Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Dead

0 (0%)

LIVE!

4 (50%)

Eh. Dont care.

0 (0%)

Asea, you lazy git...

4 (50%)

Total Members Voted: 8

[Funk]

@Funk: can you even add a supercharger to a diesel engine? And, what good would it do in a tank?

Yes you can add a supercharger to a diesel, two stroke diesels need one to run at all.
By adding a supercharger you can increase the amount of air going in to the cylinders so it can burn more fuel and make more power.
So a supercharger can let a smaller and light engine make the power of it's bigger brother.
For a slow speed diesel engine we can just use a simple roots type blower.

[Funk]

Also, dont forget a hull MG in the tank. Tankers like them.

Oh, yes. Also coaxial and commander's MG.

Can we fit a 20mm in the hull or the coaxial, give them some thing in the way of AA?

Spoiler: Fire Strom Mk II (click to show/hide)

Interceptor-Pusher-Model of 1938 Firestorm MK II

With the hope of getting greater performance the mark is partially redesigned.

The Mk 2 has a tapered fuselage with a pair slightly swept-back wings, mounted mid-fuselage and set back to the rear of the aircraft.
Wing
The rear boom has been remove in place of a fuselage mounted cross tail/rudder before the propeller, fitted with air brakes.

As part of the redesign the plane now consists of modular parts so that a whole sections can be replaced at forwards airbases to change the aircraft's role or repair damage.

Modules
-------------
Cockpit
A: stranded cockpit

Nose
A: 4 X 20mm cannons with 60 round drums.
B: 4 X M-1 Machineguns with 750 belts rounds per gun.
C: 2 X M-1 Machineguns with 750 belts rounds per gun + 2 X 20mm cannons with 60 round drums.
D: Aero, no guns fitted.
E: Trainer nose fitted with master controls.

Wings
A: 2x M-1 Machineguns with 500 belts rounds per gun.
B: Aero/  Ballast
C: 2 x 350 kg hard points.
D:  2x M-1 Machineguns with 500 belts rounds per gun + 2 x 350 kg hard points.

Engine Fuselage
A:Stranded, 2 x AEM1933'Hurricane'.
B: Trainer, 1 X AEM1933'Hurricane' plus Ballast.
-------------

Armour: 8mm of nickel-molybdenum steel plate around the cockpit.
13 mm plates of nickel-molybdenum steel seat armour.
2mm fire wall between the pilot and the fuel tanks.
40mm of armoured glass.

Crew: see modules
Engine: see modules
Wingspan: 12 m
Length: 13 m
Empty weight: 3225 kg

Traits:
 Reliable
 Quick
 Fireproof(thanks to various interesting things that where added, like self-sealing fuel tanks)
 Ejector seat?!

Costs:  2ton steel, 2 units electronic parts and 2ton al per batch, plus weapons and engines.
Four aircraft are made per batch(generic factory)

If you want to see what it looks like, It looks like this thing

[tryrar]

Really, we'd add a speed governor to the engine so out doesn't throw tracks or bun the engine out, so your chart isn't really helpful.

[3_14159]

Spoiler: POIT Plokhoy Ostrov Infantry Tank 1938 (click to show/hide)

- What I have in mind is to use the same basic chassis as the Beachmaster modified to the POAC shape, extend it to fully use the front (putting the driver and the radio operator/hull machine gunner side by side and moving the ring a bit forward taking advantage of the extra room), and the rear (eliminating the sail drive, simplifying the drive train, and giving it more engine room). It could use the same turrets, or others more heavily armored (same large ring and upgradeable suspension).
- As for armor thickness, the Beachmaster has

   35mm@60º + 10mm front
   25mm@30-45º + 5mm side
   15mm + 5mm rear
   20mm top and bottom

so we could very well give it 45mm in the front and 20 in the rear; I think this would put us at 18-20t (opposed to the Beachmaster's current 16t).
- The Matilda was the most armored tank of the era at 65-70mm around and 55 on the rear, (same 20mm on top and bottom) only a half meter narrower than the Beachmaster, and stood at 25t along with a late Pz.IV; the much larger Panther never quite arrived to 50t, so I reckon that later on we can push the weight to 30-35t.
- 350hp would do nicely, and at 35t we could go up to 600hp.
- Oh, the troops also asked for a smoke dispenser. Let's try to accommodate them.

Do you want it to use two of the 250hp engines?

Can we fit a 20mm in the hull or the coaxial, give them some thing in the way of AA?

