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

[Erusuia]

I was planning on having the two engines work in tandem-

For armor, something like 40mm at the most would be reasonable right?

[Purpelia]

I was planning on having the two engines work in tandem-

For armor, something like 40mm at the most would be reasonable right?

Basically if you want a reasonable multi turret tank in the 30's you need to look at the following vehicles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:M ... eted_tanks

Pick out the ones whose year of introduction matches that of your tank by +/- 2 years. And start from there.

[Heicliffe]

I was planning on having the two engines work in tandem-

For armor, something like 40mm at the most would be reasonable right?

Basically if you want a reasonable multi turret tank in the 30's you need to look at the following vehicles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:M ... eted_tanks

Pick out the ones whose year of introduction matches that of your tank by +/- 2 years. And start from there.

T-28 or bust.
If you insist on a multi- problemed turreted design.

[Purpelia]

Basically if you want a reasonable multi turret tank in the 30's you need to look at the following vehicles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:M ... eted_tanks

Pick out the ones whose year of introduction matches that of your tank by +/- 2 years. And start from there.

T-28 or bust.
If you insist on a multi- problemed turreted design.

As I said, the concept made sense back in the day. Think of it from their perspective:
1. The next war is going to be WW1 Mk 2. Thus it's going to be static and you really do not need much strategic mobility and reliability as your tanks can just be shipped to your front lines via train and only drive the remaining 500m on their own. Thus the low speed and reliability.
2. Your tank has to be capable of taking anything the enemy can throw at it and keep going. Thus the heavy armor. And yes heavy. The strongest AT weapon in the early 30's were various 37mm guns and anti tank rifles in the 12.7-14.5mm range. So armor against those and you are safe.
3. You can't mix HE and AP weapons (technology limitations which persisted right up to the 50's) so you need both a HE gun and some sort of AP weapon. (Hence various high-low layouts)
4. Your tank is going to have to ride over trenches and overrun enemy positions. So it needs to be able to defend it self against infantry that can and will get really close. Well into the range where your HE gun can't hit them or at least can't do so without hurting you too. Thus the many machine guns to cover all angles.

[Heicliffe]

T-28 or bust.
If you insist on a multi- problemed turreted design.

As I said, the concept made sense back in the day. Think of it from their perspective:
1. The next war is going to be WW1 Mk 2. Thus it's going to be static and you really do not need much strategic mobility and reliability as your tanks can just be shipped to your front lines via train and only drive the remaining 500m on their own. Thus the low speed and reliability.
2. Your tank has to be capable of taking anything the enemy can throw at it and keep going. Thus the heavy armor. And yes heavy. The strongest AT weapon in the early 30's were various 37mm guns and anti tank rifles in the 12.7-14.5mm range. So armor against those and you are safe.
3. You can't mix HE and AP weapons (technology limitations which persisted right up to the 50's) so you need both a HE gun and some sort of AP weapon. (Hence various high-low layouts)
4. Your tank is going to have to ride over trenches and overrun enemy positions. So it needs to be able to defend it self against infantry that can and will get really close. Well into the range where your HE gun can't hit them or at least can't do so without hurting you too. Thus the many machine guns to cover all angles.

There's no way they thought there weren't going to be logistical nightmares from cramming three tanks worth of hardware in one chassis. You do bring up several good points about the mindset of the interwar period though.
Meh. The only thing I liked out of the 20's and 30's was the BT series, specifically the 7.

[Purpelia]

There's no way they thought there weren't going to be logistical nightmares from cramming three tanks worth of hardware in one chassis.

My guess would be that they absolutely did know that this would happen. And that they just figured that it would not matter because the thing would only need to run for those 500m it takes to cross the enemy trenches and clear the way for infantry a couple of times before breaking down. But thats just my guess.

[Rich and Corporations]

Why would a tank need protection against 75 mm guns when in the pre-war era guns in the 37-40 mm range were the most common anti-tank weapons? Especially when that armor would make the vehicle ponderously slow, unreliable, and expensive. Armor on pre-war tanks ended up being inadequate because due to the rapid speed of advancement during the war, gun caliber and penetration increased significantly. But this could not have been known pre-war.

The battleship concept of having a ship proof to it's own shells is a concept that should have been carried over into tank design.

There's no way they thought there weren't going to be logistical nightmares from cramming three tanks worth of hardware in one chassis.

My guess would be that they absolutely did know that this would happen. And that they just figured that it would not matter because the thing would only need to run for those 500m it takes to cross the enemy trenches and clear the way for infantry a couple of times before breaking down. But thats just my guess.

Blah, battleships do fine with multiple turrets. Who could know that tanks aren't as sturdy?


EDIT: BTW, 1930s engines were several times better than 1920s engines, and ultimately most tank engines in the 40s were 30s designs.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

There's no way they thought there weren't going to be logistical nightmares from cramming three tanks worth of hardware in one chassis. You do bring up several good points about the mindset of the interwar period though.
Meh. The only thing I liked out of the 20's and 30's was the BT series, specifically the 7.

The other solution involved a bunch of T-26 and variants, with a commander/gunner/loader or obviously-dedicated commander's-tank trying to coordinate the 'lil soviet lemmings about the battlefield with little more than just signal-flags.

Yep, T-28 seems more appealing, and the T-26's will naturally rally around the big landship.

