Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Coax definitely wasn't the word I meant to use... A mount similar to the Czech design (ie independent of the gun) might be able to work. I think it is just a matter of the ammunition size, how many rounds can be carried, and if it is really worthwhile. Epoch with the 30 mm auto-cannon and 57 mm grenade launcher will be very interesting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Early Chrysler XM-1 validation phase model with a coaxial Bushmaster weapon system :  

AMX-30 M693 20mm autocannon superelevation (-8° to +40°) :  

Walter,  I have the blueprints for the Canadian 7.62 NATO M37retrofit if you want them let me know. Sidenote: the Browning 1919/m37 is just outright an awesome gun that you can get to run ju

MG-34 looks pretty good as a tank coax, IMO.  Sure, it's a bit sensitive to grit and crap, but it's in a tank so that's less pressing.  It has a barrel you can change from inside the tank without de-mounting the gun, and you don't need to headspace the barrel.

 

Also, unlike the M73, it works.

Pretty much.  A bit long for armor use, but otherwise? They could have done a lot worse.

 

MG-34 is a pretty darn impressive piece of kit when you compare it to other machine guns in use in the mid 30's.  It's an actual real example of quality German engineering.  A bit expensive for wartime production maybe.  What say the firearms experts here?

SOmewhat ammo sensitive, but that was compounded by the often terrible quality of wartime German ammo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another big reason you saw rifle caliber coax guns was space.

 

There were some oddities where a .50" was tried, but you always saw the fall back to something that did not take up much room, fired a lot of easily stowed cheap ammo that was common with your troops, and could chew up the squishies "good enough".

 

The old M37 variant of the M1919 was about as close to "ideal" as you got with a rifle caliber tank coax.

 

What about the M37 vs a 37mm gun like the M6A1 had? they both have 37 in the name!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coax definitely wasn't the word I meant to use... A mount similar to the Czech design (ie independent of the gun) might be able to work. I think it is just a matter of the ammunition size, how many rounds can be carried, and if it is really worthwhile. Epoch with the 30 mm auto-cannon and 57 mm grenade launcher will be very interesting.  

 

 

For a really huge secondary cannon, say, 30mm or more, I think you'd actually want it to be coaxial with the man gun.  Ideally, mounted right above it ala the 14.5mm on the IS-7 so that there's no torque on the turret from firing it.  As an added bonus, the smaller weapon wouldn't need its own recoil recuperators; it could re-use the ones from the main gun.

 

This would cause some problems with gun depression unless the secondary gun breech were kept very short, and that's where my idea about a blow-forward weapon comes in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Domestic Armored Vehicles mentions that prior to the adoption of the PKMT, Soviet designer VI Silin had a design for a dedicated tank coax MG that would put empty casings back into the belt, so as to keep all that brass from making a mess in the turret and getting into things.  Hilariously, at one point Google Translate auto-translated whatever the Russian for "machine gun belt" is as "gun food."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Domestic Armored Vehicles mentions that prior to the adoption of the PKMT, Soviet designer VI Silin had a design for a dedicated tank coax MG that would put empty casings back into the belt, so as to keep all that brass from making a mess in the turret and getting into things.  Hilariously, at one point Google Translate auto-translated whatever the Russian for "machine gun belt" is as "gun food."

Translation is actually right, because we use word "питание" when describing automatic weapon feed system. Hell, "feed" also can be used in context of food, after all. :D  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
  • 3 months later...

There were a bunch of notional roof weapons mounts scribbled on paper for IS-7.  Some had a single KPV, some had a mix of KPVs and SGMTs.  For all I know the gatling mount was another planned version, but TBH the only place I recall reading that they planned to put a 14.5mm gatling on the roof of the IS-7 is wikipedia, so I am skeptical.

 

But it doesn't seem impossible.  The secondary armament of the IS-7 was complete insanity, so putting a huge gatling on the roof doesn't seem that far fetched.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...
On 8/29/2015 at 7:39 PM, Walter_Sobchak said:

How hard would it be to make a version of the old Browning .30 cal that fired 7.62 NATO?

Walter, 

I have the blueprints for the Canadian 7.62 NATO M37retrofit if you want them let me know.

Sidenote: the Browning 1919/m37 is just outright an awesome gun that you can get to run just about any round between .22 lr and 8x63 Bofors...

Including 303 & x54r... I helped a buddy do a x54r version...

Fun fact: the Finns even figured out a really simple push feed link to convert mg42's to x54r... Aimo Lahti was a genius.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Ive been mulling over this topic for a while so it was a boon that I found this forum. Being mostly a small arms guy I admit that I know very little about AFV design. I was always puzzled why the 7.62 was the coax caliber of choice when the advantages of the heavy MG in range, barrier defeat and actually being able to take advantage of the FCS of an AFV without the main con of weight that infantry have to deal with.The only downside being volume. Im pretty sure a proper FCS makes a .50 cal far more effective than Joe aiming with the tip of barrel and walking the tracers into the target. But which heavy MG? I feel like the M2HB ROF is too low for a proper beaten zone at range. Maybe a AN/M2 or even a M3M at 1,100 rpm?

