Lord_James
-
Posts
1,077 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Lord_James
-
-
11 hours ago, Sovngard said:
What could it be ?
A paper mache leopard 1? -
5 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:
I have the premium Fletcher, and the destroyer right before it. Seems like Fleet is rarely busy though, when is a good time to play it?
I play later, closer to after work hours, and on weekends. I usually don’t wait more than 2-3 minutes. -
I crash less when playing the big fleet ships, which is great, and it’s easier to progress through the fleet. I’m already at type 1936 mob, and almost have the fletcher since the update dropped
-
I’ll add more context later, but here’s what (I have figured out) NOT to do when designing your tank/ gun/ boat/ thing:
1. Don’t hyper fixate on one aspect or feature of your creation; get the idea into the rough area that you’re going for, then move on. Trying to get all those details perfect as you put them down will only slow you down, and drive you crazy.
2. Don’t make your ideas too small; make your creation 50-100mm longer/ wider/ taller (for vehicles) than you think it needs to be, I’ve found that it’s easier to make a thing smaller than it is to make them bigger. Also, it allows for growth if you find an aspect lacking.
3. Don’t be too “experimental” with it; fancy technology is always tempting to use, especially weight and space saving technologies to meet requirements in a competition. But are those technologies actually used in real world, production vehicles? Were there teething problems when it was implemented? Know the technology/ features you’re applying to your creation before you try to utilize them.
I might think up more things when I finally get home, but those are the biggest things that held me back in the cascadia and californium competitions.
-
3 hours ago, Toxn said:
.
The process of arranging the turret ring cutting equipment proves to be especially difficult, with VER engineers eventually managing to rig up a dedicated station for the task. While they solve the problem, the machinists and welders work diligently on modifying the hulls and fabricating the turrets. Here welders, brought in all the way from the shipyards of Trieste, initially have problems in mating the cut plates together without cracking or defects. The end result is that assembly only really begins in earnest in April, with five vehicles being worked on at a time on the factory floor while a sixth has its old turret removed and a new hole cut for the turret race bearing (which ended up being produced by a subcontractor for one of the Trieste shipyards).
I suppose I should have specified that the tank was to have been riveted, because of the difficulty the Italians had with welding; my bad.
3 hours ago, Toxn said:and just looks so... right. It looks like exactly the sort of late-war (for them, anyway) prototype that the Italians would have produced,
That was my whole rationale when building her: “what did the Italians (and the axis in general) historically do to their vehicles, and how can I apply that to the T-28?” I took a couple pages from Alfred Becker and all the modified beutepanzers his workshop pumped out, as well as (previously mentioned) the late, uparmored Semoventes and the Pz.3M (copy what works).
3 hours ago, Toxn said:From there, however, you're left with only a handful of these things pootling around amidst an ever-worsening spares situation. Which is a recipe for expensive bunkers.
Midway through, I though about replacing/ modifiying the old T-28 suspension with that employed by the M13 or 14, considering they look similar, but I stopped myself because I was fearing that too much heavy modification would make the vehicle less appealing.
3 hours ago, Toxn said:The vehicle is promptly (and lazily) nicknamed the “Italian Tiger”, and becomes an object of fascination for future military historians. In time, a lot of rancorous internet debate springs amongst the dimly-lit corners of the internet about whether such a drastic modification of an early-war tank was really worth it from use of resources point of view. Meanwhile, Italian army enthusiasts (all five of them) point to the vehicle as an example of the ingenuity and skill of Italian engineering during the war.
This is the real prize, and you all know it
-
13 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:
This is why you're a genius, and I'm not. I'm a very dedicated idiot.
Don’t worry, you’re not alone in that field
@Toxn, although you did say contest winners, I could provide some advice on what NOT to do when making the tanks, if wanted. -
4 hours ago, N-L-M said:
Flame cutting and riveting are sufficient for the armor fabrication, though welding is preferred of course.
All the rest is either stolen, simple, or unmodified from the existing tank.
I don’t want to sound critical, I love the thing actually, but the autoloader seems a little to advanced for the Italians. The automatic rammer is great, similar spring-loaded systems were used on Japanese naval AA guns (12.7cm and 10cm type 89s), but the ammo hopper that feeds it is a little... post war-ish? It seems to forward thinking for what the Italians were using or even experimenting on at the time. The angled turret armor is also one of those things that is a “well duh” but no one ever used during the war, despite the heavy use of angled hull armor later, all the turrets (and any appliqué applied) were slab sided or mildly curved, with no real effort to angle them appropriately. I love the tank though, nasty little bastard seems like something the Finns would make (or the Swedes after they repaired their industry), but is a couple years too advanced for the Italians.I hope I don’t sound to critical...
