Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Sturgeon
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

I think it would depend heavily on the terrain. Something I only realised about the Stumpy after the competition is that its MMP is ass, so any kind of swampy terrain would be a nightmare for it. On firm, rolling ground, however, I think it could just sling giant HEAT missiles at the Monolith until something gives out.

 

What is the range of the LUB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

I think it would depend heavily on the terrain. Something I only realised about the Stumpy after the competition is that its MMP is ass, so any kind of swampy terrain would be a nightmare for it. On firm, rolling ground, however, I think it could just sling giant HEAT missiles at the Monolith until something gives out.

 

I notice that most 2247 competitors would probably eat Stumpy alive. Comanche for example has ~530mm RHA pen at 2kyd. Plus Comanche is immune to the 85mm on Stimpy through a generous frontal arc. Kind of funny since Stimpy is supposed to be a later tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I notice that most 2247 competitors would probably eat Stumpy alive. Comanche for example has ~530mm RHA pen at 2kyd. Plus Comanche is immune to the 85mm on Stimpy through a generous frontal arc. Kind of funny since Stimpy is supposed to be a later tank.

Ja, Stumpy is more or less an armoured brick with a fairly anemic main gun and a very silly meme-missile.

 

It's pretty on brand with how the DPRC was portrayed though - wonky, dysfunctional and grasping for gee-whiz solutions to problems caused by their own dogma. Its configuration is also a pretty predictable outcome given the very stringent restrictions placed on the competitors (most especially the width limitation, ground pressure requirements, side protection requirements against HEAT charges, and gun restrictions).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@N-L-M

First, sorry for the units mess up, it must have been annoying convergin to and fro. Thanks for commenting on my piece too.
I have a few clarifications to provide and a few question to the evaluation.

 

the bad:
-Hull structure insufficiently thick for structural reasons

 

Where is it too thin?

 

-armor does not reach required or claimed protection level (side threat, mine threat, frontal protection of powerpack)

 

My claims about the hull for mission kill are indeed wrong, for the crew compartment are right. The distinction between immobilised tank and crew killed was not specified, afaik. Maybe it is a common knowledge?

Bottom is combined 1.25" in two layers. That is too thin for mine protection?

 

-armor does not provide protection against growth threats.

 

What are growth threats?

 

-engine compartment far too small for the desired powerpack.
-attempting to mount a transverse V12 1500HP engine alongside the driver speaks of a lack of spatial reasoning skills.

 

I had MTU 873 (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/5713483/twelve-cylinder-diesel-engine-mb-873-for-heavy-mtu-shop) main block without turbochargers in mind (turbo would have to be relocated). This leaves about 8 inches of space to the side for some sort of connection with a gearbox of the size of Renk HSWL 295. None of the two are 60ies tech so 1000 HP is more realistic and still fulfills the requirements. The side arrangement is known from T-55 so I assumed it would be possible. Coolers are pushed into sponsons to each side, the 4 big black squares. None of this was exactly decided, but likely indeed too small for existing engines.

 

-Use of single pin, unbushed, tracks gives poor track life, particularly in sandy environments, and is therefore unsuitable to long range self-deploying operations. It is difficult to choose a track link less suitable to the operating environment of the LFS, and along with the overlapped and interleaved suspension speaks of blind cargo culting without understanding the tradeoffs involved.

 

The tracks I used are also sturdier (and heavier) that the usual double pin tension tracks. Since mines are the easiest and likely the most common denial method in the imagined low-tech societies, it was hoped to give more robustness to the vehicle. The speed was limited for the purpose of compensation. I have no feeling how much tnt tracks can survive.

 

-there is a contradiction between the stated height of the turret, roughly 22", and the stated ammunition capacity of 33 rounds of 4.7" ammo. The case head diameter of 4.7" Kraut is roughly 6.7", which cannot be fit 3 deep with armor above and below and in an autoloader within those dimensional limitations.

 

The height of the munuition basket is exactly 23.228" (590mm). This gives 23.228 - (6.7" x 3 + 0,984" (plate thickness roof/bottom)) = 2.14" space. The bustle part of the autoloader has no drum or rotation, just pushing shells out of the boxes, towards the middle.

