Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

On 2/24/2021 at 8:50 AM, Toxn said:

I'm struggling to understand your take here. You can't calculate armour thickness values (120mm at 60' is over 200mm btw), but the Germans would be thrilled to have the IS-2 regardless.

Also, the Tiger's turret rotation et al sucked but (per your previous) Tiger had a 'load of features' that the IS-2 was poorer without.

tig1WIN.png

Yeah, excellent cannon, optics, working environment, mobility, armour + excellent doctrine and training. Tiger was an unavoidable success.

Quote

Also LOL at "dismantling breakthroughs". Glad to see that the Germans were heroically repulsing the enemy while being pushed back to Berlin. Rather than, you know, getting pushed back and then launching local counter-attacks to provide time for the line to reform to the rear.

Charkow? Chir river? Prokhorovka?

 

Quote

Man, that KwK42. So much better than 17 pounder because it gets slightly less performance out of an L70 barrel than the British got out of an L55 one. Truly a wonder of design rather than just being, you know, fine.

I said it has almost equal performance.

Quote

Funny how other tanks of comparable weight to Panther didn't need double torsion bars and interleaved road wheels to work, no?

Really? Which one? The slow IS-2? The immobile M26? The suspension wrecking jumbo? Good luck maneuvering in those things. They were for a reason heavy and panthers medium tanks. Maybe you should consider why there is a difference in tank classes?
 

Quote

The similarities to Panther just keep cropping up, don't they? I'll say it again: Centurion is just Panther done competently.

Yep, a good tank we agree. But I've smth for you from Munro's "Centurion tank":

Quote

Comparative Armour Tests
The 17-pounder anti-tank gun showed that it could defeat the armour of a Tiger, but how would the Centurion, armed with the same gun have fared against a Panther, the most powerful (the Tiger excepted) of the German Panzers?
[...]A captured Panther provided an opportunity to compare, in Agust 1945, its armour against that of a Centurion and vice versa. A report from Tank Armour Research found some close similarities in their performance, although the Centurion was longer and heavier and the Panther carried more side armour above the tracks. Both featured an angled glacis plate.
The guns used for the test were the most powerful available, the British 17-pounder as fitted to the MkI Centurion, and two German guns, the 75mm fitted to the Panther and the PAK 88mm anti-tank gun. The test showed that the survivality of both tanks was very similar: at closer ranges the Centurion's armour proved superior, whilst the Panther had the edge beyond 150yd (140m).

With a two years delay the British, untouched by lack of resources or industrial interrupts, managed to match a panther. Missing the war and appearing when there were no panzers to fight anymore. How convenient. So who was the better tank designer? You operate in this bubble of panther criticism as if the rest of the world didn't exist. If panther was bad, the rest was worse. Ergo, panther was the best of the worst?

 

Quote

Wrong. God's sake, man. Read up on things before you spout whatever drivel got poured into your ear by the History Channel or that one kid on YouTube. Jumbos lead columns on long road marches (you know, that thing that Shermans did that Panthers certainly didn't) specifically to soak up anti-tank fire. The only major problems with them were ground pressure and the fact that the US only saw fit to make a few hundred rather than a few thousand.

American opinion, not mine. It is a problem if tank can't climb or navigate rough terrain. Most geography in Europe is tank unfreindly.

 

Quote

It's the definition of mediocre. Literally middle of the road in terms of power density.

Well, what was better?

 

Quote

Again, the thing doesn't even use that advantage. It manages to be mediocre in terms of crew comfort as well. So your train of logic goes something like: use taller engine to save length -> make longer anyway for more crew comfort -> don't make the crew particularly comfortable.

What are you talking about? Panthers were perfectly fine. Or you allude to the British motion studies where they complained over misaligned gunner's seat and his pedals?

 

Quote

That's the precise problem with the Panther from a design standpoint - there were all of these compromises made due to features that "had" to be put in for reasons of preference rather than design necessity (the front-mounted transmission and drives, the turret in the centre of the hull, the interleaved road wheels, the thicker front hull), the compromises then leading to further compromises which just made the whole thing worse. So the result is that you have a 47-tonne tank packing all the features of a 35-tonne one (including a 1.65m turret ring). Hell, even it's contemporaries in terms of weight (like M26) managed to have more armour, upgrade potential and mechanical reliability. And they were considered flawed beasts.

Which 35t tank has panther's features? Cent had the same stats for more weight. IS-2 perhaps? But its a heavy tank with heavy tank's mobility. Pershing is pointless to mention.

 

Quote

Do you see how insane your arguments are once you step back from gormlessly defending the damn thing and look at the bigger picture?

