Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • 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

Question - first picture shows 119.5 inches and 123.2 inches cargo compartment width. Which one should be used?  

 

119.5 I think is the more important restriction.  The cargo hold pinches in where the wheels retract, which is fairly close to the ramp.  I think for a heavy load like an AFV you would have to get the weight slightly ahead of the MAC of the wing, otherwise you'll destabilize the plane.

Link to post
Share on other sites

119.5 I think is the more important restriction.  The cargo hold pinches in where the wheels retract, which is fairly close to the ramp.  I think for a heavy load like an AFV you would have to get the weight slightly ahead of the MAC of the wing, otherwise you'll destabilize the plane.

Does it mean width restriction for vehicles is just 3 meters? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, after looking at submissions and evaluating them according to basic and advanced requirements, it looks like they are pretty close with small advantage of Bronez design. When i will have clear understanding of the on C-130 cargo space, than result of evaluation would be ready.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A the winner is....

 

The MCS from FCS programm!

fcs-3.jpg?w=656

 

https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/05/16/the-us-future-combat-system-a-new-philosophy-on-mbts/

 

 

   Today I’ll focus on the Mounted Combat System.

 
   The MCS is the “MBT” of the bunch, while not nearly as armored or heavy as current MBT’s it does have some redeeming qualities. While the exact weight is unknown, it should be about 24 to 26 tons. The light weight is a gift for the mobility and as you’d expect, this baby can shift.(in theory anyway) There are no exact figures concerning mobility, but my sources state 60 to 70 km/h. Fortunately the MCS has more qualities, it was planned to pack a whopping 120mm smoothbore. This gun was allegedly able to penetrate the Russian T-90 at ranges up to 8 km.
 
   So, it scores good in the mobility and firepower categories, there must be a downside now right?
 
   Well, yes and no. While the armor isn’t very good for a MBT it isn’t nearly as bad as you’d expect for 26 tons.
 
   The MCS can provide all-around protection against mines, which is a big plus for the crews. It’s also able to stop even the newest types of RPG’s and it can stop quick-firing cannon shells up to a caliber of 30 mm. In fact, The front protection is better than the sides of the Abrams. The tank won’t bounce the Russian big boy 125 mm, but it’ll do fine against aged tanks and most standard AT equipment.
 
   But what advantages does such a light MBT have? Well, these tanks were planned to be transported to the battlefield using C-130 transports. The weight allowed one tank per plane.

:ian:

Link to post
Share on other sites

THE COUNCIL OF JUDGES HAS DECIDED:
 

Colli's picks:

 

1)  LCARV

2)  Switchblade

3)  Caracal

 

LoooSeR's picks:

 

1)  Caracal

2)  Slimmie

3)  LCARV

 

Jeep's picks:

 

1)  Slimmie

2)  Caracal

3)  Plesen

 

Caracal shows up on all three lists.  LCARV and Slimmie show up on two out of three lists, but Slimmie gets a first and a second while LCARV gets a first and a third.  Plesen and Switchblade only show up once.

 

So, Caracal gets #1, Slimmie gets #2 and LCARV gets #3

 

 

Judges' comments to follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Colli's comments:

 

 

In general, the entries were extremely close and we were really blown away with the amount of effort and detail that went into all of them.

 

 

Caracal

 

Judges' reception of the Caracal was initially cool, but it eventually proved a solid entry across the board and clawed its way to first place more through consistent scoring across the board than any single killer feature.  But this doesn't mean we didn't have questions:

 

First and foremost, WTF is up with the torsion bar design on Caracal?  The centerline of the torsion bars is several inches up into the hull:

 

bFPm9Rx.jpg

 

That's not exactly wasting space; you can put things like batteries or energy-absorbing material to protect against mines, but it has to be small things that can nestle between the torsion bars.  Big things cannot reach to the hull floor; most importantly this makes the turret basket more shallow and makes it harder to cram in dudes.  In most AFV designs with torsion bars the bars hug the very bottom of the hull.  In T-72 and Armata, the bars are in pods that are basically under the main hull and practically separated from the fighting compartment:

 

tumblr_neu3qtV6WM1r94kvzo1_1280.jpg

SvzNi.png

 

And AMX-30 has a reversed third road wheel swing arm to move the torsion bar back far enough that it clears the turret basket:

 

MzuCl5k.jpg

 

And this picture of the Abrams assembly line shows that the torsion bars in that design, while not protruding from the hull, are basically mounted as low as the swing arm pivot assembly will allow, with only the front idler wheel elevated:

 

Abrams_00.jpg

 

I found this most irksome, but the fact that I was able to catch it at all is because of the extreme rigor and effort that went into completely modelling the design in Solidworks.

