On Chimera again ... (designer's notes)

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: On Chimera again ... (designer's notes)

Postby DoktorvonWer » Thu 23 Jan 2014 23:24

trotskygrad wrote:is that reactive armor on the side?


Not reactive, no, but solid applique Chobham over the existing Chieftain hull plating.
Image

User avatar
trotskygrad
General
Posts: 6444
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 16:09
Location: две тысячи лет война
Contact:

Re: On Chimera again ... (designer's notes)

Postby trotskygrad » Thu 23 Jan 2014 23:31

DoktorvonWer wrote:
trotskygrad wrote:is that reactive armor on the side?


Not reactive, no, but solid applique Chobham over the existing Chieftain hull plating.

Ah I see, that makes more sense, given that it's a british vehicle :lol:
NEXT TIME I SEE A DAMN FLAMEWAR INVOLVING DARTH-LAMPSHADE, FROSTPOOKY, LONERIFLE, FADE2GRAY, TROTSKYGRAD AND/OR ANYONE INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THEM I'M GOING TO HAND OUT BANS TO ANYONE USING ANYTHING LOOKING REMOTELY LIKE AN AD-HOMINEM

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: On Chimera again ... (designer's notes)

Postby another505 » Thu 23 Jan 2014 23:50

Can you guys place casemate armor on the shell trap?

Im not sure it is called casemate, but the extra armor for ISU-152 gun reaches 320mm compare to its body 90mm
Image
Of Salt

Woodwind
Specialist
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue 21 Jan 2014 18:12
Contact:

Re: On Chimera again ... (designer's notes)

Postby Woodwind » Fri 24 Jan 2014 01:31

You cannot cover the gap and allow for full elevation and depression. The 15 degree traverse each way would also present problems. If the cover is to be sensible it has to match the rest of the frontal 60 degree arc protection levels - which would make it very, very heavy and the gun kit would probably not be able to move it apart form anything else. A largish tank gun with its cradle etc has a balanced elevating mass of anything up 9 tonnes and you might be adding another tonne-plus some way forward of the trunnions throwing that balance out significantly.

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: On Chimera again ... (designer's notes)

Postby another505 » Fri 24 Jan 2014 02:56

then unfortunately it is not designed like the strv 103

able to move up and down and rotate to traverse the gun :D
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
trotskygrad
General
Posts: 6444
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 16:09
Location: две тысячи лет война
Contact:

Re: On Chimera again ... (designer's notes)

Postby trotskygrad » Fri 24 Jan 2014 03:16

Woodwind wrote:You cannot cover the gap and allow for full elevation and depression. The 15 degree traverse each way would also present problems. If the cover is to be sensible it has to match the rest of the frontal 60 degree arc protection levels - which would make it very, very heavy and the gun kit would probably not be able to move it apart form anything else. A largish tank gun with its cradle etc has a balanced elevating mass of anything up 9 tonnes and you might be adding another tonne-plus some way forward of the trunnions throwing that balance out significantly.


do you think ERA or nxRA would be placed in those areas, at least if someone were to make a modern version of this design?
NEXT TIME I SEE A DAMN FLAMEWAR INVOLVING DARTH-LAMPSHADE, FROSTPOOKY, LONERIFLE, FADE2GRAY, TROTSKYGRAD AND/OR ANYONE INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THEM I'M GOING TO HAND OUT BANS TO ANYONE USING ANYTHING LOOKING REMOTELY LIKE AN AD-HOMINEM

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: On Chimera again ... (designer's notes)

Postby hansbroger » Fri 24 Jan 2014 05:26

another505 wrote:Can you guys place casemate armor on the shell trap?

Im not sure it is called casemate, but the extra armor for ISU-152 gun reaches 320mm compare to its body 90mm


Chobham gun mantlet FTW!
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

Woodwind
Specialist
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue 21 Jan 2014 18:12
Contact:

Re: On Chimera again ... (designer's notes)

Postby Woodwind » Fri 24 Jan 2014 11:33

We thought long and hard about the possibility of a mantlet but always cameup against the problem of weight and gaps. Chobham is not going to solve the problem of how to fill the gaps. It is also heavy.

The only way I would see anything being done (and it is a partial solution which we were not aware of at the time) is to put a 2.5m section of ERA across the front and resting on runners to allow the whole section to slide left and right. It would have a vertical slot or gap in the middle to allow the gun to elevate and depress.

It is possible to "tune" ERA to work against specific types of projectiles more effectively and you could decide if you want to mitigate the effects of KE or CE rounds. The lesser weight of the ERA would still be a factor to take into account - but at least it would be carried by the vehicle structure rather than the gun itself - and it has the additional merit of being thinner than conventional RHA or "chobham" packs.

You could then fill the gap above the gun with another ERA plate. Below the gun some clever engineer could arrange a spring-loaded section that could slide into place when the gun was elevated above a certain angle - but bear in mind that the more complicated the contraption, the more likely it is to go wrong (and at precisely the wrong time as well).

You would have to look at the effects of an ERA plate detonation on the traverse - it might jam the traverse. You would also have to consider the effects of an incoming round that did not detonate the ERA but instead simply pushed the ERA array into the current ballistic gap, again jamming the gun.

Choices choices !

Hope that helps.

jmpveg22
Lieutenant
Posts: 1326
Joined: Fri 24 Aug 2012 12:37

Re: On Chimera again ... (designer's notes)

Postby jmpveg22 » Fri 24 Jan 2014 12:27

Mosquevan wrote:
Spoiler : :
Even despite the information, I still believe that the Chimera, being a fanciful vehicle, and now knowing that it is not even Canadian, it has no place in Wargame and should be removed to reinforce authenticity.


Eitherway, I would like to see that sketch, Woodwind. What were you going to do about that massive, glaring shot trap around the cannon however?


I actually kinda second the sentiment... the project seems to never go beyond a design phase. No working prototype, no full sized mock up, no realistic inclusion in the cold war other than blueprints.

It sets a bad precedent in a game modeling a historical conflict. Think of all the American or Soviet blueprints on napkins or otherwise that could be introduced. I understand Canada was SEVERELY lacking, but there were other much better ways of addressing this issue without giving into parity (which is totally unauthentic to the cold war).

jmpveg22
Lieutenant
Posts: 1326
Joined: Fri 24 Aug 2012 12:37

Re: On Chimera again ... (designer's notes)

Postby jmpveg22 » Fri 24 Jan 2014 12:29

Also Woodwind...

PLEASE help out Eugen in their future endeavors and provide a sense of realism to the game... it would make a great game 100times better. Thanks for the most interesting information and read.

:)

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests