Xoon
-
Posts
548 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Xoon
-
I can't say these images look very promising. The tank in the spoiler looks like it is using a low profile turret and not a unmanned turret, and I am not sure if it is possible to depress the breach, it looks like the breach already touches the roof. Also, the tank is 3,75m wide if that drawing is correct, isn't that too wide for rail transport? Or is rail transport not a concern for SK? When it comes to the first image, I am wondering how the autoloader works, since if it is a unmanned turret they can't reload it from under armor right? And by stacking the ammunition standing in the front of the tank the front is going to be quite big, which would not be the most efficient design. One thing I noticed though is that the tank in the first image seems to use a tranverse engine setup, while the one in the spoiler uses and conventional setup. Judging from the size of the engine compartment.
-
I am not sure if this should be posted in the software section or here. So I chose this section since I found it the most relevant. But on point: Collecting data. AFV designs are based on data right? These are usually battle reports, which some times may be misleading, but has helped shape AFV design. For example: *The frontal 30 degree section of a tank will take 50% of the hits. Thereby, lets up armor the front 30 degree to resist the threat the vehicle is designated to stop, which in the case of a MBT, is AT-rounds. *The turret is going to be hit the most. That's why we are going to armor it the most. *The UFP and the Lower section of the turret is hit the most, therefor let's have them as the most armored parts. So I was wondering, does developers of games like Steel Beasts collect information on the areas the AFV has been hit, the range the shot was fired from, and the type of ammunition used? This information could be given/sold to AFV developers for them to further enhance their designs. The data could be separated into two groups: Military. Civilian. The military group would be data from actual AFV crews training in a simulator, while the Civilian group would be data collected to anyone playing the game outside training, where skill, proper training, or seriousness may lack. A example here is how WT players will often pick the KV-2 for shits and giggles simply because it has a giant cannon, disregarding how useful this actually is. Further, the two groups could be separated by country, as well as if they are conscripts or not. To increase the variety of data, the civilian version at least could include a "deathmatch mode" and the usual game modes where battles are often and intense. A more experimental way could also be used. Using neural networks, we could have a AI evolving to adept perfectly to the opposition. This could be done via Steel Beasts. You simply load up a scenario, and hook either one AI to all of the AFVs or even one AI for each crewmember. After several "evolutions" the AIs would have figured out the perfect way to take out the enemy opposition. This would also be a excellent way of finding bugs in the game, since neural networks will use any advantage they can. Hook this up with a AFV building program, with limiters of course, the neural network could also develop the perfect design to counter the threat. Repeat this over several, if not all scenarios and it could come up with a lot of interesting designs. But note, I am not saying we should let a neural network design a AFV all by itself, it should rather serve as a guideline or a reference for what AFV designers can improve. Here is a example of neural networks: Mvh Xoon- 3 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- SimulatorsAFV design
- Computergames
- (and 2 more)
-
Design a Volks/folke AFV. Main focuses: It has to be cheap, VERY cheap, as cheap as possible. This includes maintenance costs. It has to provide better or equal capabilities to Infantry Mobility Vehicles. Has to be able to be mass produced. Man power is readily available, use it. It has to be able to operate in Arctic climates, which means -50 degrees and a lot of snow and frost. It has to be able to operate off road, so it can't be a Ferrari with a Minigun. Infrastructure and cost restrictions: It has to be easy to use, requiring minimal training. Has to be very reliable and require minimal maintenance. It can't use guided munition or FCS. Everything has to be off-shelf, no fancy weapons. You have to use infantry based weaponry. No AMOS mortar systems or MBT guns. Exception: Mothballed or dirt cheap equipment with tons of ammunition available. Max weight: 12 ton Dimension restrictions: Max width: 3,1m Max height: 3,6m Max length: 5,5m Hardcore restrictions: Has to have some anti-tank capability. Can't use mothballed or dirt cheap non infantry weaponry. Has to be based on a existing vehicle. Max length: 5m Max width: 2,5m Max weight: 8 ton. This competition was inspired by my countries Homeguard. It uses 3% of the total defense budget, and still has 45 000 (to be reduced to 32 000 in 2017) combat ready soldiers at a 7 hour notice, it also defends all of the country. Much cheaper compared to the Army with it's measly 4000 soldiers. This causes everything in the Homeguard to only use the cheapest and most cost effective of equipment. This caused the army to scrap 100 Iveco LMVs instead of giving them to the Homeguard. Simply because they are too expensive to operate. So instead we got this thing, recently donated from the Special forces: We still use this thing. The MB G-wagon. And it still works, even though it is outrun by a tank and they are literally falling apart. But the amazing thing about these is that they function as: IMVs Cargo transport. Command post. Command vehicle. Forward observing vehicle. Mortar carrier. Ambulance. Tank destroyer. Engineering vehicle. And this Multi III seen above, can mount a 12,7mm BMG or a 84mm Carl Gustav RFK and a MG-3 or a Minimi. It can also be modified to carry a mortar.
