Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

No offense, but I don’t trust you as much as some of the other people on this forum; they have proven their knowledge. So, I’m gonna have to ask for a second opinion. 

 

@N-L-M, @Toxn, any confirmation on what I did wrong? 

 

BUT!, your response does make sense, and I probably should have considered that. 

 

 

Yeah, I just checked and I think I mis-clicked a button on my calculator, but it’s 113mm LoS (80mm / cos45 = 113.1), which is 1.13 decimeters. Multiplied to 1.1 gives me 1.24. I’ll make some corrections when I have time. 

What's your array design? I'll happily double-check it for you.

 

BUT, as we saw earlier, you shouldn't trust my numbers either...

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

I'll get to it mathing them out in a few hours.

Note that the armor numbers are tuned for warheads below 200mm dia; for larger weapons the light armors would lose some of their dynamic effects (thicker more robust jets wouldnt be as affected by light flyer plates), and there ideally should also be a gradual loss of dynamic effects for successive layers (once a jet is destabilized, theres diminishing returns for destabilizing it further); these factors were however excluded for the sake of not overly complicating the equations, as the reference threats are all within reasonable limits.

 

Also @Lord_Jamesthe air gap is multiplicative, so you need to take the exponent, ie for 13 cm the factor is 1.1^1.3=1.13.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

No offense, but I don’t trust you as much as some of the other people on this forum; they have proven their knowledge. So, I’m gonna have to ask for a second opinion. 

 

@N-L-M, @Toxn, any confirmation on what I did wrong? 

 

BUT!, your response does make sense, and I probably should have considered that. 

Thats fine, i dont have a military background so dont trust anything i write.

 

But review this doc.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242230270_MULTIPLE_CROSSWISE_ORIENTATED_NERA-PANELS_AGAINST_SHAPED_CHARGE_WARHEADS

 

When i backcalculate the Various k1s for their nera (after including a 390- 490mm space effect) i got

First nera k1 = 3.3

Standard Follow up nera k1 = 1.1

Alternate follow up nera k1 = 1.6

 

That was for a 3/5/3 nera

 

Anyway, point is that the norman turret upgrade is a good example of how to make these calcs work.  Outer layer is ERA, on a vertical surface, chevron stye.  Inner layer is NERA with a horzontal aspect to its lay.   NERA calcs are for the optimal single nera cassette that gets stacked to maintain coverage.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just remade my upper right array, AGAIN, and re calculated both completed arrays: 

 

Lower Front: 

1206mm CE 

635mm KE 

 

Front Right: 

1177mm CE 

625mm KE 

 

For CE, K1 was 2 for the first group, and 1.1 for the second group. KE was 1.05 for the first group and 1.0 for the second. 

 

Both arrays can withstand Deserent 60/105 ATR and any known AP (125mm included) currently used by Cascadia, from ~30o from the front (the mock up of my side array is giving these numbers, but they're not finalized yet). Unfortunately, that BGM-1 is a monster, so an upgrade kit will most definitely be required to survive a hit from those. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lord_James said:

remade my upper right array, AGAIN, and re calculated both completed arrays: 

Post or PM the new layout for checking please.

I'll be running the numbers on the arrays you posted soon

 

EDIT: ran the numbers, both arrays you posted in the last page are good for 500mm KE and BGM-1 at horizontal impact.

 

Also, I would like to remind participants that armor and structure are typically 50-55% of the overall vehicle's weight, with 60% being a practical limit for working reliable vehicles.

The remaining weight distribution is approximately as follows:
15% suspension
10% tracks
10% drivetrain
5% weaponry
2% assorted systems
1% crew
1% ammo
1% fuel
Or so.

There are minor variations possible, but kindly try and keep things reasonable.

This of course means that for a 120 ton vehicle, at most only approximately 72 tons will be armor and structure (both turret and hull), keep that in mind while planning vehicle weights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question re spaced armour and engines

 

A compartment for an engine is 1500mm,  kharkov 5TD

 

For a nominal 1000mm CE the calcs are

1500/100 = 15

1000/(1.1 to power 15) =  240mm CE 

 

So, as long as precursor charge is already dealt with, the engine bay reduces CE by 75%.  Hmmm, rear of my tank may be tougher than the front?