 

Also how does the new M230LF fall into the coax discussion?There are talks of it replacing the M2A1 and Mk19 on RWS or even vehicle mounts. Would it make a viable coax? How about it replacing the M2 on the TC's CROWS?

EOS+30mm+RWS.jpg

 

http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Vicious_CB said:

Ive been mulling over this topic for a while so it was a boon that I found this forum. Being mostly a small arms guy I admit that I know very little about AFV design. I was always puzzled why the 7.62 was the coax caliber of choice when the advantages of the heavy MG in range, barrier defeat and actually being able to take advantage of the FCS of an AFV without the main con of weight that infantry have to deal with.The only downside being volume. Im pretty sure a proper FCS makes a .50 cal far more effective than Joe aiming with the tip of barrel and walking the tracers into the target. But which heavy MG? I feel like the M2HB ROF is too low for a proper beaten zone at range. Maybe a AN/M2 or even a M3M at 1,100 rpm?

 

Also how does the new M230LF fall into the coax discussion?There are talks of it replacing the M2A1 and Mk19 on RWS or even vehicle mounts. Would it make a viable coax? How about it replacing the M2 on the TC's CROWS?

EOS+30mm+RWS.jpg

 

 

The AN/M2 and the M3 are aircraft mounted, slip stream cooled HMGs, with thinner, lighter barrels.  It would overheat very quickly and would need to be down rated to below the normal M2.

If you want a higher rate of fire you would need a thicker barreled version, or a water cooled version. Maybe the FN M3P could work?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vicious_CB said:

Ive been mulling over this topic for a while so it was a boon that I found this forum. Being mostly a small arms guy I admit that I know very little about AFV design. I was always puzzled why the 7.62 was the coax caliber of choice when the advantages of the heavy MG in range, barrier defeat and actually being able to take advantage of the FCS of an AFV without the main con of weight that infantry have to deal with.The only downside being volume. Im pretty sure a proper FCS makes a .50 cal far more effective than Joe aiming with the tip of barrel and walking the tracers into the target. But which heavy MG? I feel like the M2HB ROF is too low for a proper beaten zone at range. Maybe a AN/M2 or even a M3M at 1,100 rpm?

 

Also how does the new M230LF fall into the coax discussion?There are talks of it replacing the M2A1 and Mk19 on RWS or even vehicle mounts. Would it make a viable coax? How about it replacing the M2 on the TC's CROWS?

EOS+30mm+RWS.jpg

 

 

Welcome to SH!

 

 

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

Ive been mulling over this topic for a while so it was a boon that I found this forum. Being mostly a small arms guy I admit that I know very little about AFV design. I was always puzzled why the 7.62 was the coax caliber of choice when the advantages of the heavy MG in range, barrier defeat and actually being able to take advantage of the FCS of an AFV without the main con of weight that infantry have to deal with.The only downside being volume. Im pretty sure a proper FCS makes a .50 cal far more effective than Joe aiming with the tip of barrel and walking the tracers into the target. But which heavy MG? I feel like the M2HB ROF is too low for a proper beaten zone at range. Maybe a AN/M2 or even a M3M at 1,100 rpm?

  

Also how does the new M230LF fall into the coax discussion?There are talks of it replacing the M2A1 and Mk19 on RWS or even vehicle mounts. Would it make a viable coax? How about it replacing the M2 on the TC's CROWS?

 

 

The primary constraining factor in tank design is volume.  A tank is about 50% armor by weight, and armor is by far the single heaviest part of a tank.  Making components larger and bulkier adds a lot of weight indirectly because it increases the volume that needs to be protected by armor.

 

So, the most compelling argument for a more powerful coax on a tank is that the coax can be used to zap less armor targets like infantry, unarmored vehicles, etc, and so economize on the use of main gun ammunition, which is gigantic.  But this idea has been challenged too; early on in the development of the M1 Abrams there was an idea to have a coaxial 25mm autocannon.  Apparently the actual armor combat experience from the Middle East suggested that anything vaguely vehicle-shaped got serviced with the main gun.  There may be more to this, but I've only read that much.

 

There are other issues with large-caliber coaxes.  The area where the main gun protrudes from the turret of the tank is a weak point, and adding a large secondary weapon only makes this weak point wider.  There is also the problem that autocannons produce substantial recoil, to the point where they can jerk the turret off-target if they are mounted too far from the centerline of the turret.

