Toxn

https://razib.substack.com/p/here-be-humans

Europe is sleeping in the shadows of a recent past it pretends it has escaped. All that old evil it spent a century bleeding itself and the greater world dry over was not exorcized by a generation of consumerist socialism. It'll be back a second time - as farce rather than tragedy, of course. I think you know fokkol and should stop before you embarrass yourself.

Ah, but that's exactly what our erstwhile friendly wehraboo would say And then, before you know it, it's off to "German tanks as big tiddy anime girls" and all the 101 other things that make us collectively want to restart civilization with hot neutrons. Sorry mate, I'm South African. Anti-racism IS my national bias.

And for a concise explanation of the ideal forum moderation policy for complete harmony and togetherness, watch 31:30-32:50.

So my suggestion, take it or leave it, is that if you're going to put wehraboo-adjacent stuff up at all, to make sure that people know it's a JOKE. You don't have to be subtle (we're not that cultured, after all) - say that the guy running the country is a full-on unreconstructed Nazi who got everything he knows about armoured warfare from a moth-eaten copy of Death Traps and a box of faded print-outs from the forums of literally any game dealing with WW2 combat. So he's forcing the engineers to use this cockamamie nomenclature and keeps asking them to put in amazing future-tech ideas like axial-flow turbojets with shite burner can designs, contrarotating rotor/stator assemblies and turbine blades made from low-alloy steel. And they're picking the best bits that they can out of the mess and running with that instead to produce a half-way functional design.

So firstly, yikes (context to follow). Secondly, in case you're confused about the rather critical eye we're casting on your no-doubt sincere bit of worldbuilding: we're an old forum by internet standards, tracing our way back, if not to the Sumerian era of usenet groups or the Assyrian era of blogs-turned-forums, then to the classical era of the 2010s. So we've seen some cycles recur. And one of those cycles, analogous to the friendly Nazi problem that bars deal with (only more cringey and sad than disgusting), is the friendly wehraboo problem. You see, they always start friendly - just asking questions, just wanting to air their legitimate love of technology and design independent of the political nastiness that surrounded it. And it always ends in a welter of "which German tank ace would look the hottest as an anime princess" posts. So when some unfortunate soul comes in just asking questions and wanting to air their legitimate love of technology etc etc, we tend to stare hard and long at the underlying dynamics of the situation. Because nobody wants to have to clean up the shit that wehraboos excrete once they congregate in any numbers.

They do like their big fat compound words.

We're poking you for fun, and because wehraboo-shit is haram for reasons that go all the way back to the guy you're chatting to inventing the term in the first place.

Unt some mit very interesting ideas about ze lower races, ja?

Sounds about right.

? It's not like Russian men in the 1950s were tall or anything. Their average height was 168cm. Secondly, only the driver gets extra comfort from being short, although the commander will want to be thin: Thirdly, it's not like Germans were paragons of comfort themselves.

The sky's the limit, bud. You go make the 188-tonne tank with two main guns that you've always been dreaming of.

Tiger has similar issues though - that tub and superstructure design philosophy means that the 80-100mm upper box is riding on a 25-60mm lower hull.

Cross-posting a bit, but I found this interesting: I was modelling a Tiger 1 analogue for the Californians as a prelude to suggesting the above competition options, and found that the cost of the front drive system, slightly taller engine and hull sponsons ends up being 10 tonnes of weight (for the same protection level and an otherwise-similar component layout) by the time you get to the final weight of the vehicle. It's amazing how much extra you pick up just from having a taller hull, because of course side armour is one of the more weight-expensive parts of a tank due to the area it occupies. Sponsons are also one of the great enemies of weight saving because they increase roof area and front plate area at the same time. Finally; squaring off the hull (rather than angling it a bit to wrap around internal components better) seems to gain you a small but noticeable amount in the weight department. All this, combined with the fact that you generally want a longer tank rather than a taller or wider one for ground pressure reasons (more track run), means that the best way to economise is simply to follow the Soviet model: make your vehicles as low and thin as possible as possible, and make up internal volume with length if you need to. This is how you end up with T-54/55 having 200mm of RHA on the front, a minimum of 80mm on the side, a potent 100mm gun, and a weight of only 36mt.

I'd maybe set the date as 1960-65. Other than that - I actually had a friend in varsity who ended up doing this in the mid 2000s for T-62s...

What's the weight of the bare hull and turret plus the armour components?

Give it a think - we've got time to chew over this stuff in any case.

How improvised? If we're talking 1920s tech then I'm all for it.

