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

Lord_James

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,077

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Lord_James

  9. SUBMISSIONS for Steel Chariot of The Prairie: The Lone Free State's First Battle Tank (2247)

    in Sturgeon's Contests

    Posted

    51 minutes ago, delete013 said:

    @N-L-M

    First, sorry for the units mess up, it must have been annoying convergin to and fro. Thanks for commenting on my piece too.
    I have a few clarifications to provide and a few question to the evaluation.

     

    the bad:
    -Hull structure insufficiently thick for structural reasons

     

    Where is it too thin?

     

    -armor does not reach required or claimed protection level (side threat, mine threat, frontal protection of powerpack)

     

    My claims about the hull for mission kill are indeed wrong, for the crew compartment are right. The distinction between immobilised tank and crew killed was not specified, afaik. Maybe it is a common knowledge?

    Bottom is combined 1.25" in two layers. That is too thin for mine protection?

     

    -armor does not provide protection against growth threats.

     

    What are growth threats?

     

    -engine compartment far too small for the desired powerpack.
    -attempting to mount a transverse V12 1500HP engine alongside the driver speaks of a lack of spatial reasoning skills.

     

    I had MTU 873 (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/5713483/twelve-cylinder-diesel-engine-mb-873-for-heavy-mtu-shop) main block without turbochargers in mind (turbo would have to be relocated). This leaves about 8 inches of space to the side for some sort of connection with a gearbox of the size of Renk HSWL 295. None of the two are 60ies tech so 1000 HP is more realistic and still fulfills the requirements. The side arrangement is known from T-55 so I assumed it would be possible. Coolers are pushed into sponsons to each side, the 4 big black squares. None of this was exactly decided, but likely indeed too small for existing engines.

     

    -Use of single pin, unbushed, tracks gives poor track life, particularly in sandy environments, and is therefore unsuitable to long range self-deploying operations. It is difficult to choose a track link less suitable to the operating environment of the LFS, and along with the overlapped and interleaved suspension speaks of blind cargo culting without understanding the tradeoffs involved.

     

    The tracks I used are also sturdier (and heavier) that the usual double pin tension tracks. Since mines are the easiest and likely the most common denial method in the imagined low-tech societies, it was hoped to give more robustness to the vehicle. The speed was limited for the purpose of compensation. I have no feeling how much tnt tracks can survive.

     

    -there is a contradiction between the stated height of the turret, roughly 22", and the stated ammunition capacity of 33 rounds of 4.7" ammo. The case head diameter of 4.7" Kraut is roughly 6.7", which cannot be fit 3 deep with armor above and below and in an autoloader within those dimensional limitations.

     

    The height of the munuition basket is exactly 23.228" (590mm). This gives 23.228 - (6.7" x 3 + 0,984" (plate thickness roof/bottom)) = 2.14" space. The bustle part of the autoloader has no drum or rotation, just pushing shells out of the boxes, towards the middle.

     

    -The autoloader, as described, is unworkable. Doubly so for the replenishment mechanism.
    -The gun, as modelled, appears to lack the recoil mechanism. The original Kraut 4.7" gun has a length of approximately 54" from the trunnion to the rear of the breech ring. With this length, and at least 12" for recoil taken into account, we end up with 66" of length from the trunnion to the end of the gun stroke. Even within a fairly large 85" ring, this leaves no room for the 40" , at least, needed for the proposed drum autoloader.
    -2-axis elevation pretty much by definition makes stabilization impossible, as at least one, if not both, of the axes are nowhere near the center of gravity of the elevating mass, greatly increasing to unmanageable levels the power required of the elevation drive. Such a system has never before been proposed for a stabilized gun, and for very good reason, namely that it is absurd.

     

    XmKutu6.png

     

    Recoil space is exactly 19.685". Simulated shell length is 39.37".