 

That said, a few tanks have had large-caliber coax weapons.  The French Leclerc has a .50 coax, and a number of Russian heavy tanks had 14.5mm coaxes (which were a close match to the ballistics of the main gun and helped walk in rounds).  I'm sure there are other examples in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

The primary constraining factor in tank design is volume.  A tank is about 50% armor by weight, and armor is by far the single heaviest part of a tank.  Making components larger and bulkier adds a lot of weight indirectly because it increases the volume that needs to be protected by armor.

 

So, the most compelling argument for a more powerful coax on a tank is that the coax can be used to zap less armor targets like infantry, unarmored vehicles, etc, and so economize on the use of main gun ammunition, which is gigantic.  But this idea has been challenged too; early on in the development of the M1 Abrams there was an idea to have a coaxial 25mm autocannon.  Apparently the actual armor combat experience from the Middle East suggested that anything vaguely vehicle-shaped got serviced with the main gun.  There may be more to this, but I've only read that much.

 

There are other issues with large-caliber coaxes.  The area where the main gun protrudes from the turret of the tank is a weak point, and adding a large secondary weapon only makes this weak point wider.  There is also the problem that autocannons produce substantial recoil, to the point where they can jerk the turret off-target if they are mounted too far from the centerline of the turret.

 

That said, a few tanks have had large-caliber coax weapons.  The French Leclerc has a .50 coax, and a number of Russian heavy tanks had 14.5mm coaxes (which were a close match to the ballistics of the main gun and helped walk in rounds).  I'm sure there are other examples in this thread.

 

 

Thanks for the warm welcome guys. Hope I can contribute with my limited knowledge base. 

 

I see. So a M230LF coax is probably out the question since its eating up too much space inside the turret. In terms of ammo volume 7.62 vs .50 cal, I know the M1 Abrams particularly carries an absurd amount to coax ammo comparably to other tanks, something like 10,000 rounds. Im not quite sure what ratio would be if you swapped 7.62 to .50 cal(2:1?3:1?) you would probably still have as much coax ammo as other MBTs. Also logistically .50 cal is very common in both light infantry and with the stryker guys so there would be no shortage there. 

 

As far as gunners lighting everything up with main gun, isnt that a training issue? Like we say in the shooting community,  sounds like a software issue not a hardware issue. Something like a technical probably doesnt warrant a main gun round. .50 cal API also makes swiss cheese out of double reinforced concrete walls that can easily stop 7.62 SLAP. Also Ive heard more than few times in Helmand where USMC tanks on overwatch were unable to support their infantry clearing a compound due to the fears of some devil dog catching a sabot petal in the back of the head. I have no idea what the danger space is when firing a saboted round is but Ive heard its a real issue when supporting infantry. 

 

Maybe the answer is stick a M230LF on the commanders CROWS? if you used the CROWS-LP it probably wouldnt be much larger than the CROWS /w M2HB(height wise) than we have now. The question is where to store all the ammo. Now at least you have some HE throwing capability when infantry are within the danger space of the main gun. 

 

If volume is an issue the most space efficient system would be the .338 NM LWMMG from General Dynamics. .50 cal range in a M240 package though it probably doesnt have the same barrier defeat capability as a .50 cal slug. Supposedly the 160th SOAR is interested in this round to replace their .50's with this which makes sense in aviation where take off weight is a huge issue where less weight = more time on station before going winchester bingo.  

 

Vehicle wise you can probably get away just swapping the M240 with the .338 LWMMG since they are similarly sized where a M2 would probably call for a redesign of the mantlet.

 

IMG_0537-440x358.jpg 

 

 

IMG_0504-440x278.jpg

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 N-L-M
      ATTENTION DUELISTS:
      @Toxn
      @LostCosmonaut
      @Lord_James
      @DIADES
      @Datengineerwill
      @Whatismoo
      @Kal
      @Zadlo
      @Xoon
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Wednesday the 19th of June at 23:59 GMT.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.
       
      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


       
      Length, combat (transport)


       
      Width, combat (transport)


       
      Height, combat (transport)


       
      Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal)


       
      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 Soviet 1961 tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on extimated 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 your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.


       Example for filling in Appendix 1
    • 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
       
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • By Molota_477
      M1 CATTB
      pic from TankNet.
      I feel uncertain whether its cannon's caliber was 140mm or not, I found a figure at the document AD-A228 389 showed behind, which label the gun as LW 120.But in many ways I've found its data in websites all considered to be 140mm.

      AFAIK,the first xm291(140)demonstrator was based on xm1 tank, and the successor was the''Thumper'' which was fitted with a new turret look like the CATTB but still m1a1 hull(Maybe it was CATTB's predecessor? )

      I will really appreciate if anyone have valuable information to share

×
×
  • Create New...