Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

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:

 

Quote

Hi {NAME REDACTED},

 

I'm going to post this on the forum, but thought I'd sent it to you first.

 

So I don't think there's a comprehensive how-to guide for anything at the moment, and all of us seem to prefer different approaches to modelling things. There are plenty of smaller tools out there for, for instance, calculating bullet velocities given a certain barrel length, bore diameter, shell weight and powder charge.

 

Generally the way I'd do something like a tank is to decide on the general layout and armament first, get some rough sketches done, and then start modelling the results. Normally I'll start with the fun bit: the main gun. For this you can either use an existing gun or else one of the afore-mentioned calculators + DeMarre and/or Longrods depending on the era in question. Once you know what size and configuration will work to hit parameters, you can then model that component individually and add it to the vehicle model. I do this for all the major components, using things like bulk densities for transmissions (to get the correct weight) and volumetric power outputs for given engine configurations (to get the right power output for a given size of engine). For some components, such as suspension and tracks, I either model and weigh the parts directly or else use available information to make good approximations for component weight. I work out the shape, configuration and volume of the rounds, and where they will be placed. I also use mannequins to model the crew compartments, although that's an area where I still make rookie mistakes (not having spent any real time in a turret and thus not knowing what might be important for a gunner, for instance, to have at hand). I use lots of reference material to sanity-check all my designs - mainly things like cutaways of real world vehicles and YouTube videos where people crawl around inside museum tanks.  

 

I use Sketchup a lot because I know it well and there are lots of parts publicly available if you want to, for instance, plonk a good-looking model of an M2 HMG on the turret roof. The best approach, however, would be to use something like Solidworks, because that allows you a fine degree of precision when it comes to estimating part masses and the like.

 

Anyway, once my initial model is done I tot up all the weights and start working on things like range, armour fraction, power-to-weight ratio etc. Often this is where whatever concept I had for my initial design breaks down completely and I have to go back to the drawing board. Generally I'm only happy after a few goes at the process, which having a quick workflow makes possible (a guy who spent two weeks making a good Solidworks model is not going to want to scrap it, whereas if I only take a few hours to lash something together I'm more amenable to starting over).

 

Some stuff I have to learn from scratch use things in ways they were never designed for - for a recent competition I decided that my tank absolutely had to have an ATGM, so I had to read up on control methods and laws and use hobby rocket modelling software to mock up the missiles and get an idea for their performance. For other stuff I've kludged together things like excel spreadsheets to help design shaped charges and composite armour packages.

 

I've been doing competitions like this for close on a decade now - ever since the World of Tanks days where the people that eventually started this forum would just sit and shitpost on the forums there. So I've gotten into a pretty comfortable groove ITO designing and I've got tools and approaches that work for me.

 

For planes, I'm also lucky enough that my dad has always been very into scale modelling and remote-control gliders, so I learned a couple of basic concepts at my dad's knee. So I'm decent at slapping together conventional aircraft designs with relatively benign flight characteristics. We're also lucky that there are a lot of available tools, rough simulation options and information out there which can be used to help the design process.

 

Ships I struggle a bit more with (not too much water where I live, so there have been fewer opportunities to experiment and learn directly, although I used to sail so at least I know the basics of ship handling) but thankfully there's also a wealth of information out there on how to design hulls and the like.

 

Anyway, I hope this helps.

 

All the best,

 

Toxn

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Having very recently finished a design cycle, I can now offer insight into how I do things.
The first thing I do is look at the requirements, and the available options (whether limited by name or simply similar in performance), and try to figure out a first order approximation of what it is I'm hoping to get done. It's usually at this point that I sketch out the design in pencil and make a list of design features I intend to include in the design - this typically helps solidify the concept in my mind, as well as making sure I don't miss anything major along the way. I set myself certain design goals to guide myself along the way at this point, as they shape to an extent how I want the design to end up.
It's also at this stage that I tend to obsessively google ballistic charts, gun blueprints, and internal pics of relevant vehicles, for cribbing the designs off later.

