Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Yes, but isn't it simply that since MBT are rarely sent in UN peacekeeping missions we are not used to see them like that and so it feel off?

 

I mean the Leopard 1 and the T-72 looks off too:

 

Spoiler

1280px-UN_forces_in_Somalia.JPEG

5003327017_04d62dbf6c.jpg

5597.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

UN-white Leclercs just look off

 

IIRC one of the veteran writers in a military forum who is very familiar with this incident and those involved, said there's quite a lot of misinformation there. I'll try to investigate. 

If anyone's interested, it's supposedly about a bunch of Spike missiles left in Lebanese territory that the IDF wanted to retrieve. The French didn't know why Israeli tanks were entering the territory, but then they backed off and announced that they will not interfere with a tech retrieval mission. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leo 2 in Afrin

8o0w652a6im01.jpg

 

Expected Urban combat, but Kurds/PYD/YPG decided that running away is superior strategy to defeat Turkey. They had number of TOW-2 and 2As, Kornets and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Xoon said:

General question, has there ever been AFVs or tanks built for fighting in mountainous terrain? 

Wasn't the Chinese ZTQ designed for this (I see Serge posted about it before I finished typing)? I also believe much of Japan's modern AFVs considered the country's hilly terrain in their development. Wouldn't be surprised if the Swiss Panzer 61 and 68 also took this into account 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Define mountainous. Because it is possible to say that for the last 20-30 years any Israeli AFV of the types we discuss on this forum, was built for such places. Not for the ease of transport but for protection while driving in valleys surrounded by hills that are typical for the south lebanon region.

 

Other than that, probably not much. Though I guess the US M8 (or anything that wins the MPF but we all know it's going to be the M8) will be the first candidate to go to such places if required, and Russia recently put out a series of AFVs designed for the arctic climate that may be suitable for mountainous areas because of suitability for lower oxygen density environments (or so I've heard) and the mobility requirements that are probably harsher in the arctic environment. Light weight and great off road, all terrain mobility makes arctic vehicles suitable for mountainous areas. Now here's where I may be wrong, but the Armata family was or is planned to have arctic derivatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"Barys" and "Alan": new Kazakhstan armored cars.

 

 

Quote

- Recently, "Barys" has been tested at a test site in Spassk. What are the results?

- We are generally satisfied with the tests. The system is also able to fire at night, in contrast to the optical systems that are installed on previous samples. In the exercises you count the target on the principle of "hit-not hit", that is, from 10 shots it is enough to hit one shell so that you count this exercise as done. For today, for example, a low-flying helicopter target at night at a distance of 1300 meters, 6 out of 10 shells fell directly to the target. This result is very high.

https://informburo.kz/stati/barys-i-alan-novye-kazahstanskie-broneavtomobili-dlya-silovyh-struktur-fotoreportazh.html?_utl_t=fb

Photos of factory and vehicles in the link (a lot of them)

 

“Барыс” и “Алан”: новые казахстанские бронеавтомобили для силовых структур. Фоторепортаж - Informburo.kz

 

Quote

   Barys 8x8

  • Crew - 2 + 1 + 8;
  • Weight - 19 000 kg;
  • Clearance - 450 mm;
  • Wheelbase - 2 300 mm (in front), 2,550 mm (rear);
  • Combat weight - 28 000 kg;
  • The maximum speed is 100 km / h;
  • The diameter of the turn is 22-24 m;
  • Range - 800 km.

 

   Armament:

  1. 57-mm remote-controlled combat unit AU-220M;
  2. Remote-controlled combat module of the KAE company with a 30-mm cannon 2A42;

The engine - turbodiesel, 550 hp;
Transmission - automatic transmission
Brakes - pneumatic, disk with АBS;
Tires - 16.00 R20;
Air conditioning - 12 kW as standard with climate control system;
Electrical system - 24 V;
   Ballistic protection STANAG 4569 level 3 5.56 x 45 armor-piercing and incendiary (BBZ), 7.62 x 39 armor-piercing (BB), 7.62 x 51 (BBZ), 7.62 x 54 (BBZ), 12.7 x 9 9 NATO cartridge;
   Mine protection STANAG 4569 level 4 b Explosion protection 10 kg under the hull, 10 kg under each wheel and 50 kg from the side, at 5 m.

