Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
EnsignExpendable

StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

I posted protection levels for this turret earlier, it can withstand some 100mm ap (haven't seen test with 100mm but they tested 90mm)from 1km in +-5 degree arc 

 

BR-412 surely, BR-412B... well... maybe... BR-412D, very unlikely. 30mm outer layer may de-cap the shell, but I do not think the 30+30mm inner layer can shatter the core. Next step is the trunnion, and even if that stops the core, the gun will be damaged. Its just my opinion, correct me if Im wrong, Im no expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2018 at 11:30 PM, TokyoMorose said:

 

Final drives gave out after 150km on average, transmission excluding 3rd gear was ~1500km. (Governed) Engines were also around ~1,500km. The French also found that pivot steering greatly accelerated wear on the final drives, to the point of having cases of the drives breaking mid-turn, and they gave strict orders to avoid pivot steering it.

Dolye? or Spielberger or Jentz (all three?) I can't recall which book talk about the Panther's final drive trouble. Particularly on the Jagdpanther as it had more weight on the front and was dying even faster then the regular Panther.

 

Something like 30-50km? before it gave up the ghost. Towards the end of the war they started to get the heavier duty final drives and transmission/gearboxes the 7-400? that they reported the life increasing to 400-500 km and had yet to have a failure at the point of the report. If I were a betting man I would say very little if any regular panthers ended up getting those as they probably reserved them for the more strained Jagdpanther.

 

Interesting that the French blueprints show the Panther G with a 90mm hull front and a 70mm lower. Seen the 70mm lower reported numerous times since the allies first started to capture them (up to 75mm in a few cases) but a 90mm glacis plate is the thickest I have ever seen listed (usually 85mm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

puma_dny_nato_3b.jpg

 

Puma S1 upgrade, a bit clearer image.

gIS3XhA.png

 

There is a total of 11 cameras on the hull + two cameras on the turret (one in the gunner's sight and one in the commander's sight) + 4 optical sensors for MUSS + multiple thermal imagers + the TWSA will feature camera and thermal imager... no wonder that the Puma (and other modern AFVs) are so much more expensive than older vehicles.

 

It has been confirmed by a Czech website that the Puma's turret is indeed certified to work with 35 x 228 mm guns. Previously it was claimed by Artec that the PuBo (Boxer with Puma turret) can mount a 35 mm gun instead of the 30 mm Mauser MK30/2-ABM.

 

On 9/7/2018 at 8:25 PM, Wiedzmin said:

(30+35)65mm/65 degree 

  

HZB 301 370-410HB and up to 490 for 12mm plates,roof HZB20 260-300HB

 

So the steel was quite a bit harder than the steel armor used on other tanks of the same time period. The question remains how much more efficient this would have been, given that there are numerous different factors and hardness is only  a single of them. I'd say the overall result could be considered quite decent, given that the M60 (pre-A1) and M48 had thicker armor, but a much higher vulnerability vs 100 mm AP rounds. The Leopard 1A3 clearly had a smaller protected arc and therefore was arguably still more vulnerable overall, depending on how threats from different angles were weighed. However having only 154 mm steel weight to protect the turret cheeks to reach the same level of protection than the M60A1 with 254 mm cast armor seems impressive - that's 66% more protection per weight. Honestly that seems to be too much, but maybe that is related to the US Army using the softest steel on their tanks - or maybe Germany and the US were using different types of 100 mm ammo as reference?

 

On 9/8/2018 at 6:32 PM, heretic88 said:

I find hard to understand the logic behind this armor... Only barely more than bullet and autocannon proof. No chance to stop even 85mm APHE of ASU-85. Then why overly complicate this? What is this double layer for? A single, slightly thicker (~40mm) plate would work just as well, like the original Leopard turret. A little bit more for turret front, to make it resistant to at least the 76mm gun of PT-76. 

