Strategic Arms Quest 3/2: Armor Edition
- Thread starter 7734
- Start date
- Original
CthuluWasRight
Fresh Meat for the SV Grinder
- Location
- Canada
My one concern is that calling it a "tank" could lead to ignorant commanders who aren't in on the joke to think that they're actually equipped for a frontal assault.
Well...
The problem is, Artillery branch has KTW-3. Which is almost exactly that - it has got light armor, tracks, and a gun capable of indirect fire. It probably lacks radio - but it is possible to install one, what with it's 3 hundred deep ammo storage.
They can basically point to it and ask "How is your 'assault support tank' is any different from it, with the same capabilities and purpose?".
The problem is, Artillery branch has KTW-3. Which is almost exactly that - it has got light armor, tracks, and a gun capable of indirect fire. It probably lacks radio - but it is possible to install one, what with it's 3 hundred deep ammo storage.
They can basically point to it and ask "How is your 'assault support tank' is any different from it, with the same capabilities and purpose?".
- Location
- Louisville, GA
Have been thinking about how the gunnery tests were conducted, think the methodology could be better. Hows this sound:
New gunnery testing procedure
First target
A 'standard' sandbagged machine gun position at unknown range (300-800 meters?). Tank must engage the MG position as if it were under fire (i.e. buttoned up). Tank will continue to fire at the target until such time as the testers believe that the target is destroyed. The test is judged on the amount of time this takes, not on the number of rounds expended. The number of rounds fired will be recorded more for logistics, required ammunition load, etc record keeping.
A wooden silhouette target, matching the dimensions of the W-5, at unknown range (300-800 meters?). Tank must engage the target as if it were under fire. However, if the tank is able to successfully engage and hit target with machine gun fire, they may open hatches if this will aid in them targeting the main gun. Target is deemed destroyed when it has been hit with eight (8) 20mm rounds, two (2) 3.5 cm rounds, or one (1) round of any larger caliber. The test is judged on the amount of time this takes, not on the number of rounds expended. The number of rounds fired will be recorded more for logistics / required ammunition load, etc record keeping. If armor piercing rounds are available for the tank's gun, these should be used.
Commentary:
Think the true ability of a tank should be judged by how fast it can service a target, not how many rounds it takes. In combat, you'll generally want targets killed quickly, and only care about running out of ammo, not exactly how many rounds you fired.
Buttoned up requirements are generally there to encourage adding visibility stuff to the tank, either better sights/periscopes or things like flares in the tails of AP rounds, so you can see where they when, even while button up.
Also hope to 'discover' using MG or special spotting rifle as a range finding device. Know 12.7mm spotting rifles were fitted to some post WW2 tanks, and seem to have worked OK. So if the optical rangefinders end up too fragile or expensive, we could try a repurposed AT rifle with flares at the bullet base as an alternative.
Test also made to give advantage to bigger guns. 20mm cannon would probably have some trouble with MG position, even though it can probably get rounds on target faster than any other gun. Not sure if the number of rounds / hits requirement is right, but seems in the right ballpark.
Don't know if AP and HE shells will have different ballistics yet, but if not, they will soon. So we should make sure to test separately.
New gunnery testing procedure
First target
A 'standard' sandbagged machine gun position at unknown range (300-800 meters?). Tank must engage the MG position as if it were under fire (i.e. buttoned up). Tank will continue to fire at the target until such time as the testers believe that the target is destroyed. The test is judged on the amount of time this takes, not on the number of rounds expended. The number of rounds fired will be recorded more for logistics, required ammunition load, etc record keeping.
Second targetA wooden silhouette target, matching the dimensions of the W-5, at unknown range (300-800 meters?). Tank must engage the target as if it were under fire. However, if the tank is able to successfully engage and hit target with machine gun fire, they may open hatches if this will aid in them targeting the main gun. Target is deemed destroyed when it has been hit with eight (8) 20mm rounds, two (2) 3.5 cm rounds, or one (1) round of any larger caliber. The test is judged on the amount of time this takes, not on the number of rounds expended. The number of rounds fired will be recorded more for logistics / required ammunition load, etc record keeping. If armor piercing rounds are available for the tank's gun, these should be used.
Commentary:
Think the true ability of a tank should be judged by how fast it can service a target, not how many rounds it takes. In combat, you'll generally want targets killed quickly, and only care about running out of ammo, not exactly how many rounds you fired.
Buttoned up requirements are generally there to encourage adding visibility stuff to the tank, either better sights/periscopes or things like flares in the tails of AP rounds, so you can see where they when, even while button up.
Also hope to 'discover' using MG or special spotting rifle as a range finding device. Know 12.7mm spotting rifles were fitted to some post WW2 tanks, and seem to have worked OK. So if the optical rangefinders end up too fragile or expensive, we could try a repurposed AT rifle with flares at the bullet base as an alternative.
Test also made to give advantage to bigger guns. 20mm cannon would probably have some trouble with MG position, even though it can probably get rounds on target faster than any other gun. Not sure if the number of rounds / hits requirement is right, but seems in the right ballpark.
Don't know if AP and HE shells will have different ballistics yet, but if not, they will soon. So we should make sure to test separately.
- Location
- Louisville, GA
Um, wat?
A co-ax MG is in no way a substitute for being able to apply HE to the target.
Comments:
In North Africa, the Brisith tanks, largely armed with 2 pounders (40mm) guns had severe difficulties with ATG positions, because there was no HE shell for the 2 pounder. This meant that the tanks were mostly unable to engage ATG positions at long or medium range.
The Soviets experimented with fitting their 57mm ATG to a T34. This worked, and the 57mm was considerably more effective against armor, but they never built any of them because the HE shell from the 76mm gun was too useful to give up.
