You are not logged in.

Chosen Army projects for 1943/44

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

  • 1
  • 2

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

1

Friday, January 17th 2014, 5:12am

Chosen Army projects for 1943/44

J-5 C

In order to improve the anti tank capability all J-5 A medium tanks still in service are fitted with a new 57mm gun.

expected date of introduction: 04/1944




crew: 5 (driver, loader, gunner, commander, radio operator)
weight: 32,5 t
armament: 1x 57 mm Cannon, 2x MG
engine: V-12 diesel engine with 450 hp
speed: Street= 42 Km/h, terrain= 32 Km/h
range: 250 km
Armor:
hull front: 70 mm
hull side: 60 mm
hull rear: 35 mm
hull top: 20 mm
hull bottom: 25 mm
turret front: 75 mm
turret side: 60 mm
turret rear: 35 mm
turret top: 20 mm

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

2

Friday, January 17th 2014, 5:19am

LT-1944-1

expected date of introduction: 12/1943



Crew: 3 (driver, gunner, commander)
Weight: 15,5 t
Armament: 1x 37 mm Cannon, 2x MG
Engine: V-10 diesel engine with 275 hp
Speed: Street= 48 Km/h, terrain= 30 Km/h
Range: 320 Km
Armor:
hull front: 40 mm
hull side: 28 mm
hull rear: 13 mm
hull top: 10 mm
hull bottom: 10 mm
turret front: 45 mm
turret side: 25 mm
turret rear: 20 mm
turret top: 10 mm

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

3

Friday, January 17th 2014, 5:24am

LT-1944-4

expected date of introduction: cancelled




Crew: 3 (driver, gunner, commander)
Weight: 15,5 t
Armament: 1x 75 mm Cannon, 2x MG
Engine: V-10 diesel engine with 275 hp
Speed: Street= 48 Km/h, terrain= 30 Km/h
Range: 320 Km
Armor:
hull front: 40 mm
hull side: 28 mm
hull rear: 13 mm
hull top: 10 mm
hull bottom: 10 mm
turret front: 45 mm
turret side: 25 mm
turret rear: 20 mm
turret top: 10 mm

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

4

Friday, January 17th 2014, 5:28am

LT-1944-6

expected date of introduction: 6/1944



Crew: 3 (driver, gunner, commander)
Weight: 13,2 t
Armament: 4x 12,7mm MG, 2x MG
Engine: V-10 diesel engine with 275 hp
Speed: Street= 50 Km/h, terrain= 33 Km/h
Range: 350 Km
Armor:
hull front: 40 mm
hull side: 28 mm
hull rear: 13 mm
hull top: 10 mm
hull bottom: 10 mm
turret front: 25 mm
turret side: 10 mm
turret rear: 10 mm
turret top: 10 mm
turret top: -

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

5

Friday, January 17th 2014, 5:44am

S-43-75A

expected date of introduction: 4/1944

Chosens new generation medium tank, based heavily on the Japanese Type 96 tank.



Crew: 4 (driver, gunner, loader, commander)
Weight: 27,5 t
Armament: 1x 75 mm Cannon, 1x MG
Engine: V-12 diesel engine with 525 hp
Speed: Street= 50 Km/h, terrain= 30 Km/h
Range: 300 Km
Armor:
hull front: 70 mm
hull side: 50 mm
hull rear: 40 mm
hull top: 20 mm
hull bottom: 20 mm
turret front: 70 mm
turret side: 45 mm
turret rear: 45 mm
turret top: 18 mm

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

6

Friday, January 17th 2014, 6:26am

BTS-1944-5


expected date of introduction: 01/1944



This vehicle is supposed to be a cheap alternative to the BTC tractors....http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…&threadID=10412







crew: 2 + 8
weight: 5,8 t
armament: 1x MG
engine: V-6 gasolineengine with 78 hp
speed: Street= 75 km/h
range: 300 km
Armor:
hull front: 8 mm
hull side: 6 mm
hull rear: 6 mm
hull top: -
hull bottom: 8 mm

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

7

Friday, January 17th 2014, 2:21pm

Comparing their drawings to the specifications provided, I have some serious doubts about the viability of the LT-1944 series vehicles. I do not believe that the crew, requisite ammunition, and the engine specified can fit in the internal volume suggested by the drawing. I am particularly concerned in this regard by the LT-1944-4 with its 75mm gun; given the observed size of the turret, I doubt that it has room to allow for the gun to recoil without imminent harm to the crew.

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

8

Saturday, January 18th 2014, 6:30am

Well, concerning the LT-1944 just imagine an englarged T-70 with a wider, two men instead of a one man turret.
You are probably right about the 75mm version though. I could provide an enlarged the turret, but this would perhaps make the production more complicated so I will just drop the 75mm version.