 

As Wiedzmin said, the armor is designed to resist 100 mm AP ammo, it won't have trouble stopping the 85 mm APHE round of the ASU-85 at combat ranges. The double layer in the mantlet covers only an small portion of the surface area (see the top-view photograph) and might be the result of using two different steel alloys. Two 30 mm plates with better hardness will provide a lot better protection than a single 40 mm plate.

 

I think you are underestimating the gain in armor protection that was achieved by having two layers instead of one.

 

On 9/8/2018 at 8:56 PM, heretic88 said:

BR-412 surely, BR-412B... well... maybe... BR-412D, very unlikely. 30mm outer layer may de-cap the shell, but I do not think the 30+30mm inner layer can shatter the core. Next step is the trunnion, and even if that stops the core, the gun will be damaged. Its just my opinion, correct me if Im wrong, Im no expert.

 

In tests made by the US military during the 1950s, a 12.7 mm steel plate was enough to reliably de-cap different types of 57 mm and 90 mm AP(CBC) shells and break tungsten carbide cores of 90 mm HVAPDS ammo. In some cases jaw was induced to the penetrator, so that it hit the following layers at an increased angle, meaning more effective armor thickness had to be penetrated.  Against sloped armor, this meant a massive increase in armor protection. The 90 mm M304 HVAP (APCR) round with tungsten carbide penetrator could defeat 3 inches of steel armor sloped at 55° up to a range of 1,850 yards (1,691 metres), when a 1/2 inch thick spaced plate was added, the same armor could only be penetrated at 50 yards (45 metres). A 4 inch steel plate at 30° slope with a 1/2 inch thick spaced plate was harder to penetrate than a 6 inch steel plate at the same angle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

 

So the steel was quite a bit harder than the steel armor used on other tanks of the same time period. 

 

 

well, not much, 490 for 12mm plates only to protect from 14.5 and 20mm(and all plates for light AFV used +- same HHS)

370-410 for main plates more or less the same for soviet BTK-1 HHS used on T-80 and other new soviet tank, T-55/62 used 42SM steel with 290-310HB IIRC, US M1 also used HHS etc 

 

btw it's funny there are some report about quality of US/UK and FRG plates for APFSDS test, XM735E2 penetrates 150/60 of UK/US plates from 3.4km, and FRG 150/60 only from 500 meters, and one of main reasons - hardness of plates(noted that the germans apparently use plates that more closely represent soviet tanks), it will be interesting to find some day real test of any APDS/APFSDS on any real tank... 

 

13 hours ago, SH_MM said:

. The Leopard 1A3 clearly had a smaller protected arc and therefore was arguably still more vulnerable overall, depending on how threats from different angles were weighed.

 

114293_original.jpg

 

it's also very importatn what your tank can do after hit, for example Centurion Mk.2 mantlet after hits with 6Pdr will be jammed, after this brits reinforced trunnion pin and now mantlet gets jammed only afted 17 Pdr AP, after that they made resilient mantlet on Mk.8, and for example if 88mm APCBC(real test) hits turret of Centurion on ricochet , some vision block craks, sight etc.

 

T-55 firing BR412B at T-54 can put out of action it without any penetrations, etc

 

there is a very interesting part of non-penetrative tests on tank - force impact on equipment but such reports are almost never found

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SH_MM said:

However having only 154 mm steel weight to protect the turret cheeks to reach the same level of protection than the M60A1 with 254 mm cast armor seems impressive - that's 66% more protection per weight.

 

Oh again this 254mm myth... When will people forget this? M-60A1 turret is WAY more stronger than that. At least from head on. This turret is fully immune to any 100mm KE projectile ever developed. Also fully immune to its own APDS from point blank. 115mm APFSDS (probably excluding 3BM21 and definitely 3BM28/3BM36) is also totally ineffective.

"Poorly protected M-60A1 turret" myth was debunked in WT forums, with real measurements. Mantlet thickness reaches 270mm at some points. (No, it isnt hollow!) And the angle isnt even considered. LOS thickness is around 380mm. Not even 125mm APFSDS (3BM9, 3BM12) was able to penetrate it in the beginning.

