Jump to content


Photo

Tankovian Tank 1919-


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#21 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,037 posts

Posted 26 February 2019 - 0559 AM

Minor question. It appears that an automobile engine would suffice for power for early tanks. Is there a weight where this would not be beneficial? I think the U.S. went for an airplane radial engine in the Lee? Pluses and minuses of this? Also had a question on suspensions. What would work well for these early tanks? Was the U.S. the only one who used the volute system? When did welding begin to replace rivets? 

Thank you from an ex-sailor. 


  • 0

#22 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,311 posts

Posted 26 February 2019 - 0802 AM

The Mark VIII tank used the V12 Liberty engine, so the use of aero engines is fairly early.

It's not easy to choose a specific weight at which you stop using a car engine and start looking at something else, not least because engine development in the inter war years was very fast paced.
  • 0

#23 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,127 posts

Posted 28 February 2019 - 2002 PM

World of Tankovia!

 

renault_nc-31_3.jpg

 

I think this is actually a NC-2 since it has the Kegresse running gear. Nontheless tanks to World of Tanks, we have a Tankovian FT circa 1930. We are of course looking at casting our own turrets so the old riveted Berliet will go away.

 

Another area for improvement is the engine and transmission. Any suggestions? The base engine is off a passenger car.


  • 0

#24 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,908 posts

Posted 02 March 2019 - 1641 PM

Can we also remove the red stars? Unless we have become Communist of course. In that case I didn't even make this suggestion!  :ph34r:


  • 0

#25 wlewisiii

wlewisiii

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 02 March 2019 - 1956 PM

I was looking at this graphic and thinking of two areas of research:

 

1) buy a couple of those American Liberty Engines. They're cheap surplus and easy to build if we like them. Replace the current engine with it, extending the hull if necessary to fit it and and uprated transmission. 

 

2) Build an armored "bubble" as it were to act as a barbette in front of the drivers compartment for a Lewis  LMG in 7x57 that the driver can operate. Have it so it is fixed while driving and aimed by aiming the tank (perhaps an solenoid firing system with a button on top of the driver's control lever?  It could be pulled back on a track to swap out the 97 round airborne drums or be used as a flexible mount when the vehicle is stationary. 

 

The reason for this is to allow the turret mount 37 to concentrate on HE or AP targets more suitable to it.  

 

The upgrades would allow us to keep them in service until at least 1935. 

 

Pity there is no room for a wireless operator. Communications is still a bit problem. 


  • 0

#26 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,697 posts

Posted 02 March 2019 - 2029 PM

Better make a turret with 37mm and MG. Soviets managed to pull it off.


  • 0

#27 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts

Posted 03 March 2019 - 0547 AM

FInd some old 1 pdr guns and try to fit them in the turret: should give better AP capacity and flatter trajectory (altough i'm not quite sure)

 

Else: try and fit a shortenend surplus 3 pdr in the turret: significant upgrade in firepower.

 

Maybe rebuild some tanks to somthing like the  BS version, room enough in that to experiment with different types of guns (but in fixed casemate ofc). This could 

 

a. Give you a useful support vehicle for the FT's

b. give expierience with operating larger guns and maybe some tactical trials (eg: long 3 pdr, short 6pdr, short 75 mm, etc.....) for when the time comes to build/get a more capable tank.


  • 0

#28 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts

Posted 03 March 2019 - 0820 AM

would it be possible to cram a   M1921 Browning machine gun in the FT turret ? Would give the MG tanks a respectable AP performance (maybe even better than the 37 mm puteaux)


  • 0

#29 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,697 posts

Posted 03 March 2019 - 0924 AM

Huge water jacket would produce considerable problems with that one.


  • 0

#30 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,908 posts

Posted 03 March 2019 - 0935 AM

FInd some old 1 pdr guns and try to fit them in the turret: should give better AP capacity and flatter trajectory (altough i'm not quite sure)

 

 

There is nothing wrong with the French 37mm gun. Both AP performance is adequate, HE too within the limitations of the caliber. The tank's 'biggest' problem is the turret. It is too small. A two man turret with the 37mm gun and an air cooled machine gun would be ideal, if it can be put on the rather small FT. Carpenters in Stara Zagora are working on a full size mock-up. 


