Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mk.IV

[Spirit of Hope]

That is acceptable. It's not like this thing would need to move far. The tracks would be for mobility in its field of action. It would be disassembled for long term travel. The 1 gun variant could even be put on rails for long range transported WW1 style.

Just had to mention it would be prone to breaking down/need lots of maintenance, and be rather finicky system overall. The train variant might be a good idea, and if I understand what your going for here making the system carry able by rail is the best idea.

First it's not a tank. It's a heavy siege gun. Second, I need it for the same reason why everyone needed huge siege and railroad guns in the two world wars. There are indeed forts you CAN'T crack with 155, or even 200mm shells. And anything that hardened is not something you will likely be able to bypass without serious risks to your rear and flanks. Or in short terms. There just are those days you really need to take Sevastopol.

And yes, this is meant for the late 30's early 40's. The era of superheavy guns.

Well, I just don't think you have to worry about such heavy fortifications. Yes fortifications can be made resistant to 155 or 200mm fire, however that is expensive and you can still suppress the fortifications and destroy their support fortifications with said shells. Plus by the 1930-40's you could use heavy bombers to hit the fortifications. Also lets not forget airborne troops, during WWII germany took out french fortifications by landing gliders full of commandoes inside the fortifications.

Even during the 30-40's the superheavy guns were not the effective or widespread.

Submarine diesels are proven to work for moving stuff on that scale. And they are already available due to it being cheaper to import a proven diesel engine from abroad than to develop the infrastructure to build my own huge engines. What with being land locked and all Purpelia does not have an industry for these things at all.

I just think designing a system from the ground up for your system would be best, however certainly taking an existing system and cramming it in would work and be effective.

[The Akasha Colony]

No one needed siege guns during WWII. Indeed, the vast majority of them were nothing but a complete waste of resources that would've been better spent building normal howitzers and bombers. A gun like this is going to have the same problems as the German land cruiser concepts, including the ones that were designed as siege platforms rather than actual tank-analogues. The most obvious being a hideous vulnerability to air attack, and the inability to move over anything but test-range-perfect terrain.

Than it fits perfectly with the whole theme start to finish. And besides, there are indeed targets you can't go around or penetrate with bombs or normal guns. See Sevastopol for example. Some things are just too hardened and yet they are in the way.

Also, see my edit.

If you do insist on building them though, breaking them into individual vehicles is going to be a much better solution. It drastically saves weight, and vastly reduces mechanical complexity. Because remember, the turret isn't just the part you see sticking above the hull. It's multiple decks tall below the weather deck to accommodate hoists, traversing systems, and magazine space. You're literally going to be dragging a three-story turret around, which is going to be terrible for the vehicle's center of gravity and balance.

See my edit in particular to this part. Right now, I am thinking of having approximately 100T of gun on either of the two setups. And than having maybe another 100T for the mount, very light armor (no battleship grade, just shrapnel protection) and stuff like that. All in all, the vehicle should weight at in about 250T engine and tracks included. For comparison, the same 38cm cannon on a railroad mount with full rotation but no armor weighed in at about 270T.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-52_skc28.htm
For the data source.

Do you expect it to be practical at all? There's a reason why all of the major siege guns of the period were either rail-mounted or completely disassembled into component pieces and then reassembled on the spot without any self-propulsion capability. The ground pressure alone is going to make it sink on anything short of exposed bedrock, and you'll probably need a larger weight allowance for the vehicle part. Given the cost and difficulty of maintaining a vehicle that's going to need to be rail-transported to anywhere near the battlefield, it's faster and cheaper to just extend the railhead manually. You'd get about the same speed and maneuverability.

But if practicality is being discarded, there isn't much point in asking anymore. This is NS. If you want to build it, you certainly can, but that doesn't mean it'll be useful.

[Purpelia]

I'm not actually seeing any real difference between this and the P.1000 Ratte

See the appended versions in my later posts.

Just had to mention it would be prone to breaking down/need lots of maintenance, and be rather finicky system overall. The train variant might be a good idea, and if I understand what your going for here making the system carry able by rail is the best idea.

Yes, absolutely. But considering this is something that would be used one or two times during the war for those extra special things nothing else can crack low reliability is not such a big issue.

