delete013

2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

You have text which is unclear. Dimensioned sketches of the arrays are requested, along with an explanation of how the "citadel" portion interacts with the rest of the armor.

Important information for the sketches:

Layer types, angles, air gaps, overall package dimensions.

 

Without this, the judges cannot verify that your armor packages meet the requirements or the stated weight.

Good, I'll elaborate more.

8 hours ago, N-L-M said:

A detailed section sketch including layer types (light ERA, heavy NERA, or what have you) and angles for each array type (hull front, turret side, skirts...) is requested if you do not have them fully modelled.

Ok, I have it all in Appendix 2.

9 hours ago, N-L-M said:

If you can sensibly arrange your arrays to make sense without detailing them.

I strongly suggest at least sketching out the section of how you want your arrays to look to make sure you have enough space and weight.

I specified the armour thickness and composition, then calculated the angled plate surface with trigonometry. Would that suffice for the commission?

3 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Anyway, I added pictures and some more data on the Brahman. She's overweight and underpowered, but the armor is amazing. Dont know how much I can get done: never got this far so I dont know what I'm doing and I am disorganized. 

She is a handful!

With my limited experience, I would check if you accounted for all the components. You can also reduce time by avoiding designing the special armour.

26 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Ah, but that's exactly what our erstwhile friendly wehraboo would say  

 

And then, before you know it, it's off to "German tanks as big tiddy anime girls" and all the 101 other things that make us collectively want to restart civilization with hot neutrons.

I see you had a bad break up with an anime girl, hoho. I never gave much thought to Nazi ideology before I got invested in the online forums. Europe is very calm with it being swept on the wasteland of history.

26 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Sorry mate, I'm South African. Anti-racism IS my national bias.

Well, you ought to understand it. Not every white settler was a racist during the Apartheid.

The overlapping road wheels and nomenclature are there obviously AS A JOKE. Since you already tossed me into the nazi corner, I might as well make fun of it.

6 hours ago, Toxn said:

So firstly, yikes (context to follow).

 

Secondly, in case you're confused about the rather critical eye we're casting on your no-doubt sincere bit of worldbuilding: we're an old forum by internet standards, tracing our way back, if not to the Sumerian era of usenet groups or the Assyrian era of blogs-turned-forums, then to the classical era of the 2010s. So we've seen some cycles recur. And one of those cycles, analogous to the friendly Nazi problem that bars deal with (only more cringey and sad than disgusting), is the friendly wehraboo problem.

That is no problem. I accept that the technical talk cannot be separated from the political context, in this case. I think I've been plenty accommodating and reiterated numerous times that I have no sympathies for the Nazis, their ideology or crimes. But you can't sell me arguments against axial-flow jet engines or Death traps under disguise of anti-nazism.

6 hours ago, Toxn said:

You see, they always start friendly - just asking questions, just wanting to air their legitimate love of technology and design independent of the political nastiness that surrounded it. And it always ends in a welter of "which German tank ace would look the hottest as an anime princess" posts. So when some unfortunate soul comes in just asking questions and wanting to air their legitimate love of technology etc etc, we tend to stare hard and long at the underlying dynamics of the situation.

 

Because nobody wants to have to clean up the shit that wehraboos excrete once they congregate in any numbers.

Sure they exist, you are right to be vigilant. But you lot also got very comfortable in abusing anti-racism to push your national bias around. Perhaps you haven't noticed, your overblown claims are the primary ammunition of neo-nazis. Stick to the objectivity and there is no space for politics or racial theories.

7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

That's actually not the case, the nomenclature he's using is distinctly Nazi, not just German:



I am not the foremost expert on German armored vehicles, but I am not aware of any post-war tanks using this designation system. This makes sense because, you know, the Nazi tank design bureaus were liquidated and sent to France. A domestic armored vehicle wouldn't be created in Germany until the 1950s, and by a completely different group of people. The nomenclature, understandably, didn't survive this transition.

As for why I'm prodding him about it, I want to see how far he's willing to take this. We've got a German nomenclature system that was extinct in 1945 which has somehow time-traveled to 2247, and spatially across the Atlantic. This is very interesting! The explanation is of course that delete is an inveterate wehraboo who can't pull his head out of his ass, but I'm highly amused that he doesn't even have a compelling conceit for this. It's just "tanks get Nazi designations". Because of course they do, in his mind. (They also get interleaved roadwheels, for the same reason.) The Texas-German thing was an obvious copout (nevermind that Texas-Germans have different vocabulary - all of their machine-words are English loans - since it comes from peasantry that were imported in the mid-19th Century, 100 years before Nazi Germany existed).

