WesWorld

Quoted

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.

Please, if you are going to craft a polemic, address your comments to the proper person. I raised the question regarding fuel, not Brock.

I apologize. It's not very handy to quote multiple people, so I simply copy and paste the quoted snippet - the end result being that I'm not sure who said what.


In any case, tentatively the M44 and M45 specifications are to be:

M45 Medium
140mm glacis, 75mm sides, 75mm rear LOS Hull values, 8 mT turret
~35 mT total tank weight with 45 kph (road) / 25 kph (offroad) performance, ~10 psi Ground Pressure
75mm/L48 (75mm KwK 40)

M44 Heavy
280mm glacis, 150mm sides, 150mm rear LOS Hull values, 16 mT turret
~50 mT total tank weight with 35 kph (road) / 20 kph (offroad) performance, ~11 psi Ground Pressure
75mm/L70 (75mm KwK 42)

For comparison, the Tiger 1 turret is ~11 mT.

Quoted

M45 Medium
Crew: 4 (Driver, Gunner, Loader, Commander)
Weight: 36.6 mT

Length: 6m w/o gun
Width: 3.61m over tracks
Height: 2.6m without cupola, 3m with cupola

Primary Armament: 1 x 75mm L/48 (80 rounds)
Secondary Armament: 1 x 7.62mm MG (Coaxial - 2000 rounds), 1 x 12.7mm HMG (Pintle - 550 Rounds)

Hull Armor Upper: 60mm@65 / 75mm / 65mm@30
Hull Armor Lower: 60mm@55 / 50mm / 50mm@30
Turret Armor: 150mm@30 / 65mm@30 / 65mm@30, 110mm Mantlet
Engine: 700hp Diesel
PWR: 19.13 hp/tonne
Suspension: Torsion
Track Type: Dead
Wheels per side: 8 x 80mm Rubber-Tired Wheels, Overlaying
Track Width: 711.2mm (28") Track with Rubber Pads
Ground Pressure: 67.31 kPa (9.8 PSI)
Ground Clearance: 0.6m

Range: 260km (road), 150km (offroad)
Speed: 45 kph (road), 25 kph (offroad)

Using the same parts with a longer hull and gun, the M44 Heavy.

Quoted

M44 Heavy
Crew: 4 (Driver, Gunner, Loader, Commander)
Weight: 52.9 mT

Length: 6.6m w/o gun
Width: 3.61m over tracks
Height: 2.6m without cupola, 3m with cupola

Primary Armament: 1 x 75mm L/70 (80 rounds)
Secondary Armament: 1 x 7.62mm MG (Coaxial - 2000 rounds), 1 x 12.7mm HMG (Pintle - 550 Rounds)

Hull Armor Upper: 120mm@65 / 150mm / 130mm@30
Hull Armor Lower: 120mm@55 / 75mm / 130mm@30
Turret Armor: 240mm@30 / 120mm@30 / 120mm@30, 110mm Mantlet
Engine: 700hp Diesel
PWR: 13.23 hp/tonne
Suspension: Torsion
Track Type: Dead
Wheels per side: 10 x 80mm Rubber-Tired Wheels, Overlaying
Track Width: 711.2mm (28") Track with Rubber Pads
Ground Pressure: 85.38 kPa (12.4 PSI)
Ground Clearance: 0.6m

Range: 140km (road), 80km (offroad)
Speed: 32 kph (road), 18 kph (offroad)

Quoted from "Logi"

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?

As stated previously, you can find examples of high power-to-weight ratios (such as the BT-series tanks). But by and large, these were aberations compared to tanks produced en masse.

The Char-8E1, which you cite in response, is not produced en masse - it is an experimental tank with an experimental engine used by a single battalion to evaluate equipment. I'd note it's also not been built yet, and while I never stated production numbers in my posts (I'd intended to do it in the news), we're talking about a few dozen vehicles at most. The Char-8A4, which is actually produced en masse (at least a thousand will be produced or converted from upgrades during 1945), has a 18.9 hp/ton power to weight ratio - which is actually quite high for a production tank.

For example:
- Centurion Mk3: 13 hp/tonne
- Chieftain: 11.1 hp/tonne
- Comet (1944): 17.9 hp/tonne
- Cromwell (1943): 21.4 hp/tonne
- M4 Sherman: 13-15 hp/tonne
- M41 Walker Bulldog: 21.3 hp/tonne
- M46 Patton: 18.4 hp/tonne
- Panzer IV: 11.9 hp/tonne
- Panther: 13.8 hp/ton
- SK-105 Kürassier: 18.1 hp/tonne
- T-34: 17.5 hp/tonne
- T-54: 14.6 hp/tonne
- Tiger II: 9 hp/tonne

Quoted from "Logi"

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?

I did not say "not allowed" - I said "not justifiable". That is my opinion, and if you can prove otherwise, I'm willing to alter that opinion. I'll explain my reasoning for that.

The arguments you've been making against up-armouring your tank rather work in reverse, here. By and large, nobody's really put together a tank with armour thick enough to reject higher-velocity 75mm rounds. I think the most heavily-armoured tank currently in production is, with the exception of your proposed M45, the Centurion, which has 15cm turret armour. The Dutch and Boers have a maximum of 12cm, and the French don't have anything in excess of 90mm (and only on the turret face). The Wesworld German Panther I has slightly better armour at 100mm on the turret face, which is good for rejecting lower-velocity 75mm, but isn't really all that impressive for the size of guns people are trying to deploy. According to the figures you cite:

Quoted

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

I once heard a comment that "tank design is a tennis match between gun and armour." Measure and countermeasure. When you field a bigger gun, the next person fields better armour. When you field better armour, the next person responds with a better gun. But in Wesworld, there is no back-and-forth: everyone's just mounted very large guns without waiting for the armour to achieve its momentary supremacy.

