Remove ads

Strategic Arms Quest 3/2: Armor Edition

Reader mode
So, what about this then:
[] Plan Bolo Mk2
-[] Testing/Modifications:
--[] Thryssen: Improve crew safety and exhaust system. Advice: make the designers operate the tank for a bit. Too many machine guns for a tank this size, feeding them would be problematic on top of the two cannons. Reducing them would cut costs and reduce vulnerabilities.
--[] Skoda: Improve the fuel supply and system, and if possible replace the hull gun with a lighter/faster model, the smaller howitzer is redundant. Try to save weight, perhaps by reducing the barrel length a bit? If possible, make room for engine upgrades as the chassis could serve longer with a stronger, reliable propulsion system. Why, it's slow and large enough you could hit it with a mortar.
--[] Reindhardt: Broadsides don't seem promising as calibers get larger and armour thicker. We've spotted balance issues with the GK-2 and the crew of the GK-3 has problems communicating. However, a neat idea has been proposed by an officer of using the angle between the turrets as rangefinder.
--[] Wanderer: Consider advancing the W-5 as cavalry tank. Add one or more MGs, and improve hatches and crew ergonomics.
-[] Policy Recommendations
--[] 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. However, our reccomendation is also the safest bet in that regard, given specifications and manufacurers.
--[] The Skoda model is ideal for assaulting strongpoints, particularly once fuel issues are resolved.
--[] The new Wanderers could be excellent upgrades for the cavalry tanks, pending further testing.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
[X] Yet Another Plan
-[X]Tank Recommendations
--[X]Ask all manufacturers for estimated cost and production time for comparison (how fast do they estimate being able to start production, how expensive do they anticipate the tank being, and how many per month do they estimate being able to produce).
--[X]Thryssen: Suggest that they improve crew safety and exhaust system on future models; remove tank from infantry tank competition.
--[X]Skoda: Improve the fuel supply, and if possible replace the hull gun with a machine gun or armored plate; in general, lighten tank to try and get a bit more speed; suggest shortening 10,5 to shave off some weight as well.
--[X]Reindhardt: Advise that GK-3 is a decent tank, although there are some reservations about multi-turret tanks; advise use of speaking tubes for communication between turret and driver or otherwise fix communication issue between commander/driver; If a speaking tube or intercom is not a practical replacement for the GK-3's signal lights due to engineering constraints or noise, make an effort to improve their visibility; advise finding a way to fix issues with track retention; remove GK-2 from infantry tank competition.
--[X]Wanderer: Consider advancing the W-5, W-6, and W-8 models as cavalry tanks. Advise rebuild/new transmission on W-8. Advise revisit of crew ergonomics. Recommend he find a way to increase production speed; remove W-series from infantry tank competition.
-[X] Recommendations to High Command
--[X]Several of the designs show promise and will likely be suitable for adoption, but we would like one more round of maneuvers after manufacturers make recommended changes.
---[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]A combination of GK-3 and SzW-1 seems like it might be the best for breaking through enemy strongpoints/supporting infantry, depending on cost and production efficiency.
---[X]The W-5 and W-8 are very good options for adoption as a cavalry tank once the production bottle-neck is overcome.
----[X]Potentially look into renegotiating for second half of the ongoing contract being delivered as W-5s rather than W-2s for an increase in cost
 
Last edited:
@Chronologist
Are we really ok with a tank that requires going broadside to be effective?

If the issues are fixed, what's so bad about the Thryssen one?

I will note the GK-3 suffered no less than twenty thrown tracks. Twice as much as the best candidate, thirty percent more than the second worst. That should be added on the report for fixes.
 
Chronologist said:
[X] Yet Another Plan
-[X]Tank Recommendations
--[X]Ask all manufacturers for estimated cost and production time for comparison (how fast do they estimate being able to build the tanks, how expensive do they anticipate the tank being, and how many per month do they estimate being able to produce).
--[X]Thryssen: Suggest that they improve crew safety and exhaust system on future models; remove tank from competition.
--[X]Skoda: Improve the fuel supply, and if possible replace the hull gun with a machine gun or armored plate; in general, lighten tank to try and get a bit more speed; suggest shortening 10,5 to shave off some weight as well.
--[X]Reindhardt: Advise that GK-3 is a decent tank, although there are some reservations about multi-turret tanks; advise use of speaking tubes for communication between turret and driver or otherwise fix communication issue between commander/driver; remove GK-2 from competition.
--[X]Wanderer: Consider advancing the W-5, W-6, and W-8 models as cavalry tanks. Advise rebuild/new transmission on W-8. Advise revisit of crew ergonomics. Recommend he find a way to increase production speed; remove W-series from infantry tank competition.
-[X] Recommendations to High Command
--[X]Several of the designs show promise and will likely be suitable for adoption, but we would like one more round of maneuvers after manufacturers make recommended changes.
---[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]A combination of GK-3 and SzW-1 seems like it might be the best for breaking through enemy strongpoints/supporting infantry, depending on cost and production efficiency.
---[X]The W-5 and W-8 are very good options for adoption as a cavalry tank once the production bottle-neck is overcome.
----[X]Potentially look into renegotiating for second half of the ongoing contract being delivered as W-5s rather than W-2s for an increase in cost
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I like this plan. Removing substandard entries from the competition will probably buy us some good will from the bean counters, too.

