Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

You've seen them before; poorly edited videos with an alternating loop of John Phillips Sousa and Weird Al, purporting to tell you about the various design mistakes armored fighting vehicle designers have made over the years:

 

 

But does the maker of these videos one Blacktail Defense, know shit about AFV design himself?

 

Haha, no, no he does not.

 

Because of Sturgeon's House strict hate-speech enforcement laws, I am compelled to mention that Blacktail Defense is a furry.  So know that should you click any of the links to his material, you will need to decontaminate yourself per protocol DG-12-23A with bleach.

 

Blacktail Defense is a military reformer, a storied and interesting political movement in the United States that has gone from being a force of some consequence to being a ragtag group of scoundrels.  I'm not going to say that they weren't idiots and scoundrels when they were of consequence, n.b.

 

Military reformers are at they're strongest when they're on the attack.  They're a lot like creationists that way; when they can hurl invective at (mostly imaginary) weaknesses within whatever it is they hate, they can look like concerned citizens campaigning for the taxpayer's right to have their money spent wisely and the soldier's right to have the best practical equipment.

 

But give a military reformer some lined paper and a slide rule and tell them to come up with a design, rather than tear down an existing one, and you will quickly see that these people have no idea what they're talking about.

 

Ready?

 

8ab9thp.gif

 

This is taken directly from Blacktail's furaffinity page.  Careful analysis shows that, no, this man has no idea what the everliving fuck he's talking about.

 

Are you ready?  No, you're not, but let's go ahead anyway.

 

"The Tigerwolf may look vaguely similar to contemporary MBTs, such as the ubiquitous M1-series Abrams, but is in fact wrapped around a lot of design features and technology that are comlpetely alien to today's tanks."

 

 

Blacktail is going to prove to you that he's a better tank designer than all those idiots at Chrysler by designing a tank using technologies that didn't exist at the time of the design of the Abrams.

 

"For starters the crew is quite large, with a Commander, Driver, Gunner, TWO loaders, and an Engineer. Many designers favor a smaller crew, usually adding an autoloader to eliminate the Loader from the crew (like in the Russian T-64 through 90, the French Leclerc, and the Chinese Type 85 through 99)."

 

 

... What?

 

"However, there are a lot of problems with a smaller crew. First, autoloaders work at a painfully slow pace (14 seconds to reload in a T-72), which gives manual-loading tanks a huge rate-of-fire advantage (just 4 seconds in the M1A1 Abrams)."

 

 

 

"There's no autoloader either, as that only slows the ROF, requires smaller, less powerful and versitile ammo to be used, adds another complex, delicate set of moving parts to break, and only serves to expand the guantlet  of things that can hurt you inside the vehicle.In fact, the Tigerwolf's main gun ammo is extremely large and heavy, and probably would break an autoloader --- it's would be an incredible feat of strength for a single Loader crewman to load in under 10 seconds."

 

 

The Leclerc uses the same ammunition as the Abrams and Leopard 2.  As for his 145mm smoothbore howitzer ammunition breaking an autoloader, does he not know that the Pz 2000 SPG has an autoloader for its 155mm gun?  Of course he doesn't know that; Blacktail doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

"The engineer is useful as well, because the large size of the Tigerwolf --- coupled with it's simple drivetrain (most modern tracked vehicles have a deceptively simple drivetrain) and small, flat engine (compred to a "Vee" or gas turbine) make for easy engine maintnance[sic] and repairs from inside the tank --- there's no need to abandon it if you lose a sparkplug while under small arms fire."

 

 

Simple drivetrains, eh?

chieftaingearbox_zps0c25340d.jpg
 

Note that per the graphic, the Tigerwolf has a diesel wankel.  Does Blacktail not know that diesel engines don't have spark plugs?  Of course he doesn't know that; Blacktail doesn't know what he's talking about.

