DIADES

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

None of the vehicles tested in Libava is capable of transporting 11 men with a manned turret.

Was a KF41 tested?  If so that definitely can carry 3 crew, manned turret and 8 dismounts - that was in the design brief for the vehicle and is a key discriminator.

On 4/26/2019 at 8:40 AM, 2805662 said:

the GD turret

Very keen to see this.  Prior GD turrets (LAV25) were cheap and cheerful basic bits of gear.  Well out of date in all respects.  GD has had a hiatus and I am sure that the new turret will reflect lessons learned and be an effort to leap over LANCE.  Will suit 50mm of course.

On 4/6/2019 at 9:06 PM, SH_MM said:

Reading through my previous posts, I might have chosen the wrong tone; I did not intend to insult anyone, so if you felt insulted @DIADES, then I apologize for that. In the armor community it is unfortunately very common for people to become fans of vehicles, companies or countries, usually related to their own home countries and their respective militaries. These people are often 'attacking' the designs of other companies/countries - and IMO that is the case with your crititque

So your idea of apologizing is to call me a fanboy?  Ironic, your hysterical response to anything other than fervent worship of all things Puma...  and you call me a fanboy!  Puma is a beautiful thing but like us all, flawed.

Power densities and baseline dates.   I think we have inconsistencies in the specified example engines.  The 5TD is specified in its original form but the AVDS-1790 is specified in the 5A version at 908 hp which is a much later development.  The 1960 AVDS-1790 is the 2A as used in the M60A1 which develops 750 hp.  Both engines have later developments - 5TD up to 1050 hp.  Very latest (2000s) AVDS-1790 up to 1,500 hp - that has common rail injection and modern electronics.  Similar story with the 838.  The early version with 850 hp is provided but there are later versions with 950 hp and the peak version has 1,400 hp.  The point I am laboriously making is that the present baseline inflates the mass/volume power density of the AVDS.

2 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

7.62x54mmR PKM, 12.7x108mm

To hear is to obey.

so my turret spec

1. 155 mm main gun - anti armour (kill Norman)

2. 75 mm coax - general purpose (HE, Frag etc.)

3. 8mm coax - anti-personnel

3. 15 mm remote with 8 mm coax = light vehicles and anti-personnel

Auto loader for 155 operates over plus minus 10 degrees elevation, auto loader for 75 operates over 0 to 30 degrees elevation.

This combo covers all threats at an ideal level.  It packages nicely (in my head) so now to the modeling.

10 hours ago, Toxn said:

the moment is on armament and working out what the minimum armour configurations look like.

Fascinating - we are all playing with the classic trinity.  Firepower, Mobility, Protection.  For me, in that order.

2 hours ago, Xoon said:

For now, I am thinking about a Strv 103-BV206 hybrid with hydraulic drive. IF I can't have my microprocessors and transistors, I damn well am going to have my special tank

and so you should.  Love hybrid vigor!

26 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Yes. The overall weight limit applies to the combined vehicle, and the armor requirements apply to both. (Including mine protection).

Absolutely,  Recoverability, Continued Fightability demand it.

30 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Does that even count as a single vehicle though?

The test would be along the lines of - is either half a fully functional vehicle or does one have to have both halves to do anything useful.  A BvS10 meets the test - you need the whole thing to get stuff done.  I am not going down this path, just racking my brain to find ways to use the nominally available mass total.  I agree with Collimatrix's earlier post - no way anything conventionally configured and over about 100 tonne is doable in a mobility sense within the 4.0m width constraint.  Even then, 100 tonnes requires serious suspension of disbelief.

I am aiming at 75 tonne for my first pass.

Of course the other way to do this is BvS10 style.  That would allow twice the track on ground area and still be steerable.  Most obvious compromise is loss of zero radius turn.  This approach would allow a non-Maus 120 tonne vehicle.....

5 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

He pointed out that this is basically how a lot of backhoes are configured.

Indeed it is - and it is perfect for that application.  Maximum excavator slew speed is trivial, slew accuracy not required etc  So, yeah, definitely a challenge to make to make an effective fighting vehicle in such a config

17 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

The primary ammunition (ready ammo) is all stored in the turret behind a bulkhead with blowout panels.

Yep, per 2805662 above.

I guess they were trying to keep turret size/swept diameter down because of the whole airborne idea.  It is a neat autoloader but the whole thing compromised by a defunct requirement.

2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Correct, there is storage for 24 rounds in the hull in addition to the 21 rounds held by the autoloader. In an Afghanistan scenario the hull racks would likely be left empty.

OK, so ammon sometimes in the hull proper but even the autoloader ammo is essentially in the hull/turret crewed space?  If so, this is a serious reversion to past bad ideas.

5 hours ago, Xoon said:

 

In a way, the vehicle would be a turret on tracks. Kinda like this:

 

That is going to need one hell of a traverse drive.  Probably consume more power that required for mobility.  And if the powerpack is in the turret ( the frigging enormous powerpack) then drive to the tracks is hydraulic or electric?  Hydraulic has such poor efficiency that the powerpack would go from frigging enormous to double frigging enormous.  If electric, bear in mind that we don't have fancy electronics so no brushless high efficiency stuff and even brushed stuff will have to use old school magnetic materials - no fancy rare earths..  Then there is CoG height and cross slope stability etc.  But, it would be cool if you can make it work

So, where is my design heading?

1. First pass - working up from the required lethality, making some assumptions around mobility.

2. Basic config and style chosen - forward turret, rear powerpack

3. Set turret size - how many crew, where is the ammo etc

4. What physical size and non-armour mass results

5 What armour mass is required to get acceptable protection

6 What is new total mass and size - do prior assumption still work?

6 Rinse and repeat until time runs out or acceptable outcome.

6 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You're a fucking retard and need a dick-slappin'.

Remember, the Cascadians are ever trying to use asymmetrical warfare to sow dissent.......

So ammunition in the hull?  What could possibly go wrong...

3 hours ago, Zadlo said:

 

I may disagree with the rules but I have to accept them.

Yep:

Rule 1 - the customer is always right.

Rule 2 - if the customer appears to be wrong, refer to rule 1

So, we have to offer the best solution within the bounds, let the games begin!

55 minutes ago, A. T. Mahan said:

 

That's the spirit! 

 

But seriously, if the TC has turn out for a patrol and gets shot by a Mormon sniper, it'd be nice if they had some more protection than their uniform top and a cigarette case.

Crew survivability is only 3rd priority.   Continuing to fight is second so, fight til you die

47 minutes ago, A. T. Mahan said:

more protection than their uniform top and a cigarette case

Wot!  It were good enough fer grandad....

My experience with AFV interiors is that they are too tight for ease of movement even if one was stark naked and fully greased up..........

Your body needs to conform to all the snags, lumps, protrusions and shit, your gear constantly gets caught.  WHEN a vehicle brews up, you need out.  Every gram and every millimeter of cloth/gear is a hindrance.

14 minutes ago, A. T. Mahan said:

 

I just want to give the tank crews fire-protective clothing and body armor. It's nothing to do with the tank armor itself, but with keeping the crew from burning to death or getting killed when some Mormon shoots them in the chest while they're turned out.

Fair enough but good luck getting tank crews to wear armour.  Too restrictive.

9 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

how simple it is.

! that is even more basic that the stuff I was aware of!  Note the curvature in the result - it is easier to make deliberately curved shapes than flat shapes.