[X] Yet Another Plan
 
TotallyNotEvil said:
@Chronologist
Are we really ok with a tank that requires going broadside to be effective?

If the issues are fixed, what's so bad about the Thryssen one?

I will note the GK-3 suffered no less than twenty thrown tracks. Twice as much as the best candidate, thirty percent more than the second worst. That should be added on the report for fixes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Considering layout of the turrets, it doesn't need to be broadside, just at an angle. Further, it's still more effective than having a gun on either side in sponsons and one gun in a casemate forward. It's still more firepower brought to bear in total.

Thryssen is a goddamn deathtrap and apparently has vision issues, because the driver managed to get lost during the mobility testing, plus it has noxious fumes. It's also hilariously overbuilt and festooned with machineguns.
 
Some specific suggestions for anyone who wants to add them into a plan:
--[] Skoda: In addition to increasing fuel capacity, improve the fuel gauge to accurately reflect capacity.
--[] Skoda: If not already present, consider adding range-finding equipment if feasible to better take advantage of the main armament's capabilities.
--[] Reindhart: If a speaking tube or intercom is not a practical replacement for the GK-3's signal lights due to engineering constraints or noise, make an effort to improve their visibility. An array of lamps with a reflector or modifications such as repositioning or duplicating lights for better visibility.
--[] Reindhart: Investigate track improvements. If the tracks, drive system, wheels, etc. have changed substantially from the GK-1, examine those changes in particular for design flaws.
--[] Everyone: The recent testing, as well as accumulated experience, allow us to draw some more general conclusions that may be useful in future designs.
---[] Visibility, ergonomics, ventilation and crew communication need to be given more attention.
---[] A single turret with the main armament appears to be the best configuration going forward, rather than designs featuring multiple turrets, large guns mounted in sponsons or the front of the hull, etc.
---[] Autocannons and the equivalent are a step forward, and will likely prove useful in future designs. Future infantry tanks may also benefit from larger guns than had previously been requested, as demonstrated by the Skoda design's performance in testing.
 
Last edited:
Chronologist said:
and if possible replace the hull gun with a machine gun or armored plate;
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It already has six machine guns:
7734 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
However, an autocannon like the Wanderer's would allow for it to destroy lighter armoured targets while the big main gun reloads, that or destroy/suppress lesser armored positions.

If possible, a stronger powertrain, as long as it's reliable, would be good.

@Chronologist Could you suggest the GK-3 has its armour upgraded? Especially the sides. It's very thin compared to SwZ-1 and KW-1. Perhaps 20-25m all around?

The GK-3 also has eight machine guns. Same as KW-1. So suggest they drop half of those in favour of a lot of extra armour?
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan Yet Another Plan Mk2
-[X]Tank Recommendations
--[X] Everyone: Visibility, ergonomics, ventilation and crew communication need to be given more attention, going forward. They shouldn't neglect speed and reliability, of course.
--[X] Everyone: Ask all manufacturers for estimated cost and production time for comparison (how fast do they estimate being able to start production, how expensive do they anticipate the tank being, and how many per month do they estimate being able to produce). Also for official crew requirements and functions.
--[X] Everyone: We all like machines guns, but moderate it.
--[X]Thryssen: Suggest that they improve crew safety and exhaust system on future models, this also had too many machine guns; remove tank from infantry tank competition.
--[X]Skoda: Improve the fuel supply and system, and if possible replace the hull gun with an autocannon or just something generally lighter and faster than the 3,5 cm howitzer; in general, lighten tank to try and get a bit more speed; suggest shortening 10,5 to shave off some weight as well. If not already there, a good rangefinder. Track retention could be improved. If possible, allow for the possibility if a engine retrofit in the future, as stronger and better ones come into market.
--[X]Reindhardt: Advise that GK-3 is a decent tank, although there are some reservations about multi-turret tanks; advise use of speaking tubes for communication between turret and driver or otherwise fix communication issue between commander/driver; If a speaking tube or intercom is not a practical replacement for the GK-3's signal lights due to engineering constraints or noise, make an effort to improve their visibility; advise finding a way to fix issues with track retention; advise they drop about, and at least, half of the machine guns on the GK-3, make use of freed up weight and cost by significantly thickening armour, especially on sides, they ought to aim for at least 20mm, though of course extra is better; remove GK-2 from infantry tank competition.
--[X]Wanderer: Consider advancing the W-5, W-6, and W-8 models as cavalry tanks. Advise rebuild/new transmission on W-8. Advise revisit of crew ergonomics. The W-6 had accuracy issues. Recommend he find a way to increase production speed; remove W-6 and W-8 from the competition. The later could use a machine gun, too.
-[X] Recommendations to High Command
--[X]Several of the designs show promise and will likely be suitable for adoption, but we would like one more round of maneuvers and testing after manufacturers make recommended changes, as they've been interrupted midway. Note that testing has not, as of writing this notice, reached the armour phase.
---[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, especially once the submitted design revisions are made.
---[X]A combination of GK-3 and SzW-1 might be the best for breaking through enemy strongpoints/supporting infantry, depending on cost and production efficiency.
---[X]The W-5 and W-8 could be very good options for adoption as a cavalry tank once the production bottle-neck is overcome, provisioned they pass the armour trials.
----[X]Potentially look into renegotiating for the ongoing contract being delivered as W-5s rather than W-2s for an increase in cost, provided they pass armour trials.

