Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

I am also unsure whether AMRAAM-ER will be available with the high mobility launcher, given the fact that its 75% heavier and 12 inches longer.

 

 

It will according to Raytheon:

 

"The Raytheon High Mobility Launcher (HML) that will be provided for LAND 19 Phase 7B has also been upgraded with the same common launch rail and new electronics as the Mark 2 canister launcher. The launcher raises the missiles up to 30 degrees and can be rotated 360 degrees, and will give the HML a multi-missile capability for the AMRAAM, AIM-9X Block 2, and AMRAAM-ER.

 

Source: https://www.raytheon.com/sites/default/files/2019-04/ADBR_WorldLeader!_Land19_Supplement.pdf?linkId=66006150

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

All of these systems are more capable than the standard AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel F1 of NASAMS - both in range and resolution, though they tend to be also significantly larger.

And more expensive. The whole point of the Sentilel is that its a small, relatively cheap radar. That means that one NASAMS division can have multiple Sentilel radars, so the loss of one or two will not significantly reduce the effectiveness of the system. Also, having multiple radars doesnt mean that all are operating at the same time. One radar transmitting, while other radars waiting or moving to new locations. Again good for survivability, and makes the enemy's job harder.

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I haven't seen any exact figures for NASAMS,

I read 25 kilometers somewhere. So basically the same as IRIS-T.

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I am also unsure whether AMRAAM-ER will be available with the high mobility launcher, given the fact that its 75% heavier and 12 inches longer.

I dont think it is important. Finland mounted the launchers on their own Sisu E13 heavy trucks, which are just as good. Maybe its a bit slower on roads, but thats not a big deal. Sadly it isnt known on what platforms we will use for NASAMS, but I think the most probable will be the locally produced Rába trucks. (similar to MAN HX) Not really offroad vehicles, but will be okay I think. (I'd rather put the launchers on Kraz-260, still serving here). Anyway, NASAMS can be mounted on any platform, its a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Anecdote:

 

As a sort of test run of my "fix a tank" competition series idea, I had a go at fixing the Panther (ie: the most talked-about problem child of the war). The rules here were to make the fix as historically realistic as possible - ie: no blowing a smoking crater in the Reichstag or 6th Department, no ignoring the large industrial concerns etc. I also tried to take into account the stated requirements and preferences that drove the project and got MAN the nod over DB: sloped armour, mid-mounted Krupp turret, front drive, torsion-bar suspension, Kniepkamp's interleaved suspension, the use of a Maybach engine of some variety, honking big gun courtesy of Rheinmetall, and 60-100mm of armour thickness up front.

 

And funnily enough, once I'd gotten my head around the dumpster fire that was German AFV procurement in the 1930s to the end of WWII, I came to realise that Panther was about as good as it was going to get for the Germans. Really, the most that could have been hoped for in the real world was that more attention got paid to managing the weight of the beast, that the ergonomics were given more priority, and that some of the really dumb mechanical innovations that the Germans seemed to cram into everything (ie: mechanical turret drive) were left out. All of which would have lead to a 35-tonne monster instead of a 38-tonne one.  

 

German AFV development just really sucked that badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Toxn said:

Anecdote:

 

As a sort of test run of my "fix a tank" competition series idea, I had a go at fixing the Panther (ie: the most talked-about problem child of the war). The rules here were to make the fix as historically realistic as possible - ie: no blowing a smoking crater in the Reichstag or 6th Department, no ignoring the large industrial concerns etc. I also tried to take into account the stated requirements and preferences that drove the project and got MAN the nod over DB: sloped armour, mid-mounted Krupp turret, front drive, torsion-bar suspension, Kniepkamp's interleaved suspension, the use of a Maybach engine of some variety, honking big gun courtesy of Rheinmetall, and 60-100mm of armour thickness up front.

 

And funnily enough, once I'd gotten my head around the dumpster fire that was German AFV procurement in the 1930s to the end of WWII, I came to realise that Panther was about as good as it was going to get for the Germans. Really, the most that could have been hoped for in the real world was that more attention got paid to managing the weight of the beast, that the ergonomics were given more priority, and that some of the really dumb mechanical innovations that the Germans seemed to cram into everything (ie: mechanical turret drive) were left out. All of which would have lead to a 35-tonne monster instead of a 38-tonne one.  

 

German AFV development just really sucked that badly.