 

I am skeptical of the barrel life of a large, telescoped caseless 75mm gun.  Telescoped ammunition has problems in this area.

 

Like the other designs, the Caracal goes above and beyond the anti-infantry in defilade requirement.  Infantry in trenches would die horribly against any of these designs.  How well do programmable fuse munitions work in the real world?  Given the prevalence of dug-in infantry popping tanks with ATGMs in the Syrian War, programmable fuse munitions may become a must-have to armies looking to maintain their edge.

 

The mine protection of the Caracal is a glorious brute-force approach.  The floor of the tank is twice as thick as an M60.

 

This was the only design that was described as being able to improve its protection with an APS, aside from Switchblade 2 which has APS built in.

 

Mobility factors look good for Caracal.  Even with full ERA packages it has 31 HP/tonne, which compares favorably with the 24.3 of the Textron scorpion II.  Nominal ground pressure is 77.7 KPA, which is better than a Leo 2 at 81.4.  Ground clearance is the only unspectacular parameter; with somewhat less clearance than most MBTs.

 

Re-use of M2 Bradley components is a plus for serviceability, especially given that the proposed next-gen M109s are all based on Bradley components.

 

 

LCARV

 

 

This was my top pick.  Like Caracal, it really didn't win us over at first glance.  However, further examination showed that a whole lot of work had gone into the design and that it had a lot of good ideas.

 

The features I really liked were the insanely small silhouette when hull down, the insanely low nominal ground pressure of 44.5 KPA, which is lower than an early model M113, and excellent specific power of 33 HP/tonne.

 

With some elbow grease this design could conceivably fit into a C-130J, and would fit comfortably into Embraer's new KC-390 transport.

 

The tactical and strategic mobility factors are just excellent in general.

 

This is the design I felt had the worst protection, especially from the sides.

 

Rooibaadje

 

This was the early favorite when LoooSeR and I discussed the designs on teamspeak.  The mortar primary armament is a fascinating concept, and allows very heavy firepower and a reasonable ammo load to be crammed into a small, light vehicle.  The range overmatch, and ability to take out ATGMs from outside line of sight looks like an enormous improvement to survivability.

 

After it was explained to me, I quite like the mine protection scheme.

 

The biggest downside of this vehicle is the ground pressure.  At 111 KPA NGP, it has quite a bit less flotation than even MBTs.  Specific power was the lowest of all entries, but still insanely high by real-world standards at 27 HP/tonne.

 

Plesen

 

 

The first thing that jumped out at me is that it's armed with a 100mm rapira with a "T-72 style autoloader."  I don't think this could work; rapira uses one-piece ammo, 2A46 uses two-piece ammo.  Also, I don't know that the rapira's ammo is any smaller.  Thing is gigantic:

 

pushka-mt-12-rapira-02.jpg

 

In fact, if I recall, a large impetus for the development of the U-5TS was the fact that rapira ammo was too long to maneuver inside a Soviet soup-bowl style turret.

 

But other than that, it's a hell of a gun and this entry had the greatest direct fire firepower.

 

Mine protection seems absent.

 

Mobility looks good; a little more specific power than the Caracal and a little more ground pressure.

 

This was the only design with a remote weapon station, a point LoooSeR and I both liked.

 

This design was described as having an ERA up-armor package, even though it wasn't shown modelled.  I liked that.

 

Switchblade 2

 

 

Firstoff, how exactly does this thing steer?  Does it skid-steer like those weird French wheeled AFVs?  Just looking at the picture, I saw no obvious way for the wheels to be steered.

 

I did like the attention to detail in the description of the powertrain.  A hydraulic powertrain would go a long way in ameliorating the lack of space that is usually a problem in wheeled AFVs.  Tracked AFVs have much more complex transmissions, but they only need to deliver power to the drive sprocket.  Wheeled AFVs need power shafts running to each of their axles, which seriously cuts into the available internal space.  Using a hydraulic power distribution system could help a lot free up space inside and give better ground clearance (which evidently it does; Switchblade 2 has ground clearance matched only by MBTs).

