Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


 Share

Recommended Posts

Protection for Comanche is rated for 13 inches (3BM6+) throughout the +20/-20 degree frontal arc with very minimal weakspots (slits, etc) only. At any place on the tank 90 degrees to the side, it will repel the Mormon 6" HEAT weapon. Coincidentally, as a byproduct of a weight-saving and turret-balancing measure, the turret will also repel the 6" HEAT weapon from the rear. Roof is rated for plunging fire. Bottom armor is rated at 1.25" RHAe vs mines and blast.

Armament is a 5in-24 load-assisted, high velocity rifled cannon firing very low drag high L:D APDS from combustible cases at 4,800 ft/s (as a fun challenge, spot the problem with this scheme). Penetration at 2,000 yards is calculated to be approximately 15.7 inches against a plate at 60 degrees from normal. The gun can elevate 20 degrees and depress 10 degrees, and has a rotational arc of 243.2 degrees with the gun at full depression. Coaxial armament consists of 1x .30 caliber G-17A5T machine gun and 1x .50 caliber G-19A2T machine gun, which are slaved to the main gun. Independent armament consists of 1 additional G-17A5 and 1 additional G-19A2 machine gun, and 2 dual close-in .40 caliber G-346E1 machine guns. Ammunition stowage is 1,200 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition, 10,000 rounds of .30 caliber ammunition, and 3,000 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition.

Power is provided by a liquid-cooled 12-cylinder diesel engine with 2,850 cu in displacement, putting out 1,200 horsepower and up-rateable to 1,500 horsepower. Power to weight ratio is 19.2 hp/tonne at basic engine rating. Top speed is 50 miles per hour on roads, 30 miles per hour off-road. Cruising speed is 40 miles per hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, A. T. Mahan said:

We're allowed combustible cases? I thought we had to stick with steel cased main gun ammunition

 

Steel cases are available but you can use other technology of the period. e.g., bag charges. High energy combustible cases are, however, not available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

Idk if I’m going to make it. Don’t postpone the competition, it’s been pushed back enough, just don’t be surprised if I don’t submit something. 

 

We're not really too worried about the deadline. It's just there to get people going a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

We're not really too worried about the deadline. It's just there to get people going a bit.


Oh... I misread the deadline... I thought it said today. Don’t mind me, I am the big dumb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lord_James said:


Oh... I misread the deadline... I thought it said today. Don’t mind me, I am the big dumb. 

 

Original deadline was a highly provisional June 10 IIRC. It's now July 10th, only slightly less provisional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basic parameters are done!

lPVWjQK.png

 

Table of basic statistics:

Parameter

Value

Mass, combat

124,000 lbs (62.0 tons)

Length, combat (transport)

25.6 ft (31.7 ft)

Width, combat (transport)

12.1 ft (12.0 ft)

Height, combat (transport)

8.8 ft (8.3 ft)

Ground Pressure, zero penetration

1,795 psf

Estimated Speed

50 mph

Estimated range

525 mi

Crew, number (roles)

4 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver)

Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)

40 (33 in turret bustle rack, 7 in ready rack)

Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)

1,200 rds .50 caliber, 10,000 rds .30 caliber, 3,000 rds .40 cal ammunition

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lost my NX license and ran into some other technical issues, so I doubt I'll be able to finish the modelling for my submission. I'll explain what the submission was below, though, for your consideration. If some "fluff" or in-universe explanation is desired as to how this was feasible, one can be provided. I also have as a prototype the "B" hull with the newer NERA-optimized frontal geometry with the legacy "A" turret. Please feel free to ask any questions you may have.

 

Believing that the fundamentals of the "T-52" design from the Californian heavy tank competition were sound, I sought to rework it to incorporate the feedback that was given. The idea was to continue maturing the design through successive iterations until it would either A) win something or B) some crucial flaw be found that required restarting. To that end, there were two major areas of work. First, the hull shared the 68-degree glacis of a T-72 family tank. While we had previously made it work as a NERA array, it was kind of dodgy against the threats presented by the Californian RFP without heavy use of our Kontakt-1 knockoff. As the screenshots I posted showed, I had reprofiled the front of the vehicle to be more Abrams-ey, because the M1 family is a perfectly good NATO Box Tank and I like the looks. This provided a very large NERA array space, which would have been able to exceed the protection requirements handily. 

