Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

 

edit: I'm dumb, I thought I had put 10 foot 8  in the contest instead of 10.8. So that's entirely my fault.

 

 

Relevant. 

 

 

Also, I like the idea of controversy built into our fictional military procurement program.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so some thoughts.   First, everyone put in a lot of effort, and it was a hard call to have to eliminate the ones that didn't meet the requirements.  My pics would have been different, had there not been the problem with dimensions and or armor that if feasible seems like the kind of thing that would cause production delays and cost overruns. 

 

On the Mediums

I was disappointed theSturgeons got eliminated, it was a cool design, and would have been competitive.  Very cool looking too!

 

For Toxn, what I really liked was the idea that the design was the same for the light and Medium, with minor changes and a switch in armor material. It seems like that would give you a lot of options to improve the vehicles, with parts from the other version.  

 

NLMs design seemed like the best balance of tech/armor/gun and just edged Toxn out in my mind.  I liked his design approach, of just fixing and improving all wrong with a solid design. 

 

Now the lights I have to say my considerations were a little different because I think Sturges light was a little better than Toxn's but Toxns has the advantage of the factory being able to produce a solid medium if the need arises, or a highbred light/medium.  

 

NLM and light proposal was not brought over by enough three breasted hoo- Assistants for serious consideration!

 

I was disappointed no one came up with a multibank motor!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Ok so some thoughts.   First, everyone put in a lot of effort, and it was a hard call to have to eliminate the ones that didn't meet the requirements.  My pics would have been different, had there not been the problem with dimensions and or armor that if feasible seems like the kind of thing that would cause production delays and cost overruns. 

 

On the Mediums

I was disappointed theSturgeons got eliminated, it was a cool design, and would have been competitive.  Very cool looking too!

 

For Toxn, what I really liked was the idea that the design was the same for the light and Medium, with minor changes and a switch in armor material. It seems like that would give you a lot of options to improve the vehicles, with parts from the other version.  

 

NLMs design seemed like the best balance of tech/armor/gun and just edged Toxn out in my mind.  I liked his design approach, of just fixing and improving all wrong with a solid design. 

 

Now the lights I have to say my considerations were a little different because I think Sturges light was a little better than Toxn's but Toxns has the advantage of the factory being able to produce a solid medium if the need arises, or a highbred light/medium.  

 

NLM and light proposal was not brought over by enough three breasted hoo- Assistants for serious consideration!

 

I was disappointed no one came up with a multibank motor!

 

 

 

 

I was tempted to include a monkey-model version with the medium's armour package and the light's gun, engine etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here goes the light tank round i hope i got everyone!
 

Light tanks:

Sturgeons Sandys:

 

E4:

his one is a very neat idea and would have been a very good winning candidate if this competition would have been about airdroppable tanks even though the MG on the loaders side is a bit of a hazard. Sadly, however its competitors just outclass it

 

E6:

Well at the first glance this awesome turret armour combined with a pretty decent main and secondary armament is looking pretty good, the big problem however is that the hull is so lightly armed that probably a decent HE shot form an enemy tank on the turret is going to shred the hull.

Then the 20mm gun is is probably better to do away with it because in general in combat the gunner is engaging anything remotely tank looking, be it IFV, MBT or just some crazy jihadyota with his main gun due to visibility and target ID aswell as to make sure you really destroy the target since 20mm is not exactly all that powerfull

 

NLM:

I got to be honest, I really liked that wheeled death trap for some reason but sadly it has some problems with its cross-country mobility due to it being a wheeled vehicle.

Also your choice of Armament while cool is not exactly that powerful as for example sturgeons entry, sure your ATGM is going to be a lot better against heavy armour but due to it being MCLOS for now it really is hard to hit anything, and while the 35mm gun is a well balanced system it does not provide as much single shot HE potential as heavier gun from the opponents.

 

A.T. Mahans:

First of all, bold text is pretty straining to read, especially on mobile but well i guess since these were your first posts its not that big of a deal and now you know

The tank is pretty solid though it ofcourse does have problems aswell, first the idea with RR is not that bad though with only 2 shots and risky reloading from the outside does not make it as effective as for example the ATGM solution or gun solution of other competitors.
 

Applesauce Bandits:

While it is a very pretty boy it sadly never made it into the judging area since there was basically very sparse info.

 

Toxns:

Even though the MG is on the wrong side this tank was choose because it basicly is the best allrounder, decent armour, mobility, gun and if shit really hits the fan you can make nearly the same tank but just in heavy.
Another great advantage of this tank was that its upgradeability was emphasized, since the initial version does lack things like rangefinder etc. it however is designed to use tech that will become available in the near future.

What I personally really like (which i will explain more in the heavy tank section) is that your engine is very service friendly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also add an addendum for future competitions:

 

One of the things that really annoyed me was feeling like one of the tools I was using for my design (the tank designer excel spreadsheet) seemed much more conservative in its weight estimates than it needed to be. For instance, if you mock up a T-44 using the spreadsheet, you get a weight estimate of 37-40 tonnes rather than the 32 tonnes that is commonly cited. I think part of the discrepency is that the spreadsheet uses estimates for every component and goes into quite a bit of detail about what it puts in. So any error gets magnified as it gets totted together.

