You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.


Tuesday, June 16th 2009, 11:48pm

Future Light tank

With the 37mm Bille and the Legionaire rapidly approching obsolescence the Persian Ministry of Defence has started to look for alternatives, the prime contestant being the Type 96 but as this tank is considered both expensive and advanced for Persian needs (by the Majlis) the Skoda company has been approched to construct a cheaper alternative.

Persian Future Light Tank

Combat weight, t: 14
Crew.: 4
Overall dimensions:
Length 4580
width 2520
Height 2260
clearance 350
Armor, mm:
Front Hull: 40
Hull: 20
Front Turret 60
Turret 20
Armament: 50mm Type 94
two 7,92mm machine guns

Engine: Skoda T-15M, 260 HP

Road speed, km / h: 60


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 1:13am

Looks fine to me - and nice drawing.

I wasn't aware Persia had any Billes...


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 1:21am

Well Persia is using the Bille´s, Nimbus AT/AA MC´s and Danish halftrucks


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 1:32am

Considering the Bille's mount 37mm guns, should this new tank, mounting a 50mm gun, not be a medium or heavy when compared to the Bille, not a light??

And how can the Billes reach obselesence in 3 years, without combat to question their capabilities?

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Commodore Green" (Jun 17th 2009, 1:34am)


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 1:46am

Basicly Persia is dividing tanks into Tankette´s (less than 10 tons, no cannon), Light (less than 20 tons, cannon) and Medium (20-40 tons).

As for the obsolescens it has been reported by the Argentine´s that the 37 mm cannons are not capable of dealing with the new tanks.


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 1:46am

Well its in the same weight class as the Atlantean AT-31, 32 and 34, which are considered light tanks. The TTHP would be in all respects comparable to the AT-35, which for now is considered a medium tank.


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 2:25am

Weight seems a bit low for the armor. The turret looks somewhat oversized for the hull as well. If you're looking for a Bille replacement, you could look at the 57mm Bille's being developed....


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 2:39am

The weight of the armour I suppose depends on if its sloped armour equivilent to 40mm or 40mm sloped. If its the later I'd agree the weights too low.


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 2:53am

I dont really see that the weight is to low even with 40mm armor over the front arc looking at the Pzkpfw 38(t) Ausf. G it might even be a bit heavy.

The rear turret overhang is perhaps a bit to big so a new version

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Vukovlad" (Jun 17th 2009, 2:59am)


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 3:07am

The Panzer 38(t) model A weighed 9.5 tons with a 37mm gun, half the armour and half the hp of the TTHP. I also think your dimentions are abit small (if I'm reading them right). It should be 4.9 m long, and 2.37m in height. Weight might be ok, though one can never know without similar stats historically or a tank builder file.


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 3:16am

Well that shows that the armor doesnt weigh as much as people think since Ausf G with 50mm front hull and 30mm side turret armor weighs 9,85 tons

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Vukovlad" (Jun 17th 2009, 3:18am)


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 3:26am

Yes but you've got a larger gun, a larger engine ergo increased hp, speed and as a result most likely a heavier suspension. I don't have any stats on the Ausf G but I'm looking at modification made to create the Hetzer (which doesn't have the engine of the TTHP).

As I said 14 tons is likely close but I'd guess the weights a wee bit higher, perhaps as high as the Hetzers, 16 tons.


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 3:33am

Perhaps but then he Hetzer has an even bigger gun and heavier armor so I think that 14 tons might be right.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Vukovlad" (Jun 17th 2009, 3:33am)


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 3:37am

I have some doubts when I look at one of my own designs with similar dimentions and hp. Except for armour and armament its quite comparable.

AT-32 1A3 light tank
Crew: 4
Weight: 14.5 tons (20,000lbs/13,180 kg)
Length: 16'1"
Width: 7'7"
Height: 6'7"
Engine: Roth 668R-1200 7 cyl radial, 250hp
Armament: 1x37mm, 1x7.62
Armor: 20-6.25mm
Performance: 30mph/48km/h


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 3:47am

Gentlemen! I think we've been over this before with different tanks! And what does it matter if the tank is 14 tons or sixteen tons? Call it fifteen tons and meet in the middle.

Hm, meat in the middle... my mind is on sandwiches now...


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 3:50am

15 tons might be a compromise


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 3:51am

Agreed, its in that range. I've since looked at other comparable tanks...

Historical BT-7, 13.6 tons, 22-10mm armour 45mm gun, 73 km/h
AT-34, 12.6 tons, 20-10mm armour 20mm gun, 70km/h

So yeah 15 tons sounds reasonable to me.


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 5:39pm

Here's a quick & dirty Tanksharp of something along the lines of Vuk's TTHP design (I used the dimensions given, engine HP, and armor, but had to guess at rear, belly, & deck armor, and I used the Skoda 47mm vz 38 gun instead of a 50mm gun). Judging by this, I retract my previous comments about it being too light, probably because the deck & belly armor on the 38t series was very light (only 8mm), and that makes a HUGE difference in the armor weight. The BT series was heavier probably because it's a bigger vehicle (1 meter longer and nearly as wide), has a bigger engine, had wider tracks, and had heavier armor on the belly and deck to compensate for the lighter front & side armor.

