Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Toxn said:

probably give trouble to anything that isn't the roach's stupid-thick turret front.

I take it you haven't heard of the Norman's frontal arc.

200mm steel base+~180mm air gap +60mm hard steel LOS.

+- 30 degrees for the turret, +- 20 degrees for the hull.

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...

To the best of my knowledge the NERA's usual effect does nothing of any importance, as the projectile is so much larger and more rigid, so it's just like firing AP into a series of thin plates. You get decapping and possible yawing, but I doubt the NERA plates are rigid enough to shatter the AP. So it's probably less weight-efficient than plain homogenous steel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zadlo said:

Isn't the APFSDS round the late 50s technology?

More, I think it's not possible to load 200 mm round to 120 mm gun or to create 50:1 L/D steel rod :)

APFSDS is a future technology, yes, so we're partly discussing prospective upgrades.


My one proposed gun is a smooth-bore based on the late-war German 8cm PAW 600 and 10cm PAW 1000, however. This kind of bends the rules by firing finned mortar-type shells out of smoothbore barrel. So I was also dicking around with what filling the shells in to make a sort of weirdo finned AP round could do.


You are absolutely right that a 20mm, 1m long rod is a bit much ITO L/D ratio. I was just using the existing bomb designs I have and making the tail rod run through the whole thing.

I will check out more realistic/optimised versions of the concept later, perhaps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, N-L-M said:

To the best of my knowledge the NERA does nothing of any importance, as the projectile is so much larger and more rigid, so it's just like firing AP into a series of thin plates. You get decapping and possible yawing, but I doubt the NERA plates are rigid enough to shatter the AP. So it's probably less weight-efficient than plain homogenous steel.

That sounds plausible, but I'd love some actual tests or numbers.


I've said it before, but there might come a day when some desperate (and lucky) T-55 tanker fires a BR-412 into the turret front of a modern MBT and goes through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I quickly mocked up the case and ran a bit of optimisation. The more realistic APFS round is 70cm long and 2.5cm wide at the core. The case needs to be about 1.2m long (a tad longer than I originally designed it) if a base plate is used, and the powder load needs to be a full 1.5MJ higher than the ML-30 round used as a reference.


If the driving band is located on the aluminium sabot itself, then the case only needs to be about 80cm long.


All in all: less good than I was hoping for, but still doable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been a little while; busy with all kinds of stuff, but here's an update: 


Added suspension components, as well as front idler and drive sprocket. 

Revised gun mount and C3 cannon 

Turret needs another revision, as I removed the loader and am going to use a version of the T22E1 autoloader ( I also don't need the long bustle for a ready rack). 













Weight thus far is 23.3 tons.  

700mm roadwheels (drive sprocket is also 700mm) 

Ground clearance is ~600mm 


Gun depression is (ATM): 

Front - 19.5 

Side: -29 (when it hits the ground :P

Rear: -8 

Elevation: +36 


Breach is now a semi-automatic, vertical sliding wedge, similar to the 5" Mark 12 naval gun. 


The front idler needs to be raised and enlarged slightly, and maybe I need to shorten the suspension arms slightly (as well as increase the angle of the arms, from the vertical), but I'm pretty pleased with my first suspension attempt. Might put some holes in all the wheels to reduce their weight. 



Turret revision: 

I realized that the gunner wouldn't be able to see what they're shooting at when at maximum depression, so I have to rework some parts of the turret face, as well as remove the rear bustle since there's no need for it anymore. Though, I could use something like the TZF 9 sights on the Tigers (both 1 and 2) to avoid the roof sight messing up my turret shape. 


I am also considering offsetting the gun to one side and placing both commander and gunner in line, as well as modifying the autoloader (one rack will be smaller than the other); this will allow me to increase the size of the gun mount to place a coaxial MG comfortably, rather than having to cut into the front armor... or I could go full Ferdinand and not have any coax :rolleyes: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I think I'm getting to the point where I should stop fiddling and finalise my designs.


