Remove ads

Strategic Arms Quest 3/2: Armor Edition

Reader mode
Whelp, time to start drafting the entrants I guess. Y'all should keep voting, or else I'm throwing in more Fun Tanks.
 
Votes Called: FUN(TM) DESIGNS INBOUND
Adhoc vote count started by 7734 on Jun 4, 2018 at 3:26 PM, finished with 16 posts and 9 votes.
  • [X] Plan Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für Sturmgeschütz mit Leichtes Infanteriegeschütz
    --[X] Can keep up with infantry.
    --[X] Proof against any enemy infantry weapon from any angle at ranges of greater than 75m
    --[X] Can traverse any trench in use by the enemy.
    --[X] Armed with a gun of at least 55mm caliber.
    --[X] The ability to fend off aircraft is encouraged, but not required.
    --[X] Capable of being transported by a railway without significant disassembly, and if possible on standard carriages.
    --[X] Capable of driving at least 30 miles without extensive maintenance.
    --[X] Main armament must be able to cover at least 270 degrees without turning the vehicle.
    --[X] Forward armor and that of the main armament must be capable of resisting anti-tank rifle fire.
    --[X] The use of equipment in use or soon to be elsewhere in the army is encouraged.
    --[x] Compartmentalization should be used for both damage control and quality of life reasons.
    ---[x] At a minimum the tank should have transverse bulkheads separating the engine room from the fighting sections, as well as adequate protection for the ammunition and fuel to prevent a fire.
    [X] Plan Landships​

    --[X] Can keep up with infantry.​

    --[X] Proof against any enemy infantry weapon from any angle at ranges of greater than 75m​

    --[X] Can traverse any trench in use by the enemy.​

    --[X] Armed with a gun of at least 55mm caliber.​

    --[X] The ability to fend off aircraft is encouraged, but not required.​

    --[X] Capable of driving at least 30 miles without extensive maintenance or track repair.​

    --[X] Main armament must be able to cover at least 270 degrees without turning the vehicle.​
    ---[x] This may be achieved through multiple mounts or weapons of the same caliber.
    --[X] Forward armor and that of the main armament must be capable of resisting anti-tank rifle fire.​

    --[X] The use of equipment in use or soon to be elsewhere in the army is required. ​

    --[x] Compartmentalization should be used for both damage control and quality of life reasons.​

    ---[x] At a minimum the tank should have transverse bulkheads separating the engine room from the fighting sections, as well as adequate protection for the ammunition and fuel to prevent a fire.​

    ---[x] Adequate hatches should be provided to allow the crew to easily escape the vehicle or pick up a stranded crew.​

    --[x] Provision should be made to carry a minimum of one dozen messenger pigeons.​
Click to expand...
 
FUN as in the dwarf fortress version, I take it? I'll look forward to it. I hope to see some creatively bad engineering. Bonus points if some of it is weird enough the thread doesn't even have a good basis of comparison. Should be entertaining, and if you roll unexpectedly well we might get to go properly off the rails.
 
Vote tally, for clarity.
Adhoc vote count started by TortugaGreen on Jun 4, 2018 at 3:57 PM, finished with 18 posts and 9 votes.
  • [X] Plan Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für Sturmgeschütz mit Leichtes Infanteriegeschütz
    --[X] Can keep up with infantry.
    --[X] Proof against any enemy infantry weapon from any angle at ranges of greater than 75m
    --[X] Can traverse any trench in use by the enemy.
    --[X] Armed with a gun of at least 55mm caliber.
    --[X] The ability to fend off aircraft is encouraged, but not required.
    --[X] Capable of being transported by a railway without significant disassembly, and if possible on standard carriages.
    --[X] Capable of driving at least 30 miles without extensive maintenance.
    --[X] Main armament must be able to cover at least 270 degrees without turning the vehicle.
    --[X] Forward armor and that of the main armament must be capable of resisting anti-tank rifle fire.
    --[X] The use of equipment in use or soon to be elsewhere in the army is encouraged.
    --[x] Compartmentalization should be used for both damage control and quality of life reasons.
    ---[x] At a minimum the tank should have transverse bulkheads separating the engine room from the fighting sections, as well as adequate protection for the ammunition and fuel to prevent a fire.
    [X] Plan Landships​

    --[X] Can keep up with infantry.​

    --[X] Proof against any enemy infantry weapon from any angle at ranges of greater than 75m​

