German Armour What If?
-
FreakyDude
- Corporal
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:31 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: German Armour What If?
well I think I finally have a pic that shows where I am going. Now that I have the wheels I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
- Attachments
-
- Update 8 001.jpg (25.06 KiB) Viewed 883 times
A Joke is a very serious thing
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: German Armour What If?
Christian is a remarkable modeller,his designs are really smart,and he has mastered the CNC process very smartly,best source for custom parts and a very dependable fellow.
Also a member of the military in Germany,some real life experience in armor and modern warfare.
Also a member of the military in Germany,some real life experience in armor and modern warfare.
Urban dictionary-SAXONDOG-derogatory term for anglosaxon people
Re: German Armour What If?
The key to seeing German Armor's problems lies in understanding the difference between streaming and salvo model attrition and specifically the differences in engagement ranges vs. numbers of tubes firing.
Basically, if you can see a line of ten T-34s moving on two Pzkpfw-X and the T-34s can penetrate the German tank at 800m and the Pzkpfw-X can kill at 1,200m then what you need is the ability to spike rpm shot counts as accuracy to the point where you push 15 SSPH=.75 , SSPK = 1.0 rounds down range before the threat gets close enough to engage the one time they need to win. If the threat is moving at 15-20mph (necessary for stable shooting on the move) that 400m difference is about 44 seconds. If the enemy is using rolling artillery fires, the time window may well be considerably less, simply because the Panzers will likely move up into flanking or offset fighting positions only after the initial prep fires have slackened.
Obviously, there will be secondary terrain and tactics modifiers as the engagement distances you can get on the Soviet steppe are typically much longer than those you will achieve in the Hungarian and Polish forested areas and so you must _lead the warfighter campaign point_ by the likely rate of terrain loss vs. months downstream when the tank will be introduced.
Myself, this can only mean two things:
1. APFSDS as Pfiel Geschoss or 'arrow shot' with sufficient stabilization to put a sub caliber round accurately within 1 meter of aimpoint on moving targets. Sectional density being what it is, even if the round is not tungsten but simple steel, a focused impact energy centered on 1cm of armor at 2,800fps (residual after flyout from a 3,300fps muzzle velocity) is going to go through even turret mantlets.
2. An autorammer similar to the Skoda model which gives you at least 5 shots before reload so that whatever accuracy shortcomings you suffer as a function of gunnery errors in estimating range, crossing rate and round trajectory can be rapidly corrected before you are essentially 'taking a new sight picture'. This also implies a powered turret with full traverse across at least 90-120` of frontal arc servicing coverage.
I would also suggest that, because of terrible shortages then in place, you want an unmanned turret with a periscopic sight (gunner seated in hull) so that you can put 150mm on the 2X2ft mantlet _which covers the entire front of the turret_. And at least 60-80mm on the glacis, tilted to about 60`. Weight is manageable, within the 25-30 ton limit of the E-25 chassis if you do this.
The way you would accomplish this would be to simplify the E-25 as much as possible (square the roofline rather than turtle hump it) and take a PAK-40 or 43 and weld it's mount to the upper roof with the autorammer (basically a 5 round revolver magazine), attached to the feed tray. WHen it was necessary to service the autorammer, you would center the turret, open a roof hatch and feed rounds up and, probably via a stacked 'clip' load on a trolley which could be rolled under the on-mount cylinder. Such a system would allow you to have 4-5, ten round, clip dolleys which could simply be fed into the autorammer.
With the engine AND transmission forwards, the entire rear of the vehicle is open to ammunition carriage and mounting/dismounting via an M113 style rear ramp/door combination so that the trolleys could be rolled up into the rear while again reducing the number of holes you have to cut in the roof for hatches.
In terms of manufacturing, this removes the need for a complex turret lathing system as a major design issue with balance and upgunning as well as assembly hours on the vehicle.
A folded two inch splash ring protects the frontal circumference of the gun mount to further shield against strikes on the 'turret ring' while the only vehicle penetration is a single pole which attaches to an in-vehicle electrical or hydraulic turret drive. This tube being what the gunner sits with the commander, using a separate masted periscope, at the aft corner of the vehicle, opposite the loader.