 

-The autoloader, as described, is unworkable. Doubly so for the replenishment mechanism.
-The gun, as modelled, appears to lack the recoil mechanism. The original Kraut 4.7" gun has a length of approximately 54" from the trunnion to the rear of the breech ring. With this length, and at least 12" for recoil taken into account, we end up with 66" of length from the trunnion to the end of the gun stroke. Even within a fairly large 85" ring, this leaves no room for the 40" , at least, needed for the proposed drum autoloader.
-2-axis elevation pretty much by definition makes stabilization impossible, as at least one, if not both, of the axes are nowhere near the center of gravity of the elevating mass, greatly increasing to unmanageable levels the power required of the elevation drive. Such a system has never before been proposed for a stabilized gun, and for very good reason, namely that it is absurd.

 

XmKutu6.png

 

Recoil space is exactly 19.685". Simulated shell length is 39.37".

There is enough space because the trunion is pushed forward over the turret ring. That would make it quite out of balance, so the cannon with the front axle is inbedded in a frame holding the rear axle and the second stage autoloader with the drum. The weight is distributed all the way back to the rear end of the turret ring with the 1200 lbs autoloader weight. That would further mean a lot of weight on the turret ring so the latter is about 10" broad. If that is feasible goes beyond my, let's say,0 engineering imagination. Might as well be wishful thinking but that is the price of of elevated reloading?

Any more details why the replenishment from the hull would be impossible?

 

the ugly:
-The volume which is supposed to be dedicated to fuel is entirely unclear.

 

wSV8jyY.png

Internals without sponsons and citadel. The black boxes are main and reserve fuel tank. Blue are engine and transmission space. You just had to ask.

The fuel part with the side plate is also exactly the width of the engine box. Hence the mounting parallel with the driver. In that case the shaft needs a transfer towards the middle, into the transmission.

 

-Claimed range is less than desired.

 

Why is that the ugly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, delete013 said:

@N-L-M

First, sorry for the units mess up, it must have been annoying convergin to and fro. Thanks for commenting on my piece too.
I have a few clarifications to provide and a few question to the evaluation.

 

the bad:
-Hull structure insufficiently thick for structural reasons

 

Where is it too thin?

 

-armor does not reach required or claimed protection level (side threat, mine threat, frontal protection of powerpack)

 

My claims about the hull for mission kill are indeed wrong, for the crew compartment are right. The distinction between immobilised tank and crew killed was not specified, afaik. Maybe it is a common knowledge?

Bottom is combined 1.25" in two layers. That is too thin for mine protection?

 

-armor does not provide protection against growth threats.

 

What are growth threats?

 

-engine compartment far too small for the desired powerpack.
-attempting to mount a transverse V12 1500HP engine alongside the driver speaks of a lack of spatial reasoning skills.

 

I had MTU 873 (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/5713483/twelve-cylinder-diesel-engine-mb-873-for-heavy-mtu-shop) main block without turbochargers in mind (turbo would have to be relocated). This leaves about 8 inches of space to the side for some sort of connection with a gearbox of the size of Renk HSWL 295. None of the two are 60ies tech so 1000 HP is more realistic and still fulfills the requirements. The side arrangement is known from T-55 so I assumed it would be possible. Coolers are pushed into sponsons to each side, the 4 big black squares. None of this was exactly decided, but likely indeed too small for existing engines.

 

-Use of single pin, unbushed, tracks gives poor track life, particularly in sandy environments, and is therefore unsuitable to long range self-deploying operations. It is difficult to choose a track link less suitable to the operating environment of the LFS, and along with the overlapped and interleaved suspension speaks of blind cargo culting without understanding the tradeoffs involved.

 

The tracks I used are also sturdier (and heavier) that the usual double pin tension tracks. Since mines are the easiest and likely the most common denial method in the imagined low-tech societies, it was hoped to give more robustness to the vehicle. The speed was limited for the purpose of compensation. I have no feeling how much tnt tracks can survive.