 

   Options:

  • Winch;
  • Systems of protection against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons;
  • Auxiliary power supply.

 

Новый боевой модуль для бронетранспортера “Барыс”, разработанный компанией "Казахстан Аселсан Инжиниринг"

 

Spoiler

Тепловизор, оптическая система и лазерный дальномер работают в комплексе

 

10.jpg

 

226.jpg

 

24.jpg

 

21.jpg

 

18.jpg

Quote

   Barys 6x6

  • Crew - 2 + 1 + 8;
  • Weight - 17 300 kg;
  • Clearance - 430 mm;
  • Wheelbase - 2 300 mm (in front), 2,240 mm (rear);
  • Combat weight - 22 500 kg;
  • Construction - bearing body (not based on the chassis);
  • The maximum speed is 110 km / h;
  • The diameter of the turn is 24.5 m;
  • Range - 1000 km;
  • The engine - turbodiesel (336 kW, 450 hp, 1627 N / m);
  • Transmission - automatic transmission;
  • Brakes - pneumatic discs with ABS;
  • Tires - 16.00 R20;
  • Air conditioning - 12 kW with climate control system;
  • Electrical system - 24V;
  1. Ballistic protection of the crew compartment - (standard) B7 Stanag level 3;
  2. Ballistic protection engine compartment (standard) 5.56 x 45 armor-piercing incendiary (BBZ), 7.62 x 39 piercing (BB), 7.62 x 51 piercing (BB) (except the grille), 7.62 x 54 armor-piercing incendiary (BBZ) (except radiator grille), 12.7 x 99 NATO cartridge (except the radiator grille);
  3. Mine protection - protection against explosion 10kg under the hull, 10 kg under each wheel.

 

   Options:

  • Tire inflation system;
  • Armored inserts for the continuation of traffic with flat tires;
  • Walkie-talkies, intercom;
  • Additional armor - active and passive;
  • The combat management system;
  • Cargo winch;
  • Towing rod of the NATO standard;
  • Loudspeeker system;
  • The system of fire-fighting equipment (engine and crew compartments, wheel arches, etc.);
  • A ceiling hatch and a variety of turret/RCWS gun systems;
  • Systems of protection against biological and chemical weapons;
  • Tracking system for the location of the vehicle;
  • Additional set of armor (for side mirrors, door hinges, windows);
  • A system of cameras installed at the rear and front, connected to the display on the driver's panel and showing the corresponding rear and front view;
  • Updated ballistic protection of the engine grille;
  • Interior lighting - LED centralized directional light with a choice of white, green / blue and red
  • Winter package to operate at temperature ranges from - 50 ° C to 50 ° C.

 

Alan is basically a SandCat

 

Spoiler

3.jpg

 

Quote

The main characteristics of the BKM "Alan":

  • The crew is 6 + 2 + 1;
  • Weight - 6700 kg;
  • The weight of the combat vehicle is 8845 kg;
  • Wheelbase - 3429 mm;
  • Construction - frame chassis;
  • The maximum speed is -160 km / h (electronically limited - 120 km / h);
  • Turning radius is 6.9 meters;
  • Range - 500 (plus or minus 50 at steady movement of 80 km / h);
  • The engine - turbodiesel (220 kBt, 300 hp, 900 Nm at 1600 rpm);
  • Transmission - automatic transmission;
  • Distributing box - two-speed, electrically controlled;
  • Steering gear - with hydraulic booster;
  • Brakes - with ventilated discs on 4 wheels, with ABS blocking system;
  • Tires - 285/70 R19,5;
  • The payload is 2,000 kilograms;
  1. Ballistic protection - level 3 (STANAG) 7.62 mm x 54RAPIB32 V-854 (plus or minus 20 m / s);
  2. Mine protection - level 1 (STANAG) 2 hand grenades DM51.

