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...

11 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

 

 

@LostCosmonaut

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

 

Not really, there's some limited mechanical assitance (i.e. to ram the round forward once you put it in the breech), but getting the ammunition from the rack to the gun is still done by hand.

 

The obvious exception is if you have a self contained autoloader. Won't work for large rounds, but there's historical precedent for autoloading 75mm guns in this timeframe;

6a1af0218cda80dbf3f9ca3193d15c44.jpg

 

This does have the limit that you can't select the ammo type, less capacity, added weight, etc.

 

 

 

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

I’ve been meaning to ask this, but how do I calculate propellant mass for my shell? I have a desired velocity I want to achieve, but have no idea how to calculate anything with the data I have. Any suggestions? 

 

Thanks in advance, Lord James. 

A hacky way is to use the available energy density of the propellant in a known gun/cartridge combination and scale accordingly. It won't be completely accurate but you'll get within a few percent.

 

Tank designer also has some propellant energy density stuff that it then does arcane calculations with to estimate a velocity for a given shell diameter/shell weight/tube length combo.

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

I wonder if you could put the stats into something like steel panthers and run some tests on the tanks... 

 

I've been using the Tank archives penetration calculator (in DeMarre mode) with the nearest known gun as a reference. However, the results differ wildly across different nations, ie: my 80mm gun gets 116mm penetration on the flat at 500m using the D-5-T, but 135mm using kwk 36. And thats using the 'normalised' comparative data from Wikipedia.

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

I've been using the Tank archives penetration calculator (in DeMarre mode) with the nearest known gun as a reference. However, the results differ wildly across different nations, ie: my 80mm gun gets 116mm penetration on the flat at 500m using the D-5-T, but 135mm using kwk 36. And thats using the 'normalised' comparative data from Wikipedia.

Well IIRC the PzGr 39 was actually a very good shell against unsloped armor, while the BR-365 was uncapped and had a larger filler cavity, reducing its penetration. Try DeMarre-ing similar shell designs from different guns, say PzGr 39 from the KWK 36 and KWK 40.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that I'll be able to deliver a proper entry this time around, but I'll probably try to at least refine my mockup so that I've got something pretty to post that's in the spirit of this competition.  I've also got to wonder if I'm partly to blame for the sudden trend of rear turreted light tanks with starship-esque turrets (with mine itself just being a copy of the Teledyne expeditionary tank). 🤔🤔

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

Well IIRC the PzGr 39 was actually a very good shell against unsloped armor, while the BR-365 was uncapped and had a larger filler cavity, reducing its penetration. Try DeMarre-ing similar shell designs from different guns, say PzGr 39 from the KWK 36 and KWK 40.

Shell construction definitely plays a part, yes.

 

My main point here was more to point out that penetration values will differ significantly depending on your assumptions going in, and for us not to put too much emphasis into them beyond giving a general indication of the potential of the gun. I should also really put my money where my mouth is and round my own penetration figures off to reflect this as well...

 

Edit: I should also note that when checking my 80mm design I used all of the following guns as DeMarre references: 76mm F-34, 85mm ZIS-S-53, 75mm M3, 90mm M3, 75mm KwK 40, 88mm KwK 36. Then I did the scientific thing and... took the one that looked better for my submission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ApplesauceBandit said:

I don't think that I'll be able to deliver a proper entry this time around, but I'll probably try to at least refine my mockup so that I've got something pretty to post that's in the spirit of this competition.  I've also got to wonder if I'm partly to blame for the sudden trend of rear turreted light tanks with starship-esque turrets (with mine itself just being a copy of the Teledyne expeditionary tank). 🤔🤔

I think we're all prone to outbreaks of cleft turret syndrome...

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

I’ve been meaning to ask this, but how do I calculate propellant mass for my shell? I have a desired velocity I want to achieve, but have no idea how to calculate anything with the data I have. Any suggestions? 

 

Thanks in advance, Lord James. 

 

You can actually use the Powley computer to do this. Just remember that a grain is 1/7000th of a pound. Override the pressure computer and use 45500 CUP.

