Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Beer said:

Everyone can draw a nice thing on the paper. Considering how other German projects ended we can quite safely say that Panther II would end being something completely different than what it was on the paper. Paper projects are paper projects. Good for WoT but completely irrelevant for reality. 

This wasn't a drawing board prototype..

Panther_II.Fort_Knox.jpg

1200px-Schmalturm_at_the_Tank_Museum,_Bo

 

Quote

You'd better not even start with arguments based on such stuff. 

2 is based on panther 1 and tiger b components, so entirely plausible thing. Thinned roof armour and lighter turret to compensate for thicker front. Not sure what they added to the drive train to get along with 50+ tonnes..

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

4 hours ago, delete013 said:

The fact that German medium has the weight of an allied heavy and heavies go beyond 50tonnes tells a lot about the discrepancy in automotive technology. Panther was medium because of mobility. No way around it. If armour was bad then

 

This. This right here is an absolute choice bit of consequential apologism. It doesn't occur to you at all that Panther might have been a dysfunctional product of a dysfunctional system. If it does occur to you, your brain runs interference and blocks you from allowing yourself to even imagine such a thing could be true. Hitler has cucked your brain. Your raising his little aryan kiddies in your head! Only question is: why?

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

This wasn't a drawing board prototype..

Panther_II.Fort_Knox.jpg

1200px-Schmalturm_at_the_Tank_Museum,_Bo

 

2 is based on panther 1 and tiger b components, so entirely plausible thing. Thinned roof armour and lighter turret to compensate for thicker front. Not sure what they added to the drive train to get along with 50+ tonnes..

 

I'm sorry but building a prototype (or in this case just a turretless demonstrator) is something very different than to develop vehicle suitable for production. The Schmalturm on the picture was not an integral Panther II feature but a separate later development considered for various vehicles but it also never got anywhere - not even to the final specification. 

 

In the end Panther II was replaced by another, this time pure-paper project E-50 before there was even an attempt to start Panther II production done. No prototype testing was done, no trials, not even any final design specification was done and nothing was ordered. 

 

Using such projects for comparison with anything actually fielded is completely useless and on the level of pure fantasy. There were dozens of demonstrators and prototypes made in all countries and comparing them to anything is simply pointless because what matters in reality is not paper stats but real service record.

 

Besides that there is very good reason to expect that a new lale war German armor design would end in a failure because that was the general trend in vehicles which were getting to the production towards the end of the war. 

 

 

 

 

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

 

I'm sorry but building a prototype (or in this case just a turretless demonstrator) is something very different than to develop vehicle suitable for production. The Schmalturm on the picture was not an integral Panther II feature but a separate later development considered for various vehicles but it also never got anywhere - not even to the final specification. 

I didn't say it is from panther 2. I said it would be the the most likely upcoming medium, be it as E-50 or smth else.

 

17 minutes ago, Beer said:

In the end Panther II was replaced by another, this time pure-paper project E-50 before there was even an attempt to start Panther II production done. No prototype testing was done, no trials, not even any final design specification was done and nothing was ordered. 

Afaik was Entwicklung-series basically a reorganisation and standardisation study, incorporating future vehicles or versions of already available vehicles. E-50 would most likely be de facto an upgraded panther and updated panther 2 was the obvious choice. It featured precisely the component standardisation with tiger 2 that was considered for E-50 and E-75. It was a broad orientation of German armament industry that never had a chance to take place. The only reason why panther 2 was dropped is because it was not needed. Armour on German vehicles was adequate until the end of the war.

 

17 minutes ago, Beer said:

Using such projects for comparison with anything actually fielded is completely useless and on the level of pure fantasy. There were dozens of demonstrators and prototypes made in all countries and comparing them to anything is simply pointless because what matters in reality is not paper stats but real service record.

As opposed to uparmoured pershing E5, there is no reason to doubt the plausibility of panther-2/E-50/whatever name. It featured components of even heavier vehicles in service. Technology was no limit. I would expect an engineer to see that.

 

17 minutes ago, Beer said:

Besides that there is very good reason to expect that a new lale war German armor design would end in a failure because that was the general trend in vehicles which were getting to the production towards the end of the war.

 

5000+ destroyed shermans and 20000+ destroyed t-34s later..

 

 

 

Or was it all fanatical Fallschirmjäger and mines?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now give poor old delete some credit.

 

It DOES say something about the respective auto technologies... Just not what he thinks it does.

 

The Pershing worked specifically because american engineers were capable of engineering something that was within the limits of their automotive technology while the Germans couldn't even manage to not fuck that up!

