Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

COMPETITION Brawling Bobcat: Armored Truck for the Lone Free State (2245)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Greetings all, I've been pulled on as a judge for this one, so none of the following should be construed as competition so much as... encouragement.   This is the Mogcat:

While waiting for the competitors to continue their work, I got bored and decided to produce a design at the other end of the scale: This is the Maxcat, an experimental heavy wheeled AFV whi

You build a small shrine to the crewmen of late-war German tanks and then get to work taking the outer suspension units off.   Edit: I should say inner suspension units. Taking the outer uni

1 hour ago, Xoon said:

I am curious, what would be needed to penetrate the Norman at 1-2Km range?

Speaking about both HEAT and KE.


Would a 120mm be sufficent?
Or would a 150mm be needed?

I think it depends on whether it's the original version (probably the version current for this competition) or the hypothetical up-armoured ones, and whether you're talking frontal arc or a side shot.

 

A quick look at the original submission shows 200mm LOS RHA, an air gap and 60mm LOS HHA. So around 350mm RHA penetration equivalent should do it. This equates to about a 100mm HEAT-FS or a really, really beefy gun firing AP. Like, significantly more potent than the M58. Given the limits of APFSDS in this competition, you'd probably be looking at something in at least the 125mm range if that's what you want to sling.

 

For side shots you're looking at something like 160mm RHA equivalent penetration to get into the turret, which puts you in the realm of super-hot 75s and the 90mm M3

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

The Norman is basically covered by spaced armor all around, so HESH would be incredibly ineffective. Slinging HEAT from the same gun would however work.

Agreed. It would peel off HHS plates, but leave the base armour relatively unmolested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I booted up the Norman model. Turns out that thanks to the needlenose shape and being specced for the wide frontal arc, from directly ahead the Norman's cheeks are hilariously thick:
IlLKVet.png

of course the center of the needlenose, where the mantlet is, is significantly more sane.

 

RUvLIyp.png

cheek section at 30 degrees to the right

 

39aeJLA.png

Section at the mantlet.

 

 

The Norman is a really tough nut.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BULLETIN

GOVERNMENT RELEASE OF NEW ORDNANCE FOR CITIZEN APPLICATION WITHIN THE LONE FREE STATE OF TEXAS

The Lone Free State of Texas government has developed an advanced new cannon which can meet both the needs of current citizen-settler militias and the Texas government law enforcement agencies moving forward. The new gun is 3-inch caliber, far larger than previous conventional cannons provided for Texas militias, and incorporates the most advanced barrel, mounting, and ammunition technology available to the Lone Free State. 

 

Find enclosed the following figures and specifications:

 

3in G-41 L/59 cannon

Mass (no mantlet): 1,975 lbs
Rifling: 12-groove polygonal

Twist rate: 1:17 calibers
Recoil system: Concentric
Breech: Vertical sliding block

 

rrciMSB.png

 

Qcpg4gP.png

 

ohwB2eP.jpg

 

 

 

Ammunition:

3in-23 G-141

 

zdLIicP.png

 

G-141B HVAP-T
Projectile weight: 12.7 pounds
Core: Tungsten Hard Alloy (WHA) Class 4

MV: 3,770 ft/s

V1000yd: 3,501 ft/s

V2000yd: 3,217 ft/s

Penetration, RHA, 1,000 yd: 10.4"

Penetration, RHA, 2,000 yd: 9.2"

 

vT2KK3O.png

 

869RvIz.png

 


G-141D HVAP-DS-T

Projectile weight: 12.9 pounds (in-bore), 10.0 pounds (in flight)
Core: Depleted Uranium

MV: 3,820 ft/s

V1000yd: 3,583 ft/s

V2000yd: 3,362 ft/s

Penetration, RHA, 1,000 yd: 11"

Penetration, RHA, 2,000 yd: 10"

 

lgBIjM8.png

 

3TEaIQc.jpg
 

 

G-141A HE-T

Projectile weight: 14.0 pounds
High Explosive: 2.7 lbs RDX

MV: 2,800 ft/s

 

q5d1MT9.png

 

