DIADES

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

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

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

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

I'm nostalgic about the Teledyne Continental Motors armored gun system (it's the modified General Dynamics Land Systems-Teledyne Continental Motors AGS on the picture below)
 

It sounds like someone doesn’t understand the spirit of the contest and needs to be sent to the Glorious Agriculture Camps in the Mojave Reclamation Zone for further spiritual enlightenment.

Oh please dear lord, do not let this turn into another insult contest. 

Because the DPRC's high end AlO production is allocated to aircraft, LAV and personal body armor and not for tanks; the sheer quantity needed for large AFV production exceeds reasonable production capacities.
At the same time, performance is not expected to reasonably exceed that of fused silica against the reference threats.
Fused silica is in effect just very pure glass, easy to mass-produce. It has also seen use in armor since the early 1950s; it is assessed as offering similar performance at significantly lower costs vs the existing threats compared to more esoteric solutions such as granite, which is therefore disqualified on cost grounds.
 
Such Suppressive Personship is the sign of a Reactive Mind. Hatethink like this may get your Operating Thetan clearance revoked and you audited for sedition.
 
On a more serious note, you're invited to, y'know, actually participate before complaining about the rules.

Probably save some time and brain pain if we just go by the scenario detail provided.  Armour materials are detailed.

The perfect Californian tank is impenetrable to all attacks, but occasionally detonates when left in the sun for too long...

I would just like to say that I am deeply offended by the fact that the ATGM arcs are wider in the LIC spec than the HIC spec.  Are you implying that the Cascadian government would supply Deseret with ATGMs?  Are you saying that the government of a developed, democratic republic would consider supplying advanced guided missile systems to a bunch of religious zealot insurgents just so screw over an opposing state?
 
That strategy would obviously backfire.  Who would be that stupid?

Somewhat optimisitcally modified from the numbers in the TRADOC bulletin for the T-62.

Jesus God, we are reaching new levels of autism and SJW mockery not previously thought possible with this competition
 
I will have to expand my whiskey budget if I wish to participate in this competition, as well as quit my full time job to focus on this
 
I'm just saying, 2 months of work for 50 capitalist pig scrip is a poor trade. Maybe an honorary title should be bestowed, as well.
 

This ignorant worm abases himself

Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only
By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII
The Dianetic People’s Republic of California
Anno Domini 2250
SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank
 
1.      Background.
As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.
 
 
Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:
A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank
Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.
B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM
Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.
Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.
C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.
D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.
E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.
F.      IEDs
In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.
2.      General guidelines:
A.      Solicitation outline:
In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.
B.      Requirements definitions:
The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.
Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.
Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.
C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.
D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:
a.      Vehicle recoverability.
b.      Continued fightability.
c.       Crew survival.
E.      Permissible weights:
a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.
b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.
c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.
F.      Overall dimensions:
a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.
b.      Width- 4m transport width.
                                                              i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.
                                                             ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.
c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.
G.     Technology available:
a.      Armor:
The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
Structural materials:
                                                              i.     RHA/CHA
Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.
                                                             ii.     Aluminum 5083
More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
 Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure
For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
Non-structural passive materials:
                                                            iii.     HHA
Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
Density- 7.8g/cm^3.
                                                            iv.     Glass textolite
Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.
Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
Non-structural.
                                                             v.     Fused silica
Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.
                                                            vi.     Fuel
Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
Density-0.82g/cm^3.
                                                          vii.     Assorted stowage/systems
Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                         viii.     Spaced armor
Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.
Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
Reactive armor materials:
                                                            ix.     ERA-light
A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                             x.     ERA-heavy
A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                            xi.     NERA-light
A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
                                                           xii.     NERA-heavy
A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
b.      Firepower
                                                              i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.
                                                             ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                            iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)
                                                            iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                             v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.
c.       Mobility
                                                              i.     Engines tech level:
1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
                                                             ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                            iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                            iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
d.      Electronics
                                                              i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                             ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                            iii.     I^2- limited
3.      Operational Requirements.
The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.
4.      Submission protocols.
Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
 
Appendix 1- armor calculation
Appendix 2- operational requirements
Addendum 1 - more armor details
Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!