Of course this turret design wasnt perfect, because as side angle increases, protection level falls rapidly. (same is true for Leopard-1) Still, M-60A1 was the best protected western tank until Leopard-2.

http://btvt.info/1inservice/m60a1_israel/vop_m60a1_israel_armor.htm

Mantlet analysis:

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/404154-fwd2018-04-03-m60a1-gunshield-and-mantlet-measurements/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

"Poorly protected M-60A1 turret" myth was debunked in WT forums, with real measurements. Mantlet thickness reaches 270mm at some points. (No, it isnt hollow!) And the angle isnt even considered. LOS thickness is around 380mm. Not even 125mm APFSDS (3BM9, 3BM12) was able to penetrate it in the beginning.

people don't understand their own measures and physics  typical situation for all gamers

 

mantlet get thicker only where it have "claw" for gun trunnion, the rest (and most of) the area simple 110-118mm of casted low hadness steel with holes for MG and optic. gun barrel etc. omitting the fact that getting hit into the area of the trunnions will lead to jamming of the whole mantlet. but who cares...

37 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

if you take this "research" as basis about "115mm ineffective" you must also take that article says about mantlet - "antispall/bullet armour" instead of choosing the facts that are more convenient for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

well, not much, 490 for 12mm plates only to protect from 14.5 and 20mm(and all plates for light AFV used +- same HHS) 

370-410 for main plates more or less the same for soviet BTK-1 HHS used on T-80 and other new soviet tank, T-55/62 used 42SM steel with 290-310HB IIRC, US M1 also used HHS etc  

 

I was thinking more of the other NATO tanks in production of the time. The cast steel of the M48 tested in Yugoslavia had a hardness of only 220-240 BHN, the same hardness was kept for thicker steel castings for the M60 and M60A1 tanks until 1978 (when hardness was improved too 260-280 BHN). The Chieftain's cast armor also had reportedly a hardness of only 260-280 BHN, i.e. the same hardness reported for the cast armor of the T-55's turret in Yugoslavia. The cast turrets of the Leopard 1 and AMX-30 probably also have very low hardness, simply because creating cast steel with higher hardness was not possible without sacrificing ductility.

 

Compared to these tanks, the Leopard 1A3 and 1A4 should have quite a bit higher steel quality. The low thickness means that it won't reach higher levels of overall protection, but it is still interessting, that Germany was willing to increase protection using superior steel quality, rather than opting for simply (and cheaply) increasing armor thickness only.

 

6 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Oh again this 254mm myth... When will people forget this? M-60A1 turret is WAY more stronger than that. At least from head on. This turret is fully immune to any 100mm KE projectile ever developed. Also fully immune to its own APDS from point blank. 115mm APFSDS (probably excluding 3BM21 and definitely 3BM28/3BM36) is also totally ineffective. 

"Poorly protected M-60A1 turret" myth was debunked in WT forums, with real measurements. Mantlet thickness reaches 270mm at some points. (No, it isnt hollow!) And the angle isnt even considered. LOS thickness is around 380mm. Not even 125mm APFSDS (3BM9, 3BM12) was able to penetrate it in the beginning. 

 

Yes, the bad "myth". Why don't we say that the M60A1 turret is fully immune to any 120 and 125 mm KE projectile aswell? I mean there are no limit to our imagination - and imagination seems to be the only explanation for your statements. I posted an excerpt of a declassified protection anaylsis of the M60 tank variants made by the US Army a few pages earlier. This literally confirms that the turret front is only protected at 100 mm AP ammo from a distance of 1,000 m. 1,000 m, not point blanc range!

