Lord_James

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

... that almost nobody...

3 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

 

That implies Msta came first. 

15 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   Autoloader.

*laughs in Czech* 

@Sturgeon @N-L-M @LoooSeR
 

Big question: for the protection requirements, penetration is when a projectile (or fragments there of) reaches the crew compartment specifically? Or any space after the external* armor packages? 
 

*external, insomuch as that internal armor relates to a bulkhead or firewall separating compartments like the engine and crew spaces. 

50 minutes ago, AssaultPlazma said:

BMP-4? When did the BMP-4 come out? Also I didn't realize the RGF already had some T-90M/T-80BVM tanks in inventory. 

On 5/13/2021 at 10:59 AM, LoooSeR said:

  Hide contents

 

   BMP-4M

 

It’s a typo, that’s a BMD-4M

Brahman continues to develop! 

Updates include: 

• Added gun mantlet armor box (no array yet) 
• Lengthened the main gun barrel by 2 calibers (now an L/34, barrel length is the same as an 120mm L/44)
• 20x102mm coaxial autocannon
• Combined day/night gunners sight
• added a 2.25 yard coincidence rangefinder
• added a pair of whip antennas for the radio 
• cut out holes for the turret blow off panels 

20 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

OK, it's encouraged for those with finals to be done by June, but the hard deadline will be later. June 15? Or do we need a July date?

I don’t have finals; I actually started a second part-time job, recently. But June 15 sounds fine: should give enough time for the judges to announce a winner on July 4th, a Texan’s favorite holiday! 

23 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Ok we're setting June 1 provisional which is primarily because some guys have finals. But it's accepted that there will be an extension as needed.

I would prefer one of the later dates. I’m a little busier lately. 

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

I think it was rather "why are we so helpless without strategic bombers and naval artillery?"

The Soviet army would like to disagree with you... 

There needs to be a Godwin’s law for this: 

The longer a company exists, the more likely they are to produce a PL-01 clone as a concept. 

3 hours ago, Serge said:

How fast does this tank move, that it requires a spoiler on the back 

2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I recommend the Diehls.

My wheels are based on the US specification (used in more or less the same form from M48->M1), and they're 60kg per wheel. Two wheels per swing arm, eight roadwheels per side on your tank, that's about two tons.

If you take your armor weight and divide it by 0.55 you should get a good minimum all up weight value. If you don't reach that weight, time to look for things that may be too fragile (like suspension).

I based my tracks on the T142’s used on the later M60s. They’re the same 28 inch width with replaceable rubber pads. 
 

I’m think my wheels just need to have some geometry fixes, and my suspension arms are too long: right now, she’s sitting at 29.5 inch ground clearance! I also completely forgot to add idler wheels. 
 

The torsion bars themselves are 3 inches in diameter. I thought I saw that 3 inches / 75mm was a decent thickness for such things, but cannot find it again. 

I think this is the farthest I've managed to get in a competition (by how many necessary components I've completed). 

She's up to 44.8 tons, but I know I can get that down... each individual wheel is 540 lbs, which seems high... the tracks are also about 2.5 tons each (dont know how heavy they're suppose to be). 

35 minutes ago, Beer said:

Even the T-90A and M and Oplot-M have boxy turrets which are intentionally as wide as possible because there is a very good reason for that.  

I don’t quite remember which object it was (it was parallel to T-90, I think?), but they redesigned the front hull to be more square. @LoooSeR, do you know what I’m talking about? 

5 hours ago, delete013 said:

Low silhouette, sloped plates where possible, small or narrow cross-section of turrets. More or less how late cold war tanks were designed.

In what world? Have you seen 1980s and 1990s designed tanks? They’re almost all boxes with fat turrets (M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, Leclerc, Challenger, Type 90, Ariete). 

36 minutes ago, Toxn said:

 

So far we're looking set to have a 127mm main gun, make the armour specs and still come in under 40mt.

Millimeters? Metric tons? In Texas?! 

I thought I felt a disturbance in the force... 

26 minutes ago, delete013 said:

 

This is an entirely unsourced estimate:

The last quote should be a clue to indicate that Germans didn't have 84 panthers and a lot of AFVs where Czech brigade was fighting. They likely had so few that no mobile reserve was able to be formed. Hence, no counter-attacks. Snipers were a typical German low asset delaying tactic. Fortifications were a mere delaying factor in German doctrine, which without an active reserve is basically a speedbump. The depth indicates that Germans had nothing mobile to counter an expected armoured attack.
If you find German side of the story (Heinrici's opinion on the situation, for example), then you might get some credible facts out of this.

