Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

This fucking light tank... Here's the Sandy Mk. 3:



The elliptical turret is much better protected... But also heavier. Weight is up to 22.6 tons gross, more than double what the Sandy was originally supposed to be. Since the original airdroppable concept seems unachievable now, I guess the Sandy is better suited as a tank for fighting Deseret? But I think the Donward can do that too, so I'm not sure there's much point to this anymore. The biggest problem the Sandy has right now is power: It was designed to fit an engine roughly equivalent to a Detroit 6V53T, which is a 275-310 hp engine or so, but at nearly 23t that isn't nearly enough power. I'm currently looking into flat engines that might work, hoping to cram at least 550 hp into the thing. If I can't do that, I'll have to make a totally new hull. Ugh.

Speaking of a bigger hull, I figured I'd see how this looked since le pancake turret is pretty well armored:



It looks... Special. Doesn't seem to be much merit to it, either, since it's nearly as heavy as the original turret version. This turret does have me interested in a low weight medium, though, something that would come out equivalent to a T-55.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2018 at 8:54 PM, Toxn said:

Primary entry, SPG and SPAAG to follow:


M8 “Elk”




Length: 6.6m (hull), 8.6m (total)

Width: 2.65m (hull), 3.25m (total)

Height: 2.7m

Weight: 40/21 t (empty weight)

Crew: 4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)



  • 100/25mm (upper hull front)
  • 100/25mm (lower hull front)
  • 65/25mm (hull side forward)
  • 25/15mm (hull side rear)
  • 25/15mm (hull rear)
  • 25/15mm (hull roof)
  • 25/15mm (hull floor)
  • 100/25mm (turret front)
  • 100/15mm (turret side forward)
  • 65/15mm (turret side rear)
  • 25/15mm (turret rear)
  • 100/25mm (mantlet)
  • 25/15mm (turret roof)



  • 80mm L/45 cannon:

               - APHE: 7.1kg, 820m/s, ~130mm RHA penetration (90’, 500m)

               - APCR: 4.3kg, 1045m/s, ~160mm RHA penetration (90’, 500m)

               - HEAT: 4.8kg, 500m/s, ~90mm RHA penetration (90’, any range)

               - HE: 6.1 kg, 500m/s

  • Browning M2 heavy machine gun (turret roof)
  • M240 machine gun (coaxial)


Engine: 18L, 450 HP (340 kW) V8 petrol engine (Ford GAA derivative)

Power/weight: 7.6 kW/t or 13.6 kW/t tonne

Max speed (road): 45km/h or 60km/h

Max sustained speed (offroad): 30km/h or 40km/h

Range: 300km/550km







The M8 “Elk” was the result of a proactive design process intended to provide a ‘universal’ tank optimised for fighting a defensive war against Californian forces and serving in a more mobile role in the Oregon/Idaho sector. The design is also intended to have reserve capacity for upgrades as they become available.

The core of the vehicle is a simple hull with a clean, sloped front and a large engine bay in the rear separated from the crew compartment by a 25mm or 15mm (depending on the version) armoured bulkhead. The armour layout emphasises frontal engagements and crew protection, with the forward side armour (covering the crew compartment) being significantly thicker then the rear side armour.


The M8 is offered in two variants: a 45t ‘medium’ version and a 25t ‘light’ version. The medium version is designed to resist current-generation heavy anti-tank weapons across the hull front and turret frontal arc from any distance, with current generation medium anti-tank weapons being resisted across a 45 degree arc covering the crew compartment. The medium is expected to remain well protected against medium anti-tank weapons for the foreseeable future, and is expected to resist heavy anti-tank weapons across the hull front and turret front at ranges beyond 1000m. The light version sacrifices nearly all of its armour in favour of lower weight, retaining only 25mm plate to cover the frontal arc and crew compartment. This is, however, expected to provide protection against 20 and 30mm Deseret weapons at combat ranges. Some of this lightening is achieved through the use of aluminium components (most notably the road wheels) where possible. Although much less well protected than its medium cousin, the light version gains very good cross-country mobility and greater range. It also retains the excellent 80mm gun used by the medium, which is expected to remain effective against light and medium vehicles for the foreseeable future. The hull and turret are both of welded constuction, with castings only being used for a few components (most notably the gun mount and mantlet).


The engine bay is designed to facilitate service and repair, and has large rear doors for access to the engine and transmission. The engine and transmission, in turn, are mounted using a rail system so that they can be easily pulled. The radiators and fans are mounted in hinged doors on the hull roof, which also double as access points for service. The emphasis on ease of maintenance continues to the suspension system, which is a widened derivative of the historical HVSS designs used on the pre-war Sherman series of tanks. Each suspension unit mounts to hardpoints which protrude a bit below the hull proper, resulting in a very respectable 50cm of ground clearance. Due to the forward-heavy nature of the tank, the suspension units on the medium model are not evenly spaced. Instead the middle unit is positioned somewhat closer to the front unit than the rear unit. The engine, a 450-500 HP design based on the pre-war Ford GAA, drives vehicle through a rear sprocket. The medium and light versions use different transmission designs; with the medium’s being a more robust mechanical unit with a lower gear ratio, while the light uses a hydromatic unit based on that of the M24. Both vehicles are equipped with multiple reverse gears to facilitate shoot-and-reposition tactics.