    --[X] Can traverse any trench in use by the enemy.​

    --[X] Armed with a gun of at least 55mm caliber.​

    --[X] The ability to fend off aircraft is encouraged, but not required.​

    --[X] Capable of driving at least 30 miles without extensive maintenance or track repair.​

    --[X] Main armament must be able to cover at least 270 degrees without turning the vehicle.​
    ---[x] This may be achieved through multiple mounts or weapons of the same caliber.
    --[X] Forward armor and that of the main armament must be capable of resisting anti-tank rifle fire.​

    --[X] The use of equipment in use or soon to be elsewhere in the army is required. ​

    --[x] Compartmentalization should be used for both damage control and quality of life reasons.​

    ---[x] At a minimum the tank should have transverse bulkheads separating the engine room from the fighting sections, as well as adequate protection for the ammunition and fuel to prevent a fire.​

    ---[x] Adequate hatches should be provided to allow the crew to easily escape the vehicle or pick up a stranded crew.​

    --[x] Provision should be made to carry a minimum of one dozen messenger pigeons.​
Click to expand...
Adhoc vote count started by TortugaGreen on Jun 4, 2018 at 3:57 PM, finished with 18 posts and 9 votes.
  • [X] Plan Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für Sturmgeschütz mit Leichtes Infanteriegeschütz
    --[X] Can keep up with infantry.
    --[X] Proof against any enemy infantry weapon from any angle at ranges of greater than 75m
    --[X] Can traverse any trench in use by the enemy.
    --[X] Armed with a gun of at least 55mm caliber.
    --[X] The ability to fend off aircraft is encouraged, but not required.
    --[X] Capable of being transported by a railway without significant disassembly, and if possible on standard carriages.
    --[X] Capable of driving at least 30 miles without extensive maintenance.
    --[X] Main armament must be able to cover at least 270 degrees without turning the vehicle.
    --[X] Forward armor and that of the main armament must be capable of resisting anti-tank rifle fire.
    --[X] The use of equipment in use or soon to be elsewhere in the army is encouraged.
    --[x] Compartmentalization should be used for both damage control and quality of life reasons.
    ---[x] At a minimum the tank should have transverse bulkheads separating the engine room from the fighting sections, as well as adequate protection for the ammunition and fuel to prevent a fire.
    [X] Plan Landships​

    --[X] Can keep up with infantry.​

    --[X] Proof against any enemy infantry weapon from any angle at ranges of greater than 75m​

    --[X] Can traverse any trench in use by the enemy.​

    --[X] Armed with a gun of at least 55mm caliber.​

    --[X] The ability to fend off aircraft is encouraged, but not required.​

    --[X] Capable of driving at least 30 miles without extensive maintenance or track repair.​

    --[X] Main armament must be able to cover at least 270 degrees without turning the vehicle.​
    ---[x] This may be achieved through multiple mounts or weapons of the same caliber.
    --[X] Forward armor and that of the main armament must be capable of resisting anti-tank rifle fire.​

    --[X] The use of equipment in use or soon to be elsewhere in the army is required. ​

    --[x] Compartmentalization should be used for both damage control and quality of life reasons.​

    ---[x] At a minimum the tank should have transverse bulkheads separating the engine room from the fighting sections, as well as adequate protection for the ammunition and fuel to prevent a fire.​

    ---[x] Adequate hatches should be provided to allow the crew to easily escape the vehicle or pick up a stranded crew.​

    --[x] Provision should be made to carry a minimum of one dozen messenger pigeons.​
Click to expand...
 
Remove ads
Contest 2: Current Entrants
  • Threadmarks
    • Issuing your (rather ambitious) Request For Quotes, you gave things two weeks for everyone to get back to you. The fact your mailbox was flooded at the end could be considered a good thing, you supposed.

    The first designs for you were from Thryssen's new Independent Panzerwerke, and you had to scratch your head at 'em for a few minutes. Packing the 5,5 gun in a top-mounted turret and a 7,5 in the hull, it also came along with eight machine guns scattered through hull sponsons, linked to the cannons, on pintle mounts (ostenably for flak purposes) and one even dangling out the back. With two monstrous Wanderer compression-fired engines and the general shape of the AV-4, this… this KW-1 was ridiculous. With thirty millimeters of bow armor and nineteen on the sides, though, if it was anywhere near what it was claimed then it would be a ridiculous monster.