 

I don't really know what the solution is here, as I don't want to go back to manually estimating my weight only to massively underestimate due to not taking minor components into account. But it might be nice for the next competition to specify a standard means for estimating weights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Zyklon said:

Toxns:

Even though the MG is on the wrong side this tank was choose because it basicly is the best allrounder, decent armour, mobility, gun and if shit really hits the fan you can make nearly the same tank but just in heavy.
Another great advantage of this tank was that its upgradeability was emphasized, since the initial version does lack things like rangefinder etc. it however is designed to use tech that will become available in the near future.

What I personally really like (which i will explain more in the heavy tank section) is that your engine is very service friendly.

Thanks for the feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zyklon said:

E4:

his one is a very neat idea and would have been a very good winning candidate if this competition would have been about airdroppable tanks even though the MG on the loaders side is a bit of a hazard. Sadly, however its competitors just outclass it

 

Seems like a bit of a narrow interpretation, but fair enough I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Seems like a bit of a narrow interpretation, but fair enough I guess.

Well due to its weight constriction it just wasn´t able to keep up with its heavier opponents, we speak about having wayy less armour, less upgradeability in terms of firepower FCS etc. 

It all in all is a fine vehicle if you have the limitations that air mobility has in your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2018 at 11:27 AM, Zyklon said:

Well due to its weight constriction it just wasn´t able to keep up with its heavier opponents, we speak about having wayy less armour, less upgradeability in terms of firepower FCS etc. 

It all in all is a fine vehicle if you have the limitations that air mobility has in your mind.

 

Yeah I mean air drop was sorta the point. My logic was that there wasn't much reason for Cascadia to even have a light tank in the Chaffee class unless it offered a unique capability. Air drop was the best thing I could come up with. If you're not gonna do that, you might as well use a Roach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Yeah I mean air drop was sorta the point. My logic was that there wasn't much reason for Cascadia to even have a light tank in the Chaffee class unless it offered a unique capability. Air drop was the best thing I could come up with. If you're not gonna do that, you might as well use a Roach.

 

I sort of conceptualised the light tank requirement as a Type 62-esque thing where range and rough country ability was more important than speed or exotic forms of strategic transport. I also felt that the light tank and medium tank should share as many components as possible in order to get the most out of Cascadia's small industrial base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Zyklon some notes: (I was the designer of Mahan's light, he did a chunk of the engineering work and buggered the formatting)

 I'm fairly sure I mentioned that the Recoilless Rifles are mainly to provide direct HE / Cannister / APERS fire support, with only a secondary HEAT capability, to offset the lackluster HE performance of the primary armament. While I can't see a technical problem with mounting NLM's or another design of ATGM, I wasn't sure of how to indicate this within the competition. In addition I'm not sure how the practical difference works out between reloading recoilless rifles and ATGMs.

 

@LoooSeR and @Jeeps_Guns_Tanks I'd love to hear your feedback as well, I'm not sure what went wrong, per-se? I realize it's a little naive to expect to win on the first go-round but yeah, onwards and upwards!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Detailed look at each submission.

 

   Finally, my expanded review of each submission of this competition was put together, and now it is here. During 2nd phase of judging, all 3 judges were exchaning their opinion on vehicles, some of points made here could be covered in other judges posts, but i am still leaving them here for sake of completion. 

   Each vehicle was reviewed based on models shown (general level of skills of poster with 3d modelling was taken into account), description given and my own knowledges of subject. In those reviewes i will generally not get into stats or direct comparisons with other submissions much, but look at features of each design, viewing them in relation to requirements, basics of AFV design and common sense.

 

   @A. T. Mahan, @Whatismoo

57mm Gun Full Tracked Light Tank M48A4E4 “Koskiusko”

 

Spoiler

   General

  • Managed to fit into all requirements regarding stats
  • Weight allow for 4-5 tons upgrade potential
  • 57 mm cannon is not a bad option for main gun for a light tank for anti-tank work
  • Very good power/weight ratio
  • Not bad suspension (ground pressure, clearance, etc)
  • 3 man crew is good way to make this vehicle cheaper to operate and train personal.
  • Turret size is a bad side of this vehicle

   Weapons

  • 57 mm is too specialised on AT role, HE perfomance is not that great. This AFV is more of light TD instead of general purpose light tank. Taking into account that majority of targets (like up to 80%) needs some form of HE shells to deal with, general purpose gun is more desired option.
  • Main weapon system is awkward in general. Feeding systems needs a lot of space, forcing not optimal geometry of turret with gun being located in lower part of turret, forcing vehicle to expose a lot of its profile in order to fire main gun. On top of that HE/AP rounds switching is not going to be easy task compared to conventional cannons. Lack of loader also means crew will have hard time with changing ammunition type without seriously decreasing situational awareness and it also leaves commander/gunner to reload recoilless rifles.
  • 2 106mm Recoilless rifles would not be needed if main weapon system was capable to fire adequate HE rounds, on level of generap purpose guns. As was noted in submission "57mm O-271U HE shell was historically lackluster. To offset this, and provide additional close-medium range firepower, M40 106mm Recoilless Rifles are mounted". 
  • Taking into account that majority of targets need HE rounds, this vehicle have effectively only 2 good HE shots per engagement, as there is no good visible way to reload them from inside of this vehicle.
  • Location of those recoilless rifles also not that great, combination of their long profile and thin tube walls, they will be rather easily damaged by fragmentation.
  • It looks like they are located beyond the dimensions of the hull sides, they are more likely to be damaged while driving through ruins and some other terrains.
  • Both weapons don't have thermal sleeve, while having long thin barrels. 1950s level of tech doesn't mean 1950s level of knowledge about AFV design in our AH universe. 
  • .50 HMG exposed on top of the roof, could be some sort of protected cupola.

   FCS

  • Generally not bad for this vehicle
  • Hunter-killed capability
  • For light tank it should have better optics kit to work as recon vehicle
  • Other equipment should be considered, like IR/night vision systems, IR illumination detection kits if possible, etc.

   Protection

  • Terrible level of protection
  • Several tons (until 25t weight reached) were left unused, could be dedicated for protection
  • No use of spaced/NERA armor at least on frontal part of vehicle
  • Not sure how well ERA will work on such ligtly armored vehicle. Needs more sophisticated mounting system than usual to avoid damage to vehicle from ERA block detonation. 
  • Turret is most likely place to be hit on a tank, making it soo big is terrible design choice that make sure this vehicle with catch even not well aimed shots, especially from  the side.
  • No sideskirts to protect vehicle even from AT rifles
  • No actions taken against IED/mines

   Mobility

  • Very good p/w ratio
  • Expected high tactical mobility
  • Adequate/good for light tank

   Other

  • Driver may have obstructed escape from vehicle in many positions of the turret
  • Turret bustle and stowage bin also obscure access to engine deck roof, which will make servicing it inside of buildings/protected shelters to be either harder task or not as safe (turning turret to the side inside of buildings doesn't increase safety).

 

   Conclusion

   This light tank is not fulfilling requirements as much as it could on both weight and firepower sides, with main weapon system more optimised for Tank destroyers. Vehicle have  protection level of APC but with bloated profile thanks to oversized turret. For general purpose light tank M48A4E2 have awkward weapons, low frontal protection. For recon vehicle it have unnecessary big profile and no advanced recon/observation kit. Only tactical mobility is good on this vehicle, and maybe not bad FCS. 

   Combination of negatives for me did not outweighted positives, so this is why i considered this light tank as worse than several other submissions. Although, i thank use of not totally boring loading system on this vehicle, haha :D

 

 

120MM GUN TANK T44

   As this vehicle was eliminated from competition i didn't made any serious/deep review of this vehicle. Leaving some questinable stats and features of this submission, few other things that jumped out for me:

Spoiler
  • Turret bustle completely cover engine deck, same problem as on light tank
  • TC and gunner (or loader) hatches are too close to each other, create a weakspot for mortar/artillery HE rounds (edge effect)
  • ERA is used for increased protection, which is good. And yes, i am ok with it as 1940-50s level of tech allows to build it.
  • Good ERA coverage of UFP, where it have probably high efficiency tanks to angle
  • Bad ERA positioning on LFP and turret frontal armor
  • No protection by ERA package of lower side armor
  • ERA protection of at least part of the roof and part of turret sides
  • ERA protection of turret ring from the side
  • Don't like geometry of tracks in the rear part of tank. Angle at which track leave last roller and go to drive sprocket is too step, which leave less contact surface of tracks for a drive sprocket to grab on.
  • First roller and front sprocket swing arms are (as i see it right on schematics) attached almost in the same place, which mean this part of side hull armor is weakened by joints.
  • Serious level of firepower
  • Such long barrel is not good thing for vehicle use in rough terrain and in urban conditions

 

   Conclusion

   This vehicle is outside of capabilities of industry to produce it with reasonable price. Some of features are not bad - extensive use of ERA is not a bad way to increase protection of vehicle while keeping inside of weight limitation. There are questions to main weapon very long barrel, but it does provide serious firepower that would allow to not bother with armament upgrades for long time. 

   But i can't say more on this vehicle as it jumped out for me as more of Abrams wankery than a submission for requirements, i felt it went against spirit of this competition.

 

 

@ApplesauceBandit

   Even if submission was not taken for "competitive judging", i looked at what we had on hand and made some notes about it.

