Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Xoon said:

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. 

 

The problem with ethanol as fuel is all the crunchies will try to drink it :P 

 

on a serious note, diesel has a higher energy density per volume than most fuels that have ethanol in them (from pure ethanol to E10 gasohol). 

 

Anyway, I was messing around with numbers and if I change: 

 

piston diameter = 120mm 

Stroke = 125mm 

18 cylinders (3 banks of 6) 

39 kW/L 

 

i would have an engine outputting ~1950kW (2600hp), but still be surprisingly compact. 

 

For reference, I could simply stack 3 Jumo 205s on top of each other and place them in the front section of my vehicle, and still have enough room for a transmission/drives and some random air/fuel ducts (though cooling the middle engine would be hard). 

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

5 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

The problem with ethanol as fuel is all the crunchies will try to drink it :P 

Add a bit of methanol, and they will learn quickly.

 

5 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

On a serious note, diesel has a higher energy density per volume than most fuels that have ethanol in them (from pure ethanol to E10 gasohol). 

While true, it does not translate into engine power. Look at every hypercar, they run on gasoline, and in some cases E85. 

 

5 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

Anyway, I was messing around with numbers and if I change: 

 

piston diameter = 120mm 

Stroke = 125mm 

18 cylinders (3 banks of 6) 

39 kW/L 

 

i would have an engine outputting ~1950kW (2600hp), but still be surprisingly compact. 

 

For reference, I could simply stack 3 Jumo 205s on top of each other and place them in the front section of my vehicle, and still have enough room for a transmission/drives and some random air/fuel ducts (though cooling the middle engine would be hard). 

I am most concerned about the intake and exhaust, cooling should be a non issue if it is watercooled. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Add a bit of methanol, and they will learn quickly.

 

That’s just flavor :D 

 

4 minutes ago, Xoon said:

 

While true, it does not translate into engine power. Look at every hypercar, they run on gasoline, and in some cases E85. 

 

I think initial torque is a more valuable thing to have when you’re 10+ tons; those super cars might have some awesome speed, but they also weight like 200kg or something silly. Diesel provides that high starting torque to get moving, which is also why (when not using a turbojet) many MBTs use Diesel engines (I think). 

 

18 minutes ago, Xoon said:

 

I am most concerned about the intake and exhaust, cooling should be a non issue if it is watercooled. 

 

Oh, my intake and exhaust are going to be through the sponsons (intake on the starboard, exhaust on the port). 

 

For cooling, I was thinking of oil cooling, with an optional water/methanol system. 

 

 

Anyway, I’ve found some funny engine designs, like axial internal combustion, wankel, and opposed piston, opposed cylinder. I’m really tempted to use a wankel or an opposed piston axial engine because I like exotic, niche designs. 

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

I think initial torque is a more valuable thing to have when you’re 10+ tons; those super cars might have some awesome speed, but they also weight like 200kg or something silly. Diesel provides that high starting torque to get moving, which is also why (when not using a turbojet) many MBTs use Diesel engines (I think). 

Not really, you can make gasoline engines with high start torque too. To main reason diesel is used by the military is fuel efficiency. 

The issue with having a good torque curve on a gasoline car usually gives it horrible fuel economy. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

 

Oh, my intake and exhaust are going to be through the sponsons (intake on the starboard, exhaust on the port). 

 

For cooling, I was thinking of oil cooling, with an optional water/methanol system. 

 

 

Anyway, I’ve found some funny engine designs, like axial internal combustion, wankel, and opposed piston, opposed cylinder. I’m really tempted to use a wankel or an opposed piston axial engine because I like exotic, niche designs. 

Just remember to factor in how huge exhaust can get. Especially turbo exhausts. 

 

And I am all for special engines. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the D18-120 fits pretty well in the front of my tank: 

 

Spoiler

GgoImQO.png

BIryeuH.png

Ds4q7uV.png

BJ2ghgx.png

IuAnyfL.png

 

location is only preliminary, I'll optimize it better, later. 

 

Also, here's the new turret: 

 

Spoiler

ff1xTrY.png

 

yes, I know the mantlet is going to be big, but that's a given with a 6" gun. 

 

 

 

Completely off topic: 

Spoiler

how do I get the gif in my signature to play, like Jeeps and Loser? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Xoon said:

but can do do something like 25mm Alu + 50mm air + 20mm Alu?

Yes.

 

18 hours ago, Lord_James said:

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? 

Sure.

 

18 hours ago, Lord_James said:

1700hp

Sounds fairly optimistic for the size of that engine.

 

15 hours ago, Xoon said:

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.

Its possible but doesnt really do much. The Germans experimented with 3-piston OPEs in the 30s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reduced front armour weight to 2.9 tonne per m2 with fuel.  And 2.5 tonne per m2 without fuel.  Defeats 360/960 CE, but only defeats about 800mm KE (depending on fuel).

 

Glacis top protection is still crazy high, but thats inevitable with ricochet angle plate sheathed with reactive armour.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mg Hull casting including glass inserts and 25mm textolite liner. 12.7 tonne

 

Armour packages 11 tonne

 

Frontal arc 60/160 resistant

Side 50/150 resistant. Limited 60/160 area

 

Turret incomplete

 Roof nera/era still to optimise

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, so, the D18 engine (and its transmission / intakes / exhaust), I’m theorizing as such: 

 

the D18 itself is a 2-stroke, 18 cylinder, opposed piston, uniflow scavenging, turbosupercharged, turbo-compound, mixed cooling, diesel engine limited to 1850 rpm per shaft, and 2000hp; this should give a hp/t of 23.5 for an 85 tonne vehicle, and  22.2hp/t for a 90 tonne vehicle, which is pretty good if I do say so myself. 

 

The engine is placed in a similar location as my first picture (underneath the hump), with the turbo and super chargers above it, the transmission in the V shaped area between the lower and upper armor cavities, with other systems placed where I can fit them. 

 

 

The chargers are fed from intakes on the starboard sponson (and possibly the section of roof forward of the front propellant rack). These provide the air for ignition as well as cooling; cooling air ducts run along the piston tracks, both inside and outside, while ignition air ducts input from the outside of the engine. Ignition ducts may have a water/methanol system connected to them. Ignition air ducts also run through the liquid cooling system, functioning as a radiator and pre-warming the air. 

 

The liquid cooling system is a basic type using a water/glycol, water/betaine, castor oil based fluids, or other similar mixtures (just water if an emergency), with a pump circulating fluid from around the ignition air ducts, along the combustion chambers of the engine (both inside and out), and back to the ducts. 

 

Fuel is pumped from the tanks in the sponsons, underneath the crew compartment, and in 3 (or 4) forward fuel tanks and input through the middle of the engine. Fuel is typically 40-45 cetane diesel or bio-diesel. 

 

Exhaust is released from ducts on the outside of the engine, each with an expansion chamber for better fuel economy. 6 exhaust ducts (one row of pistons) merge into a single duct, where they pass through small power recovery turbines, (a la R-3350) each recovering 50-60hp, and connect to the turbocharger, the vehicle’s general electrical system and batteries, and a hydraulic assist on the crankshaft, separately. Afterwards, 2 ducts are taken through the bottom of the tank, through lightly armored pipes parallel to the tracks, and outputting along the rear 1/4 of the suspension, perpendicular and positively inclined to the tracks (so not to kick up excessive dust). The third exhaust is ducted into the port sponson, and exhausts horizontally, and to the rear, between the driver and the turret ring. 

 

The transmission is a semi-automatic, continuously variable transmission with “5 forward and 3 reverse” gears. By this, I mean the driver manually puts the transmission into a gear, but the transmission itself has different gears which switch automatically, to smooth out acceleration and power to the sprocket*. The first 2 forward and reverse gears are low speed, high torque gears, and the final 3 forward and last reverse are for higher speed. 

 

 

*There are 2 sets of gears: one set the driver controls, and the other is automatic via the transmission. The driver has his 8 manual, main gears, and the transmission has 10 automatic, intermediate gears. 

 

The driver inputs a gear, and the transmission automatically applies it’s gears in sequence. It looks like this, for speeding up: 

F1-1 

F1-2 

F1-3 

... 

F2-1 

F2-2 

F2-3 

... 

and so on. The transmission always reverts to its first gear when the driver switches his gear, and gears are ratio-ed so that the [X]-10 gear is similar to (but not the same as) the [X+1]-1 gear. This is to minimize lurching, making the ride smoother for the crew. 

 

 

There is also a 80hp 2-stroke, 1 cylinder opposed piston diesel APU mounted in the starboard sponson midway between the propellant rack and turret ring, which powers the electrical system when the D18 is off. 

 

 

Im also looking into OPOC, OP V, and a Wankel engine, but for now, it’s the OP Delta. 

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

Exhaust is released from ducts on the outside of the engine, each with an expansion chamber for better fuel economy. 6 exhaust ducts (one row of pistons) merge into a single duct, where they pass through small power recovery turbines, (a la R-3350) each recovering 50-60hp, and connect to the turbocharger, the vehicle’s general electrical system and batteries, and a hydraulic assist on the crankshaft, separately. Afterwards, 2 ducts are taken through the bottom of the tank, through lightly armored pipes parallel to the tracks, and outputting along the rear 1/4 of the suspension, perpendicular and positively inclined to the tracks (so not to kick up excessive dust). The third exhaust is ducted into the port sponson, and exhausts horizontally, and to the rear, between the driver and the turret ring. 

Are you sure you can use compound turbo and a ordinary turbo? Wont the compound turbo rob the exhaust of all its energy? 

Also, will the engine run at a constant rpm? If not, I am not sure if a compound turbo would be worth it. 

If you want the maximum out of the turbo, you can use a 3 stage turbo setup, and small, medium and large turbo to cover the entire range and pressure.  I don't remember if variable geometry turbos are invented yet. 

Also, is the vehicles auxiliary power, powered by the exhaust? 

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord_James said:

The transmission is a semi-automatic, continuously variable transmission with “5 forward and 3 reverse” gears. By this, I mean the driver manually puts the transmission into a gear, but the transmission itself has different gears which switch automatically, to smooth out acceleration and power to the sprocket*. The first 2 forward and reverse gears are low speed, high torque gears, and the final 3 forward and last reverse are for higher speed. 

Why do the driver need theses gears? 

Also, if you want better economy, why not simply have a economy and power option for the driver. 

 

9 hours ago, Kal said:

Mg Hull casting including glass inserts and 25mm textolite liner. 12.7 tonne

 

Armour packages 11 tonne

 

Frontal arc 60/160 resistant

Side 50/150 resistant. Limited 60/160 area

 

Turret incomplete

 Roof nera/era still to optimise

 

How weld-able is this magnesium alloy? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Magnesium alloy is generally better for welding than aluminium.

 

But 

 

Aluminium makes better sheet and plate than Magnesium.

 

But 

 

Magnesium makes better castings than Aluminum.

 

So while Magnesium is better for welding than Aluminum, much less welding is used with Magnesium because its generally a casting anyway.

 

Magnesium is sweet for castings, but its just not worth it for sheet or plate work. 

 

The alloy i would suggest is ZE41, popular from late 1940s to late 1960s.

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/GkhanBier/mg-alloys-in-industry

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

Are you sure you can use compound turbo and a ordinary turbo? Wont the compound turbo rob the exhaust of all its energy? 

 

Pretty sure, the super charger is run via a mechanical system, and the turbocharger is powered by one of the turbo scavengers. 

 

2 hours ago, Xoon said:

 

Also, will the engine run at a constant rpm? If not, I am not sure if a compound turbo would be worth it. 

If you want the maximum out of the turbo, you can use a 3 stage turbo setup, and small, medium and large turbo to cover the entire range and pressure.  

 

Not quite, but it’s not suppose to vary past 1600-1850 rpm. 

 

3 hours ago, Xoon said:

 

Why do the driver need theses gears? 

Also, if you want better economy, why not simply have a economy and power option for the driver. 

 

More precise control? Idk

Link to post
Share on other sites

BMP 3

30mm 2a72 has ke about 180,000j, exit velocity about 960-1120m/s

100mm 2a70 has ke about. 480,000 to 840,000j, exit velocity 250-350m/s

 

Resolve for different durations, turns out that the 30mm and 100mm have same force on vehicle structure, but the 100mm has a longer duration.

 

Hmmmm

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if proposed tank uses russian 57mm autocannon, ke is 1,425,000j, exit velocity 1000m/a

 

To balance force on vehicle allows HEAT

91mm At 940m/s

105 mm at 760m/s

125 mm at 660m/s

160 mm at 500m/s

 

Seeing how easy it is to defeat smaller HEAT warheads, the complementary cannon is either the 160 mm at 500m/s. (Is is similar ratio to BMP 3 guns)  or just go with the 90mm and make that an auto cannon also.

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

Magnesium alloy is generally better for welding than aluminium.

Interesting, I always thought magnesium was very hard to weld.  I guess it stems from the fear of the entire work piece catching fire, even if it is very unlikely. 

 

 

15 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Pretty sure, the super charger is run via a mechanical system, and the turbocharger is powered by one of the turbo scavengers. 

Do you use the supercharger as a blower or for better torque and low end RPM? 

 

For the compound turbo, is it something like this:
800px-NomadSchematic_185kBpng360kB.png

 

I suppose that you could have a compound turbo sized so that it spools up at a large way of the rev range. 

For example. Lets say the tank spends most of its time between 800-1400 RPM, then it would be able to produce enough exhaust gas to power the turbine at roughly 8-900 RPM, and for the higher rev range rarely used, a turbocharger would be employed? 

 

So, if I understand the engine correctly, at low RPM, the supercharger would be used to provide power and compression instead of using the crank to compression.  At medium RPM the recovery turbine would have been spooled up to max, and at higher RPM the supercharger would be decoupled by a magnetic clutch or similar and the turbocharger would kick in. 

 

Am I correct? or am I completely off?  

 

Also, are gas turbine turbochargers allowed, @N-L-M

 

Quote

Not quite, but it’s not suppose to vary past 1600-1850 rpm. 

 

 

More precise control? Idk

Well, the thing is, a CVT, is a continuously variable transmission, meaning infinite gears in theory. 

Which means you can have a gearbox with a ratio of 1 to 20, with anything in between. Like 15, 12, 7, 2, 10,12312321 etc. 

 

This means that the engine will always have the appropriate gear ratio for the RPM. No gear selection, just the engine humming happily at its optimal RPM. 

You can, however have a selector for economy and power. 

 

Lets say the engine produces its max power at 3000RPM, but runs the most efficient at 2000RPM, then the transmission would aim to always have the engine at 2000RPM for economy, or 3000 RPm for max power. 

You should have a "first gear" and reverse gear though, as a conventional CVT provides poor torque initially,  and is incapable of switching direction. 

 

It would have 3 gears, first gear, continuous gear and reverse. 

 

 

Love your engine so far btw, certainly a neglected design in the automotive world. 

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

Also, are gas turbine turbochargers allowed

Sure, but complex engine designs like these are bound to lead to trouble. In particular, trying to squeeze significantly more power per dispacement than the Kharkovite engine is not going to make you a happy camper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re Mg vs Al for welding.

 

The Mg is easier for fine welding like bikes and lightweight structures, but is unsuitable for thick welds.  Mg welding uses only about 40% of the heat for the same thickness as. Al welding but is unsuitable for deep penetrating welds because the Mg boiling point is a lot lower than Al boiling point.  (Even though the melting points are almost the same.)

 

Al obviously conducts heat away from the weld a lot faster than Mg.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N-L-M said:

Sure, but complex engine designs like these are bound to lead to trouble. In particular, trying to squeeze significantly more power per dispacement than the Kharkovite engine is not going to make you a happy camper.

Pfft, of course not, who would want to squeeze more power out of  it? he he

 

* discreetly crumples paper and throws in trash*

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...