 

Which, again, the Panther didn't manage because it's suspension setup was overloaded, prone to jamming and clogging and hard to service. Again - stupid decisions lead to design compromises that erased any theoretical advantages.

Wait what? Where is the link between overloaded suspension and clogging? The only German complaint was frozen mud and extended disassembly time. A cost for fielding highly mobile heavy tanks with good armour? Diesel engines also freeze in winter, are they "stupid" designs?

Quote

This has been dealt with already. Again, know your history. 

Bloody hell..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • 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

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

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

41 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Thin plates crack under larger calibers? Logical. It's not as if Soviet fared any better, or

 

This is how good quality paper thin armor behaves. Anyway you are arguing against Guderian himself who complained about bad German steel quality already in 1941.

838a6WyEtaaJoQM-_DTmm0bSkg61T6dk_7KxExoD

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

 

This is how good quality paper thin armor behaves. Anyway you are arguing against Guderian himself who complained about bad German steel quality already in 1941.

838a6WyEtaaJoQM-_DTmm0bSkg61T6dk_7KxExoD

I honestly don't know. I can't tell with what the other tanks were hit by, you might as well be right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Arracourt begs to differ.

What about Arracourt? There is so little info one can find and all is written from American perspective. Hardly a good example.

23 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Oh, you mean it have beeg gun n thicc armor. Yes, so did the Char 2C, yet nobody pretends it's anything but a dead end.

You mean Char B1? It was indeed of ageing design but the armament and armour were still sufficient in 1940. It was nothing like German tanks especially not like the heavies.

23 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Perhaps the answer lies in a difference of nationality? 🤔

What do you mean by that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, delete013 said:

What about Arracourt? There is so little info one can find and all is written from American perspective. Hardly a good example

 

It was one of the biggest tank battles of the western front and the initial part of it happened in a fog and was therefore very messy (the foggy day was chosen by the German side to avoid airforce). In the period of 10 days the 5. Panzerarmee was literally obliterated in their failed offensive with US loosing just 25 Shermans and 7 Hellcats. The 5th Army had 11. Panzer Division, 111. and 113. Panzerbrigades both armed with Panthers. The whole 5. Panzerarmee had only 62 tanks and StuG operational after 10 days of fighting from the initial 262. 

 

The weird thing about this battle is that while today we know it was a German failure in that time the German leadership thought that the massive losses were justified by forcing the allied advance to stop. They didn't know Eisenhower ordered to stop the advance one day before the battle for logistical reasons. 

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

Tests of early German (and Czechoslovak) vehicles shown a lot of brittleness, spalling. For example:

On the other hand, StuG armor was judged excellent...

 

21 hours ago, Beer said:

Frontline officers suggested that we should build tanks exactly like the T-34 in order to correct the unpleasant position of our armoured forces, but this position did not receive support from the engineers.

Please... no. T-34 was never a problem for germans. It was a damn good excuse for generals to explain their failures. The REAL bane of german tanks was the KV-1. That one also worth a discussion, how underestimated this tank is. Just like the Panther, it had reliability problems, but its battlefield performance was excellent. A really, really excellent tank in 1941-42.

 

20 hours ago, Beer said:

What horrendous losses? 

The Sherman didnt suffer so serious losses, but the T-34... Maybe almost 45.000 irrecoverably lost during the war? 82% of production? These are horrible numbers for a tank on the winning side... The Sherman wasnt a death trap. But the T-34 definitely was. And even though it isnt mentioned in books about this tank, its successor, the T-44 was the proof of the failure of the T-34. The Panther didnt really influence future designs (except Centurion). But neither the T-34. 

 

10 hours ago, Toxn said:

endless troubles they had with the PzIII suspension

What problems? Standardized in Ausf.E, worked well. And I do not entirely agree with the "tinkering". Germans did settle on a solution: torsion bar. Yes, there were some moronic, and very unsuccessful projects of a certain F.Porsche, but these were small scale productions.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Beer said:

t was one of the biggest tank battles of the western front and the initial part of it happened in a fog and was therefore very messy (the foggy day was chosen by the German side to avoid airforce).

Exactly that is why it cannot be used for evaluating the Panther's performance. As I told earlier, try looking for literature about the 1944-45 battles in Hungary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2021 at 4:51 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Yeah the 262, made it into service, it was trash,

It was an excellent fighter in its time. The chronic lack of fuel, and the barely trained pilots werent its fault.

 

On 2/23/2021 at 4:51 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

The STG-44 was not very good,

One of the best infantry weapon of the war... again, lack of magazines wasnt its fault. 

