • Upgraded variant have very good turret armor for a light tank
  • Pretty good main weapon for such light vehicle, balanced AP/HE capabilities 
  • Both gunner and TC on airmobile version have plenty of observation optics to work with 
  • Gunner can have rotatable optics pretty easily, althoug submissions doesn't specify if it is rotatable 
  • Upgraded version have turret with differet shape than on medium tank - no roof weakspot being visible from the front 
  • Commander hatch doesn't have protrusion, no weakspot as on medium tank 
  • Rear doors for crew evacuation, also can be used to load vehicle with ammunition and other stuff 
  • On upgraded variant loader have MG located in the front of his hatch 
  • Crew stations on airdroppable variant in a turret are protected by 25 mm steel armor 
  • Good hp/t ratio

 

Negatives

  • All around armor made of aluminium means low level of protection of this vehicle
  • 10 mm side armor made of aluminium is awful, i think some of HE shells fragments can make it through 
  • External suspension limits ability to increase side protection with some sort of steel skirts, spaced from main hull to avoid HE fragments, bullets and other crap from penetrating this AFV 
  • No side skirts even as upgrade for land version of this vehicle 
  • No steel inserts/layer even in frontal armor 
  • Frontal location of engine and transmission coupled with low protection means a lot of mobility kills from weak weapons
  • It appears that optics in mounted into the driver hatch, compromising protection against HE blast on turret frontal armor 
  • Upgraded variant turret shape isn't that good for easy armor upgrades 
  • On both variants there is an safety hazard for a driver as gunner's MG/coaxial MG line of sight is near/above driver's hatch, making driver to cross line of fire during entrance and exit
  • On "heavy" version MG barrel sticks out too much and can be damaged by debris and fragments from HE rounds  
  • Not sure of trashcans on airmobile version of light tank being comfortable to work inside while in desert under hot sun. Small internal volume coupled with realitibely high surface will quikcly increase internal temperature of crew stations to uncomfortable levels 10+ tons of unused weight 
  • 20 mm AC on upgraded variant is probably not efficient way to use internal volume and weight. Gunners will hit tank-looking AFVs with AP anyway and everythign else will be better destroyed by HE/HEAT rounds anyway 
  • Gunner doesn't have optics on the roof on upgraded variant, limiting his ability to observe targets while in concealed/turret down position 
  • Sight in turret frontal armor compromise frontal protection on most probable place to be hit
  • No thermal sleeve

 

   Conclusion

   Sandy in both configurations are vehicles with potential, but with problems that compromise this potential. "Light" version would have been a serious contender... in other competition. We didn't had requirements to be capable to be easily transportable by air, or be airdroppable. Light Sandy was designed with self-imposed objectives. It also have number of problems because of that, like very low level of protection, question with crew comfort and so on. 

   Heavy variant with new turret was much more serious contender in 25t category, but very low level of hull protection, questinable upgradeability of chassis and turret, layout of vehicle were it's main failings in my eyes.

 

 

M15 Roach

Spoiler

 

Positives

  • Relatively well armored (although less than Donward), including modernization variants
  • NERA used on modernized vehicles, incl. turret, hull, sides 
  • Up to 152 mm cannon (20 mm coax is deleted on biggest cannon variant) 
  • 2-axis stabilizers in upgraded variants 
  • Optical rangefinder on some of models 
  • Driver position is on the side of the hull, leaving him more space to get it/leave vehicle 
  • MG on the roof is located in front of loader's hatch, instead of somewhere between loader's and TC's hatch like on Donward 
  • Reasonable suspension geometry/layout

 

Negatives

  • External suspension coupled with vertical sides increase vehicle width, and probably more prone to battle damage from HE
  • Turret shape exposes turret roof in frontal projection of tank (rear is higher than frontal part of turret)
  • Because of turret shape TC cupola is bigger/higher mounted, increasing turret roof weakspot
  • Gunner primary sight is mounted in such way that it compromise turret frontal protection
  • Gunner doesn't have sights on turret roof, which limits his observation from hull down and turret down positions
  • Optical rangefinder partially block TC's frontal area vision, especially in hull down
  • No protective gun mantlet on original and on one of upgraded variants, gun mantlet looks like it is close to gun mountings
  • On most upgraded variant, turret frontal part may be a problem for a driver  
  • it appears that optics in mounted into the driver hatch, compromising protection against HE blast on turret frontal armor
  • Turret shape on basic version is not very good for easy armor upgrades
  • 20 mm autocannon is probably not very usefull/efficient use of internal space, also compromise gun mantlet protection
  • Upgraded variant with new turret have very long barrel
  • No thermal sleeve
  • It also have very long turret, meaning more surface visible in +-30 degr. arc, easier to hit from side
  • And it partially obscure access to engine deck roof


   Conclusion

   Roach was in my opinion mediocre vehicle. Submission lacked level of details and autism of NLM and Toxn's works, which would played against it. Shape of hull and turret was made without ease of upgradeability in mind, turret armor weakspots and few other things were other factors playing against Roach. Weapon upgrades, firepower and adequate FCS for it, general level of armor protection outside of weakspots and armor upgrades were positives of this submission. In my mind i put it on 3rd place out of all 45t category submissions, with a noticeable gap between it and 2nd place. 

 

   M12 Donward

   As it was eliminated from competition i did only a short review of it.

Spoiler

Positives

  • Relatively well armored
  • Turret shape is very optimised to maximum protection from the front
  • Armored side skirts
  • Gunner have 2 sights
  • Ballistic calculator
  • Aiming systems for inderect fire
  • Selection of guns, from 85 to 152 mm cannons (152 mm cannon mentioned in part 5)
  • Smoke grenades
  • Not bad hp/t ratio (18-19)
  • Hull shape makes external suspension to be less of problem for vehicle size, as it is eleptical (sides are at an angle)

 

Negatives

  • Turret appears to be blocking driver's escape from tank when in forward and rear-facing positions
  • Turret side profile is very big and much less protected, problem for protection in frontal 60degr. arc 
  • Turret shape makes it hard to upgrade with additional armor or ERA with good coverage
  • Vehicle hight is bad, 2.66 (roof) and up to 2.95 mm (MG)
  • Gunner don't have a hatch
  • HMG blocks part of frontal vision optics of TC in hull down
  • MG location in the center of turret roof, where it is awkward to use
  • It appears that optics in mounted into the driver hatch, compromising protection against HE blast on turret frontal armor
  • Very long barrel
  • No thermal sleeve
  • 20 mm autocannon on several variants is questinable weapon choice

 

   Conclusion

   Donward have same problem as Roach - it is 1950s level of tech tanks without much of modern AFV design features considered for it, unlike what we see in Norman and to slightly less degree in Elk. Roach was re-mix of T-55, while Donward looks like be T110E5-inspired design. Turret and hull shape would be harder to match with advanced armor upgrades that should be expected by designers in this AH story. Turret also have problems in terms of protection outside of very narrow frontal arc, especially it will be more and more problematic to protect as time goes on and better shells appear.

   And this submission also lacks details, which mean that it feels less mature and thought out compared to NLM's and Toxn's entries. On top of not fitting into basic requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well fuck-a-duck that was brutal. Thanks for the feedback.

 

After much thought, I definitely agree that we need better suggested proposal structure in the future. In particular, no more fake histories (or kept to a minimum, anyway).

Share this post


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

Well fuck-a-duck that was brutal. Thanks for the feedback.

 

After much thought, I definitely agree that we need better suggested proposal structure in the future. In particular, no more fake histories (or kept to a minimum, anyway).

Agreed and seconded.

 

I think this puts an entirely new spin on being

:loooserd:

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:
       

×