Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Xoon

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Xoon

  1. 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
  2. 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 upgr
  3. 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!
  4. 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)
  5. 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?
  6. Apart from ammunition volume. Does anyone have the measurements of a average man? (1,80m, 80kg, average soldier) preferably reclined.
  7. Wouldn't this hurt the performance of APFSDS? Since the arrow can't be longer than the shell.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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:
  13. How does the feeding mechanism work on the autocannon?
  14. Suspension and road wheels added: To do: Idlers Rubberband track Side skirt Crew hatches optics, cameras ect.
  15. Base tower added: The turret was changed around to a unmanned cleft turret. Instead of a 30mm autocannon, a 40mm autocannon was added. For simplicity I named the gun AK-40 L82 General gun info: Caliber: 40mm L82 Breech design: Rotating breech RPM: 330 Gun depression/elevation: -10/+90 Ammuniton: Cartridge: 40x356mm Design: Caseless, telescopic Types: APFSDS-T (DU) and GPR.
  16. A update on the complete redesign of the chassis:
  17. That is what I am trying, lightweight above all pretty much, but still filling the requirements. I did read the post, and I am doing a complete redesign of my vehicle.
  18. I have to say, weighing 20 ton and filling out the requirements seems to be nearly impossible.
  19. Thanks for the welcome. The name "Stormpanser" means something close to "Assault armor" when translated from Norwegian into English. And: Germanic languages: German: Panzer Swedish: Pansar Danish: Panser Norwegian: Panser "Panser" means armor, armored vehicle ect. "Storm" means here assault or attack. In Norway, IFVs are designated "Stormpanservogn"
  20. A prototype model of Stormpanser SP-1: Current model is used to figure out internal space, tracks are placeholder, but represents the actual width. The current vehicle is still in development. Current idea: 3 man IFV using several parts from the CV90, this includes tracks and engine. It shares the same turret ring diameter and the current model is supposed to be fitted with the Kongsberg MCT-30 unmanned turret modified with SPIKE ATGM launchers. Estimated production model specifications: Mobility: Scania DSI 16, Deisel 800hp. 40hp/ton Weight: 20 ton Transmission:
×
×
  • Create New...