Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

N-L-M
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Zadlo said:

But why

Because the DPRC's high end AlO production is allocated to aircraft, LAV and personal body armor and not for tanks; the sheer quantity needed for large AFV production exceeds reasonable production capacities.

At the same time, performance is not expected to reasonably exceed that of fused silica against the reference threats.

6 minutes ago, Zadlo said:

On the one hand you allow to use fused silica but on the other hand you can't allow to use granite balls which were first used in armor in mid-50s!

Fused silica is in effect just very pure glass, easy to mass-produce. It has also seen use in armor since the early 1950s; it is assessed as offering similar performance at significantly lower costs vs the existing threats compared to more esoteric solutions such as granite, which is therefore disqualified on cost grounds.

 

19 minutes ago, Zadlo said:

I think the competition is a bit broken.

Such Suppressive Personship is the sign of a Reactive Mind. Hatethink like this may get your Operating Thetan clearance revoked and you audited for sedition.

 

On a more serious note, you're invited to, y'know, actually participate before complaining about the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, holoween said:

You just calculated 10° from vertical. So K2 is about 155mm

 

 

 

You're right, my bad.  But with NLM's clarification about only the steel part of the reactive armor array contributing to the K2, then it's actually only about 103mm.

 

As soon as we know the formula for K1 we can figure out what the highest ratio of cosine(theta)/K1 is.  That should give us the best efficiency.

 

EDIT:

for instance, the ratio of the secant of 80 degrees over the secant of 70 degrees is 1.96.  Eyeballing the K1 chart, the effect at those slopes is about 3.5 and 2 respectively.  3.5/2 is only 1.75, so the increase in the effectiveness of the array is not offset by the increase in areal density.

 

 

EDIT EDIT:  That's the reciprocal of the cosine of the Greek letter theta, not the act of attempting to take out a loan from the Dianetic People's Bank by having your thetan co-sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zadlo said:

 

It's not everything about that there.

Sometimes even NERA need some thick back-up.

 

And this has still existed.

46482363_199725304252345_142978987978443

Congrats, you found a patent.

 

Here's one for an interplanetary fusion-powered spacecraft:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=WO&NR=2018231310A2&KC=A2&FT=D&ND=3&date=20181220&DB=&locale=en_EP#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

Congrats, you found a patent.

 

Here's one for an interplanetary fusion-powered spacecraft:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=WO&NR=2018231310A2&KC=A2&FT=D&ND=3&date=20181220&DB=&locale=en_EP#

 

Congrats that you can use patent search engine. Because I doubt you've ever learned any other advanced abilities above that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Donward said:

It sounds like someone doesn’t understand the spirit of the contest and needs to be sent to the Glorious Agriculture Camps in the Mojave Reclamation Zone for further spiritual enlightenment.

My vote is for a long holiday with a Voluntary Body Thetan Removal brigade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

Oh please dear lord, do not let this turn into another insult contest. 

 

I don't want but some people think that are righter and put some other people on too high on the pedestal while threating other ones who want to do the same. I only asked about using ceramics in a tank more advanced than fused silica and known in 1961.

 

I may disagree with the rules but I have to accept them. I haven't ended my tanks in the previous contest but now I have more time and materials to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zadlo said:

Because I doubt you've ever learned any other advanced abilities above that.

...you do realize Toxn was one of the winners of the last competition, right?

 

Again, you're strongly encouraged to chill and face the fact that A. You were wrong about Chobham and B. You're gonna have to live without advanced ceramics in this competition.

If you can't cope with B you can freely leave the thread and if you can't cope with A this may be the wrong site for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, N-L-M said:

How do you propose to have a vehicle without a hull?

Imagine a BV206, only that everything can rotate 360 degrees.  Like a excavator. 
Because I am sure our superior drivers can cope with the sudden rotation of his workstation and sometimes complete lack of vision while guiding his vehicle through narrow mountain roads. No less should be expected. 

 

In a way, the vehicle would be a turret on tracks. Kinda like this:
Chrysler-TV-8-military-tank.jpg

 

Also, welcome Zadlo to the forum and this GLORIES competition, I am looking forward to your great contribution to the greater good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Xoon said:

 In a way, the vehicle would be a turret on tracks

Everything below the ring that connects it to the track is the hull; I am however willing to make a broad exception:

In the cases in which the hull or turret are over 75% of the silhouette, the aim point is shifted to the centroid of the large body instead of the center of the turret ring. The spec includes what distance from the aim point needs to be protected, and those instructions are to be followed.

 

I believe that should cover that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zadlo said:

 

I may disagree with the rules but I have to accept them.

Yep:

Rule 1 - the customer is always right.

Rule 2 - if the customer appears to be wrong, refer to rule 1

 

So, we have to offer the best solution within the bounds, let the games begin!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Zadlo said:

 

I don't want but some people think that are righter and put some other people on too high on the pedestal while threating other ones who want to do the same. I only asked about using ceramics in a tank more advanced than fused silica and known in 1961.

 

I may disagree with the rules but I have to accept them. I haven't ended my tanks in the previous contest but now I have more time and materials to do it.

 

You're a fucking retard and need a dick-slappin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, where is my design heading?

1. First pass - working up from the required lethality, making some assumptions around mobility.

2. Basic config and style chosen - forward turret, rear powerpack

3. Set turret size - how many crew, where is the ammo etc

4. What physical size and non-armour mass results

5 What armour mass is required to get acceptable protection

6 What is new total mass and size - do prior assumption still work?

6 Rinse and repeat until time runs out or acceptable outcome.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Xoon said:

 

In a way, the vehicle would be a turret on tracks. Kinda like this:
Chrysler-TV-8-military-tank.jpg

 

That is going to need one hell of a traverse drive.  Probably consume more power that required for mobility.  And if the powerpack is in the turret ( the frigging enormous powerpack) then drive to the tracks is hydraulic or electric?  Hydraulic has such poor efficiency that the powerpack would go from frigging enormous to double frigging enormous.  If electric, bear in mind that we don't have fancy electronics so no brushless high efficiency stuff and even brushed stuff will have to use old school magnetic materials - no fancy rare earths..  Then there is CoG height and cross slope stability etc.  But, it would be cool if you can make it work :)

 

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...