Developers posts on forum

Jeremy Taylor: Please start the individual thread where you can discuss Navy Field related topics. Don't go off topic please.

Jeremy Taylor: Let me remind you that the Allies were represented by more than two countries. If we take the USSR, US and UK and analyze their tank building approaches we can see that they differ immensely concerning many aspects. That is why each country deserves its own tank tree because each country's tank engineering is a unique phenomenon in the history of tank building.

Jeremy Taylor: Great claim for a win . But our collection lacks more super tanks from enthusiasts!!!! Let us see what splendid engineers like you the history of tank building is missing.

MrVic: Syllas I took a stab at the tank you drew up! If you want feel free to use it. Damn those crazy Geometric lines

MrVic: SyllasI took a stab at the tank you drew up!  If you want feel free to use it.  Damn those crazy Geometric lines

MrVic: SyllasI took a stab at the tank you drew up!  If you want feel free to use it.  Damn those crazy Geometric lines

MrVic: SyllasI took a stab at the tank you drew up!  If you want feel free to use it.  Damn those crazy Geometric lines

MrVic: Well I figure I am a bit burned on research, database creation, and number crunching but not drawing as of yet. (I have one spreadsheet now that has 186 tabs full of info lmao /cry
I have a couple more projects planned but figured I would offer some help to those having troubles in the drawing dept.
So... If you need some help and your tank is based roughly on WW2 style or existing tank designs.
Then feel free to send me a message on the boards here with the following info.
1) Track/Hull/Turret types (best if you reference a certain tank so I have a idea what you are in-visioning)
2) Weapons types and location
3) Engine type
4) and approx size/tonnage
My only stipulations are:
1) Try to make them as realistic as possible (size and gun mountings ect) Seeing a 122mm DST mounted on a Stuart for example
2) I make no promises on the end results or if I will get them completed (As I will work on these for fun)
My current projects (drawing stage currently)
1) Codename "The Mosquito" thinking tankette (Since Breyd1971 conned me into one) haha
2) Codename "The Last Word" Wait and see

MrVic: Well I figure I am a bit burned on research, database creation, and number crunching but not drawing as of yet. (I have one spreadsheet now that has 186 tabs full of info lmao /cry

I have a couple more projects planned but figured I would offer some help to those having troubles in the drawing dept.

So... If you need some help and your tank is based roughly on WW2 style or existing tank designs.
Then feel free to send me a message on the boards here with the following info.

1) Track/Hull/Turret types (best if you reference a certain tank so I have a idea what you are in-visioning)
2) Weapons types and location
3) Engine type
4) and approx size/tonnage

My only stipulations are:
1) Try to make them as realistic as possible (size and gun mountings ect)  Seeing a 122mm DST mounted on a Stuart for example
2) I make no promises on the end results or if I will get them completed (As I will work on these for fun)


My current projects (drawing stage currently)
1) Codename "The Mosquito" thinking tankette (Since Breyd1971 conned me into one) haha
2) Codename "The Last Word" Wait and see

MrVic: Well I figure I am a bit burned on research, database creation, and number crunching but not drawing as of yet. (I have one spreadsheet now that has 186 tabs full of info lmao /cry

I have a couple more projects planned but figured I would offer some help to those having troubles in the drawing dept.

So... If you need some help and your tank is based roughly on WW2 style or existing tank designs.
Then feel free to send me a message on the boards here with the following info.

1) Track/Hull/Turret types (best if you reference a certain tank so I have a idea what you are in-visioning)
2) Weapons types and location
3) Engine type
4) and approx size/tonnage

My only stipulations are:
1) Try to make them as realistic as possible (size and gun mountings ect)  Seeing a 122mm DST mounted on a Stuart for example
2) I make no promises on the end results or if I will get them completed (As I will work on these for fun)


My current projects (drawing stage currently)
1) Codename "The Mosquito" thinking tankette (Since Breyd1971 conned me into one) haha
2) Codename "The Last Word" Wait and see

MrVic: Well I figure I am a bit burned on research, database creation, and number crunching but not drawing as of yet. (I have one spreadsheet now that has 186 tabs full of info lmao /cry

I have a couple more projects planned but figured I would offer some help to those having troubles in the drawing dept.

So... If you need some help and your tank is based roughly on WW2 style or existing tank designs.
Then feel free to send me a message on the boards here with the following info.

