If you could design WWII armor,

[Freiwillige]

What would it look like?

What would be its features be?

Turreted or assault gun layout?

I would go for something in the T-34, Sherman, Panzer IV size class with the layout of a Panther

Rear drive axles like T-34 as opposed to front like German and American tanks would keep engine and transmission localized to rear.

Same KwK 75 as Panther with the Panther II small turret.

Call it Klein Panther!

[Pillar]

I think turrets are overrated, in terms of the trade-off between that and gun size. I'd go for something like the Jagdpanzer IV/70.

Gun size and strength matters the most, as well as the optics required to hit first. After that, armor to protect against common anti-tank gun calibers. Speed is not important imo, nor a turret.

A few of these overwatching for an infantry fighting vehicle -- 40mm HE auto on a chassis armored against anti-tank weapons.

The TD described above overwatches against enemy tanks while the IFV destroys infantry strongpoints.

[frinik]

[QUOTE=Pillar;1642367]Speed is not important imo, nor a turret.I think turrets are overrated, in terms of the trade-off between that and gun size.

I agree with you on the Jagdpanzer IV L70 but once your tracks are disabled and you ' re dead meat for all enemy tanks to flank you and take you out you may appreciate the usefulness of a turret:D

[Krauter]

Hmmm let's see...

I love the look of the Konigstiger simply because it's such a bad arse looking tank with that turret.

For armament I'd have to say make a KwK version of the 128mm FlaK 40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12.8_cm_FlaK_40)
For pure bad assery go with the Zwilling Mount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:12.8_cm_Flakzwilling_40_1.jpg)

The reason I chose the 128mm FlaK over the 88mm KwK L/71 is simply because based on how much charge they put into the AA version, they could probably substantially improve armour penetration by having higher volumes of propellant, or a better caliber (71 callbers perhaps?)

I would say move the drive axles to the rear a la t-34 to improve handling. Also, I would have to say if strategic bombing hadn't come into play, as well as trying to rush the design into production, the Konigstiger would've been a beast with proper quality control.

Thus, for my tank, I would have to say the designers would have to get a decent power plant to get her running that is at least half reliable (perhaps an aircraft engine like the M1?).

Anyways,

Hull/Crew/Turret Layoud: Koenigstiger (5 crew, Henschel Turret, etc)
Est. Weight: 78Tonnes.
Armament: 128mm KwK L/71
Engine: Daimler-Benz 605 A-1 Liquid cooled V12: 1,455 hp (compared to KT's 650...) Est. HP/Ton ratio: 18.65
Armor: Not a damn clue. Perhaps add an extra 30mm on specs of KT.
Transmission: Torsion bar

Reasoning behind me picking these specs is that in my opinion, if the Germans would have spent enough time designing and perfecting their Panthers and King Tigers such as they did with the Panzer II, III, IV, etc I think it would have been an incredibly useful and effective tank.

Armament is upgunned (past the 105mm the Germans wanted to put on the KT) due to the 128mm FlaK 40 being the next step of evolution in the German Flak cannons that could be used as anti-tank weapons (in my opinion). The massive shell size (compared to earlier designs), large caliber and 4x (thats right FOUR TIMES) the amount of force propelling the shell downrange leads me to believe that this thing could take on any conceivable tank for a few years to come.

The Engine specs and transmission (well actually I don't know of any other Transmissions save for the Christie design, but I thought that was un-reliable?) was based on modern tanks (M1) using aircraft engines as powerplants. Always hearing how the Tiger II had good mobility (for a tank of that size) but lacked engine power lead me to choose this power plants with more than double the amount of horse power being able to run this tank, even with the added weight of the 128mm armament and added protection.

Anyways, I'm just a history noob that knows barely anything about tanks, but thats what I would pick :D.

Cheers!

Krauter

[Task Force]

Lets see, the perfered TF tank?

A tank 35ftx13-15 ft about 10 feet tall, frontal armor would be sloped to 50 to 60 degrees 190-200mm of frontal armor, 70-80mm on the sides (with side metal thingys like the panzer 4 H), 50 mm on the rear. it would have a commander mg 42, a hull MG 42, and a turret mounted mg 42, with a 105mm anti tank gun. (this thing would have one hell of a turret though, for a 105.)

For a motor to move this moveable bunker, a custom heavyer motor than the usual Maybach would have to be made, perferably desiel, though gasoline works too.

Would be nice to make a protection against air targets, like some kind of top armor, so the rocket/bomb dosent damage, or distroy the tank.