The 75mm gun on the Sherman held out so long in the face of the (much better against armor) 76mm because the 75mm had a more effective HE shell. And the majority of the targets shot at by Shermans were HE targets, not AP targets.
------------------
Even against such a 'soft' a target as a sand-bagged MG position, you can't outright kill it with your co-ax. So you have to keep shooting at the MG position if you don't want them to shoot back. A 75 mm HE shell can turn that MG position into a smoking crater, and you can turn your attention to other things.
Even harder, but still very common targets (dug in ATGs, log + sandbag bunkers, houses fortified with sandbags, etc) you can't destroy with the co-ax at all.
Last edited:
CthuluWasRight
Fresh Meat for the SV Grinder
- Location
- Canada
I'm not exactly sure what co-axial MGs have to do with the proposed revisions.
7734
Trust and verify.
- Location
- Philmont
The technique of making sure you had a valid target profile was, back in the day when you were knife-fighting in the Bocage, to spritz an enemy tank or what-have-you with the .30 coaxial gun, which due to it's position in the gun mantlet was tied to the position of the barrel. If your .30 rounds hit 'em, therefore your 75mm would hit 'em too. A 'sighting rifle' does exactly the same thing, and to be perfectly blunt is something I've never found a good source for.
In North Africa, most of the light British tanks that weren't designed to do much more than yell "BLYAT" loudly were very useless, because as a matter of course the targets they were equipped to engage did not exist. This is a problem that plagues most Engllish tanks, from the rolling blockhouses to the rolling machine guns. Their intended targets don't exist, and reality denies them their ideal engagements. In war, the enemy does receive a vote. The American tanks, meanwhile, were largely dictated by concerns of logistics and supply. While guns could and would be changed in the field, the 76mm gun required a turret redesign and replacement to become effective. In addition, there were other logistics that titled the nature of the decision, such as the fact the 75mm M3-M5 guns could interchange ammunition with the M1897 field gun and French 75 mle 1897 guns. Due to the rate of American advance and the ease of simply shipping over more tanks, it was decided to bring forward more armor and utilize shells with more efficent penetration characteristics.
Now, I suggest doing a little critical thinking before you shoot your mouth off at the author, before I get aggravated.
Tanks and Armored Vehicles of the World (Spring, M.868)
7734
Trust and verify.
- Location
- Philmont
ARMOR OF THE WORLD
(Published in James', a Tæxali quarterly defense magazine)
Werser Crowns
Straßenpanzerwagen A858: The predominate armored car in the Werser military before the Great Pig War and most of the duration, but now obsolete and limited to internal policing pending retirement. Vulnerable to most rifle caliber AP ammunition, this vehicle has relatively poor cross country performance and reasonable speed, but has a tall silhouette for the amount of armor it carries, and is usually limited to two rifle caliber machine guns in a pair of turrets. Most versions are four wheel drive, and this also serves as the base chassis for the S series of armored cars.
Straßenpanzerwagen S859: a much lower vehicle, the S859 is built around mounting an anti-aircraft gun on an open pedestal mount (usually a set of lighter machine guns or a single 37mm mg, with some 66mm gun versions) or an aft-facing 55mm L/42 gun behind a gun shield. Vehicle armor is as thin as on the L859, and does not protect the gun crew, covering only the driver's compartment and forward. Performance is generally limited off road, but the vehicle is low enough to be readily concealed, and proved to be deadly effective in ambushes during the war. Most 55mm carriers are being converted to AA models, or are being upgraded with S861 bodies.
Straßenpanzerwagen L859: the lightest Werser armored vehicle, and also the cheapest, essentially a variation on the locally ubiquitous Baschevi 18/4 automobile, with a cramped and thinly armored chassis, with a pintle for a machine gun and space for a small radio and a brace of pigeons in the usually open topped hull. Most versions are barely taller than a man, including a fully enclosed version mounting a single heavy machine gun. As a result, the design is exceptionally well suited to scouting ahead of a main force and in the hands of a skilled driver can cross most terrain without difficulty, while on road performance is similarly exceptional. Some vehicles have been fitted with anti-tank rifles instead of a heavy machine gun.
Straßenpanzerwagen S861: The first purpose designed armor hunter in Werser service, and one of the first realistically well armored designs with a maximum of 18mm over crew areas and turret. Generally a four wheel drive with a new 70kw engine and a chassis derived from the A858, the S861 mounts a 14.5mm machine gun or a light 37mm gun and a co-axial rifle caliber machine gun in an enclosed turret on a lower body like the S859, and has a second rifle caliber machine gun for a co-driver. Off-road performance is acceptable for an armored car of this weight, but lackluster compared to the L series. On road performance is exceptional, and the S861 is at present the fastest armored vehicle in Werser service. This design is set to fully replace the A858 in time.
AV-4: This archaic tank is still the backbone of Werser armored forces, bearing fairly thin armor and two middleweight guns, as well as a fierce armament of machine guns. Modern anti-tank rifles will easily cut through it's obsolescent armor scheme, but for a force not privileged to have set up these and other dedicated armor-breaking measures this is still a threat.
KW-2: A reinvigoration of the AV-4 frame, this easily customized and oft modified platform normally carries a series of heavy machine guns in her sponsons, with lighter weapons in the traditional places. Beware, though! The bunker-busting 75mm cannon in the bow and the 55mm gun in the turret will certainly endeavour to make a commander's day difficult, and with better weapons and sight lines than their predecessors are equipped with.
KW-1: A regression of the KW-2, this version is identical except for a pair of sponson mounted 55mm guns, and generally considered inferior to the later model. Most have since been converted to the later standard, both to save artillery and because of the later's improved effectiveness.
YtS-3: A lighter armored vehicle than the monstrous predecessors, the YtS-3 is based off the Wanderer W-5 series, with the exception of a patent-dodging rear mounted fighting compartment. Most are armed with a 14.5mm machine gun or a extremely shortened 20mm autocannon.