    Reinhardt had naturally sent in their own designs, a GK-2 and GK-3 platform respectfully. Both were built on an enlarged GK-1 hull, but they had very different armaments. The base hull had twenty-two cumulative millimeters of bow armor and sixteen on the sides, along with a dual three-cylinder hot bulb engine from Ursus. The differences were purely in weapons. The GK-2 came armed with a cannibalized Balkh design for a rotary 3,5 cm cannon in the nose and two 5,5 guns to cover the sides, along with an additional five machine guns scattered throughout the compartmentalized hull. In addition, it could mount up to ten machine guns on pintle mounts on an optional roof as flak. The GK-3, meanwhile, had two turrets- one bow, one stern- mounting 5,5cm guns, as well as eight machine guns in the bow compartment.

    Skoda, not one to miss out on what was turning out to be lucrative tank contracts, sent in their own hat for the contest: the SzW-1. Clocking in at more than ten meters long and three wide, this massive bus of a tank carried a short 10,5cm howitzer in the turret, a 3.5cm hull howitzer, and six machine guns. Relying on their Reichsmarine-given casting experience, the forward hull was a cast forty five milimeters, with the side hull segments being twenty milimeters universally.

    Wanderer, of course, was coming to the competition with his latest and greatest too. The W-5/6 was a completely different tank from the W-2, shedding the hull mount in exchange for an elongated hull, turret, and fairly light armament of a 2cm automatic cannon or 3,5cm lightened tank gun. After reading your RFQ however, Wanderer put his new partners to work in designing the W-8, an enlarged version with a longer and wider hull to fit in a 5,5 shortened barrel gun on what was almost the same chassis.

    Barring any changes to schedule, you could get to work writing a new testing scheme. Good thing, too- Anne-Marie had officially hit the point where you were the most evil creature in creation, for cursing her with twins that kept her from leaving the house on a regular basis. Good thing you had a cot in your office.

    ((This is a BY PLAN vote for how to test the tanks. For convience's sake, I'll include last testing plan below.))

    [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.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
     
  • Threadmarks
    • [X]The Tank Train Has No Brakes
    -[X]Include all tanks, including W-5, W-6, and W-8 variants.
    --[X]Request armor specifications (thickness, etc) from Wanderer for records/testing purposes.
    -[X]Conduct mobility and machine/crew endurance testing
    --[X]Evaluate speed and maneuverability over flat terrain, on road surfaces (dirt, gravel, cobblestone, and metaled, if at all possible), broken terrain, in mud, and against various depths of trenches, barbed wire, etc. Record speeds for comparison.
    --[X]Survey crew comfort and ease of use throughout.
    ---[X]Request input from Leutnat Erich Folgers on this point.
    --[X]Test rate of breakdown and ability of crews to repair breakdowns that occur without outside assistance.
    --[X]Evaluate ease of preparation for transport via rail, ship, etc.
    ---[X]Check on whether tank will actually fit on standard railcars or is transportable via railcar.
    -[X]Conduct weapons testing
    --[X]Evaluate accuracy of weapons, as well as effective rate of fire, from the halt and while moving.
    ---[X]Evaluate "ammo" endurance - i.e. how much ammo for their main weapon and machine guns (if applicable) can each tank reasonably carry and expect to have on hand without increasing risk of fire or ammo explosion.
    ---[X]Check for potential blind-spots.
    --[X]Evaluate usefulness/effectiveness of weapons against dummy positions (sandbags, trenches, log and earth blockhouses, concrete bunkers if we have the time/funding to build one).
    -[X]Armor testing after all other tests are exhausted and complete.
    --[X]Evaluation will be made after each weapon-type test to see if failure point can be determined and to try to evaluate what sort of damage would have been had the vehicle been manned (use pigs as a stand-in, if budget allows). All results will be cross-checked and compared at the conclusion of armor testing.
    --[X]Systemic, starting with armor piercing small arms in controlled bursts or in single shots, moving up to anti-tank rifles if we have any available, against front, side, and turret armor. This isn't to test the failure point, but rather see what the armor might reasonably deflect in combat and to determine general resistance/deflection.
    --[X]Test armor against typical hand-held infantry explosives; similar procedure as above.
    --[X]Test armor against shell splinters from field guns; similar procedure as above.
    --[X]Test frontal armor against direct fire from light (< or equal to 5,5cm) field/infantry guns; similar procedure as above.
     
