Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Create-a-tank 1

Discussion in 'Forum Gaming' started by Danyel Phelps, Sep 3, 2005.

  1. Danyel Phelps

    Danyel Phelps Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United States
    via TanksinWW2
    In need of a modernized Tank Destroyer – May 8th, 1942

    My country of Neutraltopia has been on the verge of war with neighboring countries for years. Our outdated armored forces (limited to a few dozen FT-17s) require a new vehicle with which to use. My country is mobilizing for a defensive conflict. Terrain will be mostly flat tundra with few forests and many dirt roads.

    Our enemies are fielding vehicles and weapons which completely outclass us. The most notable and expected opposition will come from 7TP (Single turret) tanks as well as less common Pz38(t) Tanks.

    Requirements listed below.

    -Weight must be no more than 15 tons. (Hetzer, for example)

    -Armament should be or exceed 37mm, but should not breach 76mm. Weapon can not exceed 50 calibers in length

    -Must be able to resist .50 caliber machine gun fire from 500m on the front glacis.

    -Must be able to resist infantry caliber small arms at any range on all sides.

    -Torsion Bar or similar suspension preferred.

    -Must be cheap and able to be swiftly supplied in short order.
     
  2. Zhukov_2005

    Zhukov_2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toothless Capital of the World
    via TanksinWW2
    One question, do the parts we use have to be nation specific to our country?
     
  3. Danyel Phelps

    Danyel Phelps Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United States
    via TanksinWW2
    Yep, that was the general idea.
     
  4. Zhukov_2005

    Zhukov_2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toothless Capital of the World
    via TanksinWW2
    Damn! :grin:
     
  5. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    When will we be presenting our designs?

    Team Germany is ready, what about Russia and the UK?
     
  6. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    UK tomorrow, the paint on the prototype isn't dry yet :( :lol:
     
  7. Danyel Phelps

    Danyel Phelps Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United States
    via TanksinWW2
    Yep, tommarow is the deadline.
     
  8. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Team Germany (Ricky and Roel)

    In late 1941, German-controled tank factories in Czechoslovakia produced 179 PzKpfw 38(t) Ausf G hulls, which were surplus to requirements.
    The PzKpfw 38(t) Ausf G had the following specifications:

    Model: Ausfuhrung G
    Weight: 9850kg
    Crew: 4 men
    Engine: Praga EPA / 6-cylinder / 125hp
    Speed: Road 42km/h, Cross-Country 15km/h
    Range: Road 250km, Cross-Country 160km
    Lenght: 4.61m
    Width: 2.14m
    Height: 2.40m
    Armament: 37mm KwK 38(t) L/47.8 + 2 x 7.92mm MG37(t)
    Ammo: 37mm - 42 rounds, 7.92mm - 2400 rounds
    Armor (mm/angle): Front Turret: 50/10 Front Upper Hull: 50/17 Front Lower Hull: 50/16 Side Turret: 30/10 Side Upper Hull: 15+15/0 Side Lower Hull: 15/0 Rear Turret: 22/10 Rear Upper Hull: 10/ Rear Lower Hull: 15/12 Turret Top / Bottom: 15/90 Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 8/90 Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 8/90 Gun Mantlet: 25/round.

    When the specifications from Neutraltopia were received, it was quickly realised that these PzKpfw 38(t) hulls were an ideal basis for the AFV they needed, as it met practically every requirement made. As Neutraltopia’s potential enemies were also users of an earlier version of this tank design (from a pre-war Czech export) it was obvious that significant modifications, especially with regard to killing power, were needed to provide an AFV superior to any fielded against Neutraltopia. In keeping with the German doctrine of ‘aggressive defence’ it was decided to retain a turreted AFV rather than adopt an ‘assault gun’ style layout. The designers considered that the terrain of Neutraltopia largely negated the use of ambush tactics, and greatly favoured such tactics as limited counter-attacks and large-scale tank-vs-tank engagements, for both of which a turreted vehicle was considered preferable in the light of German combat experience.

