Remove ads

Strategic Arms Quest 3/2: Armor Edition

Reader mode
The SzW-1 is clearly the answer for a vehicle to force a breakthrough. That 105mm gun is superb. The fact that it doesn't seem to have much trouble overcoming terrain (barring overworking the engine or limited fuel supply) means that it should do well for

If we can push through an improved fuel system it would be excellent as an infantry tank.

TortugaGreen said:
But I'd say the W-5 through 8 do have a solid advantage: size and probably cost. They're actually pretty small vehicles being basically Renault FTs, which means to me that they will cost far less than any of the derphuge doomtanks. On that note though, the Skoda landship despite fuel issues has a great gun (gotta love that gratuitous HE) and excellent armor, though dropping the 35mm secondary hull gun for weight savings is being considered, because there's no way we're getting stronger engines in there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Dropping the 35mm is probably a good idea. If we could graft on the 20mm from the Wanderer though...
 
[x] Plan Junk Junk Junk

To : High Command
From : Testing Unit Von Rabe
Purpose of test : Proposed Infantry Tanks KW-1 SzW-1 GK-2 GK-3 W-5 W-6 W-8

Results : Junk Junk Junk

None of the prototypes provided would be useful in the infantry tank role.
The SzW-1 in particular is unable to keep up with walking infantry on a flat road and runs out of fuel after a few hundred meters.
If High Command absolutely requires an infantry tank at this time the GK-2 refitted with single gun 10.5 or 2cm autocannon would be less inadequate.

High spots. Both the 10.5 and the 20mm performed well, and the exercise in stadiametric ranging performed by Leutnant Adrian Handel has promise (perhaps a pair of oculars mounted on the side of the gun?)

Detailed results in attachment A.
 
Remove ads
Contest 2 Table 2
  • Informational
    • So, I am late, (very late), but The Table will still happen (getting my data straight from the QM now, so no more transcription errors):

      Speed(rough terrain) in km/h Thrown Tracks Engine Issues Crew Issues Other Gunnery Notes
    KW-1
    7.5(5)     		12 6 5 2 Decent to Good
    SwZ-1
    3(3)     		15 4 1 5 (fuel) Shrapnel makes up for error in aim
    GK-2 9.8(6) 18 2 5   Decent
    GK-3 9.6(6) 20 2 2 1(Cascading Failure) Better than the -2 by roughly a third
    W-5 11.6(8) 10 5 5 5 (2x Fuel, 2x UXO, 1 Unknown) Very quick-follow up, Good
    W-6 11.4(8) 10 6 4 5 (the same) Bad at unknown distance (worse weather than the rest)
    W-8 11.1(8) 10 4 6 5 (again)
    Very poor at unknown range (really bad weather)
    Out of all the machines we have right now, the GK-3 is the one I'm the most willing to throw into the fight despite my distaste for multi-turret machines - the Skoda is an amazing gun platform but needs a good bit more fuel. Either the Autocannon or the 5.5cm Wanderer are a good Cavalry Tank followup (I would like a retrial of the 5.5 gunnery with better weather so they stand on even ground).

    Going to make a voting plan soon™ with the improvements I have in mind.
     
  • Informational
    • I too, want to push for the Skoda. It seems that, besides the fuel problem, which can be answered much in the same way the SwZ-1 is designed, I.e. MORE, it doesn't seem to have issues with ergonomics or communication or accuracy or anything else.

    Our guys are having a singular problem: can't break through,

    And this is us answering with the Kool-Aid Man.
     
    SAGrognard said:
    [x] Plan Junk Junk Junk

    To : High Command
    From : Testing Unit Von Rabe
    Purpose of test : Proposed Infantry Tanks KW-1 SzW-1 GK-2 GK-3 W-5 W-6 W-8

    Results : Junk Junk Junk

    None of the prototypes provided would be useful in the infantry tank role.
    The SzW-1 in particular is unable to keep up with walking infantry on a flat road and runs out of fuel after a few hundred meters.
    If High Command absolutely requires an infantry tank at this time the GK-2 refitted with single gun 10.5 or 2cm autocannon would be less inadequate.

