Competition: Tank Design 2239

[N-L-M]

@Toxn, how on earth do you pump out so much so fast? 

[Toxn]

15 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

@Toxn, how on earth do you pump out so much so fast? 

Stock parts and keenness.

 

I'm spent though 

[Sturgeon]

Current turret configuration:

 

 

Yes, that is an M2. Still trying to add more machine guns. So hard!

[N-L-M]

Gun at -10 elevation fits snugly in the shortened turret even at full recoil.

And at full elevation of +20 deg:

Only minor clipping of the frontal armor thanks to low-detail modeling. With minor changes the elevation could be +25.
If anyone's wondering, that's a 105mm L/50 gun, with a concentric recoil mechanism (basically, an M68 to within reasonable error)
The assumed recoil length is 350mm, a bit generous, if I make a light tank variant it'll have a longer recoil mechanism to reduce peak forces.
Also note that the holes for the coax and GSS clear metal in both maximum elevation and depression, so that works.

[Sturgeon]

I am suddenly very sure that the M240 model I am using is about two times bigger than it should be...

 

[N-L-M]

.60cal M240s are the future, you know. Though I suspect that if your tank is as squished as you say, perhaps it's the BMG that isn't to scale.

Turret details on the way. Commander's cupola requires a fairly large hole, which makes the loader's hatch look a mite small. GPS well is designed for upgradability, being quite a bit larger than it needs to be.

[Sturgeon]

You were correct, actually, it was the scale of the M2 that was wrong.

This is where I'm at right now. The MGs and mounts are a mess, but perhaps that's how it will have to be for now. They should really be on flexible, erectable mounts, but whatever.

Some stuff is still missing and/or more simplified than I'd like. But I'm done for today.

 

[N-L-M]

Just one quick question before you stop- it looks like the rangefinder would obstruct access to the loader's hatch, is this the case?

[Sturgeon]

17 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Just one quick question before you stop- it looks like the rangefinder would obstruct access to the loader's hatch, is this the case?

 

waves hand dismissively jus depens how you 'range the linkage n shit

[N-L-M]

Alrighty. My turret has no room for such a device, and will have to find the range using other methods.
The commander's toys are barely safe from the gun at full depression:

[Sturgeon]

An earlier cupola configuration that doesn't have the same "linkage issues":



I wanted to change it to add another machine gun, which those hatches pretty much prohibit.

[N-L-M]

The driver's access is extremely limited when the gun is overhead. At those angles however, the escape to the turret through the gunner's position is available.
There will probably also be a floor escape hatch.

And now that I can no longer reasonably postpone it, I must go and crudely model a suspension.

[Lord_James]

 

After 2 hours (and a total restart), this is what I have for the hull so far. 

 

3.1m wide, 1.4m tall, 7m long, 2m turret ring, 540mm tracks, side sponsons are to contain fuel cells and equipment (tow cables, shovels, spare track links, etc.).

 

Torsion bar suspension, 4 man crew, 85mm/55* front plate (148.2mm LoS), 45mm sides (not including upcoming sponson armor) 30mm roof and 20mm rear/bottom. 

 

Planned: low profile turret, 94/74mm L/40 squeezebore gun with loader assist device (cause I'm crazy), side skirts, engine/transmission/fuel tanks. 

[Sturgeon]

So it looks like we have what? Six contestants with work already on the board, and two or three more who have entered? Not bad at all.

[LoooSeR]

53 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

So it looks like we have what? Six contestants with work already on the board, and two or three more who have entered? Not bad at all.

Agree, this look to be good running contest.

 

I expected to see more modern-tech-like take on designs, as according to contest althistory crap in OP designers know about it, just can't make/produce it.

[N-L-M]

2 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Agree, this look to be good running contest.

 

I expected to see more modern-tech-like take on designs, as according to contest althistory crap in OP designers know about it, just can't make/produce it.

I've got quite a few plans, part of which is already reflected in the current design as seen and part of which isn't yet. For example, I chose the 105mm as I know ammo developments will keep it capable until at least late T-72 equivalent armor shows up; the internal layout of the hull is a bit more advanced than it looks, and the armor scheme isn't yet fully modeled.

There are more details, which I will point out in my final post, but rest assured that future tech is being considered.

[Toxn]

59 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Agree, this look to be good running contest.

 

I expected to see more modern-tech-like take on designs, as according to contest althistory crap in OP designers know about it, just can't make/produce it.

Ha, about all I managed was making the radio a transistor set 

 

One interesting thing is how we all seem to have decided on skipping a generation ITO weight class. No 30-tonne vehicles here, just straight from 12 tonnes to 45. One wonders what the crews will make of it.