 

I felt that it being wheeled would give it an edge in serviceability; wheels simply don't wear out as quickly as tracks do.  Power to weight is nuts; 42 HP/tonne puts a centauro to shame by nearly a factor of two.  However, wheels, even 10x10 vehicles have higher ground pressure than tracks, and Switchblade is not stated to have a central tire inflation system.

 

Inclusion of APS as standard is forward-looking.

 

I'm dubious of the camera mounting; it looks snag prone and seems to offer little over an array of fixed cameras.

 

I do like the crew layout; it seems like a good way to keep silhouette down.

 

This design does fit reasonably into a C-130J without any huffing and puffing, which is very nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After it was explained to me, I quite like the mine protection scheme.

To elaborate on that slightly:

The fuel tank is located underneath the transmission and engine, directly above the hull floor. It might seem like a silly place to put your fuel. I mean, what would happen if it drove over an EFP mine? Wouldn't the tank rupture and burn horribly?

 

No, liquids serve as a pretty nice counter to EFPs (Afaik the Chinese have experimented with NERA with diesel instead of rubber). This means I don't have to experiment with hull floor ERA to protect against dug in HEAT warheads. The fuel tank will do that for me.

 

And of course a slight V-hull (10°) to prevent the hull floor from buckling due to an explosion.

 

 

 

This was the only design with a remote weapon station, a point LoooSeR and I both liked.

WHAT? I'M SORRY? MY WHOLE TURRET IS A REMOTE WEAPON SYSTEM.

:ian:

 

Yes I know you're talking about a smaller RCWS for MGs  :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Colli's comments:

 

 

In general, the entries were extremely close and we were really blown away with the amount of effort and detail that went into all of them.

 

 

Caracal

 

Judges' reception of the Caracal was initially cool, but it eventually proved a solid entry across the board and clawed its way to first place more through consistent scoring across the board than any single killer feature.  But this doesn't mean we didn't have questions:

 

First and foremost, WTF is up with the torsion bar design on Caracal?  The centerline of the torsion bars is several inches up into the hull:

 

bFPm9Rx.jpg

 

That's not exactly wasting space; you can put things like batteries or energy-absorbing material to protect against mines, but it has to be small things that can nestle between the torsion bars.  Big things cannot reach to the hull floor; most importantly this makes the turret basket more shallow and makes it harder to cram in dudes.  In most AFV designs with torsion bars the bars hug the very bottom of the hull.  In T-72 and Armata, the bars are in pods that are basically under the main hull and practically separated from the fighting compartment:

 

tumblr_neu3qtV6WM1r94kvzo1_1280.jpg

SvzNi.png

 

And AMX-30 has a reversed third road wheel swing arm to move the torsion bar back far enough that it clears the turret basket:

 

MzuCl5k.jpg

 

And this picture of the Abrams assembly line shows that the torsion bars in that design, while not protruding from the hull, are basically mounted as low as the swing arm pivot assembly will allow, with only the front idler wheel elevated:

 

Abrams_00.jpg

 

I found this most irksome, but the fact that I was able to catch it at all is because of the extreme rigor and effort that went into completely modelling the design in Solidworks.

 

I am skeptical of the barrel life of a large, telescoped caseless 75mm gun.  Telescoped ammunition has problems in this area.

 

Like the other designs, the Caracal goes above and beyond the anti-infantry in defilade requirement.  Infantry in trenches would die horribly against any of these designs.  How well do programmable fuse munitions work in the real world?  Given the prevalence of dug-in infantry popping tanks with ATGMs in the Syrian War, programmable fuse munitions may become a must-have to armies looking to maintain their edge.

 

The mine protection of the Caracal is a glorious brute-force approach.  The floor of the tank is twice as thick as an M60.

 

This was the only design that was described as being able to improve its protection with an APS, aside from Switchblade 2 which has APS built in.

 

Mobility factors look good for Caracal.  Even with full ERA packages it has 31 HP/tonne, which compares favorably with the 24.3 of the Textron scorpion II.  Nominal ground pressure is 77.7 KPA, which is better than a Leo 2 at 81.4.  Ground clearance is the only unspectacular parameter; with somewhat less clearance than most MBTs.

 

Re-use of M2 Bradley components is a plus for serviceability, especially given that the proposed next-gen M109s are all based on Bradley components.

 

 

LCARV

 

 

This was my top pick.  Like Caracal, it really didn't win us over at first glance.  However, further examination showed that a whole lot of work had gone into the design and that it had a lot of good ideas.

