Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 542
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular 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

Comrades! The time of your waiting is over! I introduce to you the Sierra Nevada VagonZavod AFV-50 Gun Tank   Frontal Dimensions Frontal Armor Turret Cheek Armor Array (n

Report from Lt. Col. [REDACTED] People's Auditory Forces Directorate of Political-Moral Reliability, Auditory and Political Officer for SNVZ and Military-Industry Liaison Officer for RFP "New Battle T

Update on the SH-1T: 

 

Mock-up of turret

Extended sponsons 

gun created (and roughly placed within turret) 

 

egjjSBi.png

 

Spoiler

XSQI6lq.png

 

OuXvlYG.png

 

MsOdElo.png

 

41Hd5Ey.png

 

weight thus far is 48.27 Mg; length is 10.74m from barrel tip to rear storage; autoloader can fit 24 155mm x 800mm shells, but I designed it for 900mm long shells, so might fit 22 or so. 

 

Turret Armor Cavities: 

 

Front: 45mm RHA + 515mm array + 90mm JPA at 30o. 751mm LoS from dead front. 

Front Sides: 45mm RHA + 255mm array + 63mm JPA. At 45o, LoS is 513mm (covers turret crew up to 60o). 

Rear Sides: 35mm RHA + 101.5mm array + 45mm RHA. 257mm LoS at 45o

 

Gun is the 155mm C4B Mod.3 naval cannon. The B version of the C4(x) is an L/44 (C4A is a L/52), and the Mod.3 is modified for army use. It has a bayonet locked barrel for quick changing, and can fire up to 900mm long projectiles, but the chamber is limited to 800mm long propellant charges. Operates at 61,000 psi (421 MPa) and has a 500mm recoil stroke. 

 

Crew is estimated at 5: 

 

Driver 

Loader 

Gunner

Commander

Ordinance operator / Assistant loader (I plan to add a remote 107mm mortar, which this crewperson would use) 

 

I found that I can increase head room / lower the floor if I remove the 6th pair of road wheels, revise the floor armor,  and drop the autoloader into the space. Should give back ~100mm. 

 

 

To do: 

 

H. Mantle armor 

I. Add spaces for stuff to go into sponsons 

J. The engine and transmission 

K. Turret roof armor 

L. Additional weapons (coax, 107mm mortar, commander armament, etc.) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I managed to mail myself the file for Brick junior and got working on upgrades:

 

CvsB5KJ.jpg

ywyNsT6.jpg

Xer now has the high-powered 133mm L/50 gun, which was developed specifically to beat the base Norman armour spec out to 2000m using AP-FS. The dimensions of the cartridge are compatible with the existing 150mm one in terms of ammo rack space, so the ammunition load is the same. The new gun also has a muzzle break and fume extractor, both of which are more to allow compatibility with other projects than anything else.

 

The Brick jr now also has a larger 16-cylinder AVDS-derived engine, which should put out around 1200HP. The weight will have gone up by a few tonnes (I haven't recalculated all the values again), but this should be more than offset by the increased power.

 

I think Brick jr is more or less in xer's final form now, and will work on the backup project (which is supposed to use a more conventional turret) for the next little while. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2019 at 12:53 PM, Toxn said:

So in case anyone is wondering (not that I'm advocating anything for or against anything), the minimum specs needed to punch through 203mm RHA sloped at 20' degrees from vertical at 2000m is:

- 122m gun, ~12.3MJ muzzle energy

- 25kg APBC, 992m/s (mass and penetration based on 122mm BR-471D)

 

So this can in principle be achieved using a hot D-25T

 

 

*Looks around carefully to make sure that no auditors are in the room*

*Checks the room carefully for SeaOrg bugs (which are easy to locate because they are clearly labeled "SeaOrg")*

 

OK, just pointing out that if you make a gun that just barely meets Her Serene Majesty's requirements, it can't actually kill the Norman.  Her Gracious and Serene Majesty doesn't actually know anything about tanks.

 

Per the OP, the Norman has 330mm of protection against KE, and per the final post from the previous competition, that was clearly intended as an interim and easily removable armor array to be used until a proper composite armor array could be supplied instead.

