Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Sten

Forum Nobility
  • Posts

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Sten

  1. Persson Engineering Solutions and Brewing, Main Battle Tank, MBT-01, "Gigan" FINAL Table of basic statistics: Parameter Value Mass, combat 82 tonnes/180779 lbs Length, combat (transport) Hull 26.25 ft. Total 37.15 ft (to gun crown at 0°) Width, combat (transport) 13.091 ft Height, combat (transport) Turret Roof 7.111 ft. Maximum permanent height 7.718 ft (to highest permanently fixed feature.) Total height 10.281 ft (to top removable feature) Ground Pressure, zero penetration 1967 psf Estimated Speed 40-43 mph Estimated range 470 miles (38 mph on road) Crew, number (roles) 3 (driver, gunner, commander) Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) 5" L50 rifled gun. 42 rounds total (18 in autoloader, 24 in 4x6 hull storage bins) Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) 5 machine-guns, 4 being independently moved: 2X.50" HMG (1 coaxial, 1 for commander.) 3X.30" GPMG (1 on commander's periscope, 1 for gunner, 1 on the bustle for dismount troops.) 1000 rounds for each HMG, 2000 rounds for each GPMG Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view. Vehicle feature list: Mobility: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Engine: Turbo Diesel V12, 2904 cu in, similar to the old MB 873 found in the archives of the pre-happening world. Rated for 1500 to 1800 HP. Longitudinally mounted on the rear. Liquid cooled, heat exchangers located under the engine bay cover. 3. Transmission: Double differential, 10 speeds (5 forward, 5 in reverse), neutral steering capable. Similar to the RENK HSWL 295TM found on the archives of the pre-happening world. Transversely mounted on the rear. 4. Fuel: Diesel, or kerosene, jet-fuel or bio sourced analogue, or any high cetane number fuel given correct tuning and adequate lubrication properties. 680.50721 US and A imperial Gallons, in 4 internal tanks. Provision for extra fuel tanks inside the bottom double hull at the user's discretion (normally no installed.) 5. Other neat features in the engine bay. 6. Suspension: "Dumb" hydro-pneumatic suspension, suspension elements located on housing units bolted externally to the sides of the hulls and connected to the suspension arms via a gearing system, this is done in order to reduce the unsprung mass of the suspension as well as to reduce the size of the arms, keep the hydro-pneumatic elements further away from obstacles while still keeping replacement and field service easy. 14 sprung road wheels, 2 idler/track tensioner wheels on the front, 2 driving sprockets on the rear, 14 return rollers. Survivability: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Link to Appendix 2 - armor array details. 3. Non-specified survivability: a. The rear hull ammo stowage units are located in water tanks, containing 56.5 gallons of water each, those can double as energy replenishment for the heat exchanger of the engine, or for emergency drinking water for the crew. b. The backup shared optical range finder allows for the commander to fire the gun in case the gunner is unable to do so c. Turret features a large cargo rack that allows for more than enough capacity for pioneering equipment, camping equipment, crew belonging, extra equipment like smoke grenade launchers, add-on/ad-hoc spaced armor, spare parts, or a place for dismounted troops to do things. d. Tank is equipped with two long range radios and two large antennas, guaranteeing redundancy and simultaneous communication with other tanks and a base for example. e. The crew compartment in the turret is set up as low as possible in the hull, with the commander and gunner siting in a semi-reclined position. f. Turret crew compartment is separated on the middle by the gun compartment, with armored bulkheads on both side, with a interconnected part on the front of the compartment. This allows for redundancy of the crew and the change that a side penetration will not kill/incapacitate the whole turret crew. g. The diver is surrounded by large fuel tanks on both sides, adding an extra layer of protection. h. The turret is a combination of the "cleft" and "wedge" concepts, it offer a very low silhouette in normal conditions and the angled roof further reduces the silhouette in a hull down position with the front raised. Due to the aforementioned separated gun compartment a dead-on penetration of the mantle, while obviously a mission-kill event, will probably not affect the crew. I. The turret can be rotated electrically or manually by all 3 crew members. This is to extend the fighting endurance in case of the loss of crew and systems, and to allow the possibility of the driver to escape from his main hatch. Firepower: A. Weapons: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Main Weapon: 1X Modified Co-Developed G46 gun a. Type: Rifled, L51 automatic loading. b. Caliber: 5"x33" Texan (127x840mm), unitary, steel non combustible case. Provision for future semi combustible unitary cases. c. ammunition types and performance: APDS (24" of RHA penetration at muzzle), HE (175.45 oz of