  • 0

#31 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,577 posts

Posted 03 March 2019 - 1547 PM

would it be possible to cram a   M1921 Browning machine gun in the FT turret ? Would give the MG tanks a respectable AP performance (maybe even better than the 37 mm puteaux)


The country does have some MG08s, and those featured the option of armored water jackets.  I've also seen them mounted in small turrets on those "battleship" tanks that never went anywhere (I don't recall the name).    I think it would have a lot of advantages over the Hotchkiss, however despite all the curious variants from nations over the years,  I've never seen a picture of an FT-17 variant featuring a water cooled gun, so I find it unlikely to be adopted here.  

That being said, a coaxial submachine gun (or simply a firing port for one) would take up hardly any room and give the 37mm armed versions some sort of automatic fire if it was determined they needed it.

Tankovia needs to figure out what it wants to do with their tanks and the doctrine of how they want to employ armored vehicles in general.  Since the FT-17 is rather speed limited, direct infantry support seems to be reasonable.  By the late 20's and early 30's, and by looking at advancements in car engines at the time, it's reasonable to assume it will have more than double the original horsepower available (80+ versus 39 as historical, with some examples in the 90+ range) and just about any running gear improvements (including the Kegresse) would be a far better option than the original equipment.


When you think about it, there's nothing to the Renault.  It's basically a HMMWV with a ring machine gun mount and terrible speed...  but slow or not it would generally be able to go where wheeled vehicles at the time could not.  



7s83HtV.jpg



If you pictured a ferret with tracks instead of wheels, it might look something similar.


Use case (post WWI) of these things would likely be infantry getting stalled due to a machine gun nest or some other obstacle, they run up to the tank and indicate the issue, the commander may or may not hop out and look for himself on foot, scouting a good firing position, indicating to his driver where he wants to go before hopping in and peeking the turret out just long enough to dispatch the threat.


Some patriotic video
https://youtu.be/s4q08D2CNlA?t=104


  • 0

#32 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts

Posted 03 March 2019 - 1603 PM

 

FInd some old 1 pdr guns and try to fit them in the turret: should give better AP capacity and flatter trajectory (altough i'm not quite sure)

 

 

There is nothing wrong with the French 37mm gun. Both AP performance is adequate, HE too within the limitations of the caliber. The tank's 'biggest' problem is the turret. It is too small. A two man turret with the 37mm gun and an air cooled machine gun would be ideal, if it can be put on the rather small FT. Carpenters in Stara Zagora are working on a full size mock-up. 

 

 

 

TBH, i think the tank's biggest problem for any upgrade is its size. It was good for being a cheap, quickly mass produced vehicle when needed. Upgrading it it almost impossible. I guess the biggest upgrade it got was the new Frech AP ammo in the 30'ies for the 37 Puteaux. Other than that it is a great platform to cheaply try out some doctrinal concepts and showed the way ahead in terms of lay out. Any meaningful upgrade on this very small vehicle is almost impossible. (not that the French didn't try and give up). You are btw never going to fit a 2 man turret, the vehicle is really very small....


  • 0

#33 wlewisiii

wlewisiii

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 03 March 2019 - 1644 PM

The question to me is how much will Tankovia do with their FT's between the end of the Great War and sending observers to exercises using the English Experimental Mechanized Force & Tank Brigade in 27 ~ 31? Those exercises changed a number of minds about the duties of and how to employ tanks. The then new Vicker's Mediums or the emerging Russian BT tanks point a very different direction from the two man walking pace FT. 


  • 0

#34 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts

Posted 03 March 2019 - 1650 PM

What about trying to get some medium C, I guess these have enough room to replace the superstructure with a 6pdr armed turret. It seems also to have been a much more mature design than the Whippet.