Point Being: If you lose the gun or want to increase the caliber, so long as the mount itself is saveable, you simply lift and replace the whole unit.
Since you will be taking hits and the critical shortage of Molybdenum and Nickel for the Germans meant the use of inferior Vanadium which led to terrible embrittlement micro-fracturing in the flame tempering process, you would likely want to use the extreme slope of the the hull, along with modified track hangers, to mount 'Brimstone' as NERA armor boxes fill with 5mm honecomb matrix of low hardness steel, between the cells of which you pour powdered brickbats and bake to achieve some protection against Allied and particularly Soviet AT weapons on a 1-2 hit protective basis before replacement.
This would have the unique effect of turning the tank from a sloped outline back to a square hull form with the armor boxes essentially predetonating APCBC and HEAT and tilting or breaking up APCR/APDS which would then be deflected by the underlying armor without putting massive dings in it that would be almost impossible to repair (thermal embrittlement of could cause the entire armor face to collapse or crack off at the welds which effectively have a different temper than the rest of the steel).
This, along with the improved ROF and lower target silhouette, is how you would compensate for midwar levels of armor in an End Kampf scenario of late 1944 when these vehicles began to reach units in some numbers.
The nice thing here is that if you continue to use a Maybach HL-234 engine, you get a decent HP:ton ratio and likely a startlingly quick vehicle off a far less heavily stressed transmission system with much better fuel economy. But at the same time, your tank destroyer is not a fixed casemate mount, vulnerable to envelopement by charging enemy tanks but rather has something like normal tank traverse main gun coverage which allows the commander to both angle his armor and rapidly displace from fighting positions.
With simplified manufacture, it could also form the basis of a viable APC replacement for the plethora of Sdkfz 7 and 251 variants, giving you a universal spares system. Since most tanks only had a 6-8 week combat life expectancy, the issue with mine explosion and direct AT hits disabling the transmission is, IMO, a lesser issue than simply having enough, quick firing, tanks to stop the enemy cold while maneuvering to stay out of artillery splash which is the real killer of a fixed defensive condition with slow moving tanks and mixed infantry positions.
Finally, if you base your automount on the PAK variant of the gun rather than the KWK, the infantry get a significant firepower increase as well which suggests that you can either site in depth or along multiple axes of advance with fewer guns per ATG position and yet retaining the same firepower.
In General, its always better to improve the guts as the bullets and the sights and the mechanical action of an existing system than it is to design a new tank overall. But the Germans made a mistake in continuing to pursue heavy tanks after the point where the battle should have returned to fluid/mobile warfare conditions.
Basically, if you can see a line of ten T-34s moving on two Pzkpfw-X and the T-34s can penetrate the German tank at 800m and the Pzkpfw-X can kill at 1,200m then what you need is the ability to spike rpm shot counts as accuracy to the point where you push 15 SSPH=.75 , SSPK = 1.0 rounds down range before the threat gets close enough to engage the one time they need to win. If the threat is moving at 15-20mph (necessary for stable shooting on the move) that 400m difference is about 44 seconds. If the enemy is using rolling artillery fires, the time window may well be considerably less, simply because the Panzers will likely move up into flanking or offset fighting positions only after the initial prep fires have slackened.
Obviously, there will be secondary terrain and tactics modifiers as the engagement distances you can get on the Soviet steppe are typically much longer than those you will achieve in the Hungarian and Polish forested areas and so you must _lead the warfighter campaign point_ by the likely rate of terrain loss vs. months downstream when the tank will be introduced.
Myself, this can only mean two things:
1. APFSDS as Pfiel Geschoss or 'arrow shot' with sufficient stabilization to put a sub caliber round accurately within 1 meter of aimpoint on moving targets. Sectional density being what it is, even if the round is not tungsten but simple steel, a focused impact energy centered on 1cm of armor at 2,800fps (residual after flyout from a 3,300fps muzzle velocity) is going to go through even turret mantlets.
2. An autorammer similar to the Skoda model which gives you at least 5 shots before reload so that whatever accuracy shortcomings you suffer as a function of gunnery errors in estimating range, crossing rate and round trajectory can be rapidly corrected before you are essentially 'taking a new sight picture'. This also implies a powered turret with full traverse across at least 90-120` of frontal arc servicing coverage.