 

-there is a contradiction between the stated height of the turret, roughly 22", and the stated ammunition capacity of 33 rounds of 4.7" ammo. The case head diameter of 4.7" Kraut is roughly 6.7", which cannot be fit 3 deep with armor above and below and in an autoloader within those dimensional limitations.

 

The height of the munuition basket is exactly 23.228" (590mm). This gives 23.228 - (6.7" x 3 + 0,984" (plate thickness roof/bottom)) = 2.14" space. The bustle part of the autoloader has no drum or rotation, just pushing shells out of the boxes, towards the middle.

 

-The autoloader, as described, is unworkable. Doubly so for the replenishment mechanism.
-The gun, as modelled, appears to lack the recoil mechanism. The original Kraut 4.7" gun has a length of approximately 54" from the trunnion to the rear of the breech ring. With this length, and at least 12" for recoil taken into account, we end up with 66" of length from the trunnion to the end of the gun stroke. Even within a fairly large 85" ring, this leaves no room for the 40" , at least, needed for the proposed drum autoloader.
-2-axis elevation pretty much by definition makes stabilization impossible, as at least one, if not both, of the axes are nowhere near the center of gravity of the elevating mass, greatly increasing to unmanageable levels the power required of the elevation drive. Such a system has never before been proposed for a stabilized gun, and for very good reason, namely that it is absurd.

 

XmKutu6.png

 

Recoil space is exactly 19.685". Simulated shell length is 39.37".

There is enough space because the trunion is pushed forward over the turret ring. That would make it quite out of balance, so the cannon with the front axle is inbedded in a frame holding the rear axle and the second stage autoloader with the drum. The weight is distributed all the way back to the rear end of the turret ring with the 1200 lbs autoloader weight. That would further mean a lot of weight on the turret ring so the latter is about 10" broad. If that is feasible goes beyond my, let's say,0 engineering imagination. Might as well be wishful thinking but that is the price of of elevated reloading?

Any more details why the replenishment from the hull would be impossible?

 

the ugly:
-The volume which is supposed to be dedicated to fuel is entirely unclear.

 

wSV8jyY.png

Internals without sponsons and citadel. The black boxes are main and reserve fuel tank. Blue are engine and transmission space. You just had to ask.

The fuel part with the side plate is also exactly the width of the engine box. Hence the mounting parallel with the driver. In that case the shaft needs a transfer towards the middle, into the transmission.

 

-Claimed range is less than desired.

 

Why is that the ugly?

WEW! Ugly cope...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, delete013 said:

@N-L-M

First, sorry for the units mess up, it must have been annoying convergin to and fro. Thanks for commenting on my piece too.
I have a few clarifications to provide and a few question to the evaluation.

 

the bad:
-Hull structure insufficiently thick for structural reasons

 

Where is it too thin?

 

-armor does not reach required or claimed protection level (side threat, mine threat, frontal protection of powerpack)

 

My claims about the hull for mission kill are indeed wrong, for the crew compartment are right. The distinction between immobilised tank and crew killed was not specified, afaik. Maybe it is a common knowledge?

Bottom is combined 1.25" in two layers. That is too thin for mine protection?

 

-armor does not provide protection against growth threats.

 

What are growth threats?

 

-engine compartment far too small for the desired powerpack.
-attempting to mount a transverse V12 1500HP engine alongside the driver speaks of a lack of spatial reasoning skills.

 

I had MTU 873 (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/5713483/twelve-cylinder-diesel-engine-mb-873-for-heavy-mtu-shop) main block without turbochargers in mind (turbo would have to be relocated). This leaves about 8 inches of space to the side for some sort of connection with a gearbox of the size of Renk HSWL 295. None of the two are 60ies tech so 1000 HP is more realistic and still fulfills the requirements. The side arrangement is known from T-55 so I assumed it would be possible. Coolers are pushed into sponsons to each side, the 4 big black squares. None of this was exactly decided, but likely indeed too small for existing engines.