Mini-competition suggestions, for consideration some time next year: 1. Design an AT gun (2239) In this mini-competition, contestants would be asked to design a conventional, WW2-era AT gun for use by one of the post-apocalyptic US polities. The gun would be designed with an understanding of how weapon and armour technology would be likely to develop, and should include a description of the gun itself, its mounting and its ammunition. 2. Design a ATGM (2247) In this mini-competition, contestants would be asked to design an ATGM for use by the Texans, in a project running parallel to their first forays into MBT building. The contestants would have to simulate the overall configuration and aerodynamics of the ATGMs using OpenRocket, and would have to provide a coherent explanation for the warhead layout and control scheme. Submissions would be in the form of ORK files and a brief description. 3. "Fix a tank" 2 - France, 1946 The second "fix a tank" competition, this time to try and fix the problems that the French had with their post-war Panthers. The contestants would not be allowed to radically re-design the vehicles (or, at least, would have to provide better and better justifications for each new change), but would try to work with what they had to fix as many issues as possible. The goal would be to produce a vehicle that the historical 501st and 503rd armoured regiments could operate into the 1950s. 4. "Fill in the blanks" - design the Californian heavy from the first (2239) competition The Californian heavy tank (which was very obviously an expy of the WW2-era Tiger) was the vehicle which kicked off the entire arms race that has become the dominant narrative of the post-apocalyptic competitions. A cryptic beast, it was described as weighing 50mt, having 76mm of armour and being armed with an 89mm gun that can penetrate ~140mm of RHA at 1000m. This competition would involve contestants filling in the blanks to create a tank that fits these criteria (ie: not inventing a vehicle with a better gun, massively thick armour etc). The submissions would be done using a formula approach (for which, see here) with the contestants being asked only to model the hull/turret armour layout in detail (ie: in terms of mass). Everything else (the gun, ammunition, suspension, engine, optics etc.) can be simply a visual representation with standard weights being applied for variable-weight components. The submission would be in the form of drawings (front, side, top view) and a description to follow a standard format.