Japanese were planning on employing same with a mixed Chi-Ri/Chi-To platoon.

[Heicliffe]

So I've been doodling around in paint.net after reading one Shwack™ of information on tanks from this thread.

Insofar something seems off. I've been looking at the profiles of other tanks to figure it out, but the angle on the front is probably too steep, or the wheels themselves are too large.

1px=1cm FYI.

[Korva]

Apparently the Iraqis like kitbashes as much as I do.

[Lydenburg]

Apparently the Iraqis like kitbashes as much as I do.

You're talking about the same country that put a D-30 on an M113.

[Yukonastan]

dem tracks... o_O



I'm happy with my 45º tracks at the rear, but the joint to the old ones... Holey shit that's bad.

[Novorden]

dem tracks... o_O

(Image)

I'm happy with my 45º tracks at the rear, but the joint to the old ones... Holey shit that's bad.

Looks good, now i am going to give you a tip about lineart that took me forever to learn. Dont worry about minor imperfections, people either don't notice / don't care about them.


I am thinking of doing some WW2 tanks. The 3 view plan of my ship i am trying to draw is annoying me far too much.

[Yukonastan]

dem tracks... o_O

(Image)

I'm happy with my 45º tracks at the rear, but the joint to the old ones... Holey shit that's bad.

Looks good, now i am going to give you a tip about lineart that took me forever to learn. Dont worry about minor imperfections, people either don't notice / don't care about them.


I am thinking of doing some WW2 tanks. The 3 view plan of my ship i am trying to draw is annoying me far too much.

It's not that minor. If it matched a bit better it'd be minor, but as it sits right now it's fairly major...

[The Akasha Colony]

Looks good, now i am going to give you a tip about lineart that took me forever to learn. Dont worry about minor imperfections, people either don't notice / don't care about them.


I am thinking of doing some WW2 tanks. The 3 view plan of my ship i am trying to draw is annoying me far too much.

It's not that minor. If it matched a bit better it'd be minor, but as it sits right now it's fairly major...

People are always harsher about their own lineart than others' because they know where every perceived imperfection is. Most others won't notice or care, especially if it's just a drawing error and not one that impacts function.

[Doppio Giudici]

I'm staring at the T-34/85 and Sherman Firefly right now and I'm pretty sure they both have slanted armor.

Why is the Sherman so weak again?

[The Akasha Colony]

I'm staring at the T-34/85 and Sherman Firefly right now and I'm pretty sure they both have slanted armor.

Why is the Sherman so weak again?

Uhh... because it isn't?

[Neu-Pommern]

I'm staring at the T-34/85 and Sherman Firefly right now and I'm pretty sure they both have slanted armor.

Why is the Sherman so weak again?

Russian propaganda.

More seriously, because in 1941 when Germany invaded Russia; the T-34's armour could stop most German guns. By 1942, of course, this was no longer the case, but the myth of the impervious tank stuck. The later model Shermans actually have a thicker effective frontal armour than a T-34.

However, the Sherman wasn't really encountered in numbers by the Germans before D-Day, iirc. By 1944, Germany fielded many tanks that could frontally penetrate a T-34 or a Sherman.

[San-Silvacian]

I'm staring at the T-34/85 and Sherman Firefly right now and I'm pretty sure they both have slanted armor.

Why is the Sherman so weak again?

Propaganda.

The M4A3E8 (HVSS) 'Easy 8' Sherman was more than enough to defeat any T-34/85.

Better equipment, better gun, better steel, etc.

Its over hyped German propaganda that makes the T-34 seem so amazing.

However, the Sherman wasn't really encountered in numbers by the Germans before D-Day, iirc.

This is 100% legit false.

M4s had been in Europe since 1942.

[Neu-Pommern]

I'm staring at the T-34/85 and Sherman Firefly right now and I'm pretty sure they both have slanted armor.

Why is the Sherman so weak again?

Propaganda.

The M4A3E8 (HVSS) 'Easy 8' Sherman was more than enough to defeat any T-34/85.

Better equipment, better gun, better steel, etc.

Its over hyped German propaganda that makes the T-34 seem so amazing.

However, the Sherman wasn't really encountered in numbers by the Germans before D-Day, iirc.

This is 100% legit false.

M4s had been in Europe since 1942.

You're right here actually, because I wasn't considering lend-lease. That's still around the time the Germans had weapons to actually defeat the T-34 and Sherman's armour though, denying the Sherman it's "happy time" that helped make the T-34 mythical.

[Gallia-]

I'm staring at the T-34/85 and Sherman Firefly right now and I'm pretty sure they both have slanted armor.

Why is the Sherman so weak again?

They were basically the same, except Sherman had more trouble catching on fire compared to T-34.

[San-Silvacian]

Not just Lend-Lease

Surprisingly, US troops arrived in Europe in 1942.

Guess what they brought with them.

I'm staring at the T-34/85 and Sherman Firefly right now and I'm pretty sure they both have slanted armor.

Why is the Sherman so weak again?

They were basically the same, except Sherman had more trouble catching on fire compared to T-34.

Quality control is hard for commies

[Gallia-]

wats interchangeable parts-ski?

[Doppio Giudici]

Is there an expert on ERA here or someone who knows a good ERA site?

[San-Silvacian]

Is there an expert on ERA here or someone who knows a good ERA site?

ERA isn't all that hard to understand.