[Sledgehammer427]

instead of trying to describe the tank I always envisioned, I decided to use MS paint and show every one here.

from the front its profile would resemble a Leopard 2a6, but with the sides of the turret sloping inward. its perhaps more of a modern design but its inspired by the Maus and the M10, and perhaps something else thrown in there, maybe the Leopard.
the gun is a 150mm artillery piece, modified for AT use. its powered by a 2 whole diesels, but in reality they are 4 diesels that were welded together in pairs to produce the output this thing needs. they run along the sides, while the driver sits between them. ammo is stored in the back, with a regular battle load in the turret.

a bit more modern considering this is WWII tank designing. (lets not forget its done up in NATO colors!)
http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo351/Fastrat91/terribletankidea.jpg
I'm also thinking of a "turret lock" that would lock the turret at 0 degrees. if the tactical situation calls for a rotating turret, the commander or gunner can unlock the turret. its really kind of a low-slung tank.
I like things that are long and low. My favorite design is the S-tank :P

[frinik]

I personally would go for a Panther II equipped with the Kwk 43 L71 with a lower, rounder and more sloped turret and front armour.I would go for a diesel engine in order to reduce fuel consumption, maintenance and risk o fire comapred to gasoline engine. By sloping and making turret rounder I would be able to reduce somewhat thickness of armour and decrease weight making tank preppier and putting less strain on transmission and suspension.

[Pillar]

[QUOTE=Pillar;1642367]Speed is not important imo, nor a turret.I think turrets are overrated, in terms of the trade-off between that and gun size.

I agree with you on the Jagdpanzer IV L70 but once your tracks are disabled and you ' re dead meat for all enemy tanks to flank you and take you out you may appreciate the usefulness of a turret:D

Other than in WoT (:O:), is there any evidence that this was actually a problem in battle?

Tracks are very resilient things against HE/Artillery. And, the range we'd expect this sort of overwatch tank to fight from would be around 600-1200m, with plenty of support from other arms. It is not a main battle tank concept.

What do you think? Are track hits at those ranges a likely concern? Is rotating the chassis going to be necessary for sector coverage at those ranges, even if the tracks do get shot?

[Sledgehammer427]

theres always the chance a lucky shot would stray off and hit the track from the front. but chances are the tank itself is dug in and hull down. :|\\

[frinik]

According to Thomas Jentz 13.6% of all Tiger I lost were due to damage to their tracks from mines, artillelly or AT guns hits, infantry(grenades, satchels or panzerfaust, airstriles or direct hits by other armour.If you have a turret you canreasonably fight off any flanking manoeuvre while you repair or tow your tank if you can.But with a Stug or jadpanzer the only alternative is for the crew to expose themselves to hostile fire to make repairs

[Castout]

T-34's body slope and speed and simplicity, Panther Panzer V armor thickness and weight and size and Tiger I's 88mm gun, IS-3 low front silhouette and turret shape.


Easier said than done.

For RL I must give T-34-85 my utmost respect.

[Task Force]

T-34's body slope and speed and simplicity, Panther Panzer V armor thickness and weight and size and Tiger I's 88mm gun, IS-3 low front silhouette and turret shape.


Easier said than done.

For RL I must give T-34-85 my utmost respect.


Why give your idea the Kwk 36, Id give it the kwk 43, far better gun.

Using the Pzgr 39 it could penitrate 110 mm of armor at 500m, while the 43 could penetrate 185 at the same range with the same amunition IIRC.

[Raptor1]

Why give your idea the Kwk 36, Id give it the kwk 43, far better gun.

Using the Pzgr 39 it could penitrate 110 mm of armor at 500m, while the 43 could penetrate 185 at the same range with the same amunition IIRC.


Not the same ammunition, the KwK 43's was different, especially with its much larger propelling charge.

Though if your chassis is only as heavy as a Panther, it might not be able to carry the KwK 43 and sufficient ammunition, or it might not be able to withstand the pressure of firing it.

[TLAM Strike]

Give me a Sherman Firefly
Enlarge it so you can cram a squad of light infantry inside.
Make it amphibious.

:rock:

[mr. whukid]

It depends on the type of fighting. If it was an offensive vehicle, I'd put a Panzer 3 Ausf J. Turret on a Panther chassis with the engine in the front. Then, with the extra room in back, put extra ammo storage and accommodations for a squad of infantry. (Notice the Murkava design :D ) For a Defensive/limited offense vehicle, I'd mound a Porschturm (Tiger 2 turret) KwK 36 L/56 on a Panzer IV chassis with thickened, sloped armour in the front.

Defense vehicle
Porshturm = more ammo/space/sloped armour
Kwk 36 L/56 = same gun as the Tiger 1 ( more than enough killing power )
Panzer IV chassis = most commonly produced chassis of the Germans during world war 2. the reinforced/sloped armor provides extra protection and controls the crew will already be familiar with. Also allows for a lower profile than the later Tiger series

Offense vehicle
Panther Chassis = very large/ roomy without an engine in the rear. better armor than the panzer III and with a much bigger engine.
Ausf J. turret = less space required for ammo, less space required for turret/gun. Also was very effective in offensive operations on all fronts
Combination = a WW2 version of a modern APC

** Both include a gyroscope for shooting on the move

[Castout]

Why give your idea the Kwk 36, Id give it the kwk 43, far better gun.

Using the Pzgr 39 it could penitrate 110 mm of armor at 500m, while the 43 could penetrate 185 at the same range with the same amunition IIRC.



Umm Just think that an ideal medium tank should not carry a too big gun, but nonetheless gun which will bring serious threat to enemy heavy and deadly to other medium.

Bigger guns naturally have longer reload times wouldn't be suitable for a medium mobility tank.

But since kwk 43 has the same 88mm caliber, if it's suitable then why not :03:

[frinik]

The problem with upgunnign a medium size tank ids the weight of the gun.The Kwk 39 of the Panzer IV F2 weighs 700 kilos, the KwK42 of the Panther 1.2 tons(metric) while the Kwk36 and 43 were considerably heavier so you end up with either enlarging your tank, both turret and hull and then gainign considerable weight which means your tank is no longer a medium tank but a heavy one.I think the gun of the Panther was more than adequate and rather thna invest in costly and ridiculous dead end projects like the Ratte and Maus they should have invested German R & D ,the most adavnced in the World at the time, to improve the existing shells and give them more penetratin gpower and or develop guided anti -tank missiles that could fired from tanks.Would have been cheaper and more effective

[Sledgehammer427]

I agree Frinik, the 75mm the Panther used was more than enough. IIRC it was a wonderful gun.

[Pillar]

According to Thomas Jentz 13.6% of all Tiger I lost were due to damage to their tracks from mines, artillelly or AT guns hits, infantry(grenades, satchels or panzerfaust, airstriles or direct hits by other armour.If you have a turret you canreasonably fight off any flanking manoeuvre while you repair or tow your tank if you can.But with a Stug or jadpanzer the only alternative is for the crew to expose themselves to hostile fire to make repairs

I don't think single tanks should be responsible for their flanks, but rather designed to have the maximum effect in their area of responsibility. The gun traverse should be decent enough to cover that without moving the hull around.

[TLAM Strike]

Bigger guns naturally have longer reload times wouldn't be suitable for a medium mobility tank.

Simple solution:

Long time to reload one gun?
Have more than one gun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos)

[Castout]

Simple solution:

Long time to reload one gun?
Have more than one gun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos)

Nooooooooo I hate tanks with more than one gun :DL.

I've changed my mind about the 88mm gun. It seems even the Russian D-10T 100mm gun is even a more powerful(ideal gun) for a medium WWII tank. And the gun is available late in WWII period.

It can be carried by a T34(T34-100) :yeah: as seen in the following picture:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/529504-1/t34_100_02

So

T54 armor thickness
T34 mobility and sloping and simplicity
100mm D-10T gun or equivalent
T72 turret shape and T54 hull size.


Raaawrrr

In the end, after looking at the criteria, my ideal WWII [medium] tank simply to have already existed in second world war,

The T54(March 1945).

http://director.io/tanquesyblindados/articulos/epocaactual/t54/t54_1www.geocities.jpg

In my opinion The T54 revolutionary ballistic protection shape and high mobility, powerful gun and low silhoutte would make it the war winning machine of its day. Had it been introduced a year or two sooner it would reign king in second world war. The fact that it was used into late 1980s even now in some countries is a testament of its design quality. Its high production number also testified to the confidence it gave to the Soviet army.

[TLAM Strike]

Nooooooooo I hate tanks with more than one gun :DL.

More than one main gun I take it? :O:

Hate to only have the big gun when Infantry is swarming about. :yep:

[Castout]

More than one main gun I take it? :O:

Hate to only have the big gun when Infantry is swarming about. :yep:

Yeah no more than a single main gun :D. Am okay with MG. That M3 Lee is a pain to look at to give example. They should compensate the Germans and the British for having to see that in battle. An ungainly sight.:damn:

[TLAM Strike]

Yeah no more than a single main gun :D. Am okay with MG. That M3 Lee is a pain to look at to give example. They should compensate the Germans and the British for having to see that in battle. An ungainly sight.:damn:

The AMX-30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-30) seemed to pull of the twin heavy weapons with style. :yep:

[Raptor1]

The AMX-30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-30) seemed to pull of the twin heavy weapons with style. :yep:

But it still only had a single main gun.

In fact, I can't think of a single successful and/or or not ugly tank design that had two main guns.

EDIT: Ah, except certain WWI tanks, of course.

[frinik]

All the tank designed with twin or dual turrets were either ugly, utter failures( the T35a and a French tank with 2 turrets come to mind )or never realised like the Ratte and Maus.The only relative successes were the Flakpanzer vierling and wirbelwind but their guns were AA guns.Post WWII the Germans built the Gepard and the Soviets a few flak tanks of their own but again designed to fight aircrafts or helicopters.

[Pillar]

revolutionary ballistic protection shape

What about it is revolutionary? Interesting