(This is why the French and Russians are still using almost exclusively 75mm or 76.2mm guns. The French just introduced a larger gun, the 82mm, in order to reliably deal with some of the heavier-armoured and sloped Dutch and Italian tanks when at range. I felt anything more was completely unnecessary at the present time, although France has fielded some 90mm guns on several failed designs.)

We've not had a war where the current brand of armoured vehicles have been proven to be insufficient - not like WWII, where emergency measures and such were required to keep up. While the Russians have put together something like the SU-100, you won't see me making many of these vehicles. (I posted the main Russian tanks just last night, and they still have 76.2mm guns - no T-44/100, and not even the Russian T-44/85 yet.)

As to your revised tank specs, I actually think those look decent.

Thanks for those quotes Logi. Whether those senior officer's comments reflect what the poor grunts thought is another matter, but its clear mobility, armour and firepower is a tricky mix.
I think the revised stats are better.

WW is certainly odd when it comes to tanks, but I guess wedded as we are to historical examples we can't fail to import WW2 tech, even if we haven't had the same tactical progression in game. I'm guessing in reality we should be some way back in terms of real-world tech in WW, maybe 4-5 years, given the lack of much real tank combat (1936 is the last big tank war from my recollection, China/Chosen more recent but with rougher terrain and perhaps too soon to draw proper conclusions from). Still, I think we're doing a good job based within these constraints.

Draft rendering of the M45 Medium. There is an issue with the tracks not rendering properly and there are no wheels... but sufficient for a first look.
It's hard to see due to the angle and turret overhang but the turret in the forward position due to the rear transmission. The turret ears house coincidence range finders.

Image removed to save page loading times

Here are the finished renders - camouflage not necessary indicative of reality.

An interesting design. I like the mix of German-style hull and US style turret.
The lower rear part of the turret looks a bit like a shot trap from these angles.

Italy has offered supply it's 90mm/L53 to Denmark to re-equip it's tanks.

It's a tempting offer, what with a mature supply chain and the two countries being close due to former ties to AEGIS. It'll likely lead to a weapon reduction program though.

A M44 and M45 with the 90mm/L53 will likely weight ~38 mT and 55 mT respectively, which is barely acceptable for the medium and starting to be overweight for the heavy. Probably a ton or so will have to come from rear armor or something.

Also considering replacing the L44 Light tank's turret with the French oscillating 75mm/L60 turret. This would allow for the removal of one of the crew members as well as slightly increasing the armor of the tank (at least to protect vs MG fire all around).



Regarding the model, it's probably going to be a bit of a shot trap but I feel it's unlikely to be hit there. There was some engine fume heat considerations in the turret bustle design but the main point was that I felt it looked better as it does now than with the bustle close to the engine deck.

I don't really think the Italian 90mm/L53 really does much for you that your proposed 75mm/L70 gun does not. I'd probably prefer the long-barreled 75mm, myself.

If you're going to buy foreign, you'd probably be better buying up either the German 88mm (the Swiss are going to buy a 88mm/L56 next year for their Centurions) or the British 20-pdr, which would be my preference.

I would think that the 90mm would have a better HE shell, which may be something important to the Danes.

If firing HE is that important, then neither gun will really be all that great, really. If HE is so important, then you'd want to mount some sort of shorter-barreled howitzer such as a 105mm gun. There would be some slight differences between the 75mm/L70 and 90mm/L53, but not enough to make a notable difference in the field.

And given the design considerations Logi has laid out, with an emphasis on lighter-weight vehicles, then the 75mm/L48 originally mentioned would probably be just as efficient, as you could keep vehicle weight and size down, or load more rounds to engage more targets. True, antitank performance will be lessened, but with so few countries building heavy tanks, that's hardly a problem.

At the very least I will likely replace the 75mm/L48 on the M45 with the 75mm/L70. There are too many tanks where the 75mm/L48 cannot even penetrate the lower glacis.

However as the heaviest tank in Wesworld, the M44 is stuck in an odd place. The 75mm/L70 can deal with most tank, but not ALL tanks - the StandardPanzer's upper glacis for example is invulnerable at all ranges and that is where most rounds would hit. You would know best, but I've assumed the Char-8 has similar armor to the StandardPanzer. The T-40M, as the slopes are based on the T-44, is also invulnerable to the 75mm/L70.

This leaves a question of how Denmark should cope. I don't think APCR and HVAP shells will be issued in great quantities in Denmark and there is the cost of a new gun to think about. The 75mm at least could be said to be derived from the 75mm/L30 that's been in Danish tanks from Commodore Green's time. The 90mm would be a new gun. Should that be the case, going foreign would probably be for the best.

As to why not the German 88mm/L56, the Italian 90mm/53 is going to have similar performance. Italy and Denmark are also closer than Denmark and Germany which would cause Denmark to pick the Italian gun.


Of course the alternative would be a longer gun (!!) like a 75mm/L100 which would likely have stats similar to 3386 fps and 231.6 mm RHA penetration (~200 mm @ 30). Such a gun would be able to handle the previously mentioned tanks at ranges within 600 meters. That would be roughly comparable to the 88mm/L71 but with many more issues. The recoil and barrel droop is probably not going to be pretty. Ideally I'ld have something like a 90mm/L65 which would be a comfortable midway point between the L56 and L71 but beggars can't be choosers I suppose.