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

[Sturgeon]

42 minutes ago, A. T. Mahan said:

 

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?

 

Wow, of serious competitors, you're number nine. Pretty sure that's the most interest we've ever had!

[Sturgeon]

Really excited to see all this interest, and welcome to the comp @A. T. Mahan!

[A. T. Mahan]

It'll be an interesting time, that's for sure. It'll be nice to work up and refine the design I have so far -- the NERA arrays should be pretty darn effective, all things considered. It'll be nice having a relatively simple design compared to the Californian gold-plated technotank.

[Sten]

Object 775 and K2 kitbashing gogogogo!

[Sturgeon]

I get the feeling that our next comp is going to have to be set in 2210 so that I can actually wring a "cold war era" tank out of you guys.

[N-L-M]

3 hours ago, A. T. Mahan said:

What's the L:D permissible for steel DS penetrators?

15:1 or so.

[Sturgeon]

4 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

15:1 or so.

 

Yeah the Texans have some really schnazzy steels by postwar standards but they are brand new to fin ammo so they're a decade or so off from 30:1 penetrators.

But when we do Texas: 2267, then:
 

 

[A. T. Mahan]

5 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

15:1 or so.

Very good! Thank you.

 

1 minute ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Yeah the Texans have some really schnazzy steels by postwar standards but they are brand new to fin ammo so they're a decade or so off from 30:1 penetrators.

But when we do Texas: 2267, then:
 

 

 

Specifically speaking to steels, is there a limit on tungsten or other alloying contents? I had been experimenting predominantly with low-tungsten alloys as a result of the Californian program, but if I can toss in some new herbs and spices it would be interesting to see the results. 

 

Additionally, if I desired the use of some exotic steels in armor, and can provide validation of claimed performance, is that allowed?

[Sturgeon]

9 minutes ago, A. T. Mahan said:

Very good! Thank you.

 

 

Specifically speaking to steels, is there a limit on tungsten or other alloying contents? I had been experimenting predominantly with low-tungsten alloys as a result of the Californian program, but if I can toss in some new herbs and spices it would be interesting to see the results. 

 

Additionally, if I desired the use of some exotic steels in armor, and can provide validation of claimed performance, is that allowed?

 

You cannot use longer than 6:1 LD tungsten or DU elements for the sake of forcing everyone to not use modern LRPs please for the love of god because Texan ballisticians have so far had severe shattering problems with alloys longer than that.

[A. T. Mahan]

2 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You cannot use longer than 6:1 LD tungsten or DU elements for the sake of forcing everyone to not use modern LRPs please for the love of god because Texan ballisticians have so far had severe shattering problems with alloys longer than that.

I was referring to mixing tungsten into the steel alloy — several of the alloys I looked at for the California contest were not viable there because they contained >100g of tungsten in “herbs and spices” of alloying elements, and that was prohibited. If it’s not allowed, that’s fine, I have non-tungsten-containing alloys for the penetrator I can use as well. 

[Sturgeon]

Just now, A. T. Mahan said:

I was referring to mixing tungsten into the steel alloy — several of the alloys I looked at for the California contest were not viable there because they contained >100g of tungsten in “herbs and spices” of alloying elements, and that was prohibited. If it’s not allowed, that’s fine, I have non-tungsten-containing alloys for the penetrator I can use as well. 

 

M1 steel is fine, I explicitly recommended it on the discord. Shall we say, tungsten content no higher than 20%?

[Sturgeon]

Uh also please note 15:1 LD applies to both solid steel and composite penetrators. For those of you thinking you'll get a 21:1 LD penetrator by gluing a 6:1 tungsten penetrator to a 15:1 steel penetrator. The reasoning here is seriously stop trying to cheat that the bonding capabilities of Texan engineers are not any better in terms of integrity under high g than the solid materials themselves.

[A. T. Mahan]

5 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

M1 steel is fine, I explicitly recommended it on the discord. Shall we say, tungsten content no higher than 20%?

 

Sure. I've got some peculiar recipes that have had very promising results both with the Lanz-Odermatt formulae and with the extreme-hardness/extreme-velocity calculator I wrote to make up for when L-O stops working due to shifts in how the penetrator and target behave at like 1750m/s impact velocity. 