[LoooSeR]

13 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Ha, about all I managed was making the radio a transistor set 

 

One interesting thing is how we all seem to have decided on skipping a generation ITO weight class. No 30-tonne vehicles here, just straight from 12 tonnes to 45. One wonders what the crews will make of it.

   There is no way to gauge reliability of each design, so 30 tons AFV are less interesting to design during those imaginary competitions. Maybe we will have a rule about decreasing reliabity with weight, in non-linear way for future competitions?  

[Toxn]

On ‎8‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 8:57 PM, LoooSeR said:

   There is no way to gauge reliability of each design, so 30 tons AFV are less interesting to design during those imaginary competitions. Maybe we will have a rule about decreasing reliabity with weight, in non-linear way for future competitions?  

I'd say that, in this case, a 40 tonne tank isn't the worst choice. The Cascade Republic is fighting a two-front war, with one being defensive and one occurring over open terrain. This favours frontal armour and long engagement ranges (ie: firepower) respectively.

 

Additionally, the Californians are already fielding Sherman analogues, and will be fielding them with long 75 equivalents soon. There is no point up-armouring to a higher weight class that's already a generation behind the enemy's most common AT weapons.

 

Finally; the population and manufacturing capacity at play here (tens of millions of citizens, likely uneven industrialisation given that cars are common but not ubiquitous) mean that the two sweet spots for armoured vehicles are either many-but-very-light or few-but-heavy. This is because your logistics curve is somewhat sigmoidal and there's a zero-sum bottleneck on crew numbers.

 

So trying to field 10 000 30-tonne vehicles when your entire armed forces are probably less than a million men isn't possible. Better to have fewer, exquisite systems or many more very low-capability ones for the same logistics train than get stuck with a force you can't field.

 

Actually; for my money the best bet would be to concentrate on total army mechanisation over building isolated armoured forces, because that provides synergistic benefits well beyond what numbers of vehicles would indicate. Then keep a small core of top-of-the line vehicles around to stiffen advances or enable breakthroughs. This is pretty much the 'Hilux War 2' strategy.

 

For future, though: we might want to think about adding a criterion regarding what the technology of the day can accomplish ITO transmission and suspension components, and grade accordingly as the vehicles bump up against those limits.

 

Edit: having thought about the issue a bit more, I think total mechanisation might struggle a bit ITO fuel supplies. Then again, wood gas is totally a thing and my stereotype of the pacific northwest is that there are a lot of trees there. So your Hilux war army might end up looking like a lot of trucks and Jeeps with wood gas generators slapped on, and a few big tanks who get to hog all the petrol/diesel for themselves.

[Lord_James]

pretty much done with the hull for now, gonna move on to the turret. 

 

Spoiler

 

center of gravity included, haven't calculated mass yet (will probably edit it in). 

 

 

 

Edit: Mass= 14 metric tons (13.92), I was expecting more  

material= high strength, low alloy steel (7.850 g/cm³), so thoroughly average steel (the color is rubber green, cause @ApplesauceBandit already took the rusty red I wanted ) 

[ApplesauceBandit]

Messed with proportions a little, added more dakka, stretched things out a little too.  Not entirely happy with the driver's position, may change the suspension as well.  Added the second coaxial MG just for giggles.  Gun right now has -12°/+20° elevation with that model

[Xlucine]

Can I compete with an ATG/AT-rocket and overweight light tank combo? Because given the terrain that looks like the better way of matching the threats

[N-L-M]

I now have a basic suspension, Merkava-3 style (the springs aren't modeled yet). If anyone has a quick easy way to make a drive sprocket I'd love to hear it.
Also the surfaces left in the rough from casting now look the part.

The gun clears the sponson corners:

If anyone's wondering, those are M60 wheels cut down in width by about an inch.

The tank boasts a low-profile silhouette in hull-down positions:
 

Edited August 19, 2018 by N-L-M
avoiding spamming

[Sturgeon]

3 hours ago, Xlucine said:

Can I compete with an ATG/AT-rocket and overweight light tank combo? Because given the terrain that looks like the better way of matching the threats

 

I don't see why not, though as Lost mentioned their ability to make decent ATGMs is nonexistent so you may effectively be stuck with RRs and rockets.

[Sturgeon]

5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   There is no way to gauge reliability of each design, so 30 tons AFV are less interesting to design during those imaginary competitions. Maybe we will have a rule about decreasing reliabity with weight, in non-linear way for future competitions?  

 

I don't see any reason reliability would be poor. The Jumbo Sherman worked fine and us about the same weight as most entrants.