Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Competition Suggestions


Sturgeon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sounds good, but I think we should keep the PT boat competition in mind for a later date. I like the concept a lot.

 

The tank competition will likely attract more interest, and we should probably establish a track record of doing more than one contest in a row that doesn't flame out before we expand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll let the PT Boat/FAC competition stew for a while -- I'm not as into designing heavy tanks, so I'm probably going to let Moo be the draftsman for it. Also, I wrote up the contest entry and flavor text over the course of about five hours, in one sitting. If I have time tonight I'll write up a modern USN one on my google drive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright it's time for me to get this idea down and solicit feedback. On the dicksword we've been talking a bit about a follow on tank competition with the same setting as the Cascadian one that is just now concluding. This would be a bit different to previous competitions in that the primary challenge wouldn't be designing the best tank, it would be meeting ever-shifting and mercurial requirements set by an incompetent leadership. On Discord we discussed this in the context a "Fuhrer" giving orders from the top down, which hapless designers get to deal with. Not only would the baseline requirements be unusual, contradictory, and a bit off, but unlike previous competitions the requirements would shift throughout the month of the competition at the whims of the Fuhrer (or whatever we decide to call him). One of the ways we might do this would be to have a list of pre-set requirements, some of which would be selected by the member acting as the Fuhrer and added to the competition either on top of or in place of the previous requirements. The challenge here would be having a design that could either flex to meet changing requirements or ignoring the requirements entirely and making a design that fits what you think the Fuhrer really wants.

 

At the same time, I was musing about a competition centering around the Californian response to the tank selected by the competition we just held for the Cascadian Republic. It had already been established that the Californian state is a strongman cult-of-personality-style Communist dictatorship. The tanks designed for the Cascadian contest are typically very well-armored, suggesting that the Californian response would be... Extreme. I think, naturally, this competition should be for a heavy or super-heavy tank.

 

Thoughts, everybody?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I approve of the concept, with a single clarification- the design is to starnge requirements and has a hand-in date; at that point, the Fuhrer intervenes and "improves" the requirements, and the designers must then with a minimum of modifications to the "built" design must attempt to match the new requirements (or ignore them as they see fit).

The Fuhrer is technically-minded and may "suggest" improvements like 'make it go as fast backwards as it goes forwards' or 'add 20% more HP' or 'make the gun 20% more energetic at the muzzle' or 'add another weapons system to it' or other suggestions in a similar vein.

 

Also there had better not be a rail transport requirement, let there be 5m wide and 4m tall monsters if the designers want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

I approve of the concept, with a single clarification- the design is to starnge requirements and has a hand-in date; at that point, the Fuhrer intervenes and "improves" the requirements, and the designers must then with a minimum of modifications to the "built" design must attempt to match the new requirements (or ignore them as they see fit).

 

Good idea!
 

2 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Also there had better not be a rail transport requirement, let there be 5m wide and 4m tall monsters if the designers want.

 

I agree, and was not planning on having a rail transport requirement. Let there be IS-7s!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lord_James I don't think Schnellboot style designs would meet the weight requirement I had set, and I think the displacement/lurssen effect design is more than a little sketchy. 

 

Also on the heavy tank contest, the madman I keep handy is already cooking up ideas. We're at I think nearly 100 tons last I checked, and I'm perusing my big list of diesel engines for the one least suited to the task that's producible that makes enough power that fits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Alright it's time for me to get this idea down and solicit feedback. On the dicksword we've been talking a bit about a follow on tank competition with the same setting as the Cascadian one that is just now concluding. This would be a bit different to previous competitions in that the primary challenge wouldn't be designing the best tank, it would be meeting ever-shifting and mercurial requirements set by an incompetent leadership. On Discord we discussed this in the context a "Fuhrer" giving orders from the top down, which hapless designers get to deal with. Not only would the baseline requirements be unusual, contradictory, and a bit off, but unlike previous competitions the requirements would shift throughout the month of the competition at the whims of the Fuhrer (or whatever we decide to call him). One of the ways we might do this would be to have a list of pre-set requirements, some of which would be selected by the member acting as the Fuhrer and added to the competition either on top of or in place of the previous requirements. The challenge here would be having a design that could either flex to meet changing requirements or ignoring the requirements entirely and making a design that fits what you think the Fuhrer really wants.

 

At the same time, I was musing about a competition centering around the Californian response to the tank selected by the competition we just held for the Cascadian Republic. It had already been established that the Californian state is a strongman cult-of-personality-style Communist dictatorship. The tanks designed for the Cascadian contest are typically very well-armored, suggesting that the Californian response would be... Extreme. I think, naturally, this competition should be for a heavy or super-heavy tank.

 

Thoughts, everybody?

I've forwarded this one already, but I like the idea of a competition where the judges all have different criteria. As in, one judge is head of the army (and wants a medium-weight vehicle with good mobility), one is head of production (and wants a cheap tin can) and one is supreme leader (and wants a 70-tonne dick enlarger).

 

There would then be some sort of weighted formula for selection to represent the power dynamic: ie: the fuhrer-judge's score counts double or something.

 

I think this could mesh well with your idea by starting with a balanced requirement set by the other judges and then having each change represent an area where the fuhrer-judge will exercise his power (he's not concerned with details, after all). Some requirements could of course be mandatory.

 

There would be, say, three rounds of competition and contestants would have progressively less and less leeway in terms of design changes (ie: in round 2 only minor changes can be made to the hull, in round 3 three only minor changes can be made to the hull, transmission and drivetrain).

 

The final winner would then be a composite score of all three judges (weighted appropriately).

 

I'd be happy to be a non-fuhrer judge for this one btw.

 

Edit: just to demonstrat how this would look in practice, here is a gamed-out version of the Panther's development:

 

Judges:

- A = army judge

- E = economy judge

- F = fuhrer-judge

 

Phase 0 (1938 VK20 designs) - these would form background material for the designers to work off.

 

Phase 1:

The powers that be want a new tank. The requirements set by A and E are for a 30-tonne tank that fits within specific dimensions, good all-terrain mobility, rail transport capability, at least 80mm LoS armour on the hull and turret front, at least 40mm LoS armour on the upper hull sides, and a gun capable of knocking out T-34 and KV-1 tanks at ranges of 500m. A further advises that the tank must be capable of executing a road march of 200km on a single tank of fuel, and would prefer a diesel engine. E advises that existing engines (including the HL-120 and non-frontline aero engine derivatives) are preferred for use in the vehicle, and that the 5.0cm KwK 39 and 7.5cm KwK 40 are available for use. E further advises that an existing turret, designed by a well-connected industrial firm (the head of whom is a personal friend of F), is available for use.

 

Phase 2:

The situation has changed in order to reflect changing circumstances. The weight limit is upped to 35 tonnes, while that armour requirement is upped to at least 100mm LoS on the hull and turret and at least 50mm LoS on the upper hull sides. F has further requested that a more powerful gun be added to combat future medium and heavy tanks. E advises that a long-barreled 7.5cm gun is presently in development and may be used. E further advises that the HL-230 engine and frontline aero engines may be considered. A, under the influence of the omnipresent Kniepkamp, has advised that torsion suspension and interleaved roadwheels will be favoured. F has taken a fancy to the concept of neutral steering.

 

Phase 3:

F has decided that the gun for the vehicle must be at least as capable as the existing 8.8cm KwK 36, and has demanded that the armour be at least 150mm on the front hull. A has advised that the tank must retain good cross-country mobility and a high top road speed. E has advised that the tank must include a number of concessions to economic efficiency such as a simple, welded hull form, minimal use of machining time for all mechanical components, limited use electric components and no use of tungsten for the shells. E further advises that use of aluminium, rare steel alloying elements (principally chromium, vanadium and molybdenum), copper and rubber must be strictly limited.

 

Final score sheet (scored from 0-2, where 0 = requirements not met, 1 = requirements met and 2 = requirments exceeded):

 

A:

- Tank is under 35 tonnes

- Tank top speed is 45km/hour on roads

- Tank is rail-transportable

- Tank fits within dimensions set

- Power/weight is 10kW/tonne

- Armour is 100mm LoS on front, 50mm LoS on upper sides

- Gun is at least as capable as existing 7.5cm KwK 40

- Bonus points (up to 4) for making the tank easily servicable, reliable, comfortable for the crew and incorporating lethality-increasing devices such as rangefinders, stabilizers etc.

- Total = score/3 (rounded down to nearest integer)

 

E:

- Tank is under 35 tonnes

- Tank top speed is 45km/hour on roads

- Tank is rail-transportable

- Tank fits within dimensions set

- Tank makes use of existing engine

- Tank makes use of provided turret

- Tank makes use of exsiting gun

- Bonus points (up to 4) for making the tank simplified for production, increasing the use of non-strategic materials and decreasing the use of strategic ones.

- Total = score/3 (rounded down to nearest integer)

 

F:

- Armour is 150mm LoS on front, 50mm LoS on upper sides

- Gun is capable of penetrating at least 150mm at 500m

- 2 points for every fancy of F's which has been catered to

- Bonus points (up to 4) for giving the tank an imposing shape, adding a gimmick calculated to appeal to F's sense of nationalist superiority (wonder-devices or state-of-the-art components) or otherwise doing something to wow F.

 

Final score = A total + E total + F score

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

You guys already seem to have a concept for the next competition, but an idea for one of these just came to me and I wanted to put it in writing: 

 

The year is 1936, and you are an engineer for a private company which is known to design and build tanks or other armored vehicles for select customers (Vickers, Renault, CKD/Skoda, Marmon-Herrington, Krupp, Landsverk, Fiat-Ansaldo, etc.). Alternately, you are an independent madman entrepreneur with an interest in designing tanks, like J. W. Christie or Edward Grotte. 

 

Tensions in the far east are rising and the Chinese government, concerned about the threat posed by Japan, has approached your firm to purchase tanks for the impending struggle. While the Chinese purchasing agents would be happy to have some of your existing designs, they feel that it would be better to have a tank tailored to their needs, and have indicated that they would be prepared to offer you a rather lucrative contract to design and produce a tank to their specifications.

 

The specifications put forth by the Chinese purchasing commission are as follows: 

 

- Must be as simple, rugged, and reliable as possible.

- Cannot weigh more than 20 metric tons, with designs under 12 tons preferred 

- Must have good cross country performance, and maximum speed on roads should be no less than 30 kph

- Should carry a main armament capable of defeating the armor of all current Japanese tank designs [Read: Type 89 I-go, Type 95 Ha-go], plus one or two machine guns

- Strong preference given to designs using weapons already in service with the National Revolutionary Army, or ones which at least use the same ammunition

- Armor must be able to resist heavy machine guns from any range and angle, and the Japanese 37mm AT Gun from the front at 500 meters

- Ability to be disassembled into something that could be smuggled through customs as a "tractor" or "scrap metal," then re-assembled with limited infrastructure is strongly preferred

 

The rules are simple; 

 

1. You must pick a real-life, period-appropriate designer to "represent," and your entry must reasonably resemble their designs, using resources, features and construction methods available which that company preferred and had access to during the stated time period. For example, an entry from Fiat-Ansaldo with torsion bar suspension and all-cast construction would be disqualified.

2. There should only be one contestant for each historical designer. 

3. Creative designs will be favored; You could technically draw up a modified Pz. 35(t) LT vz.35 to fit the specifications, but where's the fun in that?  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

So this suggestion comes from my dad, who avidly followed the last competition:

 

Wheeled Death Traps 1943

 

Tanks are expensive and complex (not to mention slow and fuel-hogs), so why not try to do more with less?