1) Track/Hull/Turret types (best if you reference a certain tank so I have a idea what you are in-visioning)
2) Weapons types and location
3) Engine type
4) and approx size/tonnage

My only stipulations are:
1) Try to make them as realistic as possible (size and gun mountings ect)  Seeing a 122mm DST mounted on a Stuart for example
2) I make no promises on the end results or if I will get them completed (As I will work on these for fun)


My current projects (drawing stage currently)
1) Codename "The Mosquito" thinking tankette (Since Breyd1971 conned me into one) haha
2) Codename "The Last Word" Wait and see

MrVic: Panzerkampfwagen III/40
Known as (Panzer III/40)
Nicknamed: (“Das Hornet”)

Panzer II/40’s Origin
Panzer III/40 was the product of the war torn experiences of Wilhelm Ziemann. In 1938 Wilhelm Ziemann was part of
the invasion of Poland in September 1939. During the first weeks of the invasion Wilhelm Ziemann’s tank was
overwhelmed by infantry and disabled. Thanks to the fast response of other Panzer IIs in his platoon he escaped
with no injuries. A week later in his repaired Panzer II he was back in action. Only 2 days after rejoining his
platoon his Panzer was hit by a Polish kb ppanc wz. 35 Anti-Tank rifle. The round pierced a fuel line and a fire
broke out in the tank. Scrambling to escape the fire and smoke filled panzer he got hung up on part of the turret
basket attempting to climg free. Out of the smoke a man wearing a german uniform with no rank or units pins pulled
him free and off the tank. Ziemann passed out upon hitting the ground outside the tank and awoke in a field hospital,
where he was being prepared for transport. Ziemann’s crew was killed in the fire and Ziemann himself suffered
second and some third degree burns over 20% of his body. Ziemann was shipped back to Germany to recuperate and heal.
In the same battle was the German civilian engineer Derk Herwig. Herwig had been at the battle as an observer to
help assess the combat weaknesses of the current German armored forces. Herwig was currently part of the design
team working on various secret panzer development projects. Herwig suffered minor burns and took a rifle round to
the leg the same day Ziemann’s Panzer was hit.
In an ironic twist of fate both were shipped to the same hospital behind the lines in Germany. As they both healed
they crossed paths in the hospital and became rather good friends. Neither really spoke of the battle the first few
times they talked. Then Ziemann broke down into a rant about German issues with the current panzers and the possibility
of facing the higher firepower and heavy armor of the French tanks. In sudden realization that Herwig had told him
earlier he was a civilian engineer and that he also had been injured at the same battle in Poland. Ziemann questioned why
a civilian engineer would have been there to begin with. Herwig explained his goal during the battle and that he was part
of a team working on secret panzer variants to be approved by the Führer in the coming months. Herwig being a humble man,
knew that he was the unknown man that pulled Ziemann to safety during the battle. Herwig also never told anyone about his
selfless act of bravery.
After a few weeks of talk Herwig had it arranged for Ziemann to come and evaluate the new panzer concepts. At the factory
Ziemann immediately found a tank he could work with. It was to be the precursor to the Hetzer that was developed years later.
The Panzer III/40 prototype was not complete yet but the main gun had been selected from a version designed during the
early development of the PaK 40. The birth of the Pak 40 was in 1939 with development contracts being placed with Krupp and
Rheinmetall to develop a 7.5 cm anti-tank gun. The one the Panzer III/40 would use was a bulkier early model that was being
considered for production in early 1940. Ziemann was approving of the armor upgrades though he was unsure about the
effectiveness of the sleek angular sides.
The biggest concern Ziemann had was defense against infantry advances and assaults. More than likely due to his injuries and
lost crew to infantry attacks. As the Prototype was designed it lacked much in the way of weapons to deter or stop a determined
infantry unit from advancing and destroying or disabling the panzer. Herwig quickly came up with a possible solution.
Lengthening the superstructure of the tank and installing a Panzer II turret with a 20mm KwK 38 L/55 and a 1 x 7.92 MG34 (coaxial).
With the tank commander able to man the position as they did in Panzer IIs while being able to bring they turret to bear on
thin skinned targets or infantry. This also reduced the crew requirement by 1 and help preserve space for ammunition and the
Maybach 120HL TRM 300hp engine gave it great agility. Tho after Ziemann’s personal experiences with a fire onboard a panzer he
pushed for a diesel engine. Herwig came up with a compromise, he kept the Maybach engine and isolated the engine in a armored
compartment to help prevent a fire quickly spreading into the crew area of the panzer. Ziemann was hesitant still but accepted the
change. Ziemann combat tested one of 3 complete prototypes on May 10th 1940. His assessment was a perfect hunter with
the “sting of a hornets’ nest” Ziemann stated in his combat performance report. Upon the Führer’s review of the combat test reports
and the design specifications of the Panzer III/40 he was so impressed he was to present everyone involved in the development of the
Panzer III/40 with “The War Merit Medal” for their outstanding work for Germany. Sadly a week prior to the Panzer III/40 going before
the Führer for final approval, Derk Herwig was killed in a apartment fire while sleeping. A grieving Ziemann requested to be assigned
to the front in the panzer he helped design. The rest is lost in history…….
General Specifications
Formal Designation......Panzer III/40
Manufacturer(s).........Henschel
Production Quantity.....3 (???)
Production Period.......Mid 1940
Type....................Tank Destroyer
Crew....................4
Length overall..........7.31 m (24' 3")
Width...................2.63 m (8.62 ft)
Height..................2.46m (8.1 ft)
Barrel Overhang.........1.4 (4' 7")
Combat Weight...........
Radio Equipment.........FuG5
ARMAMENTS
Primary Armament........Pak 40 early
Ammunition Carried......106
Traverse (degrees)......Manual (5° L, 11° R) Hull, Turret Electric (360)
Elevation (degrees).....-6° to +12° (Hull) -9° to +20° (Turret)
Sight......................TZF5a
Secondary Armament......1 x 7.92 MG34 (coaxial) / 20mm KwK 38 L/55 (Turret)
Ammunition Carried......2300/180
ARMOR
-------------------------Front------------------Side-------------------Rear-----------------Top/Bottom
Hull Upper..........60mm@50°.........30mm@75°.........20mm@75°.......20mm@0°
Hull Lower.........60mm@50°.........30mm@50°.........20mm@20°.......20mm@0°
Turret................25mm@round.....25mm@68°.........25mm@68°.......20mm@0°
Mantlet.............60mm@50°...........NA......................NA....................NA
MOBILITY
Engine Make & Model.....Maybach HL120TRM
Type & Displacement.....V12, 11.9 liters
Horsepower (max.).......300hp@3000rpm
Power/Weight Ratio......15.4 hp/tonne
Gearbox.................10 forward, 1 reverse
Fuel....................Gasoline (Petrol)
Range on/off road.......165/95
Mileage on road.........187 on/336 off road
Fuel Capacity...........320
Speed on/off road.......40/18 km/h
Track Links.............110
Track Width.............35cm
Track Ground Contact....309cm
Ground Pressure.........11.4 psi
Ground Clearance........0.41
Turning Radius..........4.5
Gradient................25°-37°
Vertical Obstacle.......0.65
Fording.................0.89
Trench Crossing........1.51 (4'5")
Designer Notes
Warning the above back story is kind of "hammy but I figured what the heck. This tanks concept
and drawing was rather fun. Sadly the technical specs and research drove me a bit nuts
I always liked the early evolution of tank destroyers. Tho I think they always took away to much of the
"soft target" weapon systems. With most hull mounted weapons with a low traverse radius were limited to "sniping"
lighter faster tanks or even infantry could easily flank and destroy those style tanks. Designers in WW2 saw it as
a waste of resources to add additional systems. Making tanks fall into certain roles more and more usally as
the war progressed. I decided to do the opposite Running down tech is kinda rough business sometimes
Enjoy

