Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Mini-competition: fix-a-tank, 1943 Italy edition


Toxn
 Share

Recommended Posts

8xTPtAt.jpg

 

You are an engineer at an Italian locomotive and tractor-making company in early 1943. The writing is on the wall for the Italian army in North Africa, with a lot of equipment having been lost and the enemy on the brink of kicking the axis out of Tunisia and then heading across the Mediterranean. In short, things are looking more than a little desperate. 

 

However, all is not lost. Il Duce himself has stepped in and, with the assistance of the Germans, procured both some of their finest captured vehicles for use in the upcoming defense of the homeland. Since many of these vehicles have been... gently used, and the existing firms like Ansaldo are flooded with orders, your firm has been asked to work on them in order to bring them up to the standards demanded by modern warfare. 

 

In addition to these vehicles, the Germans have also graciously agreed to sell weapons from their existing stock of captured equipment, as well as providing production licenses for some of their more modern equipment. You have also been given permission to work with local weapons manufacturers in order to modify existing artillery to suit your needs. Italian automotive and engine manufacturers are similarly available to help. Finally; your firm's experience in locomotives and tractors means that you can modify hulls and put together turrets and turret rings. You can also produce castings (although not very large ones) and weld armour plates.

 

Your job, which you have no choice but to accept, is to choose a vehicle from among the captured stock being offered for sale, and propose a series of plausible fixes in order to give it a fighting chance against the American and British equipment currently in the field (specifically light tanks and light anti-tank weapons).

 

It is not foreseen that any of these vehicles will be able to plausibly take on modern medium or heavy designs head-on. Instead, what is wanted are general, implementable improvements to the characteristics of the chosen vehicle. These improvements should be aimed at making these vehicles more useful in the initial battles which are foreseen taking place against airborne and landing forces, in general cooperation with infantry, and as scouts.

 

The submission should include one or more drawings or blueprints (at least a side view of the vehicle, but preferably a 3-point view and isometric view), a description of the modified vehicle, a description of how the modifications would be accomplished and a description of how the modifications would improve the design overall. The text of the submission should short and descriptive rather than long and exhaustive, and should not exceed 1000 words in total. Images may be photoshopped using existing pictures.

 

Judging will be done on the basis of plausibility and effectiveness, with innovative solutions being encouraged in order to get the most bang for buck out of the base vehicle. Beyond implementation, the fixes should prioritise combat effectiveness while also improving reliability, crew ergonomics, communication, mobility and protection as much as possible.

 

The foreign vehicles available for modification are:

  • Renault R35 (already in service)
  • Hotchkiss H35/39
  • Somua S35 (already in use for training purposes)
  • T-26
  • BT-5
  • T-28 (only available in very small numbers, so need to be extremely effective)
  • Panzer II Ausf.C

 

The foreign weapons immediately available for purchase are:

  • 15mm ZB-60
  • 25mm Puteaux and Hotchkiss
  • 3.7cm KPÚV vz. 34/Pak 34 (t)
  • 3.7cm ÚV vz. 38/KwK 38(t)

  • 3.7cm Pak 36
  • 4.0 cm Pak 192 (e)
  • 45mm M1937 (53-K)
  • 4.7cm KPÚV vz. 38/Pak 38 (t)
  • 47mm APX
  • 7.5cm Pak 97/38
  • 7.62 cm F.K.297(r) and  7.62 cm PaK 39(r)
  • 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 43

 

Licenses are also available for the manufacture of foreign engines (Maybach HL62 TRM, Maybach HL120 TRM and Praga Typ TNHPS/II), periscopes, sights, radios, cupolas and automotive subassemblies. All foreign vehicle weapons, subassemblies and components are available for reverse engineering and manufacture.

 

IMPORTANT NOTE: This competition hasn't been finalised, and is waiting on your input! Vote to participate by giving this topic a 'controversial' (grapefruit-induced tears being the only currency of value), and if we get enough participants we'll pull the trigger. Ask any questions you want below, and when/if the competition goes forwards I will make a new thread for entries.

 

Edit: thanks to excellent feedback, the competition proposal has been somewhat edited. If you want an idea of what my mindset is here, read up on the battle of Gela (bearing in mind that the wikipedia entry is shite) and ask how much better the counter-attack could have gone if the Italian vehicles had been equipped with radios and had the ability to move faster than jogging speed.

 

Edit 2: since I failed to mention this above - this is not a one-man, one-entry sort of competition (although I'm not keen on the ten-men, one entry approach either).