I would also suggest that, because of terrible shortages then in place, you want an unmanned turret with a periscopic sight (gunner seated in hull) so that you can put 150mm on the 2X2ft mantlet _which covers the entire front of the turret_. And at least 60-80mm on the glacis, tilted to about 60`. Weight is manageable, within the 25-30 ton limit of the E-25 chassis if you do this.
The way you would accomplish this would be to simplify the E-25 as much as possible (square the roofline rather than turtle hump it) and take a PAK-40 or 43 and weld it's mount to the upper roof with the autorammer (basically a 5 round revolver magazine), attached to the feed tray. WHen it was necessary to service the autorammer, you would center the turret, open a roof hatch and feed rounds up and, probably via a stacked 'clip' load on a trolley which could be rolled under the on-mount cylinder. Such a system would allow you to have 4-5, ten round, clip dolleys which could simply be fed into the autorammer.
With the engine AND transmission forwards, the entire rear of the vehicle is open to ammunition carriage and mounting/dismounting via an M113 style rear ramp/door combination so that the trolleys could be rolled up into the rear while again reducing the number of holes you have to cut in the roof for hatches.
In terms of manufacturing, this removes the need for a complex turret lathing system as a major design issue with balance and upgunning as well as assembly hours on the vehicle.
A folded two inch splash ring protects the frontal circumference of the gun mount to further shield against strikes on the 'turret ring' while the only vehicle penetration is a single pole which attaches to an in-vehicle electrical or hydraulic turret drive. This tube being what the gunner sits with the commander, using a separate masted periscope, at the aft corner of the vehicle, opposite the loader.
Point Being: If you lose the gun or want to increase the caliber, so long as the mount itself is saveable, you simply lift and replace the whole unit.
Since you will be taking hits and the critical shortage of Molybdenum and Nickel for the Germans meant the use of inferior Vanadium which led to terrible embrittlement micro-fracturing in the flame tempering process, you would likely want to use the extreme slope of the the hull, along with modified track hangers, to mount 'Brimstone' as NERA armor boxes fill with 5mm honecomb matrix of low hardness steel, between the cells of which you pour powdered brickbats and bake to achieve some protection against Allied and particularly Soviet AT weapons on a 1-2 hit protective basis before replacement.
This would have the unique effect of turning the tank from a sloped outline back to a square hull form with the armor boxes essentially predetonating APCBC and HEAT and tilting or breaking up APCR/APDS which would then be deflected by the underlying armor without putting massive dings in it that would be almost impossible to repair (thermal embrittlement of could cause the entire armor face to collapse or crack off at the welds which effectively have a different temper than the rest of the steel).
This, along with the improved ROF and lower target silhouette, is how you would compensate for midwar levels of armor in an End Kampf scenario of late 1944 when these vehicles began to reach units in some numbers.
The nice thing here is that if you continue to use a Maybach HL-234 engine, you get a decent HP:ton ratio and likely a startlingly quick vehicle off a far less heavily stressed transmission system with much better fuel economy. But at the same time, your tank destroyer is not a fixed casemate mount, vulnerable to envelopement by charging enemy tanks but rather has something like normal tank traverse main gun coverage which allows the commander to both angle his armor and rapidly displace from fighting positions.
With simplified manufacture, it could also form the basis of a viable APC replacement for the plethora of Sdkfz 7 and 251 variants, giving you a universal spares system. Since most tanks only had a 6-8 week combat life expectancy, the issue with mine explosion and direct AT hits disabling the transmission is, IMO, a lesser issue than simply having enough, quick firing, tanks to stop the enemy cold while maneuvering to stay out of artillery splash which is the real killer of a fixed defensive condition with slow moving tanks and mixed infantry positions.
Finally, if you base your automount on the PAK variant of the gun rather than the KWK, the infantry get a significant firepower increase as well which suggests that you can either site in depth or along multiple axes of advance with fewer guns per ATG position and yet retaining the same firepower.
In General, its always better to improve the guts as the bullets and the sights and the mechanical action of an existing system than it is to design a new tank overall. But the Germans made a mistake in continuing to pursue heavy tanks after the point where the battle should have returned to fluid/mobile warfare conditions.
