While I generally prefer to be general so the designers can do their thing, I feel like the specific things outlined in this plan are pretty good for getting the W-1 to perform as well as it could, though given its light armament we'll still need some AV-4s or GK-1s to provide weight of fire.

On another note, Plan Improvement's greatest weakness in my opinion is that its armor materials testing clause is rather brief, but it's not a field I am as worried about.
[X] Plan Improvement
 
Last edited:
the W-1s could be modified into Tank hunters. give them a rocket pod or an anti-tank rifle in place of their machine gun and you have something that could hide in custom fox holes or craters to pop out and kill breakthrough vehicles.

The odds of two tank formations running into each other is pathetically low, and more importantly you don't really need either a rocket or AT rifle to kill a tank yet. Right now, a general rule of thumb is a standard gun will penetrate one-half its caliber of armor, and sustained fire can shatter plates (eventually).
 
The main problem of using existing field guns against tanks is that they're usually single-trailed and not designed to be fired against moving targets (or at least nothing smaller or faster than an infantry formation at range). Fortunately for the field guns, tanks are about as fast as said infantry formation (if not slower).

That said, armor-piercing ammo does just fine against most existing tanks.
 
Votes called Thryssen starts shit news at 11
Adhoc vote count started by 7734 on May 28, 2018 at 5:42 PM, finished with 34 posts and 14 votes.

  • [X] Plan Improvement
    -[X] Advise AV-4 and GK-1 developers to improve ventilation to the crew compartments, if possible.
    -[X]Request samples of armored plate from all designers/producers
    --[X]Conduct controlled weapons test and post-shoot analysis on plate at various angles, utilizing bacon as potential stand-ins.
    -[X] Ask for W1 design improvements.
    --[X]Add geared teeth on the drive sprocket and some rollers to improve track retention during maneuvers, as well as additional center guide; potentially widen tracks, as well.
    --[X]Add armor to cover the forward axel or shift the armored plating forward to cover it and prevent damage from shells, etc.
    -[X]If improvements are made (W1, AV-4, GK-1), conduct revised mobility testing to see if crew and vehicle endurance is improved over the first round.
    -[X]Conduct weapons testing on remaining models.
    --[X]Evaluate degrees of arc and elevation of weapons, as well as visibility from gunner position
    --[X]Evaluate ease of reloading while moving.
    --[X]Determine if fumes from either sustained machine-gun or light artillery fire are enough to be detrimental to the crew.
    --[X]Determine accuracy, both on the move over flat ground and at the halt, on flat ground and on various slopes (ties back into degrees of arc and elevation).
    --[X] Determine weapon effectiveness against most likely targets, i.e. bunkers, trenches, and sandbagged positions.
    --[X]If time and budget allows, conduct weapons testing against armored plate; this should be considered a low priority since we don't plan on fighting enemy armor. These are infantry support weapons.
    -[X]Consult with Schwarzenegger on crew armor possibilities.
    [X]Plan We're Not Monty Python, Let's Not Just Get On With It Because People Die When You Do That
    -[X] Advise AV-4 and GK-1 developers to improve ventilation to the crew compartments.
    -[X] Advise AV-4 and W-1 developers to improve track
    -[X] Suggest that the developers try to come up with an applique solution that can help remedy the "people getting killed by their own armor" problem, so we don't have to hose people out of tanks as often. This might be adopted even if your tank design doesn't.
    -[X] Note that contestants may request a retrial of endurance testing if they can prove to have improved their vehicle's performance. They are not required to do so, however.
    -[X] Weapons testing - This is to be split into two trials, one with the armor test vehicles after being repaired as much as possible, and one with new and undamaged ones. With engine in idle, fire weapons. Record the arcs of fire of the weapons while stationary and with one minute of time to turn the vehicle, accuracy from within the vehicle, and any failures they experience. If weapons are undamaged, have them fire upon a set of steel plates of equivalent thicknesses to those of the most heavily armored tank presently available - that is, a seven millimeter sheet, a 14 millimeter sheet, and a 20 millimeter sheet.
    [X]Plan We're Not Monty Python, Let's Not Just Get On With It Because People Die When You Do That(with an addition)
    -[X] Advise AV-4 and GK-1 developers to improve ventilation to the crew compartments.
    -[X] Advise AV-4 and W-1 developers to improve track
    -[X] Suggest that the developers try to come up with an applique solution that can help remedy the "people getting killed by their own armor" problem, so we don't have to hose people out of tanks as often. This might be adopted even if your tank design doesn't.
    -[X] Note that contestants may request a retrial of endurance testing if they can prove to have improved their vehicle's performance. They are not required to do so, however.
    -[X] Weapons testing - This is to be split into two trials, one with the armor test vehicles after being repaired as much as possible, and one with new and undamaged ones. With engine in idle, fire weapons. Record the arcs of fire of the weapons while stationary and with one minute of time to turn the vehicle, accuracy from within the vehicle, and any failures they experience. If weapons are undamaged, have them fire upon a set of steel plates of equivalent thicknesses to those of the most heavily armored tank presently available - that is, a seven millimeter sheet, a 14 millimeter sheet, and a 20 millimeter sheet.
    -[X] Armour testing - Because of the limited number of tanks available, test plates with different steel thicknesses and compositions against machine-guns and shrapnel(with pigs behind to test spalling). Recommend that manufacturers adopt whichever plate types gets the best protection to weight ratios. Use this as an opportunity to test anti-spalling designs.
 