YtS-5: An uninspired improvement to the YtS-3, the -5 has been upgraded with a wider track base, more spacious fighting compartments, unitary bow armor, and an intercom system.
YtS-7: Continuing on the trend of incremental improvement, the YtS-7 manages to mount a light 37mm gun, or a full barrel 20mm autocannon. This design also boasts the Werser Crown speed record for a tracked vehicle, making 42 kilometers per hour in a drag race. Like all YtS vehicles, the design is fairly easy to take out with an anti-armor weapon, however their maneuverability and ingrained unwillingness to hold still means actually engaging one of these tanks is quite difficult.
Kubachin
Ta-3: A light armored car with a large engine, the T-3 was built around a commercial car chassis with a strong backbone and armored appropriately. Carrying two heavy machine guns in turets en echelon, the T-3 can effectively engage at all angles- however, it's amor is older, and only designed to deal with standard sidearm cartridges. As a direct result, it faces difficulty against dug-in forces. Despite this, Kubachi units love them, and they are a mainstay of their mechanized cavalry.
Ta-4: A modification to the Ta-3 design, the Ta-4 has replaced the twin turrets of the former with a single turret mounting two of the new anti-armor 12.7mm machine guns, as well as some additional bow armor. Reactions so far have been mixed, but considering the power and versatility of the platform it seems to have found a home in the Kubachi cavalry during their troublesome mechanization. With an engine improvement from a straight six to a crossplane eight, these models are nearly identical in performance to their lighter brethren thanks to this additional engine power.
T-6/Tg-6/Ta-6: A series of three vehicles built on the same chassis, the T-6 is is a combination light truck for hauling supplies at the company level, a general purpose field supply car, and a light all terrain armored car. Courtesy of common engines and an easily-changed transmission, this design has been optimized for turn-key industry in the Kubachi colonies, with the easily-built five-cylinder radial engine mated with a three-speed transmission. The armored car variant is fairly light and can go over most any terrain, but is very lightly armored and only carries a single heavy machine gun or anti-armor 12.7mm cannon.
Mpa-3: A liscence build of the ancient Irromic GK-1, this copycat platform of war has been for the most part neglected and abandoned by modern Kubachi commanders, and it's easy to see why. Armed with two 12.7mm anti-armor machine guns and two standard heavy machine guns, the Mpa-3 is saved only from the scrapyard of history for its ability to traverse any terrain and ability to operate for weeks on end. The only tracked armored vehicle pays for this, however, by being incredibly vulnerable to anything more energetic than rifle fire.
Irromic Empire
W-2: Essentially a light and mobile machine-gun nest, the W-2 is an absolutely tiny tank designed to provide covering fire for the infantry. Their low profile and insidious nature means it is nearly impossible to sterilize them from the field, and their forward plates are actually moderately resistant to anti-tank rifle fire. Fortunately, they only care infantry-caliber weapons, and have low endurance.
W-5: A complete remodel of the Wanderer tank ethos, the W-5 has a standing commander/gunner and a forward driver, trading low profile for more powerful weapons and a much larger engine. Serving as a guide for light and cheap tanks everywhere, the poor armor makes it vulnerable to many anti-tank weapons and regimental batteries. Be careful, though- swarming W-5s are no slouch, armed with long-range 20mm autocannons with provisions for arcing fire.
W-6: Due to some misguided Irromic testing requirement, the W-5 needed a turret modification to mount a shell-firing cannon. This tank is nearly a copy of the W-5, but comes with a shortened 35mm gun. They can normally be noted for their hang-back attitude, as their heavier turrets are slower to traverse.
SkW-1: This titanic landship is equally iconic as the smaller W-5, mostly for an early series of recruiting posters picturing the landships escorted by their smaller brethren. However ridiculous they look in the field, though, don't forget! These are highly dangerous vehicles, armed with a 105mm howitzer in their turrets and either a battery of autocannons or machine guns and a secondary 35mm gun. Invulnerable to all but the grandest fires from the bow, the best way to handle these tanks is to blast off their tracks and attempt to render them uninhabitable with incendiary weapons.
SkW-2: A rumored evolution of the titantic landship, no firm information about this monster has been received. What is known is the casememented main gun, which appears to be larger than anything ever mounted on a tank before.
GK-2: An odd beast of a tank, this large war machine carries a turret-mounted 75mm gun in a three-man turret, as well as a rotary 35mm gun in the bow. While not as fierce as the SkW series, they are still a formidable threat, requiring dedicated artillery assets to destroy from the bow angle. Man-portable systems may be of limited use against the sides, however, it they can get a low angle shot.
GK-3: Continuing the trend of the Skoda designs to mount many weapons, this GK design uses four 20mm autocannons in the bow to acentuate a pair of 75mm guns in turrets. The extreme firepower this tank brings to bear should not be underestimated, and with shell firing cannon that can cover two sectors at once, plus pintle mounts, it is imperative for attacking anti-tank crews to use concealment well. These behemoths are weaker to the side in the middle, though, and their tracks are easily disrupted.
Carrigia
Prs-2: Due to the harsh winters and deep permafrost in many parts of Carrigia, vehicles for them are extremely adapted to this state of affairs, none more so than the Prs-2. While some countries prefer armored cars for recon and initial contact, the Carrigians take an oversize motorcycle engine, mate it to a twelve-speed chain drive transmission on a continuous track, and throw a pair of skis on the bow end and call it a day. While front wheel mounts are rumored to exist in more civilized climes, the base vehicle is known to do everything from tow gun sledges to mount dual light machine guns for skirmishing.
Prs-4: An enlarged version of the Prs-2, this combat designed version has some minor cockpit armor, an enlarged frame, and a permanent mount for a Kubachi 12.7mm machine gun or a Balzac Portative in 8mm over the back with a gunner's seat added on.
