Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Whatismoo said:

But... why?

Original firepower idea was basically BMP 3 but with 57mm like the s-60 or even T-15.

 

First intuition was 57mm for targetting and then use a rpg 29/32 equivalent warhead at whatever velocity i could get.

 

So i try to understand bmp 3, i do the calcs and reverse calculate that both the 30mm and 100mm apply the same force to the structure.  So despite the 100mm having a lot more reaction, the actual MPa or force on the bmp is equivalent.  So that became the guiding principle for the design

 

But my borosilicate and spaced armour package suggested that rpg 29/32 was not sufficient for future threats, 

 

So i analysed 2 more large calibre rounds. , necked out 57mm which by pixel counting became 91mm HEAT  And a 125mm HEAT.   The necked out 91mm is real tempting, its basically same exit velocity as 57mm round and same stored number of rounds and mostly same autocannon, just different barrel.

 

Then i went Nera/Era and it could handle 60/160 warhead.  So that pretty much forced the decision, its either 60/160 HEAT or go kinetic and drop the 57mm autocannon.

 

Yes it will be a slower round (but still 50%-100% faster than bmp's 100mm round), but landing a half dozen 57mm rounds on a target first wiill help get the 160mm to be more accurate.  And the 57mm might even knock out some optics etcs.

 

If there is a lot of LIC, the utility of 57mm will be profound, especially against Mormonhideen with Toyotas.  Shooting at a fleeting, moving Toyotas 4-5kms away wont be easy or cheap with a 1960s tank with a big gun.

 

The turret can carry a lot of stored kills.

A lot.

 

Anyway, the tank will be a very logistically useful vehicle.  A nice balance between HiC and LIC duties.  

 

1960s technology was difficult to shoot precise.  Spamming with 57mm round helps solve that problem.

 

 

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

Im trying to solve the issue, the techology base is early 1960s, how can i get first look, first kill with that.  I use 2 gunners, 2 guns, same traverse, linked elevation, but the slower gun gets additional elevation also.  These are technology's that should work with mechanical computers, and optical distance measurements.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2019 at 2:39 PM, Xoon said:

 

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

 

Now that it doesn’t feel like I have an ice pick slowly being pushed into my head, I can elaborate. 

 

My engine is closer to the Nomad 2, except the axial compressor is literally the super and turbo chargers. After the compressor, it splits into the ignition air ducts and cooling air ducts. After the cooling air ducts make their way through the engine, they reconnect to the exhaust, then go through the power recovery turbines. 

 

The supercharger is used at all speeds, and instead of disconnecting at high speeds, it “shifts down a gear” and acts as a second compressor stage to the turbo. 

 

On 4/27/2019 at 2:39 PM, Xoon said:

 

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. 

 

I might have mixed up dual clutch and CVTs, but yes I want a CVT. 

 

I think I’m going to have 5 gears: 

continuous forward, high torque forwards, neutral, high torque backwards, continuous backwards. 

 

On 4/27/2019 at 2:39 PM, Xoon said:

 

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

 

:) 

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

Now that it doesn’t feel like I have an ice pick slowly being pushed into my head, I can elaborate. 

 

My engine is closer to the Nomad 2, except the axial compressor is literally the super and turbo chargers. After the compressor, it splits into the ignition air ducts and cooling air ducts. After the cooling air ducts make their way through the engine, they reconnect to the exhaust, then go through the power recovery turbines. 

 

The supercharger is used at all speeds, and instead of disconnecting at high speeds, it “shifts down a gear” and acts as a second compressor stage to the turbo. 

Ah, I see.

 

By ignition air, do you mean the air that goes into the cylinder for combustion? 

And why use air as cooling instead of watercooling? 

 

Considering the recovery turbine, I think it could be possible to use a gas turbine for even better power and acceleration, which also doubles as a APU. 

Water injection is also a alternative. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm considering obus g style ammunition for premium situations.   While not in obus g, i would consider a small amount of mercury would be beneficial to the obus g concept.  In particular, it could transfer thrust to the shaped charge, while minimising torque transfer.

