Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

COMPETITION Steel Chariot of The Prairie: The Lone Free State's First Battle Tank (2247)


 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

k9eilMY.png

 

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2021 at 10:14 PM, Sturgeon said:

Submissions will be accepted in USC only.

Fucking triggered...

...

...

{puts on 37,854 litre hat}

anyway, hope y'all enjoy dimensions specified in fractions of a yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dominus Dolorem said:

I was also wondering if it is necessary for the driver to have his own hatch?

 

I would recommend so, yes, hahaha.

 

7 hours ago, Dominus Dolorem said:

Is there a weight limit or minimum number of rounds required?


No for either but you have to remember that the Texas government would like to actually be able to use these things.

 

4 hours ago, Dominus Dolorem said:

I also forgot to ask, are there any width restrictions?


No, the Texas logistics system primarily operates on broad, open highways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

No for either but you have to remember that the Texas government would like to actually be able to use these things.

Would an 80-90 ton tank with 15 rounds for the main gun be acceptable to the military?

 

Quote

I would recommend so, yes, hahaha.

 

Our designers believe that they can achieve vastly superior frontal protection if this minor detail is neglected.

 

They claim that a floor mounted escape hatch would offer the driver better chances for the driver to get out alive in an emergency and thus believe that a drivers hatch would offer no real advantage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dominus Dolorem said:

Would an 80-90 ton tank with 15 rounds for the main gun be acceptable to the military?

 

 

Our designers believe that they can achieve vastly superior frontal protection if this minor detail is neglected.

 

They claim that a floor mounted escape hatch would offer the driver better chances for the driver to get out alive in an emergency and thus believe that a drivers hatch would offer no real advantage.

 

 

Like NLM said, you are competing against other people, and the judges will weigh your submission holistically. You're welcome to take radical risks like that, but you have to consider whether the judges will see those compromises as worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Toxn said:

@Sturgeon trying to gauge the biases of the rangers/patrol et al - rifled vs. smoothbore guns?


From my perspective, no bias. Tech level is "cusp" for smoothbores, so the ammunition types expected to initially ship with the tank favor rifled guns, but the immediate next generation favor smoothbores.

Just as a reference point, if you recall the 2239 competition, the Texans have better metallurgy and better technical acumen for guns specifically (they are heavily invested in small arms, autocannons, and artillery). So even though we're talking about a tank intended to compete directly with Norman, the gun may be a half generation more advanced (reference: L11 or U-5TS).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Where do you find the engine dimensions for the MB 838 or AVDS 1790? I can find total volume, but nothing specific. 


https://ia800203.us.archive.org/19/items/CollectionOfDocumentsDescribingMTU830870And880SeriesEngines/Collection of Documents describing MTU 830 870 and 880 series engines.pdf

In other news, alien space whale cometh:

memsenT.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sturgeon said:


From my perspective, no bias. Tech level is "cusp" for smoothbores, so the ammunition types expected to initially ship with the tank favor rifled guns, but the immediate next generation favor smoothbores.

Just as a reference point, if you recall the 2239 competition, the Texans have better metallurgy and better technical acumen for guns specifically (they are heavily invested in small arms, autocannons, and artillery). So even though we're talking about a tank intended to compete directly with Norman, the gun may be a half generation more advanced (reference: L11 or U-5TS).

Thanks. Another question: what's the maximum weight a loader is expected to routinely lift? I'm scoping out armament and this gives me a handle on cartridge/shell weights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Toxn said:

Thanks. Another question: what's the maximum weight a loader is expected to routinely lift? I'm scoping out armament and this gives me a handle on cartridge/shell weights.

 

It's generally accepted that 25kg (about the weight of solid shell/shot alone for 120-122mm) is the limit. Intuitively, this is probably the most a fit adult male could repeatedly move in a complex arc quickly during a fight. Virtually every serious tank armed with something larger (which still fired solid steel shot) had some sort of load-assist, if not an autoloader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Virtually every serious tank armed with something larger (which still fired solid steel shot) had some sort of load-assist, if not an autoloader.

SU/ISU152, Stumtiger, Yagdtiger, ect. They are not quite tanks, but they were manually loaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dominus Dolorem said:

SU/ISU152, Stumtiger, Yagdtiger, ect. They are not quite tanks, but they were manually loaded.

 

Sturmtiger??? You mean the 380mm rocket-mortar-armed 760lb shell-firing thing that was loaded via five men and a crane? THAT Sturmtiger?

 

PaK 44 was not in a different class than M58, having a less powerful round and a comparable weight shell (28kg).

 

ISU-152 is the only actual exception, though not a tank as you point out. As the exception, it proves the rule, as it often required an extra loader to haul its ~50kg shells, and the Soviets never returned to that scheme, certainly not in a turreted tank.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • 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 10th 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
       
      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. 
    • By Beer
      I haven't found an appropriate thread where to put some interesting rare stuff related to WW2 development, be it industrial one or makeshift field modifications. 
       
      Let's start with two things. The first one is a relatively recently found rarity from Swedish archives - a drawing of ČKD/BMM V8H-Sv tank. The drawing and a letter was found by WoT enthusiasts in Swedish archives in 2014 (the original announcement and the drawing source is here). The drawing is from a message dated 8th September 1941. One of the reasons why this drawing was not known before may be that the Czech archives were partially destroyed by floods in 2002. Anyway it is an export modification of the V-8-H tank accepted into Czechoslovak service as ST vz.39 but never produced due to the cancelation of all orders after Münich 1938 (for the same reason negotiations about licence production in Britain failed). Also later attempt to sell the tank to Romania failed due to BMM being fully busy with Wehrmacht priority orders. The negotiations with Sweden about licence production of V8H-Sv lasted till 1942, at least in May 1942 Swedish commission was present in Prague for negotiations. The tank differed compared to the base ST vz.39 in thicker armor with different front hull shape (armor 60 mm @ 30° on the hull front and also 60 mm on the turret; all sides were 40 mm thick). The tank was heavier (20 tons) and had the LT vz.38 style suspension with probably even larger wheels. The engine was still the same Praga NR V8 (240-250 Hp per source). The armament was unchanged with 47 mm Škoda A11 gun and two vz.37 HMG. The commander's cupola was of the simple small rotating type similar to those used on AH-IV-Sv tankettes. It is known that the Swedes officially asked to arm the tank with 75 mm gun, replace the engine with Volvo V12 and adding third HMG to the back of the turret. In the end the Swedes decided to prefer their own Strv/m42. 

      Source of the drawing
       
      The second is makeshift field modification found on Balkans. It appears Ustasha forces (and possibly some SS anti-partizan units) used several Italian M15/42 medium tanks with turrets from Pz.38(t). There are several photos of such hybrids but little more is known. On one photo it is possible to see Ustasha registration number U.O. 139.

      Few more photos of such hybrid.
       
      It appears that the source of all those photos to be found on the internet is this book, Armoured units of the Axis forces in southeastern Europe in WW2 by Dinko Predoevic. 
       
    • By SuperComrade
      I was recently looking at the Japanese wikipedia page for the Chi-Ha tank, and it had this section on the name of the tank:

       
       
      I have never heard of such nomenclature, and obviously I don't have access to such documents since I don't live in Japan. There is no reference for this part, so can anyone confirm that they actually did use "MTK" etc.?
×
×
  • Create New...