Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X

[Gallia-]

How do I know how big should I make my tank's engine (WWII tech)? and transmission for that matter? I seriously hate being mechanically illiterate

The real controversy of tankspergery begins.

Only 1/5 of Lindybeige's favourite tanks features a turret!

Not even all of his favorite tanks are tanks

Yeah Strv 103 is more of a tank destroyer.

[Crookfur]

How do I know how big should I make my tank's engine (WWII tech)? and transmission for that matter? I seriously hate being mechanically illiterate

The real controversy of tankspergery begins.

Only 1/5 of Lindybeige's favourite tanks features a turret!

Not even all of his favorite tanks are tanks

Find something of roughly the same size, weight and performance as your design. Get a cutaway picture of said vehicle and scale it against your picture.

Not the most scientific method but it should get you in the rough ball park.

[Singara]

Find something of roughly the same size, weight and performance as your design. Get a cutaway picture of said vehicle and scale it against your picture.
Not the most scientific method but it should get you in the rough ball park.

I guess that'll have to do.

Yeah Strv 103 is more of a tank destroyer.

triggered

[Allanea]

For dry goods storage that might be a good idea. Stuff like tents. IIRC that was Simpkin's major talking point with the external storage; some sort of airlock or tent structure for remounting IFVs in contaminated zones. Fuel and ammo, not so much, for reasons Viky mentioned. Though you might try something like the M113A3 or Next Generation Bradley external fuel tanks/bins attached to the rear of the vehicle for liquids or combustibles.

No, it was explicitly about the fuel, at least.

Given this, a jettisonable deployment roof pack of water and fuel, collapsible and contoured to fit the upper front and unused rouf area, would improve protections against neutrons and thermal insulation. 600 of water and 200 l of DERV would be ample for 7 days under buttoned up waiting conditions in a temperate climate. In an expendable pack, this payload would represent an overload well within the mud allowance for an MLC40 vehicle and thus acceptable for movement to the deployment area. A trailer used only for employment is another possibility.

Since the IFV's battle weight is likely to be lower than those of the primary weapon platforms of the same family, there should be enough weight margin to carry a larger deployment roof pack. Bulk is probably the limiting factor, but it should be possible to carry double the quantities of water and fuel of the weapon platform vehicles (1200l of water and 400l of DERV). ... There is in fact no reason why IFV should not tow a "deployment trailer' of reserve water and fuel and abandon it on moving out to battle positions.

[Laritaia]

So basically a collapsible rubber fuel bladder strapped to the top of an IFV?

Somehow i doubt the tank crews would find that as useful as more stowage racks where they can throw extra jerry cans.

Also this.

Since the IFV's battle weight is likely to be lower than those of the primary weapon platforms of the same family

Isn't really true anymore.

If it ever was.

[New Vihenia]

Trailer

[Litorea]

Okay, I'm really just here to lurk until I get my conlang functional enough to give shitty names to things, but what is this fresh hell

[Singara]

Okay, I'm really just here to lurk until I get my conlang functional enough to give shitty names to things, but what is this fresh hell

Technical issues subforum

[Litorea]

Okay, I'm really just here to lurk until I get my conlang functional enough to give shitty names to things, but what is this fresh hell

Technical issues subforum

That pic, ah, ain't NS, that's the lineart forum in the OP.

[Singara]

Technical issues subforum

That pic, ah, ain't NS, that's the lineart forum in the OP.

Oh, it was hard to tell what it was

[Singara]

Criticism?

CT-3a Wolf

Weight: ??? (I still have to work out armor thickness)
Length: 5.51 m
Width: 2.70 m
Height: 2.18 m
Crew: 4 (Commander, Gunner/Loader, Driver, Radio Operator/Assistan driver)

Main Armament: MK 103 30mm belt-fed autocannon
Max elevation: 30°
Max depression: 10°
Secondary Armament: 2x Machineguns (Not in the diagram, one coaxial, one for assistant driver)

Engine: V12 500 hp
Transmission: 5 gears forward + reverse
Top speed: 60 km/h
Suspension: Christie
Ground clearance: 0.42 m

[Fordorsia]

Criticism?

