Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Tranche 7

[Purpelia]

That actually sounds fine to me. I have this idea of it being a funky prototype that newer went anywhere but is interesting never the less. So I am looking for a list of reasons other than complicated and costly manufacturing that would make it go wrong.

AT Utility at range drastically decreasing; the 57mm only is really good for frontline combat use by vehicles up to 1943; after which the only logical place to see them should be infantry AT gun units, with vehicles packing bigger guns. Having a vehicle that would be obsolete rather quickly is a good reason to abandon it, although that depends on how good your people are at predicting such things.

That's the thing. The Zis-2 could apparently penetrate far more than what you'd expect from the caliber.

[Anemos Major]

Quick repost for feedback, and also - will try my hand at a SPAAG next, any suggestions as to what I should base it on? I was thinking 'somewhere between the K30 and Tunguska'...




Also, what's all this lark about 57mm armed vehicles...?

[Purpelia]

Here is a random question. Would a Tiger II built in the late 40's and early 50's by a nation that does not have to contend with wartime shortages and stuff (so top quality equipment, parts and materials are available) be a decent counter to other heavy tanks of the era like the IS-3, Conqueror and AMX-50? Also, if not how difficult would it be to mount a bigger gun like say the 12.8 cm Pak 44.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Here is a random question. Would a Tiger II built in the late 40's and early 50's by a nation that does not have to contend with wartime shortages and stuff (so top quality equipment, parts and materials are available) be a decent counter to other heavy tanks of the era like the IS-3, Conqueror and AMX-50? Also, if not how difficult would it be to mount a bigger gun like say the 12.8 cm Pak 44.

If it had the rangefinders, 105mm/68 gun proposal and the uprated Maybach engine then maybe.

However the 105mm/68 proposal was probably the maximum that could be attempted on the existing Tiger II Serien turret. It is for this reason that they developed the Jagdtiger casemate tank destroyer in the first place to carry the 128mm gun.

[Purpelia]

Here is a random question. Would a Tiger II built in the late 40's and early 50's by a nation that does not have to contend with wartime shortages and stuff (so top quality equipment, parts and materials are available) be a decent counter to other heavy tanks of the era like the IS-3, Conqueror and AMX-50? Also, if not how difficult would it be to mount a bigger gun like say the 12.8 cm Pak 44.

If it had the rangefinders, 105mm/68 gun proposal and the uprated Maybach engine then maybe.

How would that fare in combat against the other heavies?

[Lydenburg]

If it had the rangefinders, 105mm/68 gun proposal and the uprated Maybach engine then maybe.

How would that fare in combat against the other heavies?

I think 90mm is enough to deal with any armour in the '50s.

105mm should be able to demolish anything in your way.

[Purpelia]

How would that fare in combat against the other heavies?

I think 90mm is enough to deal with any armour in the '50s.

105mm should be able to demolish anything in your way.

Yea... but 105 is basically the default caliber for MBT's in the era. A heavy tank was supposed to be... heavy.

Although that would explain why my nation would have ditched the design in favor of a casemate TD with a 13cm rifle.

[Chebucto Provinces]

How would that fare in combat against the other heavies?

I think 90mm is enough to deal with any armour in the '50s.

105mm should be able to demolish anything in your way.

20-pounder was superior to the in-service US 90mm guns.
Until you need to penetrate composite armour schemes the 20 pounder is more then adequate. The only snag is the T-62 starts to out-range you frontally in open plains. If you can ensure closer engagements, that's no issue. But there are not a whole lot of places in 1960 where a first-world military can expect to fight second-world military forces that do not involve the occasional, very important, open spaces.

[Lydenburg]

I think 90mm is enough to deal with any armour in the '50s.

105mm should be able to demolish anything in your way.

20-pounder was superior to the in-service US 90mm guns.
Until you need to penetrate composite armour schemes the 20 pounder is more then adequate. The only snag is the T-62 starts to out-range you frontally in open plains. If you can ensure closer engagements, that's no issue. But there are not a whole lot of places in 1960 where a first-world military can expect to fight second-world military forces that do not involve the occasional, very important, open spaces.

I wasn't talking about the 20-pounder or the US M3 type 90mm.

And T-62 didn't exist until the '60s.

[Connori Pilgrims]

If it had the rangefinders, 105mm/68 gun proposal and the uprated Maybach engine then maybe.

How would that fare in combat against the other heavies?

Against the IS-3 it could do well especially at range, as the big problem of the IS-3 is the relatively low penetrative power of the DT-5 series 122mm guns. This applies even for the classic Tiger II's 88mm/71.

Against the NATO 120mm/60 gun tanks and the T-10's 122mm M62-T2, the Tiger II would likely be defeated at longer range in open field simply because of the overmatching power of these guns and their new APDS/HEAT rounds. Only way Tiger II 88/105 could possibly compete at the same ranges is if it had its own special ammunition, like a variant of the Pfeil-type APDS/APFSDS Jentz mentions they proposed for the 128mm of the Maus/E-100.

Edit: and as the two above have mentioned, 20pdr could already be a serious threat to Tiger II even then.

[Lydenburg]

Nobody ever remembers the DEFA 90.

[Chebucto Provinces]

20-pounder was superior to the in-service US 90mm guns.
Until you need to penetrate composite armour schemes the 20 pounder is more then adequate. The only snag is the T-62 starts to out-range you frontally in open plains. If you can ensure closer engagements, that's no issue. But there are not a whole lot of places in 1960 where a first-world military can expect to fight second-world military forces that do not involve the occasional, very important, open spaces.

I wasn't talking about the 20-pounder or the US M3 type 90mm.

And T-62 didn't exist until the '60s.

