Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

STURGEON'S NOTE: THIS IS JUST FOR FUN, DON'T TAKE IT TOO SERIOUSLY.

 

Toxn's note: what he said. The in-character stuff is just to reflect how these sorts of proposals end up getting bloated all out of proportion as conflicting requirements get tacked on by committees. I'll also try to provide clarity on the requirements themselves as we go along, so ask away.

 

staq1mj.jpg

 

With a slew of regional conflicts threatening to metastasise and military expenditure rising for the first time in decades, military planners are once again pondering the role of AFVs on the modern battlefield. Recent conflicts seem to indicate that armed forces may be faced with lengthy conflicts in urban and peri-urban areas - places where tight confines and large numbers of anti-tank weapons have resulted in attritional warfare. In other areas, more open terrain has favoured the use of man-portable ATGMs against armoured elements. Finally, there has been a long-standing trend towards the use of IEDs and, on the other end of the scale, ever more sophisticated autonomous and semi-autonomous platforms as methods for inflicting casualties upon mechanised and armour forces.

 

These aspects, when combined with a long-standing trend towards more heavily armed and armoured IFV variants, have potentially created a niche for a class of AFV optimised for general combat rather than specific anti-armour or scouting operations. This class of AFV should ideally be air-transportable or air-deployable using existing transport aircraft, be capable of high mobility and survival against infantry-borne weapons, and should be capable of tackling other armed vehicles (up to and including AFVs of a similar configuration) as well as providing infantry support. Other considerations would include the use of the chassis as a basis for a number of specialised variants, the ability to upgrade and retrofit the design during its life cycle and, of course, the cost of the vehicles themselves.

 

As the head of a design team working within a massive defence conglomerate, your task is to come up with a design to pitch to defence departments around the globe. Your basic requirements are as follows:

  • Must be capable of protecting against small arms from all aspects, and must be capable of withstanding 20-30mm autocannon fire across the frontal arc.
  • Must be capable of engaging and defeating existing AFV designs (not including modern MBTs) at modern combat ranges.
  • Must be air-transportable using existing transport aircraft (preferably AC-130 or equivalent) in either a ready-to-run or partially disassembled state.
  • Must be capable of defending against at least one strike by man-portable anti-tank weapons, including ATGMs
  • Must include weaponry or equipment for engaging with dug-in infantry in urban areas
  • Must be capable of defending against mines, roadside bombs and IEDs
  • Must be highly reliable, including servicing at local depots.
  • Must cost the same or less than equivalent systems (around $4 million per unit maximum)
  • Must be capable of off-road travel

Finally, the design must use, wherever possible, existing components and processes in order to minimise development time. As our company specialises in armour arrays (including composites and the like) and electronics, some leeway will be allowed in terms of the armour package and electronic systems. Our extensive contacts within the defence sector mean that any weapon system currently being developed or fielded may plausibly be integrated with our product.

 

Advanced requirements are as follows:

  • May be capable of surviving multiple hits by heavy autocannon (40-60mm) across the frontal arc
  • May be capable of engaging low-flying aircraft and helicopters
  • May be directly air-deployable from existing transport aircraft
  • May be capable of surviving multiple strikes from anti-tank missiles (of all classes) from any angle
  • May include only COTs components
  • May be capable of being serviced in the field.
  • May be in the form of a family of vehicles sharing a common chassis
  • May cost significantly less than equivalent systems (under $3 million per unit)
  • May be capable of extreme off-road travel, including across anti-tank ditches and the like

 

Designs, including at least a picture, description and list of attributes, should be presented by the end of April 2016 for evaluation by a panel of experts. The winning design team will receive a small prize (cash and in-game currency for one of a number of games discussed on this forum) and the adulation of millions of imaginary fans.

 

Good luck!

 

pzdPUvs.jpg

 

IMPORTANT OOC NOTE:

 

The in-character post is sort of supposed to be maddening, as it reflects the tendency to propose a lightweight expeditionary vehicle (the absolute requirements viewed loosely) and then have everyone shove more and more stuff in until it turns into an MBT with an autocannon on top.  The absolute versus optional requirements (some of which simply cannot be reconciled) indicate this.

