WesWorld

Not much new, still suffering from war surplus really, I'll soon be selling off guns and stuff.

The T-3M36 Leopard is the new tank mentioned in my Armoured Warfare report. Basically its a copy of the Italian M13-32 Sahariano used as the T-2M34 Jaguar. It has a the same engine (also a copy) but longer chassis and new suspension.
Stats are: 19.87 tonnes, 5.86/3.32/3.25m, one FIAT 250hp diesel, 22mph, 205 miles, 35-15mm armour, one 75mm/L50 gun and two 7.92mm LMG, 5 crew.

The gun is a version of the 75mm/L50 field gun mounted on a new mount. Basically I'm going along the US development line. I know folks are gonna moan and point but Argentina has used their tanks in REAL combat.
As the Staff sees it the 37mm currently used sucks agianst newer tanks, the 47mm is great but knowing the RSAA is going to develop new tanks (probably along German/Dutch maybe even Indian/Japanese lines means the need for a new gun now.

As of this time the T-3M36 first ran in 1936 as a chassis, the proper tank begins trials this year for service entry late 1938/ early 39.

Also two new armoured cars.
C-3M35: 10.55 tonnes, 5/2.98/3.15m, one 88hp diesel, 26mph, 530 miles, 20-8mm armour, one 37mm firing HE and HP shells, one co-axial 20mm cannon and three 7.92mm LMG, 5 crew. This is a large 8x8 wheeled armoured car based on the C-2M33 but with a variant of the T-1M31 88hp diesel engine with a new transmission and a radio operator in the rear hull with a 7.92mm LMG covering the rear of the vehicle. Another LMG is bow mounted and the third is co-axial with the 37mm and 20mm guns. The provision of the 20mm Orkileon cannon is to give a weapon better suited to dealing with enemy armoured cars while the 37mm can be used for anti-tank work or support. The C-3 was developed from war experience operating the C-2 and the problems of the earlier truck conversions that were limited to road use. 60 ordered.

C-4M35: 3.82 tonnes, 4.2/1.97/2.73m, one 55hp diesel, 46mph, 417 miles, 10-5mm armour, one 20mm cannon and one 7.92mm LMG, 2 crew. This small 4x4 armoured car was developed to replace the earlier van and truck chassis conversions and this car is designed for scouting with long endurance and small size to aid concealment while high speed aids escape and the 20mm Orkileon cannon provides adequate defence from enemy armoured cars. 60 ordered

[No pics yet, think of the C-3 as an eight-wheeled AB34 crossed with a German 8 rad and the C-4 as a Sd 221 type clone.]

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Not much new, still suffering from war surplus really, I'll soon be selling off guns and stuff.

The T-3M36 Leopard is the new tank mentioned in my Armoured Warfare report. Basically its a copy of the Italian M13-32 Sahariano used as the T-2M34 Jaguar. It has a the same engine (also a copy) but longer chassis and new suspension.
Stats are: 19.87 tonnes, 5.86/3.32/3.25m, one FIAT 250hp diesel, 22mph, 205 miles, 35-15mm armour, one 75mm/L50 gun and two 7.92mm LMG, 5 crew.

The gun is a version of the 75mm/L50 field gun mounted on a new mount. Basically I'm going along the US development line. I know folks are gonna moan and point but Argentina has used their tanks in REAL combat.
As the Staff sees it the 37mm currently used sucks agianst newer tanks, the 47mm is great but knowing the RSAA is going to develop new tanks (probably along German/Dutch maybe even Indian/Japanese lines means the need for a new gun now.

As of this time the T-3M36 first ran in 1936 as a chassis, the proper tank begins trials this year for service entry late 1938/ early 39.

With those entry dates, I don't have a gigantic issue with it. Germany would suggest it's underarmored for the size of the gun it's mounting, but that's a choice that Argentina can make. Also, without a muzzle brake, you may get a fair amount of vehicle jump.

