Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


 Share

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, delete013 said:

You really ought to read something on German history.

 

German history? Including the history of a designation system used exclusively from 1933-1945? What period of "german history" is that, pray tell?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours 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

Spielberger doesn't use the decimal point, so not only does he use a Nazi naming system, he uses the wrong version of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, delete013 said:

 

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.

So firstly, yikes (context to follow).

 

Secondly, in case you're confused about the rather critical eye we're casting on your no-doubt sincere bit of worldbuilding: we're an old forum by internet standards, tracing our way back, if not to the Sumerian era of usenet groups or the Assyrian era of blogs-turned-forums, then to the classical era of the 2010s. So we've seen some cycles recur. And one of those cycles, analogous to the friendly Nazi problem that bars deal with (only more cringey and sad than disgusting), is the friendly wehraboo problem.

 

You see, they always start friendly - just asking questions, just wanting to air their legitimate love of technology and design independent of the political nastiness that surrounded it. And it always ends in a welter of "which German tank ace would look the hottest as an anime princess" posts. So when some unfortunate soul comes in just asking questions and wanting to air their legitimate love of technology etc etc, we tend to stare hard and long at the underlying dynamics of the situation.

 

Because nobody wants to have to clean up the shit that wehraboos excrete once they congregate in any numbers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my suggestion, take it or leave it, is that if you're going to put wehraboo-adjacent stuff up at all, to make sure that people know it's a JOKE. You don't have to be subtle (we're not that cultured, after all) - say that the guy running the country is a full-on unreconstructed Nazi who got everything he knows about armoured warfare from a moth-eaten copy of Death Traps and a box of faded print-outs from the forums of literally any game dealing with WW2 combat. So he's forcing the engineers to use this cockamamie nomenclature and keeps asking them to put in amazing future-tech ideas like axial-flow turbojets with shite burner can designs, contrarotating rotor/stator assemblies and turbine blades made from low-alloy steel. And they're picking the best bits that they can out of the mess and running with that instead to produce a half-way functional design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Toxn said:

So firstly, yikes (context to follow).

 

Secondly, in case you're confused about the rather critical eye we're casting on your no-doubt sincere bit of worldbuilding: we're an old forum by internet standards, tracing our way back, if not to the Sumerian era of usenet groups or the Assyrian era of blogs-turned-forums, then to the classical era of the 2010s. So we've seen some cycles recur. And one of those cycles, analogous to the friendly Nazi problem that bars deal with (only more cringey and sad than disgusting), is the friendly wehraboo problem.

That is no problem. I accept that the technical talk cannot be separated from the political context, in this case. I think I've been plenty accommodating and reiterated numerous times that I have no sympathies for the Nazis, their ideology or crimes. But you can't sell me arguments against axial-flow jet engines or Death traps under disguise of anti-nazism.

 

6 hours ago, Toxn said:

You see, they always start friendly - just asking questions, just wanting to air their legitimate love of technology and design independent of the political nastiness that surrounded it. And it always ends in a welter of "which German tank ace would look the hottest as an anime princess" posts. So when some unfortunate soul comes in just asking questions and wanting to air their legitimate love of technology etc etc, we tend to stare hard and long at the underlying dynamics of the situation.

 

Because nobody wants to have to clean up the shit that wehraboos excrete once they congregate in any numbers.

Sure they exist, you are right to be vigilant. But you lot also got very comfortable in abusing anti-racism to push your national bias around. Perhaps you haven't noticed, your overblown claims are the primary ammunition of neo-nazis. Stick to the objectivity and there is no space for politics or racial theories.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, delete013 said:

That is no problem. I accept that the technical talk cannot be separated from the political context, in this case. I think I've been plenty accommodating and reiterated numerous times that I have no sympathies for the Nazis, their ideology or crimes. But you can't sell me arguments against axial-flow jet engines or Death traps under disguise of anti-nazism.

Ah, but that's exactly what our erstwhile friendly wehraboo would say :) 

 

And then, before you know it, it's off to "German tanks as big tiddy anime girls" and all the 101 other things that make us collectively want to restart civilization with hot neutrons.

 

10 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Sure they exist, you are right to be vigilant. But you lot also got very comfortable in abusing anti-racism to push your national bias around. Perhaps you haven't noticed, your overblown claims are the primary ammunition of neo-nazis. Stick to the objectivity and there is no space for politics or racial theories.

 

Sorry mate, I'm South African. Anti-racism IS my national bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, delete013 said:

That is no problem. I accept that the technical talk cannot be separated from the political context, in this case. I think I've been plenty accommodating and reiterated numerous times that I have no sympathies for the Nazis, their ideology or crimes. But you can't sell me arguments against axial-flow jet engines or Death traps under disguise of anti-nazism.

 

Sure they exist, you are right to be vigilant. But you lot also got very comfortable in abusing anti-racism to push your national bias around. Perhaps you haven't noticed, your overblown claims are the primary ammunition of neo-nazis. Stick to the objectivity and there is no space for politics or racial theories.

