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

[Rusur Be Mandoade]

It means that regardless of which way the turret is facing when firing, the tank doesn't shake about due to bad suspension, bad turret position or narrow hull and tracks. That's good.

My bad. Misread. Happens to the best of us, and that ain't me. So I can be excused at times.

What I mean by ignoring them is that both the transmissions and the armour quality are products of Germany's logistical situation at the time, not the design of the Panther. I don't take those two into account when talking about how good or bad the Panther was, because they weren't part of the actual design and they definitely didn't effect the majority of the tanks.

And what I am saying is that we can't ignore those because that is how it was in reality. We are not discussing what the panther could have been but what it was. If you want to discuss what a NS totally-not-panther-clone can be sure, we can go there. But we have to be aware that this is what we are doing.

This said, I would like to hear how you envision the ideal WW2 tank. As in if you had a factory set aside for you in 1940-45 with all the worlds resources and technology what would you have designed?

Well, if you ask ME, I'd say the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte the Germans almost made a prototype of could have been good. 150-360mm of armor, 2 x 280 mm guns on a single turret (literally a repurposed naval gun turret), 1 or 2 128mm rear turrets, 4 x 20mm flak gun turrets, 2 x 15mm MGs (ones outfitted for airplanes), 8 × Daimler-Benz MB501 20-cylinder marine diesel engines, or
2 × MAN V12Z32/44 24-cylinder marine diesel engines, 1000 tonnes, would go 25 mph, operational range of 120 miles. Of course, I'm not being totally serious, but had the Germans had the resources and time, just a battalion of those would have won the war.

[Fordorsia]

ha

[Imperializt Russia]

If it would have been good, explain why no-one has ever seriously considered a battle tank over 100t, let alone something the size of Ratte and Landkreuzer since?

[Immoren]

Nuclear Ratte when?

[Crookfur]

I think I've come to the realisation recently that the modern MBT isn't an evolution of the medium tank, but the heavy tank. Just that modern automotive systems now allow today's "heavy tanks" to have their mobility.

Am I particularly wrong, given the typical assertion is that the mobile medium tank just became heavier?

It's a bit of both really. Chieftan was heavy tank made moar mobile whilst the Leopard was medium made a bit heavier. The more recent ones are really a synthesis of the approaches.

Neither veiw point is wrong but neither is 100% of the story either.

[Rusur Be Mandoade]

If it would have been good, explain why no-one has ever seriously considered a battle tank over 100t, let alone something the size of Ratte and Landkreuzer since?

I wasn't being entirely serious with what I said (I even stated that), but to look at it in a simple way, the biggest flaws (going at the idea if you have all the resources you need), it would crush literally everything in it's path, including bridges it needs to cross, and wouldn't really be able to fit in any space except in more open terrain and forests (which it would then make open terrain ), and it's immense size, sure you have AA, but so did cities, bombers still blew those apart still. OH and let's not forget that it wouldn't be that hard for a small number of people to get close to it and do some sabotage, just looking at blueprints and models, it has a lot of blind spots easy to get to and nowhere near enough defensive armament designed for infantry based threats. and if just one got taken from the Germans, it could be used against them. It's cannons are powerful enough to penetrate the armor of a fellow Ratte. (Again, this is also going with the scenario where you have the resources you need) But like I said, I wasn't being entirely serious, there are plenty of other flaws you could point out without going into resources required.

**EDIT** I forgot to mention that even the people that held higher rank while designing it would flat out say it's a stupid idea.

**SECOND EDIT** I went to wikipedia to just quickly find a couple more issues, and it's page has this short section on the issues: "Its large size would have rendered the tank unable to cross bridges, and travelling on roads would soon destroy them. Its top intended speed was 40 kilometres per hour, resulting in a slow, highly visible tank, vulnerable to air bombardment and artillery fire, despite having heavy armour. Issues with transporting the vehicle to the battlefield were also prominent. No railway could bear the weight and the width would be too large for any railway or tunnel to accommodate"

[Rusur Be Mandoade]

Nuclear Ratte when?