ZtUt4AL.png


I will be releasing the files for this gun shortly (once it's completely finished), and it may be used by any entrant, should they so choose. It also provides a reference of what sort of technology the Texan government is capable of producing, gun-wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While waiting for the competitors to continue their work, I got bored and decided to produce a design at the other end of the scale:

oAIrKPv.jpg

This is the Maxcat, an experimental heavy wheeled AFV which uses a rather insane hydraulic drive system which uses three engines to power the 14 individually-articulating road wheels (each provided with hydraulic motor). The drive system is a power hog, and requires the use of an elaborate hydraulic control system to make it all work. The final wrinkle is that the inner set of wheels need a complex geared torsion bar system to provide the correct amount of travel using stubby torsion bars. 

 

The results are impressive, however: the Maxcat sports a 120mm/L60 gun with the same ballistics as the pre-war M58 (including a useful APDS round based on the one used in the old British L1A2), and has impressive survivability thanks to the large distances between the outer hull and the major components. The hull front has respectable KE resistance (260-350mm RHA equivalent depending on the angle and the region targeted) and frankly insane CE resistance (well over 1000mm of RHA equivalent in some places). The turret front is actually less protected over all, but still manages up to 270mm/750mm KE/CE resistance depending on the angle and area hit. The brow armour is also notable, and gets around 300mm/>1000mm KE/CE resistance against attacks from the front. The Maxcat weighs in at just under 70st unloaded, and hits the minimum range requirement by dint of six massive fuel tanks with a maximum capacity of just over 1150 gal. It hits 90km/h on roads, and will try to do the same offroad if the driver is foolish enough to open the throttle.

 

With all of the above, the Maxcat is designed to be an MBT in all but name - meant to take on all comers head-on and win. It would probably be an expensive, resource-devouring maintenance queen at base, but while out in the field it would be an unholy terror to anything foolish enough to get in its way.  

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

The turret front is actually less protected over all, but still manages up to 270mm/750mm KE/CE resistance

That kind of CE resistance is still enough to flat out stop the Mormon 2"/4" tandem warhead, if the armor is properly arranged.

Very impressive beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

That kind of CE resistance is still enough to flat out stop the Mormon 2"/4" tandem warhead, if the armor is properly arranged.

Very impressive beast.

Tandem charges are tricky. The Mormon weapon sneaks through from the front (0.63"/16mm residual penetration into the fighting compartment) if shot at a very specific point on the upper hull. However, adding another 1.5"/38mm RHA spaced armour layer midway down the tunnels on either side of the driver (the most vulnerable area of the upper hull front) allows it to defeat the tandem HEAT pretty effectively across the entire 30' aspect. 

 

There's also a bit of growth potential in the design - around 9.7st (8.8mt) before the vehicle bumps over the loaded ground pressure requirement, with generous space in the hull front, hull sides, turret interior front and turret exterior sides for NERA.

 

The final thing to note is that the dimensions of this thing are simply hilarious: 26'/2.9" (8m) long without the gun, 41'/6" (12.65m) with, 16'/4.9" (5m) wide and 13'/1.9" (4.01m) high. The Maxcat is house-sized, yet cramped.

 

Edit: the turret is very tricky to work out, as the ERA is arranged at two angles and there's a lot of ways it can get hit. As near as I can tell a shot from the 2"/4" directly from the front and hitting the side panel ERA, turret skirt, air gap and front armour still gets in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Toxn said:

While waiting for the competitors to continue their work, I got bored and decided to produce a design at the other end of the scale:

oAIrKPv.jpg

This is the Maxcat

 

I think my favorite part about this is the insane drivetrain used just to get reasonable ground pressure with wheels, when there is no explicit requirement in the solicitation to even use wheels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I think my favorite part about this is the insane drivetrain used just to get reasonable ground pressure with wheels, when there is no explicit requirement in the solicitation to even use wheels.

There's the option to build a wheeled death trap and I'm taking it.

 

Don't worry though - I'm sure I'll get bored in a week's time and try to design a half-track that can do highway speeds or something.

 

Edit: or a 60-tonne convertible drive tank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A more aesthetic picture of my creation:

 

GWG6KIS.jpg

I'm imagining shitty 90s toy commercial faux-rock playing in the background.

