Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Oh, I know why you're freaked out. The "hull width" listed in my worksheet is literally the width of the hull body, not the width of the entire hull including tracks, side skirts, ERA, etc.

I assumed that, but is it with or without the overhang of the turret ring? But it still all depends on the contact length of the track, which depends on the position and orientation of the roadwheels.

 

 

The Baberams comes out at almost exactly 1.6.

An M1 Abrams is 1.59.

 

I think I am just fine, buddy. :)

Ah I see. Leo 2 is 1.69 on asphalt.

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

Without the overhang.

I'm estimating contact length. I am most likely going to use M2 Bradley suspension elements, 7 per side. I estimated contact length by modifying the contact length of a Bradley by 7/6, and by modifying the contact length of an M1 Abrams by 7.54/7.92 (compensating for the Baberams's shorter hull), and averaging those two values.

The reason I am using Brad running gear is because one of my boxes I wanted to tick was being no wider than an M1 Abrams, even with side-mounted ERA attached. Using 21" tracks doesn't get me all the way there, I guess, but it helps and it's not like the tank needs the extra weight of the Abrams's gear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

   I am aiming at creating 2 vehicles - one aimed for more "insurgent" type of local conflict, second will be aimed at local conflicts with small, but seriously equipped armies. First is Chechnya/Syria-like conflicts with big part of operations in mountain landscapes. Second is Ukraine-like wars, with more open fields fights and enemy with big number of tanks and AT weapons.

 

   First vehicle i will base on Kurganets-25 chassis with some modifications with a little unusual weapon choices  ;) 

   As my design is not part of competition, i will not bother with too-much detailed work, but still will do some internal schematics. Vehicle will be ~35 tons, serious protection against infantry AT weapons like ATGMs, RPGs, EFP mines, IEDs and frontal protection against 23-60 mm cannons. Some small changes to suspension are also planned. Rear hull will be re-designed, as current ones on Kurganets are more fit to IFV/APC duty. Turret will be completely new, i need to figure out weapons feed system in unmanned turret, part of which is also occupied by comander's pretty big RCWS and ammunition for it.

 

   Second vehicle will be much closer to a tank or assault gun, around 50-55 tons. Still working on probable design of first vehicle (need some calculations of space inside), so no details on this one. Probably will have frontal engine and rear turret layout, similar to Object 299 or T-15 heavy IFV. Main weapon would be on par with tank guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an idea basically combining maybe a widened Rooikat with better frontal aspect penetration (ERA) and the BMP-3 Derivatsiya modular RCWS, but I don't really know enough about tanks to be able to make that detailed a proposal/specification.

I could probably draw a nice picture, though.

I thought about doing what I did to the FV101 to the Rooikat instead, so I want to see this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A prototype model of Stormpanser SP-1:

LesfNj3.png

 

Current model is used to figure out internal space, tracks are placeholder, but represents the actual width. The current vehicle is still in development. 

 

 

Current idea:

3 man IFV using several parts from the CV90, this includes tracks and engine. It shares the same turret ring diameter and the current model is supposed to be fitted with the Kongsberg MCT-30 unmanned turret modified with SPIKE ATGM launchers. 

 

 

Estimated production model specifications:

 

Mobility:

Scania DSI 16, Deisel 800hp. 40hp/ton

Weight: 20 ton

Transmission: Hybrid electric 

Top speed (both directions): 70km/h

Track width: 500mm

Suspension: Modified CV90 suspension, torsion bar.

Ground clearance: 450mm

Contact length divided by Center center is 1,15. 

 

 

Armament:

1 50mm autocannon

1 7,62mm FN MAG co-axle mounted machine gun.

1 Browning 12,7mm heavy machine gun in a RCWS (PROTECTOR RWS)

 

Protection:

Frontal arc: Resistant to >35mm AP Autocannon fire.

Sides and back: Resistant to small arms fire and shrapnel.

Roof: Resistant to artillery shrapnel.

Belly: Resistant to 10kg blast mines. 

 

 

The purpose of this vehicle is to be cheap, light, reliable and highly mobile. I may design a more advanced and radical vehicle later, but for now this design path will do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A prototype model of Stormpanser SP-1:

LesfNj3.png

 

Current model is used to figure out internal space, tracks are placeholder, but represents the actual width. The current vehicle is still in development. 

 

 

Current idea:

3 man IFV using several parts from the CV90, this includes tracks and engine. It shares the same turret ring diameter and the current model is supposed to be fitted with the Kongsberg MCT-30 unmanned turret modified with SPIKE ATGM launchers. 

 

 

Estimated production model specifications:

 

Mobility:

Scania DSI 16, Deisel 800hp. 40hp/ton

Weight: 20 ton

Transmission: Hybrid electric 

Top speed (both directions): 70km/h

Track width: 500mm

Suspension: Modified CV90 suspension, torsion bar.

Ground clearance: 450mm

Contact length divided by Center center is 1,15. 

 

 

Armament:

1 50mm autocannon

1 7,62mm FN MAG co-axle mounted machine gun.

1 Browning 12,7mm heavy machine gun in a RCWS (PROTECTOR RWS)

 

Protection:

Frontal arc: Resistant to >35mm AP Autocannon fire.

Sides and back: Resistant to small arms fire and shrapnel.

Roof: Resistant to artillery shrapnel.

Belly: Resistant to 10kg blast mines. 

 

 

The purpose of this vehicle is to be cheap, light, reliable and highly mobile. I may design a more advanced and radical vehicle later, but for now this design path will do.

Welcome to SH. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an idea basically combining maybe a widened Rooikat with better frontal aspect penetration (ERA) and the BMP-3 Derivatsiya modular RCWS, but I don't really know enough about tanks to be able to make that detailed a proposal/specification.

I could probably draw a nice picture, though.

Derivatsiya is Kurganets-based SPAAG. "Modular RCWS" is not a thing with Derivatsiya.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so surprising spoiler: mine will probably be based on a modified version of the PLA's new light tank (it fits alot fo the requirements already) with some featured taken from current and existing Bradley technology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum! Why does it have a German-sounding name?

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: Pansar

Danish: Panser

Norwegian: Panser

 

"Panser" means armor, armored vehicle ect. "Storm" means here assault or attack.

 

In Norway, IFVs are designated "Stormpanservogn"

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

 

Ok, so my design is going to be 16.7m long, 3m wide, 2.7m tall, and 19.9 tonnes

Link to post
Share on other sites

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: Pansar

Danish: Panser

Norwegian: Panser

 

"Panser" means armor, armored vehicle ect. "Storm" means here assault or attack.

 

In Norway, IFVs are designated "Stormpanservogn"

And in Icelandic, following the pattern of other Germanic languages, it is called 'skriðdreki'

Link to post
Share on other sites

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: Pansar

Danish: Panser

Norwegian: Panser

 

"Panser" means armor, armored vehicle ect. "Storm" means here assault or attack.

 

In Norway, IFVs are designated "Stormpanservogn"

 

Hi Xoon, so you're Norwegian? Excellent, the more the merrier.

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...