WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Atlantis too has stayed within the range of 20 tons for its largest tanks, the Sabre (20) and Sentinel (19).

I agree with Hrolf, the Sher will be an extreme liability to the Indian army given the mobility issues. A far better choice would be an smaller tank based on the FT-17 which could be available in significant numbers and at a much cheaper price. Their were plenty of post war improvements to the basic FT-17 design. and a TS-12/T-20 type would seem more likely for India, at least IMO.

I know the mobility issues concerns. That is the reasoning of reducing the size of the vehicle. Well liked for infantry support but too slow. Also the conerns at the time of the vehicle being acquired should be the expected fortifications in the British-Indian border and a large tank makes sense for the Indian Army of the 1920's. The problem is the wars they fought in the 1920's and 30's were the opposite of the expected ones (an amphibious operation plus a campaign against a light armed enemy but reading the Asir war entries I can see the Sher being used effectively in the urban warfare entries of that war.)

Still with India not being in short supply of personell the extra protection of an engine would be sheer folly. The reasoning behind the Merkeva is that because of the shortage of personell, the tank is expendable.

As for the troop carrying capability's, again quite a luxury for a tanks design of the period, particularily when half tracks are much cheaper and mobile.

True in regard to being a folly, but makes easier for supply concerns, especially went your production is concentrated in two factories.

In regard to the engine on front, read the armor development of the Indian vehicles. The Gaada have the engine up front to give extra protection to the crews due their weak armor. With the workers already accostumed to build a design like this is only natural to use the extra protection if the precedent already exist. So basically, yes, is a little too much for a tank with a 50mm armor to have the engine up front but as I said makes easier for the design of the vehicle went the precedent already exist and they are basically using the same engine as the Sher, the Gaada and the Karna. (a V12 with hp around 350-400). Also is not the shortage of personnel the main problem, is the shortage of trained personnel. Even with a all the progress in India made by Rocky many of the recruits would have never in their life have seem a motor vehicle and must likely never will after leaving the Army expect for their National Cadre service time. India is not Europe or the Americas with large urbanized areas. Trained crews are a valuable commodity, infantry is expendable tank crews no. That's why they are an elite.

I find a good deal of my objection is to advancing tank tech beyond where it should be. This is 1935, not 1941. I am not keen on the +3-5 rule for aircraft piston engines and do not want to watch tanks race ahead. I find it odd that in a naval sim, ship engines are what seem to lag.

I have a number of issues with the development of the Indian armored force. Given the campaigns that India has been involved with, and the news reports previously, the overall storyline (though your vignettes are very well written) does not seem to mesh with previous history.

In regards to the Sher, using the superheavy French Char 2C design (India, a close friend of Germany, lent money to France?) as a starting point and producing 300 without the world taking notice? France built 10 as prestige pieces. Certainly if they were near the Malaysian border the Brits may have noticed. You indicate later they were in Asir, the world would have noticed such behemoths. This is a storyline and past history problem.

The Agars are much more in line with expectations, though the armor may be a tad thick, it is within reason.

The Gaadas, while odd, are good examples. The storyline element of selected short crew fits with Rockys backstory. However, if complexity is a problem due to technical backgrounds, then a hard-to access front engine with electric transmission may not be the best way to go.

I would think Russian-style simplicity would be the logical choice. The Gaadas should have performed very well against SALSA, and fairly well in Asir. The 13.2mm Anti-tank rifles did claim some tanks there, probably Agars or Gaadas. If anything, they seemed to have proved useful. The lack of heavy guns would be irrelevant since I do not believe they faced armor.

As for the Argun, no, it does not make every other tank obsolete, but the Argun pushes the envelope for no real reason. The combat experience is again against foes with little anti-armor exp, and Indian tanks seemed to have worked well. For example, look at the Japanese tanks of WWII- worked just fine in low intensity environments such as the Indians to date have experienced.

The 55mm cannon I did not like on the South African vehicles, and said so, as it to big to soon. The infantry carrying is an expensive luxury, taking additional length and thus armor & track weight and transmission strain. The tank is bigger, better armed, and better armored than a tank of that period should be and prior storyline supports.

Under Rocky, the Indian army had an armored force, thats a given. However, despite being in various conflicts, there was never an indication that it was world beating.
Further, there is a distinct track record of German technical advice, and the Germans do not have anything like these. Then there is the Skoda-Davao connection, most recent experience is the Lt-33 tank, a much smaller and lighter vehicle than the Argun. Even the South Afrikan heavies are not as large or as heavily armored.

IMHO, the Argun will be fine later, it is a bit early now.

I disagree on the 55mm cannon. The Germans have the 50mm and Atlantis has a 57mm gun, both to take on HE shells.

