Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, delete013 said:

Did he? Where?

So what was it? Doubling claims or not counting at all? So what were the kill rings for? Days without food?

 

Even if you discard post-war writing and propaganda stories you are still left with claims from combat reports. Those have nothing to do with propaganda or myth making and are dead serious stuff. Those claims align quite nicely with actual loss numbers in the east, adjusted for repaired tanks and with a variance of occasional double counting or non reported kills. They also align surprisingly well with British losses in Normandy.

 

Anw, to my knowledge, kill claims were not institutionalised, as were in the air force and started as cumulative sums of stug battalions. They varied from unit to unit, some counting, some not. But the hobby was spread among dedicated tank killers, i.e. heavy tank battalions and panzerjägers.

 

None of this is 100% reliable but there is no indication that these numbers were invented. Propaganda ministry, like in other countries, sought over-performers and made emboldened story around them, rounding up their kills or pinning platoon kills on one commander. Beyond that bling there were still top soldiers.


Have you ever bothered to read or watch any interview with Otto Carius? He's very candid about the fact that German kill claims and awards were complete BS. And yet, for some reason, when it comes to this people don't want to believe him. I wonder why.

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

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

On 2/26/2021 at 12:56 AM, delete013 said:

Who had better mobility, panther or pershing?

 

What had better mobility Panther or Pershing over a month of steady use.  

 

Probably the Pershing in both cases, because American Vehicles don't break in catastrophic ways that take a long time to fix.

 

You can swap a whole M26 power pack in a few hours. That's a day at least on a Panther, since the hull roof and a bunch of road wheels have to come off to pull the Panthers Final Drives and Tranny. The engine wasn't super easy either. 

 

Pershing was 12.8 psi versus Panther G 12.65. Close enough to be negligible.  Pershing was running 450 HP for 46 tons. The Panther had between 500 and 600, (no one lists what the governed rating was) for 44 tons. It only made its 700 HP rating when it could be spun to 3000RPM, but it was governed to 2500 RPM. Call it 550, giving the Panther the edge on paper, but I just read through Panther Wank, the quest for Combat supremacy by Jentz, and the whole book is a listing off all the shit that was wrong with these tanks and how they kind of a fixed them, but never really did.  They Never fixed the HL230 of blowing head gaskets and throwing rods. Though, the horrible cooling system could have aggravated this, overheating blows head gaskets. 

 

After reading through the Jentz book, reliability goes to the Pershing.  Pershing, a History of the T20 series documents far LESS problems than the Panther.  

 

Final Note, I had not looked through the Boo Bibles for years, and having read so many Hunnicutt books, I'm spoiled. They are just so much better than this Jentz and Spielburger garbage. They couldn't be bothered to put spec sheets in for the models. Trash, utter trash, but the pictures are nice.  

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

Actually I don't. If there is smth that German officers indeed did lie quite reliably is war crimes. Or better, tried to hide them. They were ashamed of them.

 

They were ashamed they got caught, or that they lost. These were not good honorable people. They fought a dreadful war of Genocide against the Soviet Union(and we all know about the 6 million Jews and another 4 to 5 millions other civilians in Europe they murdered), and they all knew what was going on in the camps. It's really sad to see someone white knighting about their honor.  You really think these people are going to be honest about the things they did? No, they wanted fools like you to think they were just honorable men forced to fight for a Maniac. That's bullshit, the good Germans died in the camps after resisting, you know there were resistors right? 

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

Who had better mobility, panther or pershing?

 

Panther, but only just - and primarily due to a better and more efficient steering mechanism (Triple Diff versus good ole Cletrac steering on the M26).

 

On most terrain, the ground pressure difference is so marginal that it matters not (Panther of course has a more notable advantage in deep mud and the like) and while people love to factor in the full "power" of the HL230 once you factor in the actual *governed* net power, the Panther and M26 have almost exactly the same net HP/Ton.

 

So yes, the Panther is marginally more mobile when working but I cannot stress how slim the margin is. They are for all intents and purposes equal outside of specific terrain (i.e. bad enough mud/snow the ground pressure difference adds up) and yet everyone calls the M26 a slow pig, and the Panther's mobility tends to get highlighted.