 

The features I really liked were the insanely small silhouette when hull down, the insanely low nominal ground pressure of 44.5 KPA, which is lower than an early model M113, and excellent specific power of 33 HP/tonne.

 

With some elbow grease this design could conceivably fit into a C-130J, and would fit comfortably into Embraer's new KC-390 transport.

 

The tactical and strategic mobility factors are just excellent in general.

 

This is the design I felt had the worst protection, especially from the sides.

 

Rooibaadje

 

This was the early favorite when LoooSeR and I discussed the designs on teamspeak.  The mortar primary armament is a fascinating concept, and allows very heavy firepower and a reasonable ammo load to be crammed into a small, light vehicle.  The range overmatch, and ability to take out ATGMs from outside line of sight looks like an enormous improvement to survivability.

 

After it was explained to me, I quite like the mine protection scheme.

 

The biggest downside of this vehicle is the ground pressure.  At 111 KPA NGP, it has quite a bit less flotation than even MBTs.  Specific power was the lowest of all entries, but still insanely high by real-world standards at 27 HP/tonne.

 

Plesen

 

 

The first thing that jumped out at me is that it's armed with a 100mm rapira with a "T-72 style autoloader."  I don't think this could work; rapira uses one-piece ammo, 2A46 uses two-piece ammo.  Also, I don't know that the rapira's ammo is any smaller.  Thing is gigantic:

 

pushka-mt-12-rapira-02.jpg

 

In fact, if I recall, a large impetus for the development of the U-5TS was the fact that rapira ammo was too long to maneuver inside a Soviet soup-bowl style turret.

 

But other than that, it's a hell of a gun and this entry had the greatest direct fire firepower.

 

Mine protection seems absent.

 

Mobility looks good; a little more specific power than the Caracal and a little more ground pressure.

 

This was the only design with a remote weapon station, a point LoooSeR and I both liked.

 

This design was described as having an ERA up-armor package, even though it wasn't shown modelled.  I liked that.

 

Switchblade 2

 

 

Firstoff, how exactly does this thing steer?  Does it skid-steer like those weird French wheeled AFVs?  Just looking at the picture, I saw no obvious way for the wheels to be steered.

 

I did like the attention to detail in the description of the powertrain.  A hydraulic powertrain would go a long way in ameliorating the lack of space that is usually a problem in wheeled AFVs.  Tracked AFVs have much more complex transmissions, but they only need to deliver power to the drive sprocket.  Wheeled AFVs need power shafts running to each of their axles, which seriously cuts into the available internal space.  Using a hydraulic power distribution system could help a lot free up space inside and give better ground clearance (which evidently it does; Switchblade 2 has ground clearance matched only by MBTs).

 

I felt that it being wheeled would give it an edge in serviceability; wheels simply don't wear out as quickly as tracks do.  Power to weight is nuts; 42 HP/tonne puts a centauro to shame by nearly a factor of two.  However, wheels, even 10x10 vehicles have higher ground pressure than tracks, and Switchblade is not stated to have a central tire inflation system.

 

Inclusion of APS as standard is forward-looking.

 

I'm dubious of the camera mounting; it looks snag prone and seems to offer little over an array of fixed cameras.

 

I do like the crew layout; it seems like a good way to keep silhouette down.

 

This design does fit reasonably into a C-130J without any huffing and puffing, which is very nice.

 

Thank you for the in-depth assessments!

 

Really, everyone here did an amazing job - both contestants and judges.

 

I'll be in contact with our winner to work out the details of the prize.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstoff, how exactly does this thing steer?  Does it skid-steer like those weird French wheeled AFVs?  Just looking at the picture, I saw no obvious way for the wheels to be steered.

It's not modelled or properly explained, but the first and last sets of wheels have limited steering. The major way it turns is by skid-steer or running one set of motors backwards and the other forwards.

 

I did like the attention to detail in the description of the powertrain.  A hydraulic powertrain would go a long way in ameliorating the lack of space that is usually a problem in wheeled AFVs.  Tracked AFVs have much more complex transmissions, but they only need to deliver power to the drive sprocket.  Wheeled AFVs need power shafts running to each of their axles, which seriously cuts into the available internal space.  Using a hydraulic power distribution system could help a lot free up space inside and give better ground clearance (which evidently it does; Switchblade 2 has ground clearance matched only by MBTs).

I've loved the idea of this sort of powertrain ever since I read about Spinnekop as a kid. In practice, I suspect it is a maintenance nightmare (hundreds of high-pressure connectors driving lots of fiddly hydrolic motors) and probably very inefficient - hence the obscene power unit to compensate.

