Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sturgeon

Competition Suggestions

Recommended Posts

Design a tank "walker" (bipedal, quadripedal, tripedal; whatever) that could reasonably be as effective as its tracked counterparts. Naturally we assume that the core elements that would allow the tank to walk will have been magic'd in. Maybe not an ideal competition given how much theory and how little practical experience can go into this. Obviously not a contest to be taken too seriously

 

Further elaboration: The core of this contest is mocking the concept of a walker tank; this is a joke contest, if at all. I'm not a materials expert, some weight limit would have to be determined based on the materials used in the walkers legs and method of propulsion, and the core of the walker would be designed around this weight limit. Designs would be judged by how close they can come to matching the effectiveness of contemporary tracked vehicles (by whatever metrics judges want to judge), because as hip as walker tanks are for 16 year old alt history artists, they're 1945 German R&D as far as practicality goes. I'd really like to see if we could come up with some standard metric for effectiveness for this, like "this vehicle made out of modern alloys and composites is actually not too bad, I'd rate it at .75 M4 Shermans". Probably want Solidworks for this one.

 

Alternative proposition: 16 year old alt-history artist edition; materials are now magic and designs don't need to make sense. Make your design as dumb as possible, and after all designs are submitted here, all of the designs will be uploaded on a single account to deviantart or AH or whatever along with descriptions. The winner will be the design that gains the most praise relative to how dumb it is. Bonus points for garnering praise for components that blatantly could not work (IE guns mounted on legs with no mechanism for reloading, crew compartment located directly inside of the engine, legs needing to move through other parts to function, etc). Any design software is on the table for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Design a last-ditch weapon for fighting an industrial war in the mid-20th. The weapon can be an aircraft, afv or small arm, and must show a massive cost reduction over existing types while still having a comparable level of task effectiveness. Bonus points for showing a manpower reduction (both making and/or using), skill reduction (ditto) or supply-chain rationalisation.

Edit: the judging would depend on the category of weapon chosen for the contest. Modelling may be required to show that the weapon works to spec. The contestant would also have to provide a convincing rationale for how the expected savings in materials/manpower would be achieved, as well as describing the implementation in a realistic fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modernize a Sherman of your choice for use as a modern infantry support tank!

How about APC, based on old tanks like M60s and T-55s?

 

Or design a modern Assault gun / Tank for a local conflict? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring a retarded idea to life!:

Hitler/Stalin/King Kerbal has given you a bunch of drawings for retarded weapons provided by an idiot relative. Your job is to bring these ideas to life in as practical a manner as possible without making the results look too different from the drawings.

Failure is punishable by death/gulag/volunteering for a mun shot.

Edit: drawings and descriptions of a selection of retarded weapons would be provided, but the contestants could also bring in their own, so long as it is someone else's work and has sufficient levels of description (size, mass, components, performance etc) to be modelled. Modelling would be done using something like KSP or simpleplanes, and the contestant would have to show that the design works to at least a limited extent (the closer you can get to the retarded design's paper stats the better). The contestant would also have to describe what changes were made to make the retarded idea work, with points for creative solutions that still allow the resulting design to look like the drawing it is based on.

For the purposes of judging, it should be assumed that the idiot relative is looking over everyone's shoulder and checking the contestant's work against his 'vision' for the weapon. So the contestant blatantly subverting it by, for instance, sneaking a turbojet into what is supposed to be a piston-powered supersonic fighter, would be grounds for death/gulag/mun shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring a retarded idea to life!:

Hitler/Stalin/King Kerbal has given you a bunch of drawings for retarded weapons peovided by an idiot relative. Your job is to bring these ideas to life in as practical a manner as possible without making the results look too different from the drawings.

Failure is punishable by death/gulag/volunteering for a mun shot.

 

The GOOLAB needs more science personnel, comrade.

 

My vote is for a pendulum fallacy believing Munshot rocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are all interesting ideas.

Could everyone who's got an idea elaborate on it some more, please?

I'm looking for ideas on how these contests would be judged, and what software the contestants would need.

Okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, sorry, I haven't been able to give the comps their due, as I have been mighty busy. Collimatrix, would you go ahead and start the second competition that we talked about?

 

KK.  Let me get the resources together, light the signal fires and put the slaves in their finest chains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Design a Volks/folke AFV.

 

 

Main focuses:

It has to be cheap, VERY cheap, as cheap as possible. This includes maintenance costs.

It has to provide better or equal capabilities to Infantry Mobility Vehicles.

Has to be able to be mass produced.
Man power is readily available, use it. 

It has to be able to operate in Arctic climates, which means -50 degrees and a lot of snow and frost. 
It has to be able to operate off road, so it can't be a Ferrari with a Minigun.

 

 

Infrastructure and cost restrictions:

It has to be easy to use, requiring minimal training. 

Has to be very reliable and require minimal maintenance. 

It can't use guided munition or FCS. 

Everything has to be off-shelf, no fancy weapons. 
You have to use infantry based weaponry. No AMOS mortar systems or MBT guns. Exception: Mothballed or dirt cheap equipment with tons of ammunition available. 

