Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

from physical version of Mittler Report issue on KF41 Lynx (low-res scans are posted on htka.hu forum)   So, I've made couple of comparisons, to the best of my ability

Maybe me knowledge will suffice as well.   This is the VT-001 (Versuchsträger) prototype of the Marder 2 vehicle. With the introduction of the Leopard 2 there was a need for a new IFV t

A Dingo 2 of the Belgian army was hit by a pressure-activated IED consisting of about 30 kg explosives. The vehicle was part of a German-lead convoy, several German vehicles narrowly missed the IED be

Interesting but hard to tell how much quality is behind the decision. The Czech tested IFVs at least (maybe HUN had access). Hungary seems to buy a lot of German vehicles (which is quality stuff for sure) but it doesn't seem a real competition. I like what Australia is doing. Building prototypes, add their requirments and test against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

200817_lynx_alairas_1.jpg

 

200817_lynx_alairas_2.jpg

https://legiero.blog.hu/2020/08/17/elougrott_a_magyar_hiuz

 

 

from this Czech article advertising KF41 modularity

https://www.czdefence.com/article/lynx-kf41-modular-ifv-for-full-spectrum-of-operations

- renders of 3 versions (for Czech army), including IFV with turret which looks somewhat different (compared to well-known Lynx prototype)

LYNX%20KF41-Joint%20Fire.jpg

 

EfsoOihXsAABBS3?format=jpg&name=medium

 

 

LYNX%20KF41-Mortar%20Camo.jpg

 

Repair.jpg

 

...

>>IFV with turret which looks somewhat different

...featuring, among other things, equipment which was identified as Rheinmetall Vingtaqs II

IDEX_2019_Rheinmetall_Vingtaqs_II_reconn

...so, this render up there appears to be representing not IFV, but reconnaissance version

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rico said:

Interesting but hard to tell how much quality is behind the decision. The Czech tested IFVs at least (maybe HUN had access). Hungary seems to buy a lot of German vehicles (which is quality stuff for sure) but it doesn't seem a real competition. I like what Australia is doing. Building prototypes, add their requirments and test against them.

 

According to this article (in Czech) Rheinmetall will build a factory in Hungary as a joint venture with Rába to build the Lynx in Hungary (the investment in the factory shall be around 2 bln Euro). The number of vehicles to be produced for Hungarian army is said to be around 200. The article also states that in 2019 Hungary was the largest military customer for Germany overall.  

https://www.armadninoviny.cz/madarska-armada-kupuje-nemecka-bojova-vozidla-pechoty-lynx.html

 

There is still no decision on Czech side but it shall be done soon. From what I can say the situation is quite different than with Hungary. There is certain resistance in the army against buying German hardware because German foreign policy is being seen by many as  rather unpredictable and inconsistent. For several reasons incdluding this one I personally give higher chances to Ascod. 

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

[...]There is certain resistance in the army against buying German hardware because German foreign policy is being seen by many as  rather unpredictable and inconsistent.[...]

This was literally my first thought when reading it. If this thing does not go below the radar because of the Factory is in HU and the Bundestag - well mainly the opossition - want's to have a word about exporting such things to "Orban's regime" it might get messy like certain Turkey deals. But it might as well slip through since it were the days of Sigmar Gabriel as Minister for Economy which damaged the German reputation in this area the most. And these days are gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Jägerlein said:

This was literally my first thought when reading it. If this thing does not go below the radar because of the Factory is in HU and the Bundestag - well mainly the opossition - want's to have a word about exporting such things to "Orban's regime" it might get messy like certain Turkey deals. But it might as well slip through since it were the days of Sigmar Gabriel as Minister for Economy which damaged the German reputation in this area the most. And these days are gone.

 

Hungary had no issues buying Leopard 2A7+ tanks, Panzerhaubitze 2000 SPGs, Wisent ARVs and Leguan AVLBs under the same German government. I expect no problems with the Lynx order.

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

Hungary had no issues buying Leopard 2A7+ tanks, Panzerhaubitze 2000 SPGs, Wisent ARVs and Leguan AVLBs under the same German government. I expect no problems with the Lynx order.

 

While our relations with Germany arent the best in terms of ideological questions, (primarily because we reject migration and western liberalism) in terms of economic questions, there are almost zero problems.

But actually, this decision to buy the Lynx is quite surprising. It was already certain that we'll buy an IFV from Germany. But most people were certain that it will be the Puma. A smaller minority voted for the Boxer. 

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

 

Hungary had no issues buying Leopard 2A7+ tanks, Panzerhaubitze 2000 SPGs, Wisent ARVs and Leguan AVLBs under the same German government. I expect no problems with the Lynx order.

