Sturgeon

Here's the G-41 gun for y'all.

Please see this post for resources on what sort of guns the Texans are able to make: The government of The Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains is currently engaging in research efforts to scale up the experimental 3-in G-41 L/59 to 4.7-in caliber, and also investigating the use of smooth bore guns to fire tungsten-steel alloy fin stabilized darts of 12:1 aspect ratio or finer. Tests of denser alloy long rods incl tungsten have resulted in shattering when aspect ratios exceeded 7:1, so it is recommended that any heavy metal elements be restricted to 6 calibers or less.

Flag of the Lone Free State: The standard color of Texas Ranger vehicles is coyote, which has been widely copied by other Texan government agencies.

I have updated the requirements to alleviate the ground pressure requirement somewhat.

Not independent no lol.

Pretty sure all 3 judges would happily curbstomp anyone who made such a foolish argument @N-L-M @LoooSeR, @OnlySlightlyCrazy.

For the tungsten element, yes.

Yes both are available for armor.

Please note a minor rules clarification: Formerly: Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. Now: Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.

Sturmtiger??? You mean the 380mm rocket-mortar-armed 760lb shell-firing thing that was loaded via five men and a crane? THAT Sturmtiger? PaK 44 was not in a different class than M58, having a less powerful round and a comparable weight shell (28kg). ISU-152 is the only actual exception, though not a tank as you point out. As the exception, it proves the rule, as it often required an extra loader to haul its ~50kg shells, and the Soviets never returned to that scheme, certainly not in a turreted tank.

Hah! That's what I get for not reloading the page!

It's generally accepted that 25kg (about the weight of solid shell/shot alone for 120-122mm) is the limit. Intuitively, this is probably the most a fit adult male could repeatedly move in a complex arc quickly during a fight. Virtually every serious tank armed with something larger (which still fired solid steel shot) had some sort of load-assist, if not an autoloader.

https://ia800203.us.archive.org/19/items/CollectionOfDocumentsDescribingMTU830870And880SeriesEngines/Collection of Documents describing MTU 830 870 and 880 series engines.pdf In other news, alien space whale cometh:

@watch_your_fire Welcome to the forum!

For the submission format of this competition, please use the 2250 California competition format as a guideline. However, by design we have substantially pared down the complexity of submissions, so it is no longer required to include fully completed appendices. At the same time, please demonstrate that your protection meets the requirements in your submission, via sections and screenshots.

Please note that I am still hammering flat the structure of this competition but it will roughly conform to the structure outlined in Competition Rules.

