Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ground vehicles'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Official News and Information
    • Project News (Read Only)
    • Updates Information (Read Only)
    • Developers Blog (Read Only)
  • Academy
    • Welcome New Recruits - Check in Here
    • The Academy
  • Game Discussion
    • General Discussion
    • Game Mode Discussion
    • Machinery of War Discussion
    • Historical Discussion
  • Knights of the Sea - Closed Section for Beta Testers
  • Technical
    • Community Technical Support
    • Moderated Bug Reports
    • Moderated Suggestions
  • Mobile Applications
    • War Conflict
  • Community Related
    • War Thunder Live Community
    • War Thunder Wikipedia
    • Squadrons
    • eSport Section
    • Fan Zone
  • War Thunder Player Council Hall
    • WTPC Discussion
    • Player Council Information Area
    • WTPC Election Station
  • National Communities
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Česko-slovenská komunita
    • Społeczność polskojęzyczna
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Konuşan Topluluk
    • Comunidade Lingua Portuguesa
    • Communauté francophone
    • Other Languages

Calendars

  • Community Calendar



Found 39 results

  1. Forget about the Opel Maultier that i suggested, to "solve" the overkill that the Flak 38 produces at its BR, i found something much more fitting! Meet the Sonderkraftfahrzeug 10/4 mit Flugabwehrkanone 30! A german SPAAG first produced in 1939 to protect Hans and his friends from all those polish and french (and later on even soviet) aircraft. Keep in mind, this thing was NOT equipped with the Flak 38 that we see on most German SPAAGs but the Flak 30 that was in basically all aspects inferior to the 38 and would thus be much more suitable for tier 1! Images: From the shape of the gunshield you can tell if it was eqipped with the Flak 30 or 38 History: Specifications: Armament: 20mm Flak 30 - 240 round capacity however it usually carried Sd.Ah. 51 - Sonderanhänger - special single-axle trailer with 640 more rounds Rate of fire: around 280 round per minute cyclic with the standard 20 round magazine (the Flak 38 has 480 RPM in comparison) 360° traverse and -12° to +90° elevation Ammunition: there's very little data on ammo of the Flak 30 but judging from the muzzle velocity, it most likely uses the same kinds of ammo as the Flak 38. However, since the Flak 30 entered production in 1934 it might not receive the Panzergranate 40 (APCR/HVAP-T) round. Propulsion: The vehicle had a weight of around 5.5 tons (12 125,42ibs) and was powered by the Maybach HL42TRKM 6-cylinder engine putting out up to 100 HP. It had a top speed of 65 km/h (40mph) and with almost 20 hp/ton it should be pretty fast overall. Armour: It only really had structural steel but the gunshield of the Flak 30 was around 8mm thick - would suffer from hull-break! It would probably get 3 crew members - 1x driver, 1x commander and 1x gunner Dimensions: Lenght: 4.75m Width: 1.93 - 2.15m Height: 2.00m Conclusion: The Flak 38 on the Flakpanzer 1 and so forth is pretty overkill right now. Extremely effective in both shooting down aircraft and in the AT-role, so i want to change that! The Flak 30 might not receive the HVAPT round and due to the much lower RoF it would be much worse in the AA role as well. So what do you think? A vehicle that needs to added in order to finally nerf German low-tier SPAA a bit or do you think the Flak 30 is too weak or something like that? Leave your thoughts down below, vote on the poll and sorry for any minor grammar mistakes, my first language is german :3 Sources:
  2. Scandinavian tech tree. Excel sheet Gun sheet The tree (both air and ground) is now complete enough to be a valid tree in game. I will now list all vehicles in the tree. (will continue to update) Air forces Ground forces Here are some signatures for supporters. For tank fans For plane fans ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
  3. Greetings everyone ! At the moment the Germans are in need of some post-war vehicles in their line up to compete with other nations in the game. Today I would like to suggest some of the early variants of the Leopard tank series. Info: Early development of the Leopard series dates back in the mid-1950s when West Germany was allowed itself to rebuild (with NATO’s approval) its military defensive force in case of a Soviet threat. The main battle tank was part of this plan, and at the time Franco-German relationships were at the highest. So a project of common MBT was envisioned since both countries had similar specifications of what tank they wanted. The project was known later as the “Europanzer” and would have equipped the Germans to replace supplied US-supplied tanks like the M47 and M48. The MBT project, also known as the Standard-Panzer project in Germany, started in November 1956, The specifications require a 30 metric tons weight, a P/W ratio of 30 hp/ton, armor capable of resisting rapid-fire 20 mm (0.79 in) hits, and to be equipped with either a 90mm Rheinmetall or the new British L7 105 mm (4.13 in) rifled gun. Later in the production of the Leopard series, it was decided to use the L7 105mm gun as the tank primary weapon. Three groups worked on the project: Team A (Porsche) Team B (Rheinstahl-Henschel) Team C (Borgward). By 1960, Six of the series I prototypes were tested and the German military command ordered the production of the prototype II series of the tanks. Two groups: team A (Porsche) and team B(Rheinstahl-Henschel) completed a total of 32 prototype II series of the Leopard tanks by 1961. The Porsche Prototype II was eventually selected as the winner of the contest in 1963 and soon later production of the modern Leopard 1 went into military service into the German armed forces. Now that you have the history of the production of these tanks, here are the vehicles that I suggest would be useful on the German tank tree. 1. Leopard Prototype I A (Porsche) The prototype I A was armed with the 90mm Rheinmetall BK90 gun. 2. Leopard Prototype I B (Rheinstahl-Henschel) The prototype I B was armed with the 90mm Rheinmetall BK90 gun. 3. Leopard Prototype II A (Porsche) Prototype II A had a slight modification to its hull and armor upgrades. It maintains its L7 105mm gun. 4. Leopard Prototype II B (Henschel / Rheinmetall) Prototype II B has an upgraded suspension and hull design. The vehicle also upgraded from the Rheinmetall 90mm gun to the L7 105mm gun. -Overall, the suggested vehicles I have chosen total up to four tanks. -Two Prototype A series and Two Prototype B series. -BR for these tanks would be at around 7.0-7.3 (Note: BR for vehicles are decided by the developers themselves). Here is a data chart of the engine, suspension, main gun, and statistics of the Leopard Prototype series: Sources: [1] http://www.panzerpower.de/ger/leo1_geschichte.htm [2] http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_kpz_leopard_1-a.htm [3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Dieselmotoren_für_militärische_Rad-_und_Kettenfahrzeuge_der_MTU_Friedrichshafen [4] KPz Leopard 1: 1956-2003 (Rolf Holmes) [5] http://preservedtanks.com/Types.aspx?TypeCategoryId=400 [6] Leopard 1 MBT in German Army Service - Early Years [7] Leopard 1 Main Battle Tank 1965–95 Here is a graph with a timeline of the Leopard prototype versions: More Photos of the Leopard prototype series: Leopard Prototype I A: Leopard Prototype I B: Leopard Prototype II A Leopard Prototype II B: So why have these tanks in-game ? By adding these post-war vehicles I think It would put Germany on par with the other nations in the game and would balance out the gameplay of the Matchmaking. Sidenote: Some of the information are from various books and online sites. If there is any misinformation I posted here, please fell free to put them in the comments below. Thank you ! Main Sources: Leopard 1 MBT in German Army Service - Early Years Frank Lobitz (Book) kampfpanzer Leopard 1 mit neuen dimensionen im panzerbau (translation: Battle tank Leopard 1 with new dimensions in panzerbau) Von Michael Scheibert (Book) Tank Encyclopedia: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/West_Germany/Leopard-I.php (Web) Other Sources: http://www.panzerpower.de/ger/leo1_geschichte.htm http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_kpz_leopard_1-a.htm http://preservedtanks.com/Types.aspx?TypeCategoryId=400