    High spots. Both the 10.5 and the 20mm performed well, and the exercise in stadiametric ranging performed by Leutnant Adrian Handel has promise (perhaps a pair of oculars mounted on the side of the gun?)

    Detailed results in attachment A.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    You wanna try a plan vote?

    TotallyNotEvil said:
    Our guys are having a singular problem: can't break through,

    And this is us answering with the Kool-Aid Man.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Skoda is literally where the Navy gets most of their forged large armor bits for dreadnaughts. At no point in time did they ever consider building something small and light and demure: no, they forgot to take the shaft alley out and put in an armored barbette for the turret and compartmentalized the engines so she can limp home on one. Its basically a boat.

    Himmelhand said:
    Dropping the 35mm is probably a good idea. If we could graft on the 20mm from the Wanderer though...
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    The problem is Wanderer bought the rights to make the autocannon from Falkenhiemer, which was arranged in part of a tech transfer for them to start building W-7 tanks.

    Also, @Winged_One² your chart is threadmarked.
     
    7734 said:
    Skoda is literally where the Navy gets most of their forged large armor bits for dreadnaughts. At no point in time did they ever consider building something small and light and demure: no, they forgot to take the shaft alley out and put in an armored barbette for the turret and compartmentalized the engines so she can limp home on one. Its basically a boat.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Is it seaworthy?

    7734 said:
    The problem is Wanderer bought the rights to make the autocannon from Falkenhiemer, which was arranged in part of a tech transfer for them to start building W-7 tanks.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    What info is available on W-7?
     
    Dwergar said:
    Is it seaworthy?

    What info is available on W-7?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    It's sealed for river crossings and swells.

    The W-7 was a project to make the W-5 chassis into an SPG payed for by the Wessers and Bosnians. It takes the W-5 chassis, strips off all the nonstructural plates, and slaps on a 7,5/40 cm howitzer on the top in an open mount. It's not great- only 30 degrees of traverse- but it gets the job done. There's also a 10,5 version with like 5 degrees of traverse, but it's not in production and only for the times you need to crack a big fort.
     
    Fuck, I'm hyped.

    Considering we haven't done armour testing, out of literally anyone here, I trust Skoda the most with having gotten it right.

    It being sealed is also neat. SURPRISE TANKMARINE.
     
    Also, about production.
    No Wanderer at this time. Maybe three tonks a month is not enough.

    Thryssen have their mobile coffins in production already. Lets hope that Schwarzenegger survives serving in them.
    Skoda can (And probably will, because Navy has their own procurement) start building their armored shore batteries at the drop of a hat.
    It will take a week for Reinhardt to start churning tonks out like pies.

    So, how about we go and tell the High Command to order some landships?
     
    [X]Plan one more go
    -[X]To Manufacturers:
    --[X]Thryssen: It's a good tank, but we don't see a future in combining main guns that are turreted and casemated
    --[X]Skoda: Give us some more fuel, delete the hull gun for an MG or just plate
    ---[X]Possibly explore weight reduction by cutting down the gun - with a 105mm shell, we don't need a full power naval gun at the ranges we will be firing at.
    --[X]Reindhardt: Despite reservations against dual-turret vehicles, the GK-3 is the best vehicle of the current batch (though it does lack behind in frontal armor a bit). Perhaps use speaking tubes to fix the communications issues between the turrets.
    --[X]Wanderer: Completely missed the point of the contest, but the W-5 would be a fine upgrade to our current cavalry tank
    -[X]to high command:
    --[X]We would like to have some more time to hold another round of trials with improved tanks
    ---[X]Should the time for that not be there, the GK-3 is the most suitable for immediate adaption (however we are confident we can get a better tank given a bit more time)
    --[X]Additionally, the W-5 is a considerable upgrade over the W-2 should more firepower be needed for the cavalry tank
     
    Last edited:
    Thryssen apparently can't make a good tank to save their lives. I'd say it's a good design, but it's poorly implemented,

    However, I'm leery in recommending the GK-3 or the Wanderer, especially the Wanderer, without armour testing.
     