CT-3a Wolf
(Image)
Weight: ??? (I still have to work out armor thickness)
Length: 5.51 m
Width: 2.70 m
Height: 2.18 m
Crew: 4 (Commander, Gunner/Loader, Driver, Radio Operator/Assistan driver)

Main Armament: MK 103 30mm belt-fed autocannon
Max elevation: 30°
Max depression: 10°
Secondary Armament: 2x Machineguns (Not in the diagram, one coaxial, one for assistant driver)

Engine: V12 500 hp
Transmission: 5 gears forward + reverse
Top speed: 60 km/h
Suspension: Christie
Ground clearance: 0.42 m

Depending on the space in the turret, I doubt it would need a coax. The 30mm is good enough that it could deal with infantry if it has alternating HE and AP belts.

[Singara]

Depending on the space in the turret, I doubt it would need a coax. The 30mm is good enough that it could deal with infantry if it has alternating HE and AP belts.

I guess I'll do that then. Do you know of any good resources for armor thickness?

[Fordorsia]

Depending on the space in the turret, I doubt it would need a coax. The 30mm is good enough that it could deal with infantry if it has alternating HE and AP belts.

I guess I'll do that then. Do you know of any good resources for armor thickness?

For armour it depends on what it's expected to go up against.

[Singara]

I guess I'll do that then. Do you know of any good resources for armor thickness?

For armour it depends on what it's expected to go up against.

Well, the role I'd though of giving it was that of light cavalry if that makes sense. It's supposed to take advantage of openings in the enemy lines to flank and wither them.

I have no hopes of it being able to go face to face against a heavy or even medium tank. But it should be sturdy enough to withstand an occasional shot in a non-critical place if an encounter is inevitable.

[Fordorsia]

Could just make it similar to the Chaffee's layout then. 25mm all over besides the mantlet and turret face which are 40mm, and the roofs and sides of the rear half of the hull protecting the engine, which are 12.7mm. Hull rear is 20mm

But it should be sturdy enough to withstand an occasional shot in a non-critical place if an encounter is inevitable.

Not really any non-critical places on a tank. If it gets penetrated, it's almost certainly knocked out or getting abandoned. The armour of a light tank is to keep out small arms, HMGs, shrapnel and maybe autocannons.

[Singara]

Could just make it similar to the Chaffee's layout then. 25mm all over besides the mantlet and turret face which are 40mm, and the roofs and sides of the rear half of the hull protecting the engine, which are 12.7mm. Hull rear is 20mm
Not really any non-critical places on a tank. If it gets penetrated, it's almost certainly knocked out or getting abandoned. The armour of a light tank is to keep out small arms, HMGs, shrapnel and maybe autocannons.

How plausible would it be to have something like 40mm on the front chassis?

[Gallia-]

Not really any non-critical places on a tank. If it gets penetrated, it's almost certainly knocked out or getting abandoned.

Neither is true and certainly not to any degree of certainty. There are only two really critical places in a tank: the fighting compartment and the engine compartment. It can do without anything else. With adequate and timely ARV support, an engine change can be done in a couple of hours, though, and some fighting compartment penetrations are minor enough that they can be ignored beyond patching a hole and putting a new TC in the tank.

Unless the ammunition has detonated, the tank has burned down, or the entire crew is KIA/WIA, a tank can usually be put back into combat in less than 20 hours.

Mr. [REDACTED] was the platoon leader of 3 PLT, A CO, 3/66 Armor and recalled the incidents involving the vehicles from his unit. Mr. [REDACTED] was the TC of A-31. (...)

His vehicle and his platoon sergeant's tank, A-34, came under fire while conducting a movement to contact mission. A Co was on line with a brigade and they were all part of Task Force 1-41. They were moving in a box formation with two tank companies in front followed by mechanized infantry. B Co, 3/66, was on the left side of this formation, A Co was on the right side. Awhile before any tanks were struck, Mr. [REDACTED] recalled that incoming rounds landed just slightly ahead of their formation while on the move.

They were certain that it was first coming from the left, from the direction of other elements of TF 1-41. He reported this to the CO of A Co., CPT [CENSORED]. [CENSORED] in turn relayed the message to the battalion XO, LT [BLACKBOX]. He assumed that the message was passed up the chain to brigade through LTC [REMOVED] and COL [DELETED].

