Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO FUN] Mark IX

[Allanea]

Well it's diesel so it's less likely to ignite and as mentioned may even provide some level of armour, plus the fact that's it's behind +100mm of armour (LOS) at 45 degrees making it resistant to the tigers 88mm APCBC round at around 500m.

All that being true. I do not see it as being very conducive to crew morale. Like if I was a tanker in that thing, especially one sitting in the front, my legs leaning on that big metal tank, my mind focused on the liquid sloshing inside, just waiting for a shell to burst in so it can spray out and set me on fire. There is no force in this world or the next that would make me fill that thing up.

If you're that afraid of heinously burning alive in a small, confined metal box, possibly service on the Motherland's beloved tanks is not for you.

[Iltica]

Does anyone know the recoil length of the Rheinmetall l/55?, the l/44 is about a foot I think, but I'm having a hard time finding it for the l/55.

[Ardavia]

Two versions of a vaguely Marder-esque open-topped tank destroyer/self-propelled gun.

One with an 85mm gun and one with a 105mm howitzer.

[Purpelia]

Here is something I've been thinking about a lot. It's a concept for a WW1 tank. The 1st tank my army would ever have. Tell me what you think.

Purpose
The primary purpose of the tank is to take a field gun, make it mobile and deliver it under armor to the front where it can be used to support infantry. The vehicle is to advance behind the first wave of infantry, not in front. It is to take position behind the last friendly trench and from there explode, detonate and demolish anything that attempts to hinder the men's advance as they go over the top. Once enemy trenches have been taken it is to advance to the next line and the fight begins anew.

Hull
The hull of the tank is based in shape on the Saint-Chamond. In fact, it's a strait clone since I am lazy like that. The tank is thus a metal box with a wedge shaped front. Protection is provided against machine gun fire across the entire hull but not much else.

Armament
The primary armament of the vehicle is a 78mm field gun. Aside from this it has a single front machine gun for the loader, a machine gun for the commander, a rear machine gun for the rear crewman and of course a pair of sponsons mounting a 2cm machine gun each.

Drive train
The vehicle moves via a set of rhomboidal tracks like those on early british tanks. Like on the Saint-Chamond the tank is powered by a petrol engine running an electric generator and a pair of separate electric engines, one per side. Steering is accomplished by varying power to these two engines and NOT via the brakes.

Crew
The crew of the vehicle consists of 7 men positioned thus. Sitting to the front and beside the gun are the gunner, whose job is to vertically lay the gun and the loader whose job is to load it and crew the front hull machine gun. Behind them and to the sides are the two sponsons with one gunner each. Sitting behind still, and in an elevated box (basically they sit with their chests above the roof and legs dangling in the lower compartment) are the commander and driver. The idea here is that from this position they have a better field of view and can direct the gun more effectively. The commander has only two controls those being his machine gun and a voicepipe he can use to shout at the rest of the crew. To the left of the commander is seated the driver. His position too is rather sparse consisting only of a speedometer and a pair of hand throttles, one per electrical engine. Thus he does not really drive the vehicle, he merely steers it. The final crewman is the engineer. Seated in the rear hull it is his job to apply the brakes, monitor fuel and oil levels and generally work the mechanical part of the engine and the vehicle. This separation was designed this way because it was felt the driver should be able to focus on aiming the main gun and not have to worry about the mechanical operations of the vehicle.

Opinions?

[The Akasha Colony]

There's a bit wrong here.
Things on the internet arn't very vague, there's just a lot of nuances.

Torsion bars are the easiest to make, easiest to install/fix/replace, and the easiest to upgrade. You break a torsion bar? Unscrew it from the other end and pull it out. Slide a new one in and screw it back into the anchor.

Unless you have money, or are not too poor and only use them infrequently, hydropneumatic are not really worth it. Going to make a world-class, top-tier MBT? Go for it with hydropneumatic. Going to make something Brazil/India/etc tier? Buy from someone else or stick with torsion bar.

Hydropneumatic isn't very complex in this day and age. It's pretty well-established technology to anyone with an automotive industry. If you have enough industry to consider building a serious MBT, a hydropneumatic suspension won't be an obstacle. Given that Osorio and Arjun both have hydropneumatic suspensions, its complexity and cost doesn't seem to have stopped either Brazil or India.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Does anyone know the recoil length of the Rheinmetall l/55?, the l/44 is about a foot I think, but I'm having a hard time finding it for the l/55.

You won't find it online anywhere because it's the same as the L/44.

