Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 232
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

{Drums, sounds of chanting in distance} "Rooikat, Rooikat, Rooikat..."   {Opposing chanting begins, in counterpoint} "Ratel, Ratel, Ratel"

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/1975/8020/ECO031.pdf;jsessionid=1D4F492F19FEAAE2F3ECAA7A5A2BEF66?sequence=3   A paper outlining a bunch of methods for calculating tire/track press

Mini-competition suggestion: fix-a-tank   Contestants will be given an existing, flawed AFV design (or a selection to choose from), as well as a country and a time period. They will then be

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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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.

  • Similar Content

    • 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.
    • 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.

×
×
  • Create New...