@Chronologist @Himmelhand Made some modifications to Chrono's plan. What about this? Mk2 differences:
- Advance W-5 (because of the possibility of the renegotiated W-2 contract), suggested adding a machine gun.
- Suggest they drop half the MGs on the GK-3 for extra armour.
- Improving the fuel system, not only supply, and track retention on Skoda.
- Ass covering.
 
Last edited:
Aethelius said:
@7734 What is the Actual Caliber of the Skoda 10,5cm gun? It just says short so?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Skoda gun is 10,5/40 piece, although it was originally designed around the Skoda internal 10,5/48 gun: this the 'short' moniker. The artillery situation is rather dire currently.

Himmelhand said:
I like this plan. Removing substandard entries from the competition will probably buy us some good will from the bean counters, too.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Cutting the slag off the project would make the bean counters very happy. They'd be happier if you didn't take seven tanks to trials. That's a lot of gasoline and shells.
 
I'm not particularly a fan of trying to force Wanderer to cram a machine gun into a two man tank.

I do like the rest of the plan, though. Oh - also ask for official crew complements from manufacturers.
 
Why in the world did they think using an L40 gun is a good idea? That thing should be able to out range most of the artillery pieces used in ww1. We need them to shorten the gun down to L25~30 range. We only need the gun to blow up the blokes in front of it not provide counter artillery fire.
 
Chronologist said:
I'm not particularly a fan of trying to force Wanderer to cram a machine gun into a two man tank.

I do like the rest of the plan, though. Oh - also ask for official crew complements from manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It seems like a bit of a weakness. Even an LMG would do great on a light tank. Do they historically lack those?

Why did you originally suggest the W-5 for the W-2 contract, instead of the W-6, which is similar to the original? As long as they fix the accuracy, it'd be better, no?
 
Last edited:
TotallyNotEvil said:
It seems like a bit of a weakness. Even an LMG would do great on a light tank.

Why did you originally suggest the W-5 for the W-2 contract, instead of the W-6, which is more similar? As long as they fix the accuracy?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

W-5 has the 20mm, if I remember correctly. Which works better in our cav doctrine as a heavy machine gun type weapon.
 
Chronologist said:
W-5 has the 20mm, if I remember correctly. Which works better in our cav doctrine as a heavy machine gun type weapon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But can it do what the W-2's 35 mm does? We are in agreement that the rate of fire works better in a very mobile tank, but I worry that it'd lack power.

Is it enough gun? Especially against other light tanks? We are seeing 19 mm siding here.

Dropped MG.
 
Last edited:
TotallyNotEvil said:
But can it do what the W-2's 35 mm does? We are in agreement that the rate of fire works better in a very mobile tank, but I worry that it'd lack power.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's a 20mm HE round, rapid-firing with fifteen round feeder strips. I think it'll work well enough against light entrenchments or to suppress the enemy and fuck up horses and stuff. Also a bit easier to walk onto target because you can throw in tracer rounds/follow the explosions.

And if you give it AP rounds, I think it'll be able to deal with enemy tanks.
 
I suspect the 20mm will be sufficient for most targets barring heavy fortifications, in this day and age. However, being a cavalry tank it shouldn't have to deal with that much.

I'd like to see something like a pintle mount MG, particularly for AA purposes, but since the commander/gunner already has the 20mm it would be fairly redundant for most applications.
 
These aren't going to be fighting tanks yet for the most part, and if they are, these will be tanks every bit as fragile and unreliable as we've been seeing. I am inclined to trust 20mm HE, in large enough quantities, to at least fuck up something important. I think it will do fine.
 
For comparison, the short 37mm on OTL inter-war French tanks could penetrate about 12mm of armored plate at 30 degrees from the vertical at 100m

Although the longer-barreled German 37mm could do 35 or 36mm penetration at the same range.

The upgraded French "long" 37mm from the late 30s could penetrate about 25 or 29mm, depending on ammo used.

The PzII 20mm cannon could do about 20mm penetration (also found 23mm in some sources), also at 100meters.

Our AP ammo isn't as good, but we're also fighting tanks that aren't as good. Besides, the W-5 and W-6 are identical, aside from the gun mount. If worse comes to worse, we can easily retrofit them with our 35mm gun or start building them.

I mean, we could recommend both for cavalry tank usage, but I figure the autocannon version fits better with our current as-written doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top