 

   XM42 "Prettyboy"

Spoiler

Positives

  • Some details were modelled - like splash guard on UFP and collapsible mount for turret roof mounted HMG
  • Gunner sight moutned high enough to work in hull down position
  • Turret shape is good for ballistic protection if backed with enough LOS armor thickness
  • Easy access to engine deck
  • Did not forgot to put muzzle brake to decrease recoil
  • Good depression/elecation for main weapon
  • Appears to be compact light tank, and to make it more compact UFP was sloped well enough to the point that driver needs a special hatch to make space for him.
  • Reasonable crew number
  • Ventilation system in turret mentioned and modelled
  • SPG on proposed tank chassis
  • Side hatch for ammunition loading/getting rid of spent cases on SPG turret

Negatives

  • Driver needs a special hatch that can compromise frontal protection (lower angle of frontal section of driver cabin + edge effect)
  • Optics mounted in UFP is terrible for protection, especially in a place that is likely to be weakspot
  • It appears that escape route for driver is obstructed by turret, when it is facing forward
  • Driver's sliding hatch is worse for fast evacuation that more "classis" openable designs, that could be opened simultaneously with driver moving out of his place, while in sliding design driver needs to wait for hatch to slide and clear a path.
  • Gunner sight obstructs commander view of although small, but still a section of frontal area, especially in hull down position
  • Commander hatch doesn't have optics facing 90 degr to the right/side
  • Additional proposed protection against HEAT-warhead based weapons was not modelled
  • Turret frontal section shape will make it harder to mount any add-on protection kit or ERA
  • Gunner doesn't have his own hatch
  • It appears that gunner also doesn't have general-purpose observation optics to search big arc, only main sight for shooting at certain targets
  • No thermal sleeve

   

   Conclusion

   This submission would have been a solid entry in this competition if more time was given to completing basic requirements. Turret shape could be changed for expected future upgrades with layered armor/NERA. Only you bothered to model SPG based on proposed tank chassis, too.

 

 

@Toxn

   As both vehicle have plenty of similarities, i made a combined notes on both.

 

 XM8 “Elk”

Spoiler

 Interesting idea - he uses same size and layout for medium/heavy and light tanks, but different material

 

Positives:

  • Both medium/heavy and light tank fits into all requirements
  • Relatively well protected frontally (medium)
  • Uses fuel tanks under frontal armor to increase protection
  • Side armor around crew compartment is increased compared to rest of side armor
  • Driver hatch protection wasn't compromised by periscopes
  • Upgrade potential and models of proposed/expected upgrades
  • Interesting and easy to implement upgrade against APCR even on basic vehicle
  • Balanced crew of 4 for both vehicles
  • Good/balanced firepower for both vehicles
  • Vert Stabilizer for main gun and FCS in general (incl. upgrades)
  • Compressed air bore evacuator
  • Wet ammoracks
  • 50 rounds carried is pretty good
  • High energy / good hp/t ratio
  • Very high max range for light tank
  • Commander and loader have rotatable periscopes
  • Easy service of engine
  • Vent system
  • For the most part suspension have mature layout/design

Negatives

  • Suspension uses inversed swing arm on 2 rollers (1 per each side), which might be bad for driving offroad - increased wear and higher probability to damage it
  • This arrangement of swing arms is used to decrease overal hight of this vehicle, but it is 2.7 meters tall (0.6 meters higher than T-54)
  • Ammunition location, including near driver station, not isolated from crew
  • Gunner doesn't have rotatable periscope, or any wide-angle optics to search for targets
  • HMG location
  • Uses all-aluminium design where it isn't really necessary or even compromising protection (like UFP) on light tank
  • Internal fuel tanks, which could have been moved outisde of the hull, for example on top of upper mudguards, similar to T-72
  • Gunner sight is in the way of commander's periscope when in hull down position
  • No significant protection of sides even in proposed upgrades
  • No ERA upgrades
  • Turret shape is not that good for more volume/weight efficient armor upgrades as base armor can't be removed or changed easily
  • Gun mantlet sits near gun mounting system. Even non-penetrating hit can probably jam it
  • Coaxial MG location
  • No thermal sleeve on gun barrel

 

   Conclusion

   Well, Toxn's heavy was close 2nd place in 45t category and his light varaint was a winner in 25t category. Both vehicles are reasonable machines, but in few places those tanks are too "1940-50s" level of design (for example - wet ammorack instead of separated ammunition compartment). I liked first armor upgrade that could easily be used on basic proposal. Both vehicles were more mature and detailed in design and were more focused on requirements and their spirit.   

 

 

@N-L-M

   As your heavy tank won, i will begin with light AFV that didn't managed to repeat a success of his bigger brother.

 

XM-2240 RED FOX

Spoiler

Positives

  • Fits into requirements
  • Light and small (1.95 meters turret roof, 2.3 with optics)
  • 35 mm caliber AC with HE/AP load is balanced in terms of autocannons
  • 500-600 rounds for AC are carried
  • ATGMs are used as additional anti-armor weapon
  • ATGMs can be used in hull-down as launcher is raisable
  • 4 missiles in ready to launch configuration
  • Missiles are located inside of launcher unit with at least some sort of protection for ATGMs
  • Uses combination of steel and aluminium for armor
  • V-shaped hull bottom
  • Smoke grenades
  • FCS and optics same as on Norman
  • Upgradability of armor + ERA proposed
  • firefighting system as on Norman
  • Spaced armor on hull sides, front and turret rear/sides in form of stowage bins with thicker walls
  • Turret have protective mantlet on the autocannon
  • Crew comfort, air conditioning, water+food
  • Variants of chassis use
  • Wheels/suspension probably can be built using civilian products or civilian-grade equipment to decrease cost

