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.
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.
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
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Hrolf Hakonson" (Oct 17th 2009, 1:18pm)
This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "perdedor99" (Oct 17th 2009, 1:21pm)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "TheCanadian" (Oct 17th 2009, 9:46pm)
This post has been edited 3 times, last edit by "TheCanadian" (Oct 17th 2009, 9:51pm)
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH