WesWorld

Quoted

Hmm looks an awefull lot like the Atlantean AT-35.

Looks an awful lot like the T-34 as well....

Might be the T-43, I've a simliar profile saved on my hard drive for future use.

Still I would say angled armour is too advanced for 1936, I'd expect more developed armour-experienced forces to be developing such ideas rather than Persia unless there is foreign input.

Pimp my Valentine!!!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co…fantry_Tank.jpg

I've spotted the flaw in the AT-35 design. The tracks will fall off before it leaves the factory.

Cheers,

Quoted

I've spotted the flaw in the AT-35 design. The tracks will fall off before it leaves the factory.

There doesn't seem to be a drive sprocket on either pic which may be problematic.

Just keep the Valentine but fit larger and larger guns. Might need a rather large bulge at the back of turret to accomodate the 17pdr's recoil, but otherwise it should be possible.

Quoted

Looks an awful lot like the T-34 as well....

It IS the Russian A20

http://www.bronetehnika.narod.ru/a20_32/a20_32_9.jpg

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tang…/a20-intro.html

Cheers,

Quoted

There doesn't seem to be a drive sprocket on either pic which may be problematic.

The drive sprocket is ok, the teeth are missing.

Cheers,

Looks to me that this was the original picture of the Atlantean AT-35...

I had noticed the AT-35 a while ago and that it looked like a T-34. After some investigating on the net, I found out that it was actually the A-20, like alt_naval said. Since the two look like eachother, it seems logical to hack up a linedrawing of a T-34 in order to create a linedrawing of the A-20... though the turret is a bit different.
One minor flaw in the picture Wes...

There is still the bottom edge of the T-34's turret visible in that part.

Quoted

Still I would say angled armour is too advanced for 1936, I'd expect more developed armour-experienced forces to be developing such ideas rather than Persia unless there is foreign input.

If I am not mistaken, that tank is a GW design (as it is the GW thread) and GW has ties with KHI (who are manufacturing the new Japanese medium tanks). Also, Persia has ties with Japan... and Japan uses angled armour since it also uses angled armour in its ships.
(... and I just noticed angled armour on various other Japanese tanks... more or less)

Quoted

The drive sprocket is ok, the teeth are missing.

It's the aft one... I think... How was the power from the drive sprocket transferred to the track on the T-34? Neither drawings, nor photos show any teeth... so all indications are that there are no teeth.

Angled armor was used on various tank designs in the 1930s, it just wasn't used much on production tanks built by some of the OTL major powers (Germany, the US, etc) during this period. It wasn't used on those designs probably because it wasn't really needed (AT weapons were pretty limited) and because while it's great for increasing the effectiveness of the installed armor, it also eats up internal space and can make production more expensive (depending on the design).

In the National Museum on Sunday at the Soldiers and Chiefs Exhibition, i spotted this, with it's well sloped armour in the mid 30's,
which served in the Irish Army, so as Hrolf said,sloped armour just wasn't common among the big manufacturers, but if the Swedes were using it, then who knows who else might have also.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Hmm looks an awefull lot like the Atlantean AT-35.

Should have checked the encyclopedia... mistakes are done

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

I've spotted the flaw in the AT-35 design. The tracks will fall off before it leaves the factory.

There doesn't seem to be a drive sprocket on either pic which may be problematic.

Just keep the Valentine but fit larger and larger guns. Might need a rather large bulge at the back of turret to accomodate the 17pdr's recoil, but otherwise it should be possible.

There are no drive sprockets the A-20 is a Track/Wheel tank

Quoted

Should have checked the encyclopedia... mistakes are done

Just "borrow" that design then.