 

I advise the contestants to look at the trends (including real-life ones that I may not have examined in any detail) and pick their guiding philosophy - bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a vehicle for infantry support and general combat against anything smaller than an MBT. From there you should try to fulfil all of the absolute requirements (some leeway is allowed) and then argue the optional requirements as needed.

 

Above all - have fun!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

3ds Max isn't very nice for telling you how much something will weigh and all that jazz, so I'm probably just going submit eye candy with backstory tacked on.  That was pretty much my original goal an

FINAL VERSION CARACAL MMEV A MEDIUM TANK FOR THE MODERN AGE THE HONDENAAIER INDUSTRIES, LTD. CARACAL MEDIUM MULTIPURPOSE EXPEDITIONARY VEHICLE Hondenaaier Ind., Ltd. is proud to present its new

Thanks for the welcome.     The name "Stormpanser" means something close to "Assault armor" when translated from Norwegian into English.   And:   Germanic languages: German: Panzer Swedish: P

Questions and comments:

1. Defending against ATGMs seems to indicate MBT-level protection. Maybe dropping this requirement or allowing loose interpretations of it would be well-advised.

2. "Defend against 20-30mm cannons across the frontal arc; pretty sure I get what you mean by this, but it would be worth clarifying. Are we to defend against 25mm APFSDS, for example, or just 30mm HEDP?

3. "Defend against mines/IEDs", what kind and to what degree? Are we designing an MRAP or a lightweight transportable expeditionary tank? Those are two different requirements sets. If it's up to interpretation, that's fine, but make a note of that. Your post is entirely in-character, and I think generally could use an OOC section where you let us know how rigidly you want the requirements interpreted.

Otherwise, I like it, and will be making a submission. Unless you need me as a judge, that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reserved for bringing back the Teledyne Expeditionary Vehicle.

 

OK, I have come up with my design.  I'm going to use the hull of the old Teledyne Expeditionary vehicle since it has powertrain commonality with the Bradley family of vehicles and because it was originally designed to fit in a C-130.  Instead of the 105mm overhead gun, I'm going to put the 30mm remote gun station recently developed for the Stryker on this vehicle.  Maybe mount an ATGM on the turret as well if needed.  Cost permitting, I would mount the israeli trophy anti missile system on it to provide active protection against missiles. Modern camera and electronics equipment will help compensate for some of the situational awareness issues that the crew suffered from on the original version of the vehicle.  in a way, it would be a bit of a mini-armata, the two crew in the hull, sitting under the remote turret.  

 

There is no way I am going to get frontal arc protection against 20-30mm cannons on this thing and still be within the weight rules.  Therefore, probably some sort of modular armor that can be flown in separately and later attached will be included to meet this requirement.  

 

All in all, this would make a nice little light tank.  However, there really is nothing it could do that an IFV couldn't, other than be air portable.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my starter worksheet for you guys, feel free to work off it:

 

 

 

C-130 cargo hold:
 
length, 40 feet (12.19 m); width, 119 inches (3.02 m); height, 9 
 
feet (2.74 m). Rear ramp: length, 123 inches (3.12 m); width, 
 
119 inches (3.02 m)
 
C-130 maximum payload weight:
 
20.40 tonnes
 
---
 
C-130J cargo hold:
 
length, 55 feet (16.76 m); width, 119 inches (3.02 m); height, 9 
 
feet (2.74 m). Rear ramp: length, 123 inches (3.12 m); width, 
 
119 inches (3.02 m)
 
C-130J maximum payload weight:
 
19.96 tonnes
 
---
 
"Small" goal:
 
8.65 tonnes
 
max 8 meters length, 3 meters width, 2.7 meters height, stowed
 
"Medium" goal:
 
17.3 tonnes
 
max 12 meters length, 3 meters width, 2.7 meters height, stowed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions and comments:

1. Defending against ATGMs seems to indicate MBT-level protection. Maybe dropping this requirement or allowing loose interpretations of it would be well-advised.

