Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Competition Suggestions


Sturgeon
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

Design a tank "walker" (bipedal, quadripedal, tripedal; whatever) that could reasonably be as effective as its tracked counterparts. Naturally we assume that the core elements that would allow the tank to walk will have been magic'd in. Maybe not an ideal competition given how much theory and how little practical experience can go into this. Obviously not a contest to be taken too seriously

 

Further elaboration: The core of this contest is mocking the concept of a walker tank; this is a joke contest, if at all. I'm not a materials expert, some weight limit would have to be determined based on the materials used in the walkers legs and method of propulsion, and the core of the walker would be designed around this weight limit. Designs would be judged by how close they can come to matching the effectiveness of contemporary tracked vehicles (by whatever metrics judges want to judge), because as hip as walker tanks are for 16 year old alt history artists, they're 1945 German R&D as far as practicality goes. I'd really like to see if we could come up with some standard metric for effectiveness for this, like "this vehicle made out of modern alloys and composites is actually not too bad, I'd rate it at .75 M4 Shermans". Probably want Solidworks for this one.

 

Alternative proposition: 16 year old alt-history artist edition; materials are now magic and designs don't need to make sense. Make your design as dumb as possible, and after all designs are submitted here, all of the designs will be uploaded on a single account to deviantart or AH or whatever along with descriptions. The winner will be the design that gains the most praise relative to how dumb it is. Bonus points for garnering praise for components that blatantly could not work (IE guns mounted on legs with no mechanism for reloading, crew compartment located directly inside of the engine, legs needing to move through other parts to function, etc). Any design software is on the table for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Design a last-ditch weapon for fighting an industrial war in the mid-20th. The weapon can be an aircraft, afv or small arm, and must show a massive cost reduction over existing types while still having a comparable level of task effectiveness. Bonus points for showing a manpower reduction (both making and/or using), skill reduction (ditto) or supply-chain rationalisation.

Edit: the judging would depend on the category of weapon chosen for the contest. Modelling may be required to show that the weapon works to spec. The contestant would also have to provide a convincing rationale for how the expected savings in materials/manpower would be achieved, as well as describing the implementation in a realistic fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bring a retarded idea to life!:

Hitler/Stalin/King Kerbal has given you a bunch of drawings for retarded weapons provided by an idiot relative. Your job is to bring these ideas to life in as practical a manner as possible without making the results look too different from the drawings.

Failure is punishable by death/gulag/volunteering for a mun shot.

Edit: drawings and descriptions of a selection of retarded weapons would be provided, but the contestants could also bring in their own, so long as it is someone else's work and has sufficient levels of description (size, mass, components, performance etc) to be modelled. Modelling would be done using something like KSP or simpleplanes, and the contestant would have to show that the design works to at least a limited extent (the closer you can get to the retarded design's paper stats the better). The contestant would also have to describe what changes were made to make the retarded idea work, with points for creative solutions that still allow the resulting design to look like the drawing it is based on.

For the purposes of judging, it should be assumed that the idiot relative is looking over everyone's shoulder and checking the contestant's work against his 'vision' for the weapon. So the contestant blatantly subverting it by, for instance, sneaking a turbojet into what is supposed to be a piston-powered supersonic fighter, would be grounds for death/gulag/mun shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bring a retarded idea to life!:

Hitler/Stalin/King Kerbal has given you a bunch of drawings for retarded weapons peovided by an idiot relative. Your job is to bring these ideas to life in as practical a manner as possible without making the results look too different from the drawings.

Failure is punishable by death/gulag/volunteering for a mun shot.

 

The GOOLAB needs more science personnel, comrade.

 

My vote is for a pendulum fallacy believing Munshot rocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yes, sorry, I haven't been able to give the comps their due, as I have been mighty busy. Collimatrix, would you go ahead and start the second competition that we talked about?

 

KK.  Let me get the resources together, light the signal fires and put the slaves in their finest chains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Design a Volks/folke AFV.

 

 

Main focuses:

It has to be cheap, VERY cheap, as cheap as possible. This includes maintenance costs.

It has to provide better or equal capabilities to Infantry Mobility Vehicles.

Has to be able to be mass produced.
Man power is readily available, use it. 

It has to be able to operate in Arctic climates, which means -50 degrees and a lot of snow and frost. 
It has to be able to operate off road, so it can't be a Ferrari with a Minigun.

 

 

Infrastructure and cost restrictions:

It has to be easy to use, requiring minimal training. 

Has to be very reliable and require minimal maintenance. 

It can't use guided munition or FCS. 