 

I think the reason for this distinction is that M26 saw lots of service and use with the much, much faster post-war designs that made it seem like a slow pig in comparison while Panther was mostly used alongside/against wartime and even prewar designs so it seems very mobile indeed. If you compared the Panther to the same set of machines M26 usually gets compared to (even if the comparison is subconscious by a unit that say, transitioned from M26 to M46 or M47), the Panther is just as much of a slow pig.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2021 at 10:47 PM, delete013 said:

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.

 

Im currently a tanker in the german army.

 

Broadly speaking the tactics are similar. A tank attack looks basicaly the same in 1944 as it does in 2020 just slower and less deadly. A simple defense would also look similar but be fought with more mobility with frequent position changes.

 

The biggest change is that today a tank has a more narrow focus. Anti infantry work is left to pzgrenns and their ifvs if possible and anti tank/ifv work is the main job of the tank. We carry a mojority of apfsds and some heat and no proper he round even though it exists already.

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

Their books are excellent, but the authors themselves are, like anyone else, just people who write.

 

Just people who write... AND spend their time studying original archives, documents, reports and the actual surviving vehicles. This is the difference between amateurs (like it or not, all of us are amateurs on forums such as this) and experts... Of course they may make mistakes, but overall, their knowledge about their subjects is FAR above mine, yours, and anybody else on this forum combined. 

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

Im currently a tanker in the german army.

 

Broadly speaking the tactics are similar. A tank attack looks basicaly the same in 1944 as it does in 2020 just slower and less deadly. A simple defense would also look similar but be fought with more mobility with frequent position changes.

 

The biggest change is that today a tank has a more narrow focus. Anti infantry work is left to pzgrenns and their ifvs if possible and anti tank/ifv work is the main job of the tank. We carry a mojority of apfsds and some heat and no proper he round even though it exists already.

Thanks for this valuable input.

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

 

Just people who write... AND spend their time studying original archives, documents, reports and the actual surviving vehicles. This is the difference between amateurs (like it or not, all of us are amateurs on forums such as this) and experts... Of course they may make mistakes, but overall, their knowledge about their subjects is FAR above mine, yours, and anybody else on this forum combined. 

 

What's really pathetic, is they had examples of good books on Armor, the Books by Hunnicutt, but still produced basically, propaganda, picture books for scale modelers and people who like poorly designed Nazi weapons. 

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

 

Just people who write... AND spend their time studying original archives, documents, reports and the actual surviving vehicles. This is the difference between amateurs (like it or not, all of us are amateurs on forums such as this) and experts... Of course they may make mistakes, but overall, their knowledge about their subjects is FAR above mine, yours, and anybody else on this forum combined. 

 

Maybe you're an amateur, buddy, but I get paid.

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

 

What's really pathetic, is they had examples of good books on Armor, the Books by Hunnicutt, but still produced basically, propaganda, picture books for scale modelers and people who like poorly designed Nazi weapons. 

What convinced you that Germans produce propaganda and Hunnicutt or US authors don't?

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

 

Just people who write... AND spend their time studying original archives, documents, reports and the actual surviving vehicles. This is the difference between amateurs (like it or not, all of us are amateurs on forums such as this) and experts... Of course they may make mistakes, but overall, their knowledge about their subjects is FAR above mine, yours, and anybody else on this forum combined. 

 

He says on a forum populated with a very non trivial number of professionals in the field and authors who published and publish much better sourced works on the subject directly at hand.

 

Just because you're some dipshit on the internet doesn't mean the people you're arguing with are too...

 

I'm not one of those professionals for the record but I do find this incredibly funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

I think someone posted this before.

You can find some amazing photos of a HL230 overhaul in a shop in Europe. 

http://www.armytech.com/panther_maybach_hl230_overhaul/#PhotoSwipe1611282212417

 

 

 

That's company of Mr. Šercl based in Northern Bohemia, he built the engines for LT vz.35, LT vz.38 and AH-IV-Sv of Lešany muzeum as well, also Hetzer engine for Flying Herritage (he did more Hetzers). He has also a technical muzeum. You can find tons of photos from various restoration here.

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

 

That's company of Mr. Šercl based in Northern Bohemia, he built the engines for LT vz.35, LT vz.38 and AH-IV-Sv of Lešany muzeum as well, also Hetzer engine for Flying Herritage (he did more Hetzers). He has also a technical muzeum. You can find tons of photos from various restoration here.