Prs-9: Similar in many respects to the rest of the Prs family, the Prs-9 is unique in having dual continuous tracks like a tank, but also possessing an extended front end to mount wheels or skis. With room for a 37mm gun, reasonable armor on it's highly piked bow, and a strong radio, these units are the backbone to the cavalry forces that the earlier Prs- units serve as the meat of.
Prt-12: A light tank on the Wanderer model, this blatant ripoff uses a 40mm autocannon with gun shield to avoid trademark issues. Of special note is the tracks and suspension, which has been rebuilt extensively to reduce ground pressure.
Prt-16: A large battle platform design, the Prt-16 uses multiple separated armor plates to achieve a great degree of protection, at the cost of being nearly non transportable by rail. Armed with four 12.7mm Kubachi machine guns built on license as well as a 57mm gun in a low turret, these sentinels are normally deployed sparsely and as infantry support.
Balkchivian
RW-1: A direct copy of the AV-4(I) as produced by the Irromics, this tank has not aged gracefully in Bahlk service. As a result, most have been retrofitted into armored mortar carriers, heavy machine gun vehicles, and in some cases as ways to haul barrage rocket launchers.
RW-3: An evolution of the RW-1, the -3 removes it's sponsons in exchange for a top mounted turret with a 57mm gun and a heavy pintle machine gun. Equipped with ingenious side armor plates and other advancements, it serves as a mediocre breakthrough vehicle- though not against a prepared foe.
FvC: An entirely new design working off of the Skoda design paradigm, the FvC carries no less than eight turrets- one central turret for the 57mm gun, one 37mm gun below and to the front, and six turrets mounting 20mm autocannons with vast ammunition stores. Almost impossible to ambush, these sulking titans are also about as stealthy as your average forrest, and mostly immune to man-portable anti-tank weapons.
CdvM: Working with the command to take a 180mm siege mortar and turn it into a motorized weapon, the crew of Camiselle has outdone themselves in this massive creation. Containing a siege mortar and firing apparatus for such, plus an eight-round speed loader, this heavily rebuilt bus can do untold devastation, before lifting spades and leaving the area. Protected as a rule by armored cars and cavalry, these humongous batteries are rarely seen and often heard.
AshK: A licence built version of the Taexeli Pordo, this armored car is a squat affair with a straight seven engine and enough room for driver, pigeons, and a gunner with a heavy machine gun. Fast, agile, and able to go cross-country, it is easily handled by anti-armor assets, if not infantry.
(Published in James', a Tæxali quarterly defense magazine)
Werser Crowns
Straßenpanzerwagen A858: The predominate armored car in the Werser military before the Great Pig War and most of the duration, but now obsolete and limited to internal policing pending retirement. Vulnerable to most rifle caliber AP ammunition, this vehicle has relatively poor cross country performance and reasonable speed, but has a tall silhouette for the amount of armor it carries, and is usually limited to two rifle caliber machine guns in a pair of turrets. Most versions are four wheel drive, and this also serves as the base chassis for the S series of armored cars.
Straßenpanzerwagen S859: a much lower vehicle, the S859 is built around mounting an anti-aircraft gun on an open pedestal mount (usually a set of lighter machine guns or a single 37mm mg, with some 66mm gun versions) or an aft-facing 55mm L/42 gun behind a gun shield. Vehicle armor is as thin as on the L859, and does not protect the gun crew, covering only the driver's compartment and forward. Performance is generally limited off road, but the vehicle is low enough to be readily concealed, and proved to be deadly effective in ambushes during the war. Most 55mm carriers are being converted to AA models, or are being upgraded with S861 bodies.
Straßenpanzerwagen L859: the lightest Werser armored vehicle, and also the cheapest, essentially a variation on the locally ubiquitous Baschevi 18/4 automobile, with a cramped and thinly armored chassis, with a pintle for a machine gun and space for a small radio and a brace of pigeons in the usually open topped hull. Most versions are barely taller than a man, including a fully enclosed version mounting a single heavy machine gun. As a result, the design is exceptionally well suited to scouting ahead of a main force and in the hands of a skilled driver can cross most terrain without difficulty, while on road performance is similarly exceptional. Some vehicles have been fitted with anti-tank rifles instead of a heavy machine gun.
Straßenpanzerwagen S861: The first purpose designed armor hunter in Werser service, and one of the first realistically well armored designs with a maximum of 18mm over crew areas and turret. Generally a four wheel drive with a new 70kw engine and a chassis derived from the A858, the S861 mounts a 14.5mm machine gun or a light 37mm gun and a co-axial rifle caliber machine gun in an enclosed turret on a lower body like the S859, and has a second rifle caliber machine gun for a co-driver. Off-road performance is acceptable for an armored car of this weight, but lackluster compared to the L series. On road performance is exceptional, and the S861 is at present the fastest armored vehicle in Werser service. This design is set to fully replace the A858 in time.
AV-4: This archaic tank is still the backbone of Werser armored forces, bearing fairly thin armor and two middleweight guns, as well as a fierce armament of machine guns. Modern anti-tank rifles will easily cut through it's obsolescent armor scheme, but for a force not privileged to have set up these and other dedicated armor-breaking measures this is still a threat.
KW-2: A reinvigoration of the AV-4 frame, this easily customized and oft modified platform normally carries a series of heavy machine guns in her sponsons, with lighter weapons in the traditional places. Beware, though! The bunker-busting 75mm cannon in the bow and the 55mm gun in the turret will certainly endeavour to make a commander's day difficult, and with better weapons and sight lines than their predecessors are equipped with.
KW-1: A regression of the KW-2, this version is identical except for a pair of sponson mounted 55mm guns, and generally considered inferior to the later model. Most have since been converted to the later standard, both to save artillery and because of the later's improved effectiveness.
