Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

TokyoMorose

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Tank You
    TokyoMorose got a reaction from Clan_Ghost_Bear in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    Is it me or does every time this thing shows up it manages to look worse? They ditched the low-profile hull, they ditched the 120mm and went back to ye olde 105... when GDLS first showed off the Griffon II I thought it was a much better design than the warmed-over XM8 - but now what's the selling point for it? XM8 is already somewhat familiar to the Army and has parts commonality with other Army vehicles... this is just an ASCOD 2 with a armor-less M1 turret slapped on.
  2. Tank You
    TokyoMorose reacted to Zadlo in Polish Armoured Vehicles   
    That was blue-on-blue but rather with NM 222 (Mk 264) MP-T than with NM 225 (Mk 258) APFSDS-T.
  3. Tank You
  4. Metal
    TokyoMorose got a reaction from Lord_James in COMPETITION Brawling Bobcat: Armored Truck for the Lone Free State (2245)   
    I was tempted to mount ye old M135 demolition cannon as a secondary mount to meet the HE requirement while being under armor. I am quite certain the 165mm HEP round would satisfy even the most ardent of rangers.
     
  5. Funny
    TokyoMorose got a reaction from Sturgeon in COMPETITION Brawling Bobcat: Armored Truck for the Lone Free State (2245)   
    I was tempted to mount ye old M135 demolition cannon as a secondary mount to meet the HE requirement while being under armor. I am quite certain the 165mm HEP round would satisfy even the most ardent of rangers.
     
  6. Funny
    TokyoMorose got a reaction from N-L-M in COMPETITION Brawling Bobcat: Armored Truck for the Lone Free State (2245)   
    I was tempted to mount ye old M135 demolition cannon as a secondary mount to meet the HE requirement while being under armor. I am quite certain the 165mm HEP round would satisfy even the most ardent of rangers.
     
  7. Funny
    TokyoMorose got a reaction from Toxn in COMPETITION Brawling Bobcat: Armored Truck for the Lone Free State (2245)   
    I was tempted to mount ye old M135 demolition cannon as a secondary mount to meet the HE requirement while being under armor. I am quite certain the 165mm HEP round would satisfy even the most ardent of rangers.
     
  8. Funny
    TokyoMorose reacted to LoooSeR in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    Seriously? Modular Jihayotas?

  9. Tank You
    TokyoMorose got a reaction from Clan_Ghost_Bear in NGCV/OMFV. Forwarding to... the past   
    Unless my memory serves me wrong, doesn't the Army designed 50mm turret have independent sights? That would mean a three man crew is essentially mandatory, as the 50mm is effectively mandatory (all 30mm entries *have* to demonstrate a path to the 50mm, and the Army is going to want its turret used). You do save on three dismounts, but you're only going to save so much weight there (I.e. comparing to GCV you would need to knock more than 10 tons off, or >20% of total vehicle weight just by removing three dismounts - I remain doubtful that the dismount reduction allows that level of savings). I use the GCV for comparison because it is the closest requirement that matches the OMFV reqs, and because it was designed with essentially the exact same technology/industry base. As to the Puma, as much as I genuinely believe that would have been the most satisfactory solution, the Army disputed CBO's reckoning about the Puma's survivability (they are likely using different matrixes for calculating scores) and it needed more equipment added on to meet specs anyhow (particularly now with the 50mm).
     
    Griffin III was never bid, and simply does not have the protection to meet the requirements or GD would have bid it. Honestly, Griffin III is just a tarted up system almost as old as the Bradley (good ole ASCOD).
     
     
    Transformational change is how they got LCS, Zumwalt, and EFV or did they memory hole that?
  10. Funny
    TokyoMorose reacted to DIADES in NGCV/OMFV. Forwarding to... the past   
    My turn.  That's kind of my point the bid failed.  So when did they last win new platform work?
  11. Metal
    TokyoMorose got a reaction from DIADES in NGCV/OMFV. Forwarding to... the past   
    That's kind of my point, Raytheon-Rheinmetall decided not to bid and the shipping issue was merely a side effect of a conscious decision to not bid. They decided not to bid because they knew they couldn't meet the impossible requirements, and Lynx can already grow to the ~50t number that NLM posits for the GD bid. Hence my supposition of the actual amount of weight needed to meet the requirement being much larger.
     