 

Sweet!

I know I spent hours looking through those engine photos. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, roguetechie said:

He says on a forum populated with a very non trivial number of professionals in the field and authors who published and publish much better sourced works on the subject directly at hand.

Who? Then show me those "much better sourced" works. So the ignorant propagandists and nazi apologists, (including Hilary Doyle) can learn from them! (too bad poor Jentz and Spielberger cant defend themselves anymore... but who cares their decades of research was basically nothing more than nazi propaganda, yes?)

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

Who? Then show me those "much better sourced" works.

 

It's literally not my job to show you but since this forum's unofficial motto is LINK OR DIE it's pretty safe to assume that what you're demanding is extremely easy to find on this very forum...

 

As to who exactly on here is published and what they've published, chances are if you don't know that they're published and what they've published it's because they don't want you to know likely because they think you're a fucking clown and don't want to be bothered with you.

 

Since you've been here for so god damn long without even once clicking the sticky at the top of EVERY SUBFORUM that contains the SH newb guide, which you're flagrantly stomping all over, I don't feel even a little compelled to take pity much less mercy on you.

 

I only stopped in to watch you get turned out like rupaul at florence supermax, not to help you stop being a fucking idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2021 at 3:17 AM, delete013 said:

Underpowered, too slow, bad off road. Ground clearance was too low.

Considering that it started as a medium and got steadily bigger it makes me believe that the designers exceeded the limits of their design. What they got was neither satisfactory heavy tank, nor a medium. Attempts to make it competitive against tiger B failed because the suspension was overloaded and the hull out of balance. Now, you mentioned those trials and I have nothing much to go with here apart from Hunnicutt and some public "truths". Might also have been a case of institutional inefficiency, who knows.

You have high standards for ground clearance. ;) The Pershing was designated as a heavy for a short while, but was begat by a medium design; actual heavy designs were ongoing but didn't see service before the war ended. Hunnicutt and Yeide agree that the "heavy" nomenclature was mostly for morale purposes. I'm not sure it was quite as bad off-road as you make it seem, but I do find the T25 a tantalizing what-if.

On 2/26/2021 at 11:54 PM, TokyoMorose said:

 

Panther, but only just - and primarily due to a better and more efficient steering mechanism (Triple Diff versus good ole Cletrac steering on the M26).

 

On most terrain, the ground pressure difference is so marginal that it matters not (Panther of course has a more notable advantage in deep mud and the like) and while people love to factor in the full "power" of the HL230 once you factor in the actual *governed* net power, the Panther and M26 have almost exactly the same net HP/Ton.

 

So yes, the Panther is marginally more mobile when working but I cannot stress how slim the margin is. They are for all intents and purposes equal outside of specific terrain (i.e. bad enough mud/snow the ground pressure difference adds up) and yet everyone calls the M26 a slow pig, and the Panther's mobility tends to get highlighted.

 

I think the reason for this distinction is that M26 saw lots of service and use with the much, much faster post-war designs that made it seem like a slow pig in comparison while Panther was mostly used alongside/against wartime and even prewar designs so it seems very mobile indeed. If you compared the Panther to the same set of machines M26 usually gets compared to (even if the comparison is subconscious by a unit that say, transitioned from M26 to M46 or M47), the Panther is just as much of a slow pig.

 

On 2/26/2021 at 8:27 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

What had better mobility Panther or Pershing over a month of steady use.  

 

Probably the Pershing in both cases, because American Vehicles don't break in catastrophic ways that take a long time to fix.

 

You can swap a whole M26 power pack in a few hours. That's a day at least on a Panther, since the hull roof and a bunch of road wheels have to come off to pull the Panthers Final Drives and Tranny. The engine wasn't super easy either. 

 

Pershing was 12.8 psi versus Panther G 12.65. Close enough to be negligible.  Pershing was running 450 HP for 46 tons. The Panther had between 500 and 600, (no one lists what the governed rating was) for 44 tons. It only made its 700 HP rating when it could be spun to 3000RPM, but it was governed to 2500 RPM. Call it 550, giving the Panther the edge on paper, but I just read through Panther Wank, the quest for Combat supremacy by Jentz, and the whole book is a listing off all the shit that was wrong with these tanks and how they kind of a fixed them, but never really did.  They Never fixed the HL230 of blowing head gaskets and throwing rods. Though, the horrible cooling system could have aggravated this, overheating blows head gaskets. 

