Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

From a staunch Panther supporter this is somewhat funny statement.  

By 1944 the tank was a finished product. If you incalculate the issues of final drives on all German tanks in 1944 and the fact that there were plenty cases where final drives lasted beyond the alleged 150/250 km one can conclude that the critical causes were not in the design. Pull rare metals out of Allied or Soviet tanks and you have a similar mechanical mess. There is the alternative of course, a lighter tank, which brings us back to the other end of bad choices, which is fighting with a weaker vehicle. If that means dispensing with driving stunts I am still convinced that every alternative was much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, delete013 said:

...and the fact that there were plenty cases where final drives lasted beyond the alleged 150/250 km one can conclude that the critical causes were not in the design. 

 

Absolutely no. You are not a mechanical designer, right? Because this is complete and utter nonsense what you just said.

 

Why do you make such statements about things you have absolutely no clue about? I'm a mechanical designer who spent all his professional life designing reliable things and my brain feels offended by reading stuff like this. Do you know what takes the most time and energy in designing things? To make them reliable. Everybody can design an unreliable shit but to make it working reliably is the core of the job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, delete013 said:

By 1944 the tank was a finished product. If you incalculate the issues of final drives on all German tanks in 1944 and the fact that there were plenty cases where final drives lasted beyond the alleged 150/250 km one can conclude that the critical causes were not in the design. Pull rare metals out of Allied or Soviet tanks and you have a similar mechanical mess. There is the alternative of course, a lighter tank, which brings us back to the other end of bad choices, which is fighting with a weaker vehicle. If that means dispensing with driving stunts I am still convinced that every alternative was much worse.

The other, never-considered alternative apparently being to design a tranny and final drives suitable for a 45-48 tonne tank.

 

Also, btw, the French checked the metallurgy of the drives and found it was fine. They were underbuilt, plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@delete013: The following is off topic but it shall make you understand what reliability means on an example from today. Today the common projected failure rate in automotive is 5 sigma, i.e. 233 failures per 1 milllion parts during the service life (sometimes 4, sometimes 6 is required). If you turn it upside down, it means that projected service life is what 99,98% of all parts can withstand. In other words, if taken by today's automotive standards if just 2 Panthers of all produced broke down at 150 km the service life of the vehicle would be considered to be 150 km. It doesn't matter that some parts can do more. What matters is those parts which can't do what is required.  

 

I am well aware that this example doesn't consider WW2 quality requirements - it's just an illustration of what reliability means.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Beer said:

@delete013: The following is off topic but it shall make you understand what reliability means on an example from today. Today the common projected failure rate in automotive is 5 sigma, i.e. 233 failures per 1 milllion parts during the service life (sometimes 4, sometimes 6 is required). If you turn it upside down, it means that projected service life is what 99,98% of all parts can withstand. In other words, if taken by today's automotive standards if just 2 Panthers of all produced broke down at 150 km the service life of the vehicle would be considered to be 150 km. It doesn't matter that some parts can do more. What matters is those parts which can't do what is required.  

 

I am well aware that this example doesn't consider WW2 quality requirements - it's just an illustration of what reliability means.  

Sure, today's standards. I am pretty sure no ww2 tank passes.

 

33 minutes ago, Toxn said:

The other, never-considered alternative apparently being to design a tranny and final drives suitable for a 45-48 tonne tank.

 

Also, btw, the French checked the metallurgy of the drives and found it was fine. They were underbuilt, plain and simple.

Got any link to that?

 

You know, it is not as if there was no vehicle, even heavier that had functional final drives. The fact that neither Germans nor the French attempted to fix them in over 10 years of use and that this was the principal combat vehicle, strongly indicates that this issue is overblown.

 

Anw, I am not stubborn out of principle, I am simply not convinced. Also it would be much easier if there wasn't so many deliberately deceiving literature, pushing national biases around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Sure, today's standards. I am pretty sure no ww2 tank passes.

 

Of course but the principle is same. It doesn't matter that some parts can achieve longer service life. What matters is those which can't. 

 

You always have to design things to reach the requirements and I'm strongly convinced that Panther never fulfilled the reliability requirements even though I don't knowh them, hence why it is rightly considered not to be a mature vehicle. 

 

Of course the requirements may be unrealistic as well. In that case there is a need to find compromise and to find a way how to get a reliably working product shall be a priority over anything else (if you don't design something disposable). Usually it means that some other features get worse in exchange for better reliability and serviceability. That is still a thing today just like it was seventy years ago. You can always create seemingly better performing things which are unreliable. That's not difficult.