    Winged_One² said:
    [X]Plan one more go
    -[X]To Manufacturers:
    --[X]Thryssen: It's a good tank, but we don't see a future in combining main guns that are turreted and casemated
    --[X]Skoda: Give us some more fuel, delete the hull gun for a normal QF gun or even an MG
    --[X]Reindhardt: Despite reservations against dual-turret vehicles, the GK-3 is the best vehicle of the current batch (though it does lack behind in frontal armor a bit).
    --[X]Wanderer: Completely missed the point of the contest, but the W-5 would be a fine upgrade to our current cavalry tank
    -[X]to high command:
    --[X]We would like to have some more time to hold another round of trials with improved tanks
    ---[X]Should the time for that not be there, the GK-3 is the most suitable for immediate adaption (however we are confident we can get a better tank given a bit more time)
    --[X]Additionally, the W-5 is a considerable upgrade over the W-2 should more firepower be needed for the cavalry tank
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Maybe also add a suggestion to Skoda to "make it faster, we don't particularly care how." And let the Skoda people work it out. But looks good to me.
    [X]Plan one more go
     
    All of you have got me seriously considering the SzW-1. It's too slow, probably too expensive and embarassingly short on fuel, but it stands a good chance of getting the job done. I like the more conventional designs better, but maybe it's what we need right now.

    We need to know how much potential exists to add more fuel and generally unfuck the fuel system before I can vote for it in good conscience. Sure, it's big, but how much of that space is empty and properly placed?

    Other questions for @7734:

    Does it have a radio? Details?

    What's the state of the art in naval fire control and range-finding? Are coincidence rangefinders a thing yet? If so, how tankable are they? If not, can we use the events in the recent tests as an excuse to get that being developed?
     
    Last edited:
    brmj said:
    We need to know how much potential exists to add more fuel and generally unfuck the fuel system before I can vote for it in good conscience. Sure, it's big, but how much of that space is empty and properly placed?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    That's why I'm not recommending it right now, but want it to undergo another round of tests with upgraded fuel tanks.
     
    Winged_One² said:
    That's why I'm not recommending it right now, but want it to undergo another round of tests with upgraded fuel tanks.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Didn't we literally lose our testing grounds? We have nothing to test it with. On the other hand, if we can get ahold of some technicians and we still have a prototype, we can probably see if the prototypes fuel system can be hooked up correctly.

    That should allow us to see if it was assembly or design that fucked up.
     
    I favor the Skoda over the GK-3.

    [X]Plan Bolo
    -[X]Testing/Modifications:
    --[X]Thryssen: Improve crew safety and exhaust system.
    --[X]Skoda: Improve the fuel supply, and if possible replace the hull gun with a lighter/faster model.
    --[X]Reindhardt: Try to implement some sort of fire control system or trigonometric gunnery table that takes advantage of the innovations Lt. Handel made.
    --[X]Wanderer: Consider advancing the W-5 and W-6 models as cavalry tanks. Add one or more MGs, and improve hatches and crew ergonomics.
    -[X]Policy Recommendations
    --[X]Note that armor testing still needs to be done for these models, so their ability to withstand enemy fire is unknown. Additional time to examine this count potentially be lifesaving.
    --[X]The Skoda model is ideal for assaulting strongpoints, particularly once fuel issues are resolved.
    --[X]The GK-3 is an acceptable substitute if budgetary limits are too tight.
    --[X]The W-5 is a very good option for improving on the current cavalry tank. Evolution of this design will produce a valuable weapon.
     