 

After reading through the Jentz book, reliability goes to the Pershing.  Pershing, a History of the T20 series documents far LESS problems than the Panther.  

 

Final Note, I had not looked through the Boo Bibles for years, and having read so many Hunnicutt books, I'm spoiled. They are just so much better than this Jentz and Spielburger garbage. They couldn't be bothered to put spec sheets in for the models. Trash, utter trash, but the pictures are nice.  

Panther used a geared steering system and not a triple-differential, no? The nominal ground pressures were indeed similar (and even favored the Pershing, depending on the source), but the Panther's mean maximal pressure and other off-road performance characteristics would benefit from its maintenance-unfriendly road wheel setup. Wong has some interesting simulations in Terramechanics and Off-road Vehicle Engineering between a baseline M113-type vehicle with 5 road wheel stations, the same vehicle with 6 road wheel stations, and the same vehicle with 8 overlapping road wheel stations. The simulations are run on snow and clayey soil, and the machine with more road wheels shows better performance in everything from wheel sinkage to drawbar pull to tractive effort to trim angle, etc. Panther weighed 6.9-8.6% more than the M26, but its tracks were 2-3" wider and it had 2 more road wheel stations per track in the same ground contact length and essentially the same track pitch (5.9" for the Kgs 64/660/150 vs. 6" for the M26's tracks). Double torsion bars were probably needlessly complex, the interleaved wheels required inordinate effort and time for maintenance, and the final drive was never adequately strengthened, but credit where due: the thing should perform quite well off-road. :)

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

You have high standards for ground clearance. ;) The Pershing was designated as a heavy for a short while, but was begat by a medium design; actual heavy designs were ongoing but didn't see service before the war ended. Hunnicutt and Yeide agree that the "heavy" nomenclature was mostly for morale purposes. I'm not sure it was quite as bad off-road as you make it seem, but I do find the T25 a tantalizing what-if.

 

Panther used a geared steering system and not a triple-differential, no? The nominal ground pressures were indeed similar (and even favored the Pershing, depending on the source), but the Panther's mean maximal pressure and other off-road performance characteristics would benefit from its maintenance-unfriendly road wheel setup. Wong has some interesting simulations in Terramechanics and Off-road Vehicle Engineering between a baseline M113-type vehicle with 5 road wheel stations, the same vehicle with 6 road wheel stations, and the same vehicle with 8 overlapping road wheel stations. The simulations are run on snow and clayey soil, and the machine with more road wheels shows better performance in everything from wheel sinkage to drawbar pull to tractive effort to trim angle, etc. Panther weighed 6.9-8.6% more than the M26, but its tracks were 2-3" wider and it had 2 more road wheel stations per track in the same ground contact length and essentially the same track pitch (5.9" for the Kgs 64/660/150 vs. 6" for the M26's tracks). Double torsion bars were probably needlessly complex, the interleaved wheels required inordinate effort and time for maintenance, and the final drive was never adequately strengthened, but credit where due: the thing should perform quite well off-road. :)

 

 

I think I've seen charts talking about the same things, they may even be somewhere in these 89s pages! Surely it does not do enough to warrant the nightmare the Panthers Suspension was to deal with in every other way.  We could also really get into the weeds, and talk about Track and road wheel durability. Jentz mentions issues with the Panther tracks bending guide horns, are these problems aggravated off road, negating any advantage the suspension is going to give you. I don't recall the Pershing having similar suspension issues. The advantage the Panthers Road Wheel system offered must be minor enough no copied it on tanks. Surely you can get damn close with an extra normal size road wheel and shocks?;)

 

This is why I added the month to the original question. Operate a Battalion of Perishing's and Panthers under similar conditions, and even with similar supply systems, the Pershing Battalion will have more running, combat ready tanks at the end of the month. Working on the Pershing would be so much easier, it would give it the edge. 

 

Check out this guys Flickr

Jim

He has many car, plane and tank pics, and seems to be connected to a very cool tank restoration shop. 

Upton Military Museum

(That funny feeling in the pit of your stomach, Wehraboos, is the feeling you get when you look upon good tanks)

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...