Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How would you design a WWII tank?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    [QUOTE=phaze;n5145935]If you can do reclined driver positions and the resultant lower silhouettes, smaller frontal glacis with the technology of that day then .. yeah do that. Make heavy tanks just a heavy version of your mediums as far as that's possible while trying to achieve a range of 150 km and weight of 40-45 tons. Make a much more equal numerical split between them and mediums than was the case, hopefully so that the bigger part of first echelon units can have heavy tank batallions/brigades supporting them during breakthrough operations.

    Delete light tanks. In their place make some super low silhoutte, turretless vehicles with just enough armor to shrug off machine gun fire and equip it with just mg and maybe a mortar/grenade launcher/smoke dispenser.[/QUOTE]

    Phelps \Crosley would agree with you.... Light tanks were a cost, shipping, and a production line stop gap. \]the basic running gear provded usefull during the european winter of 1944-45- \the \Weasel and the Mule started out as a light tanks design.

    Last edited by marktwain; 08 Oct 19, 16:36.
    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

      Yes, Allison did have some issues with the early torquematic cross-drive transmissions. The biggest issue was the torque converters kept detonating into little pieces of ruined junk (even if it all stayed in the housing).

      As for dates, I was going off the original post and designing what I felt would be a very good WW 2 tank.
      Fair enough .
      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      Comment


      • #18
        Mine would look something like this...
        Chieftain_Tank_%289628802829%29.jpg


        The long toll of the brave
        Is not lost in darkness
        Over the fruitful earth
        And athwart the seas
        Hath passed the light of noble deeds
        Unquenchable forever.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Von Richter View Post
          Mine would look something like this...
          Chieftain_Tank_%289628802829%29.jpg


          Not during WWII. The materials and technology were not available.

          Something like this would have been more practical: Panther II/88mm

          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #20
            T-44 hull with an American engine, M26 Pershing turret and long T15 90mm gun

            (interestingly, the T-54 hull would actually have been capable of mounting a Pershing turret, as the ring diameter was 1800 mm as opposed to 1750 for the US tank).

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Von Richter View Post
              Mine would look something like this...
              Chieftain_Tank_%289628802829%29.jpg


              I assume you'd replace the British Leyland drive train with something actually reliable from like Toyota or Cummings, and the Lucas electrics with American or Japanese ones... Otherwise you would definitely have to issue the crew several of these...

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                I assume you'd replace the British Leyland drive train with something actually reliable from like Toyota or Cummings, and the Lucas electrics with American or Japanese ones... Otherwise you would definitely have to issue the crew several of these...

                Certainly not!!!

                No foreign junk in my 'Made in England' chariot

                And it won't have a silly name like a big pussy...

                Simple and direct. I'll call it the A10 Cruiser.



                The long toll of the brave
                Is not lost in darkness
                Over the fruitful earth
                And athwart the seas
                Hath passed the light of noble deeds
                Unquenchable forever.

                Comment


                • #23
                  So, it'd look more like this then...




                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                    Not during WWII. The materials and technology were not available.

                    Something like this would have been more practical: Panther II/88mm

                    The original 75mm was pushing the limits of interior space, anything bigger would’ve been almost impractical.
                    "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                    Ernest Hemingway.

                    In english "silence" means yelling louder than everyone else.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                      T-44 hull with an American engine, M26 Pershing turret and long T15 90mm gun

                      (interestingly, the T-54 hull would actually have been capable of mounting a Pershing turret, as the ring diameter was 1800 mm as opposed to 1750 for the US tank).
                      \Bob!! \where you been, and welcome back!

                      j\the unsung m2\a4 going ashore at the Island invasion by ship crane and lighter.
                      \the ideal tank is the one you can actually land on the beach....
                      Last edited by marktwain; 09 Oct 19, 19:31.
                      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                        \Bob!! \where you been, and welcome back!
                        Geez. . . where haven't I been? ACG will always be my 'home,' but it just seems so dull nowadays.

