WesWorld

According to the findings in the Persian war, Colonel Wang proposed to set up storm artillery units. With their heavy armament on chain-driven chassis
they should serve at direct support of infantry divisions and be in a position to destroy enemy bunkers and fortified positions.

Assault guns can be built faster, easier and less expensive than regular tanks, because they do not have rotating turrets. The gun is inserted into the
front of the vehicle, so it must be turned to roughly aligning the entire vehicle, while the fine adjustment is via a ball joint. Other advantages additional
to the low price, is the low silhouette and the heavy armor in the front.

In February 1942, the CTMCO (Chinese Tractor Manufacturer Company) handed over the first 12 prototypes to the Chinese army.

Picture & stats see below

That looks more like a tank destroyer than an assault gun - it doesn't appear to have the right armament for an assault gun. It looks okay, though.

Why not use a derated version of the gasoline engine from the MT-25 A medium tank? This vehicle has a diesel while the Tung Meng tank has a gasoline engine, and it doesn't make logistical sense to have one vehicle with a diesel and one with a gasoline engine.

That's an assault gun that a Dragon stepped upon. *runs away*

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
That looks more like a tank destroyer than an assault gun - it doesn't appear to have the right armament for an assault gun. It looks okay, though.

It's part of a family. So there will be sure also a tank destroyer based on this vehicle.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Why not use a derated version of the gasoline engine from the MT-25 A medium tank? This vehicle has a diesel while the Tung Meng tank has a gasoline engine, and it doesn't make logistical sense to have one vehicle with a diesel and one with a gasoline engine.

CTMCO always use diesel engines in their vehicles, so it's self-evident that a assault gun, build by CTMCO, will also have a diesel engine.
Sure logistical this choice doesn't make sense, but these are prototypes so in the serial production, this case will be considered.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
That looks more like a tank destroyer than an assault gun - it doesn't appear to have the right armament for an assault gun. It looks okay, though.

It's part of a family. So there will be sure also a tank destroyer based on this vehicle.

Well, no offense, but this vehicle is a tank destroyer, not an assault gun.

Let me explain why I say that. Historical assault guns almost always have fairly large-bore but short-barreled main guns. For instance, a 105mm gun with a length of L25 or so. It's so you can pack more high explosive into the shell, or use parts from a standard infantry gun. But this vehicle has a relatively small shell with a very long barrel. That shows every indication of it being adapted from an AT gun, because the longer the barrel, the higher the velocity - and the higher the velocity, the better the penetration against enemy tanks. But it also gives worse performance for "direct support of infantry divisions and destroying enemy bunkers and fortified positions."

So you've got the doctrine right for the assault gun, but the vehicle's armament just doesn't match what you're trying to do. This would work golden if you called it a tank destroyer, though, because that's how it's armed.

Damned ...... you are right ......... i have published the stats and picture of the tank destroyer .

Yeah, that's kinda what I guessed.

RS-50b
assault gun


Informations:
crew: 4 (Driver, gunner, loader, commander)
weight: 24,5 metric tons
armament: 10,5 cm SBG-2-1, 1x machine gun
engine: V-12 diesel-engine, 305 hp
speed: on-road= 45 Km/h
range: 350 Km
armor:
hull front = 60 mm
hull sides = 40 mm
hull rear = 30 mm
hull downside = 15 mm
hull topside = 15 mm
turret front = 65 mm
turret sides = 40 mm
turret rear = 25 mm
turret topside = 15 mm



[size=1]Thanks to Daidalos for the drawing[/size]

Ah, yes - THAT's an assault gun.

If I might ask, earlier in the thread you said that the vehicle is part of a family, and I presumed that the assault gun and tank destroyer types would be related. But the assault gun drawing shows a completely different type of chassis and suspension than the tank destroyer. Did I not understand your comment correctly, or are the vehicles supposed to be related?

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Ah, yes - THAT's an assault gun.

Good to see, you are happy

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
If I might ask, earlier in the thread you said that the vehicle is part of a family, and I presumed that the assault gun and tank destroyer types would be related. But the assault gun drawing shows a completely different type of chassis and suspension than the tank destroyer. Did I not understand your comment correctly, or are the vehicles supposed to be related?

At the picture you have seen, the Tank Destroyer is based on the new medium tank. But it's also planned to build a tank destroyer based on the assault gun.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
At the picture you have seen, the Tank Destroyer is based on the new medium tank. But it's also planned to build a tank destroyer based on the assault gun.

Oh, I see. That clears things up in my mind.