WesWorld

I said I would try to explain why the L45E1-AB is even needed at all:

My initial thoughts about situation normal was:
AEGIS is defunct since the more pressing allies to Denmark (the Netherlands and Italy) have withdrawn. As such Denmark is likely to detach itself from AEGIS and be alliance hunting.
With no alliance, Denmark is vulnerable to it's neighbors, most particularly Germany by land. Nordmark isn't as big a concern due to the size-able Danish navy as a counterweight. This is what lead to my "Fluid Defense" and static defense proposals.

Somehow I had missed the Non-Aggression Pact between Denmark and Germany - which Bruce kindly pointed out. That shifts the calculus quite a bit - hence the focus shits from defense to alliance hunting.

-------

The though process leading to the airborne tank:
1) An European war is unlikely. Since in WW there was never a WW2 and things have been calm since WW1, there is a belief that there will not be another European war.
2) Possible European allies are situated such that if Denmark is allied to them, it is likely the alliance will be called into action for some far flung portion of the world, i.e. not Europe.
3) It is more useful for Denmark to have power projection capabilities, which makes Denmark a more enticing ally, than to be solely home defense oriented. A domestic army is of no real use in such alliances and lowers the chance of Denmark's acceptance. If Denmark is not in an alliance, it's security is quite compromised since it does not really have the terrain or demographics to strike it out as independent.
4) Given Denmark's population demographics and wealth, it makes more sense for Denmark to offer specialized roles rather than general force augmentation.

Quoted

Somehow I had missed the Non-Aggression Pact between Denmark and Germany - which Bruce kindly pointed out. That shifts the calculus quite a bit - hence the focus shits from defense to alliance hunting.

An interesting line of thought. Thank you for sharing. Indeed, WW Germany has sought peaceful relations with its neighbors - it has some manner of non-aggression agreement with all or most of its neighbors, Belgium being the one particular exception. For some reason, the Belgians have refused to discuss the matter to date.

That's just Belgians being Belgians.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

That's just Belgians being Belgians.

I have to agree with you there. A nation that idolizes the Manneken Pis the way the Belgians do has to have skewed thought processes.

According to wiki, it was stolen 7 times, so the Germans could steal it to try and force the Belgians to agree to the agreement.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

According to wiki, it was stolen 7 times, so the Germans could steal it to try and force the Belgians to agree to the agreement.

The rapacious reputation of Germany is completely over-rated, particularly in Wesworld. We would not think of stealing such a beloved cultural monument. Besides, if we were going to do that, we would have to try to steal the entire country. Our French and Russian neighbors would not understand; and one little statue is not worth world peace.

Perhaps, once Wesworld's Belgians can digest the Dutch Confederation plan, they might realize who their real friends are.

Interesting thoughts.

There was talk of an expanded Germany-Nordmark-UK Pact involving perhaps the Netherlands. Denmark was never mentioned but some kind of mutual North Sea non-aggression pact would make some kind of sense, though as we all know Europe is safe as houses with any likelihood of war almost impossible.
I'm not sure what alliances could offer Denmark an overseas role other than perhaps the Grand Alliance? n fact, with the tangle of alliances these days its probably best to keep out of them!

Here is the detailed ToE of a Danish Armored Battalion.

EBR and Sdk. Kfz. 251 is just a placeholder for somewhat similar vehicles unless Germany and France want to sell it to Denmark.

France would be happy to sell the Panhard EBR to Denmark.

For halftracks, suggest you keep with the already-existing Danish halftrack rather than buying SdkFz.251s, since you've already got them in production.

I'll agree with Brock on the last point. You already have adequate half-tracks in your inventory.

I thought so - I'll have to come up with a name for them.

This will be the Danish M45 Medium, the bread and butter of it's armoured forces. It features much larger road wheels and much more ground clearance than the M44 Heavy, as well as a much more powerful engine - a reflection of it's designed ability to travel cross-country and on roads at sustained high speeds. To prolong the engine and suspension life, the engine is governed and the tank limited to 75kph maximum, far below it's maximum capability.

The heavy mantle armor is achieved, unlike the M45 heavy, through a heavily narrowed turret face. As a result the 280mm block is less than a metric ton in weight. An external fuel tank can be mounted in the rear to extend the range of the battalion marches, although it's use near combat zones is highly discouraged.

The large turret ring gives the crew plenty of room to operate, although the trade-off was comparatively less head room. The raised rear engine deck also limits depression when the gun is pointing over the rear.