 

Anyone Actually capable in their field would have known that the panther final drives wouldn't have even been satisfactory on something 15 tons lighter, like the Pershing, so they built final drives that would actually WORK with what they had!

 

Delete keeps trying to act like it's some sort of accomplishment to build a "medium" that's 15 tons heavier than it should be while having inferior fit out because he apparently doesn't understand that the goal is to get x set of capabilities with y mobility at the lowest weight and bulk possible.

 

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the purpose of tanks truly is at it's core.

 

Delete believes in the stat block over all else while sane people understand that AFV design is about striking the best compromise between all the competing factors and design considerations to come out with a system that does the most with the least so that you can make deploy and supply as many of them as possible.

 

These are not vegas air races aircraft delete. No points are awarded for the most sleek sophisticated and on the edge of your technological capabilities designs.

 

Your entire approach for deciding what is good is based in a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of afv's.

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

 

This. This right here is an absolute choice bit of consequential apologism. It doesn't occur to you at all that Panther might have been a dysfunctional product of a dysfunctional system. If it does occur to you, your brain runs interference and blocks you from allowing yourself to even imagine such a thing could be true. Hitler has cucked your brain. Your raising his little aryan kiddies in your head! Only question is: why?

I have this idea that most of our irrational attachments are due to the fact that our brains can only process things as a web of the other things its related to - you pull on a word and the whole person comes out.

 

Take the word "carriage". For me the word has built-in associations from children's stories and rhymes (Private Parrige brought the carriage), illustrated history books read in the school library, and the carriages rented for the matric dance. I cannot think the word without some tiny part of me remembering sitting on my mother's lap as she read to me as a child. So I probably can't rationally think about carriages as some sort of utilitarian object without resorting to tricks like de-identification.

 

Which is where this all gets tragic, because it means that Hitler cucked this kid's brain from beyond the grave by hijacking his childhood memories of watching the history channel with his dad or something.

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

Anybody else just... mentally exhausted? Who new just reading about people talking to a brick wall would be tiring, let alone actually arguing with said brick wall. Blessings to you, brave souls. 

The best part (and I'm glad we get to do this every few years just to show the new kids how it was in the old days) is where they eventually run off and declare victory because we 'ran out of arguments' or something. Like, the brick wall talking up its fighting technique because we all got bored of hitting it eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Halloooo Deutschland hat den Krieg trotzdem verloren!!! Trotz hart wie Krupp Stahl und zäh wie Leder und beste Technologie und Panzerschokolade und Düsenjäger und Sturmgewehr....so plz stop wanking one on German war Technology.....it has been mentioned before, Russian took a monument of an IS-2 fueled it up and put some oil in the engine and started the engine with press air...try that with an Über Panther and this was not long ago, less watching discovery channel or dmax or history channel...and especially stay away from tank game forums

 

 

 

 

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

I didn't say it is from panther 2. I said it would be the the most likely upcoming medium, be it as E-50 or smth else.

 

Afaik was Entwicklung-series basically a reorganisation and standardisation study, incorporating future vehicles or versions of already available vehicles. E-50 would most likely be de facto an upgraded panther and updated panther 2 was the obvious choice. It featured precisely the component standardisation with tiger 2 that was considered for E-50 and E-75. It was a broad orientation of German armament industry that never had a chance to take place. The only reason why panther 2 was dropped is because it was not needed. Armour on German vehicles was adequate until the end of the war.

 

Sorry but that is fantasy and wishful thinking on your side and a clear misunderstanding how AFV development process is complicated and what needs to be done between the drawing board and the serial production. I'm sorry but if you don't understand how utterly useless is to over and over bring these dream projects into the discussion, I have nothing more to add to the subject. You can keep living in your fantasy land. 

  

3 minutes ago, delete013 said:

As opposed to uparmoured pershing E5, there is no reason to doubt the plausibility of panther-2/E-50/whatever name. It featured components of even heavier vehicles in service. Technology was no limit. I would expect an engineer to see that.

 

Seriously, WTF? Those heavier vehicles were an unreliable nearly useless mass of steels which failed miserably and you somehow expect that if you take some of their parts and put them in new vehicles everything will somehow start to work well? 

 

E-series except E-100 had rear transmission a thing completely new for the Germans, yet you somehow consider it a carry-over of the previous designs. There was no decision about suspension done with three existing options, one completely new and one never used for such heavy vehicle. The engine was all new direct-injection optionally turbocharged, never tried before. The hydraulic gearbox was all new never tested. Nothing is known about the turrets and armamament. All what circles about them on the internet is nothing more than made-up theories.  