300 Char B clones would be incredibly expensive, in addition to being hard to not notice.

No mention of the behemots in combat could be stated as the vehicles being used, the combat in an urban enviroment seems like the perfect example of the vehicle. Alll I can do is reduce the size to 20 tons and it will be at par with the other vehicles in the war plus use a 75mm gun as an anti-infantry vehicle instead of the 55mm gun. After doing it I noticed that it makes more sense to have an anti personnel gun due to the lack of tank to tank combat.

But I can't understand the concern. The only advantage the vehicle have is the weight (Ok, I have to admit it gives it a lot of space to further growing but the German and Dutch vehicles are not different) For example why the Dutch decide for a vehicle like the one they are building when they have no combat experience at all since the Great War IIRC. On the contrary their combat experience is in a tropical enviroment were light tankettes makes more sesne than a 20 ton tank. Even the Panzer III have a 70mm front hull.

And why the world have to know that 300 tanks exists? The reason the tanks were build were to fight in the Pakistani/Indian border. Must likely the SALSA campaign saw the Karna and the Gaada tanks. Asir on the other hand could have seen a small number of then, a maximum of 60 perhaps. Also I'm not saying it will be cheap but 25 tanks a year sounds unreasonable? France made their 10 in one year. The reason they didn't made more was the reasoning for them to be build was over.

Also don't worry to much. Production rate should not be more than 100 annually.

The thing is the French had a real need for "breakthrough" tanks durring WW1 and had the industry to produce them in significant numbers.

Hmm well then I apparently I missed objecting to some Atlantean tank weapons as well. Then there are some armored bathtubs on display in Australia years before their time...

Why would the world know? For the same reason that you cite the T-30 for a design consideration. If India had 300 Shers, then sometime in the past decade the Brits should have been a bit nervous about them, etc etc. They did not appear in the backstory. As for the Arguns, they are too early.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
For example why the Dutch decide for a vehicle like the one they are building when they have no combat experience at all since the Great War IIRC. On the contrary their combat experience is in a tropical enviroment were light tankettes makes more sesne than a 20 ton tank.

Ok, serious answer :

Actually, much of the Dutch tank force is amphibious Vickers tankettes with 13.2mm guns or the Skoda Lt-33 which they can buy on the open market (and is replacing the FT-17). The Dutch actually put in additional orders for tankettes and feel they are valuable, because they work for low-intensity engagements such as in DEI.

The Dutch future model of war on the homefront is a sort of mini verdun. The likely opponent is either France (due to AANM) or on it's way to Germany, or Germany on it's way to France. They want to strongly discourage any of the above.

They have a fortified belt which they expect will slow and constrain attacks. Breakthroughs will be channelized and can be counterattacked. However, the counter attacks will need to contain armor. The "Sonic" which has now inspired the German Nebelwerfer is a result of this need.
For a tank, this battlefield requires provisions for a long (cross trenchs and shell holes) tank, with low ground pressure (for the churned up low country mud and flooding of fields), with a fair amount of all round armor (for heavy artillery environments, and chaotic meeting engagements at breakthroughs). If anywhere, an APC or infantry carrying tank would seem reasonable in that environment.

That length and track width, as well as questionable armor allocation (thick top & bottom, rear) serve as the "errors", much like the S-35's two man turret, or Char 1B's side radiator, which were common in tanks of that period. I also stepped the engine down from what the tank volume could "take" as fast was not a reasonable priority.

As for the 13.2mm MG that was derided as a slow ROF, it also is far more useful against the temporary field facilities one might encounter in such an engagement.

The tank is mainly an expanded S-35 tailored for Dutch concerns, with a dash of Char-1B and with Czech suspension. The only real oops is I didn't realize the S-35 would not be in service in 1935, so arguably I should have delayed another year. It is a good tank, in keeping with the time frame, but it is deliberately not the "best" tank possible.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Hmm well then I apparently I missed objecting to some Atlantean tank weapons as well.

....and the German 50mm?

I'm trying to make an evolutionary path on the inverse going from a heavy to a medium tank opposite to the rest of the world. Also the 300 is only for information purposes only. Pretty much will be classified information in the 1920's at least. But I agree the British presence in both Pakistan and Burma should be larger than the one IOTL.

Also will eliminate the mentions of a Guard Corps. The Indian Army is mainly an infantry force and ideas of mobile units on a large scale are too revolutionary for them. The largest units will be tank battalions and motorized cavalry regiments.

Reduced the number of tanks produced to match the expected use of Indian tanks as support units for the Infantry Corps. As such all production have being reduced to match that.

So what will the actual number of Sher tanks be? If the French only built 10 Char B's due to the end of the war why would India see the need to build 300?