  4. 2k22 Tunguska ; the official successor to the ZSU23-4 Shilka 2k22 Tunguska: General Specifications Weight about 35,000 kg (77,000 lb) Length about 7.90 m (25 ft 11 in) Width about 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in) Height about 4 m (13 ft 1 in) or about 3.35 m (10 ft) (radar stowed) Crew 4 (vehicle commander, driver, gunner, radar operator) Armour : protects the vehicle from 7.62 mm small arms fire and shell splinters Main armament: 8 × 9M311 Missiles Secondary armament: 2 × 30 mm 2А38M , (1,904 rounds carried) Gun elevation/ Depression : + 80 degrees / - 6 degrees Engine : V-46-6-MS, V-12 with 780 HP Transmission: Hydromechanical Suspension: Hydropneumatics Ground clearance: 7–57 cm Operational range: 500 km (310 mi) Speed: 65 km/h maximum (on roads) Early warning radar : Detection range 20 Km, Tracking range 11 KM. 3m911 Missile Specifications Weight 57 kg Length: 2560 mm Warhead: Continuous-rod and steel cubes Warhead weight: 9 kg Detonation Mechanism: Laser fuse Propellant: Solid-fuel rocket Operational range: 8 KM Flight ceiling: 3,500 metres (11,500 ft) Boost time: stages: boost to 900 m/s, then sustained 600 m/s stage to range Speed 900 m/s maximum Guidance system: Radio Command guidance , SACLOS based Steering system: rocket motor with four steerable control surfaces History: The Missile system: So to Sum up In essense this IS a valid additon for a Tier 6 ground forces to suceed the ZSU23-4 Shilka, especially if Tier 6 Air forces come around. The ZSU's missile system would not break gameplay because Radar is used as for detecting targets as well as provding ranging for the Gunner Soultion ( tracking and a Lead INdicator) whilst the Missiles are SACLOS guided requiring operator targeting until impact. IN essense they will work just like AGTM's for ground forces except being used for aircraft. if implemented it would be mouse guided by a player maintaining cross hairs on a aircraft so the missile will travel to that location. However if you overshoot or miss a target the missile will not be able to tun around. It Motor burns out quick , detaches and then stage 2 it relies on Kintetic enegry. IT looses energy fast. and By the time it reach 8KM distance its Kinetic energy has ran out and the begins to fall towards the ground, and Explodes, and another shot is needed. IT has a maxlimum of 8 93M11 Missiles. At closer distances it will be more practical to use a its 30 mm guns as as there is a minum distance and the inital rocket motor makes it difficult to maintai visual contant with a Air target. The easiest way to counterwill be not caresely and constnatly fly at low altitudes. Even if flying at low altitudes & it launches missiles , evasive manuvers should make a player Controlling a missile towards a Aircraft difificult to hit. It is not ideally suited to Fast flying aircraft and last but not least. IF Tier 6 aircraft include aircraft with Radar Warning Recieivers , Player will know One is active due to radar soruce, and they will get a Unique Tone and symobology chhange that they specfically are being targeted by that spefic Tunguska ( when locks them) , However again the Missile itslef is not reliant on radar lock. Radar lock is just for providing a lead indicator for gunnnery. It is a SACLOS missile guided up to 5 meters before detonation from a given target. Ethier way such a feature would further negate the SACLOS missile because no one would be caught by surprise. Virtual Example Some Videos below of how Implenation in Game could work , certainly simple enough , and easy enough for a player to operate for a game environment like War thunder, that is a MMO and not a Study SIM. Also too note these tests are done against predictable flying aircraft not attempting to engage me , And as you will see even then not a impressive hit rate at altitudes above 1000m (absolute max the 3m911 can effectively reach is 3,500 meters altitude) 2K22 Vs Slow mover ( A10) 2k22 VS Fast mover ( F5 tiger) Sources http://www.military-today.com/artillery/2s6_tunguska.htm http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tunguska/ http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-96K6-Pantsir-2K22-Tunguska.html https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=18 http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4112249/sa-19-grison-2k22-tunguska
  5. Suggestion: The addition of the very first Leopard 2 MBT to the German tech tree as their final tier 6 (or at a later date tier 7) vehicle to War Thunder Ground Forces. [Spoiler Alert !!! - Image Intensive!!!] Background: On 24. and 25. October 1979, the fourth Leopard 2 MBT ever produced was handed over to the Bundeswehr in a ceremony. The vehicle was the first series production vehicle as the first three had been pre-production vehicles. The ceremony marked the beginning of series production, and its delivery to the Bundeswehr signified the beginning of operational service for the Leopard 2. (Source: Frank Lobitz - Leopard 2 - Entwicklung und Einsatz in der Bundeswehr) General Specifications: Leopard 2A4 specifications - Note: The actual weight of a Leopard 2A4 is 56.5 metric tons, not 55.15 as in the case of the Leopard 2A0. Mobility - The acceleration behavior of the Leopard 2A0 on a street (Krapke) The wall climbing, trench bridging, gradiant climbing and tilting characteristics of the Leopard 2A0 (Krapke) Firepower - The Leopard 2A0s main armament consist of the Rheinmetall 120 mm L44 (44 calibre) smoothbore gun. The Leopard 2A0 would be equipped with the DM13 APFSDS-T round and the DM12 HEAT-T round. Starting in 1983 , the DM23 APFSDS-T round would become available as well. Accuracy of the 120mm Rheinmetall gun at various distances without the help of the ballistic computer or a misfiring. Protection - The Leopard 2 protection has been optimized to offer the best protection inside the frontal 60 degree arch particularly for the turret. Approximate frontal "weak zones": Armor Distribution: Official requirements: This document fragment suggests that the Leopard 2 should be able to resist 105 mm APDS rounds (most likely the DM13 APDS penetration: 322 mm RHAe) as well MILAN ATGMs. (Penetration 650 mm RHAe) This diagram suggests that the Leopard 2 (A0-A3) equipped with 1st generation protection is meant to be able resist the 125 mm armaments of the T72 and T64B tanks. This diagram illustrates the ranges at which the toughest part of the Leopard 2 (A0) turret gets perforated. Source: Paul W. Krapke - Leopard 2 - sein Werden und seine Leistung Note: One could reasonably assume that the toughest part of the turret of a Leopard 2(A0-A3) would most likely be the left turret cheek with a line-of-sight thickness of up to 840 mm. According to the table above, the most sophisticated KE round available to a T-72 during the the early years of the Leopard 2 was the 125 mm BM-22 round with a penetration performance of 450 mm RHAe. During the same time frame, the top-of-the-line APFSDS-T rounds of the T-62 suggests a perfomance of between 430 - 460 mm RHAe for the BM-21 and BM-28 rounds respectively. Source: Steel Beasts Wiki 2016 Source: War Thunder Wiki 2017 Estimates: Protection: 450 mm RHAe - Rolf Hilmes 2017 (I would think that this would refer to the KE resistance of the toughest part of the turret of a Leopard 2A0-2A3) This publication suggests that the Leopard 2 offers a KE resistance of about 400 mm and a CE resistance of about 700 mm. Source: Armed Forces Journal International - February 1989 This is an estimate by Militarysta of http://btvt.narod.ru - His estimate gives the Leopard 2A0-2A3 turret cheek(s) a resistance of about 470 mm RHAe for KE rounds and about 650 mm RHAe against CE rounds. Given the information above, the Leopard 2(A0) left turret cheek seems to have a KE resistance of about 330 mm RHAe at the very least and about 470 mm RHAe against sub-calibre KE rounds at the very most. Given a line of sight thickness of up to 840-860 mm this would give the left turret cheek a respective armor thickness (co) efficiency (TE) of between 0.388 and 0.553. In both cases. For CE resistance the estimates seem to hover around 650-850 mm RHAe. This would make the left turret cheek of the Leopard 2A0 resistant to the MILAN 1 ATGM as originally outlined in the official document. The side hull in detail: This image shows the approximate thicknesses of the side hull of a Leopard 2A6. The side hull of a Leopard 2A0 will most likely not be much different. A closer look at the hull cross-section of a Leopard 2 Location of the main gun ammunition-bunkers on a Leopard 2(A0-A4) - 42 main gun rounds can be carried (15 turret / 27 hull). Sources: http://www.kotsch88.de/m_120_mm.htm http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Ammunition_Data http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/leopard2/Leo2a4.htm http://www.tankograd.com/cms/website.php?id=/en/Kampfpanzer-LEOPARD-2.htm https://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/press_room/official_releases/nr/2006/dec/11dec06_nr2/11dec06_fs.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWb-hH_MxiY&t=334s https://www.amazon.com/Hilmes-Kampfpanzer-heute-morgen-Hardcover/dp/B00SB5LXP2 https://www.amazon.de/Leopard-sein-Werden-seine-Leistung/dp/3833414251 End