 

The absolute requirement is for something like an RPG or second-generation ATGM (ie: no tandem warheads or top attack). The optional requirement is for anything from a vampir to a hellfire. You can, as I mention below, argue some of the 'absolute' requirements away if they simply cannot be reconciled with each other. 

2. "Defend against 20-30mm cannons across the frontal arc; pretty sure I get what you mean by this, but it would be worth clarifying. Are we to defend against 25mm APFSDS, for example, or just 30mm HEDP?

 

20-30mm cannon fire would, in this case, mean AP or HEDP. The optional requirement for 40mm is for the hot stuff, of course. 

3. "Defend against mines/IEDs", what kind and to what degree? Are we designing an MRAP or a lightweight transportable expeditionary tank? Those are two different requirements sets. If it's up to interpretation, that's fine, but make a note of that. Your post is entirely in-character, and I think generally could use an OOC section where you let us know how rigidly you want the requirements interpreted.

 

See below, but the absolute requirement would be for something capable of hitting a mine and keeping the crew alive if nothing else. I personally can't forsee a future conflict where mines and IEDs aren't a big part of the mix one way or the other, but you may have a different opinion.

Otherwise, I like it, and will be making a submission. Unless you need me as a judge, that is.

 

The judges (you know who you are) should note that they can enter the competition - they will just be judged by the rest of the panel and a temporary judge. I will enter a submission strictly as a joke.

 

IMPORTANT OOC NOTE:

 

The in-character post is sort of supposed to be maddening, as it reflects the tendency to propose a lightweight expeditionary vehicle (the absolute requirements) and then have everyone shove more and more stuff in until it turns into an MBT with an autocannon on top.  The absolute versus optional requirements (some of which simply cannot be reconciled) indicate this.

 

I advise the contestants to look at the trends (including real-life ones that I may not have examined in any detail) and pick their guiding philosophy - bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a vehicle for infantry support and general combat against anything smaller than an MBT. From there you should try to fulfil all of the absolute requirements (some leeway is allowed) and then argue the optional requirements as needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, what transport does it have to fit in? C-130?

C-130 would be ideal, but it is also the grave of a bunch of these sorts of concepts.

 

Argue for another transport if you need to, but also remember that the absolute requirement allows plenty of weasel room for (for instance) shipping the thing without armour packages or in a state that requires some re-assembly before the vehicle is combat-ready.

 

You should, if you stretch things very cleverly, be able to propose something bumping up to the same weight class as a medium tank from WWII.

 

You can also, if you're feeling it, argue that the expeditionary requirements are useless and design something else entirely. Just bear in mind the spirit of the thing and, you know, provide the actual arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

C-130 would be ideal, but it is also the grave of a bunch of these sorts of concepts.

 

Argue for another transport if you need to, but also remember that the absolute requirement allows plenty of weasel room for (for instance) shipping the thing without armour packages or in a state that requires some re-assembly before the vehicle is combat-ready.

 

You should, if you stretch things very cleverly, be able to propose something bumping up to the same weight class as a medium tank from WWII.

 

You can also, if you're feeling it, argue that the expeditionary requirements are useless and design something else entirely. Just bear in mind the spirit of the thing and, you know, provide the actual arguments.

 

OK, thanks. That means the weasel room is deliberately built-in, and I sound like a sperglord wearing a denim skirt and asking the teacher for homework. Gotcha.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • By Toxn
      This is the competition entry thread.
       
      Please submit your complete entries here (all entries will be judged complete when judging begins in the first week of November) and keep the other competition thread for discussion and chatter.
       
      Once judging is complete I will make a post here to discuss the entries and announce a winner.
       
      Best of luck!
       
      Update: final submissions should be in hand by the 22nd of November 2020.
    • By Toxn
      You are an engineer at an Italian locomotive and tractor-making company in early 1943. The writing is on the wall for the Italian army in North Africa, with a lot of equipment having been lost and the enemy on the brink of kicking the axis out of Tunisia and then heading across the Mediterranean. In short, things are looking more than a little desperate. 
       