Well, I just don't think you have to worry about such heavy fortifications. Yes fortifications can be made resistant to 155 or 200mm fire, however that is expensive and you can still suppress the fortifications and destroy their support fortifications with said shells. Plus by the 1930-40's you could use heavy bombers to hit the fortifications. Also lets not forget airborne troops, during WWII germany took out french fortifications by landing gliders full of commandoes inside the fortifications.

What if none of those are an option. All you need is good AA fire or worse yet a dug in airfield inside to make any such attempt die.

Even during the 30-40's the superheavy guns were not the effective or widespread.

Of course not. This would exist in one, maybe two units. And all in the same single heavy siege regiment.

I just think designing a system from the ground up for your system would be best, however certainly taking an existing system and cramming it in would work and be effective.

My point exactly.

Do you expect it to be practical at all? There's a reason why all of the major siege guns of the period were either rail-mounted or completely disassembled into component pieces and then reassembled on the spot without any self-propulsion capability. The ground pressure alone is going to make it sink on anything short of exposed bedrock, and you'll probably need a larger weight allowance for the vehicle part. Given the cost and difficulty of maintaining a vehicle that's going to need to be rail-transported to anywhere near the battlefield, it's faster and cheaper to just extend the railhead manually. You'd get about the same speed and maneuverability.

I have no problems with it sinking or moving at a crawl. Just as long as partisans and the like can't mess it up by blowing out a section of rail or forcing me to use a whole motor armor division placing the railroads. If this thing moves say 20km a day in controlled territory that is more than enough for me.

But if practicality is being discarded, there isn't much point in asking anymore. This is NS. If you want to build it, you certainly can, but that doesn't mean it'll be useful.

It's not being discarded. If it were I would not be here talking.

[The Akasha Colony]

Well, I just don't think you have to worry about such heavy fortifications. Yes fortifications can be made resistant to 155 or 200mm fire, however that is expensive and you can still suppress the fortifications and destroy their support fortifications with said shells. Plus by the 1930-40's you could use heavy bombers to hit the fortifications. Also lets not forget airborne troops, during WWII germany took out french fortifications by landing gliders full of commandoes inside the fortifications.

What if none of those are an option. All you need is good AA fire or worse yet a dug in airfield inside to make any such attempt die.

If an enemy airfield capable of so actively contesting the skies is available, this thing is toast anyway. A single airstrike can disable your entire battery, and unless you're detailing an entire anti-aircraft division to defend it, they stand a good chance of succeeding. Unless you have complete air superiority of course, but if you did, you wouldn't have to worry about enemy air fields. The range on these guns is not long enough to allow you to shoot from a truly safe area into enemy airspace. If the enemy can still contest the skies over the fort you want to shell, then your guns are in the contested zone as well, and thus vulnerable. A fast fighter-bomber can cover the 36 km maximum range of the SK C/28 in less than five minutes.

If all the enemy has are flak emplacements, then those are taken out easily enough. Flak is really a deterrent; it's not enough to stop a serious air attack on its own, nor a magical anti-air shield, especially when faced against with strategic bombers operating at high altitudes. Earthquake bombs will be magnitudes more effective at taking out hardened structures than big guns like these. Or you can hit them with lighter artillery, since the actual emplacements themselves are vulnerable and the men can be suppressed by light shellfire. Once suppressed, then you bring in the bombers. Or use fighter escorts to suppress the flak instead.

I have no problems with it sinking or moving at a crawl. Just as long as partisans and the like can't mess it up by blowing out a section of rail or forcing me to use a whole motor armor division placing the railroads. If this thing moves say 20km a day in controlled territory that is more than enough for me.

It's speed and importance are going to make it an immense target for partisans. Rails can be fixed extremely easily, they're not as vulnerable as is commonly thought. And this thing is more likely to throw a track under its own weight, doing the same thing the partisans would have done, and likely taking longer to fix. Nevermind the possibility of mining the roads. 20 km per day is something you're not likely to get outside of test conditions. Given the number of men needed to maintain it, as well as carry the necessary parts, servicing equipment, hoists, ammunition, fuel, and other supplies, you'll be detailing a division's worth of men anyway.