    Last edited:
    I'd like the testing plan to also evaluate the ease of preparing the tank for strategic transport by rail, and for the armor testing to measure effectiveness versus explosive traps and grenades.
     
    Remove ads
    Contest 2 Table 1
  • Informational
    • Ok, time for the return of The Table. This time I'll be making annotations to some of these entries, because they're very FUN.

      Main Guns/Mounting Additional machine guns AA Usable Frontal armor Side armor Engine Notes:
    KW-1 5.5cm turreted/7.5cm hull 8 1 30 19 2 Wanderer Diesel Acceptable

    GK-2
    GK-3
    3.5 rotary + 2x5.5 sponson
    2x5.5cm in separate turrets
    5+10
    8
    10
    0     		22 spaced 16 2x Three-cylinder hot bulb It's time to stop
    SzW-1 10.5cm turreted, 3.5cm hull 6 0? 45 20 ? Delete the hull gun for an MG/plate, Penis Compensator gun (should hold a tank-tank gun should that ever be needed)
    W-5/6 2cm autocannon or 3.5cm light tank gun  
    Possibly the autocannon?
    RIP     		Same old? Possibly improved Same old? Possibly improved ? Autocannons go, proven design
    W-8 5.5cm short     Same old? Possibly improved Same old? Possibly improved ? A nice middle ground between the monstrosity of the Skoda an the failtanks that the others entered
     
    Last edited:
  • Informational
    • Himmelhand said:
    I'd like the testing plan to also evaluate the ease of preparing the tank for strategic transport by rail, and for the armor testing to measure effectiveness versus explosive traps and grenades.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Hmm. Point. That may be worth a modified plan. I'm on a phone, but if someone did the transport part I'd vote for it. Not sure the explosives part is the best use of limited budget and prototypes, though.
     
    Thanks for making those changes!

    [X]The Tank Train Has No Brakes

    My poor irrational heart wants the W-5/6 because autocannons. I know that it's not meant to be, but still.

    I'd really consider the merits of the 10.5cm gun as a bunker buster. The ability to direct fire a weapon of that caliber would be tremendous in knocking out strongpoints.
     
    Last edited:
    Himmelhand said:
    Thanks for making those changes!

    [X]The Tank Train Has No Brakes

    My poor irrational heart wants the W-5/6 because autocannons. I know that it's not meant to be, but still.

    I'd really consider the merits of the 10.5cm gun as a bunker buster. The ability to direct fire a weapon of that caliber would be tremendous in knocking out strongpoints.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    The GK-2 is also an option, because you know, rotary 35mm.
     
    Himmelhand said:
    My poor irrational heart wants the W-5/6 because autocannons. I know that it's not meant to be, but still.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I also like that tank, but this is not the competition for it. This is to be decided between the W-8, the KW-1 and the SzW-1 IMO. Depending on the speed of the Skoda tank since I suspect it to either be the slowest of the bunch or the least reliable (hoping for the former, slowness can be dealt with easier than constant breakdowns). I really want to get that massive gun into the field.
    SirLagginton said:
    The GK-2 is also an option, because you know, rotary 35mm.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I think that gun is pretty likely to be in the dead zone of uselessness - the 2cm autocannon Wanderer has chosen is likely to be able to deal with most if not all things it can deal with, but it lacks the pure punch of a 75mm or 105mm when it comes to removing fortifications from the battlefield.
     
    Winged_One² said:
    I think that gun is pretty likely to be in the dead zone of uselessness - the 2cm autocannon Wanderer has chosen is likely to be able to deal with most if not all things it can deal with, but it lacks the pure punch of a 75mm or 105mm when it comes to removing fortifications from the battlefield.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Bigger shells means more shrapnel to kill infantry dude, there's a reason why vehicle mounted anti-infantry has been generally about bigger calibers, because it's overall more efficient. Something like that rotary is more akin to a 40mm AGL, something notably seriously deadly against infantry.

    And in any case, it'll also have a pair of 55mm sponsons, for your fortification busting needs.
     
    I suspect the SzW-1 will be too large for transport and too heavy to have anything close to reliable suspension or transmission.

    A W-5/6 would probably be a strong contender as a next generation cavalry tank. Especially if you give it a machine gun or two.