 

-Use of single pin, unbushed, tracks gives poor track life, particularly in sandy environments, and is therefore unsuitable to long range self-deploying operations. It is difficult to choose a track link less suitable to the operating environment of the LFS, and along with the overlapped and interleaved suspension speaks of blind cargo culting without understanding the tradeoffs involved.

 

The tracks I used are also sturdier (and heavier) that the usual double pin tension tracks. Since mines are the easiest and likely the most common denial method in the imagined low-tech societies, it was hoped to give more robustness to the vehicle. The speed was limited for the purpose of compensation. I have no feeling how much tnt tracks can survive.

 

-there is a contradiction between the stated height of the turret, roughly 22", and the stated ammunition capacity of 33 rounds of 4.7" ammo. The case head diameter of 4.7" Kraut is roughly 6.7", which cannot be fit 3 deep with armor above and below and in an autoloader within those dimensional limitations.

 

The height of the munuition basket is exactly 23.228" (590mm). This gives 23.228 - (6.7" x 3 + 0,984" (plate thickness roof/bottom)) = 2.14" space. The bustle part of the autoloader has no drum or rotation, just pushing shells out of the boxes, towards the middle.

 

-The autoloader, as described, is unworkable. Doubly so for the replenishment mechanism.
-The gun, as modelled, appears to lack the recoil mechanism. The original Kraut 4.7" gun has a length of approximately 54" from the trunnion to the rear of the breech ring. With this length, and at least 12" for recoil taken into account, we end up with 66" of length from the trunnion to the end of the gun stroke. Even within a fairly large 85" ring, this leaves no room for the 40" , at least, needed for the proposed drum autoloader.
-2-axis elevation pretty much by definition makes stabilization impossible, as at least one, if not both, of the axes are nowhere near the center of gravity of the elevating mass, greatly increasing to unmanageable levels the power required of the elevation drive. Such a system has never before been proposed for a stabilized gun, and for very good reason, namely that it is absurd.

 

XmKutu6.png

 

Recoil space is exactly 19.685". Simulated shell length is 39.37".

There is enough space because the trunion is pushed forward over the turret ring. That would make it quite out of balance, so the cannon with the front axle is inbedded in a frame holding the rear axle and the second stage autoloader with the drum. The weight is distributed all the way back to the rear end of the turret ring with the 1200 lbs autoloader weight. That would further mean a lot of weight on the turret ring so the latter is about 10" broad. If that is feasible goes beyond my, let's say,0 engineering imagination. Might as well be wishful thinking but that is the price of of elevated reloading?

Any more details why the replenishment from the hull would be impossible?

 

the ugly:
-The volume which is supposed to be dedicated to fuel is entirely unclear.

 

wSV8jyY.png

Internals without sponsons and citadel. The black boxes are main and reserve fuel tank. Blue are engine and transmission space. You just had to ask.

The fuel part with the side plate is also exactly the width of the engine box. Hence the mounting parallel with the driver. In that case the shaft needs a transfer towards the middle, into the transmission.

 

-Claimed range is less than desired.

 

Why is that the ugly?


I thought you made it very clear you didn’t want to be here anymore, so why come back? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose if you insist on making a fool of yourself in public, we can only cooperate.


 

15 hours ago, delete013 said:

Where is it too thin?

The belly, being 0.6" RHA with an extra 0.4", is not a single plate and will therefore not have nearly the stiffness of a single plate. The rest of the hull and turret structure, likewise, by using 0.8"-1" base plates onto which the thinner armor packs are tacked on, are all very thin for a vehicle of this weight. Especially when one uses a form of suspension which applies high bending loads to the hull sides, and a powerful gun applying high structural loads. The roof too, at 0.4" base with an extra box structure on top, leaves a lot to be desired.
Stiffness scales with the cube of the plate thickness, and the allowable bending moment with the square. In this context, therefore, 2 thin plates, even if rigidly welded into a box structure, are not equivalent to one thick one.
 

 

15 hours ago, delete013 said:

My claims about the hull for mission kill are indeed wrong, for the crew compartment are right. The distinction between immobilised tank and crew killed was not specified, afaik. Maybe it is a common knowledge?