 

Regarding E-series of tanks you shall read this: https://warspot.net/13-e-50-and-e-75-a-story-of-failed-unification

  

3 minutes ago, delete013 said:

5000+ destroyed shermans and 20000+ destroyed t-34s later..

 

War is not a football and is never ever won by score. In the end it's irrelevant if you kill one or million enemies when you loose. Wars are not fought to make impression on future generations of teenagers. War is won by the side which best achieves its strategical objectives. Everything else is secondary.  

 

 

T-54 prototype says hello to German paper tanks, March 1945. 

e50e75photo14-291a2e888a69b831f17979a16f

 

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

 

Damn, I was hoping you had heard something about it, now I'm going to have to search for it! I have no idea what book or if it might even be wrong, I mean, you really know your stuff!

 

 

Ha, thanks. Flattery will get you...well pretty far, I suppose. ;)

2 hours ago, roguetechie said:

Now give poor old delete some credit.

 

It DOES say something about the respective auto technologies... Just not what he thinks it does.

 

The Pershing worked specifically because american engineers were capable of engineering something that was within the limits of their automotive technology while the Germans couldn't even manage to not fuck that up!

 

Anyone Actually capable in their field would have known that the panther final drives wouldn't have even been satisfactory on something 15 tons lighter, like the Pershing, so they built final drives that would actually WORK with what they had!

 

Delete keeps trying to act like it's some sort of accomplishment to build a "medium" that's 15 tons heavier than it should be while having inferior fit out because he apparently doesn't understand that the goal is to get x set of capabilities with y mobility at the lowest weight and bulk possible.

 

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the purpose of tanks truly is at it's core.

 

Delete believes in the stat block over all else while sane people understand that AFV design is about striking the best compromise between all the competing factors and design considerations to come out with a system that does the most with the least so that you can make deploy and supply as many of them as possible.

 

These are not vegas air races aircraft delete. No points are awarded for the most sleek sophisticated and on the edge of your technological capabilities designs.

 

Your entire approach for deciding what is good is based in a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of afv's.

Indeed. The state of German automotive technology was unprepared for mass-production of a 45,000 kg tank. As we've been over, and as Spielberger notes, "Since it was envisaged to produce the Panther in large numbers, production costs of various subassemblies would have to be kept to a minimum...If it had been possible to foresee what difficulties the final reduction gearing was to cause, it would have been a much better solution to have selected a more expensive final drive which provided a greater degree of reliability. In the end, the final drive proved too weak to handle braking with the Klaue disk break [sic] when steering through tight curves. The use of epicyclic gearing for the final drive hinged upon the bottleneck being encountered in the supply of gear cutting machines for producing the hollow gearing. When passing judgement on the double-spur final reduction gear it should be noted that the high-quality steel originally planned for the spur gears in the final drive was not available for mass production and was unexpectedly replaced by VMS 135 (today 37 MnSi5) tempered steel (not as suitable for this purpose)...

 

"The final drive (gear teeth and bearings) was the weakest part of the Panther. It was a risky proposition to use a spur gear system for transferring the drive power - especially considering that the available steel during the war did not have a particularly high stress tolerance. A better solution would have been to use an epicyclic gear system; a prototype final reduction drive using planetary gear reduction had already been tested and had performed flawlessly. However, as mentioned previously, a shortage of gear cutting machinery for the hollow gearing prevented this type of final drive from being mass produced. In order to bridge the gap a final reduction gear system was installed in front of the main gear drive, but due to installation restrictions its mountings were far too weak and could not be strengthened. Because of gear teeth breaking under too great a load and the weak mountings, the gears were pushed out of alignment  - virtually guaranteeing mount and tooth breakage.

 

"The general consensus in the industry was that inner-toothed gear wheels could not be produced due to a lack of proper machinery. This meant that a final drive using planetary gear reduction and pre-selector spur gearing - found to be reliable in company testing - could not be installed in production tanks. All attempts to improve the final drive met with failure, despite the offers of a special bonus as an incentive..."

 

To quantify this a bit, Ristuccia and Tooze in "Machine tools and mass production in the armaments boom: Germany and the United States, 1929-44" note that Germany did make strides in increasing the number of gear-cutting machines in service, going from at least 10,407 in 1939 to 28,621 in January 1945. Even with these increases, compared to the US there were only 0.74 gear-cutting machines per German metalworking employee in 1945.