Main Battle Tank, 2247, project names "Derebus" and "Derebus-M" Manufacturer: Manufactuer: Paramount-Allen-Fullerton (Para-allful) Conglomerated Table of basic statistics: Note: all statistics provided are for Derebus unless otherwise noted. Parameter Value Mass, combat Armour mass: (1-2" (25-50mm) RHA base plus ERA, composites, side skirts and engine bay liner): 20.6t (18.5mt) 43.1t (39.1mt) modelled, 43.4t (39.4mt) calculated Length, combat (transport) 246" (6.25m) hull, 379" (9.63m) total Width, combat (transport) 150" (3.8m) with skirt Height, combat (transport) 95" (2.41m) to top of commander's hatch, 109" (2.77m) total Ground Pressure, zero penetration Ground pressure (calculated MMP): 29.4 PSI (203 KPa). Nominal ground pressure (based on calculated weight): 10.3 PSI (70.77 KPa) Estimated Speed 37 mph (60km/h) Estimated range 490 mi at 30 mph Crew, number (roles) 4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver) Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) 5-inch 55 calibre (127mm L/55) high/low pressure gun, (19 charges, 9 active projectiles, 10 inert projectiles in turret/ 16 charges, 8 active projectiles, 8 inert projectiles in hull) Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) 3 x .30 cal MG (600 rnd belted each ready/ 1200 rnd belted each stowed) Vehicle designer’s notes: The Derebus family of vehicles (provisionally named Derebus and Derebus-M) are intended to fulfil a procurement strategy emphasizing mobility (tactical, operational and strategic), reliability and superb value for money, achieved using a lightweight vehicle design, proven automotive components and a high/low capability mix. Derebus sports a state-of-the-art fire control system allied to a powerful 5" gun, while Derebus-M provides supporting firepower and a larger ammunition load thanks to it's 4" gun. Both vehicles provide superb protection across their frontal arcs, with the Derebus making use of cutting-edge composites to save weight. Both Derebus and Derebus M are immediately available to fulfil all of your defense needs. Vehicle feature list: Mobility: 1. Link to Appendix 1 2. Engine- V-12 Diesel (Kharkiv V-2-55 derivative), 2441 ci (40l) displacement, 600HP (448kW), liquid-cooled. Note: alternate engine and transmission arrangements are provided for in Appendix 3 3. Transmission - hydraulic torque converter feeding into Merritt-Brown-style double differential system, 7 forward/1 reverse gears. 4. Fuel - diesel, ~2400lb total (639lb/290kg in tanks flanking the driver, 1764lb/800kg in rear sponson tanks, estimated range of 490mi at 30mph. 5. Engine, transmission and cooling are arranged in removable aluminium tub housed in engine bay. The tub is removable by sliding out the rear of the bay. 6. Suspension - torsion bar, variable travel (presently 11.8" (30cm)), 20" (0.5m) ground clearance, geared torsion bar suspension, each axle pair in detachable units shrouded by aluminium housings. Wheels are 23.6" (0.6m) in diameter, with a track width of 27.6" (0.7m) and a pitch of 7.7" (0.195m). Survivability: 1. Link to Appendix 1 2. Link to Appendix 2 3. Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks - highly sloped turret and hull front (75 degrees), charges and active ammunition (HEAT-FS and HE) arranged in sealed tubes leading to a blast chimney that outlets to blow-off panels in the turret roof, turret sides, hull roof and hull sides. A. Weapons: 1. Link to Appendix 1 2. Main Weapon- a. Type: smoothbore, vertically trainable +15/-10 degrees b. Caliber: 5"/127mm c. ammunition types and performance: Note: the armour used for the target has the same hardness (360BRN) as the armour used in the vehicle. The target was at 0 degree obliquity for calculation purposes. HEAT-FS (low-pressure setting): 46lb (20.85kg), penetration of around 21" (535mm), 3074fps (937m/s). HE (low-pressure setting): 46lb (23.2kg), 201oz (5.7kg) fill, estimated blast penetration of ~55mm RHA, 2910fps (887m/s) APFSDS (high-pressure setting): 15:1 LD, 550BHN monosteel body, tungsten insert, 115mm cap, ring sabot, 1800m/s, 15.7/13.8" (400/350mm) penetration at 100/2000y (lower estimate, 17.1" (435mm) at 2000y upper estimate). d. Ammo stowage arrangement - 19 charges, 9 active projectiles, 10 inert projectiles in turret; 16 charges, 8 active projectiles, 8 inert projectiles in hull. e. FCS: Duel axis stabilized main gun Semi-autoloader: the loader places the charge and warhead on trays in the bustle. these are then fed into the gun using an automatic mechanism (horizontal rammer, pivoting loading tray and rigid chain actuator to ram the warhead and charge home). The gun automatically returns to the loading position after each shot. A short spring at the end of the actuator helps to smooth out the loading impulse. f. Neat features: Gun has a high-pressure and low-pressure recoil option, selectable on the slide – this doesn’t affect the recoil mechanism, it just changes where the trip key is to unlock the breech (warning: don’t fire high-pressure ammo with the low-pressure setting selected!) Gun uses a separate 6.9x27" (175x685mm) charge: 44lb/20kg mass, semi-combustible case built along the lines of the 4Zh-40 charge used with the historical 125mm 2A26 gun), matching the length of the HEAT-FS round. The charge gives space to produce a more powerful round to match higher future barrel higher pressures (when using a secondary charge with the APFSDS projectile itself). 74000 PSI (510 MPa) gives a potential power of 15MJ. 94000PSI (650 MPa) gives a potential power of 19MJ. Final penetration potential of the gun with early monobloc DU projectiles is something in the region of 22" (550mm) at 2000y (putting it on par with Mango and Vant). Being able to store and handle a longer projectile (ie: above 27") would probably allow something a bit better than Snivets. Low-pressure charges are shortened (17.1" / 435mm) and come with an ejection spring to work with the same storage tubes as the high-pressure charges. 3. Secondary weapons - 3 x .30 cal MG, 1 coaxial, 2 in mountings attached to the commander and loader's turret hatch 4. Link to Appendix 3. B. Optics: 1. Primary gunsight: single axis stabilized gunner’s sight 2. Secondary gunsight: vertical coincidence rangefinder (stadiametric, 39.4" (1m) base), doubles as a redundant back-up sight. 3. Miscellaneous optics: Commander and loader's rotating hatches, including vertically trainable (+/- 15 degrees) periscope in front of hatch, degree markings on hatch ring to allow rough direction of gunner to target. Driver's periscope, vertically trainable +/- 15 degrees C. FCS: 1. List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture: Simple electronic gun-follows sight fire control system (encoder connected to sight mirror feeds elevation data into a transistor-based PID controller, which tries to match position on a similar encoder connected to the gun. When gun position and sight position align, the firing mechanism is electronically triggered). LRF mounted above barrel, solid-state components, maximum operating range of 5km in clear conditions, average estimation error of 1%. Uses flashlamp-pumped ruby laser, optical sensor, quartz timing circuit and the sequential event time sampling approach (with post-sampling amplification) to allow time-of-flight rangefinding using a lower timebase and bandwidth compatible with current electronics. 2. Link to Appendix 3. Fightability: 1. List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability: Engine bay approach simplifies engine and transmission replacement via rear bay doors. Generous rear hull roof hatches simplify servicing and maintenance. Bolt-on suspension units simplify field replacement and repair. Commander and loader's hatch design improves buttoned-up visibility Additonal Features: See Appendix 3 Free expression zone: "...bellicis"

Good going! We'll look forward to your entry.

Looking svelte.