Jump to content


Amazing tank designs!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
33 replies to this topic

dllu #1 Posted Oct 19 2011 - 07:22

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13668 battles
  • 157
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011


Panzerkampfwagen E-60 (P) Ausf. A
Posted ImagePosted Image
Posted ImagePosted Image


The following is fictional

Quote

In 1946 the Wehrmacht became increasingly aware of the Soviet T-54 and IS-3 tanks. With the death of the lately insane Fuhrer, German engineers were free to pursue truly brilliant tank designs rather than the fantastical superheavy Maus. A new doctrine in armoured warfare was set to supplant the older philosophy of medium tanks and heavy tanks - the main battle tank. The new main battle tanks were to have the protection of a heavy tank combined with the mobility of a medium tank. To this end, an Entwicklung series E-60 Standardpanzer main battle tank was commissioned with at target weight of, naturally, 60 tonnes. To maintain the superiority of German firepower, a new Rheinmetall KwK 54, a 118 mm L/58 cannon, was designed. Combined with an automatic loader, this gun was capable of a phenomenal rate of fire approaching 10 rounds per minute. The chassis, designed by Porsche and jointly produced by Porsche and MAN, had a frontal armour of 200 mm at a steep slope and 90 mm on the sides, again sloped. The new turret, dubbed flachturm due to its flat shape (inspired by the Soviet tanks' hemispherical turret), was supplied by Henschel. The engine was a new horizontally opposed 12 cylinder unit capable of 1500 metric horsepower. By shifting the engine compartment to the rear, a reduction in overall height was achieved, with the corresponding reduction in weight and improvement in mobility. The German design of very wide tracks and large interleaved road wheels provided for excellent cross-country performance and a very stable gun platform.

The following is not fictional

Created by dllu using Rhinoceros 3D and rendered in VRay

Model is still work in progress. Any suggestions are welcome!

Things I will fix soon:
- Sprockets (esp. rear sprockets; using a main road wheel right now as placeholder)

Gunther30 #2 Posted Oct 19 2011 - 07:27

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16425 battles
  • 212
  • Member since:
    09-05-2011
10 rounds per sec haha favorite part!  :lol::Smile-playing:

dllu #3 Posted Oct 19 2011 - 07:29

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13668 battles
  • 157
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011

View PostGunther30, on Oct 19 2011 - 07:27, said:

10 rounds per sec haha favorite part!  :lol::Smile-playing:
That was a typo! Clearly I was off by a factor of 60...  :P

Gunther30 #4 Posted Oct 19 2011 - 07:50

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16425 battles
  • 212
  • Member since:
    09-05-2011
I figured you meant per minute but it was pretty funny imagining 10 rounds per seconds.  Really like how the tank looks though btw.

zentraedi #5 Posted Oct 19 2011 - 09:28

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 9472 battles
  • 544
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
Sexy looking...

dllu #6 Posted Oct 19 2011 - 09:28

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13668 battles
  • 157
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011
Posted Image

Added: Driver's hatch and viewport; headlamp; hull machine gun viewport; radio antenna; camouflage pattern

dllu #7 Posted Oct 19 2011 - 21:17

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13668 battles
  • 157
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Click on pictures for larger version


New: Sprockets changed, wheels modified, second hatch added to turret, two headlamps instead of one.

dllu #8 Posted Oct 25 2011 - 09:47

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13668 battles
  • 157
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011


Flakpanzer
Posted ImagePosted Image
As always, click on the pictures for larger version.

Quote

Based on the chassis of the Panzer E-60 Ausf. A, the Flakpanzer E-60 has a fully rotating turret with two six-barrel 30 mm Gatling guns with a maximum elevation of 87 degrees for anti-aircraft use. Each of the two Gatling guns has a rate of fire of 10 rounds per second. The dome at the rear of the turret is a radar.


Ketnix #9 Posted Oct 27 2011 - 17:10

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8240 battles
  • 230
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011
Really nice stuff. I hope to see more! +1

dllu #10 Posted Nov 07 2011 - 08:29

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13668 battles
  • 157
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011
Here's a work in progress of a French-inspired tank with a rather modern-ish turret and a huge gun mounted on an elegant and curvaceous, albeit highly antiquated even in World War II, chassis inspired by tanks such as the Char B1.  

Posted Image

Ketnix #11 Posted Nov 07 2011 - 16:15

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8240 battles
  • 230
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011
Looks very French indeed!

dllu #12 Posted Nov 17 2011 - 11:12

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13668 battles
  • 157
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011
My steampunk tank!