 

l68juwV.jpg

 

Only "myths" here are your claims. That the turret frontal armor has a thickness of 254 mm is confirmed in documents from the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command. So the US Army, which should have the most accurate knowledge regarding the armor protection of the M60A1 tank, clearly believed that the armor is 254 mm thick and can be defeated by 100 mm AP ammo.

 

 

6 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Of course this turret design wasnt perfect, because as side angle increases, protection level falls rapidly. (same is true for Leopard-1) Still, M-60A1 was the best protected western tank until Leopard-2. 

http://btvt.info/1inservice/m60a1_israel/vop_m60a1_israel_armor.htm 

 

The Chieftain has better frontal protection. It had a specified turret front armor thickness of 280 mm and a minimum frontal armor thickness of 240 mm.

 

Also: if you post claims about the M60A1's turret being immune to all available types of 100 mm ammo, some types of 115 mm APFSDS and its own 105 mm APDS round, you really shouldn't link to a source directly contradicting your claims. It says that in general the M60A1 had a low level of protection. Other articles from the same author, also posted on Andrei's website, also show that the protection level of the M60A1 wasn't impressive. The mantlet armor, that you believe to be 380 mm thick based on napkin math and wrong premises used by a Warthunder forum member, was actually considered a weakspot by the Soviet military:

m60a1_armor.jpg

So when 380 mm would be considered a weakspot, the rest of the turret would need to be much thicker (which it isn't, because the mantlet doesn't have an effective armor thickness of 380 mm)! Yet the frontal turret armor is in certain places only 150 to 180 mm thick armor sloped at 22 to 30° according to Soviet measurements or 95 mm sloped at 35° horizontal and 55° vertical angle, if you want to use separate angles. That's just 202-210 mm of effective armor thickness, clearly vulnerable to 100 mm AP/APDS/APFSDS rounds, 115 mm APFSDS rounds and 105 mm AP and APFSDS rounds. So it certainly isn't immune to enemy fire. Only the places of turret and hull with the thickest armor were capable of surviving 105 mm APDS ammo at a range of 1,000 m. The turret is not immune to 100 mm and 105 mm AP, APDS and APFSDS rounds.

 

6 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

This laymans "analysis" is mostly based on wrong premises, because he starts with the bias trying to prove that his favorite tank in the video game is misrepresented. A patent regarding a mantlet for a 120 mm upgrade doesn't say anything about the mantlet construction of the original version. The mantlet is hollow (or rather concave).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Only "myths" here are your claims. That the turret frontal armor has a thickness of 254 mm is confirmed in documents from the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command.

Yes, the infamous "Auyer & Buda" report. They didnt even measure the WHOLE mantlet. You want proof? Just check what the report says. 4.5 inches for the gun shield. 114mm. Which is more or less OK, however, it does not take into account the fact that there is a huge block behind, on which the shield was welded on. This is still part of the protection, not just the shield. LOS thickness is around 380mm on average. Even with cast armor, effective protection shouldnt be below 300mm, I'd say in the range of 320-330. This definitely makes it 115mm proof, as the soviet report stated. (3BM21 just entered production in the same year, so they definitely didnt take it into account)

Also. You want contradictions? I give you one: Even if the mantlet were just 254mm thick, it would be still impossible to penetrate by "100mm AP" up to 1000m as stated in A&B document. Why? Because yugo live fire tests revelaed that the much weaker M47 turret is only vulnerable up to 950m.

Gamer or not, the guy who did the M60 analysis did a very thorough job. People can make mistakes, A&B definitely made one by using wrong data for mantlet. 

 

17 hours ago, SH_MM said:

It says that in general the M60A1 had a low level of protection.

Check the date of the report. 1976. T-64 in production, T-72 in production. Their turrets, which are already stronger, are protected up to 30 degrees side angle. M-60 turret is well protected only directly from the front. Of course it has low level of protection! 10 years before that, M60A1 was a damn well protected tank!