 

Such a round would be too expensive for use against the Mormonhideen, but could be very useful against the Cascadians

Edited by Kal
Link to post
Share on other sites

I started drafting up the IFV and APC versions: 

 

APC (SH-1A) 

Crew: 4 + 10 

Armament: either 23mm + 7.62mm machine guns in a low profile turret, or a 107mm recoilless rifle and 7.62mm coax (and 12.7mm spotting gun), with below armor reload. 

 

The SH-1A is a modified version of the SH-1T MBT, trading the large turret and ammo racks for a small, 2 person turret and 10 dismount seats. It still incorporates the same armor cavities, but with a lighter array utilizing more spaced components and no special materials (non steel). The crew consists of the Driver, the Gunner and Commander in the turret, and a thespian assistant who removes spent MG and autocannon shells, or loads the RR if that turret is equipped. A third turret is in the works, similar to the RR turret, equipping an ATGM with under armor reload potential. 

 

IFV (SH-1V)

Crew: 5 

Armament: 2x 45mm autocannons (SM-7 or NS-45 derivatives / maybe 4 if I think I can fit them) + 4x 107mm RRs + 107mm mortar (same as SH-1T) + 2x 7.62mm MGs (coax and commander’s MG). 

 

Also based off the SH-1T, the SH-1V is a heavily armed supplement vehicle to armored forces in the DPRC. Fulfilling a role similar to the ancient BMPT, it is designed to assist infantry and act as heavy armor in urban or mountainous environments, and to provide rapid and heavy suppressing fire for armor groups moving through hostile terrain. The crew consists of a Driver, Gunner and Commander in the turret, and 2 thespian assistants to clear the vehicle floor of spent casings, and to reload the externally mounted RRs. As ATGMs mature, the RRs can easily be replaced with missile systems on a volumetric basis (probably 2 RRs to 1 ATGM). 

 

Also in the drafting phase are an AA variant, an artillery variant, a heavy mortar variant, and CiC, medevac, CBRN, radio relay, EW, and others. 

 

 

PS. SH-1(x) is the company designation for the vehicle; military designations will be given when/if these vehicles are accepted for service. 

 

PSS. I’ve been either too busy, or unable to access the internet for the past couple of days, which has lead to delays. But I should be getting back on track later today or tomorrow, now that all of the shit is out of the way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, for the record, this is how Obus-G works:

2XRdbFs.png

 

See those little ports at the back end of the shell?  Those let in propellant gas to the inside of the shell, which then vents out the ports in the front and through the gap between the nose fuze and the shell body.  The inner HEAT warhead is "floating" on the high-propellant gas that gets vented inside the shell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot, for the life of me, find the document about fluid filled armor on this forum, DTIC, or the internet at large. I remember it describes storing fluids (could be fuel, like a gas tank, or something else) in long, thin containers and when struck, the shockwaves from the projectile are transferred through the fluid, reflected off the container walls, and erodes the penetrator via hydrodynamic ram effects by the fluid. 

 

The only thing I found on DTIC was a study: 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/848937.pdf

Which does remark, in the conclusions, that smaller cavities of fluid (as well as using non-Newtonian fluids) could produce better results. 

 

If anyone knows where that study is, I would appreciate it. 

 

My my idea is for the side armor around the engine: it would be composed of hexagonal tubes, 50mm between opposing faces, and vertically arranged, so when looking down, it looks like honeycombs. After 2-3 layers, there is a back plate, then a real fuel tank, then the engine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 9:58 AM, Collimatrix said:

So, for the record, this is how Obus-G works:

2XRdbFs.png

 

See those little ports at the back end of the shell?  Those let in propellant gas to the inside of the shell, which then vents out the ports in the front and through the gap between the nose fuze and the shell body.  The inner HEAT warhead is "floating" on the high-propellant gas that gets vented inside the shell.

So it levitates on a cushion of gas? 

 

I read something about it on the War Thunder forum that it used bearings. 

Is the gas used for counteracting the rotation? 

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

I cannot, for the life of me, find the document about fluid filled armor on this forum, DTIC, or the internet at large. I remember it describes storing fluids (could be fuel, like a gas tank, or something else) in long, thin containers and when struck, the shockwaves from the projectile are transferred through the fluid, reflected off the container walls, and erodes the penetrator via hydrodynamic ram effects by the fluid. 