 

For 330mm of penetration at combat distances with full caliber AP, you're looking at something a bit more powerful than the M58, and ideally with better-designed shells.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

*Looks around carefully to make sure that no auditors are in the room*

*Checks the room carefully for SeaOrg bugs (which are easy to locate because they are clearly labeled "SeaOrg")*

 

OK, just pointing out that if you make a gun that just barely meets Her Serene Majesty's requirements, it can't actually kill the Norman.  Her Gracious and Serene Majesty doesn't actually know anything about tanks.

 

Per the OP, the Norman has 330mm of protection against KE, and per the final post from the previous competition, that was clearly intended as an interim and easily removable armor array to be used until a proper composite armor array could be supplied instead.

 

For 330mm of penetration at combat distances with full caliber AP, you're looking at something a bit more powerful than the M58, and ideally with better-designed shells.

*Casually chats about the weather after we 'happen' to bump into each other outside in the park (on a suitably windy day) until I'm certain that nobody else is nearby*

 

I'm fully aware of that. Which is why my 133mm gun, which is what I'm actually putting on my tank right now, does 360mm from 2000m. Which most certainly can kill a Norman, and can probably kill an uparmoured one from a bit closer to even with full-bore stupidity rounds. If you look at my other gun (the 150mm piece) it is and was always optimised for HEAT and the AP round we lashed together barely punches through 200mm on the flat at distance. And even that took a painful redesign of the gun and its cartridge.

 

I'm making other people aware of the minimum level of gun needed so they can go about their day unmolested and then say 'whoops, guess what we just happened to have lying about' when a certain someone succumbs to her increased stress levels and ever-harder-to-hide amphetamine addiction and we can all use finned sabot again.

 

Barring that, a 122mm gun slinging our most up-to-date tandem HEAT-FS can do 200/500mm. Meaning that it will go through a Norman with bolt-on ERA like butter until such time as the perfidious Cascadians add in a NERA interlayer.

 

Finally; if you run the numbers on a fully upgraded Norman (ie: with the bolt-on RHA removed and NERA/ERA added all over the shop) you'll find that nothing short of 550+mm of KE or something like a 190mm diameter tandem HEAT shell has any hope of killing it from the front. Which means that either you sling APFSDS and damn the consequences, or resign yourself to throwing artillery shells at the thing and hope that Her Serene Majesty won't notice that the turret got pulled off by explosive mass rather than any sort of armour piercing effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I think I just T-72'd myself.

 

The backup is looking really, really good.

 

Edit: really, really, really good

eUdCplH.jpg

44uBEMf.jpg

f5MY9yq.jpg

a5yiRGa.jpg

Nfpvlfl.jpg

It developed from the same philosophy that informed the Big Buoy tank concept, so it's been provisionally dubbed 'Lil Buoy after the pre-war mythological figure.

 

So far the weight estimates have it at 71mt fully loaded, with the same 133mm gun and stretched AVDS-derived engine as the Brick (2950kg dry mass, 1205HP). This gives it a power-to-weight ratio of just under 17HP/mt, which should bump it over the minimum requirements in that department. It also has the same autoloader setup as the Brick, with 20 complete rounds in left side of the turret and another 10 in the left front ammo rack. If needed, the turret crew can now manually serve the gun (although this would obviously only be in case of emergencies or malfunctions).

 

The gun itself fires AP-FS, HE-FS and various types of HEAT-FS. The AP-FS can comfortably exceed the new penetration requirements, to the extent that it can penetrate the turret armour of a Norman-series tank from the front at 2000m.