composition B explosive), HEAT (15.75" of RHA penetration), experimental APFSDS. Above, ballistic data for the APDS round. Above: Detail of the APDS, it's a capped DU penetrator with a ballistic cap and wobble cap (also DU), in an aluminum sabot. Above: Penetration data for the APDS Above: Detail of the HEAT, high pressure. Above, detail of the HE munition. d. Ammo stowage arrangement: 42 rounds total. Primary/ready stowage, 18 rounds in belt type auto-loader on bustle, selectable ammo and capable of changing/unloading rounds, capable of being internally re-stocked from both the commander and gunner postions. Secondary stowage, 24 rounds in 4X6 sealed bins, two in front and to the sides of the turret basket inside the fuel tanks, two on the sides and rear of the turret basket inside water tanks. Primary stowage has blow-off panels on the roof and blast door separation it from the crew compartment. Secondary stowage is in individualized sealed bins surrounded by fluid. e. FCS: Primary FCS: Ballistic computer connected to active 2 axis stabilizer, laser range finder, day gunner sight and IR gunner sight, automatically adjust elevation and point of impact after a range measure is "locked". Secondary FCS: Gun Slaved to backup optical range finder f. Neat features: Muzzle Brake, provision for extra coaxial MG, or optic sight, insulation thermal sleeve, growth potential. 3. Secondary weapon: 3x GPMG, .30 caliber, one on the gunner's cupola track, one in a the rear bustle for dismounted troops, one remote controlled on commander's periscope/panoramic sight. 2x HMG, .50 caliber, one coaxial on the main gun mantled, one on the commander's cupola track. Exact gun type and total number installed varies and is up to the user. This is more to exemplify the total installation points. a. Type: HMG DShk or M2 or similar. GPMG M240 or similar type. b. Caliber: HMG .50 BMG or similar. GPMG .308/7.62x51mm NATO or similar. c. AP, API, tracer, etc... d. Ammo is stored internally from a single stowage of 1000 rounds belt for the coaxial gun and 2000 rounds belt for the panoramic sight gun. Other guns are fed from externally mounted boxes/pouches contained belts of 100 to 200 rounds. Other boxes/pouches stored internally on the crew compartment on the turret next to the blast wall. e. Coaxial gun is slaved to the main gun and its FCS. Commander's periscope/panoramic-sight gun is remote controlled and stabilized on 2 axis. Other guns are manually controlled and non stabilized. Possible provisions for remote control weapon stations are possible in the future. f. Dismounted troops have access to their own gun on the bustle. Commander has two gun options, one allowing him to fire from a closed hatch. HMG coaxial offers better anti material capability than the usual .30 coaxial on most tanks. Has grow potential for more remote controlled weapon stations an extra coaxial if so desired. 4. Link to Appendix 3 - Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached. B. Optics: 1. Primary gunsight: Gunner has access to a daytime stabilized optic with a 0-10 magnification, a stabilized IR night sight with IR floodlight (located on top of the mantled) with a 0-10 magnification, a laser range finder and a back-up optical rangefinder located on the rear of the turret and shared with the commander. Commander has access to it's own panoramic sight/periscope with day time and IR modes, 0-8 magnification, and the shared backup range finder. 2. Other optics: Gunner and Commander have access to an array of fixed periscopes on their hatches giving a 360° field of view (not counting obstacles.) Driver has access to 3 periscopes giving a wide field of view. C. FCS: 1. List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture. a. Gunner primary sight, located on the left side of the turret rooftop, enters the crew compartment via a hole behind the armor modules. Daytime optic, connected to ballistic computer, laser range finder and backup optic rangefinder. Stabilized on 1 axis b. Gunner secondary sight, located on the same housing as "a", IR, same functions. c. Commander panoramic sight. Optic and IR combo on same rotating and extensible housing, on the same location as the gunner's sights, but on the right side. Not connected to the FCS per-se, but it's able to "lock" a direction and then command the turret to rotate to that position. Stabilized 2 axis d. Laser range finder and IR illumination unit, located above the mantle, parallel to the gun bore. IR and Visible laser receptors/emitters, 2 IR floodlight on the sides. Permanently fixed to mantle and passively stabilized vs the gun stabilization. e. Backup optical rangefinder. Mounted on the back of the crew compartment, above the blast door and extending to the sides of the turret, outside. Slaved to the gun and its stabilizer. f. Ballistic computer. Based on the electronics of the flight computer of the new crop of guided missiles. Provides adjustment and coordination of the above components, depending on vehicle speed, distance, ballistic behavior of ammo type, vehicle inclination, activelly tries to compensate or dampen vehicle movement, updates reticle for adequate POI and adjust gun and turret position for a "point and shoot". Can be manually overridden. Currently the R&D department is investigating the feasibility of accounting wind and thermal mirages. Computer is located under the gun compartment in the front of the turret basket. 2. Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system. Fightability: 1. Very low profile, smaller target, less change of not only hitting the vehicle but also hitting a vital component. 2. Even lower profile in a hull-down, inclined position with basically no vital components exposed. 3. Great ride quality, guarantees crew comfort, less stress on sensible equipment, less work of the stabilizers and better control of the vehicle in rough terrain. 4. Hunter-Killer capability allows for more efficiency of the crew, better situational awareness and quicker reaction times. 5. Good crew survivability, guarantees the safety of investment in terms of money and money spent on training a professional crew as well as safeguarding the data they collected even in the case of a defeat. 6. Good offensive capability and flexibility when dealing with multiple unarmored targets. 7. Good serviceability/repairability on the shop or on the field. Even complex to repair or single-use systems can be replaced on the field as a "Plug and play" affair. 8. Great endurance in terms of crew livability and ammo/fuel/supplies. Guarantees longer top-performance period for the crew as well as increased survival changes in case of being removed from the logistical supply chain. 9. Multi fuel capability in a known and well understood engine format, features that facilitate logistics and possibly foraging. 10. While not a currently widespread threat, laser guided ATM are a possibility and the design team considered prudent to not just rely on passive defenses but take a more pro-active aproach and include a IR dazzle feature in the two IR flood lights. 11. The auto-loader design allows for the replenishment of the ammo supply from an external source without the need for the crew to leave the interior of the vehicle. While not ideal, and somewhat cumbersome it offers the possibility to do so while the crew remains in a near-ready condition. Additional Features: 1. As previously mentioned the modular nature of the composite armor modules allow not only for easier repairs and potentially avoiding the need to refurbish a whole macro component (turret and hull), but also allows to tailor the protection to the needs faced on the theater of operation. For example the arrays can be changed from light NERA to heavy NERA, a combination of both, or a combination with ERA. This also means that long range transport can be facilitated as the tank can be broken down into the tank proper and some armor modules in case there is a weight limitation. 2. The vehicle has growth potential as one of its mission goals. The modular armor, the multi-fuel system, the large caliber gun, etc. There have been some interesting researches into smooth bores and APFSDS, semi combustible cases, higher operating pressures and exotic materials, and while the design team felt those new technologies aren't mature enough to be incorporated into the current entry, nothing stops the user to request a upgrade of the weapon's system's in the future, without major changes to the rest of the vehicle. The same goes for the Free expression zone: This project is dedicated to one of our best engineers that passed away recently due to "circumstances". The project is also dedicated to our chief engineers Dr. Eneas PS: If necessary the blueprints for the vehicle or any component can be provided to the competition judges.
  2. This thing makes the Brazilian Nuclear submarine development looks easy and smooth by comparison. But what baffles me the most is not that this is a bad vehicle, but that Indians themselves defend it. Why? Why defend something you know is shit, bad for the country you say you love? Every nation has made some POS equipment before, but to defend it because muh national pride is ridiculous.
  3. I'm basically ready, I just need to correct my mantlet because LMAO cleft turret and late modeled autoloader. So I might need one more day. Toxn's tank looks really good, nice weight management.
  4. Those sights should be buried in the armor block, so I don't think it's too much of a weak spot. Also it's early similar to my own turret design. Also so are we saying that the Challenger 3 has a Leo turret made to look like Challenger 2 because... bongs? LMAO
  5. MUH NERA Birgus, (or Lynx, don't know yet the name) the Fulda Gap fever dream:
  6. ^ I rest my case Stealth is myth guys. It's not that I'm too dumb to understand the concept and do my own research.
  7. Stealth obsolete confirmed! Also LOS is not unreasonable for most competitors, specially given the ground pressure requirements. Maybe we should have used interleaving wheels as the master race figured out many decades ago.
  8. Yes, it's at least a functional tank that added value after it rolled off the production line instead of subtracting it. I alsi mentioned only a gun and a plane for obvious reasons.