My thinking right now is as follows:


XM-8 "universal" tank

- Retains a single hull, suspension, engine, transmission and most fittings (vision devices, radios, rangefinder, 1-axis stabilizer etc.)

- Now has a properly unified hull: armour blocks are welded into the air gaps to uparmour.

- The turret will get reworked a bit, might become universal as well.

- New 80/105mm guns (an average between the 17/20-pounder and a 105mm L7 made with 1940's-era metallurgy)

- Represents a general-issue vehicle


XM-16 "modular" tank

- Retains the existing hull, suspension, engine and transmission.

- Might have a reworked turret (Present one is functional but ugly).

- Gets a new 135mm smoothbore (essentially an A19 bored out) capable of slinging low-velocity finned HEAT rounds and gonky finned AP initially, but easily upgradeably to proper HEAT-FS and APFSDS when that comes online

-  Retains dedicated rangefinder

- Represents expensive, exquisite vehicle designed with upgradeability in mind.


I'm struggling to type so I'm afraid that my descriptions will be a lot sparser where they aren't copy-pasted directly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2018 at 10:14 PM, Lord_James said:

I present to you, the 94/74mm C2 squeezebore anti-tank gun: 


  Hide contents







currently, the sliding breach and mount are not made. 


Recoil stroke: 300mm 

Barrel length: 3.76m (L/40 if using the 94mm as reference, it's an L/50.8 using the 74mm reference) 

Mass: 833.5kg (using steel alloy 7.73 g/cm3


Only the first 10 calibers are rifled (940mm), the rest is smoothbore (I hope this is acceptable, it is very similar to the 7,5cm PaK 41 I'm basing this off) 


Can I borrow your gun?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zadlo said:


Can I borrow your gun?


Which one? I’ve updated it twice, and now I have the C3. 


... also, I don’t know how to send components to someone, or even if my autodesk inventor files will translate well into whatever software you’re using. 

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


Which one? I’ve updated it twice, and now I have the C3. 


... also, I don’t know how to send components to someone, or even if my autodesk inventor files will translate well into whatever software you’re using. 


C1. You can send me measurements of the gun via PM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finalised gun designs:


80mm L/55

AP: 8.4kg @ 955m/s, ~180mm @ 500m

APCR: 4.7kg @ 1280m/s, ~240mm @ 500m

HE: 7.5kg @ 700m/s

Max ME: 3.85MJ

Notes: Gun is a 17-pounder/20-pounder hybrid.


105mm L/52

AP: 17kg @ 900m/s, ~200mm @ 500m

APCR: 10kg @ 1230m/s, ~290mm @ 500m

HE: 15.1kg @ 700m/s

Max ME: 7.6MJ

Notes: Gun is a L7 with the serial numbers filed off.


135mm L/40

HEAT-FS: 29.0kg @ 600m/s, ~270mm @ all ranges

HE-FS: @ 27.5kg @ 600m/s

AP-FS: 17.5kg @ 950 m/s, ~180mm @ 500m

APCR-FS: 8.8kg @ 1350m/s, ~250mm @ 500m

Max ME: 8MJ

Note: gun is a bored-out 122mm D25. "Finned Sabot" refers here to a more primitive design compared to the post-war stuff.


General note: AP and APCR penetration values for the 80mm and 105mm were calculated using a number of DeMarre values with similar real-world guns as references. These were then averaged and rounded to the nearesr 10mm to get the final value. The 135mm AP-FS value was obtained by mocking up and calculating values using BR-471D as a reference. The APCR-FS value was obtained by mocking up the round, running the core through longrods and then sanity-checking against known APCR/APDS rounds with similar characteristics. The core is modelled as a 30x220mm tungsten rod (~2.7kg). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Really looking familiar...

It's like there's an optimum design we're all converging towards.

Who'da thunk?

I know, right?


There will be even more convergence to come - I had a bright idea that may obviate the need for all the cool-looking-but-fiddly armour spaces on the XM8.

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...