Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

N-L-M
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pinning a single number is difficult due to the dynamic interaction of the armors with the penetrators; the effectiveness in terms of penetration "eaten up" by the armor is therefore also dependent on the threat impacting. See Appendix 1 for details on armor protection estimation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Pinning a single number is difficult due to the dynamic interaction of the armors with the penetrators; the effectiveness in terms of penetration "eaten up" by the armor is therefore also dependent on the threat impacting. See Appendix 1 for details on armor protection estimation.

Hmmm. It doesn't mention NERA though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

I don’t understand the difference between K1 and K2 in those calculations. 

K1 is the dynamic portion that breaks up the penetrator, reducing its overall penetration by a certain factor, and is modelled as being angle-dependent.

K2 is the erosion of the penetrator by feeding material into its path, and is modelled as being constant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord_James said:

To the Honorable Diane Feinstein VIII and other nobles related to this contest, 

 

I have questions about the metallurgy of DPRC. As my company, Song Heavy Machine Works, has only experience in large agriculture and multi-axle transport vehicles, along with the civilian grade materials used in them, we are in need of additional information pertaining to the questions I have given below, if that is acceptable for release. In regards to weapon and vehicle design expertise, we have contacted the ‘Mann Ltd’ corporation (Ms. Hillary Mann was kind enough to send several designers, as well as research, to assist our efforts), so information pertaining to those aspects does not need to be sent. My questions are as follows: 

 

1. Are there Uranium or Tantalum mines within our territories; and if so, what is the level of technology for refining those metals? 

 

2. Are these high hardness steels brittle or are they alloyed well? What kind of alloying materials would we have available for armor grade plates? 

 

3. Is face hardened armor available for use, or is the industry / processes not developed? 

 

I may send additional queries, but for now these are our biggest questions relating to the new heavy tank. Long live the DPRC, and long live the Feinsteins! 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Song Liu-Haack, CEO and Lead Designer of Song Heavy Machine Works. 

 

Shoulda made your last name Yee. @RobotMinisterofTrueKorea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

The Cascadian entity can make thicker HHA than we can, have tungsten monobloc darts, and are putting the finishing touches on beam riding atgms?

 

Well, fuck.

 

Fear not, our gender-neutral industry will produce something their patriarchal technology can't ever hope to match! It'll be a crushing success, just like the Mojave Agricultural Project!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I am doing some basic derived-spec number crunching based on the requirements thus far:

 

The widest possible tracks are tracks that stretch out all the way to the very edges of the vehicle, or the 4m maximum.  The track center to track center distance is the width between the track edges minus the track width (unless you're using asymmetrical tracks... which you probably shouldn't).

 

If we go with 800mm wide tracks (tiger combat tracks were 725mm) at maximum width, the target 1.5 length to width contact ratio gives us 7.68 square meters of contact area.  With the maximum weight of 120 tonnes, that comes to a Nominal Ground Pressure (NGP) of 153 kN/M2.  The ground pressure requirements are specced in Mean Maximum Pressure (MMP), which is about 1.8x-3x NGP, depending on details of road wheel and track configuration.  But even with that lower bound (which would almost certainly require interleaved road wheels), that's well above the threshold requirement.

 

If we bump it up to meter wide tracks (that's like, fucking twice as wide as most tanks have) and the threshold track contact ratio, that gives us 10.8 square meters of contact, which means an NGP of 109 kN/M2, which is a bit high, but is within the bounds of sanity.  But then we're only allowed four pieces of side skirt armor, and they need to pack on to the vehicle in such a way that they don't violate the height or width requirements.

 

So,

 

Conclusion Number One: It's actually very hard to max out the weight requirement without maxing out the ground pressure requirement first.

 

If you go for a max-weight vehicle, get ready to use some shenanigans like hugenormous side skirts, or transportketten, or extra road wheels that are lifted above the ground so that they don't count for the contact length but do count for the ground pressure (TOG II did this).