Please see the new pinned post: Introduction to SH Design Competitions

Since we have a lot of first timers competing in the new Texas MBT competition (which I recommend you check out, if you haven't already), I wanted to welcome you to SH's semi-bi-quadrennial design competition! I also wanted to introduce you to what we do here, point out some resources, and direct you to past competitions so that you can get a better frame of reference for the degree of presentation and technical competitiveness that is expected in these things. First, some resources. We'll start from the back end, with what the ideal submission looks like. If all the vehicles designed in SH competitions were competing against each other for sheer quality, the winner by far would be the XM-2239 Norman, by NLM. The length, degree of embellishment, detail, and quality of the proposal are all as close to pitch-perfect as I expect anyone here to get. The Norman proposal's level of detail when compared to other contest entrants elsewhere on the Internet is pretty obvious, but it also doesn't waste the judge's time with extraneous fluff, being a highly concise and readable proposal overall. I learned this the hard way, with my submissions to the same competition; to quote LoooSeR: "Writing a War and Peace is not needed for short description of your submissions." Some fluff to frame and elaborate on your design is appropriate, but the degree of narrative contained in my five part submission from the 2239 competition is so excessive that even I find them difficult to read, today. Regardless, I highly recommend anyone interested in SH design competitions read that thread. On the other side of things, the 2250 California competition illustrated some underlying problems with the way SH competitions had been held previously. Although the 2239 competition was extremely competitive and successful, the forum leadership effectively learned the lesson (incorrectly) that "more complexity makes a healthier environment" and decided to push competitors even further with the 2250 competition, with more detailed and stringent requirements to really challenge their abilities. However, this resulted in the competitors being overloaded by the complexity and detail of the requirements, and while every competitor did their best to conform to these requirements, several simply were unable to finish. This has resulted in subsequent competitions being scaled back in complexity, and for example the Sioux Scout Rifle Caliber minicomp that ended up extremely successful and fun for all the participants was very simple and bare-bones and involved the refinement of only specific disciplines. Another thing we learned is that SHitters tend to have highly specific interests. The Texas Truck competition struggled to gain interest in the first, and then with the departing of one of the design teams due to petty bullshit from the admin personal disagreements, never managed to build steam again. Its reinvention as an MBT competition, on the other hand, immediately generated fresh interest, so what can you do? SH has provided a number of resources for its competitors to improve and refine their competition entrants. Several of these are pinned in this subforum: Competition Rules How we do it Design a [Thing}: Don't Get Left Behind! Estimating the Performance of Tank Guns Design Contest Supplement: Typical Weights in a Modern Tank In addition, there are extensive resources available at DTIC, and a number of SH members, such as @Sturgeon, @Collimatrix, @LoooSeR, or @N-L-M can direct you toward even more resources. I recommend calling upon as many tools and guides as possible to achieve a high fidelity. In the OP of the Texas thread, there are some sheets specific to that competition. The primary threat of the Texas competition is what the Lone Free State calls the "4"/54", which is to say the Norman's 105mm gun. From a performance perspective, this is basically equivalent to the 100mm D-10T, or the 105mm L7. Calculators to allow estimation of protection against this and equivalent weapons firing HVAP are available here and here. A calculator allowing estimation of protection against simple 6" shaped charges (Panzerfausts, RPGs) is available here.

From my perspective, no bias. Tech level is "cusp" for smoothbores, so the ammunition types expected to initially ship with the tank favor rifled guns, but the immediate next generation favor smoothbores. Just as a reference point, if you recall the 2239 competition, the Texans have better metallurgy and better technical acumen for guns specifically (they are heavily invested in small arms, autocannons, and artillery). So even though we're talking about a tank intended to compete directly with Norman, the gun may be a half generation more advanced (reference: L11 or U-5TS).

Like NLM said, you are competing against other people, and the judges will weigh your submission holistically. You're welcome to take radical risks like that, but you have to consider whether the judges will see those compromises as worth it.

to you

I would recommend so, yes, hahaha. No for either but you have to remember that the Texas government would like to actually be able to use these things. No, the Texas logistics system primarily operates on broad, open highways.

The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel. —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements. Submissions will be accepted in USC only. Supplementary Out of Canon Information: I. 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 judge. Structural materials: i. RHA/CHA Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). Density- 0.28 lb/in^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 4 inches. 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- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel). For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended: For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in 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 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch. Density- 0.28 lb/in^3 iv. 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-0.03 lb/in^3. v. Assorted stowage/systems Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE. vi. Spaced armor Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE. Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap. Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette. Reactive armor materials: vii. ERA A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects). viii. NERA A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in 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. Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960. ii. No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS. iii. Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D. iv. Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT. v. The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction. c. Mobility i. Engines tech level: 1. MB 838 (830 HP) 2. AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP) 3. Kharkov 5TD (600 HP) 4. Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP) 5. Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 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- Gen 2 maximum vi. Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits vii. Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio) viii. While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities. Armor calculation appendix. SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT Range calculator

Yes you seem very focused on collecting as much of Korner's ball-sweat as possible.

Some genuine fucking advice, mate. The Americans lied all the time. The Soviets lied all the time. This does not mean that the reality is "actually our side is the liar culture and their side was the truth culture". Everyone fucking lied. Every society in the 20th Century (and many other centuries, but especially that one and this one), had a penchant for lies. Just because the Americans lied about My Lai does not mean the Nazis didn't lie about kill counts. Or Auschwitz, and be careful how close one takes you to the other. The key to becoming a good historian, speaking as someone who frankly is a pretty decent one, is to recognize lies. And you're not looking at truth, with this Korner dude.