MrVic: Panzerkampfwagen III/40

Known as (Panzer III/40)

Nicknamed:  (“Das Hornet”)



Panzer II/40’s Origin

    Panzer III/40 was the product of the war torn experiences of Wilhelm Ziemann. In 1938 Wilhelm Ziemann was part of
the invasion of Poland in September 1939.  During the first weeks of the invasion Wilhelm Ziemann’s tank was
overwhelmed by infantry and disabled.  Thanks to the fast response of other Panzer IIs in his platoon he escaped
with no injuries.  A week later in  his repaired Panzer II he was back in action. Only 2 days after rejoining his
platoon his Panzer was hit by a Polish kb ppanc wz. 35 Anti-Tank rifle.  The round pierced a fuel line and a fire
broke out in the tank.  Scrambling to escape the fire and smoke filled panzer he got hung up on part of the turret
basket attempting to climg free.  Out of the smoke a man wearing a german uniform with no rank or units pins pulled
him free and off the tank. Ziemann passed out upon hitting the ground outside the tank and awoke in a field hospital,
where he was being prepared for transport. Ziemann’s crew was killed in the fire and Ziemann himself suffered
second and some third degree burns over 20% of his body. Ziemann was shipped back to Germany to recuperate and heal.
In the same battle was the German civilian engineer Derk Herwig.  Herwig had been at the battle as an observer to
help assess the combat weaknesses of the current German armored forces.  Herwig was currently part of the design
team working on various secret panzer development projects.  Herwig suffered minor burns and took a rifle round to
the leg the same day Ziemann’s Panzer was hit.  

    In an ironic twist of fate both were shipped to the same hospital behind the lines in Germany.  As they both healed
they crossed paths in the hospital and became rather good friends.  Neither really spoke of the battle the first few
times they talked.  Then Ziemann broke down into a rant about German issues with the current panzers and the possibility
of facing the higher firepower and heavy armor of the French tanks.  In sudden realization that Herwig had told him
earlier he was a civilian engineer and that he also had been injured at the same battle in Poland. Ziemann questioned why
a civilian engineer would have been there to begin with. Herwig explained his goal during the battle and that he was part
of a team working on secret panzer variants to be approved by the Führer in the coming months.  Herwig being a humble man,
knew that he was the unknown man that pulled Ziemann to safety during the battle. Herwig also never told anyone about his
selfless act of bravery.

