Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

On 2/5/2021 at 10:39 AM, Beer said:

See both USA and USSR who mastered the unification and serviceability

Can't comment on USSR but since there were such an immense range of radically different configurations of "Sherman", support was a nightmare.  Yes, that is a modern retrospective judgement.  The trade off was production and quantity delivered.  Never mind the quality, feel the width.  Production wins wars.  The guy who can bring the most to the fight and keep bringing more wins - always.  So "best"has many values, all relative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Schwer-mittel panzerkampfwagen 44 "Cougar", to the typical wehraboo.   "It had a low profile, only 10cm tal

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

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

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

Can't comment on USSR but since there were such an immense range of radically different configurations of "Sherman", support was a nightmare.  Yes, that is a modern retrospective judgement.  The trade off was production and quantity delivered.  Never mind the quality, feel the width.  Production wins wars.  The guy who can bring the most to the fight and keep bringing more wins - always.  So "best"has many values, all relative.

 

The Sherman "nightmare" is massive overstatement in comparison with the German mess. They had dozens of different AFV and hundreds of variants. That was a completely different scale of nightmare. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Wonder why... Maybe because whole eastern europe was under soviet influence? German stuff, especially heavy weapons didnt fit in that military structure. So they had to go. Also dont forget that spare parts werent manufactured anymore.

 

That is not true, sorry. ČSLA used Pz.IV till 1954, StuG.III till 1960 and Hetzer till 1963 (even 12 Marder III and 38 LT-38 Pz.38(t) were used). Also the Panthers and Bergepanthers were officially addopted and withdrawn in 1955 but the issue is that the standard tanks just sit in the depots. Nobody used them for anything more than few occasional drives and a movie production. The Bergepnathers were used and even several standard tanks were rebuilt to them because the army lacked heavy ARV (it had also 8 Cromwell ARV and later many Cromwells were rebuilt to makeshift ARVs). Some of the ex-German weapons were uven used in combat in Slovakia against Bandera units in 1945-47 (AFAIK mainly LT-38). 

 

It will probably surprise you but the most numerous tanks of our army after the war were British ones and it stayed like that well into 50'. It was 190 Cromwells/Centaurs, 20 Challengers and 30 Stuart VI. The second most numerous were German and only the third were Soviet ones. In numbers it was 42% British, 36% German and only 22% Soviet (we had more StuG than T-34 well into fiftees). The transition to Soviet machinery didn't even start until after 1950. Prior there was still ongoing domestic tank program which was later killed (largely for political reasons) and replaced by Soviet vehicles (pity because the domestic designs were a very curious mix of all AFV schools taking something from every side of the conflict).  

 

The argument that heavy tanks were not fit into the military structure doesn't hold water too. We had a heavy self-propelled regiment till 1956 which had officially a Panther batallion - but the Panthers were just stored. AFAIK the actually used machinery was a batallion of ISU-152 and a batallion of StuG.III. The plan was to rearm the unit with IS-3 but that never happened because of (wise) decision to concentrate on MBT only.  

 

PS Sorry for slightly different years than in previous post. It comes from the fact that the service of StuG.III didn't end with their sale to Syria. Only 12 were sold and the rest (95 pieces) continued serving in ČSLA till 1960.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Yes, after the war! :D And in 1945, the T-34, even the /85 was already obsolete.

 

There is a good book about this. In fact the best about the T-34. Robert Michulec, Miroslaw Zientarzewski - T-34 Mythical Weapon. Yes, its not a pleasant read for T-34 fanboys. But history doesnt care for fanboys. 

Engine life was around 150 hours. "Great" achievement... Very "reliable" engine... poor build quality, non functioning air filters, etc... Of course it got better by 1944, but this problem was truly fixed only after the war. Engine was also prone to overheating thanks to poorly designed and made cooling system.

And then the "magnificent" gearbox. For which you sometimes need a sledgehammer to shift gears. Not a myth, a fact, confirmed by hungarian tankists too. Check the CIA report about the captured T-34/85. It had 741km in the clock. The gearbox was already in very bad condition, all thanks to its incredibly primitive design. Americans judged it "already failed". 