I don't remember who suggested that he ought to just say "wehraboos still exist in 2247" as his answer, but I liked that one. It would have made me laugh.

 

You really ought to read something on German history. The designations and the technology only comes from the Nazi party for ideological crusaders. As is with all military things in today's Germany, it is Wehrmacht's legacy, as the latest precursor in the long history of the German/Prussian army. Even if institutions were abolished and the politics tries hard to appear to have broken with the past, many of those people involved in ww2 were very much present during the design of vehicles up until Leopard 2, if still alive, and all had very little to do with politics or ideology. You can't push everything from 1933 to 1945 in the Nazi corner.

16 minutes ago, Toxn said:

We're poking you for fun, and because wehraboo-shit is haram for reasons that go all the way back to the guy you're chatting to inventing the term in the first place.

Then its all good. I felt that Sturgeon was really upset.

I deliberately threw in a bunch of easter eggs to spice up the commission's work. But it's all a joke.

11 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Also it's been canon for a really long time that they don't have contact with the Atlantic States, much less Europe.

Why don't you tell me what bothers you?

Maybe they crawled from Argentina or somehow washed ashore, does it matter? I though adding another national flavour to the competition would make it interesting..

27 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Unt some mit very interesting ideas about ze lower races, ja?

After the nuclear war they only got normal people that fled the insane globalist Meinungsdiktatur.

16 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Uh... In Texas?

German Texans got influx after the war.

Ok, appendix 3 is more or less finished.

Now I only wait for @Sturgeon's abr.. comanche.

4 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

@delete013 what the hell is wrong with your tank's name?

Vollketten 55(tonne).01 - vehicle name. Versuchsträger-(N)iedrige (K)omplexität - project name.

It is the usual nomenclature of the tractor factory that was meant to design it.

I uploading the Appendix 3 in the next days. Not yet finished.

VK-55.01 - Versuchsträger NK

Table of basic statistics:

Vehicle feature list:
Mobility:

1. Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

2. Engine - transversely mounted 1500 HP (1100 kW) V-12, turbocharged, liquid-cooled diesel engine. 4 cooling units. Cold air infusion at exhaust. Torque converter. 23.15 hp/t

3. Transmission - preferable Renk HSWL 354 level transmission adjusted for transverse mounting or similar, 4 forward and 4 rearward gears.

4. Fuel – diesel, 2930lbs in main hull tank, 720lbs in reserve rear hull tank, 2x 370lbs in sponsons, 465 mi at 38mph on roads

5. Engine bay has 3 m³ volume. Transverse mounting is envisioned but a traditional position, to the right of the driver, is feasible.

6. Suspension – (featured) coil spring around telescopic leads on individual road wheels with 480mm travel. 10 Overlapping road wheels with 3 return rollers per side and forward sprockets are mounted in an individual frame, attached to the hull. 400-780mm ground clearance depending on the suspension frame mounting.

    Torsion bars, more complex hydropneumatics or single line wheels possible. Torsion bars consume 30mm of ground clearance and fit between the bottom plate and mine protection.

7. Tracks are modern version of Tiger 1 tracks with 740mm width. Ground contact length 4.85m

Survivability:

Two stages of protection. Mission survivability in 20 degree frontal radius to each side for the listed ammunition and ranges. Crew survivability in 100 degrees to each side for the listed ammunition and ranges. 360 degree protection from 6 in HEAT projector. Values are valid for 20 degree vertical inclination, for munition other than auto-cannon and lower.

1. Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

2. Appendix 2 - armor array details.

3. The concept of citadel. Separation of the crew from ammunition, fuel and hidraulics with armoured walls.

4. Turret crew sits in a widened turret basket (1.87m diameter) with only 550 mm height in the turret itself (autoloader version).

5. Doubled, spaced walls all around the crew compartment

6. Crew has a main rear exit door, additional cupola hatches and an emergency bottom opening under the driver’s seat

7. Ammunition in the turret and in the rear hull feature blow-out panels.

8. Autoloader is separated from the crew with metal plates and incorporates roof blow-out panel.

9. Spall liner on all interior walls.

10. Automatic fire extinguisher.

11. Roof armour can trigger and survive HE artillery hit and anti-tank bomblets.

Firepower:

A. Weapons:

1. Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

2. Main Weapon:

a. High pressure smoothbore cannon, min -8/+20 deg inclination with double joint mount.

b. 120mm L55 13 or 17 MJ bore energy with two breech sizes and corresponding ammunition. Also tested with Soviet 125mm, 105 L7 and the both experimental Rheinmetal 130mm and NpzK-140 140mm cannon for up to 20MJ bore energy.

