Redesigning a Chubby armoured unicorn.

Past few days my mind has fixated ons omething that's bothered me for quite a while now.

Redesigning & re-arming the Rhino.

Ummm... not this one.

This one:

This is matching the in-universe size (at 1:300 scale)

 

 

I know rule of cool generally applies to sci fi vehicles. however - I want something a little bit more feasible. I mean... does it look like it could fit 10 6' (Yes, I know modern lore has them bigger but... eh...) super soldiers in powered armour, along with 2 vehicle crew?

Objects are closer than they appear in the mirror....

 

 

Well.... Someone's getting an elbow in the spleen in there....

 

 So yeah.... I'm up for redesigning this particular chubby armoured unicorn.

Physical design .

Two doors and an assault ramp at the rear.

 

That's a lot of holes in the armour, not to mention the side doors complicating the track layout - somehow, the tracks have to get between the top of the side hatch and the bottom of the roof armour. 

 

Not to mention the nightmare of access for maintenance and repair.

I've seen some 3d designs that have full, unarmoured wraparound tracks, which is a nice echo of the original land raider, and gives easier access to the tracks at least..

Conversely, it allows unfriendly people ease of access to the tracks, making it far easier to cause a mobility kill on the vehicle.

Look Sarge... I know I'm only a private an' all... and not that smart... But I'm pretty sure that shouldn't be all the way over there......

After all, there's a reason that tank track / road wheel / drive sprocket design has evolved the way it has. It's a compromise between ease of access for maintenance and protection.

 

That said, there a many, many pics of M113 APC's in Vietnam that have had the fenders removed, exposing the tracks fully to help prevent gunk building up and jamming the tracks/causing the vehicle to throw a track

 

No Fender

 

 

Fender

 

Fender Bender (And NO I'm NOT sorry)

 (And, admittedly in 1:16th radio control scale, it is RIDICULOUSLY easy to throw a track if you're not careful - after all, they are one of the most vulnerable parts of the vehicle.

So, a compromise would be similar to the M113 type tracks. Lower, with removable / optional fenders.this would require the side doors to be deleted though.

 But it would open up the inside for more storage/side benches with room for the passengers back/powerpacks.

 

One I made earlier..........

 

I think they would also need to be longer as well. 

 

A bit of research shows average shoulder width is about 25% of height.

 

In universe, a Rhino is meant to be 21-22 feet long. and looking at it, the rear two thirds look to be "cargo" which would put it roughly in line with the FV430/M113 give or take proportion wise.

So, a total length of cargo, including rear door etc of 14-15'

And that's supposed to take 10 marine, plus a vehicle commander. (in the middle)
so, 2 benches - 1 per side. say 12' long.

A Bit of research shows average shoulder to height ration is 25% of height.

so for a 7' Space marine, would be 1.75 feet wide.

I'd also say, generously, the pauldrons and packs add another foot at least. from the diagrams.

so 2.75 feet per marine.

5 marines = 13 feet. or being generous - 12"

However, adding a bit of the rule of cool, and bulking out the shoulders more, gives a width of 3-4 feet.

So looking more like 15-20 feet in length for the cargo compartment.

Scaling model on the left.
6' to eyes with roughly scale shoulders in the middle.
rule of cool on the right.

And that's not including space for heavy weapons, extra bling, supplies etc.

So... at fully "true" scale in theory they could fit, but it's definitely showing it's design roots, back in the early days before Marines were turned into 7' tall supermen, and Pauldrons were not quite so.... well.. Large.

Plus, for 6mm mini's - which is what I'm working on at the moment) they need to be a bit bulkier to ensure plenty of strength.

Height wise, it's.... also large. 3.6 meters nearly 12 feet.

M113 is 8'2, and FV430 Bulldog is 7'6

Thats enormous. each of the two floors of my house are about 10' and a double decker bus is about 14-15 feet.

The phrase "Big Fat Target" springs to mind.

Even if we do go with the 7ft tall superhumans, 12' tall is on the high side. Knocking off say, a couple of feet for ground clearance (44cm in universe) and say a VERY generous 1' for roof armour, would give an internal height of 9'.

We can easily knock of 2' of the height, if not more, even more so if we go  a 6' marine, plus 6" of height boost in the armour, an internal height og 6.5-7' wouldn't be too bad, especially given most modern APC's passengers do have to lower their heads a bit.

So, 7' internal, 1.5' for ground clearance, 6" for roof armour etc, we could go for a 9' height - not much more than the M113 - and 3 feet lower, so less of a target.

Width wise - 14.85 feet/4.5 meters The average car width here in the uk is 1.8 meters.
An M113 is 8.5'/2.6 and FV430 bulldog is 9.24'/2.8m

If we assume we lose 3' of lower internal space for tracks (Based on the M113 tracks being 15", round up to 18" so 36"/3' for both sides) gives 11.85 feet.).

Allow a generous 1' for both sides armour gives us 10.85' wide internal space. from the earlier width for a marine of 2.75", you could get 3 mariens standing comfortably side by side, going for the rule of cool  you'd be looking at 2 & a bit

In short - too wide. If we keep similar planning, we can probably knock off about 3-4' and make the width 10.85 feet or 11 feet/3.3 meters overall or 7' inside.
TI reckon, we could even get away with dropping the width down to 10'. or even 9-9.5 feet, as the armour really wont be that wide. I'll go with the 11' width so there's roughly room for 2 marines side by side inside.

So.. overall.

 

Drop the side doors - Ingress/Egress via a door/ramp in the rear similar to the M113

 

Redo the tracks to a more "contemporary" design

 

Change the dimensions to:

Length: 27-28'

Height 9'

Width: 11'

 

Armament

If it's equivalent to an APC we can look at things liek the FV430 series, or the M113 APC's for comparison.

The FV 430 Bulldog is generally armed with a GPMG, M113 with a .50 cal

So, going for the smaller of the two - the GPMG, it fires a heavier (nowadays) cartridge, with a higher effective range than the standard assault rifle.

To me, that would rule out the storm bolter - which, as originally "designed" was higher rate of fire, lower range - more of a submachine gun.

An Autocannon would be too large - that's more for an IFV than an APC - maybe for something like a Razorback, but not a Rhino.

So. Standard armament to me suggests a Heavy  Bolter, rather than twin bolters or a storm bolter.


So, converting the new measurements to 1:300 scale:
Length: 29.50' =   9M = 9000mm  =35mm
Width:  12'  =  3.60 =  3600mm  = 12mmmm Hull width (not steps)14.5 all in
Height: 9.5' =  2.89 = 2890mm   = 9.63mm

This I think is close enough to look like it could carry the amount it's meant to in universe. I@m also planning to remodel the front hull, as at present - there's nowhere for a drive-train/drive axel for the engine - It's front end is designed as if the engine is at the back, and vice versa... and the 4 exhausts suggest 4 separate power plants..... which is just... odd.

 

so.. yeah, I've at least got a rough scale figured out.

Left: In Universe Scale
Center: M113
Right: Rough rescale
hull & track redesign next

All that said, that's damn long, and being tracked I could see it having problems with maneuverability and transport - solution? Drop the carry capacity from 10 to say 6. That way we can lose  a good 8 feet from the length. Yes you would need 2 per squad but that wouldn't be the end of the world. Especially in 6mm 1/300 where 1 5 man base represents a squad. One vehicle model therefore represents enough vehicles for them.