  • 0

#35 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,470 posts

Posted 03 March 2019 - 1702 PM

The question to me is how much will Tankovia do with their FT's between the end of the Great War and sending observers to exercises using the English Experimental Mechanized Force & Tank Brigade in 27 ~ 31? Those exercises changed a number of minds about the duties of and how to employ tanks. The then new Vicker's Mediums or the emerging Russian BT tanks point a very different direction from the two man walking pace FT. 

 

Why only go to England? France and the USA played aroud with the new tank weapon as well. Sweden. Who else held trials and experiments? Germany together with the USSR, but I doubt that they would allow foreign observers in Kazan?


  • 0

#36 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,311 posts

Posted 04 March 2019 - 0609 AM

1930 timeframe is definitely closer for diesel use, as "high speed" truck engines started to appear in the 20s.

Although maintenance is more difficult for our fitters, due to fuel injection rather than more easily managed carburettors, I see a significant improvement in range from fuel efficiency, lower stress on our oil refinery infrastructure and a massive reduction in fuel fires, which as you know rather marred last year's military parade, although the crowd still seemed to be entertained.

On a side note, I repeat my recommendation that parade vehicles should not be carrying live rounds, even if the local constabulary want the option to call on the armoured force for crowd management if there is a disturbance.

Quite frankly, they should be perfectly capable if managing things with their armoured cars, which were purchased, I shall remind you, at the expense of our 1925 request for funding of experimental turrets with improved layout and armament.
  • 0

#37 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,697 posts

Posted 04 March 2019 - 0655 AM

Get a company of FTs for training. Modify them to have both 37mm and MG if it is possible to do it cheaply. Possibly replace gun barrel for a longer one (keep the same ammo), that will get us enough AP capability for 1920s. Wait for a tank development and send officers to see what French, British, US and Swedes are doing.

Get a company of armored cars. Preferably something cheap. When semi-obsolete Gendarmerie can get them, change a chassis for a new one and be happy. I suggest Peugeot/Reno type, basically armored light truck with a pedestal mounted MG with shield.

Look also what other people are doing with armored cars, but I am not a fan of them since our road network is pretty poor and terrain is too rugged for the widespread use.


Edited by bojan, 04 March 2019 - 0657 AM.

  • 0

#38 TonyE

TonyE

    I/Kitsap Militia

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,481 posts

Posted 05 March 2019 - 1638 PM

The soviets tried this twin gun-configuration, note that the Hotchkiss MG is the tank version of the Mk.1 "Portative" rather than the heavy Hotchkiss used in the regular FT-series. Also note the longer 37mm gun, undoubtably a tight fit and not much room in the turret. The side of the turret with the MG is usually the side with a ready-rack for 37mm shells in the gun-variant of the FT, which undoubtably have been removed when installing the ballmount.

001.jpg


  • 0

#39 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,470 posts

Posted 05 March 2019 - 1652 PM

The soviets tried this twin gun-configuration, note that the Hotchkiss MG is the tank version of the Mk.1 "Portative" rather than the heavy Hotchkiss used in the regular FT-series. Also note the longer 37mm gun, undoubtably a tight fit and not much room in the turret. The side of the turret with the MG is usually the side with a ready-rack for 37mm shells in the gun-variant of the FT, which undoubtably have been removed when installing the ballmount.

001.jpg

 

I get a very japanese vibe from this one. But how else are you going to fit a machine gun and a cannon in such a small turret?


  • 0

#40 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,697 posts

Posted 05 March 2019 - 1732 PM

Gun was not larger inside turret, it was ex-naval Hotchkiss, unlike Puteaux it used vertically sliding breach, had longer barrel (L/26) but it used same ammo as Puteaux and had practically the same internal dimensions.

Their later MS-1/T-18 used larger turret (but still on same diameter turret ring) and new suspension. It had 37mm Hotchkiss and either twin 6.5mm Fedorov-Shpagin or single DT machinegun.

Early one

%D0%A2-18_5.png

 

Later model with a turret bustle

1526406144_img_9607.jpg


Edited by bojan, 05 March 2019 - 1732 PM.

  • 0