Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

the Norge PanzerGren regiment

 

Ugh. I’d rather that Körner claim all of the kills than the quislings of that regiment.

 

--------------

 

But anyway, it looks like FFG has finally added a page on the ACSV G5 to their website. There is some info there, as well as higher quality versions of photos which have already showed up here and elsewhere + some new ones I haven't seen before.

 

Production of the ACSV G5 is set to start next year, with system integration and final assembly being carried out at Ritek in Levanger. By then they should be mostly finished with the 12 additional CV90RWS combat engineering vehicles and 8 multi-role vehicles, which were ordered last year. The initial contract is for 44 vehicles, but this number is expected to grow to several hundreds over the next years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting tidbid from FFG's website is the statement, that the PMMC G5 was considered the best tracked APC in the Danish trials (so better than the ASCOD and CV90 Armadillo). Was the Armadillo offered to the Norwegian Army for the ACSV program?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Was the Armadillo offered to the Norwegian Army for the ACSV program?

 

I don’t know, I'm afraid, but I somehow doubt that Hägglunds would have bid on an M113 rebuild, which this project started out as. It's an interesting question how the M113F4 morphed into the ACSV G5, but from the little that has been written about this process, I got no better answer than FFG decided to offer it, it got selected and somehow Norway managed to stumble our way into an actual M113 successor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, delete013 said:

Sure, they did also damage, just not likely so much. The "projectile" category alone would be dubious but not if there is a separate category of hand held AT weapons!

 

Not the most convincing AT asset. It is clear that tigers and perhaps those stugs had by far the best chances of destroying armour. From Strausberg, tigers had a nice view of the area. The type of tanks was made for such dueling.

 

Gee it's awfully funny that all of the personal combat logs whine about panzerfausts, and German records recall there being literally hundreds of them in the AO - but the fact that they didn't report the losses as being to them must mean it never happened. And yes, the losses to fausts were so low that the Soviets didn't improvise bedspring armor in a desperate attempt to do something against them, and that the soviets most certainly didn't bother capturing and reverse engineering them. Not at all. I think it is far more likely someone on the soviet side simply messed up (records are hardly faultless on any side!) with recording the losses rather than all of the combat logs being wrong and the hundreds of panzerfausts in the area apparently doing absolutely nothing despite being in a perfect situation.

 

And yes, Norge's *nominal* AT assets are quite sad. But given the condition of the battlefield I would bet money at least some bigger AT guns were attached to them ad-hoc from other battered units. Nobody records every ad-hoc attachment, look at the utter mess of ad-hoc formations during Bagration and Zitadelle - these are well known to exist but their exact composition is never going to be fully known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ah, the typical Western front Tiger story:

- scratch unit (because most of the effort is in the East)

- breakdowns start immediately

- mauled by infantry

- more breakdowns

- mauled by infantry and halftracks

- one successful engagement (that wehraboos won't shut up about)

- yet more breakdowns

- outfoxed by Comets and their 'quick reversing'

- fail to reposition

- get ouflanked and shot in the side

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Toxn said:

 

Ah, the typical Western front Tiger story:

- scratch unit (because most of the effort is in the East)

- breakdowns start immediately

- mauled by infantry

- more breakdowns

- mauled by infantry and halftracks

- one successful engagement (that wehraboos won't shut up about)

- yet more breakdowns

- outfoxed by Comets and their 'quick reversing'

- fail to reposition

- get ouflanked and shot in the side

 

Yeah, how many tigers and Panthers were lost for 3 Shermans again?  

 

So is Felton a boo? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2021 at 9:17 PM, SH_MM said:

An interesting tidbid from FFG's website is the statement, that the PMMC G5 was considered the best tracked APC in the Danish trials (so better than the ASCOD and CV90 Armadillo). Was the Armadillo offered to the Norwegian Army for the ACSV program?

 

Well, FFG is partly more a Danish company than a German one as I see it. At least the northen axis is much stronger in its relationship than down south incl. German Bundeswehr. That might be why their products are seen in a different way from Danish perspective.