 

Creating realistic and useful requirements is a difficult job. Requirements which nobody follows are uselessjust like those which are too easy to fulfill. 

  

16 minutes ago, delete013 said:

You know, it is not as if there was no vehicle, even heavier that had functional final drives. The fact that neither Germans nor the French attempted to fix them in over 10 years of use and that this was the principal combat vehicle, strongly indicates that this issue is overblown.

 

No. The issue most likely was that stronger final drive would need very radical redesign of the vehicle. You can't simply take twice stronger final drive and replace the original one because the stronger one is logically reasonably larger. 

 

There is a reason why every other tank of similar weight has much larger final drive than Panther. You can see even by naked eye that there is something wrong unless the Germans used some super hi-tech materials (which was impossible). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 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)

 

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.

Of course, I took it as a figurative statement. :)What I was hoping to illustrate, though, was that despite being ~17,000 lb heavier than an HVSS M4A3 and having essentially the same engine, the T26E1 was a large improvement in cross-country mobility with just a single torsion bar supporting each road wheel pair. The Panther's system doubtlessly provided a good and stable ride, but should the improvement over a single-bar system have justified its implementation? Germany was never going to out-produce its enemies, so a strategy of "qualitative" enhancement was logical, but it still seems that discretion is the better part of valor in some areas, especially when your tanks are expected to fire from the short halt. Could you please expand on what you mean by Pershing was not a finished vehicle as a medium? Thanks.

 

3 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

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. 

Although tank maintenance was a struggle for all US tank types in Korea, especially in the first year of the conflict, the M26 still showed itself to be the least reliable in that theater. To be fair, many of the M26s shipped to Korea were in poor condition and some overdue for overhauls, so the M26's performance there may be an outlier...

 

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

The other, never-considered alternative apparently being to design a tranny and final drives suitable for a 45-48 tonne tank.

 

Also, btw, the French checked the metallurgy of the drives and found it was fine. They were underbuilt, plain and simple.

One was designed, but it seems it was not possible to actually manufacture it in the numbers needed to install on the new medium tank. Spielberger notes an epicyclic final drive had been tested successfully, but "a shortage of gear cutting machinery for the hollow gearing prevented this type this type of final drive from being mass produced." So spur gears with weakish steel were used by necessity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, delete013 said:

By 1944 the tank was a finished product. If you incalculate the issues of final drives on all German tanks in 1944 and the fact that there were plenty cases where final drives lasted beyond the alleged 150/250 km one can conclude that the critical causes were not in the design. Pull rare metals out of Allied or Soviet tanks and you have a similar mechanical mess. There is the alternative of course, a lighter tank, which brings us back to the other end of bad choices, which is fighting with a weaker vehicle. If that means dispensing with driving stunts I am still convinced that every alternative was much worse.

 

Wait...

 

4 hours ago, delete013 said:

Pull rare metals out of Allied or Soviet tanks and you have a similar mechanical mess. 

 

Dafuq?

 

4 hours ago, delete013 said:

Pull rare metals out of Allied or Soviet tanks and you have a similar mechanical mess.

 

Da ACTUAL phuck?

 

4 hours ago, delete013 said:

Pull rare metals out of Allied or Soviet tanks and you have a similar mechanical mess.

 

Yes. And I suppose if the Western Allies or Soviets had built their tanks out of discarded Spam tins and bailing wire, then the Panther might be able to compete, tank-for-tank.

 

But as has been stated multiple times, and throughout these forums, a tank is part of a weapons system that is meant to cooperate with multiple components and arms of a military. As history and multiple sourced documents have proven, the Panther performed abysmally at the task assigned to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jeeps_Guns_TanksGo to hell asshole... And you are trying to criticize anybody. You contributed nothing to this discussion, except declaring people with different opinions than yours as ignorant, and at the same time declare your wishful thinking as facts. I bet you didnt read any literature about stuff you claim to be expert of. And when you are totally out of arguments, first you steer the conversation to politics, and finally you insult me... Congratulations. You are a really toxic, sad person.

As for the 88 in my user name... Maybe that I was born in 1988? But no, surely it was because politics... 

I have nothing to do with nazis, I hate them. My point with mentioning bolshevist war crimes was to mock your attempt to derail the discussion, which was to this point, peaceful.

But well, we learned something. Anybody who dares to say anything good about german equipment (pieces of metal... but surely possessed by the very soul of A.H.!), they are immediately nazi supporters... Looks like that now includes Spielberger, Jentz, and Doyle too! Well, now I understand why everything written in their books are ignored... 