Quoted

Also two new armoured cars.
C-3M35: 10.55 tonnes, 5/2.98/3.15m, one 88hp diesel, 26mph, 530 miles, 20-8mm armour, one 37mm firing HE and HP shells, one co-axial 20mm cannon and three 7.92mm LMG, 5 crew. This is a large 8x8 wheeled armoured car based on the C-2M33 but with a variant of the T-1M31 88hp diesel engine with a new transmission and a radio operator in the rear hull with a 7.92mm LMG covering the rear of the vehicle. Another LMG is bow mounted and the third is co-axial with the 37mm and 20mm guns. The provision of the 20mm Orkileon cannon is to give a weapon better suited to dealing with enemy armoured cars while the 37mm can be used for anti-tank work or support. The C-3 was developed from war experience operating the C-2 and the problems of the earlier truck conversions that were limited to road use. 60 ordered.

The 37mm/20mm mounting seems unnecessary and redundant, the 37mm will kill armored cars just as dead and traverse rate is more likely to limit the vehicles ability to hit moving armored cars than rate of fire.

Quoted

C-4M35: 3.82 tonnes, 4.2/1.97/2.73m, one 55hp diesel, 46mph, 417 miles, 10-5mm armour, one 20mm cannon and one 7.92mm LMG, 2 crew. This small 4x4 armoured car was developed to replace the earlier van and truck chassis conversions and this car is designed for scouting with long endurance and small size to aid concealment while high speed aids escape and the 20mm Orkileon cannon provides adequate defence from enemy armoured cars. 60 ordered

[No pics yet, think of the C-3 as an eight-wheeled AB34 crossed with a German 8 rad and the C-4 as a Sd 221 type clone.]

Heh, I thought this one looked kind of familiar.

The Argentine Army has two requirements that need to be filled.

Requirement No.1: A new mountain gun to replace the current Skoda 100mm vz 28 (100mm M33/Sk). In 1933 some forty of these dual-purpose filed gun and mountain howitzers were purchased from Czechoslovakia but war losses and wear and tear has reduced the number by half. There are no firm specifications but the gun must be as light weight as possible and also have a high elevation. Range over 16,000m perferred.

Requirement No.2: A new rifle for the infantry. Most soldiers are still equipped with either the 7.92mm Mauser Standard or the 7.7mm Lee-Enfield No.1 rifles (mainly second-line and reserve troops). The choice is either to buy more Mausers or to buy a new rifle in 7.92mm calibre. Smaller carbine sized rifles may be looked at too. The cartridge and features are left open to the designer. Semi-auto rifles may be tendered to this competition.

Well, on the subject of new rifles for Argentina, Germany can offer a couple options: first, the Kar 98a, in 7.92mm Mauser, Germany has a number of these rifles that are now surplus to requirements and can be had cheaply. Second, the Kar. 33 in 7mm x 40, the current standard rifle for the Heer, essentially a Kar. 98a downsized for the smaller 7 x 40 cartridge. Solothurn can offer the Kar. 35(S), their semi-auto entry for the Heer semi-auto rifle contract.


Also, Johnson of the US offers their new Johnson semi-auto. The prototype is in .30-06, but a conversion to 7.92mm x 57 would be straightforward.

The tank looks ok but fairly thinly armoured. Still, it keeps it light and fairly mobile. The M32 has been quietly dropped in Italian service given the reliability problems. There's more focus on developing a reliable machine instead. I'm not sure whether a high velocity 75mm would fit, probably a two man turret from space considerations.

For a mountain gun, the Italian 75/18 is a fairly good choice. Its nice and light with elevation up to 60°. Range doesn't come close to the 16km requirement, though that seems a little optimistic for most 75 and 100mm weapons unless you're going for a long barrel.