 

 

Accurate in general, but the MAN design used a Rheinmetall Turret, and the DB design had better sloping all around (but also violated so many Wa Pruef 6 diktats that it was never going to go anywhere - Leaf springs instead of torsion bars?! Heresy!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

 

Accurate in general, but the MAN design used a Rheinmetall Turret, and the DB design had better sloping all around (but also violated so many Wa Pruef 6 diktats that it was never going to go anywhere - Leaf springs instead of torsion bars?! Heresy!).

Thanks for the correction - I struggle to keep track of my German industrial conglomerates sometimes.

 

I'm aware of the DB design's issues (most damning of which was probably the transmission, which broke down as soon as testing started). Ironically, if they'd implemented things more to 6th dept's liking the result would have been a twin of the MAN design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another interesting thing to note about Panther: the KwK 43 runs at the same pressure as KwK 40, which is fairly mediocre by mid-WW2 standards. If it ran at the same pressure as the long 88 on Tiger 2, you could eke put the same performance on an L/60 barrel. And if it ran on the same pressure as the 17 pounder you could do it with an L/55. 

 

Anyway, for those people wondering how the French supposedly copied the long 75 post-war for the AMX-13, but then got the same performance out of a much shorter barrel, there's your answer.

 

Also of note: the casings for all German guns are also remarkably long and skinny - the 77mm managed startlingly better performance than the KwK 40 out of a much shorter case (420mm vs 495mm). I'd love people who know more about cannon design to explain why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

German AFV development just really sucked that badly.

Aircraft the same (and ww1) but really, who did it well?  UK?  Don't make me laugh,  US?  What development?  Russia?  Perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its quite sad that it became such a popular trend to bash the Panther. It wasnt a bad tank at all. Recently, more myths were created than in the past half decade. Like the infamous "final drive that lasted for 150 kilometers". Not a single source supports it. On the other hand there is a report of a Bergepanther, (Panzer Tracts 16-1, Jentz & Doyle) with 4200 kilometers in its clock, and with original final drives! Am I saying that the french assessment is useless, contains lies? No, not at all. In my opinion, the 150km is simply a typo. Should be 1500km. Other sources indicate that this is close to the truth. But dont get me wrong, 1500km is still BAD. 

Of course, the Panther had other problems, like being overengineered, costly and time consuming to build, requiring careful maintenance and skilled drivers. In tactical combat it had one design flaw that affected performance, is the lack of unity periscope for gunner. But still, it had many positives, and generally, performed well in combat.

Also, lots of people forget about a very, very important fact, when they talk about the "total unreliability" of the Panther: Sabotage. For example, during the restoration of Littlefield's Panther, it was discovered that the fuel or cooling lines (not remember which) were stuffed with cigarette butts and other junk. And it was a quite common thing. No wonder that things didnt work as expected... 

And frequently, when people bash the Panther, they forget that many other tanks suffered from similar, or even more serious problems. Like the mythical T-34, that is commonly believed to be the best tank of the war. It had its own share of serious defects: very low build quality (but not post ww2), debilitating reliability problems (extremely crude and bad transmission, no functioning air filters, bad cooling system). Its christie suspension is atrociously bad, provided a very rough ride (that I personally experienced. A T-55 is a luxury car compared to it), and took up lots of internal space. And finally, it was an ergonomic nightmare (85mm variants less so for commander and gunner), that greatly affected its performance in combat. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

Aircraft the same (and ww1) but really, who did it well?  UK?  Don't make me laugh,  US?  What development?  Russia?  Perhaps?

UK got it right just in time for the war to end (Centurion).

US got it right from 1942 (Sherman onwards).

USSR got it more or less right all the way through (lots of caveats but still).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Its quite sad that it became such a popular trend to bash the Panther. It wasnt a bad tank at all. Recently, more myths were created than in the past half decade. Like the infamous "final drive that lasted for 150 kilometers". Not a single source supports it. On the other hand there is a report of a Bergepanther, (Panzer Tracts 16-1, Jentz & Doyle) with 4200 kilometers in its clock, and with original final drives! Am I saying that the french assessment is useless, contains lies? No, not at all. In my opinion, the 150km is simply a typo. Should be 1500km. Other sources indicate that this is close to the truth. But dont get me wrong, 1500km is still BAD. 

