Remove ads

Strategic Arms Quest 3/2: Armor Edition

Reader mode
Right, what the hell are we working with? I have no idea what engines are available, what the present technology base is (presumably world war 1-ish but that's super vague) and even fucking what the guns are. Asking how many hours is our 8 cylinder engine good for is a terrible sort of thing to be looking for at this time because we have no idea if we even have an 8 cylinder engine.
We need something to work off of, at all.
 
Is this how to do it, @7734?
[X] Plan Grope in the Dark, and Pray You Don't Touch Somebody Where You Shouldn't by Accident
----[X] What engines are available at the moment, and what are their general characteristics? (Wanderer)
----[X] How much firepower would we need for a breakthrough vehicle? (von Eberhart)
----[X] Using the information from the two above, how big of a thing would we need for each possible configuration, and can how much armor can we put on this thing? (Alder and Gotha)
----[X] How reliable are the engine options we were handed? (Benz)

This is very much a tentative plan. Please add suggestions of your own to see if we can make this something functional.
 
In addition to general characteristics, I'd look at HP/weight ratios and see what commercially available tractors might be available as a starting point to see what kind of weight we can expect to move at a reasonable clip (reasonable being walking pace or maybe even a steady jog, if we're lucky). I also agree with Adler - we need to make sure this thing is rail-transportable, because that's the only way we're going to be moving these things around.

What kind of light artillery do we have? Really depends on what if we can to go machine-gun or light support. Historically, the French put a short 75 in casemates on their first couple of tanks, but they were horrifically unwieldy and not very useful in the trenches.

We don't necessarily have to go for sheer size, either. Could do smaller vehicles with only one weapon a piece or something.
 
TortugaGreen said:
Right, what the hell are we working with? I have no idea what engines are available, what the present technology base is (presumably world war 1-ish but that's super vague) and even fucking what the guns are. Asking how many hours is our 8 cylinder engine good for is a terrible sort of thing to be looking for at this time because we have no idea if we even have an 8 cylinder engine.
We need something to work off of, at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Michael Lewis said:
Is this how to do it, @7734?
[X] Plan Grope in the Dark, and Pray You Don't Touch Somebody Where You Shouldn't by Accident
----[X] What engines are available at the moment, and what are their general characteristics? (Wanderer)
----[X] How much firepower would we need for a breakthrough vehicle? (von Eberhart)
----[X] Using the information from the two above, how big of a thing would we need for each possible configuration, and can how much armor can we put on this thing? (Alder and Gotha)
----[X] How reliable are the engine options we were handed? (Benz)

This is very much a tentative plan. Please add suggestions of your own to see if we can make this something functional.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Gentlemen, this is an RFQ phase, not a "Ima designer now" phase. You don't need to know what, exactly, the sorts of engines you have access to, what you need is vauge requirements about what you want to get done with it and then your loyal defense companies will actually do the legwork on whether or not this can stand up to the RFQ. Write one that's too tight, and it'll bounce back down the chain with a note from your boss going "ha ha ha what."

Seriously, you're an artillery captain. To you, horses are still fine and dandy, even if they get toted around on a train sometimes. The fact that a hot-bulb engine is even getting considered should be a serious hint as to what your engine tech looks like at the time.
 
7734 said:
Gentlemen, this is an RFQ phase, not a "Ima designer now" phase. You don't need to know what, exactly, the sorts of engines you have access to, what you need is vauge requirements about what you want to get done with it and then your loyal defense companies will actually do the legwork on whether or not this can stand up to the RFQ. Write one that's too tight, and it'll bounce back down the chain with a note from your boss going "ha ha ha what."

Seriously, you're an artillery captain. To you, horses are still fine and dandy, even if they get toted around on a train sometimes. The fact that a hot-bulb engine is even getting considered should be a serious hint as to what your engine tech looks like at the time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Acknowledged. Will draft proposal tomorrow.
 
[X]Plan Caterpillar
-[X]Entire vehicle must be armored and proofed against shell splinters and small-arms/machine gun fire; if necessary, sides and rear can merely be bullet-resistant.
-[X]Should be of an appropriate weight and size to be transportable via standard rail flat-cars, if at all possible.
-[X]Should be able to keep up with an infantry advance and be able to traverse broken ground (trenches, shell craters, barbed wire, mud, etc) without becoming bogged down or stuck (too often, anyway).
-[X]Armament should be sufficient for suppressing or neutralizing enemy strong-points and trench lines and ideally utilize weapons already being produced by our war industries.
 
