Jump to content


Photo

Tankovian Tank 1919-


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#1 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,128 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 0503 AM

Tankovia has determined that the tank is the future of land warfare having all traits necessary for victorious battle. The nation has set up a Tank Comission to procure these wonderful new weapons! What and who to buy from?

 

Off the top off my head, the FT17 seems like a fine starting point.

 

This is a companion thread to the Tankovian small arms thread.


Edited by Simon Tan, 18 February 2019 - 0504 AM.

  • 0

#2 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,700 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 0611 AM

It was just a FT, not FT-17 :)


  • 0

#3 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,128 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 0815 AM

I'm thinking of a HBAR Lewis MG in lieu of the Hotchkiss with an armored external jacket. Or maybe even a pair with a left hand eject model that are mounted sideways with the pans on the side. 


  • 0

#4 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,003 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 0851 AM


  • 0

#5 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,479 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 0906 AM

I'm thinking of a HBAR Lewis MG in lieu of the Hotchkiss with an armored external jacket. Or maybe even a pair with a left hand eject model that are mounted sideways with the pans on the side. 

 

Sounds like putting Reibel machine guns in, before these have been invented two decades in the future.  ^_^ 

 

A twin mount I doubt fits the small turret. Look:

 

With_the_Americans_northwest_of_Verdun._

The Ft is tiny

 

 

Considering Tankovia is going most probabaly to buy these on the surplus market (although France kept manufacturing them I think) Tankovia Tank Regiment No. 1 may be stuck with Hotchkiss in 8*51 mmR and Puteaux 37 mm cannons. But then I would only buy like a dozen or two and see what this newfangled "tank" thing is all about. The rhomboids are instantly obsolete with the end of the war, and where should Tankovia park these landships? The British Mediums would be interesting, but manufacture stopped with the armistice. The FT is still slow, weakly armoured, weakly armed and has problems driving up and down mountains and it is clear that automotive technology is going to improve in the next decade or two. It is clear the FT will quickly be overtaken. So IMHO the FT only is fit as a trials vehicle to test the concept of tank.

 

 

Maybe Tankovia can get ahold of some LK II, that the swedish did not smuggle out of Germany? It is bigger with more growth potential.

 

 

 

 

 

What about armoured cars?

 

 

 

Or... armoured trains?  :wub:


  • 0

#6 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,911 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 1339 PM

It was just a FT, not FT-17 :)

 

A moot point, it would be the FT-2X in Tankovian service anyway. ;)

 

And I'm with Panzerman, buy(or rent) some for testing and see where that leads to.


  • 0

#7 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,128 posts

Posted 23 February 2019 - 2256 PM

Congratulations! Our tanks have arrived! We have 6 Renault FTs with low mileage, 3 each with the Hotchkiss and 37mm Puteaux. They are going to the 1st Tank Squadron formed to study combined arms methods from the Great War. The Army Motor Depot is being upgraded to support these tanks. 6 Hotchkiss were bought from Oviedo in 7mm Mauser to avoid having to have 8mm Lebel in our supply system. 


  • 0

#8 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,949 posts

Posted 23 February 2019 - 2300 PM

The Depot should also invest in some armoured cars as well. I recommend some of the excellent ideas currently being discussed at Rolls Royce. While I think 1-2 MG's will suffice, I will argue that they will soon need some method of destroying other armour and I recommend something along the lines of the German Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr, however it should not be single shot, but magazine feed, semi-auto. The Poles are apparently working on something, but I believe the calibre is rifle size and will have limited future growth.


Edited by Colin, 23 February 2019 - 2316 PM.

  • 0

#9 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,128 posts

Posted 24 February 2019 - 0055 AM

You want that on the tank or for the infantry?
  • 0

#10 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,949 posts

Posted 24 February 2019 - 0131 AM

Well the infantry should have some sort of bolt action ATR, I believe our light tanks need both a MG and gun capable of armour piercing. It is likely that armour will grow thick enough eventually to stop most shoulder fired weapons, however I think they will perform fine for many years.

 

Back to tanks, I think the US could supply us with some of their 3 tons tanks, while I understand the French justifiable felt the RT is better, they had still planned to acquire a significant amount of these small tanks. It is a avenue we should explore and be useful if the national treasury suddenly cuts our funding.

 

The British Whippet appears to be an interesting tank, with a speed of almost twice that of the RT. I am convinced though that the future of tanks depend on fully rotating turrets and sprung suspension. I suggest we attempt to acquire a couple of Whippets and cut the fighting compartment down and replace them with 1 or 2 turrets. It is clear that the RT suspension reduces problem with the tanks maintenance and crew fatigue. Further developments should focus on suspension and the proper design of the turret.       


