Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 592
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

After 23 days of drinking booze and random disappearing, judges finally picked winners of this competition!      In a 45 ton category we came to the conclusion that a member of this forum, w

Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)   The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States

Best oscillating turret...

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 post
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 post
Share on other sites

So I got curious as to why my calculations showed that my tank was 40 tonnes when the T-55 is 35 tonnes. Once you put them next to each other the answer becomes clear:






The model I used:


It needed to be re-scaled, but was otherwise in proportion.

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 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).
    • 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 Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 

  • Create New...