 

The only thing I found on DTIC was a study: 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/848937.pdf

Which does remark, in the conclusions, that smaller cavities of fluid (as well as using non-Newtonian fluids) could produce better results. 

 

If anyone knows where that study is, I would appreciate it. 

 

My my idea is for the side armor around the engine: it would be composed of hexagonal tubes, 50mm between opposing faces, and vertically arranged, so when looking down, it looks like honeycombs. After 2-3 layers, there is a back plate, then a real fuel tank, then the engine. 

 

Page 7 SH_MM talks about liquids in armor. The only time I know the forum talked about it. 

 

Bronez also links a document:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prep.201500137/full

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

So it levitates on a cushion of gas? 

 

I read something about it on the War Thunder forum that it used bearings. 

Is the gas used for counteracting the rotation? 

 

You can see the bearings and their tracks near the front and rear of the main body. 

 

1 hour ago, Xoon said:

 

Bah, requires dosh to read. 

 

Though, I did find a free one, that covers pretty much the same topic :) 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327940101_Mechanism_of_hermetic_single-cell_structure_interfering_with_shaped_charge_jet 

 

@N-L-M, is this technology accepted for use? 

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

So it levitates on a cushion of gas? 

 

I read something about it on the War Thunder forum that it used bearings. 

Is the gas used for counteracting the rotation? 

 

 

 

 

You can see that there are ball bearing races in there also, at the front and back.  But a shell in a rifled gun rotates at approximately a billionty RPM, and a ball bearing isn't actually perfectly frictionless.  It just has extremely low friction.  But even an extremely low fraction of the enormous G-force in a gun tube multiplied by a billionty RPM is enough to disturb proper jet formation:

O7ReZkK.png

 

By floating the inner body of the shell on a cushion of gas, the acceleration on the inner and outer shell bodies is made approximately equal, and the axial force on the ball bearings is reduced to a low enough value that negligible torque acts on the inner shell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord James

 

Just angle/stack the fuel tanks so that NERA can be co-located.  That should give a close enough approximation as the nera has both a reactive and a slicing element.  Which is comparable to how cellular fuel tanks work anyway.

 

So instead of a giant cube of fuel.  It becomes a stack of rhombus of fuel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue for the obus G, is not the rotation force in flight, its that the acceleration within the barrel is too much for the bearings to handle.  The ports may also assist in flight rotation, but seem primarily there for launch. And reducing thrust accross the bearings.

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

The issue for the obus G, is not the rotation force in flight, its that the acceleration within the barrel is too much for the bearings to handle.  The ports may also assist in flight rotation, but seem primarily there for launch. And reducing thrust accross the bearings.

 

That's my read as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2019 at 7:10 PM, Kal said:

What would be the rifling for the obus G? CN-105 F-1. 

 

I'm not sure what you're asking exactly.

 

The AMX-30's gun, as I understand it, used exactly the same firing chamber dimensions as the L7, but it had a different rifling twist rate that was selected specifically for the Obus G.  The rifling twist rate needed is a function of the moments of inertia of the shell, distance between the center of pressure and center of gravity, and shell velocity.  With a shell with rotating and non-rotating components, I imagine this gets... interesting to calculate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's some other food for thought:

 

If you run a 120mm L/70 gun at maximum barrel pressure for 2A46 (510 MPa) and use a shell design similar to 130mm BR-482B, then you get something like a souped-up M58. This nets you an extra 65m/s at the muzzle and results in a penetration of ~300mm of RHA at 2000m using AP. This is also around the largest warhead that our Californian conscripts can lift, assuming that you use a two-part shell.

 

If, on the other hand, you decide to blow past all the most powerful tank guns in existence and opt for a 140mm L/70, then you end up with a monster that slings ~40kg AP at over 1100m/s and punches through a hair under 320mm of RHA at 2000m.

 

The issue with both, of course, is that the guns are LOLhueg and have obscene recoil. But, you know, if you want to stomp main battle tanks flat with 1940's-era shell technology, that's just what you're going to have to do.

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...