Of course, the Panther had other problems, like being overengineered, costly and time consuming to build, requiring careful maintenance and skilled drivers. In tactical combat it had one design flaw that affected performance, is the lack of unity periscope for gunner. But still, it had many positives, and generally, performed well in combat.

Also, lots of people forget about a very, very important fact, when they talk about the "total unreliability" of the Panther: Sabotage. For example, during the restoration of Littlefield's Panther, it was discovered that the fuel or cooling lines (not remember which) were stuffed with cigarette butts and other junk. And it was a quite common thing. No wonder that things didnt work as expected... 

And frequently, when people bash the Panther, they forget that many other tanks suffered from similar, or even more serious problems. Like the mythical T-34, that is commonly believed to be the best tank of the war. It had its own share of serious defects: very low build quality (but not post ww2), debilitating reliability problems (extremely crude and bad transmission, no functioning air filters, bad cooling system). Its christie suspension is atrociously bad, provided a very rough ride (that I personally experienced. A T-55 is a luxury car compared to it), and took up lots of internal space. And finally, it was an ergonomic nightmare (85mm variants less so for commander and gunner), that greatly affected its performance in combat. 

 

 

Iunno, man - much as I agree that the pendulum has probably swung a bit too far in the "hurr durr, is shit" direction, the Panther is still pretty dire. The drivetrain issues are well attested as far as I know, to the extent that the Germans themselves shipped them in by rail whenever possible. So I don't think you can just wave your hand and say the French report was a clerical error. And the ergonomics were certainly not perfect beyond just the gunner's sights. A few lowlights:

- The commander's hatch is bulky yet tiny.

- The commander's position is cramped overall.

- The turret crew has very few vision devices overall (one fixed for the loader and that's your lot).

- Everyone in the turret beyond the commander would burn in the event of a fire thanks to tiny and few hatches.

- The gun is awkward to load.

- The radio operator's position is remarkably cramped and uncomfortable.

- Driving is a fiddly and requires a well-trained crewman (without also considering the need to baby the transmission).

- The transmission is completely inaccessible short of pulling the turret.

- The suspension and wheels are generally a pain in the ass to clean, repair or service.

 

All in all the Panther was the inverse of the (successful) early and mid-war German designs - great when looking at the hard stats (gun penetration, armour, engine power etc) but lacking on many of the soft factors. Which is just the worst possible thing from the T-34 to have copied.

 

I think the final, most damning thing I could say about the Panther is that it accomplishes more or less exactly what the T-44 does... all while being bigger, 10 tonnes heavier and less reliable.

 

Edit: something I forgot to mention in my previous posts that I think contributed to the Panther's woes: the engine. The Maybach V12s that power the Panther are bulky beasts and remarkably tall (nearly 1.2m). Add in the extra height from the torsion bars and drive shaft going to the front, and I think that the 1.35m hull height is about as compact as you can make it. Just to give an idea of how much the engine alone added to the weight - if you replace the HL230 with the HL120 TRM from the Pz IV but keep everything else the same ITO other component sizes, armour thickness, armour angles etc, the calculated weight of the bare hull drops by 3.4mt (or ~27%).

 

Again, the mix of decisions that constrained the design more or less doomed it to be very big and very heavy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem with Panther is the crazy hype about it among the people (Königstiger is even worse case) when in fact the tank was very problematic vehicle plagued with many wrong design choices and on top of that the German late-war situation (lack of everything and sabotages). For some reason people believe in those nonsense stories about invincible tank aces from Kurowski. It's natural that such hype insitigates the opposite - and Panther is in a way quite an easy target bcause there was a lot of wrong about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Toxn said:

US got it right from 1942 (Sherman onwards

You are kidding.  Sherman is a PRODUCTION success, not a development success.  T34 is both a production success and a development success.  Production wins wars but in no way is the Sherman an exampe of development success.  And what onwards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Toxn said:

Germans themselves shipped them in by rail whenever possible.

Which was the case with all of their equipment.

22 hours ago, Toxn said:

- The commander's hatch is bulky yet tiny.

The hatch of the Panzer III, IV, or even the cold war Leopard 1 is just as "tiny"... Strangely, it isnt a problem for these!

22 hours ago, Toxn said:

- The commander's position is cramped overall.

So is the position in a T-55/62 (even more actually). Yet these are satisfactory...

23 hours ago, Toxn said:

- The turret crew has very few vision devices overall (one fixed for the loader and that's your lot).