 

 

I find all of this very amusing since I didn't mention anything about the Nazis from whom that designation system comes, just that the chronology and geography didn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, delete013 said:

The overlapping road wheels and nomenclature are there obviously AS A JOKE. Since you already tossed me into the nazi corner, I might as well make fun of it.

 

I did laugh mightily at the interleaved road wheels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Ah, but that's exactly what our erstwhile friendly wehraboo would say :) 

 

And then, before you know it, it's off to "German tanks as big tiddy anime girls" and all the 101 other things that make us collectively want to restart civilization with hot neutrons.

I see you had a bad break up with an anime girl, hoho. I never gave much thought to Nazi ideology before I got invested in the online forums. Europe is very calm with it being swept on the wasteland of history.

 

26 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Sorry mate, I'm South African. Anti-racism IS my national bias.

Well, you ought to understand it. Not every white settler was a racist during the Apartheid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, delete013 said:

I see you had a bad break up with an anime girl, hoho. I never gave much thought to Nazi ideology before I got invested in the online forums. Europe is very calm with it being swept on the wasteland of history.

Europe is sleeping in the shadows of a recent past it pretends it has escaped. All that old evil it spent a century bleeding itself and the greater world dry over was not exorcized by a generation of consumerist socialism. It'll be back a second time - as farce rather than tragedy, of course.

 

31 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Well, you ought to understand it. Not every white settler was a racist during the Apartheid.

I think you know fokkol and should stop before you embarrass yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, delete013 said:

I see you had a bad break up with an anime girl, hoho. I never gave much thought to Nazi ideology before I got invested in the online forums. Europe is very calm with it being swept on the wasteland of history.

 

Well, you ought to understand it. Not every white settler was a racist during the Apartheid.

not-this-shit-46e6aab759.jpg

I'm not sure where the "racism" came from, unless Nazi's are a race? Highly doubt it, but if you think any of us are being racist towards Germans, we're not. 

 

 

Anyway, I added pictures and some more data on the Brahman. She's overweight and underpowered, but the armor is amazing. Dont know how much I can get done: never got this far so I dont know what I'm doing and I am disorganized. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 Dont know how much I can get done: never got this far so I dont know what I'm doing and I am disorganized. 

 

That's a good thing. Just put in a good effort to get something together that the judges can sink their teeth into, is my advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Anyway, I added pictures and some more data on the Brahman. She's overweight and underpowered, but the armor is amazing. Dont know how much I can get done: never got this far so I dont know what I'm doing and I am disorganized. 

She is a handful!

 

With my limited experience, I would check if you accounted for all the components. You can also reduce time by avoiding designing the special armour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can sensibly arrange your arrays to make sense without detailing them.

I strongly suggest at least sketching out the section of how you want your arrays to look to make sure you have enough space and weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, N-L-M said:

If you can sensibly arrange your arrays to make sense without detailing them.

I strongly suggest at least sketching out the section of how you want your arrays to look to make sure you have enough space and weight.

I specified the armour thickness and composition, then calculated the angled plate surface with trigonometry. Would that suffice for the commission?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A detailed section sketch including layer types (light ERA, heavy NERA, or what have you) and angles for each array type (hull front, turret side, skirts...) is requested if you do not have them fully modelled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, N-L-M said:

A detailed section sketch including layer types (light ERA, heavy NERA, or what have you) and angles for each array type (hull front, turret side, skirts...) is requested if you do not have them fully modelled.

Ok, I have it all in Appendix 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, delete013 said:

Ok, I have it all in Appendix 2.

You have text which is unclear. Dimensioned sketches of the arrays are requested, along with an explanation of how the "citadel" portion interacts with the rest of the armor.

Important information for the sketches:

Layer types, angles, air gaps, overall package dimensions.

 

Without this, the judges cannot verify that your armor packages meet the requirements or the stated weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

You have text which is unclear. Dimensioned sketches of the arrays are requested, along with an explanation of how the "citadel" portion interacts with the rest of the armor.

Important information for the sketches:

Layer types, angles, air gaps, overall package dimensions.

 

Without this, the judges cannot verify that your armor packages meet the requirements or the stated weight.

Good, I'll elaborate more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest version of the Monolith

 

9d34ce5d9a7c.png

 

The design team has been forced to make some unusual decisions due to the board's insistence that the tank be designed around the 71 line 6 3/4 pooder "tank gun" in order for it to be able to engage enemy shipping.

 

As a result of this in addition to the hp/ton ratio requirement we now have a 16 1/2 foot monstrosity.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dominus Dolorem said:

The latest version of the Monolith

 

9d34ce5d9a7c.png

 

The design team has been forced to make some unusual decisions due to the board's insistence that the tank be designed around the 71 line 6 3/4 pooder "tank gun" in order for it to be able to engage enemy shipping.

 

As a result of this in addition to the hp/ton ratio requirement we now have a 16 1/2 foot monstrosity.
 

I suppose a battleship contest won't be needed anymore.

 

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 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!
    • 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. 
×
×
  • Create New...