 

I felt that it being wheeled would give it an edge in serviceability; wheels simply don't wear out as quickly as tracks do.  Power to weight is nuts; 42 HP/tonne puts a centauro to shame by nearly a factor of two.  However, wheels, even 10x10 vehicles have higher ground pressure than tracks, and Switchblade is not stated to have a central tire inflation system.

The wheels are filled with liquid for blast dampening purposes, so no.

 

Inclusion of APS as standard is forward-looking.

I suspect it may be rapidly becoming mandatory for new AFVs

 

I'm dubious of the camera mounting; it looks snag prone and seems to offer little over an array of fixed cameras.

It is a little silly, yes. The idea is that having 3-D screens allows you to have depth of field, which AFAIK is one of the major issues with driving by camera.

 

I do like the crew layout; it seems like a good way to keep silhouette down.

 

This design does fit reasonably into a C-130J without any huffing and puffing, which is very nice

That was one of the major design considerations, along with trying to see how much armour you can put around the crew and still come in under 20 tonnes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to say congrats to everyone (Judges and contestants), you did a great job and made me right proud, especially Applesauce, whose entry was a real knockout.

My winnings, whatever they are, will go towards keeping this site up. We're growing faster now, and hosting costs have gone up a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite whatever place I came in, without being cheesy, I can say that it was a good experience for me nonetheless. I finally got myself to model something this year and complete it. I've not done it before to anywhere near this extent, but I enjoyed trying to get the best package I could while still getting it in a C-130. If I'm making a design for fun, it's usually rule of cool with plausibility added. This time, I tried to make a design I liked, while making sure it still worked. Making sure it worked added some challenge to it that made it fun.

I feel the main weakness of my submission was I focused too much on what I thought would be a neat design, though it wasn't originally going to be anywhere near as serious of a submission either.

I only learned this and a lot of other potentially useful info later, but like I already touched on, my design is pretty similar to the American light tanks from the 80s, which I just so happen to really like. With advancements in armor technology and other stuff, I was able to squeeze a bit more performance out, but still had plenty of guesswork with the automotives. I also got to read up on autoloading systems and realize I should read more about metal alloys.

It was cool to see it be as liked as it was, seeing as you all are generally well read on all things tanky. I'll be back tomorrow to do whatever things I have to do, but off to bed I go.

I'm typing on a touchscreen in bed without autocorrect. Suffer

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was very interesting. I'm really impressed with the models you guys all made. That's way past what I could do on a computer!

 

There were some really great ideas here too. I liked the 120mm mortar and drone combo the best main gun though, since it could kill with ever  being seen, or in direct view.

 

This forum has some very talented and smart people, and I think I'm still the forum dunce lol! 

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 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.
    • By Sturgeon
      We're holding a smaller, lower-effort competition while things simmer down enough for me to reboot the Texas competition to allow more people to participate. Those of you that choose to participate, enjoy.

      This competition is intended to be a brief 1-2 week long effort which should require only a handful of man-hours to complete, depending on skill level. Unlike a proper competition, this has one person who's judge, jury, and executioner (me!), to allow the maximum number of competitors. Consider this a brief interlude before the reboot of the Texas competition (which is likely to pick up more or less where it left off). Accordingly, there will be relatively little fluff and editorializing. Contestants will be given a basic setting and a set of requirements with a description of the unique mission needing to be solved. Beyond that, contestants will be responsible for filling in the gaps on their own, to whatever degree they see fit.
       
      Programs required: Solid modeling software, ammunition load development software, ballistic calculator, performance estimators (provided)
       
      Expected man-hours: 5-10
       
      Deliverables required: Image of loaded cartridge and projectile, cutaway or exploded view of projectile or projectile + cartridge, cartridge data sheet, bill of materials (including all component masses and materials), ballistic charts (not required to be in graph form), completed performance estimate sheets, any supplementary materials the contestant chooses to provide.

      The competition will be largely conducted via the SH discord, if you're interested please PM me for a link if you don't already have one.