The T-34/85 has only one more periscope, an MK4 for the gunner. But on the other hand, its commander has worse visibility. 
The Cromwell has one more periscope for the gunner, but absolutely pathetic visibility for commander.

The truly excellent visibility from the LATE Shermans were an exception, rather than a rule amongst WW2 tanks. 

23 hours ago, Toxn said:

- Everyone in the turret beyond the commander would burn in the event of a fire thanks to tiny and few hatches.

You mean two hatches for turret crew? Isnt this the same for most other ww2 tanks? 

23 hours ago, Toxn said:

- The gun is awkward to load.

Didnt read any complaints about that. It isnt the tank's fault that N.Moran isnt trained in its operation.

23 hours ago, Toxn said:

- The radio operator's position is remarkably cramped and uncomfortable.

This I agree.

23 hours ago, Toxn said:

- Driving is a fiddly and requires a well-trained crewman (without also considering the need to baby the transmission).

Driving is easy (just check what Saumur's tank driver says), and the driver's place is well designed. In fact, the Panter is easier to drive than the Sherman. (not to talk about the T-34...)
The transmission needs no special treatment, it was a reliable component. It is the final drive that requires careful driving.

23 hours ago, Toxn said:

- The transmission is completely inaccessible short of pulling the turret.

As I mentioned above, the transmission is reliable.On the other hand, working on the steering gear and final drives require removing the transmission, so it is a valid point.

23 hours ago, Toxn said:

- The suspension and wheels are generally a pain in the ass to clean, repair or service.

Overexaggeration. It was far less of a problem in RL than people who like to bash the Panther tend to believe.

 

23 hours ago, Toxn said:

The Maybach V12s that power the Panther are bulky beasts and remarkably tall (nearly 1.2m).


The Maybach V12s that power the Panther are bulky beasts and remarkably tall (nearly 1.2m).
Not bigger than the V2 that powered the T-34. The height was caused by the air filters above it. (btw, strangely, the huge radial engine isnt a negative anymore for the Sherman...)

 

So, after all, the Panther wasnt perfect, it had its own share of problems. Just like any other tank in WW2. The T-34 had just as many (if not more) problems, but it isnt bashed for these. Or the british tanks... People who think that the Panther was the best tank of ww2 are obviously wrong. But so are who think that the Panther was a miserable, heavy, unreliable, overengineered beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, DIADES said:

You are kidding.  Sherman is a PRODUCTION success, not a development success.  T34 is both a production success and a development success.  Production wins wars but in no way is the Sherman an exampe of development success.  And what onwards?

Developmentally it had good ergonomics, great upgrade potential (witness jumbo, easy 8s, M50 ishermans, crazy yugo shermans with 122mm guns in them et al), good armour when it entered service, a good gun when it entered service, monumental mechanical reliability, good servicing characteristics, good logistical characteristics.

 

On the downside it was, what, a bit tall? Petrol engined? Not upgunned a month earlier than it could have been? 'Only' 400 or so jumbos produced?

 

Sherman is far and away the top contender for 'best tank of WW2', and ahead of T-34 in my opinion due to better soft factors (ergonomics, serviceability).

 

As for 'onwards': M10 (perfectly fine), M36 (very good), M18 (very good), M24 (amazing), M41 (good), the entire Patton series beyond M26 (very good to good). Even M3 and M5 light were good for their class.

 

Look, I'm no burgerphile. But the Americans were on a raging technological hot streak in the 1940s and 1950s that I don't think any other nation has equalled: literally shitting out world-beating technologies at scale while single-handedly building up the world's biggest navy and air force. Even their failures were unusually good - the USSR loved the P39 even though the US considered it a hot mess, and how many Wehraboos would be creaming themselves over the M26 or M7 if they had been produced with a balkenkreuz painted on the side of their hulls? Hell, how much would German aircraft designs have liked to get their hands on the R-2800 while the Americans were slapping them into anything with wings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Which was the case with all of their equipment.

The hatch of the Panzer III, IV, or even the cold war Leopard 1 is just as "tiny"... Strangely, it isnt a problem for these!

So is the position in a T-55/62 (even more actually). Yet these are satisfactory...

The T-34/85 has only one more periscope, an MK4 for the gunner. But on the other hand, its commander has worse visibility. 
The Cromwell has one more periscope for the gunner, but absolutely pathetic visibility for commander.

The truly excellent visibility from the LATE Shermans were an exception, rather than a rule amongst WW2 tanks. 