Why would we want that? A coaxial mg is, as the name implies, coaxial to the main gun meaning that, to aim it, you have to move the whole turret. Not really ideal for anti-aircraft use.
The hull mg, on the other hand, can only aim forwards plus several degrees left/right/up which also makes it really inefficient against aircraft. Both also have a pretty limited field of view.

Including the MGs:

Spoiler: MT1938 Badger ver.3 (click to show/hide)

A medium tank with a 5 man crew, a SPE-1938 engine, Christie suspension, a 45mm gun, and hull and turret MGs, as well as a couple smoke dispensers attached to the turret. It has 35mm armor at the front sloped at 60degrees, as well as 25mm on the sides and rear sloped at 45 degrees.(Top and bottom are 20mm). It also has a generous turret ring for future upgrades.
The body includes a MM1934 hull machine gun, to be used by the radio man. The current turret includes both a coaxial MG and a (removable) commander's MG (both MM1934)

Now, for a decision on whether to use the 700hp engine or design a new one: In an ideal world, I'd use a 400-500hp engine. However, that'll mean we have to use an additional design team for it, and can't guarantee it to be reliable. Therefore, I currently prefer using the 700hp engine.
In the end, having an over-motorized tank has disadvantages with fuel consumption and cost of the engine. However, it'll have significantly better off-road and on-road capabilities, is more flexible, will scale hills with ease and is easily upgradeable. With a more reliable engine? You can count me in!

[Maegil]

But I insist on the engine since it's a design we have NOW, will function just as well in a tank, and the generous horsepower means we can get this up to a fairly high top speed, and/or stack on a lot of shit like applique armor plates or a larger turret with a bigger gun and still have it not have it's mobility impacted too much.

Since you insist on using that engine, may I recommend that you think bigger - like designing the POHT? The 70t POXX-shaped Tiger II had a 690hp engine, its 88mm gun could take out anything, and its 100mm front plate was never penetrated in combat.
We'd eventually end up doing one such anyway, so instead of fighting over the medium size you could just step ahead.
Starting off at 60mm front plate, with the C-V-45-M1935 45mm L/66 gun and a more realistic ratio of 700hp/50t=14, we'd already have a nigh indestructible monster which could outrun almost anything and take out anything short of a Matilda II, Char B1 or KV-1.
In due time we can increase armor to 100mm in the front for a 75t tank, with a 1050hp engine to keep the same ratio, and have plenty of room to upgrade it to a 75mm, 88mm, or even the 105mm HiLo (the Beachmaster's ring was designed to top off at 75mm L/48 guns).

@1938 Firestorm MK II
Is this for the ground attack plane? If so, I suggest you start off by designing it as a trainer (by making its stall speed rookie-friendly). After you have an aerodynamically stall-resistant plane, go ahead and pile up weapons and armor on it.
Whatever the case, we do need a trainer...

@Pi
I thought to start off at 250+2x50, and top it at 2x250+2x50 or equivalent. That's why I wanted to increase the engine room.

[Funk]

@1938 Firestorm MK II
Is this for the ground attack plane? If so, I suggest you start off by designing it as a trainer (by making its stall speed rookie-friendly). After you have an aerodynamically stall-resistant plane, go ahead and pile up weapons and armor on it.
Whatever the case, we do need a trainer...

The idea is to improve the plane and make it fast and fly better.
There is a trainer module for the nose, so we can train the rookies.

As for weapons lets have some gun pods.

Spoiler: Gun Pod MG, Mk 1 (click to show/hide)

An detachable pod, tear drop shaped and made sheet metal it contains
Fitted with a time delayed drogue parachute to insure that the contents can be recovered.

4 x M-1 Machinegun with 250-rounds belts weighs
(4 x 15 Kg guns, Ammo 40 grams per round, 40 gram x 250= 10kg)
Total weight of contents: 100KG
Pod total: 115KG

I'd do a cannon base gun pod but we still haven got any details.

[tryrar]

@Maegil:Yeah, doing multi-engine vehicles isn't really a good idea since that makes the transmission much more complex and prone to failure trying to sync and throttle more than one engine. That and cost, since one larger engine is about the same or even cheaper than multiple smaller engines and more reliable, as well as much more maintenance friendly.

As for your idea of going heavy or even universal tank.....heh, I like it! simply increase the tonnage by 10 tons and armor the shit out of it, and it would still be a quick machine while being a fucking rolling fortress(comparatively speaking to tanks currently existing).

