New Atlantean tanks for 1938

The Chosen One

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 10:57pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
...the armor on the AT-37 Is WAY, WAY over the top. The historical KV-1 1939s had mostly 75mm armor, sloped at 50 degrees on the glacis but vertical on the chassis sides, with a 90mm mantlet and 75mm armor at 15 degrees on the turret sides and rear. That's not going to result in much of a bonus from sloping except on the glacis, but in OTL 1939 it didn't need it, there wasn't much at all that could penetrate 3" of steel armor plate at any distance. Effective thickness on the turret would vary from 100mm or so on the mantlet to 80mm on the turret sides and rear.

The AT-37, on the other hand, has somewhere in the neighborhood (judging by the picture to guess at sloping effects) of 150-180mm of armor on the turret front and about 110-130mm on the turret sides. The Tiger II had 180mm at 9 degrees on the turret front and only 80mm at 21 degrees on the turret sides and rear. Pretty comparable armor, looks like from here.

Well, when stated in that form I can understand the critiques. "Armour is compairable to a Tiger II", thats a sound arguement Hrolf, and much better than "Great we can have 1944 tanks now?", "typical FAR responce, we get an AK and they get nukes..." ect ect.

Hrolf, hate to ask but can you give it a crack in tanksharp?

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

42

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 11:00pm

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
I don't get it, Japan can release an apparent copy of the T-34/85 which is a 1944 tank in 1936, but FAR can't release an apparent copy of the Tiger II which is a 1944 tank in 1938? Is it me or is there something wrong with this picture? If one player can have a 1944 tank why can't all players have one? (starts feverishly making plans for a Polish copy of the Sherman).

I see your point but thats not my aim here. That being said, the type 96 has been out for 2 years now, I'm sure some of its stats are known now.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

43

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 11:12pm

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
I don't get it, Japan can release an apparent copy of the T-34/85 which is a 1944 tank in 1936, but FAR can't release an apparent copy of the Tiger II which is a 1944 tank in 1938? Is it me or is there something wrong with this picture? If one player can have a 1944 tank why can't all players have one? (starts feverishly making plans for a Polish copy of the Sherman).

It's basically a KV85 tank with a 75mm or 76.2mm gun and heavier armour. We've got a heavier version prepared for when the gun calibers jump again (as they probably will before this thread is old and stale).

Go to the top of the page

TheCanadian

Master

Posts: 2,242

44

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 11:12pm

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
I don't get it, Japan can release an apparent copy of the T-34/85 which is a 1944 tank in 1936, but FAR can't release an apparent copy of the Tiger II which is a 1944 tank in 1938? Is it me or is there something wrong with this picture? If one player can have a 1944 tank why can't all players have one? (starts feverishly making plans for a Polish copy of the Sherman).

I see your point but thats not my aim here. That being said, the type 96 has been out for 2 years now, I'm sure some of its stats are known now.

Well that what it boils down to for me, once the genie is out, all we can do is react to it.

Brazil will get back to the Atlanteans on the AT-36/37 order when they figure out
a) how many they want
b) where they want to use them

Go to the top of the page

TheCanadian

Master

Posts: 2,242

45

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 11:21pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
I don't get it, Japan can release an apparent copy of the T-34/85 which is a 1944 tank in 1936, but FAR can't release an apparent copy of the Tiger II which is a 1944 tank in 1938? Is it me or is there something wrong with this picture? If one player can have a 1944 tank why can't all players have one? (starts feverishly making plans for a Polish copy of the Sherman).

It's basically a KV85 tank with a 75mm or 76.2mm gun and heavier armour. We've got a heavier version prepared for when the gun calibers jump again (as they probably will before this thread is old and stale).

I can see Hrolf's point though. KV85 was 45.3 tons, although it did have a bigger gun. T-37 is 38.7 tons and it has heavier armour. KV-1 has around the same gun as the T-37, has quite a bit less armour, and is 42.3 tons, so IMHO weight has to go up a bit to match the armour.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

46

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 11:24pm

I wouldn't mind increasing the weight. I'm not familiar enough with tanksharp to try my own tanks, so I don't know how Admiral K got the numbers. Based on the comparisons, however, I'm good with raising the weight.

Go to the top of the page

Vukovlad

Me too !!!

Posts: 4,137

47

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 11:30pm

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
I don't get it, Japan can release an apparent copy of the T-34/85 which is a 1944 tank in 1936, but FAR can't release an apparent copy of the Tiger II which is a 1944 tank in 1938? Is it me or is there something wrong with this picture? If one player can have a 1944 tank why can't all players have one? (starts feverishly making plans for a Polish copy of the Sherman).

Yeah I can understand the T-34/85 coparison the T96 has a 75mm the T34/85 has a 85mm check, the T96 has a maximum of 47mm armor the T34/85 has 90 check, the T96 weighs 27 tons the T34/85 32, yep identical

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

48

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 11:33pm

Vuko, I'd think now is a good time to simply stop posting and let others make the critiques.....