For a new rifle Italy can offer the Carcano M35 Corto. Its nice and light at 3.3kg, a fairly small size making it handier and simple. It is currently remanufactured in 7.35x51 calibre which has nice ballistics over 200m or so. It would be possible to chamber it for 7.92x57 (was done historically) but it would give a bit more kick given the lighter weight. Currently being considered is a version still lighter along the lines of the carbine (instead of short rifle) in a smaller calibre. Probably 6.5x42 ish with greater accuracy at short range and lighter weight ~ 3.0kg. The 7.35x51 is most readily available but other versions would take longer to develop, especially the 6.5 version.

For a new rifle, Switzerland and the Bulgarian arsenal at Kazanlak are working hard on the STPR-36 Radichkov semiauto rifle:


Type: Semi-automatic rifle
Caliber: 7.5x55mm Schmidt-Rubin or 7.92x57 Mauser
Overall length: 1105 mm
Barrel length: 652 mm
Weight: 4.20 kg empty
Magazine capacity: 10 rounds

There have also been one-off trial versions in 7.62x54R, 6.5x51 Nemesis, 7x57mm Mauser, .303 British, and .30 Alcyone, but only the 7.5x55 Swiss is in even modest production. However, it was designed for 8mm Mauser and so it shouldn't have any problems handling that round at all.

Just one question. My Mauser book states that Argentina was actually using the 7.63x53mm Mauser round, not the 7.92x57mm Mauser, up to and including the 1909 Rifles and Carbines. Is WW Argentina ahistoric on this count?

My memory says Argentina IS ahistoric here, yes, it was discussed a while back when I was getting cartridges for Peru (which uses the historical Argentine Mauser round).

Hungary i am sure will offer the Mannlicher M1923 Infantry Trials Rifle adopted by Persia as the FÉG M.13




Caliber: 7.92x57mm rimless
Integral charger-loaded box magazine, 5 rounds
Straight pull bolt action, locked by rotating lugs on the bolt head into the receiver
1110mm [43.7"] overall, 3.6kg [8 lbs]
600mm [23.6"] barrel, rifling RH, concentric
Tangent type rear sight, graduated 300-2000 meters
Muzzle velocity 840 m/sec

And the Czechs will probably offer the usual vz.24 and ZH-29 rifles

Just to say I liked the tank report in the South African thread. Nice reading and very viable.

Argentina goes with the offer from Germany for the surplus Kar 98a, in 7.92mm Mauser and places an order for 800.

BUT

The Inspector General of Weapons wants a competitive shoot-off and wants the following firms to supply a batch of 5 semi-auto rifles for firing and durability tests.
Solothurn Kar. 35(S)
Johnson semi-auto 7.92mm x 57
STPR-36 Radichkov 7.92mm x 57

[Britain too is interested in the STPR-36 in .303in]

A rumoured order for 500 9mm Machine Gun Lanchester No.1 Mk I from the Sterling Armament Company at Dagenham, Essex never went ahead owing to the war but the situation has changed and the order will go ahead for the Infantería de Marina.

Heh, 800 is a drop in the bucket, but it certainly can be filled.

Solothurn will be happy to ship 5 Kar. 35(S) rifles to Argentina.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
The Inspector General of Weapons wants a competitive shoot-off and wants the following firms to supply a batch of 5 semi-auto rifles for firing and durability tests.
Solothurn Kar. 35(S)
Johnson semi-auto 7.92mm x 57
STPR-36 Radichkov 7.92mm x 57

[Britain too is interested in the STPR-36 in .303in]

SIG and Mr. Radichkov will happily pitch the team's design to both Argentina and Britain.

(The STPR-36 has a lot of parts interchangeable with the K31 Schmidt-Rubin, and would be very accurate and fairly reliable, but a tad bit expensive at the moment due to low production numbers.)