I talked to old tankists who served on T-34s, and they weren really enthusiastic about it. Reliability was a definite problem. 

The french report about the problems with turret traverse on slopes also applied to the T-34/85.

 

Wonder why... Maybe because whole eastern europe was under soviet influence? German stuff, especially heavy weapons didnt fit in that military structure. So they had to go. Also dont forget that spare parts werent manufactured anymore. 

I really like the argument that "The T-34 and Sherman were used until the '90s and lots of stuff were based on them, but the german stuff were technological dead ends..." Yes. Germany lost the war... And then they didnt really had an army for ten years. And when they finally reorganized, they already found themselves in either NATO or WP. So germans on either side had to adapt. There was no place of further development of ww2 designs. 

 

So basically, you've lost this argument so hard you're trying to make it about the T-34 instead of facing up to the reality of the Panther. Don't think we didn't notice!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Beer said:

(pity because the domestic designs were a very curious mix of all AFV schools taking something from every side of the conflict).  


Off topic, but do you plan to make posts on these like you did the “interwar Czech bits”? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lord_James said:


Off topic, but do you plan to make posts on these like you did the “interwar Czech bits”? 

 

I can write something short, why not.

 

By the way one of the test vehicles which is relevant to this particular German thread was a Tiger equipped with an autoloader (yes, that thing known to WoT players as armament of the Škoda T-25 existed, unlike the tank itself). AFAIK that was the only Tiger not scraped after the war but sadly it didn't survive and there are no photos I know about :( 

 

Several Königstigers which were left here ended sadly all scraped (they were nearly all broken or destroyed but few pieces were just stuck in mud). People back then had different prpblems than to think about museum exhibits of the future... 

 

Topic on :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, heretic88 said:

non functioning air filters

 

This one stands out to me, because the only report I have ever seen where the T-34's air filters didn't work (as opposed to working poorly) were when it was tested at Aberdeen.

 

And the reason for that was very simple - the early T-34 they had was equipped with Pomon-type air filters, which are an oil bath filter, and for some reason the US testing crew never oiled it.

 

It is not a big shock that an oil bath filter fails without oil.

 

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

Can't comment on USSR but since there were such an immense range of radically different configurations of "Sherman", support was a nightmare.  Yes, that is a modern retrospective judgement.  The trade off was production and quantity delivered.  Never mind the quality, feel the width.  Production wins wars.  The guy who can bring the most to the fight and keep bringing more wins - always.  So "best"has many values, all relative.

 

 

You're just making stuff up. LOL "radically" different Shermans still interchanged most parts, and the US Army used the M4 and M4A1 until the A3 came along and the M4 and M4A1 are the same tank.   Why don't you provide a source for these amazing takes of yours. 

 

Did you read up on the T2O series, so you can see how bad your other argument was?

 

 

You're arguments are such trash, you're trolling us right?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

This one stands out to me, because the only report I have ever seen where the T-34's air filters didn't work (as opposed to working poorly) were when it was tested at Aberdeen.

Then check the CIA report. The captured T-34/85 uses the later multicyclone filter, and it had an incredibly low efficiency. The earlier oil bath filters didnt work at all, no matter if it was oiled or not. The problem was solved in 1955 with the introduction of the excellent VTI-3 filters

 

Edit: "The cleaners were of such low efficiency and low dirt capacity that, in dusty operation, they should have been cleaned at least once each day and preferably several times if any appreciable engine protection were to be obtained." CIA report about the multicyclone filters

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Then check the CIA report. The captured T-34/85 uses the later multicyclone filter, and it had an incredibly low efficiency. The earlier oil bath filters didnt work at all, no matter if it was oiled or not. The problem was solved in 1955 with the introduction of the excellent VTI-3 filters

 

Edit: "The cleaners were of such low efficiency and low dirt capacity that, in dusty operation, they should have been cleaned at least once each day and preferably several times if any appreciable engine protection were to be obtained." CIA report about the multicyclone filters

 

Cleaning once per day is within spec for multicyclone, which was certified to meet its filtration quality for 20 hours without cleaning. Air purity was kept at 100% (within margin of testing error) to densities of 3 grams per cubic centimeter - with is reasonably dusty.

