Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Collimatrix
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hmmm, “The tanks ammo is extremely large and heavy... and would probably break an autoloader” 


1. And the proposed ammunition wouldn’t also break the backs of the poor SoaB(s) having to load this gun? 
 

2. I’m just going to refer you to any ship with large caliber guns, which almost exclusively used loading assistance*, but most importantly, the 8 inch Mark 16 used on the Des Moines class, and the 6 inch Mark 16 on the Worcester. 

*Warships also have a couple other problems that required machines like ammunition elevators and rammers, that the small scale of tanks don’t have to worry about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, it is that Gavin guy? I was following his writing many years ago. I disliked his writing style, because it is ranty. He tends to ramble on and on in his own thread. He puts way too much unnecessary information to his own articles, he should had taken some writing classes.

 

Though, I do not understand why he is such a polarizing individual. Sure, not all of his ideas are solid and he makes mistakes. People who tend to write a lot and say a lot tend to do most mistakes, but this is only because they have courage to go out and try. In addition, military DOES indeed suffer from itself. Its tradition prioritises brawn over intellect. It strips away individuality. It makes soldier follow the herd and inhibits free thinking. In addition, a lot of military organizations are scrapping bottom of a barrel when it comes to recruit, they lack sheer talent and in general are organizations consumed by politics and weak leaders who get their positions due to political and financial considerations rather than even merit. This is why we see so much politics and people with very questionable military experience at the very top. 

 

Military organization can differ widely in its culture and values. I do dare to think that one day military reformists like him will come to power in major country's military and will reshape itself to something new. If anything, that would see a lot of bizarre and interesting military projects getting greenlight. A lot of risky and ambitious projects would get initiated. A lot of them would fail and I'm afraid that such people would succumb to inner infighting due to their own egos. Though personally, I would see military spending A LOT more on research and development and focusing on export of vast array of military equipment while cutting down on its operational budget and its own size to compensate for this shift in priorities. 

 

Btw: After reading his tank idea I'm not sure if I was reading same guy. He had poorly edited and poorly done website with a lot of endless articles. They tended to be in general a lot more serious than this mess of a tank design. 

 

After doing more research and actually going to forum where he had proposed his idea 13 years ago, I can claim that he is just typical armchair general whose fantasy is running wild. He defends the obvious flaws in his vehicle by imaginary substances who will be as thin as an APC armor, but will provide even more armor than modern MBT. He also has a furry logo which is a sure sign of physical, mental or spiritual deformity, sometimes all of three. I had seen this type of people, their minds are sick. Their minds are a lot more active than yours or my own, but in return they can't filter themselves out. They have  a lot of energy to talk, to defend their ideas, but they can't stop and think. They are great at generating ideas, but absolutely terrible and self critique or thinking critically over what they just thought of. This is why you see such nonsensical things as tank with 6 people, having 145 howitzer which somehow is better anti tank cannon than a dedicated anti tank cannons. Can carry 85 rounds of ammunition. Whole thing is protected by imaginarium. A paper thin and feather light substance which provides immense protection which is of course superior to protection on modern day MBT. And to top if all off, such tank would weight 40 tons! I'm honestly surprised that such people even register on your radar. Why talk about and give him more publicity? Do you debunk a random idiot in youtube comment section just as harshly? Such people are just ignored and forgotten by ones above him as they are unworthy of their time and energy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Calicifer said:

Btw: After reading his tank idea I'm not sure if I was reading same guy. He had poorly edited and poorly done website with a lot of endless articles. They tended to be in general a lot more serious than this mess of a tank design. 

 

This website?

 

That article was my first encounter with Sparks btw, and I think it's just perfect. Repeat misunderstandings of the way equipment was/is designed and employed, endless use of buzzwords only Sparky and his ilk know, insisting that failed shit from the past was actually great and should be replicated today, childish insults and aspersions about actual officers, ranting and raving about moron historians who he knows so much more than, and the inexplicable pictures of women's cleavage at the bottom. But probably my favorite part is when he praises a U.S. Army turretless light tank concept from the 1930s and its creator, only to trash the medium tanks the U.S. Army actually fought the war with in the same paragraph... apparently blissfully unaware that Gladeon M. Barnes, creator of the conceptual light tank, also was heavily involved in designing the M3 Lee/Grant, M4 Sherman, and others.  

