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

Attention trans ladies, natal-ladies, and other, equally valid genders

nDUcsxJ.jpg

 

It is I, Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII. I want to talk to you today about bisexuality in ammunition. As you all know bisexuality is the worst possible sexual orientation. Even worse than heterosexuality! For being a bisseuxal means you are at best confused and at worse a traitor to LGBTQQIP2SAA people everywhere. You may ask: Why do we then keep the B in the holy acronym? Because for the same reason the Christians--toxic they may be--still regarded Judas as an Apostle. So that we may be reminded of the failures of our former comrades. Anyway when I mean full caliber, I mean full caliber. For I have seen suggested work arounds and they are the bisexuals of ammunition.

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

66% is scary-high. Also why are your side skirts so heavy and what structure is there supporting them?

Well the base armour is 45mm all around (including the hull floor and roof) as mandated, so this thing is going to be chonky no matter what.

66% is too high, though, given that the IS-3 is supposedly the most armour-heavy tank ever and it's fraction is 57%.

 

The side skirts are so heavy because they are soaking 250/750mm CE penetration at 45' and take up 4.2 square metres of armour area each.

 

In terms of support, they are solidly bolted onto the hull sides via a big-ass bracket that runs alon their length and then hang vertically down. Extensions coming out the hull sides then bolt into the inner side of the skirts.

 

Edit: of course, I made a calculation error (I effectively doubled the area of the front plate). The real armour mass is a hair over 40mt, with the all-up mass being around 64mt. This brings the fraction to 62.5%, which isn't great but is getting closer to the ballpark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comrades! The time of your waiting is over! I introduce to you the Sierra Nevada VagonZavod AFV-50 Gun Tank

 

unknown.png

Frontal Dimensions

Spoiler

uY5WyVw.png

Frontal Armor

Spoiler

OES20Uv.png

Turret Cheek Armor Array (not to scale)

Spoiler

eOT0AII.png

Top/Side

Spoiler

NdkfRdT.png

ezf124P.png

 

Vital Statistics(as pictured):

Weight : 52.6 Metric Tons

Crew: 3 (Commander, Gunner, Driver)

Length (hull/OAL gun forward): 6.9m/9.3m

Width: 3.9m

Height: 2.4m

 

Engine: Twin Turbocharged+Supercharged V-12 Diesel (880kw/1180hp)

16.73kw/tonne / 22.4hp/tonne

>70 kph on road

 

Armament:

125mm L/48 auto-loaded smoothbore, 30 rounds ready

1x PKT 7.62x54mm Coaxial MG, 3000 rounds

1x KPVT 14.5x114mm AAMG, 500 rounds in 50 round belts

 

 

 

 

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

How much of that is armor?

Also, does the hull side stop the reference threats?

I also note that the hull does not stop the BGM-1 from the front.

The exact percentage is currently under review, we haven't worked out the ERA package and side skirts

 

The hull side in the depicted prototype does not stop several of the reference threats, however we are working on both a HIC side skirt and a LIC one which should provide the required protection

 

The hull requires ERA to stop BGM-1 from the front, this has not been  modeled as the ERA design is still in development.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick update on my end;

I've nearly completed the hull. Outstanding work to be done:

Model side skirts and armor

Lower front plate armor array

Fuel tank baffles

Model suspension

Reduce frontal armor array thickness

Add APU

Add Power Pack bay spall liner and fuel tanks

 

 

I've completed everything on else on the Hull including;

Powerpack

Armor array design

Front armor array modeled

Crew compartments

Front Fuel tanks

Shock/blast/mine resistance

Spall liner(s)

Etc

 

Currently weighs around 32 tons (again w/o the turret, side skirts, and suspension)

Final weight is projected to be 70-80 tons

Currently makes ~2000hp

 

Feel free to poke around:

https://cad.onshape.com/documents/6c18ded5ae396dbbd35400ca/w/34ef233c7f8a521e805de1bd/e/50e74f8cdc40ef16e27cee40

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On an equal weight, bending basis, Mg is about 205% the stiffness of steel vs Al which is about 166% the stiffness of steel.  But the Mg fragments burn, whereas the Al fragments dont.

 

Its probable that 1% pb would be added for nuclear radiation scenario, this would actually improve damping propertics and thus the ballistic backing ability of the Mg.  

 

With appropiate design a Mg hull floor would have great blast resistance.  Being that a little curvature would add massive blast resistance.  Given that is 100mm thick anyway.