                        Soon I going to post a new thread dealing with some 'secret documents' I've come across; I can all but guarantee nobody here has ever seen these before. (As a hint, they deal with a planned American occupation of Kamchatka, Shumshu, and northern Paramushiro during the fall of 1945 - up to 237,500 men, 35,500 motor vehicles, and 1,400 aircraft. It would have required the creation of a new Corps headquarters and a new Air Force. . . compare that to what the Russians actually used, hoo-boy.)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post

                          The original 75mm was pushing the limits of interior space, anything bigger would’ve been almost impractical.
                          In the original Panther,yes, but not the projected design for the Panther II, and we are discussing hypotheticals anyway.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            When discussing tank design using hindsight, many focus on tactical elements and not strategic requirements. The USA was never going to produce a tank heavier than c35 tons before 1944, because heavier tanks would mean vastly less numbers available (around half), due to a variety of supply issues. A real possible option would be a M4A3 Sherman hull with an M25 turret. This absolutely could have been the US 'Firefly', but with HE potential 1943+.

                            If we are going to use actual obtainable technology, and early enough to be available in 1942, we are looking at an A30 Challenger type of tank. It has a first rate engine and drive train, a powerful gun, very decent mobility and reliability, and above average protection for 42-43. The turret was designed for 2 loaders, thus a smaller turret is feasible, as only one loader was necessary.

                            However, would any tank design seriously effect the outcome of the war from 1942+, if it replaced the T-34 and Shermans. Probably not, certainly not markedly. In fact I would suggest that if the Germans had a more capable tank in 1939-41, the outcome of the war could have been different. The 37mm and 50mm Panzer III's had indifferent reliability, and a next to useless HE round. Time and time again it was stated that panzer crewmen had to disembark and fight as infantry against AT guns. If these weapons had been defended by infantry, the Panzers would have been halted. Pz II's and 37t's were very reliable, but both suffered from ineffective armament against most targets, and both lacked decent protection. The Panzer did have a decent gun in the KwK 37 75mm, almost certainly one of the the best guns in any tank turret 39-41, but was otherwise unremarkable.

                            In fact, it was this lack of reliability of the III's and IV's, that led to the infamous Hold Order, with Goering's solution of using the Luftwaffe appearing a reasonable alternative to ground combat. In fact, most Panzer losses were due to breakdowns, about half. The solution would be a tank as capable in combat as the German mediums, but with the 75mm on the Pz IV. An A10 fits the bill.
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Really enjoying the discussion!

                              Not sure if it's an interesting question, but here's a follow-up:

                              [insert mad leader of choice] has given you the task to design a glorious super-heavy tank, to be the crowning jewel for the armoured forces.

                              Let's say it's 1942. Your wonderful leader expects the tank to be an absolute monstrosity: proof of fire in every direction and carrying the most powerful armament possible -- price and production is not an issue, neither does he care about the tactical need for such a tank; it's more of his personal toy than anything. Your task is to design a tank that live up to expectations as close as possible but still be practical enough to be worthy of being produced (and not be damned by logistical support/mechanics having to maintain the damn thing).

                              Your country is watching you. Shoot.
                              Last edited by oldngruff; 13 Oct 19, 08:43.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                A couple of years ago I made this version of the best WW2 tank and I quite like the way it turned out. It's just a quick sketch, so many details are left out, and the tracks are also only a 'placeholder'. Transmission and engine are both in the back, so it has a rear drive. The gun is a 75 mm high velocity, with a co-axial MG. A stereo aiming system for rangefinding is located above the barrel. The commander's cupola is as close to the turret ceiling as possible to minimize exposure and damage, it uses wide-angle periscope lens. The engine cover in the back is lower than the hull's top so it's protected from the sides.

                                Click on the thumbnail bellow for full-size image.


                                panzerkampfwagen_VII-01.jpg

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X