autogun

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by autogun

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3227
    MEMBERS
  • 183075
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

The Foresight War Revisited: AFVs   Novel: The Foresight War

Started 16-Feb by autogun; 23582 views.
larrikin2

From: larrikin2

14-Apr

If Australia could cast entire tank hulls with its limited industrial capabilities then the UK should be able to as well.

That takes the rivetted/bolted/welded problems pretty much out of play for the main body of the tank and turret.

mpopenker

From: mpopenker

14-Apr

Each time I read those TFW threads I imagine a Russian guy like me being time-bombed to the 1939 in the same story line :)

Red7272

From: Red7272

14-Apr

hobbes154 said:

V6s are hard to balance so not a great idea at this time in an engine that size (they took a while after WW2 to be common even with much smaller car engines and trucks still use straight 6s). I gave my preferred tree in post 98 but I can see where Tony is going within his story arc where he can really optimise for a particular point in time (Normandy 1943).

Apparently Kestrel was also considered as a possibility so a kestrel or meteor V8 is also possible (The Metorite is a V8 version of the meteor but derated with a power output of 260 BHP)

As for my vehicles is an 18 ton liberty engined design with the 3"/20 hwt and as much armour as is practical around 1937. This is basically a training tank. 

Next is a V8 meteor engined 25 ton tank that is superficially similar but slightly shorter and much better armoured with the 77 mm gun. In service this tank might grow over time to 28/30 tons as more armour becomes necessary. 

Third design is the 87 mm MTB.

Red7272

From: Red7272

14-Apr

mpopenker said:

Each time I read those TFW threads I imagine a Russian guy like me being time-bombed to the 1939 in the same story line :)

I believe Tony's observation was that would probably be shot as a spy. 

mpopenker

From: mpopenker

14-Apr

With all due respect, it's an observation of a person who have very little idea about real life in USSR.

In fact I'd surrender to the NKVD in the 1st place, prove them that I indeed have some futire tech with me, and ask to bring me to the attention of the Beria. Yes, it still poses certain risks, and my life would be spent somewhere well guarded, but I think chances of being heard by the Beria and Stalin are much greater than zero.

hobbes154

From: hobbes154

14-Apr

Not much of a story though. A Red Army with throwback assistance and forewarning... I give the Nazis until mid '42. It's almost as bad as Foresight America which I think some guy actually wrote. 

I do Ike the T-34M and the Polikarpov I-180.

I read somewhere about the screening the NKVD did on returning POWs. Contrary to legend only a small percentage ended in the gulag. 

hobbes154

From: hobbes154

14-Apr

I recall the Matilda's cast hull front was very labour intensive though - one reason it was replaced by the Valentine. I assume there is a reason no one else did a fully cast hull until the M48?

hobbes154

From: hobbes154

14-Apr

Thought Meteorite was 400 hp. 

Your first two tanks will be very lightly armored on those weights. The 18 tonner is practically an M18 Hellcat. 

Red7272

From: Red7272

14-Apr

hobbes154 said:

Your first two tanks will be very lightly armored on those weights. The 18 tonner is practically an M18 Hellcat. 

Unavoidable with the 18 tonner but the 25 tonner should be 3" front and 1.5" side going to 4.5" front with increased weight. The ability to penetrate all the opposition armour is the key aspect though. 

autogun

From: autogun

14-Apr

hobbes154 said:

Liberty is an off-the-shelf design (though will still need new production lines) but only gives a little more power than the half-Meteor. "The Liberty would eventually be up-rated to 410 HP in later versions simply because the power was absolutely necessary. Doing so was at some sacrifice in reliability, however, as such output was pushing the engine to its full capabilities." - Liberty Engine (p.437). It also has the disadvantage of being bigger (similar size to full Meteor). To me that is only a backup option for a tank of the same size, though if you want really cheap and off the shelf use twin 150hp AECs from Cruiser I/II.

I find the twin-engined idea quite intriguing, but TFW Churchill is a kind of "first draft" of the ultimate WW2 Centurion, so I would want it to use similar technology. Horstmann suspension yes, but I haven't quite got my head around the transmissions yet, in terms of what was available when. Geared steering of various types was being tried; the Wilson compound epicyclic seemed promising (in A14E1 cruiser). I gather that controlled differential systems were technically better but could they have been ready in time? The Merritt-Maybach system was successfully tried in experimental "heavy cruiser"A16E1 tank in 1939 and the ultimate Merritt-Brown followed on directly from this, first running in 1940.

TOP