Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 592
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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

Best oscillating turret...

Right, I think I have a pretty good idea of what the basic turret will look like. The front and cheek armor and ring are cast, the flanks, rear, roof, and under bustle are rolled.
qnZjONh.png

Structure estimated at 5.7 tons, not bad for an initial design. Combined with the hull being slimmed down to 13.3 tons, I get 19 tons so far. Assuming a ~50% armor weight fraction, that leads me towards 40 tons, which is a good place to be.
I should probably stop for the day.

EDIT: ballistic fixes bring me to 5.8 on the turret.
To prevent multiposting:
It seems I got my sizes a bit off, the turret is a bit too small for the hull.
TpicwI3.png

Edited by N-L-M
avoiding spamming
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be using Autodesk’s AutoCAD for my design, because I have a lower form of autism than the rest of you... and I have experience with it... but mostly the autism. Hopefully I can start creating tomorrow morning. 

 

Edit: can I use technology that might not be in the Cascade documents you so generously gave us, but was around (and in use) during the early 40s? 

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

 

 

Edit: can I use technology that might not be in the Cascade documents you so generously gave us, but was around (and in use) during the early 40s? 

Yeah, any publicly available research can be used in development of your design. Although I like the thought that the nation's archives are just a bunch of shit that somebody printed out from SH, which was somehow the only thing to survive the nuclear apocalypse.

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

I will be using Autodesk’s AutoCAD for my design, because I have a lower form of autism than the rest of you... and I have experience with it... but mostly the autism. Hopefully I can start creating tomorrow morning. 

 

Edit: can I use technology that might not be in the Cascade documents you so generously gave us, but was around (and in use) during the early 40s? 

Actually, in the real world Autocad is full autism and normies use Solidworks/Inventor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SPG and SPAAG variants:

 

XM9 “Black Bear”

 

6HoRwvU.jpg

Basic statistics

  • Length: 6.6m (hull), 11.4m (total)
  • Width: 2.65m (hull), 3.25m (total)
  • Height: 2.5m
  • Weight: 48 t (combat weight)
  • Crew: 4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)

Armour

  • 100mm (upper hull front)
  • 100mm (lower hull front)
  • 65mm (hull side forward)
  • 25mm (hull side rear)
  • 25mm (hull rear)
  • 25mm (hull roof)
  • 25mm (hull floor)
  • 100mm (mantlet)

Weapons

 

120mm L/50 cannon:

  • APHE: 23.9kg, 875m/s, ~200mm RHA penetration (90’, 500m)
  • APCR: 13.6kg, 1045m/s, ~300mm RHA penetration (90’, 500m)
  • HE: 21.7 kg, 500m/s
  • Movement: +/- 12 degrees horizontal, -10 degrees/+30 degrees vertical

Browning M2 heavy machine gun (hull roof)

 

Drivetrain

  • Engine: 18L, 500 HP (373 kW) V8 petrol engine (Ford GAA derivative)
  • Power/weight:  10.4kW/t
  • Max speed (road): 35km/h
  • Max sustained speed (offroad): 25km/h
  • Range: 300km

Description

 

F50yYdS.jpg

Sometimes you just need whatever is in front of your position to die. The M9 “Black bear” is designed to make everything in within range of its gun go away as efficiently as possible. Armed with a long 120mm gun (a calibre with special significance to Cascadians thanks to its storied history), this SPG is capable of punishing any presently fielded armoured vehicle out to long ranges with standard APHE. APCR, although not presently required, has also been developed in order to deal with any superheavy vehicles which may be developed in the near future. Finally, the gun has access to a very useful low-velocity HE round, along with more specialised rounds such as smoke and star shells.

 

The M9 is a casemate tank destroyer, with a 50cm superstructure on top of the hull to help accommodate the massive gun. The result is a vehicle is not much shorter than the tank it is based on. In terms of protection; the much higher slope of the upper front plate (60 degrees versus 45 degrees for the M8) provides a significant increase in survivability against threats from the front. Otherwise, the armour is the same as the base vehicle.

 

The superstructure and front plate, when combined with the massive gun, did unfortunately result in a significant increase in weight over the M8. As a result the front suspension needed to be strengthened and a new transmission system needed to be designed for the extra load. The latter was probably a good idea in any case, as this allowed neutral steering to be included in order to assist the gunner. The horizontal and vertical travel of the gun is about average for this sort of vehicle, and is adequate for the task at hand.

 

The interior of the crew compartment is relatively roomy, which is helpful given the increased burden on the loader. The main gun uses two-piece ammunition, which lowers the overall rate of fire somewhat but allows one man to load the main gun. Crew comfort is also increased thanks to a forced-air bore scavenging system, which significantly cuts down on smoke and fume buildup inside the vehicle.

 

Overall; the M9 is expected to serve in limited numbers compared to the M8, but should provide a very useful capability for engaging in defensive operations against heavy armour or offensive operations against fixed fortifications.

 

XM10 “Goshawk”

 

rcKpIkN.jpg

Basic statistics

  • Length: 6.6m
  • Width: 2.65m (hull), 3.25m (total)
  • Height: 2.8m
  • Weight: 20 t (combat weight)
  • Crew: 3 (commander, gunner, driver)

Armour

  • 25mm (upper hull front)
  • 25mm (lower hull front)
  • 25mm (hull side forward)
  • 15mm (hull side rear)
  • 15mm (hull rear)
  • 15mm (hull roof)
  • 15mm (hull floor)
  • 25mm (turret front)
  • 25mm (turret front side)
  • 15mm (turret rear side)
  • 15mm (turret rear)
  • 15mm (turret roof)

Weapons

  • 2x20mm autocannon (movement: -10/+80 degrees vertical)

Drivetrain

  • Engine: 18L, 450 HP (340 kW) V8 petrol engine (Ford GAA derivative)
  • Power/weight:  22.5kW/t
  • Max speed (road): 45km/h
  • Max sustained speed (offroad): 35km/h
  • Range: 500km

Description

 

N5NeMH3.jpg

The M10 is simply a light version of the M8 with an open-topped turret designed to hold two 20mm autocannon. The mount is based on the venerable ZSU-23-2 design, and has good movement in the vertical. The electric turret drive can push the turret through a full rotation in around 10 seconds, which assists in tracking fast-moving targets.

 

The M10 is expected to be useful when dealing with low-flying aircraft and infantry, and should fill a useful niche within the armoured force.

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

@LostCosmonaut I'm getting done with my SPG and SPAAG designs and have some keenness left over. Would it be okay for me to make a model of the Cascade Republic's existing tank?

I'm guessing that it looks something like a simplified M3 (or perhaps an M22), but you must correct me as necessary.

Sure, if you're up for it. M3 or M22 sounds about right,  I honestly didn't have a full design spec'ed out in my head beyond the approximate weight and armament.

''

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

SPG and SPAAG variants:

 

M9 “Black Bear”

 

6HoRwvU.jpg

Basic statistics

  • Length: 6.6m (hull), 11.4m (total)
  • Width: 2.65m (hull), 3.25m (total)
  • Height: 2.5m
  • Weight: 51 t (empty weight)
  • Crew: 4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)

Armour

  • 100mm (upper hull front)
  • 100mm (lower hull front)
  • 65mm (hull side forward)
  • 25mm (hull side rear)
  • 25mm (hull rear)
  • 25mm (hull roof)
  • 25mm (hull floor)
  • 100mm (mantlet)

Weapons

 

120mm L/50 cannon:

  • APHE: 23.9kg, 875m/s, 205mm RHA penetration (90’, 500m)
  • APCR: 13.6kg, 1045m/s, 299mm RHA penetration (90’, 500m)
  • HE: 21.7 kg, 500m/s
  • Movement: +/- 12 degrees horizontal, -10 degrees/+30 degrees vertical

Browning M2 heavy machine gun (hull roof)

 

Drivetrain

  • Engine: 18L, 500 HP (373 kW) V8 petrol engine (Ford GAA derivative)
  • Power/weight:  7.3kW/t
  • Max speed (road): 35km/h
  • Max sustained speed (offroad): 25km/h
  • Range: 300km

Description

 

F50yYdS.jpg

Sometimes you just need whatever is in front of your position to die. The M9 “Black bear” is designed to make everything in within range of its gun go away as efficiently as possible. Armed with a long 120mm gun (a calibre with special significance to Cascadians thanks to its storied history), this SPG is capable of punishing any presently fielded armoured vehicle out to long ranges with standard APHE. APCR, although not presently required, has also been developed in order to deal with any superheavy vehicles which may be developed in the near future. Finally, the gun has access to a very useful low-velocity HE round, along with more specialised rounds such as smoke and star shells.

 

The M9 is a casemate tank destroyer, with a 50cm superstructure on top of the hull to help accommodate the massive gun. The result is a vehicle is not much shorter than the tank it is based on. In terms of protection; the much higher slope of the upper front plate (60 degrees versus 45 degrees for the M8) provides a significant increase in survivability against threats from the front. Otherwise, the armour is the same as the base vehicle.

 

The superstructure and front plate, when combined with the massive gun, did unfortunately result in a significant increase in weight over the M8. As a result the front suspension needed to be strengthened and a new transmission system needed to be designed for the extra load. The latter was probably a good idea in any case, as this allowed neutral steering to be included in order to assist the gunner. The horizontal and vertical travel of the gun is about average for this sort of vehicle, and is adequate for the task at hand.

 

The interior of the crew compartment is relatively roomy, which is helpful given the increased burden on the loader. The main gun uses two-piece ammunition, which lowers the overall rate of fire somewhat but allows one man to load the main gun. Crew comfort is also increased thanks to a forced-air bore scavenging system, which significantly cuts down on smoke and fume buildup inside the vehicle.

 

Overall; the M9 is expected to serve in limited numbers compared to the M8, but should provide a very useful capability for engaging in defensive operations against heavy armour or offensive operations against fixed fortifications.

 

M10 “Goshawk”

 

rcKpIkN.jpg

Basic statistics

  • Length: 6.6m
  • Width: 2.65m (hull), 3.25m (total)
  • Height: 2.8m
  • Weight: 20 t (empty weight)
  • Crew: 3 (commander, gunner, driver)

Armour

  • 25mm (upper hull front)
  • 25mm (lower hull front)
  • 25mm (hull side forward)
  • 15mm (hull side rear)
  • 15mm (hull rear)
  • 15mm (hull roof)
  • 15mm (hull floor)
  • 25mm (turret front)
  • 25mm (turret front side)
  • 15mm (turret rear side)
  • 15mm (turret rear)
  • 15mm (turret roof)

Weapons

  • 2x20mm autocannon (movement: -10/+80 degrees vertical)

Drivetrain

  • Engine: 18L, 450 HP (340 kW) V8 petrol engine (Ford GAA derivative)
  • Power/weight:  17kW/t
  • Max speed (road): 45km/h
  • Max sustained speed (offroad): 35km/h
  • Range: 500km

Description

 

N5NeMH3.jpg

The M10 is simply a light version of the M8 with an open-topped turret designed to hold two 20mm autocannon. The mount is based on the venerable ZSU-23-2 design, and has good movement in the vertical. The electric turret drive can push the turret through a full rotation in around 10 seconds, which assists in tracking fast-moving targets.

 

The M10 is expected to be useful when dealing with low-flying aircraft and infantry, and should fill a useful niche within the armoured force.

That's got some Crusader AA heritage there.

 

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

Sure, if you're up for it. M3 or M22 sounds about right,  I honestly didn't have a full design spec'ed out in my head beyond the approximate weight and armament.

''

Thanks.

Do you have a preference for colour schemes? I'm going with a dark olive green for the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got enough experience with direct modeling stuff like 3ds max, but it's the parametric stuff that I've not got much experience in.  @Sturgeon For the turret, was that mostly done through lofting?  Shapes like that were a complete pain to make in 3ds max, though I'd imagine they're not as bad in solidworks.  

For the hulls, did you just make that side profile cutaway first (like what you used to show off armor thicknesses) and then build off that?  Solidworks is a little more picky with how you go about making things than 3ds max is.

 

I do have a couple courses I'll be taking this fall over solidworks, though I'm going to guess that they're not going to be as in-depth as I'd like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both the turret and hull began as sketches which were then extruded. To get the right contours I used extrude-cuts and revolve-cuts to sculpt away at the thing. You end up with open bits that way, but those can be filled with extrusions, etc. After that, I put like 500 fillets on it to make it look organic and cast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@LostCosmonaut, here's a what I came up with:

 

Light Tank M6

 

HZqKr4T.jpg

 

Basic statistics

  • Length: 5.08m, 5.18m (total)
  • Width: 1.65m (hull), 2.6m (total)
  • Height: 2.48m (40cm ground clearance)
  • Weight: 11 t (combat weight)
  • Crew: 4 (commander, gunner, driver, radio operator)

Armour

  • 25mm (upper hull front)
  • 25mm (lower hull front)
  • 25mm (hull side forward)
  • 10mm (hull side rear)
  • 10mm (hull rear)
  • 10mm (hull roof)
  • 15mm (hull floor)
  • 25mm (turret front)
  • 25mm (turret front side)
  • 15mm (turret rear side)
  • 15mm (turret rear)
  • 10mm (turret roof)

Weapons

  • 40mm L/50 cannon (movement: -15/+30 degrees vertical), 100 rounds stowed

                      APHE: 0.85kg, 790m/s, ~40mm penetration against RHA (500m, 90')

                      AP: 1.22kg, 790m/s,  ~50mm penetration against RHA (500m, 90')

  • M240 machine gun (coaxial), 1600 rounds stowed
  • M2 heavy machine gun (turret roof), 1200 rounds stowed

Drivetrain

  • Engine: 5L, 150 HP (112 kW) V8 petrol engine (Chevy small block derivative, because if there's one thing post-apocalyptic Americans will be able to make it's a small-block V8)
  • Power/weight:  9kW/t
  • Max speed (road): 50km/h
  • Max sustained speed (offroad): 30km/h
  • Range: 500km

dFgSlos.jpg

r3otc0q.jpg

 

Notes

  • The 40mm gun is essentially a 2 Pounder with access to solid AP, HE and canister (for scrubbing survivalists and tribals off your mate's vehicle).
  • A 55mm gun can be fitted, although it's awkward (as in, the breech is 20cm from hitting the turret ring at certain elevations). The vertical movement is also more restricted (-10/+20 degrees).
  • The hull is mostly welded while the turret, hatches and rear transmission housing are cast.
  • The turret ring diameter is 125cm.
  • The turret drive is manual, but I'd guess that later models include a powered drive of some sort.
  • The weird front hatch design is intended to include a pivot point and hinge. The hull crew is supposed to be able to flip up the hatch for better (but still protected) vision.
  • The transmission would be Cletrac-derived. So don't expect neutral steering.
  • My suggested name for it is 'Fox'. Mainly because this gives the troops plenty of scope for more entertaining nicknames (an older commander's vehicle is a 'Silver Fox', a female commander's is a 'Cougar' and so on).
  • It turns out to be quite a challenge to design something that looks functional but a bit primitive without it looking seriously goofy.

Qb9Wipp.jpg

0gc0Nj8.jpg

 

Acknowledgements: 

  • bAtsi
  • robboposh ..

Share link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dANQNANroc36WrI_hFOZT-Wt_ZDkhgGb

 

 

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...