Spoiler: HT-1938 Badger (click to show/hide)

This is a new 45-50 ton heavy tank capable of taking on almost any foe. It comes with 60mm armor plating(angled at 60 degrees) , as well as 50mm side(angled at 45 degrees) and 45mm rear armor(angled at 40 degrees). It uses the SPE-1938 high power engine for power, a horizontal volute spring suspension, wide tracks, and a bow machine gun(MM1934), operated by the radioman. The 3-man turret features side-mounted smoke dispensers, a commander's pintle-mounted MG(MM1934), a coaxial MG(again, MM1934), as well as the C-V-45-M1935 45mm L/66 gun. Ammo capacity should be pretty generous with the 45mm gun as well. Finally, this tank is designed to be easily upgraded in the future, from the engine, to the turret, to even armor.

[coleslaw35]

Why use the 45mm? Why not our AT gun?

[tryrar]

Why use the 45mm? Why not our AT gun?

Which gun was that again?

[coleslaw35]

Why use the 45mm? Why not our AT gun?

Which gun was that again?

ATHM1933

[tryrar]

Why use the 45mm? Why not our AT gun?

Which gun was that again?

ATHM1933

umm, ypou sure? According to the first page, that's a six-crew howitzer, not an AT gun.

[coleslaw35]

Why use the 45mm? Why not our AT gun?

Which gun was that again?

ATHM1933

umm, ypou sure? According to the first page, that's a six-crew howitzer, not an AT gun.

The hell... I thought it was an AT gun. Never mind then

[Aseaheru]

It was designed as an AT gun, as was the 45mm cannon used in the POAC-H. Only one of the two can be termed an AT gun by modern standards.

[tryrar]

It was designed as an AT gun, as was the 45mm cannon used in the POAC-H. Only one of the two can be termed an AT gun by modern standards.

I'm guessing it would be the 45mm

[Maegil]

@Maegil:Yeah, doing multi-engine vehicles isn't really a good idea since that makes the transmission much more complex and prone to failure trying to sync and throttle more than one engine. That and cost, since one larger engine is about the same or even cheaper than multiple smaller engines and more reliable, as well as much more maintenance friendly.

I thought that it was our country's paradigm to use modular engines ever since that 50hp engine... Anyway, you're absolutely right.

You know what, scrap the idea for the 250hp engine. I'll forward instead a 350hp one to be fitted on both the Beachmaster B (making it fast enough to be called a light tank, even if only compared to our other tanks) and the POIC, and a bigger one when the time comes.

Spoiler: NTM350hpADE "Not The Mines" 350hp Armor Diesel Engine 1938 (click to show/hide)

1) A diesel engine, for armor.
2) Cannot have more or less than 350hp.
3) Must not be larger or heavier than 5 SDEM1933.
4) Must be stackable with both the SDEM1933 and itself.
5) Violating 1), 2), 3) or 4) will be taken as meaning that the team's brains must be fatigued, and in need of an all expenses paid winter vacation on the gold mines, as laborers. Remember, the State cares deeply about the well-being of our illustrious scientists.
6) Significant results in low fuel use, low production cost, reliability, ease of maintenance, and/or lower weight and volume may be correspondingly rewarded with a dacha. The better the improvements, the nicer the dachas. Remember, the State cares deeply about the well-being of our illustrious scientists.
7) A diesel engine, for armor, with precisely 350hp - got it?

Hmmm... can someone more knowledgeable in engines put some hard data on this?

Spoiler: POIC 1938 v2 (click to show/hide)

Using the POXX shape on the Beachmaster chassis, it's basically an up-armored roomier version of the same tank, with a wider front seating the driver and a radioman/machinegunner, the turret ring a bit forward, more engine space and no armor spacing in front or the back. By removing the sail drive, the transmission is to be much simplified. The hull's volume still assures a positive buoyancy up to 25t, and two water pumps are to provide thrust for river crossings (with a air intake periscope if too heavy).


Crew: 5
Hull armor:
   45mm@60º front
   30mm@30-45º + 5mm side
   20mm@60º rear
   30mm bottom front half
   20mm top and bottom rear half
Turret armor:
   same as the Beachmaster's, or better
Armament:
   hull MM1934 MG
   hull smoke dispensers
   same as the Beachmaster turrets
Drive:
   NTM350hpADE 1938
   2x2500 l/min pumps (5m telescopic air intakes on models above 25t)
Suspension: Christie

BTW, Tryar, what's the fixation on the volutes? The USA tried it on the M2, M3 and M4 on which it got to its limit, modified it to horizontal, and finally gave up on them altogether by the time they made the Chafee and the Pershing.
(If you ask what I, IC, have with Christie, it's that they were more than good enough even if not necessarily the best, and the our Comrades the Soviets used it.)