Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

N-L-M
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

 

Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, for those of you who just jumped into this; this competition is a sequel to the 2239 competition, and set in the same universe.  The backstory is that in 2029, a massive nuclear war devastated human populations across the globe.  The USA fractured into tiny statelets.

 

By 2250, the Dianetic People's Republic of California (no, you're not supposed to take this setting seriously) has been locked in wars off and on for the past decade with the Cascadian Republic (an amalgamation of Washington, Oregon, and a poorly-defined border running somewhere through Idaho and Nevada), as well as Deseret.  The Cascadian Republic has a smaller manufacturing base than the DPRC, but if their APFSDS spec is anything to go by, they have a slight technological lead.  Deseret is comparatively sparsely populated, but the difficult terrain and toughness of its Mormonhadeen fighters mean that it is not an easy opponent.

 

The DPRC has a roughly 1960s level of manufacturing technology, although their current arsenal is badly dated.  The goal of this competition is to design a new heavy tank for their forces.  Because a great deal of written material has survived from before 2029, you aren't designing a 1960s tank, per se.  You are designing a tank with 1960s levels of technology but with the benefit of hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few questions:
1.  Is a 360 degree turret required?
2.  Are tracks required?
3. What type of terrain is the vehicle expected to operate in? 
Marsh, swamp, snowy, rocky, hilly, forested, mountainous, many rivers? , many lakes?, frequent river crossings?  Urban fighting? Frequent use of tunnels? etc. 

4. What is the quality and capability of the welding industry? Does aluminum welds reach the same quality as steel welds? 

5. When requiring it to fit the average soldier at 1,7m, does that mean the 95th percentile of a population with a average height of 1,7m?

6. If manufacturing capability is present, can technology be "invented"? FCS, RCWS, autoloaders, ballistic computers, engine components etc, made from technology in other industries?
Example, manufacturing industries use pneumatic PID regulators,  a similar technology could be used for FCS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Xoon said:

I have a few questions:
1.  Is a 360 degree turret required?
2.  Are tracks required?
3. What type of terrain is the vehicle expected to operate in? 
Marsh, swamp, snowy, rocky, hilly, forested, mountainous, many rivers? , many lakes?, frequent river crossings?  Urban fighting? Frequent use of tunnels? etc. 

4. What is the quality and capability of the welding industry? Does aluminum welds reach the same quality as steel welds? 

5. When requiring it to fit the average soldier at 1,7m, does that mean the 95th percentile of a population with a average height of 1,7m?

6. If manufacturing capability is present, can technology be "invented"? FCS, RCWS, autoloaders, ballistic computers, engine components etc, made from technology in other industries?
Example, manufacturing industries use pneumatic PID regulators,  a similar technology could be used for FCS?

1. A 360 degree turret is not required, but the ability to engage targets within the extended frontal arc is.

2. Tracks are not required, but the ground pressure requirements are MMP and not NGP; good luck getting anywhere near them with wheels.

3. Any and all of the above, within reason. Hence the ground pressure requirement.

4. Aluminum 5083 is as weldable as RHA.

5. No; it means the average one. 95th percentile soldiers belong in infantry, not armor.

6. The idea is 1960s tech and current day knowledge. If you can get it to work convincingly, go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • T___A pinned and featured this topic
7 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Respectfully, when does her Serene Highness require us to complete this glorious task?

 

Do not use female pronounes to refer to me. For I, Her Safe and Tolerant Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII,

 

9GtsAwR.jpg

 

shall only be referred to by female pronouns by members of the nobility, the holy ones who have made the necessary tithes to the One, Holy, Galactic, and Dianetic, Church of Scientology. You Pleb, may only use Use the Xer pronoun to talk about me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, N-L-M said:

1. A 360 degree turret is not required, but the ability to engage targets within the extended frontal arc is.

So no Strv 103?

 

3 hours ago, N-L-M said:

2. Tracks are not required, but the ground pressure requirements are MMP and not NGP; good luck getting anywhere near them with wheels.

True, but its neat to have the option. 

 

3 hours ago, N-L-M said:

4. Aluminum 5083 is as weldable as RHA.

Aluminum is really hard to weld in my experience, compared to steel, so I was just worried about the weld quality. But I assume they are equal. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus God, we are reaching new levels of autism and SJW mockery not previously thought possible with this competition

 

I will have to expand my whiskey budget if I wish to participate in this competition, as well as quit my full time job to focus on this

 

I'm just saying, 2 months of work for 50 capitalist pig scrip is a poor trade. Maybe an honorary title should be bestowed, as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Xoon said:

So no Strv 103?

 

True, but its neat to have the option. 

 

Aluminum is really hard to weld in my experience, compared to steel, so I was just worried about the weld quality. But I assume they are equal. 

 

1. Strv 103-alike is allowed if you can show an ability to engage targets in the extended frontal arc without a notable disadvantage compared to turreted alternatives.