 

18 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Yet the frontal turret armor is in certain places only 150 to 180 mm thick armor sloped at 22 to 30° according to Soviet measurements or 95 mm sloped at 35° horizontal and 55° vertical angle, if you want to use separate angles. That's just 202-210 mm of effective armor thickness,

If you check the turret from above, it is obvioulsly false. It starts around 45 degrees, that alone is a 1.41 multiplier. Add a vertical angle, the result is above 300.

This is why the turret is very strong if viewed directly from the front, and becomes much weaker very quickly. No contradictions. This is exactly what the soviet report says, and this is one of the reasons why they considered the M-60's protection low.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Yes, the infamous "Auyer & Buda"

this report give you source for it's claims. you can go to NARA and order research to get all blueprints from souce list.

 

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Just check what the report says. 4.5 inches for the gun shield. 114mm. Which is more or less OK, however, it does not take into account the fact that there is a huge block behind,

and ? Centurion mantlet have areas 300+mm which also serve as a gun cradle etc, but briths on their schemes show only 152mm as protective thickness 

 

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

as the soviet report stated.

soviet report stated that "mantlet-cradle" gives protection only from spall and bullets and says nothing about mantlet 115mm APFSDS resistant. 

 

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

A&B definitely made one by using wrong data for mantlet

report have sources, this sources are factory blueprints of M60A1 tank, such as:

 

Turret Thickness Ispection Points dwg. 10911647(M60A1)

Hull Thickness Ispection Points dwg. 10905702 (M60A1)

 

etc

 

 

if you want to argue with factory blueprints, well....

 

1449322982132519355.jpg

 

good luck to you 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Yes, the infamous "Auyer & Buda" report.

 

I wasn't talking about the report, but it is correct. I was talking about data from the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command.

 

7 hours ago, heretic88 said:

LOS thickness is around 380mm on average. Even with cast armor, effective protection shouldnt be below 300mm, I'd say in the range of 320-330. This definitely makes it 115mm proof, as the soviet report stated. (3BM21 just entered production in the same year, so they definitely didnt take it into account) 

Also. You want contradictions? I give you one: Even if the mantlet were just 254mm thick, it would be still impossible to penetrate by "100mm AP" up to 1000m as stated in A&B document. Why? Because yugo live fire tests revelaed that the much weaker M47 turret is only vulnerable up to 950m. 


The armor thickness is below 380 mm, you are counting non-hardened and partially hollow section behind it. This doesn't result in 320-330 mm effective protection. The bulge around the mantlet-less gun mount of the Chieftain reaches a maximum thickness of 500 mm, yet the overall protection is much lower. The mantlet of the M60A1 covers only a small section of the turret front, so it really doesn't prove anything about the frontal armor being immune to 100 mm AP ammo at all. The gun shield and mantlet of the M60A1 were identified as weakspots by the Soviets, so it clearly is not 115 mm APFSDS proof - it is also not stated in the Soviet report that it would be.

 

In the Yugoslavian tests against the M47 Patton tank, the 100 mm BR-412B round was used, which has an armor penetration of just 140 mm at 1,000 m according to British data. It still defeated the 160-180 mm thick armor of the M48, because the US military prefered using very soft steel (measured on the M47: only 210 BHN) due to its greater ductility. The BR-412D penetrates 185 mm at the same range and is better against sloped armor, so being able to punch through 202 to 212 mm equally soft cast armor shouldn't be a problem.

 

8 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Check the date of the report. 1976. T-64 in production, T-72 in production. Their turrets, which are already stronger, are protected up to 30 degrees side angle. M-60 turret is well protected only directly from the front. Of course it has low level of protection! 10 years before that, M60A1 was a damn well protected tank! 

 

I'm fairly certain that the Soviets were aware of the M60A1 being 15 years old at the time of their report. It wasn't well protected from the direct front, because it still is vulnerable to 100 mm AP ammo at 1,000 m range according to the US Army's own protection analysis! The Chieftain was protected against 100 mm AP ammo at 200-500 m distance, so it was better armored. T-62 also had better turret armor due to its higher steel hardness.