    KW-1 is probably the most well rounded, but we don't know much about the armor scheme on the W-8.
     
    The Skoda is basically a Char 2C, so it might actually work OK, although it will be horrifically slow.

    Also the most heavily armored, so hey.
     
    7734 said:
    The first designs for you were from Thryssen's new Independent Panzerwerke, and you had to scratch your head at 'em for a few minutes. Packing the 5,5 gun in a top-mounted turret and a 7,5 in the hull, it also came along with eight machine guns scattered through hull sponsons, linked to the cannons, on pintle mounts (ostenably for flak purposes) and one even dangling out the back. With two monstrous Wanderer compression-fired engines and the general shape of the AV-4, this… this KW-1 was ridiculous. With thirty millimeters of bow armor and nineteen on the sides, though, if it was anywhere near what it was claimed then it would be a ridiculous monster.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    This is a silly vehicle, is it supposed to be a miniature baneblade or something? A turret, plus a heavier hull-mount, and then a heavy coating of dakka. I'm not sure what the goal of this design was, other than "just pile some guns on there." It just seems weirdly put together to me.

    7734 said:
    Reinhardt had naturally sent in their own designs, a GK-2 and GK-3 platform respectfully. Both were built on an enlarged GK-1 hull, but they had very different armaments. The base hull had twenty-two cumulative millimeters of bow armor and sixteen on the sides, along with a dual three-cylinder hot bulb engine from Ursus. The differences were purely in weapons. The GK-2 came armed with a cannibalized Balkh design for a rotary 3,5 cm cannon in the nose and two 5,5 guns to cover the sides, along with an additional five machine guns scattered throughout the compartmentalized hull. In addition, it could mount up to ten machine guns on pintle mounts on an optional roof as flak. The GK-3, meanwhile, had two turrets- one bow, one stern- mounting 5,5cm guns, as well as eight machine guns in the bow compartment.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    With these designs, they're still pretty silly but perhaps less so. In the GK-2's case, the armament is pretty silly, as why in all reason did they decide that a 35mm rotary cannon was the weapon to go with? And then they bodged some 55mm guns on the sides, for some reason. And then, because that armament wasn't enough, they made it able to carry 15 machine guns - that's more machine guns than the infantry it'll be operating with by a wide margin. On the other hand, the GK-3 is rather more reasonable, though the multiple turrets is kind of strange. I can see why they'd do it (one gun isn't enough dakka, so we should have two main turrets! Or somesuch) and it seems like the best out of the madtank group, as if nothing else it has a unified armament. The forward 8 MGs is kind of excessive, but managably so.

    7734 said:
    Skoda, not one to miss out on what was turning out to be lucrative tank contracts, sent in their own hat for the contest: the SzW-1. Clocking in at more than ten meters long and three wide, this massive bus of a tank carried a short 10,5cm howitzer in the turret, a 3.5cm hull howitzer, and six machine guns. Relying on their Reichsmarine-given casting experience, the forward hull was a cast forty five milimeters, with the side hull segments being twenty milimeters universally.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    With this, though, we firmly reenter the land of if not sanity at least vaguely stable design. It's certainly a big tank, but it's very well armored and the armament is not bad. The presence of that 105mm howitzer reminds me vaguely of a KV-2, especially with the otherwise large size, but they had to decide that wasn't enough and added another 35mm howitzer (which is a really weird howitzer caliber) and a bunch of MGs. Outside of wanderer's things, this is the best of the bunch in my opinion, though testing could change that.

    7734 said:
    Wanderer, of course, was coming to the competition with his latest and greatest too. The W-5/6 was a completely different tank from the W-2, shedding the hull mount in exchange for an elongated hull, turret, and fairly light armament of a 2cm automatic cannon or 3,5cm lightened tank gun. After reading your RFQ however, Wanderer put his new partners to work in designing the W-8, an enlarged version with a longer and wider hull to fit in a 5,5 shortened barrel gun on what was almost the same chassis.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I say outside of wanderers things because these look quite good. While underarmed, the W-5 and W-6 look pretty well put together, and the W-8 resolves the small size of the gun. To be honest though, the big shortfall of this design is that it has no machine guns. It's certainly nice that they didn't go FULL DAKKA like everyone else, but I wouldn't have minded a machine gun or two to shoot up enemy soldiers. I do want more information though, because armor is pretty important and it's totally ignored here.