Again, congratulations for turning this topic to this mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

@Jeeps_Guns_TanksGo to hell asshole... And you are trying to criticize anybody. You contributed nothing to this discussion, except declaring people with different opinions than yours as ignorant, and at the same time declare your wishful thinking as facts. I bet you didnt read any literature about stuff you claim to be expert of. And when you are totally out of arguments, first you steer the conversation to politics, and finally you insult me... Congratulations. You are a really toxic, sad person.

As for the 88 in my user name... Maybe that I was born in 1988? But no, surely it was because politics... 

I have nothing to do with nazis, I hate them. My point with mentioning bolshevist war crimes was to mock your attempt to derail the discussion, which was to this point, peaceful.

But well, we learned something. Anybody who dares to say anything good about german equipment (pieces of metal... but surely possessed by the very soul of A.H.!), they are immediately nazi supporters... Looks like that now includes Spielberger, Jentz, and Doyle too! Well, now I understand why everything written in their books are ignored... 

Again, congratulations for turning this topic to this mess.

Last time I checked, reading the forum, Jeeps has contributed hundreds of sourced documents on tanks including detailed engine diagrams of rare variants that are on this very forum. 

How many of the articles in this forum have you read? Have you read all 89 pages of this topic?

Yes? No?

 

Also, he's a moderator here for a reason.

 

You are NOT a moderator here for a reason.

 

You're here because we are enjoying baiting a clueless Wehraboo who is white knighting for a literal war losing tank design. We like Wehraboo hunts. It's what we do.

 

Again, you are here at discretion. 

 

Protip: It is OK to be wrong on the Internet. Again. It is OK to be WRONG on the Internet (like you are at this moment). Many of us had Wehraboo tendencies as well when we were young and stupid, like you are right now. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate your opinions? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Donward said:

But as has been stated multiple times, and throughout these forums, a tank is part of a weapons system that is meant to cooperate with multiple components and arms of a military. As history and multiple sourced documents have proven, the Panther performed abysmally at the task assigned to it.

Is this up in one of those 89 pages? I've yet to get through them all. We can discuss tank's role in combined arms tactics. Are any German tankers or panzergrenadiers here? I think contemporary tactics are pretty much ww2 with new vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Sten said:

Why can't you wehraboos fucks simp for actually decent G*rm stuff like the FW-190 and the FG-42? Instead you always put the hot trash in the pedestal instead as if you drinking ze-propaganda-b koolaid laced with pervitin about the wunderwaffe.

See thread title.

What should we switch to? Tiger, best tank of ww2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, delete013 said:

See thread title.

What should we switch to? Tiger, best tank of ww2?

 

The vehicle in the thread title was the 'best' German AFV of the war, this has nothing to do with white knighting a German AFV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Donward said:

Protip: It is OK to be wrong on the Internet. Again. It is OK to be WRONG on the Internet (like you are at this moment). Many of us had Wehraboo tendencies as well when we were young and stupid, like you are right now. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate your opinions?

You don't say..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, delete013 said:

See thread title.

What should we switch to? Tiger, best tank of ww2?

Yes, it's at least a functional tank that added value after it rolled off the production line instead of subtracting it. I alsi mentioned only a gun and a plane for obvious reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DogDodger said:

 

 

Although tank maintenance was a struggle for all US tank types in Korea, especially in the first year of the conflict, the M26 still showed itself to be the least reliable in that theater. To be fair, many of the M26s shipped to Korea were in poor condition and some overdue for overhauls, so the M26's performance there may be an outlier...

 

 

 

 

It would be really interesting to compare readiness rates for M26s in Europe versus the ones that went to Korea. It would also be interesting to compare the Army M26s sent to Korean to the Marines, since the Marine tanks had been purchased right after WWII and put in storage. 

 

I'm sure what little US Army had in funds for spares went to the units in Europe. The stories of the Army having to refurbish Gate Guard Tanks, just goes to show you have close to the bone the Army had been cut by the Truman admin. Korea came just at the right time to show just how unprepared the US Military under Truman was to fight even a minor war.  If I recall right, Truman cut the Defense Department back to Pre WWII levels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Also a great choice. But tiger was better I prefer tiger.

 

Tiger was highly specialized vehicle which was indeed good when it was used as breakthrough vehicle in well prepared ofensive actions but even when I hate any sort of "best" choices Tiger absolutely can't be the one because... 