(Diesel wankels don't exist.  Three companies have tried making them; Rolls Royce, John Deere and some Japanese company I CBA to look up.  None of the three ever got them to mass production.  I'm not sure what the problem was.)

 

"As for the armor, instead of using a large amount of steel and other metals, most of the Tigerwolf's armor is made up of thick panels and blocks of woven fabric Carbon 60 and 70 --- which are genarically[sic] known as "Fullerine". [sic]

Fullerine has ove 100 times the tensile strength of steel, it's 10's of times lighter, and theoretically could be manufactured quickly and inexpensively. Essentially, the Tigerwolf has a sort of "Super Kevlar" armor, but unlike current Kevlars (which are made of polimers[sic] or composites), fullerine does not have a molecular structure that distorts or melts under heat or pressure --- a single piece of this new type of armor can withstand MANY direct hits from rounds with tank-killing power, KE and CE alike."

 

 

Ah yes, fullerenes; every hack futurist's favorite crutch.

 

Fullerenes have many interesting and useful properties, but their large-scale bulk mechanical properties may not be that amazing.  Many materials have amazing strength at small scales, but disappointing strength at macro scales.  Sapphire whiskers are an example.

 

Moreover, high tensile strength (which is what fullerenes have going for them), does not necessarily imply that a material will make good armor.  The properties that make materials effective against high-velocity threats are somewhat esoteric.  Aluminum alloys, for instance, have a better strength to weight ratio than does steel, and while several of them do protect better on a weight basis than steel against lower velocity threats like artillery fragments and small arms fire, suffer badly against high-velocity penetrators and HEAT threats due to sheer failure modes that only exist at those higher velocity ranges.

 

Also, why the fuck does Blacktail think that "Kevlars" melt under pressure?  Aramids don't melt.

 

"Even though it's much larger than an M1A1 Abrams, the Mk.75 Tigerwolf is over 30% lighter, and can swim over water obstacles, rather than slog though on the bottom. And because it floats, there are no depths that it cannot cross."

 

 

This is how big a 40 tonne boat is.

 

"Also important is it's low ground pressure, stemming from it's low 40-ton weight, super-wide tracks, low height, and enourmous horizontal size --- it has the ground pessure of a "Light Track" vehicle, like the M113 Gavin. This is important because almost half the world's surface is closed to heavy tracks (again, the M1A1 Abrams), due to thier height, ground pressure, and high centers of gravity.

The Tigerwolf can directly cut across many areas that no existing or projected MBT will ever be able to --- not to mention traverse certain terrain features, such as bridges and paved roads, without damaging them."

 

 

Is Blacktail under the impression that it's ground pressure that damages bridges?  Jesus, if that were true the last thing you'd want to get anywhere near a bridge is a car.

 

"As the Tigerwolf has 40% more power and torque than the M1, and weighs 30% less, it is 40% faster and could probably accelerate as quickly as a Humvee. This would make contemporary tanks very hard-pressed to cut-off a Tigerwolf, and no current or projected tanks could ever hope to pursue a Tigerwolf.

Other advantages offered by the powerpack include a small number of moving parts, extremely low vibration and ocillation (inherent to Wankel Rotaries; not in piston engines), low heat emissions (less than in 700+ degree piston engines, or 1500+ degrees in Gas Turbines), a very small, flat, light engine block, and stonger individual components than in any current or projected tank engine, and a 5-speed AT, to take advantage of the high engine output. "

 

 

Uh huh...

 

So this is a magical wank(el) engine that has equal SFC to a diesel, rather than falling between a diesel and a turbine as existing ones do.

 

"Other advantages offered by the powerpack include a small number of moving parts, extremely low vibration and ocillation (inherent to Wankel Rotaries; not in piston engines), low heat emissions (less than in 700+ degree piston engines, or 1500+ degrees in Gas Turbines), a very small, flat, light engine block, and stonger individual components than in any current or projected tank engine, and a 5-speed AT, to take advantage of the high engine output."