....just sayin.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

49

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 11:33pm

Quoted

Walter, I don't believe that for a minute and I doubt you do, either.

Actually when I think of it now, you're absolutely right that what I said was a load of bull droppings. Looking at what ships have them, they use the 75mm against either unarmed ships or aircrafts so they would know nothing about that nonsense I threw into that post.

Quoted

I don't get it, Japan can release an apparent copy of the T-34/85 which is a 1944 tank in 1936, but FAR can't release an apparent copy of the Tiger II which is a 1944 tank in 1938?

Cause the Type 96 is not a T-34/85. A while ago, I posted a comparison of those two a while back and in all aspects, the T-34/85 is superior to the Type 96 so if that is the case then it cannot be a T-34/85.

Quoted

I'm not familiar enough with tanksharp to try my own tanks

Well, I tried it but could not really work with it. It made my head spin so I think that using historical data is the way to go for me.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

50

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 11:34pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I wouldn't mind increasing the weight. I'm not familiar enough with tanksharp to try my own tanks, so I don't know how Admiral K got the numbers. Based on the comparisons, however, I'm good with raising the weight.

To my knowledge the armour ratings are "sloped" and not actual thickness, wether their fansifull or not is unknown to me, I'm not proficient in tanksharp, I don't know its bugs.

We could go by the pictures slopes but when we came up with the idea for the TT-37 it was intended to use idea's from all FAR tank designs to date. That meant using the heavy slope on the glasis as per the AT-35 and the future AT-36 (T-34 clone).

I'm fine with a weight of 42 tons and a speed of 30 mph.

Go to the top of the page

perdedor99

Sage

Posts: 4,026

51

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 11:36pm

No need to take it personally, people. This is just a SIM. I have being convinced the AT-36 is reasonable if compared with the Type 96.

On the other hand my two cents are that the AT-37 need to reduce their speed by at least ten miles and gain more weight; or lose some armor and keep the speed.

And I agree if a the Type 96 made it in 1936(I think a Type 96 is more a 1941 one) I guess a 1943 tank can make it in 1938. It just fair in my book.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "perdedor99" (Oct 17th 2009, 11:43pm)

Go to the top of the page

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

52

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 11:43pm

Canada wins.

As for the rest, the recent outbursts of sniping, namecalling, and generally unfriendly comments and behavior is starting to get out of hand around here.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

53

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 11:46pm

I also think that calling the type 96 a 44 tank is a stretch, 39-41 is more accurate when you look at the gun and use of sloped armour.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

54

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 11:50pm

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
As for the rest, the recent outbursts of sniping, namecalling, and generally unfriendly comments and behavior is starting to get out of hand around here.

+2

-----------

On the other forum I admin, I had to ban some folks yesterday, so I'm very much not in the mood to see this debate going downhill like it has.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

55

Saturday, October 17th 2009, 11:52pm

...and I have to admit I haven't helped much either, I appologise. I just like to see serious and respectfull arguements made rather than sarcastic jabs and snide remarks.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

56

Sunday, October 18th 2009, 12:08am

Quoted

Canada wins.

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
*Throws controller out of the window*

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

57

Sunday, October 18th 2009, 12:10am

*Is standing on street below when he's whacked over the head* "What the-? Durn pigeons!"

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

58

Sunday, October 18th 2009, 12:25am

Could be worse. Could be squadrons of those blasted bombers known as seagulls. During this summer, when I looked up while walking to work, I really felt like a warship with all kind of naval attack planes swarming around in the sky above me.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

59

Sunday, October 18th 2009, 12:50am

I live in a city swarming with pigeons. The printshop I work in even has its own resident freeloaders inside the plant. I've been meaning to get a new air tank for my paintball gun......

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

60

Sunday, October 18th 2009, 12:54am

Revised design with reduced speed and armour and increased weight. Civil comments please!

Model: AT(TT)-37/75
Type: Heavy Tank
Crew: 4 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver)
Weight: 42.5 tons
Length: 7.0 meters
Width: 3.3 meters
Height: 3.0 meters
Speed: 30 MPH
Engine: 800hp
Range: 275 miles
Armament: 1x75mm/L45 Cannon in turret; 1x.50cal in turret; 1x.30cal in hull
Armour: 120mm front hull (Sloped equivilent), 77mm side hull, 160mm front turret (sloped equivilent), 90mm side turret

Orriginal specs for compairison

Model: AT(TT)-37/75
Type: Heavy Tank
Crew: 4 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver)
Weight: 38.7 tons
Length: 7.0 meters
Width: 3.3 meters
Height: 3.0 meters
Speed: 37.5 MPH
Engine: 800hp
Range: 275 miles
Armament: 1x75mm/L45 Cannon in turret; 1x.50cal in turret; 1x.30cal in hull
Armour: 169mm front hull (Sloped equivilent), 77mm side hull, 205mm front turret (sloped equivilent), 135mm side turret

Go to the top of the page

WesWorld

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted