Kal
-
Posts
347 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Kal
-
Hull casting is 13.5 tonne, 100mm thick Magnesium, 2 internal 100mm Mg bulkheads, enclosed hull volume is 34m3, 3 tank variants from same casting. amphibious light tank (rear engine) 33 tonne (ERA only) Main battle tank (rear engine) 45.6 tonne (ERA and NERA combo) Heavy Tank (dual engine, rear and front) 65.6 tonne (lots NERA)
-
Ukrainian Civil War Thread: All Quiet on the Sturgeon Front
Kal replied to T___A's topic in Open Discussion
wouldn't conscript training from decades ago stop this type of 'accidental' discharge? -
with a longer barrel, the m789 seems to exit at 850m/s the M230LF, sad, but acceptable if there is follow on rounds. Obus G was reportedly 1000m/s, and accurate to 3000m, since M789 is better documented (in english) I'll scale back to 850m/s Obus G projectile weighs 10.85kg (for 105mm round), scaled down to 30mm that would be 253grams, M789 projectile is 229grams 9% difference, proposed 120mm series projectile are 14.656kg to match M789 (229grams x4x4x4) m789 is a 30mm round with a proportionally large fuze, 120mm rounds's fuze is proportional much less significant.
-
automotive torque convertors.
-
Oplot http://morozov.com.ua/en/bronetankovaya-tehnika-i-vooruzhenie/tanki/razrabotki/oplot/ again, no differential, twin gear sets. They seem to use 7 spd auto transmission, instead of emphasizing twin big pancake torque convertors
-
T 90, engine is more conventional, but it also looks like a nil differential design, instead they split the transmission, then place the gearing afterwards. So instead of gears then differential, it is primary split/reduce then, two planetary final gearboxes and two planetary final drives.
-
Object 432, sure looks like they simply bolted on the transmission onto each end of the opposed cylinder 2 stroke diesel. So this begat the T64 which seems to follow the same philosophy
-
Gillette NERA + NERA Inserts and ERA around turret, with bonus heavy NERA co axial 30mm autocannon, equivalent to M230LF, rounds ballistically matched to 120mm rounds. engine is 6TDF, early 5TDF were 700 hp (522 kW ), so equivalent generation 6TDF would've been about 20% more, so 840hp or 626kW. opposed piston 2 stroke diesels can be assembled to allow power take on both ends (due to twin crankshafts), the transmission will be twin transmissions, each with lockable fluid torque convertor, and a ravigneaux planetery gearset giving 2 forward gears and 1 revers gear. there are no differentials. general principle of veering left or right is that the side to turn to, is unlocked (and can be slightly braked if desired), the side to turn from, is locked. Tank can rotate on its centre as tracks are independent. These are all compact, pancake technologies that were available back in the 50s and 60s. The outline of the motor and transmission is behind the man, it is compact, 6TDF motors are magic, if exhaust emissions are not a high concern.
- 542 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- ah dot com is leaking
- tank design
- (and 3 more)
-
medium tank, 48 x 120mm rounds, (46 with 2 starter placeholders) HEAT, Autocannon rounds are now 20kg class rate of fire, sustained 30 rounds per minute. (40 rounds per minute rapid)
-
oops, inspired by DP 27, M 789 HEDP, OBUS G and the glorious 2S7, Kal corp offers a 12 round, 240mm HEAT autocannon. (also capable of lobbing a Kleshchevina derivative: Nuclear shell, if needed. standard shell, M789 but at 240mm dia, so at 1.5x that 360mm penetration plus blast effects enhanced ported shell Obus G but at 240mm, so at 3.5x thats 840mm penetration plus blast effects mercury float HEAT shell, single charge at 5x, thats 1200mm penetration plus blast effects mercury float HEAT shell, dual charge at 5x, thats 800mm precursor + main 1200mm penetration, less blast effects each round is accurate to 3,000 metres, substantially superior to peers. (tradeoff, penetration for increased accuracy) barrel is mildly rifled, ala M230 LF & AMX 30's gun unfortunately, each shell is just a tad over 100kg, so must be reloaded at depot via crane. so despite onboard storage being plentiful, official capacity is limited.