 

133mm ammunition:

  • Common: seperate propellant and warhead stages, semi-combustible cases. The propellant stage is 150x1000mm and has a steel case stub. The warhead stage is 133x1000mm bottlenecked to 150mm at the base. Warhead stages may have extra propellant.
  • AP-FS: 34kg, 960m/s, 265mm RHA penetration at 2000m (130mm BR-482B used as reference)
  • HE-FS: 35kg, 835m/s, ~45-50mm RHA penetration
  • HEAT-FS (single, steel cone): 35kg, 835m/s, 430mm RHA penetration
  • HEAT-FS (tandem, copper cone, improved explosives and pressing, higher cone precision, wave shaper, improved detonators etc): 35kg, 835m/s, 230/615mm RHA penetration
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, time to look at the current and potential future armor of the Cascadian Entity's "Norman" tank.  Sadly, ink supplies of the official Comic Sans typeface ran out, so we had to switch to Times New Roman for the remainder of this communique:

 

Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII has charitably appropriated more earth conscious ink for this post

 

The Norman has 8-10 degrees of gun depression, so it probably gets shot in the turret a whole lot.  Any armament that cannot reliably penetrate the turret can't really be said to reliably kill it.

 

We know that the existing Norman has a turret array of 50mm base RHA, 150mm of bolt-on RHA (sitting on a rubber mounting surface, which is assumed to have negligible impact here), a 100mm air gap, and 60mm of HHS on top of that.  Running the equation backwards; (50 + 150) x 1.1 +60 x 2, we get 340mm vs HEAT, and 330mm vs KE.

 

But the original Norman submission was very clear that this is a temporary expedient:

 

Quote

The base steel is not homogenous; on the turret cheeks and sides, and on the hull front, it is an arrangement that can only adequately be described as “inverse Stillbrew”. The armor comprises a 50mm thick base layer, with the secondary casting bolted on with a rubber interlayer in the middle. The purpose of this arrangement is not to increase protection (although it should a bit), but rather to aid upgradeability- when better armor gets developed, it is intended that the thick steel facing plates be swapped for more weight-efficient armor. The volume needed for these arrays is already available, as the spaces of the spaced armor. The stowed equipment in those pockets will be displaced to less critical locations.

 

Ruh Roh.

 

Quote

It is intended that with the steel armor replaced by NERA arrays and the external face topped with ERA, that the total armor array will be ERA-hard armor-NERA-backing steel armor.
Such an array is reminiscent of the T-72BV turret and could quite reasonably be expected to handle tandem HEAT and moderately advanced APFSDS constructions. This drastic improvement in protection could easily be a simple part of a midlife upgrade, with the chosen construction methods.

 

So, there will be a 50mm base, a ~250mm pocket filled with NERA (let's assume it's similar to Californian H-NERA, since that is the most similar to the T-72B), 60mm HHS and light ERA on top of that for this planned upgrade.

What we would really like to know is the angle of the angle of the armor plates within this array.

 

DVVrlZe.png

 

In general, we can assume that the Cascadian armor scientists aren't stupid.  Furthermore, they operate within a sane and reasonably effective management structure, which goes a long way to explain the recent defections.

 

The optimal obliquity for H-NERA is quite high.  Furthermore, the spacing requirements for H-NERA are large, with 54mm of distance between the sandwiches required, as measured normal.  If the bulge zone overlaps with the armor box a little at the edges, that's probably not a problem because the edge of NERA arrays don't really work correctly anyways.  Therefore, as a simplifying assumption, the arrays will reasonably run all the edge of the box they live in until their corners touch.

 

The limit on plate obliquity within the box will be the angle at which the gap between the layers of H-NERA are wide enough that a projectile could pass between them without hitting one.  Or rather, a bit less than this, because, again, the edges of a NERA array don't really do anything.  Using a quick sketch in a CAD program my 1337 trig skills, I determine that the armor can be at up to 61 degrees from the vertical before such gaps appear.

rxvZHr2.jpg?1

 

But realistically, it's going to be a bit less than that, so that the ineffective edges of the H-NERA overlap a bit more.  Let's say 57 degrees from the vertical.

 

There is also the question of whether the strike faces of these arrays will be tilted up or tilted down.  Tilted up seems more likely to me because, although this sacrifices effectiveness against plunging fire, it increases effectiveness against direct fire when hull down.

 

Single-layer L-ERA will probably be placed at maximum practical obliquity to get the most performance out of a single layer of protection.  Let's say 70 degrees, and assume that any containers for this ERA will have negligible ballistic effect.