[Purpelia]

If an enemy airfield capable of so actively contesting the skies is available, this thing is toast anyway. A single airstrike can disable your entire battery, and unless you're detailing an entire anti-aircraft division to defend it, they stand a good chance of succeeding. Unless you have complete air superiority of course, but if you did, you wouldn't have to worry about enemy air fields. The range on these guns is not long enough to allow you to shoot from a truly safe area into enemy airspace. If the enemy can still contest the skies over the fort you want to shell, then your guns are in the contested zone as well, and thus vulnerable. A fast fighter-bomber can cover the 36 km maximum range of the SK C/28 in less than five minutes.

Good point.

If all the enemy has are flak emplacements, then those are taken out easily enough. Flak is really a deterrent; it's not enough to stop a serious air attack on its own, nor a magical anti-air shield, especially when faced against with strategic bombers operating at high altitudes. Earthquake bombs will be magnitudes more effective at taking out hardened structures than big guns like these. Or you can hit them with lighter artillery, since the actual emplacements themselves are vulnerable and the men can be suppressed by light shellfire. Once suppressed, then you bring in the bombers. Or use fighter escorts to suppress the flak instead.

Two problems. #1 I don't want to lose a massive air fleet to enemy AA just so I can kill one target. And more importantly #2 In the time this was to be built and developed there were no heavy bombers of the type you describe. Stuff like the B-17 and the Lancaster only really appeared in service in 41 or so. This gun meanwhile would have been laid down in 33-35 or something. Used in the 40's but like all weapons of the type envisioned and designed way earlier. It's how all the guns of the type came to be.

It's speed and importance are going to make it an immense target for partisans. Rails can be fixed extremely easily, they're not as vulnerable as is commonly thought. And this thing is more likely to throw a track under its own weight, doing the same thing the partisans would have done, and likely taking longer to fix. Nevermind the possibility of mining the roads. 20 km per day is something you're not likely to get outside of test conditions. Given the number of men needed to maintain it, as well as carry the necessary parts, servicing equipment, hoists, ammunition, fuel, and other supplies, you'll be detailing a division's worth of men anyway.

Roads won't be an issue since this thing just rips up anything so they won't exactly make it more mobile than if it were driving over a flat cleared field or what ever. It's not like anyone will have paved roads wide enough or sturdy enough to make a difference anyway. And again, the design would suffer from the designed for testing syndrome. Just like all huge weapons of the type. Someone thinks they work on paper and nothing else seems to do the job. So you build one or two and end up with something that does indeed get the job done. For all it's worth. I won't pretend it will be any better than a normal railway gun.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

HEAT is lots easier to armor against. An armor scheme with a given amount of protection against KE might have half again as much protection against HEAT, and that's for something which isn't even optimized against it. Fuck, the Abrams is goddamned near impenetrable to HEAT across two thirds of its front hull because of the fuel tanks.

Re relativistic projectile discussion: a bunch of protons is not a macroscopic projectile.

Really? The RPG-29 has a 105mm warhead and it managed to beat the frontal armor of the T-80 and Challenger 2.
In fact, it seems to me that nowadays KE penetrators are easier to defend against than HEAT because of heavy ERA.

The RPG-29 which penetrated the Chally 2 did so on the lower front hull, which has a pathetically thin amount of armor. Which is why the brits have always draped giant slabs of ERA (and, more recently, composite armor) there. I would assume that it missed the addon armor block.

ERA fucks up HEAT just as much as it does APFSDS. In fact, plate-based ERA isn't even what you use if you want something really optimized against APFSDS.

[Bafuria]

Really? The RPG-29 has a 105mm warhead and it managed to beat the frontal armor of the T-80 and Challenger 2.
In fact, it seems to me that nowadays KE penetrators are easier to defend against than HEAT because of heavy ERA.

The RPG-29 which penetrated the Chally 2 did so on the lower front hull, which has a pathetically thin amount of armor. Which is why the brits have always draped giant slabs of ERA (and, more recently, composite armor) there. I would assume that it missed the addon armor block.

