Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

https://www.janes.com/article/85132/brazil-transfers-m41c-light-tanks-to-uruguayan-army

Quote

Brazil transfers M41C light tanks to Uruguayan Army

The Brazilian Army completed the transfer of 25 M41C light tanks to its Uruguayan counterpart in Rivera, Uruguay, on 7 December, according to sources from both nations' armies.

Of the 25 vehicles, 15 were completely refurbished by Brazil while the remaining 10 will be used for parts. Those that will remain intact will be assigned to armoured infantry units, which currently use M24 light tanks. While the M41Cs are also legacy vehicles, they will enhance the capabilities of the Uruguayan Infantry.

 

CHAFFEE IS ETERNAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what the source says though. The same turret has been proposed to Slovenia, after other alternatives were deemed to be too expensive. Slovenia still hasn't decided wether to finalize the Boxer purchase or scrap it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question for the forum' experts

Is a comparison between Spz Puma and KF41 possible?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the two projects?

Are these two the best IFVs currently on the market ?

 

thank you in advance

 

best regards

 

PS : why KF41 has a Liebherr powerpack and not a MTU 89x series ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this amusing tank story from the Battle of Massawa(1990) during the Eritrean War of Independence :

Quote

The insurgents (EPLA) then deployed two captured T-55s - with their turrets turned towards their own lines to make defenders (Ethiopian Army) believe their own comrades were trying to rally them - to approach the Ethiopian lines. Turning their turrets around, both tanks then opened fire at close range, inflicting severe casualties before they were both knocked out. - Ethiopian- Eritrean Wars vol. 2 by Fontanellaz & Cooper

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hu?
I just realized something.

If you look at the driver the armor looks similar to the Puma but all the hatches seem to be opened by hand and not by ratchet.
.Where is the 360° Periscope/Sight for the Commander on the Lynx?
@SH_MM Do you know anything on why the Lynx is in Qatar and we didnt hear anything about it?

Is it because they are sold/produced(?) by Rheinmetall Barzan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2018 at 5:50 PM, rob89 said:

Is a comparison between Spz Puma and KF41 possible?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the two projects? 

Are these two the best IFVs currently on the market ?

 

Yes, it is possible. They are both IFVs.

 

The Puma is optimized to achieve the maximum possible level of protection within the weight and size restrictions imposed by the A400M transport aircraft. It makes a number of sacrificies (such as being more expensive due to relying on high-performance materials for armor protection and being able to transport only six dismounts) in order to achieve its goal. Unlike the Lynx KF41, it is a proper "next-generation" IFV in the sense of incorporating as many new technologies as possible - the German military used the Puma development to fund the development of new technologies suited for future next-generation AFVs such as MBTs.

 

The Lynx KF41 is based on tested and existing components, not integrating many new technologies. However that makes it cheaper and likely also more reliable (at least until the teething issues of the Puma have been fixed). It is not designed to fit into the A400M, so it was designed to fit more dismounts (up to nine), larger armament options (up to 120 mm smoothbore gun in an AGS variant) and uses a cheaper (but physically larger) engine. The Lynx KF41 is meant to be a low-cost option compared to developing new IFVs in many aspects. It is also semi-modular (the rear module can be exchanged), further lowering costs of creating and operating multiple variants of the Lynx KF41.


In terms of performance, it depends on how the Lynx is fitted out; with the same 30 mm MK30/2-ABM gun and Spike-LR launchers, the Puma's more accurate fire control system and planned TSWA give it the edge in terms of firepower, but the maximum possible calibre supported by the Puma's RCT-30 turret is 35 x 228 mm (and it is unlikely that Germany will replaced the 30 mm autocannon in the near future). Armor wise the Puma is dense (at least compared to the presented configuration of the Lynx KF41), it has a softkill APS, decoupled running gear and a remotely operated turret - so it likely has a higher level of protection than the current Lynx KF41 configuration showcased by Rheinmetall. When Rheinmetall decides to integrate its own Active Defense System (a hardkill APS) into the Lynx, the situation could change. In terms of mobility, the Puma has a more advanced hydropneumatic suspension, it is lighter and it is air-deployable. so it also should have an advantage.

 

Wether these two are the best on the market is debatable, there never is a definitive best solution; each vehicle has its own strengths and weaknesses. But they should always be considered to be contenders.

 

23 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

Also they bought the Lynx or why is it in Qatar?

 

Currently there is only a single Lynx KF41 prototype, this is the same vehicle showcased at Eurosatory 2018 in Paris, at AUSA 2018 in the US and in Australia. But apparently Qatar has shown interest in the Lynx KF41 (maybe they are already negoating, I don't know), so Rheinmetall decided to showcase the vehicle in Qatar. Note that Rheinmetall Barzan is a joint-venture between Rheinmetall and the ministry of defence of Qatar, so it has a very good chance of being adopted in Qatar.

 

20 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

.Where is the 360° Periscope/Sight for the Commander on the Lynx?

