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:

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

 

I am honestly surprised that you managed to make a smaller tank than I did.

 

Especially considering that you were talking about widened E100 tracks and 60+ ton armor masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2021 at 2:02 AM, Dominus Dolorem said:

I am honestly surprised that you managed to make a smaller tank than I did.

 

Especially considering that you were talking about widened E100 tracks and 60+ ton armor masses.

It does use similar tracks to Tiger 1 and weight is near to that of tiger 2. And I made a rough design for a 1000 tonne fortress..

 

However, I think anything at 100 tonnes with 60ies tech is a specialised tool and not a principal fighting vehicle. With weak air component I admit the weight would offer neat potential. But it would run into problems at navigating some of Texas' terrain and Texan tactics are not well known to me. Not sure if their combined arms would offer sufficient protection for fewer large and expensive vehicles. Maybe for another contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2021 at 2:02 AM, Dominus Dolorem said:

I am honestly surprised that you managed to make a smaller tank than I did.

 

Especially considering that you were talking about widened E100 tracks and 60+ ton armor masses.

I do wonder, though, how you calculated weight in blender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, delete013 said:

It does use similar tracks to Tiger 1 and weight is near to that of tiger 2. And I made a rough design for a 1000 tonne fortress..

 

However, I think anything at 100 tonnes with 60ies tech is a specialised tool and not a principal fighting vehicle. With weak air component I admit the weight would offer neat potential. But it would run into problems at navigating some of Texas' terrain and Texan tactics are not well known to me. Not sure if their combined arms would offer sufficient protection for fewer large and expensive vehicles. Maybe for another contest.

Perhaps after this we could have a private competition to see who can create the best wunderwaffle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dominus Dolorem said:

it has a 3d printing plugin that can calculate volume

Okay, I did the same.

7 hours ago, Dominus Dolorem said:

Perhaps after this we could have a private competition to see who can create the best wunderwaffle.

That would be quite exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

   Few questions that judges have for 2 submissions:

@Sturgeon

  1. We would like to know about how commander sight works. It is located on other side of a turret from a commander, as i understand, which makes optics not a real option how to transfer information from sight to commander's eyes.
  2. 4 remote controlled MG location, i'm not sure where it is located exactly.
  3. Hull bottom armor and mine protection is unclear. What is thickness of a bottom hull plate?
  4. APU location - where it is?

 

@Fareastmenace

  1. Fuel tanks in sponsons - are they armored?
  2. Do we understand right - your design have no internal (inside of the hull) fuel at all?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LoooSeR
1. It's a prism connection like a periscope. Admittedly, fairly complicated, but I really wanted to have that feature.
2. If you refer back to Mastodon they are in a similar location, but with paired up machine guns instead of single units. I didn't have time to model them.
3. Ah, it seems I forgot to add the floor to the array appendix. The belly is 0.875 inches RHA with 0.25 inches HHA stapled to it, if I recall correctly.
4. Above the transmission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Few questions that judges have for 2 submissions:

@Sturgeon

  1. We would like to know about how commander sight works. It is located on other side of a turret from a commander, as i understand, which makes optics not a real option how to transfer information from sight to commander's eyes.
  2. 4 remote controlled MG location, i'm not sure where it is located exactly.
  3. Hull bottom armor and mine protection is unclear. What is thickness of a bottom hull plate?
  4. APU location - where it is?

 

@Fareastmenace

  1. Fuel tanks in sponsons - are they armored?
  2. Do we understand right - your design have no internal (inside of the hull) fuel at all?

 

 

1- they are against light threat: 1.85"RHAe in the frontal portion, 1.1" RHAe in the rear portion, 0.75" RHAe on the top

 

2- not sure if sponsons are counted as in hull, as the sponsons are modeled as part of the base hull, and not just suspended outside

Anyhow, there is space in the engine compartment for (non modeled) back up tanks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2021 at 12:31 AM, Sturgeon said:

@LoooSeR
1. It's a prism connection like a periscope. Admittedly, fairly complicated, but I really wanted to have that feature.
2. If you refer back to Mastodon they are in a similar location, but with paired up machine guns instead of single units. I didn't have time to model them.
3. Ah, it seems I forgot to add the floor to the array appendix. The belly is 0.875 inches RHA with 0.25 inches HHA stapled to it, if I recall correctly.
4. Above the transmission.

   Additional questions - where is ammo ready rack located? Can you also add details to how wet ammo rack design works with mechanised loading system?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Toxn

Few questions:

  • Are there any additional features to boost mine protection of both proposed designs?
  • Can you provide more details on design of fuel tanks around driver? 
  • Can you point out location of hull ammo racks and placement of blow out panels for them?
  • Would like to know level of protection and armor details of crew hatches.
  • Also would like to clear things out - optic on mast on Derebus is a stereo rangefinder?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

@Toxn

Few questions:

  • Are there any additional features to boost mine protection of both proposed designs?
  • Can you provide more details on design of fuel tanks around driver? 
  • Can you point out location of hull ammo racks and placement of blow out panels for them?
  • Would like to know level of protection and armor details of crew hatches.
  • Also would like to clear things out - optic on mast on Derebus is a stereo rangefinder?
  • There are no features planned beyond the standard sling seats, although as noted the 25mm/1" floor and the external suspension units (steel torsion bars and swing-arm axles housed in aluminium boxes) should make the vehicle very survivable against mine blasts by giving the blast energy a lot of things to deform and wreck before it hits the hull floor itself. The wrecked suspension units can then be scraped off and replaced with new ones.
  • I'll have to look at my CAD models again, but from memory the front fuel tank sits in front of the driver and then wraps around and meets with the ammunition storage boxes on either side of him.

