WesWorld

What?
Trying to unhijack your thread?
Verboten !!

Ok, I'll take the time to take a real look as an apology.

1) The text says no torsion bars, the "Technical Data" says twin torsion bars
2) Torsion bars don't take a ton of internal room - As I recall a 0.2m increase in overall height to accomodate them is all, so they would really have no impact on the ability to mount a stabilized gun.
3) As far as I know, the early gun stabilization systems were only in 1 plane, but I can't recall if that was side to side or up/down.
4) It appears you have the length as length overall, making hull& track length harder to assess.
4a) Since the gun overhang on the King Tiger was 209cm, I presume hull is 6.56m, 0.2 more than the Tiger I.
4b) With 33cm wide tracks, I presume hull width is 2.77m, which is fractionally less than the Tiger I and Tiger II.
5) While there does seem to be the hull width needed for the turret ring, the 88L71 seems a big leap not really justified by combat experience or your local competition.
6) At 391cm x 66cm for track area, the tank has 45,450kg/25806cm2 = 0.57kg/cm2 , you list 0.88kg/cm2. I'm guessing the track contact area is a legacy entry.
7) The 45mm side turret armor seems a tad thin, as the turret traverses to engage, it is reasonable to expect the sides to come under more fire.

Sticking all this into Tanksharp (and interpreting the variables), tank works out much as depicted, but with a lower overall weight of 37.3 tons. However, that used the simple 16mm for the entire hull roof and floor.
That's a low number, but saves a fair bit of weight, and there hasn't been a ton of aircraft-tank or Mine-Tank interaction to indicate it's a little thin. Using an average of ((40+16)/2) 28mm, the overall weight climbs to 39.57

So overall, looks pretty good except the gun.

So that's my apology for the accidental threadjack

Thank you for the technical review.

I now know the areas I need to sharpen and address.

Quoted

6) At 391cm x 66cm for track area, the tank has 45,450kg/25806cm2 = 0.57kg/cm2 , you list 0.88kg/cm2. I'm guessing the track contact area is a legacy entry.

You know it might be my imagination, but when I divide 45450 kg by 25806cm2, I get 1.76 kg/cm2 and not 0.57. The 0.88 kg/cm2 is based on 45450/(2*25806cm2). Looking at the picture, I guess that would only be the case when the tank is running on a soft surface that allows the entire track to touch the ground.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

6) At 391cm x 66cm for track area, the tank has 45,450kg/25806cm2 = 0.57kg/cm2 , you list 0.88kg/cm2. I'm guessing the track contact area is a legacy entry.

You know it might be my imagination, but when I divide 45450 kg by 25806cm2, I get 1.76 kg/cm2 and not 0.57. The 0.88 kg/cm2 is based on 45450/(2*25806cm2). Looking at the picture, I guess that would only be the case when the tank is running on a soft surface that allows the entire track to touch the ground.

Well ground pressure does matter most on soft surfaces.
As for the calculation, I appear to have told it to divide the cell with the Cm2 by the Kg rather than the other way round.

Which means Roo's version is correct, and the average is 1.76 kg/cm2.

Looking into it, I appear to have presumed two 66cm wide tracks (Don't know why I wrote 33cm.
as I used a total of 132cm) when figuring hull width for the turret ring, and then went off and presumed 66 was the additive width when playing with ground pressure.
Obviously the coffee had not fully kicked in.
...that's my story and I'm sticking to it...

As a sidenote, Tanksharp figures that between armor thickness and slope, the front hull and front turret are bazooka-resistant.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
As a sidenote, Tanksharp figures that between armor thickness and slope, the front hull and front turret are bazooka-resistant.

Thank you!

Nice analysis Kirk.

Casting my eyes over it again yesterday I felt it was more Panther II than Panther I. Certainly is a bulky tank though. It'll be interested to see what its smaller small/ medium tank cousin below it will look like to replace the Pz II/III series.