   Options

  • The ventilation system of powder gases;
  • Frontal thermal camera;
  • Complex of internal lighting devices;
  • Rear View Camera;
  • Loud-speaker device;
  • Light-signaling device (LED lamps, built-in front, rear of the machine, blue and red);
  • A winch with a pulling force of at least 5 tons;
  • Metal grilles to protect the armored glass windshield and radiator of the power plant, in the side and rear armored windows, the front and rear lights;
  • Engine preheating;
  • Portholes for weapons;
  • Metal protection of vital machine systems;
  • Self-supporting rims to ensure the ability to continue driving after puncturing tires;
  • Protection of the radiator;
  • Nozzle for the exhaust system to protect against unauthorized access;
  • Protective cover on the car.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Serge said:

Chinese last light tank. 

 

18 hours ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

Wasn't the Chinese ZTQ designed for this (I see Serge posted about it before I finished typing)? I also believe much of Japan's modern AFVs considered the country's hilly terrain in their development. Wouldn't be surprised if the Swiss Panzer 61 and 68 also took this into account 

I guess the Chinese ZTQ fits this.  And maybe the Type 10.  Though I can't really find anything extraordinary about the Panzer 61 or 68.

 

 

17 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Define mountainous. Because it is possible to say that for the last 20-30 years any Israeli AFV of the types we discuss on this forum, was built for such places. Not for the ease of transport but for protection while driving in valleys surrounded by hills that are typical for the south lebanon region.

 

Other than that, probably not much. Though I guess the US M8 (or anything that wins the MPF but we all know it's going to be the M8) will be the first candidate to go to such places if required, and Russia recently put out a series of AFVs designed for the arctic climate that may be suitable for mountainous areas because of suitability for lower oxygen density environments (or so I've heard) and the mobility requirements that are probably harsher in the arctic environment. Light weight and great off road, all terrain mobility makes arctic vehicles suitable for mountainous areas. Now here's where I may be wrong, but the Armata family was or is planned to have arctic derivatives.

47834711-trollstigeveien-meandering-road

 

Heddersfjell%20ved%20Gausta_Tinn_Telemar

 

 

aa3c8734-fb92-42f7-9b15-7ebbca4dc0e7.jpg

 

colourbox4718455.jpg

 

the-longs-peak-summit.jpg

 

 

585049e0b96c70375a9d8eda.jpeg?original=1

 

 

In short, a AFV capable of traversing rocky fields at a practical speed, capable of climbing steep slopes and driving at angles. It needs to preform well in swamps, mud or snow, being able to traverse terrain common MBTs can not. It needs to be small, it has to be able to use the old infrastructure and poor roads of the mountains.  This pretty much excludes all Israeli AFVs since they tend to be large and heavy, the opposite of what you want. 

 

Being amphibious or having the ability to ford small rivers on the move is advantageous. 

 

The idea is to have the mobility to outmaneuver and ambush enemy forces which are forced to use main roads and predictable paths. 

 

13 hours ago, Scolopax said:

I randomly recall the Romanian MLVM as a mountain-oriented vehicle.

 

ASVgt9e.jpg

 

What makes it stand out? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Xoon said:

 

What makes it stand out? 

Not sure besides the fact that its supposed to be for special mountain troops.  I can't find too much info outside of wikipedia, which itself hardly says anything on the matter.  I imagine its weight of 9 tons plays a role. The roadwheels certainly appear to be light.

 

mlvm07.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xoon said:

 

Though I can't really find anything extraordinary about the Panzer 61 or 68.

 

 

 

They had somewhat less width than the Centurion and Leopard 1, apparently good for going through alpine tunnels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i completely forgot about what North Korean tanks with all their grenade launchers and ATGMs launchers on top of their turrets reminded me until today...

799446_original.jpg

 

T-100_MBT.jpeg

 

G7aBr8l.jpg

 

But hey! It goes even deeper!

HesP98i.jpg

Share this post


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

Well, i completely forgot about what North Korean tanks with all their grenade launchers and ATGMs launchers on top of their turrets reminded me until today...

799446_original.jpg

 

T-100_MBT.jpeg

 

G7aBr8l.jpg

 

But hey! It goes even deeper!