 

Personally I think that the G5 was/is very good in performance but the prototype production quality could not reach quality of CV90. But that might be prototype VS series.

Lets wait and see when the ACSV gets a chance to show some muscles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFG is a German company and has a much larger footprint in Germany than Denmark. The only reason why FFG started developing upgrades for the M113 (which then lead to the PMMC G5 design) was a Bundeswehr program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Flensborg is Danmark's southernmost port that is located on the German borderside.  If you be there you will understand - it is simply a mix of both countries and so is FFG on my opionion.

 

It is true that M133 upgread led to G5 but G3 and G4 are/were used in DK as well.

Wisent 1 and Wisent 2 have both lots of input from Danish user side in their veins and Bundeswehr rejected both (BPz2000 and Wisent 2 AEV) for a worse technical solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flensburg is a border town and there are a lot of cultural and sociological interchanges with Denmark; it is a German city though. In Germany you will also find lots of people considering border towns in neighbour countries (Austria, France, the Netherlands, etc.) to be essentially German, because a lot of Germans work there and a lot of culture is shared (in case of the 91-years-old woman who lives next to the house I grew up in, even Breslau/Wrocław is German, but she has other reasons for saying that...).

 

To suggest that the PMMC G5 was rated higher than the CV90 Armadillo and the turretless ASCOD in the Danish evaluation because the Danes have sympathy with FFG just because Flensburg is located so close to the border, is silly. It undersells the actual reasons why the G5 was assessed as being better such as the larger interior volume, the very high level of mine protection (12 kg TNT, i.e. higher than STANAG 4569 Level 4b), the good ergonomics/crew station layout for driver and commander, the low weight and the inherent modularity of the design.

 

As for the vehicles that lead to the G5, it should be noted that the G actually stands for German; or at least it did before FFG started marketing its upgrades internationally. Originally the G was added to the M113 by FMC (the original M113 manufacturer) to denote that the M113G incorporated specific changes made for the German Army (i.e. SEM series radios, 76 mm smoke grenade dischargers by Wegmann, etc.). The German military then designated upgraded versions M113G1, M113G2 and M113G3 rather than M113GA1A1/A2/A3.

 

Some of these upgrades contracts - i.e. the NDV 1 and NDV 2 - were awarded to FFG, as their offers were better than the competition. The M113G4 "Waran" was also originally developed by FFG for the Bundeswehr (hence the "G"), but was not purchased after being trialed in 2002; the German Army had decided to instead focus on wheeled vehicles such as the GTK Boxer.

A non-offcial "M113G5" - i.e. a further development of the M113G4 - was privately funded by FFG and offered to the German Army in 2008 as M113 variant optimized for use in Afghanistan; FFG described the vehicle only as GMT (Geschützer Mannschaftstransporter) M113. It was fitted with AMAP ceramic armor, a Rheinmetall Amarok RWS and rubber-band tracks. It was decided that the M113 shouldn't be used in the APC role and instead the up-armored Fuchs and MRAPs such as the Dingo and Eagle were better suited for operations in Afghanistan.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2021 at 3:01 AM, TokyoMorose said:

 

Gee it's awfully funny that all of the personal combat logs whine about panzerfausts, and German records recall there being literally hundreds of them in the AO - but the fact that they didn't report the losses as being to them must mean it never happened. And yes, the losses to fausts were so low that the Soviets didn't improvise bedspring armor in a desperate attempt to do something against them, and that the soviets most certainly didn't bother capturing and reverse engineering them. Not at all. I think it is far more likely someone on the soviet side simply messed up (records are hardly faultless on any side!) with recording the losses rather than all of the combat logs being wrong and the hundreds of panzerfausts in the area apparently doing absolutely nothing despite being in a perfect situation.

 

And yes, Norge's *nominal* AT assets are quite sad. But given the condition of the battlefield I would bet money at least some bigger AT guns were attached to them ad-hoc from other battered units. Nobody records every ad-hoc attachment, look at the utter mess of ad-hoc formations during Bagration and Zitadelle - these are well known to exist but their exact composition is never going to be fully known.