    After a few weeks of talk Herwig had it arranged for Ziemann to come and evaluate the new panzer concepts.  At the factory
Ziemann immediately found a tank he could work with. It was to be the precursor to the Hetzer that was developed years later.
The Panzer III/40  prototype was not complete yet but the main gun had been selected from a version designed during the
early development of the PaK 40. The birth of the Pak 40 was in 1939 with development contracts being placed with Krupp and
Rheinmetall to develop a 7.5 cm anti-tank gun. The one the Panzer III/40 would use was a bulkier early model that was being
considered for production in early 1940.  Ziemann was approving of the armor upgrades though he was unsure about the
effectiveness of the sleek angular sides.

    The biggest concern Ziemann had was defense against infantry advances and assaults. More than likely due to his injuries and
lost crew to infantry attacks. As the Prototype was designed it lacked much in the way of weapons to deter or stop a determined
infantry unit from advancing and destroying or disabling the panzer. Herwig quickly came up with a possible solution.  
Lengthening the superstructure of the tank and installing a Panzer II turret with a 20mm KwK 38 L/55 and a 1 x 7.92 MG34 (coaxial).
With the tank commander able to man the position as they did in Panzer IIs while being able to bring they turret to bear on
thin skinned targets or infantry. This also reduced the crew requirement by 1 and help preserve space for ammunition and the
Maybach 120HL TRM 300hp engine gave it great agility. Tho after Ziemann’s personal experiences with a fire onboard a panzer he
pushed for a diesel engine. Herwig came up with a compromise, he kept the Maybach engine and isolated the engine in a armored
compartment to help prevent a fire quickly spreading into the crew area of the panzer. Ziemann was hesitant still but accepted the
change.  Ziemann combat tested one of 3 complete prototypes on May 10th 1940.  His assessment was a perfect hunter with
the “sting of a hornets’ nest” Ziemann stated in his combat performance report.  Upon the Führer’s review of the combat test reports
and the design specifications of the Panzer III/40 he was so impressed he was to present everyone involved in the development of the
Panzer III/40 with “The War Merit Medal” for their outstanding work for Germany.  Sadly a week prior to the Panzer III/40 going before
the Führer for final approval, Derk Herwig was killed in a apartment fire while sleeping.  A grieving Ziemann requested to be assigned
to the front in the panzer he helped design.  The rest is lost in history…….


General Specifications
Formal Designation......Panzer III/40
Manufacturer(s).........Henschel
Production Quantity.....3 (???)
Production Period.......Mid 1940
Type....................Tank Destroyer
Crew....................4
Length overall..........7.31 m (24' 3")
Width...................2.63 m (8.62 ft)
Height..................2.46m (8.1 ft)
Barrel Overhang.........1.4 (4' 7")
Combat Weight...........
Radio Equipment.........FuG5

ARMAMENTS
Primary Armament........Pak 40 early
Ammunition Carried......106
Traverse (degrees)......Manual (5° L, 11° R) Hull, Turret Electric (360)
Elevation (degrees).....-6° to +12° (Hull) -9° to +20° (Turret)
Sight......................TZF5a
Secondary Armament......1 x 7.92 MG34 (coaxial) / 20mm KwK 38 L/55 (Turret)
Ammunition Carried......2300/180

ARMOR
-------------------------Front------------------Side-------------------Rear-----------------Top/Bottom
Hull Upper..........60mm@50°.........30mm@75°.........20mm@75°.......20mm@0°
Hull Lower.........60mm@50°.........30mm@50°.........20mm@20°.......20mm@0°
Turret................25mm@round.....25mm@68°.........25mm@68°.......20mm@0°
Mantlet.............60mm@50°...........NA......................NA....................NA


MOBILITY
Engine Make & Model.....Maybach HL120TRM
Type & Displacement.....V12, 11.9 liters
Horsepower (max.).......300hp@3000rpm
Power/Weight Ratio......15.4 hp/tonne
Gearbox.................10 forward, 1 reverse
Fuel....................Gasoline (Petrol)
Range on/off road.......165/95
Mileage on road.........187 on/336 off road
Fuel Capacity...........320
Speed on/off road.......40/18 km/h
Track Links.............110
Track Width.............35cm
Track Ground Contact....309cm
Ground Pressure.........11.4 psi
Ground Clearance........0.41
Turning Radius..........4.5
Gradient................25°-37°
Vertical Obstacle.......0.65
Fording.................0.89
Trench Crossing........1.51 (4'5")


Designer Notes

Warning the above back story is kind of "hammy but I figured what the heck.  This tanks concept
and drawing was rather fun. Sadly the technical specs and research drove me a bit nuts
I always liked the early evolution of tank destroyers. Tho I think they always took away to much of the
"soft target" weapon systems.  With most hull mounted weapons with a low traverse radius were limited to "sniping"
lighter faster tanks or even infantry could easily flank and destroy those style tanks. Designers in WW2 saw it as
a waste of resources to add additional systems.  Making tanks fall into certain roles more and more usally as
the war progressed.  I decided to do the opposite Running down tech is kinda rough business sometimes
Enjoy