    The German designers noted that the PzKpfw III tank had recently undergone a comprehensive refit, involving the replacing of the KwK 38 L/42 50mm gun for the KwK 39 L/60. Trials showed that it was possible to fit a simplified PzKpfw III turret with KwK 38 gun onto a PzKpfw 38(t) hull, although the hull top had to be redesigned to overhang the tracks, thus allowing room for the new turret ring. This upgrade would give the PzKpfw 38(t) Ausf R (as the new tank was designated) the ability to penetrate 36mm of armour (with a 30 degree slope) at a distance of 1,000m, giving it a comfortable advantage over the PzKpfw 38(t) and 7TP tanks it would encounter. The 50mm armour on the glacis and turret front would defeat the 37mm weapons of the PzKpfw 38(t) and 7TP tanks until they were within 100m.

    To keep a similar level of ammunition stowage with the introduction of the new, larger caliber gun the bow machine gun position was deleted and the space used for stowage. In light of combat experience, the glacis plate of the PzKpfw 38(t) Ausf G hull was replaced with a moderately sloped glacis (of the same thickness) as part of the upper hull redesign for the PzKpfw 38(t) Ausf R, to increase effective armour protection.

    These modifications – particularly the new turret – did increase the tank’s weight to just within the 15 ton limit, and so it was decided to replace the Praga EPA 125hp engine with the 250hp Praga V-8 giving a hp/ton ratio of 17 hp/t, which resulted in a maximum road speed of 63km/h and a road range of about 200km.

    Trials with the initial prototype vehicle showed that the new turret gave the tank a very distinctive shillouette, thus negating the designer’s fears that it could be confused on the battlefield for its older bretheren fielded by Neutraltopia’s neighbours.

    8 prototype tanks were made ready to send to Neutraltopia within three weeks of the requirement being issued, and deliveries of the first 170 production models were promised for a month after the contract being signed. Given that at least the first 170 examples would make use of existing obsolete/surplus equipment with only minor modification, the price per unit was very competitive indeed.

    Enclosed are some pictures of one of the first 8 prototypes, ready to be delivered and fitted with combat camouflage seen as suited to Neutraltopia's typical tundra landscape.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Team Britain - Oli and Dave
    This document is the paperwork as presented to Neutraltopia's purchasing commission - items in italics were handwritten in the margin.
    Caliver Mk.1
    Crew - 3
    Height - 1.44m
    Width - 2.77m
    Length (hull) - 5.01m
    Length (oa) - 5.9m
    Mass kg - 11152
    Engine - Liberty MkII
    HP - 340
    Speed kph - 52
    Range km -400
    Armour - as per Crusader Mk.II, exceeds requirements.
    Armament - 6 pr 7cwt (57mm), with options, see below
    The design rationale for the Caliver Ml.1 (known to its test crew as the "Cadaver") was very simple: what bits of junk do we have kicking about in the scrap yard? Cheap and cheerful if not completely effective we at least managed to offer the prototype in in nice shade of green. The vehicle commander has a BESA mg mounted in his vision turret, and a similar mini-turret is available for the gunner/ loader upon customer request. An alternative is to mount both mini turrets and fit one or both with a BESA 15mm. Future options will be replacement of the 6 pr with a Molins guns for increased rate of fire and fitting a Meteor engine instead of the Liberty.
    We consider the Caliver Mk.1 to be an effective solution to your requirements, and expect to have your minister place a large order by the end of the week.

    Test report: Classified
    Prototype testing in true British fashion lasted a period of 2 months which was broken up as follows:
    Admiring the design while rolling a fag: 1 week cumulative
    Brewing a cuppa: 2 weeks cumulative
    Complaining about the weather: 2 weeks cumulative (some of this ran concurrently with the previous two in keeping with modern manufacturing processes)
    Looking for the petrol filler cap: 1 day (non-cumulative)
    Road testing: 2 days
    Repairs required by road testing: 4 days
    Cross-country testing: 1 day
    Waiting for recovery vehicle: 6 days (the mud was the wrong sort)
    Gunnery tests, with ammunition: 2 hours
    Gunnery tests, crew shouting bang loudly: 1 week less 2 hours

    (you know, if we ever sell this heap of junk to those bloody foreigners I can retire to the country on the profits and take up fishing again, make sure all the right paper work goes out, including the tea boy's school project on what a real tank destoyer should be, and burn the rest)

    Signed,


    Nuffield Engineering.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Canadian_Super_Patriot

    Canadian_Super_Patriot recruit

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yeah , me and Zhukovs entry may not be entered till later today.
     