It should be mentioned cleaning multicylcone (or cyclone) is actually quite simple. Like any cyclone-filtering vacuum cleaner all you do is disconnect the dust bin, dump it out, and reconnect it.

 

The CIA report is based on an NK tank that was battered to hell and back and not properly maintained for its years with the DPRK. It is unsurprising elements of it were damaged.  And on the other hand, we have combat experience corroborated by German and Japanese reports of really quite vast and long-ranging movements in Bagration and Manchuria by Soviet armor.

 

Oh, and dust cleaning with filters is not some magic process either - if a filter lasts longer between cleaning it is purely because the filter has more dust capacity, and will take proportionally longer to clean. You spend about the same amount of time overall cleaning any dust filter of a given configuration for a given volume of dust, irregardless of the fine details that differ it. (Note how cleaning a vacuum cleaner of a standard size is basically the same work irrespective of brand and design features)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Lost? Its not me who is clinging to a single source...

 

On 2/6/2021 at 6:08 PM, Sturgeon said:

 

This is tiresome. See this thread? You are arguing with exactly the same group of people, but now they're 8 years older and wiser. Based on your posts, it looks like you might even be working off that thread, at least you are making the same arguments.

 

Do I know why the Bergepanther is listed as having 4200 km final drive life in Jentz? No. It was probably taken out of a manual. It could have been for any number of other reasons. That does not mean we should ignore the experience of the French, Littlefield, and even Heinz Friggin Guderian.

 

This is a very old, stale, and tired argument. Did Panther final drives have severe problems? Yes, Guderian talks about it and practically everyone else who ever drove the damn things talks about it too. Is it possible to put final drives in a Panther that do not break after 150km? Yes, probably. Did the Germans have such final drives which were superior in either configuration or material as to eliminate the problem? Seems unlikely but really anything is possible. Does this excuse the tank from being a veritable shit show from start to finish and a virtual disaster for the German war effort? Not at all.

 

Case closed, end of discussion.

 


To say you're "not arguing in good faith" is a criminal understatement. At this point, you're just acting a clown, and I'm happy to let you do so. Carry on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

Edit: "The cleaners were of such low efficiency and low dirt capacity that, in dusty operation, they should have been cleaned at least once each day and preferably several times if any appreciable engine protection were to be obtained." CIA report about the multicyclone filters

Just like the filters I used on M1A1. Not saying that T-34 filters were as good as the filters on the M1A1, but even modern filters need to be serviced daily under dusty conditions if you want your tank to work right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, during ODS crews found that the engine air filters of the Abrams required cleaning after as little as 6 hours of desert operation, and daily even when the engine was not started. As a result, 2/2 ACR, for example, went to battle with three times the normal stock of engine air filters.

 

While we're on the subject, TM 9-759 for the M4A3 from September 1944 says of dusty conditions: "Even when the above precautions [avoiding other vehicles' dust clouds as much as possible and not exceeding speed specified for whatever gear being used] are taken, it may be necessary to clean the carburetor air cleaners and the air cleaner on the filter pipe as often as every two hours. If the air cleaners are kept clean and their oil level is maintained, little damage to the engine will result. It is possible to wear out the engine in one hour or less if the air cleaners are neglected." TM 9-731B from January 1943 for the M4A2 says, "The frequency of servicing air cleaners depends on the dust and sand conditions encountered. Under extreme dust and sand conditions, service air cleaners every eight hours to prevent premature engine wear." TM 9-754 from January 1943 for the M4A4 also advises, "The air cleaners should be cleaned daily when the vehicle is operated over dusty terrains..." TM 9-731A from December 1943 for the M4 and M4A1 says the air cleaners should be drained, cleaned and refilled "[d]aily, when operating on dirt roads or cross country, or every 250 miles, when operating on paved roads or during wet weather..." And for completeness's sake, TM 9-756 from December 1943 for the M4A6 instructs that air cleaners are serviced "[e]very 5 to 60 hours of operation, depending on dust conditions..." and that they are to be drained, cleaned, and refilled daily. Also, "Every 100 miles, remove air cleaners, wash all parts, and reoil."