The Puma carries a turret made by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, Rheinmetall makes the hull of the Puma. The LANCE modular turret system has absolutely nothing to do with the Puma. It's turret is fully assembled by KMW and then transported to Rheinmetall's facilities for final assembly on the hull (just like the decoupled running gear). You again have no clue about what your talking. The Puma is not "a 17 years old design", it is built for the same type of warfare as the Lynx KF41 (aka the type of warfare encountered in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.). That you have a problem believing that multiple highly-sloped steel plates can defeat a 30 mm APFSDS is btw. also rather irrelevant, given that you clearly have massive gaps in knowledge regarding the technology and the construction of modern (German) AFVs.
 
The unique engine you previously praised as advantage of the Lynx KF41 is a bog-standard diesel engine, which was only chosen because it is made by Liebherr (meaning it is cheaper and there are a lot less issues with exporting & licencing it, because Liebherr is a Swiss company). The cooling system you praised at the same time as unique to the Lynx has been adopted on AFVs since the 1970s.

Don't know if already posted:
https://www.mtu-report.com/Technology/Research-Development/Putting-the-Puma-through-its-Paces








https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/themen_im_fokus/puma_ersetzt_marder/index.php#

Upgrading old tanks like M60 and T-55 is still somewhat economically viable, but only for poor states, or those with very old fleets. For example Taiwan, Turkey, or the Philippines.
 
The two big issues are the all steel construction and integrated armor, and the design that accounted for decades old tech.
Another issue that could arise is cracked hulls but those can be fixed in relatively cheap refurbishment processes. 
 
Indeed the integration of the heavy steel armor into the construction of the hull, adds a ton (actually, tens of tons) of weight. Parasitic weight. It cuts into the weight of upgrades that can be added thus limiting any sort of applique armor. 
 
And the tank is obviously not built to accommodate any of the new tech built after its entry to service. Things like NBC may already have been standard on all tanks we can see on the battlefield today, but proper air conditioning was not. Any new sights, sensors, or gadgets, will require a completely new electrical grid coupled with a new generator, for which a new compartment must be made.
The ammunition has to be carried outside a safe compartment or is just placed in a horribly vulnerable place. 
The engine is likely no longer supported by the manufacturer, or any other part really.
The ergonomics were shitty even before any new stuff were added to the turret or driver's station.
 
 
You either replace so many things that you're ought to buy a new tank at that point, or you make enough cost cutting compromises that your tank is no longer worth shit.
 
I believe that in about 5 years, upgrades like the Sabra but for any tank built prior to the 1970's, will no longer be viable. Economically-wise, that is.

Except aircraft are a hell of a lot more expensive than plate.  The British carriers were just not suited to operations in the Pacific which is fair enough, its not what they were designed for.  Regardless of any particulars of the ships themselves, their embarked aircraft were  generally inadequate - for a range of reasons.  War is always about doing the best you can with what you have.  My maternal Grandfather served in Indomitable - Hellcats and Avengers.  He was injured in the 1945 kamikaze attack.  The armoured deck is generally credited with saving the ship in that case.  He also got to see all the remaining aircraft pushed over the side when the war ended.  But I digress, if we are talking over rated or not, then context is all.
 

I hope it's ok to revive an old thread?
 
How about the bouncing bomb, used famously in the "Dam Busters" raid. Although regarded as a local tactical success; the failure to achieve its wider strategic goals and high collateral damage cast a shadow over its overall effectiveness.
 
http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/s,dambustersstudy.html

I've made them before. They tend to be more dangerous to the person using them than the target, because some extremely smart and clever ally of authoritarian governments everywhere popularized the method of making them where you stick a gasoline-soaked rag into a bottle, light it, and go. That tends to just put the user at risk of getting set on fire, and it makes him very vulnerable as he's trying to gingerly light a rag that's dripping gasoline everywhere without getting any on himself.
 
