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...

15 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

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

YopNTQO.png

 

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:

avvIEHr.png

 

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.

Something I've been wondering about in relation to cheap-n-cheerful mediums: what components add the most man-hours to building a tank, and how do they scale?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Toxn said:

Something I've been wondering about in relation to cheap-n-cheerful mediums: what components add the most man-hours to building a tank, and how do they scale?

 

 

I think it's heavily dependent on manufacturing base.  I haven't seen a general breakdown, but just off the top of my head:

-Welding thick steel armor has definitely proven to be a problem, e.g. IS-3, several German tanks.

 

-The Germans actually had problems with drilling the holes for traditional, transverse torsion bars.  Apparently, for them, switching to the Porsche external torsion bar suspension saved a lot of man hours.  I've never heard of anyone else having that problem.

 

-I also recall reading that fuel injectors were a bottleneck for the Germans when they looked at going to dieselized tanks.

 

-The fire control systems were giant cost contributors on Soviet tanks, especially ones with more complex FCS like the T-80.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

I think it's heavily dependent on manufacturing base.  I haven't seen a general breakdown, but just off the top of my head:

-Welding thick steel armor has definitely proven to be a problem, e.g. IS-3, several German tanks.

 

-The Germans actually had problems with drilling the holes for traditional, transverse torsion bars.  Apparently, for them, switching to the Porsche external torsion bar suspension saved a lot of man hours.  I've never heard of anyone else having that problem.

 

-I also recall reading that fuel injectors were a bottleneck for the Germans when they looked at going to dieselized tanks.

 

-The fire control systems were giant cost contributors on Soviet tanks, especially ones with more complex FCS like the T-80.

Thanks.

 

At a guess I'd say that, for a given component complexity, man hours scale linearly and resource usage scales volumetrically with increasing size. My other guess would be that increasing complexity exponentially increases man hours.

 

So doubling the size of a design would just make it take twice as long to build. But doubling the component count would take four times as long.

 

You also seem to be suggesting that there are process bottlenecks which massively increase man hours until they are overcome. These also seem to be situational, meaning here that from the outside they seem to show up at random.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So everyone should do up so marketing material, and then come up with a plan for how you would bribe the proper officials to consider the merits of your design more carefully. What is the hooker and blow situation in 2239?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

So everyone should do up so marketing material, and then come up with a plan for how you would bribe the proper officials to consider the merits of your design more carefully. What is the hooker and blow situation in 2239?

Downsides: the coca plant is extinct.

Upsides: two-headed hookers are a thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

...

 

-The fire control systems were giant cost contributors on Soviet tanks, especially ones with more complex FCS like the T-80.

Probably have something to do with shiload of gold and silver used (like several kg in total for rare earth materials IIRC). I lost a small chart with rare materials used in those things, will try to ask on otvaga, as it is pretty interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

I think it's heavily dependent on manufacturing base.  I haven't seen a general breakdown, but just off the top of my head:

-Welding thick steel armor has definitely proven to be a problem, e.g. IS-3, several German tanks.

 

-The Germans actually had problems with drilling the holes for traditional, transverse torsion bars.  Apparently, for them, switching to the Porsche external torsion bar suspension saved a lot of man hours.  I've never heard of anyone else having that problem.

 

-I also recall reading that fuel injectors were a bottleneck for the Germans when they looked at going to dieselized tanks.

 

-The fire control systems were giant cost contributors on Soviet tanks, especially ones with more complex FCS like the T-80.

Welding aluminum would also be more costly.  Need to have the surface oxide layer grinded away. Also welding aluminum in general is harder because of its low melting point, high heat capacity and good thermal conductivity. 

Machining aluminum is however, much easier than steel or harder alloys. 

Drilling and cutting hard steel plates is also a huge pain in the ass. I hate stainless steel, and it is not even close to the hardness of armor steel. 

 

Automation would probably fix most of these issues. Robotic welders would accomplish a "perfect" weld, drill jigs would drill out all the holes on on side of the hull simultaneously. 

 

Casting and a good supply of tungsten bits would greatly decrees man hours needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

looks a bit familiar....
r2bRjBl.png

For some unknown reason the renderer crapped out on me so I had to change the coloring on the Norman.
Anyhow, short of vents and rough shapes of equipment in the engine bay, the Norman is DONE. Some details are stand-ins for things I don't have the time to model properly; for example, the loader's MG should be on a skate ring, not a pintle, and the commander's MG is supposed to have linkages for elevation and firing (enabling its use under armor, Abrams-style). Also the bustle stowage rack is not modelled.
I may not have time to properly model a light tank, which means I might have a low-visuals submission for that part.
Full writeup will come later, when I again have time.

By the way, if anyone's wondering, the frontal turret spaced armor isn't a shot trap, as it's the same thickness as the hull roof underneath it, and therefore anything capable of penetrating the roof after bouncing will penetrate the spaced armor, not bounce.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

@N-L-M what are we looking at for all-up weight on that thing?

22.9 tons of armor (may include some suspension components like mounting points, and includes ammo bulkheads)
including suspension, tracks, armament, fuel, ammo, and drivetrain, 37.5 tons all up.
Assuming an extra 5 tons for unaccounted for components, I get 42.5 tons all up, 39.9 curb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

the WOT T110 thread?

 

I’ve seen that mentioned on this forum before, but I can’t find any meme-y threads about the T110 on the WoT forum, but some people are saying they want it buffed or removed from the game, now: 

 

http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/675756-anyone-playing-with-t110-e5-wot-can-delete-this-tank/ 

 

i guess the meme is the typical WoT forum’er is retarded? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

I’ve seen that mentioned on this forum before, but I can’t find any meme-y threads about the T110 on the WoT forum, but some people are saying they want it buffed or removed from the game, now: 

 

http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/675756-anyone-playing-with-t110-e5-wot-can-delete-this-tank/ 

 

i guess the meme is the typical WoT forum’er is retarded? 

For reasons which are convoluted (but not particularly interesting) the T110 thread on the old WoT forums got to be a special 'protected' space from the idiotic moderators who ensured that only weebs and wehraboos ever got to say anything more involved than 'I luv Wargaming'.

 

Because the world is not a nice place, this meant that the autistic shitbirds who felt they owned the forum promptly squatted there and talked about anime/jerked each other off for the rest of the existence of the forum rather than any flowering of free speech occurring.

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 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...