Everything has to be off-shelf, no fancy weapons. 
You have to use infantry based weaponry. No AMOS mortar systems or MBT guns. Exception: Mothballed or dirt cheap equipment with tons of ammunition available. 

Max weight: 12 ton

 

Dimension restrictions:

Max width: 3,1m

Max height: 3,6m

Max length: 5,5m

 

 

Hardcore restrictions:

Has to have some anti-tank capability.

Can't use mothballed or dirt cheap non infantry weaponry. 

Has to be based on a existing vehicle.

 

Max length: 5m

Max width: 2,5m

Max weight: 8 ton.

 

 

 

This competition was inspired by my countries Homeguard. It uses 3% of the total defense budget, and still has 45 000 (to be reduced to 32 000 in 2017) combat ready soldiers at a 7 hour notice, it also defends all of the country.  Much cheaper compared to the Army with it's measly 4000 soldiers.

 

This causes everything in the Homeguard to only use the cheapest and most cost effective of equipment. This caused the army to scrap 100 Iveco LMVs instead of giving them to the Homeguard. Simply because they are too expensive to operate. 

 

So instead we got this thing, recently donated from the Special forces:

HVNETT__S167467.jpg?Width=1158&Height=65

 

We still use this thing. The MB G-wagon. And it still works, even though it is outrun by a tank and they are literally falling apart.

But the amazing thing about these is that they function as:

 

IMVs

Cargo transport.

Command post.

Command vehicle.

Forward observing vehicle.

Mortar carrier.

Ambulance. 

Tank destroyer.

Engineering vehicle. 

 

 

And this Multi III seen above, can mount a 12,7mm BMG or a 84mm Carl Gustav RFK and a MG-3 or a Minimi. It can also be modified to carry a mortar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Yet another design-a-tank competition:

Part 1:

It's 1938 and your company is trying to get in on the booming market for armoured vehicles. You've come up with a workable design, so now it's time to find some customers!

- Design a tank for sale to a particular country or countries. Projected sales should be at least 200 units all-in-all.

- A convincing, historically plausible rationale for why the sale should take place must be provided. Current inventory, industry, politics and practice of the client nation/s should be considered.

- No parts from after 1938 can be used, although you can speculate in terms of armament. Incorporation of components having commonality with those of your would-be client are a bonus.

- Describe the tank in detail, including where it would have issues or teething problems requiring further development.

Part 2:

It's sometime during the second world war, and the tank is still soldiering on. Although obsolescent, the needs of war mean that its current owners must find a way to wring the last possible bit of usefulness out of the design.

- Pick a point based in WWII (or just afterwards) and describe the modifications, upgrades, conversions etc made to the tank.

- Ownership may have changed based on the historical fate of the client nation. The tank may even still be in production in some form or another.

- Construct a plausible life/development history for the tank to get it to the chosen point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

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 24th of July at 23:59 CST.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.

      PLEASE REMEMBER ALL ENTRIES MUST BE SUBMITTED IN USC ONLY
       
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name
       
      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here]
       
      Table of basic statistics:
      Parameter
      Value
      Mass, combat (armor)
       
      Length, combat (transport)
       
      Width, combat (transport)
       
      Height, combat (transport)
       
      Ground Pressure, zero penetration
       
      Estimated Speed
       
      Estimated range
       
      Crew, number (roles)
       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.
      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.
      3.     Transmission - type, arrangement, neat features.
      4.     Fuel - Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.
      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.
      6.     Suspension - Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.
      Survivability:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Link to Appendix 2 - armor array details.
      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks - low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.
      Firepower:
      A.    Weapons:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Main Weapon-
      a.      Type
      b.      Caliber
      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)
      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.
      e.      FCS - relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.
      f.      Neat features.
      3.     Secondary weapon - Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.
      4.     Link to Appendix 3 - Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached.
      B.    Optics:
      1.     Primary gunsight - type, associated trickery.
      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.
      C.    FCS:
      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.
      2.     Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.
      Fightability:
      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.
      Additonal Features:
      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.
      Free expression zone: Let out a big yeehaw to impress the world with your design swagger! Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.
       
       Example for filling in Appendix 1
       Example for filling in Appendix 2
       Example for filling in Appendix 3

      GOOD LUCK!
    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • By CharlieAlphaVictor
      This may have already been answered, but why are so many modern assault rifles gas-operated, when blowback-operated designs are (generally speaking) simpler/cheaper to manufacture and require less maintenance? I've been doing some research and can't seem to figure out why for the life of me. Any assistance is greatly appreciated.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...