The Ratte wasn't ever built, but the Germans would have done that if they could, they were already getting close to having Atomic bombs built (thankfully the allies where able to halt that), so it wouldn't be hard to imagine them using Nuclear Power for tank engines or even guns' main canons that fire nuclear rounds.

[Ardavia]

Its top intended speed was 40 kilometres per hour

that is an incredibly, incredibly, optimistic intended top speed

[Taihei Tengoku]

No idea what this means. But it can't be good.

It means that regardless of which way the turret is facing when firing, the tank doesn't shake about due to bad suspension, bad turret position or narrow hull and tracks. That's good.

What I mean by ignoring them is that both the transmissions and the armour quality are products of Germany's logistical situation at the time, not the design of the Panther. I don't take those two into account when talking about how good or bad the Panther was, because they weren't part of the actual design and they definitely didn't effect the majority of the tanks.

A design unaware of its circumstances is a bad one.

[Imperializt Russia]

If it would have been good, explain why no-one has ever seriously considered a battle tank over 100t, let alone something the size of Ratte and Landkreuzer since?

I wasn't being entirely serious with what I said (I even stated that), but to look at it in a simple way, the biggest flaws (going at the idea if you have all the resources you need), it would crush literally everything in it's path, including bridges it needs to cross, and wouldn't really be able to fit in any space except in more open terrain and forests (which it would then make open terrain ), and it's immense size, sure you have AA, but so did cities, bombers still blew those apart still. OH and let's not forget that it wouldn't be that hard for a small number of people to get close to it and do some sabotage, just looking at blueprints and models, it has a lot of blind spots easy to get to and nowhere near enough defensive armament designed for infantry based threats. and if just one got taken from the Germans, it could be used against them. It's cannons are powerful enough to penetrate the armor of a fellow Ratte. (Again, this is also going with the scenario where you have the resources you need) But like I said, I wasn't being entirely serious, there are plenty of other flaws you could point out without going into resources required.

**EDIT** I forgot to mention that even the people that held higher rank while designing it would flat out say it's a stupid idea.

**SECOND EDIT** I went to wikipedia to just quickly find a couple more issues, and it's page has this short section on the issues: "Its large size would have rendered the tank unable to cross bridges, and travelling on roads would soon destroy them. Its top intended speed was 40 kilometres per hour, resulting in a slow, highly visible tank, vulnerable to air bombardment and artillery fire, despite having heavy armour. Issues with transporting the vehicle to the battlefield were also prominent. No railway could bear the weight and the width would be too large for any railway or tunnel to accommodate"

What Ratte is, is people taking useful components, +1ing all of them and then combining them together in the misguided assertion that the sum of its parts must make for a superior whole.

What is Ratte? It's a battleship for the land. What defeated battleships? Air power.
In some battles in WWII, the British were able to co-ordinate fire from up to a thousand artillery pieces. Ratte is getting smashed with a shoe.

[Dostanuot Loj]

I've been kinda hooked on MechWarrior 3 and watching the crappy BattleTech cartoon.

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

St.Chamond was essentially an assault gun 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.

Consider it less two loaders, and instead more machine gunners. Who can also load the gun, or get at hard to get ammunition.

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.

You might want an additional loader for those guns then.

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.

It can't hurt to have more pairs of hands.

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?

You want the commander to be able to easily get out of the tank.
WW1 tank commanders on all sides tended to spend half their time outside the tank leading it through ground it wouldn't get stuck in.

Thoughts about the Turkish Altay tank? It shares features (mostly armor layout) with the South Korean K2.

Allegedly, Otokar is considering an "electric" engine in based on the one installed on the Doruk Electra bus. Or an 1,800 domestically developed conventional powerpack, which given current technological limitations seems more likely.

You won't see an electric engine on it, or any tank, for a long while.
It's a good prospect, and K2 is the way of the future, but it won't be all electric.