  6. In the early 1980's, after neither the Object 685 or Object 934 was accepted for service, it was becoming apparent that the VDV was lacking in a means of adequately engaging the new generation of NATO MBTs. At that time main bulk of the VDV was BMD-1s and BTR-Ds, both of which were incapable of dealing with modern MBTs. At the same time, with the IL-76 just entering service, the transportation capabilities of the VDV had been significantly increased. The increases of capabilities came from the IL-76 being able carry a total of 40 tons and being able to carry a 20 ton vehicle. With that in mind, it was decided that it was useless to just upgrade the existing fleet of AFVs. During the search for a base chassis to use, TsNIITochMash(Central Scientific Research Center Institute Of Precision Engineering) came to the conclusion that the the chassis from Object 934 would be suitable for use. As what was most likely a "proof of concept", in 1983, one of the three Object 934 prototypes were transferred to TsNIITochMash, where a prototype 125-MM SPG was manufactured between 1983 and 1984. In 1984, firing test were conducted at the Kubinka , showing that the accuracy was no worse that current MBTs and the stress placed on the crew was within the acceptable limits. On October 20, 1985, the green light was given on the development of the SPG, by a decision of the Military Industrial Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. At the same time, the SPG was given the code name "Sprut-SD" and the Object number 952. At some point, it was decided to use a lengthened BMD-3 chassis, instead of 934's. This was most likely done for the sake of commonality. Means of the landing were to be carried out by a system designated P260 and were developed from the P235 parachute-jet(intended to land the BMP-3) Between 1990 and 1991 state test were conducted on the SPG. During the tests, the P260 showed to major shortcomings, it was expensive and complex. On May 30th, 1994, by a decision on the Russian Air Force, the Airborne Forces of the Russian Federation, and the developer on the P260, the P260 was cancelled and the P260M was ordered into development. In 2001, after the UFP was modified, the 2S25 would again undergo state trials. In 2005 it would finally be accepted into service with the VDV. A 2S25 being loaded with the P260M parachute-jet system. Designation:- 2S25 Self Propelled Gun Dimensions:- Length: 23.2 feet Length with gun forward: 32.05 feet Height: 10 feet Width: 10.3 feet Crew: 3 (Driver, Gunner, Commander) Weight: 18 tons Protection: The hull and turret is made from aluminum alloy and the hull and turret front have an additional steel sheet. Frontal arc is for 23-MM and the sides are rated for 12.7 Mobility:- Engine: 2B-06-2C diesel engine out putting 520hp Top speed: 43.4 mph Top speed in reverse: 43.4 mph Top speed in the water: 5.5 mph Firepower:- 125-MM 2A75 Rate of Fire: 6-8 rounds per minute Regarding ammunition:- Ammunition load: 22 rounds carried in the automatic loader and an additional 18 carried outside the automatic loader 7.62-MM PKT Ammunition load: 2000 rounds Maximum gun angles: -5-+15 Sources:- For the museum piece pictures: http://myauu.livejournal.com/150626.html http://btvt.info/1inservice/sprut/2c25sprut.htm http://vmk.tplants.com/ru/products/dd3000/ https://topwar.ru/570-125-mm-samoxodnaya-protivotankovaya-pushka-2s25-sprut-sd.html https://topwar.ru/24861-boevye-mashiny-na-baze-bmd-3-chast-1-sprut.html Information for the ammunition: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/
  7. I would like to suggest a nice and forgotten SPAA of 1945, the Flakpanzer IV Ostwind II Introduction the Ostwind II was a late SPAA designed in January 1945 and was mounting the Flakzwilling 44 37mm gun (actually a twin flak 43 side by side on a mount similar to the M42) the desing was simply a upgraded Ostwind with twin cannon. the Ostwind II was mounted on the PanzerKampwagen IV chassis with a Flakpanzer III turret (same as ostwind and Windelwind) in Junuary 1945 a single prototype was built at Teplitz or Duisburg (depending to the source) by Ostbau and soon after, 100 Ostwind II was ordered. 90 Flakpanzer III turret was ordered related to the production of the Ostwind II. the Russian took the Ostbau faculties soon after the order and before any other Ostwind II could be built and the prototype was lost with it (most likely destroy). The Ostwind II was considered as obsolete as soon it was designed. the Flakpaner was all to be replaced by the Flakpanzer IV Kugelblitz in early 1945. the Ostwind II was simply ordered out of urgent need to have the SPAA against the Allied air superiority. the design of the Ostwind II was simple and fast and could easily be used to upgrade the Ostwind into Ostwind II. the production of the OstWind had been carried on in Selicia's Ostbau faculty and was interrupted to be moved to Teplitz and Duisburg and was about to start again when the order of the Ostwind II took place (Probably to replace the Ostwind) twin flak 43 as used on ship Specifications Weight 26 tonnes Length 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in) Width 2.95 m (9 ft 8 in) Height 3 m (9 ft 10 in) Crew 5 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, Radio Operator) Armor 10–80 mm Main armament 2x 3.7 cm FlaK 44 L/89 1,000 rounds Secondary armament 1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 1,350 rounds Engine 12-cylinder Maybach HL 120 TRM 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW gasoline) Power/weight 12 PS/tonne Suspension leaf spring Operational range 200 km (120 mi) Speed 36 km/h (23 mph) Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_IV http://www.panzerkaput.ru/index/quot_ostwind_quot_ii/0-449 http://www.achtungpanzer.com/flakpanzer-iv-wirbelwind-ostwind.htm http://firearmcentral.wikia.com/wiki/File:Flakpanzer_IV_Ostwind_II_drawing.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Panzer_IV_variants https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_IV
  8. Panzerjäger Wanze

    It was 1945. The Germans were being pushed in on both sides. Needing a small, mobile, tank hunter for urban warfare (like defending Berlin), they looked at using Panzerschrecks (8.8cm Raketenpanzerbüchse 54/1) on vehicles. Their (Hitler) strategy was basically when retreating to leave isolated garrisons at certain cities and stuff, a terrible idea but nonetheless the one used. This rocket used was a powerful one, able to penetrate 220mm of armor at 200m. So they got a bunch of unmanned Ladungsträger SdKfz. 301 Borgward  IV Ausf. B. and C. which were unmanned demolition vehicles, and converted them into tank hunters. These new franken-vehicles were called the Panzerjäger Wanze, or tank hunting bug! The C. was bigger and heavier than the B. so they were converted differently. "In Borgward IV Ausf. B, one built in an extra seat for thegunner to the left of the driver, protected by an armored plate in the front. The rocket unit was then mounted to the left of the gunner. This rocket unit could be turned by the gunner through a shoulder support. On the rocket barrels a plate was attached to protect the gunner from shrapnel whirled up by the rockets when fired. Ausf. Cs were rebuilt in the same manner, with the exception for the driver being seated to the extreme left." The rocket unit consisted of 6 Panzerschrecks which were all fired at once. They also had 3 smoke launchers in the front of the vehicle, making it a true shoot-and-scoot tank hunter. It would hide in an alleyway, pop out and let loose a barrage of rockets at a tank, crippling it, and retreating under a cover of smoke grenades. Around 56 of then were built, mostly seeing service in defense of Berlin. In game I don't know how they would be implemented, probably as premium tank destroyers in both the B and C form. Unfortunately they would be rather troll vehicles suited for close combat, perhaps they would be limited only to certain maps and events. After all, it would be nice to see a Berlin event! Specifications (Borgward IV) Weight 3.45 tonnes (3.40 long tons; 3.80 short tons) Length 3.35 m (11 ft) Width 1.80 m (5 ft 11 in) Height 1.25 m (4 ft 1 in) Crew 1 Armour up to 20 mm (0.79 in) Engine Borgward water-cooled 4-cylinder gasoline engine 49 PS Power/weight 14.2 PS/tonne Transmission 1 forward, 1 reverse ratio Fuel capacity 108 L (28.5 US gal) Speed 40 km/h (25 mph) road Soviets checking out the little bug A bug resting, abandoned in the carnage Germans checking out the bug Another bug resting in peace, abandoned in the fighting More abandoned bugs Diagram   Sources: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/wanze-borgward-b-iv-ausfuhrung-mit-raketenpanzerbuchse-54.htm http://www.zweiter-weltkrieg-lexikon.de/panzer/132-spezialpanzer/1234-panzerjaeger-borgward-qwanzeq http://www.info-pc.home.pl/whatfor/baza/wanze.htm   Thanks, neutrino109  :salute:
  9. 90mm Gun Tank TV-8   All info sourced from: ABRAMS: A History of the American Main Battle Tank: Volume 2 by Richard Pearce Hunnicutt   The TV-8 was a design by Chrysler in the early 50's she was very unusual because the entire crew, armament, and powerplant was placed in a pod shaped turret mounted above a lightweight chassis. The total weight was estimated to be 25 tons with about 15 tons in the turret and 10 tons in the chassis.   Stats: Crew 4   Weight 25t   Length 6.9m (with gun 8.9m)   Width 3.4m   Height 2.16m   Ground clearance 0.37m   Engine Stage I Chrysler V-8 engine developing 300hp coupled to an electric generator in the rear of the turret. Supplied power to the two electric motors in the front hull   Stage II Gas Turbine  coupled to an electric generator in the rear of the turret. supplied power to the two electric motors in the front hull   Stage III A vapor cycle power plant with hydrocarbon fuels   Stage IV A vapor cycle power plant with nuclear fuel - AKA A mini nuclear engine!   The best engine choice is the ether the V-8 or the Turbine sadly :(         Engine Power 800 - 1000hp   Power/weight 30.7+   Speed Limit 67 km/h   Water Speed  Unknown     Hull Armor 12/12/12   Turret Armor 50/50/30 + 15 spaced   Roof Armor 15 + 15 spaces   Ammo 40   Turret Slope 70° front 47° side   Armament 90mm T208 smooth bore gun   Rate of fire 7-8rpm   Depression/elevation -6/+12     Overall Design and History   Armament The TV-8 was armed with the 90mm gun T208 rigidly mounted in the turret and fitted with an hydraulic ramming device. The 90mm ammunition stowage was in the rear of the turret separated from the crew by a steel bulkhead. Secondary armament consisted of two coaxial .30 caliber machine guns and one remote controlled .50 caliber machine gun on the turret top operated by the tank commander. Closed circuit television was provided to protect the crew from the flash of tactical nuclear weapons and to increase the field of vision.   M208         Powerplant's And Mobility   On the phase I TV-8, a Chrysler V-8 engine developing 300 gross horsepower was coupled to an electric generator in the rear of the turret. This generator supplied power to the two electric motors in the front hull. One motor drove each of the two 28 inch wide tracks. Other power plants were considered for later development including a gas turbine electric drive, a vapor cycle power plant with hydrocarbon fuels, and finally a vapor cycle power plant with nuclear fuel. The fuel tanks for the phase I vehicle were located in the hull separating them from the crew in the turret. The heavily armored inner turret was surrounded by a light outer shell that gave the turret its pod like appearance. This shell and the hull was watertight creating sufficient displacement to allow the TV-8 to float and be amphibious. Propulsion in the water was by means of a water jet-pump installed in the bottom rear of the turret. The TV swimming through the water with pump-jets! Just like a jet ski!   Armour and Crew Space was provided in the heavily armored inner turret for a crew of four, although only two were required to operate the tank, the gunner and the driver. These two were located in the front at the right and left of the cannon respectively. The driver could operate fully protected inside the turret or with his head and shoulders exposed above the roof. The tank commander was at the right rear with the loader on his left.   The outer turret shell was of sufficient thickness to detonate shaped charge rounds and it acted as spaced armor to help protect the inner turret.   Hull Armor 12/12/12 Turret Armor 50/50/30 + 15 spaced The inner heavier armour layout    The turret was supported by an assembly which rotated in a ring in the hull roof and it was moved in elevation by two large hydraulic cylinders. The TV-8 was 352 inches long with the gun forward, 134 inches wide, and 115 inches high over the remote controlled machine gun.     The three ASTRON proposals, as well as the TV-8 design, were reviewed and it was concluded that they did not offer sufficient advantages over the conventional medium gun tank to justify further development. This was confirmed by OTCM 36225, dated 23 April 1956, which terminated the ASTRON program. However, the OTCM indicated that consideration would be given to the novel features of the ASTRON proposals and the TV-8 in the design of future tanks   From ABRAMS     
  10. Willys MB .50 ( Browning M2HB ) _______________________________________ The Willys MB was the mass-production version, modified according to army field operation reports and simplifications in design. The most obvious change was the front radiator grille. It was, for the 25,000 initial deliveries, a welded flat iron “slat”, later replaced by the familiar and simpler stamped, slotted steel grille, originally a Ford design. According to factory designation, this model was renamed “B” (MB). Eventually, Willys will produce 361,339 Jeeps until the end of the war, including 25,808 of the slat radiator grille model, and 335,531 with the stamped steel grille. It will be like the DShK GAZ AAA. DShK GAZ AAA Willys MB .50 ( weapon in anti-air position ) _______________________________________ Curb weight, battle ready : 1040 kg (2293 lbs) Crew : 3 (driver +2 passengers) Propulsion : Go Devil I4, 134 cu in (2.2 l), 60 hp Transmission : 3-speed manual 2 reverse, 2-speed Dana-18 transfer case Top speed : -110 km/h (65 mph) road -50 km/h (29 mph) off-road Maximum range : 458 km (285 mi) Armament : 12.7mm Browning M2HB Maximum armor : 6 mm (0.2 in) Willys MB with a cal.50 (12.7 mm) machine-gun, the heaviest weapon fitted regularly on the Jeep. _______________________________________ TM 9-2320-208-20P https://books.google.fr/books?id=dXptUfk1v-QC&pg=PA3&dq=willys+jeep+maintenance+manual&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO1o-XkpPWAhVMbBoKHdlwBHQQ6AEIOzAH#v=onepage&q=willys jeep maintenance manual&f=false _______________________________________ http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/Willys_Jeep_MB.php
  11. DEVELOPEMENT The High Survivability Test Vehicle – Lightweight (HSTV-L) was developed under the direction of the TACOM project manager for Armored Combat Vehicle Technology at the US Army Tank-Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan. The work began in late 1970s. Following the field testing, the HSTV(L) is being used for experiments in fire-control and stabilisation. Stabilisation processing has been converted from analogue to digital. Various stabilization control algorithms are being tried along with different combinations of transducers to determine effects on gun pointing performance and the possibility of eliminating some of the expensive sensors such as gyros. The TACOM Motion Base Simulator, a huge shaker table, is being used to provide terrain input. These tests began in September 1982 and are to continue for a year or more. DESCRIPTION The high survivability of this vehicle is derived from the low silhouette, high horsepower per ton, duplication of sights, improved night vision capabilities, and the lack of specific driver and gunner controls. Any crewman can shoot and both hull crewmen can drive. Although a test vehicle, the HSTV(L) is not a variable parameter test bed but an exercise in system realism for the three-man crew, hunter/killer fire control concept and low silhouette. Armament for the HSTV(L) consists of a 7.62 mm M240 machine gun for both commander and coaxial position and a 75 mm smooth bore cannon. The cannon employs a revolving breech and telescoping ammunition which enables the automatic loader to load one round per 11/2 seconds. The in battery-firing recoil mechanism has a fixed piston that allows the greater mass of recoil cylinder and breech mechanism parts to recoil during firing. The 75 mm gun and automatic ammunition feeder are designed and made by ARES Inc, Port Clinton, Ohio. Texas Instruments supplies the fire-control system which uses the hunter/killer concept. The commander uses a stabilised hunter sight that revolves independently of the turret. Once a target is selected on this sight, the turret and killer sight can be aligned with it. The gunner can then destroy the selected target while the commander returns to search with his hunter sight. Both direct vision and FLIR (Forward Looking Infra-red) optics are available for either sight. The commander can use either a binocular direct view optic eyepiece for improved clarity and reduced power drain, or a video screen. In the hull, a video screen visible to both gunner and driver receives transmissions from hunter and killer sights. The electronic fire control processor uses inputs from the sights, crosswind sensor, muzzle reference, vertical reference system, and an eye-safe CO2 laser rangefinder to compute proper gun pointing. The laser rangefinder is supplied by Raytheon. Automatic tracking and rate aid tracking can also be accomplished by the fire control processor. Both elevation and azimuth stabilisation is provided for the 75 mm gun with a slaved killer sight and an indepen¬dently stabilised hunter sight. Fire-on-the-move capabilities are improved by decoupling the yaw motion of the hull from the turret. Cadillac Gage supplies the gun control and stabilisation system for HSTV(L). Propulsion for the HSTV(L) comes from a gas turbine engine mounted beside the transmission with a cross-drive gearbox connecting the two. Avco Lycoming supplies the nonregenerative 650 horsepower modified helicopter gas turbine. The transmission is an X-300 Detroit Diesel Allison automatic four-speed with