 

British reports are Altschnee. They first drove a broken tank (slower than a Chuchill, had broken suspension and missing the third gear) and the post war production tests started with neutral steering, which is what German drivers were told explicitly to avoid. There was likely other weird things involved because Soviets could finish their turning radius tests with neutral steering! If Brits wanted to break the vehicle, then they easily succeeded.
There is another important factor that I failed to point out before. 100km on a road and 100 km in combat are two entirely different categories. Since German tried hard to relocate with trains, then large fraction of driven kms were likely off-road.

You have been given sources from the Soviet, French, and now British army’s on what they think of the panzer 5, and they’re all in agreement that it is mechanically fragile and unreliable. I can only imagine that American testing would confirm these statements. Hell, even several German reports say they were unhappy with the Panther, for the same reasons (engine and transmission reliability). What arguments can you possibly give that could reverse such criticisms? 

9 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Never seen a boat before?

From what I’ve seen, many large boats have fiberglass hull plating, with metal supporting frames. I haven’t seen a multi ton, all fiberglass boat, just canoes and small personal craft... but then again, I don’t go looking. 
 

17 minutes ago, Toxn said:

you can make big, heavy things out of fiberglass. It's just a) hella expensive and b) complex, given the need to mold metal inserts everywhere you have a mounting point, bearing, axle etc.

Sounds good. I know in high performance race cars, they have similar issues. 

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

So here's another revelation about non-reactive armours: if you want to use blends of textolite and HHA, the best ratio is something like 1:1. What this gets you is a material that has almost exactly the same TE as ordinary RHA against both kinetic and chemical threats, but also has 1.54/1.64 KE/CE mass efficiency. This means that, to get the same protection as a given of RHA against KE, you can use a blended plate of the same thickness but around 2/3 the mass.

 

So... is an all-fibreglass tank (with lots of HHA plates inside) an option?

I’ve never seen fiberglass used as a construction or supporting material for anything over 3 tons. Not quite sure how you’d make a 20+ ton tank out of it. 

the M18 hellcat is apparently a "light tank" now... 

Server update 07.05.2021 - Updates - Game - War Thunder

Weird that they’re considering a DU round for their new gun. IIRC, uranium (alloys) work better at 1500-1600 mps, and the M829A4 is designed to get those velocities out of an L44 barrel, not an L55. 

21 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

On par lethality, depending on the ammunition the UK procures. But a big congrats either way.

If it is the L55A1 they’re mounting, they could use higher pressure ammo than most of their allies. 

On 5/5/2021 at 5:16 PM, LoooSeR said:

   Rehearsal of VP in Verkhniya Pishma

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

   In Moscow

Wow, I didn’t know they had traveling museums over there! It’s like a traveling circus for nerds  

2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Quintuple power posting: This competition does have a "gimmick" btw. It's not secret, it's built into the spec you've already seen.

 

It might be fun for you guys to guess what it is!

Fuel armor? The long distances that are required would necessitate a lot of fuel, which could be used as armor if arranged correctly. 

2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

That sounds about right. A decent transmission will be 2000 kg or so

I was thinking more along the lines of a beefed up Sherman transmission, preferably the "high speed reverse transmission" (mid-way down the page)

#33 The Sherman Of The Future: Advanced Sherman UpGrades That Almost Made It Into Production. | The Sherman Tank Site

But yeah, my components are too light, should be closer to 4 tons, the normal MB 838 is nearly 2 tons dry. 

I've decided on a nickname for my vehicle: Brahman. 

Just some updates: 

• added sponsons 
• reduced turret roof height by 6 inches 
• increased barrel length to 32 calibers and breach counterweight (it is no longer "balanced", but I think I have a work around)
• reduced upper front and roof plate thickness to 0.8 inches (20mm)
• revised some geometry, to reduce weight (currently at 28.45 tons)

What would be a "good weight" for my engine? I have it currently modelled as 3.5 tons (3180 kg), including the liquid cooling and transmission. It's a 12 cylinder, 6.9 inch (175mm) bore by 7.1 inch (180mm) stroke, 1000hp engine based off the MB 838.