Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sturgeon

Competition Suggestions

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

I think we did a great job on the first competition and have dragged our asses on competitions ever since lol.

Yeah, but I'm down for another competition. I've been thinking about designing a tank anyway, might as well partake in a competition with it.

Share this post


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

I think we did a great job on the first competition and have dragged our asses on competitions ever since lol.

I think part of it is that we have some non-overlapping spheres of interest when it comes to designing things. Tonks are about the most common factor on this forum, so I'd support doing another tank-related design competition where sufficient interest has been accumulated.

 

2 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

Yeah, but I'm down for another competition. I've been thinking about designing a tank anyway, might as well partake in a competition with it.

I'm always down - although I find pre-modern tanks more fun to design than modern ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winner gets 100 dollarydoos from me. If I win, second place will get 100 dollarydoos.

 

Also, when the contest is up, maybe make a topic in Mechanised as well? I don't think everyone checks this part of the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure how well a judge I will be, cause I’m an idiot (compared to most people here), but I’ll try. I do have some ideas for the MBT, but I’m bad@computers, so I guess I don’t have too much of a choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got an idea for a tank design competition, might be a bit of alternate history junk, but I'll see how it goes;

 

It is the year 20XX. It has been XX years since a nuclear war destroyed much of the world, causing severe damage to the industrial base. You are an engineer in <country>, tasked with designing a new tank for your nation's armed forces. While your country has knowledge of prewar tank developments (such as the M1, T-14, etc.), your nation's industrial base is insufficient to use manufacturing techniques more advanced than late 1930s / early 1940s technology (what exactly this means requires me to do a bit more thought).

 

Basically, a cheap way of getting around that any of the tanks from "design a tank for world war 2 country in 1938/1941/1944" end up using what we already know from hindsight and don't look like something that would have been made in that period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it designed to fight?

 

Edit: to clarify sonewhat, I like the idea and would be keen to participate.

 

I do, however, think that the devil here will be in the details. Are we working out of a destroyed post-nuclear US, a relatively untouched country that finds itself suddenly needing to build up a tank force, something else? How far away from the war are we? Relatedly, is there old-world equipment still kicking around, or is it 200 years later and ecerything is dust? What sort of threats and operating environment is this built for, and exactly what tech is available? Can we mix-and-match new ideas with older tech (nothing physically prevents us putting NERA and ERA in to deal with primitive HEAT jets, for instance), or is there some sort of hard limit on things. How much information has been retained from the old world?

 

@LostCosmonautI think you're going to have to do a bit of world-building and come back to us with a more detailed scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm working on an idea for a contest, a contemporary fast attack craft for the USN, probably to be posted in mid-late december. I'm probably going to leave the requirements fairly open-ended, but it'll need to fit within a given budget and meet the appropriate dimensional, weight, and performance specifications -- I will also do my best to point people in the appropriate direction for helping to determine seaworthiness and performance if that's needed. I'm hoping this would be an interesting challenge, and one that is accessible to more people than a full-on warship design. I'll also be cooking up an un-scored entry as a baseline/template. 

 

Does that sound ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, A. T. Mahan said:

.... fast attack craft for the USN....

 

Does that sound ok?

No, it doesn't. Our attempts to start competition on something other than an AFV failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A. T. Mahan said:

I'm working on an idea for a contest, a contemporary fast attack craft for the USN, probably to be posted in mid-late december. I'm probably going to leave the requirements fairly open-ended, but it'll need to fit within a given budget and meet the appropriate dimensional, weight, and performance specifications -- I will also do my best to point people in the appropriate direction for helping to determine seaworthiness and performance if that's needed. I'm hoping this would be an interesting challenge, and one that is accessible to more people than a full-on warship design. I'll also be cooking up an un-scored entry as a baseline/template. 

 

Does that sound ok?

We now have a rule that there needs to be a long cooling off period between contests - around 1 year.

 

I think we might consider sonething around March/April next year if people are super keen, but until then it can get posted here like all the other ideas to be mulled over in due time.

Share this post


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

We now have a rule that there needs to be a long cooling off period between contests - around 1 year.

 

I think we might consider sonething around March/April next year if people are super keen, but until then it can get posted here like all the other ideas to be mulled over in due time.