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
So what will the actual number of Sher tanks be? If the French only built 10 Char B's due to the end of the war why would India see the need to build 300?

Already reduced to around 135 for the 12 year production run. They should be around nine tanks per battalion in a heavy tank company. The Karna was a very short production run, enough for three companies, while was overproduced a little bit to export some to Persia. Basically India build around 300 tanks of all types for 12 years. After expected combat losses some units should be somewhat understrengh in regard to their allocated TO&E.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Hmm well then I apparently I missed objecting to some Atlantean tank weapons as well.

....and the German 50mm?

The German 50mm is what historically was intended for the Panzer III, it was reduced to a 37mm in the early models for logistic commonality with the then-current 37mm AT gun (but the turret ring remained sized for the larger weapon). In WW, though, the 37mm AT gun isn't used in 1935, the only German AT gun so far standardized is the 28/20mm squeeze bore, which isn't a viable gun for a medium tank (very, very limited HE capabillity). So there's no logistic argument for reducing the 50mm to a 37mm (and in the not too distant future, it's likely that the logistic argument will go the opposite way and encourage the adoption of a 50mm AT gun over the competing 42/28mm squeeze bore)

I just wondered if Kirk was aware of that or not.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Hmm well then I apparently I missed objecting to some Atlantean tank weapons as well.

....and the German 50mm?

I thought I had objected to it at the time. Just because I think it's silly to introduce a 1940 weapon in the mid 1930s, and to size the ATGs up for HE capability when the mid-30s saw a lot of either/or; doesn't mean folks agree or listen.

Some countries did the either/or thing, others didn't. The historical Panzer III's didn't, the 37mm was equipped with a HE round (not nearly as effective as the 75mm round on the Pz IV, but it was half the bore size so no surprise). As mentioned, the historical intent was to use a 50mm, it just got sidetracked by the quartermasters and put on hold.

37mm was the established minimum legal size for HE rounds in one of the conferences, which may be why we see a number of 37-40mm early tank guns. Since we've established Rhinemettal does produce one- used by the Argies and Dutch, there would be one available.

We see 75mm low velocity weapons for HE use on a number of tanks. It's not just twice the bore size, it's about 8x the mass. A 57mm is about 4-5x the mass of 37mm.

I'm not a tank expert, so simple question- In the real world, which country(s) fielded a standard tank with a 55-57mm antitank gun in the mid 1930s? I have not run across one that I recall, hence my objections.

I still object to the Argun with the 55mm and the Merkava elements, and I don't like the idea of the Shers being added as a past history. Even 135 may have prompted real concern from the Brits and spurred a British counter tank in the 1920s, which would have had a ripple effect.

Why not base off the German AV7? India received German technical support. It still fails to make sense that a country Germany was hoping would be an ally would threaten the British, invade the Dutch, and lend money to the French, then post war continue German (and South Afrikaan) tech support.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Even 135 may have prompted real concern from the Brits and spurred a British counter tank in the 1920s, which would have had a ripple effect.

But on the other that could explain the earlier development of heavier AT weapons in WW than IOTL in the 1930's. The British could be content just to develop a gun powerful enough to penetrate 50mm armor or just create special ammo for use with their current gunsin their Asian fortifications, cheaper than going into an expensive tank development program so close to the end of the Great War. So the economic realities of the British nation after the end of the Great War could have made that close to economic suicide.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Why not base off the German AV7? India received German technical support. It still fails to make sense that a country Germany was hoping would be an ally would threaten the British, invade the Dutch, and lend money to the French, then post war continue German (and South Afrikaan) tech support.

You have a good point and must likely will work in changing the entry to demonstrate that.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
37mm was the established minimum legal size for HE rounds in one of the conferences, which may be why we see a number of 37-40mm early tank guns. Since we've established Rhinemettal does produce one- used by the Argies and Dutch, there would be one available.

Oh, it's certainly available, there's just no logistical advantage to the German army in standardizing the tank gun (which was requested to be a 50mm weapon) on a smaller 37mm weapon when that weapon isn't in service in Germany. Rheinmetall is producing the towed gun, but it isn't a drop-in gun for vehicle use, various changes would have to be made to it to make it work and without the gun already being in service there's little impetus to change out the larger gun for the smaller one.

Quoted

I'm not a tank expert, so simple question- In the real world, which country(s) fielded a standard tank with a 55-57mm antitank gun in the mid 1930s? I have not run across one that I recall, hence my objections

The Japanese had a pair of medium tank designs built during the 30s armed with 57mm guns (the Type 89 and the Type 97). A number of other countries used weapons in the 45mm-47mm class (Russia, France).