Between 0300-0400 hours, his unit was fired on. B Co. was fired on first, then 3 PLT. Mr. [REDACTED] stated that they came under heavy machine gun fire then were apparently struck by a glancing blow by a sabot round that left a hole in his fuel cell. A second sabot round hit just below the center left side of the tank. From the angle of the penetration, the tank that fired on them was above them and to the left. The round damaged the center wheel but did not penetrate the turret/crew compartment. No fragments struck him or his crewmembers. His vehicle was damaged but never was on fire.

Shortly after A-31 was struck, A-34, was hit and caught on fire. Mr. [REDACTED] saw it get hit and immediately reported it to CPT [CENSORED]. He then went to assist the crewmembers of A-34. By the time he arrived, the crewmembers of A-34 had dismounted the burning tank. A-34 crew complement at the time consisted of: [PEOPLE].

He noted that [SOME GUYS] were temoporarily blinded as a result of the incident and that [PERSON]'s face was injured.

Mr. [REDACTED] and his entire crew dismounted A-31 to help the injured crewmen. They were in the immediate area of the burning tank and remained there until the medics arrived. LT [BLACKBOX] in A-55 escorted the medics' APC to the scene.

After the incident, A-31 was turned in for repair and returned to operations. Mr. [REDACTED] was concerned that the tank was still contaminated from being struck by DU munitions. He was never formally told that his vehicle had been struck by friendly fire. From the battlefield observations and the distinct DU penetrator strikes he knew that they had been fired on by U.S. forces. He and his crew remained with A-31 for 3? months after the tank was returned.

QUESTION: Where you informed that your vehicle had been struck by friendly fire? When? What kind of system fired on you (M1 tank?)? What kind of munitions was fired? Did you have any other exposures to DU, such as entering DU-contaminated vehicles or sites?

ANSWER: "We found out about 20 or 30 minutes later by our CO. We were never taken to any kind of decontimation vehicle or anything at all. We were hit by small arms fire. We figured we were hit by at least one sabot round of the DU type, and at least one HEAT round. The sabot hit the front slope, center front, and the HEAT round hit the left rear, second from the rear road wheel. The crew compartment wasn't holed or penetrated on my tank. I can tell you we were 3rd PLATOON, ALPHA COMPANY, 2nd ARMOR DIVISION FORWARD. But, I can't recall the bumper number. It was at night. The time, I couldn't tell you. I can't remmeber the exact date but I believe it was third day of the GROUND WAR."

SSG [BLACKBOX] was with B Co, 3-66 ARMOR as tank commander of an M1A1 Abrams tank, bumper bumber B-22 in the Gulf. In describing the friendly fire incident in which he was involved, he said his tank turned towards incoming fire that had hit nearby B-66 when a SABOT round hit his own tank. He said his tank was equipped with a mine plow. The incoming SABOT round first hit and went through the plow then hit the slope of B-22 protected by layers of air space and metal shielding.

He said the round penetrated the laters of shielding but never entered the crew compartment. However, the damage resulting from the hit caused an electrical fire in the compartment and the outside explosion shattered the periscope glass, the shards from which injured the eyes of the driver, [REDACTED]. He said B-22 was still operational and during the engagement the driver from Abrams B-66, also hit and disabled, was running alongside and pulled into his tank. He said that the driver's name was [CENSORED] and suffered burns. SSG [BLACKBOX] said it was an M1A1 tank that fired on his tank but he didn't know the bumper number. He named the other crew members of vehicle as [PEOPLE].

He said [DRIVERS] were medically evacuated and he continued to operate B-22 with a crew of three. He said the mine plow was repaired and they continued to operate B-22 for another seven days until it was checked for radiation by members of 7th Corps. He was told the crew had "nothing to worry about" (presumably from radiation) but the vehicle was pulled from service and stripped for pairs. He said he took his personal belongings and weapon from the vehicle.

Mr. [BLACKBOX] served in the Gulf from February until July 1991 as a loader in Abrams M1A1 tank B-22. He said his tank was equipped as a mine plow and was struck by a SABOT round on the left front area. The round went through the plow, penetrated the tank armor leaving an oval hole near the headlight and punctured the left front gas tank. He said the round must have traveled in a downward direction and it was first though to have exited the vehicle without going through the crew compartment.