Bottom is combined 1.25" in two layers. That is too thin for mine protection?

No such distinction was offered because no such distinction was requested. The LFS does not look kindly upon this cavalier attitude to vehicle survivability.
Also last time I checked 0.6" plus 0.4" with an air gap between them is less than 1.25" of steel, as well as being significantly less stiff as explained above.

15 hours ago, delete013 said:

What are growth threats?

Cascadian 3.54" HEDP, Cascadian BGM-1 tandem ATGM, and Mormon 2"/4" tandem warhead. at various elevations.
Kudos to @Fareastmenace for correctly guessing 2 out of 3, and being real close on the third.
 

 

15 hours ago, delete013 said:

I had MTU 873 (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/5713483/twelve-cylinder-diesel-engine-mb-873-for-heavy-mtu-shop) main block without turbochargers in mind (turbo would have to be relocated). This leaves about 8 inches of space to the side for some sort of connection with a gearbox of the size of Renk HSWL 295. None of the two are 60ies tech so 1000 HP is more realistic and still fulfills the requirements. The side arrangement is known from T-55 so I assumed it would be possible. Coolers are pushed into sponsons to each side, the 4 big black squares. None of this was exactly decided, but likely indeed too small for existing engines.


The problem is not the concept of transversely mounted engines, but rather your desire to mount one alongside the driver. there is not enough width, this will not fit.
Also, the named engine block will not fit by itself in a 1.5 m^3 engine bay you assigned to it. So again, the point stands, a lack of basic spatial reasoning skills.

If however you mean to put a transverse engine in front of the driver as your model suggests, the question of where all the bits and bobs you've removed from the engine to squeeze it in go, and just how far back a driver has to sit to comfortably fit. The meaning for the length of the engine deck and the position of the turret ring are both clear and negative.
 

 

16 hours ago, delete013 said:

The tracks I used are also sturdier (and heavier) that the usual double pin tension tracks. Since mines are the easiest and likely the most common denial method in the imagined low-tech societies, it was hoped to give more robustness to the vehicle. The speed was limited for the purpose of compensation. I have no feeling how much tnt tracks can survive.

Mines are a distinctly secondary concern to getting places in one piece in the first place, and mines will break single pin tracks too. The much higher wear of a single pin track limits the deployability of the vehicle, as well as its lower energy efficiency lowering both speed and range.
 

 

16 hours ago, delete013 said:

This gives 23.228 - (6.7" x 3 + 0,984" (plate thickness roof/bottom)) = 2.14" space.

a roughly 0.5" top and 0.5" bottom are both very very thin, and even then there's not enough room for the kind of rack mechanism proposed. Shells don't just exist in midair, and the mechanism proposed does not have enough space for the kinds of rails needed. In fact, it hardly has enough space for a static rack. It's also worth noting that 4.7" Kraut, by its nature, has fairly fragile ammunition which needs to be babied to prevent it from falling apart, and so rack solutions such as that used on the IS-7 load assist are not very applicable. Even there, however, the structure to support the rounds was substantial:
autoloader-1.jpg
This of course being the closest system to that which you propose.
One would note that the autoloader must support the ammunition in all the various accelerations and shocks of driving and combat, which with heavy ammunition means a substantial structure is required, one for which you left no room. This structure is also the reason why the proposed mechanized magazine reload is nothing but a joke.
Perhaps by reducing the turret load to 20 rounds such a system could be contemplated, but again the need to protect the combustible case from damage during travel or handling would not be addressed at all.
 

 

17 hours ago, delete013 said:

There is enough space because the trunion is pushed forward over the turret ring. That would make it quite out of balance, so the cannon with the front axle is inbedded in a frame holding the rear axle and the second stage autoloader with the drum. The weight is distributed all the way back to the rear end of the turret ring with the 1200 lbs autoloader weight. That would further mean a lot of weight on the turret ring so the latter is about 10" broad. If that is feasible goes beyond my, let's say,0 engineering imagination. Might as well be wishful thinking but that is the price of of elevated reloading?