YtS-3: A lighter armored vehicle than the monstrous predecessors, the YtS-3 is based off the Wanderer W-5 series, with the exception of a patent-dodging rear mounted fighting compartment. Most are armed with a 14.5mm machine gun or a extremely shortened 20mm autocannon.
YtS-5: An uninspired improvement to the YtS-3, the -5 has been upgraded with a wider track base, more spacious fighting compartments, unitary bow armor, and an intercom system.
YtS-7: Continuing on the trend of incremental improvement, the YtS-7 manages to mount a light 37mm gun, or a full barrel 20mm autocannon. This design also boasts the Werser Crown speed record for a tracked vehicle, making 42 kilometers per hour in a drag race. Like all YtS vehicles, the design is fairly easy to take out with an anti-armor weapon, however their maneuverability and ingrained unwillingness to hold still means actually engaging one of these tanks is quite difficult.
Kubachin
Ta-3: A light armored car with a large engine, the T-3 was built around a commercial car chassis with a strong backbone and armored appropriately. Carrying two heavy machine guns in turets en echelon, the T-3 can effectively engage at all angles- however, it's amor is older, and only designed to deal with standard sidearm cartridges. As a direct result, it faces difficulty against dug-in forces. Despite this, Kubachi units love them, and they are a mainstay of their mechanized cavalry.
Ta-4: A modification to the Ta-3 design, the Ta-4 has replaced the twin turrets of the former with a single turret mounting two of the new anti-armor 12.7mm machine guns, as well as some additional bow armor. Reactions so far have been mixed, but considering the power and versatility of the platform it seems to have found a home in the Kubachi cavalry during their troublesome mechanization. With an engine improvement from a straight six to a crossplane eight, these models are nearly identical in performance to their lighter brethren thanks to this additional engine power.
T-6/Tg-6/Ta-6: A series of three vehicles built on the same chassis, the T-6 is is a combination light truck for hauling supplies at the company level, a general purpose field supply car, and a light all terrain armored car. Courtesy of common engines and an easily-changed transmission, this design has been optimized for turn-key industry in the Kubachi colonies, with the easily-built five-cylinder radial engine mated with a three-speed transmission. The armored car variant is fairly light and can go over most any terrain, but is very lightly armored and only carries a single heavy machine gun or anti-armor 12.7mm cannon.
Mpa-3: A liscence build of the ancient Irromic GK-1, this copycat platform of war has been for the most part neglected and abandoned by modern Kubachi commanders, and it's easy to see why. Armed with two 12.7mm anti-armor machine guns and two standard heavy machine guns, the Mpa-3 is saved only from the scrapyard of history for its ability to traverse any terrain and ability to operate for weeks on end. The only tracked armored vehicle pays for this, however, by being incredibly vulnerable to anything more energetic than rifle fire.
Irromic Empire
W-2: Essentially a light and mobile machine-gun nest, the W-2 is an absolutely tiny tank designed to provide covering fire for the infantry. Their low profile and insidious nature means it is nearly impossible to sterilize them from the field, and their forward plates are actually moderately resistant to anti-tank rifle fire. Fortunately, they only care infantry-caliber weapons, and have low endurance.
W-5: A complete remodel of the Wanderer tank ethos, the W-5 has a standing commander/gunner and a forward driver, trading low profile for more powerful weapons and a much larger engine. Serving as a guide for light and cheap tanks everywhere, the poor armor makes it vulnerable to many anti-tank weapons and regimental batteries. Be careful, though- swarming W-5s are no slouch, armed with long-range 20mm autocannons with provisions for arcing fire.
W-6: Due to some misguided Irromic testing requirement, the W-5 needed a turret modification to mount a shell-firing cannon. This tank is nearly a copy of the W-5, but comes with a shortened 35mm gun. They can normally be noted for their hang-back attitude, as their heavier turrets are slower to traverse.
SkW-1: This titanic landship is equally iconic as the smaller W-5, mostly for an early series of recruiting posters picturing the landships escorted by their smaller brethren. However ridiculous they look in the field, though, don't forget! These are highly dangerous vehicles, armed with a 105mm howitzer in their turrets and either a battery of autocannons or machine guns and a secondary 35mm gun. Invulnerable to all but the grandest fires from the bow, the best way to handle these tanks is to blast off their tracks and attempt to render them uninhabitable with incendiary weapons.
SkW-2: A rumored evolution of the titantic landship, no firm information about this monster has been received. What is known is the casememented main gun, which appears to be larger than anything ever mounted on a tank before.
GK-2: An odd beast of a tank, this large war machine carries a turret-mounted 75mm gun in a three-man turret, as well as a rotary 35mm gun in the bow. While not as fierce as the SkW series, they are still a formidable threat, requiring dedicated artillery assets to destroy from the bow angle. Man-portable systems may be of limited use against the sides, however, it they can get a low angle shot.
GK-3: Continuing the trend of the Skoda designs to mount many weapons, this GK design uses four 20mm autocannons in the bow to acentuate a pair of 75mm guns in turrets. The extreme firepower this tank brings to bear should not be underestimated, and with shell firing cannon that can cover two sectors at once, plus pintle mounts, it is imperative for attacking anti-tank crews to use concealment well. These behemoths are weaker to the side in the middle, though, and their tracks are easily disrupted.
Carrigia
Prs-2: Due to the harsh winters and deep permafrost in many parts of Carrigia, vehicles for them are extremely adapted to this state of affairs, none more so than the Prs-2. While some countries prefer armored cars for recon and initial contact, the Carrigians take an oversize motorcycle engine, mate it to a twelve-speed chain drive transmission on a continuous track, and throw a pair of skis on the bow end and call it a day. While front wheel mounts are rumored to exist in more civilized climes, the base vehicle is known to do everything from tow gun sledges to mount dual light machine guns for skirmishing.