Max weight: 12 ton

 

Dimension restrictions:

Max width: 3,1m

Max height: 3,6m

Max length: 5,5m

 

 

Hardcore restrictions:

Has to have some anti-tank capability.

Can't use mothballed or dirt cheap non infantry weaponry. 

Has to be based on a existing vehicle.

 

Max length: 5m

Max width: 2,5m

Max weight: 8 ton.

 

 

 

This competition was inspired by my countries Homeguard. It uses 3% of the total defense budget, and still has 45 000 (to be reduced to 32 000 in 2017) combat ready soldiers at a 7 hour notice, it also defends all of the country.  Much cheaper compared to the Army with it's measly 4000 soldiers.

 

This causes everything in the Homeguard to only use the cheapest and most cost effective of equipment. This caused the army to scrap 100 Iveco LMVs instead of giving them to the Homeguard. Simply because they are too expensive to operate. 

 

So instead we got this thing, recently donated from the Special forces:

HVNETT__S167467.jpg?Width=1158&Height=65

 

We still use this thing. The MB G-wagon. And it still works, even though it is outrun by a tank and they are literally falling apart.

But the amazing thing about these is that they function as:

 

IMVs

Cargo transport.

Command post.

Command vehicle.

Forward observing vehicle.

Mortar carrier.

Ambulance. 

Tank destroyer.

Engineering vehicle. 

 

 

And this Multi III seen above, can mount a 12,7mm BMG or a 84mm Carl Gustav RFK and a MG-3 or a Minimi. It can also be modified to carry a mortar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another design-a-tank competition:

Part 1:

It's 1938 and your company is trying to get in on the booming market for armoured vehicles. You've come up with a workable design, so now it's time to find some customers!

- Design a tank for sale to a particular country or countries. Projected sales should be at least 200 units all-in-all.

- A convincing, historically plausible rationale for why the sale should take place must be provided. Current inventory, industry, politics and practice of the client nation/s should be considered.

- No parts from after 1938 can be used, although you can speculate in terms of armament. Incorporation of components having commonality with those of your would-be client are a bonus.

- Describe the tank in detail, including where it would have issues or teething problems requiring further development.

Part 2:

It's sometime during the second world war, and the tank is still soldiering on. Although obsolescent, the needs of war mean that its current owners must find a way to wring the last possible bit of usefulness out of the design.

- Pick a point based in WWII (or just afterwards) and describe the modifications, upgrades, conversions etc made to the tank.

- Ownership may have changed based on the historical fate of the client nation. The tank may even still be in production in some form or another.

- Construct a plausible life/development history for the tank to get it to the chosen point.

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 Ulric
      So, in the time between the suppressor design that I am doing for work, I decided to go after a semi clandestine manufactured SMG. The criteria driving the design is that round tube is incredibly common in SMG designs, so I wanted to avoid that and use rectangular tube and bar stock. This minimizes the operations that require a lathe, and while they ideally would be done on a mill, they can be accomplished with a drill press and hand tools if you have the patience. Some of these parts are innocuous enough that they could also be farmed out to local machine shops without raising eyebrows. Strangely, one of the larger issues that has faced clandestine small arms manufacturing is an acceptable human interface. Other people solve this by traditional methods such as carved wood grips, or cast/molded plastics, but that is a time consuming process to make a part that should be very simple. My solution was to use handlebar grips from a bicycle. They are already designed to provide a griping surface for your hands, and they are common enough and varied enough that you could will not have a problem sourcing them.
       
      As far as the design goes, it is still a work in progress. The receiver is pretty much dialed in, as are the trunnions, the barrel, barrel retention system, etc. The FCG has been a sticking points, as designing them is probably my greatest weak point when it comes to arms design. As the FCG is horribly incomplete, the bolt may similarly undergo changes. It is currently planned to have a linear hammer, but that is still in the works. I have only begun to consider what to do for the stock, and the forearm will probably come last. The design uses Uzi magazines, and I'm toying with the idea of being able to change magazine compatibility by having alternate lower receivers.
       
      There are two primary versions; the 9" barrel original design, and the 5" barrel design.
       

       

       
      Early assembly
       

       
      Charging handle/bolt/action spring interface
       

       
      Early receiver, designed to be cut out of 1x2" 11ga rec steel tube. The notches near the trunnion and front barrel support are to allow the components to be welded together.
       

       
      charging handle and barrel retention system details. The action spring guide rod runs through the front barrel support and in conjunction with the receiver it locks the barrel retainer plate in place. The retention plate slips into a grove cut into the barrel. This prevents the barrel from moving backwards out of the receiver, while the square section at the breech of the barrel nests in the trunnion to prevent forward movement. The barrel is not rigidly fixed to the receiver, but this is acceptable considering the intended applications of the weapon.
       

       
       
       
       
    • By Sturgeon
      I woke up one day and decided "why not design an entirely new rifle from scratch, and live blog it?" So here we are.

      About ten minutes in and we've got the beginnings of a receiver extrusion made from 7075 T6 aluminum:
       

       
      Currently I think the rifle will be in 5.56mm. It will not use STANAG magazines. @Ulric plz halp design new mag?
    • 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!
       
       
×