-
StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
Xoon replied to EnsignExpendable's topic in Mechanized Warfare
Actually, I am pretty sure the reason why wheeled APCs can sport better belly protection is because of their drivetrain. Since a 8x8 requires a driveshaft going to each wheel, this makes the vehicle taller. In a tracked vehicle the tank only requires the two sprockets. Just a example: And since it is relatively thin it makes it easy to have a V-shaped belly on wheeled APCs. Notice how the suspension elements are at the bottom of the belly: A tracked vehicle which is completely flat on the bottom however would just get higher and higher, the more of an angle you add to the belly armor and the thicker you made it. For comparison here is the SEP-W and SEP-T: -
I am for the most part thinking about the electric engine, in which you can use this formula to calculate the torque: Torque in SI units can be estimated as T = PW 9.549 / n where T = torque (Nm) PW = power (watts) n = revolution per minute (rpm) When it comes to a conventional engine, I am fully aware that the peak torque and horsepower does not follow the same curve. I was thinking about how a gear box works, you know, let's say you have a fast spinning low torque axle, and you want it to spin slower. Then you can simply do this right?: This would cause the larger cog to spin slower, and also have more torque. So since the MB 838s optimum RPM for maximum torque is 1500RPM, but the electric engines torque is 1000RPM, we could use a gear box to convert some of the RPM to torque, so that both run at 1000RPM at the axle. I think they are called gear ratios. (Gah, just realized that we have a transmissions and final drives thread, probably should have posted the question there >_<)
-
Thanks, I have been wondering how much power and how big a electric engine would need to compete with a internal combustion engine. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motors-hp-torque-rpm-d_1503.html One thing that confuses me about this table is the torque output of a 600hp engine at 1000RPM, which is a crazy 4725Nm. So, is the gearbox able to convert the RPM in the engine to more torque to reach such numbers? So for example the MB-838 with its 1500RPM and 2744Nm could become 1000RPM and 4116Nm? (2744*1,5=4116)
-
Does anyone have any information on how much torque the average MBT engine produces?
-
Regarding the issue of electric motors causing the vehicle to wear of to the side. I have discussed it with some people and they suggest that instead of putting a clutch in-between the electric motors, you have a sensor on each motor, that senses when the tracks get different resistant and compensates. All you need is a controller circuit hooked into the system, which would be needed anyways if you want the fancy western T-bar for tanks. This would be a much cheaper alternative, and be more reliable. This should be how the set up would be for the main power (not including the control circuit): There probably should be a transformer somewhere in there, but I am to lazy to add it.
-
Efficiency in mass/volume and energy storage, or efficiency in the usage of power?
-
ok, one question regarding tracks: In the article you mention that a lower ground pressure reduces the loss of power at difficult terrain (soil, snow, lose gravel ect.). And as I understand, on paved road you want tracks that are as narrow and light as possible to reduce the mass of the track. So does this mean that there is a trade off between higher road speed and off-road speed? And to take it example to the extreme, let's say give a tank extremely wide tracks, with the center center to contact ratio of 1, would the size of the track cancel out the advantage of lower ground pressure?
-
Or you could have a battery to store the extra power, this system would however be more practical in a wholly electric system. If I am not mistaken, all armored vehicles should have a battery.
-
The main advantages I find with electric engines is the use of regenerative breaks and its simplicity. The regenerative break will allow the vehicle to recover some energy when it uses its breaks. And by only having a shaft directly from the engine into the sprocket, compared to a gearbox, should make it much easier to repair and give it a longer life span. And of course, it can allow the vehicle to drive in reverse as fast as forward, which is a great advantage. I am unsure of how much i would cost, the typical industrial electric engine is very cheap, but I do not know what a gearbox cost in comparison.