Negatives

  • Wheeled death trap, high mobility is possible before first puddle of mud
  • No spaced armor on turret front even if design is using it on sides
  • Wheels 
  • ATGMs are MCLOS
  • ATGMs can't be reloaded without leaving vehicle
  • Different types parts are used for suspension of front and rear wheels
  • Turret shape is complicated, probably needs more welding that it really needs
  • Limited HE capabilities of main weapon, same as with A.T. Mahans light tank. Actually it is probably worse, as 35 mm cannon rounds likely to have less HE payload than 57 mm high velocity rounds
  • ATGMs are too expensive to use as good HE shell substitute, which is total make it worse compared to A.T. Mahans proposal to use 106 RRs
  • Driver hatch in UFP compromise protection against direct AP/HE rounds hit
  • Vehicle uses wheels which make it a wheeled death trap

       

   Conclusion

   This wheeled death trap is focused on AT work and dealing with low-protected vehicles but leaves HE capabilities to be less than other proposed vehicles managed to show. MCLOS ATGMs also were considered to be not good enough compared to more boring classic medium caliber cannons for AT work, although they could be mentioned for future upgrades of this vehicle, when they would be SACLOS. All this combined with 10 tons of unused weight (15t vs max 25t) and generally low level of protection, bad cross country capabilities, this vehicle is too specialised on narrow type of warfare and losses in several key areas to other designs. 

   Wheeled death trap was pretty solid entry in this competition and unique compared to other proposals.

 

 

   XM-2239 NORMAN

Spoiler

Positives:

  • Fits into requirements
  • Relatively lower than several previously revewed design with 2.32 meters to turret roof.
  • Frontal projection of the turret isn't as bad as few other designs because of optics-gun positioning in the turret and turret design itself
  • Good hull down capabilities
  • Good frontal protection
  • Armor designed with upgradability in mind with removable section of armor attached with bolts
  • Hull lower protection incorporate fuel tank and an internal armor plate
  • Uses different hardness steels
  • Uses spaced armor
  • Proposes NERA and ERA
  • Have protective sideskirts
  • Ammunition is separated from crew and have blow out panels
  • Big amount of smoke grenade launchers
  • Fire fighting system in crew and engine compartment
  • Able to mount spall linear
  • Avaliable and proposed guns provide good firepower
  • 56 rounds is pretty good
  • Advanced optics kit
  • Loader have not bad optics
  • Optical rangefinder with ballistic computer
  • Rangefinder is operated by commander, to increase speed of first shot at a spotted target 
  • Hunter-killed system
  • Gun follows sight system
  • Commander can override controls of main weapons
  • Crew comfort - water, food, air conditioning
  • APU, also works as engine heating system
  • Compressed air 
  • Big engine bay for better colling of the engine
  • Ammo loading hatch in the turret side
  • Fume extractor
  • Externally removable barrel of the main gun
  • Sprung hatches
  • Upgradability of components like ammoracks, plus ability to build different vehicles on this chassis (as it is overbuilt)
  • Easy to maintain/repair suspension (external, coil springs)
  • Strategical mobility is taken into account

Negatives:

  • Loader optics is fixed, could be suplemented with rotating optical station to look directly behind the vehicle, or to cover frontal arc if needed
  • Commander's main sight is blocked by gunner sight in hull down position, not sure about qulity of picture in stereorangefinder
  • Driver hatch appears to have optics fixed into the hatch, this compromise protection of already relatively weak part (HE blast on turret frontal armor can push hatch, weakened by holes for periscope, and periscopes themselvs into the driver station)
  • Driver probably have not very good visibility from optics that is mounted in the rear section of the hatch, which is already located on hull roof
  • Location of both MGs on turret roof
  • Lack of additional protective mantlet for main gun, current one looks to be located near gun mounting system, probably it is prone to jamming even for non-penetrating hits
  • Uses external suspension, that decrease possible increase of internal volume and make increase of side armor and add-on modules on hull sides a harder design problem
  • Rangefinder base is short-ish, so it probably is less accurate
  • Very low protection of LFP (30 mm of armor), means that if it is hit, fuel tanks are likely to be damaged as well

 

   Conclusion

   Norman is most detailed and mature design with a lot of attention given to a crew and their working space. Well protected with balanced mobility, firepower and means for easy upgrades being built-in, this submission won first place for a reason.