lock-up torque converter. Auxili¬ary power is provided by two 250 amp generators and a 60 gpm hydraulic pump. The hydraulic pump supplies power for the engine compartment mounted oil cooler fan and through a hydraulic slip ring; it also supplies power to the gun control system and automatic ammunition loader in the turret. Teledyne supply the fixed height hydro-pneumatic sus¬pension system. A 355.6 mm jounce and 127 mm rebound travel is possible due to the small 558.8 mm diameter road wheels. The track is an improved version of the type found on the M551 Sheridan. The man-machine interface for the HSTV(L) is of prime importance. The use of the hunter/killer concept allows both the gunner and the commander to contribute as much information as possible towards the neutralisation of the enemy. The use of pressure sensitive isometric rate controller thumb switches allows for more precise gun control while firing on the move. The driver and gunner seating positions are semi-reclined for maximum comfort in a minimum space. The tv screens considerably improve fire-on-the-move sighting clarity. SPECIFICATIONS CREW: 3 TEST VEHICLE WEIGHT (with instrumentation and partial applique armour): 20 450 kg POWER-TO-WEIGHT RATIO: 31.78 hp/tonne GROUND PRESSURE: 0.7 kg/cm2 LENGTH GUN FORWARDS: 8.528 m LENGTH HULL: 5 918 m WIDTH: 2.794 m HEIGHT: (overall) 2.414 m (to turret top) 1.994 m (to hull top) 1.422 m GROUND CLEARANCE: 0.508 m TRACK: 2.349 m TRACK WIDTH: 445 mm MAX SPEED (road): 83.68 km/h ACCELERATION (0 to 48 km/h): 11.8 sec FUEL CAPACITY: 409 litres MAX CRUISING RANGE: 160 km FORDING: 1.0 m GRADIENT: 60% SIDE SLOPE: 30% TURNING RADIUS: pivot to infinity ENGINE: Avco-Lycoming 650 turboshaft developing 650hp TRANSMISSION: GMC Detroit Diesel Allison Division cross drive model X-300-4A with 4 forward and 1 reverse gears, single-stage, multiple-phase torque converter with automatic lock up STEERING: hydrostatically controlled differential, pivot steer in neutral BRAKES: multiple wet plate, service and parking, hydrostatically applied with mechanical backup SUSPENSION: hydro-pneumatic ELECTRICAL SYSTEM: 24 V BATTERIES: 6 × 12 V, 300 Ah ARMAMENT: (main) 1 × 75 mm ARES XM274 heavy autocannon (coaxial) 1 × 7.62 mm MG (anti-aircraft) 1 × 7.62 mm MG AMMUNITION: (main) 26 (MG) 3200 FIRE-CONTROL SYSTEM: powered/manual By commander: yes By gunner: yes Gun elevation/ depression: +45°/-17° front, +45°/-6° rear, +45°/-30° side Max rate (power): elevation/depression 1.0 rad/sec Max rate (manual): elevation/depression 10 mils/crank Min rate (power): elevation/depression 0.2 mils/sec Max traverse rate (power): 1.0 rad/sec Max traverse rate (manual): 10 mils/crank Min traverse rate (power): 0.2 mils/sec Periscopes: driver 3 (×1), gunner 3 (×1), commander 8 (×1) Primary engagement sight (turret): stabilised head, FLIR CO2 laser rangefinder, tv, 2 FOV linked to all three crew members Hunter sight (turret): stabilised head, rotates independently of turret; FLIR; direct view optics, tv, 2 FOV linked to all three crew members Gunner’s sight (hull): slaved to weapon, direct view optics, 2 FOV gunner’s use only Status: Undergoing stabilisation/fire control testing on the Motion Base Simulator, Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan. Cancelled. Manufacturer: AAI Corporation, Box 6767, Baltimore. Maryland 21204, USA. GUN 75mm ARES : (APDSFS and HE) Cartridge size : 5.2-inch x 19.0-inch (Diameter x Length) Cartridge volume : 403.5 cubic inch Cartridge mass : 12,655 grams Propellant mass : 3,488 grams Projectile launch mass : 3,052 grams (penetrator + sabot) Muzzle velocity : 4,800 fps Information from http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1702.msg31857#msg31857 Source: "Modern TANKS" by George Forty Jane’s Light Tanks and Armoured Cars 1984 by Christopher F. Foss The TARDEC Story: Sixty-five Years of Innovation 1946-2010 by Jean M. Dasch (Ph.D.),David J. Gorish (Ph.D.) http://tanknutdave.com/the-american-hstvl-tank/ Gun and ammo information: http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/tankita2.html http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/50689-75mm-ARES-Telescoped-APFSDS-T Moved RDF Blocks to RDF/LT suggestion here:
  12. RDF/LT 75mm ARES smoothbore gun 76mm M32 gun To avoid confusion there is 2 version of RDF/LT in which one armed with 75mm smoothbore gun look like HSVT but lighter/less armored and difference engine and electronics AAI RDF Block 1, 75mm ARES gun in a manned, autoloading turret. Capable of 5-round "Burst Fire" supposedly able to overcome Soviet armor by placing 5 shots in the same area in rapid succession. Also designed for use in the AA role. AAI RDF Block 2, AKA the "Elke", testing the extreme versatility of it's new oscillating gun on an M551 Sheridan hull. Crew was reduced to two with the totally unmanned turret. AAI RDF Block 3, forgoing an oscillating turret and regaining it's earlier AA role with an 8-pack of Stinger SAMs. 76mm M32 gun version Source: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDF-LT http://btvt.narod.ru/3/rdf/rdf.htm http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4488.html http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1702.15 Hunnicutt's 'Sheriden', pp. 145-165 Jane’s Light Tanks and Armoured Cars 1984 by Christopher F. Foss Popular Mechanics page 70-71 by Hearst Magazines (ISSN 0032-4558)
  13. 1.71.1.106 The rear ammo storage protection of the MBT/KPZ-70 is not well modelled. All the Edges of the storage protection of the turret ( 12.7mm thickness part ) can be pierce by small caliber HE ammunitions ! Vehicles Affected : MBT/KPZ-70 CUSTOM BATTLE - RB ( MBT-70 ) Only the Edges of the ammo storage armor TEST MODE - AB ( KPZ-70 ) Only the Edges of the ammo storage armor. Look at the Armor penetration indicator ( + ) Green Armor : 12.7mm ( RHA ) Shell used : 73mm OG-9 HE/FRAG ( Distance \ Angle of attack ) 90 60 30 10m 10mm 10mm 10mm 100m 10mm 10mm 10mm 500m 10mm 10mm 10mm 1000m 10mm 10mm 10mm 1500m 10mm 10mm 10mm 2000m 10mm 10mm 10mm 2017_10_12_23_52_28__7164.clog
  14. Hi, 1.71.1.106 Vehicles Affected : M50 Ontos When one gun is destroyed, it will show that all the guns have been destroyed. You can shoot any of the M50's guns, you will find that as long as the destruction of one, the other will be destroyed. Before being attacked Hit before After hitting.Show that all the artillery are destroyed. After being attacked. All the artillery was destroyed. 2017_10_14_01_31_57__17892.clog
  15. So I have never made a tank suggestion, purely because I'm not that interested in tanks. But when I saw this, I had to suggest this as this would fill the gap in the light tank line. I present to you, the Type 5 Ke-Ho! History The Type 5 Ke-Ho was the last light tank designed by the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). Though it had performed well in the early stages of WWII and even before it, the Type 95 Ha-Go was showing it’s age by 1942. An attempt had already been made to replace it with the Type 98 Ke-Ni and Type 2 Ke-To. However, these projects failed to fully materialise. The Ha-Go had been able to fight Stuarts but didn't stand a chance against the M4 Shermans because the gun couldn't penetrate it and couldn't block shots from the M4 Shermans (even 50cals could penetrate it). But, the IJA decided to try again and work started on the Ke-Ho. Since the Ha-go couldn't penetrate the Shermans, the Ke-Ho was to be armed with the Type 1 47 mm (1.85 in) Tank Gun II. This was a planned variant of the Type 1 47 mm found on the Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank. Since it was expected to use its cannon often, 90 rounds was required. The performance of the Type 1 Gun II is unknown, however the performance of the standard 47 mm is. Penetration of the weapon was 55 mm at 100 m, 40 mm at 500 m and 30 mm at 1,000 m. This was still only enough to penetrate the side of a Sherman. This of course led to the ambush style of combat used by Chi-Ha crews. The cannon was mounted in a turret based on the Type 1 Chi-He’s. It had a raised commander’s cupola, next to which was a mounting point for a Type 97 machine gun. This turret was mounted on an enlarged Ke-Ni/Ke-To chassis, slightly of to the right of the center line. It had a Type 97 MG mounted in the front right left of the bow. The vehicle had a short wheel base, with a bell crank suspension using a similar layout out to the Chi-He’s. The Ke-Ho was powered by a 150hp air-cooled diesel engine that would crank out a decent top speed of 50 km/h. They also planned a SPG variant called the Ku-Se but was never built. In 1942, a prototype vehicle was built, and the project was cancelled soon after. As with most new tank designs the Japanese came up with, it was low on the list of importance. Resources and construction efforts were instead being focused on warships and warplanes. Mass production was approved in 1945 however, but this was of course too late and the one prototype remained the only one built. This also meant that the Ku-Se variant never left the drawing board. After