Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Competition Suggestions


Sturgeon
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Toxn said:

Indeed.

 

How about this: I'll put up the detailed post as a seperate topic and include a voting option to gauge interest (eg: if x number of people respond with a grapefruit then it's on). I'm happy to pull the trigger on a mini-comp so long as I know it'll have at least three finalised entries (which means you need something like a minimum of 5-6 participants).


Sounds good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2020 at 11:07 AM, Toxn said:

 

The foreign weapons immediately available for purchase are:

  • 25mm Puteaux and Hotchkiss
  • 37mm Pak 36
  • 4.0 cm Pak 192 (e)
  • 45mm M1937 (53-K)
  • 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


are these the only weapons available, or can we choose other, similar weapons if we’re convincing enough? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:


are these the only weapons available, or can we choose other, similar weapons if we’re convincing enough? 

You can choose from these, plus any Italian weapons you want (so long as there's enough of them) and anything else you can justify. Note that the further you get from off the shelf, the more convincing the justification needs to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest to add the gun which was used for exactly this in the real history. 

 

- 4,7cm KPÚV vz. 38, aka 4,7 Pak 38(t) aka Škoda A5, which was used in Panzerjäger I or Panzerjäger Renault R35(f); it was also used in large numbers by Yugoslavia as a towed gun

 

Besides of that one Škoda produced huge number of guns for many countries including Italy with various modifications. Guns like A8 - 3,7 cm gun from LT vz.38 aka Pz 38(t) or weaker A7 from LT vz.35 aka Pz 35(t) aka R2 or even older A3 from Yugoslav tankette Š-I-D. Those were all serially produced and definitely available tank guns. For a tank like Renault R35 or Hotchkiss H35 even the oldest A3 is a great improvement, even though in 1943 this is still rather questionable if that was worth it.  

 

Another one which comes to my mind is more complicated. The reasonably more powerful A11 - 4,7 cm gun from ČKD V-8-H and Škoda T21 tanks. That was basically a largely improved tank version of the A5 with much shorter recoil etc. To my knowledge it was never mass produced although it was addopted and the production was prepared but... Münich treaty. 

 

For a thing like BT-5 even Zbrojovka Brno 15 mm ZB-60 autocannon may be useful if this fast but paper-thin tank is used as a recon vehicle instead of being a tank (which is probably better idea in 1943). This gun was mass produced and readily available. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Beer said:

Another one which comes to my mind is more complicated. The reasonably more powerful A11 - 4,7 cm gun from ČKD V-8-H and Škoda T21 tanks. That was basically a largely improved tank version of the A5 with much shorter recoil etc. To my knowledge it was never mass produced although it was addopted and the production was prepared but... Münich treaty.

 

I just found a little peculiar detail about it related to Italy. In fact Italy wanted to buy the Škoda T-21 tank armed with A11 gun but Škoda was too busy with Wehrmacht orders and could not deliver the tanks. Same story goes about Romania. In the end the license was sold to Hungary but they used their own (partially Škoda based anyway) gun 40M. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Beer said:

 

I just found a little peculiar detail about it related to Italy. In fact Italy wanted to buy the Škoda T-21 tank armed with A11 gun but Škoda was too busy with Wehrmacht orders and could not deliver the tanks. Same story goes about Romania. In the end the license was sold to Hungary but they used their own (partially Škoda based anyway) gun 40M. 

Any info on the A11? Mass, dimensions, performance, pictures and the like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Toxn said:

Any info on the A11? Mass, dimensions, performance, pictures and the like?

 

Yes, there is something but not that much.  

0mpzxa8.jpg

yk8LhEY.jpg

rZhURG9.jpg

 

Calibre 47 mm L43,4; barrel length 2040 mm

Mass 395 kg or 450 kg per source (for comparison the barrel + breech mechanism of the towed A5 (4,7cm KPÚV vz. 38) gun was 160 kg heavy and the whole gun including the carriage and the shield was 580 kg heavy and 488 kg without wheels - that was a feature to lower the silouette) 

Recoil 320 mm

 

Semi-automatic breech mechanism (maximum ROF 25/min; aimed ROF 12-15/min), with original Czechoslovak ammo: APC 782 m/s with 1,65 kg projectile (2,79 kg complete round), HE 660 m/s with 1,5 kg projectile (2,6 kg whole round), per Czechoslovak tests in 1938 the APC round penetrated 35 mm @ 30° and 1500 m; 41 mm @ 30° and 1000 m; 48 mm @30° and 500 m; 54 mm @ 30° and 100 m. Max. range with HE round was 4000 m. 

