Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sturgeon

Competition Suggestions

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, roguetechie said:

Btw, I'm game for the contest for sure just don't expect sanity or for me to use milspec components... Fuck y'all if i wanna build a supercluster out of nokia lumias I'll do it god damnit!

 

P.s: any objection to my doing a sorta halfbakery laden cartercopter mu dicking slowed rotor autogyro thing?

 

Backup plan is a straight up james bond is real narcissist fucktard slaying magnus effect and more conventional propulsion hybrid amphibious stol death weasel.

 

So much of the time I just have no idea what you are saying, and I even understood all those references.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL... I'm sorry I'm really trying to work on that, it's going poorly.

 

Basically my primary entry idea is a combat autogyro which shamelessly rips off the work done by carter copter to make autogyros that can "jump takeoff" and possibly vertically land too which can exceed what has previously been a hard and fast speed limit involving the greek mu symbol which has something to do with transonic or supersonic tip velocities of the rotor.

 

Carter copter uses a slowed rotor technique, a proprietary airfoil and rotor design, larger stub wings designed to provide high lift to take over much of the rotor loading as speed and tip velocities approach mu, and i believe even actual turbine thrust rather than prop ducted fan or turboshaft/prop. 

 

I would call it something stupid like the sturmopig... Aka sturmovic and pig hybridized to insinuate heavy armor, ground attack role, flying pigs, and Stalin! (And that i watched way too much of the cartoon with the seaplane and jungle book characters tail spin)

 

My random switch to ranting about something with a tether was alluding to building an autogyro like version of the classic tethered surveillance aerostat, but armed and using "solar", relatively nonstop high speed air current available at several hundred feet AGL and up, taking advantage of temperature and pressure differentials like parasailers do but different, another batshit nuts power harvesting scheme, and a couple other completely ill advised technological plot twists for flavor.  This is based off of multiple very real and even currently used green energy schemes involving tethered quadcopters, spinny inflatables, kites, and etc to harvest high speed air movements and make electricity with it. They work too... Also throwback to luft 27and 2/3 by giving a nod to the foch achgelis tethered autogyro towed aloft by the uboat below and actually used in ww2.

 

Basically an almost crazy enough to work tongue in cheek diss rap targeted at wehraboos gerpaderps hippies and wind power (fucking farce that it is) in the form of a contest entry... 

 

Campy taglines like wanat won't be my Alamo and etc would abound and hilariously enough you really could probably swing something like it IRL.

 

Third entry option is based off a proposed very unorthodox "VTOL STOVL VSTOL" nominal "boat" design since i found it on yachtforum. Really it's a "hovercraft" "ekranoplan" "WIGE" amphibious aircraft a la grumman goose a 60+ knot foil and airfoil based speedboat AND uses magnus effect "rotors" plus other propulsion etc means simultaneously.

 

Sounds like a hot mess right?

 

It is, but kind of an intriguing one! 

 

Basically the premise is you take a pair of NGATE turboshafts in the right size and power bracket, marinize them, pod them up so you can get "blown flap/upper surface blowing" style help from strategic intake placement. Also, borrowing heavily from senior citizen and other crazy tactical airlifter concepts you have the actual engines fairly well buried inside the vehicle as well as using a secondary directional and vertical thrust augmentation scheme consisting of something like the boeing patented "pulse ejector thruster array" some believe is used on senior citizen in a similar manner.  Basically they're pulsejets that suck far less and can be arrayed and installed in ways that allow pretty biblical amounts of vertical and directional thrust for very reasonable weight and bulk but hilariously ridiculous fuel demand.

 

In my concept the PETA's (pulse ejector thruster array) are installed as sort of ersatz puffer jets and 90 degree rotatable thrust nozzles like harrier had with the pegasus engine that are instead stand alone and in a few places multi dof steerable on demand by aircrew and automatically through the fbw system and in response to threats, collision avoidance, and etc. (F16 has a sorta similar setup, and other features cadged from APS stuff, f35 tech and etc... Basically sound technical ground and mentally unstable conceptualization)

 

So this multithing is basically part hind gunship part harrier part sea phantom and part "sea fighter" (a fictional LCAC based littoral combat hovercraft... Commander amanda garrett series and joe buff is the author i think?) & part senior citizen... Because i hate myself?

 

Like grumman goose it has vestigal deformed but still functional deployable landing gear for land landings... Heh

 

From Sea phantom it got ultralong travel baja racer style shocks and airbag mounted deployable foils about 2/3 of the way out on wing sponsons of the vertical foil type like the seadart seaplane jet fighter and a single steerable 6 dof deployable semi conventional horizontal planing foil... In "boat mode" it'd likely run really damn fast with good range. Basically, this is mostly an intra to intertheater strategic mobility use.