    There is enough space because the trunion is pushed forward over the turret ring. That would make it quite out of balance, so the cannon with the front axle is inbedded in a frame holding the rear axle and the second stage autoloader with the drum. The weight is distributed all the way back to the rear end of the turret ring with the 1200 lbs autoloader weight. That would further mean a lot of weight on the turret ring so the latter is about 10" broad. If that is feasible goes beyond my, let's say,0 engineering imagination. Might as well be wishful thinking but that is the price of of elevated reloading?

    Any more details why the replenishment from the hull would be impossible?

     

    the ugly:
    -The volume which is supposed to be dedicated to fuel is entirely unclear.

     

    wSV8jyY.png

    Internals without sponsons and citadel. The black boxes are main and reserve fuel tank. Blue are engine and transmission space. You just had to ask.

    The fuel part with the side plate is also exactly the width of the engine box. Hence the mounting parallel with the driver. In that case the shaft needs a transfer towards the middle, into the transmission.

     

    -Claimed range is less than desired.

     

    Why is that the ugly?


    I thought you made it very clear you didn’t want to be here anymore, so why come back? 

  10. GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    16 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

       Andrey Kryuchenko posted a photogrammetry of 2 versions of T-14, "new" and "old" on the right.

    image

       Minor changes with radars, note different self-entrenching blade. Somewhat surprising how much was left unchanged.

     


    Most of the changes may be inside? What else was reported changed? 

  12. The interesting ship photos/art thread.

    in Naval Discussion

    Posted

    I don’t have any photo’s or art, but I do have some info today! I was reading Norman Friedman’s “British destroyers and frigates: WW2 and beyond” and found an interesting passage. It appears that during the design stage of the Tribal class destroyers, it was seriously considered to have 5 twin 4.7inch (62 lb) guns in a Dido type arrangement (3 super firing forward, 2 aft), with a quad pompom and quad torpedo tube. This was dropped, for obvious reasons, as being over treaty weight (1,850 tons for destroyer leaders) and top heavy, but the reasoning behind the admiralty’s decision was that the bridge was too tall, and would make the ship easier to spot and hit. 

  13. COMPETITION Steel Chariot of The Prairie: The Lone Free State's First Battle Tank (2247)

    in Sturgeon's Contests

    Posted

    1 hour ago, OnlySlightlyCrazy said:

    Out of curiosity, what drove the overall height of your tonk? It seems to be much higher than the other competitors, was there any specific reasoning there?


    Front mounted engines are fun? The size of my engine was originally to have about 15+ hp/ton (if the vehicle were it’s intended weight). With current technology, that required a big engine, and placing that in front means you need a big slab of armor. I don’t think it helped that I brought the radiator underneath all that armor, either. Also, a 6 inch gun takes up a lot of space, which requires a big turret.
     

    I’ve definitely learned my lesson here, though. Front engines are not a good idea for MBT’s unless your doctrine allows you to have less hull armor (and if your engines aren’t too big). Also, big guns are a pain to work around; keep to reasonable bore sizes, unless you can fully automate it. 
     

    1 hour ago, N-L-M said:

    Sounds like the design definitely had potential.

     
    Maybe if we had 20 years more technology (and I had more experience) she could be something. But right now? No. 

  14. COMPETITION Steel Chariot of The Prairie: The Lone Free State's First Battle Tank (2247)

    in Sturgeon's Contests

    Posted

    On 9/9/2021 at 5:19 PM, LoooSeR said:

       Judges of this competition want to inform @Lord_James and @delete013that your submissions where excluded from this competition.

    • Lord James submission wasn't finished in time and it is incomplete, lacking critical data. Sorry, James, would be interesting to see results if you could finalise your design.


    Yeah, I was shooting for 65-68 tons normal, about 75-78 tons with the belly plate and turret wedges. But she really put on some COVID weight :lol:, and I just dropped it, I’m not really looking for 80+ ton mammoths. Funny enough, not a single plate on my tank was over 1 inch thick (except for the trunnion mounting, because it has to be thicker). 
     