Posted Image

Giganaut #13 Posted Nov 17 2011 - 12:55

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10965 battles
  • 2,969
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View Postdllu, on Nov 17 2011 - 11:12, said:


this one gets my vote for the contest :D

SilentShadowBR #14 Posted Nov 17 2011 - 12:58

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14190 battles
  • 40
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View Postdllu, on Nov 17 2011 - 11:12, said:


Before anything else, i would like to say that what i will say next is not intended for insult or to down-stamp you work.
Regarding the visuals, it looks EPIC! Keep up the excellent work!  :Smile_honoring:
As for practical realism tough...Sorry, i'm the kind of person who is over-enthusiastic with realism, and i can't let some impressions and opinions about your designs go unanswered and/or untold. I intend all i will say next in a constructive way, ok? Here goes:  :unsure:

About the E-60 Panzer design:
I don't mean to put flaws in somebody else's work, but did you test your turret rotation on the E-60?
By the pictures i have the impression it would have problems rotating to the back because of the (probably turret-ring protection intended) bump frontwards of the engine.
The back of the turret has no problems because it is elevated, but as for the gun, i don't think it would be able to traverse 360º by the looks of it.
It might have an elevated-enough gun (like many modern tanks, like the this-case-obligatory-ref. "Abrams") and i'm just having the wrong impression tough, but i would like to be sure you either test it out (if u have not already done) or you to at last know it might happen (if you don't already do).

About the E-60 FlakPanzer design:
The Flak-Panzer weapons have some (in my opinion) practical flaws too:
-If it's guns can go 87º up, they could very well go the full 90º!
-Gattlin guns, tough existent, were not really popular in WW2 designs, mostly due to space-related issues for the ammo-feed and multi-barrels. Usually, multiple separate gun-systems linked to a common Aim-point and Fire-Control-System (AKA "Dual-Mounts", Quad-Mounts", etc) were used instead.
-For it to have a dual-mount setting of gattlings, and on separate gun-domes to top it off, that's going way off what was practical for a WW2 tank.
-I also think you should take a barrel off the each gattling and redistribute the remaining ones (without down-scaling the proportion). As of now, i don't see any space between barrels, and at a decent rate-of-fire, heat would take them over real fast since the heat would transfer/keep in between them (and likely make the ammo blow inside the barrel, causing catastrophic consequences to the tank's ability to fire it's guns, if not worse).
-I'm also pretty sure radar-domes of that size were nonexistent. WW2 radars i know about were either directional (mostly aircraft-mounted, and even then just a few), or large rotating satellite-shaped structures for 360º. (mostly part of ship's/sub's FCSs or on fixed ground structures). I might be terribly wrong tough! I will give it a little research later just to be sure!

About the Steampunk:
It's pretty much perfect, and as of now i just noticed two minor possible flaws:
-The gun's barrel might hit the smaller dome on the back, or gun's fire the taller cylinder, if its 180º backwards. Gives the tank's gun a small blind-spot to the rear. If the first is true, then the gun must be elevated to pass the dome without hitting it, possibly making the gunner have to re-adjust the aim for a new shot.
-Unless there is a gap at that specific point, the side guns/domes are going thru one or two pairs of the spring-shaped suspension, with makes them unconnected to the tank's hull and thus only practical as "dummy turrets".

Once again, sorry for my realism fanaticism, and keep the good work on the designs! Visuals look real great!  :Smile_honoring:

*EDIT*:
Just noticed, the Flak and Steampunk doesn't seem to have gunner's or commander's view-ports or sights-holes, add em soon!  :P

dllu #15 Posted Nov 17 2011 - 20:49

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13668 battles
  • 157
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011
I always appreciate some constructive feedback :)

About the E-60 Panzer design:


Posted Image


Yes, the turret can turn all the way back and the gun clears the rear engine compartment. However, gun depression is quite restricted in the back. It was not a priority to come up with a design that allows hull-down positions when in reverse, and an overall low profile was deemed more important.


About the E-60 Flakpanzer:

1) Gun elevation. I just typed the 87 degrees on a whim. I could change it to 90 if you want. I think the model allows it physically to go up to 95 or something crazy.
2) It is true that Gatling guns were not popular in World War II. However, the design is intended for a lengthened WW2 in which Germany didn't lose quite yet, so the timeframe is the late 1940s and possibly even early 1950s. The M61 Vulcan was designed in 1946 (although it didn't go into service until much later, in 1959), so it is conceivable that the Germans would design something similar.
3) Regarding the spacing between barrels, maybe I can scale down the size of each individual barrel.
4) The gun domes are connected internally the middle so it is essentially a single gun dome.
5) It was a rotating satellite-shaped structure encased in a thin dome (transparent to radio waves) that offers protection against weather and debris.

About the Steampunk

1) Yes, the gun barrel might hit the smaller dome on the back, so it has to be elevated to clear it. I admit I overlooked this (although I did consider the blind spot). However, the tank was likely to be supported by infantry and possibly horse-drawn guns at all times, so there was little need to shoot at something behind it.
2) Yes there is a gap at that specific point. There are two separate rails... one before the side gun, one after the side gun. This is also why the rail in front curves up towards the side gun.