 

So for the CIA engineers to complain that the T-34-85's oil bath air cleaners needed to be serviced daily in dusty conditions to provide decent protection seems strange. When the report says of the subject's "wholly inadequate engine intake air cleaners", "Several hundred miles in very dusty operation would probably be accompanied by severe engine power loss" or "The cleaners were of such low efficiency and low dirt capacity that, in dusty operation, they should have been cleaned at least once each day and preferably several times if any appreciable engine protection were to be obtained", one wonders if they had read manuals for their own country's vehicles. The T-34-85's air cleaners may well have been inefficient and of low dirt capacity, but the fact that they needed servicing at least daily in dusty conditions does not per se seem to be good supporting evidence. Some type of quantification would have gone far in supporting that assertion.

Edited by DogDodger
left out the publication year for TMs 9-731B and 9-756
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

I will note you did not deny trying to change the subject to the T-34.

That was to show the double standards and hipocrisy. 

One vehicle that had reliability problems, but generally performed well in combat is an utter piece of trash, one of the worst tanks ever.

The other vehicle that also had just as many reliability problems, generally performed badly in combat, is a good piece of equipment... Of course, for some people, the first vehicle is a black sheep, and the second is a "holy cow" or something like that... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

That was to show the double standards and hipocrisy. 

One vehicle that had reliability problems, but generally performed well in combat is an utter piece of trash, one of the worst tanks ever.

The other vehicle that also had just as many reliability problems, generally performed badly in combat, is a good piece of equipment... Of course, for some people, the first vehicle is a black sheep, and the second is a "holy cow" or something like that... 

   Are you serious?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

That was to show the double standards and hipocrisy. 

One vehicle that had reliability problems, but generally performed well in combat is an utter piece of trash, one of the worst tanks ever.

The other vehicle that also had just as many reliability problems, generally performed badly in combat, is a good piece of equipment... Of course, for some people, the first vehicle is a black sheep, and the second is a "holy cow" or something like that... 

I think you're stretching massively if you're going to claim that the T-34 had "just as many" reliability problems as Panther.

 

Here's a quick sanity check: during the early part of Barbarossa, parts of the German front moved around 1500km (around 16km per day) against heavy resistance during a three-month campaign season. Similarly, during the last phases of the war parts of the Soviet army were moving around 1000km (around 11km per day) during a similar time period against organised German opposition. In both cases the factors limiting operational tempo were opposition and supply rather than the mechanical limits of the equipment involved.

 

During Kursk, however, the Germans moved barely 100km over the course of twenty days (around 5km per day). During this time, the units operating Panthers were losing something like 8% of their vehicles a day due to mechanical breakdowns. At the end of some of the fiercest fighting of the war the ratio of combat-damaged tanks needing repairs to broken-down tanks was still 50/50, and only 10 out of the original 200 vehicles were actually operational.

 

Even granting that this was the debut of a type which is often stated as being "rushed into service" (despite a more than 5-year development cycle), there is just no way that the German army could have sustained the operational tempo that they achieved at the beginning of the war with a tank force made up of Panthers. The Soviets, meanwhile, seem to have kept up more or less fine with their T-34s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, heretic88 said:

One vehicle that had reliability problems, but generally performed well in combat is an utter piece of trash, one of the worst tanks ever.

The other vehicle that also had just as many reliability problems, generally performed badly in combat, is a good piece of equipment... Of course, for some people, the first vehicle is a black sheep, and the second is a "holy cow" or something like that... 

 

OMG, let's agree to disagree and move on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, heretic88 said:

That was to show the double standards and hipocrisy. 