 

So, inside to out that's 50mm RHA, H-NERA inclined at 57 degrees, 60mm HHA, L-ERA inclined at 70 degrees:

 

I get that such an array protects 393mm vs KE and 749mm vs CE.'

 

And that's just the planned upgrade.  If they lop off the somewhat inefficient leading HHS and expand the array out to where it starts to be a problem for driver's hatch clearance, they can easily get arrays north of 450mm vs KE and 1000mm vs CE.

 

So, getting a gun big enough to actually force the Cascadians back to the drawing board is non-trivial.

 

 

So, with that out of the way, I have two questions:

1)  What are the parameters for gas turbines?

2)  What are the parameters for PELE rounds?  The DM-33 derivative PELE round has 1/3 the penetration of the APFSDS round it's based on.  Does 1/3 penetration seem like a reasonable multiplier for PELE rounds?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:


2)  What are the parameters for PELE rounds?  The DM-33 derivative PELE round has 1/3 the penetration of the APFSDS round it's based on.  Does 1/3 penetration seem like a reasonable multiplier for PELE rounds?

 

Is the reduction in penetration due to the reduction in mass and less dense materials, or is there another reason? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

a 100mm air gap,

 

Checking the model, apparently that's selling the turret a bit short. The turret cheeks are 170 deg thick and set 35 deg off the centerline, topped with a 164mm air gap and then 60mm HH face.

HBihgGP.png


From dead ahead that's 297 RHA-286mm gap- 104mm HH

And from 30 deg off to the side it's 187 RHA-180 gap-66 HH.

xEWYFYD.png

 

The turret sides are 100mm RHA-120mm gap- 30mm HH

and at 30 deg off centerline are 200mm RHA-240mm gap- 60 HH

 

So the NERA cavities would be 284 mm on the cheek (313mm LOS at +30 deg), and 170mm (340 mm LOS at +30) on the sides.

The turret nose can accommodate some pretty beefy arrays on the production Norman without overly disturbing the driver too-

xebvL1s.png

The production Norman has a slightly rearranged driver's hatch area (for improved visibility), and a slightly rearranged mantlet area (and an actual mantlet, once I get around to modelling the thing):
TksaxO1.png

The upgraded armor of the Norman would have light NERA in the pockets, and heavy ERA (possibly topped with light ERA as well) on the outside.

I may math out just how effective the Cascadian array is at some point, too.

 

 

1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

1)  What are the parameters for gas turbines?

2)  What are the parameters for PELE rounds?  The DM-33 derivative PELE round has 1/3 the penetration of the APFSDS round it's based on.  Does 1/3 penetration seem like a reasonable multiplier for PELE rounds?

The DPRC's jet engine tech is sufficiently advanced to produce P&W JT3D engines and equivalents.

PELE at 1/3 sounds reasonble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

So, getting a gun big enough to actually force the Cascadians back to the drawing board is non-trivial.

Yeah, no kidding.

 

I actually had to downgrade my 133mm gun a bit, as checking it against the available pressure limits for 2A46 (510 MPa for earlier versions of the gun) showed that it was going over. Bear in mind that this configuration was selected precisely because it has the maximum possible penetration using conventional AP. So, for instance, if you run a similarly pressure-limited 152mm AP shell (based on BR-540B), you get something like 216mm RHA penetration at 2000m.

 

Edit: hold the fucking phone, because I just had an idea. I'll revert if/when something comes of it.

 

Edit 2: Okay, here it is

Ei2oXjb.jpg

I'm calling it the "Sustainer" shell. It's essentially a rocket motor and shell wrapped around a completely conventional armour-piercing core. The shell has a set of folding fins on the back, while the core has a small tungsten bit on the front.

 

Testing using Rocketsim lots of math by actual rocket scientists shows that the entire assembly would weigh around 12.5kg and produces enough thrust to hit over 500m/s from a standing start. Behind the shell is a buffer pad to keep the entire thing from disintegrating, and behind that a powder charge. The entire thing is loaded as a warhead section in front of a standard propellent charge and shot out of the gun at around 1580m/s. From there on the rocket motor kicks in and actually speeds the projectile (potentially up to around 1900m/s) before simply sustaining the velocity.