Regarding gunner's view ports...

1) The Steampunk tank gunner simply looks through the same hole that the gun shoots out of. Navel turrets of the era (though much larger) were like that too. There is also an unseen hatch on top of the turret.
2) The Flakpanzer model is not very complete and I will add those things soon.

SilentShadowBR #16 Posted Nov 18 2011 - 00:11

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14190 battles
  • 40
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011

View Postdllu, on Nov 17 2011 - 20:49, said:

I always appreciate some constructive feedback :)

Quote

Yes, the turret can turn all the way back and the gun clears the rear engine compartment. However, gun depression is quite restricted in the back. It was not a priority to come up with a design that allows hull-down positions when in reverse, and an overall low profile was deemed more important.

Nice!

Quote

2) It is true that Gatling guns were not popular in World War II. However, the design is intended for a lengthened WW2 in which Germany didn't lose quite yet, so the timeframe is the late 1940s and possibly even early 1950s.

Oh! That puts it the design-possibilities on a whole different level! I usually restrict my designs from 1940 (anything present) to 1946 (design/prototype present at last) so i just kinda naturally (and mostly wrongly) assume others do something alike on the WW2-themed models.
Sorry!  :unsure:

Quote

3) Regarding the spacing between barrels, maybe I can scale down the size of each individual barrel.

Don't forget it must (at last for me who am just crazy about realism) match the ammo's size plus some margin for the barrel not to break when firing!  :lol:
I usually use "25%-caliber" thickness for the barrel's tube ("150%-caliber" total width) for the minimum outer size of the barrel (@muzzle), and about "(200% to 300%)-caliber" maximum (@mantlet)

Quote

4) The gun domes are connected internally the middle so it is essentially a single gun dome.

So they are linked to the same axis, but are still different domes. I don't know if multiple-gun-domes were practical by of the late 40s or early 50s; The earliest "AA-Tank" i know about with uses multiple-gun-dome design is the cold-war's (but still in service) 9K22 "Tunguska", with development starting 8 of June, 1970 and entering service just in 1982.

Quote

5) It was a rotating satellite-shaped structure encased in a thin dome (transparent to radio waves) that offers protection against weather and debris.

I don't know about the late 40s or early 50s, but on the original i was referring to the WW2-time radar, with were abysmically far from practical for tanks.
Practical military use for "radars" (not really radars at this point) can go as early as 1904, with the first equipment capable of detecting the presence (not direction nor range) of wooden ships.
True "RADAR" (capable of finding both range and direction) was only available by the mid-30s, but were way off a tank-designer wildest dreams, for they required something like this.
Radars small enough to fit into aircraft only started development around 1938, and by the time prototypes were successful, it's detection was limited to some 30º directional, it needed multiple antennae, run on high-frequency (otherwise antennae would need to be larger, and high-frequency = lower range if my memory is not failing me) and the necessary hardware to run it would take a man's space and a ton's weight at its smallest.
Unless if talking about a radar-specialized vehicle, i don't think a tank would be able to fit all its essential equipment (even on "lightweight config") plus it all (this + this)

There were satellite-shaped radio-relay small enough to fit trucks by the end of WW2 tough, so i don't doubt at all that small-enough radars could be available by around 1948~ so your in the cool.
Then again tough, i still think they would need be double-larger for a 360º or limited to 30º-front directional compared to your's for anytime before 52~! BUUUUUT, then again we are talking about a "what-if" setting here so who cares about some 2 years worth of tech-dev? On the settings you are working your tank under, your tank is acceptable enough in my realism-fanatic-op (note: realism-fanatism to the settings, not so much to real-life-closeness)! :lol:

About the rest
Nice!

Thx for the answering! My realism-impulses have quieted down a little now!
Keep up the good work and GL on the contest!

dllu #17 Posted Nov 28 2011 - 03:25

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13668 battles
  • 157
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011
Posted Image

Spot the difference with the current website!

tzarmarko #18 Posted Nov 28 2011 - 04:00

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 4127 battles
  • 260
  • Member since:
    08-08-2011
May I ask how?  :o

ApplesauceBandit #19 Posted Nov 28 2011 - 04:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 27242 battles
  • 5,994
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011

View Postdllu, on Nov 28 2011 - 03:25, said:

*snip snip snip*
That's not fair :P  You can't be good at 3d and 2d art!

dllu #20 Posted Nov 29 2011 - 04:28

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13668 battles
  • 157
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011

View Posttzarmarko, on Nov 28 2011 - 04:00, said:

May I ask how?  :o

I rendered a picture at that angle, and I placed an orange coloured light at approximately the same spot so the lighting looks right. Then I adjusted the colours in Photoshop, cut it out, and pasted it in the other picture :P

I used this technique to make the colours match perfectly.

Here's a comparison of different lighting:

Posted Image




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users