Osorio never had any problems with the suspension. Because it was imported from Britain, based on the same designs as the Challenger. Given that practically everything else was imported, this doesn't really stand out.

Osorio was built in absurdly low numbers, and babied with special attention.
You're right, it did take off the shelf equipment, but that just means someone else developed, and worked out the hard parts, of the hydropneumatic suspension.

I never said it wasn't the most expensive. I argued that the marginal cost of adopting it is worth the performance benefits. If the marginal costs of adopting and maintaining a hydropneumatic suspension put such a tank out of a nation's reach, perhaps that nation might want to reconsider the notion of operating tanks?

Over the lifetime of a tank, the costs are not as small as you seem to think they are. Maintenance efforts and knowledge are huge. If you are not building a top tier tank, it's a marginal advantage for extensive cost over the lifetime of the tank. Not worth it if you'll only be fighting T-62s or T-72s.

If they're sourcing parts from abroad, there are plenty of options. If they're committed to building a modern clean-sheet domestic design that is supposed to be seriously competitive, the hydropneumatic suspension won't be what makes it expensive or complicated.

If they're building a modern, seriously competitive clean sheet design, you're building an expensive, complicated, top tier tank.
Which, if you will recall, my first qualifier in the answer I gave regarding this was: if you're not building a top tier tank.

In WWII terms, how would a tank be repaired if it took a glancing shot that gouged out a lot of metal? Like this, this, or this.

A ding in a structural part: Ignore it.
A ding in a removable part like a mantlet: Replace it.
Full penetration: Plug it.
Yep, they would plug it. There are ways to plug it without having it punch out when it gets hit.

Can anyone comment on the accuracy of the blog Archive Awareness? I've been sifting through some of the articles, it seems like the author has a crusade against everything non-Soviet and that the T-34 was the greatest tank in history bar none. It makes me feel like he's trying to make the T-34 the WWII equivalent of the Abrams or T-14.

Think of it like Mike Sparks for Soviet tanks.
If you know what you're looking at, you can get good info from there.
If you're a Russian fanboi you'll have your presumptions stroked.

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

Oh It is? Thanks.
This thing's probably going to be a little on the light side compared to tanks that usually carry the L/55 around the weight of eastern tanks like the T90, do you think that's going to be a problem?

Should fit on a 40+ tonne vehicle no problem.

I think I've come to the realisation recently that the modern MBT isn't an evolution of the medium tank, but the heavy tank. Just that modern automotive systems now allow today's "heavy tanks" to have their mobility.

Am I particularly wrong, given the typical assertion is that the mobile medium tank just became heavier?

The reality is more that both tank classes became obsolete, and the MBT is new.
There is no real difference between medium and heavy tanks except weight. When weight becomes a non-factor so does the classification.

Well, if you ask ME, I'd say the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte the Germans almost made a prototype of could have been good. 150-360mm of armor, 2 x 280 mm guns on a single turret (literally a repurposed naval gun turret), 1 or 2 128mm rear turrets, 4 x 20mm flak gun turrets, 2 x 15mm MGs (ones outfitted for airplanes), 8 × Daimler-Benz MB501 20-cylinder marine diesel engines, or
2 × MAN V12Z32/44 24-cylinder marine diesel engines, 1000 tonnes, would go 25 mph, operational range of 120 miles. Of course, I'm not being totally serious, but had the Germans had the resources and time, just a battalion of those would have won the war.

Ratte had no role, and was never "almost made" even in prototype form. It was a napkin sketch with no basis in reality.

A battalion of them would have been a massive waste in resources, and likely lost the Germans the war even faster. None of them would ever move, they'd be bombed to bits, and the Germans would have wasted thousands of tonnes of precious resources on them, instead of important things like guns.

I gotta go, will carry on responding later.

[Allanea]

Nuclear Ratte when?

The Ratte wasn't ever built, but the Germans would have done that if they could, they were already getting close to having Atomic bombs built (thankfully the allies where able to halt that), so it wouldn't be hard to imagine them using Nuclear Power for tank engines or even guns' main canons that fire nuclear rounds.

