Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Absolutely. The best description I've seen was by someone on this site, who described a tank as a "reverse TARDIS, much smaller on the inside". Even just an open museum or gate guard/monument, where you can climb in, gives you a useful scale. Everything inside a tank is harder, sharper and stronger than you. You are always the squishiest component, which has to squeeze out of the way of the bigger stuff in there. Proper systems integration and adequate volume allocation make the difference between sharp corner hell and a comfy (if tight) working space.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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...

The TL:DR of this 1950s report on spaced armor and other sources I've read is:

 

 

APCR: Totally fucked by even small stand-off plates parallel to the main armor in hasty add-on packages.  Most APCR projectiles had too brittle a core to deal with anything but homogenous armor.

HEAT:  Early HEAT was adversely affected by spaced armor, but by early 1950s level of HEAT projectile optimization it almost ignored it, or even got a slight penetration boost vs spaced armor.  Arrays of many thin plates were modestly more effective vs. HEAT.

APDS:  Adversely affected by spaced armor, but far less than APCR thanks to sheathe designs that protected the core from shattering.

APFSDS:  Early APFSDS was fucked by spaced armor quite badly, but metallurgical improvements meant that later rounds largely ignored it.

APCBC:  Effects heavily dependent on the optimization of the spaced armor array and quality of the rounds.  Well-constructed APCBC is actually more effective against simple spaced armor arrays than against homogeneous plate.  Poorly constructed APCBC suffers against simple stand-off plates almost to the extent that APCR does.  Geometrically well-optimized arrays are moderately more effective on a weight basis against APCBC than homogeneous plate.

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

Fully upgraded Roach:

 

SL44wM0.png

 

152mm high velocity main gun (with 8 degrees depression), stereo rangefinders, spaced armor array on turret, 1" thick side skirts. Uprated 750 hp engine.

 

A little over 42t all-up.

 

Peekaboo!

 

qlJu8W4.png

 

How big is that thing? Because a big, high-velocity gun and a rangefinder are going to need an appropriately vast turret volume. Especially if you're going for substantial levels of depression.

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

APFSDS:  Early APFSDS was fucked by spaced armor quite badly, but metallurgical improvements meant that later rounds largely ignored it.

Soviet-style APFSDS (small WC core, large steel body) suffered almost as bad as APCR. Later versions (with the core in the base, not the nose) were a bit better. Sheathed tungsten alloy and monobloc tungsten alloy penetrators were largely immune to the worst effects of spaced armor.

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

 

I can't wait for you to shoot it at my ERA array!

I've been meaning to address this, but isn't it also doing your heads in to put yourselves in the shoes of designers who know that ERA and NERA are easy to make and will help to counter HEAT rounds if/when processes are developed to make them better?

 

I imagine a sort of spy-v-spy situation forming; where you don't bother re-developing certain forms of armour because you know that your opponents know that an easy counter is on its way in a few years and so won't bother to develop the weapon the counter was meant to counter. So you both field APHE and RHA (but eventually with 3-axis stabilisers and laser rangefinders) for decades because it just isn't worth it to change over to HEAT-FS when it will be largely ineffective a month into the fight. And then everyone suddenly jumps to hypervelocity kinetic missiles all in one go because the tech base is finally there and that was the last thing to get fielded before the bombs fell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least, that's what I figured happened here: decades of 10-tonne light tanks because you know that 20 and 30-tonne designs are worth 3 years of combat at most, then an immediate jump to MBT analogues once the metallurgical and automotive tech is available because you already know what the successful final form looks like.

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

I've been meaning to address this, but isn't it also doing your heads in to put yourselves in the shoes of designers who know that ERA and NERA are easy to make and will help to counter HEAT rounds if/when processes are developed to make them better?

 

I imagine a sort of spy-v-spy situation forming; where you don't bother re-developing certain forms of armour because you know that your opponents know that an easy counter is on its way in a few years and so won't bother to develop the weapon the counter was meant to counter. So you both field APHE and RHA (but eventually with 3-axis stabilisers and laser rangefinders) for decades because it just isn't worth it to change over to HEAT-FS when it will be largely ineffective a month into the fight. And then everyone suddenly jumps to hypervelocity kinetic missiles all in one go because the tech base is finally there and that was the last thing to get fielded before the bombs fell.

 

Why do you think I came up with the 152mm high velocity gun?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So to check the credentials of my 120mm L/35 gun, I came up with a poor mans APFSDS: a 20mm diameter, 1m long finned steel rod with a fixed 120mm aluminium sheath to locate it in the barrel properly (3kg all told). The muzzle energy was set to mimic the 122mm M-30 firing HE (21.7kg, 458 m/s), and longrods was used to calculate the penetration. This came out to nearly exactly 200mm. Velocity drop-off would be obscene given the aluminium sheath, but over a few hundred metres I don't think it would matter much.

 

All of which means that the XM16's gun, firing herpaderp cobbled-together APFSDS (edit: technically just APFS) with a (relatively) low powder load could still probably give trouble to anything that isn't the roach's stupid-thick turret front.

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...