 

In hover and forward flight it uses a pair of magnus effect style "rotors" kinda buried in the inner 2/3 of each wing, the aforementioned "viffing"/auxiliary vertical thrust arrays, and an apache helicopter IR suppression exhaust system and p51 cooling system "meredith effect" combination.  Between pretty lulzy low stall speed and details yet to be revealed it should be able to do apache type things in slightly altered ways.

 

Remember i mentioned HIND? Yeah it'll have a passenger compartment sometimes, other times it'll just super size it's dakka.

 

Final disclaimer: all of these concepts can actually be made and achieve controlled flight without handwavium or speculative future tech... The descriptive shit and purported capabilities are all theoretically possible but would likely be expensive/nowhere near as bitchin as i imagine

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny; I was thinking just the other day about the feasibility of ground effect battleships. Certainly they solve one of the main problems that ships have ITO getting slapped by attack subs. And, if designed right, they won't so much crash as turn into a boat.

 

They're still shit out of luck in rough seas, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I'm going to straight up admit that my weird ass wige gunship seaplane with gender dysphoric disorder is completely inspired by vehicles from shadowrun and other cyberpunk called "panzers" & or "t-birds" which were basically "skirtless" hovertanks repurposed to gunrunning and other high value low volume cargos across borders between the various countries which now make up the former continental US...

 

More or less ridiculously heavily armed bootleggers in a dukes of hazzard / early nascar era only in the phased array radar and s-400's for home defense hypercapitalist darkfuture...

 

I found this crazy ass idea on yachtforum and was like OMGWTFBBQ T-Birds are actually maybe doable!

 

And thus an obsession was born... I blame the seaplane part on narcissist fucktards, the carrier mafia, and it's hateful killing of the p6m seamaster...

 

Narcissist fucktards gotta ruin everything you know

 

(Omfg I'm ashamed to admit that as i wrote the last part my brain screamed WAIT .... wheeled deathtraps, TBATE (The battle against the earth), and then had a disassociative psychotic break)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really are multiple companies using essentially tethered quadcopters as high altitude wind generators BTW...

 

When my buddy and i originally came up with the utterly insane idea of doing similar stuff with an autogyro form factor it was mostly just various kite generators or vaguely waterwheelesque shaped tethered aerostats able to generate electricity by being spun by atmospheric air currents.

 

Our general thought process was that you could probably tow a baby autogyro deal on a trailer behind a humvee and once you sunk the bigass anchors into the earth you could have OP's with pretty awesome close to 24/7 views and the ability to drop small guided glide munitions on natives who get froggy at will.

 

Basically a sorta possessed by satan barrage balloon with delusions of spectre gunship grandeur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

I wrote a partial one? I've been pretty busy lately; will be until the 1st.

Okay, we can take that one as the description and make a separate contest page.

 

When do you want submissions by?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I chuck one into the mix?  How about deployable defence system(s) to protect large crowds in the event of a terrorist attack/mass murder attempt.  Seriously.

 

Some friends and I picked over the events at Manchester Arena and came to the conclusion that the only thing that might have made a difference (apart from not letting the little bastard back into the country) would have been the presence of explosive (only) sniffer dogs in the atrium (drug sniffer dogs would be a bloody nuisance here and not just to the fans, if they want to kill themselves that's fine, taking others with you is what we are trying to prevent here).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another tank-related contest suggestion:

 

Dummkopfpanzer 2018

 

Congratulations! You are the lucky designer chosen to develop a new tank/SPG, designed to take on the most capable vehicles the world has to offer.

 

Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond your control* you cannot use modern, state-of-the-art electronics, armour arrays or weapons. Instead, you will have to make do with older technologies and easily available commerical stuff, applied in creative ways.

 

Design goals:

  • Vehicle may be tracked or wheeled.
  • Vehicle must mass less than 75 metric tonnes.
  • Vehicle must be capable of taking out modern MBTs and other AFVs head-on from at least 500m away.
  • Vehicle must be capable of surviving at least one impact from a modern tank gun/ATGM across at least the frontal arc.
  • Vehicle must be capable of moving over rough and broken ground, fording a 1 metre-deep river, and climbing a 30' slope. 
  • Vehicle must have a top speed of at least 30km/h on open ground.

 

Bonus goals:

  • Vehicle masses less than 50 metric tonnes.
  • Vehicle capable of being shipped by road/train and ready for normal operations within 3 hours of unloading.
  • Vehicle capable of taking out modern MBTs and other AFVs from over 1km away.
  • Vehicle capable of taking out modern MBTs and other AFVs from over 2km away.
  • Vehicle capable of surviving multiple inpacts from modern anti-tank weapons across frontal arc.
  • Vehicle has fully traversing turret.
  • Vehicle has good mobility in urban environments.
  • Vehicle has plausible first-round hit capability against a static, tank-sized target at least 1km away.
  • Vehicle has plausible anti-helicopter/anti-air capability.
  • Vehicle has plausible night-fighting/low-light capability.
  • Vehicle has plausible anti-infantry/anti-bunker capability.

