Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Attention trans ladies, natal-ladies, and other, equally valid genders

nDUcsxJ.jpg

 

It is I, Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII. I want to talk to you today about bisexuality in ammunition. As you all know bisexuality is the worst possible sexual orientation. Even worse than heterosexuality! For being a bisseuxal means you are at best confused and at worse a traitor to LGBTQQIP2SAA people everywhere. You may ask: Why do we then keep the B in the holy acronym? Because for the same reason the Christians--toxic they may be--still regarded Judas as an Apostle. So that we may be reminded of the failures of our former comrades. Anyway when I mean full caliber, I mean full caliber. For I have seen suggested work arounds and they are the bisexuals of ammunition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

66% is scary-high. Also why are your side skirts so heavy and what structure is there supporting them?

Well the base armour is 45mm all around (including the hull floor and roof) as mandated, so this thing is going to be chonky no matter what.

66% is too high, though, given that the IS-3 is supposedly the most armour-heavy tank ever and it's fraction is 57%.

 

The side skirts are so heavy because they are soaking 250/750mm CE penetration at 45' and take up 4.2 square metres of armour area each.

 

In terms of support, they are solidly bolted onto the hull sides via a big-ass bracket that runs alon their length and then hang vertically down. Extensions coming out the hull sides then bolt into the inner side of the skirts.

 

Edit: of course, I made a calculation error (I effectively doubled the area of the front plate). The real armour mass is a hair over 40mt, with the all-up mass being around 64mt. This brings the fraction to 62.5%, which isn't great but is getting closer to the ballpark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comrades! The time of your waiting is over! I introduce to you the Sierra Nevada VagonZavod AFV-50 Gun Tank

 

unknown.png

Frontal Dimensions

Spoiler

uY5WyVw.png

Frontal Armor

Spoiler

OES20Uv.png

Turret Cheek Armor Array (not to scale)

Spoiler

eOT0AII.png

Top/Side

Spoiler

NdkfRdT.png

ezf124P.png

 

Vital Statistics(as pictured):

Weight : 52.6 Metric Tons

Crew: 3 (Commander, Gunner, Driver)

Length (hull/OAL gun forward): 6.9m/9.3m

Width: 3.9m

Height: 2.4m

 

Engine: Twin Turbocharged+Supercharged V-12 Diesel (880kw/1180hp)

16.73kw/tonne / 22.4hp/tonne

>70 kph on road

 

Armament:

125mm L/48 auto-loaded smoothbore, 30 rounds ready

1x PKT 7.62x54mm Coaxial MG, 3000 rounds

1x KPVT 14.5x114mm AAMG, 500 rounds in 50 round belts

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Whatismoo said:

52.6 Metric Tons

How much of that is armor?

Also, does the hull side stop the reference threats?

I also note that the hull does not stop the BGM-1 from the front.

Share this post


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

How much of that is armor?

Also, does the hull side stop the reference threats?

I also note that the hull does not stop the BGM-1 from the front.

The exact percentage is currently under review, we haven't worked out the ERA package and side skirts

 

The hull side in the depicted prototype does not stop several of the reference threats, however we are working on both a HIC side skirt and a LIC one which should provide the required protection

 

The hull requires ERA to stop BGM-1 from the front, this has not been  modeled as the ERA design is still in development.

Share this post


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

How much of that is armor?

Also, does the hull side stop the reference threats?

I also note that the hull does not stop the BGM-1 from the front.

 

Define "Armor" -- do I count the turret and hull structure, or just the armor packages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick update on my end;

I've nearly completed the hull. Outstanding work to be done:

Model side skirts and armor

Lower front plate armor array

Fuel tank baffles

Model suspension

Reduce frontal armor array thickness

Add APU

Add Power Pack bay spall liner and fuel tanks

 

 

I've completed everything on else on the Hull including;

Powerpack

Armor array design

Front armor array modeled

Crew compartments

Front Fuel tanks

Shock/blast/mine resistance

Spall liner(s)

Etc

 

Currently weighs around 32 tons (again w/o the turret, side skirts, and suspension)

Final weight is projected to be 70-80 tons

Currently makes ~2000hp

 

Feel free to poke around:

https://cad.onshape.com/documents/6c18ded5ae396dbbd35400ca/w/34ef233c7f8a521e805de1bd/e/50e74f8cdc40ef16e27cee40

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
    • By Sturgeon
      This is the place for flame wars about rifle-caliber MGs versus autocannons for tank coaxial weaponry. First, we have Ensign's blog post about tank machine guns:
       

    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
       
      I recently read about upgrade packages to old tanks like the M-60 and T-55, but kept seeing comments from people saying they would still be obsolete. Is this because the M-60 and T-55 are made entirely of steel (and not composite) armor?  
       
      I have this theory that thick steel armor is probably totally obsolete, and is just dead weight in the age of lighter weight composite armor. You can bolt on upgrades to an M-60 or T-55, but you're still hamstrung by the fact that either tank will be carrying around tons of useless steel. Am I right? 
       
      Also, if we wanted to upgrade old tanks like that, wouldn't the best idea be to develop a new turret--with lighter, modern composite armor and better technology inside--and just drop it into the old tanks? The hulls would still be made of heavy steel, but that could be helped a bit by adding applique armor. 
       
      Here are some of the upgrades I read about: 
       
      https://youtu.be/NG89Zh9qQrQ
       
      http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1907.html
×
×
  • Create New...