    FWIW, the front armor is: 

    Wedge (60 degrees): 20mm HHA, 20mm STEF, 20mm RHA 

     

    750mm air gap (at the center) 

     

    Turret front (24 degrees): 20mm HHA, 51mm STEF, 25mm RHA, 280mm NERA (60 degrees, arranged like T-72B array), 20mm HHA, 280mm NERA (shells have to pass through 2 plates when dead on), 25mm HHA, 25mm STEF, 25mm RHA. 

  16. COMPETITION Steel Chariot of The Prairie: The Lone Free State's First Battle Tank (2247)

    in Sturgeon's Contests

    Posted

    25 minutes ago, delete013 said:

    It appears you all together are truly not smart enough or else you would be done with me in a minute. Yet after 10 hours, still trying in vain.


    Any idiot can argue with a genius for hours on end, like you’re doing. But before you go and try to spin this off as you’re the genius, let’s remind ourselves who has proven themselves at least marginally intelligent, by looking who has contributed what to the forum (or the internet at large)…

    …

    …

    … hmmmm, I don’t see much from you, mate. But the people you’re arguing with? They have something to show. And that’s ok. I’m pretty damn useless here, I’m just tolerated because I’m respectful and know when I’ve been proven wrong or made a mistake, which have both happened. You’re lucky to have stayed here this long with your attitude, but it will be no huge loss that you are leaving. 

  18. What are we playing?

    in Fiction & Entertainment

    Posted

    21 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

    Would be cool if somebody managed to pull off a game where both terrain and building destruction would play a significant gameplay role, instead of being mostly a generator of great looking destruction. Would be very hard to programm reliably functioning AI for such game, :wacko:


    The terrain and building destruction sounds like Minecraft (lol, it auto capitalizes when I type it), and enemy’s are decent about moving around the map, but I think that’s because Minecraft is: 

     

    A. Very simplistic in its design, fewer poly’s to keep track of. 


    B. Doesn’t differentiate between “building/structure” and “terrain”. 


    C. Doesn’t have “shrapnel physics”, where pieces of the environment go flying with lethal intent (except for TNT). 
     

     

    But after thinking about it, this also sounds like “Space Engineers”, which I would recommend to anyone who would like Minecraft better if they wanted something with more polygons, in space. It’s roughly 50/50 on the combat and building departments, with some nice 0g and gravity physics, and a nice looking block damage system. 

  19. What are we playing?

    in Fiction & Entertainment

    Posted

    6 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

       Started to play old Red Faction. Feels like Half-life 1 but with cutscenes, occasional terrain real time destruction physics and less refined level design.

       I like how in several places player could bypass heavily guarded tunnels with liberate use of explosives. Sadly, this physical terrain destruction system is not used to it's full potential and most of the time there you can;t blow up a shortcut to service tunnel, destroy enemy cover and so on.

     

    zw_k3FZRFo-d-F4ehfyYKKCvbkey0K5kRWtIF7AXIseb7H2EXtL11yBRuk-GIKLn8o28BaQSMe0jVTmnh5lidIAFhjXFYNMpuWUQlrQXk3a2J67FGt7w5WdD6gm5sA

     

       Note: some structures also can be blow up like this. Different materials also are present for this tech - same explosion can make different size craters in different types of rock/concrete/etc.

     

       Funnily enough, i think Vivisector would have been even better if this tech was included, as game levels are huge open areas with most of sctructures located as add-on models, so if you would blow up a wall of some indoor level in place where you were not supposed to, level would not just end up, but have a lot of more landmass to chew through, or this hole could open up a pass to surface.

     

       Red faction games had probably one of the best destruction physics in FPS.

      Reveal hidden contents

     

     


    RF: guerilla is one of my favorite games. The building destruction mechanics/physics and environment design are fantastic, and very satisfying. Fire fights, especially when you bring explosives, could get very cinematic and chaotic; more than once I was significantly injured (and laughing til I was red in the face) by a flying I-beam or concrete from a nearby wall. 

×
×
  • Create New...