There's a bit wrong here.
Things on the internet arn't very vague, there's just a lot of nuances.

Torsion bars are the easiest to make, easiest to install/fix/replace, and the easiest to upgrade. You break a torsion bar? Unscrew it from the other end and pull it out. Slide a new one in and screw it back into the anchor.

Unless you have money, or are not too poor and only use them infrequently, hydropneumatic are not really worth it. Going to make a world-class, top-tier MBT? Go for it with hydropneumatic. Going to make something Brazil/India/etc tier? Buy from someone else or stick with torsion bar.

Hydropneumatic isn't very complex in this day and age. It's pretty well-established technology to anyone with an automotive industry. If you have enough industry to consider building a serious MBT, a hydropneumatic suspension won't be an obstacle. Given that Osorio and Arjun both have hydropneumatic suspensions, its complexity and cost doesn't seem to have stopped either Brazil or India.

Arjun's suspension was a decent part of the development delay. Osorio never went into production for a number of very good reasons. Both tanks are examples of reaching beyond your own means, which does not make them good examples.

Hydropneumatic was, and still is, the most complex and expensive tank suspension system.

(Image)

I love WW1 tank design.
I also love the St.Chammond.

Raise the hull, or lower the tracks, to provide more clearance for the gun. St.Chammond had a huge problem with digging the barrel into the mud, and you would want to make sure it can't do that.

On to the gun/crew. St.Chammond gun had both elevation and traverse, which meant it could actually hit things. It was only a few degrees either side, but it made a huge difference. Your driver should be closer to the front of the vehicle so he can see better, especially if you have a separate driver and commander.

Didn't I give you advice on this a few years ago?

[Ardavia]

In spite of my stated intent to never touch this thing again, I went and modified my big fat stupid superheavy tank in a fit of boredom. :<

[brick intensifies]

[Imperializt Russia]

It does look rather Maus.

[Purpelia]

I love WW1 tank design.
I also love the St.Chammond.

Same here.

Raise the hull, or lower the tracks, to provide more clearance for the gun. St.Chammond had a huge problem with digging the barrel into the mud, and you would want to make sure it can't do that.

On it.

On to the gun/crew. St.Chammond gun had both elevation and traverse, which meant it could actually hit things. It was only a few degrees either side, but it made a huge difference.

My goal is if at all possible to make the electric turning smooth enough that the aiming is done by the driver who, from his elevated position can act as an artillery spotter and gunner all in one. I probably will end up giving the gunner those few degrees for fine adjustments and stuff. But without that is the base concept of aiming and turning as I describe plausible for the period? Just how nimble was the St. C?

Your driver should be closer to the front of the vehicle so he can see better, especially if you have a separate driver and commander.

I would, but I am not sure how far closer I can push them without their feet intruding into the room the rest of the crew needs to work. I'll definitively need to 3D this...

Didn't I give you advice on this a few years ago?

Probably. But the concept has advanced since than. And I have finally set my sights on actually drawing this thing for real now. So I need to update everything.

[Dostanuot Loj]

My goal is if at all possible to make the electric turning smooth enough that the aiming is done by the driver who, from his elevated position can act as an artillery spotter and gunner all in one. I probably will end up giving the gunner those few degrees for fine adjustments and stuff. But without that is the base concept of aiming and turning as I describe plausible for the period? Just how nimble was the St. C?

Pretty nimble all things considered. The S-tank has it beat though. It needed those few degrees of traverse, but that was all it needed.

I would, but I am not sure how far closer I can push them without their feet intruding into the room the rest of the crew needs to work. I'll definitively need to 3D this...

I know you might be trying to copy the St.Chamond layout, but perhaps doing things differently?

Front port side gunner. Immediately behind him driver. That way the driver is close to the front. He will still be up high and back a bit, but closer then your original plan.
Starboard side front will be the hull gunner/loader. Behind him will be an assistant loader. This way you can have two crew available to supply the gun, or MG and gun, and have a spare body anyway.
Two waist gunners. Commander in the middle behind the gun recoil but ahead of the engine with a good view.
In the rear would be the rear gunner and mechanic. Or, mechanic and assistant mechanic.

You should have plenty of room.

Alternatively, you could try this unrelated layout:
Gunner port front, commander immediately behind him.
Driver starboard front, with the front MG has his duty also. Loader behind him.
Three more crew which would be mechanic and gearsmen or assistants, and also man the two waist guns and the rear gun.

[Purpelia]

I know you might be trying to copy the St.Chamond layout, but perhaps doing things differently?

