WesWorld

AT-37 (TT-37) prototype
Originally designed by transall to be a standard FAR heavy/breakthrough tank, the TT-37 is largely based on a design by Russian Zhozef Kotin and utilizes experience from other designers and manufacturers from various FAR nations.

The design will see several minor changes depending on each nations specifications, the AT-37 is the Atlantean version. The design uses sloped armour for its heavy Glasis plate and very thick armour for its mantlet as well.


Atlantean production model

Prototype

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


AT-36 1A1 Cruiser tank




Model: AT-36/75
Type: Fast Tank
Crew: 4 (Commander, Loader, Hull Gunner, Driver)
Weight: 28 tons
Length: 6.7 meters
Width: 3 meters
Height: 3 meters
Speed: 37 MPH
Engine: 600hp
Range: 275 miles
Armament: 1x75mm/L45 Cannon in turret; 1x.50cal in turret; 1x.30cal in hull
Armour: 50mm front hull, 35mm side hull, 60mm front turret, 20mm side turret

Model: AT-36/57
Type: Fast Tank
Crew: 4 (Commander, Loader, Hull Gunner, Driver)
Weight: 26 tons
Length: 6.7 meters
Width: 3 meters
Height: 3 meters
Speed: 40 MPH
Engine: 600hp
Range: 275 miles
Armament: 1x57mm/L45 Cannon in turret; 1x.50cal in turret; 1x.30cal in hull
Armour: 50mm front hull, 35mm side hull, 60mm front turret, 20mm side turret

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
AT-37 (TT-37) prototype
Originally designed by transall to be a standard FAR heavy/breakthrough tank, the TT-37 is largely based on a design by Russian Zhozef Kotin and utilizes experience from other designers and manufacturers from various FAR nations.

The design will see several minor changes depending on each nations specifications, the AT-37 is the Atlantean version. The design uses sloped armour for its heavy Glasis plate and very thick armour for its mantlet as well.

Model: AT(TT)-37/75
Type: Heavy Tank
Crew: 5 (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.

Agreed, VERY HEAVY armor. A KV-1, I guess (though the Atlantean version is a KV-85 picture), but apparently with more armor and power, a more powerful gun, but with less weight. Some of these things don't go together very well...... What are the actual armor thicknesses, in comparison to the KV-1s? Crew is listed as 5 men, but only 4 positions are shown, I expect the hull gunner's missing.

If France and Russia start producing these, Germany's going to be VERY, VERY glad it had it's own heavy tank project in the works.

Quoted

AT-36 1A1 Cruiser tank
Model: AT-36/75
Type: Fast Tank
Crew: 4 (Commander, Loader, Hull Gunner, Driver)
Weight: 28 tons
Length: 6.7 meters
Width: 3 meters
Height: 3 meters
Speed: 40 MPH
Engine: 600hp
Range: 275 miles
Armament: 1x75mm/L45 Cannon in turret; 1x.50cal in turret; 1x.30cal in hull
Armour: 50mm front hull, 35mm side hull, 60mm front turret, 20mm side turret

Model: AT-36/57
Type: Fast Tank
Crew: 4 (Commander, Loader, Hull Gunner, Driver)
Weight: 26 tons
Length: 6.7 meters
Width: 3 meters
Height: 3 meters
Speed: 40 MPH
Engine: 600hp
Range: 275 miles
Armament: 1x57mm/L45 Cannon in turret; 1x.50cal in turret; 1x.30cal in hull
Armour: 50mm front hull, 35mm side hull, 60mm front turret, 20mm side turret

Is the .50 coaxial? The speed is very high for the period for a tracked vehicle, it's useful while the tracks stay on and the suspension hangs together, but using it will be hard on both the vehicle and the crew.

I agree. Too much armor for less weight. With 1930's tech I would expect this thing to be over 50 tons and around 25 to 30 Km/hr not miles. Closer to a T-35.

Also agree in the speed of the other vehicles. Maybe SA tried to say km/hr insteed of miles.

It has a larger engine and significantly more armor than a KV-85, which weighed 46 metric tons. The smaller gun than the KV-85 will save some weight, but not enough, so yeah, you're looking somewhere around 48-50 tons or so if you don't widen the KV-85s tracks.

With reguards to the AT/TT-37, its "sloped equivilent" and not actual thickness. Its also slightly smaller than a historical KV. Stats are based on a tanksharp file so can't really comment on the weight issue. Given the smaller size and welding the weight seemed fine to me when I saw the file. Crew is supposed to be 4, thats an error.

AT-36: speeds not much higher than the AT-35 and its doubtfull speeds like that will be attained for even breif periods.

The KV was 6.75m long, the AT-37 is 7m long, the other dimensions are the same. So the AT-37, with nothing else different from the KV, would weigh more.

Tanksharp's a pretty good tool, but you have to tweak it or it's errors as written will give you bad output.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
With reguards to the AT/TT-37, its "sloped equivilent" and not actual thickness. Its also slightly smaller than a historical KV. Stats are based on a tanksharp file so can't really comment on the weight issue. Given the smaller size and welding the weight seemed fine to me when I saw the file. Crew is supposed to be 4, thats an error.