 

 

Next, I took a look at the protection of the Cascadian Entity's Norman MBT.  The reference protection is given as 60mm of HHA (how do the infidels have better armor science than Scientologists?!  We're really good at science!  It's in the name!), a 20mm air gap, and then 200mm of RHA.  So, working backwards, 60mm HHA definitely counts as thick enough to invoke the spaced armor rules.  So we have main armor (subtractive), air gap (multiplicative), and HHA (subtractive).  The air gap is 200mm, which gives it an exponent of 2 against the base protection of 1.05 for KE threats, which means it blunts KE threats to down to 90.7% effectiveness.  Multiply the recipricol of that by 200mm, and we get 220.5mm, and add 120mm (60mm *2 because it's HHA), and we get a final protection of 340.5mm vs KE and 362mm vs CE.  For KE, the Californian gun technology sounded slightly better than the U-5TS.  So, something along the lines of early 2A46 ammo should do the trick.  So, basically a gun along the lines of an L11 or Soviet 125mm firing fairly primitive APFSDS should meet the requirement.  For CE, this is easy-peasy.  If the Californian gun-fired heat can penetrate 5 charge calibers, 362mm can be poked with a 72.4mm charge.  Accounting for shell wall thickness, something like a 20 pounder (84mm) firing HEAT should kill the Norman just fine.

You know, right up until they rush ERA kits to the front.

 

Conclusion Number Two:  It's way easier to meet the lethality requirements with a HEAT-firing weapon than it is with an APFSDS-firing weapon, provided that the Cascadian Entity doesn't slap reactive armor on their tanks to make themselves overnight immune to them.

 

If you want to be a total memelord, you could arm your tank with a KwK 36... that fires HEAT-FS rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I have further questions:

 

 

1)  What is the actual penetration of the ATGM and RPG threats?  It looks like it got truncated in the spreadsheet.

 

 

Edit: NVM, I see that this information is in the OP.  The RPG is 250mm and then 500mm penetration and the ATGM is 360mm and then 960mm penetration.  Goddamn but that's mean.

 

2)  How exactly do the .50 cal SLAP, DPICM and 155mm HE threats work?

 

 

3)  How do tandem warheads interact with NERA?  If the precursor warhead penetrates into a NERA element, is that element considered "expended?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

But then we're only allowed four pieces of side skirt armor

4 pieces requiring a crane.

Components under 25 kg (like Kontakt 1 bricks, for example) are not limited in number.

2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

2)  How exactly do the .50 cal SLAP, DPICM and 155mm HE threats work?

DPICM- 40mm HEAT, 4 CD= 160mm pen.

.50 cal SLAP

30mm at 750m

35mm at 500m

40mm at 250m

45mm at 50m

155mm HE fragments:

40mm at 15m

45mm at 10m

50mm at 5m

HE may be assumed to be airburst, both fragments and SLAP ignore dynamic effects of armor (k1) but not LOS feeding (k2).

Will be added to the spec soon.

2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

If the precursor warhead penetrates into a NERA element, is that element considered "expended?"

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

.

 

If we go with 800mm wide tracks (tiger combat tracks were 725mm) at maximum width, the target 1.5 length to width contact ratio gives us 7.68 square meters of contact area.  W

 

The rule of thumb 1.5 is just that, a rule of thumb.  It dates to the 50s and there was work in the 80s that continued to advocate it in public domain material.  It is the outcome of a calculation that has several simple parameters.  The most critical of these relate to the structural limits of the soil/sand whatever that the vehicle is maneuvering on.  The magic number can go a high as 3 depending on the soil data used.  Does not correlate well with experiment and the experiments are limited to very hard flat ground.  I reckon the professionals have their own metrics.  I calculate LEO 1 to be 1.85 - comfortably over the 1.5 limit.  I don't recall the users complaining about LEO1 maneuverability!  Recent publications also show that number of road wheels has an effect.  More road wheels = better theoretical maneuverability.  Track tension also important, lower is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stowed kills.  Being able to penetrate a given target at a given range is one thing, being able to hit it in the first place is another.  Agree, the 2A46 is up to the job from a round performance POV, but 4k?  Anybody have any data on accuracy at that range?  It will be probabilistic which will directly feed into how many rounds need to be carried to meet a particular stowed kills goal.  20 is of course the only rational goal....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Stowed kills

The stowed kills requirement is for the given number of rounds, with a Phit over 50%. 