MrVic: Panzerkampfwagen III/40

Known as (Panzer III/40)

Nicknamed:  (“Das Hornet”)



Panzer II/40’s Origin

    Panzer III/40 was the product of the war torn experiences of Wilhelm Ziemann. In 1938 Wilhelm Ziemann was part of
the invasion of Poland in September 1939.  During the first weeks of the invasion Wilhelm Ziemann’s tank was
overwhelmed by infantry and disabled.  Thanks to the fast response of other Panzer IIs in his platoon he escaped
with no injuries.  A week later in  his repaired Panzer II he was back in action. Only 2 days after rejoining his
platoon his Panzer was hit by a Polish kb ppanc wz. 35 Anti-Tank rifle.  The round pierced a fuel line and a fire
broke out in the tank.  Scrambling to escape the fire and smoke filled panzer he got hung up on part of the turret
basket attempting to climg free.  Out of the smoke a man wearing a german uniform with no rank or units pins pulled
him free and off the tank. Ziemann passed out upon hitting the ground outside the tank and awoke in a field hospital,
where he was being prepared for transport. Ziemann’s crew was killed in the fire and Ziemann himself suffered
second and some third degree burns over 20% of his body. Ziemann was shipped back to Germany to recuperate and heal.
In the same battle was the German civilian engineer Derk Herwig.  Herwig had been at the battle as an observer to
help assess the combat weaknesses of the current German armored forces.  Herwig was currently part of the design
team working on various secret panzer development projects.  Herwig suffered minor burns and took a rifle round to
the leg the same day Ziemann’s Panzer was hit.  

    In an ironic twist of fate both were shipped to the same hospital behind the lines in Germany.  As they both healed
they crossed paths in the hospital and became rather good friends.  Neither really spoke of the battle the first few
times they talked.  Then Ziemann broke down into a rant about German issues with the current panzers and the possibility
of facing the higher firepower and heavy armor of the French tanks.  In sudden realization that Herwig had told him
earlier he was a civilian engineer and that he also had been injured at the same battle in Poland. Ziemann questioned why
a civilian engineer would have been there to begin with. Herwig explained his goal during the battle and that he was part
of a team working on secret panzer variants to be approved by the Führer in the coming months.  Herwig being a humble man,
knew that he was the unknown man that pulled Ziemann to safety during the battle. Herwig also never told anyone about his
selfless act of bravery.

    After a few weeks of talk Herwig had it arranged for Ziemann to come and evaluate the new panzer concepts.  At the factory
Ziemann immediately found a tank he could work with. It was to be the precursor to the Hetzer that was developed years later.
The Panzer III/40  prototype was not complete yet but the main gun had been selected from a version designed during the
early development of the PaK 40. The birth of the Pak 40 was in 1939 with development contracts being placed with Krupp and
Rheinmetall to develop a 7.5 cm anti-tank gun. The one the Panzer III/40 would use was a bulkier early model that was being
considered for production in early 1940.  Ziemann was approving of the armor upgrades though he was unsure about the
effectiveness of the sleek angular sides.

    The biggest concern Ziemann had was defense against infantry advances and assaults. More than likely due to his injuries and
lost crew to infantry attacks. As the Prototype was designed it lacked much in the way of weapons to deter or stop a determined
infantry unit from advancing and destroying or disabling the panzer. Herwig quickly came up with a possible solution.  
Lengthening the superstructure of the tank and installing a Panzer II turret with a 20mm KwK 38 L/55 and a 1 x 7.92 MG34 (coaxial).
With the tank commander able to man the position as they did in Panzer IIs while being able to bring they turret to bear on
thin skinned targets or infantry. This also reduced the crew requirement by 1 and help preserve space for ammunition and the
Maybach 120HL TRM 300hp engine gave it great agility. Tho after Ziemann’s personal experiences with a fire onboard a panzer he
pushed for a diesel engine. Herwig came up with a compromise, he kept the Maybach engine and isolated the engine in a armored
compartment to help prevent a fire quickly spreading into the crew area of the panzer. Ziemann was hesitant still but accepted the
change.  Ziemann combat tested one of 3 complete prototypes on May 10th 1940.  His assessment was a perfect hunter with
the “sting of a hornets’ nest” Ziemann stated in his combat performance report.  Upon the Führer’s review of the combat test reports
and the design specifications of the Panzer III/40 he was so impressed he was to present everyone involved in the development of the
Panzer III/40 with “The War Merit Medal” for their outstanding work for Germany.  Sadly a week prior to the Panzer III/40 going before
the Führer for final approval, Derk Herwig was killed in a apartment fire while sleeping.  A grieving Ziemann requested to be assigned
to the front in the panzer he helped design.  The rest is lost in history…….