 

In 1940 the towed A5 (4,7cm KPÚV vz. 38) got a new Pzgr.40 APCR round capable of defeating  59 mm @ 30° and 500 m; 100 mm @ 30° and 100 meters with projectile weight 0,825 kg and muzzle velocity 1080 m/s. I'm not totally sure if the ammo for A11 was same as for the A5 but I think so, so I guess this round could be used also in the A11 by 1942. The muzzle velocity for APC rounds of A5 and A11 was nearly same (775 m/s for the towed A5 and 782 m/s for the tank A11) so I guess the performance would be similar. 

 

In V-8-H and T-21 tanks the gun had -10° to +25° elevation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...
On 12/7/2020 at 2:42 AM, Toxn said:

I feel like there should be a separate thread for cunning mechanisms with applications in tanks:


would this count? It’s not a mechanism, but it’s pretty pertinent to armored vehicles. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These funky steels tend to quite similar to silicon spring steel 9260 etc. Its a tech that could have been used in WW2 if they understood it.  Its using high silicon steels that are kinda like cast iron alloy compositon but with insufficient carbon for reducing the melting temperature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im more familiar with the pizza bainite.  It literally is the matrix of austempered ductile iron (minus the graphite nodules).  Cheap simple and castable, it is a technology that could've been applied during WW2

 

Australia's sentinel tank is the type of design that could've been mass produced with pizza bainite, if they had known about it.

 

Perhaps a competition suggestion in there somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of crude armour

' In comparisons of V-50s scaled by areal density for the experimental ADI targets (hardnesses of 32 HRC and 42 HRC) and steels of MIL-A-12560 RHA (hardness range of 35.4-40.5 HRC): (a) steels have greater resistance to penetration vs. 0.50-cal. APM2 projectiles; (b) ADI has equal or greater resistance to ballistic penetration vs. 0.30-cal. APM2 projectiles.'

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a352879.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiR5ZXc8ZjuAhXGyTgGHRP-CtYQFjABegQIDRAB&usg=AOvVaw00CUkRUZT_TFwk0BMyWtqC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 1/10/2021 at 2:21 AM, Toxn said:

This definitely counts :)


So, what are we gonna use as the high hardness armor? Armox600t? Whatever the Italians did to their face hardened armor? 
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#Italian_Post-1930_Terni_Cemented_KC-Type_Variable-Face-Thickness_Armor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had a couple of ideas for competitions, want to put them out there and see what y'all think.

1. The year is 1911. The rapid pace of artillery development has left the Belgian military increasingly worried about the vulnerability of the Brialmont forts in case of war, which combined with the overall charged atmosphere in Europe leaves much to be desired in the nation's defensive plans. 

It is hoped that the automobile revolution may be able to solve this issue; any army advancing into Belgium must move at least its supplies by road or rail, and any valuable goal must also be connected by road. Thus, long range independent "road cruisers" may successfully fight off such a force, without the vulnerability to long range slow firing artillery of fixed forts.

Such a cruiser force would also be able to rapidly shift from the German border to the French, to counter either country without having to build twice the force.

Requirements are as follows:

A. Automotives not exceeding the state of the art or requiring extremely lengthy development.

B. Long operating range on good terrain.

C. Protection against infantry weapons.

D. Armament suitable for engaging troops in the field and supply columns on roads, ideally also weaponry capable of destroying enemy materiel such as artillery or wagons.

E. Top speed on existing roads in excess of a horse at canter. 

F. Capability to operate singly or in groups.

 

The Army, not having any experience with armored land vehicles, is very open minded about design, layout, crew, size, and so on. 

 

2. The year is 1934. The French Army is preparing for the next round they suspect is coming in Europe, but is getting increasingly wary in its faith in small 2 man "mosquito" tanks. Looking at the Navy, as well as at other developments in the world of armored vehicles, it appears that there may be a substantial benefit in scale for armored vehicles. The small 2 man tanks, favored for their low crew requirements and fuel consumption, may in fact be a false economy.

Your task, therefore, is a simple one:

Design a tank which provides increased combat efficiency both per crewmember and per ton, not exceeding 30 tons, for the French army to use in its expected tactics in the upcoming decades.

(Chiefly, containing breakthroughs of the Maginot fortified zone, supporting infantry counterattacks once the enemy has exhausted their force, and general cavalry roles).

While the Army would prefer that where possible you use existing systems, the industry is capable of complex manufacturing and development of subsystems.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, N-L-M said:

Had a couple of ideas for competitions, want to put them out there and see what y'all think.

1. The year is 1911. The rapid pace of artillery development has left the Belgian military increasingly worried about the vulnerability of the Brialmont forts in case of war, which combined with the overall charged atmosphere in Europe leaves much to be desired in the nation's defensive plans. 

It is hoped that the automobile revolution may be able to solve this issue; any army advancing into Belgium must move at least its supplies by road or rail, and any valuable goal must also be connected by road. Thus, long range independent "road cruisers" may successfully fight off such a force, without the vulnerability to long range slow firing artillery of fixed forts.

Such a cruiser force would also be able to rapidly shift from the German border to the French, to counter either country without having to build twice the force.

Requirements are as follows:

A. Automotives not exceeding the state of the art or requiring extremely lengthy development.

B. Long operating range on good terrain.

C. Protection against infantry weapons.

D. Armament suitable for engaging troops in the field and supply columns on roads, ideally also weaponry capable of destroying enemy materiel such as artillery or wagons.

E. Top speed on existing roads in excess of a horse at canter. 

F. Capability to operate singly or in groups.

 

The Army, not having any experience with armored land vehicles, is very open minded about design, layout, crew, size, and so on. 

 

2. The year is 1934. The French Army is preparing for the next round they suspect is coming in Europe, but is getting increasingly wary in its faith in small 2 man "mosquito" tanks. Looking at the Navy, as well as at other developments in the world of armored vehicles, it appears that there may be a substantial benefit in scale for armored vehicles. The small 2 man tanks, favored for their low crew requirements and fuel consumption, may in fact be a false economy.

Your task, therefore, is a simple one:

Design a tank which provides increased combat efficiency both per crewmember and per ton, not exceeding 30 tons, for the French army to use in its expected tactics in the upcoming decades.

(Chiefly, containing breakthroughs of the Maginot fortified zone, supporting infantry counterattacks once the enemy has exhausted their force, and general cavalry roles).

While the Army would prefer that where possible you use existing systems, the industry is capable of complex manufacturing and development of subsystems.

 

I really like the second suggestion, as it's something I've wanted to do a competition about for a long time.

 

I think it does, however, need to be fleshed out to take more account of the historical circumstances.

 

This most likely includes a list of available historical components, but might perhaps also include something like the standardised APX turrets that contributed to hobbling historical French tanks. Or a requirement for the winner of one round to feed into the other (say, perhaps, a round to design the gun, which must then be used in the round to design the turret, which must then be used on the hull) to simulate the cross-production model that allowed the industrial concerns to all feed off of the same contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Toxn said:

but might perhaps also include something like the standardised APX turrets that contributed to hobbling historical French tanks

I actually kind of want to avoid this a little.

As we saw with the DPRC competition, overly constraining the design space leads to boxing people in, and in a historical context the more you box in the more you inevitably converge on "only do what was done" because they all had good reasons at the time.

The "what if they were all a bit more open to ideas we now know are good" approach frees that up a bit.

5 minutes ago, Toxn said:

say, perhaps, a round to design the gun, which must then be used in the round to design the turret, which must then be used on the hull

This would have to be very carefully curated, but could be interesting. Not sure how one would judge a turret in the absence of a hull, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

I actually kind of want to avoid this a little.

As we saw with the DPRC competition, overly constraining the design space leads to boxing people in, and in a historical context the more you box in the more you inevitably converge on "only do what was done" because they all had good reasons at the time.

The "what if they were all a bit more open to ideas we now know are good" approach frees that up a bit.

This would have to be very carefully curated, but could be interesting. Not sure how one would judge a turret in the absence of a hull, though.

Ya, making the requirements too onerous or technical can drive people off. It's a difficult dance.

 

ITO judging the turret, I assume it would be on the basis of how well it packs in the gun, turret crew layout and ergonomics, vision device type and placement, armour layout and any other clever ideas that the contestant may have had.

 

Despite my fondness for the idea, I fully accept that a staged competition might work very well (ie: allows people with varying skill levels and interests a shot at competing, makes interesting and emergent constraints to the design process occur, allows multiple winners so everyone gets their shot etc) or it might fail dismally.

 

A variation that might ease things is to have "mediocre" backup options as alternates for each stage - ie: the contestants can use the winning gun or a historical 47mm, can use a winning turret or an APX2-alike etc. It might also be prudent to allow a bit of leeway in letting the contestants 'tinker' with the selected entries from previous rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Toxn said:

Ya, making the requirements too onerous or technical can drive people off. It's a difficult dance.

