Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Xoon

  1. 1. Yes, I always want my designs to be as volumetrically efficient as possible, which means minimizing to height as much as possible, without impacting crew ergonomics. But 1,5m seems a tad bit tall. Considering a sitting driver usually is about 1m tall, then add about 80mm for hull roof and belly, which lands at 1,1m, and then add the suspension which would be 0 with horstman and about 100mm with torsion bar I assume. So about 1,2m. The engines used at the time seem to be about 1m tall, except for the German engines which are really tall and short for some reason. So, 1,3-1,4m max I would sa
  2. Turret ring diameter would be around 1800mm, plus minus for each nation to accommodate each gun, like the 75mm L70 or 88mm L56 for the germans, 85mm for the Russians and 76mm gun for the US and British. Or maybe something for more bang if needed. And engine: Russia: Model V2-34 V12 diesel engine. British: Meteor engine. For the Germans and US, the engine compartment would have to be modified. Proportions are not up to scale, as the drawing are more made to show the concept. If ammunition should be stored next to the driver, below the turret platform or around/behind the crew is u
  3. So basically something like this?: Just a rough sketch, not a complete design.
  4. I like how they used the industrial standard switch box and switches to make it. Cheap, but takes up a lot more room than it needs to do. I could probably make that thing in about 3 hours.
  5. Pardon me if I am rude, but what is so special about the laser rangefinder switch box? It's just a plastic (or maybe sheet metal) box with 5 holes drilled into it, with 3 switches with probably two NO blocks each and a light. It even lacks the cable connecting it, which makes be believe it either is broken (cable ripped out of the box), dismantled or using a a few terminals to easily replace it. A visualization:
  6. Sounds like the Original model used NxRA backed with ERA, but later models replaced the ERA with SLERA to reduce the structural damage caused to the armor module.
  7. This is the image were it says "Explosive" right? So, does this mean the side armor of the Merkava 4 is ERA. Or maybe NxRA? I know NxRA stands for Non Explosive (X) Reactive Armor. But in NxRA there is a reactive material between in plates right? Could this material be considered explosive? Though, not powerful enough to explode the module like in ERA. Mvh Xoon.
  8. It's almost sad how bad of a tank it is. I am seriously wondering what the engineers were thinking? Let's mate a T-72 and a Leopard 2! And then give the super accurate rifled gun! And Let's upgrade it with the superior Russian ERA and copy their layout!
  9. As long as we use a conventional turret, we still need a turret ring diamteter of around 2000mm to fit the gun, armor and to have space for recoil length and such. Alternativly we could use a turret which is not mounted in the hull, but on top of the hull like you suggested. Though, I am not a big fan of the UDES XX20. The loading mechanism and turret in general seems very hard to armor and leaves much exposed to small arms fire. A piviot turret is not really the best choise around. A type of occilaiting turret would work much better in my opinion. But may I ask, how do you suggest w
  10. A more compact layout would be a sponsons mounted layout: But it would need specially designed engines, as well as being harder to maintain. And probably taller.
  11. This is exactly what I was thinking about: The US is considering hybrid electric drives, and they talk about what I proposed above:
  12. My reason to mount the engine tranversly is to reduce the length of the vehicle. As we all know, the tank needs a turret ring of about 2000mm in diameter. By having the turret ring protrude into the sponsons we could optimistically reduce the internal hull width to about 1800mm. This means that the vehicle HAS to be at least 1800mm wide, regardless of how the engine is placed, since it is less then 1,8m in length. The crew capsule is also slimmer, so thereby we should use as much of this required width as possible. Since the engine is rectangular it makes sense to place it transversely, this r
  13. You are fully allowed to do so, this is a discussion after all. I was talking about a tranverse mounted engine, not a conventionally mounted engine as seen in the picture. Imagine the picture, but now remove the drivers compartment, and rotate that engine 90 degrees, do you see all that extra space that is freed up? First, I was talking about 1500HP engines only. I should have specified this and it is entirely my fault. For a bigger engine, a front mounted setup would most likely not work out. Second, APUs are compact, and they already produce a large amount of
  14. So first of I got a question about hydropeumatic suspension. When used as a active suspension you have to have a pump, valve and reservoir to increase and decrease the pressure in the cylinders right? If this is the case, it would take up extra volume and require two pipes going to each suspension arm. Considering this, would be electromagnetic suspension be more space efficient? I assume it would use electricity to regulate it's height. If this is the case, then much thinner cables could be used instead of pipes. Also the system would be powered most likely by a APU, which seems like
  15. What about a raise-able mast with the Radar/sensors on it?
  16. A few quick questions for the folks here: Considering how modern naval combat works, with close to no armor, and heavily relying on stealth, APS and missiles. Could a entire navy composed of submarines be possible? Wouldn't the water help protect the ships against radar, as well as hiding them from visual spotting? I know that you can't just have a submarine carrier and helicarrier as well as landing crafts, but what about the other ships, what stops them from becoming submerged? Is it because of cost? or any other reason? Just some food for thought.
  17. Very interesting MM, But just a few things: A easy way of tracking the position of the lens would be to hook it up to a variable resistor. The further out the lens moved, the higher resistance would be created. The resistance can then be converted to a analogue electric signal, which could vary from 4-20mA. Usually, you can have 255 states from a analogue signal. 256 being 0 or or 0m in this case. So if each state equals 100m the analogue signal could in theory contain measurements up to 25 500 m. Are you referring a analog electric signal here? And if so, did
  18. Does anyone have any pictures of the other prototypes or some info?
  19. So two spaced 12,7mm plates to protect accomplish STANAG IV then? To avoid overmatch.
  20. So considering you need 18mm of RHA to stop AP 7,62mm, does this mean that we only need 9mm of nano-ceramics for the same protection? Considering this, would it be possible to use 5/500/5 (Cermics/Air/Ceramic) setup to provide STANAG IV protection? And I guess the two times thickness efficiency figure is not taking the containers into the equation right? So For example a AFV would need a 3mm thick steel walled container to contain the ceramics.
  21. I see the old heavy ballistic sideskirts are still fitted, couldn't they be replaced by a lighter alternative? Like ceramics or a AMAP module without increasing the weight? As far as I know, those side sideskirts are simply a 50/10/50 mm of steel, so it could easily be exchanged for something lighter right? The reason they did not up armor the hull was because the suspension would not support a much higher weight, so why not replace some of the old components with lighter ones?
  22. Are you referring to the ammo rack up in the front, or that the engine has fuel on each side of it?
  23. They did indeed cheat on the numbers. You should never fully trust a advertisement. With fuel, it is closer to 400mm of saved space, if the hull inside is 2m and the required fuel capacity is 1200L. You could cut it down the amount of fuel because of the engines higher fuel efficiency, and then you would save 460mm. Does anyone know what the sponsons of the Leopard 2 are used for?
  24. Here you have your suggested layout, in a high and low capacity variant. I find the high capacity variant the most logical, considering the fact that you have enormous space for fuel. Maybe even a ultra high capacity variant would make more sense, which would come out with something like 66 rounds. However, the ultra high capacity and maybe the high capacity version depending on hull width would need a frontal layout like the M1 series or fuel in the sponsons. But since you are talking about using fuel as armor here is the estimated protection the fuel tanks would provide in a
  25. Weird choice of imagery there when talking about the MTU MT890, considering that is a MB883 engine. But they are very close in size, but I do believe the 890 was 668mm high, and 700mm wide. The length I was unable to find. This is a clean MTU MT890 V10 engine:
  • Create New...