General Specifications
Formal Designation......Panzer III/40
Manufacturer(s).........Henschel
Production Quantity.....3 (???)
Production Period.......Mid 1940
Type....................Tank Destroyer
Crew....................4
Length overall..........7.31 m (24' 3")
Width...................2.63 m (8.62 ft)
Height..................2.46m (8.1 ft)
Barrel Overhang.........1.4 (4' 7")
Combat Weight...........
Radio Equipment.........FuG5

ARMAMENTS
Primary Armament........Pak 40 early
Ammunition Carried......106
Traverse (degrees)......Manual (5° L, 11° R) Hull, Turret Electric (360)
Elevation (degrees).....-6° to +12° (Hull) -9° to +20° (Turret)
Sight......................TZF5a
Secondary Armament......1 x 7.92 MG34 (coaxial) / 20mm KwK 38 L/55 (Turret)
Ammunition Carried......2300/180

ARMOR
-------------------------Front------------------Side-------------------Rear-----------------Top/Bottom
Hull Upper..........60mm@50°.........30mm@75°.........20mm@75°.......20mm@0°
Hull Lower.........60mm@50°.........30mm@50°.........20mm@20°.......20mm@0°
Turret................25mm@round.....25mm@68°.........25mm@68°.......20mm@0°
Mantlet.............60mm@50°...........NA......................NA....................NA


MOBILITY
Engine Make & Model.....Maybach HL120TRM
Type & Displacement.....V12, 11.9 liters
Horsepower (max.).......300hp@3000rpm
Power/Weight Ratio......15.4 hp/tonne
Gearbox.................10 forward, 1 reverse
Fuel....................Gasoline (Petrol)
Range on/off road.......165/95
Mileage on road.........187 on/336 off road
Fuel Capacity...........320
Speed on/off road.......40/18 km/h
Track Links.............110
Track Width.............35cm
Track Ground Contact....309cm
Ground Pressure.........11.4 psi
Ground Clearance........0.41
Turning Radius..........4.5
Gradient................25°-37°
Vertical Obstacle.......0.65
Fording.................0.89
Trench Crossing........1.51 (4'5")


Designer Notes

Warning the above back story is kind of "hammy but I figured what the heck.  This tanks concept
and drawing was rather fun. Sadly the technical specs and research drove me a bit nuts
I always liked the early evolution of tank destroyers. Tho I think they always took away to much of the
"soft target" weapon systems.  With most hull mounted weapons with a low traverse radius were limited to "sniping"
lighter faster tanks or even infantry could easily flank and destroy those style tanks. Designers in WW2 saw it as
a waste of resources to add additional systems.  Making tanks fall into certain roles more and more usally as
the war progressed.  I decided to do the opposite Running down tech is kinda rough business sometimes
Enjoy

MrVic: Panzerkampfwagen III/40

Known as (Panzer III/40)

Nicknamed:  (“Das Hornet”)



Panzer II/40’s Origin

    Panzer III/40 was the product of the war torn experiences of Wilhelm Ziemann. In 1938 Wilhelm Ziemann was part of
the invasion of Poland in September 1939.  During the first weeks of the invasion Wilhelm Ziemann’s tank was
overwhelmed by infantry and disabled.  Thanks to the fast response of other Panzer IIs in his platoon he escaped
with no injuries.  A week later in  his repaired Panzer II he was back in action. Only 2 days after rejoining his
platoon his Panzer was hit by a Polish kb ppanc wz. 35 Anti-Tank rifle.  The round pierced a fuel line and a fire
broke out in the tank.  Scrambling to escape the fire and smoke filled panzer he got hung up on part of the turret
basket attempting to climg free.  Out of the smoke a man wearing a german uniform with no rank or units pins pulled
him free and off the tank. Ziemann passed out upon hitting the ground outside the tank and awoke in a field hospital,
where he was being prepared for transport. Ziemann’s crew was killed in the fire and Ziemann himself suffered
second and some third degree burns over 20% of his body. Ziemann was shipped back to Germany to recuperate and heal.
In the same battle was the German civilian engineer Derk Herwig.  Herwig had been at the battle as an observer to
help assess the combat weaknesses of the current German armored forces.  Herwig was currently part of the design
team working on various secret panzer development projects.  Herwig suffered minor burns and took a rifle round to
the leg the same day Ziemann’s Panzer was hit.  

    In an ironic twist of fate both were shipped to the same hospital behind the lines in Germany.  As they both healed
they crossed paths in the hospital and became rather good friends.  Neither really spoke of the battle the first few
times they talked.  Then Ziemann broke down into a rant about German issues with the current panzers and the possibility
of facing the higher firepower and heavy armor of the French tanks.  In sudden realization that Herwig had told him
earlier he was a civilian engineer and that he also had been injured at the same battle in Poland. Ziemann questioned why
a civilian engineer would have been there to begin with. Herwig explained his goal during the battle and that he was part
of a team working on secret panzer variants to be approved by the Führer in the coming months.  Herwig being a humble man,
knew that he was the unknown man that pulled Ziemann to safety during the battle. Herwig also never told anyone about his
selfless act of bravery.