Contest 1: Testing Phase 2 and Emergency Buy
After your week of fun in the sun and bombs at the range, you got right back into the pencil-pushing groove. First up was a list of design suggestions for Reindhart, consisting mostly of more ventilation to prevent the heatstroke cases that had been the GK-1's main point of failure, as well as some plate samples for weapons testing. The return mail a few days later was very positive, and stated that plate would be shipped out to the Ulm Testing Grounds postehaste, along with a bill of matierals and a quote for the test materials coming out to eighty five thalers, to be waived express if an order for more than twenty breakthrough vehicles were ordered.

Wanderer, as usual, cornered you for a business lunch for the results of the live fire testing. Between the apertif and salads, you discussed the majority of the improvements to the tracks and drive sockets. Aside from looking terribly embarresed, Wanderer took your suggestions to paper and quized you back on how the other entrants had done. Once the real eating was done and you were sipping coffee, you brought up the sample plates. Unfortunately, the original preproduction model casting center had been hit in a zeppelins bombing raid, and their proprietary family methodology had gone down with it. Fortunately, according to Wanderer, he'd lined up a few backup facilities and would have them send you plates for a measily thirty thalers apiece.

Then there was Thryssen. Once you'd beat past the initial walls of bullshit, accomplished by spending two days talking to the Werser military attache, you got down to the meat of it. The ventilation changes were grudgingly accepted, mostly because they'd been worked into the AV-4B model that the Wersers had been happy to collaborate with you on (their Developerbraus being as in the dark as you were) but the test plates were harder. Thryssen's own internal testing apparatus had numbers for you, thank you very much, and you spent as much time getting your plates for independent testing as the improvements through. Finally, after a net expense of a hundred and twenty thalers, your tests could go through.

The GK-1 mod. 1 erstraz took a few days to get to Ulm, but once it was put through its paces the results were much better than before, making it a full two hours of run time with only two heatstroke incidents, eight detrackings two of which were due to roadwheels shattering, six clutch failures, one throttle failure, and two Acts of God- one being the tank failing to cross a trench and flipping on its side, and the other a simultaneous throttle failure, leading to the powered clutches seizing, resulting in a sharp left turn that broke both tracks. In all other areas, it was the same as before, including crew fatality rate as one conscript was crushed by a falling portion of the engine mounting and two others suffered concussions and drowned from leaking fuel in the rollover.

The W-2 was an onsite modification of one of the boilerplate prototypes of the W-1, and was much better performing than the W-1. The test lasted an hour and forty minutes, stopping due to fuel exhaustion. The breakdowns were five detracking incidents, four cases of heatstroke, four engine or transmission failures, one case of getting bodily stuck in a crater (the original drive team having gone home), two cases of crew injury from abrupt maneuvers and not wearing their tanker armor or being belted in, one engine fire, and one UXO incident of running over a 75mm shell responsible for flipping the tank on its back and concussing the crew.

The penetration tests were a whole 'nother headache. The Thryssen plates were generally the worst under standard rifle fire, with the 6mm plate spalling at two hundred meters and shattering after forty rounds at spalling range, while penetrations were achieved at sixty meters. The 12mm plate was hardly better, suffering spallings at one hundred and fifty meters and shattering after one hundred and twelve rounds, and penetrations at forty meters. The Reinhardt plates were better, the 8mm plate spalling at one hundred sixty meters and shattering at twenty-five rounds, while penetrations were at fifty-five meters. The 16mm plate was surprisingly better, with spalling at ninety meters and shattering after seventy rounds, while penetration happened at thirty five meters. Wanderer's cast hull front (he used Thryssen plates for the sides) held up to spalling from ninety meters requiring a hundred and fifteen rounds to finally shatter, and penetration requiring an awe-inspiring twenty-five meters to finally get through it.

You couldn't be in Ulm for the weapons testing, though, or even get through the mess of ballistic-esse, because High Command had just called, and said that the Kubachin Free State had managed to commit to a naval landing at Marienburg. With the 12 Gardecorops sent in with the Landwere to contain the damage and the Kubachain were fortifying fast. While the Gardecorps might be able to dig them out alone, doing it without wrecking the city was unlikely. As suc
h, it was time for your screwballs to get ready to roll.

((This is a SINGLE ITEM vote, and a panic buy on High Command's part. NO PLANS.))

[] 100x Wanderer 2 tanks, to be procured through Wanderer GmbH
[] 85x Großekreuzer tanks, to be procured through Reindhardt AG
[] 65x AV-4 tanks, to be procured through Thryssen AT
 
[X] 100x Wanderer 2 tanks, to be procured through Wanderer GmbH

Can anyone offer a damn good reason why not? From where I'm standing, they are clearly superior in all important measures aside from just maybe some possible production headaches.