 

Next, I undertook to revise the turret design. My goal was to produce something much more in line with the Object 187/welded T-90 turret, although the turret had a more pronounced bustle, as in the "T-52". In broad terms, the layout of the turret was to be similar to the previous "T-52" turret design -- commander to the right of the gun, gunner to the left. The armor packages were substantially pushed inwards, removing the front overhang that caused the driver issues when attempting to enter and exit the vehicle while retaining the quite substantial level of protection and protection arc of that previous turret. The armor package composition was to be moderately revised, as there were gaps in it that required fixing, but that would have been relatively quick to resolve had not I lost access to the script that had been written to optimize the armor packages. I would like to reiterate that the previous turret frontal armor package design was capable of withstanding 43/59" RHAe tandem charges and 31" RHAe kinetic penetrators before the inclusion of the ERA package. It also had quite satisfactory turret side armor. The reduced turret overall size would also have shaved several tons off of the overall weight, as the protected volume would have been reduced from the previous great excess. A new gunner's doghouse sight would have been designed, with proper two-axis stabilization and provision for the laser rangefinder, as well as a stadiametric auxiliary rangefinder. Ammunition was to have been a derivative of the 125mm combustible-case APFSDS, HEAT-FS, and HE-FS projectiles in a fixed steel case cartridge. Performance would have been satisfactory based on preliminary results, and I may finish working that out because I don't need NX for it. 

 

Mobility was to be moderately reduced from the original 1,562 hp VDS-2240 design due to the lack of FADEC engine controls and thereby reduced specific power output, but the available 1,200hp turbosupercharged diesel V12 in an approximately 50-ton tank is quite solid, and the powerpack offered substantial room for growth in automotive performance. Studies were underway to determine the feasibility of a gas turbine, but I doubt such a power unit would be truly viable in this timeline until perhaps 2270.  The track system was to be the same T158 derivative. 

 

As a note, much of the advanced computer equipment was to be removed, or replaced with much more basic electrical or electromechanical systems, as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, A. T. Mahan said:

I would like to reiterate that the previous turret frontal armor package design was capable of withstanding 43/59" RHAe tandem charges and 31" RHAe kinetic penetrators before the inclusion of the ERA package. It also had quite satisfactory turret side armor.

 

I'm a little confused by this. Could you show your math? You're describing a tank that is 12t lighter than Comanche with almost triple the armor protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I'm a little confused by this. Could you show your math? You're describing a tank that is 12t lighter than Comanche with almost triple the armor protection.

 

This is based on the math for the previous competition, and those numbers were directly taken from that report and should be viewed in that context. I have not recalculated it with the current coefficients yet because I've been busy, although I suspect it will not lose a huge amount of protection. I will try to recalculate it tonight. The various members of the California team and I spent a lot of time and effort working up the previous armor package concept, and it seems to work extremely well. The vehicle also has a relatively small protected volume. The weight analysis comes from the volume of modeled components in NX, so I believe it to be quite robust. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, A. T. Mahan said:

 

This is based on the math for the previous competition, and those numbers were directly taken from that report and should be viewed in that context. I have not recalculated it with the current coefficients yet because I've been busy, although I suspect it will not lose a huge amount of protection. I will try to recalculate it tonight. The various members of the California team and I spent a lot of time and effort working up the previous armor package concept, and it seems to work extremely well. The vehicle also has a relatively small protected volume. The weight analysis comes from the volume of modeled components in NX, so I believe it to be quite robust. 

What's the weight of the bare hull and turret plus the armour components? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

As I recall that armor array left much to be desired in terms of coverage, as the cassettes weren't properly overlapped.

 

That's what I suspected. I would expect his tank to be lighter than Comanche for all the usual reasons, but not that much lighter with 2-3 times the armor!

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 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 N-L-M
      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
      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank
       
      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.
       
       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:
      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank
      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.
      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM
      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.
      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.
      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.
      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.
      F.      IEDs
      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.
      2.      General guidelines:
      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.
      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.
      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.
      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.
      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.
      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:
      a.      Vehicle recoverability.
      b.      Continued fightability.
      c.       Crew survival.
      E.      Permissible weights:
      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.
      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.
      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.
      F.      Overall dimensions:
      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.
      b.      Width- 4m transport width.
                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.
                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.
      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.
      G.     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 SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^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 100mm.
      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- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure
      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm 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 twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.
                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.
                                                                   v.     Fused silica
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.
                                                                  vi.     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-0.82g/cm^3.
                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               viii.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  ix.     ERA-light
      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy
      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  xi.     NERA-light
      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm 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.
                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy
      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm 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.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)
                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 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- limited
      3.      Operational Requirements.
      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.
      4.      Submission protocols.
      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
      Addendum 1 - more armor details
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • 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!
×
×
  • Create New...