Prs-4: An enlarged version of the Prs-2, this combat designed version has some minor cockpit armor, an enlarged frame, and a permanent mount for a Kubachi 12.7mm machine gun or a Balzac Portative in 8mm over the back with a gunner's seat added on.
Prs-9: Similar in many respects to the rest of the Prs family, the Prs-9 is unique in having dual continuous tracks like a tank, but also possessing an extended front end to mount wheels or skis. With room for a 37mm gun, reasonable armor on it's highly piked bow, and a strong radio, these units are the backbone to the cavalry forces that the earlier Prs- units serve as the meat of.
Prt-12: A light tank on the Wanderer model, this blatant ripoff uses a 40mm autocannon with gun shield to avoid trademark issues. Of special note is the tracks and suspension, which has been rebuilt extensively to reduce ground pressure.
Prt-16: A large battle platform design, the Prt-16 uses multiple separated armor plates to achieve a great degree of protection, at the cost of being nearly non transportable by rail. Armed with four 12.7mm Kubachi machine guns built on license as well as a 57mm gun in a low turret, these sentinels are normally deployed sparsely and as infantry support.
Balkchivian
RW-1: A direct copy of the AV-4(I) as produced by the Irromics, this tank has not aged gracefully in Bahlk service. As a result, most have been retrofitted into armored mortar carriers, heavy machine gun vehicles, and in some cases as ways to haul barrage rocket launchers.
RW-3: An evolution of the RW-1, the -3 removes it's sponsons in exchange for a top mounted turret with a 57mm gun and a heavy pintle machine gun. Equipped with ingenious side armor plates and other advancements, it serves as a mediocre breakthrough vehicle- though not against a prepared foe.
FvC: An entirely new design working off of the Skoda design paradigm, the FvC carries no less than eight turrets- one central turret for the 57mm gun, one 37mm gun below and to the front, and six turrets mounting 20mm autocannons with vast ammunition stores. Almost impossible to ambush, these sulking titans are also about as stealthy as your average forrest, and mostly immune to man-portable anti-tank weapons.
CdvM: Working with the command to take a 180mm siege mortar and turn it into a motorized weapon, the crew of Camiselle has outdone themselves in this massive creation. Containing a siege mortar and firing apparatus for such, plus an eight-round speed loader, this heavily rebuilt bus can do untold devastation, before lifting spades and leaving the area. Protected as a rule by armored cars and cavalry, these humongous batteries are rarely seen and often heard.
AshK: A licence built version of the Taexeli Pordo, this armored car is a squat affair with a straight seven engine and enough room for driver, pigeons, and a gunner with a heavy machine gun. Fast, agile, and able to go cross-country, it is easily handled by anti-armor assets, if not infantry.
Last edited:
Going to put together a plan shortly, since I've been making little progress on an actual white paper. Maybe paragraphs of text as sub-options to provide more information, as kind of an intermediate thing.
Thanks for the informational post. It's really great to get a sense of what else is out there and what other people think of our tanks. That should help provide some perspective while crafting this.
Thanks for the informational post. It's really great to get a sense of what else is out there and what other people think of our tanks. That should help provide some perspective while crafting this.
Himmelhand
Giant Sinkhole 2020
- Location
- Midwestern US
First thought:
SkW-2 vs FvC sensha-do please.
Next thought:
W-5/6 is really the way to go. Evolving that line should be very fruitful, considering everyone else is still more or less in the wacky multiturret tank stage.
SkW-2 vs FvC sensha-do please.
Next thought:
W-5/6 is really the way to go. Evolving that line should be very fruitful, considering everyone else is still more or less in the wacky multiturret tank stage.
I love that everything is titan tanks supported by light tanks right now, its pretty interesting to see what we've done.
is it wrong I want titanic tanks to remain a thing.
Also The CdvM is interesting.
is it wrong I want titanic tanks to remain a thing.
Also The CdvM is interesting.
We can try to push comparison to the Navy as whole and to ships in general. As a side effect, it most likely would increase number of weapon mounts on most of tanks we'll be evaluating.
- Location
- Louisville, GA
Are the 5.5 cm and 5.7 cm guns ~L40 or so long guns, or more like ~L20 howitzers?
Is our ~5.5 cm field gun an ~L40 or ~L20 gun?
Are all of the tank mounted 75mm guns ~L20 howitzers, or has someone managed to mount a ~L40 high velocity 75mm gun?
----------------
The spotting rifle seems to have had most success on the Centurion and Ontos, with spotting rifles also being stuck on some other British vehicles.
Is our ~5.5 cm field gun an ~L40 or ~L20 gun?
Are all of the tank mounted 75mm guns ~L20 howitzers, or has someone managed to mount a ~L40 high velocity 75mm gun?
----------------
The spotting rifle seems to have had most success on the Centurion and Ontos, with spotting rifles also being stuck on some other British vehicles.
Here's a draft plan. I encourage people to comment on it and make suggestions, and for anyone wishing to vote for it to just name-vote me or vote the plan name rather than everything as it may well change. There are aspects of this that I've given a great deal of thought, and aspects I've given... less thought, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are some deficiencies here and there.
This would have been written up as an actual white paper except that I just couldn't seem to make it come together. My apologies.
[X] Plan artillery tanks
-[X] Current armor trends are GOOD
--[X] Recent improvements in suspension are a positive development, and should continue.
--[X] Some recent tanks are beginning to achieve good survivability against weapons they will likely to face, including anti-tank weapons, without adversely impacting mobility to an unacceptable degree. This is a very positive development, and will have to continue as anti-tank weapons also improve.
--[X] The inclusion of radios in some current tanks is an extremely positive development which will greatly increase in importance in coming years.
--[X] Rangefinders, recently included in a tank for what may be the first time with the SkW-2, have the potential to be quite important going forward.