And no, weapons isn't an important measure right now. They won't be facing tanks, they will be facing infantry. In urban combat, this thing is a mobile, armored machine gun nest. 100 of those that can keep up with infantry and tank long range shots? That's a big deal in this situation I would think.
 
Last edited:
[X] 100x Wanderer 2 tanks, to be procured through Wanderer GmbH

Can anyone offer a damn good reason why not? From where I'm standing, they are clearly superior in all respects aside from just maybe some possible production headaches.
Because it possesses a truly pitiful amount of weaponry. A single machine gun with about a thousand rounds will not get you far in combat. Don't get me wrong, I'm leaning towards the Wanderer myself, but the lack of artillery or even ammunition is a serious drawback.
 
FYI, failure totals:
GK-1 mod. 1: 2 heat + 8 track (2 wheel shattering) + 6 clutch + 1 throttle + 1 toppling + 1 cascade drivetrain failure = 19 failures over 2 hours. 3 deaths during the toppling incident. (.158 failures per minute)
W-2: 5 track + 4 heat + 4 engine/transmission failure + 1 trapping (vehicle intact) + 2 crew trauma + 1 engine fire = 17 failures in 1 hour 40 min (fuel-constrained). Ran over a buried shell once, but remained intact though upside down and with concussed crew. (.17 failures per minute)
AV-4: Did not get retested.

Conclusions:
Wanderer tanks have a much wider variety of failures, and have poor fuel tanks, but have yet to kill anyone. Beat them up, sure, but no deaths, though the engine did catch fire once.
GK-1 has track and clutch issues, but works out to fewer failures per minute. It can fall over though, which does kill crew and that cascade powertrain failure was a hell of a thing.
AV-4 cannot be reexamined, but the lack of cooperation on the part of their manufacturers is noted.

Penetration notes:
Thryssen (AV-4):
6mm: 200m spall, 60m penetration, 40 round lifetime @ spall range
12mm: 150m spall, 40m penetration, 112 round lifetime @ spall range
Reinhardt (GK-1):
8mm: 160m spall, 55m penetration, 25 round lifetime @ spall range
16mm: 90m spall, 35m penetration, 70 round lifetime @ spall range
Wanderer (W-1, W-2):
Hull front (nonstandard thickness): 90m spall, 25m penetration, 115 round lifetime.
Uses Thryssen plates elsewhere.

All tests conducted with standard service rifles.

Conclusions:
Thryssen manufactures fairly flimsy plates, and while the data indicates a longer lifetime, that may be due to their greater spall range meaning less load per hit.
Reinhardt manufactures somewhat more durable plates, but generally last a shorter time at spall range, though whether just due to the closer range of fire or due to some flaw is unclear.
Wanderer uses Thryssen plates, except for the hull front which is far better than all competitors with a spall range equal to Reinhardt's thickest and a penetration range that is the shortest of the lot. It's also the most durable, with a slightly longer lifetime under spalling range fire than the 12mm Thryssen. Note though that Wanderer tanks are very dense compared to the much more spacious heavy tanks in the competition, so a penetrating hit or a shattered plate is a much greater problem for it.

EDIT: I am informed that there is a testing error causing an over reporting of the Wanderer hull front's performance. Take this into account when considering the above information. Furthermore and unrepatedly, I am also informed that Wanderer uses Thryssen plates, not Reinhardt ones, and have corrected myself.

I say to give them

[x] 85x Großekreuzer tanks, to be procured through Reindhardt AG

because the Wanderer has its place, but won't have much firepower and in a city its single machine gun will be crippling if flanked. Of course, it's the only one of the three that can turn in such an event, but the use of that is debatable. Furthermore, in the close quarters of a town or city, the armor that makes the Wanderer series good (outside of its speed and compact size) is not going to be as useful, thus it is best to send one of the heavies, and I'm inclined towards the GK-1, for while it and the AV-4 are pretty evenly matched, we can procure 20 more of the Großekreuzer.
 
Last edited:
[x] 85x Großekreuzer tanks, to be procured through Reindhardt AG
 
For an immediate "oh shit, get something now," yeah, I'm leaning toward GK tanks.

However, I do like the W-1/W-2 and I think it has some real potential and would like to further explore them. The other problem with the "oh shit, we need something now" is that the W-2 is not set up for mass production yet. On the other hand, I really, really like it.

I don't believe the lack of "heavy weaponry" is really an issue. The OTL British "female" tanks and the original FT-17 both did just fine using only machine-guns; remember, these are infantry support weapons. They're supposed to suppress trenches and machine-gun nests.

[X] 100x Wanderer 2 tanks, to be procured through Wanderer GmbH
Adhoc vote count started by Rat King on May 29, 2018 at 12:25 AM, finished with 17 posts and 12 votes.
 
Last edited:
[X] 100x Wanderer 2 tanks, to be procured through Wanderer GmbH
 
Last edited:
Back
Top