Jump to content


Alternate History Tank Project: Cheonho


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

Guardianleopard #21 Posted Jul 28 2014 - 14:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11439 battles
  • 1,134
  • [SAKU] SAKU
  • Member since:
    05-11-2012

Wow, turns out that the Battleship craft Wikia is blocked...

http://battleshipcra...aftian?file=(BK)_2A6.jpg

sorry, umm use the top image and click on it (wiki) it didn't let me post it

 

as I said your gun is MUCH more plausible, however my armor scheme and engine power (not listed in picture) are more realistic

Also, you will notice that I made the tank a flush as possible


Edited by Guardianleopard, Jul 28 2014 - 15:01.


Daigensui #22 Posted Jul 28 2014 - 15:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostLostCosmonaut, on Jul 28 2014 - 06:56, said:

Related question: What's the width of the hull between the tracks (specifically, how much space is there to install the engine)?

 

Technically only 180 cm, but then this vehicle has sponsons. Total width can be a little less than 300 cm, which is plenty of room given that the GT series were supposed to be installed on Panthers.

 

 

View PostLostCosmonaut, on Jul 28 2014 - 06:56, said:

More importantly, what role is this thing designed to fill? Is it a heavy tank? A tank destroyer? An anime princess's personal plaything?

 

Prototype for medium tanks. Gas turbine is exchanged for diesel, main armament will be a RO L7 analogue, and instead of the boxy gun mount there will be a gun shield mantlet like the Pattons. Other changes like in FCS and such.



FISSION_CURES_ANIME #23 Posted Jul 28 2014 - 15:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 32273 battles
  • 3,222
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-23-2013

View PostDaigensui, on Jul 28 2014 - 09:08, said:

 

Technically only 180 cm, but then this vehicle has sponsons. Total width can be a little less than 300 cm, which is plenty of room given that the GT series were supposed to be installed on Panthers.

 

 

 

Prototype for medium tanks. Gas turbine is exchanged for diesel, main armament will be a RO L7 analogue, and instead of the boxy gun mount there will be a gun shield mantlet like the Pattons. Other changes like in FCS and such.

 

 

Alright, if it has 1800mm (you're not going to fit a gas turbine into the sponson, although I suppose you could cram some of the ancillary bits in there) it would fit. I'd be worried about heat dissipation (it will be a very tight fit, especially considering that the GT101 is probably going to be a lot bigger than the AGT1500 or similar, since there's no way they would have the same power density). But if it's a one off prototype it won't much matter if it catches fire and burns up once the test program finishes.

 

Since it's a medium tank, the thing that sticks out to me is the armor. Your upper glacis is thicker than the one on the IS-3, and more sloped. Since the production models (with diesel engines) are going to be less powerful (M60 has 750 hp, and I doubt any reasonable 1946 engine is going to produce that much power, fit in your tank, and be reliable. Probably about 600 hp at most.), you could strip off a good bit of that armor and still have it be reasonably protected against most threats. Taking off some of that armor will also reduce the strain on the transmission and make it less cramped inside.

 

 



Guardianleopard #24 Posted Jul 28 2014 - 15:39

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11439 battles
  • 1,134
  • [SAKU] SAKU
  • Member since:
    05-11-2012

View PostLostCosmonaut, on Jul 28 2014 - 16:32, said:

 

 

Alright, if it has 1800mm (you're not going to fit a gas turbine into the sponson, although I suppose you could cram some of the ancillary bits in there) it would fit. I'd be worried about heat dissipation (it will be a very tight fit, especially considering that the GT101 is probably going to be a lot bigger than the AGT1500 or similar, since there's no way they would have the same power density). But if it's a one off prototype it won't much matter if it catches fire and burns up once the test program finishes.