AT-36: speeds not much higher than the AT-35 and its doubtfull speeds like that will be attained for even breif periods.

For the speeds still is too high for a vehicle that heavy. The T-34 in 1941 only went as fast as 33 mph with close to ten less tons.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
With reguards to the AT/TT-37, its "sloped equivilent" and not actual thickness. Its also slightly smaller than a historical KV. Stats are based on a tanksharp file so can't really comment on the weight issue. Given the smaller size and welding the weight seemed fine to me when I saw the file. Crew is supposed to be 4, thats an error.

AT-36: speeds not much higher than the AT-35 and its doubtfull speeds like that will be attained for even breif periods.

For the speeds still is too high for a vehicle that heavy. The T-34 in 1941 only went as fast as 33 mph with close to ten less tons.

Are you refering to the AT-36 or the 37? If the latter you could have a point. If the former I disagree.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
With reguards to the AT/TT-37, its "sloped equivilent" and not actual thickness. Its also slightly smaller than a historical KV. Stats are based on a tanksharp file so can't really comment on the weight issue. Given the smaller size and welding the weight seemed fine to me when I saw the file. Crew is supposed to be 4, thats an error.

AT-36: speeds not much higher than the AT-35 and its doubtfull speeds like that will be attained for even breif periods.

For the speeds still is too high for a vehicle that heavy. The T-34 in 1941 only went as fast as 33 mph with close to ten less tons.

Are you refering to the AT-36 or the 37? If the latter you could have a point. If the former I disagree.

Both. The AT-36 is comparable to a T-34 of circa 1941. The maximum speed of a T-34 of that time was around 33mph.

The AT-37 as mentioned before is closer to the KV-1 and the speed of one in circa 1941 was around 25mph. With the armor you're presenting they shoudl be even slower.

The KV was slower, yes, but the AT-37 has 200 more horsepower than the KV had, so it will be faster (even if it weighs 50+ tons) than the KV.

Similarly, the AT-36 has 100 more horsepower than the T-34, so it will be faster. The M3 was a bit faster than a T-34, at 36 mph, with a similar power to weight ratio as the AT-36.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The KV was slower, yes, but the AT-37 has 200 more horsepower than the KV had, so it will be faster (even if it weighs 50+ tons) than the KV.

Similarly, the AT-36 has 100 more horsepower than the T-34, so it will be faster. The M3 was a bit faster than a T-34, at 36 mph, with a similar power to weight ratio as the AT-36.

So I guess I'm convinced in regard to the AT-36.

Still the armor presented for the AT-37 makes that vehicle IMO around 30mph max.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The KV was slower, yes, but the AT-37 has 200 more horsepower than the KV had, so it will be faster (even if it weighs 50+ tons) than the KV.

Similarly, the AT-36 has 100 more horsepower than the T-34, so it will be faster. The M3 was a bit faster than a T-34, at 36 mph, with a similar power to weight ratio as the AT-36.

So I guess I'm convinced in regard to the AT-36.

Still the armor presented for the AT-37 makes that vehicle IMO around 30mph max.

The problem with the AT-37 is that the weight is off by probably 10 tons or more, which throws everything else out the window.

Bulgaria has ordered 13 AT-37s (with 76.2mm gun) to equip the 13th Independent Armoured Company. Bulgaria is also receiving AT-36/57s in the Q3-Q4/1937 period, though they were delayed due to the Peruvian War...

Chile has ordered 48 AT37s and 60 AT36/76.2s to equip three Panzergrenadier regiments.

[size=1]These orders are made irregardless of whatever discussion determines regarding weight. And yes, it's intended that France and Russia are producing at least the TT-37 - it's the Transall design first proposed by France in early 1936.[/size]

Just my luck the Type 96 obsolescent even before I ordered it....

Nah, the Type 96 is still perfectly usable. Admittedly, it doesn't want to go head-to-head with a TT-37, but it will do just fine against the AT-36s.


That's a high proportion of heavy to medium tanks for Chile.

Just the fact that an invulnrable tank is on the field should be enough to kill morale, guess you were right no need for HV guns....

when the Type 96 was.... um.... how to put this.... introduced.

No doubt someone in SATSUMA will soon..... borrow.... an M-26/JSIII design in response.

Is invulnerable, not even the AT-37. Its tracks for instance should still be vulnerable to all AT guns in service, and the side armour should be able to be penetrated by most medium caliber AT guns. Knock out the tracks, and it just becomes a four man fortress which can be knocked out from the side or rear.

Saying that, Brazil would like to make to make some orders in 1938/39.

I was talking about the AT-37 which if I grossly overestimate the penetration of the so far presented guns on the Type 96 & Argentine Future medium (cant remember its name) and equal them to the OTL PaK 40 then they can kill it with a sideshot at close range

And I was talking about the 37 too, and just made an error. The 37 is heavily armoured, but not invulnerable. Even the ancient 75/1897 should kill it with a sideshot using HEAT shells, and considering the terrain Persia is fighting in, sideshots shouldn't be that uncommon.