 

 

WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF TURBINE REJECTS HEAT AT 1,500 DEGREES?!  The highest turbine inlet temperature on record is 1,600C!

 

Per Honeywell, AGT-1500's exhaust temperature is 500 C, but it's unclear if that is before or after it enters the recuperator.

 

And if he's using bullshit Imperial units he's still wrong.

 

If you don't know the difference between heat rejection temperature and turbine inlet temperature, you have no business discussing turbines.

 

"All tanks require high firepower, and the Mk.75 Tigerwolf has plenty of it. The large size of the Tigerwolf's hull and turret enables a heavier-caliber howitzer to be used than on any tank currently in service --- a 145mm Smooth-Bore Howitzer. Because the German-designed M256 120mm smoothbore (M1A1, M1A2, Leopard 2, etc.) has a 40% larger punch than the British-designed M67 105mm Rifled-bore (the standard to which ALL other tank guns are judged --- used on too many tanks to list), the Tigerwolf's gun probaly has at least 20% more punch than the M256 --- enough to outrange any of today's tank guns, with enough penetration to destroy an M1A1 from well beyond it's maximum gun range."

 

 

Any fictional Main Battle Wank needs to have a smitey, terrifying weapon... I'm not sure why Blacktail has saddled his design with a howitzer.

 

Also, how many places on Earth are there where you can even see further than the engagement range of an M1's armament?

 

"The Co-Axial MachineGun (COAX) fires 7x50mm rifle rounds, which combine the low cost and recoil of the 5.56x45mm NATO round, with the accuracy and penetration of the 7.62x51mm NATO round. 7mm rounds would also have a smaller casing daimeter than a 7.62mm round, which when coupled with significantly larger magazines and canisters, means the Tigerwolf totes one hell of a lot of MG ammo. As such, it is unlikely that a Tigerwolf will have to resupply MG ammo during a battle, and may even have thousands of rounds to spare --- if it is supporting friendly troops, the Tigerwolf may be able to spare a few thousand rounds for them."

 

 

Someone doesn't know the difference between case head diameter and caliber.

 

"A smooth ride and steady aim are achieved through hydropneumatic suspension and stabilization (versus the comparatively rougher torsion and hydraulics used in current and projected tanks) . The gun, turret, and hull each have thier own stabilization. While each of these are mechanically independant, they are balanced and co-ordinated via computer (which also feeds stability data to the gunnery computer, adjusting the GPS crosshairs in real time). This is unlike current tanks, whose ballistics comuters only react indirectly to the actual stability of the vehicle."

 

 

I don't know what any of this means, except that Blacktail doesn't know how suspension and stabilization work.

 

 

That's all I can stand.  I'm done.  Go read it if you want to, or not, whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You've seen them before; poorly edited videos with an alternating loop of John Phillips Sousa and Weird Al, purporting to tell you about the various design mistakes armored fighting vehicle designers

Dare to Compare: Arjun vs Syrian Trebuchet.

I readf it ands I'm perfecatyly finye

 

"However, there are a lot of problems with a smaller crew. First, autoloaders work at a painfully slow pace (14 seconds to reload in a T-72

 

I counted literally half of that, and that isnt even a modern T-72

 

Here is an Abrams for comparison, about the same rate of fire. Keep in mind though that auto loaders dont get stressed or slow down with combat fatigue (and then a myriad of other benefits such as smaller size, which i plan to address with my upcomming "myths of cold war armor" thread )

 

The T-90, T-80, and T-64 all have faster autoloaders than older T-72s

 

The T-14 being at least as fast as the Lecrec 

 

and if you think the autoloader was just there to save manpower, your fucking retarded

 

this is the Soviet Union we are talking about, do you really think we had a problem with manpower shortages? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Tail Defense appears to be linked to Mike Sparks. Yes the bloke who devised the name "Gavin" for the M113 and insists it be referred to as such, even though in reality it never has been given that designation. Frankly those who have had any kind of dealings with the man on Tank Net et al, believe he has some mental health issues. I wouldn't take anything written by Black Tail Defense, as being worth analysis or rebuttal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Tail Defense appears to be linked to Mike Sparks. Yes the bloke who devised the name "Gavin" for the M113 and insists it be referred to as such, even though in reality it never has been given that designation. Frankly those who have had any kind of dealings with the man on Tank Net et al, believe he has some mental health issues. I wouldn't take anything written by Black Tail Defense, as being worth analysis or rebuttal.