 

Edit: here are some of the vital stats:

 

Length: 26'3" (hull), 41'6" (gun forward)

Width: 16'5"

Height: 13'2" (top of commander’s cupola)

 

Engine: 3 12-cylinder liquid-cooled turbodiesel, 2,368 ci displacement each, 2520hp total

Transmission: hydraulic drive system, 120hp motors on each wheel

Suspension: swing-arm, torsion bars/geared torsion bars

PWR: 32.1hp/st loaded (note: due to inefficiencies, only around 25-26hp/st makes it to the ground)

Ground clearance: 4'2"

Max road speed: 56mph

Max recommended offroad speed: 22mph

Operational range (on road/offroad): 435mi/170mi

 

Base hull thickness:

Hull front: 2" sloped at 60' from the vertical

Hull sides, rear, bottom, inner compartments: 1.5"

Turret front: 5.9" sloped at 20'

Turret sides: 1.5" sloped at 20'

Mantlet: 6.1"

Turret floor, roof: 0.8"

 

Protection (ERA fitted, no fuel, KE/CE):

Upper hull front: 12"/>39" RHA equivalent

Upper hull sides (30’ arc): 14"/>39" RHA equivalent

Upper hull sides (60’ arc): 5.9"/8.7" RHA equivalent

Upper hull sides (90’): 4.9"/6.3" RHA equivalent

Turret front: 10.6"/12.9" RHA equivalent

Turret 30’ arc: 10.2"/29.5" RHA equivalent

Turret sides (90’): 4.3"/4.3" RHA equivalent

 

Turret ring diameter: 98.4"

Main gun: 120mm L/60 medium-pressure gun

Ammunition stowage: 52 rnds complete

+22/-6 degree elevation (-12 if not facing forwards).

 

Ammunition:

4.7x34.6" propellant charge (56.7lb max weight)

AP (M358): 50.9lb, 3480ft/s, 11.8" RHA penetration at 110yd, 10.6" RHA penetration at 1090yd

HEAT-FS (M469): 31lb, 3480ft/s, 15" RHA penetration (reduced charge propellant case)

HEAT-FS (advanced): 31lb, 3480ft/s, 17.3" RHA penetration (reduced charge propellant case)

HE (M356): 50.3lb (10.25lb fill), 2490ft/s, 1.8" RHA penetration (normal or reduced charge propellant case)

APDS (tungsten core): 16.8lb, 4890ft/s, 14.2" RHA penetration at 110yd, 13.8" RHA penetration at 1090yd

 

Secondary weapons:

.50 cal coaxial MG (800 rnds)

.50 cal loader’s MG (600 rnds)

.50 cal commander’s MG (600 rnds)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Beer said:

How do You change the inner wheels? 

You build a small shrine to the crewmen of late-war German tanks and then get to work taking the outer suspension units off.

 

Edit: I should say inner suspension units. Taking the outer units off would certainly make it easier though. This is made more complex by the fact that each swing arm actually has hydraulic cabling running through it, so you'd probably want to just run on flats until you can get back to depot and change out there. Sort of the same principle as modern MBTs and their torsion bars - if one breaks the most common thing is just to run on it until you have the option of going back in to have it properly looked at.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

 

The competition is discontinued due to lack of interest. It's my fault. I substantially undermined one of the contestants due to petty concerns which were not relevant to the competition at large, and which I could have handled more gracefully. I chose not to do so and this has resulted in the tacit withdrawal of many of the entrants. I am sorry to those who have put in the effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I've been talking with people and it seems there is still some interest in the Texas car competition. I don't think it was properly structured initially, and I'll be reviewing it and rebooting it (likely picking up where we left off, but with maybe a different judge structure. Last time some judges really wanted to participate but weren't able to because of da ruuruus). 

However, right now I don't have the time to do that, so in the interim we're running a mostly discord-based mini competition, see the thread for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
5 hours ago, CharlieAlphaVictor said:

Hi everyone, long time lurker, first time poster. Any update as to when the competition will resume? I was really looking forward to making a submission! 

 

We're currently looking at rebooting it in the next few weeks. The biggest problem is that I have a newborn and very little free time.

We would love to have you participate, though!

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.

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 Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • 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 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...