-
Nice article Collimatrix! I learned quite a bit. And considering this: "The transmission and final drives are not perfectly efficient either, and waste a significant amount of the power flowing through them as heat. As a result of this, the actual power available at the sprocket is typically between 61% and 74% of the engine's quoted gross power.". Does this mean that a hybrid electric system is more efficient? The efficiency of a normal electric engine is more than 90%, same for a generator, frequency modulator and transformer. The loss from resistance in the cable should be close to zero, considering the length. I may not be a engineer (yet), but from my understanding, making a hybrid-electric propulsion system would be simpler and easier than a current day tank transmissions. But when it comes to cooling i have no idea how that would turn out in a tank, since most electric engines are self-cooled. Or how any mayor component would act for that matter inside a tank, I am more used to the industrial standard equipment. I could draw up something for you, but the steering system would be quite basic, considering I have no expertise in that field. Oh and, from what I remember, the CV9030C2 is actually 35-36 ton, and it uses rubberband tracks, so a 40 ton vehicle might be able to use rubberband tracks in the future. Mvh Xoon.
- 23 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- tanks
- tank design
- (and 5 more)
-
So, it is pretty much a very high hardness steel plate, that is covered in rubber to avoid the steel from completely shattering. And placed on a rubber padding to dissipate the energy of the incoming projectile? The rubber padding would at least reduce the G-forces experienced by the steel plate. As for as I understood. So how much added protection would this be?
-
Quick question: The Leopard 1A1A1 has some add on armor on the turret: Is this add on armor plain steel plates or a composite? Remember some folks talking about it being some sort of NERA.
-
How does this compare to fence armor or plain spaced plate? Is it simply lighter or cheaper to produce?
-
So how does perforated armor work?
-
I have been recently reading about IFV and APC designs and one thing has always confused me: Why do so many APCs and IFVs have such tall benches for the crew to sit on? While IFVs like the CV90 does not, which saves a ton of space and makes the vehicle much smaller. (Excluding the newer models which have a 140mm raised troop compartment for seats that protect against landmines and IEDs). While it is true that the the CV90 crew compartment is very small, it still can hold 8 soldiers without any problems for long rides. As for crew ergonomics, I spoke with a CV9030NO gunner. He told me the tank was very spacious and they could easily store their belongings and food. He loved it. And another thing i find weird is the large rear ramp. Swedish testing found a double door to be the best option for a quick dismount. Of course with a very thick rear door, a rear ramp would be the best. Personally I have sat in a M113. It was very spacious, but a little short, my head hit the ceiling which made me sit in very uncomfortable pose, I am of average height so this goes for everyone. There was a lot of space behind the seats to store belongings and such on the right side, on the left side there appeared to be a fuel tank, which i found weird. I did not like the benches at all, simply because they were too tall, if the benches had been shorter or removed I could sit straight with my legs stretched. As for width, I can't imagine it being more spacious than any other APC. Shoulder to shoulder as always. And for comparison, here is the CV90 troop compartment: Here is a small one with only one person. And yes, I am aware of the bench like seats, but I am unsure if I would qualify them as benches.
-
Batteries would have to be divided into cells that are all parallel coupled. Right now, the only viable battery is lithium battery. They are highly volatile when damaged, and a chain reaction of these could cause mayor damage. They would have to be armored and isolated from the crew. When it comes to protection i highly doubt they would provide much, maybe except some because of the explosion caused by the lithium.
-
With the introduction of unmanned turrets on MBTs I have been wondering: What protection levels do a unmanned turret need? Do we give them them the same protection as ordinary turrets? Do we just make them Auto cannon proof from the front and from handheld AT weapons? ops, quoted someone xD
-
Yeah, the idea was for the driver to be up front like in the M1, protected by the fuel.
-
So basically in a conventional layout, this is the most optimal way?: All the ammunition rack have blow out panels and are armored. The auto loader is a Leclerc style bustle auto loader. The fuel in the sponsons are optional, when the front cant fit more fuel, it is stored in the sponsons. Side exhausts to avoid spewing smoke in the face of the infantry.
-
One thing I have been pondering about lately is: It is possible to extend the ammunition rack to the whole width of the bustle? Removing the pumps and old FCS should clear up space. Alternative you could add a auto loader like the Leclercs if you need it for the 130mm gun. So you can either: Install a autoloader. Increase ammunition capacity. Or move more ammunition to the turret. Would this be too expensive? The hull rack could be made into a armored wet storage rack, with fuel tanks on the side for added protection. But I have a feeling they would simply leave it as it is for increased ammunition capacity.
-
It is as excellent as the Challenger II's ammunition storage. Space efficient but very deadly for the crew.
-
I am fully aware that you can put fuel tanks there, my point was that it's a big empty space that is excellent for ammunition storage. Of course, putting fuel tanks there makes more sense in terms of protection, but not when it comes to space efficiency. But pretty much, a tank designer has 3 options: Put fuel there to improve protection. Put ammunition there to improve ammunition load without increasing the size of the tank. Put an engine there to allow a rear hatch or to make it more modular. 4 if you use a unmanned turret: Put the rest of the crew members there.
