Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only

By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII

The Dianetic People’s Republic of California

Anno Domini 2250

SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank

1.      Background.
As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.

 

Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:

A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank

Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.

B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM

Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.

Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.

C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.

D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.

E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.

F.      IEDs

In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.

2.      General guidelines:

A.      Solicitation outline:
In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.

B.      Requirements definitions:
The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.

Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.

Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.

C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.

D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:

a.      Vehicle recoverability.

b.      Continued fightability.

c.       Crew survival.

E.      Permissible weights:

a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.

b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.

c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.

F.      Overall dimensions:

a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.

b.      Width- 4m transport width.

                                                              i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.

                                                             ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.

c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.

G.     Technology available:

a.      Armor:
The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
Structural materials:

                                                              i.     RHA/CHA

Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.

                                                             ii.     Aluminum 5083

More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.

 Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).

For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:

For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure

For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
Non-structural passive materials:

                                                            iii.     HHA

Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
Density- 7.8g/cm^3.

                                                            iv.     Glass textolite

Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.

Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
Non-structural.

                                                             v.     Fused silica

Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.

                                                            vi.     Fuel

Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.

Density-0.82g/cm^3.

                                                          vii.     Assorted stowage/systems

Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.

                                                         viii.     Spaced armor

Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.

Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.

Reactive armor materials:

                                                            ix.     ERA-light

A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.

Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                             x.     ERA-heavy

A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                            xi.     NERA-light

A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

                                                           xii.     NERA-heavy

A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.

b.      Firepower

                                                              i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.

                                                             ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.

                                                            iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)

                                                            iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.

                                                             v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.

c.       Mobility

                                                              i.     Engines tech level:

1.      MB 838 (830 HP)

2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)

3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)

                                                             ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).

                                                            iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).

                                                            iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.

d.      Electronics

                                                              i.     LRFs- unavailable

                                                             ii.     Thermals-unavailable

                                                            iii.     I^2- limited

3.      Operational Requirements.

The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.

4.      Submission protocols.

Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.

 

Appendix 1- armor calculation

Appendix 2- operational requirements

 

Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 542
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII The Dianetic People’s Republic of California Anno Domini 2250

Comrades! The time of your waiting is over! I introduce to you the Sierra Nevada VagonZavod AFV-50 Gun Tank   Frontal Dimensions Frontal Armor Turret Cheek Armor Array (n

Report from Lt. Col. [REDACTED] People's Auditory Forces Directorate of Political-Moral Reliability, Auditory and Political Officer for SNVZ and Military-Industry Liaison Officer for RFP "New Battle T

OK, for those of you who just jumped into this; this competition is a sequel to the 2239 competition, and set in the same universe.  The backstory is that in 2029, a massive nuclear war devastated human populations across the globe.  The USA fractured into tiny statelets.

 

By 2250, the Dianetic People's Republic of California (no, you're not supposed to take this setting seriously) has been locked in wars off and on for the past decade with the Cascadian Republic (an amalgamation of Washington, Oregon, and a poorly-defined border running somewhere through Idaho and Nevada), as well as Deseret.  The Cascadian Republic has a smaller manufacturing base than the DPRC, but if their APFSDS spec is anything to go by, they have a slight technological lead.  Deseret is comparatively sparsely populated, but the difficult terrain and toughness of its Mormonhadeen fighters mean that it is not an easy opponent.

 

The DPRC has a roughly 1960s level of manufacturing technology, although their current arsenal is badly dated.  The goal of this competition is to design a new heavy tank for their forces.  Because a great deal of written material has survived from before 2029, you aren't designing a 1960s tank, per se.  You are designing a tank with 1960s levels of technology but with the benefit of hindsight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a few questions:
1.  Is a 360 degree turret required?
2.  Are tracks required?
3. What type of terrain is the vehicle expected to operate in? 
Marsh, swamp, snowy, rocky, hilly, forested, mountainous, many rivers? , many lakes?, frequent river crossings?  Urban fighting? Frequent use of tunnels? etc. 

4. What is the quality and capability of the welding industry? Does aluminum welds reach the same quality as steel welds? 

5. When requiring it to fit the average soldier at 1,7m, does that mean the 95th percentile of a population with a average height of 1,7m?

6. If manufacturing capability is present, can technology be "invented"? FCS, RCWS, autoloaders, ballistic computers, engine components etc, made from technology in other industries?
Example, manufacturing industries use pneumatic PID regulators,  a similar technology could be used for FCS?

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Xoon said:

I have a few questions:
1.  Is a 360 degree turret required?
2.  Are tracks required?
3. What type of terrain is the vehicle expected to operate in? 
Marsh, swamp, snowy, rocky, hilly, forested, mountainous, many rivers? , many lakes?, frequent river crossings?  Urban fighting? Frequent use of tunnels? etc. 