[X] Plan Plod Forward with Lessons Learned
-[X] Vehicle must traverse a battlefield including barbed wire, craters, and trenches at no less than 6 kph
-[X] Vehicle must be immune to 7.62mm rifle and machine gun fire, with secondary protection against spalling.
-[X] Vehicle must, potentially in two variants, carry common quick-firing light artillery for direct fire to suppress heavy fortifications and machine guns to suppress infantry.
-[X] Vehicle must possess a separate engine compartment in the rear.
-[X] Vehicle must be transportable by standard rail with no more than six hours of disassembly/assembly permitted.

There we go. 2 AM, so I'm going to hold off on detailed explanation for now.
 
[X]Plan Hypothetically Mobile Armored Shed
-[X] Vehicle must have sufficient armor to resist rifle and machine gun fire from any direction and up to any infantry grenades or similar explosives to the front. More is encouraged, but not required.
-[X] Should be capable of transport atop standard flatbed railroad cars intact.
-[X] Should be capable of independent motion over harsh terrain such as trenches and mud at a pace no less than that of aa standard infantryman, adjusted for any breakdowns that occur along the way.
-[X] Must be armed sufficiently to suppress fortifications, with machine guns and if possible light artillery.
-[X] Must be safe enough that a soldier in infantry equipment could survive inside the vehicle while active and under fire.

Why? Well firstly it's got to have at least enough armor to be shot at, because tanks are universally bullet magnets. Furthermore, they're also artillery shell and grenade magnets, but the substantially greater impact of those makes armoring against them prohibitive. As such, only the front must have armor capable of tanking grenades.
Next, it's got to be transportable. This is something we all agree is key, as the tank sure isn't getting there under it's own power.
Thirdly, it's got to go, and while it can break down, it wouldn't be very useful if it couldn't keep up with the troops due to breaking down all the time.
Fourthly, guns are pretty important, as an armored box that can't do anything but sort of move isn't all that effective, and machine guns are a good way to get firepower.
Finally, It is logistically problematic to have a vehicle that needs armored crew to operate, so the crew should be able to operate in fairly regular uniform.
 
7734 said:
Most importantly, Adler sent you the dimensions for standard Landwere flatbed cars, so whatever you bought could be rail transported, him being very doubtful of those newfangled internal combustion engines and suggesting going back to a hot-bulb for reliabilities sakes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This.
Is actually a better idea than it sounds to our ww2 influenced POV.
Early tank commanders sent 5 from jump-off 6 km from target, and expected three to actually arrive.
Breakdowns were assumed.
External combustion engines, however, have 70+ years of engineering practice behind them.
They also, unlike IC engines, develop maximum torque regardless of rpm, making them MUCH better at mud, moving from stop on slope, and similar.
Other pros are using coal and water, both in plentiful supply, not rare and coveted petrol.

On the downside, even with a flash boiler or hot bulb, warming up an IC engine takes 20 seconds or so vs 3 or so minutes to get up steam.

Also, since we have been explicitly told about the 'Hell on Earth for the Crews' effect, let us have separate compartments please.
 
[X] Plan If it Bleeds, We Can Kill It.
-[X] Vehicle must possess a separate engine compartment in the rear.
-[X] Vehicle must have sufficient armor to resist rifle and machine gun fire from any direction and up to any infantry grenades or similar explosives to the front. More is encouraged, but not required.
-[X] Should be capable of transport atop standard flatbed railroad cars intact.
-[X] Should be capable of independent motion over harsh terrain such as trenches and mud at a pace no less than that of a standard infantryman, adjusted for any breakdowns that occur along the way.
-[X] Must be armed sufficiently to suppress fortifications, with machine guns and if possible light artillery.
-[X] Must be safe enough that a soldier in infantry equipment could survive inside the vehicle while active and under fire.
 
[X] Plan If it Bleeds, We Can Kill It.
 
I worry that with engine compartmentalization, the crew will be protected but also be totally unable to easily fix the engine when it inevitably breaks while the vehicle is in motion.
 
TortugaGreen said:
I worry that with engine compartmentalization, the crew will be protected but also be totally unable to easily fix the engine when it inevitably breaks while the vehicle is in motion.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Couple of big doors (armored natch) over the engine that swing down. Actually provides better access than sitting on top of the engine.
If the vehicle is being shot at the crew should be imitating a pillbox not doing repairs.

[X] Plan If it Bleeds, We Can Kill It.
 
[X] Plan If it Bleeds, We Can Kill It.

Should we specify anything in regards to using treads rather than wheels or having separate clutches and single engines?
 