    On plans:
    []The Tank Train Has No Brakes
    -[]Include all tanks, including W-5, W-6, and W-8 variants.
    -[]Conduct mobility and machine/crew endurance testing
    --[]Evaluate speed and maneuverability over flat terrain, on road surfaces (dirt, gravel, cobblestone, and metaled, if at all possible), broken terrain, in mud, and against various depths of trenches, barbed wire, etc. Record speeds for comparison.
    --[]Survey crew comfort and ease of use throughout.
    ---[]Request input from Leutnat Erich Folgers on this point.
    --[]Test rate of breakdown and ability of crews to repair breakdowns that occur without outside assistance.
    --[]Evaluate ease of preparation for transport via rail, ship, etc.
    ---[]Check on whether tank will actually fit on standard railcars or is transportable via railcar.
    -[]Conduct weapons testing
    --[]Evaluate accuracy of weapons, as well as effective rate of fire, from the halt and while moving.
    ---[]Evaluate "ammo" endurance - i.e. how much ammo for their main weapon and machine guns (if applicable) can each tank reasonably carry and expect to have on hand without increasing risk of fire or ammo explosion.
    ---[]Check for potential blind-spots.
    --[]Evaluate usefulness/effectiveness of weapons against dummy positions (sandbags, trenches, log and earth blockhouses, concrete bunkers if we have the time/funding to build one).
    -[]Armor testing after all other tests are exhausted and complete.
    --[]Evaluation will be made after each weapon-type test to see if failure point can be determined and to try to evaluate what sort of damage would have been had the vehicle been manned (use pigs as a stand-in, if budget allows). All results will be cross-checked and compared at the conclusion of armor testing.
    --[]Systemic, starting with armor piercing small arms in controlled bursts or in single shots, moving up to anti-tank rifles if we have any available, against front, side, and turret armor. This isn't to test the failure point, but rather see what the armor might reasonably deflect in combat and to determine general resistance/deflection.
    --[]Test armor against typical hand-held infantry explosives; similar procedure as above.
    --[]Test armor against shell splinters from field guns; similar procedure as above.
    --[]Test frontal armor against direct fire from light (< or equal to 5,5cm) field/infantry guns; similar procedure as above.
    The Tank Train Has No Brakes looks pretty good to me, but it's not terribly specific and we need to ask Wanderer what's up regarding armor this time. As such, a new plan:

    [X]Plan The Train May Not, But The Tank Sure Has Brakes.
    -[X]Include all tanks, including the W-5 and 6.
    -[X]Endurance testing - Run the tanks for 5 hours or until they can no longer proceed without a specialized repair crew, over a variety of terrain including trenches, craters, road, mud and all other regular battlefield features if within financial means. Record any and all breakdowns, tracking type (including crew breakdowns) and frequency. The vehicle's speed on each terrain type should also be recorded, as well as the rate of turning and similar properties.
    --[X]For crew-related stoppages, have Folgers consult on solutions.
    -[X]Weapons testing - Having the vehicle stationary, fire on a series of targets. Arcs of fire of the various weapons is to be tested, as is the number of weapons that can be brought to bear in various angles. Rate of fire needs be recorded for non-automatic armament, both in sustained and burst firing.
    --[X]Note ammunition stores for weapons - if a vehicle uses multiple calibers of main armament, which runs out first? For all vehicles, how long does it take to exhaust ammo stores?
    -[X] Armor testing - Split into 3 branches, ordered by which is to occur first. After the completion of one, the vehicle is to be repaired and put under the next test.
    --[X] infantry resistance - Measure spalling and penetrating distances using an infantry rifle and a dedicated anti-tank rifle, using pigs as crew stand-ins and run the engines at idle, so that damage to those components can be reliably measured during each break for measurement, which is to occur after every minute of fire until either the engine is disabled past easy repair or more than half the 'crew' is shot.
    --[X] Explosives resistance - Detonate artillery shells and grenades at variable distances from the vehicle, with the vehicle configured as in the last test. After every 30 seconds of detonations, pause to evaluate the vehicle's health, ending under the same conditions as last time.
    --[X] Anti-tank fire resistance - Using guns identical in projectile to those of the other contestants, fire on the target vehicle. After every hit, pause and evaluate crew and engine health.
     
    Last edited:
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top