WesWorld

Regarding the last armoured car in this post, I'd like to inquire where the specs came from? The speed, gun, and picture comes from an American M-38 Wolfhound, but none of the other specs appear to match, and the armour is outrageously heavy for a vehicle of its weight.

The vehicle is based on the M38, your'right. Check the tech tree, there it says so too.

Note the OTL M38 weighted 6,9t and had armour of about 12mm thickness.

The RSAA Wolfhound weights 12,1t and donates this excess weight to armour. At least most of it, because to compensate the weight in order to keep a similar speed, it also features a more powerful engine (204hp). Power weight ratio for the historical design varies (prototypes with different engines and equipment), ranging from 14,3 to 19,3 hp/ton (data in the web varies, I give wiki here). For the RSAA car I choosed something in between, so it is 16,9 hp/ton.

Note thicknesses listed are not on all surfaces of course, it is maximum thinkness on frontal plate.

EDIT: Here are some links to various data in the web.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=482

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M38_Wolfhound

http://www.warwheels.net/images/M38armor…etDATASHEET.pdf

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/1-Ve…nd/Data/M38.htm

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The RSAA Wolfhound weights 12,1t and donates this excess weight to armour. At least most of it, because to compensate the weight in order to keep a similar speed, it also features a more powerful engine (204hp).

I ask because I've looked around at other armoured cars in the same weight class, and it still has three to four times as much armour as anything else that's remotely similar. For instance, the Panhard EBR is a ton heavier (despite having a much lighter turret), yet has less than a third as much armour. I've not found any armoured car with that much armour. I must admit I'm skeptical that you can just double the weight and say it goes to armour, even though all other specs remain the same; I'd wondered if there was a historical armoured car which was more comparable, or if there was some mitigating factor (ie it's made of aluminium or something).

I don't if there is one. I do not know all historical armoured cars. But the British AEC Mk III armoured car featured a 75mm gun and 65mm armour on 12,7t, achieving 65km/h with 158hp (12,4hp/ton). 629 units were produced in 1942-1943 (edit: all versions).

The only other heavy armour armoured car I can find other than the AEC is the T17E1 Staghound with 45mm weighing 13.7 tons and which is a 6x6 vehicle with 194hp (2x 97hp GMC 6-cyl petrol) for 56mph (90kmh). Built with a 37mm gun but upgraded by the British with 3in CS howitzer or a Crusader tank turret with a 75mm gun, though I don't know what effect those changes had on weight, probably some increase I would think.

So going by this I think the WLF-1B should be perhaps nearer 14-14.5 tons.

Raising weight is not an option as the ealier RSAA Deerhound came in at 14,5t and was deemed too heavy (see description). It is based on the historical T17 Deerhound which weighted 31,000lb per specification (about 14,06t) and had up to 1 1/4 inch of armour (31,75mm).

Another vehicle worth compairing is the Alvis Saladin. Although an armoured car developed right after WW2 it is very similar to the M38 in layout and capability, featured up to 32mm of armour and weighted about 11,5t.

I will check my sources again. Could be I will decrease armour on the Wolfhound to 45mm on hull and turret each.

My info comes from Ian V. Hogg's 'The Greenhill Armoured Fighting Vehicles Data Book', 2000. It states the armour was 45mm max.

31,000lbs is 13.83 tons (1 Long/Imperial ton = 2,240lbs).

45mm max for the Deerhound or Saladin?

If it was 45mm on 13,83t instead of 32mm on 14,06t for the Deerhound - even better for me. ;o)

The Deerhound.
Yes it looks like 13.83 tons for 45mm armour, but that would be the baseline T17E1 with the 37mm gun. I don't know what the Crusader-turret with 75mm gun conversion weighed. I figure it must be more than the baseline weight.

Atlantis has its own Wolfhound (real life boarhound design) that weighs a wopping 27 tons (acctually heavier than the historical design's 26.8 tons) and has similar specs all around, albeit 2 more wheels and larger hull (6.2m compaired to SAE's 5.11?). You would have to shave off quite abit of side, rear and top armour to be able to get your AC down to 12.1 tons, and the Atlantean model has 32mm sides and rear (erroniously listed as 50-9mm for armour)

Also it would be difficult to go 10 KM faster on 45 less HP as the first production models of Atlantean Wolfhound have two 6 cylinder 125 hp engines (250 hp) and does 80 km. The Atlantean model also carries a 57mm gun and not a 75mm.

It is a bit tricky to judge from one different design on the weight of another. I think it is the only thing we can do for ahistorical designs, but there remains a margin of error.

For example an Audi A6 3.0 empty weight is 1480kg with manual gearbox and 1520kg with automatic drive. If you add quattro (4x4) it is up to 1590kg and 1640kg respectively. A very comparable Mercedes E300 (regarding performance) on the other hand weights empty 1805kg with an automatic gear box, but without 4x4 drive.

What I want to say is that the Boarhound does not make a good comparison for the Wolfhound. Unlike the A6/E300 that armoured car is not even built with comparable designs features. It is way larger than the Wolfhound, has one more pair of wheels (as you already said), but also has two engines requiring a more complex (thus heavier) gearbox and all auxiliary equipment have to be there twice too.

Then, I do not understand your comment on speed. The RSAA Wolfhound has twice the power and twice the weight (all roughly) than the historical Wolfhound which is credited with 96km/h on 110hp. The Boarhound on the other hand weights twice as much as the RSAA Wolfhound but provides only an additional 45hp. In fact, I think the Boarhound is pretty good off with a loss of just 10km/h compared to the historical or RSAA Wolfhound. Now, speed of a vehicle is no linear function of weight and power alone, but it provides all we have for fictional designs.

Finally I should also note that the 75mm gun alone does not require a heavier car automatically. The historical AEC Mk II armoured car featured a turret of the Crusader tank with a 6-pounder (57mm) gun. It weighted the same than the later Mk III with a 75mm gun - because the latter got a purpose build turret. Seems to have made a difference.

Anyways, it is all extrapolating. My original specs may have been a bit optimistic but 45mm for hull and turret respectively seems okay to me. I'll change my files accordingly.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Could you post this larger, please? I can't make out all of the words. The text in the other posts is generally fine, but this one is awkward to read...