Sten

Maybe people don't enjoy inane questions of people way out of their depth... which is actually fine we all start ignorant, but the laziness and stubbornness does it. We don't like to spoonfeed people.

Search for "Drug something something .50" and "Bullet tip color code" and then draw your own conclusions.

It's far from their most common weaponry, but if even stuff like this is apreheanded every month in Brazil it's safe to say it's far far more common in Mexico or whatever...

45 minutes ago, delete013 said:

@N-L-M

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?

WEW! Ugly cope...

Excessive protection achievement unlocked.

 

I basically looked at the requirements and said "... sounds reasonable... now how I stop a Kornet?"

 

Cost issue is a fair point and I'm never doing a conical onion NERA array... official protest is "We can make square modules."

 

On the IR floodlights being an issue, yes. But as far as I understand FLIR wasn't an option, and it was standard for tanks to have those in the past, I'm pretty sure one could simply cover or turn them off.

 

Curious about what the weakspots in the armor are. Not complaining, but wonder what escaped my attention.

 

Also I'm happy it wasn't overweight, that was my main concern after I committed to borderline meme

My opinion has expressed elsewhere, but not here.

 

I think it would be really interesting to do planes. My favorite are late WW2 superpro stuff, but you need to go specially deep into the engine autism as well and propellers, those things were crazy optimized. Earlier jets, for me aren't as interesting, but they are simpler, add power and it flies... see the Vampire, Salamander, those wacky Yaks and other abominations. We could perhaps bridge the gap with turboprops for COIN or something.

 

Alternatively It would also be interesting to see ships of some sort, albeit the amount of detailing autism for even smaller ships is daunting. Perhaps a PT boat of sorts... just throwing ideas.

45 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Ok, let's exchange these views and see how they compare to my point of view. How should I correct my ways?

Ok, so here is a tutorial of how to do that:

• 1: Invest in $ROPE
• 2: Receive your $ROPE
• 3: Use it
• 4: ????
• 5: PROFIT!

Whine more

 

Also

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing

 

3 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Neither did I deny my error, nor have I blamed it on Russians. You failed to understand the written or feign ignorance. Which one is it?

So now you not only is a whinny little bitch, but one of those spineless cowards that say his shit in subtext, then when called out goes "but I never said that which I clearly implied!"

 

You whined you didn't get special treatment and the judges held your held and gave you second change. Then you imply it was was because one the judges is Russian and you never met one without anti-German bias. We then made fun of your retardation, which you now backpedal.

 

You want to be a wehraboo retard? At least own it.

42 minutes ago, delete013 said:

What fault are you talking about?

The fault of failing to read, or ignoring, the requirements for the submissions.

 

Which is LMAO, but would be fine and everyone has days of retardation, but no... you had to whine like the little bitch you are, had to blame on the evil Russians.

It's always someone else's fault isn't it? The Russians... the Jews...

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.

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.

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.

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

MUH NERA

 

Birgus, (or Lynx, don't know yet the name) the Fulda Gap fever dream:

 

^ 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.

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.

Object 775 and K2 kitbashing gogogogo!

 

17 minutes ago, delete013 said:

See thread title.

What should we switch to? Tiger, best tank of ww2?

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.

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.

Don't mock the superior rifled two-piece ammo... in the end the bongs were right APFSDS is just solid shot!

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.

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.

On 9/9/2020 at 9:21 PM, LoooSeR said:

   Photos from frontlines of The Great Sino-Indian War

 

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.

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.

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.