One vehicle that had reliability problems, but generally performed well in combat is an utter piece of trash, one of the worst tanks ever.

The other vehicle that also had just as many reliability problems, generally performed badly in combat, is a good piece of equipment... Of course, for some people, the first vehicle is a black sheep, and the second is a "holy cow" or something like that... 

 

What I find most amusing about this is that the attitude he attributes to us towards the T-34 is entirely his own invention. Nobody mentioned the T-34 (except Beer, and only in passing) before he brought it up. It's clear and obvious whataboutism he's using in a very pathetic attempt to disguise the fact the he got absolutely reamed for a new garbage chute size in this argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also just like to chime in and point out the circumstances surrounding the war time production T-34s, since those are the ones Heretic88 wants to focus on in particular, where their production lines had to be completely disassembled and moved across the continent, and the things were basically being thrown out as quickly as possible with very little regard for Q/C, due to the fact that the USSR was literally fighting for it's survival and had an obsolete vehicle pool that dearly needed replacement even before the war broke out.

 

Do you really think equating the reliability of the Panther to something like that is doing it any kind of favor? (Especially when the evidence points to it being even worse)

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, heretic88 said:

That was to show the double standards and hipocrisy. 

One vehicle that had reliability problems, but generally performed well in combat is an utter piece of trash, one of the worst tanks ever.

The other vehicle that also had just as many reliability problems, generally performed badly in combat, is a good piece of equipment... Of course, for some people, the first vehicle is a black sheep, and the second is a "holy cow" or something like that... 

 

Yes the old unreliable r34.... So unreliable that during the recent ukraine festivities we have MULTIPLE documented instances of t34's parked on display in the weather for the last 7 decades being started in short order and driven into battle.

 

Truly a disgrace that some impudent curs had the gall to call these moscovite failure tractors tanks!

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

During Kursk, however, the Germans moved barely 100km over the course of twenty days (around 5km per day). During this time, the units operating Panthers were losing something like 8% of their vehicles a day due to mechanical breakdowns.

It is true. The early Panther D was definitely horrible, probably one of the most unreliable tanks of the war. But it is a big error to apply the problems of the D to the later A and G models. Lots of problems were fixed, especially in the engine & associated components. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

It is true. The early Panther D was definitely horrible, probably one of the most unreliable tanks of the war. But it is a big error to apply the problems of the D to the later A and G models. Lots of problems were fixed, especially in the engine & associated components. 

 

 

This breaks the improvements down very well:

 

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/

 

In general: the engine got worked on extensively (the changes being minutely detailed), with non-specific fixed applied to the transmission and final drives.

 

By 1944 you're looking at the following:

- Engine: maximum lifespan of 1800 km (unknown average)

- Transmission: maximum lifespan of 1800 km (unknown average)

- Final drives: maximum lifespan unknown, replacement rate at around 3% of vehicles per day (ie: horrific)

- Tracks: maximum of 1800 km (unknown average)

 

Basically: Panthers were, in the best case, around 70% as reliable as T-34s (maximum lifespans of components being reported at around 2500 km) only if you exclude the final drives. If you include the final drives then they were an unmitigated dog-show compared to more or less anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Toxn said:

This breaks the improvements down very well:

 

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/02/08/from-the-editor-panther-reliability/

 

In general: the engine got worked on extensively (the changes being minutely detailed), with non-specific fixed applied to the transmission and final drives.

 

By 1944 you're looking at the following:

- Engine: maximum lifespan of 1800 km (unknown average)

- Transmission: maximum lifespan of 1800 km (unknown average)

- Final drives: maximum lifespan unknown, replacement rate at around 3% of vehicles per day (ie: horrific)

- Tracks: maximum of 1800 km (unknown average)

 

Basically: Panthers were, in the best case, around 70% as reliable as T-34s (maximum lifespans of components being reported at around 2500 km) only if you exclude the final drives. If you include the final drives then they were an unmitigated dog-show compared to more or less anything.

 

 

And look at how many of the sources for Walt's post are from Jentz, the Lord God of the boos!

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...