Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, delete013 said:

Vollketten 55(tonne).01 - vehicle name. Versuchsträger-(N)iedrige (K)omplexität - project name.

 

It is the usual nomenclature of the tractor factory that was meant to design it.

 

Uh... In Texas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

German Texans got influx after the war.

 

I've been to many German Texas cities, and not only do they not have Nazi-style panzer design bureaus, they don't even have many of those words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, delete013 said:

After the nuclear war they only got normal people that fled the insane globalist Meinungsdiktatur.

 

They got... Nazi design bureaus from 1945 after the nuclear war in 2029? Which are still around 218 years later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Also it's been canon for a really long time that they don't have contact with the Atlantic States, much less Europe.

 

Why don't you tell me what bothers you?

 

Maybe they crawled from Argentina or somehow washed ashore, does it matter? I though adding another national flavour to the competition would make it interesting..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I've been to many German Texas cities, and not only do they not have Nazi-style panzer design bureaus, they don't even have many of those words. 

 

While I'd choose different name for marketing something in Texas I'd also choose not to be oversensitive about this particular thing because there is nothing Nazi about it. It's pure technical acronym which the Germans simply love by nature. 

 

VK = Versuchskampfwagen = research combat vehicle, the first number stands for the weight and the number behind the decimal point stands for the particular variant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, delete013 said:

 

Why don't you tell me what bothers you?

 

Maybe they crawled from Argentina or somehow washed ashore, does it matter? I though adding another national flavour to the competition would make it interesting..

We're poking you for fun, and because wehraboo-shit is haram for reasons that go all the way back to the guy you're chatting to inventing the term in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

While I'd choose different name for marketing something in Texas I'd also choose not to be oversensitive about this particular thing because there is nothing Nazi about it. It's pure technical acronym which the Germans simply love by nature. 

 

VK = Versuchskampfwagen = research combat vehicle, the first number stands for the weight and the number behind the decimal point stands for the particular variant

They do like their big fat compound words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, delete013 said:

 

Why don't you tell me what bothers you?

 

Maybe they crawled from Argentina or somehow washed ashore, does it matter? I though adding another national flavour to the competition would make it interesting..

 

 

U touched my pee pee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Toxn said:

We're poking you for fun, and because wehraboo-shit is haram for reasons that go all the way back to the guy you're chatting to inventing the term in the first place.

Then its all good. I felt that Sturgeon was really upset:o.

 

I deliberately threw in a bunch of easter eggs to spice up the commission's work. But it's all a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

While I'd choose different name for marketing something in Texas I'd also choose not to be oversensitive about this particular thing because there is nothing Nazi about it. It's pure technical acronym which the Germans simply love by nature. 

 

VK = Versuchskampfwagen = research combat vehicle, the first number stands for the weight and the number behind the decimal point stands for the particular variant

 

That's actually not the case, the nomenclature he's using is distinctly Nazi, not just German:

4eKf4yt.png

I am not the foremost expert on German armored vehicles, but I am not aware of any post-war tanks using this designation system. This makes sense because, you know, the Nazi tank design bureaus were liquidated and sent to France. A domestic armored vehicle wouldn't be created in Germany until the 1950s, and by a completely different group of people. The nomenclature, understandably, didn't survive this transition.

As for why I'm prodding him about it, I want to see how far he's willing to take this. We've got a German nomenclature system that was extinct in 1945 which has somehow time-traveled to 2247, and spatially across the Atlantic. This is very interesting! The explanation is of course that delete is an inveterate wehraboo who can't pull his head out of his ass, but I'm highly amused that he doesn't even have a compelling conceit for this. It's just "tanks get Nazi designations". Because of course they do, in his mind. (They also get interleaved roadwheels, for the same reason.) The Texas-German thing was an obvious copout (nevermind that Texas-Germans have different vocabulary - all of their machine-words are English loans - since it comes from peasantry that were imported in the mid-19th Century, 100 years before Nazi Germany existed).

I don't remember who suggested that he ought to just say "wehraboos still exist in 2247" as his answer, but I liked that one. It would have made me laugh.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, delete013 said:

I deliberately threw in a bunch of easter eggs to spice up the commission's work. But it's all a joke.

 

That's a healthy attitude; most submissions include jokes and easter eggs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

That's actually not the case, the nomenclature he's using is distinctly Nazi, not just German:

4eKf4yt.png

I am not the foremost expert on German armored vehicles, but I am not aware of any post-war tanks using this designation system. This makes sense because, you know, the Nazi tank design bureaus were liquidated and sent to France. A domestic armored vehicle wouldn't be created in Germany until the 1950s, and by a completely different group of people. The nomenclature, understandably, didn't survive this transition.

As for why I'm prodding him about it, I want to see how far he's willing to take this. We've got a German nomenclature system that was extinct in 1945 which has somehow time-traveled to 2247, and spatially across the Atlantic. This is very interesting! The explanation is of course that delete is an inveterate wehraboo who can't pull his head out of his ass, but I'm highly amused that he doesn't even have a compelling conceit for this. It's just "tanks get Nazi designations". Because of course they do, in his mind. (They also get interleaved roadwheels, for the same reason.) The Texas-German thing was an obvious copout (nevermind that Texas-Germans have different vocabulary - all of their machine-words are English loans - since it comes from peasantry that were imported in the mid-19th Century, 100 years before Nazi Germany existed).

I don't remember who suggested that he ought to just say "wehraboos still exist in 2247" as his answer, but I liked that one. It would have made me laugh.

 

 

You really ought to read something on German history. The designations and the technology only comes from the Nazi party for ideological crusaders. As is with all military things in today's Germany, it is Wehrmacht's legacy, as the latest precursor in the long history of the German/Prussian army. Even if institutions were abolished and the politics tries hard to appear to have broken with the past, many of those people involved in ww2 were very much present during the design of vehicles up until Leopard 2, if still alive, and all had very little to do with politics or ideology. You can't push everything from 1933 to 1945 in the Nazi corner.

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...