Toxn

If he put the same amount of energy into doing that as he does litigating these ridiculous arguments he'd have a finished entry already.

If he put the same amount of energy into doing that as he does litigating these ridiculous arguments he'd have a finished entry already.

@delete013 here's a serious suggestion for you: design a tank. We have a competition going on right now, in fact, and you can put together an entry pretty easily so long as you have some access to CAD modeling software (free programs such as Sketchup are accepted).
 
Really - go through the process of designing a gun, a turret, a hull. Fit an engine, mock up a semi-realistic transmission system. Make hard choices as you try to balance firepower, ergonomics, armour protection, power-to-weight ratio, ground pressure and range. Really get to grips with the subject.
 
Then come back and tell us what you think of a particular design as an engineer rather than a partisan.

@delete013 here's a serious suggestion for you: design a tank. We have a competition going on right now, in fact, and you can put together an entry pretty easily so long as you have some access to CAD modeling software (free programs such as Sketchup are accepted).
 
Really - go through the process of designing a gun, a turret, a hull. Fit an engine, mock up a semi-realistic transmission system. Make hard choices as you try to balance firepower, ergonomics, armour protection, power-to-weight ratio, ground pressure and range. Really get to grips with the subject.
 
Then come back and tell us what you think of a particular design as an engineer rather than a partisan.

@delete013 here's a serious suggestion for you: design a tank. We have a competition going on right now, in fact, and you can put together an entry pretty easily so long as you have some access to CAD modeling software (free programs such as Sketchup are accepted).
 
Really - go through the process of designing a gun, a turret, a hull. Fit an engine, mock up a semi-realistic transmission system. Make hard choices as you try to balance firepower, ergonomics, armour protection, power-to-weight ratio, ground pressure and range. Really get to grips with the subject.
 
Then come back and tell us what you think of a particular design as an engineer rather than a partisan.

@delete013 here's a serious suggestion for you: design a tank. We have a competition going on right now, in fact, and you can put together an entry pretty easily so long as you have some access to CAD modeling software (free programs such as Sketchup are accepted).
 
Really - go through the process of designing a gun, a turret, a hull. Fit an engine, mock up a semi-realistic transmission system. Make hard choices as you try to balance firepower, ergonomics, armour protection, power-to-weight ratio, ground pressure and range. Really get to grips with the subject.
 
Then come back and tell us what you think of a particular design as an engineer rather than a partisan.

Behold, the first images of the Howling Retriever:


The armor packages are... not small.
The weight of the structure and armor do however converge to a reasonable all up weight, as I planned.

For those not aware as to what a Howling Retriever is, well, it's a pre-war breed of canine from the Texas region, known for its aggressive tendencies:

 

Some of them even make it back to the helipad they flew off from.

Some of them even make it back to the helipad they flew off from.

Some of them even make it back to the helipad they flew off from.

Hahahahahaha, no.

{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}

{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}

My plan to use mini-turrets is getting more complicated 

No, but the commenters on his videos are.

Ah, the typical Western front Tiger story:
- scratch unit (because most of the effort is in the East)
- breakdowns start immediately
- mauled by infantry
- more breakdowns
- mauled by infantry and halftracks
- one successful engagement (that wehraboos won't shut up about)
- yet more breakdowns
- outfoxed by Comets and their 'quick reversing'
- fail to reposition
- get ouflanked and shot in the side

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.

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
 

How is any of this incompatible with my supposition? Surely the Occam's razor approach would dictate that, if there were plenty of other Nazi forces in the area and the Soviets were not aware of taking losses from tanks, that the losses were mostly not from Nazi tanks?
 
How do you square pinning all these losses on this one unit? Did the rest of the army just sit back for the day, while the Soviet tankers inexplicably started blaming panzerfausts for 88mm shell hits? And how does the Soviet diary not notice that their concentration point got sniped, and that the scouting party that they sent in later in the day apparently all had T-34s?

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.

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.

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.

Okay, firstly this is slightly fetishistic and creepy. Secondly, what's your thesis here?
 
So Korner's claims are fiction, but the 'core' of the story is real and heroic. What's the core here? That a bunch of Nazi units inflicted losses on leading Soviet units (without holding up the advance in any way) and that some of these units had Tigers? That the losses were disproportionate over and above the amount expected by a force on the defensive operating out of prepared positions? 
 
What's the actual event that you're cheering for here?