      BEGIN FLUFF

      After the War, the Great Plains became virtually cut off from the rest of the former United States. Governments fractured into small polities based around towns and cities, as local populations realized they no longer were enfranchised as part of a larger economy and logistical network. State governments began to be seen overwhelmingly as distant meddlers who offered nothing in return for their interference in local politics. The area around the Black Hills was no exception. The states of South Dakota and Wyoming disintegrated quickly once the Federal Government of the United States no longer took a direct role in state affairs. A loose government formed around Rapid City, supported by strong manufacturing jobs, traders, and a large ammunition plant that could support paramilitary operations ranging around the Black Hills region and securing the roads that remained passable. Due to this, their influence expanded well into Eastern Wyoming and north to Southeast Montana and North Dakota. The emerging Dakota Union became the primary, if thinly spread, force in the northern plains region. Their most famous agents would be the Sioux Scouts.



      Unlike most pre-war infantry forces, which operated as part of large combined arms units in a highly tiered structure, the Scouts are highly independent light infantry. Often, Sioux Scouts will travel hundreds of miles unsupported in units as small as pairs, or even the occasional single Scout. While on patrol, they are responsible for their own sustenance and upkeep, foraging for food and shooting with their rifles what they need to survive. For the moment, there are no other organized military forces in the region, and Scouts are tasked primarily with maintaining contact, trade, and awareness of the peoples living inside the Northern Great Plains, and the hills to the West. As part of their duties, they are sometimes called to settle disputes, mete out justice, or are even permanently stationed in affiliated regions to maintain law and order. In times of war, they function in larger units as an army to protect Black Hills from incursion, but this hasn't happened in many decades. There is no distinction between "officers" and "enlisted" in the Sioux Scouts, but there is a basic hierarchy, and Scout pairs will often have a subordinate and a superior. In times of greater trouble, Scouts are also expected to marshal and lead local forces in the local defense. Generally, Sioux Scouts travel on foot or on horseback. They are substantially made up of Indian peoples, although any residents of the Dakota Union may join the all-volunteer force.
       

       
      Currently, the Sioux Scouts are armed with a motley assortment of both manually-operated and semiautomatic rifles in various calibers. The Sioux Scouts have requested a new semiautomatic rifle to replace these, and it has been determined that they require a new caliber to go along with it, hopefully phasing out the assorted legacy calibers in the process. Thanks to the plant in Rapid City, this is a very feasible request for the Dakota Union (and helps sustain jobs in its largest city). You are an engineer at the Rapid City plant, tasked with creating a report on what the new caliber's characteristics should be. Resources, testing facilities, and reams of research are made available to you. The year is 2221. Get to work.

      END FLUFF
       
      The new round must:
      1. Produce no less than 700 ft-lbs at 600 yards.
      2. Penetrate twenty-four 1/2" pine boards at 600 yards (equivalent to a lethal penetrating shot on a quartered buffalo).
      3. Drop no more than 96 inches at 600 yards (2.6in sight height, 100yd zero, 59.0F temperature, 29.92in Hg pressure).
      4. Drift no more than 36 inches at 600 yards (2.6in sight height, 100yd zero, 59.0F temperature, 29.92in Hg pressure, 10mph 90 degree crosswind).
      5. All performance requirements must be met at 200 ft/s below the spec velocity, except the 600 yard energy requirement, which can be met at 500 yards at -200 ft/s, instead.
      6. Produce pressure no greater than 52,000 CUP (brass cased) or 50,000 CUP (steel cased).
      7. Use a projectile composed only of any combination of the following: Copper alloy, bronze alloy, lead alloy, iron alloy, steel alloy, tin alloy, nickel alloy, and/or zinc alloys. Titanium, tungsten, aluminum, magnesium, and other exotic metals are not allowed.
      8. Minimum magazine capacity must be 20, with a stack height no greater than 5 inches.
      9. Cartridge overall length may not exceed 2.8 inches.
      10. Cartridge recoil from a 10lb weapon may not exceed 12 ft-lbs.
      11. Cartridge must meet performance requirements from a 22" barreled weapon.
      12. Cartridge must cost as little as possible.

      You are provided with calculators to use to estimate these values for the competition. For trajectory, drift, and energy, you must use JBM Ballistics calculator here. Internal ballistics must be estimated via the Powley Computer (just check the pressure box and enter 52,000 CUP for brass or 50,000 CUP for steel). Also please see my guidelines for modeling steel cases here. The pine penetration value must be calculated with this spreadsheet, and the recoil energy with this spreadsheet. For the purposes of this competition, cost per round is determined solely by the materials used. Please reference the material cost sheet here. If you do not already have a solid modeling program, you can use Google SketchUp for free. @Toxn has a lot of experience with it, you might ask him.

×
×
  • Create New...