The plow power cable short circuited causing sparks in the crew compartment at which time the crew evacuated. He said at first the crew did not it was hit but thought they had hit something. He said the driver, [REDACTED], was injured as well as a crewmember named [CENSORED] from another struck vehicle who suffered burns. He estimated a thirty minute lapse of time before the two injured men got to a medical track vehicle. He himself was not injured. He said at daylight the short-circuit fire was out and the crew continued to operate B-22 for another week with himself as the driver.

[Fordorsia]

Could just make it similar to the Chaffee's layout then. 25mm all over besides the mantlet and turret face which are 40mm, and the roofs and sides of the rear half of the hull protecting the engine, which are 12.7mm. Hull rear is 20mm
Not really any non-critical places on a tank. If it gets penetrated, it's almost certainly knocked out or getting abandoned. The armour of a light tank is to keep out small arms, HMGs, shrapnel and maybe autocannons.

How plausible would it be to have something like 40mm on the front chassis?

Is the very front slope at the same angle as the (for a lack of a better term) driver's head height slope? If so, at 25mm, it would still be around 30-40mm effective thickness. You can have it as 40mm if you want, taking it up to around 60mm effective, but the sloping would be pretty effective with just 25mm.

[Purpelia]

What year is this for? Because with the armor stats ford is suggesting and the overall size of that thing you definitively won't get anything resembling a fast vehicle in time for most of the war.

[Singara]

What year is this for? Because with the armor stats ford is suggesting and the overall size of that thing you definitively won't get anything resembling a fast vehicle in time for most of the war.

Really? the Cromwell is larger, better armoured and armed, and has a top speed of 60kph

[Fordorsia]

Speed wouldn't be an issue.

Though it would help if you had a person for scale. Since the transmission is at the back, depending on how big the people are, you could move the driver an bow gunner, and therefore the turret, forward. Then you'd have enough room for the engine to not be an issue.

Then you'd have a decent scout/infantry support tank

[Singara]

yeah.... space's tight



EDIT: Though I did measure the engine compartment with a Merlin V12, the problem is not so much the size of the engine, but of all the other things, I don't know how much space a radiator, fuel tank, and whatever else a tank has needs.

[Purpelia]

What year is this for? Because with the armor stats ford is suggesting and the overall size of that thing you definitively won't get anything resembling a fast vehicle in time for most of the war.

Really? the Cromwell is larger, better armoured and armed, and has a top speed of 60kph

And it entered service in 1944. Ergo it was not available in time for most of the war. Same as the M-24 which ford suggested.

Basically what you have now is a vehicle whose armament screams 1940 but whose other stats put it at being something you're unlikely to field until about 1944. And that makes it something of a strange mixture which does not really fit in either. Which is why I asked what year it is supposed to be for.

[Fordorsia]

yeah.... space's tight

(Image)

EDIT: Though I did measure the engine compartment with a Merlin V12, the problem is not so much the size of the engine, but of all the other things, I don't know how much space a radiator, fuel tank, and whatever else a tank has needs.

Space looks fine. Engine in the centre, radiator on either side, fuel tank in sponsons or next to the driver that feeds via a tube thing along the side of the hull floor I dunno. Keep space for the transmission in mind, which I highly doubt you could manage with a Merlin.

I wouldn't like to be the driver though. Looks like it would be a b itch to get out in a hurry if he has no hatch. Even with a hatch his posture ain't the most efficient. No a design breaking feature though.

Really? the Cromwell is larger, better armoured and armed, and has a top speed of 60kph

And it entered service in 1944. Ergo it was not available in time for most of the war. Same as the M-24 which ford suggested.

Basically what you have now is a vehicle whose armament screams 1940 but whose other stats put it at being something you're unlikely to field until about 1944. And that makes it something of a strange mixture which does not really fit in either. Which is why I asked what year it is supposed to be for.

MK 103 was available from 1942, and the MK 101 was available from 1935. The armament screams any year from 1942 onwards.

The only thing stopping this being a late interwar tank is the thick (for the 30s) armour at such a heavy slope. There's nothing stopping his tank being introduced mid-war. The engine power seems excessive but all that would need is a quick edit taking it down to like 200hp