Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

I savagely slashed armor off the thing until I got it to 35.4 tonnes "fully" loaded (at least with all the stuff I've accounted for, anyway).

That number is still missing random doodads like drive sprockets and return rollers, but it's close.


Current to-do list:


1. Lower the turret roof or something. It's still too big.


2. Finish the turret. It's currently just a box; it needs details like rangefinders, cupolas, etc.

3. Add a driver's hatch.

4. Add ERA.


5. Add drive sprockets and idlers, model fuel tanks and bulkheads.

6. ????

7. Profit!

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


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

Toxn notes here that some requirements were meant to be impossible to meet just to see what you'd do with it.

In light of that, I threw out the C-130 req't entirely and instead mandated for myself that a C-17 had to be able to carry two. I like those parameters, because then you're neither talking about an MBT nor something like a Stingray or Buford, but something truly "medium"


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

I have to say, weighing 20 ton and filling out the requirements seems to be nearly impossible. 

As others have noted, this is an intentional feature of the competition.


I'd of course be very happy if you jumped in and had a go at solving the unsolveable :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have noted, this is an intentional feature of the competition.


I'd of course be very happy if you jumped in and had a go at solving the unsolveable :)

That is what I am trying, lightweight above all pretty much, but still filling the requirements. 


I did read the post, and I am doing a complete redesign of my vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, weighing 20 ton and filling out the requirements seems to be nearly impossible. 


It doesn't absolutely have to be 20t if you want to try something else, hell, Olifant just posted he's upping his design from 35-40t due to the payload capacity of the C-17.


Edit: Olifant is is often to how many of us refer to Sturgeon by the way, a little past background there before SH existed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I'm bad at drawing, so here's what I'm coming up with so far, and yeah, it's pretty bad I guess..


As you know, it's based on the Type-99 Light tank, which weighs around 30-35t depending on modules, I'm mostly focusing on the turret but also looking at improving the hull, my goal was literally what Sturgeon just posted, weight capped at 40t maxed out and 2 being able to fit on a Y-20, possibly with some partial assembly required after they're loaded and unloaded.


Now, my ideas are pretty fucking retarded admittingly and may not see the light of day but, fuck it, if Olifant gets his fancy pants 75mm CTA gun, I get to do what I please!


Basic design ideals, starting with my choice of main armament.


The armament options have been significantly changed, the one I'm focusing on now is, not surprisingly, the 50mm Supershot, and, while the PRC has never used the Bushmaster III (I know they once purchased some Bushmaster I's for testing, which share alot of parts commonality, but that aside,) so, my alternative is basing it on the longer barreled, select rate of fire gun used on the ZBL-09 dual feed 35mm variant designed for dual purpose use and converting that, considering the only realy modifications you need to do to a 35x228mm gun platform is the change out the barrel, this is actually very simple. Olus the much higher and selectable rate of fire (up to around 1,000-1,200 rpm at top rpm setting) of the L/70 derived design would make it ideal for more situations such as potential anti aircraft use (in practice, you could chamber any 35x228mm round into the Supershot aswell, so things like AHEAD or perhaps a fictional proximity burst dart load for this scenario would be ideal for AA), The longer barrel would also not only better suit AA purposes due to better travel time and target prediction due the velocity increase, but also aid in increasing the armor penetration of APFSDS.


Speaking of ammunition, one odd thing about the Supershot's APFSDS-T is, despite showing some very impressive numbers (230-250mm of RHA penetration at 1km depending on which source you go with, the US Army is the 250mm figure), it has room for improvement, as, if you actually look at one, it appears to have a relatively short L/D ratio and quite a bit of space in the case to improve that, I'd go with lengthening the rod, maxing out the cartiridges to work at the maximum PSI that's considered safe and won't wear out gun barrels too fast, and changing the alloy used from Tungsten alloy to U-Ti-Mo alloy with a cap better suited for this design, coupled with the increased velocity from going from the Bushmaster's barrel to the L/70 length barrel, I'm looking for a target penetration of 300mm of RHA at 1km while improving after armor effects.This would defeat any current IFV and many other AFVs at combat ranges short of the front and sides of most MBTs and of course discounting modern ERA.


Last bit, another reason I'm focusing on the 50mm Supershot over a CTA is design is, while the gun itself is larger (but, considering the Type-99 light is already designed for either a 105mm Type 83-II "Super" L7 or possibly even a 125mm gun, space or weight shouldn't be an issue.) and the HE would be less effective as, unlike a CTA gun, a 50mm supershot and it's HE (among a few other round designs) are limited to the base caliber, I don't see this as a big problem, HE rounds from the 35x228mm (identical in bursting charge and frag liner/shell body size when used in the 50mm supershot) are already a mean son of a bitch that would be more then get the job done, one advantage is that the ammunition is also slimmer and lighter by comparison, which would allow more of it to be carried in a single ammunition belt and in storage. considering the variable rate of fire for different targets and the dual feed use, having more ammunition to actually use is actually important to the design I'm going for.


I could write more about this, but fuck, I already feel like I've lost and my ideas are shit, I'll keep trying to improve them though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2S37 so far;




Solidworks says the hull weighs about 14 tons right now, which is a bit concerning, since it doesn't have any of the other bits in it yet.


14 tonnes was what mine weighed before I did a lot of trimming. What's your armor look like? Mine is steel and was 40mm all around, initially.

If you're using aluminum armor, then it should be way lighter and your tank is probably too big. What's your weight goal?

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...