Edited by Kal
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kal said:

Question re spaced armour and engines

 

A compartment for an engine is 1500mm,  kharkov 5TD

 

For a nominal 1000mm CE the calcs are

1500/100 = 15

1000/(1.1 to power 15) =  240mm CE 

 

So, as long as precursor charge is already dealt with, the engine bay reduces CE by 75%.  Hmmm, rear of my tank may be tougher than the front?

It's actually better than that, because equipment has a TE in this competition.

 

But on the other hand, check the requirements - crew survival is third. Think very carefully how wrecking the tank to save the crew will work if your primary task is to keep on fighting and just replace dead crewmen as necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposed tank design has dual Kharkov engines at back, so a hit to one will not necessarily disable the other. But wow, 1500mm of space does wonders to CE.

 

I would wager that its a lot quicker to replace a motor (kept as a field spare) than to rewire/rehose a fighting compartment.   And probably cheaper too.

 

In the automotive world a car's wiring harness is a higher cost item than the engine, its probably the same in tanks also.  This is a 1960s tank, not a 1940s tank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@N-L-M

 

U7URAAw.png

 

From left to right (all at 60o unless otherwise stated): 

 

35mm RHA 

61.5mm air 

20mm HHA 

127.5mm NERA-L (71o)

28.5mm RHA 

36mm Glass Textolite 

127.5mm NERA-L (71o)

50mm JPA at 1.16 TE 

 

For my calculations, I used the full K1 value for the first set of NERA, and then 1.1 for the second set. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord_James said:

@N-L-M

 

U7URAAw.png

 

From left to right (all at 60o unless otherwise stated): 

 

35mm RHA 

61.5mm air 

20mm HHA 

127.5mm NERA-L (71o)

28.5mm RHA 

36mm Glass Textolite 

127.5mm NERA-L (71o)

50mm JPA at 1.16 TE 

 

For my calculations, I used the full K1 value for the first set of NERA, and then 1.1 for the second set. 

I had to rough out the calculations a bit due to how I laid out my own calculating spreadsheet, but it looks like it will fit the bill and then some.

 

It's also monumentally thick and heavy ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kal said:

Proposed tank design has dual Kharkov engines at back, so a hit to one will not necessarily disable the other. But wow, 1500mm of space does wonders to CE.

 

I would wager that its a lot quicker to replace a motor (kept as a field spare) than to rewire/rehose a fighting compartment.   And probably cheaper too.

 

In the automotive world a car's wiring harness is a higher cost item than the engine, its probably the same in tanks also.  This is a 1960s tank, not a 1940s tank.

Fair enough. We already have a few engine-first designs, and if you're willing to make one with, say, the transmission at the back and the engines up front you'd get a lot of protective bang for your buck.

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

Gotta have a good way of not having the driveshaft(s) be a hazard in the case of an underbelly blast, though.

Put it in an armoured housing running along the hull side opposite the driver and just resign yourself to being a bit wider and taller than you need to be...

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Kal said:

Proposed tank design has dual Kharkov engines at back, so a hit to one will not necessarily disable the other. But wow, 1500mm of space does wonders to CE.

 

I would wager that its a lot quicker to replace a motor (kept as a field spare) than to rewire/rehose a fighting compartment.   And probably cheaper too.

 

In the automotive world a car's wiring harness is a higher cost item than the engine, its probably the same in tanks also.  This is a 1960s tank, not a 1940s tank.

Planes pretty much too.I remember that Mig-21 had wiring made manual, plus it wasn't color coded, so people from the factory had to come with the original documents on the wiring to help in wiring matters on airfields.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 5:21 PM, Toxn said:

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

Slight update on the 'Lil Bouy design:

RJdb1BB.jpg

The commander's MG has been replaced with a better-looking gun on a cupola ring. In terms of more practical changes, the armour has been beefed up for LIC and urban combat. The all-up weight is now up to 74.5 mt, but in return lower hull sides are immune to 105mm guns and tandem RPG warheads from up to 45 degrees off the front. The turret front has been thickened with arrowhead arrays containing an HHA skin, NERA elements and air gaps, which should make it even tougher against Cascadian 120mm guns and ATGMs (+215mm KE, +460mm CE), air gap variable and thus not factored in). The mantlet has been similarly upgraded (+227mm KE, +940mm CE).

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Datengineerwill said:

What are the range and/or combat ready requirments for the LIC and HIC respectively?

Range of at least a couple hundred km is recommended but theres no hard limit.

What do you mean by combat ready requirements?

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...