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


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

Light Combat Vehicle(Tracked)  LCV(T)


At Priory General Technology, we have taken the proven and reliable FV 100 series of vehicles and have made them more suitable for the 21st century. We accomplished this by adding the latest Cummins B-Series engine that ups the horsepower from ~190 to ~350, replacing the majority of the exposed aluminum hull with layered Boron Carbide and a derivative of AMAP, we also have made the LCV(T) optimized for a varying array of electronic, weaponry, and add-on armor packages. 


The overall weight of the LCV(T) is expected to 8.5 tons. We emphasize the strategic mobility of the LCV(T) as we can transport 3 LCV(T)s in a single C-130 and they can even by lifted in by a CH-53 or equivalent. When having to fight in areas where heavy transportation is extremely limited, it is important the capability to deploy armored vehicles in sizable numbers in short order. 


The new armor for the LCV(T) is a combination of Boron Carbide and Aluminum that covers the sides, rear, and some of the belly of the vehicle and AMAP-B(medium) armor covering the frontal arch of the vehicle. The Boron Carbide/Aluminum armor provides a lighter alternative that purely aluminum while increasing the efficiency of the ballistic protection against heavy gunfire and shrapnel. The AMAP-B on the front of the vehicle is heavier than the original aluminum due to the sheer thickness of the new armor, however this armor protects the LCV(T) against most small cannon fire(<35 mm) and gives some protection against some lighter AT rocket propelled grenades. A variant of the AMAP-M(mine) covers the bottom of the crew compartment of the LCV(T) to protect against IEDs. The AMAP armor is projected to add some additional weight to our original chassis, but this is deemed minimal by our engineers due to the weight savings by the Boron Carbide armor and the increased horsepower. 


Additional armor can be placed on the vehicle including optional slat or net armor coverings that increase 360 degree protection against AT warheads, RHA steel plates to cover the frontal hull and the turret, NERA slabs, and has potential to have other varieties of armor packages. 


We have also tried to make the LCV(T) compatible with APS systems such as AMAP-ADS/SC, Iron Curtain, and Trophy. These will allow the LCV(T) to be able to fight in more high intensity environments with less casualties. 


Other hull modifications include improved driver viewing ports/hatch. Improved engine ventilation to make way for armor increase. Additional points on the hull were boxes for spare parts and tools can be held or can be used to attach floatation devices or even parachutes. And latches on the bottom of the vehicle wear V-shaped add-ons can be placed for IED rich environments. 


Our prototype turret also features modifications. First off the gun is a Cockerill 90 mm which is used around the world so ammo is common and is known to be effective against light armor. A coaxial FN 7.62 is also present. The mantlet of the vehicle has been modified to increase protection and to prevent clipping with the driver's hatch. A ballistics computer is integrated into the firing system to increase target acquisition speed and accuracy. The commander's hatch has also been improved in a similar way to the driver's and an adjustable post has been placed in order to provide the commander with firepower suited to his mission. The rear of the turret has been extended in order to store the 30-35 rounds of 90 mm. 


We plan to develop more turrets with varying arrays of weapons including light autocannons, mortars, ATGMs, AA guns + light MANPADS/SAM, 40 mm grenade(for riot control), and are even looking to develop a 105 mm gunned version of the LCV(T). 


We here at PGT have used modern armor and automotive technologies in order to improve the combat tested FV 100 series of vehicles. Our prototype LCV(T)-90 is faster(can reach speeds up to 55 mph), tougher, and hits harder than its predecessors did and has built-in room to grow to become suited for its combat role. 


Original Requirements:

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

Other Requirements:

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

* - not guaranteed protection, but optimal protection. Vulnerable to heavier ordinance.

** - We estimate that the LCV(T)-90 is to be in the range of $2.5 million USD, however other variants and upgrade packages could increase the cost to ~4-5 million depending on the package. Advanced APS systems are costliest upgrade

*** - AA variant can engage aircraft

**** - With added slat/net, RHA, and APS systems we predict the LCV(T) can survive engagements even after being hit multiple times by AT missiles. However we cannot guarantee the success of these systems.



(OOC: poorly drawn)Artist Rendition of the LCV(T)-90




Weight: 9.25 tons 

Height: 2.11 m 

Width: 2.135 m 

Length: 5.3 m

Crew: 3

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is now my official submission post. I'll update it as I go along. I'm gonna publish my worksheet and keep it up to date so you guys can follow along.