 

 

@Sturgeon

   Now we came to a part of this post that you apperently really wanted to see. Let's begin with light tank

 

"Sandy"

Spoiler

Positives

  • Fits all requirements
  • Light, can be transported by air/good strategical mobility
  • Relatively small vehicle
  • Height is 2.13 meters (TC's optics), which is rather good compared to other submissions
  • Good ground clearance
  • Upgrade potential, variant with 3 man turret
  • Upgraded variant have very good turret armor for a light tank
  • Pretty good main weapon for such light vehicle, balanced AP/HE capabilities 
  • Both gunner and TC on airmobile version have plenty of observation optics to work with 
  • Gunner can have rotatable optics pretty easily, althoug submissions doesn't specify if it is rotatable 
  • Upgraded version have turret with differet shape than on medium tank - no roof weakspot being visible from the front 
  • Commander hatch doesn't have protrusion, no weakspot as on medium tank 
  • Rear doors for crew evacuation, also can be used to load vehicle with ammunition and other stuff 
  • On upgraded variant loader have MG located in the front of his hatch 
  • Crew stations on airdroppable variant in a turret are protected by 25 mm steel armor 
  • Good hp/t ratio

 

Negatives

  • All around armor made of aluminium means low level of protection of this vehicle
  • 10 mm side armor made of aluminium is awful, i think some of HE shells fragments can make it through 
  • External suspension limits ability to increase side protection with some sort of steel skirts, spaced from main hull to avoid HE fragments, bullets and other crap from penetrating this AFV 
  • No side skirts even as upgrade for land version of this vehicle 
  • No steel inserts/layer even in frontal armor 
  • Frontal location of engine and transmission coupled with low protection means a lot of mobility kills from weak weapons
  • It appears that optics in mounted into the driver hatch, compromising protection against HE blast on turret frontal armor 
  • Upgraded variant turret shape isn't that good for easy armor upgrades 
  • On both variants there is an safety hazard for a driver as gunner's MG/coaxial MG line of sight is near/above driver's hatch, making driver to cross line of fire during entrance and exit
  • On "heavy" version MG barrel sticks out too much and can be damaged by debris and fragments from HE rounds  
  • Not sure of trashcans on airmobile version of light tank being comfortable to work inside while in desert under hot sun. Small internal volume coupled with realitibely high surface will quikcly increase internal temperature of crew stations to uncomfortable levels 10+ tons of unused weight 
  • 20 mm AC on upgraded variant is probably not efficient way to use internal volume and weight. Gunners will hit tank-looking AFVs with AP anyway and everythign else will be better destroyed by HE/HEAT rounds anyway 
  • Gunner doesn't have optics on the roof on upgraded variant, limiting his ability to observe targets while in concealed/turret down position 
  • Sight in turret frontal armor compromise frontal protection on most probable place to be hit
  • No thermal sleeve

 

   Conclusion

   Sandy in both configurations are vehicles with potential, but with problems that compromise this potential. "Light" version would have been a serious contender... in other competition. We didn't had requirements to be capable to be easily transportable by air, or be airdroppable. Light Sandy was designed with self-imposed objectives. It also have number of problems because of that, like very low level of protection, question with crew comfort and so on. 

   Heavy variant with new turret was much more serious contender in 25t category, but very low level of hull protection, questinable upgradeability of chassis and turret, layout of vehicle were it's main failings in my eyes.

 

 

M15 Roach

Spoiler

 

Positives

  • Relatively well armored (although less than Donward), including modernization variants
  • NERA used on modernized vehicles, incl. turret, hull, sides 
  • Up to 152 mm cannon (20 mm coax is deleted on biggest cannon variant) 
  • 2-axis stabilizers in upgraded variants 
  • Optical rangefinder on some of models 
  • Driver position is on the side of the hull, leaving him more space to get it/leave vehicle 
  • MG on the roof is located in front of loader's hatch, instead of somewhere between loader's and TC's hatch like on Donward 
  • Reasonable suspension geometry/layout

 

Negatives

  • External suspension coupled with vertical sides increase vehicle width, and probably more prone to battle damage from HE
  • Turret shape exposes turret roof in frontal projection of tank (rear is higher than frontal part of turret)
  • Because of turret shape TC cupola is bigger/higher mounted, increasing turret roof weakspot
  • Gunner primary sight is mounted in such way that it compromise turret frontal protection
  • Gunner doesn't have sights on turret roof, which limits his observation from hull down and turret down positions
  • Optical rangefinder partially block TC's frontal area vision, especially in hull down
  • No protective gun mantlet on original and on one of upgraded variants, gun mantlet looks like it is close to gun mountings
  • On most upgraded variant, turret frontal part may be a problem for a driver  
  • it appears that optics in mounted into the driver hatch, compromising protection against HE blast on turret frontal armor
  • Turret shape on basic version is not very good for easy armor upgrades
  • 20 mm autocannon is probably not very usefull/efficient use of internal space, also compromise gun mantlet protection
  • Upgraded variant with new turret have very long barrel
  • No thermal sleeve
  • It also have very long turret, meaning more surface visible in +-30 degr. arc, easier to hit from side
  • And it partially obscure access to engine deck roof


   Conclusion

   Roach was in my opinion mediocre vehicle. Submission lacked level of details and autism of NLM and Toxn's works, which would played against it. Shape of hull and turret was made without ease of upgradeability in mind, turret armor weakspots and few other things were other factors playing against Roach. Weapon upgrades, firepower and adequate FCS for it, general level of armor protection outside of weakspots and armor upgrades were positives of this submission. In my mind i put it on 3rd place out of all 45t category submissions, with a noticeable gap between it and 2nd place. 