 

ITO judging the turret, I assume it would be on the basis of how well it packs in the gun, turret crew layout and ergonomics, vision device type and placement, armour layout and any other clever ideas that the contestant may have had.

 

Despite my fondness for the idea, I fully accept that a staged competition might work very well (ie: allows people with varying skill levels and interests a shot at competing, makes interesting and emergent constraints to the design process occur, allows multiple winners so everyone gets their shot etc) or it might fail dismally.

 

A variation that might ease things is to have "mediocre" backup options as alternates for each stage - ie: the contestants can use the winning gun or a historical 47mm, can use a winning turret or an APX2-alike etc. It might also be prudent to allow a bit of leeway in letting the contestants 'tinker' with the selected entries from previous rounds.


I like the multistage idea, could mimic what (sort of) goes on in real world development. 
 

A great thing about making it in France is that Schneider Et Cie. was a very good armor manufacturer (in addition to gun manufacturer), from what I’ve read, and could provide some quality armor for the competition. Unfortunately, I can never find specifics for the armor, but it’s often attested to as high quality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/02/2021 at 10:34 PM, Toxn said:

ITO judging the turret, I assume it would be on the basis of how well it packs in the gun, turret crew layout and ergonomics, vision device type and placement, armour layout and any other clever ideas that the contestant may have had.

My issue with that is the hull-turret relationship, wherein the turret has a substantial basket, which dictates to an extent hull dimensions, and the fact that anything not stowed in the turret must eventually be stowed in the hull. Not least of which are crew and ammo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

My issue with that is the hull-turret relationship, wherein the turret has a substantial basket, which dictates to an extent hull dimensions, and the fact that anything not stowed in the turret must eventually be stowed in the hull. Not least of which are crew and ammo.

That is one of those emergent constraints I was alluding to.

 

Would it be better to do it the other way around - designing the hull with a certain turret ring diameter and internal vertical volume for a turret basket, and then letting others design the turret? Or is a two-step approach (design a major sub-component such as the gun and then let contestants design an entire tank around it) a better idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further thought: one thing we might want to do when proposing novel suggestions is for the would-be proponents to organise a trial run in private.

 

Accordingly; folk are free to contact me directly if they have specific approaches they want to game out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

My issue with that is the hull-turret relationship, wherein the turret has a substantial basket, which dictates to an extent hull dimensions, and the fact that anything not stowed in the turret must eventually be stowed in the hull. Not least of which are crew and ammo.


Perhaps we leave out the basket when designing the turret, and then later tailor the basket to fit the hull and what the person wants? 

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 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 10th 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
       
      Length, combat (transport)
       
      Width, combat (transport)
       
      Height, combat (transport)
       
      Ground Pressure, zero penetration
       
      Estimated Speed
       
      Estimated range
       
      Crew, number (roles)
       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.
      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.
      3.     Transmission - type, arrangement, neat features.
      4.     Fuel - Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.
      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.
      6.     Suspension - Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.
      Survivability:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Link to Appendix 2 - armor array details.
      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks - low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.
      Firepower:
      A.    Weapons:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Main Weapon-
      a.      Type
      b.      Caliber
      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)
      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.
      e.      FCS - relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.
      f.      Neat features.
      3.     Secondary weapon - Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.
      4.     Link to Appendix 3 - Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached.
      B.    Optics:
      1.     Primary gunsight - type, associated trickery.
      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.
      C.    FCS:
      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.
      2.     Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.
      Fightability:
      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.
      Additonal Features:
      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.
      Free expression zone: Let out a big yeehaw to impress the world with your design swagger! Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.
       
       Example for filling in Appendix 1
       Example for filling in Appendix 2
       Example for filling in Appendix 3

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

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • By CharlieAlphaVictor
      This may have already been answered, but why are so many modern assault rifles gas-operated, when blowback-operated designs are (generally speaking) simpler/cheaper to manufacture and require less maintenance? I've been doing some research and can't seem to figure out why for the life of me. Any assistance is greatly appreciated.
    • By Toxn
      This is the competition entry thread.
       
      Please submit your complete entries here (all entries will be judged complete when judging begins in the first week of November) and keep the other competition thread for discussion and chatter.
       
      Once judging is complete I will make a post here to discuss the entries and announce a winner.
       
      Best of luck!
       
      Update: final submissions should be in hand by the 22nd of November 2020.
×
×
  • Create New...