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

9

Sunday, January 19th 2014, 3:52am

Quoted from "Daidalos"

Well, concerning the LT-1944 just imagine an englarged T-70 with a wider, two men instead of a one man turret.
You are probably right about the 75mm version though. I could provide an enlarged the turret, but this would perhaps make the production more complicated so I will just drop the 75mm version.

It is difficult to compare the drawing provided to an "enlarged" T-70 when no dimensions are provided to give a sense of scale to the drawing. Given the probable placement of the driver in the bow of the vehicle and a turret basket taking up the center of the fighting compartment, there does not seem sufficient space to shoehorn a single V-10 diesel engine with transmission and drive train in the remaining internal volume of the vehicle. Certainly it could be done on a vehicle weighing 15+ tons; I'm just doubtful that the drawing represents a vehicle corresponding to the necessary size.

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

10

Monday, January 20th 2014, 9:38am

Would it work like this? I left the third crewmen out, he would be next to the commander in the turret.

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

  • Send private message

11

Monday, January 20th 2014, 12:36pm

Hey now, that's a neat drawing!

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

12

Monday, January 20th 2014, 2:58pm

Quoted from "Daidalos"

Would it work like this? I left the third crewmen out, he would be next to the commander in the turret.


First, let me say I agree with Brock - that is a very neat drawing and it greatly helps interpretation.

Now, the design hinges on fitting the engine into the space you have allotted, and, since I see no drivetrain to the front sprockets, I will assume that final drive is to the rear sprockets. That is rather advanced for this timeframe, but not impossible. It is however, rather complex. But if you can accomplish it, the engine fits.

The space for recoil for the main armament in a two-man turret looks a tad dicey, but I will presume that it makes for nimble Chosen tankmen.

But given the detailed drawing, I'll buy it at this point.

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

13

Monday, January 20th 2014, 3:35pm

Thanks for the praise.

The drivetrain is supposed to be under a cover panel. I highlighted it with red. Is that too narrow/small?
Otherwise I take the drive to rear sprockets.


BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

14

Monday, January 20th 2014, 4:20pm

Quoted from "Daidalos"

Thanks for the praise.

The drivetrain is supposed to be under a cover panel. I highlighted it with red. Is that too narrow/small?
Otherwise I take the drive to rear sprockets.


I am not an automotive engineer, but I doubt that would work. That would mean that the largest dimension of the engine would have to be in line with the drive shaft, which I think does not fit what you have drawn. I suspect you would be limited to drive to the rear sprockets in such a compact design.

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

15

Monday, January 20th 2014, 4:31pm

Okay, rear sprocket drive it is.
To be honest I am a little lost in translation, I thought drive train and drive shaft would be the same....

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

16

Monday, January 20th 2014, 5:09pm

Quoted from "Daidalos"

Okay, rear sprocket drive it is.
To be honest I am a little lost in translation, I thought drive train and drive shaft would be the same....
In effect, they are: if the engine, transmission and ancillaries are in close proximity, it's a drive train; if there is a large separation between the engine and transmission and where the work is done, necessitating a shaft, it is a drive shaft.

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

17

Monday, January 20th 2014, 9:01pm

I found a cut-away drawing of a Sherman tank that will illustrate some of the points upon which my concerns are founded. http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Unite…-M4-diagram.jpg

As you see, engine is mounted in line with the long axis of the vehicle, and the drive is taken by a shaft that goes beneath the fighting compartment to the driving sprockets at the front of the vehicle. It necessitates a larger compartment for the engine, raises the overall height of the vehicle in order that the fighting compartment be able to clear the drive shaft, and breaks up the rather compact drawing you've shown. You could not run the shaft along the flat floor of the vehicle without serious gear issues at both ends of the vehicle.

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

18

Tuesday, January 21st 2014, 5:42am

Thanks, that drawing clears things up for me. The shaft takes a lot of space....I have to go with the reare sprocket drive and assume that the "shaft" in the drawing is some kind of tunnel with electrics and fuel lines.

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

  • Send private message

19

Tuesday, January 21st 2014, 5:46am

Quoted from "Daidalos"

Thanks, that drawing clears things up for me. The shaft takes a lot of space....I have to go with the reare sprocket drive and assume that the "shaft" in the drawing is some kind of tunnel with electrics and fuel lines.

Not a problem. A transverse mounted engine with a direct connection to the driving sprockets at the rear is possible from an automotive standpoint; but certainly a challenge for 1944. It would require much development effort and considerable investment. The question of whether Chosen could afford it at this point in time is a realistic question.

Daidalos

Professional

Posts: 674

  • Send private message

20

Tuesday, January 21st 2014, 6:07am

I will review it. But I certainly need some sort of flexible armored vehicle for 1944. At the moment I tinker with the idea to drop the LT-1944 series and to develop the BTS-1944 (shown above).
Maybe it would be possible to fit an AT-gun, a light howitzer or an AA gun on it like the germans/americans did on their sdkfz. 251/M3.
  • 1
  • 2