- 542 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- ah dot com is leaking
- tank design
- (and 3 more)
-
Not always, when compared to dwell armour. But for 1950s/60s only ceramics used in non military industries would be cost feasible. And the calculations become even more mangled.
-
Whatever russia has in there, my wild guess ia that the t14 has explosive elements direct attached to the gun. Probably not much good directly perpendicular, but indicative that there is a solid hunk of metal to support it anyway.
-
-
Well, a major tradeoff between engine fore and engine aft designs is that engine aft trades rear access for superior forward hull side armouring. But 2 examples of fore engine tank designs of the 1950/60s would be S tank and T92 light tank.
-
Can i use HHA steel for a dozer blade at front?
-
What would be the rifling for the obus G? CN-105 F-1.
-
The issue for the obus G, is not the rotation force in flight, its that the acceleration within the barrel is too much for the bearings to handle. The ports may also assist in flight rotation, but seem primarily there for launch. And reducing thrust accross the bearings.
-
Lord James Just angle/stack the fuel tanks so that NERA can be co-located. That should give a close enough approximation as the nera has both a reactive and a slicing element. Which is comparable to how cellular fuel tanks work anyway. So instead of a giant cube of fuel. It becomes a stack of rhombus of fuel.
-
I'm considering obus g style ammunition for premium situations. While not in obus g, i would consider a small amount of mercury would be beneficial to the obus g concept. In particular, it could transfer thrust to the shaped charge, while minimising torque transfer. Such a round would be too expensive for use against the Mormonhideen, but could be very useful against the Cascadians
-
Can i use a small amount of mercury in the anti tank ammo? Just a teaspoon worth.
-
Yes
-
Im trying to solve the issue, the techology base is early 1960s, how can i get first look, first kill with that. I use 2 gunners, 2 guns, same traverse, linked elevation, but the slower gun gets additional elevation also. These are technology's that should work with mechanical computers, and optical distance measurements.
-
Original firepower idea was basically BMP 3 but with 57mm like the s-60 or even T-15. First intuition was 57mm for targetting and then use a rpg 29/32 equivalent warhead at whatever velocity i could get. So i try to understand bmp 3, i do the calcs and reverse calculate that both the 30mm and 100mm apply the same force to the structure. So despite the 100mm having a lot more reaction, the actual MPa or force on the bmp is equivalent. So that became the guiding principle for the design But my borosilicate and spaced armour package suggested that rpg 29/32 was not sufficient for future threats, So i analysed 2 more large calibre rounds. , necked out 57mm which by pixel counting became 91mm HEAT And a 125mm HEAT. The necked out 91mm is real tempting, its basically same exit velocity as 57mm round and same stored number of rounds and mostly same autocannon, just different barrel. Then i went Nera/Era and it could handle 60/160 warhead. So that pretty much forced the decision, its either 60/160 HEAT or go kinetic and drop the 57mm autocannon. Yes it will be a slower round (but still 50%-100% faster than bmp's 100mm round), but landing a half dozen 57mm rounds on a target first wiill help get the 160mm to be more accurate. And the 57mm might even knock out some optics etcs. If there is a lot of LIC, the utility of 57mm will be profound, especially against Mormonhideen with Toyotas. Shooting at a fleeting, moving Toyotas 4-5kms away wont be easy or cheap with a 1960s tank with a big gun. The turret can carry a lot of stored kills. A lot. Anyway, the tank will be a very logistically useful vehicle. A nice balance between HiC and LIC duties. 1960s technology was difficult to shoot precise. Spamming with 57mm round helps solve that problem.
-
57x 347 half a zsu-57-2. But with a long ammo belt
-
Re Mg vs Al for welding. The Mg is easier for fine welding like bikes and lightweight structures, but is unsuitable for thick welds. Mg welding uses only about 40% of the heat for the same thickness as. Al welding but is unsuitable for deep penetrating welds because the Mg boiling point is a lot lower than Al boiling point. (Even though the melting points are almost the same.) Al obviously conducts heat away from the weld a lot faster than Mg.
- 542 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- ah dot com is leaking
- tank design
- (and 3 more)