No, this is extremely hard.

1. Nuclear powered anything only arrived in the 1950s.
2. The nuclear weapons at the time did not look anything like the nuclear weapons of today. The smallest nuclear bomb of the day was 71 cm in diameter and weighed over four tons.

My own NS!MT Ratte is intended to operate as an artillery platform not really a tank, and even that has many many flaws (which I am honest about in the sales material).

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

just a battalion of those would have won the war.

>implying they could achieve any actual strategic objective

[The Akasha Colony]

Nuclear Ratte when?

The Ratte wasn't ever built, but the Germans would have done that if they could, they were already getting close to having Atomic bombs built (thankfully the allies where able to halt that), so it wouldn't be hard to imagine them using Nuclear Power for tank engines or even guns' main canons that fire nuclear rounds.

The Germans were never that close to developing a nuclear weapon. Heisenberg was convinced it couldn't be done and the Germans were more interested in nuclear energy than in a nuclear weapon. They lacked several key breakthroughs, such as the use of graphite as a moderator (which was much more plentiful and easier to handle than heavy water) and the sheer quantity of uranium processing capacity required to adequately feed the need for weapons-grade fissile material.

That said, even if they had created a working nuclear reactor, it would have been decades away from any practical use in a land vehicle.

[Allanea]

but had the Germans had the resources and time, just a battalion of those would have won the war.

There's a major problem to the Ratte specifically (as opposed to "A generic supertanks"):

The side-armor on the Ratte was not immune to the fire of contemporary tanks and cannon. Deploy a battalion of ISU-122s per enemy Ratte, and you're golden.

Oh, they could fight on (I do not share the mockery of the Ratte that's pervasive on this thread - I have my own Ratte ripoff), but it would require them to be escorted by smaller tanks, to maneuver constantly, and so on - much more complex than "ha! Superweapon!"

[Imperializt Russia]

The Ratte wasn't ever built, but the Germans would have done that if they could, they were already getting close to having Atomic bombs built (thankfully the allies where able to halt that), so it wouldn't be hard to imagine them using Nuclear Power for tank engines or even guns' main canons that fire nuclear rounds.

The Germans were never that close to developing a nuclear weapon. Heisenberg was convinced it couldn't be done and the Germans were more interested in nuclear energy than in a nuclear weapon. They lacked several key breakthroughs, such as the use of graphite as a moderator (which was much more plentiful and easier to handle than heavy water) and the sheer quantity of uranium processing capacity required to adequately feed the need for weapons-grade fissile material.

That said, even if they had created a working nuclear reactor, it would have been decades away from any practical use in a land vehicle.

IIRC the Germans wrote off graphite moderation because they couldn't produce pure graphite.
Which is a very fair reason.

[Theodosiya]

Opinion about this medium ww2 era tank pls.So, the hull have frontal 65mm sloped at 45 degree,side armor of 45mm sloped at 60 degree and rear 35mm sloped at 75 degree. 75mm HV main gun, MG 34 coax,hull MG 34,M2 Browning commander cupola, MG 42 loader cupola. Turret is 70/50/40,sloped, both of the hull and turret are welded.Diesel engine, vvs suspension.Track is 1/4 wider than T-34. Has wet ammo storage.

Let's just say that the basic design are based on enlarged T-34.

[Prosorusiya]

Is the GBC-180 capable of towing a D-20 Howitzer?

[Rusur Be Mandoade]

Is the GBC-180 capable of towing a D-20 Howitzer?

GBC-180 can carry up to 5,000 lbs and the D-20 Howitzer weighs 5,700 lbs (excluding the ammo you'd have to carry).

[Purpelia]

St.Chamond was essentially an assault gun anyway.

The vision I have is not really an assault gun. It's a mobile artillery bunker. That might sound the same but it isn't. Basically an assault gun is something that assaults. This thing is meant to suppress. Like the best way to explain it is to describe my intended use for this thing.