  • 0

#11 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,949 posts

Posted 24 February 2019 - 0134 AM

I think we should make enquiries to this gentleman, he may be willing to sell us some of his ideas if e show the correct amount of enthusiasm   https://en.wikipedia...e_Quesne_Martel


  • 0

#12 wlewisiii

wlewisiii

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 24 February 2019 - 1350 PM

So what year is it in Tankovia? I wonder because there is this lunatic... er... genius ... er something American inventor who by the mid 20's was working on his prototype. 

 

https://en.wikipedia...Walter_Christie

 

In the meantime, do we really need to worry about anti-armor capability? That's for the Artillery. Tanks need to shoot high explosive shells to support Infantry. 


  • 0

#13 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,700 posts

Posted 24 February 2019 - 1506 PM

I supported acquiring surplus 47mm naval guns and putting them on a local carriage. That would be able to deal with tanks up the late '30s quite well.


Edited by bojan, 24 February 2019 - 1506 PM.

  • 0

#14 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,949 posts

Posted 24 February 2019 - 1555 PM

I supported acquiring surplus 47mm naval guns and putting them on a local carriage. That would be able to deal with tanks up the late '30s quite well.

Possible on the whippets, but not the RT's 

 

QF3pdrHotchkissRN1915.jpeg​


  • 0

#15 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,700 posts

Posted 24 February 2019 - 1740 PM

There were Hotchkiss and Nordfelt, Nordfelt was quite more compact (but was L/26):

old-postcards-of-the-battleship-devstati

There was also a Vickers, slimmed down Hotchkiss, that ended as an armament of the Vickers 12 t Medium.

Vickers_Maxim_3_pounder_Semi-Automatic_Q

But I was thinking more of the infantry/AT guns. They had both useful HE and passable AP (about 40mm @ 100m for L/44 Hotchkiss). If we get Whippets FTs should be MG only and Whippet could mount a turret with a real gun and MG.


Edited by bojan, 24 February 2019 - 1806 PM.

  • 0

#16 wlewisiii

wlewisiii

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 24 February 2019 - 2131 PM

A whippet with a real turret  & canon would be a big improvement. Then you'd need to fix the lack of suspension perhaps with that Mr. Christie's wheel/track combination?


  • 0

#17 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,128 posts

Posted 25 February 2019 - 0159 AM

No Whippets till we master FT.
  • 0

#18 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,577 posts

Posted 25 February 2019 - 0314 AM

Mechanization seems to be the future, and it's in fashion, after all,  all the major powers are doing it.  Given our limited economic resources, it would probably be best to send observers to anyone who will have us and monitor their developments while they spend the money and time to flesh out how best to use them,  and figure out what evolutionary paths have potential and which will be dead ends.  Then we can follow suit at a fraction of the price.

Meanwhile, the FT seems like an excellent general starting point and I'm proud to see with our 6 examples we have joined the ranks of the other great nations with all the prestige that goes along with it.  Once crews are brought up to speed I imagine our boys will get right on learning how to incorporate them into our doctrine.

Long term though I absolutely feel it would be beneficial to invest in our national infrastructure which I feel will pay dividends in the coming decades if we are serious about incorporating tanks into our armed forces -- and by that, I mean brokering a license production deal for a further battalion worth of tanks and investing the money into building a factory to build them in Tankograd.

This will do several things for us -- expand the pool of mechanically minded men in the work force and give them hands on experience so we can learn how these tanks and engines are built.  With the support of the boys at the Army Depot, it will   allow us to make modifications to suit our needs in the near future, experiment with our own subsystems in the mid future, and perhaps one day even design our own engines and other vehicles in the long term.  It would also stimulate the local economy, and when they're not making tanks the factory can produce motor vehicles or tractors to make lives easier for our farmers, which may even free up boys to go to school and apprentice with the mechanics.



 


Edited by Burncycle360, 25 February 2019 - 0356 AM.

  • 0

#19 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,911 posts

Posted 25 February 2019 - 0743 AM

The Depot should also invest in some armoured cars as well. I recommend some of the excellent ideas currently being discussed at Rolls Royce. While I think 1-2 MG's will suffice, I will argue that they will soon need some method of destroying other armour and I recommend something along the lines of the German Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr, however it should not be single shot, but magazine feed, semi-auto. The Poles are apparently working on something, but I believe the calibre is rifle size and will have limited future growth.

 

As far as the anti-tank rifle is concerned, let's stick with a bolt action. Semi-auto is challanging enough in rifle caliber.

 

I'm not sure how much use armored cars are given the local roadnet but there is only one way to find out. In related matters, how about putting the FTs on flatcars and integrate them into armored trains? 


  • 0

#20 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,700 posts

Posted 25 February 2019 - 1008 AM

Armored cars (something simple, like French WW1 Renault/Peugeot - basically armored light truck with a pedestal mounted MG or small gun) can be fitted with rail wheels to use for patrolling railroad. They would be dirt chip after WW1. so small detachment of 6 would solve our RR security.


  • 0