ERA fucks up HEAT just as much as it does APFSDS. In fact, plate-based ERA isn't even what you use if you want something really optimized against APFSDS.

I see.

[The Akasha Colony]

If all the enemy has are flak emplacements, then those are taken out easily enough. Flak is really a deterrent; it's not enough to stop a serious air attack on its own, nor a magical anti-air shield, especially when faced against with strategic bombers operating at high altitudes. Earthquake bombs will be magnitudes more effective at taking out hardened structures than big guns like these. Or you can hit them with lighter artillery, since the actual emplacements themselves are vulnerable and the men can be suppressed by light shellfire. Once suppressed, then you bring in the bombers. Or use fighter escorts to suppress the flak instead.

Two problems. #1 I don't want to lose a massive air fleet to enemy AA just so I can kill one target. And more importantly #2 In the time this was to be built and developed there were no heavy bombers of the type you describe. Stuff like the B-17 and the Lancaster only really appeared in service in 41 or so. This gun meanwhile would have been laid down in 33-35 or something. Used in the 40's but like all weapons of the type envisioned and designed way earlier. It's how all the guns of the type came to be.

Again, AA won't be as much of an issue as you claim if you attack properly. What exactly 'attacking properly' is depends on the particular set up of the situation, but needless to say, the Americans and British weren't losing whole fleets of bombers every time they attacked a single German city, even when they could and were intercepted by fighters. A high-altitude bomber will only be vulnerable to heavy flak; all of the lighter batteries will be useless, and to stand even a small chance of hitting the target, the flak batteries will need radar tracking, which at the time you're building these guns would also not be an issue.

Heavy bombers also started appearing in the 1930s. The Soviet Tupolev TB-3 appeared in 1930, the Japanese Mitsubishi Ki-20 appeared in 1932, and the German Junkers Ju 89 appeared in 1937. The most common bombers of WWII didn't appear until the early 1940s because they replaced these earlier bombers, and were clearly much superior, but this doesn't mean the type didn't exist previously. Even these interwar planes were developments of WWI concepts such as the Gotha G.IV and G.V, the Caproni Ca.4 and 5, and the Handley-Page Type O. More may have been invested into them on the German side pre-WWII had Walther Wever not met an untimely demise in 1936, and fighter/dive-bomber advocates Albert Kesselring and Ernst Udet taken over the Luftwaffe.

Development of the guns would also be a question. You mentioned that your nation is landlocked, thus requiring it to import submarine diesels. I imagine you'd also need to import the guns, since almost all large siege guns are simply naval guns mounted on land carriages, and even those that are not are derivatives of naval gun technology. Land-based powers generally have little need for such large guns, and they require dedicated foundries and the development of an entirely new weapon industry that will support only a handful of guns. Every nation to make use of large railway guns was a naval power of some sort (Germany, the UK, France, the USSR, Japan, and the US), which is the real reason why they developed the particular metalworking techniques required.

[The Reliquary]

Naval dive bombers would be pretty useful against this using armour piercing bombs. Of course, dive bombers or fighter bombers would be more useful to you when attacking these structures.

Or just gas the place.

[Ea90]

I know that it's not an accurate way of measuring things, but roughly how much added protection does the Ukrainian Nozh ERA give against KE? Is around 500-600mm RHAe plausible?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

APFSDS fired from a tank gun with a squeezebore, and thus deforming sabots, to possibly increase gun pressure without letting it become dangerous (as it might if you were trying to force a 105mm APFSDS w/ sabot down a 105mm conventional gun barrel fired with a 120mm cartridge).

*shrugs*
Opinions?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Would a 120mm gun make an effective tank killer?

[Immoren]

Would a 120mm gun make an effective tank killer?

Yes

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Would a 120mm gun make an effective tank killer?

Yes

Now could I mount something like an L44 on a 22 tonne APC?

[Ea90]

Yes

Now could I mount something like an L44 on a 22 tonne APC?

The GIAT FER 120mm L/52 gun is designed to be mounted on an 18 tonne vehicle.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Yes

Now could I mount something like an L44 on a 22 tonne APC?

No. But there are low-recoil alternatives to the L44 M256.