 

Penetration is accordingly a bit weird, starting off at around 300mm RHA equivalence at the muzzle, and then rising to perhaps 395mm a kilometre and a half out. From there it holds more-or-less steady out to 4km, before rapidly dropping off.

 

This new type of shell, which we're thinking of referring to as "Rocket-assisted AP, Fin-Stabilised" (or RAP-FS) is expected to provide substantial penetration performance while maintaining a non-phallic, mammaric appearance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

During 1960s Dow's magnesium from seawater extraction plants in Texas had about 100,000 tonnes capacity annually.  Up from 50,000 circa 1941.

 

Can we use magnesium? Early BMPs were magnesium.  I would approximate keeping equal mass efficiency between cast Mg and wrought Al.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kal said:

Texas

The Lone Free State of Texas is not assessed as being a threat to the DPRC at the current time being a significant distance away, but your ambitions to conquer their industrial base are lauded.

 

Magnesium alloys with similar mass efficiency to Aluminum are acceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Toxn said:

Edit 2: Okay, here it is

Ei2oXjb.jpg

That's going to need a significantly more massive body-rod interface to avoid having it leave the LR behind, which means more parasitic mass.

Also, the body will require significantly thicker walls to survive the stresses of launch at the stated pressures, which again means more parasitic mass.

Other than that, however, DPRC PAF-Ordnance approves, but would like to know what rocket fuel is intended to be used.

 

On a brighter note, such a shell would have significant incendiary effects pre-burnout.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

That's going to need a significantly more massive body-rod interface to avoid having it leave the LR behind, which means more parasitic mass.

Also, the body will require significantly thicker walls to survive the stresses of launch at the stated pressures, which again means more parasitic mass.

Other than that, however, DPRC PAF-Ordnance approves, but would like to know what rocket fuel is intended to be used.

 

On a brighter note, such a shell would have significant incendiary effects pre-burnout.

The design is, shall we say, provisional. I would appreciate any guidance you or anyone else may have on how best to configure the round, as I'm well outside of my sphere of knowledge here and working with fairly limited tools.

 

The propellant for the rocket is some version ammonium perchlorate composite, for which a wealth of surviving literature exists.

Link to post
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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Monochromelody
      70 years ago, January the 2nd, 1951. To the North of Seoul, in the mountains and hills near Go-yang-tong(高阳洞), British 1RUR dug in and fought against advancing PVA forces. 1RUR got a task force called Cooperforce to support, this is a tank unit from Royal Tank Regiment and Royal Artillery, equipped with Cromwell tanks. 
      When Matthrew Ridgeway assigned the order of withdraw in this afternoon, the US force covering British force's left flank quickly escaped from their sector, leaving the British were completed unawared and uncovered. 
      When the night falls, was cold and dark in the valley. 1RUR had to withdraw in the darkness. All of a sudden, a US spotter aircraft flew over the valley, drop some illumination flares upon the retreating convoy. 
      Fierce battle broke out when flares fall down, PVA firing from all directions, the cold valley became deadly kill zone. Some PVA soldiers put away their rifles, assaulting with hand grenades, satchel charges and Bangalore torpedoes. They even set up mortars on the hill, laying shells with direct fire. 
      200 British soldiers and artillerymen were killed or captured in one night. 1RUR's Battalion Commander Tony Blake was believed KIA. Cooperforce was completely knocked out, all 12 tanks were destroyed or captured by light infantry. Leader Ashley Cooper were also killed. 


    • By Toxn
      This is the competition entry thread.
       
      Please submit your complete entries here (all entries will be judged complete when judging begins in the first week of November) and keep the other competition thread for discussion and chatter.
       
      Once judging is complete I will make a post here to discuss the entries and announce a winner.
       
      Best of luck!
       
      Update: final submissions should be in hand by the 22nd of November 2020.
    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Toxn
      You are an engineer at an Italian locomotive and tractor-making company in early 1943. The writing is on the wall for the Italian army in North Africa, with a lot of equipment having been lost and the enemy on the brink of kicking the axis out of Tunisia and then heading across the Mediterranean. In short, things are looking more than a little desperate. 
       