 

On 2/23/2021 at 4:51 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 The people making excuses for their shitty equipment make themselves look like ignorant twats at best, or a fucking Nazi apologist at worst.  

Yes, thats why allied soldiers envied german equipment... 

 

On 2/23/2021 at 4:51 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Now, if you really want to talk about where the German of WWII was innovative?  Mass Murder.  After years of trial and error, they figured out how to murder millions of people and destroy the bodies!

Please, do not bring politics here! Until now this was a technical/historical discussion. Should remain that. 

(but if you really want to... khmmm... holodomor... great famines in 1930s... mao's china...)

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

Please... no. T-34 was never a problem for germans. It was a damn good excuse for generals to explain their failures. The REAL bane of german tanks was the KV-1. That one also worth a discussion, how underestimated this tank is. Just like the Panther, it had reliability problems, but its battlefield performance was excellent. A really, really excellent tank in 1941-42.

You are argueing with Guderian on the internet in 2021. I doubt he hears you. 

 

Military History Visualized by the way dug out of archives that creating a T-34 was indeed a topic and one of things officially asked by  Wehrmacht towards the industry in late 1941 but the whole idea was rejected. And it is a historical truth that wording "Absolute Überlegenheit" (Absolute superiority) was used in regards to T-34 and there was no request to copy KV. 

 

A proof that this is historically true

 

You have to take into account that Wehrmacht used a lot of captured T-34 till the end of the war and therefore knew the tank very well. 

 

47 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

The Sherman didnt suffer so serious losses, but the T-34... Maybe almost 45.000 irrecoverably lost during the war? 82% of production? These are horrible numbers for a tank on the winning side... The Sherman wasnt a death trap. But the T-34 definitely was.

You try over and over to derail the discussion to T-34, Sherman or anything else. That's whataboutism. 

 

44 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Exactly that is why it cannot be used for evaluating the Panther's performance. As I told earlier, try looking for literature about the 1944-45 battles in Hungary. 

You can't just pick engagements which you like. Once there is fog, once there is airforce, once there is mud, once there is sand, once the tanks are too new and not mature. Both sides can defend themselves with gazzilion similar excuses. 

 

You know what? The Germans deliberately chose foggy weather because they believed it was the advantageous conditions for them. Now you play it a disadvantage but in fact it just showed that the weak side armor was really important factor and that the lack of situation awareness was an important factor too becaue battless somehow rarely happen in ideal conditions especially if you don't have strategical initiative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to be that guy, but speaking of whataboutism:

 

14 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

 

Please, do not bring politics here! Until now this was a technical/historical discussion. Should remain that. 

(but if you really want to... khmmm... holodomor... great famines in 1930s... mao's china...)

 

With the classic Wehraboo talking points, and now this sudden defensiveness at the mere mention of the Holocaust, that 88 in your username is starting to seem just a bit suspicious. 

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

It seems the transmission was the real achilles heel of the DB design (the prototype broke on startup during trials). Although MAN calling the DB transmission complex and unreliable was an epic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

This article lays it out in some detail: https://www.tankarchives.ca/2020/08/panthers-ancestors.html?m=1

 

I'd say that, realistically, the DB design (if chosen) would have eventually been boxed into almost the same corner as the historical Panther - forced to accept a front transmission, interleaved suspension and pre-designed Henschel turret.

 

I know, I've read that piece. Just had DB been able to keep their design independence it was a lot more promising. Said independence is of course, the biggest obstacle to them winning in the first place.

 

11 hours ago, delete013 said:

Well, it was more cramped, had shorter range, poor suspension and the new turret didn't fit on it. Spielberger explains pretty well the circumstances and no, the party politics played little role beyond Hitler's hard limits of that 80mm front plate. It actually had interleaved road wheels. Leaf springs were considered cheap but bad in German opinion. They prefered MAN's suspension. When they were deciding over the prototypes Germany was not yet going downhill and plenty of feats remained in final model in an effort not to interrupt the production.

 

I know the new turret didn't fit, DB designed their own and the Rheinmetall-provided turret as used on production Panthers wasn't a terribly good design in any case. The late war efforts at a Schmalturm were actually *reviving* the general concepts DB was working on for their turret. More cramped is relative, as that would depend on how the internal arrangement is laid out - on paper Panther has lots of room, in practice the internal layout is a trainwreck and wastes this. Go watch Moran stumble around the various positions.

