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.
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.
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?