 

I told Mahan to go ahead and suggest another contest, but I don't think anyone will really be biting for several months at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Backstory:
 

The Confederal Republics of Greater New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and the Providence Plantations is the major power in the Northeastern region of the former-US. A Federal Republic consisting of the States of Long Island, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations, Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod, and the Southern Unincorporated Territories, encompassing most of prewar Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Ohio. Founded by the survivors of the war in New York City shortly after the war, it is one of the most stable political entities in the region. High literacy and education rates, the survival of large caches of prewar information, the relative lack of damage from the war outside New York City, Boston, and parts of Philadelphia have allowed the region to become a manufacturing powerhouse. The existence of several major pre-war manufacturing sites in CRS territory, including the Philadelphia, Portsmouth, and Brooklyn Naval Shipyards, General Dynamics-Electric Boat (Which was spared from destruction by a dud 475-kiloton warhead), Bath Ironworks, Watervliet Arsenal, the Sikorsky and General Electric plants, and several major research facilities has brought the CRS to approximately the technical level of the early to mid-1950s US, although they are farther along in some specific areas -- gas turbine technology, electronic computers, high strength fibers, and high-strength ceramics being particularly noteworthy examples.

 

The economy of the CRS is predominantly focused on trade, aviation, and shipbuilding. Possessing two of the largest deepwater harbors on earth (New York and Boston harbors), the Republican States' merchant marine is the largest in the world, and there is regular trade with Western and Mediterranean Europe, Africa, southern Asia, and the Antipodes. As a corollary to this, they maintain a large and capable navy, predominantly based on updated and modified Second World War designs. The states of New York, Long Island and Connecticut are particularly influential in aviation, with nearly 50% of total North American aircraft production divided between Long Island, the Buffalo metropolitan area, and various locations in southern Connecticut. This has provided the Navy with substantial advantages in naval aviation, with the first CRS aircraft carrier, CRSS Kitty Hawk, a modification of the Ranger design of 1925, completed in 2218. Currently, the backbone of the fleet are the three ships of the CV-5 class (Bethpage, Azores, and Buzzard's Bay) and the first four ships of the CV-9 class (NewarkTroySchenectady, and Ithaca), (derived from design SCB-125A), with more under construction. Additional naval air forces include maritime patrol aircraft, predominantly B-17 and B-24 derivatives, antisubmarine warfare aircraft derived from the Lockheed Constellation, and several executive transports. 
 

 

Year: 2243

The Navy of the Confederal Republics of Greater New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and the Providence Plantations request proposals for a Patrol-Torpedo Boat.

 

The Chief of Naval Operations, having determined that our current force structure (Detailed in Appendix A) is insufficient to protect our international trade at sea, in the Great Lakes, on the various rivers of the North American continent, and to defend the seacoast, has determined that there is a doctrinal need for such craft.

The proposals will be evaluated against two benchmark Government designs — SCB-92F and SCB-238Q. These will be presented with the beginning of the contest. (December 7, 2018)

 

The specifications are as follows:
 

  • Displacement:

    • Not more than 75 tons at combat weight.

    • This is non-negotiable and a hard limit. Any design with a combat weight, defined as the vessel with full complement of crew, armaments, ammunition, fuel, oil, food, potable water, and a 100lb/man allotment for personal effects, in excess of 150,000lb will be disregarded. This limit is due to restrictions on transport capacity for transoceanic shipment.
       

  • Speed:

    • Threshold: 43.5 knots sprint, 39 knots sustained at combat weight, 45 knots at light ship.

    • Objective: 45 knots sprint, 43.5 knots sustained, at combat weight 48 knots light ship.
       

  • Complement:

    • Threshold: Not more than three officers and 14 enlisted.

    • Objective: Not more than two officers and nine enlisted.
       

  • Potable water:

    • Threshold: Not less than 150 USCS gallons (1,320lb)

    • Objective: Not less than 200 gallons (1,750 lb)
       

  • Range:

    • Threshold: Not less than 250 nautical miles at 35 knots, not less than 500 nautical miles at 15 knots, at combat weight.

    • Objective: Not less than 350 nautical miles at 35 knots, not less than 750 nautical miles at 20 knots at combat weight.
       

  • Engines:

    • Threshold: Not less than two or more than four engines. Not less than two nor more than four propellers. Machinery spaces must have both an AFFF blanket system and handheld extinguisher bottles of sufficient size and type.
       

  • Fuel tanks must be self sealing and must not have any wiring run through them.
     

  • The vessel must be able to conduct underway replenishment
     

  • Draft:

    • Threshold: Not more than six feet, six inches, including screws.

    • Objective: Not more than five feet, one inch including screws.
       

  • Turning circle:

    • Threshold: Not more than 435 yards.