--[X] Greater presence on the battlefield through larger numbers allows armored support on a tactical, not just strategic, scale. Organic integration and attachment to infantry units allows opportunities to be acted upon before a window may close.
-[X] Current armor trends are BAD in that...
--[X] The increased reliability that has been seen in other motorized vehicles in recent years is not yet becoming particularly apparent in our tanks. More effort should be put into this, even to some extent at the cost of performance in other areas.
--[X] There seems to be a trend among some manufacturers towards ever-larger, more heavily armed vehicles. This comes at the cost of mobility, fuel usage, compatibility with existing infrastructure and of course price. The goal should not be to build the biggest, most powerful vehicle possible. It should be to build a vehicle as capable as is needed for it's task, in the ways that matter for that task. This may mean a large, heavily armed vehicle, or it may not, depending on the nature of the task.
-[X] Future armor trends are...
--[X] Mobility improvements will be key. Tanks of the future will be able to not just keep up with infantry, but outrun them. Future cavalry tanks will be able to travel at genuinely cavalry-like speeds.
--[X] The tanks of the future will have greatly increased reliability over current models. Breakdowns will be relatively infrequent, rather than expected multiple times per hour.
--[X] These improvements to mobility and reliability are expected to be a gradual process enabled by advancing technology and the accumulation of lessons learned, but it is a process which must be emphasized now.
--[X] Crew ergonomics, visibility, ventilation and communications will continue to improve. If a tank's crew can't do their jobs, the tank is useless. If they can't reach the controls, see out, breath or talk to each other, they can not do their jobs. Tanks of the future will feature easy to reach controls, weapons and ammo stores, acceptably comfortable seating, good visibility, enough ventilation to reliably avoid choking on fumes or baking alive in the summer heat, and intercoms or speaking tubes whenever they are needed to allow proper communication.
--[X] Tanks of the future will incorporate sloped armor and cast rather than welded plate to improve protection without increasing weight.
--[X] As is increasingly becoming the standard, tanks of the future will generally be built with a single turret for the main armament, no sponsons, and no hull-mounted weaponry beyond perhaps machine guns.
--[X] Future tanks will incorporate radios, both for coordination with other tanks at short ranges and for longer range communication. Antenna designs will be developed which do not require complicated setup procedures, enabling radio to be used routinely.
--[X] Current infantry tanks are still largely not up to the task of forcing breakthroughs in the context of trench warfare. They are insufficiently mobile and reliable for the job, and those few with the armor and firepower to counter the heavier fortifications likely to be encountered are even less mobile than the others and too expensive to be available in quantity. The solution is a new approach:
---[X] The infantry tank of the future will feature good mobility and armor, and will mount armament well suited for engaging infantry, light fortifications and armored vehicles. It will be of relatively modest size compared to some of today's largest.
---[X] It will feature a radio and a coincidence rangefinder or similar device, as well as good optics of a more conventional sort. These will be its most potent weapon.
---[X] Infantry tanks will operate in close cooperation with assault support tanks, a new category.
----[X] Assault support tanks will be lightly armored, equipped with a large, long range main gun, and well suited for indirect fire. They may potentially be quite large and might lack a distinct turret in order to fit larger guns. They will have substantial ammunition stores and, as with other future tanks, include a radio.
----[X] The primary task of an assault support tank will be to provide long range fire support for infantry tanks at short notice. Infantry tanks, faced with a target they are not equipped to deal with or in position to provide spotting on a target of opportunity, will be able to communicate with a nearby group of assault support tanks and arrange an accurate bombardment in a matter of minutes.
----[X] As secondary tasks, assault support tanks may provide similar support to infantry, cavalry tanks or other forces, supplement artillery in sustained bombardment when not otherwise available in sufficient quantity, or engage targets incapable of effectively retaliating at long range with direct fire.
----[X] Assault support tanks should not be treated as front-line combatants, as they sacrifice armor and features necessary for close range combat in order to mount large guns and achieve acceptable mobility at a relatively modest cost. Their role is to stay well behind the infantry tanks and operate from stationary positions.
----[X] Assault support tanks may be able to provide accurate fire support and then relocate rapidly, essentially negating the effectiveness of counter-battery fire. If this can be made to work in practice, their mobility will protect them from incoming long range fire without the need for earthworks or excessive armor.
---[X] The combination of infantry tanks and assault support tanks will lead to an armored force that can reliably force breakthroughs, assault well-protected fortifications effectively, and still maintain adequate mobility and costs.
--[X] Future cavalry tanks will continue to improve in mobility and reliability. As technology advances, they are expected to grow somewhat larger and better armed and armored, but the emphasis will remain on mobility.
--[X] Cavalry tanks will be of increasing importance going forward, given the more mobile type of warfare anticipated to replace trench warfare in the future as infantry tanks and assault support tanks allow our armored forces to force breakthroughs.
This would have been written up as an actual white paper except that I just couldn't seem to make it come together. My apologies.
[X] Plan artillery tanks
-[X] Current armor trends are GOOD
--[X] Recent improvements in suspension are a positive development, and should continue.
--[X] Some recent tanks are beginning to achieve good survivability against weapons they will likely to face, including anti-tank weapons, without adversely impacting mobility to an unacceptable degree. This is a very positive development, and will have to continue as anti-tank weapons also improve.
--[X] The inclusion of radios in some current tanks is an extremely positive development which will greatly increase in importance in coming years.
--[X] Rangefinders, recently included in a tank for what may be the first time with the SkW-2, have the potential to be quite important going forward.
--[X] Greater presence on the battlefield through larger numbers allows armored support on a tactical, not just strategic, scale. Organic integration and attachment to infantry units allows opportunities to be acted upon before a window may close.
-[X] Current armor trends are BAD in that...