Quoted

M45 Medium
Crew: 4 (Driver, Gunner, Loader, Commander)
Length - Gun Forward: 825 cm
Length - Without Gun: 600 cm
Gun Overhang: 225 cm
Width - Overall: 340 cm
Height - Without Cupola: 250 cm
Ground Clearance: 70 cm
Fire Height: 210 cm
Turret Ring Diameter: 215.9 cm (85")
Weight, Combat Loaded: 29 mT
PW Ratio - Gross: 31.03 hp/ton
Ground Pressure: 10.75 psi (74.10 kPa)

Armor
Hull Armor Upper: 45mm@65 / 25mm + 3mm / 25mm@30
Hull Armor Lower: 45mm@55 / 25mm / 25mm@30
Turret Armor: 25mm / 25mm @30&60 / 25mm, 280mm Mantle

Primary Armament: 1 x 100mm L/59.6 D-10 (40 rounds)
Secondary Armament: 1 x 7.62mm MG (Co-axial - 2400 rounds), 1 x 12.7mm HMG (Pintle - 550 rounds)

Engine: 662 kw V-16 Diesel (900hp), Automatic Transmission - Rear Mounted
Suspension: Torsion Bar
Track Type: Dead
Wheels per side: 4 x 80mm Rubber-Tired Wheels
Track Width: 508mm (20") Steel Track with Rubber Pads

Range: 250km (road), 180km (offroad) - with External 350km (road), 252km (offroad)
Speed: 75kph (road), 55kph (offroad)

Are you serious? These specs are completely out of line for a 1940s tank.

Explain to me how a tank with practically the same dimensions as the M4A6 Sherman, but with a larger turret, one less crew member, and rear transmission to reduce height is "completely out of line for a 1940s tank"?


Height?
If you assume a 0.4m tall cupola (as on the Tiger 1) - the tank height is 2.9m, compared to 2.74m for the Sherman - that is not accounting for the rear transmission means the 0.4m to 0.5m large space under the turret basket occupied by the driveshaft in the Sherman. Even accounting for ground clearance, the tank height with a cupola is 2.2m, as opposed to 2.31m for the Sherman. The hull height is roughly the same as the Pershing, which is natural since the tank hull was based on it. For fun you could take the Pershing and increases it's ground clearance to 70 cm from 43 cm, it's height would then be 305 cm. The turret is the main height reducing factor - since there is no driveshaft, the turret basket is deeper, allowing a slightly shorter turret (~15 cm). As I said, there isn't much head room- the crew can sit inside no problem, but standing will requiring opening the hatch. The Cromwell and other British tanks were even shorter than this tank, with the cupola height included.


Rear Transmission?
The T-34 and other soviet tanks used the rear transmission way before the 1940s. Even the Germans played in the idea throughout WW2, only rejecting it in favor of the better traction of forward transmissions. They never abandoned the idea even in the final months of the war, as demonstrated by the Weserhutte Tiger proposal.


Weight, Armor, Gun?
It has 6 cm less armor on the upper and lower glacis, 13 cm less hull armor all around, 26 cm less turret armor all around with 51 cm less turret front armor than the M4A6 Sherman. Not to mention, despite this complete difference in armor, it still weights roughly the same as the M4A6 - trading all that weight only for a better engine and gun - a gun roughly equivalent to the 90mm M3 gun which was tested and mounted successfully on a Sherman. Your Char-8E1 has a 906 hp engine with a 82mm/L71 gun and more armor and range.


Turret Ring Diameter?
That's unlikely - contemporary tanks had large turret rings and the need for a large turret ring was recognized very early. However, it was given up in most cases, for a smaller frontal profile, necessary given the great weight of the tanks - not very useful if the tank doesn't have a great deal of armor. Another point was the rail requirements, a tank could not be too wide or it would not fit on rail-cars. As the tanks were typically heavier than 30 tons, or even 50 tons and higher, most of this width was taken by track width.
M4, 1753mm
T-34-85, 1830mm
Tiger I, 1850mm (but the design requirement had been 2000mm)

The Tiger and Panther tanks, as you know, had huge turret overhang to make up the space - this tank has no overhang. The T-34 and T-44 series were all noted for being very cramped.


Width?
The tank is actually much wider than it's contemporaries, but achieves the same overall width by being much lighter and removing side slopes. This leads to less wide tracks, which maintains the overall width.
Let's take the Tiger I for a moment: It is 373 cm wide with 72.5 cm wide tracks, meaning the hull is at most 228 cm wide.
Or the Panther tank: It is 327 cm wide with 66 cm width tracks, making the hull at most 195 cm wide.
Compare to the proposed tank: 340 cm wide with 50.8 cm wide tracks - the hull is at most 238.4 cm wide.


Perhaps the lack of armor compared to speed?
Almost all the OTL AAR and crew interviews from the Americans and the Soviets had the crew asking for more mobility and a better gun - armor being the last thing on their minds. Although tankers frequently added field armor when given a choice by command, they preferred a better gun whilst maintain flotation instead of adding armor. Even the Germans, after meeting the Shermans, asked for lighter tanks at the expense of armor if the same gun could be maintained.

It is simply not feasible to up armor the tanks to achieve a significant level of protection vs other tanks, whilst maintaining the ability to travel on bridges and challenging terrain. This is a fact acknowledged both by OTL designs like the Panther and the designs in Wesworld. There is a choice to be made with what a few tons will buy you - +5 tons for a better more powerful engine, or 15mm more armor on the sides and rear? Unfortunately, 15mm more armor still leaves only 40mm of non-sloped side armor. Still penetrable by all 37mm and higher anti-tank guns. If we go for 30mm more armor, or a total of 70mm non-sloped, we could start to defeat 37mm anti-tank guns - but the price is a weight way over 30 tons and limited transport options. So the real choice is between going from ~25 ton tank with a 400 hp or so engine (The Panzer IV), a ~35 ton tank with ~70mm side armor (The Sherman Jumbo), or a ~30 ton tank with a more powerful engine (The proposed tank, aka VK3001P or for the heavier variant, the VK3002M)


Is it the shaped turret?
That's unlikely, since all the tanks of the era had heavily sloped fronts. Not to mention your Char-8E1 also has a sloped turret. Also the turret is meant to be pretty similar to the IS-3 turret, although not hemispherical.


Is it the volume?
If you follow the schematics of the Tiger, it's tank hull is about 135 cm loosely. The tank is 247 cm tall without ground clearance, hence the turret is about 112 cm tall. Of this, the cupola is about the same height as the ground clearance, so ~40 cm - making the effective turret height, 72 cm. The length and width are 632 cm and ~228 cm respectively. The turret ring diameter is 185 cm but there is an overhang on all sides of the turret. If you check the schematics, it seems to be 1/8 (~23 cm) of the turret ring diameter on all sides - so an effective turret above hull diameter of 222 cm. That makes for a volume of 19.45E6 cm^3 in hull, 2.71E6 cm^3 in turret, a combined total of 22.16E6 cm^3.

The proposed tank has a length and width of 600 cm and ~238.4 cm respectively. The tank hull is a bit more than 120 cm, slightly taller than the Pershing hull which is ~118 cm. The tank is (not including the cupola) 180 cm tall without ground clearance, hence the turret is a bit less than 60 cm - slightly shorter than the Tiger I. The turret ring diameter is 215.9 cm, and there is no overhang, although there is a slight protrusion on the rear and front of the turret, about 19 cm on each side making it roughly 254 cm long and 215.9 cm wide. That makes for a volume of 17.16E6 cm^3 in hull, 2.58E6 cm^3 in turret, a combined total of 19.74E6 cm^3.

The proposed tank has 11% less volume than the Tiger I, a space easily made up by the lack of armor compared to the Tiger. The side armor of the Tiger alone takes up roughly 1.33E6 cm^3 of volume, ~6% of it's volume.

By the way, this tank is pretty much equivalent to a lighter (read less armor) VK3002M proposed in 1942 and a up-engined VK3001P proposed in 1941!

I'm looking at performance, and in that respect, it's completely out of line with reality.

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.

Second, the speed is hopelessly optimistic. 75kph top speed - which you claim is limited - is 15-20 kph faster than most of the period's light tanks. It's faster than most wheeled armoured cars on a road. (Don't point me at the Hellcat, either - that thing had paper-thin armor and no turret roof - it may look like a tank, but it is not a good comparison.) The 55kph off-road speed is similarly faster than the road speed of any period tank - it's probably unobtainable up until you get something like the M1 Abrams.

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.

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.

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 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.

The second factor is the very high road speed you propose - both on and off road. If operated at that speed for any length of time I suspect it would shed tracks very quickly.

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?

While each facet of the design might be demonstrable on OTL and other WW vehicles, the entire ensemble just does not hang together. Sorry.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

While each facet of the design might be demonstrable on OTL and other WW vehicles, the entire ensemble just does not hang together. Sorry.

x2.

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.

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".

I don't see why Denmark is so worried about transport weights. I'm sure Denmark has decent roads and while transporting between islands is perhaps an issue, I'm not sure a flat nation like Denmark has much to worry about.

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.

Quoted

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.

Quoted

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?

Quoted

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.

Quoted

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.

Quoted

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.

Quoted

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.

Quoted

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.

Quoted

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.