  11. Canadian_Super_Patriot

    Canadian_Super_Patriot recruit

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ta Daa !!

    Heres are "masterpiece"

    Weight: 10.0 Tons
    Dimensions: 3.72 x 2.23 x 2.25
    Armour: 10mm
    Range: 200 Km
    Speed:72Km/H
    Main Gun: Type 38-45mm Gun

    In true russian fashion this tank is cheap , effective and easy to repair. There are no "bells and whistles" it has a job it does it good , nothing more , it is cheap to produce , easy to repair and replace, and is suited quite nicely to dirt roads and flat terrain.

    Heres a link to the pic

    I used the hull from the Bt-5 , removed the turret and added a 45mm gun to the hull , added a machine gun. Hmm , pretty much it I guess , I did this so it would have a low silloette, and so it could conceal itself easier, and for combat reasons also.

    The Pic I drew is somewhat sloppy but it was the best I could do in an hour , I jad school this week and I forgot about this for a few days , so.

    Heres a Link http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2836

    Im sure if a tank has thin tracks it can turn fast , so the turret is unnessacery.
     
  12. Danyel Phelps

    Danyel Phelps Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United States
    via TanksinWW2
    Wow!

    This is a toughie. We got an insanely quick and nimble vehicle totting a weapon that can easily make short work of P38(t) tanks, a full-blown main battle tank, and a British Stug.

    After a lot of thought, I came to the decision that the contract should be awarded to Team Britain. Commentary is as follows:

    Germany: Roel and Ricky really came through with a masterpiece of engineering, though I do slightly question their reason for the weight being so low. But I’ll give you guys the benefit of the doubt. The optics are no doubt superb and as with German tradition, you guys completely and utterly blew the problem out of the water. However, this particular piece both looks and sounds like it would better fill the role of a Main Battle Tank and less of a cheap, cost effective tank destroyer. No doubt this unit would cost more to Neutraltopia than the other options.

    I see your PzKw 39(t) Ausf. R being one of the great “what if” tanks. A real masterpiece.

    Russia: Again, a good design with just a couple apparent problems. The gun chosen for the tank indeed eliminates the problems expected by Neutraltopia, and the vehicle itself is fast; very fast indeed. It has a very small profile, and can very rapidly deploy anywhere we need it with a formidable gun.

    The problems lay with the armor and overall size of the tank. Though it is very light (Complete overkill of the weight requirement! Easily transported even by air most likely) it is also very small. In fact, being that small one wonders how many crew members it can support. Further, ammunition storage is likely to be small. The armor does indeed fulfill the requirements, but just barely. Does a tank with this high of speed and low of profile need allot of armor to avoid taking hits? Since it is unturreted and needs to stop to get off an accurate shot, it would have benefited from more armor. The speed is complete overkill!

    No doubt this would be a very inexpensive investment for Neutraltopia, and does have the firepower to fix our problem. The issues above are the only thing keeping it from taking the contract.

    Britain:
    The 6pdr gun overkills the problem. Turretless design gives it a low profile, and it’s still reasonably quick and well armored. It is felt this offers the best compromise in mobility, firepower, protection and above all – cost.


    Parting words

    The submission by Roel and Ricky was excellent and well written. Though they did not win (Would have if this contest was for an MBT!) their presentation should be documented as an exceptional and model example of a submission.

    As I write this, I also feel the rules need to be changed slightly. While Oli and Dave are now at the helm (should they so choose) as the representatives of a neutral nation, I really think the number of judges needs to be expanded to match the number of teams participating. Judging the three submissions bordered on too much for me to do alone, and I had to consult some of my friends (One of which was a retired U.S. Army tanker I met at an air show) to reach my conclusions.
     

Share This Page