[Birkaine]

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/ ... 4pegif.png

Forget if I've posted it already. Here's the BT6R without ERA or the Arena-E launch pods. 2A46M-7 125mm gun that fires unitary projectiles, gas turbine engine, remotely controlled AA heavy machinegun,TShU-1-7 EOCM and a couple other neat things. It's used in smaller numbers than the T-80UM2. There's a boring stats sheet on NSDraftroom if anyone cares.

[Ea90]

There's a boring stats sheet on NSDraftroom if anyone cares.

Link please.

[Immoren]

composite armour am I doing it rite?

1.High hardness, medium-low toughness steel
2(yellow) Tungsten carbide
3.(Blue) resin
4.High hardness, medium-low toughness steel
5.DU
6.High toughness, medium-low hardness steel.
7.Kevlar or similar.
I quickly threw it up together and it is not in scale.

[Birkaine]

There's a boring stats sheet on NSDraftroom if anyone cares.

Link please.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/ ... =10360&hl=

[Bafuria]

composite armour am I doing it rite?

(Image)

1.High hardness, medium-low toughness steel
2(yellow) Tungsten carbide
3.(Blue) resin
4.High hardness, medium-low toughness steel
5.DU
6.High toughness, medium-low hardness steel.
7.Kevlar or similar.
I quickly threw it up together and it is not in scale.

Unless you know how to use DU in armor (which is unlikely because it's classified information) don't bother with it. By itself it has atrocious mass efficiency.
Otherwise your armor looks good.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6032093/Armor-Basics
http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/arm ... alues.html

This should help a bit

[Cestyr]

composite armour am I doing it rite?

(Image)

1.High hardness, medium-low toughness steel
2(yellow) Tungsten carbide
3.(Blue) resin
4.High hardness, medium-low toughness steel
5.DU
6.High toughness, medium-low hardness steel.
7.Kevlar or similar.
I quickly threw it up together and it is not in scale.

Unless you know how to use DU in armor (which is unlikely because it's classified information) don't bother with it. By itself it has atrocious mass efficiency.
Otherwise your armor looks good.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6032093/Armor-Basics
http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/arm ... alues.html

This should help a bit

That is how you use DU in armour; sandwiched between two steel plates.

[The Akasha Colony]

composite armour am I doing it rite?

(Image)

1.High hardness, medium-low toughness steel
2(yellow) Tungsten carbide
3.(Blue) resin
4.High hardness, medium-low toughness steel
5.DU
6.High toughness, medium-low hardness steel.
7.Kevlar or similar.
I quickly threw it up together and it is not in scale.

Unless you know how to use DU in armor (which is unlikely because it's classified information) don't bother with it. By itself it has atrocious mass efficiency.
Otherwise your armor looks good.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6032093/Armor-Basics
http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/arm ... alues.html

This should help a bit

Actually, the use and arrangement of DU and other heavy metal modules in composite armor is known, at least for the M1. The exact specifics are classified, but it's evidently fielded as a woven wire-mesh encased in a steel shell, the total DU layer being 1-2 inches thick. The mesh is to reduce weight while maintaining stopping power, and the DU layer is located behind the ceramics, so as not to cause damage to the more expensive ceramic layer in the event the DU layer is damaged. Without heavy metal protection, the ceramic tiles of normal composite armor are rather vulnerable to kinetic energy penetrators, as the ceramic tiles themselves tend to be rather lightweight and not well suited to stopping a KEP.

For the above diagram, I can't tell if this was already done but compressing the tiles laterally within a steel matrix also improves their protection, rather than bonding and insulating them with resin.

[Risen Britannia]

A design I am doing on request for leos

(WIP)
Its armed with a "50mm L50 gun and a coaxial 8mm machine gun"

(I trying my hardest to put off doing the tracks)

[Cyprum Xecuii]

A design I am doing on request for leos
(Image)
(WIP)
Its armed with a "50mm L50 gun and a coaxial 8mm machine gun"

(I trying my hardest to put off doing the tracks)

I'll be pissed if people say that a 50mm gun is good for your tank while everyone told me that the long 110mm on my DT-20 tank was too insufficient -.-

Nevertheless i love the design, i already had been making a concept with a similar turret shape.