Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Forum Nobility
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by N-L-M

  1. It's worth remembering that steel beasts is a game available to the general public. I'm led to understand the professional version of it allows one to plug in values of their own, so presumably militaries which use it on a professional basis have what they consider to be accurate values, the open source version, being based on unclassified data, cannot be taken as an authoritative source.
  2. The MTU 883 is not at all smaller than the AVDS 1790. The engines are approximately the same length, similar width (though the 883 is square and the AVDS is trapezoidal in section and a tad wider at the top), and with the cooling system on top similar height (though the MTU has a more optimised slope for hiding behind the glacis). You would note, that the engine compartment on the Merk 4 is not notably shorter than the same on the Merk 3. Likewise, the Renk 325 transmission that goes with the 883 is slightly fatter than the Renk 304 which goes with the 1200 HP AVDS 1790, so there's no rea
  3. Per "surviving the ride", the 6x6 with 2 front axles was intended to solve the problem of losing all mobility when the front wheel hit a landmine, by just having an extra sacrificial pair up front. This extra pair of wheels however led to substantial yaw stability issues and was not successful.
  4. Gonna have to ask you all to cool your jets and discuss things in a civilized manner. It's easy to get excited about things on the internet, please take it easy, especially in the current year.
  5. Having very recently finished a design cycle, I can now offer insight into how I do things. The first thing I do is look at the requirements, and the available options (whether limited by name or simply similar in performance), and try to figure out a first order approximation of what it is I'm hoping to get done. It's usually at this point that I sketch out the design in pencil and make a list of design features I intend to include in the design - this typically helps solidify the concept in my mind, as well as making sure I don't miss anything major along the way. I set myself certain desi
  6. It's gonna be a tight squeeze, no two ways about it. BT-7A managed to squeeze in a 76mm gun IRL, so it's not impossible. Hopefully the loader assist means the gunner needs to move around quite a bit less in combat, and the cupola does give the commander a little more breathing space.
  7. It's nothing more than a couple gravity feeds and a couple manual spring return ratchets where you yank the handle of the type you want to pull it far enough to drop it into the rammer tray. Really nothing complex at all.
  8. At -10 degrees depression, the gun only just hits the turret roof at full recoil but the tube clips through. Limiting depression to -5 degrees solves that problem. Perhaps ejecting not with a tube but with a T-62 style roof hatch (only on the front of the turret) would allow the full 10 degrees of depression. Also apparently elevation is +15 not +10 as previously stated. I dun goofed there. The tube requires a bit of a mantlet expansion but nothing special. The latter. At -5 degrees they're aligned, as the barrel elevates and the breech drops theres a bit of a dr
  9. Flame cutting and riveting are sufficient for the armor fabrication, though welding is preferred of course. All the rest is either stolen, simple, or unmodified from the existing tank.
  10. Carro Armato BT-5-76/43 General specs: Weight: 15t nominal, 16 t loaded. Length, gun forwards: 7m Width: 2.3 m Height: 2.3 m to turret roof Crew: Commander, Gunner/loader, Driver. Armament: 45mm, 75mm or 76mm gun, roof mounted HMG, coax MG, and grenade projectors. Mobility: Slightly reduced from BT-5 to cope with added weight, but still excellent. 25 HP/T at 16 tons. Survivability: Excellent against 37mm, acceptable vs 75mm, borderline against 57mm, none against 76mm. Detailed description:
  11. The front add on armor has a hinged door linked to the existing one in the UFP (not modeled), and the upper door works as it did.
  12. Not only that, I found a way to make it hide the existing gun in the model which I can't edit! (protip: it's shown at -2 deg elevation)
  13. Still very much a work in progress, but seeing as I haven't posted all that much in this thread, I thought I'd post it as-is. The add-on armor is still very rough, and is missing the turret ring armor. You'd be surprised how well armored a BT-5 can get if you put your mind to it.
  14. OK so, road trip is over. Reading from my (almost illegible) notes I wrote a couple weeks back: 1. Of the available tanks, the BT-5 is, IMO, the only reasonable choice. 1.1. The T-28 cannot be reasonably made a real opponent to the Sherman and is rare, with a spares issue just waiting to happen. 1.2. The various French light tanks and T-26 are disasters on tracks, with no armor, no real option to improve armament, and very poor automotives (low power to weight and low speed suspension). 1.3. Of the guns available, only the 7.62 cm PaK 39(r) can reliably kill a Sherman with AP, and t
  15. Got jumped IRL by a work trip. I'll be back home next weekend, I hope.
  16. Encountered slight issues with using free internet 3d surface-based models in solid-based CAD, will require more work before I have something showable.
  17. Alrighty I have a fairly clear battle plan, I'll probably knock it out this weekend. I have... Several silly ideas and a few moderately sensible ones.
  18. Done some basic "what do" thinking. The problem, as posed, is extremely difficult to solve in a satisfactory manner, largely thanks to the (excellently picked) very poor selection of cast-off vehicles upon which to base designs. And when the reference point is a Sherman, even just a 75mm one, that's quite the tough nut to crack and quite a lot of gun to stop.
  19. https://www.opgal.com/products/lsa-kit/ Google image search is your friend. Please learn to post.
  20. In the Challenger 2, much like the Chieftain and Challenger 1, the ammo in the hull is stowed all over the place, but the 3 main bins of vertical propellant charges, if removed, provide adequate space for storing unitary ammo horizontally. Likewise, the frontal hull propellant racks, when removed, provide some more space there, though that likely requires rejiggering of the rest of the internal components there, as the unitary 120 is much longer. Perhaps that area wasn't touched, and the 15 are stowed horizontally where the 3 main bins were, nose to nose from 2 sides. Such an arrangement wou
  • Create New...