     
    Supposedly, their tender was all-new. And considering their heaviest existing chassis cannot get anywhere *near* the required protection given its relatively low weight cap (42t) I am tempted to believe that.
  12. Tank You
    TokyoMorose got a reaction from DIADES in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    Hey, I guessed right - the absolutely stupid 360 degree protection requirement was what doomed the GCV as well (remember the baseline config was 60 something tons and the system max was 84?). The Puma is as good as you can get protection wise and fitting two on a C-17.
  13. Tank You
    TokyoMorose reacted to DIADES in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    as I understand it - not a single requirement but the conflict between having to fly two in a C17 and a 360 degree protection level beyond laughable.  The Requirements aren't strictly the problem - the problem is the engineering and technology development to meet them had to be done in a stupid timeframe and also had to be mature....  DoD clearly a victim of salesmanship over engineering.
     
      I have seen the docs but not sure if I have access to a copy.
  14. Tank You
    TokyoMorose got a reaction from DIADES in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    I would bet money if I had it, that the requirements list was in the recent DoD tradition; being simply absurd and couldn't be met reasonably - and everything else is saving face for that. You don't end up with a sole offer on a program of that size, unless you are demanding something goofy. Nobody even bothered (sure, the Lynx technically couldn't be shipped in time - but failure to ship in time is something that reeks of the bosses not treating it as a plausible thing) to bid outside of GDLS, and if Breaking Defense is right, GDLS couldn't even actually meet the monstrous spec list.
     
  15. Tank You
    TokyoMorose reacted to David Moyes in Britons are in trouble   
    Marder-like early experimental Warrior with Chobham. 750hp engine.

    https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/british-chobham-armour-micv.13467/
  16. Tank You
    TokyoMorose reacted to David Moyes in Britons are in trouble   
    Vickers Mk.4 Valiant (1982):


     
     
     
  17. Metal
    TokyoMorose got a reaction from DIADES in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    So with FCS being too sci-fi, the army is repeating the mistake of the 84-ton GCV monster now in going maximum conventional. Do they not have a setting between 'pie in the sky tech dream' and '50 year old tech'?
     
    Reminds me of the fact we have both the B-2 & B-52 in service...
  18. Tank You
    TokyoMorose got a reaction from Clan_Ghost_Bear in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    In general, no - but a lot of the detailed ideas still remain extremely wonky, such as purposefully forgoing armor in total reliance for active protection. Even if you build an all-conquering APS, it'll still quickly deplete its loaded bank of shots. There's also a *lot* of as-yet unworkable electronics demanded, and they even considered stuff like exoskeletons. There was also a planning undercurrent behind all of the FCS designs that high-intensity peer conflict was a thing of the past. The general concepts they were working on are indeed workable now, but without your all-conquering APS and literally magic electronics & sensors they aren't nearly as viable - FCS was only viable on paper *because* of the all-conquering APS & absolute omnipresent networking & data fusion along with nearly omnipotent sensor systems. Even the latest sensors and networks are far below what FCS was aiming for.
     
    (As an aside, FCS *was* laughably pie-in-the-sky technologically in the context of when it was approved! It'd be like trying to put the current top-line smartphones with everything they have into service in the mid 2000s, sure it's not seen as a big deal now but the Army were really "optimistic" with approving that program...)
     
     
    There's some tested systems I seem to remember seeing that do alright against KE (I forget the names), although none fielded that I know of. The Quick Kill system proposed for FCS was extremely wonky, never fully worked right (although has some real impressive looking test footage!), and to this day still isn't fieldable. And then you get to the issue that the QC VLS cells were in packs of 4-8, and I've only ever seen one or two packs on the FCS vehicle renders. I've also never seen anything resembling a quick reload method for the QC, and so if worst case scenario you have only 4 of them loaded and the enemy takes 5 shots at you with an old T-12 Rapira... then what? Honestly not being able to rapidly reload is a total killer for an APS outside of Low Intensity patrols, and Quick Kill's design doesn't appear to be fast to load and certainly cannot be reloaded under armor.
  19. Tank You
    TokyoMorose got a reaction from Clan_Ghost_Bear in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    So with FCS being too sci-fi, the army is repeating the mistake of the 84-ton GCV monster now in going maximum conventional. Do they not have a setting between 'pie in the sky tech dream' and '50 year old tech'?
     
    Reminds me of the fact we have both the B-2 & B-52 in service...
  20. Sad
    TokyoMorose got a reaction from skylancer-3441 in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    So with FCS being too sci-fi, the army is repeating the mistake of the 84-ton GCV monster now in going maximum conventional. Do they not have a setting between 'pie in the sky tech dream' and '50 year old tech'?
     
    Reminds me of the fact we have both the B-2 & B-52 in service...
  21. Sad
    TokyoMorose reacted to LoooSeR in General AFV Thread   
    Suffer. I mean enjoy.
     