HesP98i.jpg

 

Thats from Endwar right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could literally just steal the tech from the Sabra's armor and copy and paste it on the regular M60A3. But no, they just had to find a way to actually reduce the armor coverage AND make it ugly.

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 RedEffect
      Greeting everyone, many of you are familiar with this very tank, and why shouldn't you be, it's a pretty good tank. Nevertheless, I am here to give a better insight into what this tank has to offer.
       
      Where should we start, I usually like to first start off with protection, if you don't mind.
       
      PROTECTION
       
      Unlike T-90A tank which we've seen enough in the past decade, T-90M has new "Relikt" Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) which offers much better protection when compared to Kontakt-5 present on T-90A tanks.
      On top of having better ERA package, it is also much better covered in ERA, because those silly Shtora-1 dazzlers got removed and no longer take majority of space on the turret's front.
      As you can see, dazzlers took up a lot of space, on top of that, those ERA blocks between the gun and dazzlers could not have been made the same size as regular Kontakt-5 blocks, because of... dazzlers.
      T-90M only retained laser-warning receivers in the place of dazzlers, which gives a much better ERA coverage on the turret.
      As you can also see on the picture, the tank now has a proper gun shield  which should protect the gun mantlet against unwanted visitors (projectiles, ofc).
      The Upper Front Plate is also covered in "Relikt" ERA. 
       
      The side protection of the tank is a bit mysterious, the side of the hull, that is. While the older tanks, such as previously mentioned T-90A used visible ERA plates, there was nothing confusing about them, but there hasn't been any official information about side skirts having ERA, and when you look the skirts from the top, there is nothing to really indicate presence of ERA. 
      I do hope I am wrong about this one, since it would be strange to go from fully protected side armor with ERA panels to simple steel+rubber composition plates, which aren't even thick enough to begin with. I don't know, if someone has reliable information, please let me know, I will edit the post with it.
       
      The side of the turret is protected with 4S24 ERA blocks, side and rear of the engine compartment are protected with cage or "Slat" armor
       
      On top of external protection, T-90M has some cool features to protect the crew. The insides of the tank are covered with non-flammable aramid fabric which serves to catch fragments formed by projectiles or perforated armor. The autoloader's carousel also received additional protection to protect it against additional fragments. Additional protection is also ensured by moving extra ammunition to safe ammo rack with blow-out panels placed on the rear of the turret which is additionally protected with cage armor.
       
       
      FIREPOWER
       
      The tank has 2A46M-5 125mm gun, which is the latest gun from the 2A46M series. The tank received a new feature which was not previously seen on Russian tanks, and that is Muzzle Reference Sensor (MRS) which takes the information of barrel changing its form in cold or hot weather condition and brings them to ballistic computer for more accurate shooting. The ammunition it can fire is of course the best Russia has to offer for the gun, and those are 3BM59 and 3BM60 APFSDS projectiles. There are also reports of 3VOF128 HEF projectile entering service with Russian army, which can also airburst and detonate after penetration. Other projectiles include HEAT and ATGMs.
       
      The Fire Control System is really nice. It of course, has Sosna-U main gun sight, which has automatic tracking ability and uses 2nd generation Catherine FC Thermal Imaging System. The commander has much better time since unlike previous Russian tanks he now has his own Thermal Viewer  connected to the 12.7mm Kord HMG (unlike T-90MS (SM) domestic variant has 12.7mm). CITV incorporates Catherine XP Thermal Imaging System which is 3rd generation TIS, which is better than what most modern tanks have. In addition, both gunner and commander can access back-up sight located next to the Sosna-U sight. Commander has access to new multifunction display which on top of other things, show location of the tank. The tank has YeSU-TZ Battle Management System which allows communication with all units on the present battlefield, making warfare much easier. Another small, but important improvement is the commanders cupola, unlike older T-90A, commander now has full 360deg view with larger vision blocks all around the cupola. In addition, the hatch can be rotated for different purposes and there are 4 cameras for additional 360deg view.
       
       
      MOBILITY
       
      The tank weights 48t and it is powered with new V-92S2F 1130hp diesel engine, with 2000rpm and maximum torque of 4521Nm (pretty neat). In addition to such a good engine, the tank received automatic transmission APP-172  which is VERY NICE. On top of that, the tank received an APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) which reduces the fuel consumption when the tank is idle by powering the electrical systems.

      *WILL CONTINUE WITH THE POST LATER*
    • By 2805662
      The following is derived from various wanderings, discussions, & tyre kicking, and covers an opinion on the forthcoming Land 400 Phase 3 Request for Tender, and is as per June 2018.
       
      General: Phase 2 will significantly shape participation in Phase 3. Costs for the two bidders that weren’t short listed for the Risk Mitigation Activity (GDLS & Elbit Systems) ran into the tens of millions of dollars. Costs for the losing BAE bid could rightly be assessed as double that. Combined with Rheinmetall’s Phase 2-driven “perceived incumbency”, nobody wants to waste money to be a stalking horse on the Commonwealth’s behalf. There is a plausible risk that only Rheinmetall will bid.
       
      Reorganisation of infantry sections: When Land 400 was conceived, Australian infantry sections consisted of two fire teams of four. This drove the initial “eight dismounts” requirement that has subsequently been relaxed. Now comprising three fire times of three, one of those teams will be the vehicle crew, the other two will dismount, for a total of six dismounts. Recent operational experience has highlighted the need for temporary attachment of specialist personnel, so a platform that has some spare seating could still count for it. 
       
      GFE Turrets: One possible tactic that the Commonwealth may seek to use is that of mandating that the Lance Turret, as used on the Phase 2 Boxer CRV, be used as Government Furnished Equipment (that is, purchased from Rheinmetall and provided to suitably configured hulls by competitors). This would simplify the turret training and offer spares commonality across both phases. Perceived savings for “buying in bulk” were (apparently) unable to be realised as Rheinmetall was reluctant to discount its turret. Costs aside, if an offerer has a GFE turret, who owns the systems integration risk? Who does the customer turn to solve potential issues between the turret and the hull when they, the customer, has mandated that particular turret? Commercially, this is a high risk proposition. 
       
      Unmanned turrets: Only GDLS offered an unmanned/remote turret for Phase 2, the Kongsberg MCT-30, as has been adopted in small numbers (81) by the US Army to meet an immediate operational need. A bias against unmanned turrets is unlikely to manifest itself in Phase 3 due to the likely presence of the PSM Puma IFV. Of course, that’ll likely to open the door to GDLS bidding the ASCOD fitted with Elbit’s optionally manned/unmanned MT-30 turret....should they decide to bid at all. 
       
      Likely bidders: This brings us to the inevitable list of potential bidders and their platforms. 
       
      BAE: Unlikely to bid. If they win SEA 5000, that may get them off the bench, as would a requirements set that looks a lot like CV90. In the event that they do bid, the CV90 Mk4 is the most likely platform. 
       
      GDLS: More likely to bid than BAE, but still waiting to see what the RFT looks like. (Tellingly?) Their ASCODs at Eurosatory we’re painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australian disruptive pattern.
       
      Rheinmetall: likely to offer the Lynx and maybe also the Puma. With the reorganisation of Australian infantry sections (see above) the eight dismounts of the KF41 version of the Lynx are less relevant. Still, the modularity of the KF41 demonstrated at Eurosatory 18 definitely left an impression.  
       
      PSM: As a JV between KMW & Rheinmetall, Puma may be offered separately (unlikely if the Boxer =\= ARTEC in Australia model is followed). In the event that it is offered separately, its high unit cost, without the associated modularity of Boxer, may be a disadvantage. Also, PSM has no experience with industrial partnerships in Australia: a significant disadvantage. 
       
      Hanwha Defense Systems: Korea has been a bit “off” Australian defence opportunities, largely due to the cack-handed way in which the cancellation of the K-9/AS-9 was handled in 2012. The AS-9 was viewed as a loss-leader, primarily as Australia has a reputation of being a discerning (aka difficult) customer. If Hanwha bids their K21, it’ll be interesting to watch. 
       
      Whilst no means exhaustive, the above outlines some less-obvious factors currently at play for the 450-vehicle opportunity that is Land 400 Phase 3.
    • 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.
       


×