I've been following his content for many, many years now (not to say I agree with it outside of a few things) and BTD doesn't seem to be connected with Sparks. They share a general opinion, but Sparks had his own channel for a while and just died off eventually. 

 

BTD raises a few good points on the validity of decisions US politicians and Army officials make, besides that it can be a lot of fluff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, never mind that BTD has the identical style, content and font used for Sparky's videos presentations on different sites over the years? Have a google search for "Black Tail Defence and Mike Sparks", 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Tail Defense appears to be linked to Mike Sparks. Yes the bloke who devised the name "Gavin" for the M113 and insists it be referred to as such, even though in reality it never has been given that designation. Frankly those who have had any kind of dealings with the man on Tank Net et al, believe he has some mental health issues. I wouldn't take anything written by Black Tail Defense, as being worth analysis or rebuttal.

 

I'm agnostic whether BTD and Mike Sparks are the same person, and yes, nothing either one writes should be taken terribly seriously.  I mostly wrote this for fun, and as a vaccination for the ignorant who might otherwise be taken by reform scoundrels (remember the CNN clip where they call the M113 a "Gavin?").

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about the John Deere SCORE (rotary) engine, but my best guess would be that they never completely solved the issue of the engine seals.  This has been the primary bugaboo with Wankel engines in general.  

 

BTD's deviant art website is a rabbit hole, so entertaining for all the wrong reasons.  He seems to take particular pleasure in attacking 20 year old articles by Jim Warford.  Jim basically slaps him upside the head in the comments section.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about the John Deere SCORE (rotary) engine, but my best guess would be that they never completely solved the issue of the engine seals.  This has been the primary bugaboo with Wankel engines in general.  

 

BTD's deviant art website is a rabbit hole, so entertaining for all the wrong reasons.  He seems to take particular pleasure in attacking 20 year old articles by Jim Warford.  Jim basically slaps him upside the head in the comments section.  

 

the fact that they are both wrong is all the more hilarious 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Tail Defense appears to be linked to Mike Sparks. Yes the bloke who devised the name "Gavin" for the M113 and insists it be referred to as such, even though in reality it never has been given that designation. Frankly those who have had any kind of dealings with the man on Tank Net et al, believe he has some mental health issues. I wouldn't take anything written by Black Tail Defense, as being worth analysis or rebuttal.

 

I've been following his content for many, many years now (not to say I agree with it outside of a few things) and BTD doesn't seem to be connected with Sparks. They share a general opinion, but Sparks had his own channel for a while and just died off eventually. 

 

BTD raises a few good points on the validity of decisions US politicians and Army officials make, besides that it can be a lot of fluff.

 

It's actually reasonably well accepted here that BTD is either an alter ego of Sparks (seriously, the guy is probably schizophrenic as fuck, wouldn't be surprised if he had alter egos.) or at the very least, friends who have crossed paths with each other at some point.

 

Part of this goes back to when BlacktailDefense' account on tanknet had an IP trace done, and, forget the exact details, but it placed him within the same neighborhood (possibly even the same house) as Sparks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, never mind that BTD has the identical style, content and font used for Sparky's videos presentations on different sites over the years? Have a google search for "Black Tail Defence and Mike Sparks", 

Undoubtedly inspired by the man doesn't mean it is him. IP however.... 

