Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Lord_James said:

pretty much done with the hull for now, gonna move on to the turret. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

q1gEePo.png

nWU1CyK.png

8o1ebmd.png

 

center of gravity included, haven't calculated mass yet (will probably edit it in). 

 

 

 

Edit: Mass= 14 metric tons (13.92), I was expecting more :D 

material= high strength, low alloy steel (7.850 g/cm3), so thoroughly average steel (the color is rubber green, cause @ApplesauceBandit already took the rusty red I wanted <_<

 

Feel free to use the red, it's just a placeholder color since I'm too lazy to figure out how they changed lighting in 3ds max 2018 and me just defaulting back to that clay mode is easier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 592
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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

Best oscillating turret...

ok, so I fudged up the turret a little bit... and I have to start over, tomorrow. BUT, I did get the shells done!! 

 

I present to you, the 94/74mm Shot Mk-1 APCNR: 

 

Spoiler

4cdopX0.png

6MEhcbM.png

jvSie84.png

6x8lIWd.png

 

755mm long complete round (11.4kg without propellant [and steel body]... as I don't know how much propellant I need, yet) 

94x275mm squeezebore projectile (7.63kg with steel body, 5.84kg with aluminum body... dont know which to choose) 

50x200mm Tungsten Carbide penetrating slug (4.88kg) 

 

 

Hopefully I can get the gun and turret done tomorrow. 

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

ok, so I fudged up the turret a little bit... and I have to start over, tomorrow. BUT, I did get the shells done!! 

 

I present to you, the 94/74mm Shot Mk-1 APCNR: 

 

  Hide contents

4cdopX0.png

6MEhcbM.png

jvSie84.png

6x8lIWd.png

 

755mm long complete round (11.4kg without propellant [and steel body]... as I don't know how much propellant I need, yet) 

94x275mm squeezebore projectile (7.63kg with steel body, 5.84kg with aluminum body... dont know which to choose) 

50x200mm Tungsten Carbide penetrating slug (4.88kg) 

 

 

Hopefully I can get the gun and turret done tomorrow. 

 

Pick the aluminum body. Steel is way too heavy, and unnecessary. Historical US APCR (I know yours is squeezebore, but it doesn't matter really) used aluminum bodies, and Cascadia has its own domestic source of aluminum (otherwise you'd have to switch to steel due to wartime shortages, with a resulting change of trajectory and sights - it'd be a mess). So just use aluminum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So my tank is a tad overweight. Current loaded weight estimates put it at 50.7 tonnes, giving it a curb weight of almost 48 tonnes. However, my tank also has an exceptional armor coefficient of 55% (which isn't surprising, @Collimatrix, as I was taking more than a few cues from the IS-3 in the hull design), and dropping that to a still extremely respectable 52.5% brings the tank's curb weight to right about 45 tonnes. I won't be modifying my model's armor layout (because lol effort), but I will be including mass and approximate armor figures for the "lightened" hull version which will be pretty accurate.

 

I like the heavy version, myself, but I do understand the original requirements necessitate a 45 tonne maximum so we'll work within that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are as close as I can get them right now:

 

Armor mass: 33,774 kg

Engine and transmission mass: 2,750 kg

Gun mass: 1,150 kg

Suspension mass: 4,751 kg

Tracks mass: 

Ammo mass: 1,109 kg

Fuel mass: 1,086 kg

Track link mass (steel): 34.7 kg

Track link mass (aluminum): 27.2 kg

No. of tracks: Approx. 160

Tracks mass (steel): 5,552 kg

Tracks mass (aluminum): 4,352 kg

Tank curb mass (steel tracks): 49.5 t

Tank curb mass (aluminum tracks): 48.3 t

Tank gross mass (steel tracks): 51.7 t

Tank gross mass (aluminum tracks): 50.5 t

 

one fat boi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming I need to drop 4500 kg of armor, that means I would need to decrease hull armor thickness on the glacis (top and bottom) by 6.5 inches to drop that much. The glacis is only 4.4 inches thick...

 

Serendipitously, I discovered that I can adjust my glacis thickness at will without breaking the model, which allowed me to test a 3" (top and bottom) glacis version. This saved me 900 kg, which is nice but not enough. I may have to compromise the turret... But I am betting that won't be easy.

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

Assuming I need to drop 4500 kg of armor, that means I would need to decrease hull armor thickness on the glacis (top and bottom) by 6.5 inches to drop that much. The glacis is only 4.4 inches thick...

 

Serendipitously, I discovered that I can adjust my glacis thickness at will without breaking the model, which allowed me to test a 3" (top and bottom) glacis version. This saved me 900 kg, which is nice but not enough. I may have to compromise the turret... But I am betting that won't be easy.

It's really more efficient (from a weight saving standpoint, at least) to thin side armour, roof armour and floor armour. Much more volume removed for an incremental loss of protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sturgeon Just eyeballing your model, it looks like a 65mm glacis (raked back at what looks like 60') is about the minimum required to keep out the Californian long 70s that will be one of the most common threats. So I'd put that as a hard floor.

 

Edit: I'd also say that side armour around the crew compartment should be about the same to keep present-gen 70s out across a decent arc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note: I seriously cosidered a quasi all-or-nothing armour scheme where the front and side crew compartment is 25mm, but the turret has over 100mm LOS all around (going up to 150mm on the front) and the turret basket is made from a 75mm casting. Everywhere else gets 10mm.

 

This is also called the "fok julle drivers" scheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Toxn said:

On a side note: I seriously cosidered a quasi all-or-nothing armour scheme where the front and side crew compartment is 25mm, but the turret has over 100mm LOS all around (going up to 150mm on the front) and the turret basket is made from a 75mm casting. Everywhere else gets 10mm.

I too had considered that, the problem is the sheer proliferation of fiddycals and HE frag means that on the whole you're increasing your vulnerability by focusing too much on the high-end threat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

I too had considered that, the problem is the sheer proliferation of fiddycals and HE frag means that on the whole you're increasing your vulnerability by focusing too much on the high-end threat.

I actually couldn't remember why I didn't bother with it in the end (jank ideas appeal to me), so I ran the numbers.

 

On my design it cuts the weight down to... 42 tonnes unstowed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, looks like the lightweight turret cuts about another 670kg. My turret side armor (which is at a 0 deg angle from the front) was excessive so I cut it down from 3" to 2". I also fixed all the fuckery that was going on with the fillets on my turret so now it's a much nicer and healthier model overall. 

 

That puts my curb mass at 46.7 t with aluminum tracks. Getting there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Holyfuckingshit no wonder. I just realized my side hull armor is three inches sloped at thirty degrees. I mean that's awesome, but... Probably unnecessary for a 45t tank

From the vertical? Yeah, you could cut it down to 60mm then, if you want to keep current Californian 70mm guns out at any range. Maybe 55mm, if you want to keep them out at battle ranges.

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

From the vertical? Yeah, you could cut it down to 60mm then, if you want to keep current Californian 70mm guns out at any range. Maybe 55mm, if you want to keep them out at battle ranges.

 

I cut the sides down to 2" (same thickness as a Centurion - at a greater angle - , I figure that's good enough since there are 1" thick side skirts). That cut the weight of the tank by almost three tonnes, and I am now down to a very healthy 43.6 t curb weight with aluminum tracks (44.8 t with steel tracks). WHEW!

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

 

I cut the sides down to 2" (same thickness as a Centurion - at a greater angle - , I figure that's good enough since there are 1" thick side skirts). That cut the weight of the tank by almost three tonnes, and I am now down to a very healthy 43.8 t curb weight with aluminum tracks (44.8 t with steel tracks). WHEW!

With the skirts that's very respectable indeed. You could cut those down to 15mm and still be okay.

 

Just to demonstrate: a 50mm side angled at 30' from the vertical, plus a 25mm skirt angled at 0', gets you ~115mm LOS thickness at the end of your 45' arc. At 30' that soars to ~165mm. This means that your tank's side armour is essentially immune to present-gen guns in the 30' arc, and is well-protected against the most common next-gen threat in the 45' arc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Toxn said:

With the skirts that's very respectable indeed. You could cut those down to 15mm and still be okay.

 

Just to demonstrate: a 50mm side angled at 30' from the vertical, plus a 25mm skirt angled at 0', gets you ~115mm LOS thickness at the end of your 45' arc. At 30' that soars to ~165mm. This means that your tank's side armour is essentially immune to present-gen guns in the 30' arc, and is well-protected against the most common next-gen threat in the 45' arc.

It's even better than that- at 30', you have, for 600mm wide tracks, 1200mm of air between your first layer and the hull. The first layer sets off fuzes and damages projectiles, they then have 1.2m to destabilize and break up before hitting the main armor, making your main armor more effective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, N-L-M said:

It's even better than that- at 30', you have, for 600mm wide tracks, 1200mm of air between your first layer and the hull. The first layer sets off fuzes and damages projectiles, they then have 1.2m to destabilize and break up before hitting the main armor, making your main armor more effective.

Definitely, and slope effectiveness against AP is more than just LOS thickness. I'm just giving the most conservative case here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Springs and sprocket are now a thing:
ZswbBg7.png
The springs were mostly eyeballed, and they just barely clear the hull and wheels. This is why the Merkava has such narrow wheels, otherwise the tank gets really wide really fast. Width over the sprockets is barely under the limit.
The intended wheel vertical movement is +300/-100 mm. Ground clearance is 500mm with tracks (to be installed). return rollers also to be installed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Reminds me of the T-44, which coming from me is quite a compliment.

Can you export your springs as sldprt files? I, uh, may want to poach them.

A quick googling says that Solidworks can import ProEngineer/Creo files, so how do you want it sent?

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...