 

But the main reason, Mg is easy for casting.  1 piece cast hulls are quick and easy, gravity sand casting will do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, my light NERA ERA array kinda defeated 360/960 shaped charge.

 

It starts with light NERA at same slant as upper glacis at 8 degrees.

 

Then 2 small rhomboid light ERA at 30 degree.

 

Then a trailing second shot through light NERA at 8 degrees again.

 

 

Starting was just projecting roof line down.

 

Nb this is after some frontal protection against autocannon

Link to post
Share on other sites

hull armour

Nose 189mm CE, 125mm KE includes bulkhead 1

Fuel tank 120mm CE, 103mm KE includes bulkhead 2

NERA ERA array

Horizontal Nera at 82

Vertical lefthand Era at 60

Vertical righthand ERA at 60

Horizontal NERA at 82 contines

Includes bulkhead 3 

Final armour, ceramic dwell package

193mm CE, 132mm KE

Includes bulkhead 4

 

Each bulkhead is 100mm Structual Cast Magnesium followed by 25mm textolite (as spall liner/fire resistence).   Bulkheads take up 30% of volume but maybe 10% of protection, 20% of weight

 

I have used interface defeat / dwell structures (shock wave attenuator, confinement, buffer/shear support, weak layer, ceramic, base ) twice but left the KE and CE as given for borosilicate.  Against steel, borosilicate glass can provide some dwell protection but doubtful against tungsten etc.   Is mullite an acceptable choice for 1961? its roughly halfway between quartz and alumina and is basically just high quality porcelain.

 

Total array is about 4.5 tonne per m2.  And fits within the 1.75m depth allotted to it (1.68m).

 

No way is turret anywhere as well armoured as hull.  But design is commander and driver in hull, gunner 1 and gunner 2 in turret.

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

hull armour

Nose 189mm CE, 125mm KE includes bulkhead 1

Fuel tank 120mm CE, 103mm KE includes bulkhead 2

NERA ERA array

Horizontal Nera at 82

Vertical lefthand Era at 60

Vertical righthand ERA at 60

Horizontal NERA at 82 contines

Includes bulkhead 3 

Final armour, ceramic dwell package

193mm CE, 132mm KE

Includes bulkhead 4

 

Each bulkhead is 100mm Structual Cast Magnesium followed by 25mm textolite (as spall liner/fire resistence).   Bulkheads take up 30% of volume but maybe 10% of protection, 20% of weight

 

I have used interface defeat / dwell structures (shock wave attenuator, confinement, buffer/shear support, weak layer, ceramic, base ) twice but left the KE and CE as given for borosilicate.  Against steel, borosilicate glass can provide some dwell protection but doubtful against tungsten etc.   Is mullite an acceptable choice for 1961? its roughly halfway between quartz and alumina and is basically just high quality porcelain.

 

Total array is about 4.5 tonne per m2.  And fits within the 1.75m depth allotted to it (1.68m).

 

No way is turret anywhere as well armoured as hull.  But design is commander and driver in hull, gunner 1 and gunner 2 in turret.

 

This is a fascinating idea, but just to be clear, there's nothing in the armor calculation rules about additional protection gained by making the threat go through layers of alternating density.  I spoke with N-L-M about this, and he didn't see a way to include it without making the armor rules too complicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats fine.  Interface defeat is not that simple to model.

 

Also

My ulterior motive for all the magnesium is that it would be most suitable for a 1970s tank to use for incorporating alumina LIBA (1990s concept) into the stucture of the tank itself. Fused quartz would also be compatible with that manufacture method.  Which couldv'e been used in 1950s or 1960s if anyone had tried.  Can I do that under the rules or is it no go?  Of the 4 bulkheads, 3 are suitable and 1 is not, for cast in situ quartz LIBA.  I would also use it for sides and rear but not the roof or floor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im also treating polycarbonate as selfsupporting diesel.  Is that ok or can you give values for that.  The polycarbonate is mostly just a placeholder for replacement with interface defeat voodoo prior to combat

 

Scrap that, I'll treat all that polycarbonate etc as '

Assorted stowage/systems

 

Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.'

Edited by Kal
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to confirm.  If i model the fuel cells as a stack of jerry cans between 2 bulkheads.  That when full, it is only 

'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.'

ie no space multipler effects.

 

 

and when empty, the space effects can be in full force.

'Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my thought with my armor array: 

 

For both: 

front RHA disrupts projectile, followed by air to decompress and allow fragments to separate from main body, then HHA to shatter the projectile, with first group of NERA to catch whatever gets through HHA. 

 

If it survives:

CE; the middle textolite and RHA plate are to slow down the jet so the second group of NERA will perform better  (the geometry to make the NERA plates crosswise oriented is either a huge pain in my ass, or I have to remake my arrays for the 5th time...). 

 

KE; the middle RHA and textolite are to further erode and disrupt the projectile, and the back JPA plate to catch whatever is left. 

 

I’m also looking to use fuel tank geometry as armor (using tubes filled with fuel to do fun things, but I can’t find the study anymore :(). 

 

Anyway, I’ve updated my turret (it looks either like a chubby Merkava 1/2 turret, or a long T-90A turret), with 1100mm LoS from dead ahead, and at planning on Leopard 2 or Merkava 3 style wedge appliqué as upgrade. 

 

 

Haven’t been working on it much though, as I am finishing my final for school, but hopefully I will have something to present before Friday. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question:

Minimal structural thickness for a 40 ton vehicle in Alu is 45mm, but can do do something like 25mm Alu + 50mm air + 20mm Alu? 

Imagine using a pipe, instead of a solid metal piece.

 

Would be useful for inserts. 

 

Also done some more work on the chassis:
Lq8kroK.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the 5TDF version of the 5TD engine available? 

 

Edit: Can we use the Napier Deltic (or similar) for our vehicles? 

 

Also, can I use polyurethane for insulation? Or are we limited to Urea-formaldehyde and asbestos? 

 

Edit 2: 

Ok, so, I know literally nothing about engines except "fuel and air go in, there is big boom, exhaust and heat come out" and during all that, power is generated. Well, in my general "smack-my-face-against-the-wall-and-see-what-happens" experiment style, I went for a 2-stroke, 21 cylinder, Turbosupercharged diesel engine similar in design on the Napier Deltic, with dimensions (for one bank) as follows: 

 

(technology is roughly comparable to the Jumo 205) 

 

980mm height 

257mm depth 

1770mm width

~1.4 mT

 

14x 130mm diameter pistons 

7x 390mm cylinders (195mm stroke) 

36.2L 

~35 kW/L or 1267kW (1700hp) total

 

… but all that's for 1/3 of the intended engine. I'm not looking for a 5100hp behemoth powering my 85 ton tank (however funny that might be), so should I downsize my engine, or is there any other alternatives I can use? Or just use the linear opposed section I have now and screw the delta?

 

This is only for the engine, not the chargers, or the cooling, or transmission and drives. 

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

Is the 5TDF version of the 5TD engine available? 

 

Edit: Can we use the Napier Deltic (or similar) for our vehicles? 

 

Also, can I use polyurethane for insulation? Or are we limited to Urea-formaldehyde and asbestos? 

 

Edit 2: 

Ok, so, I know literally nothing about engines except "fuel and air go in, there is big boom, exhaust and heat come out" and during all that, power is generated. Well, in my general "smack-my-face-against-the-wall-and-see-what-happens" experiment style, I went for a 2-stroke, 21 cylinder, Turbosupercharged diesel engine similar in design on the Napier Deltic, with dimensions (for one bank) as follows: 

 

(technology is roughly comparable to the Jumo 205) 

 

980mm height 

257mm depth 

1770mm width

~1.4 mT

 

14x 130mm diameter pistons 

7x 390mm cylinders (195mm stroke) 

36.2L 

~35 kW/L or 1267kW (1700hp) total

 

… but all that's for 1/3 of the intended engine. I'm not looking for a 5100hp behemoth powering my 85 ton tank (however funny that might be), so should I downsize my engine, or is there any other alternatives I can use? Or just use the linear opposed section I have now and screw the delta?

 

This is only for the engine, not the chargers, or the cooling, or transmission and drives. 

I don't really see the advantage to this design. 

What about a Ethanol powered Turbocharged V12?

Nowhere in the rules does it state that it needs to be diesel. And a ethanol engine would blow other engines out of the water when it comes to power density. Also, I would consider ethanol as more progressive and environmentally friendly, fitting for such a glories nation as ours. 

 

Rotary is also possible. 

 

One thing I have been curious about, is if it is possible to make a X opposed piston, were the piston heads have a wedge shape, and four cylinders meet in the center. Though, simply increasing cylinder volume might be more effective. 

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...