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

A 'just for fun' version:




The Stumpy Twinblade modification uses two low-pressure 85mm/L61 guns fed by 8-shot autoloaders to drown an opponent in rapid-fire HEAT-FS warheads.

The drums are each fed by two 4-round secondary loading systems in the turret rear (when the gun is levelled), which in turn can be topped up by the commander from two 16-round ammunition racks located in the fighting compartment. Each gun has a fire rate of 60 rpm and can be raised/lowered +30/-5 degrees. The drums alternate between high-penetration HEAT-FS, HEDP-FS and HE shells, with each gun having a different shell. The shells are ballistically matched (each weighing 9.7kg and moving at 650m/s), and the guns sighted to converge at around 1.5km. The high-penetration HEAT-FS shell would achieve around 360mm RHA penetration, with the HEDP-FS shell achieving 210mm RHA penetration with much greater behind-armour effect. 


The guns retain a fume extractor to prevent fouling building up behind the breech. In addition, their thermal sleeve includes a water circuit for cooling purposes. The water tanks double as the fighting compartment ammunition racks - minimising the chances of a catastrophic ammunition explosion in the fighting compartment. The turret composite armour package consists of a block of turret  frontal armour ahead of the commander and gunner's stations, with the sides being protected by the guns and their armoured housings. The hull configuration and armour remains the same as the base-model Stumpy.


The Twinblade would be intended to act as an ambush predator - launching a salvo of shells at targets of interest before backing off into cover to reload. Targets could be bracketed if the range was uncertain, with known ranges allowing smaller salvos to be fired per target. Although 360mm RHA is just barely capable of getting through a standard Norman turret front, the lower velocity of the shells would mean that arcing shots striking the top armour would be pretty common. In addition, a rain of 16 shells launched in quick succession would be almost certain to result in at least a mission kill so long as a few strike home. The Twinblade's high gun elevation also allows it to do service as a self-propelled artillery piece, with proximity-fuzed HE shells providing credible anti-aircraft capability against slow or low-flying threats. Finally; in urban environments the high elevation angle allows the Twinblade to sweep multistory buildings with fire.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Lil bouy got finished to the point where I was essentially happy with her (bar her insane armour fraction) and was just fixing up some hull elements.


Brick got abandoned at the 90% mark. Big bouy was a joke tank I whipped together in an evening and which doesn't actually work :lol:.


I'll put up a finalised version of Lil bouy (with the steel hull and ERA) and an SPG variant I was working on before I switched to Stumpy.


Edit: I'll happily admit that Lil Bouy was one of the prettier tanks I've ever designed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillette NERA img%5D


+ NERA Inserts and ERA around turret, with bonus heavy NERA


co axial 30mm autocannon, equivalent to M230LF, rounds ballistically matched to 120mm rounds.


engine is 6TDF,  early 5TDF were 700 hp (522 kW ), so equivalent generation 6TDF would've been about 20% more, so 840hp or 626kW. 


opposed piston 2 stroke diesels can be assembled to allow power take on both ends (due to twin crankshafts), the transmission will be twin transmissions, each with lockable fluid torque convertor,  and a ravigneaux planetery gearset giving 2 forward gears and 1 revers gear.  there are no differentials.    general principle of veering left or right is that the side to turn to, is unlocked (and can be slightly braked if desired), the side to turn from, is locked.   Tank can rotate on its centre as tracks are independent.   These are all compact, pancake technologies that were available back in the 50s and 60s.   The outline of the motor and transmission is behind the man, it is compact, 6TDF motors are magic, if exhaust emissions are not a high concern.


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

equivalent to M230LF, rounds ballistically matched to 120mm rounds.

You either have a very low energy and sad 120, or a more powerful 30mm. 30x113mmB is not up to the task of matching even high pressure 120mm HE rounds, thanks to being low velocity and having poor sectional density.

7 hours ago, Kal said:

general principle of veering left or right is that the side to turn to, is unlocked (and can be slightly braked if desired), the side to turn from, is locked.

Clutch-and-brake steering on a tank that size is... somewhat brave.

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

You either have a very low energy and sad 120, or a more powerful 30mm. 30x113mmB is not up to the task of matching even high pressure 120mm HE rounds, thanks to being low velocity and having poor sectional density.

Clutch-and-brake steering on a tank that size is... somewhat brave.

My understanding is that it's even braver than that...

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


Clutch-and-brake steering on a tank that size is... somewhat brave.


Object 432, sure looks like they simply bolted on the transmission onto each end of the opposed cylinder 2 stroke  diesel. So this begat the T64 which seems to follow the same philosophy


Link to post
Share on other sites

T 90, engine is more conventional, but it also looks like a nil differential design, instead they split the transmission, then place the gearing afterwards.  So instead of gears then differential,


it is primary split/reduce then, two planetary final gearboxes and two planetary final drives.



Link to post
Share on other sites

So, while working on the finalised version of Lil Bouy during my lunch break, I had cause to revisit a Kontakt-1 analogue again.


And, holy shit: when you put the bricks at 60' from the vertical, it provides amazing protection. We're talking an extra 345/75mm CE/KE on the flat, and 485/160mm at a 45' angle. Definitely worth sticking all over any putative MBT design, given that you're talking about ~6kg per brick.



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

You either have a very low energy and sad 120, or a more powerful 30mm. 30x113mmB is not up to the task of matching even high pressure 120mm HE rounds, thanks to being low velocity and having poor sectional density.


with a longer barrel, the m789 seems to exit at 850m/s the M230LF, sad, but acceptable if there is follow on rounds.

Obus G was reportedly 1000m/s, and accurate to 3000m, since M789 is better documented (in english) I'll scale back to 850m/s


Obus G projectile weighs 10.85kg (for 105mm round), scaled down to 30mm that would be 253grams,  M789 projectile is 229grams 9% difference, proposed  120mm series projectile are 14.656kg to match M789 (229grams x4x4x4)

m789 is a 30mm round with a proportionally large fuze,  120mm rounds's fuze is proportional much less significant.


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll noodle around with descriptions later.


For now:

  • The Lil Bouy is as previously described, with a slightly higher-powered 130mm L/55 gun, Kontakt-1 style ERA package and a stereoscopic rangefinder for the gunner. The ERA package is necessary to allow it to survive 60/160mm ATGM shots to the front and lower hull sides. The all-up weight is something like 75mt.
  • The SPG variant has thicker frontal and upper side armour, and sports a 200mm L/35 gun. The gun has the same muzzle energy as the 130mm gun, and uses a variant of its propellant charge. The gun is fed by conveyor and hoist-style autoloader which sits on the rear of the fighting compartment. The autoloader, in turn, is fed by an ammunition rack which takes up most of the hull area underneath the crew's feet. The ammunition rack feeding the autoloader can store up to 20 rounds, with nearly all of it being HE.
  • The SPG's gun runs at 210MPa, so a hilariously overpowered tandem heat shell (400/1080mm RHA penetration) is available in case you need to kill a bolo or something. A more sensible HEAT-FS shell using a HEDP charge (700mm RHA penetration) is available if you want to put fist-sized holes into fortresses and then roast/impale everyone inside.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hull casting is 13.5 tonne, 100mm thick Magnesium, 2 internal 100mm Mg bulkheads, enclosed hull volume is 34m3, 

3 tank variants  from same casting.

amphibious light tank (rear engine) 33 tonne (ERA only)

Main battle tank (rear engine) 45.6 tonne (ERA and NERA combo)

Heavy Tank (dual engine, rear and front) 65.6 tonne (lots NERA)

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for Toxn's simplification,  MBT 456 (45.6 tonne)


Turret front:

  • KE: 120mm gun (500mm) (statistical OK)
  • CE: ATGM (360/960mm) (FAIL main charge)
  • CE: ATGM (300/600mm) (FAIL, hmmm, not satisfactory)

Turret sides:

  • KE: 105mm gun (247mm) (curent fail, but pass if 25mm Texto replaced by 25mm HHA)
  • CE: ATGM (255/679mm) (tandem charge fail)

Turret rear:

  • KE: 155mm HE (45mm) (OK)
  • CE: DPICM (160mm) (FAIL)

Turret, roof:

  • KE: 155mm HE (45mm) (OK)


Hull belt front:

  • KE: 120mm gun (500mm) (OK)
  • CE: ATGM (360/960mm) (OK)

Hull front upper glacis:

  • KE: 120mm gun (500mm) (significantly OK)
  • CE: ATGM (360/960mm) (significantly OK)

Hull rear:

  • KE: 155mm HE, (45mm ) (OK)

Hull floor:

  • KE: 3x10kg mines (~50mm) (OK)



48 x 120mm, loaded. (1 tonne)

2,400 x 30mm HEDP, loaded. (1 tonne, inclusive links)



cost effective, novel, hybrid 120mm ammunition, to deal with the Norman menace.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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...