 

Design restrictions:

  • Armour: combinations of common steel grades (in various configurations), aluminium alloys, glass, rubber, common plastics, GFRP and simple ERA tiles. Other materials can include structural steels, concretes, reinforced plastics (including some use of carbon fibre/kevlar), common stones and aggregates, commonly-produced ceramics, common alloys and other easily-available materials.
  • Armament: HE, full-bore AP, APHE, 1950's-era HEAT, 1950's-era guided missile technology, unguided rockets etc, weapons made using current easily-available consumer electronics, weapons made using current-generation home and light industrial-level design and manufacturing capability.
  • Optics, fire control and sensors: all-glass optics, easily-available consumer electronics.
  • Motive and power systems: common current-generation commercial engines and drive systems.

 

Submission requirements:

  • Background and justification of project
  • Technical description
  • Images and/or 3D models of project

 

Judging criteria:

  • Number of design and bonus goals achieved
  • Design achieves other useful goals
  • Creativity in problem solving
  • Plausibility of solutions
  • Applicability to stated background/justification 

 

Prize/s:

  • Specific prize/s TBD
  • Prize to first place entrant only (to avoid dilution)
  • All entrants ranked and commented

 

 

* The leader-for-life had a great idea/the bean counters refuse to pay for the fun stuff/your industrial base is strained to breaking point/all the factories for making nice gizmos are in China, who you are at war with/you're building this thing out of a garage in the Gaza strip/etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   After Far Cry 5 i am interested in Jihad design bureau opening their North American division - Redneck Freedom Bald Eagle design bureau with Ford pickups with HMGs and all sorts of Hell Cannons on 1968 Cadillacs.

293884104_5449580061001_5449572795001-th.jpg?pubId=293884104&videoId=5449572795001

 

Spoiler

Nancy-Far-Cry-5.jpg

 

Abu-Ivanka (Trump) speeches will be coming out of those speakers

Far_Cry_5_rip_8-620x349.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think our last design-a-jihad competition failed due to concerns about us all landing on watch lists.

 

You can put a hell cannon on your dummkopfpanzer, though.

Share this post


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

I think our last design-a-jihad competition failed due to concerns about us all landing on watch lists.

 

You can put a hell cannon on your dummkopfpanzer, though.

We already have a thread with real Jihad design bureau creations, with high quality detailed photos of some of those devices.

Share this post


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

Why not have a contest about designing a BMPT? Lots of discussions about it in General AFV already anyway.

Sure, except the winner already exists and its called a BMPT ;)

 

Write up a contest and let the community decide.

Share this post


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

We already have a thread with real Jihad design bureau creations, with high quality detailed photos of some of those devices.

As with Bronez, feel free to write the contest up formally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about an modern MBT? I'm not very eloquent with words, so I'm just gonna be semi-blunt: 

 

(In a fictional universe where Russia can build more than 30 Armatas a year) NATO strategists are panicking over the introduction of the Armata heavy universal platform in the Russian Federation. The remote main turret, active protection, high tech electronics and situational awareness aids, and separated/encapsulated crew compartment have sent chills down the West's collective spine. In their terror, they have turned to you (the scum on the internet) to draft up designs to combat this new mechanical monster! 

 

Basic Design Requirements (all criteria with asterisks and 3 more of your choosing): 

 

  • *Be less than 63 metric tons without additional armor packages. 
  • *Have a weapon system that can get past the hard kill Afghanit APS (lets assume it doesn't work on projectiles traveling above 1500 m/s). 
  • *Have a weapon system that can penetrate the Armata within it's frontal arc (turret doesn't count). 
  • *Be able to engage the Armata at 2.5 km. 
  • *Be transportable by railcar, somehow (can have some disassembly). 
  • Have some parts commonality with, or be based off, any MBT or AFV/IFV currently available in NATO (Including Poland, but not Ukraine... cause they're not part of NATO). 
  • Be able to withstand Vacuum-1 at 2km and Kornet-EM along the frontal arc. 
  • Travel at 60 km/h. 
  • Crew of 3. 
  • Crew must be separated from ammo/engine compartments (doesn't have to be a capsule).  

 

Advanced Design Requirements (extra brownie points :))

 

  • Be less than 55 metric tons without additional armor packages. 
  • Be able to engage the Armata past 4km. 
  • Able to withstand Vacuum-1 at 500m and Kornet-EM along the front arc. 
  • Has an active protection system. 
  • Can travel at least 70km/h. 
  • Crew of 2. 
  • Use the "brute force method" (KE projectiles only). 

 

 

What do you guys think? 

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
      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!
       
       
    • 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
       
       
×