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

Xoon

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Xoon

  1. What else to put there? It makes more sense to put fuel tanks in the rear or on the sponsons. Radios and bow gunners were deleted, and the engines in general are too big. So why not increase the tanks ammunition capacity and reduce the size of the rest of the tank?
  2. You said it took about half an hour to change the gun barrel on the Leopard 2 with proper equipment. When you said Leopard 2, did you refer to the Leopard 2A4 or to the Leopard 2A5 and later variants?
  3. Are you saying that the suspension takes away energy from the engine, or are you talking about overcharging the system? The excess power from the suspension would turn into heat in the batteries and transformers. This can simply be fixed with a heat sink. To avoid the suspension robbing power from the engine you simply have them at separate circuits. And in the case low battery power, you can simply prioritize the engine.
  4. Ah, I see, thanks for all the info Col! Mvh Xoon.
  5. So, what is the point of a return roller?
  6. I have been reading a bit about fully electric propulsion systems, as well as breaking systems, suspension and such. And two things made me wonder..... First, could anyone help explain the pros and cons of live and dead track? s As far as I know, dead track tends to be cheaper and simpler, but throws tracks easier. While live is the opposite, harder to throw track, but more expensive and complex. But then we have tanks like the Strv 103: Which was known to be almost impossible to throw a track with. Second, ​we electromagnetic suspension: To summarize, it appears the be similar to hydropuematic suspension, but is claimed to use one fourth of the power (take with a grain of salt). It is also said to have a longer lifespan than the average suspension. In the case of power shortage or loss of power, the suspension acts as a normal suspension, although probably very poorly. It can be used as a active suspension, and does not appear to take away internal volume. So does this mean that it is directly better than hydropuematic suspension? And as a last note, it can generate electricity through vibration and movement in the suspension. I like innovating new ideas but, there has the be a mayor drawback with this system. Mvh Xoon.
  7. It is entirely possible that it is a ordinary gun. It just seems weird to develop a new tank gun, with a new caliber a and with ETC technology around the corner. It could have been a quick way to up gun Leopard 2s in service in reaction to the T-14, but having a 50% performance increase from the L55 seems hard with a shorter gun. Even if the case it longer,and it is not wider from the looks of it.
  8. From what I know, yes, but I don't have any solid sources. Only real info on the gun has been a random German magazine and a promotional poster. This was published in the European Forum on Ballistics of Projectiles, article "Status and Results of the German R&D Program on ETC Technologies". The LKE II (DM53 prototype) fired from the L55 gun reached a muzzle velocity of 1750 meters per second (mps) at 21° centigrade, whereas a projectile with the same mass, fired from the ETC prototype gun with 110 KJ of electrical energy added, managed to reach a muzzle velocity of 1822 mps and an energy output of 14 MJ.
  9. I am not sure if you folks noticed: We got two images of the new gun and it shell. It's a 130mm L51 tank gun. From the looks of it, the new shell is roughly 1200mm high. What concerned me is the size of the shell. It rules out the carousel autoloader in any future western tank with this gun and a unmanned turret, unless you want a tank that makes the T-14 look short. I also wonder if they have the extend the ammunition rack for the old vehicles to make it fit. If this is already posted or something like that, feel free to notify me and delete the post. Mvh Xoon.
  10. Actually, The Panther has side skirts, 5mm side skirts. And when it comes to hull armor, the Centurion and Panther (Ausf. F) is pretty much identical, the Centurion having very slightly better overall side armor, while the upper sides of the Panther being a 5mm thicker and sloped, making them a little better. So, pretty much identical. On a second look, they have identical front armor, side armor, and the panther has a little thicker rear armor (45mm compared to 38mm). But yes, the Centurion obviously has a much more heavily armored turret, having about 30mm thicker sides, cheeks and rear, and between 150-250mm thick turret face. Mvh Xoon.
  11. When I was saying "fatter" I was referring to the weight of the centurion, at 51 ton. That is 6 ton more than the Panther, for around 20mm thicker UFP and 50mm thicker turret and 5mm thicker lower sides. Being in general smaller than the Panther, I find the design inefficient, armor wise, compared to the Panther. Also it is 10kp/h slower than the Panther, I am unsure of why that is. In general I feel like the Centurion is like a upgraded Panther, a little better armor, same gun performance (later up gunned to the long 88s performance), slower, heavier, smaller and more room for upgrades.
  12. Did the British ever design a great, noteworthy tank? From my point of view, the British wasn't the best tank designers. Thanks for the info by the way!
  13. This might be a bit off topic but: Does anyone know why the Centurion was regarded as such a great machine? To me it only seems like a fatter slightly upgraded Panther tank. To get on topic again: How does the Horstman suspension compare to torsion bar, Hydropeumatic and other suspensions? (weight and off road capability)
  14. Earlier, you guys spoke about engine placement and such. And one design is the sponsons mounted engine. Is it more worth it than a power pack? A smaller tank for a longer locomotive system switch. What do you guys think?
  15. Apart from ammunition volume. Does anyone have the measurements of a average man? (1,80m, 80kg, average soldier) preferably reclined.
  16. Wouldn't this hurt the performance of APFSDS? Since the arrow can't be longer than the shell.
  17. So there has been a lot of talking about engine placement and such, and a bit too about unmanned turrets. So my question is, what is do you guys think is the best autoloader design for a low profile unmanned turret? For me it seems to be the T-64 style carousel autoloader, it design can support the 120x560mm NATO ammunition as possible even the 140mm shells too. But I really dislike one thing about it. It makes the hull tall, very tall, the internal space needs to be a little under 1000mm high, which makes the the vehicle much taller. And it makes it impossible to add longer one-piece ammunition later. Of course, by reducing the roof and floor thickness and angling the rounds you can save a few millimeters, but they both come with draw backs. One the other side of the spectrum you have a bustle autoloader. In this design, the hull can be as low as the engine or crew compartment allows. But catch is that the ammunition has to be stored in the bustle. Since we can't have a 3m long bustle we have to make wider turret, and possibly taller. This makes the turret heavy, maybe not as heavy as a manned one, but not really too much lighter.
  18. Hey, I found the thread! yay...... Sorry, I lost track of the thread when it was moved and school decided to throw a exam and a lot of important tests at me. I can see if I can post my submission just for fun. (On a side note, could we have thread discussing volume and fighting compartment size? I am having a real problem figuring out the needed space for different designs, for example the CV90s troop compartment, which is a CV-90 gunner told me is roughly 1,5 meters wide, which is hard to imagine.) Mvh Xoon.
  19. I know dude, lol, relax, they do fit. I use 3D models to check the dimensions. It is defiantly cramped, but they do fit. If you really really want I could give you the dimensions.
  20. Here is a image of when I was figuring out the layout: Note that the crew capsule has been raised afterwards since the engine needed more height to fit. And yes, I made this vehicle as small as possible, if I switched the engine and turret I could probably make it even lower, but I see no need to. Ground clearance is 480mm by the way. Total height 1,814m
  21. I just did a armor weight estimate on the hull, it came out at around 5 ton, which is means I will probably make the C-130J requirement. And some redesign of the composite arrays:
×
×
  • Create New...