      However, all is not lost. Il Duce himself has stepped in and, with the assistance of the Germans, procured both some of their finest captured vehicles for use in the upcoming defense of the homeland. Since many of these vehicles have been... gently used, and the existing firms like Ansaldo are flooded with orders, your firm has been asked to work on them in order to bring them up to the standards demanded by modern warfare. 
       
      In addition to these vehicles, the Germans have also graciously agreed to sell weapons from their existing stock of captured equipment, as well as providing production licenses for some of their more modern equipment. You have also been given permission to work with local weapons manufacturers in order to modify existing artillery to suit your needs. Italian automotive and engine manufacturers are similarly available to help. Finally; your firm's experience in locomotives and tractors means that you can modify hulls and put together turrets and turret rings. You can also produce castings (although not very large ones) and weld armour plates.
       
      Your job, which you have no choice but to accept, is to choose a vehicle from among the captured stock being offered for sale, and propose a series of plausible fixes in order to give it a fighting chance against the American and British equipment currently in the field (specifically light tanks and light anti-tank weapons).
       
      It is not foreseen that any of these vehicles will be able to plausibly take on modern medium or heavy designs head-on. Instead, what is wanted are general, implementable improvements to the characteristics of the chosen vehicle. These improvements should be aimed at making these vehicles more useful in the initial battles which are foreseen taking place against airborne and landing forces, in general cooperation with infantry, and as scouts.
       
      The submission should include one or more drawings or blueprints (at least a side view of the vehicle, but preferably a 3-point view and isometric view), a description of the modified vehicle, a description of how the modifications would be accomplished and a description of how the modifications would improve the design overall. The text of the submission should short and descriptive rather than long and exhaustive, and should not exceed 1000 words in total. Images may be photoshopped using existing pictures.
       
      Judging will be done on the basis of plausibility and effectiveness, with innovative solutions being encouraged in order to get the most bang for buck out of the base vehicle. Beyond implementation, the fixes should prioritise combat effectiveness while also improving reliability, crew ergonomics, communication, mobility and protection as much as possible.
       
      The foreign vehicles available for modification are:
      Renault R35 (already in service) Hotchkiss H35/39 Somua S35 (already in use for training purposes) T-26 BT-5 T-28 (only available in very small numbers, so need to be extremely effective) Panzer II Ausf.C  
      The foreign weapons immediately available for purchase are:
      15mm ZB-60 25mm Puteaux and Hotchkiss 3.7cm KPÚV vz. 34/Pak 34 (t) 3.7cm ÚV vz. 38/KwK 38(t)
      3.7cm Pak 36 4.0 cm Pak 192 (e) 45mm M1937 (53-K) 4.7cm KPÚV vz. 38/Pak 38 (t) 47mm APX 7.5cm Pak 97/38 7.62 cm F.K.297(r) and  7.62 cm PaK 39(r) 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 43  
      Licenses are also available for the manufacture of foreign engines (Maybach HL62 TRM, Maybach HL120 TRM and Praga Typ TNHPS/II), periscopes, sights, radios, cupolas and automotive subassemblies. All foreign vehicle weapons, subassemblies and components are available for reverse engineering and manufacture.
       
      IMPORTANT NOTE: This competition hasn't been finalised, and is waiting on your input! Vote to participate by giving this topic a 'controversial' (grapefruit-induced tears being the only currency of value), and if we get enough participants we'll pull the trigger. Ask any questions you want below, and when/if the competition goes forwards I will make a new thread for entries.
       
      Edit: thanks to excellent feedback, the competition proposal has been somewhat edited. If you want an idea of what my mindset is here, read up on the battle of Gela (bearing in mind that the wikipedia entry is shite) and ask how much better the counter-attack could have gone if the Italian vehicles had been equipped with radios and had the ability to move faster than jogging speed.
       
      Edit 2: since I failed to mention this above - this is not a one-man, one-entry sort of competition (although I'm not keen on the ten-men, one entry approach either).
      If you have two good ideas then you can submit twice. The only rules are not to test my patience and to keep it within the bounds of good taste.

×
×
  • Create New...