2035092_800.png
You appear to have missed quite a bit of the gun's length inboard of the trunnion. Note too that the breech ring extends down quite a bit from the cradle, and the breech block even more when open. All of which speak against the forwards trunnion location even if we ignore the 2-ais solution which is still a farce. The broadly accepted view in the business of armored vehicles is that returning to a loading elevation is perfectly acceptable, and that all-angle loading isn't all that important.
 

 

17 hours ago, delete013 said:

 

Why is that the ugly?

Because it is neither good nor truly bad,  as the minimum requirement is met. And all must be divided up between the good, the bad, and the ugly.
tumblr_mjoeczwgV11rylr5to3_400.gifv
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Cascadian 3.54" HEDP, Cascadian BGM-1 tandem ATGM, and Mormon 2"/4" tandem warhead. at various elevations.

 

We should also note that these are not just nasty surprises the judges are pulling on people, these threats are described in previous competitions (either weapons of the winners, or threats described in other solicitations). Plus, you can simply infer their existence based on the history of the 20th Century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, N-L-M said:

I suppose if you insist on making a fool of yourself in public, we can only cooperate.

Whatever makes you happy. My engineering started with this contest, what did you expect? I want my concept torn apart. I've no idea why there is no discussion afterwards, maybe others are afraid the issues of their designs might come out?:rolleyes: I would also expect an exchange of opinions, but some made it so toxic it is likely not going to happen.

 

Anyway, I hope you don't mind discussing a bit more.
 

19 hours ago, N-L-M said:

The belly, being 0.6" RHA with an extra 0.4", is not a single plate and will therefore not have nearly the stiffness of a single plate. The rest of the hull and turret structure, likewise, by using 0.8"-1" base plates onto which the thinner armor packs are tacked on, are all very thin for a vehicle of this weight. Especially when one uses a form of suspension which applies high bending loads to the hull sides, and a powerful gun applying high structural loads. The roof too, at 0.4" base with an extra box structure on top, leaves a lot to be desired.
Stiffness scales with the cube of the plate thickness, and the allowable bending moment with the square. In this context, therefore, 2 thin plates, even if rigidly welded into a box structure, are not equivalent to one thick one.

No such distinction was offered because no such distinction was requested. The LFS does not look kindly upon this cavalier attitude to vehicle survivability.
Also last time I checked 0.6" plus 0.4" with an air gap between them is less than 1.25" of steel, as well as being significantly less stiff as explained above.

I've neither knowledge nor a feeling for materials. My idea for spaced construction was structural steel. Something akin to the vertical I (H) beam in the picture. The info on the stiffness growth is quite interesting.

1-s2.0-S1026309811002471-gr1.jpg

 

1"-1.2" does seem too weak for a side plate in hindsight. I read somewhere that lower side of the Leopard 2 only has about 1" thickness. Maybe wrong info.

I think the weak front hull was indeed an error. Engine should survive impact in the frontal arc of 60 degs. I am satisfied if the rest protects the crew alone, it seems realistic.

 

19 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Cascadian 3.54" HEDP, Cascadian BGM-1 tandem ATGM, and Mormon 2"/4" tandem warhead. at various elevations.
Kudos to @Fareastmenace for correctly guessing 2 out of 3, and being real close on the third.

 

I don't think any of those can hurt my crew with the setup and the specified angles. I wouldn't bet though. The engine is another thing.

19 hours ago, N-L-M said:

The problem is not the concept of transversely mounted engines, but rather your desire to mount one alongside the driver. there is not enough width, this will not fit.
Also, the named engine block will not fit by itself in a 1.5 m^3 engine bay you assigned to it. So again, the point stands, a lack of basic spatial reasoning skills.

If however you mean to put a transverse engine in front of the driver as your model suggests, the question of where all the bits and bobs you've removed from the engine to squeeze it in go, and just how far back a driver has to sit to comfortably fit. The meaning for the length of the engine deck and the position of the turret ring are both clear and negative.

Maybe is said it wrongly, the space for engine alone is more than 3 m^3. Actually it is slightly over 4 and the combined area for power pack is 8 m^3.

 

Main idea was the following

BikJM0g.png

 

This is how it was supposed to look like.

 

bEtyplg.png

 

I initially used EuroPowerPack as an ideal case. It should fit (note the radiator and fans of original engine stretch over the edge of the transmission below). By shifting coolers into sponsons it couldn't be exactly the HSWL 295TM but it is at least a probable combination. Then I compared sizes of older engines. Evidently, German engines are very compact. I also realised that "bits and bobs" wander around designs, I thought, depending on the space available. Such is the case of turbochargers already since ww2. Example in the image below.

v2-ac312472515cf2f7491f13f0c75ad0a0_r.jp

I don't know enough to account for every component that might be missing from usual photos of the engines. I also realise now that in sponsons it might be a problem to propel the cooling fans.

 

You seem to be right about the space next to the driver. It would actually require narrowing the citadel.

 

19 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Mines are a distinctly secondary concern to getting places in one piece in the first place, and mines will break single pin tracks too. The much higher wear of a single pin track limits the deployability of the vehicle, as well as its lower energy efficiency lowering both speed and range.

Fair point.

 

19 hours ago, N-L-M said:

a roughly 0.5" top and 0.5" bottom are both very very thin, and even then there's not enough room for the kind of rack mechanism proposed. Shells don't just exist in midair, and the mechanism proposed does not have enough space for the kinds of rails needed. In fact, it hardly has enough space for a static rack. It's also worth noting that 4.7" Kraut, by its nature, has fairly fragile ammunition which needs to be babied to prevent it from falling apart, and so rack solutions such as that used on the IS-7 load assist are not very applicable. Even there, however, the structure to support the rounds was substantial:
This of course being the closest system to that which you propose.
One would note that the autoloader must support the ammunition in all the various accelerations and shocks of driving and combat, which with heavy ammunition means a substantial structure is required, one for which you left no room.

This structure is also the reason why the proposed mechanized magazine reload is nothing but a joke.
Perhaps by reducing the turret load to 20 rounds such a system could be contemplated, but again the need to protect the combustible case from damage during travel or handling would not be addressed at all.

I admit I never though about the forces and vibrations impacting the ammo. I had two boxes in mind that fill the breech as a assault rifle magazine by being pushed towards the middle from the outer sides by three bars traveling through each of the boxes. That was all quickly made up. I guess more thought would be needed here.

 

19 hours ago, N-L-M said:

2035092_800.png
You appear to have missed quite a bit of the gun's length inboard of the trunnion. Note too that the breech ring extends down quite a bit from the cradle, and the breech block even more when open. All of which speak against the forwards trunnion location even if we ignore the 2-ais solution which is still a farce. The broadly accepted view in the business of armored vehicles is that returning to a loading elevation is perfectly acceptable, and that all-angle loading isn't all that important.

I haven't copied the cannon exactly, only the length. I made the thickened part of the barrel too short and pushed the barrel through the trunnion.

 

I don't know why you would call a two axis mount a farce. Maybe technically impossible, but it seems that modern tanks use a single axis only because it is the simplest solution that still does the job. With an auto-loader and shifting bulge already requiring a frame through the middle of the turret and hydraulics significantly reducing the space once occupied by the gearing, why not add a thing more. A wishful thinking perhaps.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

I've no idea why there is no discussion afterwards


What the fuck do you think you're doing now?

 

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

maybe others are afraid


LMAO projection, much?

 

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

Anyway, I hope you don't mind discussing a bit more.


With your shitty attitude? We mind mightily. You've been a banned man walking for months, now.

 

1 hour ago, delete013 said:

I've neither knowledge nor a feeling for materials.


It's funny that now you're professing your ignorance on virtually every subject from materials to engineering to what hole the square block goes into, but months ago you waltzed around chewing people out for how "ignorant" you thought they were because they didn't think Tiger was the best thing since sliced bread.
 

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

×
×
  • Create New...