2. The option is there if you can make it work.

3. Aluminum is more difficult to weld which makes it more expensive, but in terms of actual weld quality the DPRC can weld aluminum just as well as it can weld steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the Honorable Diane Feinstein VIII and other nobles related to this contest, 

 

I have questions about the metallurgy of DPRC. As my company, Song Heavy Machine Works, has only experience in large agriculture and multi-axle transport vehicles, along with the civilian grade materials used in them, we are in need of additional information pertaining to the questions I have given below, if that is acceptable for release. In regards to weapon and vehicle design expertise, we have contacted the ‘Mann Ltd’ corporation (Ms. Hillary Mann was kind enough to send several designers, as well as research, to assist our efforts), so information pertaining to those aspects does not need to be sent. My questions are as follows: 

 

1. Are there Uranium or Tantalum mines within our territories; and if so, what is the level of technology for refining those metals? 

 

2. Are these high hardness steels brittle or are they alloyed well? What kind of alloying materials would we have available for armor grade plates? 

 

3. Is face hardened armor available for use, or is the industry / processes not developed? 

 

I may send additional queries, but for now these are our biggest questions relating to the new heavy tank. Long live the DPRC, and long live the Feinsteins! 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Song Liu-Haack, CEO and Lead Designer of Song Heavy Machine Works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

...

1. Neither Uranium nor Tantalum reserves are available for tactical ground forces use.

2. HHA is sufficiently well-constructed that it will not shatter under standard ballistic impacts.

RHA is alloyed per the pre-cataclysm MIL-A-12560H. 

3. FH armor is available; the outer 20% or 10mm (whichever is less) functions as HHA and the rest as RHA. May be used for structural purposes, but fitting equipment to the hardened face becomes... interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • N-L-M unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      @Toxn
      @Dominus Dolorem
      @Lord_James
      @A. T. Mahan
      @delete013
      @Sten
      @Xoon
      @Curly_
      @N-L-M
      @Sturgeon
       
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Saturday the 24th of July at 23:59 CST.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.

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

      GOOD LUCK!
    • By Monochromelody
      IDF had kept about 100 Tiran-6/T-62s since 1973, and remain service until 1990s. 
       
      I wonder if there's any modification on Tiran-6, like changing the powerpack into 8V71T+XTG-411, adapting steering wheel. 
       
      I also heard that British ROF had produce a batch of 115mm barrel for IDF, while MECAR or NEXTER produced high-performance APFSDS for 115mm gun. Did IDF really use these barrels for original barrel replacement? 
       
      And about protection, did IDF put Blazer ERA on Tiran-6? Or they use more advanced APS like Trophy? 
       
      Thank you. 
    • 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 Beer
      I haven't found an appropriate thread where to put some interesting rare stuff related to WW2 development, be it industrial one or makeshift field modifications. 
       
      Let's start with two things. The first one is a relatively recently found rarity from Swedish archives - a drawing of ČKD/BMM V8H-Sv tank. The drawing and a letter was found by WoT enthusiasts in Swedish archives in 2014 (the original announcement and the drawing source is here). The drawing is from a message dated 8th September 1941. One of the reasons why this drawing was not known before may be that the Czech archives were partially destroyed by floods in 2002. Anyway it is an export modification of the V-8-H tank accepted into Czechoslovak service as ST vz.39 but never produced due to the cancelation of all orders after Münich 1938 (for the same reason negotiations about licence production in Britain failed). Also later attempt to sell the tank to Romania failed due to BMM being fully busy with Wehrmacht priority orders. The negotiations with Sweden about licence production of V8H-Sv lasted till 1942, at least in May 1942 Swedish commission was present in Prague for negotiations. The tank differed compared to the base ST vz.39 in thicker armor with different front hull shape (armor 60 mm @ 30° on the hull front and also 60 mm on the turret; all sides were 40 mm thick). The tank was heavier (20 tons) and had the LT vz.38 style suspension with probably even larger wheels. The engine was still the same Praga NR V8 (240-250 Hp per source). The armament was unchanged with 47 mm Škoda A11 gun and two vz.37 HMG. The commander's cupola was of the simple small rotating type similar to those used on AH-IV-Sv tankettes. It is known that the Swedes officially asked to arm the tank with 75 mm gun, replace the engine with Volvo V12 and adding third HMG to the back of the turret. In the end the Swedes decided to prefer their own Strv/m42. 

      Source of the drawing
       
      The second is makeshift field modification found on Balkans. It appears Ustasha forces (and possibly some SS anti-partizan units) used several Italian M15/42 medium tanks with turrets from Pz.38(t). There are several photos of such hybrids but little more is known. On one photo it is possible to see Ustasha registration number U.O. 139.

      Few more photos of such hybrid.
       
      It appears that the source of all those photos to be found on the internet is this book, Armoured units of the Axis forces in southeastern Europe in WW2 by Dinko Predoevic. 
       
×
×
  • Create New...