 

Sorry if off-topic but I guess this would be interesting for you. 

 

I have just finished reading the chronicle of Czechoslovak tank brigade in USSR and since this was the only our tank unit on the eastern front (and the first unit to reach today's Czech Republic territory) and a relatively small unit, it's pretty well documented and researched day by day, name after name, tank after tank. I'm giving here some confirmed numbers from Ostrava operation which was in a way comparable to Berlin thrust. The battle was fought in the same time (but it took twice longer and even fighting for Opava/Troppau city took longer than for Berlin proper), it was fought for the last industrial area of the Third Reich (80% of industry by March 1945) and against up to 50 km deep defence lines (prepared by Heinrici) strenghtened by Czechoslovak pre-war fortifications (even though the Germans removed most of the weapons, cupolas etc. for Atlantic wall in previous years the objects were still literally immune to any field artillery weapons and some kept fighting till the end of war). The defenders had 25 divisions including 4 tank ones (8th, 16th, 17th, 19th, of course few on full strength by that time) while the attackers had very few tanks because of Berlin. The defence was also strenghtened by a lot of rivers, dense network of towns and villages and muddy spring soil. At the beginning of the second phase (the first phase happened farther to the east without success and without our tank brigade) there were only 63 Czechoslovak T-34 (10 of them T-34/76), 21 Soviet T-34 and 10 Soviet Su-76M. The Germans had 84 Panthers and a lot of other AFVs. Later Soviets added two batallions with 40 IS-2 obr.1944 and several other AFV units. For most of the fighting the Czechoslovak brigade was spearheading the attack in direction of Ostrava city (except for the first phase).  

 

Now the stats. In 38 days of active fighting in the operation the Czechoslovak brigade lost 52 tanks written off (43 T-34/85 and 9 T-34/76), basically all were damaged at some point but they kept returning in service over and over again because the unit kept advancing all the time. The manpower losses including tank riders were 148 dead and roughly 300 wounded. Tanks were usually lost to Panzerfausts in urban areas or in ambushes by tank destroyers and tanks in prepared camouflaged positions. Rather small number was destroyed by AT artillery or 88 mm Flak which is probably due to an extensive use of surprising directions of attack, use of speed and smokescreen (by artillery) which sometimes led to the capture of settlements before the defenders could get back to their weapons after the artillery barage. Also very few losses came from German counter attacks. Four tank commanders were killed by snipers. 

 

The confirmed German material losses by the Czechoslovak brigade are 24 tanks (mainly Panthers and some Pz.IV), 23 SPG (StuG.III, Jagdpanzer IV/L70, Jagdpanzer 38(t), Marder III and even one rare Jagdpanzer IV/70(a)), 17 Sd.Kfz.251 and 64 guns (including 15 Pak and 3 bateries of 88 mm Flak). Another at least two tanks (one Pz.IV, one Panther) and seven Sd.Kfz.251 were captured (also one Kettenkrad and other vehicles). The Pz.IV was later used by the brigade, the Panther not. Manpower losses are only estimated but they were very high because only the number of captured was in high hundreds while in a single engagement the number of POWs was usually lesser than number of the dead, there were quite many cases when units of SS fought to the last man. For exmaple in a fight for Štítina village there were 130 dead German bodies but only 2 captured (the combined Soviet/Czechoslovak losses in the same village were also over 100 dead).   

 

All data including photographs of a large portion of the destroyed German AFVs in the battle can be found in a book ISBN 80-86524-00-0.

 

P.S. About aircraft. In the entire history of the unit since 1943 to 1945 no tank was destroyed by an aircraft, only one was immobilised for a day. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

On 5/7/2021 at 12:11 AM, Beer said:

The Germans had 84 Panthers and a lot of other AFVs.

On 5/7/2021 at 12:11 AM, Beer said:

Also very few losses came from German counter attacks. Four tank commanders were killed by snipers.