 

Are segmented rods OK, or do we need to stay monolithic?

[Sturgeon]

Just now, A. T. Mahan said:

Are segmented rods OK, or do we need to stay monolithic?

 

We've already got guys working on segmented rods. I wouldn't dream of pulling the rug out from under them at the last minute!

(Yes segmented rods are ok).

[A. T. Mahan]

11 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

We've already got guys working on segmented rods. I wouldn't dream of pulling the rug out from under them at the last minute!

(Yes segmented rods are ok).

 

Hey, you did that to us last time because "darts are too phallic", never mind that my 3BM2 was doing >16" at 2000yd

[Sturgeon]

Real quick I just want to say something regarding all the strange last-minute rules clarifications and de-facto requirements additions. This competition was originally considered less than a mini-comp. The Texas truck competition collapsed so badly that I didn't think it would garner any interest again, but me and another member wanted to try our hands at an MBT anyway. Once I opened it to everyone, interest exploded, and the OP was now under a lot more scrutiny and force of creativity than I expected. (Now, having said that, I am very proud of the specification I laid down as I think it strikes a really good balance - as evidenced by the fact that we have nearly ten serious competitors.) To compensate for having to "clean house while serving drinks", there is currently no deadline. We will establish one once everything has stabilized, and everyone's a good ways into their projects.

Happy drafting!

[Sturgeon]

3 minutes ago, A. T. Mahan said:

 

Hey, you did that to us last time because "darts are too phallic", never mind that my 3BM2 was doing >16" at 2000yd

 

Yep, what you don't know is the "gimmick" of the California comp was from the get-go to pull the rug out from everyone. All those requirements changes were planned ahead of time.

Really.

[Sturgeon]

Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

Yep, what you don't know is the "gimmick" of the California comp was from the get-go to pull the rug out from everyone. All those requirements changes were planned ahead of time.

Really.

 

For the record, no we are not doing that this time. Not deliberately, anyway.

[Sturgeon]

The Cali comp was just this huge learning experience for the showrunners. We learned the wrong lessons from the Cascadian competition, specifically that our members could handle a lot more than we were throwing at them. It's honestly a testament to everybody here that you even tried to meet the challenge of the Cali comp. Throwing in deliberate, planned requirements changes mid-stream was just... Cruel.

We'll probably use that gimmick again, but definitely not with a competition as rigorous as that one.

[Sturgeon]

Quintuple power posting: This competition does have a "gimmick" btw. It's not secret, it's built into the spec you've already seen.

 

It might be fun for you guys to guess what it is!

[A. T. Mahan]

I mean, I did all the CAD work for the Cali competition in inches anyway -- I haven't had a chance to look at the appendices to the RFP yet, but I'm quite confident that once I finish up the turret and frontal hull, and then work up the armor arrays, that my vehicle will meet the appropriate requirements. The lots-of-independent-machine-guns thing is going to certainly be interesting on a relatively light three man tank, but I'm sure I'll manage. 

[Sturgeon]

1 minute ago, A. T. Mahan said:

I mean, I did all the CAD work for the Cali competition in inches anyway -- I haven't had a chance to look at the appendices to the RFP yet, but I'm quite confident that once I finish up the turret and frontal hull, and then work up the armor arrays, that my vehicle will meet the appropriate requirements. The lots-of-independent-machine-guns thing is going to certainly be interesting on a relatively light three man tank, but I'm sure I'll manage. 

 

I'm doing all my work in metric and submitting in inches because I'm deranged.

[A. T. Mahan]

Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

I'm doing all my work in metric and submitting in inches because I'm deranged.

 

I did it the other way around last time, it's not that bad -- the millimeter is already defined as 1/25.4 of an inch.

[Sturgeon]

Just now, A. T. Mahan said:

 

I did it the other way around last time, it's not that bad -- the millimeter is already defined as 1/25.4 of an inch.

I thought it was the inch was defined in millimeters.

[A. T. Mahan]

Just now, Sturgeon said:

I thought it was the inch was defined in millimeters.

Shhhhhhhh