-
Are you sure the tank isn’t too advanced for Italian industry? I mean, they barely had a handle on welding by 1943...
-
I updated my post on the other thread, again. New name and new armament, due to me missing/misunderstanding a competition requirement, as well as a small pseudo-historical blurb.
-
-
Placed my updated, finalized submission in the other thread. Quite pleased with it, even if it's 1 ton heavier than planned (name updated to reflect the new weight).
@Toxn, it can actually mount the Italian 120mm howitzers (120/21, 120/25, and 120/27) on this thing, there's enough room. However, none of those guns received HEAT, or even AP for that matter (that I can find), and the Italians don't appear to have produced HEAT shells for their 75-105mm guns until 1944 (probably due to German assistance). The leFH 16 is the best compromise of availability and firepower that I can come up with.
-
Carro Armato P 35/105
Spoiler
Length (hull): 7.44m
Width: 2.87m (3.52m with skirt)
Height: 2.9m
Mass: 31.5 tonnes (+3.4 tonnes with applique)
Armor (additional armor in parenthesis):
Front Glacis: 45mm @ 53 degrees (+25mm)
Lower Glacis: 30mm @ 23 degrees
Hull Sides: 20mm (+8mm skirt)(+25mm upper hull sides)
Hull Roof: 15mm
Drivers Front Hatch: 60mm @ 53 degrees (+8mm)
Drivers Roof Hatch: 15mm
Turret Front: 60mm (+25mm)
Forward Turret Sides: 30mm (+25mm)
Rear Turret Sides: 30mm (+8mm)
Turret Rear: 30mm (+8mm)
Turret roof: 15mm
Commanders copula: 45mm (+25mm)
Gun Mantle: 45mm
Roof Hatches: 15mm
Armament:
Cannone Ansaldo da 105/25 (34 rounds)
8mm Breda mod. 38 machine gun (1008 rounds)
An additional Breda 38 for anti air purposes can be mounted on the roof, operated by one of the loaders (the pole in the center of the turret)
Azimuth: 360 degrees
Elevation: -13 to +25 degrees
Spoiler
Here's the actually applique, removed from the vehicle
Built in an effort to provide protected, versatile, and heavy firepower for the Regio Esercito, the P 35/105 is a heavily modified T-28 from the Russian army. Removing all previous armament, and widening the turret ring to accommodate a larger, 4 man turret, with commander's copula and radio (a rare luxury in the Italian army) and 105mm howitzer. During trials, it was found that the vehicles armor was far to light to combat the expected Allied tanks that she would be engaging (namely, the M4 Sherman), and an additional ~3.5 tons of spaced armor and armored skirts were added to provide resistance to the 75mm M1 gun. The main armament was the 105mm/25 Ansaldo cannon, the same fitted to the Semovente 105/25 SPG, and serviced by 2 loaders. Additional armament included a 8mm Breda 38 machine gun coaxially mounted with the main gun, and a 2nd 8mm Breda mounted on the roof, for defense against aircraft. The heavy armor and gun caused some stress on the suspension, namely the forward elements, which cause the tank to dip nose first. Regardless, the tank was still fielded in combat, but too late to be used by the Italian army, instead seeing service with the German army.
P 35's in action!
Spoiler
She's a little heavier than I expected, but that's not a bad thing, because it's mostly all armor, which she'll need fighting M4s. The applique is reminiscent of the very new Pz.3M, while also reinforcing the vulnerable hull sides, similar to the T-28E; after all, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"
. Either way, Italy was on the ropes by 1943, so these tanks would have been captured by the Germans soon, anyway, and the company might be in a better situation afterwards if the overlords are impressed, or at least pleased, to see such a vehicle ripe and ready to use.
-
On 10/29/2020 at 11:24 AM, SH_MM said:
The Leopard 2 T19 turret was fitted with an actual autoloader in 1983. The turret was fitted to a Leopard 1 hull for test.