the war, the only Ke-Ho was probably taken to the USA for analysis and then scrapped. But, I hope we can re-create it in War Thunder. Characteristics Weight 10 tons Dimensions Length: 4.380mm Width: 2.235mm Height: 2.227mm Crew 4 (driver, gunner, commander, bow gunner) Propulsion 150hp Air-Cooled Diesel Speed 31 mph (50 km/h) Armament Type 1 47mm Gun 2x Type 97 machine guns (one in the hull, one in the rear of the turret) Armor (mm) Turret Front: 20 Turret Side: 16 Turret Back: 16 Hull Front: 20 Hull Side: 16 Hull Back: 12 Hull Top: 12 Hull Bottom: 8 In the game In War thunder, this would make a great tier II light. With good speed, a gun that could cause a lot of trouble and the fact that it is small would make it a very good machine. It would probably be a main but could be a premium vehicle or a Gift/event vehicle.The gun would be the same as on the Chi-Ha Kai and Chi He because there is no information about the 47mm Type II Cannon and also, I don't think players would want a make believe gun since it was planned, not actually built. So the penetration and shells would be the same as seen on the Chi-ha Kai and Chi He tanks. The br would be 2.0-3.0 since any higher, it would probably not perform well. And, if it was 3.0, it could fight early shermans which it would of faced if it had entered service and saw combat. Overall, this would be a nice addition. Hope you enjoyed reading. See you on the forum and battlefield!
  16. VERSION 2.1 (added Leopard 120mm) Out of recent developments in War Thunder I have decided to help to prepare the arming of germany for the Future in Ground Forces BUT I need YOUR Help! What do you mean with recent events? The announcement of setting the Ground Vehicles cutoff date to the 1970ies or 1970 (depends on interpretation). Source: Some new vehicles have already been confirmed to come and are likely to come. T62 (115mm smoothbore) ,Chieftain (confirmed recently), M60A1/A2 EDIT: Even the situation right now clearly shows that germany isnt able to compete. These vehicles are far stronger than any german tank we have right now is. But what many people dont know is that germany easily had enough tanks to compensate and counter. I chose them to NOT make them OP although most of them were produced 1970. This is why I will present you 10 vehicles which could and/or should be included to the german tech tree. EXPLANATION: Most of these vehicles often include Night Vision, Gun stabilization, an auto aiming assistant, rangefinders, IR cameras, radio stations and many other modern features which do not need to be included. Vehicles like the M47, T34, M41, M42 and others are not included because they wouldnt have any noticable difference to their main counterparts. They would not improve balance and only be unecessary. Please Gaijin DONT add this useless tanks give us something unique. These include light armored vehicles with 20mm guns even if they were designed and used by the german army. (Features marked with a "*" are only needed if the mechanic overall is introduced to the game) 1)Leopard Variants(Top Priority!!!):
  17. Hello forum members, this is my first suggestion, english is not my first language, and I am taking care to be as clear as possible. During the development of Tiger, many guns and turrets were designed for him, and one of them would be with the same weapon of the Panther. The first time I saw a photo of him I found it strange, but then I looked better and found it interesting. I hope you like it This muzzle brake may sound strange, but it's the same as PzIV F2 Here we can see the original mock ups that were made for him. The armament and other specifications are already old known to all. So I will not dwell on it. source: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/Panzer-VI_Tiger.php http://www.aviarmor.net/tww2/tanks/germany/pz6_tiger.htm Schiffer - Germany`S Tiger Tanks - Dw To Tiger I And as you can see, it seems to be something interesting. I hope that you like the suggestion
  18. Now that the update is released I can post this again. This is so very minor, but I can't help it. Gaijin. Can you PLEASE give us the option to RETRACT those anti-HEAT fins on the side of the T-64. This is one of my favourite historical tanks, but those fins are so bloody ugly. I don't even care if my tank becomes a tiny bit less defensively effective. In this case, looks are more important to me than slightly more protection. It will hardly make a difference gameplay-wise and thy still somewhat work when closed. According to Wikipedia (think what you will): The shielding was improved, with fibreglass replacing the aluminium alloy in the armour, and small spring-mounted plates fitted along the mudguards (known as the Gill skirt), to cover the top of the suspension and the side tanks. They were, however, extremely fragile and were often removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64#T-64A Please, Gaijin. I love this tank! Pictures of the T-64 with the flaps either open or closed seem very difficult to come by. This page has a picture of the T-64 (and T-72) with the flaps closed: http://alejandro-8.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/t-64-y-t-72-la-eterna-polemica.html Another, this one from the front: A drawing to illustrate (mod 1972, but the same function):
  19. i would like to introduce you the Vickers MTB series. an exported tank built by the united kingdom between 1963 and 1994. THe development of the Vickers MBT started in the late 50s. the tank was ment to by exported and and for an agreement with India for developing their military industry. the tank would need to be cheaper than the centrurion but as well equipped. With armor twice that of the light tank design, it would still be 12 tonnes lighter than Centurion and hence more mobile. The design would use the new engine and transmission of the Chieftain tank then being developed. The turret was of the same design that of the Centurion, but smaller, with a commander cupola with eight bullet-proof glass vision blocks to the right, and a simple two-piece hatch for the gunner to the left. There was many varriant of the tank which some was widely built. the Vickers MBT Mk.I The Vickers MBT Mk.II The Vickers MBT Mk. III The Vijayanta Catapult SPA the specification Manufacturer Vickers-Armstrongs Produced 1963 (Vickers Mk.I prototype) 1965-1986 (Vijayanta production) No. built 2500 Specifications Weight 39,000 kg (43 short tons) Length 9.788 m (32.11 ft) Width 3.168 m (10.39 ft) Height 2.711 m (8.89 ft) Crew 4 Armour 80 mm (3.1 in) steel (hull and turret front) Main armament 1 x 105 mm L7A2 (44 rounds) Secondary armament 1 x 12.7 mm MG (ranging gun) (1000 rounds) 1 x 12.7 mm MG (pintle mount) (2000 rounds) 1 x 7.62 mm MG(Co-Ax) (500 rounds) Gun Elevation Mk,I & Vijayanta = -7/ 20 Mk.III = -10 / 20 Engine Leyland L60 Diesel 535 bhp (399 kW) Transmission David Brown Ltd. (formerly Self-Changing Gears Ltd.) TN12 semi-automatic gearbox Suspension Torsion bar Operational range 530 km (330 mi) Speed 50 km/h (31 mph) Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayanta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_MBT http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/India/Vijayanta.php http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3506.html https://21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com/2015/04/08/the-evolution-of-modern-indian-tanks/ https://www.tanks.net/early-cold-war-tanks/vijayanta-main-battle-tank.html http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=208 Link to other British Cruiser tank
  20. Canadian Experimental 6x6 Artillery Tractor General Service (GS) specifications drawn up on 19 December 1942, called for a vehicle, which offered a stable platform for the operation of quadruple or twin 20 mm guns. These were to be installed in a Canadian-designed or other suitable gun mount. The vehicle should have sufficient speed and cross country performance to operate with armoured formations. Armour protection would be confined to protecting the driver and co-driver. Armour was confined to that integral to the Inglis mountings. No predictor equipment was required; nor were out-riggers unless they proved necessary to provide stability; 500 rounds per gun was required, ready for instant use and a No.19 wireless set would be fitted. Project 42, the twin mount, was cancelled in February 1943, after CMHQ advised the MGO that “the superiority of the Quad Mount as developed by the John Inglis Company, over any two gun mount was so great that no further consideration was given the twin.” A pilot quad 20 mm vehicle with an unarmoured cab, aeroplane shock absorbers and a ring for the mount was ready by 20 March 1943. Further work was held in abeyance as CMHQ wanted to test the Inglis quad mount in the UK before a decision on the SP was made. In August 1943, successful road trials were held using one of the high mobility 6×6 chassis, the quad mount and ‘drill purpose’ guns. The trials included a 650 mile (1,030 km.) road test and 100 miles at 30 mph (50 