    After a few weeks of talk Herwig had it arranged for Ziemann to come and evaluate the new panzer concepts.  At the factory
Ziemann immediately found a tank he could work with. It was to be the precursor to the Hetzer that was developed years later.
The Panzer III/40  prototype was not complete yet but the main gun had been selected from a version designed during the
early development of the PaK 40. The birth of the Pak 40 was in 1939 with development contracts being placed with Krupp and
Rheinmetall to develop a 7.5 cm anti-tank gun. The one the Panzer III/40 would use was a bulkier early model that was being
considered for production in early 1940.  Ziemann was approving of the armor upgrades though he was unsure about the
effectiveness of the sleek angular sides.

    The biggest concern Ziemann had was defense against infantry advances and assaults. More than likely due to his injuries and
lost crew to infantry attacks. As the Prototype was designed it lacked much in the way of weapons to deter or stop a determined
infantry unit from advancing and destroying or disabling the panzer. Herwig quickly came up with a possible solution.  
Lengthening the superstructure of the tank and installing a Panzer II turret with a 20mm KwK 38 L/55 and a 1 x 7.92 MG34 (coaxial).
With the tank commander able to man the position as they did in Panzer IIs while being able to bring they turret to bear on
thin skinned targets or infantry. This also reduced the crew requirement by 1 and help preserve space for ammunition and the
Maybach 120HL TRM 300hp engine gave it great agility. Tho after Ziemann’s personal experiences with a fire onboard a panzer he
pushed for a diesel engine. Herwig came up with a compromise, he kept the Maybach engine and isolated the engine in a armored
compartment to help prevent a fire quickly spreading into the crew area of the panzer. Ziemann was hesitant still but accepted the
change.  Ziemann combat tested one of 3 complete prototypes on May 10th 1940.  His assessment was a perfect hunter with
the “sting of a hornets’ nest” Ziemann stated in his combat performance report.  Upon the Führer’s review of the combat test reports
and the design specifications of the Panzer III/40 he was so impressed he was to present everyone involved in the development of the
Panzer III/40 with “The War Merit Medal” for their outstanding work for Germany.  Sadly a week prior to the Panzer III/40 going before
the Führer for final approval, Derk Herwig was killed in a apartment fire while sleeping.  A grieving Ziemann requested to be assigned
to the front in the panzer he helped design.  The rest is lost in history…….


General Specifications
Formal Designation......Panzer III/40
Manufacturer(s).........Henschel
Production Quantity.....3 (???)
Production Period.......Mid 1940
Type....................Tank Destroyer
Crew....................4
Length overall..........7.31 m (24' 3")
Width...................2.63 m (8.62 ft)
Height..................2.46m (8.1 ft)
Barrel Overhang.........1.4 (4' 7")
Combat Weight...........
Radio Equipment.........FuG5

ARMAMENTS
Primary Armament........Pak 40 early
Ammunition Carried......106
Traverse (degrees)......Manual (5° L, 11° R) Hull, Turret Electric (360)
Elevation (degrees).....-6° to +12° (Hull) -9° to +20° (Turret)
Sight......................TZF5a
Secondary Armament......1 x 7.92 MG34 (coaxial) / 20mm KwK 38 L/55 (Turret)
Ammunition Carried......2300/180

ARMOR
-------------------------Front------------------Side-------------------Rear-----------------Top/Bottom
Hull Upper..........60mm@50°.........30mm@75°.........20mm@75°.......20mm@0°
Hull Lower.........60mm@50°.........30mm@50°.........20mm@20°.......20mm@0°
Turret................25mm@round.....25mm@68°.........25mm@68°.......20mm@0°
Mantlet.............60mm@50°...........NA......................NA....................NA


MOBILITY
Engine Make & Model.....Maybach HL120TRM
Type & Displacement.....V12, 11.9 liters
Horsepower (max.).......300hp@3000rpm
Power/Weight Ratio......15.4 hp/tonne
Gearbox.................10 forward, 1 reverse
Fuel....................Gasoline (Petrol)
Range on/off road.......165/95
Mileage on road.........187 on/336 off road
Fuel Capacity...........320
Speed on/off road.......40/18 km/h
Track Links.............110
Track Width.............35cm
Track Ground Contact....309cm
Ground Pressure.........11.4 psi
Ground Clearance........0.41
Turning Radius..........4.5
Gradient................25°-37°
Vertical Obstacle.......0.65
Fording.................0.89
Trench Crossing........1.51 (4'5")


Designer Notes

Warning the above back story is kind of "hammy but I figured what the heck.  This tanks concept
and drawing was rather fun. Sadly the technical specs and research drove me a bit nuts
I always liked the early evolution of tank destroyers. Tho I think they always took away to much of the
"soft target" weapon systems.  With most hull mounted weapons with a low traverse radius were limited to "sniping"
lighter faster tanks or even infantry could easily flank and destroy those style tanks. Designers in WW2 saw it as
a waste of resources to add additional systems.  Making tanks fall into certain roles more and more usally as
the war progressed.  I decided to do the opposite Running down tech is kinda rough business sometimes
Enjoy