 

Edit: I've had a look at the CAD models. The fuel tanks don't quite meet in the front, but angle in along with the hull. The driver's position is a capsule that terminates in a ~32cm wide front portion - just wide enough to fit pedals (throttle, brake) and the feet behind them (where it's slightly wider). Drivers with particularly wide feet may have to take their boots off.

 

  • The blow out panels for the hull racks can be seen in the pictures accompanying Appendix 2. They vent out to the left and right of the upper hull at an angle (forwards and upwards).
  • The crew hatches have the same protection scheme as the surrounding armour, with the driver's hatch being covered up to the line of sight of the driver's periscope by the surrounding ERA panels. They would include an internal strut/spring arrangement to counterbalance the weight and make them easy to open and close. Two small ERA panels could be used to cover up the remaining weakspot on either side of the driver's periscope, but my understanding is that small ERA panels don't provide as much effectiveness as larger ones so I'd expect them to be left off unless urban fighting is expected.
  • The tall optic on Derebus is a vertical coincidence rangefinder - instead of slicing the image horizontally it slices it vertically. The base length isn't amazing (about 1m IIRC) but the acquisition should be relatively fast and the errors small enough for the high-velocity rounds that Derebus is intended to use. As a bonus, it can still function as a gunsight in the event that one of the optics gets shot out - you simply remove the component blocking half the image from one or the other of the lenses.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2021 at 1:15 PM, LoooSeR said:

   Additional questions - where is ammo ready rack located? Can you also add details to how wet ammo rack design works with mechanised loading system?

 

 

Ammo ready rack is in the turret basket, opposite the gunner.

 

The loading system is only semi-mechanized, so the ammo rack safety system works exactly as it would in a manually loaded tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   Judges of this competition want to inform @Lord_James and @delete013that your submissions where excluded from this competition.

  • Lord James submission wasn't finished in time and it is incomplete, lacking critical data. Sorry, James, would be interesting to see results if you could finalise your design.
  • Delete submission doesn't meet requirements for submission itself.... Failure at basic reading skills. Although judges reviewed design itself and will comment on it later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LoooSeR said:
  • Delete submission doesn't meet requirements for submission itself.... Failure at basic reading skills. Although judges reviewed design itself and will comment on it later.

If imperial units were so indispensable, you could have said something before or throw my submission out the moment it was posted. Unless there were other plans..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

If imperial units were so indispensable, you could have said something before

1) It was said before, right in the first post.

Reading-is-hard

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

 Unless there were other plans..

2) Your submission was reviewed, and you wouldn't have won with this design anyway. It is insane and several elements are simply reality-bending piece of work. As i said previously, later judges will comment of this submission.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, delete013 said:

If imperial units were so indispensable, you could have said something before or throw my submission out the moment it was posted. Unless there were other plans..

Cool your jets with the conspiratorial stuff.

 

LoooSeR is one of our most experienced and valuable posters, and provides something that every project needs in his role as a judge: terminal slavic pessimism. And he does so without fear, favour or bias.

This is a man who could look upon the face of God himself and then provide detailed commentary on elements in need of improvement. And we're damn thankful for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Cool your jets with the conspiratorial stuff.

 

LoooSeR is one of our most experienced and valuable posters, and provides something that every project needs in his role as a judge: terminal slavic pessimism. And he does so without fear, favour or bias.

This is a man who could look upon the face of God himself and then provide detailed commentary on elements in need of improvement. And we're damn thankful for it.

 

I have yet to meet a Russian that does not display irrational hatred for all German. Your esteemed colleague could well be that exception, in which case you should indeed be thankful.

 

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

2) Your submission was reviewed, and you wouldn't have won with this design anyway. It is insane and several elements are simply reality-bending piece of work. As i said previously, later judges will comment of this submission.

 

Good, I need nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, delete013 said:

What fault are you talking about?

The fault of failing to read, or ignoring, the requirements for the submissions.

 

Which is LMAO, but would be fine and everyone has days of retardation, but no... you had to whine like the little bitch you are, had to blame on the evil Russians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sten said:

The fault of failing to read, or ignoring, the requirements for the submissions.

 

Which is LMAO, but would be fine and everyone has days of retardation, but no... you had to whine, had to blame on the evil Russians.

Neither did I deny my error, nor have I blamed it on Russians. You failed to understand the written or feign ignorance. Which one is it?

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...