c. APFSDS steel arrow with tungsten core, HEAT-FS, HE, APFSDSPC (Armour piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot with propelled core) with thickened hollow arrow and an explosive propelled tungsten core inside (if physics have nothing against).

d. 33 shells in turret bustle within a rotating frame. 16 vertically stowed in the hull rear also within a rotating frame and an integrated crane.

e. under FCS section

f. Two stage autoloader

    first stage (as semi-autoloader) delivery of shell into the turret

    second stage – elevation and insertion into the breech

    manual reloading or semi-autoloading possible (gunner shifts in front of the commander, loader in his place)

g. Three shell drum for quick following shot and alternative shell type. Feldjustierspiegel (collimator).

    Thermal sleeve with barrel protection and flash suppressor.

3. Secondary weapon:

      20mm autocannon in an extendable tower behind the commander.

    Tertiary weapons:

      three 7.62mm MGs, one coaxial with the main cannon, one coaxial with the auto-cannon and another stored in the back with a slit for rear mounting (not displayed in the images). Additional gunner/loaders mg, as an improved Hetzer's remote mounting.

4. Appendix 3

B. Optics:

1. Leopard 1 level optics with additional independent stabilisation (if technology permits, alternative there is a dampening switch).

Auxillary gunner’s optics.

2. Rotating periscopes for driver and gunner/loader.

3. Scissor periscope for the commander in the auto-cannon tower. Alternative aiming device in the tower for the commander.

4. IR-based night vision and light amplifier for gunner and commander (the lamp not visualised).

5. Side vision slits for the driver.

6. 2 all around cupolas for gunner/loader and commander.

7. Gunners and commanders reticule with ranging triangles (Zeiss optics from ww2)

C. FCS:

1. 2-axis stabilisation, stereoscopic rangefinder (or laser), mechanical ballistic computer. Weapon slaved to the optics (if technology permits). Limited duplicate aiming handles for commander with an override. Mechanical target marking board in the commander's cupola.

2. Main cannon and auto-cannon can be interchangeably slaved to one another end correspondingly to gunners and commanders controls. Sharing one stabilisation engine (without mutual optics).

3. Appendix 3

Fightability:

1. Heavy tracks for anti-mine protection with integrated anti-mine armour in the hull floor.

2. Ventilation for crew compartment and engine bay with air conditioning (if technology permits)

3. Smoke dispensers and mortars in the side containers of the turret bustle

4. A radio with a reserve and dynamo reserve engine.

5. Food, water and personal item storage in the three containers in the rear of the hull.

6. Parallel manual controls through simple mechanical transmissions and levers.

7. Auxiliary diesel engine, attached to reserve fuel tank and hydraulic pump, as a limited backup power source (with the exception of mobility).

Additonal Features:

      1. Available add-on armour for pre-war near-peer protection level without exceeding 70 tonnes.

      2. White colour bucket and brush.

      3. In the appendices.

Only one submission so far? Everyone waiting for my marvel of engineering?

3 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Dutch seem happy with it. 
 

Speaking of underperforming, here’s some pics of Lance 1.0.

 

 

 

 

 

First Australian Army turret conversion course. Pics: Private Jacob Hilton. 

Any info on why exactly the metal frame for the barrel was introduced?

6 hours ago, Dominus Dolorem said:

 

I am looking forward to seeing where this goes.

If I broaden tracks of E-100, I might bring ground pressure under 0,97kg/cm3 ...

On 6/18/2021 at 12:15 AM, Sturgeon said:

 

The armor formulas are considered accurate according to the reality in the universe. However, the formulas can be a little tricky to use, so it's a good idea to post your math for others to double-check. I'm getting, for example, ~300mm with a single HNERA layer at 70 degrees from vertical.

HNERA is defined in the California solicitation. I omitted it from the Texas solicitation for reasons that aren't important right now.

Ok, thanks.

4 hours ago, Dominus Dolorem said:

I would be careful if I were you my tanke ended up having an armor mass of over 70 tons prompting a redesign.

Why is 70 a limit?

How accurate are the armour formulas? I chain one after another, according to my armour modules and the stats appear overly optimistic.

Second, have heavy ERA and NERA any specific definition?

9 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Btw, I'm very impressed with what you've showed off so far.

But that was just a wooden mockup for the.. regional boss. He said he wants a bigger gun and much more armour.

@Sturgeon Can I include fitments as pauschal of the steel construction? And what percentage?

I finished the painful weight calculation. I likely will finish this weekend.