Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

living on the edge:
LwlF4Lo.png
I ended up tightening up the wheels and springs, which as this is a lighter vehicle than the Merkava and M60 (springs and wheels respectively) shouldn't be a problem.
Tracks are 550mm wide, and the contact length 4375mm. the specs resulting from this will be calculated when I have a more accurate mass estimate.
But for now, the track-center-pitch-to-length ratio is 1.63, the contact area 4.81 sq. m, and with 6 wheels per side the MMP won't be too high.
@LostCosmonaut how "hard" a limit is the width requirement- can I have components fold out the way to fit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My skills in CAD are way too rusty to participate but wouldn't it be a good idea if all of you could agree on a standard mannequin (a file designed by the organisator or a judge) to check for crew ergonomics (or at the very least if the crew can actually fit inside)?

Just throwing the idea since I though it could be one more factor to differentiate the various designs you came up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

living on the edge:
LwlF4Lo.png
I ended up tightening up the wheels and springs, which as this is a lighter vehicle than the Merkava and M60 (springs and wheels respectively) shouldn't be a problem.
Tracks are 550mm wide, and the contact length 4375mm. the specs resulting from this will be calculated when I have a more accurate mass estimate.
But for now, the track-center-pitch-to-length ratio is 1.63, the contact area 4.81 sq. m, and with 6 wheels per side the MMP won't be too high.
@LostCosmonaut how "hard" a limit is the width requirement- can I have components fold out the way to fit?

 

It's a rail transport requirement. I'm demounting my side skirts to fit comfortably, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alzoc said:

My skills in CAD are way too rusty to participate but wouldn't it be a good idea if all of you could agree on a standard mannequin (a file designed by the organisator or a judge) to check for crew ergonomics (or at the very least if the crew can actually fit inside)?

Just throwing the idea since I though it could be one more factor to differentiate the various designs you came up with.

 

Yes that does sound like a decent idea, though maybe for next time at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, N-L-M said:

No such thing, just start and you'll learn along the way. low-detail is fine, no need to go full autismo.

 

I rather mean that I haven't practiced in a long time and that it would be very time consuming.

Time that I don't really have now because of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

I rather mean that I haven't practiced in a long time and that it would be very time consuming.

Time that I don't really have now because of work.

 

Ahh, I was gonna say “I haven’t used any type of CAD in over 3 years”, but the work thing I get. Classes are starting next week for me, so hopefully I can get most of my vehicle done before then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alzoc said:

My skills in CAD are way too rusty to participate but wouldn't it be a good idea if all of you could agree on a standard mannequin (a file designed by the organisator or a judge) to check for crew ergonomics (or at the very least if the crew can actually fit inside)?

Just throwing the idea since I though it could be one more factor to differentiate the various designs you came up with.

I use the standard sketchup mannequins, which are a bit janky and oversized but useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Spoiler

gdkzm0G.png

TZcZ8rI.png

AcwJhXZ.png

GynNYUJ.png

6vhNlfl.png

 

currently, the sliding breach and mount are not made. 

 

Recoil stroke: 300mm 

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

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turret details are now in.
b0qByrn.png
The turret and hull were slightly enlarged to improve ergonomics, the tank looks a bit strange now.
The depicted optics are a bit of a "how much optic can I stuff in here anyway" sort of deal, I'm not sure it's even possible to make the rangefinder in the cupola work. But the idea is that when IR optics become a thing they can be seamlessly integrated. Also the gunner's line of sight is stabilized in elevation (by the magic of mirrors and electric servos), the gun drive (hydraulic) is slaved to follow it. This allows good LoS stabilization, and firing on the move can be regulated by the difference between LoS and gun (MG only, main gun from short stop).
Next up on the agenda:
-Sideskirts
-Hull armor improvements
-Sponson goodies
-driver's hatch
-hull interior details.
It may however be a while until my next post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still messing around in solidworks, mass is a little over 8t if I've got it all scaled right.  I jerry-rigged the side hull on and did some other stuff in ways that probably weren't quite right.

SE91rsL.png

 

 

Also realized that despite thinking of stuff like the M47, T23, T-55 and stuff in mind when making the turret, it sure does look a lot like the Chaffee's now that I've refined the shape and flattened it some.

pucBtZR.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really happy :) Got the turret pretty far, as well as the gun mount (no breach block yet), AND I decided on the name. May I present to you, the Cascadia Medium Tank T9 ('s turret): 

 

 

Spoiler

miLztya.png

cS4el5R.png

3O6TUmA.png

rDypjmd.png

 

Yes, it is a cleft turret. I was originally going for a Object 477 design, but it ended up being more like a squished Leclerc. I'm quite pleased with it, though. 

 

General: 

Height: 517.6mm (from hull roof to top of gun mount) / 467.5mm (from hull roof to turret roof)

Width: 2.3m 

Length: 3.1m (from turret front to turret rear) / 6.31m (from gun tip to turret rear) 

Mass: 6.86 metric tons 

contains 3 crew (commander, gunner, loader) 

Gun depression: -20* (probably gonna be less due to the hull roof, but still pretty good) 

Gun elevation: +60* (it could go higher, I calculated that it would hit the floor of the hull just past this angle, 62.4* IIRC)

 

Spoiler

6fC7luI.png

kmmeNBL.png

 

Armor: 

Front plate: 230mm

Front sides: 130mm 

Rear sides: 90mm 

Rear plate: 90mm 

Roof: 40mm 

 

Gun mount front: 100mm 

Gun mount sides: 35mm 

Gun mount roof: 25mm 

 

 

The gun mount almost completely surrounds the breach, and acts as a counter balance to assist the stabilizer. I'll post the pics of the gun mount separately here: 

 

Spoiler

pNgDrJt.png

TBOM49u.png

RRQTc5K.png

GZUfCcz.png

ZBmEUnM.png

 

Thankfully, I managed to get the center of mass really close to the center of the trunnion (it is within the trunnion's area), so the primitive stabilizers the T9 has wont need to work so hard. 

 

There's some things I need to change with the turret and mount, mostly just cutting a hole through both so the loader can access the breach easier. Also gonna add commander cupola/MG as well as loader MG and assorted sights, but that's for tomorrow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally got my turret to work (decent depression, close to balanced, gun doesn't smash the commander in the groin when it fires);

 

VvHFmvx.png

 

Maximum gun depression is about 9.5 degrees. Model is still a bit unfinished, but it's at least enough to prove the bits work.

 

Weight of the turret and hull armor (ignoring gun model) is about 14.5 tons. Assuming the armor mass increases to 15 tons by the time I'm finished modeling everything, and the armor comes out to 43% of the total mass (midpoint of the range listed in this post; http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1085-design-contest-supplement-typical-weights-in-a-modern-tank/     ), it's on pace to come out at about 35 tons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

Finally got my turret to work (decent depression, close to balanced, gun doesn't smash the commander in the groin when it fires);

 

VvHFmvx.png

 

Maximum gun depression is about 9.5 degrees. Model is still a bit unfinished, but it's at least enough to prove the bits work.

 

Weight of the turret and hull armor (ignoring gun model) is about 14.5 tons. Assuming the armor mass increases to 15 tons by the time I'm finished modeling everything, and the armor comes out to 43% of the total mass (midpoint of the range listed in this post; http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1085-design-contest-supplement-typical-weights-in-a-modern-tank/     ), it's on pace to come out at about 35 tons.

 

Loader's position:

Westminster_Knight.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lord_James said:

/.../

Thankfully, I managed to get the center of mass really close to the center of the trunnion (it is within the trunnion's area), so the primitive stabilizers the T9 has wont need to work so hard. 

/.../

Did you tried to look at center of mass with round inserted? I guess balance will become even better with loaded gun.

 

@LostCosmonaut

Are mechanical assisted loading mechanisms/mechanised ammoracks a thing in this universe?

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 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 10th 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
       
      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
       
    • 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).
×
×
  • Create New...