--[X] The increased reliability that has been seen in other motorized vehicles in recent years is not yet becoming particularly apparent in our tanks. More effort should be put into this, even to some extent at the cost of performance in other areas.
--[X] There seems to be a trend among some manufacturers towards ever-larger, more heavily armed vehicles. This comes at the cost of mobility, fuel usage, compatibility with existing infrastructure and of course price. The goal should not be to build the biggest, most powerful vehicle possible. It should be to build a vehicle as capable as is needed for it's task, in the ways that matter for that task. This may mean a large, heavily armed vehicle, or it may not, depending on the nature of the task.
-[X] Future armor trends are...
--[X] Mobility improvements will be key. Tanks of the future will be able to not just keep up with infantry, but outrun them. Future cavalry tanks will be able to travel at genuinely cavalry-like speeds.
--[X] The tanks of the future will have greatly increased reliability over current models. Breakdowns will be relatively infrequent, rather than expected multiple times per hour.
--[X] These improvements to mobility and reliability are expected to be a gradual process enabled by advancing technology and the accumulation of lessons learned, but it is a process which must be emphasized now.
--[X] Crew ergonomics, visibility, ventilation and communications will continue to improve. If a tank's crew can't do their jobs, the tank is useless. If they can't reach the controls, see out, breath or talk to each other, they can not do their jobs. Tanks of the future will feature easy to reach controls, weapons and ammo stores, acceptably comfortable seating, good visibility, enough ventilation to reliably avoid choking on fumes or baking alive in the summer heat, and intercoms or speaking tubes whenever they are needed to allow proper communication.
--[X] Tanks of the future will incorporate sloped armor and cast rather than welded plate to improve protection without increasing weight.
--[X] As is increasingly becoming the standard, tanks of the future will generally be built with a single turret for the main armament, no sponsons, and no hull-mounted weaponry beyond perhaps machine guns.
--[X] Future tanks will incorporate radios, both for coordination with other tanks at short ranges and for longer range communication. Antenna designs will be developed which do not require complicated setup procedures, enabling radio to be used routinely.
--[X] Current infantry tanks are still largely not up to the task of forcing breakthroughs in the context of trench warfare. They are insufficiently mobile and reliable for the job, and those few with the armor and firepower to counter the heavier fortifications likely to be encountered are even less mobile than the others and too expensive to be available in quantity. The solution is a new approach:
---[X] The infantry tank of the future will feature good mobility and armor, and will mount armament well suited for engaging infantry, light fortifications and armored vehicles. It will be of relatively modest size compared to some of today's largest.
---[X] It will feature a radio and a coincidence rangefinder or similar device, as well as good optics of a more conventional sort. These will be its most potent weapon.
---[X] Infantry tanks will operate in close cooperation with assault support tanks, a new category.
----[X] Assault support tanks will be lightly armored, equipped with a large, long range main gun, and well suited for indirect fire. They may potentially be quite large and might lack a distinct turret in order to fit larger guns. They will have substantial ammunition stores and, as with other future tanks, include a radio.
----[X] The primary task of an assault support tank will be to provide long range fire support for infantry tanks at short notice. Infantry tanks, faced with a target they are not equipped to deal with or in position to provide spotting on a target of opportunity, will be able to communicate with a nearby group of assault support tanks and arrange an accurate bombardment in a matter of minutes.
----[X] As secondary tasks, assault support tanks may provide similar support to infantry, cavalry tanks or other forces, supplement artillery in sustained bombardment when not otherwise available in sufficient quantity, or engage targets incapable of effectively retaliating at long range with direct fire.
----[X] Assault support tanks should not be treated as front-line combatants, as they sacrifice armor and features necessary for close range combat in order to mount large guns and achieve acceptable mobility at a relatively modest cost. Their role is to stay well behind the infantry tanks and operate from stationary positions.
----[X] Assault support tanks may be able to provide accurate fire support and then relocate rapidly, essentially negating the effectiveness of counter-battery fire. If this can be made to work in practice, their mobility will protect them from incoming long range fire without the need for earthworks or excessive armor.
---[X] The combination of infantry tanks and assault support tanks will lead to an armored force that can reliably force breakthroughs, assault well-protected fortifications effectively, and still maintain adequate mobility and costs.
--[X] Future cavalry tanks will continue to improve in mobility and reliability. As technology advances, they are expected to grow somewhat larger and better armed and armored, but the emphasis will remain on mobility.
--[X] Cavalry tanks will be of increasing importance going forward, given the more mobile type of warfare anticipated to replace trench warfare in the future as infantry tanks and assault support tanks allow our armored forces to force breakthroughs.
Last edited:
TortugaGreen
Constantly out of the loop
- Pronouns
- She/Her
[X] Plan artillery tanks
I do like the completeness of this, and it seems well capable of handling pretty much anything from FvC Superlandships to infantry. While theartillery assault support tank system seems like it would be flaky in larger battles, it is a remarkably elegant solution to getting as much firepower into a smaller vehicle when compared to the larger landships. No idea how well it will work in practice, but as long as the airwaves can be kept clear enough, it's definitely worth a try.
I do like the completeness of this, and it seems well capable of handling pretty much anything from FvC Superlandships to infantry. While the
Himmelhand
Giant Sinkhole 2020
- Location
- Midwestern US
I'm sold.
[X] Plan artillery tanks
[X] Plan artillery tanks
Zeroth Jupi
Sporadic Writer and Haver of Ideas
- Location
- Somewhere
- Pronouns
- He/She/They
[X] Plan artillery tanks
- Location
- Germiston, South Africa
New
[X] Plan artillery tanks
Mostly cuz I like the idea of specialist armor intended to work as a team, opposed to the historical of specialist armor useless outside the defined role.
[X] Plan artillery tanks
Mostly cuz I like the idea of specialist armor intended to work as a team, opposed to the historical of specialist armor useless outside the defined role.