88mm is an historical German calibre, it going to be hard for Germany to justify a 75mm on a tank this size when it neighbours are edging beyond 75mm. An 80mm would be akward IMO.

Kirk,
I agree with your transport cost comment. It was cheaper to ship coal from Cardiff to Port Said by sea than to London by train. It was cheaper to bring wheat from the River Plate to London than it was to transport the same wheat by rail onto Northampton. As you say Britain has the leading edge, it can buy whatever it needs from abroad much cheaper than it could domestically. Low food prices were one of the pre-war advantages for the working classes in Britain over their continential counterparts.

The US is the dominant industrial economy in WesWorld, if by a smaller margin than OTL. In Russia's case, her 1941 population, economy, and non-naval military production capacity is roughly 110%, 125% and 60% of the 1941 USSR.

This larger and better-balanced economy is more capable of sustaining a long war effort without external aid, but won't be able to match the USSR's tank, artillery, and aircraft production.

Hood, those examples illustrate the advantages of water transport powerfully. Russia has built a canal system to take advantage of her broad, slow rivers, but rails carry the large majority of her goods and people.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood

88mm is an historical German calibre, it going to be hard for Germany to justify a 75mm on a tank this size when it neighbours are edging beyond 75mm. An 80mm would be akward IMO.

Well, since the name is "StandardPanzer" I was guessing it was the main tank of the German armored force, not a limited edition Assault tank.

As for the gun, the British 77mm appears to be the only one to creep beyond. I would think the historic 75L70 - an excellent gun- would be the first response and would currently appear very capable against the newest tank armors.

The 88L56 was historically an adaptation, but nothing out there is anything like a KV/JS-1 tank needing an 88L71. The choice of such a large gun adds to overall weight in several ways.

Now, I should say that I've long expected the Dutch to mount a 90mm gun eventually- but I expected it to be a reactionary move using a converted 1938(?) AA gun. There's no technical reason it could not be done, I'm just not sold it's foreseeable in this design phase as needed

Transport infrastructure :
The Netherlands, and Belgium, both prosper from sea, canal and rail transport links. While I disagree with RAM's choice of AANM, Two of the merits of the AANM/AEGIS alliance has long been the ability to control of the choke points of maritime commerce, and access to all the strategic resources- though Manganese might be absent. Still, SAE has Manganese, and so Dutch needs are met

For disclosure here, I ought to note that I was the one who suggested that Bruce use the 88mm gun. The 75mm/L70 would be great for today in 1942, but it probably will not cut it in 1944, particularly since other people in Europe are already fielding 90mm and 105mm guns on their tanks.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
...but nothing out there is anything like a KV/JS-1 tank needing an 88L71...

France has several hundred Char-2Es, which are KV-85s. My Char-8 Montbruns, though a medium tank, have as much armour as the KV-1 (though only in the forward aspect).

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
For disclosure here, I ought to note that I was the one who suggested that Bruce use the 88mm gun. The 75mm/L70 would be great for today in 1942, but it probably will not cut it in 1944, particularly since other people in Europe are already fielding 90mm and 105mm guns on their tanks.

Ah, I was going by your handy little chart and thinking that represented what was out there, as generally I've been avoiding these things.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
For disclosure here, I ought to note that I was the one who suggested that Bruce use the 88mm gun. The 75mm/L70 would be great for today in 1942, but it probably will not cut it in 1944, particularly since other people in Europe are already fielding 90mm and 105mm guns on their tanks.

Ah, I was going by your handy little chart and thinking that represented what was out there, as generally I've been avoiding these things.

Well, that's what is out there for medium tanks, or at least what I've got data on at the moment. But the Italians have fielded a version of the M26/39 with a 105mm howitzer; French tank destroyers are toting around a 90mm/L40 gun, and the FAR-standard T-37 heavy tanks have a turret ring originally designed for a 100mm gun.