 

Since it's a medium tank, the thing that sticks out to me is the armor. Your upper glacis is thicker than the one on the IS-3, and more sloped. Since the production models (with diesel engines) are going to be less powerful (M60 has 750 hp, and I doubt any reasonable 1946 engine is going to produce that much power, fit in your tank, and be reliable. Probably about 600 hp at most.), you could strip off a good bit of that armor and still have it be reasonably protected against most threats. Taking off some of that armor will also reduce the strain on the transmission and make it less cramped inside.

 

 

So an example would be

UFP: 100mm

LFP: 90mm

Sides: 90mm and 80mm

Back 90mm

Top 40mm

Bottom 50mm?

 

Maybe a pair of engines could work better?


Edited by Guardianleopard, Jul 28 2014 - 15:50.


Daigensui #25 Posted Jul 28 2014 - 15:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostLostCosmonaut, on Jul 28 2014 - 07:32, said:

Alright, if it has 1800mm (you're not going to fit a gas turbine into the sponson, although I suppose you could cram some of the ancillary bits in there) it would fit. I'd be worried about heat dissipation (it will be a very tight fit, especially considering that the GT101 is probably going to be a lot bigger than the AGT1500 or similar, since there's no way they would have the same power density). But if it's a one off prototype it won't much matter if it catches fire and burns up once the test program finishes.

 

This is how GT 102 would look like in Panther:

 

 

As you can see, they are using the sponsons.

 

 

View PostLostCosmonaut, on Jul 28 2014 - 07:32, said:

Since it's a medium tank, the thing that sticks out to me is the armor. Your upper glacis is thicker than the one on the IS-3, and more sloped. Since the production models (with diesel engines) are going to be less powerful (M60 has 750 hp, and I doubt any reasonable 1946 engine is going to produce that much power, fit in your tank, and be reliable. Probably about 600 hp at most.), you could strip off a good bit of that armor and still have it be reasonably protected against most threats. Taking off some of that armor will also reduce the strain on the transmission and make it less cramped inside.

 

I'm not really sure about the production model armor. M60A1's hull was 109 mm at 65 degrees for the upper glacis and 85~143 mm for the lower glacis.



FISSION_CURES_ANIME #26 Posted Jul 28 2014 - 16:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 32273 battles
  • 3,222
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-23-2013

View PostDaigensui, on Jul 28 2014 - 09:51, said:

 

This is how GT 102 would look like in Panther:

 

 

 

As you can see, they are using the sponsons.

 

 

 

I'm not really sure about the production model armor. M60A1's hull was 109 mm at 65 degrees for the upper glacis and 85~143 mm for the lower glacis.

 

 

Point taken. Still, considering the German's abysmal record at both producing reliable gas turbines and not having Panthers catch fire, I'd be extremely hesitant about copying their design. (Also, I'm still skeptical about the power it was claimed to output.) Again, though, if it's a one-off, it doesn't really matter when it becomes a mobile bonfire, so long as it's after the test program finishes.

 

Also, bear in mind the Patton's armor is designed to deal with ~1960 Soviet tanks (such as T-55, and upcoming T-62 with 115mm). I doubt you'll be seeing the same kind of threats in 1946, unless technology has advanced by 15 years for everyone.



Daigensui #27 Posted Jul 28 2014 - 16:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostLostCosmonaut, on Jul 28 2014 - 08:05, said:

Point taken. Still, considering the German's abysmal record at both producing reliable gas turbines and not having Panthers catch fire, I'd be extremely hesitant about copying their design. (Also, I'm still skeptical about the power it was claimed to output.) Again, though, if it's a one-off, it doesn't really matter when it becomes a mobile bonfire, so long as it's after the test program finishes.

 

Well, Germany's main problem was pretty much metallurgy (not having access to resources can hurt a lot), which isn't much of an issue in this case. And yes, it's pretty much an one-off, with quite a bit of support around it. No sane country would consider mass producing this even if it had some of the greatest reserves of fuel and rare metals in the world.

 

 

View PostLostCosmonaut, on Jul 28 2014 - 08:05, said:

Also, bear in mind the Patton's armor is designed to deal with ~1960 Soviet tanks (such as T-55, and upcoming T-62 with 115mm). I doubt you'll be seeing the same kind of threats in 1946, unless technology has advanced by 15 years for everyone.