 

The mass of propellant is equal to the internal volume (net capacity) of the round times the loading density. When in doubt, use 0.90 for the loading density.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Driver's hatch is now a thing:
LRPcvrK.png
Turret had to be slightly raised and enlarged to ensure the gun clears the hatch and periscopes at full depression.
For those wondering, yes the driver is mildly supine. I didn't model an IR-capable hatch because I'm lazy and didn't want to make yet another component so I just used the standard periscopes.
This swinging hatch design with the periscopes mounted  is inspired by the Leclerc and Leopard 2. The problem with it is that the resulting access hole is smaller than the hatch dimensions would suggest, as the periscopes must remain within the hull. For early IR, which is much larger than natural-light periscopes, the solution is to have the driver dismount the scope before opening the hatch. The IR periscope needs a rotating mount as there's only one, with a limited FoV.
but maybe that can be handwaved as the head being the same as the daylight periscope and therefore fitting in the same well.
Clearance illustrated:
NgXh5by.png
The commander has some, if limited, vision over the GPS even at full depression, allowing H-K operation. The cupola is fitted with commander's traverse and elevation override, with slew-to-cue.
I'm really liking how this is shaping up.

EDIT: current weight, including hull, turret, gun, extras, final drives (modeled as part of the hull for now) tracks and suspension come out at 30 tons.
To do this some densities were rectally extracted (wheel hubs include ball bearings and quite a bit of air, I approximated it as half empty, likewise most of the volume of the wheels are rubber)
So assuming suspension is 8-10%, tracks 8--10%, armor 50%, and the gun 5-7%, this means I've got around 70%-75% of the weight accounted for. This in turn leads me to a final weight of around 40-42 tons. Good.

The tank now also has a name:
XM-2239 "Norman"
Named for General Stormin' "did you hear he died" Norman Schwarzkopf.

Edited by N-L-M
weights added, tank named
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You can actually use the Powley computer to do this. Just remember that a grain is 1/7000th of a pound. Override the pressure computer and use 45500 CUP.

 

The mass of propellant is equal to the internal volume (net capacity) of the round times the loading density. When in doubt, use 0.90 for the loading density. 

 

I tried putting the values for the US 105mm on the T29 into that a few years ago and it matched exactly with hunnicutt (IIRC), which shows that there is precedent for predicting large calibres with it

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, I did the calculator... but have no idea what the hell I'm doing. I got these values: 

 

Spoiler

s88TNVj.png

XtzrMt8.png

 

but I don't know what to do with them, or what many of them mean (I'm going to assume that 30% efficiency is good)? I calculated that I would have 2.97kgs (6.55lbs) of powder, but I would like to know how much penetration I would get from this data. Also, since my gun is a squeeze bore, is there something I need to account for? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To get the penetration, the easiest thing to do is probably just use this penetration calculator; http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/p/demarre-calculator.html

 

For the reference, just use a contemporary projectile (Jeep's site has a good page on the 90mm M3; http://www.theshermantank.com/about/sherman-lee-and-variants-gun-data/90mm-m3-gun-information-page/  )

 

30% efficiency is a lot better than I ended up with for my first attempt.

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

To get the penetration, the easiest thing to do is probably just use this penetration calculator; http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/p/demarre-calculator.html

 

For the reference, just use a contemporary projectile (Jeep's site has a good page on the 90mm M3; http://www.theshermantank.com/about/sherman-lee-and-variants-gun-data/90mm-m3-gun-information-page/  )

 

30% efficiency is a lot better than I ended up with for my first attempt.

 

Ehh, I was getting disappointingly small numbers by using the M304 HVAP on Jeep's site, so I went online and looked for the 75/55 Pzgr. 41 data... and now I am pleased :P

 

I used the numbers I got from several sites and now I'm getting penetration values above 200mm :)I've averaged it out to: 

 

all values are for 30o, 0o being vertical 

220mm @ 100m

214mm @ 250m 

200mm @ 500m

157mm @ 1000m 

99mm @ 1500m 

49mm @ 2000m 

 

 

8.67in @ 100y 

8.46in @ 250y 

8.00in @ 500y 

6.53in @ 1000y 

4.49in @ 1500y 

2.51in @ 2000y 

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

ok, I did the calculator... but have no idea what the hell I'm doing. I got these values: 

 

  Hide contents

s88TNVj.png

XtzrMt8.png

 

but I don't know what to do with them, or what many of them mean (I'm going to assume that 30% efficiency is good)? I calculated that I would have 2.97kgs (6.55lbs) of powder, but I would like to know how much penetration I would get from this data. Also, since my gun is a squeeze bore, is there something I need to account for? 

 

I wouldn't worry about efficiency. The second one is running pressure that's a wee bit high for the tech level we're talking about. The first is more representative.

 

Otherwise your numbers for the first one look like exactly what I'd expect. One of my earlier rounds was an 85mm with similar capacity, and it produced similar performance (albeit with a somewhat lighter projectile). So yours looks about right.

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...