 

8 hours ago, heretic88 said:

If you check the turret from above, it is obvioulsly false. It starts around 45 degrees, that alone is a 1.41 multiplier. Add a vertical angle, the result is above 300. 

This is why the turret is very strong if viewed directly from the front, and becomes much weaker very quickly. No contradictions. This is exactly what the soviet report says, and this is one of the reasons why they considered the M-60's protection low. 

 

Are you really prefering your own fanboy fantasies over actual data from the US Army and Soviet reports? The armor thickness is below 300 mm, it is between 200 and 254 mm. The casting has a variable angle and thickness, that is why the Soviets listed intervalls for both angle and thickness. There are places where the slope is 45°, but at others the slope is 35°; 35° from the horizontal are btw. more effective than 45°. 95 mm at 35° horizontal angle and 55° slope in the other plane will result in 202 mm effective armor thickness.

 

OdTArrt.png

The values from the Soviet report are correct, your 300 mm figure is however pure fantasy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The armor thickness is below 380 mm, you are counting non-hardened and partially hollow section behind it.

Except that it isnt hollow... another myth... (other than the holes for gun, MG and telescopic gunsight). There are absolutely NO evidences that it is hollow. On the other hand, the weight and size are known, and it can be used to determine if it is hollow or solid:

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/371226-id-0059205-16jul2017-m60a1-gunshield-and-mantlet/

16 hours ago, SH_MM said:

In the Yugoslavian tests against the M47 Patton tank, the 100 mm BR-412B round was used,

Same round was used for estimation in A&B report. It surely makes sense that the M-60A1 has worse protection frontally than the M-47... Especially ridiculous, because M-48 already had better turret armor than M-47. M-60A1 turret design was also aimed at improving protection even further.

16 hours ago, SH_MM said:

95 mm at 35° horizontal angle and 55° slope in the other plane will result in 202 mm effective armor thickness.

I have no idea what 95mm are you talking about. Armor directly behind the mantlet is more than 200mm thick. Around the lifting eyes, its still around 150mm. Proven by both the A&B document, and also by ultrasonic measurements. From that point thickness decreases even more, but angle increases rapidly. Viewed from the front, easily reaches 300mm LOS.

Probably the most correct M-60A1 armor layout comes from Steel Beasts, already taking into account the softer cast armor. Very strong mantlet is clearly indicated. The only truly weakened area is the yellow part, but that is still far beyond BR-412D capabilities. There are more weakened areas for early 115mm APFDS and all existing 100mm KE, (260mm part, indicated in red isnt a weakspot, because such early APFSDS had problems with highly sloped armor, and also with high ricochet chance) but overall, the turret is well protected. 

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=File:M60frontarmour.jpg

 

From my point, this topic is concluded. If you still believe this is pure fantasy, its your right to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2018 at 12:23 AM, Jim Warford said:

 

Great pic...thanks for sharing!

Albeit a bit depressing.

That thing belongs in a museum, or in a collection.

Not rotting in the middle of nowhere, where it was last used as a static pillbox.

 

Russians are pulling M4's from the sea and restoring them, deservedly so.

Much as I think the PzKfwIV was a design nearing obsolescence through much of WW2, it is still very much worth preserving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)
       
      The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.
       
      Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.
       
      The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.
       
      The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).
       
      California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

      The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;


      (near the Californian border)


      The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.
       
      Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.


      (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)
       
      Requirements
       
      As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):
       
      Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds  
      Other relevant information:
      Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.  
       
       
       
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By Alzoc
      Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
      I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
       
      Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
       
      Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
       
      The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
       
      Akatsiya :
       

       
      T-72:
       


       
      A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
       

       
      Stryker:
       

       
      Jackal:
       

       
      HMMWV:
       

       
      Cougar 4x4:
       

       
      LAV:
       

    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Bundeswehr Weasel and British Light tank Mark IV
       

×