Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Competition Suggestions


Sturgeon
 Share

Recommended Posts

To be fair, we are talking about 1930s armored vehicles. Fancy, quality of life stuff isn’t really the norm, so (in my mind) we can play kinda fast and loose with the rules, applying more modern techniques as the individual sees fit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Well, that disadvantages large turrets that hold stuff relative to small ones that cram it all in the hull.

Consider the case of a K2 turret, vs the turret of a T-72.

Perhaps simply mandate a certain amount of stuff? IE:

 

"Requirements:

- At least 40/30/20mm (F/S/R) armour, at least 15mm roof armour.

- At least one hatch

- Suitable mounting for {selected} main gun and at least 1 coaxial MG, mounting must have at least +20/-5 degrees elevation.

- At least 1 gunner's sighting device, suitable for directly engaging targets out to at least 500m, with a minimum FoV of 25 degrees and a minimum magnification of 1.5x.

- Space for at least two crew members (commander and gunner).

- At least 20 rounds of {selected ammunition} stored in either the turret or basket (if provided), at least 10 of which are ready to hand to the crewman performing loading of the main gun.

- At least 600 rounds of MG ammunition stored to hand for the crew in either the turret or basket (if provided).

- Seating arrangements provided for the turret crew during travel.

- Storage for at least 50dm3 of miscellaneous stores in the turret or basket (if provided)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, what if there is no downselect in the first two rounds? IE, everyone designs guns, but all guns are then available for turret designs, which are then all available for hull integration?

Gives a bit more freedom to pick and choose the components you want to integrate, and as there is no downselect there's no penalty before the vehicle is complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, N-L-M said:

Perhaps, what if there is no downselect in the first two rounds? IE, everyone designs guns, but all guns are then available for turret designs, which are then all available for hull integration?

Gives a bit more freedom to pick and choose the components you want to integrate, and as there is no downselect there's no penalty before the vehicle is complete.

Is there then a bonus of some sort for using the winning design from the previous design round?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Perhaps, what if there is no downselect in the first two rounds? IE, everyone designs guns, but all guns are then available for turret designs, which are then all available for hull integration?

Gives a bit more freedom to pick and choose the components you want to integrate, and as there is no downselect there's no penalty before the vehicle is complete.


I thought this was the basic thinking of the whole competition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

Mini-competition suggestions, for consideration some time next year:

 

1. Design an AT gun (2239)

 

In this mini-competition, contestants would be asked to design a conventional, WW2-era AT gun for use by one of the post-apocalyptic US polities. The gun would be designed with an understanding of how weapon and armour technology would be likely to develop, and should include a description of the gun itself, its mounting and its ammunition.

 

2. Design a ATGM (2247)

 

In this mini-competition, contestants would be asked to design an ATGM for use by the Texans, in a project running parallel to their first forays into MBT building. The contestants would have to simulate the overall configuration and aerodynamics of the ATGMs using OpenRocket, and would have to provide a coherent explanation for the warhead layout and control scheme. Submissions would be in the form of ORK files and a brief description.

 

3. "Fix a tank" 2 - France, 1946

 

The second "fix a tank" competition, this time to try and fix the problems that the French had with their post-war Panthers. The contestants would not be allowed to radically re-design the vehicles (or, at least, would have to provide better and better justifications for each new change), but would try to work with what they had to fix as many issues as possible. The goal would be to produce a vehicle that the historical 501st and 503rd armoured regiments could operate into the 1950s.

 

4. "Fill in the blanks" - design the Californian heavy from the first (2239) competition

 

The Californian heavy tank (which was very obviously an expy of the WW2-era Tiger) was the vehicle which kicked off the entire arms race that has become the dominant narrative of the post-apocalyptic competitions. A cryptic beast, it was described as weighing 50mt, having 76mm of armour and being armed with an 89mm gun that can penetrate ~140mm of RHA at 1000m.

 

This competition would involve contestants filling in the blanks to create a tank that fits these criteria (ie: not inventing a vehicle with a better gun, massively thick armour etc). The submissions would be done using a formula approach (for which, see here) with the contestants being asked only to model the hull/turret armour layout in detail (ie: in terms of mass). Everything else (the gun, ammunition, suspension, engine, optics etc.) can be simply a visual representation with standard weights being applied for variable-weight components. The submission would be in the form of drawings (front, side, top view) and a description to follow a standard format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upgrade a tank - 1970’s (based on Fix a tank - 1943) 

 

It’s the middle of the Cold War, and tensions are high throughout the world. 3rd world countries are trying to buy tanks to protect themselves from foreign aggressors. Pick a tank built and produced before 1952, and upgrade it with equipment and technology available by 1970. First gen LRF’s, second gen i2, and ERA are available (NERA is not). Completely replacing the turret is an option, though expensive. 
 

Available vehicles: 

 

M46 

M26 

M41

M36 

M4A3 

 

Centurion Mk.3 

FV4101 Charioteer

A34 Comet 

A30 Challenger 

A30 Avenger


T-54 

IS-3 

IS-2 Mod.44 

T-44 

T-34 

 

Panzer 4 

StuG 3 

Jagdpanzer 4

Jagdpanzer 38

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

I had an idea for an improvised tank designed for much earlier in the SHCU setting (circa 2150s).

How improvised? If we're talking 1920s tech then I'm all for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

How improvised? If we're talking 1920s tech then I'm all for it.

 

I'm thinking a "serious" tank (whatever that means) made out of like bits and bobs. Haven't thought much further than that.

 

It would be set in the most "falloutish" period of the SHCU so it would be very mad max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I'm thinking a "serious" tank (whatever that means) made out of like bits and bobs. Haven't thought much further than that.

 

It would be set in the most "falloutish" period of the SHCU so it would be very mad max.

Give it a think - we've got time to chew over this stuff in any case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2021 at 5:34 PM, Lord_James said:

Upgrade a tank - 1970’s (based on Fix a tank - 1943) 

 

It’s the middle of the Cold War, and tensions are high throughout the world. 3rd world countries are trying to buy tanks to protect themselves from foreign aggressors. Pick a tank built and produced before 1952, and upgrade it with equipment and technology available by 1970. First gen LRF’s, second gen i2, and ERA are available (NERA is not). Completely replacing the turret is an option, though expensive. 
 

Available vehicles: 

 

M46 

M26 

M41

M36 

M4A3 

 

Centurion Mk.3 

FV4101 Charioteer

A34 Comet 

A30 Challenger 

A30 Avenger


T-54 

IS-3 

IS-2 Mod.44 

T-44 

T-34 

 

Panzer 4 

StuG 3 

Jagdpanzer 4

Jagdpanzer 38

I'd maybe set the date as 1960-65.

 

Other than that - I actually had a friend in varsity who ended up doing this in the mid 2000s for T-62s...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2021 at 11:34 AM, Lord_James said:

Upgrade a tank - 1970’s (based on Fix a tank - 1943) 

 

It’s the middle of the Cold War, and tensions are high throughout the world. 3rd world countries are trying to buy tanks to protect themselves from foreign aggressors. Pick a tank built and produced before 1952, and upgrade it with equipment and technology available by 1970. First gen LRF’s, second gen i2, and ERA are available (NERA is not). Completely replacing the turret is an option, though expensive. 
 

Available vehicles: 

 

M46 

M26 

M41

M36 

M4A3 

 

Centurion Mk.3 

FV4101 Charioteer

A34 Comet 

A30 Challenger 

A30 Avenger


T-54 

IS-3 

IS-2 Mod.44 

T-44 

T-34 

 

Panzer 4 

StuG 3 

Jagdpanzer 4

Jagdpanzer 38

 

The problem with this as described is that every tank becomes a Sho't Kal Dalet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Also: the next minicomp is definitely scheduled for whenever Sprocket unfucks its gun designer. I just made a 9mt tank (think an unholy amalgam of PzIII and T-34) that rolled all of the team challenges, and I'm keen to see what people with actual skills can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion has expressed elsewhere, but not here.

 

I think it would be really interesting to do planes. My favorite are late WW2 superpro stuff, but you need to go specially deep into the engine autism as well and propellers, those things were crazy optimized. Earlier jets, for me aren't as interesting, but they are simpler, add power and it flies... see the Vampire, Salamander, those wacky Yaks and other abominations. We could perhaps bridge the gap with turboprops for COIN or something.

 

Alternatively It would also be interesting to see ships of some sort, albeit the amount of detailing autism for even smaller ships is daunting. Perhaps a PT boat of sorts... just throwing ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sten said:

My opinion has expressed elsewhere, but not here.

 

I think it would be really interesting to do planes. My favorite are late WW2 superpro stuff, but you need to go specially deep into the engine autism as well and propellers, those things were crazy optimized. Earlier jets, for me aren't as interesting, but they are simpler, add power and it flies... see the Vampire, Salamander, those wacky Yaks and other abominations. We could perhaps bridge the gap with turboprops for COIN or something.

 

Alternatively It would also be interesting to see ships of some sort, albeit the amount of detailing autism for even smaller ships is daunting. Perhaps a PT boat of sorts... just throwing ideas.

