Sturgeon

Yup

{Sidles up to the bar at a nondescript neo-revivalist saloon, motions you to a quiet table after pretending to meet you}
 
Okay, so I've heard that you're also an engineer from "across the citrus curtain" and are still getting used to life in boots instead of skirts. That's fine, there are more of us than you'd think. But since the locals use some sort of ancient, impenetrable script instead of an actual system of weights and measures, I figure this might help you get your bearings:
 
Protection:
The protection standard against enemy HEAT is fairly laughable, given what we know the Mormonhadeen are packing thanks to the Cascadians. The "6 inch" projectiles being used as a reference hit like ancient panzerfausts and can punch through around 180mm of RHA on the flat. The protection standard against KE is much more up-to-date, and obviously reflects a run-in with (or espionage against) the new Cascadian Norman tank. The "4 inch/54 calibre" gun is actually the 105mm L/51 gun off the Norman. The relevant penetration figures are 263mm RHA at 1800m, and 394mm at 1100. I'd suggest leaving some growth potential in the hull and suspension for when the Cascadians re-discover APFSDS. The other protection requirements are more or less self-explanatory, provided you can multiply by 2.54.  
Firepower:
The firepower requirements get interesting once you consider the option of low-pressure or high-pressure shaped charges. Low-pressure HEAT (similar to the pre-war 90mm Cockerill guns) can beat the low-penetration 13" requirement using a ~76mm tube, and the high-penetration requirement using something in the 85-100mm range. The high-pressure guns can beat the low-penetration requirement using an 85-90mm tube, while the 15" high-penetration requirement can be handled by a gun of about 105mm. So our new Texan employers are essentially asking us to clone the Cascadian gun. In terms of maxing out the firepower requirements, it looks like Texan loaders can't sling much more than Californian ones: around 25kg. The weight of a one-piece round is obviously variable (and depends on the type of projectile, its velocity and the composition of the cartridge case) but using 100mm UOF-412 as a reference you're looking at a maximum calibre of something like 80-90mm in order to allow loaders to sling full-bore AP and HE. If you instead limit yourself to HEAT-FS you're looking at 100-105mm guns. Going further and looking at APFSDS, you could probably get up to 120-130mm weapons. If you use separate shells and charges, then the maximum size of HE or solid shot that a loader can sling goes up to around 120mm. For HEAT-FS, this goes up even further to around 130-140mm. For APFSDS the issue actually ends up being the charge weight rather than the projectile weight.   
Mobility:
The range requirement comes down to a conversion factor of about 0.148 kg of fuel per hour per kW of power. In term of the range itself: 483 (baseline) and 805 (desired) km or range is impressive, and represents functionally one to two days of unrefueled driving. The power requirement is for 11.5kW/mt. Put all the above together and you can very quickly scope out the limits of the design space. For instance: a T-55 analogue will need a 556hp/415kW motor to make the cut in terms of PWR. It will then need around 1355lb/614.5kg of fuel to make the minimal 300mi range requirement. This translates (using a density of 850kg/m3 for diesel) to around 0.723m3 of fuel storage, or 723 litres. Using the 500mi requirement, you need around 1200l of fuel storage (which comes to nearly 3% of the vehicle's total mass) Looking at the ground pressure, this requirement seems to be based on a simple weight/track area calculation rather than MMP. The converted units come to around 95.8 kPa. This is fairly light, but certainly doable given the latitude we're allowed on width.  
Anyway, I hope this helps you landing that contract. Us former Californians have to stick together, after all.
 
{Tips oversized cowboy hat to you, says goodbye in exaggerated Southern accent, walks out of saloon}

In case anyone was wondering what Texas looked like in 2247:

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.

My plan to use mini-turrets is getting more complicated 

CV90's big brother incoming: 

We always have this question (along with the inevitable exotic ceramics availability discussion) and it never amounts to anything in the end. NERA/ERA is just too good on a protection by weight basis to bother with inert inserts.

Yes both are available for armor.

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:

Gee it's awfully funny that all of the personal combat logs whine about panzerfausts, and German records recall there being literally hundreds of them in the AO - but the fact that they didn't report the losses as being to them must mean it never happened. And yes, the losses to fausts were so low that the Soviets didn't improvise bedspring armor in a desperate attempt to do something against them, and that the soviets most certainly didn't bother capturing and reverse engineering them. Not at all. I think it is far more likely someone on the soviet side simply messed up (records are hardly faultless on any side!) with recording the losses rather than all of the combat logs being wrong and the hundreds of panzerfausts in the area apparently doing absolutely nothing despite being in a perfect situation.
 
And yes, Norge's *nominal* AT assets are quite sad. But given the condition of the battlefield I would bet money at least some bigger AT guns were attached to them ad-hoc from other battered units. Nobody records every ad-hoc attachment, look at the utter mess of ad-hoc formations during Bagration and Zitadelle - these are well known to exist but their exact composition is never going to be fully known.

@watch_your_fire Welcome to the forum!

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).

Remember that the submissions are measured by the judges not only against the specification but also against the other competitors.
Features which are included or excluded will be judged on their merits as part of a cohesive whole.

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
 

See, I get the feeling that just like Critical Mass - you only read bits and pieces.
 
If you read the whole comment chain, there were other units that likely had AT guns attached - in particular the Norge PanzerGren regiment. Which does have organic AT in their TO&E, and probably had supplementary AT attached (largely because as the German army slowly disintegrated, attaching stragglers from wiped out units to surviving ones was extremely common.)
 
Also I highly doubt that with over 600 panzerfaust in the area, that they did little damage. Soviets spend time whining about panzerfausts, and we know from German records that about 1,300-,1400 men armed with at least 600 panzerfausts were in the area. The whole crux of the argument rests on the soviets saying "projectile impact" - but who is to say the local Soviet commander didn't count Panzerfausts as projectiles? They certainly are projectiles.

That's not a thesis, it's a vague wish. What do you think actually happened? The Nazi account has tigers ambushing a huge force of IS-2s and T-34s as they mass for an assault on the morning of 19 April 1945, in the area around Bellersdorf. Then, later in the day ("late afternoon"), the same force is attacked by "around 30" T-34s and then mauls that attack as well.
 
Meanwhile, the Soviet forces in the area have them pressing an advance over the previous few days, then overrunning the position on the 19th. They don't seem to notice the Tigers operating in the area, and it doesn't slow them down at all.
 
Now the second account is obviously true in terms of movement and casualties - you simply can't lie about your own movements and losses on an ongoing basis (such as a unit diary) without it becoming really obvious at some point. So the question becomes about how you can reconcile the contradiction of a unit taking a mauling that should have stopped their advance dead versus the unit itself neither stopping or noticing that they were the targets of special attention by an enemy heavy tank unit.
 
As I've said, you don't seem to have laid out a coherent thesis at all here, so the following is simply my first impression. But from where I stand the most likely account is that Nazi tiger 2s were operating more or less in the area (a few got knocked out in the process, it seems), did a day's work for a heavy tank unit on the defensive, and then came home to have their exploits bundled up for propaganda purposes while the position itself got overrun.

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.

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.

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.

Nazi crews. Nazi vehicles. Performance you admit is fabricated.
 
Doesn't stop you. I wonder why.

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.

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.

You really gotta wonder what sort of perversions lurk in the mind of someone who sees a bunch of lying Waffen SS fudging kill counts and thinks they're heroic.

Trusting Nazis is no way to get to the truth, numbnuts. 

For one the turret stock is 22 - which both the official documents and captured examples show, 2 racks of 11. Furthermore, while the official claim was 86 (where in gods' name did you get 84?) rounds stowed - examination of actual, captured field issue tanks shows that the standard fitting was in fact 70. It would seem that not all of the official racks were actually issued, probably for ergonomic reasons. And yes, I will happily take what was found issued in tanks over what they say they will have issued any day.
 
 
TO&E doesn't magically change based on short-notice intel, and the German intelligence apparatus was notoriously insufficient in any case. How would this German unit *know* they were about to get slammed by nothing but armor and not some other mix of forces, and thus load only AP?
 
 
How do you propose that the artillery managed to penetrate the drive sprocket covering the final drive housing and the final drive housing itself without also penetrating the sides of the tank and causing more direct issues? The total LOS thickness on the sides to strike the final drives is roughly 40mm thick give or take a few mm. And from the front, it'd have to penetrate both the track and the housing for a pretty similar LoS.
 
You also seem, in your wanking of frontal armor here, to wantonly ignore Hoak directly whining in the report that the armor was frequently penetrated by anti-tank *and* tank fire. While simultaneously 100% trusting him that it was totally the arty that blew up his final drives.