      However, all is not lost. Il Duce himself has stepped in and, with the assistance of the Germans, procured both some of their finest captured vehicles for use in the upcoming defense of the homeland. Since many of these vehicles have been... gently used, and the existing firms like Ansaldo are flooded with orders, your firm has been asked to work on them in order to bring them up to the standards demanded by modern warfare. 
       
      In addition to these vehicles, the Germans have also graciously agreed to sell weapons from their existing stock of captured equipment, as well as providing production licenses for some of their more modern equipment. You have also been given permission to work with local weapons manufacturers in order to modify existing artillery to suit your needs. Italian automotive and engine manufacturers are similarly available to help. Finally; your firm's experience in locomotives and tractors means that you can modify hulls and put together turrets and turret rings. You can also produce castings (although not very large ones) and weld armour plates.
       
      Your job, which you have no choice but to accept, is to choose a vehicle from among the captured stock being offered for sale, and propose a series of plausible fixes in order to give it a fighting chance against the American and British equipment currently in the field (specifically light tanks and light anti-tank weapons).
       
      It is not foreseen that any of these vehicles will be able to plausibly take on modern medium or heavy designs head-on. Instead, what is wanted are general, implementable improvements to the characteristics of the chosen vehicle. These improvements should be aimed at making these vehicles more useful in the initial battles which are foreseen taking place against airborne and landing forces, in general cooperation with infantry, and as scouts.
       
      The submission should include one or more drawings or blueprints (at least a side view of the vehicle, but preferably a 3-point view and isometric view), a description of the modified vehicle, a description of how the modifications would be accomplished and a description of how the modifications would improve the design overall. The text of the submission should short and descriptive rather than long and exhaustive, and should not exceed 1000 words in total. Images may be photoshopped using existing pictures.
       
      Judging will be done on the basis of plausibility and effectiveness, with innovative solutions being encouraged in order to get the most bang for buck out of the base vehicle. Beyond implementation, the fixes should prioritise combat effectiveness while also improving reliability, crew ergonomics, communication, mobility and protection as much as possible.
       
      The foreign vehicles available for modification are:
      Renault R35 (already in service) Hotchkiss H35/39 Somua S35 (already in use for training purposes) T-26 BT-5 T-28 (only available in very small numbers, so need to be extremely effective) Panzer II Ausf.C  
      The foreign weapons immediately available for purchase are:
      15mm ZB-60 25mm Puteaux and Hotchkiss 3.7cm KPÚV vz. 34/Pak 34 (t) 3.7cm ÚV vz. 38/KwK 38(t)
      3.7cm Pak 36 4.0 cm Pak 192 (e) 45mm M1937 (53-K) 4.7cm KPÚV vz. 38/Pak 38 (t) 47mm APX 7.5cm Pak 97/38 7.62 cm F.K.297(r) and  7.62 cm PaK 39(r) 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 43  
      Licenses are also available for the manufacture of foreign engines (Maybach HL62 TRM, Maybach HL120 TRM and Praga Typ TNHPS/II), periscopes, sights, radios, cupolas and automotive subassemblies. All foreign vehicle weapons, subassemblies and components are available for reverse engineering and manufacture.
       
      IMPORTANT NOTE: This competition hasn't been finalised, and is waiting on your input! Vote to participate by giving this topic a 'controversial' (grapefruit-induced tears being the only currency of value), and if we get enough participants we'll pull the trigger. Ask any questions you want below, and when/if the competition goes forwards I will make a new thread for entries.
       
      Edit: thanks to excellent feedback, the competition proposal has been somewhat edited. If you want an idea of what my mindset is here, read up on the battle of Gela (bearing in mind that the wikipedia entry is shite) and ask how much better the counter-attack could have gone if the Italian vehicles had been equipped with radios and had the ability to move faster than jogging speed.
       
      Edit 2: since I failed to mention this above - this is not a one-man, one-entry sort of competition (although I'm not keen on the ten-men, one entry approach either).
      If you have two good ideas then you can submit twice. The only rules are not to test my patience and to keep it within the bounds of good taste.
    • By Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
       
       
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
       
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.

×
×
  • Create New...