 

The cheap but bad leaf spring bogies carried the German army on their back on the endless Panzer IVs and derivations. Which were actually largely reliable, and simple to repair unlike the doubled-torsion-bar set up on Panther. But yes, I had forgotten that the DB did have a simple interleaved setup (only 2 layers, of single road wheels).

 

And you can hardly say that politics didn't play a role - Maybach aggressively pushed against diesels to maintain their AFV monopoly, MAN enthusiastically wooed Kniepkamp and crammed as many of his ideas as they could into their changing proposals. MAN did everything they could to please as many other major firms, while DB basically went it alone.

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

Please, do not bring politics here! Until now this was a technical/historical discussion. Should remain that. 

(but if you really want to... khmmm... holodomor... great famines in 1930s... mao's china...)


I’m not 100% sure how toxn’s statement was political... its historical fact that the Nazi’s were mass murderers. This doesn’t absolve or distract from the crimes-against-humanity of other states and governments; nor do the other states’ crimes justify what the Nazi’s did. They’re all horrible, and cherry-picking one as being “less horrible” is ridiculous and dishonest. 

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

REAL bane of german tanks was the KV-1.

It is quite impressive how advanced and heavy layout Soviets fielded already in 1941. German methods against them remind more of a mammoth hunt than any credible anti-tank defence.

Fortunately for them, Soviets got almost everything else wrong.

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

The Sherman didnt suffer so serious losses, but the T-34... Maybe almost 45.000 irrecoverably lost during the war? 82% of production? These are horrible numbers for a tank on the winning side... The Sherman wasnt a death trap. But the T-34 definitely was.

Let's face it, shermans were in the same sack from 1943 onwards. It think that both tanks could have avoided their fates if they were at least paired with some long range overwatch. Both countries lacked quality ordnance institutions that allowed Germans to make a tank killer out of any carriage. I can imagine IS-2 as being big relief for t-34 crews.

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Let's face it, shermans were in the same sack from 1943 onwards. It think that both tanks could have avoided their fates if they were at least paired with some long range overwatch. Both countries lacked quality ordnance institutions that allowed Germans to make a tank killer out of any carriage. I can imagine IS-2 as being big relief for t-34 crews.

 

You guys live in some parallel universe. 

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

It was an excellent fighter in its time. The chronic lack of fuel, and the barely trained pilots werent its fault. ( Wehraboos love the 262, no suprise you think it was good. )

 

One of the best infantry weapon of the war... again, lack of magazines wasnt its fault.   (lol Another Wehraboo trait. Lack of Magazines was not the guns fault you retard because you can't blame a gun for Nazi Germanies problem with logistics and knowing how to do them.)

 

Yes, thats why allied soldiers envied german equipment...  (LOL Another common boo myth. Of course you buy into it because you are a boo. An extreme case bordering on Nazi Apologia)

 

 

Please, do not bring politics here! Until now this was a technical/historical discussion. Should remain that.  

(but if you really want to... khmmm... holodomor... great famines in 1930s... mao's china...)

 

 

Go fuck yourself.  If you think pointing out the Nazi Germans were only truly good at one thing, and that one thing was Mass Murder, has anything to do with politics, you're a strait up Nazi Apologist. Politics and Mass murder are not supposed to mix unless you're a Nazi asshole or a commie.   

 

And real smart argument you fucking twat, "hey look, if your going to bring up war crimes about my favorite war time powers, the Nazi, I'll totally own  you by bringing up Soviet Atrocities".    

 

Here's a clue, no one here admires to soviet union or their war crimes. A few of us are not so shot through with Nazi Propaganda, we can talk about the T-34 and soviet equipment without defending the regime.  

 

What's the 88 in your name stand for? Normally I wouldn't suspect the person with 88 in their name of being a Nazi Apologist or worse, but your posts sure warrant it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a successful Wehraboo Hunt. 
Their impenetrable Wehraboo skulls, harder even than Krupp steel shall adorn our lodges. comieboo younglings shall listen in awed silence while grizzled hunters recount their kills as the Wehraboo beast flesh sizzles over the campfire.

As a wise woman once said, long ago on the television, “It’s a Good thing”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, delete013 said:

Excellent reply!

Thanks :)

 

18 hours ago, delete013 said:

Really? Which one? The slow IS-2? The immobile M26? The suspension wrecking jumbo? Good luck maneuvering in those things. They were for a reason heavy and panthers medium tanks. Maybe you should consider why there is a difference in tank classes?