 

Sparks used to be a complete ****head to talk to, even politely. BTD is actually willing to talk on his videos, *most of* the time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Undoubtedly inspired by the man doesn't mean it is him. IP however.... 

 

Sparks used to be a complete ****head to talk to, even politely. BTD is actually willing to talk on his videos, *most of* the time. 

 

I legitimately believe Mike Sparks has Schizophrenia or some form of multiple personality disorder that's "hidden" by the fact not many outside of those with an interest in military weapons design will have ever really heard of him and will bother looking into it. Let alone on the internet where finding definitive evidence of a persona's real existence is harder to verify.

 

I have a cousin who's Schizophrenic and has hallucinations/changes personality on a whim, he acts so similar to Sparks, or BTD when he's on a different ego it's almost shocking to think about.

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 Monochromelody
      IDF had kept about 100 Tiran-6/T-62s since 1973, and remain service until 1990s. 
       
      I wonder if there's any modification on Tiran-6, like changing the powerpack into 8V71T+XTG-411, adapting steering wheel. 
       
      I also heard that British ROF had produce a batch of 115mm barrel for IDF, while MECAR or NEXTER produced high-performance APFSDS for 115mm gun. Did IDF really use these barrels for original barrel replacement? 
       
      And about protection, did IDF put Blazer ERA on Tiran-6? Or they use more advanced APS like Trophy? 
       
      Thank you. 
    • 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 Beer
      I haven't found an appropriate thread where to put some interesting rare stuff related to WW2 development, be it industrial one or makeshift field modifications. 
       
      Let's start with two things. The first one is a relatively recently found rarity from Swedish archives - a drawing of ČKD/BMM V8H-Sv tank. The drawing and a letter was found by WoT enthusiasts in Swedish archives in 2014 (the original announcement and the drawing source is here). The drawing is from a message dated 8th September 1941. One of the reasons why this drawing was not known before may be that the Czech archives were partially destroyed by floods in 2002. Anyway it is an export modification of the V-8-H tank accepted into Czechoslovak service as ST vz.39 but never produced due to the cancelation of all orders after Münich 1938 (for the same reason negotiations about licence production in Britain failed). Also later attempt to sell the tank to Romania failed due to BMM being fully busy with Wehrmacht priority orders. The negotiations with Sweden about licence production of V8H-Sv lasted till 1942, at least in May 1942 Swedish commission was present in Prague for negotiations. The tank differed compared to the base ST vz.39 in thicker armor with different front hull shape (armor 60 mm @ 30° on the hull front and also 60 mm on the turret; all sides were 40 mm thick). The tank was heavier (20 tons) and had the LT vz.38 style suspension with probably even larger wheels. The engine was still the same Praga NR V8 (240-250 Hp per source). The armament was unchanged with 47 mm Škoda A11 gun and two vz.37 HMG. The commander's cupola was of the simple small rotating type similar to those used on AH-IV-Sv tankettes. It is known that the Swedes officially asked to arm the tank with 75 mm gun, replace the engine with Volvo V12 and adding third HMG to the back of the turret. In the end the Swedes decided to prefer their own Strv/m42. 

      Source of the drawing
       
      The second is makeshift field modification found on Balkans. It appears Ustasha forces (and possibly some SS anti-partizan units) used several Italian M15/42 medium tanks with turrets from Pz.38(t). There are several photos of such hybrids but little more is known. On one photo it is possible to see Ustasha registration number U.O. 139.

      Few more photos of such hybrid.
       
      It appears that the source of all those photos to be found on the internet is this book, Armoured units of the Axis forces in southeastern Europe in WW2 by Dinko Predoevic. 
       
    • By SuperComrade
      I was recently looking at the Japanese wikipedia page for the Chi-Ha tank, and it had this section on the name of the tank:

       
       
      I have never heard of such nomenclature, and obviously I don't have access to such documents since I don't live in Japan. There is no reference for this part, so can anyone confirm that they actually did use "MTK" etc.?

×
×
  • Create New...