    • Objective: Not more than 350 yards
       

  • Fittings: All fittings are to be corrosion resistant, and of the standard Navy type. All cleats will be of the Herreshoff double-taper type.
     

  • Accommodations:

    • Sufficient sleeping quarters for the crew are mandatory. There must be escape lighting in berthing spaces sufficient to guide the crew topside in total darkness or smoke.

    • Sufficient ventilation to accommodate the smoking of tobacco below decks is required.

    • Sufficient galley space is mandatory, including an electric cooktop and oven, preparations surfaces.

    • Sufficient storage to secure all cooking implements while underway is required.  
       

  • Food storage:

    • Threshold: Food storage sufficient for five days.

    • Objective: Refrigerated storage for seven days.
       

  • There shall be provisions for personal retention lanyard and harness systems to prevent loss of crew in adverse sea states.
     

  • Provision shall be provided for storage of individual small arms of the Crew, including 1x M1994/18 5.56mm carbine for each man and officer, 1x Colt Government .45 automatic or Browning Hi Power 9mm automatic pistol for each officer, and sufficient supplies of ammunition (210 rounds per carbine, 100 rounds per pistol per day of supplies) for each.
     

  • Communications fit:

    • Threshold:

      • 1x blinker light,

      • 1x standard type 50W VHF secure TBS radiotelephone (the exact set will be provided, AV/VRC-12 equivalent with VINSON),

      • LORAN radio navigation system.

    • Objective:

      • 2x blinker light,

      • 2x standard type VHF secure TBS radiotelephone,

      • 1x secure LF/MF/HF radio set (Units will be provided),

      • LORAN radio navigation system.
         

  • Sensor fit:

    • Threshold:

      • 2x acoustic depth sounder (bow and stern),

      • 1x manually operated optical rangefinder,

      • 2x 30” arc searchlights.

    • Objective:

      • 1x AN/SPS-5 surface search radar (S-band Raytheon SG),

      • 1x optical rangefinder,

      • Provision for a towed array sonar system and sonobuoys

      • Searchlights for all major caliber gun mounts.
         

  • The vessel must comply with all peacetime navigational lighting regulations.
     

  • Torpedo armament will be provided by the Naval Torpedo Station, Newport.

    • It will consist of not less than two nor more than four torpedoes of one of the following types:

      • 21” Mark 16 MOD 2 (USN Mark 16 torpedo with wake-homing head built off a Mark 35 seeker). 4,000lb, 11,000yd range at 46.2 knots, 746lb HBX-3 (Re=1.75)

      • 22.4” Mark 25 (New-productio USN Mark 25 torpedo) 2,400lb, 2500yd range at 40 knots, 725lb HBX-3 (Re=1.75)
         

  • Other armament:

    • Threshold:

      • Not less than:

        • 1x 37mm automatic gun (100 rounds)

        • 2x twin .50 Browning machine guns (2,000 rounds)

        • 2x 20mm machine guns (2,000 rounds)

        • 2x depth charge racks at stern (6 500lb depth charges)

        • Mounts for no less than 10 5” HV or AS rockets (storage for three sets of reloads)

    • Objective: Not less than

      • 1x automatic gun not smaller than 40mm bore and not larger than 3” bore (250 rounds)

      • 1x automatic gun not smaller than 35mm bore and not larger than 38mm bore, (250 rounds)

      • Not less than two 20mm machine guns (2000 rounds)

      • Not less than two twin .50 machine gun mounts (2,000 rounds)

      • Mounts for not less than twenty 5” rockets (storage for five sets of reloads)

 

  • Seaworthiness:

    • Threshold:

      • The vessel must be capable of making extended (1,000nm) redeployments on its own hull.

      • It must be capable of conducting combat operations to minimum standards with a skilled crew to Sea State III, must not be damaged by 24 hours at Sea State IV and must survive Sea State V.

    • Objective:

      • The vessel must be capable of making 2,000 nautical mile redeployments on its own hull.

    • It must be capable of conducting combat operators to minimum standards to Sea State IV, must not be damaged by 24 hours at Sea State V, and survive Sea State VI.

  • Wing-in-ground-effect craft will not be considered, as they are aircraft.


Guidance and Opinions:

The Navy greatly prefers supercharged gasoline engines to diesel-cycle engines, and is interested in gas turbine propulsion. The Navy does not consider steam turbines suitable for motor torpedo boats.

The Navy prefers that the vessels be less than 25 feet in beam to permit road transport by truck and trailer.

