Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

This is the reworked version as it stands at the moment:

 

mV2htqV.jpg

The length has gone down to around 550mm, while the mass has gone up to around 16kg + 1kg for the pad assembly. The performance has accordingly dropped to about 330m/s from a standing start. The core assembly is now held front and rear, and forms part of the rocket nozzle.

 

The starting velocity is now 1370m/s, going up to perhaps 1600m/s. The penetration is something like 220-310m/s. A bit disappointing, but we'll work on it.

 

Edit: so something I just realised is that once you anchor the shell casing to the rod at two ends, it effectively stiffens the whole thing.

 

Edit 2: I also realised that you get more bang for your buck by saving weight than you do by chasing higher thrust. This is the further revised version:

Wl11woG.jpg

Penetration is up to around 330mm at the muzzle, while weight is down to around 9.8kg plus a 1kg rear cradle. Initial velocity is up to 1700m/s, which is very respectable.

 

The motor provides enough thrust to reach ~250m/s from a standing start, which is getting to the point where I suspect that it's only going to sustain velocities rather than boost them significantly. Nevertheless, you might see up to 360mm of penetration at maximum here. The motor is used for simulation purposes burns for around 1.5 seconds, so the rod will be around 3km out before velocity starts dropping off.

 

The front assembly is supposed to be aluminium, and tapers from a wall thickness of 2mm to 5mm at the joint. The rear body is 5mm carbon steel, and the assembly is constructed so that the rod pieces effectively brace the whole structure. The entire assembly is actually slightly undersized, with the cradle acting to centre it in the bore (I may consider adding a set of stub fins to the forward body as well).

 

The rod pieces themselves are segmented, with the forward rod having a tungsten bit in it. The final penetration is calculated by lowering the initial rod performance by 15% and then adding the tip performance on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

 

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 Tank"

 

Today, exaltedly equal comrades of multitudinous genders, or none at all, I have wonderful news! We will be discussing the ammunition and developmental armor schemes for the SNVZ AFV-50 project. First the ammunition types. 

 

 

  • High Explosive-Fin Stabilized
    • The primary general purpose support round for the vehicle, equipped with a standard and super quick fuse setting
    • M/V in excess of 500m/s
    • 6.32kg of TNTe filler
    • Spoiler

      unknown.png

  • High Explosive-Fin Stabilized-Urban
    • A “supercharged” HE-FS round designed for short range demolition work
    • 19.88kg TNTe filler
    • Spoiler

      unknown.png

  • Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped-Fin Stabilized
    • The Primary Anti-Armor kinetic energy round
    • Using highly energetic bursting materials, we have achieved devastating beyond armor effects
    • Meets or exceed armor penetration requirements
  • Armor Piercing High Explosive-Fin Stabilized Base Bleed
    • A long range anti-armor round
    • Base bleed reduces drag (and thetan level) throughout the projectile’s flight to ensure optimal retention of auditory capacity.
  • [AUDITED]
    • [AUDITED]
    • Spoiler

      unknown.png

  • [AUDITED]
    • [AUDITED]
    • Spoiler

      unknown.png

  • Chemical Effects-Anti Tank
    • An anti-tank projectile which generates its armor penetrating effects from chemical energy (explosives) within the round
    • Spoiler

      unknown.png

  • Multi Chemical Effects Shell
    • A heavy chemical effects shell with improved explosive qualities at the expense of range and velocity to improve the numbers of use cases.
    • Spoiler

      unknown.png

 

 

These shell types will allow the AFV-50 to engage and defeat all known and planned enemy combat vehicles should they foolishly decide to attack the peace loving peoples’ republic. They are effective at all combat ranges, allowing the gun tank to decisively deconstruct aggressions, micro and macro, and fulfill its combat tasks.

 

 

 

Secondly for today, the SNVZ collective would like to discuss the early development of our armor schemes. While it is a capital offense to shame for weight, it is important to note that later design iterations have exceeded initial goals. Truly SNVZ and the AFV-50 program have been blessed with the bounty of L Ron Hubbard Thought and it is important to recognize that our vehicle is healthy at any size.

 

Recognizing the threat posed by CE warheads, the design team initially investigated the use of large volumes of Glass Textolite, alongside steel. (Fig.1) Unfortunately the thicknesses required were rather extreme, and resulted in deep inefficiencies. 

 

Spoiler

unknown.png

 

Fig.1

 

To compensate for these deficiencies the ratio of steel to textolite was increased, however this also increased the weight. The integration of layers of ceramic and High-Hardness Steel was investigated, however the density/areal density of these packages was deeply unsatisfactory. (Fig.2)

 

Spoiler

unknown.png

 

Fig.2

 

 

At this time the collective investigated various arrangements of so called “Special” or “Composite” armor arrays. They were found unappealing due to the large volumes needed to contain them, and the angles required for best performance. (Figs. 3, 4, and 5)

Spoiler

unknown.png

 

Fig.3

Spoiler

unknown.png

 

Fig.4

Spoiler

unknown.png

Fig.5

 

 

At this time it is unclear what growth potential the Cascadian tandem-HEAT warhead may have, and/or the Mormohideen 2”/4”. These high lethality threat systems may not be able to be defeated without elaborate and economically infeasible exotic armor schemes, in the view of the SNVZ design collective. At this time the SNVZ collective is pursuing further armor concept development, but it appears that the weight and size of tanks must increase drastically before adequate levels of protection are possible. Therefore it appears that the medium tank as it is known, cannot be survivable on the modern battlefield.