So if we assume for example a M60A1 carrying 20 APFSDS, which have 50% Phit rates against Norman-sized targets at 2km, it counts as 20 stowed kills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

The stowed kills requirement is for the given number of rounds, with a Phit over 50%. 

So if we assume for example a M60A1 carrying 20 APFSDS, which have 50% Phit rates against Norman-sized targets at 2km, it counts as 20 stowed kills.

OK, just to be certain.  In this case, 20 stowed rounds = 20 stowed kills?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, for rounds with a Phit above 50%.

For rounds with less than that, they count as less, by the number required to get a Phit of 0.5.

So if we have HEAT rounds with a Phit of 0.3, the chance that of 2 rounds at least one will hit is 1-(0.7*0.7)=0.51.

So every 2 HEAT rounds carried count as 1 stowed kill.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By kvnovasco
      ...actually nevermind i found this amazing site https://www.cybermodeler.com/armor/t-72/t-72_all.shtml  and it has LOADS of pics and i'm happy...still how do you find high res images of tanks online ?
      i looked and looked but rarely found any,it can't be possible that people didn't take millions of 6000x4000 pics of tanks...right?
    • By T___A
      This shall be the general thread for all things soviet tanks. I shall start by posting an article I just wrote for my blog. I would recommend Archive Awarness which is an excellent blog about Soviet tanks and their experiences with other nation's tanks.
    • By Sturgeon
      @Toxn
      @Dominus Dolorem
      @Lord_James
      @A. T. Mahan
      @delete013
      @Sten
      @Xoon
      @Curly_
      @N-L-M
      @Sturgeon
       
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Saturday the 24th of July at 23:59 CST.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.

      PLEASE REMEMBER ALL ENTRIES MUST BE SUBMITTED IN USC ONLY
       
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name
       
      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here]
       
      Table of basic statistics:
      Parameter
      Value
      Mass, combat (armor)
       
      Length, combat (transport)
       
      Width, combat (transport)
       
      Height, combat (transport)
       
      Ground Pressure, zero penetration
       
      Estimated Speed
       
      Estimated range
       
      Crew, number (roles)
       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.
      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.
      3.     Transmission - type, arrangement, neat features.
      4.     Fuel - Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.
      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.
      6.     Suspension - Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.
      Survivability:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Link to Appendix 2 - armor array details.
      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks - low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.
      Firepower:
      A.    Weapons:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Main Weapon-
      a.      Type
      b.      Caliber
      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)
      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.
      e.      FCS - relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.
      f.      Neat features.
      3.     Secondary weapon - Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.
      4.     Link to Appendix 3 - Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached.
      B.    Optics:
      1.     Primary gunsight - type, associated trickery.
      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.
      C.    FCS:
      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.
      2.     Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.
      Fightability:
      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.
      Additonal Features:
      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.
      Free expression zone: Let out a big yeehaw to impress the world with your design swagger! Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.
       
       Example for filling in Appendix 1
       Example for filling in Appendix 2
       Example for filling in Appendix 3

      GOOD LUCK!
    • By Monochromelody
      IDF had kept about 100 Tiran-6/T-62s since 1973, and remain service until 1990s. 
       
      I wonder if there's any modification on Tiran-6, like changing the powerpack into 8V71T+XTG-411, adapting steering wheel. 
       
      I also heard that British ROF had produce a batch of 115mm barrel for IDF, while MECAR or NEXTER produced high-performance APFSDS for 115mm gun. Did IDF really use these barrels for original barrel replacement? 
       
      And about protection, did IDF put Blazer ERA on Tiran-6? Or they use more advanced APS like Trophy? 
       
      Thank you. 
×
×
  • Create New...