Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

Just now, Lord_James said:

Well, yeah, I’m not talented.

 

Nah, I don't think it's really a matter of "talent", tbh, I just like working with castings. It's sort of an eternal penance for fucking up the Donward's turret so bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Behold, the first images of the Howling Retriever: The armor packages are... not small. The weight of the structure and armor do however converge to a reasonable all up weight, as I planned.

CV90's big brother incoming: 

Some of them even make it back to the helipad they flew off from.

3 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

In regards to the complex surfaces and whatnot, you could always take the T-72B route and cast it in such a way as to have a nice hollow space to place a couple layers. 

 

You haven't seen my turret yet. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

3 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Nobody's using turbines right? I didn't mention it in this thread yet, nor update the range calculator, but there's an 0.7 times modifier on range for turbines.

 

Is the Lone state of Texas even able to produce high heat reistant alloys for turbine vanes? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Toxn said:

Something to note: with the change in ME/TE of HHA, textolite is now the supreme form of non-reactive armour. Build your arrays accordingly.


It shouldn’t, because the textolite ME/TE was for 260-300 bhn armor, not 360 bhn armor. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, N-L-M said:

I propose assuming the hardness of the RHA, as given, is flavor text, And that the TE and ME don't change.

Yay textolite! Yay good mass efficiency and terrible thickness efficiency!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

I propose assuming the hardness of the RHA, as given, is flavor text, And that the TE and ME don't change.


Oh boy... at least I can revert back to my original armor scheme :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

I propose assuming the hardness of the RHA, as given, is flavor text, And that the TE and ME don't change.


This applies to fused silica too, right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've decided on a nickname for my vehicle: Brahman. 

 

RJksl00.png

 

Just some updates: 

  • added sponsons 
  • reduced turret roof height by 6 inches 
  • increased barrel length to 32 calibers and breach counterweight (it is no longer "balanced", but I think I have a work around)
  • reduced upper front and roof plate thickness to 0.8 inches (20mm)
  • revised some geometry, to reduce weight (currently at 28.45 tons)

 

What would be a "good weight" for my engine? I have it currently modelled as 3.5 tons (3180 kg), including the liquid cooling and transmission. It's a 12 cylinder, 6.9 inch (175mm) bore by 7.1 inch (180mm) stroke, 1000hp engine based off the MB 838. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

I've decided on a nickname for my vehicle: Brahman. 

 

RJksl00.png

 

Just some updates: 

  • added sponsons 
  • reduced turret roof height by 6 inches 
  • increased barrel length to 32 calibers and breach counterweight (it is no longer "balanced", but I think I have a work around)
  • reduced upper front and roof plate thickness to 0.8 inches (20mm)
  • revised some geometry, to reduce weight (currently at 28.45 tons)

 

What would be a "good weight" for my engine? I have it currently modelled as 3.5 tons (3180 kg), including the liquid cooling and transmission. It's a 12 cylinder, 6.9 inch (175mm) bore by 7.1 inch (180mm) stroke, 1000hp engine based off the MB 838. 

 

That sounds about right. A decent transmission will be 2000 kg or so

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

That sounds about right. A decent transmission will be 2000 kg or so

 

I was thinking more along the lines of a beefed up Sherman transmission, preferably the "high speed reverse transmission" (mid-way down the page)

#33 The Sherman Of The Future: Advanced Sherman UpGrades That Almost Made It Into Production. | The Sherman Tank Site

 

But yeah, my components are too light, should be closer to 4 tons, the normal MB 838 is nearly 2 tons dry. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

 

I was thinking more along the lines of a beefed up Sherman transmission, preferably the "high speed reverse transmission" (mid-way down the page)

#33 The Sherman Of The Future: Advanced Sherman UpGrades That Almost Made It Into Production. | The Sherman Tank Site

 

But yeah, my components are too light, should be closer to 4 tons, the normal MB 838 is nearly 2 tons dry. 

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a105411.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2021 at 9:18 AM, Sturgeon said:

Nobody's using turbines right? I didn't mention it in this thread yet, nor update the range calculator, but there's an 0.7 times modifier on range for turbines.

 

I'm sticking with a forced induction diesel V-12, although the option of a turbine is interesting and may be compelling given the climatic conditions in the northern areas of Texan territory, a la the Russian Federation use of T-80 in their far northern areas. That being said, the 2240 cubic inch 60-degree diesel V-12 makes sufficient power when the specific power output of the AVDS-1790 is considered that it is more than sufficient for a vehicle of the protection and armament I am working with.

 

Also, as a solution to the loader situation, I'll be bringing an autoloaded 5"/48 gun in a welded box turret. 

 

@N-L-M What's the L:D permissible for steel DS penetrators?

Link to post
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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Monochromelody
      IDF had kept about 100 Tiran-6/T-62s since 1973, and remain service until 1990s. 
       
      I wonder if there's any modification on Tiran-6, like changing the powerpack into 8V71T+XTG-411, adapting steering wheel. 
       
      I also heard that British ROF had produce a batch of 115mm barrel for IDF, while MECAR or NEXTER produced high-performance APFSDS for 115mm gun. Did IDF really use these barrels for original barrel replacement? 
       
      And about protection, did IDF put Blazer ERA on Tiran-6? Or they use more advanced APS like Trophy? 
       
      Thank you. 
    • By Beer
      I haven't found an appropriate thread where to put some interesting rare stuff related to WW2 development, be it industrial one or makeshift field modifications. 
       
      Let's start with two things. The first one is a relatively recently found rarity from Swedish archives - a drawing of ČKD/BMM V8H-Sv tank. The drawing and a letter was found by WoT enthusiasts in Swedish archives in 2014 (the original announcement and the drawing source is here). The drawing is from a message dated 8th September 1941. One of the reasons why this drawing was not known before may be that the Czech archives were partially destroyed by floods in 2002. Anyway it is an export modification of the V-8-H tank accepted into Czechoslovak service as ST vz.39 but never produced due to the cancelation of all orders after Münich 1938 (for the same reason negotiations about licence production in Britain failed). Also later attempt to sell the tank to Romania failed due to BMM being fully busy with Wehrmacht priority orders. The negotiations with Sweden about licence production of V8H-Sv lasted till 1942, at least in May 1942 Swedish commission was present in Prague for negotiations. The tank differed compared to the base ST vz.39 in thicker armor with different front hull shape (armor 60 mm @ 30° on the hull front and also 60 mm on the turret; all sides were 40 mm thick). The tank was heavier (20 tons) and had the LT vz.38 style suspension with probably even larger wheels. The engine was still the same Praga NR V8 (240-250 Hp per source). The armament was unchanged with 47 mm Škoda A11 gun and two vz.37 HMG. The commander's cupola was of the simple small rotating type similar to those used on AH-IV-Sv tankettes. It is known that the Swedes officially asked to arm the tank with 75 mm gun, replace the engine with Volvo V12 and adding third HMG to the back of the turret. In the end the Swedes decided to prefer their own Strv/m42. 

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

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

       
       
      I have never heard of such nomenclature, and obviously I don't have access to such documents since I don't live in Japan. There is no reference for this part, so can anyone confirm that they actually did use "MTK" etc.?
    • By Monochromelody
      70 years ago, January the 2nd, 1951. To the North of Seoul, in the mountains and hills near Go-yang-tong(高阳洞), British 1RUR dug in and fought against advancing PVA forces. 1RUR got a task force called Cooperforce to support, this is a tank unit from Royal Tank Regiment and Royal Artillery, equipped with Cromwell tanks. 
      When Matthrew Ridgeway assigned the order of withdraw in this afternoon, the US force covering British force's left flank quickly escaped from their sector, leaving the British were completed unawared and uncovered. 
      When the night falls, was cold and dark in the valley. 1RUR had to withdraw in the darkness. All of a sudden, a US spotter aircraft flew over the valley, drop some illumination flares upon the retreating convoy. 
      Fierce battle broke out when flares fall down, PVA firing from all directions, the cold valley became deadly kill zone. Some PVA soldiers put away their rifles, assaulting with hand grenades, satchel charges and Bangalore torpedoes. They even set up mortars on the hill, laying shells with direct fire. 
      200 British soldiers and artillerymen were killed or captured in one night. 1RUR's Battalion Commander Tony Blake was believed KIA. Cooperforce was completely knocked out, all 12 tanks were destroyed or captured by light infantry. Leader Ashley Cooper were also killed. 



×
×
  • Create New...