Vehicle Name TTHP
Vehicle Type Persian light tank

Length 4.58 meters
Width 2.52 meters
Height 2.25 meters

Crew 4.00 men
Passengers 0.00 men

Weight Breakdown
Crew Weight 0.36 metric tons
Passenger Weight 0.00 metric tons
Miscellaneous Weight 0.09 metric tons
Armor Weight 7.24 metric tons
Armament Weight 0.30 metric tons
Ammunition Weight 0.33 metric tons
Engine Weight 0.55 metric tons
Fuel Weight 0.23 metric tons
APU Weight 0.00 metric tons
Energy Bank Weight 0.04 metric tons
Transmission Weight 0.60 metric tons
Amphibious Equipment Weight 0.00 metric tons
Suspension Weight 0.96 metric tons
Track Weight 0.87 metric tons
Road Wheel Weight 0.31 metric tons
Applique Armor Package A 0.00 metric tons
Applique Armor Package B 0.00 metric tons
Cargo Payload 0.00 metric tons

Mobility and Performance Breakdown

Engine 260.00 horsepower
Fuel Capacity 80.00 gallons
Maximum Hull Speed (water) 5.98 MPH

Baseline Upgraded (A) Upgraded (A+B)
Combat Weight 11.89 11.89 11.89 metric tons
Growth Capability (Transmission) 11.21 11.21 11.21 metric tons
Growth Capability (Suspension) 1.61 1.61 1.61 metric tons
Ground Pressure 14.02 14.02 14.02 PSI
Power/Weight Ratio 21.87 21.87 21.87 hp/metric ton
Top Speed 39.64 39.64 39.64 MPH
Operating Range 108.41 108.41 108.41 miles

Amphibious Performance Breakdown
Density of Vehicle 0.72 0.72 0.72 g/cm3
Vehicle Freeboard (Transiting) -0.21 -0.21 -0.21 meters
Vehicle Freeboard (Dropped In) -0.84 -0.84 -0.84 meters
Vehicle Draft (Transiting) 1.66 1.66 1.66 meters
Vehicle Draft (Dropped in) 2.29 2.29 2.29 meters
Water Speed #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! MPH
Operating Range In Water #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! miles

Armament Breakdown
Hull Turret AA
Rifle Calibre MGs 1.00 1.00 0.00
HMGs 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hull Turret Total
ATGMs 0.00 0.00 0.00 rounds stowed
Rifle Calibre 800.00 2,000.00 2,800.00 rounds stowed
HMG Calibre 0.00 0.00 0.00 rounds stowed

Calibre (mm) # in Hull # in Turret Rounds (hull) Rounds (Turret)
Cannon/Gun 1 47.00 0.00 1.00 0 60
Cannon/Gun 2 0.10 0.00 0.00 0 0

KE (mm) HEAT (mm) KE Resistance HEAT Resistance
Front Hull Armor 41.72 41.72 Resistant to 20x110mm Hispano Penetratable by Virtually Anything
Side Hull Armor 20.00 20.00 Resistant to 7.62 Penetratable by Virtually Anything
Rear Hull Armor 20.23 20.23 Resistant to 7.62 Penetratable by Virtually Anything
Top Hull Armor 8.00 8.00 Penetratable by Virtually Anything Penetratable by Virtually Anything
Hull Floor Armor 8.00 8.00 Penetratable by Virtually Anything Penetratable by Virtually Anything

KE (mm) HEAT (mm) KE Resistance HEAT Resistance
Front Turret Armor 60.93 60.93 Resistant to Soviet 30x210mm M53 Penetratable by Virtually Anything
Side Turret Armor 20.31 20.31 Resistant to 7.62 Penetratable by Virtually Anything
Rear Turret Armor 20.31 20.31 Resistant to 7.62 Penetratable by Virtually Anything
Top Turret Armor 8.00 8.00 Penetratable by Virtually Anything Penetratable by Virtually Anything

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message


Wednesday, June 17th 2009, 10:02pm

Floor and roof armor are very weight intensive. One of the "defects" in my Lt-35A/B 's is the 30mm roofs, which may stop light artillery, but drive the weight up substantially.

This Persian vehicle is quite close to an uparmored Skoda/Davao Lt-33, albeit with far more horsepower. As presented a cruiser tank.

While looking at Wiki's cruiser tanks I found this line about the Cromwell :


The Cromwell was the fastest British tank to serve in the Second World War[citation needed], with a top (ungoverned) speed of 40 mph (64 km/h). Unfortunately this speed proved too much for even the Christie suspension and the engine was governed to give a top speed of 32 mph (51 km/h),

But overall this is better than the OTL UK's Cruiser Mk I :)

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Kaiser Kirk" (Jun 17th 2009, 10:03pm)


Friday, June 19th 2009, 10:57am

Forgot about Skoda´s Philippine branch, that gives the possibility to have some of them built there to speed up delivery.