 

The Cascadian introduction and adoption of the <<Norman>> series appears in hindsight to be a drastic misstep. The current service variation (NORMAN-A) appears to utilize conventional steel armor materials in a relatively novel layout. However, this is hopelessly outclassed by modern tandem charge CE technology. The Cascadians appear mindless stooges of chauvinist revanchism and warmongering, however despite their perfidy, they are not stupid. They are likely to be investigating the potential for equipping a derivative of NORMAN-A with exotic “special” or “composite” armor systems. They are fools for doing so! To defeat modern tandem-shaped charges would require far too much volume and weight of armor to fit in a traditional “medium” size tank. But the Cascadian dogs have made their bed, and so they shall sleep in it. They may as well have introduced the kite shields and chainmail of its namesake, for the good it will do them. In the modern threat environment, where tandem charge ATGMs outrange the ability of armor to detect and engage them prior to, or even after, launch, the Medium Tank is dead!

 

For this reason, the SNVZ AFV-50 designs have blossomed through the iterative process, between 20 and 25% over the initial predictions. Fortunately there is historical precedent for such a matter. Ancient pre-war historical texts speak of a mightily effective Main-Battle Tank, the first of its kind. During the Second Great War it was created, and grew through its design process it grew to just over 1.25x the initial design goal. The Tank Struggle Vehicle Mark 5, or “Panther”, was widely regarded by the ancient sages of the “AxisHistory” forum as the best tank of this second of the great wars, with armor, mobility, and firepower an order of magnitude above the delicate, vulnerable, underarmed and expensive Medium tank M4 "Ronson". Clearly in light of this the weight gain of the AFV-50 is not of much relevance. Collective efforts of SNVZ to improve armor protection continue, and appear to be reaching some success. The DPRC, guardians of the people and L. Ron Hubbard Thought, as well as our most eminent and wise leadership, the most Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII, require cheap winners, like the TSV Mk.5 "Panther" of old, rather than "expensive losers" like the "NORMAN" or "Ronson"! On this matter, I assure you that the shock-engineers of SNVZ will deliver!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ammo update: 

 

I haven't completely finished the rough draft for the weird ammo yet (sorry @Toxn), but I did finish the primary ammo types: 

 

155mm S11-I (APCBC-HE-T) 

Spoiler

530EMUW.png

tNe61z1.png

OHJh4y7.png

bgTVUXd.png

 

Projectile sans discarding bands is 58.3kg (59.6kg with); 835.8mps at muzzle. 

 

3.5/25crh windshield with hardened steel penetrating cap and base fuse. Same boattail and discarding bands as previous AP shell

 

 

155mm S21-I (HE-FRAG-T) 

Spoiler

HexvMsy.png

q9fn6j5.png

XsY9U6Z.png

D4gSQMt.png

 

43.7kg without discarding bands (45kg with); 948.2mps at muzzle. 

 

3/9crh windshield with steel hood. Can equip nose and base fuses. Same boattail and discarding bands. 

 

 

C4B (800mm) semi-combustible propellant charge

Spoiler

7u99kOw.png

GUPGTF2.png

 

20.6kg of propellant, whole case should be ~21kg when I bother making the brass stub cartidge. 

 

 

Both projectiles are 900mm long with a similar construction to my first shell and are spin stabilized; the propellant charge is the maximum size charge available for C4B guns (all mods). They both also contain the combined tracer / base burner as my first shell. 

 

 

To do: 

 

A. calculate penetration / add masses for each piece of the projectiles. 

B. Ask @N-L-M if 25% is a good velocity conservation modifier for a base burning artillery shell.

C. Ask for the density of A-IX-2 (I want to use that instead of Explosive D for the filler). 

D. fix some errors I may have made (I want the burner to last for 3km [for army versions, navy burners should last out to 15km], but don't know how large to make it). 

 

 

PS. I used the S21 as the largest (by volume) shell to estimate my autoloader's capacity, and it turns out I can only fit 17 such shells :( I don't have the patience to remodel my ammo for higher autoloader capacity, so I will leave their dimensions as is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Whatismoo said:

Astrolite A/G has better brisiance, iirc

 

per the internet: Astrolite is a liquid, and IIRC liquid explosives are not effective as high velocity bursting chrages, and RDX (the main ingredient of A-IX-2) has a comparable brisance value. 

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

I don't get what you mean by that.

 

I mean it reduces the drag by 25% for as long as the burner is active (in this case: 3km), sorry for weird wording. 

 

2 minutes ago, Whatismoo said:

Astrolite has an 8600m/s detonation velocity, though?