Edited by DogDodger
Typo in Tooze's name
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Notches.jpg


Really m8... really? 

 

1. Exhausted does not mean quitting, giving up, throwing-in-the-towel, defeated, or other such turn of phrase. I could jump into this argument at any time, but choose not to, primarily because the more knowledgeable and experienced members are making better points than I could hope to make. 
 

2. How deluded can you be? You’ve been nothing but a punching bag this entire time, and now you’re so out of arguments that you resort to insults and attacks. I haven’t even directly insulted your beloved “wunderwagon panther”, but I just might start. 

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

 

OK, with this you can seriously fuck off. Your beloved fuckers murdered millions of innocent people and I'm sure I'm not the only one on this forum whose ancestors fought the Nazi scum and eventually died on the battlefield. 

 

Go fuck yourself. 

Jesus, sorry for your ancestors. I don't think of dead millions when I post panthers. If German uniform offends you, you are in a wrong thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I've gotta be honest, I'm starting to feel a bit bad about the dogpile going on here. Therefore, I've decided to play Devil's advocate and jump into the discussion as part of team of Wehraboo. I've put together a carefully crafted list of evidence to help convince you all.

 

Exhibit A:

 

Spoiler

 

 

I think that speaks for itself, but if somehow that objective assessment by a SME doesn't have you convinced, then please take a look at Exhibit B:

 

Massive Panther column up incline, counting 12 Panthers #worldwar2 #tanks | Panther  tank, World of tanks, Tank

 

According to most sources, Panther tanks maintained an average readiness rate of anywhere from 30-35% for the first two years after their introduction, AND YET, in the picture I have provided, you can clearly see no less than TWELVE Panther tanks, all of which appear to be running perfectly. Let me remind you that 30% of 12 is ~4, NOT 12. This clearly and definitively debunks all of these claims as nothing more than exaggerated, baseless lies that rely on cherry picked, if not completely fabricated, data sets from Allied reports desperately trying to save face.

 

Finally, Exhibit C:

 

Asisbiz Soviet T 34 tanks destroyed near a railway assembly point by German  bombers 01

 

Here you can clearly see a column of the "super reliable" T-34. Oh, but what's this? It appears that in actuality, NONE of them are in working condition. That's a readiness rate of 0%. Another thing to point out is that Allied shitbox apologists always point to the Panther's dependence on railway transportation to arrive at the front. But, what's this we see?

 

 

t-34.png

 

Could that be... a rail? That's right, yet another of the Panther-haters' claims proven to be nothing but projection. 

 

Check and mate, haters. I'd delete the thread at this point if I were you, because this is just embarrassing.

 

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

 

Indeed. The state of German automotive technology...

 

To quantify this a bit, Ristuccia and Tooze in "Machine tools and mass production in the armaments boom: Germany and the United States, 1929-44" note that Germany did make strides in increasing the number of gear-cutting machines in service, going from at least 10,407 in 1939 to 28,621 in January 1945. Even with these increases, compared to the US there were only 0.74 gear-cutting machines per German metalworking employee in 1945.

 

In short, they were fucked from the get go. Also, the economy was not mobilised until 1943, because, among other reasons, nobody even remotely expected to be able to counter the Allied numbers. The early tanks were quite costly, and panthers were only some 25% more expensive than Pz4.

Frankly, I have no idea what is needed to build gear-cutting machines but early mobilisation would be likely advantageous. Sectors of industry also suffered quite significantly from certain bombing raids.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ADC411 said:

Guys, I've gotta be honest, I'm starting to feel a bit bad about the dogpile going on here. Therefore, I've decided to play Devil's advocate and jump into the discussion as part of team of Wehraboo. I've put together a carefully crafted list of evidence to help convince you all.

 

Check and mate, haters. I'd delete the thread at this point if I were you, because this is just embarrassing.

 

You say that while shitposting?

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

Anybody else just... mentally exhausted? Who new just reading about people talking to a brick wall would be tiring, let alone actually arguing with said brick wall. Blessings to you, brave souls. 

 

Oh you must be new.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ADC411 said:

Guys, I've gotta be honest, I'm starting to feel a bit bad about the dogpile going on here. Therefore, I've decided to play Devil's advocate and jump into the discussion as part of team of Wehraboo. I've put together a carefully crafted list of evidence to help convince you all.

 

You shouldn't. It's what they deserve. It's what this forum was founded on. Wehraboo hunts make the clan of the comieboo strong. Aroo! Aroo! Aroo!

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...