The Navy prefers nonmetallic construction for small craft, as degaussing is expensive and aluminum corrodes very rapidly.

The Navy is interested in fully submerged hydrofoils, but current experimentation has shown that either exceptional skill on the part of the helmsman or a computer system beyond the state of the art is required. If a control method is forthcoming, the Navy would be very interested.

The Surface Warfare Officer community would prefer the vessel to have splinter and machine gun bullet protection and an enclosed bridge. They also would very much like a reduced radar cross section, as the probable enemy has developed rudimentary radar systems.

The Underwater Demolition Team boat crews would prefer the vessel have mufflers or otherwise be quiet, and ask if accommodations could be made for transporting a couple rubber dinghies and a free space for a ladder somewhere along the gunwale.

The Office of Advanced Technical Development would like to know if you could design the vessel for but not with something fairly fragile aft of midships, about 16’ wide, 18’ long, 14’ tall, and 26,000lb, and if you could design a mainmast capable of supporting a 3,000lb radar system.

 

The Navy would like stabilized main gun mounts with power traverse and a holographic weapon sight, but they are not required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna be honest, I'm not as keen on this idea. We just did one alt-hist wankery contest. Not sure we want to keep going down that road. When we were talking about a FAC/naval contest before it was more a modern wartime COTS fast attack craft that could be churned out with pretty close to NATO standard equipment. YMMV.

 

As is I'm not interested in taking part in this one. Maybe judging...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merged the PT boat discussion with the general competition suggestions.

 

I think that @A. T. Mahan put a lot of effort and care into this PT boat competition suggestion.  There's a lot of detail work in the big bold text there.

 

And I'm going to say no.

 

For a competition to work there need to be... at least three entries.  And there need to be at least three judges.  So there need to be on the order of six people who know how the fuck (weapons system X) works.

 

There just aren't that many people here who know boats.

 

We tried, in the past, to do a competition around designing an SMG.  That was my idea.  It was a bad idea.  I almost single-handedly destroyed the SH competitions section with that bad idea.  And SMGs are one of the easiest modern weapons systems in the world to design.  And we have one person here who works as a gunsmith, one who has worked in the firearms industry for decades, one who wrote about guns for four years, and several people with engineering degrees.  If it actually came down to it, there are several people here who could design you up a submachine gun!  But there just wasn't the critical mass of enthusiasm for anything that wasn't an armored fighting vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think it's just too soon after the last contest myself.  As we saw last time we ran contests, people burn out. It takes a fair bit of creative work to design something.

 

Anyhow, I really like the thought that you put into the contest Mahan, but I'm one of the naval enthusiasts on the board. I couldn't come anywhere close to designing something that would fit the criteria for that. I could maybe judge it fairly, but would need to discuss tech details of 50s gas engines and stuff like that with an expert. The weapons systems would be easy, but 50s level radar is a mystery to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

Merged the PT boat discussion with the general competition suggestions.

 

I think that @A. T. Mahan put a lot of effort and care into this PT boat competition suggestion.  There's a lot of detail work in the big bold text there.

 

And I'm going to say no.

 

For a competition to work there need to be... at least three entries.  And there need to be at least three judges.  So there need to be on the order of six people who know how the fuck (weapons system X) works.

 

There just aren't that many people here who know boats.

 

We tried, in the past, to do a competition around designing an SMG.  That was my idea.  It was a bad idea.  I almost single-handedly destroyed the SH competitions section with that bad idea.  And SMGs are one of the easiest modern weapons systems in the world to design.  And we have one person here who works as a gunsmith, one who has worked in the firearms industry for decades, one who wrote about guns for four years, and several people with engineering degrees.  If it actually came down to it, there are several people here who could design you up a submachine gun!  But there just wasn't the critical mass of enthusiasm for anything that wasn't an armored fighting vehicle.

I still hold hope in my heart that we'll have another successful aircraft competition one day. But we do definitely seem to struggle with anything that isn't a tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I was hoping for with the naval contest was to post links a couple of other places and maybe end up bringing more naval folks and have enough of a prize that people were actually interested. Maybe get multiple people to sponsor the contest and have it be somewhat extended length. YMMV.

 

 

Share this post


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

What I was hoping for with the naval contest was to post links a couple of other places and maybe end up bringing more naval folks and have enough of a prize that people were actually interested. Maybe get multiple people to sponsor the contest and have it be somewhat extended length. YMMV.

 

 

Then it would have to be a battleship, aircraft carrier or submarine competition. Because, let's face it, no other ship types get as much love.

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
       
       
×