But in 1960 when you're planning future tank development, are you going to be looking at the future, or at the known past?
Also, in the 1950s, there are not a lot of 90mm guns out there. They're all pretty much variants of the M3.

[Purpelia]

Basically your responses here have along with some earlier thoughts of mine inspired me to come up with a story. And I want you to see how this sounds:

In 44 or so my army was working on a heavy tank. And I imagine that they would have come up with something akin to the Tiger II but with the 105mm gun. Well, 108mm in my case due to funky caliber standards. But with the war and stuff it was newer built. So come 50's and my army is still sitting on this heavy tank thing unsure if they really need it. I mean sure, the IS-3 is scary but it's not that scary. And our resident MBT project has already produced a vehicle with a 108mm main gun that's much more mobile, light and overall better than a heavy tank. (Not-T-55)

And than in 1951 it all changes. The French roll out their ARL 44 which with it's heavy armor, high velocity 12cm gun and overall scary appearance it basically makes my army brown their collective pants. So they take a look back at the heavy tank project and make it their top priority. Thing is, the heavy tank thing is not working out well. Namely, the thing can't really bear the next generation of heavy tank guns (12cm an larger) without becoming massively too heavy. So they take the hull and drive components, nix the turret and simply instal the 131mm HV gun in a casemate mount.

Enter the Purpelian answer.

[Lydenburg]

I wasn't talking about the 20-pounder or the US M3 type 90mm.

And T-62 didn't exist until the '60s.

But in 1960 when you're planning future tank development, are you going to be looking at the future, or at the known past?
Also, in the 1950s, there are not a lot of 90mm guns out there. They're all pretty much variants of the M3.

The French DEFA D921, mounted on the AMX-13 and EBR?

[Chebucto Provinces]

But in 1960 when you're planning future tank development, are you going to be looking at the future, or at the known past?
Also, in the 1950s, there are not a lot of 90mm guns out there. They're all pretty much variants of the M3.

The French DEFA D921, mounted on the AMX-13 and EBR?

Is from the 1960s.

[Lydenburg]

The French DEFA D921, mounted on the AMX-13 and EBR?

Is from the 1960s.

Source? I was sure it was already appearing on EBRs before the AML, which was designed in '59.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Here is a random question. Would a Tiger II built in the late 40's and early 50's by a nation that does not have to contend with wartime shortages and stuff (so top quality equipment, parts and materials are available) be a decent counter to other heavy tanks of the era like the IS-3, Conqueror and AMX-50? Also, if not how difficult would it be to mount a bigger gun like say the 12.8 cm Pak 44.

Unlikely.

The French actually acquired most of Hitler's remaining armor after the war (since a lot of troops fled the Russian front to surrender to the allies, that, and battle of the bulge) and they quickly decided it was a good idea to replace it with their own designs.

Most notably was that the roadwheel and transmission design itself was severely prone to breakage.

[Chebucto Provinces]

Is from the 1960s.

Source? I was sure it was already appearing on EBRs before the AML, which was designed in '59.

EBR entered production with the 75mm SA49. It didn't get 90mm until production in 1963.
The AML90 didn't enter production until 1961, predating the EBR's 90mm.
AML started life with the 60mm gun-mortar, 90mm was an after-thought.

My French may be rusty but I can get through this pretty good.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Source? I was sure it was already appearing on EBRs before the AML, which was designed in '59.

EBR entered production with the 75mm SA49. It didn't get 90mm until production in 1963.
The AML90 didn't enter production until 1961, predating the EBR's 90mm.
AML started life with the 60mm gun-mortar, 90mm was an after-thought.

My French may be rusty but I can get through this pretty good.

However, the EBR is a better and therefore more popular gun-platform for the 90mm than the AML panhard, yes?

Eland Mk 7 entered production in 1964 (after getting permission to make them in 1962). And production AMLs with 90mm guns for export were a good five years afterwards. So we're splitting hairs.

[Rich and Corporations]

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Stridsvagn_151

It's probably done.

What's the source of the diagram?

IS-3 is the relatively low penetrative power of the DT-5 series 122mm guns.

It has roughly similar muzzle energy to the 125mm guns, and in WWII was equal in penetrative power to a 100mm gun, while it would only reduce ammo load by one.
http://english.battlefield.ru/testing-1 ... -guns.html

[Gallia-]

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Stridsvagn_151

It's probably done.

What's the source of the diagram?

IS-3 is the relatively low penetrative power of the DT-5 series 122mm guns.

It has roughly similar muzzle energy to the 125mm guns, and in WWII was equal in penetrative power to a 100mm gun, while it would only reduce ammo load by one.
http://english.battlefield.ru/testing-1 ... -guns.html

The 1950's.

[Purpelia]

Fun fact. My 131mm tank gun is actually a 130mm weapon. The designation is just to be adopted to differentiate it from 130mm artillery that I also use in the period.

[Rich and Corporations]

The 1950's.

Anyway, DASH DOT cannot acquire small targets... targets that are only 25mm in diameter like 120mm APFSDS, shaped charges however have a larger radar return.

[Erusuia]

When I ship armoured vehicles by rail, can I just leave the crews inside or do I have to move them separately? I don't see why I couldn't just have the crews hang out in their vehicles while the trains moving

[Yukonastan]

When I ship armoured vehicles by rail, can I just leave the crews inside or do I have to move them separately? I don't see why I couldn't just have the crews hang out in their vehicles while the trains moving

How far is the move? How long are you travelling?

If it's only an hour or two, then sure. Leave 'em in the AFVs. Otherwise, a crew carriage doesn't weigh a hell of a lot, plus your crew can unwind and relax for a bit.