You mean two hatches for turret crew? Isnt this the same for most other ww2 tanks? 

Didnt read any complaints about that. It isnt the tank's fault that N.Moran isnt trained in its operation.

This I agree.

Driving is easy (just check what Saumur's tank driver says), and the driver's place is well designed. In fact, the Panter is easier to drive than the Sherman. (not to talk about the T-34...)
The transmission needs no special treatment, it was a reliable component. It is the final drive that requires careful driving.

As I mentioned above, the transmission is reliable.On the other hand, working on the steering gear and final drives require removing the transmission, so it is a valid point.

Overexaggeration. It was far less of a problem in RL than people who like to bash the Panther tend to believe.

 


The Maybach V12s that power the Panther are bulky beasts and remarkably tall (nearly 1.2m).
Not bigger than the V2 that powered the T-34. The height was caused by the air filters above it. (btw, strangely, the huge radial engine isnt a negative anymore for the Sherman...)

 

So, after all, the Panther wasnt perfect, it had its own share of problems. Just like any other tank in WW2. The T-34 had just as many (if not more) problems, but it isnt bashed for these. Or the british tanks... People who think that the Panther was the best tank of ww2 are obviously wrong. But so are who think that the Panther was a miserable, heavy, unreliable, overengineered beast.

We must live in different worlds :lol:

The T-34 and British tanks get (rightly) bashed for these same faults.

 

But then I agree with you - the Panther wasn't perfect, but it wasn't total shit either. Rather, it should be seen in context as a product of the conditions surrounding its design and production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Beer said:

The main problem with Panther is the crazy hype about it among the people (Königstiger is even worse case) when in fact the tank was very problematic vehicle plagued with many wrong design choices and on top of that the German late-war situation (lack of everything and sabotages). For some reason people believe in those nonsense stories about invincible tank aces from Kurowski. It's natural that such hype insitigates the opposite - and Panther is in a way quite an easy target bcause there was a lot of wrong about it. 

^ This

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think there is such a thing as "best tank of the war". Total BS. In certain situations "A" tank was the better, in another, "B" tank. And it could reverse with time passes. T-34 was a better tank in 1941 than a Panzer IV, but one year later it reversed. In 1944 T-34/85 again became better... The Königstiger was absolutely the best heavy tank when it came to tank to tank combat... yet it failed miserably when put into a role where the IS-2 excelled in... Context, context, context. 

So neither, the Panther, T-34 or Sherman was the best tank of the war. All had their strenghts and weaknesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure the context is crucial but it's worth noting that neither Königstiger nor even Panther were able of being used in a war in which the Pz.I, II, III, IV and 35(t), 38(t) decimated the Europe in 1939-41 because of their horrendous mobility (mainly in operational and strategical depth). They were much closer to the French Char-B behemoths in terms of how they could and were used (and ulimately failed). They were oversized, overweight, and overpriced machines which were best suited for anti-tank defence but sucked whenever they had to go onto offensive. They took away plenty of resources and labour force which could have been used for something more appropriate, more compatible with the rest of the army in terms of spare parts and training and less fuel thirsty - maybe something closer to the original Panther requirements (the cherry on the cake was wasting resources on Maus, E-75, E-100 and similar crazyness). 

 

Of course Panther was much more useful than Königstiger but still, it's a huge vehicle of IS-2 weight, 5 tons heavier than M26. One against one Panther, Tiger or Königstiger would defeat T-34 or Sherman any day yet the issue is that such encounter needs to happen at first. Once you loose strategical initiative having slow and immobile and highly speciliazed units is the worst what can happen to you. You are late everywhere and you loose large number of units just trying to move them around without actually fighting. Your enemy selects the battlefield in a way it suits him and not you (that proved to be especially bad for Tigers and Königstigers whenever they had to fight on soft terrain). In the end you can be strong but usually on a wrong place in a wrong time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I'll start ranting about WW2 tanks and why using different/modern standards to judge them might not make much sense, here are a few more recent news from IAV 2021:

 

EtYEfLoXYAE770D?format=png&name=900x900

HiMoLaP all-terrain vehicle developed by FFG; apparently this is not the Wiesel 1 replacement, but a testbed meant for the multi-national Bv206 replacement.

 

 

Slide showing the PMMC G5:

EtYHlJbWYAIppZj?format=png&name=900x900

 

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...