    Last edited:
    Winged_One² said:
    [X]Plan one more go
    -[X]To Manufacturers:
    --[X]Thryssen: It's a good tank, but we don't see a future in combining main guns that are turreted and casemated
    --[X]Skoda: Give us some more fuel, delete the hull gun for a normal QF gun or even an MG
    --[X]Reindhardt: Despite reservations against dual-turret vehicles, the GK-3 is the best vehicle of the current batch (though it does lack behind in frontal armor a bit).
    --[X]Wanderer: Completely missed the point of the contest, but the W-5 would be a fine upgrade to our current cavalry tank
    -[X]to high command:
    --[X]We would like to have some more time to hold another round of trials with improved tanks
    ---[X]Should the time for that not be there, the GK-3 is the most suitable for immediate adaption (however we are confident we can get a better tank given a bit more time)
    --[X]Additionally, the W-5 is a considerable upgrade over the W-2 should more firepower be needed for the cavalry tank
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I like this plan; I'd like to add that we recommend to Skoda that they shorten the full length 10,5 to something a bit shorter and lighter; we don't really need it to throw the shell as far as a full-size naval 10,5, although we adore the firepower. Basically, see if they can get a bit more speed out of the thing.
     
    brmj said:
    Other questions for @7734:

    Does it have a radio? Details?

    What's the state of the art in naval fire control and range-finding? Are coincidence rangefinders a thing yet? If so, how tankable are they? If not, can we use the events in the recent tests as an excuse to get that being developed?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Coincidence rangefinders are a thing, and they're even a man-portable thing for certain artillery regiments. The SzW does sport a radio that it can use while parked, mostly because raising the signals mast takes three guys and a rope, but it's there.

    Winged_One² said:
    That's why I'm not recommending it right now, but want it to undergo another round of tests with upgraded fuel tanks.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    If you guys write out what to fix, it gets fixed :V

    Michael Lewis said:
    Didn't we literally lose our testing grounds? We have nothing to test it with. On the other hand, if we can get ahold of some technicians and we still have a prototype, we can probably see if the prototypes fuel system can be hooked up correctly.

    That should allow us to see if it was assembly or design that fucked up.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Well good thing there's more than one proving grounds isn't there?
     
    Chronologist said:
    I like this plan; I'd like to add that we recommend to Skoda that they shorten the full length 10,5 to something a bit shorter and lighter; we don't really need it to throw the shell as far as a full-size naval 10,5, although we adore the firepower. Basically, see if they can get a bit more speed out of the thing.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I feel that's cutting its main selling point short for little gain.

    Himmelhand said:
    --[X]Skoda: Improve the fuel supply, and if possible replace the hull gun with a lighter/faster model
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I would add that extra care should go into making sure it can always move by itself, because it's the kind of thing that requires an entire operation to "rescue".

    I'd like you to not to command that armour trials are still pending, but well, we are recommending the Skoda anyway. I'd attach a "tanks aren't dreadnoughts" note there too.

    [X] Plan Bolo

    If a dozen tanks will win the war, it's an expense well worth it. It's hyper specialized, but it's hyper specialized in precisely the job we need to get done.
     
    Last edited:
    If you look at real-world examples of a gun of this class, they weigh roughly 3 tons. If you could shave 1-2000 pounds off of the gun, it probably wouldn't hurt. Shortening the barrel by 10 calibres or so would put it on par with the 75mm M3 of the original M4 Sherman, or you could look to the short barrel guns of the early Panzer IV at 24 calibres. These guns were sufficiently accurate out to ranges of 1000 feet, which is probably a long range engagement for the fights these vehicles would be in.
     
    Chronologist said:
    Every little bit helps when the infantry it's supposed to support can out distance it at a brisk walk.

    Also, it's direct-fire weapon. Not like it's going to be lobbing shells over hills or something.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    But it absolutely could, couldn't it? Makes the very slow tank more useable.

    I went back to read their descriptions, and it already uses a "short" gun.

    Anyway, I worry about using the GK3 because it apparently needs to put itself on its broadside to use both guns. That's... not sound strategy for tank combat. You make yourself a bigger, softer target.

    The KW-1 seems better, if they could realize the enemy is on the outside, not the inside. Besides being a nightmare to ride in, it seems pretty fine.
     
    7734 said:
    The W-7 was a project to make the W-5 chassis into an SPG payed for by the Wessers and Bosnians. It takes the W-5 chassis, strips off all the nonstructural plates, and slaps on a 7,5/40 cm howitzer on the top in an open mount.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    So it is a hybrid between Renault FT BS and Sturmpanzer I Bison?
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top