km/h) on the Ottawa No.1 Proving Ground’s test track. On 22 August, firing trials were held with the guns mounted on a GMC 6×6 at the Inspection Board’s small arms test range at Long Branch. Firing tests, broadside and to the rear, firing 10 rounds per gun simultaneously, showed minimal movement in any direction. Dispersion of the rounds on the target (at a range of 1,000 yards -900 metres) was 18 inches (45 cm) and the gunner noted very little vibration to the sight. Reports on these trials were forwarded to the UK, but, despite several reminders, no response was received until 18 February 1944, when CMHQ advised DND of 21st Army Group’s Oerlikon only policy. The vehicle was eventually demonstrated in the UK in May 1944. The British Army was not impressed by it; however, the RAF showed some interest. On 14 March 1944, the ATDB declared the project to be completed. Canada did, however, mount 250 Quad Polsten guns on the Ford 132-inch wheelbase, 3-ton, 4×4 truck. Sixty were sold to the UK and, in early 1945, 72 were shipped to First Canadian Army, in line with a revised 21 Army Group policy that replaced two 40 mm troops in each light anti-aircraft regiment with 20 mm SP mounts. By the time the vehicles were delivered to the units, the war was virtually over. Nice high mobility 6x6 chassis.Quad Oerlikon 20 mm cannons. Yeah not so much information though... will try to find more?!? Source Link : https://servicepub.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/6x6-artillery-tractor/
  21. The US M2 and M3 Halftracks were as you all know very important vehicles for the American troops in WW2 and whats common for military APCs? Yeah, you make a crapload of modifications and versions of it, and thats exactly what the yanks did! So lets start off shall we? SPAAGs: A new tier 1 SPAA (very similar to the Willys MB .50cal suggestion you can find it here: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/378484-jeep-willys-mb-50-127mm-m2hb-us-spaa/) Meet the M2A1: It is armed with a single .50cal machine gun and would be a nice tier 1 SPAAG in my opinion! It also had a .30cal in the back but that one should be removable... i think ^^ Next up is the experimental T28. This was some kind of early prototype of the M15 only armed with the 37mm but NO .50cals. Since it is a prototype i couldnt find any pictures of the T28 but only one of a T28E1 armed with the .50cals as well! The T28 was based on the M2-halftrack and would be an interesting SPAAG before the M15 The last SPAA is actually an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) version of the standard M3 halftrack. It is armed with a pair of 20mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannons that were take off obsolete Israeli aircraft. It'd a nice premium in my opinion but since it wasnt used by the Americans the chances of getting it are pretty slim. Keep in mind it still uses the American M3 chassis and the Hispanos were used by American troops as well! AT-Versions: Lets start off with a nice little 37mm version! Has a normal 37mm gun (meaning something around 75-90mm of penetration and only AP and APC), based on the M3 halftrack and has a small gunshield. Would be interesting for 1.0 in my opinion! Next up we have one with a 75mm Howitzer. It has a very short barrel and therefore i assume it'd have a very low muzzle velocity. It can fire HEAT grenades with up to 76mm of penetration! And the very last halftrack for today is one with a 105mm Howitzer! This thing could only hold 8 rounds and it would be a great event vehicle in my opinion! Finding Penetration values was quite hard (i dont think it can pen over 450mm according to wikipedia) i'm almost certain it could fire HEAT and the pen would probably be very similar to the 105 sherman (130mm of pen). If you happen to have data, please post it down below! Considering it could only hold 8 rounds and the fact that it (probably) can only fire HEAT against tanks, it should get a very low BR! So yeah, took me about 2 hours to both research and write all of this! And please: It doesnt matter if one or several of these vehicles have already been suggested. This post is supposed to summarize everything a little bit since the names of each of the vehicles can be hard to google properly and the title: Some new US halftracks! is certainly easier to find than: The T28E1 experimental SPAAG with 1x 37mm!!! So I'd really appreciate it if the moderaters dont "delete" it because "the vehicles have already been suggested" or something like that. What do you think? Go up and vote on the poll! Sorry for any minor grammar mistakes, my first language is german :3 Sources: main sources: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/M3_Halftrack.php http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/M2_Halftrack.php all other sources: (if you want to know more about the 20mm armed halftrack-->) http://www.cyber-hobby.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=15323 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Half_Track_Car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Half-track https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=71
  22. 1.71.1.106 The Coaxial machine gun of the M60A1 RISE (P) can be pierced by small caliber AP and HE ammunitions, they will ignore the Gun thickness and decimate the crew inside the turret or detonate the ammunitions ! Vehicles Affected : M60A1 RISE (P) TEST MODE - RB CUSTOM BATTLE - RB Shell used : 125mm 3OF26 HE/FRAG ( Distance \ Angle of attack ) 90 60 30 10m 47mm 47mm 47mm 100m 47mm 47mm 47mm 500m 47mm 47mm 47mm 1000m 47mm 47mm 47mm 1500m 47mm 47mm 47mm 2000m 47mm 47mm 47mm 122mm OF-472 HE/FRAG ( Distance \ Angle of attack ) 90 60 30 10m 35mm 35mm 35mm 100m 35mm 35mm 35mm 500m 35mm 35mm 35mm 1000m 35mm 35mm 35mm 1500m 35mm 35mm 35mm 2000m 35mm 35mm 35mm 2017_10_12_23_52_28__7164.clog
  23. 1.71.1.106 There is a problem with the M60A1 RISE (P) . The armor on the top of the hull around the driver is overperforming, Large Caliber Explosives ( HE/FRAG ) will not detonate the ammunitions stored above the plate. Even the blast generated by the HEATFS of the OBJECT-120 cannot detonate the ammunitions or knock out the driver ! Vehicles Affected : M60A1 RISE (P) CUSTOM BATTLE - RB Armor : The plate is 36mm Thick ( CHA ) Cast homogeneous armour (x0.94 armour rating) ( 36mm × 0.94 = 33.84mm ) Shell used : 125mm 3OF26 HE/FRAG ( Distance / Angle of attack ) 90 60 30 10m 47mm 47mm 47mm 100m 47mm 47mm 47mm 500m 47mm 47mm 47mm 1000m 47mm 47mm 47mm 1500m 47mm 47mm 47mm 2000m 47mm 47mm 47mm 47mm should be more than enough to pierce 33.84mm 2017_10_12_23_52_28__7164.clog
  24. Salutations everyone, I am proposing the addition of a small td line for the British composed of the Sexton self-propelled gun. Now some of you may already be questioning this as the Sexton was used as an artillery piece throughout most of it's life, though it wasn't exclusively used in this role. This line would hopefully help fill out the British TT. By the 1940's Britain was trying out some SPGs to assist tanks and infantry in combat. The first one, the Bishop, used the same QF 25 pounder as the sexton, but lacking the massive muzzle brake. Initially the British liked the M7 Priest, but had some minor complaints. Chiefly that the gun was a 105mm, which wasn't a British standard thus they had to rely on American ammo supplies. The British asked if it would be possible to mount the QF 25 pounder on the M7. After some testing the modified prototype was completed, but during the first live fire test the recoil ripped the gun out of it's mountings. The Americans claimed they could get another one working though they were too busy with other military projects. Britain turned to Canada who currently had several Rams laying about and asked if the 25 pounder could be mated to it. Later versions, or mk II's, used the Grizzly chassis. Bishop and Sexton in trials A lesser known fact of the Sexton is the experimentation that was done on them throughout its military service. Including the conversion to allow it to swim so to take part in the D-Day Invasion of Normandy. Only a sole example was converted for testing, but it was decided to simply have Sextons be transported via landing craft. The Sexton was also used by the British in testing textured camouflage from zimmerite paste. And thus what became the most successful AFV to come out of Canada was born. In fact because it was order for British use the Canadians actually made it right-hand drive. The design was so well recieved that in the 1950's there was a copycat made in the form of the Yeramba. After WW2 Canada let the Netherlands take any they could find in military depots and later a bunch were used by Portugal until the 1980's. In the post war era Italy had gotten their hands on a large group of them. Although they liked chassis the gun was too small for them, so they swapped it out for the 105mm Obice da 105/22. The line composition MkI The mk i was based on the Ram chassis and the main differences between the mkI and mkII was based