WesWorld

Wiki says :

Quoted

The short-barreled 57 mm gun of Type 89 Tank was effective at destroying machine gun nests and the 15 mm thick armor was enough to stop heavy machine gun fire

Quoted

The Type 97 tank was equipped with a Type 97 57 mm main gun; the same calibre as the that used for the Type 89 tank. The cannon was a short barrelled weapon with a relatively low muzzle velocity but sufficient as the tank was intended for infantry support. However it proved insufficient for use against armoured vehicles.

Not anti-tank guns or hybrid anti-tank/HE

I will change the Sher tank to an improved copy of the A7V tank (50mm armor all around, 75mm low velocit gun, one V12 380hp engine). Of course the historical use of 18 to 22 crew could explain the idea of having an armored troop carrier. Also with a 33 ton weight must likely the Argun will be lowered to a 22 to 25 range vehicle.

Hate to question the 50mm armor for 1922...
But I do appreciate you being willing to reconsider. I admit to feeling a bit guilty simply because you did have nice write ups already in place.

On my more generic protest on several folks upgunning years in advance, those Japanese 57mms proved to be low velocity. So, anyone have examples of mid-1930s 50mm+ tank guns with mainly AP role? I looked hard when designing the Dutch tank, and I didn't note any over 47mm for this period.

Same here. For the design tree I developed for the South African Army I checked a douzand sources too. The 37mm and in some cases a 45mm guns was standard in the mid- to late-30s. Now with WW behind ahead of the historical technology tree by about 3-5 years it is possible to have a tank with a 50mm face (!) plate and 50 to 55mm gun introduced in 1935 (original date 1938-1940 then - think Pz III). But I question the 50mm all around and the envisioned AP role.

As well as the normal Male and Female tanks up to Mk V etc. of the standard rhomboid pattern, WWI also saw the design of the first real tank by the British. Called the Flying Elephant, it started off as a flottilla leader for the other tanks. It was to be armoured against medium artillery fire instead of just machine guns with 2" armour plate. It was however massive and ungainly. I'm not sure that this fits in with the Indian need, its pretty hard to use tanks along the borders into Pakistan and Burma. The need would be for a light tank that is reliable above all else.

More info here

Now that some tanks have adopted 50mm frontal plates I think we're going to see an upgunning to 57mm level at least.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Now with WW behind ahead of the historical technology tree by about 3-5 years it is possible to have a tank with a 50mm face (!) plate and 50 to 55mm gun introduced in 1935 (original date 1938-1940 then - think Pz III). .

I've only been here a little bit, but this is part of my objection, I was under the impression that only aeronautical related things were ahead by 3-5 years.

Frankly, I don't understand why that would be in the first place but that was the case when I started. Tanks were not then ahead by 3-5 years, and so I have been railing against those trying to make it so.

After all, if we are advancing all military tech 3-5 years, why do we not have new-built ships with engines from +3-5 years? It is a naval sim, with larger navies than historic, yet the ships are left behind.

I'd much rather keep it to just aircraft, or even abolish that as we come up on 1940.

Okay, fine with me.

(As long as I don´t have to re-do all my tank stuff. I haven´t used real-world copies anyway.....)

Piston engines and their planes, and the AA developements related to more powerful aircraft are the +3-+5 "given".
For the rest, I'm not suggesting we re-write peoples background stuff that is out of time, because there many little things (napalm, etc), just try to hold the line going forwards.

There isn't any driving force behind the development of new larger and heavier gunned tanks apart from one-upmanship. Maybe combat experience in South America will change this.

For aeronautical stuff, there is more pressure not to get left behind. Aviation technology always advances as more power and less weight make a better aeroplane. The same can't really be said for tanks.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Same here. For the design tree I developed for the South African Army I checked a douzand sources too. The 37mm and in some cases a 45mm guns was standard in the mid- to late-30s. Now with WW behind ahead of the historical technology tree by about 3-5 years it is possible to have a tank with a 50mm face (!) plate and 50 to 55mm gun introduced in 1935 (original date 1938-1940 then - think Pz III). But I question the 50mm all around and the envisioned AP role.

The Somua S-35 had 57mm armour on its turret face and 41mm on the hull, this a 1935 design. The Char BI bis had even greater armour, 60mm also a 1935 design improvement on the Char BI with 40mm.

If we are looking at frontal armour above 20mm I can't see it being any earlier than 1930, as with the historical Char BI and other breakthrough tanks.

As for the 3-5 year rule, I tried to abolish it but its seems that we continue to use it with aircraft so I doubt abolishing will change things drastically. For all other tech types I'd say historical is the best way to go. That said we also have some ship designs based on doctrine more advanced than historical, at least thats what some have argued.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
If we are looking at frontal armour above 20mm I can't see it being any earlier than 1930, as with the historical Char BI and other breakthrough tanks.

As for the 3-5 year rule, I tried to abolish it but its seems that we continue to use it with aircraft so I doubt abolishing will change things drastically. For all other tech types I'd say historical is the best way to go. That said we also have some ship designs based on doctrine more advanced than historical, at least thats what some have argued.

Actually, the French Char 2C super-heavy tank, designed during WWI and produced in 1920, weighed 69 tons, had 45mm frontal armor, and was armed with a long (for the period) 75mm gun in the front turret (along with 4 MGs). During 1926, 1 tank was modified to carry a 155mm gun in a turret, but then was changed back to it's standard configuration.

As far as the 3-5 year rule goes, I actually like it, mostly because it encourages the development of some aircraft that never saw action (extremely-high performance propellor planes that never existed because the turbojet came along). Piston-engined planes beyond the classic Spitfire, Mustang, Bf-109, LaGG-7, Zero, etc strike me as fun.

Italy's alternate timeline of going along the supercharged inline route instead of licenced air cooled radials will most likely result in a big uplift in piston-engine technology as other countries try to compete. The problem is that you soon become limited by Mach Number rather than structural strength.

Heh, I've seen the Mach number impact on the design I did of the Heinkel P.1076 with the DB-603N & counter-rotating props. Down low, the thicker air limits the max speed, but up high the falling speed of sound keeps the plane from using it's full power.