Quoted

The T-3M36 Leopard is the new tank mentioned in my Armoured Warfare report. Basically its a copy of the Italian M13-32 Sahariano used as the T-2M34 Jaguar. It has a the same engine (also a copy) but longer chassis and new suspension. Stats are: 19.87 tonnes, 5.86/3.32/3.25m, one FIAT 250hp diesel, 22mph, 205 miles, 35-15mm armour, one 75mm/L50 gun and two 7.92mm LMG, 5 crew.

I was envisaging the M13/32 as similar to the Convenantor or BT series. The length seems about right but the width and height are very large indeed. Scaling off the length, the gun barrel should be a lot larger for a 75/50 gun. I think the tank is a bit too small for such a weapon. Might be better to build a new tank from the base up just use some existing bits and pieces. As something quick and dirty to try and get in service before the end of the war it makes more sense. Same hull, bigger gun and slap some more armour on. I'm not sure a 75/50 would really fit though. The cast turret isn't entirely quick to do - just weld a squarish block turret on instead like the Cromwell.



with 75/50 more or less to scale

Postwar, new design with heavier armour and 75/50 gun. It strikes me that the armour issue stands out the most from reading your report. I know Italy would be interesting in finding out more how their design fared in combat and in designing a better replacement...

Historically, the use of a 75/50 or so gun needed a turret ring of about 165mm or greater, that was where the historical Pz IV had it's advantage over the Pz III. So it wouldn't be a surprise if a smaller vehicle wasn't able to mount the larger weapon and deal with it's recoil.

Are you sure about that? Or was the turret simply to small on the Pz III? There were some hefty guns mounted on the Sherman, Cromwell, T-34 etc even if they are a later generation

Cromwell 145mm and mounted medium 75mm
Challenger 167mm (or 178mm) mounted 17pdr
M4 Sherman 175mm mounted medium 75mm, 17pdr with a bit of a squeeze
T34 146mm mounted medium 75
T34-85 170mm mounted 85mm
Panzer V Panther 165mm mounted high velocity 75
Panzer IV 160mm
Tiger 183mm mounted 88mm

Ah, memory was off by 5mm. But as you can see from what RA posted, the smaller turret rings were limited to smaller or lower velocity weapons than a 75mm/50. The Pz III chassis had no real problem with a bigger gun (see the StuG IIIG with the 75mm/48 ), but the turret ring just wasn't big enough for anything more powerful than the 50mm/60 or the 75mm/24.

Thanks for improving the drawing. It seems I got my scales off!

I've two options really. One is to use the original drawing and go to a 75/24 gun, two is keep the 50cal and have a failure tank in service. Afterall Argentina hasn't built any tanks from scratch and I'd like to think they would make mistakes.

I agree over the cast turret but it would be stronger than rivetted armour (a lesson from the war, esp the RSAA tanks).

You could go to a 50mm/60 (or something similar) for anti-tank work, with some 75mm/24s for anti-infantry. Sounds familiar, right?

I don't think, even without experience, they'd go too far down the road of a too-big gun, that seems to have been a engineering issue that was sorted pretty early on (ie, there don't seem to have been many cases where it was tried).

Quoted

I've two options really. One is to use the original drawing and go to a 75/24 gun, two is keep the 50cal and have a failure tank in service. Afterall Argentina hasn't built any tanks from scratch and I'd like to think they would make mistakes.

I think it's more an issue that the 75/50 simply won't onto a hull of that size. Maybe with a fairly blocky oversize turret and two men squeezed inside. Otherwise, an uparmoured M13/32 with either the 47mm or a low velocity 75mm.

Quoted

I agree over the cast turret but it would be stronger than rivetted armour

Cast armour is weaker than rivetted or welded. The problem is in making the rivet points and supports strong enough so that they don't preferentially break. Welding gets around this problems by having a larger joint area thats under lower stress. A large casting takes time to set up, time to cool down and is quite difficult to control quality, especially for high grade steels as you've got different cooling rates through the material. Once you've got the line set up then its easier to mass produce - though I'm not sure 100s for the Argentine army is really "mass production"