 

As said by 2805662, the SEOSS commander's sight can be retracted into the turret, so that the Lynx fits through lower tunnels, into ships or transport aircraft with height restrictions. This is how the retracting mechanism looks in case of the LANCE 1.0 turret:

DpbRIyiU8AApxwd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

within the weight and size restrictions imposed by the A400M transport aircraft

from some Chinese magazine:
shDIYOX.jpg

 

 

 

Quote

It is not designed to fit into the A400M, so it was designed to fit more dismounts (up to nine)

...and apparently all of them could be 95th percentile. Unlike Puma, which was designed to fit only 75th percentile dismounts.

That fancy decoupled drive thing wasted a lot of width
AUC5fIp.jpg
so Puma's internal space is narrower than what one might expect from a vehicle which is some ~16-18 inches wider than Bradley (when measured by tracks)

Share this post


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

 

In terms of performance, it depends on how the Lynx is fitted out; with the same 30 mm MK30/2-ABM gun and Spike-LR launchers, the Puma's more accurate fire control system and planned TSWA give it the edge in terms of firepower, but the maximum possible calibre supported by the Puma's RCT-30 turret is 35 x 228 mm (and it is unlikely that Germany will replaced the 30 mm autocannon in the near future). Armor wise the Puma is dense (at least compared to the presented configuration of the Lynx KF41), it has a softkill APS, decoupled running gear and a remotely operated turret - so it likely has a higher level of protection than the current Lynx KF41 configuration showcased by Rheinmetall. When Rheinmetall decides to integrate its own Active Defense System (a hardkill APS) into the Lynx, the situation could change. In terms of mobility, the Puma has a more advanced hydropneumatic suspension, it is lighter and it is air-deployable. so it also should have an advantage.

 

I read that KF41 at 44 ton has up to six tonnes of reserve payload for future growth (so up to 50 ton), including margins for further uparmor packages.

 

Could it raise the protection to the level of Spz Puma (guessing that the used composite are at the same level - AMAP / NERA and so ...)?

 

In any case I find that some of the adopted solutions are very interesting :


- the modularity (could it allow to have future combat variants, like a flakpanzer or a support panzer with mortar/cannon like NeMo ?) 
- the internal space for a full infantry squad (95 percentile)
- the engine exhaust vents on the rear face of the sponsons and not on the side (with, I think, better protection and lower thermal signature); the design and position of the exausts in the Spz Puma is not the best, in my opinion.

 

best regards 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

That fancy decoupled drive thing wasted a lot of width

 

That is the result of the all fuel tanks of the Puma being located within the decoupled running gear, so that burning fuel cannot leak into the crew and dismount compartments (also acts as additional protection). The Marder carried 650 litres of fuel, I believe the Puma carries more.

 

1 hour ago, rob89 said:

I read that KF41 at 44 ton has up to six tonnes of reserve payload for future growth (so up to 50 ton), including margins for further uparmor packages. 

  

Could it raise the protection to the level of Spz Puma (guessing that the used composite are at the same level - AMAP / NERA and so ...)? 

 

It might be possible, but I doubt that this is very likely if both vehicles make use of the same armor technology:

  • The Puma's decoupled running gear means there is no penetration of the hull floor (which is required for the torsion-bar suspension of the Lynx KF41), so the KF41 would require thicker belly armor to offer the same resistance against mines
  • The basic structure of the Puma is designed to minimize weight (for example by using an aluminium inner shell for the unmanned turret and thin-metal bending technology for the hull), thus a larger percentage of its weight is invested into composite armor (which can offer several times the protection of steel plates of the same weight). The hull and turret structure of the Lynx KF41 are made of welded steel without making use of weight reduction measures.
  • The Puma has an unmanned turret, while the Lynx KF41 has a manned turret (it could be fitted with an unmanned turret, but has only been showcased with the manned LANCE 2.0 turret), so the turret armor of the Lynx KF41 would need to be stronger for the same level of relative crew protection.
  • The Lynx KF41 is capable of transporting more dismounts, because it is larger. This means there is more surface to be armored, which means less effective protection is afforded per weight and per surface area.

So it really depends on unknown factors such as how much the armor weighs, how much weight is saved by the Puma's design, how much added area needs to be protected with the manned turret, where the armor is located in what thickness and how much the armored surface area/volume of the Lynx KF41 is larger than the Puma's. The fact that the Puma has a nine men capacity (crew of 3 + 6 dismounts), the Lynx KF41 with 12 men (crew of 3 + 9 dismounts) seems to indicate that the weight gain might not be enough to provide the same level of protection, if the same armor package technology would be used.

 

1 hour ago, rob89 said:

- the modularity (could it allow to have future combat variants, like a flakpanzer or a support panzer with mortar/cannon like NeMo ?) 
- the internal space for a full infantry squad (95 percentile)
- the engine exhaust vents on the rear face of the sponsons and not on the side (with, I think, better protection and lower thermal signature); the design and position of the exausts in the Spz Puma is not the best, in my opinion. 