If you have two good ideas then you can submit twice. The only rules are not to test my patience and to keep it within the bounds of good taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned in the suggestion thread: when considering armament (or other components) you can choose from those provided weapons, plus any Italian equipment you want (so long as there's enough of it to go around) and anything else you can justify. Note that the further you get from off the shelf and commonly available, the more convincing the justification needs to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Done some basic "what do" thinking.

The problem, as posed, is extremely difficult to solve in a satisfactory manner, largely thanks to the (excellently picked) very poor selection of cast-off vehicles upon which to base designs. 

And when the reference point is a Sherman, even just a 75mm one, that's quite the tough nut to crack and quite a lot of gun to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Done some basic "what do" thinking.

The problem, as posed, is extremely difficult to solve in a satisfactory manner, largely thanks to the (excellently picked) very poor selection of cast-off vehicles upon which to base designs. 

And when the reference point is a Sherman, even just a 75mm one, that's quite the tough nut to crack and quite a lot of gun to stop.

I agree, I foresee a lot of knock-off Marder or Sturmgeschutz-type designs being submitted. Realistically, there's no way to increase the effectiveness of the armor on any of those designs to the point where it would actually matter. Even a British 6-pdr. would make short work of any of the listed designs. Might I suggest resetting the timeframe to immediately after the fall of France? I feel like that would put whatever monstrosities the myself and the other contestants come up with on a bit more level playing field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My general opinion is that trying to make one of these machines, most of which were outdated even during their time in frontline service, into an effective fighting vehicle in 1943 would be quite the uphill battle. Perhaps a tank destroyer or reconnaissance vehicle would be more plausible, but you'd have to sacrifice so much space and weight just to fit a viable gun on the thing you would have extremely little room for anything else, let alone trying to add additional armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are all good comments, so I've had the a think on the underlying purpose of the competition.

 

The inspiration was the battle of Gela, where R35s were pressed into Italian service and, used quickly and en mass, managed to punch well above their weight. Partly this was because the heavy stuff wasn't available to the allies - the counter-attack was launched quickly enough so that the Renaults were facing 37mm guns and bazookas. And partly it was due to the sheer balls-to-the wall bravery of the tank crews, who drove unsupported through naval gunfire and into the town armed with half loads of short 37mm and machine gun ammo.

 

So I think the core here would be less about making a panzerjager knock-off and more about just generally improving the vehicles so that, in that moment where they can be used, they can operate more like proper light tanks and less like suicide weapons.

 

I'll amend the contest entry to reflect this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Beer said:

I was thinking about a scout vehicle based on BT-5 but I don't think I would have time to prepare anything meaningful for the contest :(  

This isn't intended to be a days-long exercise. You should be able to knock together a quick picture (even just a rough shoop) and description within an hour or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Done some basic "what do" thinking.

The problem, as posed, is extremely difficult to solve in a satisfactory manner, largely thanks to the (excellently picked) very poor selection of cast-off vehicles upon which to base designs. 

And when the reference point is a Sherman, even just a 75mm one, that's quite the tough nut to crack and quite a lot of gun to stop.

Under the clarified criteria, the tank to beat is now the M3 Stuart and the role is shifted towards a light tank rather than a tank hunter. The weapons to defend against are principally the 37mm guns M3 and M6, M1 Bazooka, M2 Browning and M1 75mm Pack Howitzer.

 

Edit: I do expect anyone ballsy enough to pick the T-28 to make a Sherman-equivalent though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CharlieAlphaVictor said:

Would the 5cm Kw.K 39 L/60 be considered available for license production?

Licenced production yes, sale no.

 

Production licences are also available for all ammunition currently in German use (ie: non-experimental), although no strategic materials (copper, tungsten) or products will be sold to Italy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

@Toxn

How about ZiS-2s?

I think production only re-started in 1943 (only around 1000 were produced before then), and it's too obviously useful for the Germans to just sell off captured stock. Same goes for the 76mm M1936, the reworked version thereof (7.62 cm FK 36(r)) and and the ZIS-3. 

 

The meta reason, of course, is that I don't want you all to have access to an 'easy' upgunning option ;).

 

Edit: and before anyone asks, Pak 40, KwK 40 and up are off limits as being "too modern" to either sell or licence, although you are welcome to the ammo designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have enough to get this train wreck arolling...

m48XV5w.jpeg

 

Good luck gents - I'll leave this thread open for discussion/WIP entries and make a thread for final entries. Judging will happen on the first week of November, and any entries you have in the final entry thread will count so don't be shy to put something up there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Alrighty

I have a fairly clear battle plan, I'll probably knock it out this weekend.

I have... Several silly ideas and a few moderately sensible ones.

Go wild - there is no limit on entries (beyond my patience and the bounds of good taste), so put your sensible idea up with your wacky one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I do not have much time for 3d modeling or professional image editing, so I made a rather primitive photoshopped line drawing :)

 

So, my choice was the T-28, despite its limited availability.

French stuff werent considered at all, they are hopeless junk. Panzer II is a nice tank with lots of good properties, but its crew compartment is too compact for a bigger gun. So only the soviet tanks left. Sadly both the BT-5 and T-26 are too lightly armored, and the BT is also too narrow inside thanks to christie suspension, so I chose the T-28.

 

The first thing I did, is to get rid of the stupid mini turrets. Then, I reshaped the area near the driver's position, added two sharply angled, 30mm thick plates where the turrets were. This also created more space for the driver, and also optionally more ammo/stuff for crew/maintenance tools can be stored in the new free space.

Next, I improved the armor protection. The nearly vertical surfaces of the front hull (upper & lower) received 50mm add-on plates. Turret front and frontal part of side also received an 50mm add-on, rear part got a thinner 30mm plate, but this was just to keep the whole turret (somewhat) balanced. Frontally, the tank became immune to 37 and 40mm guns, and resistant to 6pdr.

 

Firepower: Both L-10 and KT-28 guns had to go, first because the poor performance, and second, the not guaranteed supply of ammo. The replacement is the 7.5cm Pak 97/38. The reasons of this decision: this gun is still quite compact, will not make the life of the crew miserable inside. It is also already in service in the army, so ammo supply is secured. Muzzle velocity isnt much better than the L-10, but the performance of AP shells are better, and good HEAT rounds are also available.

 

Mobility: I didnt change much. The original M-17T engine is barely more than a slightly modified BMW VI, so nothing wrong here. I only tuned it a bit, so performance increased by 50hp, I think it is enough, and also do not cause problems with reliability and service life. 

 

Other improvements:

- Panzer IV style commander's cupola, for good vision. 

- added fume extractor fan on turret top

- replaced soviet radios

- add-on armor now covers side vision slits, so the gunner received a replacement periscope

- modified, smaller hatch for loader, since the commander's cupola is quite big.

- turret became quite heavy (and probbly imbalanced to a degree) with add-on armor, so a reinforced traverse mechanism is added.

- old radio antenna rails retained, useful for attaching camouflage. 

 

2yDiRbhe_o.jpg

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 Sturgeon
      @Toxn
      @Dominus Dolorem
      @Lord_James
      @A. T. Mahan
      @delete013
      @Sten
      @Xoon
      @Curly_
      @N-L-M
      @Sturgeon
       
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Saturday the 24th of July at 23:59 CST.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.

      PLEASE REMEMBER ALL ENTRIES MUST BE SUBMITTED IN USC ONLY
       
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name
       
      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here]
       
      Table of basic statistics:
      Parameter
      Value
      Mass, combat (armor)
       
      Length, combat (transport)
       
      Width, combat (transport)
       
      Height, combat (transport)
       
      Ground Pressure, zero penetration
       
      Estimated Speed
       
      Estimated range
       
      Crew, number (roles)
       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.
      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.
      3.     Transmission - type, arrangement, neat features.
      4.     Fuel - Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.
      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.
      6.     Suspension - Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.
      Survivability:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Link to Appendix 2 - armor array details.
      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks - low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.
      Firepower:
      A.    Weapons:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Main Weapon-
      a.      Type
      b.      Caliber
      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)
      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.
      e.      FCS - relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.
      f.      Neat features.
      3.     Secondary weapon - Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.
      4.     Link to Appendix 3 - Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached.
      B.    Optics:
      1.     Primary gunsight - type, associated trickery.
      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.
      C.    FCS:
      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.
      2.     Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.
      Fightability:
      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.
      Additonal Features:
      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.
      Free expression zone: Let out a big yeehaw to impress the world with your design swagger! Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.
       
       Example for filling in Appendix 1
       Example for filling in Appendix 2
       Example for filling in Appendix 3

      GOOD LUCK!
    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • By Toxn
      This is the competition entry thread.
       
      Please submit your complete entries here (all entries will be judged complete when judging begins in the first week of November) and keep the other competition thread for discussion and chatter.
       
      Once judging is complete I will make a post here to discuss the entries and announce a winner.
       
      Best of luck!
       
      Update: final submissions should be in hand by the 22nd of November 2020.
×
×
  • Create New...