Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Xoon

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    548

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Xoon

  1. Xoon
    It is just something that I don't get with this setup: How does this affect the height of the hull, as well as how easily a suspension element could be replaced. Looking at the Bradly's suspension, it appears they are encased by fuel tanks. And since the fuel tanks would be running along the bottom with support structure for the sub-chassis, won't this increase the overall hull height? How worth is this for a slightly smoother ride and less inside noise level? And how much volume does these mounting points take up, in say a hydopuematic suspension?
  2. Xoon
    I looked at the picture and noticed the rear, is the cooling like drawn above? With no roof mounted fans or ventilators?
  3. Xoon
    No? I don't think so.
  4. Xoon
    Wern't in practise the M4 sherman a universal chassis? Medium tank (MBT) Tank destroyer SPAAG APC ARV Bridge layer CEV Mine clearer SPG SPH Apart from IFV, which was not invented at the time, it fills all the roles.
  5. Xoon
    I present to you........ Knøtpanser model 1!: Commander and driver located in the turret, with the gun in between them and a soviet style autoloader supplying the gun, or a Leclerc style autoloader. Front wheel drive, however rear wheel drive could work just as well. The vehicle could be even lower with a lower powerpack, and maybe a cleft turret. However, the vehicle will probably not be much shorter than 1,1mm, simply because there is only so much you can recline the crew, and armor and stuff is a thing. Max would be 1,55m tall with when taking ground clearance into account.
  6. Xoon
    I have been wondering how short you can make a MBT and I came up with this: Using a unmanned turret and placing all crew in the front reduces the height of the tank by: 1.Removing the loader, thereby not needing the height of comfortable loading. 2. Moving the crew away from the turret, removing the need for head space for the crew and need for thick turret roof armor. And by using a reclined position, we can further reduce the height of the hull. Next would be to use hydropeumatic suspension to remove the floor space needed by the torsion bars. By sloping the UFP at 80 degrees, the barrel gets extra space to depress, reducing the height needed for 10 degree depression. Using a conventional turret, which allows the turret to depress into the hull when elevating. Only having 450mm ground clearance makes the vehicle as low as possible without losing off road mobility. And only using thick roof and belly armor around the crew reduces the height of the hull. Of course other solutions could be used too like: *Reducing the depression and elevation to -5 and +15. *Only using thin roof armor (like 30mm roof and 25mm thick belly). *Using shorter ammunition and gun, reducing the turret roof height needed to depression. *Adding a muzzle break to reduce recoil, which would allow a shorter recoil distance, which would reduce the height of the turret roof needed to depress the gun. *Making the crew go prone. *Using a rotating breach. So, any realistic ideas to make it even lower?
  7. Xoon
    Leopard 2NG, maybe in Syria?
  8. Xoon
    What is that bustle used on the T-10M for? The normal T-10M lacks a bustle if I am not wrong.
  9. Xoon
    From what I have gathered, these seem like the 3 main gun mount types: In short, a over turret ring mount, inside turret ring mount or a casemate mount. Casemate provides the greatest amount of fire rate inside the smallest possible silhouette, with the least gun overhang and the simplest of the 3. ​Conventional turret is a conventional turret Over turret ring mount requires the smallest turret ring, and does not protrude into the hull, but lacks ammunition capacity and is more complex.
  10. Xoon
    Ok folks! A idea from Xoon's crazy lab! In AFVs we have a lot of heavy wiring. This problem is partially solved when it comes to control and signal cables with fiber optics. Put when it comes to power supply we still use copper cables. So I have a idea, what about using aluminum cables instead on the main power lines? Aluminum needs to be 1,5 times thicker to transfer the same amount of current, but it turn it is twice as light for the same amount of current. This would mean that if you have say, 500 kg worth of power supply cables, you could reduce the weight to 250 kg. Another advantage is that aluminum costs only 1/3 to 1/5 for the same amount of copper, and it would reduce the usage of strategic resources. There are drawbacks of course, the number one drawback is that you need a adopter between the copper and the aluminum, since they react with each other. This would add weight and cost, but this should be off sett by the savings the cable in itself provides: The other downside is the tab bit bigger volume it would take. For example, a 4mm2 copper cable can supply the same amount of amperage as a 6mm2 aluminum cable. I think this can come in handy when considering things like a electric turret drive and elevation mechanism, a APU and a diesel-electric drive train. Mvh Xoon
  11. Xoon
    2 captured Leopard 2s then
  12. Xoon
    I never sad that it drove over a IED or something like that. What I am saying is that it looks a lot like someone detonated a explosive on or inside the vehicle. And most likely it was destroyed for propaganda purposes. Also, all know ATGM hits that I know of according to you did not cause a catastrophic kill. This is why I did not include that option. Also, since the turret appears to just have been shoved off, rather than flying through the air, I actually doubt it was a ammunition detonation that got it. I got one theory about the burned down Leopard 2. On tank-net someone mentioned that a VBIED was used to disable the Leopard 2s, so could it be that the VBIED rammed into the side of the Leopard 2 and detonated, ripping it's turret off to the side and igniting it's ammunition load?
  13. Xoon
    I see the engine deck of something that appears to be a Leopard 2 at the right side of the image. So, does this mean: 3 Leopard 2s hit by enemy ATGM, 1 with a ammunition cook off in the turret. 3 captured Leopard 2s, one supposedly recaptured along with a BMP. 1 completely destroyed Leopard 2, either by explosives or ammunition cook off in the hull. This amounts to 7 Leopard 2s.
  14. Xoon
    A unfinished Dragoon hull? The Dragoon has the same front layout, including the 3 hatches.
  15. Xoon
    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 say. 2. Yes, the engine is transversely mounted. The reason is simply because you decrees the size of the engine compartment by 20-30%. Well, except for the Germans, because their engines are too short. 3. Yeah, they all do. However they came too late, and ended up being under armored when they were accepted into service. Well, except the T-54. The Centurion is quite a bad tank armor to weight wise for me.
  16. Xoon
    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 up for debate. Same goes for if the tank should use torsion bar, horstman or HVSS suspension.
  17. Xoon
    So basically something like this?: Just a rough sketch, not a complete design.
  18. Xoon
    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.
  19. Xoon
    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:
  20. Xoon
    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.
  21. Xoon
    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.
  22. Xoon
    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!
  23. Xoon
    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 we design a autoloader for the system above? The swedish system seems overly complicated and exposed. And about the engine mount. I argued why I would have the engine transversly mounted, not why it is better to have it transversly mounted in the front. I think we can stop the disscusion about front mounted engines now, since we have gotten both the good and the bad sides out, and the rest is subjecvtive. So high obliquity composite plate of around 200-300mm? Considering the fact about the highly sloped plates, a rear mounted engine would make more sense maintenance wise. I am pretty sure you are wrong about the MKII being 140mm taller at the rear compartment. I heard no account of that. Unless the entire hull roof was raised, it is wrong, since the hull goes flat all the way to the back. About the raised crew compartment, in the C2, the troop compartment is raised by 170mm, to provide headspace in case of a blast mine or IED. I do not know how comfortable a Marder is, but the the CV90's troop compartment is quite tight from what I have heard from the people serving in Kampeskvadronen. But not BMP tight. And, when you say the Leopard 2s engine compartment, do you mean from the highest point or the lowest point?
  24. Xoon
    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.
  25. Xoon
    This is exactly what I was thinking about: The US is considering hybrid electric drives, and they talk about what I proposed above:
×
×
  • Create New...