 

The Puma is a result of a project, which originally was meant to be fully modular and include various variants such as IFV, MBT, self-propelled anti-air gun, etc. The whole vehicle family was to be larger (up to 77 tonnes with modular armor package installed), feature bigger guns (50 mm gun for the IFV, 140 mm gun for the MBT variant) and provide more space (crew of 3 + 8 or 9 dismounts of 95th percentile German males) - but all variants except of the IFV were canceled, while changes to the specifications and program name turned it into the Puma IFV. The Lynx KF41 barely copies some of these aspects in a more primitive form.

 

The engine exhaust system of the Lynx KF41 is inspired by the Marder IFV, which already featured the rear exhaust to reduce the thermal signature. For the Puma, the high requirements for armor protection and the strict weight/size limit made it impossible to feature the same rear exhaust design. It would have added bulk and weight to the vehicle, thus decreasing the effective level of protection (or leading to the vehicle failing to meet the weight limit).

Share this post


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

 

That is the result of the all fuel tanks of the Puma being located within the decoupled running gear, so that burning fuel cannot leak into the crew and dismount compartments (also acts as additional protection). The Marder carried 650 litres of fuel, I believe the Puma carries more.

so M113A3-style external fuel tanks at the back of the vehicle were not good enough for them, and also they decided against putting fuel tanks into engine compartment

 

 

25 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

but all variants except of the IFV were canceled, while changes to the specifications and program name turned it into the Puma IFV.

Igel (Hegehog), Panther, MMWS...
some pics from early 2000s magazines:
PFHOSyE.jpg

ur1tt7s.jpg

9RY2Doo.jpg

K0Vjw61.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

33 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The engine exhaust system of the Lynx KF41 is inspired by the Marder IFV, which already featured the rear exhaust to reduce the thermal signature. For the Puma, the high requirements for armor protection and the strict weight/size limit made it impossible to feature the same rear exhaust design. It would have added bulk and weight to the vehicle, thus decreasing the effective level of protection (or leading to the vehicle failing to meet the weight limit).

To complet, we have to remind the first prototype was designed with a rear exhaust system. 

So, it was simplified to save weight and volume under armor.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Serge said:

To complet, we have to remind the first prototype was designed with a rear exhaust system. 

 

Prototype VS2 (mobility testbed) already had front exhaust. The rear of the vehicle (just as the series configuraiton) is occupied by the intercom and the (still projected) TSWA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Progress in the czech IFV Trials.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/198479/czechs-shortlist-four-in-%242.25bn-armored-vehicle-deal.html

"The Ministry will contact four previously selected firms to submit their bids, and it will sign the contract in August 2019. The potential bidders are BAE Systems, General Dynamics European Land Systems (GDELS), PSM and Rheinmetall Landsysteme."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://esut.de/2018/12/meldungen/land/9408/armata-und-kurganetz-nicht-in-serie/

ESUT reports that neither Kurganetz or Armata will hit serial production.
Their source is a british Defence Magazin but they dont give the name.
And the British Defence Magazine is quoting the Vice Defence Minister Yuri Borisov.
Does anybody know the magazine or has a second source?

Share this post


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

https://esut.de/2018/12/meldungen/land/9408/armata-und-kurganetz-nicht-in-serie/

ESUT reports that neither Kurganetz or Armata will hit serial production.
Their source is a british Defence Magazin but they dont give the name.
And the British Defence Magazine is quoting the Vice Defence Minister Yuri Borisov.
Does anybody know the magazine or has a second source?

 

There was some discussion of this in the armata thread a few months ago

 

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 Mighty_Zuk
      I realized we don't have a topic for a proper discussion of what future AFVs should look like, in the style of a general AFVs discussion rather than country-specific threads.
       
      I spotted a revived potential need for future MBTs - a coaxial autocannon to replace the coaxial MG. The reason? An APS neutralizer. 
      Here's my short post on why I think it should happen:
       
      I didn't add it there, but I see lasers as a potential alternative. However, I don't think they're viable because of the power required to properly neutralize an APS's components, especially if these components are dispersed, or worse yet, effectively camouflaged. An autocannon will be able to disable not only the APS but other external components all at once. 
      Similar to the engagement method showcased by Russia where they fired 2 Kornet missiles (almost) simultaneously to defeat an APS, a hypothetical mode of operation could include firing a burst of 2 KETF shells at a target prior to firing a main gun shell.
       
      An additional alternative could be to use a single main gun ABM shell that would initiate outside the scope of the APS's engagement range (e.g engagement range is 30m so it initiates at 50m), but it would have 2 main issues that are a longer time to kill a target and a greater consumption of ammunition (up to a 3rd of ammo would have to be allocated to ABM munitions strictly for anti-armor operations).
    • 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 of the hull is protected with panels with built-in ERA blocks. The sides can be additionally protected with 4S24 blocks mounted with bags.
       
      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.
       

      That is it for this post, if I find more information I will add it in, and if I made a mistake I will also correct it.
    • 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.  
       
       
       
       
×