 

The competition would be to design a wheeled or half-track vehicle (the latter with the correct justifications obviously) to replace light and medium tanks in some roles. The design must include a fully fleshed-out APC variant, with other variants (command vehicles, recovery vehicles, SPGs, SPAAGs) being a welcome bonus. The criteria are as follows:

 

- Maximum weight: 30 tonnes

 

- Protection: armour at least 50mm RHA equivalent LoS across the frontal arc and 15mm across sides and rear.  Armour of greater than 75mm LoS across frontal arc and 20mm across sides and rear preferred.

 

- Firepower: cannon of at least 40mm in calibre, at least 1 machinegun. Main weapon system must at least be capable of accurately engaging and penetrating medium tanks fielded by enemy nations at a 30' angle from the side. Suggested values are at least 60mm RHA LoS at combat ranges (~500m). The preferred level of penetration is ~100mm @ 500m.

 

- Mobility: power/weight ratio of at least 10kW/t. Speeds of at least 60km/h (on road) and 30km/h (off road). Ground clearance of at least 40cm. Range of at least 200km. Ground pressure must be less than 200kPa with penetration of at most half the wheels into the mud/sand/snow. Ground pressures of less than 150kPa with penetration of less than 1/4 of the wheels preferred.

 

- Tactical: vehicle should be easy to service and maintain. Special features to increase the reliability of the vehicle or allow servicing using a minimum of specialised equipment would be highly favoured.

 

- Strategic: vehicle should use a minimum of strategically valuable resources (copper, aluminium, rubber) and be designed for mass production. Features which simplify production or replace complex/rare components with simple/common ones would be highly favoured.

 

- Technological: technology is limited to that available (or in development) in 1943. Speculative technology (eg: the development of a new gun or engine for the project) can be employed where suitable justifications are given.

 

- Timeline: the vehicle must be developed with an eye towards full-scale production by mid-1944. Justifications should be given as to how production would be achieved in the nation chosen. Variants other than the base vehicle and APC can be produced after full production has started.

 

- Other: must include a capable radio set. APC variant must be able to carry at least 8 soldiers (+kit) in addition to the crew. Crew comfort features (especially those enabling long-duration missions in very cold or very hot climates) would be highly favoured.

 

Judging can be as normal, or according to any of the schemes advanced above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

For the new year I have an idea of my own competition

 

Let's go back to 1923.

In this fictional scenario Bolivia has decided to arm their army much earlier in purpose of regaining Antofagasta and Tarapaca from Chilean ascendancy. Due to that Bolivia wants to create their armored corps, in which the main vehicle will be the brand new armored car.

 

Criteria of the new AC:

- maximum weight: 3,5 metric tons

- crew: 2 or 3 people (driver, gunner and commander)

- armament: existing HMG using 7,65x53mm or heavier (at least 10mm) round or short-barrel cannon (with less than 200 lbs of own weight) in fully 360° enclosed turret; 20mm and 25mm autocannons are classified there as HMGs

- protection: against 7x57mm rounds (possible armor-piercing too), close concussion grenades' explosions and shrapnel bullets from 105mm rounds

- mobility: at least 20hp engine, at least 150km range on wheels, easy modification to armored rail car version (using 762mm gauge)

- construction: based on rolling chassis that could be easily converted for civilian purposes

- dimensions:

  • maximum track width - 1920mm (recommended no more than 1700mm),
  • maximum vehicle width - 2100mm,
  • maximum vehicle height - 2100mm (on track wheels),
  • minimum ground clearance - 200mm (recommended at least 300mm)
  • minimum clearance between rail wheels and track wheels - 100mm (but this clearance + vehicle height = maximum 2200mm)

 

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 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...