What gun is that? -
3 hours ago, Eliz said:
I would not be surprised if it is china or india
Don’t ask, don’t tell -
On 10/11/2020 at 10:52 AM, LoooSeR said:
At this point i would expect Norks to have some form of thermal imaging sights, even Syrians are making crappy "Viper" thermal sights from Chinese parts for their tanks.
Drozd comparison is valid, because Drozd launches a big ass 107 mm caliber HE-frag warhead to intercept incoming shell and yet each shot is covering very narrow arc. I doubt that this launchers can throw something significantly bigger. Look at angle between tubes in each "pack" - it looks like they have nearly 35-40 degrees between each other and at 20 meters range away from the tank that placement of launchers will produce big gaps in APS coverage. And tubes on the back of the turret look like have similar size to frontal ones, they look like usjal smoke grenade launchers.
Thats why i think that what we see is just North Korean version of soft kill APS on K2s.
Maybe @N-L-M could give his impression on that question.
It is possible that what we see is pretty rough mock up of planned system.
Might be forgetting the obvious here, but these vehicles could all be just for show. The turret roof being so... poorly crafted, the fake look of all the external sights and “radars”, and the generally sheet metal look make me question if these are actual, working turrets and not just movie props. The all-in-one look kinda reminds me of some “artists” (who’s name shall not be spoken) who throw together certain aspects of tanks and claim they made a tank better than what’s currently being used or tested. -
My submission: "P 28/32"
Spoiler
I used the T-28 hull and modified it by reworking the entire front and widening the turret ring to the side of the hull (it is now ~1.85m wide). The gun is an leFH 16 or leFH 18/1, German stock that is probably phased out of service by 1942-43 (the 16 was definitely not in front line service). Also, by this time, HEAT shells were starting to be added to inventory, which gives the tank the ability to engage the Sherman from the front, and from any range. As you guess by the name, the P means this tank is meant to support the M13s, 14s, and 15s in service by engaging targets the smaller M series would have difficulty with (bunkers, and the M4 Shermans). The 28 is an homage to the tank it's based on (T-28), and the 32 is based on the expected weight.
Still working out details, but the vehicle is suppose to be about 32 tons, with a 30mm glacis plate (50mm drivers visor), 45mm turret front, mantle, and copula, 30mm turret sides and rear. Other armor is the same as the T-28. There are 5 crew: Commander and gunner in the right of the turret (gunner forward, commander behind), 2 loaders (both left side of the turret), and the driver (front and center of the hull). The rear of the turret houses the radio (behind the commander), the machine gun magazines (1-2 8mm Breda mod. 38, stored next to the radio), and the 105mm shells (taking up half of the back of the turret). The propellant and rest of the shells are stored on either side of the driver, and in a "ready rack" in the center of the turret, beneath the gun breach (2 or 3 full propellant charges). Engine, suspension, and transmission are all the same as the T-28.
-
On 11/8/2020 at 4:41 PM, LoooSeR said:
Hmmm, a 4 person crew, yet at 2:50 it shows what looks like the autoloader. -
-
Would improper feeding cause the plastic CT ammo to spill its powder, or tilt the bullet?
-
Might stir some of your’ interests -
New Music for the DLC; nice heavy base
SpoilerAlso, the old Dusk post is broken, so repost:
Spoiler -
A big list of French equipment used by the Heer, might help with the brainstorming
-
On 10/8/2020 at 11:07 AM, Toxn said:
The foreign weapons immediately available for purchase are:
- 25mm Puteaux and Hotchkiss
- 37mm Pak 36
- 4.0 cm Pak 192 (e)
- 45mm M1937 (53-K)
- 47mm APX
- 7.5cm Pak 97/38
- 7.62 cm F.K.297(r) and 7.62 cm PaK 39(r)
- 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 43
are these the only weapons available, or can we choose other, similar weapons if we’re convincing enough? -
On 9/23/2020 at 10:15 AM, LoooSeR said:
Not totally warfare, but still interesting. Oceanbird is a concept of wind-powered cargo ship.
"I see you could not live with your own failure; and where did that bring you? Back to me."
Explosive Reactive Armor
in Ballistics Science Discussion
Posted
I was having a joke
But honestly, wouldn’t know. It looks a little like the blazer fitted to the M60s during desert storm, with its very square shape and the way it appears to be mounted, but the side skirts look strange for ERA, more like the sides on the AAVP7A1 or the “razor blade” armor on the T-72 Shafrah’s.