You are probably right. My concern is just a bit fueled by the recent - since early July - ramp up in negative press about Orban including two articles about "Hungary militarizing with german weapons" inter alia in Der Spiegel. Usually nobody cares about weapon exports inside the EU and Covid is probably to present for such a thing to draw attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2020 at 3:55 PM, Rico said:

I like what Australia is doing. Building prototypes, add their requirments and test against them.

and so do I :)  But, Hungary direct purchase will have massive impact on L400.  Hungary will receive vehicles in 2022.  The L400 Ph3 RMA runs to late 2021.  Australian government decision process takes place over 2022.  Hungary as the lead customer carries a lot of risk away from Australia and has prospect to reduce pricing too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DIADES said:

and so do I :)  But, Hungary direct purchase will have massive impact on L400.  Hungary will receive vehicles in 2022.  The L400 Ph3 RMA runs to late 2021.  Australian government decision process takes place over 2022.  Hungary as the lead customer carries a lot of risk away from Australia and has prospect to reduce pricing too.

 

Yes, having some more users will definitely be a plus for you down under.

 

And I am pretty sure that Lynx was a bit in front of Redback (my feeling) up to now since Australia seems to do good work with RLS (Boxer, MAN trucks etc.). Further Korea (my opionion as well - many will see it different) was allways good in doing better copies of existing vehicles (K9 - M109; K2 - Leo2/Leclerc, normal cars as well) but I am not so sure if you what to go with something really new. Besides RLS has many good vehicles as references, too.

 

I will follow the testing phase of L400 and maybe this will prove my opionion wrong but I won't be surpised if Boxer and Lynx will work side by side in many countries in 10 years.

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

 

Yes, having some more users will definitely be a plus for you down under.

 

And I am pretty sure that Lynx was a bit in front of Redback (my feeling) up to now since Australia seems to do good work with RLS (Boxer, MAN trucks etc.). Further Korea (my opionion as well - many will see it different) was allways good in doing better copies of existing vehicles (K9 - M109; K2 - Leo2/Leclerc, normal cars as well) but I am not so sure if you what to go with something really new. Besides RLS has many good vehicles as references, too.

 

I will follow the testing phase of L400 and maybe this will prove my opionion wrong but I won't be surpised if Boxer and Lynx will work side by side in many countries in 10 years.

 

Calling the K9 a copy of the M109 is a bit of a stretch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Zadlo said:

In 2024...

OK, yes  "The first deliveries of the Lynx are expected to commence in 2024-2025 and would reach the expected operational capability in the Hungarian forces by 2026-2027." 

 

https://eurasiantimes.com/hungary-inks-deal-with-german-rheinmetall-to-manufacture-lynx-armored-vehicle/

 

But still before Australia :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rico said:

 

Yes, having some more users will definitely be a plus for you down under.

 

And I am pretty sure that Lynx was a bit in front of Redback (my feeling) up to now since Australia seems to do good work with RLS (Boxer, MAN trucks etc.).

 

I will follow the testing phase of L400 and maybe this will prove my opionion wrong but I won't be surpised if Boxer and Lynx will work side by side in many countries in 10 years.


I’m leaning toward Hanwha, tbh. Rheinmetall owns too large a chunk of the ADF land vehicle fleet, plus the German government’s policies on arms exports are a bit capricious due to local political alliances. Lastly, Rheinmetall’s implementation of “Australian Industry Capability” to date hasn’t been what it was meant to be. With K9 & K10 being purchased (it beat the PzH2000 in completion during Land 17-1C before a GFC-induced cancellation in 2012), so long as Hanwha turns up and doesn’t fumble, L400-3 is theirs to lose (imo). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2805662 said:

“Australian Industry Capability”

Rheinmetall has an actual massive new facility in Queensland.  Hanwha has not spent a dollar in Australia.   Plus, although Hanwha did win the Land 17 selection, the primary reason that procurement did not proceed was that Army does not want the K9...  it was not the GFC that cancelled that deal, it was Army telling CASG to bugger off :)

 

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

Rheinmetall has an actual massive new facility in Queensland.  Hanwha has not spent a dollar in Australia.   Plus, although Hanwha did win the Land 17 selection, the primary reason that procurement did not proceed was that Army does not want the K9...  it was not the GFC that cancelled that deal, it was Army telling CASG to bugger off :)

 


Familiar with the new facility in Brisbane. Hanwha’s proposed facility in Geelong is about the same size. Easiest way to double the AIC bit would be to select Hanwha. Spread the love. 
 

It’s true that CDG - not Army - slow-rolled L17-1C approval (thanks to a certain LTCOL), but the the culminating point was the RAAF proposing canning of the “AS-9” to pay for the purchase of long-lead items required for the conversion of their 12 x F/A-18F+ to EA-18 before the production of those parts went defunct. Army & CDG choose to agree rather than fight. Wound up being redundant when the purchase of the EA-18, rather than the conversion of the F+, occurred. Was intimately involved in that whole thing. 

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

There also seems to be a big capability difference between AS21 Redback and KF41 Lynx. It will be interesting to see which vehicle will be selected.

What do you base that statement on? They look like almost fungible items to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Was intimately involved in that whole thing. 

aha!  so we can thank you! :)

 

I have seen nothing to suggest Hanwhas conversion of an old Ford factory is anything like the Rheinmetall facility which is all new,  has the largest EMIEMC chamber in Australia, a medium caliber firing tunnel and various obstacles along side a bloody big shed.

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

capability difference between AS21 Redback and KF41 Lynx.