4. What is the quality and capability of the welding industry? Does aluminum welds reach the same quality as steel welds? 

5. When requiring it to fit the average soldier at 1,7m, does that mean the 95th percentile of a population with a average height of 1,7m?

6. If manufacturing capability is present, can technology be "invented"? FCS, RCWS, autoloaders, ballistic computers, engine components etc, made from technology in other industries?
Example, manufacturing industries use pneumatic PID regulators,  a similar technology could be used for FCS?

1. A 360 degree turret is not required, but the ability to engage targets within the extended frontal arc is.

2. Tracks are not required, but the ground pressure requirements are MMP and not NGP; good luck getting anywhere near them with wheels.

3. Any and all of the above, within reason. Hence the ground pressure requirement.

4. Aluminum 5083 is as weldable as RHA.

5. No; it means the average one. 95th percentile soldiers belong in infantry, not armor.

6. The idea is 1960s tech and current day knowledge. If you can get it to work convincingly, go ahead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • T___A pinned and featured this topic
7 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Respectfully, when does her Serene Highness require us to complete this glorious task?

 

Do not use female pronounes to refer to me. For I, Her Safe and Tolerant Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII,

 

9GtsAwR.jpg

 

shall only be referred to by female pronouns by members of the nobility, the holy ones who have made the necessary tithes to the One, Holy, Galactic, and Dianetic, Church of Scientology. You Pleb, may only use Use the Xer pronoun to talk about me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, N-L-M said:

1. A 360 degree turret is not required, but the ability to engage targets within the extended frontal arc is.

So no Strv 103?

 

3 hours ago, N-L-M said:

2. Tracks are not required, but the ground pressure requirements are MMP and not NGP; good luck getting anywhere near them with wheels.

True, but its neat to have the option. 

 

3 hours ago, N-L-M said:

4. Aluminum 5083 is as weldable as RHA.

Aluminum is really hard to weld in my experience, compared to steel, so I was just worried about the weld quality. But I assume they are equal. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus God, we are reaching new levels of autism and SJW mockery not previously thought possible with this competition

 

I will have to expand my whiskey budget if I wish to participate in this competition, as well as quit my full time job to focus on this

 

I'm just saying, 2 months of work for 50 capitalist pig scrip is a poor trade. Maybe an honorary title should be bestowed, as well.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Xoon said:

So no Strv 103?

 

True, but its neat to have the option. 

 

Aluminum is really hard to weld in my experience, compared to steel, so I was just worried about the weld quality. But I assume they are equal. 

 

1. Strv 103-alike is allowed if you can show an ability to engage targets in the extended frontal arc without a notable disadvantage compared to turreted alternatives.

2. The option is there if you can make it work.

3. Aluminum is more difficult to weld which makes it more expensive, but in terms of actual weld quality the DPRC can weld aluminum just as well as it can weld steel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the Honorable Diane Feinstein VIII and other nobles related to this contest, 

 

I have questions about the metallurgy of DPRC. As my company, Song Heavy Machine Works, has only experience in large agriculture and multi-axle transport vehicles, along with the civilian grade materials used in them, we are in need of additional information pertaining to the questions I have given below, if that is acceptable for release. In regards to weapon and vehicle design expertise, we have contacted the ‘Mann Ltd’ corporation (Ms. Hillary Mann was kind enough to send several designers, as well as research, to assist our efforts), so information pertaining to those aspects does not need to be sent. My questions are as follows: 

 

1. Are there Uranium or Tantalum mines within our territories; and if so, what is the level of technology for refining those metals? 

 

2. Are these high hardness steels brittle or are they alloyed well? What kind of alloying materials would we have available for armor grade plates? 

 

3. Is face hardened armor available for use, or is the industry / processes not developed? 

 

I may send additional queries, but for now these are our biggest questions relating to the new heavy tank. Long live the DPRC, and long live the Feinsteins! 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Song Liu-Haack, CEO and Lead Designer of Song Heavy Machine Works. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

...

1. Neither Uranium nor Tantalum reserves are available for tactical ground forces use.

2. HHA is sufficiently well-constructed that it will not shatter under standard ballistic impacts.

RHA is alloyed per the pre-cataclysm MIL-A-12560H. 

3. FH armor is available; the outer 20% or 10mm (whichever is less) functions as HHA and the rest as RHA. May be used for structural purposes, but fitting equipment to the hardened face becomes... interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • N-L-M unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Toxn
      You are an engineer at an Italian locomotive and tractor-making company in early 1943. The writing is on the wall for the Italian army in North Africa, with a lot of equipment having been lost and the enemy on the brink of kicking the axis out of Tunisia and then heading across the Mediterranean. In short, things are looking more than a little desperate. 
       
      However, all is not lost. Il Duce himself has stepped in and, with the assistance of the Germans, procured both some of their finest captured vehicles for use in the upcoming defense of the homeland. Since many of these vehicles have been... gently used, and the existing firms like Ansaldo are flooded with orders, your firm has been asked to work on them in order to bring them up to the standards demanded by modern warfare. 
       
      In addition to these vehicles, the Germans have also graciously agreed to sell weapons from their existing stock of captured equipment, as well as providing production licenses for some of their more modern equipment. You have also been given permission to work with local weapons manufacturers in order to modify existing artillery to suit your needs. Italian automotive and engine manufacturers are similarly available to help. Finally; your firm's experience in locomotives and tractors means that you can modify hulls and put together turrets and turret rings. You can also produce castings (although not very large ones) and weld armour plates.
       
      Your job, which you have no choice but to accept, is to choose a vehicle from among the captured stock being offered for sale, and propose a series of plausible fixes in order to give it a fighting chance against the American and British equipment currently in the field (specifically light tanks and light anti-tank weapons).
       
      It is not foreseen that any of these vehicles will be able to plausibly take on modern medium or heavy designs head-on. Instead, what is wanted are general, implementable improvements to the characteristics of the chosen vehicle. These improvements should be aimed at making these vehicles more useful in the initial battles which are foreseen taking place against airborne and landing forces, in general cooperation with infantry, and as scouts.
       
      The submission should include one or more drawings or blueprints (at least a side view of the vehicle, but preferably a 3-point view and isometric view), a description of the modified vehicle, a description of how the modifications would be accomplished and a description of how the modifications would improve the design overall. The text of the submission should short and descriptive rather than long and exhaustive, and should not exceed 1000 words in total. Images may be photoshopped using existing pictures.
       
      Judging will be done on the basis of plausibility and effectiveness, with innovative solutions being encouraged in order to get the most bang for buck out of the base vehicle. Beyond implementation, the fixes should prioritise combat effectiveness while also improving reliability, crew ergonomics, communication, mobility and protection as much as possible.
       
      The foreign vehicles available for modification are:
      Renault R35 (already in service) Hotchkiss H35/39 Somua S35 (already in use for training purposes) T-26 BT-5 T-28 (only available in very small numbers, so need to be extremely effective) Panzer II Ausf.C  
      The foreign weapons immediately available for purchase are:
      15mm ZB-60 25mm Puteaux and Hotchkiss 3.7cm KPÚV vz. 34/Pak 34 (t) 3.7cm ÚV vz. 38/KwK 38(t)
      3.7cm Pak 36 4.0 cm Pak 192 (e) 45mm M1937 (53-K) 4.7cm KPÚV vz. 38/Pak 38 (t) 47mm APX 7.5cm Pak 97/38 7.62 cm F.K.297(r) and  7.62 cm PaK 39(r) 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 43  
      Licenses are also available for the manufacture of foreign engines (Maybach HL62 TRM, Maybach HL120 TRM and Praga Typ TNHPS/II), periscopes, sights, radios, cupolas and automotive subassemblies. All foreign vehicle weapons, subassemblies and components are available for reverse engineering and manufacture.
       
      IMPORTANT NOTE: This competition hasn't been finalised, and is waiting on your input! Vote to participate by giving this topic a 'controversial' (grapefruit-induced tears being the only currency of value), and if we get enough participants we'll pull the trigger. Ask any questions you want below, and when/if the competition goes forwards I will make a new thread for entries.
       
      Edit: thanks to excellent feedback, the competition proposal has been somewhat edited. If you want an idea of what my mindset is here, read up on the battle of Gela (bearing in mind that the wikipedia entry is shite) and ask how much better the counter-attack could have gone if the Italian vehicles had been equipped with radios and had the ability to move faster than jogging speed.
       
      Edit 2: since I failed to mention this above - this is not a one-man, one-entry sort of competition (although I'm not keen on the ten-men, one entry approach either).
      If you have two good ideas then you can submit twice. The only rules are not to test my patience and to keep it within the bounds of good taste.
    • By Toxn
      This is the competition entry thread.
       
      Please submit your complete entries here (all entries will be judged complete when judging begins in the first week of November) and keep the other competition thread for discussion and chatter.
       
      Once judging is complete I will make a post here to discuss the entries and announce a winner.
       
      Best of luck!
    • By Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
       
       
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
       
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.

×
×
  • Create New...