 

   M12 Donward

   As it was eliminated from competition i did only a short review of it.

Spoiler

Positives

  • Relatively well armored
  • Turret shape is very optimised to maximum protection from the front
  • Armored side skirts
  • Gunner have 2 sights
  • Ballistic calculator
  • Aiming systems for inderect fire
  • Selection of guns, from 85 to 152 mm cannons (152 mm cannon mentioned in part 5)
  • Smoke grenades
  • Not bad hp/t ratio (18-19)
  • Hull shape makes external suspension to be less of problem for vehicle size, as it is eleptical (sides are at an angle)

 

Negatives

  • Turret appears to be blocking driver's escape from tank when in forward and rear-facing positions
  • Turret side profile is very big and much less protected, problem for protection in frontal 60degr. arc 
  • Turret shape makes it hard to upgrade with additional armor or ERA with good coverage
  • Vehicle hight is bad, 2.66 (roof) and up to 2.95 mm (MG)
  • Gunner don't have a hatch
  • HMG blocks part of frontal vision optics of TC in hull down
  • MG location in the center of turret roof, where it is awkward to use
  • It appears that optics in mounted into the driver hatch, compromising protection against HE blast on turret frontal armor
  • Very long barrel
  • No thermal sleeve
  • 20 mm autocannon on several variants is questinable weapon choice

 

   Conclusion

   Donward have same problem as Roach - it is 1950s level of tech tanks without much of modern AFV design features considered for it, unlike what we see in Norman and to slightly less degree in Elk. Roach was re-mix of T-55, while Donward looks like be T110E5-inspired design. Turret and hull shape would be harder to match with advanced armor upgrades that should be expected by designers in this AH story. Turret also have problems in terms of protection outside of very narrow frontal arc, especially it will be more and more problematic to protect as time goes on and better shells appear.

   And this submission also lacks details, which mean that it feels less mature and thought out compared to NLM's and Toxn's entries. On top of not fitting into basic requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

Well fuck-a-duck that was brutal. Thanks for the feedback.

 

After much thought, I definitely agree that we need better suggested proposal structure in the future. In particular, no more fake histories (or kept to a minimum, anyway).

Agreed and seconded.

 

I think this puts an entirely new spin on being

:loooserd:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So as a side project, I kept working on a vehicle which was capable of fulfilling all the requirements at once. This is what I came up with:

 

Note: some of the detailing is missing. Specifically the turret lift eyes and ventilation port. The rear hull also needs a bit of a rework to be more accessible for maintenance.

 

XM20 “Twenty tonner”

 

AsJeKF7.jpg

 

General

  • Length: 5.8m (hull) 8.00m or 9.25m (gun forward)
  • Width: 1.675m (hull), 3.18m (total)
  • Height: 1m (hull), 0.75 (turret), 2.2m (to top of commander's hatch), 2.4m to top of commander's periscope
  • Turret ring diameter: 160cm
  • Ground clearance: 0.46m
  • Weight: 20 tonnes combat loaded
  • Crew: 4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)

Armour

  • Upper hull front: 104mm LoS (55mm RHA @ 58’)
  • Lower hull front: 96mm LoS (55mm RHA @ 53’)
  • Hull side forward: 75mm
  • Hull side rear: 45mm
  • Hull rear: 25mm
  • Hull roof: 20mm
  • Hull floor: 15mm
  • Turret front: 115mm LoS (100mm RHA @ 30’)
  • Internal mantlet: 100mm
  • Turret side forward: 76mm LoS (75mm RHA @ 10')
  • Turret side rear: 76mm LoS (75mm RHA @ 10')
  • Turret rear: 50mm
  • Turret roof forward: 117mm LoS (40mm RHA @ 70’)
  • Turret roof rear: 20mm

 

Weapons

 

65mm L/50 cannon:

  • Cartridge dimensions: 65x595mm, 94mm at base
  • APHE: 4.3kg @ 940m/s, ~130mm @ 500m
  • APCR: 2.4kg @ 1260m/s, ~190mm @ 500m
  • HE: 4.2kg @ 700m/s
  • ME: 1.95MJ
  • Vertical movement: -12’/+30’
  • 60 rounds stowed (30 in blow-off storage in turret, 30 in blow-off storage in hull left of driver)

 

M240 machinegun (coaxial, 1200 rounds stored)

 

Automotive

  • Engine: 32.3l, 430HP/308kW V10 diesel (V-2-34 derivative)
  • Internal fuel tanks: 450l stored in tank on driver's left
  • External fuel tanks: 130l stored in tanks on hull rear
  • Power/weight: 16kW/t
  • Max speed: 70km/h on road, 45km/h off road
  • Range: 580km on road, 300km on road

Misc:

  • Commander's transistor radio in turret bustle.
  • Loader and commander's hatch are rotatable and have 3 periscopes. The front periscope can be trained up and down +/-30'. The hatches include azimuth indicators to simplify guidance to targets.
  • The gunner's main sight is stabilised in one axis and comprises a unity sight and magnified sight component. The sight can move as far as the gun in the vertical. The magnified sight has multiple reticles (mounted in a revolver-style arrangement) which can be moved into position to provide the correct reticle for a given shell type.
  • The gunner's secondary sight is a telescopic sight mounted next to the gun. It has a combination reticle with markers for the APHE and HE shell types only.
  • The gun is stabilised in one axis. The gun includes an azimuth and elevation indicator to simplify gun laying.
  • The gun mount can accept a gunner's quadrant for indirect fire.
  • The turret is electrically traversed and can attain speeds of up to 30 degrees per second. The traverse mechanism includes a low-speed setting, high-speed setting and manual traverse for fine gun laying.
  • The main gun is rifled and has a thermal sleeve and bore evacuator.
  • The suspension is of the torsion bar type.
  • The LRS-2 laser rangefinder (described earlier) can be mounted to the gun.
  • The TBC-3A electronic ballistic computer and associated IAPO-3 sight (described earlier) can be retrofitted to the vehicle. The IAPO-3 sight replaces the magnified primary sight.

npnaTUu.jpg

Description

 

The twenty tonner is the result of ruthless weight-saving and component optimisation in order to fulfil both the light and medium tank requirements.  It is designed around the concept of long-range patrols, deep strike operations and offensive sweeps, and is built to be fast, reliable and economic. The twenty tonner achieves some of its light weight by restricting crew dimensions. Drivers cannot be taller than 1.68m; while loaders and commanders cannot be taller than 1.75m.

 

The hull and drivetrain components are mainly derived from the T-55 series of vehicles, with the hull shortened by ~160mm and considerably narrowed in order to accommodate the smaller turret ring. The engine is a diesel V10 unit whose starting point was a  V-2-34 engine with the first two cylinders removed. All of the automotive components are designed around a maximum weight of 30 tonnes to provide a generous margin for upgrades. The turret is of welded construction, and has spare capacity to fit a weapon in the 3MJ class if needed.

 

The 65mm gun is a high-velocity weapon selected for its compact dimensions, compact ammunition, rapid fire rate and good performance. The standard APHE is capable of dealing with all commonly-encountered threats at combat ranges, while the APDS presently in development is expected to provide penetration performance of ~200mm RHA at range. This level of performance should ensure that the 65mm remains viable against even heavy tanks for the foreseeable future.

 

The armour package of the twenty tonner is designed to provide protection against the most commonly-encountered threats on the the battlefield. Although it cannot go toe-to-toe with heavier vehicles directly, its potent gun allows it to penetrate most enemies frontally at combat ranges. The optics and fire control arrangements are expected to aid target acquisition and improve first-round hit probability - allowing the twenty tonner to win engagements by fixing and destroying enemies rather than trying to slug it out directly. To this end crews should be selected for initiative, independence of thought, aggression and good technical competence.

 

All in all, the twenty tonner is expected to be able to fulfil multiple roles in the battlefield, allowing many different types of vehicle (scout vehicles, light tanks and medium tanks) to be combined into a 'universal' design.

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.

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.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By kvnovasco
      ...actually nevermind i found this amazing site https://www.cybermodeler.com/armor/t-72/t-72_all.shtml  and it has LOADS of pics and i'm happy...still how do you find high res images of tanks online ?
      i looked and looked but rarely found any,it can't be possible that people didn't take millions of 6000x4000 pics of tanks...right?
    • By N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only
      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII
      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California
      Anno Domini 2250
      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank
       
      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.
       
       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:
      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank
      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.
      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM
      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.
      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.
      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.
      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.
      F.      IEDs
      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.
      2.      General guidelines:
      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.
      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.
      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.
      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.
      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.
      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:
      a.      Vehicle recoverability.
      b.      Continued fightability.
      c.       Crew survival.
      E.      Permissible weights:
      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.
      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.
      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.
      F.      Overall dimensions:
      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.
      b.      Width- 4m transport width.
                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.
                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.
      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.
      G.     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 SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^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 100mm.
      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- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure
      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm 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 twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.
                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.
                                                                   v.     Fused silica
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.
                                                                  vi.     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-0.82g/cm^3.
                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               viii.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  ix.     ERA-light
      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy
      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  xi.     NERA-light
      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm 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.
                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy
      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm 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.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)
                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 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- limited
      3.      Operational Requirements.
      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.
      4.      Submission protocols.
      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
      Addendum 1 - more armor details
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • By Sturgeon
      @Toxn
      @Dominus Dolorem
      @Lord_James
      @A. T. Mahan
      @delete013
      @Sten
      @Xoon
      @Curly_
      @N-L-M
      @Sturgeon
       
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Saturday the 24th of July at 23:59 CST.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.

      PLEASE REMEMBER ALL ENTRIES MUST BE SUBMITTED IN USC ONLY
       
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name
       
      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here]
       
      Table of basic statistics:
      Parameter
      Value
      Mass, combat (armor)
       
      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:
      Mobility:
      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.
      Survivability:
      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.
      Firepower:
      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.
      Fightability:
      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
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      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
       
×
×
  • Create New...