It all starts several days before the offensive. Artillery fire is still plunging down on the enemy lines plowing them up for the coming attack when, at the first ray of dawn the tank commanders make their way to the trenches on foot to meet up with their supporting infantry. The infantry are assigned tanks. Not directly of course but detached from the landship commanders back at artillery HQ. Ideally there would be one per platoon. But at times it can dip as low as one per company.

Be that as it may the offensive is coming and thus the tank commanders diligently walk over to the front line where they are met by officers from the platoon they are meant to support. The LT walks them around the trench lines and using a periscope points out known enemy positions whilst the tank commander takes notes. On a sheet of paper he marks down pillboxes, machine gun nests or known sniper hideouts and anything else that might be of note. Once he is satisfied he thanks the troops for their support and departs.

In the coming days the tank commander uses this information to plot a plan of action for his vehicle. And when the big day comes every man will know his purpose. As the barrage creeps onward and onto the enemy rear lines the tanks roll up to prepared positions behind friendly trenches. From there they follow the prescribed plan of suppressing, destroying and pining those marked enemy positions. It is all very precise, methodical and systematic. After the desired effect has been achieved the tank honks a loud horn and the infantry start making their way over the top under constant machine gun and cannon support to prevent the enemy from coming out to fight them.

[Allanea]

Is the GBC-180 capable of towing a D-20 Howitzer?

GBC-180 can carry up to 5,000 lbs and the D-20 Howitzer weighs 5,700 lbs (excluding the ammo you'd have to carry).

Carry and tow are different.

[Rusur Be Mandoade]

GBC-180 can carry up to 5,000 lbs and the D-20 Howitzer weighs 5,700 lbs (excluding the ammo you'd have to carry).

Carry and tow are different.

I realize such, that is why I only gave the statistics I found, hoping someone else would be able to figure out the rest. I think it is able to tow it, but I'm not sure.

[Rusur Be Mandoade]

GBC-180 can carry up to 5,000 lbs and the D-20 Howitzer weighs 5,700 lbs (excluding the ammo you'd have to carry).

Carry and tow are different.

Wait, hold on, most of the posts/replies are off topic a bit now. Should we get back on topic, or?

[Imperializt Russia]

Carry and tow are different.

Wait, hold on, most of the posts/replies are off topic a bit now. Should we get back on topic, or?

How are they off topic?

Ground vehicles are under discussion.

[The Kievan People]

The vision I have is not really an assault gun. It's a mobile artillery bunker. That might sound the same but it isn't. Basically an assault gun is something that assaults. This thing is meant to suppress. Like the best way to explain it is to describe my intended use for this thing.

It all starts several days before the offensive. Artillery fire is still plunging down on the enemy lines plowing them up for the coming attack when, at the first ray of dawn the tank commanders make their way to the trenches on foot to meet up with their supporting infantry. The infantry are assigned tanks. Not directly of course but detached from the landship commanders back at artillery HQ. Ideally there would be one per platoon. But at times it can dip as low as one per company.

Be that as it may the offensive is coming and thus the tank commanders diligently walk over to the front line where they are met by officers from the platoon they are meant to support. The LT walks them around the trench lines and using a periscope points out known enemy positions whilst the tank commander takes notes. On a sheet of paper he marks down pillboxes, machine gun nests or known sniper hideouts and anything else that might be of note. Once he is satisfied he thanks the troops for their support and departs.

In the coming days the tank commander uses this information to plot a plan of action for his vehicle. And when the big day comes every man will know his purpose. As the barrage creeps onward and onto the enemy rear lines the tanks roll up to prepared positions behind friendly trenches. From there they follow the prescribed plan of suppressing, destroying and pining those marked enemy positions. It is all very precise, methodical and systematic. After the desired effect has been achieved the tank honks a loud horn and the infantry start making their way over the top under constant machine gun and cannon support to prevent the enemy from coming out to fight them.

So it's an assault gun?