 

This is an entirely unsourced estimate:

The last quote should be a clue to indicate that Germans didn't have 84 panthers and a lot of AFVs where Czech brigade was fighting. They likely had so few that no mobile reserve was able to be formed. Hence, no counter-attacks. Snipers were a typical German low asset delaying tactic. Fortifications were a mere delaying factor in German doctrine, which without an active reserve is basically a speedbump. The depth indicates that Germans had nothing mobile to counter an expected armoured attack.
If you find German side of the story (Heinrici's opinion on the situation, for example), then you might get some credible facts out of this.

 

On 5/4/2021 at 8:13 PM, Toxn said:

Oh wow, it managed to come out looking even worse than in the Soviet trials.

 

On 5/5/2021 at 7:46 AM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

Yeah, it so bad, even Delete can't spin it as a win... 

 

British reports are Altschnee. They first drove a broken tank (slower than a Chuchill, had broken suspension and missing the third gear) and the post war production tests started with neutral steering, which is what German drivers were told explicitly to avoid. There was likely other weird things involved because Soviets could finish their turning radius tests with neutral steering! If Brits wanted to break the vehicle, then they easily succeeded.
There is another important factor that I failed to point out before. 100km on a road and 100 km in combat are two entirely different categories. Since German tried hard to relocate with trains, then large fraction of driven kms were likely off-road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, delete013 said:

 

 

 

This is an entirely unsourced estimate:

The last quote should be a clue to indicate that Germans didn't have 84 panthers and a lot of AFVs where Czech brigade was fighting. They likely had so few that no mobile reserve was able to be formed. Hence, no counter-attacks. Snipers were a typical German low asset delaying tactic. Fortifications were a mere delaying factor in German doctrine, which without an active reserve is basically a speedbump. The depth indicates that Germans had nothing mobile to counter an expected armoured attack.
If you find German side of the story (Heinrici's opinion on the situation, for example), then you might get some credible facts out of this.

 

 

 

British reports are Altschnee. They first drove a broken tank (slower than a Chuchill, had broken suspension and missing the third gear) and the post war production tests started with neutral steering, which is what German drivers were told explicitly to avoid. There was likely other weird things involved because Soviets could finish their turning radius tests with neutral steering! If Brits wanted to break the vehicle, then they easily succeeded.
There is another important factor that I failed to point out before. 100km on a road and 100 km in combat are two entirely different categories. Since German tried hard to relocate with trains, then large fraction of driven kms were likely off-road.

Chew toy's back gents!

 

Funny, I thought the point of testing was to try and break the thing. This may also be the first time I've ever heard anyone argue that road tests are more gruelling than off-road ones...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I felt a disturbance in the force... 

 

26 minutes ago, delete013 said:

 

This is an entirely unsourced estimate:

The last quote should be a clue to indicate that Germans didn't have 84 panthers and a lot of AFVs where Czech brigade was fighting. They likely had so few that no mobile reserve was able to be formed. Hence, no counter-attacks. Snipers were a typical German low asset delaying tactic. Fortifications were a mere delaying factor in German doctrine, which without an active reserve is basically a speedbump. The depth indicates that Germans had nothing mobile to counter an expected armoured attack.
If you find German side of the story (Heinrici's opinion on the situation, for example), then you might get some credible facts out of this.

 

British reports are Altschnee. They first drove a broken tank (slower than a Chuchill, had broken suspension and missing the third gear) and the post war production tests started with neutral steering, which is what German drivers were told explicitly to avoid. There was likely other weird things involved because Soviets could finish their turning radius tests with neutral steering! If Brits wanted to break the vehicle, then they easily succeeded.
There is another important factor that I failed to point out before. 100km on a road and 100 km in combat are two entirely different categories. Since German tried hard to relocate with trains, then large fraction of driven kms were likely off-road.


You have been given sources from the Soviet, French, and now British army’s on what they think of the panzer 5, and they’re all in agreement that it is mechanically fragile and unreliable. I can only imagine that American testing would confirm these statements. Hell, even several German reports say they were unhappy with the Panther, for the same reasons (engine and transmission reliability). What arguments can you possibly give that could reverse such criticisms? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

I thought I felt a disturbance in the force... 