 

I need to write it in the OP, but the tactical situation is facing analogues of T-44-100, IS-3, and ISU-152-2. Not sure how much HEAT would have advanced, but likely quite a bit since major tank engagements start in 1936 (with butterflies, such as the US jumpstarting its own medium tank development and adopting Patton's tank uniform).



FISSION_CURES_ANIME #28 Posted Jul 28 2014 - 16:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 32273 battles
  • 3,222
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-23-2013

Even without metallurgy issues, I'm still skeptical of the performance figures, unless they are backed up by actual tests. They might have been planned to make that much, but I doubt it would actually do that (again, considering the poor track record of Germany getting paper projects turned into actual things). For instance, it might have been designed to make 1250hp, but because gas turbine design is hard (especially in 1946), it only makes 800. Or something.

 

Also, where did you find the diagram of the GT102?


Edited by LostCosmonaut, Jul 28 2014 - 16:19.


Daigensui #29 Posted Jul 28 2014 - 16:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostLostCosmonaut, on Jul 28 2014 - 08:18, said:

Also, where did you find the diagram of the GT102?

 

German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development 1930-1945. I don't have the PDF with me at the moment, so had to use this Russian page which had that particular scanned page.



FISSION_CURES_ANIME #30 Posted Jul 28 2014 - 16:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 32273 battles
  • 3,222
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-23-2013

Alright, cool.

 

Unrelated; what program did you use to make that model? It looks quite well done.



Daigensui #31 Posted Jul 28 2014 - 16:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012
ApplesauceBandit has been doing it for me (with payment), and I think he uses 3DS max.

Daigensui #32 Posted Jul 30 2014 - 18:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012
So.... anyone have any suggestions for the turret mechanics?

CaptianNemo_VA_ #33 Posted Aug 07 2014 - 07:34

    Captain

  • Players
  • 293 battles
  • 1,766
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-27-2013

1400L(Panther turbo) - 720L(Panther normal)+740L(Tiger II normal)=1420L

 

Fuel change from your 1680L fuel load as discussed on Skype.

 

Given that it is a gas-turbine I would go with electric transverse. And I am not sure if you can have a multi-geared speed transverse setup with electric like you can for hydraulic.



Daigensui #34 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 03:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostCaptianNemo_VA_, on Aug 06 2014 - 23:34, said:

Given that it is a gas-turbine I would go with electric transverse. And I am not sure if you can have a multi-geared speed transverse setup with electric like you can for hydraulic.

 

Going with hydraulic. Now I need to work on the actual mechanics.



Walter_Sobchak #35 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 03:48

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostDaigensui, on Sep 04 2014 - 22:43, said:

 

Going with hydraulic. Now I need to work on the actual mechanics.

 

You mean the imaginary mechanics.  It's an imaginary tank. 

Daigensui #36 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 04:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Sep 04 2014 - 19:48, said:

You mean the imaginary mechanics.  It's an imaginary tank. 

 

I plan on making this is "realistic" as possible, so that maybe in the future I can make one.



Walter_Sobchak #37 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 04:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostDaigensui, on Sep 04 2014 - 23:15, said:

 

I plan on making this is "realistic" as possible, so that maybe in the future I can make one.

 

I guess we all need something to aspire to...

SergeantMatt #38 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 05:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 18576 battles
  • 2,527
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Sep 04 2014 - 23:15, said:

 

I plan on making this is "realistic" as possible, so that maybe in the future I can make one.

Posted Image



cashdash #39 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 06:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 5143 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Sep 04 2014 - 23:51, said:

 

I guess we all need something to aspire to...

 

Don't encourage her.



Walter_Sobchak #40 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 06:07

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View Postcashdash, on Sep 05 2014 - 01:04, said:

 

Don't encourage her.

 

My comment was meant as sarcasm, not encouragement. 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users