  22. Tank You
    TokyoMorose got a reaction from LostCosmonaut in What the Hell is the Point of Interleaved Road Wheels?   
    I know I am late here, but the loon wouldn't happen to be Ernst Kniepkamp would it? I know with the half-tracks and Panzer III he was directly the guy responsible for those elements - and the Tiger I work at Henschel was also his pet project of the time.
     
    And wait, I have Forcyk's book.... and yep it is Kneipkamp. Head of all tank projects at the Wehrmacht, and had been the chief army engineer even before the Nazi takeover when it was the "Military Automotive Department". Even the tiny Kettenkrad has the interleaved wheels, and yep the patent on that is "E. Kneipkamp".
  23. Tank You
    TokyoMorose reacted to Collimatrix in What the Hell is the Point of Interleaved Road Wheels?   
    I'm sure that all the SH regulars will know this backwards and forwards, so this is more for the benefit of newer people, or people who stumble in via google, or people who want a quick link they can throw out as an answer to anyone who asks the question.
     
    So, what's with the goofy-ass road wheel design on German WWII AFVs?
     

    A puzzled and terrified worker struggles to comprehend and assemble the suspension of a tiger I
     
    You may have run into a variety of explanations for this running gear design; that it provided a smoother ride, that the design saved rubber, or possibly some other rubbish.  Like the myth that frontal drive sprockets provide more traction (seriously, how in the hell is that supposed to make any sense?), these wrong explanations of the merits of interleaved road wheels seem to rise from some quote taken out of context.
     
    The interleaved road wheel running gear may have saved some rubber relative to an alternative design that was particularly wasteful of it.  But interleaved road wheels are not particularly economic in this respect because, and I realize this is a complicated concept to explain so I'll try my best, they have more wheels.  Interleaved road wheels do allow for large wheel diameters, and a larger diameter wheel will spread wear out over a larger circumference.  So interleaved road wheels might allow for the rubber on the wheels to last longer, although their construction would require more in the first place.
     
    Interleaved road wheels would not improve ride quality either.  The ride quality of a tank is not a function of the size or number of wheels it possesses, but of how they are sprung.  So, it is possible that in certain competitive trials an interleaved road wheel design outperformed a design that lacked this feature.  I could readily believe, for instance, that the tiger (H) had a better ride quality on rough terrain than the tiger (P), or that the SDKFZ. 251 had a smoother ride than the M3.  However, this would be because the tiger (H) and SDKFZ. 251 have independently sprung road wheels on torsion bars while the tiger (P) and M3 do not.
     

     
    Torsion bar layout of the tiger II
     

    Volute spring suspension of the M3 half track
     
    So, what do interleaved road wheels do?
     
    They have two principal effects; one is a small benefit, and the other is an enormous detriment.
     
    The small benefit of interleaved road wheels is that they spread the weight of the vehicle out more evenly on the track links:
     

     
    The weight of a tank is not completely evenly spread out on the contact area of its tracks.  This is because tracks are not rigid.  If they were, they would be mainly ornamental and tanks' engines would just be for show.  More of the weight of a tank is concentrated under the parts of the track that the road wheels are sitting directly on top of.  Additionally, once a tank starts to sink into the soil a bit, larger road wheels work better than smaller ones because the larger ones have more contact area.  But you can only fit so many large diameter road wheels in the space of a tank's hull.
     

    Dynamic!
     
     
    So, the only way to have lots of road wheels and have big road wheels at the same time is to interleave them.  Simple as that.
     
    If you would like an exhaustive look at the development of the semi-empirical MMP equation, read this.
     
    The major, crippling downside to interleaved road wheels is that it makes changing the road wheels extremely time consuming.  
     

    A pair of workers perform maintenance on a panther tank, and contemplate the futility of all human achievement
     
    Lucas Friedli reprints in his book on big cat maintenance a report from a training unit complaining that replacing the inner road wheels of a tiger tank took ten hours.  That is completely outrageous, and was a contributor to the poor operational availability of the big cats.
     
    For this reason, interleaved road wheels have rarely been used after World War Two; only on a few French prototypes and a Swedish APC:
     

    PBV 302 variant with interleaved road wheels
     

    Some bizarre French tank
  24. Funny
    TokyoMorose reacted to LoooSeR in Jihad design bureau and their less mad opponents creations for killing each other.   
    Militari Al-Rusi UAZ technicals during "prophet Um Putini-2019" jihadxercise

     
     
  25. Funny
    TokyoMorose reacted to David Moyes in Britons are in trouble   
    Warrior hulls are too worn-out for upgrade so now the plan is to make entirely new ones.
×
×
  • Create New...