I don't see much capability difference?  The Redback does have a modern suspension while LYNX has an utterly conventional torsion bar setup.  The Redback T2000 turret is a marketing exercise - old Elbit sub-systems, EOS lipstick.  Pig lipstick, lipstick pig etc.  The LANCE turret is state of the art but immature.  The Redback transmission is in some respects inferior to the Renk used in LYNX but not a killer issue.  The Redback has a proper engine from MTU while LYNX uses a crane engine...  The details of Redback look a bit light on.  The exhaust is a joke and it looks very cramped inside.

 

But in paper capability terms - same gun, same arnour spec, same APS etc.  I expect Redback to be better cross country at speed and LYNX to out shoot Redback.   I would love to be involved with the trials!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 2805662 said:

What do you base that statement on? They look like almost fungible items to me. 

 

Really? To me both offers look to be quite different based on their specifications and used components.

 

When Hanwha released first informations regarding the AS21 Redback, it was reported (by Defence Technology Review, MONCH, Jane's and other news outlets), that the weight of the prototype was about 40 tonnes. IIRC the gross-vehicle weight was supposed to be around 43 tonnes. Now a lot has changed since then and the Redback's combat weight has grown from 40 to 42 tonnes, but I don't believe that gross-vehicle weight was massively increased. At least with the rubber band tracks from Soucy they are limited to 42 tonnes.

Meanwhile the KF41 Lynx has a combat weight 44 tonnes as presented at Eurosatory 2018 and a gross vehicle weight of 50 tonnes, which translates to better armor protection and more growth potential in the future. Rheinmetall already stated that they have designed an add-on armor kit for urban combat, raising the vehicle's weight to 48 tonnes... can the AS21 match that?

 

Furthermore the Lynx has the advantage of its modularity. In the past people always downplayed the Boxer's modularity compared to just procure multiple variants of the same vehicle in a Stryker-like fashion, but it has been cited as one of the reason speaking for the Boxer during LAND 400 Phase 2. The modularity allows faster upgrades, easier repairs, in-field conversions and keeps life-cycle costs down.

 

The Lynx also seems to have a more future-oriented power pack, being fitted with the state-of-the-art Renk HSWL 256C transmission coupled to a modern Liebherr engine with 10% more output. The Redback's engine design will be close to 40 years and its transmission design will be close to 60 years if it entered service around 2030... in my opinion that is not ideal. The same applies to the exhaust and cooling system. The Lynx's design takes attention to cooling the exhaust gases and to redirect them to the vehicle rear in order to minimize the thermal and noise signature, while the AS21 Redback simply has an exhaust pipe sticking out of its side. Generally the AS21's design doesn't seem to pay as much attention to signature reduction.

 

Then there are further small differences that might not be that relevant, but at least have influenced my opinion on the vehicles, for example the turret choice for the prototypes. I understand that the turret choice is not set in stone and that the designs will change - for example by including different missile launchers, integrating active protection systems, etc. - but I am really wary of the EOS T2000 turret. While a lot of Australians on different web froums and in social media have declared it to be a perfect turret, aside form the fact that it looks cool I have not seen any real fact why it should be much better than the original Elbit UT/MT30 turret it is derived from. And the MT30 turret was offered during LAND 400 Phase 2, loosing to the LANCE 1.0 design. So the EOS T2000 not only needs to close the gap between its predecessor and LANCE 1.0, but also needs to beat the newer LANCE 2.0 turret... that seems like a lot too much to ask from the first turret design by EOS.

 

There are also the differences between Mk 44 Bushmaster II and Mauser MK 30-2/ABM (electrical driven vs gas-operated, dispersion), missile load-out (current Lynx prototype has four ATGMs vs two in the EOS T2000), the way the air-burst ammunition is programmed (where Rheinmetall's external programming allows using more types of ammunition such as AHEAD/KETF), etc.

 

I am by no means an expert on Australian defence procurement policies, the involved politics and the exact relevance of the difference to the requirements. Maybe the Australian military doesn't care about higher armor protection, when both vehicles manage to hit the baseline requirements. Maybe the LAND 400 Phase 3 IFV's inherent growth potential is also not seen as relevant, given how long M113 and ASLAV managed to stay in service. Maybe sharing parts with the Abrams and a potential K9 Thunder variant for the Australian Army (though one has to wonder if the old decision still holds value with Boxer RCH 155 and the PzH 2000 NDV being near market ready) is seen as more beneficial than sharing ammunition and parts with the Boxer CRV; I cannot say that.

 

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

The Redback does have a modern suspension while LYNX has an utterly conventional torsion bar setup.

 

You make that sound as if torsion bars couldn't be modern. That's not true.

 

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

The Redback has a proper engine from MTU while LYNX uses a crane engine... 

 

Liebherr managed to beat MTU for the German Marder 1 engine replacement. They did not offer a crane engine.

 

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

But in paper capability terms - same gun, same arnour spec, same APS etc

 

Currently both use different guns; Mauser MK 30-2/ABM and Mk 44 Bushmaster II. The armor specifications are also different; both managed to meet the Australian protection requirements, but this is not an upper limit for protection.

Link to post
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.

  • 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...