 

Liquid explosives are not good in high velocity applications, as in a 155mm naval shell traveling at >800m/s. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Penetration table and velocity charts for S11-I and S21-I (velocity was calculated by multiplying 0.25 to ΔV and adding that product back Vf): 

 

S11-I: 

Spoiler

PkUrUje.png

 

Actual Velocity and Penetration: 

 

000m: 835.8 m/s --------- 392mm 

100m: 820.1 m/s --------- 381mm 

200m: 804.7 m/s --------- 371mm 

300m: 789.5 m/s --------- 361mm 

400m: 774.4 m/s --------- 351mm 

500m: 759.6 m/s --------- 342mm 

1000m: 689.0 m/s ------- 297mm 

1500m: 623.8 m/s ------- 258mm 

2000m: 563.0 m/s ------- 223mm 

2500m: 506.8 m/s ------- 192mm 

3000m: 458.3 m/s ------- 166mm 

 

 

S21-I: 

Spoiler

ViAhlig.png

 

Actual Velocity: 

 

100m: 931.5 m/s 

200m: 915.1 m/s 

300m: 898.8 m/s 

400m: 882.7 m/s 

500m: 866.8 m/s 

1000m: 790.5 m/s 

1500m: 719.7 m/s 

2000m: 654.3 m/s 

2500m: 593.4 m/s 

3000m: 537.0 m/s 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Your velocity drops off startlingly fast. I suggest checking the drag and mass properties.

 

I maxed out mass (15000 gn) and minimized diameter (0.10 in) for JBM, while using the G7 coefficient, and I only get an extra 4 m/s at 3km. If I bump up the elevation to 4500ft (Reno, Nevada), I get an extra 50 m/s... but that's at 4500ft, and that extra penetration would be useless against the Deserent wheeled death traps and jihadyotas. If you have an alternate way to calculate drag and ΔV, I'm all ears. 

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

That's roughly 1 kg.

Or around 2% of the usual weight of a 155mm shell.

I have a more robust method I'll be posting a bit later.

 

Thank you; my adventures into the internet to find a better solution come up questionable. 

 

Anyway, in reference to NERA: do the brackets and spacers have to be mounted on structural components? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been stalking this for a while and decided to start up my own submission.

 

iKXmGSK.pngJoJ3j8h.pngpRWIQDy.png

Currently working in Onshape so everyone can go in and poke around the assembly if they want.

I still got a long way to go but it's a start.

Next up is finishing the powerpack, inserting the turret blockout, designing the autoloader, modeling the sponsons, skirt armor, suspension.

I'll Probably be done with most of that by Monday.

 

As a side note a lot of the parts in the assembly don't have the correct mass as of yet...

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord_James

Alright people, it's time for M A T H. For convenience's sake, all the units in this post are going to be SI, MKS.

Today's episode: external ballistics and differential equations!

So, we know that the force of drag is roughly proportional to the velocity squared (not entirely true, but we'll get back to that later).

Drag equations take the following form:

XekUp4j.png

Where Rho is the air density, a is the reference area of the projectile (for shells and rockets, the convention is that the reference area is the cross sectional area of the projo), and Cd is a dimensionless drag coefficient.

Additionally, we know from Newton's second law that F=m*a, which can be rejiggered to a=F/m.

And we know that acceleration is by definition the derivative of velocity by time.

Combining the above, we get the following differential equation:

5SCKLdr.png

Where m is the projectile mass.

Solving this diff eq, (and the one for velocity being the time-derivative of speed), we get:

SFKPABC.png

Where x0 and v0 are the initial position and velocity, and ln is the natural logarithm.

We now have almost everything we need, but where are we going to get drag coefficients for 155mm shells at this time of day?

Why, DTIC of course!

DTIC has helpfully provided the complete measured drag curve for the shell,155mm, HE, M101 (The precursor to the M107, with different driving bands but otherwise identical): https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/209134.pdf

Consulting the graph so helpfully provided, we note something odd about our previous assumption:

4r0Xpkf.png

The drag coefficient isn't a nice constant value, but instead varies with velocity! this is an outrage!

Except it only varies fairly mildly, so we can assume it to be quasi-constant, and we don't have to solve the diff eq for a velocity-dependent Cd (or Kd in the DTIC paper).

So assuming a M101 equivalent shell, launched at 800m/s, a Cd of 0.1 seems reasonable. Solving the above equations with the following constants:
asguavQ.png

I suggest shoving the above values and the equations found for velocity and range into Excel, and solving both by t, before observing the velocity as a function of range.

 

We get that for a range of 3000m, we have a ToF of 3.86 sec, at the end of which we have a terminal velocity of 755 m/s - A fairly significant residual velocity, I think you'll agree.

We then go on to note that throughout the flight, the velocity remains over Mach 2.5, and that therefore the choosing of 0.1 for Cd is reasonable, as at no point in the flight would it be any higher.

 

For those planning shells other than 155mm, note that drag coefficients are constant for similar forms, regardless of scaling, but the reference area and mass scale with S^2 and S^3, respectively.

For those considering the drag coefficient plots for more optimized projectile shapes, I suggest consulting @Sturgeon regarding drag coeffs.

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 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.
    • By Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
       
       
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
       
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.

×
×
  • Create New...