Actually I am doing something third altogether. Basically I took the STC and reverse engineered a purpose for it, and than I forward engineered from there. That's why I posted the long text about how I intend to use this thing. It's essentially the opposite of what is commonly done with a tank. xD

Front port side gunner. Immediately behind him driver. That way the driver is close to the front. He will still be up high and back a bit, but closer then your original plan.

I like this. I am definitively going to move the roof pod far closer to the front.

Starboard side front will be the hull gunner/loader. Behind him will be an assistant loader. This way you can have two crew available to supply the gun, or MG and gun, and have a spare body anyway.

Do I really need two loaders? I mean it's just a 78mm. If not for the front machine gun I would have ditched even the first loader and just had the gunner reload and aim the gun.

Two waist gunners.

I am going to do british style sponsons with my 2cm machine gun in the mounting. That thing is a machine gun, but it's also a beast that is going to tear through enemy tanks and baricades. Makes snuffing those machine gun nests out a joy.

Commander in the middle behind the gun recoil but ahead of the engine with a good view.
In the rear would be the rear gunner and mechanic. Or, mechanic and assistant mechanic.

Do I need two guys in the back? I figured one engineer would be enough given that I do not have a transmission system at all. Although I have no idea how much work the petrol-electric setup works.

Alternatively, you could try this unrelated layout:
Gunner port front, commander immediately behind him.
Driver starboard front, with the front MG has his duty also. Loader behind him.
Three more crew which would be mechanic and gearsmen or assistants, and also man the two waist guns and the rear gun.

This actually gave me some ideas. I could move the driver as you said and have something like this.

Gunner front right. Driver front left with an added MG. Loader behind driver. Two sponsons on either side of the loader. 1-2 engineers in the rear. Commander in an elevated pod dead center, his legs dangling above the gun tube shouting at the crew through a voicetube. Also a female variant that adds two machine gunners in the pod with him since this is WW1.

How does that sound?

[Fordorsia]

It does look rather Maus.

Why copy anything but the best

[Purpelia]

It does look rather Maus.

Why copy anything but the best

So where is your copy of a Char B1?

[Rusur Be Mandoade]

(I'm unable to post images at the moment, just know that my nation is based off of a people in Star Wars and that many of the vehicles are not exactly how they would be "in universe" or, in the case of one that the Axis had intended to make, would be a "Star Warsified" version)

MBT (Main Battle Tank) - Canderous Assault Tank Mark III

RBT (Reserve) - Canderous Assault Tank

SBT (Siege) - Canderous Assault Tank Mark IV (Look up the "Ratte" tank)

RSB (Reconnaissance Speeder Bike) - XT-Model Bike "Speeder Bike"

JP (Jetpack) - JT-12 Jetpack

AJP (Advanced Jetpack) - z-6 Jetpack

AFV (Armored Fighting Vehicle) - Canderous Assault Tank Mark II (look up "Death Watch tank")

RTT - Reconnaissance Troop Transporter

APC (Armored Personel Carrier) - AT-TE/MIC (All Terrain Tactical Enforcer/ Modernized Infantry Carrier, an updated AT-TE except more commonly fitted with tracks)

[Fordorsia]

Why copy anything but the best

So where is your copy of a Char B1?

ew gross

[Purpelia]

So where is your copy of a Char B1?

ew gross

U gross. B1 best.

[Fordorsia]

ew gross

U gross. B1 best.

Actually my M43A1 is a B1, just bigger, better and not French.

[Imperializt Russia]

Are there any resources on this self-moving T-12 system?
http://rosmilcon.com/vsem-boiatsia/

The article (translated) describes at as PSC-T-12 and predictably doesn't really come up in search terms. Any information about?

[Purpelia]

Actually my M43A1 is a B1, just bigger, better and not French.

Bigger = easier to hit
not French = worse

[Fordorsia]

Actually my M43A1 is a B1, just bigger, better and not French.

Bigger = easier to hit
not French = worse

Bigger = more guns
not French = not French

[Purpelia]

Bigger = more guns

I'd take a T-34 over a Maus any day.

[Imperializt Russia]

Bigger = more guns

I'd take a T-34 over a Maus any day.

How badly has St Peter aged?

[Purpelia]

I'd take a T-34 over a Maus any day.

How badly has St Peter aged?

I understand not?

[Imperializt Russia]

How badly has St Peter aged?

I understand not?

u ded

[Purpelia]

I understand not?

u ded

Again. I do not get it. You are going to have to explain things using words and phrases, sentences even.