This approach is very "front heavy", in that it requires you to have a very good image of what you want to get done in your mind before you ever really touch the CAD software, but it does mean that other than minor tweaks, you only CAD once. The Norman, Fox, .224 Rapier, and now BT-5-76/43 were all substantially first shots. Some details were ironed out as the design progressed (typically, precise dimensions are initially guessed and then adjusted as needed), but the concept, down to, say, the location of the extra periscope on the roof, was sketched out on day 0. This approach also means modelling is easier, as you are focused on carrying out the decisions of the design committee (you) and not making the decisions themselves.

As the design progresses, the day 0 first order approximations may turn out to be incorrect. The BT-5-76/43 was initially supposed to only have thick side-skirts along the fighting compartment, with thinner ones to the rear, but then I realized I had a sufficient mass budget to allow me to go wild, so I did.

As you go, it's important to keep whatever goals you set for yourself in mind. With a sufficiently blank slate, it's easy to get lost and start designing spaceships with All The Features TM, when you should be focusing on core capabilities. For the Norman, the core was a tank on par with late Centurions; for the BT-5-76/43, the core was "I do not want to touch the driveline or the turret ring in the process of improving this vehicle". Some features (like vision cupolas) are basically free improvements if you remember to include them; others (like fuckoff big guns) require substantial tradeoffs which must be viewed in the context of their effect on the bottom line of the design goal.

I tend to start from the turret, then the hull, then the armament, then systems, and finally suspensions and the like. The wonders of parametric modelling mean you can make a rough hull shape, design components to fit, and then rejigger the hull as required by the systems.

There's no good replacement for pencil sketches and barely legible scribbles on paper, in terms of focusing one's design intent into practice. CAD is just a way of translating that scribble into something others can understand too.

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

Having very recently finished a design cycle, I can now offer insight into how I do things.
The first thing I do is look at the requirements, and the available options (whether limited by name or simply similar in performance), and try to figure out a first order approximation of what it is I'm hoping to get done. It's usually at this point that I sketch out the design in pencil and make a list of design features I intend to include in the design - this typically helps solidify the concept in my mind, as well as making sure I don't miss anything major along the way. I set myself certain design goals to guide myself along the way at this point, as they shape to an extent how I want the design to end up.
It's also at this stage that I tend to obsessively google ballistic charts, gun blueprints, and internal pics of relevant vehicles, for cribbing the designs off later.

This approach is very "front heavy", in that it requires you to have a very good image of what you want to get done in your mind before you ever really touch the CAD software, but it does mean that other than minor tweaks, you only CAD once. The Norman, Fox, .224 Rapier, and now BT-5-76/43 were all substantially first shots. Some details were ironed out as the design progressed (typically, precise dimensions are initially guessed and then adjusted as needed), but the concept, down to, say, the location of the extra periscope on the roof, was sketched out on day 0. This approach also means modelling is easier, as you are focused on carrying out the decisions of the design committee (you) and not making the decisions themselves.

As the design progresses, the day 0 first order approximations may turn out to be incorrect. The BT-5-76/43 was initially supposed to only have thick side-skirts along the fighting compartment, with thinner ones to the rear, but then I realized I had a sufficient mass budget to allow me to go wild, so I did.

As you go, it's important to keep whatever goals you set for yourself in mind. With a sufficiently blank slate, it's easy to get lost and start designing spaceships with All The Features TM, when you should be focusing on core capabilities. For the Norman, the core was a tank on par with late Centurions; for the BT-5-76/43, the core was "I do not want to touch the driveline or the turret ring in the process of improving this vehicle". Some features (like vision cupolas) are basically free improvements if you remember to include them; others (like fuckoff big guns) require substantial tradeoffs which must be viewed in the context of their effect on the bottom line of the design goal.

I tend to start from the turret, then the hull, then the armament, then systems, and finally suspensions and the like. The wonders of parametric modelling mean you can make a rough hull shape, design components to fit, and then rejigger the hull as required by the systems.