 

1) It was hand-crafted vehicle which required absolutely enormous man hours and production cost

2) It worked well only in very specialized roles and in case of very well prepared actions

3) It didn't work at all in hastily planned actions and in difficult terrain, way too many Tigers were lost to mud, sand or river crossings

4) It had limited effect on German war effort - you don't fight a war to make an impression on future fanboys but you fight to win 

5) It had enormous fuel consumption in situation when what was missing the most was fuel 

6) It had very poor strategical and operational mobility which is very important when you fight on thousands of kilometers of several fronts in the same time

7) It was very difficult vehicle for mainteanance 

8) It was near impossible vehicle to recover when stuck or broken down on the battlefield 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

@Jeeps_Guns_TanksGo to hell asshole... And you are trying to criticize anybody. You contributed nothing to this discussion, except declaring people with different opinions than yours as ignorant, and at the same time declare your wishful thinking as facts. I bet you didnt read any literature about stuff you claim to be expert of. And when you are totally out of arguments, first you steer the conversation to politics, and finally you insult me... Congratulations. You are a really toxic, sad person.

As for the 88 in my user name... Maybe that I was born in 1988? But no, surely it was because politics... 

I have nothing to do with nazis, I hate them. My point with mentioning bolshevist war crimes was to mock your attempt to derail the discussion, which was to this point, peaceful.

But well, we learned something. Anybody who dares to say anything good about german equipment (pieces of metal... but surely possessed by the very soul of A.H.!), they are immediately nazi supporters... Looks like that now includes Spielberger, Jentz, and Doyle too! Well, now I understand why everything written in their books are ignored... 

Again, congratulations for turning this topic to this mess.

 

Dude, you even insult people like a dipshit boo. 

 

Now, I'd like to think I contributed humor to the thread, boos like you never get the jokes, but I'll keep trying.  I consider myself the forums number one insult comic. 

 

You know, if I was born in 1988, and I found out on the internets, just about every neo Nazi asshole ever puts some form of 88 in their name, and I had been using it in my User ID, I'd remove it. Of course, I know enough about Nazi Germany to not want to be linked to them in any way, even by mistake. First impressions count for a lot, and everyone who reads your name wonders if you're a little Nazi Asshole.  It's true in this thread, I'm not the only person wondering about it. Hell, in the moderator channel, your known as hittler88. 

 

Everyone gave you the benefit of the doubt too, it wasn't until you started spewing shit right off the wehraboo bingo card you got called on it.  The you went full idiot when I said the Nazis were only good at one thing, mass murder, and you go all full on Nazi Apologist right after. This is why your getting the tag. Your actions and words.  don't blame your failings on me.  Mass murder is not politics, and you know who always want to forget about the Nazi war crimes, Nazi apologists. You know who brings up other nations war crimes while defending Nazi War Crimes? Nazi Apologists.  You don't want to be seen as one? Stop acting like one. 

 

Spielberger, Jentz, and Doyle do not support your inane arguments. I notice you don't mention Zaloga, boos Hate Zaloga. 

 

Take some responsibility for your own actions, you shit this thread up with your idiot arguments, Nazi wank fantasies, and anger over the truth the Nazis only did one thing well, Mass Murder.  You look like the asshole on this one pal, we just pointed it out. 

 

P.S. If you were born in 1988, you're to old to be this ignorant and stupid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little off topic but I have read that aircraft production stats in WW2 Germany were inflated because they counted aircraft destroyed at the factory and rebuilt twice.  I forgot the source on that.  Maybe someone else has knowledge of it.

 

Adam Tooze is the source for this.  The limiting factor on German WW2 armaments production was steel.  They could not produce more ships, planes, tanks, shells, or machine tools without lowering production of one or more of the others.  This is despite conquering the steel production of most of Europe.  It seems like grossly incompetent management.  

 

I posted a video a few weeks ago that contains an analysis of German management of their piston aeroengines.  TLDR:  Gross incompetence on a staggering level.

 

As for the Panther, does anyone have the source comparing the number of hoses and number of different diameters of hoses in a Panther engine vs a Sherman?  I saw it on YT (forgot which vid) and it was staggering how much more complex the Panther was.

 

I'm an older guy and most of the books we had access to back in the day were implicitly pro-German.  Seeing the internet was like being the unfrozen caveman from Saturday Night Live.  Even neanderthals like us Gen X'ers can see the facts and make good analysis now that we have the internet.  I don't see why so many guys who grew up with the internet admire the German equipment.

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...