Lots of us want to do a planes competition more or less exactly like you described, but judging is an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 8:47 AM, Toxn said:

Also: the next minicomp is definitely scheduled for whenever Sprocket unfucks its gun designer. I just made a 9mt tank (think an unholy amalgam of PzIII and T-34) that rolled all of the team challenges, and I'm keen to see what people with actual skills can do.

 

Some new changes have improved how guns work, but we're not at the level of a full cartridge designer yet. Sprocket also habitually under-estimates vehicle mass by 10-15%, which I put down to more or less the same issues that we've encountered in our competitions.

 

I think it's functional enough to build a mini-competition around, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I'm thinking about it, here's my suggested format for a Sprocket-themed mini-comp (to be considered seriously when interest picks up again):

 

Filling in the background: 2239

 

In this competition, entries would be asked to fill in a background detail from our ongoing series of competitions centred around a post-apocalyptic post-USA:

 

On 8/15/2018 at 12:52 AM, LostCosmonaut said:

California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

 

Contestants are asked to submit a design for the DPRC's heavy tank, subject to the following constraints*:

  • The vehicle should be designed in Sprocket using the "early war" era setting.
  • The mass of the vehicle should be less than 42.5mt (to account for Sprocket under-estimating vehicle masses).
  • The vehicle width (including tracks and fenders) should be less than 3.6m.
  • The vehicle should have at least 76mm LoS armour across the frontal arc.
  • The vehicle should be capable of going at least 25km/h across rough ground, and should top out (without blowing up the engine) at at least 30km/h on a level road.
  • The vehicle should have a gun capable of penetrating at least 120mm of RHA.
  • The gun should also ideally conform to the following sanity-check requirements: at least half-calibre base thickness, base length at least equal to nominal case length (note: not the same as "shell length" in-game, as this supposedly measures cartridge AOL), the rest of the gun tube at least a quarter calibre in thickness. Argued exceptions vis-a-vis working pressure, barrel tech etc can be made.
  • The vehicle should be capable of climbing a 25 degree slope on the sandbox test course, and should be able to navigate the obstacles there.
  • The vehicle should have a fuel load sufficient to give it a nominal range of 200km.
  • The vehicle should have the vision ports and components needed to make it a working, usable vehicle for the purposes of playtesting.
  • The vehicle should look suitable for a society with hindsight, a late-1930s to early-1940s industrial base, and an affectation for the aesthetic of totalitarian hypermodernism. The official base colour of the DPRC is haze grey, which should be worked into the paint and/or camo scheme.

Submissions should be in the form of a short write-up on the competition entry thread (including a picture or two), as well as a link to the blueprint file for the vehicle. Submissions will be judged on the following three categories:

  • Function: does the vehicle meet or exceed all of the listed requirements? How well does it work? Does it have any interesting extras that would improve performance in the real world? This may include playtesting in scenarios against AI opponents.
  • Cost: how expensive would the vehicle be to produce when compared to the other entries? This would be graded on a curve, and would look at weight, engine power, transmission design, suspension design, and other major components.
  • Aesthetics: how well does the vehicle capture the aesthetic of the DPRC? How pretty is it?

These would be weighted to favour function, then cost, then aesthetics.

 

The competition would run for a full calendar month, and would feature a small cash prize (distributed via paypal) for the winner. 

 

 

* Constraints may be added to or modified a bit as updates and new features get added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
6 hours ago, Lord_James said:

If I may request, can the competition wait until after holiday season? 

Normally we leave at least a few months between contests to allow everyone to cool off.

 

So yeah, in the new year at the earliest 

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 N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only
      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII
      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California
      Anno Domini 2250
      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank
       
      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.
       
       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:
      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank
      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.
      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM
      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.
      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.
      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.
      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.
      F.      IEDs
      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.
      2.      General guidelines:
      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.
      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.
      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.
      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.
      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.
      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:
      a.      Vehicle recoverability.
      b.      Continued fightability.
      c.       Crew survival.
      E.      Permissible weights:
      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.
      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.
      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.
      F.      Overall dimensions:
      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.
      b.      Width- 4m transport width.
                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.
                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.
      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.
      G.     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 SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^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 100mm.
      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- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure
      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm 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 twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.
                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.
                                                                   v.     Fused silica
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.
                                                                  vi.     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-0.82g/cm^3.
                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               viii.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  ix.     ERA-light
      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy
      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  xi.     NERA-light
      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm 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.
                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy
      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm 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.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)
                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 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- limited
      3.      Operational Requirements.
      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.
      4.      Submission protocols.
      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
      Addendum 1 - more armor details
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...