The turret is roomy thanks to a large 1.8m turret ring, which is also expected to facilitate upgrade programs going forwards. It’s shape is six-sided, somewhat sloped, and contains generously-sized hatches for the crew. The turret is equipped with a full basket. The commander’s hatch is equipped with multiple vision blocks to provide good visibility while buttoned up. The commander and gunner also have access to periscopes (based on the M10 design) for the purposes of target acquisition and rough lay-in. The gunner’s periscope is selectable for 3X and 6X magnification, and has various reticles for the main ammunition types. A telescopic sight, based on the M70-series sights, is provided for fine lay-in. An azimuth indicator and gunner’s quadrant is provided for ranged fire missions. The rear of the turret houses the radio set – a new transistor design based on the pre-war SCR-500 series. This set includes an intercom system, and is expected to be less maintenance-intensive than our existing sets. The rear side sponson contains a small telephone, linked to the intercom system, to allow infantry to communicate with the crew.


The 80mm main gun has merely average elevation and depression: +37 to -8 degrees. This is something of a flaw, and may need to be corrected on future models of the vehicle. The turret drive is electric, and manages a full rotation in around 15 seconds. The electric unit does not allow for very precise movement of the turret at present, so the gunner’s handwheel is necessary for fine adjustment. In terms of power, the main gun is able to penetrate any commonly-encountered armoured vehicle from the front at combat ranges using the present APHE and APCR shells. It is expected to remain viable against most light and medium vehicles for the foreseeable future. The gun also sports a very good HE shell, which is fired using a low-velocity charge. The coaxial M240 machine gun provides a reliable level of firepower for anti-infantry work, while the roof-mounted M2 heavy machine gun provides a useful level of auxiliary firepower against soft-skinned vehicles, as well as a rudimentary anti-aircraft capability.


Overall the M8 offers good firepower, good protection (in the medium variant, at least) and decent mobility. It also offers a platform with significant margin for further development.



  • Jeeps (the Sherman site is freaking goldmine)
  • Various Sketchup users (especially Sketchy@Best, Stefan F., M L. and zdanwoj)
  • Whoever came up with that Tank Designer spreadsheet that Sturgeon posted




Edit: I'm going to ask the Judges to use their imagination in regard to towing eyelets and radio aerials. Because I completely forgot to put those in.





Length: 6.6m (hull), 10.5m (total)

Width: 2.65m (hull), 3.25m (total)

Height: 2.7m

Weight: 43t (combat weight)

Crew: 4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)



  • 100mm (upper hull front)
  • 100mm (lower hull front)
  • 65mm (hull side forward)
  • 25mm (hull side rear)
  • 25mm (hull rear)
  • 25mm (hull roof)
  • 25mm (hull floor)
  • 100mm (turret front)
  • 100mm (turret side forward)
  • 65mm (turret side rear)
  • 25mm (turret rear)
  • 100mm (mantlet)
  • 25mm (turret roof)



  • 100mm L/53 cannon:

               - APHE: 15.8kg, 900m/s, ~210mm RHA penetration (90’, 500m)

               - HE: 15.6 kg, 900m/s

               - Vertical movement: -6/+15 degrees

  • Browning M2 heavy machine gun (turret roof)
  • M240 machine gun (coaxial)


Engine: 18L, 450 HP (340 kW) V8 petrol engine (Ford GAA derivative)

Power/weight: 10.7 kW/t tonne

Max speed (road): 45km/h

Max sustained speed (offroad): 30km/h

Range: 300km





The M8A1 is an upgraded variant of the M8 medium design, incorporating a more powerful 100mm gun. This configuration sacrifices some mobility and crew comfort for hitting power, and is expected to allow the design to remain capable against all common armoured vehicles for the foreseeable future. The APDS round presently being developed for this gun, for instance, is expected to provide around 290mm of penetration at battle ranges. This, along with newer HEAT rounds and, eventually, APFSDS rounds, will also ensure that this design will remain competitive against MBT analogues if/when they emerge.



Link to comment
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
      @Dominus Dolorem
      @A. T. Mahan
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Saturday the 10th of July at 23:59 CST.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.

      Vehicle Designation and name
      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here]
      Table of basic statistics:
      Mass, combat
      Length, combat (transport)
      Width, combat (transport)
      Height, combat (transport)
      Ground Pressure, zero penetration
      Estimated Speed
      Estimated range
      Crew, number (roles)
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.
      Vehicle feature list:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.
      3.     Transmission - type, arrangement, neat features.
      4.     Fuel - Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.
      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.
      6.     Suspension - Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Link to Appendix 2 - armor array details.
      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks - low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.
      A.    Weapons:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Main Weapon-
      a.      Type
      b.      Caliber
      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)
      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.
      e.      FCS - relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.
      f.      Neat features.
      3.     Secondary weapon - Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.
      4.     Link to Appendix 3 - Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached.
      B.    Optics:
      1.     Primary gunsight - type, associated trickery.
      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.
      C.    FCS:
      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.
      2.     Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.
      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.
      Additonal Features:
      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.
      Free expression zone: Let out a big yeehaw to impress the world with your design swagger! Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.
       Example for filling in Appendix 1
       Example for filling in Appendix 2
       Example for filling in Appendix 3

      GOOD LUCK!
    • 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 SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)

      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.

      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
  • Create New...