  9. Why can't you wehraboos fucks simp for actually decent G*rm stuff like the FW-190 and the FG-42? Instead you always put the hot trash in the pedestal instead as if you drinking ze-propaganda-b koolaid laced with pervitin about the wunderwaffe.
  10. Don't mock the superior rifled two-piece ammo... in the end the bongs were right APFSDS is just solid shot!
  11. Does the AUG or F2000 pull sideways because of the location of their gas pistons? No. Whatever thrust you have on the gun will be too close to axis of the barrel to matter recoil wise... climb more specifically. Location of the thrust imparted to the operating system does matter, but in terms of keeping the carrier (or whatever similar component you have) from tilting and causing stress and wear, ideally you want the trust be as in line as possible with the bolt or bearing surfaces. The reason why most machine guns have their gas system on the underside is to free up space for the belt feeding mechanism, there are exceptions however.
  12. Ah thanks, I needed the properly terminology for the APE. I need to check the DE back because I'm pretty sure it was a spring loaded pluger, not unlike yours on the Steyr claw... the DE really is an interesting gun, completely stupid and unpractical, but god it's cool and worth having one for the cool and engineering factor. The F7? That thing with the gigantic lower and the upper being basically a rail segment with a ring for the barrel? I love that stupid thing. It's certainly an easier approach than to overmold and entire proper skeleton like HK should have done, fine tuning it for rigidity would be interesting, but then the aim clearly isn't for it to be a benchrest gun.
  13. I've heard before of the threat prohibiting weapons in the region and assumed that 1: it's BS and 2: If it wasn't no one would give a crap because it's stupid... reality sure can be weird.
  14. Yeah, a lifting chamber is pretty much granted. But there are several ways to accomplish it... it would be hilarious if in the final iteration of their design they went for a Steyr ACR style with the locking roller. They certainly got rid of some of the bulk, that little protrusion near the magwell is gone in the last gun they showed us.
  15. Really impressed by the F-4, very clever layout, specially the offset recoil spring and guide rod assembly, as well as the asymmetrical lugs, the use of the Desert Eagle anti-rotation device (did it appear in other guns before? As said on these forums, the Tavor is similar, but it uses the guide rod instead of a dedicated spring loaded plunger.) Thanks for sharing your design, it was very useful to me as it showed the strengths and weaknesses of my own design. Keep on the good work. Only thing I didn't really like on your design is the lack of space magic BS... you need to shove some isogrids and cast Be alloy parts in there just to spite the people that have to build the thing.
  16. Yes, I have read the paper, but it has been a while so I probably forgotten stuff, so a re-reading is in order. That goes for the interview as well. I knew Textron was using a compacted powder bed, but it sounded so weird I wanted confirmation. Doing probably simplifies the molding process and does not lock you into a specific bullet shape. I think I'm starting to understand the reasoning behind it. As for the action displayed, I'm also aware of them. To be frank I haven't paid much attention on the LSAT or MGs in general, more interest on the rifle and rifles in general. That VPN's animation sure is handy in explaining the concept, but he based it off the first part of the patent, the one that just displays the idea of a rising chamber and rammer, without the so called headspacing solutions. As it's I guess you can get away with just sizing the chamber and case just right, specially if one remembers cases also expand axially not just radially. But actually forcing the case to mate against the barrel would make a better consistent seal and would lax the fitment of the actual chamber. After all they went to the trouble to patent it... but maybe they can get away without using nay of those, other designs did like the Steyr ACR. Other people, with extensive knowledge of firearms and engineering and which are keeping track of the program, which I have spoken questioned the accuracy of the animation "That animation is hilariously incorrect"... and considering how misleading and vague patents can be I will keep it as a possibility, but neither will take his word as gospel because no further confirmation was provided. In anyways, thanks for the info and for clarifying the point about the seating. I will be sure to re-read the paper and the interview.
  17. Awseome, thank very much... now to the dissection table! PS: It's so SO good to see proper 1913 rails modelled properly... no weird angles, heights or other BS.
  18. Yeah... at a first glance it doesn't look good. I still wonder what kind of freestyle accounting is going on at Haenel for an AR style gun being cheaper than a gun with an extruded upper and injection molded plastic lower. Albeit that is only part of the equation for a contract like this.
  19. I don't think anybody was expecting that result, myself included. From what I could gather from the news and from talking people in the gun industry and German speakers it appears to be solely a case of "it meets the requirements... and is cheaper"... which itself raises questions about the result, considering the size and ownership of Haenel, some even going as far as calling it a shell company for Caracal. How much of that is true or just "foreigner man bad" I don't know. As for the rifle it's quite sad to see a new design fail, even if it also met the requirements. For the Haenel I've heard that it's heritage goes both ways "designed by the same team that did the hk416 and Sig" or "A clone of a clone". Let's see what legal sheenanigans will happen next.