The correct way to make a mollie is to get a large bottle - like a wine bottle or an empty handle - and fill it partly with gasoline, then cork it. Wipe it down, and let it sit for like half an hour to get all the gas on the outside to evaporate. Now get some of those loong camping matches that burn for a while, or sparklers, and duct-tape them to the side, with the tips pointing up and sticking up past the neck of the bottle. Then tie a rag around the neck of the bottle (this is your sustainer, essentially; you need something that will catch fire long enough to reach the gas in the bottle, and then keep burning to ignite as much gas as possible). You can soak the rag in something flammable, but you want it dry when you come to throw it. There are a bunch of things that make rags more flammable even after they've dried, and you can use paper, or something else very flammable instead of a rag. Don't use flash paper, it doesn't burn long enough. You can also use a flammable grease or oil and soak the rag in that. In my experience, gasoline is a very poor choice, since it drips everywhere and evaporates.

When it comes to throw it, you simply light the tip of the sparkler/match, and chuck it towards the target. The match/sparkler should ignite the gasoline and rag, and that will set fire to some things. Car upholstery, for example.

As a serious weapon? There are other things you can make that are probably more useful, but if you're going to make Molotovs, you can at least do it correctly.

Tank tracks are pretty tough, actually.  On a typical military off-road track layer, the tracks are about 10% of the mass of the total vehicle, so there's actually quite a bit of steel there.  The_Chieftain did an article on tests of wedging crap into the tracks of a very light interwar tank.  The tank basically didn't notice it.
 
IIRC there was a British study on what sort of firepower it took to knock the tracks off a tank, and I believe the conclusion was that a 75mm round was necessary to reliably break the track of a tiger.  Lighter guns would suffice for lighter vehicles.
 
There are a number of stories of abramses rolling over anti-personnel mines in Desert Storm and not even all the crew members were sure what had happened.  The tank continued moving; the tracks apparently unhurt.
 
Asymmetric warfare fetishists will often point to the tracks of a tank as some sort of achilles heel that can easily be knocked out, thus immobilizing the great beasts.  Oh the folly of technologists who think that sophisticated weapons will prevail against the cunning of the dedicated guerrilla!  As with most other things, they're wrong here.  Tanks are goddamned hard to stop.
 
That said, wire entanglement is apparently effective at temporarily immobilizing tanks.

Again. There's the definition. Overrated does not equal "bad". I think both the Garand and MG42 both fall in the overrated category despite both being very good firearms for the time. The MG42 as we know still is serving today in various countries as the MG3/MG74.
 
The Garand was a great rifle. I would consider it to be obsolete right now as a military firearm. Does any country still use it? And, no, it isn't even "functionally" obsolete like say, an SMLE Enfield or Mauser 98K or Mosin Nagant would be a functionally obsolete weapon in that some goat herder in the Stans might still have one on hand that he is able to make ammo for by hand in order to take pot shots at The Infidel. The en bloc clip in the Garand sorta adds one more bit of complication for this sort of guerrilla activity. 

I'm kind of glad this little thread got resurrected for at least a little bit, if only as a reminder how superior most of the American (and much of the Allied) equipment was compared to their Axis adversaries. And even if there is a debate over whether a weapon was "overrated" it wasn't necessarily bad, and was certainly better in most cases than contemporary Axis equipment, assuming the Axis even had anything that was contemporary to it to begin with.

The two teams of eight section in Australia has been superseded by the 3/3/3 model (3 crew, six dismounts). 
 
Check this (excellent) article on the implementation of the IFV within the Australian context. 
 
https://www.cove.org.au/breakin/article-land-400-phase-3-a-case-for-reviewing-that-other-case/
 
it summarises the organisational & doctrinal background to what is coming, set against the 50+ years of M113 operation by the Australian Army.