Quoted

There are no drive sprockets the A-20 is a Track/Wheel tank

So if I understand that correctly, the tank's roadwheels are the ones that are powered. So it shouldn't be too much of a problem if the track were to slide of them since there is nothing there that would stop them from sliding off. Now I can understand why Wes removed those teeth things on the tracks (though the spare track link on the back has one sticking up) as it is pretty much impossible to line them up correctly when cutting the tank picture in two and make it shorter unless you are quite good at creating such pictures. So while those teeth are not in the picture, they would certainly be present on the tracks of the actual tank

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

I've spotted the flaw in the AT-35 design. The tracks will fall off before it leaves the factory.

There doesn't seem to be a drive sprocket on either pic which may be problematic.

Just keep the Valentine but fit larger and larger guns. Might need a rather large bulge at the back of turret to accomodate the 17pdr's recoil, but otherwise it should be possible.

There are no drive sprockets the A-20 is a Track/Wheel tank

Your the only other person who seems to know that bit about the A-20!

Also, Walter, that may be part of the turret in the orriginal drawing, but its not in mine. The straight line just above is where the turret meets the hull.

The part you should have pointed out was that the mantlet has a piece that hangs down which would prevent the turret from facing aft or extreme aft facing arcs. That just means I can't retreat at full speed with my turret facing aft to cover my escape, instead it means a slow fighting retreat in reverse!

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Still I would say angled armour is too advanced for 1936, I'd expect more developed armour-experienced forces to be developing such ideas rather than Persia unless there is foreign input.

As Vukovlads pointed out in past posts, its a GW design, IIRC a Coldmere based company, and not a Persian designed tank.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

Should have checked the encyclopedia... mistakes are done

Just "borrow" that design then.

Borrowing without permission can get you in trouble!

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

There are no drive sprockets the A-20 is a Track/Wheel tank

So if I understand that correctly, the tank's roadwheels are the ones that are powered. So it shouldn't be too much of a problem if the track were to slide of them since there is nothing there that would stop them from sliding off. Now I can understand why Wes removed those teeth things on the tracks (though the spare track link on the back has one sticking up) as it is pretty much impossible to line them up correctly when cutting the tank picture in two and make it shorter unless you are quite good at creating such pictures. So while those teeth are not in the picture, they would certainly be present on the tracks of the actual tank

I could have replaced the teeth but the actuall A-20 pictures seemed to show that none existed. At either rate its the 1A1 version, and trackless wasn't really a huge advantage as was first invisioned.

Its likely subsequent designs will have the trackless feature removed as well as other modifications.

Quoted

Also, Walter, that may be part of the turret in the orriginal drawing, but its not in mine. The straight line just above is where the turret meets the hull.

I can understand that you want that horizontal line to go from the front all the way to the back as a feature of the AT-35 in order to make it different from the A-20. I should have been a bit more specific (and place the red oval a bit better) as I was actually referring to the aft most bit of the remnants of the T-34 turret.

Personally, I would have used either one of the three below... but that is just me. While the bottom turret would be a bit cramped for the crew to work in, that one would assure that the turret would be able to turn and fire to the rear. Alternatively, you could remove the bottom bit of the mantlet so it would be able to make the turn without too much problems.

Quoted

Borrowing without permission can get you in trouble!

... but that would make things interesting.

Quoted

I could have replaced the teeth but the actuall A-20 pictures seemed to show that none existed.

Those teeth are there but they're just not visible from the angles those pictures were taken...
... Does this A-20 picture work?

With the South African war showing the power of aircraft GW has begun to study how to protect marching columns

Looks a wee bit modern for the 30's mefinks.

As the South American War has shown that the Low velocity gun may not be the way forward in armored warfare the GW Land division is preaparing a number of studies to up gun the Legionnaire with variations of the Bofors 75mm M30
AA gun

The 75mm L24 seems to have done more than adequately with the heavy shell able to knock out just about anything. Accuracy might be problem because of the low mv, but then you mount a high velocity piece of around 50-60mm instead.

You have to find a ~60mm HV gun and then get permission to use it, and as was noticed in the SA war thread lets see what happense when they get challanged out on the plains by SAE heavies...