  20. So, for a while I've fascinated about Cased Telescoped Ammunition (CT ammo for those weird people that like acronyms), after, of course, laughing at the idea like any uninitiated simpleton (dum fix wat aint broke!) until I actually understood the idea and a presentable firearm came along and caught my interest, the current iteration of the Textron carbine/rifle/whatever in the NGSW program... because until this point all small arms examples were either goofy as fuck (Dardick), stillborn (Ares AIWS), or weirdly specific (Steyr ACR being and open "bolt" flechette gun.) Then I researched and talked to knowledge people and comprehended the advantages of the concept, along with plastic cartridge cases: The near total elimination of small parts and movements from a gun's action, now using simple large parts and gross movements, the controlled nature of the feeding and ejection cycle, the cartridge case being fully supported in the chamber which allows for simpler design and analysis along with higher pressures, a more compact design (albeit highly dependent on the external constraints and capacity and projectile proportions), a potentially much simpler and stronger breech and locking mechanism, sealed ammunition, cannelure free sleek bullets, no more worries about hardened penetrators tips eroding the finish of the gun's inside, the ability for the gun to be able to function even with a severe misalignment of the chamber and barrel, etc... In short I was sold on the concept. Yet... I never quite understood a few, small and not very often talked details about this type of ammunition configuration. So I kept researching, learned a few things, saw the historical development, older takes on the idea, which also raised more questions: The first being, how is the projectile seated in the current version of Textron's Cased Telescoped ammunition? As you can see the only solid point of contact the bullet has is of the ogive on the cap, which stops it from going forwards under handling and provides both a seal of the powder chamber and pressure for the shot start... but nothing apparently stops the bullet from going further inside the case. From what I could gather talking with another engineer and gunsmith that did research on the subject, the bullet apparently is seated on a bed of compressed spherical powder... that.. can work... I guess... but it sounds extremely questionable, specially in regards with consistency, but perhaps it work. But that is not the only reason I'm questioning this detail: As you can see on this patent by Eugene Stoner the cartridge has the same sort of contact of the cap and ogive, but the bullet base also rests on three ribs/webs (technical terms are the hardest part of translation.) Those "things" also apparently serve to improve flow of the plastic during injection molding and to strengthen the case at a minimal internal capacity penalty This way of doing things seems like the natural and proper way of seating a bullet, solidly and repeatably... so the Textron version looked so weird I imagined they were gluing the bullet like True Velocity possible does on their ammo, they aren't also using the canellure or other type of groove to secure the bullet (not that it would be a good idea)... so why did Textron opted for what they are using? Reality often is unintuitive as fuck so there must be a reason for that. Other big question I always had was how exactly the obvious issue of gas leakeage, analogous with a revolver, and all the bad joojoo that issue brings was going to be corrected. Thankfully that question was partially answered by the well known Textron's patent for the operating mechanism, were they explore all sorts of solutions for this problem. The basic idea is to squeeze the case against the barrel so as to close the gap. Of all their solutions, the one that uses a bolt seems like the more reasonable one (the other ones involves a screw-on breech or a ratcheting mechanism...) The only issue left on this aspect is what sort of mechanism Textron is currently using... hope they win so we will know. If more people could shine a light into those finer details I would greatly appreciate their help. Stoner's Patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4770098A/en Textron's patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9267772 And https://patents.google.com/patent/US9267772
  21. I really need to dust off and copy, fully embrace the tism and actually beat the first couple of missions, I always so the concept as immensely cool but never had to time to commit fully.
  22. It's a shame that most useful gun files, including yours, have been yeeted from Grabcad... if it's not asking much it would be awesome if the F4 files were reuploaded, perhaps in a cloud or something like it. Regardless of that I would like to thank you Sturgeon for all of your work so, it has been a great inspiration for me, specially in regards to more aerodynamically efficient projectiles... so much so my final ME bachelor's project has been on the subject. You also inspired me to try to make my own rifles, if anything it's a great exercise in modeling and material selection, it also highlights what I need to improve. I hope I can post my work in another thread for it to be thoroughly shredded and I can beat the dumb out of the design and myself. Also... I cannot stress enough Sturgeon's points on charging handles and dust covers: Fuck those things.
×
×
  • Create New...