 


You have been given sources from the Soviet, French, and now British army’s on what they think of the panzer 5, and they’re all in agreement that it is mechanically fragile and unreliable. I can only imagine that American testing would confirm these statements. Hell, even several German reports say they were unhappy with the Panther, for the same reasons (engine and transmission reliability). What arguments can you possibly give that could reverse such criticisms? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@delete013 here's a serious suggestion for you: design a tank. We have a competition going on right now, in fact, and you can put together an entry pretty easily so long as you have some access to CAD modeling software (free programs such as Sketchup are accepted).

 

Really - go through the process of designing a gun, a turret, a hull. Fit an engine, mock up a semi-realistic transmission system. Make hard choices as you try to balance firepower, ergonomics, armour protection, power-to-weight ratio, ground pressure and range. Really get to grips with the subject.

 

Then come back and tell us what you think of a particular design as an engineer rather than a partisan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, delete013 said:

This is an entirely unsourced estimate:

The last quote should be a clue to indicate that Germans didn't have 84 panthers and a lot of AFVs where Czech brigade was fighting. They likely had so few that no mobile reserve was able to be formed. Hence, no counter-attacks. Snipers were a typical German low asset delaying tactic. Fortifications were a mere delaying factor in German doctrine, which without an active reserve is basically a speedbump. The depth indicates that Germans had nothing mobile to counter an expected armoured attack.
If you find German side of the story (Heinrici's opinion on the situation, for example), then you might get some credible facts out of this.

 

Man, what are you trying to achieve by argueing about things which are not written in my post? If you suffer from some sort of paranoia where you see between the lines what is not written there, it's entirely your problem. 

 

The 84 Panthers is number of vehicles presented in the four Panzerdivisions involved in the operation. Nowhere in my post I claimed that all those Panthers were used against the Czechoslovak brigade, neither did I claim that all were operational (that's obviously impossible due to the low Panther rediness rate). That the Czechoslovak brigade fought against Panthers in multiple occasions is a well researched fact documented by photos of destroyed and captured vehicles. 

 

I have written that there were very few losses from German counterattacks which is simply a well researched fact. Period. I didn't argue about reasons for that, so you can spare your time writting answers to something which was never claimed. 

 

The Germans had more AFVs than the Soviet/Czechoslovak side at the beginning of the operation, that is also a fact. At the beginning of the second phase the entire attacking force had the 1st CzAB (63 T-34), 5th Soviet GTB (only 21 T-34) and 875th Soviet light SPG regiment (only 10 Su-76M). The defenders had 8th, 16th, 17th, 19th Panzerdivisions and 10th Panzergrenadier division among other forces. It is documented fact that vehicles destroyed or captured by the CzAB belonged to 8th, 17th, 19th PzD and 311th StuG brigade, i.e. it encountered majority of German armored formations which is logical since for reasonable part of the operation it presented the strongest armored unit of the attackers. 

 

The ballance of AFV forces changed through the battle by the simple fact that the Germans were retreating all the time, i.e. everything left behind from whatever reason was lost (no fuel was also a reason). The other side kept returning knocked-out or bogged down vehicles over and over again but despite having days when only singular number of AFVs was available they kept advancing. For example the final breaktrhough into Ostrava city was done with only seven operational tanks in the brigade, two were knocked out (one by three Panzerfaust hits, the other by PaK) but at end of the day the CzAB had again seven tanks because two were repaired during the day. Also there were some AFV reinforcements on Soviet side later in the operation (the most important was the 42nd GTB with 40 IS-2). 

 

  

3 hours ago, delete013 said:

If you find German side of the story (Heinrici's opinion on the situation, for example), then you might get some credible facts out of this.

 

Anyone's memoires, especially of prominent nazi persons are not facts and I'm not interested in them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • 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.
       


×
×
  • Create New...