The Pershing was labeled a heavy tank from 29 June 1944 to May 1946, mostly for morale purposes. It was begat from a program to replace the M4 medium tank, and there were actual heavy tanks being concurrently developed. The M26, though more heavily armored than its T25 sibling, still weighed over 34,000 lb less than the heavy tank M6. In September 1944, i.e., two months before the 90 mm gun, 92,000 lb T26E3 emerged from the T26E1, the Ordnance Committee recommended the development of the 105 mm gun, 141,000 lb T29 and the 155 mm gun, 142,000 lb T30. These were the US heavy tanks. Production of 1,200 T29s was requested on 1 March 1945, but of course the war ended before this could occur.

 

Also, the passage of the post being replied to was referencing the suspension systems specifically, as I understood it? The M26's relatively low power:weight became an issue in the mountains of Korea, but cross-country its single-torsion bar suspension (and automatic transmission?) could be quite an improvement over even much lighter tanks: A race was held at Aberdeen Proving Grounds' Churchill cross country area involving T26E1, T25E1, HVSS M4A3, and VVSS M4A3. The T25E1, being torsion bar-sprung and having a pretty sprightly weight, came in first with a 23-minute time. The heavier T26E1 was second at 26 minutes. The M4A3s, with the same engines but ~13,150-17,750 lb less weight than the T26E1, crossed the line in 28 minutes 25 seconds for the HVSS machine and 30 minutes 40 seconds for the VVSS machine. So perhaps "immobile" is a bit unfair, and perhaps the double torsion bars were in fact a bit of luxury. :)

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

The Pershing was labeled a heavy tank from 29 June 1944 to May 1946, mostly for morale purposes. It was begat from a program to replace the M4 medium tank, and there were actual heavy tanks being concurrently developed. The M26, though more heavily armored than its T25 sibling, still weighed over 34,000 lb less than the heavy tank M6. In September 1944, i.e., two months before the 90 mm gun, 92,000 lb T26E3 emerged from the T26E1, the Ordnance Committee recommended the development of the 105 mm gun, 141,000 lb T29 and the 155 mm gun, 142,000 lb T30. These were the US heavy tanks. Production of 1,200 T29s was requested on 1 March 1945, but of course the war ended before this could occur.

 

It was meant figuratively, of course. As a medium, Pershing was not a finished vehicle. I usually exercise skepticism over prototypes good on paper but never reaching service (or being half useful in the opinion of the army)

 

It is, imo, still better to have armoured weapon platform assaulting strong points than nothing. Jumbo likely saved many already by being a hard rock, attracting fire.

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

Thanks :)

 

The Pershing was labeled a heavy tank from 29 June 1944 to May 1946, mostly for morale purposes. It was begat from a program to replace the M4 medium tank, and there were actual heavy tanks being concurrently developed. The M26, though more heavily armored than its T25 sibling, still weighed over 34,000 lb less than the heavy tank M6. In September 1944, i.e., two months before the 90 mm gun, 92,000 lb T26E3 emerged from the T26E1, the Ordnance Committee recommended the development of the 105 mm gun, 141,000 lb T29 and the 155 mm gun, 142,000 lb T30. These were the US heavy tanks. Production of 1,200 T29s was requested on 1 March 1945, but of course the war ended before this could occur.

 

Also, the passage of the post being replied to was referencing the suspension systems specifically, as I understood it? The M26's relatively low power:weight became an issue in the mountains of Korea, but cross-country its single-torsion bar suspension (and automatic transmission?) could be quite an improvement over even much lighter tanks: A race was held at Aberdeen Proving Grounds' Churchill cross country area involving T26E1, T25E1, HVSS M4A3, and VVSS M4A3. The T25E1, being torsion bar-sprung and having a pretty sprightly weight, came in first with a 23-minute time. The heavier T26E1 was second at 26 minutes. The M4A3s, with the same engines but ~13,150-17,750 lb less weight than the T26E1, crossed the line in 28 minutes 25 seconds for the HVSS machine and 30 minutes 40 seconds for the VVSS machine. So perhaps "immobile" is a bit unfair, and perhaps the double torsion bars were in fact a bit of luxury. :)

 

 

The reliability problems with the Pershing were solved fairly fast from what I've read, and the tanks on the Zebra Mission are not all that different than the ones that served in Korea. The only big item I can think of is the final drive housing braces.  The longstanding problem that was never worked out was a bad driver could cause fan belts to pop off.  US standards for reliability were so far ahead of the Germans, the M26 would have been considered almost impossibly reliable to them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, delete013 said:

It was meant figuratively, of course. As a medium, Pershing was not a finished vehicle. I usually exercise skepticism over prototypes good on paper but never reaching service (or being half useful in the opinion of the army)

 

From a staunch Panther supporter this is somewhat funny statement.  

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...