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

Lord_James

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    1,077
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by Lord_James

  1. Been a little while; busy with all kinds of stuff, but here's an update: 

     

    Added suspension components, as well as front idler and drive sprocket. 

    Revised gun mount and C3 cannon 

    Turret needs another revision, as I removed the loader and am going to use a version of the T22E1 autoloader ( I also don't need the long bustle for a ready rack). 

     

    Spoiler

    SjkdRLN.png

    2LD5SFw.png

    Hxx4sRZ.png

    ur1o58C.png

    othFM4z.png

    U1FCfhE.png

    YA1aQN3.png

    Z9svLJa.png

    xPv9GiJ.png

     

    Weight thus far is 23.3 tons.  

    700mm roadwheels (drive sprocket is also 700mm) 

    Ground clearance is ~600mm 

     

    Gun depression is (ATM): 

    Front - 19.5 

    Side: -29 (when it hits the ground :P

    Rear: -8 

    Elevation: +36 

     

    Breach is now a semi-automatic, vertical sliding wedge, similar to the 5" Mark 12 naval gun. 

     

    The front idler needs to be raised and enlarged slightly, and maybe I need to shorten the suspension arms slightly (as well as increase the angle of the arms, from the vertical), but I'm pretty pleased with my first suspension attempt. Might put some holes in all the wheels to reduce their weight. 

     

     

    Turret revision: 

    I realized that the gunner wouldn't be able to see what they're shooting at when at maximum depression, so I have to rework some parts of the turret face, as well as remove the rear bustle since there's no need for it anymore. Though, I could use something like the TZF 9 sights on the Tigers (both 1 and 2) to avoid the roof sight messing up my turret shape. 

     

    I am also considering offsetting the gun to one side and placing both commander and gunner in line, as well as modifying the autoloader (one rack will be smaller than the other); this will allow me to increase the size of the gun mount to place a coaxial MG comfortably, rather than having to cut into the front armor... or I could go full Ferdinand and not have any coax :rolleyes: 

  2. 1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

     

    Does that mean the SEP 1 and 2 are now the M1A2A and M1A2B, respectively? 

  3. 4 hours ago, Ulric said:

    @Sturgeon

     

    This may be of interest to you. In the recent test notes for the upcoming patch the developers have stated that they are going to reduce the SP cost of tanks by 1/2 and make reserve vehicles free. This should definitely make RB more enjoyable.

     

    Curious... can you spawn planes at the beginning of a match too, or is that still the same? 

  4. I just noticed something, Trump’s presidency is similar to Grant’s presidency: 

     

     

    Both are republican. 

     

    Both had very little political experience before running for office. 

     

    Both had very narrow wins during their first terms. 

     

    Both were embroiled in scandals that were mostly hot air. 

     

    Both were elected after a previously ineffective president (unfortunately, Obama served 2 terms). 

     

    Both believe in nepotism :P 

     

     

    and I predict (using pure Columbian cocaine, and Grant as a guide): 

     

    Trump will have exceptional foreign policy successes later in this term. 

     

    Trump will be re-elected by a very large margin (bonus points if his rival dies within months of Trump being re-elected, x10 if it’s Hillary). 

     

    Trump will push for more peace (rather than the typical warmongering) all over the world. 

     

    Corruption and abuse will plague Trump’s cabinet, but Trump will be innocent on all accounts. 

     

    Trump will get his face on a dollar bill (maybe the 100, cause it’s yuuuge) :D

  5. Quote

    The United States ranks 56th per capita in rate of attacks, and 61st in mass public shooting murder rate... 

     

    ... 

    ... 

    ... 

     

    But mah narrative!!! 

     

     

     

    For or those who don’t want to look at the NYP article, here’s their source, with lots of pretty pictures and graphs :3 

     

    https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average/

  6. 5 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

    the WOT T110 thread?

     

    I’ve seen that mentioned on this forum before, but I can’t find any meme-y threads about the T110 on the WoT forum, but some people are saying they want it buffed or removed from the game, now: 

     

    http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/675756-anyone-playing-with-t110-e5-wot-can-delete-this-tank/ 

     

    i guess the meme is the typical WoT forum’er is retarded? 

  7. 5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

     

    It's like having an MBT that can carry dismounts and has AA guns/missiles and radar.

     

    ... 

    ... 

     

    North Korea? 

     

     

     

     

    I agree that having an “all purpose ship” is not optimal for a navy, as being a “jack of all trades” means you are the king of nothing. My (uninformed) opinion: 

     

    Why not have 2 different weight classes of ships (non aircraft carriers, submarines, etc.), and then name them by their intended role?

     

    I.E. “destroyers” and “cruisers” are both 10,000-12,000 tons but the difference is their primary role: destroyers are anti-ship/ground, and cruisers are anti-air. Both could still keep their helicopter pads for ASW work, and both could use the same hull to ease construction. The destroyer still has air defense armament, but it’s those SeaRAMs that won’t interfere with the cruisers’ long range SAMs; and conversely, the cruiser could have ship to ship armament, but not as much as the destroyers. 

     

    Same applies to the ~3000 ton frigates and corvettes, one is more specialized for anti-surface, and the other is anti-air. 

  8. I upgraded my Shot mk-1 to Shot mk-2... I now need to make a new gun, but still: 

     

    Spoiler

    KHSIVIM.png

    SgBqgOS.png

    GJwk1eR.png

     

    18.11kg complete shell, 800mm total length, and now has a 130mm bottle shape. 

    New propellant mass: 5.25kg 

    New velocity: 1207 m/s out the barrel (with 50 caliber barrel). 

    projectile is the same as before (5.84kg complete, 275mm length, 50x200mm tungsten carbide slug) 

     

    I'm getting penetration values that I believe are a little high (173mm @ 2000m @ 0o), but then again my shell is going hella fast, so IDK. 

  9. 2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

    Lanny Davis, Michael Cohen's lawyer, set up a gofundme that has raised over $150,000.  The crowdfunding effort is to help Michael Cohen tell the truth about Trump and his Russian connections.

     

    Having made the money, Lanny Davis is now backing away from the claim that Michael Cohen knows anything.

     

    Lets be honest, is anyone surprised this turned out to be a scam? 

  10. Just had a (possible) revelation in regards to my gun: Since it is a squeeze bore, wouldn't the shell increase in velocity proportionally with the decrease in diameter? Or am I misremembering how that works? 

     

    Spoiler

    Lets say I want my shell to go 1200m/s once it leaves the barrel. well the difference in the surface area between the 94mm and 74mm sections is: 

     

    π942 = 27,759.11 cm2

    π742 = 17,203.36 cm

     

    17,203.36 cm2 / 27,759.11 cm2 = 0.62 

     

    1200m/s x 0.62 = 744m/s 

     

    So I would only have to calculate how much propellant I need to accelerate my projectile to 744m/s. 

     

    If I'm dead wrong, please tell me. 

×
×
  • Create New...