 

Try reading that article and the other ones linked in it if you want a laugh. Or a brain aneurysm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, StrelaCarbon said:

This website?

wow.  OK, I quickly learned to look at the pictures which were quite interesting and not read any of the drool.  A deeply confused individual with no concept of context.  What was light pre-ww2 was equivalent to a pram in late ww2 terms and a paper cup now.  To describe a MkIV as "light" once again ignores context.

 

But, seriously, why am I wasting electrons.  It was worth a giggle, thanks :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, same website. I also first encountered him there and started reading some of his better articles. I was little bit confused when reading his original forum thread on his Tigerwolf. He is by far worse there than I remember reading some of his articles. Maybe I remember him wrongly or did not knew any better as I started reading him when I started to get serious about understanding warfare. So I might not had catched on his misunderstandings. I also maybe are bit more tolerant of his nonsense and are more forwards towards putting controversial ideas into experimentation and testing. After all, I too often have highly contradictory ideas than majority of people. 

 

Overall, I view him as functional madman. He does not know what he is talking about, but in every madman there are sparks of brilliance. I tend to view his writing more as pile of garbage with some potential gems inside which more sane and constructive individual could take and develop something from it.

 

For example in this article he might have a point that MBT are too large and expensive for large scale offensive maneuvers. Try to use Abrams tanks for anything than an assault or defend. Large formation of Abrams are completely incapable of performing same kind maneuvers as Pz.2-4 did during WW2 as they would run out of fuel and logistical chain would be of absolutely terrifying proportions. Maybe for deep battle operations more economical tanks with greater autonomy and mobility are required? Like some hypothetical 50 ton design of a medium tank similar to T-90 series or beefed up Leopard 1 or TAM are required? This is why I like his considerations, he might be missing point all together with 20 ton light tanks in modern combat, but there is some truth in his ramblings.

 

Hmm, when I had skimmed through more of his article, I see that it is me making all of this in my head as I read. He provides very few actual points in his massive article. He reminds me of an autistic person. Great with details and presenting a lot of information, but that information always miss forest for the trees. It is all just misunderstandings and taking things out of context to the point you wonder how such person can function when he disagrees with practically everything one side argues in a debate. 

 

Edit: I just read linked article. It is just full of ramblings, he struggles to make a coherent point. He looks like he has rabies as he viciously attacks practically everybody. Significant portion of his article is dedicated to insulting and demeaning as many people as he can name from general groups to specific people. He also wants to remove turrets from all armored vehicles, except for Gavin of course and his precious Tigerwolf. Also his light tanks will have adequate protection to take a hit, whatever what means since Pershing in his eyes could not take a hit from German and Russian 85-88 mm caliber. So I imagine his light tanks would had been protected with carbon fibers during WW2 with 100 strength than modern composite armor and half the thickness of steel. I'm just surprised that people are paying attention to him at all, the kind thing would be to ignore madman than to laugh from him as it is just sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sparks is the gift that keeps on giving. I thought the whole point of bicycle infantry was that it was a cheap way of getting your troops to move faster....

 

Kinda hard to imagine the Japanese Army racing down the Malay peninsula on bicycles like they did in '42 when each of the soldiers has to tow a trailer loaded with god-knows-what. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

One issue I have with the Tigerwolf, is that it contradicts what he has said are bad design choices, like 6 man crew, 2 loaders, new technology, fitting the largest gun possible on a chassis, etc. It makes him seem inconsistent and diminishes his argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

I did some digging about what the "Mk 75 Tigerwolf" fires. It fires:

a training round

rocket-propelled AP round

rocket-propelled thermite round

rocket-propelled HESH

rocket-propelled WP-I

rocket-propelled grenade ammunition

canister round

flechette round

rocket-propelled grenade ammunition but anti-infantry

thermobaric round

15 kiloton nuclear round

mine-laying round

GLATGM

GLSAM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Since this thread appears to be a decent place to rag on shitty mechanized vehicle concepts, I present to you, this: 

 

 

(I found this while looking for pictures of 40mm CT ammo)
Is it 4 years old? Yes. Does that excuse it from being a subject of ridicule? No. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Drummond is notable for being very bad at the technical side of design of armored vehicles, which contrasts strongly with how vocal he is with his opinions on the topic.

Sounds about right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Drummond is notable for being very bad at the technical side of design of armored vehicles, which contrasts strongly with how vocal he is with his opinions on the topic.

 

the virgin monthslong SH design competitions judged by experts vs the chad outsourcing your twitter shitposts to some kid you found on the internet

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 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 Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     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 judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^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 4 inches.
      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- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in 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 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     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-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in 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.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 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- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • 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. 
       
×
×
  • Create New...