<SV doesn't like short posts, so here's some filler garbage so xenforo stops complaining>
Spam (stylized SPAM) is a brand of canned cooked meat made by Hormel Foods Corporation. It was first introduced in 1937 and gained popularity worldwide after its use during World War II. By 2003, Spam was sold in 41 countries on six continents and trademarked in over 100 countries (except in the Middle East and North Africa). In 2012, the eight billionth can of Spam was sold.
<End of filler text>
7734 said:
Gentlemen, this is an RFQ phase, not a "Ima designer now" phase. You don't need to know what, exactly, the sorts of engines you have access to, what you need is vauge requirements about what you want to get done with it and then your loyal defense companies will actually do the legwork on whether or not this can stand up to the RFQ. Write one that's too tight, and it'll bounce back down the chain with a note from your boss going "ha ha ha what."

Seriously, you're an artillery captain. To you, horses are still fine and dandy, even if they get toted around on a train sometimes. The fact that a hot-bulb engine is even getting considered should be a serious hint as to what your engine tech looks like at the time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No7sHere said:
Should we specify anything in regards to using treads rather than wheels or having separate clutches and single engines?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Anyhow, I do believe we don't know enough IC to bother with the specifics yet.
 
Last edited:
If it's relatively bullet-proof, it'll probably stand up to grenade splinters, so I feel like saying "proof against infantry explosives" is a bit redundant.

As is saying "infantry has to survive inside of it". It's not an APC. It's an armored gun platform. Infantry shouldn't be riding in it and it's likely going to be cramped enough that you wouldn't want to be wearing standard infantry kit inside of it anyway.
 
Chronologist said:
If it's relatively bullet-proof, it'll probably stand up to grenade splinters, so I feel like saying "proof against infantry explosives" is a bit redundant.

As is saying "infantry has to survive inside of it". It's not an APC. It's an armored gun platform. Infantry shouldn't be riding in it and it's likely going to be cramped enough that you wouldn't want to be wearing standard infantry kit inside of it anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The point of the "Infantry can survive inside it" is to make sure the damn thing is actually safe to operate, rather than having to have heavy protective equipment that requires specialized production and inhibits crew activity.
In any case, I'm pretty convinced.
[X] Plan If it Bleeds, We Can Kill It.
 
TortugaGreen said:
The point of the "Infantry can survive inside it" is to make sure the damn thing is actually safe to operate, rather than having to have heavy protective equipment that requires specialized production and inhibits crew activity.
In any case, I'm pretty convinced.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not sure that's possible, considering metallurgy. Even the FT-17 driver tended to wear a mask to protect against fragmentation.
 
Chronologist said:
I'm not sure that's possible, considering metallurgy. Even the FT-17 driver tended to wear a mask to protect against fragmentation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah a fellow grognard (metallurgist) told me modern metallurgy is much advanced over 19yy. Mostly electron microscopes, being able to actually see the martensite/austenite formations made a big difference.
He called it the 'invisible revolution'. Pretty sure the phrase is not original to him.
Anyhow, we should not expect to be able to build what we can with 20xx materials.
 
SAGrognard said:
Yeah a fellow grognard (metallurgist) told me modern metallurgy is much advanced over 19yy. Mostly electron microscopes, being able to actually see the martensite/austenite formations made a big difference.
He called it the 'invisible revolution'. Pretty sure the phrase is not original to him.
Anyhow, we should not expect to be able to build what we can with 20xx materials.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Considering that everyone was still working with open hearth furnaces, which work but don't let you get away with some of the fancier metallurgy that later ones do, I'm not surprised. The jump in quality from 1900 to 1930 was huge, and after that as far as this quest is concerned that's most of what you're going to be designing for. After that, you're either gonna be dead of a heart attack or have staff who can break it down into baby words.
 
TortugaGreen said:
The point of the "Infantry can survive inside it" is to make sure the damn thing is actually safe to operate, rather than having to have heavy protective equipment that requires specialized production and inhibits crew activity.
In any case, I'm pretty convinced.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ok so, given metallurgy and modern threats, this would mean two things given our weight limits. One, we face harden all the steel so as to make better use of the thinner thicknesses of steel we can roll out. This will make it harder to penetrate, but when it is we have more crewman deaths due to massive spalling and fragmentation. In addition the face hardening process increases labor costs and time of production. Two, we take softer steels that we weld together into thicker plates for the same effects. This has the benefit of being easier to repair and better for crew survival at the cost of weight. Even then though, stuff isnt great.

EDIT: More broadly, this is a first generation tank, nothing about it will be remotely safe or comfortable for the crew.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top