on the chassis they were built on. Mk I had the Ram drivetrain and bogies. Only a 125 were built. MkII MkII had better crew and ammunition storage as well as boxes at the rear to carry batteries and an auxiliary generator. QF 17 pounder Tank Destroyer Now some of you probably were reading the title an were confused by the fact there was a third version. Well in 1943 there were concerns regarding if there would be enough tanks and SPGs to continue fighting. So the Canadians developed the idea to give the Sexton a more frontline role by sticking a 17 pounder in place of the 25 pounder. It went poorly. While theoretically one could mount it the gun. The recoil mechanism was too large and stuck out too far exposing critical components to enemy fire while also stretching too far back into the crew compartment. Eventually the idea was abandoned, partly because other 17 pounder vehicles were coming out and were far easier to manufacture and because interest in the idea was fairly low. There were other proposals for different guns to be mounted if there weren't any 17 pounders available. It was actually found that it would be easier to mount a 3" or 3.7" HAA gun over the 17 pounder. In fact there were plans to create an assault tank using a 3.7" gun on a Grizzly chassis, while adding an enclosed casemate for additional protection. Info on the 3.7" Assault tank proposal Stats and comparison charts Sexton Mk.II specifications Dimensions: (L x W x H)6.02m x 2.59m x 2.40m (19’9″ x 8’6″ x 7’10” ft.inches) Total weight, battle ready: 25 tons (55,115 lbs) Crew: 6 (commander, driver, gunner, gun-layer, loader, radio operator) Propulsion: Continental R-975 9-cyl radial Gasoline 400 hp (298 kW) Maximum speed: 40 km/h (25 mph) Transmission: Borg-Warner clutch, controlled differential Suspension: Vertical Volute Springs (VVSS) Range: 200 km (125 mi) Armament: Main : 25-pdr (87.6 mm /3.45 in) – 105 rounds Secondary: 2 x.303 cal. (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns -1500 rounds Armor: Maximum 32 mm Elevation: +40° to -9° Gun traverse: 25° left 15° right Ammunition: Smoke, AP, HE Total production: 2150 Performance Engine Details Dimensions Bridge Class: 30 Max Gradability: 60% Trench Crossing: 72" Fording Depth: 40 inches Maximum vertical obstacle: 24" Average Fuel Consumption: 1 mile per gallon Max Speed: 25 miles per hour Manufacturer: Continental Type: petrol, air-cooled, 4 cylinder, 9 cyls radial Size: bore 5", stroke 5.5" Power: 400 bhp at 2400 rpm Ignition: magneto Capacity: 150 gallons fuel, 30 quarts oil Power to weight ratio: 14 bhp per short ton Ammunition Note: all QF 25 pounder ammo and casings are separate they have been put like this for display purposes While the vehicle was mostly used as an artillery unit it had an AP round and they always carried around 105 rounds 18 of which were the AP for self defence. Ammo was stored on the engine deck. Sources http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/canada/25pdr_SP_tracked_Sexton.php http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=311 Lucy, Roger V., Secret Weapons of the Canadian Army, Weapons of War Series, Service Publications, 2006 Bishop, Chris, The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, MetroBooks, Pg 120
  25. Airburst Shells

    EDIT: Renamed to just 'Airburst Shells' , originally written for the Flak 37 but the general idea rings true to anything 40mm + Recently, as we all know, we received a new vehicle in patch 1.63: the 88mm Flak 37 Zugkraftwagen. One of the first things the player base seemed to notice was that this vehicle was designated as a Tank Destroyer, rather than a SPAAG as it was historically intended to be (despite its later extensive use as an anti-tank weapon). Now, to me it's pretty clear why the developers made this decision. Not only was the Flak 37 utilised as an AT gun, but it better serves the purpose of a tank destroyer within War Thunder's meta. The 88mm Airburst shells were much more effective against bomber formations, as opposed to the aircraft we typically meet in a War Thunder ground forces battle (Ground Attack Aircraft, Single-seat Fighters, etc), and, of course, you'll get a lot more chances to shoot at tanks in this vehicle than you will to shoot at planes! That being said, I believe that players should have access to Airburst shells, not just for historical purposes, but so that players can decide which historical role they want their vehicle to perform in (be it Anti-Tank or Anti-Air). Of course, there is one major consideration to be made...if this suggestion were to be implemented, the Zugkraftwagen would immediately become the first of its kind in War Thunder for a number of reasons. For one, it would be the first player-controlled vehicle to receive Airburst shells. Of course, this may be a blessing in disguise, as other SPAAGs in the game could receive Airburst shells of their own (depending on their historical capabilities). Secondly, it would be unique in the sense that it could not only operate as a capable AA vehicle, but also as an incredibly effective Tank Destroyer. Of course, there are several SPAA in the game that can deal massive damage to tanks in the right circumstances, but the 88mm Flak 37 gun is in an entirely different league to those vehicles' armament. But anyway, enough of me rambling on. Let's take a look at how Airburst shells could effectively be added in-game! Method 1: 'Proximity Detonation / Automatically Timed Fuze' Appropriate Game Modes: AB The logic behind this method is simple enough...A player will fire an Airburst shell at an enemy plane, and if it comes within a certain proximity it will detonate, causing damage to the target aircraft. Otherwise the shell will continue to travel along its trajectory for a set amount of time before it detonates of its own accord. This would essentially mean that the AI would time the fuze for you, sort of like how the Instructor makes adjustments to a player's flying in Air AB / RB. Here are some pros and cons to this method: PROS: There is less player 'effort' required, as the player will only have to factor in the target lead and won't have to worry about setting a detonation time, as the shell auto-detonates. Competent pilots will be able to avoid damage and learn the distance they should keep from an Airburst shell. CONS: This method is lacking in realism, which could potentially ruin the immersion of both the driver of the vehicle and the pilot who succumbs to an Airburst shell hit. A set proximity means that all damage dealt will more or less be the same per shell. This could cause problems in the sense that, depending on the amount of damage done, these shells could be either a guaranteed kill, critical hit, or hit, leading to either the pilots feeling the shell type is overpowered (in the case of a kill or a critical hit), or the driver feeling the shell is underpowered (in the case of a 'hit'. There is the potential for accidental friendly fire in this method. (edit): PLEASE READ BEFORE COMMENTING: There has been some confusion in the comments section regarding the realism of this method. I am aware that the Germans didn't use any kind of proximity fuze in their 8.8cm AA Ammunition, and this is NOT meant to be a true historical representation of German 8.8cm Flak shells! It is simply my way of suggesting a system that can benefit players that may find it difficult to set the correct fuze time! If you think that there is a system that could work better in WT, please feel free to suggest it in the comments! Method 2: 'Axis Controlled Fuse Setting' Appropriate Game Modes: AB, RB, SB. Like method 1, the logic is pretty straight forwards. The players have access to an optional key binding (like we currently have with primary, secondary and MG gun control), that works in a similar way that a plane's throttle works in game (on a Relative Control Axis). The player can bind the controls to set the time until shell detonation (be this in seconds, or meters) and then they can fire, with the shell detonating to their set fuse time. For example, let's say the player binds the mouse wheel to their 'Airburst Shell Fuse Delay'. The player will control the distance until detonation with their mouse wheel, and then fire. Once players become experienced enough, they should be able to target enemy planes and set their fuse delay simultaneously. PROS: There are in-game mechanics that already exist that could work in a similar way, such as shell shrapnel ballistics and fuse times on bombs. There is no distinct advantage or disadvantage to players; The accuracy of the shell depends on the player's skill. This control system (In my opinion) would be as simple to use as throttle control in an aircraft. Again, effective use depends solely on the player's skill. CONS: Not unlike throttle control in aircraft, it may be a frustrating learning curve for players to learn how to effectively use this control system in combat. Well, that's it for now, thanks for reading and please leave a comment with your thoughts on this suggestion!