I mostly understand what you are all saying, and I will go and redisgn both the M44 Heavy and the M45 Medium. However, I have some problems with your arguments.
First off, a 100mm gun is not justifiable at the present time in Wesworld. We mentioned this earlier in regards to your heavy tank, and we elected to make a one-time exception in light of the tank's size and a very limited production run. Yet you're now putting this gun on a much smaller medium tank meant for larger production numbers. So on this count, thumbs down.
You keep saying this but I don't understand at all. The 100mm is the exact as as the one on the SU-100, the T44-100, etc. It is roughly equivalent to the 75mm/L70. Why it is not allowed?
To be frank, the design was meant for a 90mm/L52, aka the 90mm M3 gun on the Pershing equivalent to the 88mm KwK 36 on the Tiger. I made it 100mm because it would then be the same gun as the M44 Heavy, which had similar performance, as it would simplify logistics. To be frank, given this vehement disapproval of a historical tank gun that came out about the same time as the 88mm Kwk 42 (which is a standard gun in Wesworld) and penetrates less, I don't see why I don't just make the two tanks carry a 90mm L70 and call it a day. The weights are practically the same anyways and I might even save a metric ton or two on ammunition weight/volume.
Third, the power-to-weight ratio is about twice the period's mean (which is ~15 horsepower per ton). The Cromwell, which had one of the highest historic power-to-weight ratios of any 1940s tank, has a 22hp/ton ratio. 31 hp/ton is just a joke.
I don't see why having a high hp/ton is implausible, especially when hp/ton is a value isolated from the rest of a design - factoring only weight and engine. If I placed a 150 hp engine with it's corresponding transmission in a 9mm steel box with roughly the same dimensions, I dare say it weight might be ~3 tons, then the PWR would be 50 hp/ton, is it somehow impossible to do this? I've heard of low PWR being bad, but I've never heard the same for high PWR.
Your Char-8E1 produced en-masse has 25.2 hp/ton - is there some magical cutoff value? 25.2 is good but 30 is no good?
Third is the range you propose for this vehicle - even on internal fuel. 180 km off road? At what speed? How many kilometers per litre does your engine get?
Your Char-8E1 has a 906 hp engine running the tank at 60 kph, and yet has 350km range. The proposed tank has 48% less range whilst being 20% lighter than the Char-8E1. I fail to see the problem if the Char-8E1 was accepted.
The turret armour is thick to the point of being laughable, but I'd tolerate that if the performance resembled something from the 1940s instead of the 1980s.
Really? 25mm all around turret armor is "thick to the point of being laughable"? Perhaps I should use 1 mm of armor all around - that way even tissue paper will penetrate?
Or you're speaking about the mantlet armor, which historical tanks did have? What would the T29-T34 projects with heavy manlet armor be then? Or the Sherman Jumbo with a 178mm gun shield? The logic is simple, armor is unnecessary unless it can be depended on. Depended on means that you can trust it protect versus enemy fire without a single shot penetrating.
That could be 280mm of armor vs a 88mm/L71, 170mm of armor vs a 88mm/L56, 110 of armor vs a 75mm/L43, and so on. I could remove the mantlet, it's 800kg of weight, and there would be no adverse effects. I could trade it for 45mm of turret armor all around. But, that 45mm is worthless since it's not dependable versus any anti-tank gun. Now if there weren't 88mm/L71 standard tanks roaming around, sure the mantlet could be about 170mm (Sherman Jumbo) or even 140mm - but there are such tanks.
I think if you think 280mm of non-sloped armor is laughable, you must not really understand what a 88mm/L71 gun means. It is 240mm @ 30 slope, aka 277mm nonsloped, penetration guaranteed. If you don't think tanks should have very thick armor anywhere on their body, no matter how small a section, you should have protested any move towards high velocity 75mm and 88mm guns.
I think that it is the armor you propose for the vehicle that makes us look askance at the design. It is paper thin. The vehicle would not last in combat.
25mm of armor protects very all fire below 20mm. How is that paper-thin?
The average guns require staggering amount of armor to protect:
10mm for small-arms fire
25mm for <20mm fire
40mm for 20mm fire
75mm for 37mm fire
140mm for 50mm fire
170mm for 75mm fire
210mm for 90mm fire
250mm for 75mm LONG barrel fire
280mm for 90mm LONG barrel fire
Every 25mm of side armor adds 2-3 metric tons of weight. The question is, is extra armor even worth it? My decision was simply, no. The most likely anti-tank guns will be 37mm to 75mm guns. To protect vs 37mm anti-tank guns the tank will rise in weight from 29 mT to ~37 mT. To protect vs 50mm fire, the tank will further rise to ~47 mT. Do you see why it's simply not feasible for a medium to protect versus even 37mm anti-tank fire?
A 37 mT can't be called a medium anymore - more of a heavy-medium hybrid. At 47 mT, it's simply a heavy, not even disputably medium.
We can further reinforce this ~37 mT argument by noting that the historical design known as the VK3002M had 50mm of side armor and was 35 mT heavy.
If you're going to put together your own tank designs, I'd highly suggest studying historical tanks of the period and basing your designs off of one of them.
I dare say you haven't studied enough of the historical design plans if you are making that statement. History doesn't consist of only things that were produced en-masse.
All I can think of that even comes close to this is the M8 AGS with the Level I or Level II protection package from the 80's.
Pray tell what protection level would that be, since I have never found any reputable source stating what the M8 AGS protection levels actually
were.
I've never been aware that Allied and German tankies wanted less armour. Strapping spare tracks (even sandbags) as poor-man's armour seems to indicate the opposite state of mind, as does the general trend to design ever bigger and heavier tanks. No-one in 1945 was saying, "let's go back and design a medium tank with armour thicknesses from 1930".
7 December 1944
Subject: Visit to Ninth Army Area.
4. Tanks: Tank units [743rd and 747th Tank Battalions] have lost confidence in the 75mm tank gun as it cannot do the job it is called upon to do. Among tank requirements, the gun comes first. Tankers desperately desire a gun capable of knocking out enemy tanks and bunkers. Armor protection is secondary but is considered of far more importance than was formerly the case. All other considerations are minor and are considered as mere refinements and gadgetry. The M4A3E2 is very well liked and the two battalions prefer to be equipped 100% with this tank. The 76mm should be standard with this tank. Neither battalion now has any 76mm guns.
Headquarters 6th Armored Division
14 December 1944
b. M4E6 [i.e., wet stowage M4A3] Tank
1) The 76mm gun is desired. This is based on the fact that future targets in this theater will probably be steel or concrete. Against personnel, the coaxial machine gun is the best weapon.
B. All tanks of the M4 series. There is a definite lack of floatation and power compared with what we require to get effective results. Time and again a tank has been knocked out by direct fire because it could not negotiate a reasonable hill except at the very slowest speed. The great majority of tank losses can be attributed directly to being stuck in the mud or on a hill where they became easy targets for direct fire guns. Experience is indicated that direct fire guns have great difficulty in hitting moving tanks. Our whole tactical conception of the employment of tanks is based upon their maneuverability. When this is lost through lack of flotation or power, tank tactics disappears. …
General Fritz Bayerlein, commander of the Panzer Lehr Division, offered this summary of the Panther after the campaign in Normandy:
While the PzKpfw IV could still be used to advantage, the PzKpfw V [Panther] proved ill adapted to the terrain. The Sherman because of its maneuverability and height was good ... [the Panther was] poorly suited for hedgerow terrain because of its width. Long gun barrel and width of tank reduce maneuverability in village and forest fighting. It is very front-heavy and therefore quickly wears out the front final drives, made of low-grade steel. High silhouette. Very sensitive power-train requiring well-trained drivers. Weak side armor; tank top vulnerable to fighter-bombers. Fuel lines of porous material that allow gasoline fumes to escape into the tank interior causing a grave fire hazard. Absence of vision slits makes defense against close attack impossible.
There are a few others that I don't recall specifically enough to find - but the general consensus was:
Commander: Mobility > Firepower > Armor
Crew: Firepower > Mobility = Armor
In most cases the do not explicitly ask for less armor, they ask for better flotation and mobility. However, flotation and mobility can only be accomplished in two way:
1) Reduce weight
2) Increase ground contact length for the tracks
In reality, 2 can be done but has a limit - i.e. Rail transport width & mobility. Hence I take it as this: if a wide tank's crew asks for better flotation and mobility, it's going to have to come either from detachable tracks (aka the Tiger and it's whole maintenance debacle) or it's going to come from tank weight. In war time, it's easier to make wider tracks instead of a lighter tank since that's less parts to change. In peacetime, maintenance is king and it's better (overall) to change the tank than to make wider tracks.
As the Germans point out, wider tracks reduces mobility. The Americans also conducted tests showing how good the flotation of the Panther was (it was about the same as a HVSS Sherman). Clearly flotation in exchange for mobility, which is what wider tracks do, is not all that great. Also the Americans reported, maneuverability is paramount to conducting tank tactics. Hence it shifts the argument towards reducing the weight of the tank to achieve flotation and mobility, rather than using wider tracks.