There's no good replacement for pencil sketches and barely legible scribbles on paper, in terms of focusing one's design intent into practice. CAD is just a way of translating that scribble into something others can understand too.

So our processes are basically opposites of each other :lol:

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

Having very recently finished a design cycle, I can now offer insight into how I do things.
The first thing I do is look at the requirements, and the available options (whether limited by name or simply similar in performance), and try to figure out a first order approximation of what it is I'm hoping to get done. It's usually at this point that I sketch out the design in pencil and make a list of design features I intend to include in the design - this typically helps solidify the concept in my mind, as well as making sure I don't miss anything major along the way. I set myself certain design goals to guide myself along the way at this point, as they shape to an extent how I want the design to end up.
It's also at this stage that I tend to obsessively google ballistic charts, gun blueprints, and internal pics of relevant vehicles, for cribbing the designs off later.

This approach is very "front heavy", in that it requires you to have a very good image of what you want to get done in your mind before you ever really touch the CAD software, but it does mean that other than minor tweaks, you only CAD once. The Norman, Fox, .224 Rapier, and now BT-5-76/43 were all substantially first shots. Some details were ironed out as the design progressed (typically, precise dimensions are initially guessed and then adjusted as needed), but the concept, down to, say, the location of the extra periscope on the roof, was sketched out on day 0. This approach also means modelling is easier, as you are focused on carrying out the decisions of the design committee (you) and not making the decisions themselves.

As the design progresses, the day 0 first order approximations may turn out to be incorrect. The BT-5-76/43 was initially supposed to only have thick side-skirts along the fighting compartment, with thinner ones to the rear, but then I realized I had a sufficient mass budget to allow me to go wild, so I did.

As you go, it's important to keep whatever goals you set for yourself in mind. With a sufficiently blank slate, it's easy to get lost and start designing spaceships with All The Features TM, when you should be focusing on core capabilities. For the Norman, the core was a tank on par with late Centurions; for the BT-5-76/43, the core was "I do not want to touch the driveline or the turret ring in the process of improving this vehicle". Some features (like vision cupolas) are basically free improvements if you remember to include them; others (like fuckoff big guns) require substantial tradeoffs which must be viewed in the context of their effect on the bottom line of the design goal.

I tend to start from the turret, then the hull, then the armament, then systems, and finally suspensions and the like. The wonders of parametric modelling mean you can make a rough hull shape, design components to fit, and then rejigger the hull as required by the systems.

There's no good replacement for pencil sketches and barely legible scribbles on paper, in terms of focusing one's design intent into practice. CAD is just a way of translating that scribble into something others can understand too.

 

This is why you're a genius, and I'm not. I'm a very dedicated idiot.

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

 

This is why you're a genius, and I'm not. I'm a very dedicated idiot.


Don’t worry, you’re not alone in that field :) 



@Toxn, although you did say contest winners, I could provide some advice on what NOT to do when making the tanks, if wanted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll add more context later, but here’s what (I have figured out) NOT to do when designing your tank/ gun/ boat/ thing: 

 

1. Don’t hyper fixate on one aspect or feature of your creation; get the idea into the rough area that you’re going for, then move on. Trying to get all those details perfect as you put them down will only slow you down, and drive you crazy. 
 

2. Don’t make your ideas too small; make your creation 50-100mm longer/ wider/ taller (for vehicles) than you think it needs to be, I’ve found that it’s easier to make a thing smaller than it is to make them bigger. Also, it allows for growth if you find an aspect lacking. 
 

3. Don’t be too “experimental” with it; fancy technology is always tempting to use, especially weight and space saving technologies to meet requirements in a competition. But are those technologies actually used in real world, production vehicles? Were there teething problems when it was implemented? Know the technology/ features you’re applying to your creation before you try to utilize them. 

 

I might think up more things when I finally get home, but those are the biggest things that held me back in the cascadia and californium competitions. 

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 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...