Neomedi Tank AKA "Baebrams" AKA OMGwell

Load 2 into C-17

Maximum figures:

Width: 5.28m

Height: 3.61m

Length: 25.96m / 2 = 12.98, / 1.1 = 11.8m

Weight (objective): 33 tonnes

Weight (do not exceed): 40 tonnes gross


MTU 871 Ka-501

1200 shp, 2,600 RPM

Length: 1.350m

Width: 1.955m

Height: 1.085m

Mass: 1.700 tonnes, 4.300 tonnes (powerpack)


Must protect against 30mm HEDP, 25mm RHA at 50deg penetration at 500m

39mm LOS thickness will be penetrated

AH-64 gun depression: -60deg

AH-64 attack angle for strafing run: -5deg

Tank needs 50mm armor plate sloped at 30 degrees from horizontal

40mm plate sloped at 6 degrees from horizontal





75mm Autocannon L/50

240 rounds/min


150 rounds carried


long-recoil operation, fully recoiling barrel


fully stabilized


coaxial .30 caliber machine gun


Turret ring: 2.150m (same as M1)

Width: 3.350m, 3.920m w/ Relikt-L ERA

Hull height: 1.240m

Hull width: 2.160m


Hull length: 7.140m


Max elevation: 25 degrees

Max depression: -12 degrees

Uses standard Bradley 21" tracks and suspension elements, 7 per side





Hull weight, bare: 11.82 tonnes 
Turret weight, bare: 6.37 tonnes
Mantlet weight, bare: 0.86 tonnes
Total armor percentage: 55%
ERA weight: Probably about 1.7-1.9 tonnes
Fender/side skirts weight: 0.49 tonnes
Gun weight: 1.144 tonnes (3.3%)
Ammunition weight: 0.810 tonnes
Fuel weight (230 US gallons): 0.696 tonnes
Powerpack weight: 4,300 kilograms (12.4%)
Track and suspension weight: 0.196 tonnes per roadwheel assembly (including torsion bars; 14 total, equals 2.744 tonnes), plus 3.560 tonnes for all track links. (18.2% for both tracks and suspension)
Total estimated weight (current): 34.7 tonnes
What a fat little baby.


Leopard 2:

Weight 2A6: 62.3 tonnes (68.7 short tons)
Length 2A6: 9.97 metres (393 inches) (gun forward)
Width 2A6: 3.75 m (148 in)
Height 2A6: 3.0 m (120 in)


Weight 22.6 metric tons
Length (With gun forward) 9.3 meters
Width 3 meters
Height 2.7 meters

ERA brick:

25 x 13 cm Kontakt-5

10.5 cm wide by 23.0 cm long by 7.0 cm thick

10.35 kg

Kontakt-5 (4S22): 251,9х131,9х13 mm 1.37 kg
I have made the turret not clip into the hull now. Consequently, weight was reduced by 0.1 tonnes.




Size, weight and TNT equivalent of Kontakt, Kontakt-5 and Relikt light



Normal Relikt is 5.8 kg per sandwich. Length and width is the same as Kontakt-5, but thickness is unknown.



Also, the bottom one is actually Relikt 'light' (4S24), made for BMP-3s and such. Relikt (4S23) for heavy vehicles is, as I said, 5.8 kg per sandwich.


4S20 = Kontakt

4S22 = Kontakt-5

4S23 = Relikt

4S24 = Relikt 'light' (I dont know the official name)



BMP-3 with a lighter variant of Relikt.



Stats and dimensions of those boxes:


550x270x285 mm, 37 kg




Protection - eq. to 600 mm of RHA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check the contact length of the track and the centre-centre distance of the tracks. With centre-centre distance I mean the distance between the centres of both tracks. That's basically the width of the hull, the width of the area between the (actual) tracks and half the width of the tracks. Contact length is, well, the length of the track that contacts the ground under normal loads.


Divide contact length by centre-centre distance and tell me the number. 


The higher it is, the worse. The optimum is 1, higher than 1 means difficulty with turning, lower than 1 means instability issues. But lower than 1 will never happen anyway, and higher than 1 will happen but isn't that big of a problem until you're into the higher numbers.

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.

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
      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...