MrVic: Cool deal! Ya I suspected they were in the range of 1938-1939 you found the missing piece I was looking for it seems
I had yet to finish my research on interleavered from the design side of things.
The rules were tossed out to us to do with what we will. Currently I think I am withing the rules tho enjoying the refresher
course on WW2 tech so currently its just a lot of fun after a long day at work lol.
1) Personally I am steering towards the Design side preferring a prototype of the design
has been made or was considered for production. Also as many items may not have been in production
if you were there they might of made it in the end. hehe
2) I think we are permitted to venture past what the designers in question saw or knew about. I kinda see it as
given how the world was on edge with the events unfolding intelligence gathering was probably in full force on
trying to determine who their enemies might be and what they have to make us go boom. I always see WW2 as probably
the greatest Weapons/Armor Arms race of all time. The rate new ideas where thought up and implement good or bad
was astounding. WW2 was a technological boom creating a unique variety of design.
I try to keep the numbers good as I build one tho I think there is a bust in one of my past tanks. I will have to recheck it later since its a minor bust at best.
Tho that was not really a requirement of the event. More of its how I have to think about things

MrVic:
Cool deal! Ya I suspected they were in the range of 1938-1939 you found the missing piece I was looking for it seems
I had yet to finish my research on interleavered from the design side of things.


The rules were tossed out to us to do with what we will. Currently I think I am withing the rules tho enjoying the refresher
course on WW2 tech so currently its just a lot of fun after a long day at work lol.


1) Personally I am steering towards the Design side preferring a prototype of the design
has been made or was considered for production. Also as many items may not have been in production
if you were there they might of made it in the end. hehe

2) I think we are permitted to venture past what the designers in question saw or knew about. I kinda see it as
given how the world was on edge with the events unfolding intelligence gathering was probably in full force on
trying to determine who their enemies might be and what they have to make us go boom. I always see WW2 as probably
the greatest Weapons/Armor Arms race of all time.  The rate new ideas where thought up and implement good or bad
was astounding.  WW2 was a technological boom creating a unique variety of design.

I try to keep the numbers good as I build one tho I think there is a bust in one of my past tanks. I will have to recheck it later since its a minor bust at best.
Tho that was not really a requirement of the event. More of its how I have to think about things

MrVic:
Cool deal! Ya I suspected they were in the range of 1938-1939 you found the missing piece I was looking for it seems
I had yet to finish my research on interleavered from the design side of things.


The rules were tossed out to us to do with what we will. Currently I think I am withing the rules tho enjoying the refresher
course on WW2 tech so currently its just a lot of fun after a long day at work lol.


1) Personally I am steering towards the Design side preferring a prototype of the design
has been made or was considered for production. Also as many items may not have been in production
if you were there they might of made it in the end. hehe

2) I think we are permitted to venture past what the designers in question saw or knew about. I kinda see it as
given how the world was on edge with the events unfolding intelligence gathering was probably in full force on
trying to determine who their enemies might be and what they have to make us go boom. I always see WW2 as probably
the greatest Weapons/Armor Arms race of all time.  The rate new ideas where thought up and implement good or bad
was astounding.  WW2 was a technological boom creating a unique variety of design.

I try to keep the numbers good as I build one tho I think there is a bust in one of my past tanks. I will have to recheck it later since its a minor bust at best.
Tho that was not really a requirement of the event. More of its how I have to think about things

MrVic:
Cool deal! Ya I suspected they were in the range of 1938-1939 you found the missing piece I was looking for it seems
I had yet to finish my research on interleavered from the design side of things.


The rules were tossed out to us to do with what we will. Currently I think I am withing the rules tho enjoying the refresher
course on WW2 tech so currently its just a lot of fun after a long day at work lol.


1) Personally I am steering towards the Design side preferring a prototype of the design
has been made or was considered for production. Also as many items may not have been in production
if you were there they might of made it in the end. hehe

2) I think we are permitted to venture past what the designers in question saw or knew about. I kinda see it as
given how the world was on edge with the events unfolding intelligence gathering was probably in full force on
trying to determine who their enemies might be and what they have to make us go boom. I always see WW2 as probably
the greatest Weapons/Armor Arms race of all time.  The rate new ideas where thought up and implement good or bad
was astounding.  WW2 was a technological boom creating a unique variety of design.

I try to keep the numbers good as I build one tho I think there is a bust in one of my past tanks. I will have to recheck it later since its a minor bust at best.
Tho that was not really a requirement of the event. More of its how I have to think about things

MrVic: I still have some research todo on that one Some of what I know now is...
Dr Ferdinand Porsche Actually built a car the "Type 32" that had torsion bar suspension in 1932 or 1934.
So the question really is "is dual torsion bar a big leap of tech?" Mostly it was avoided due to its
complexity.
The Dual Torsion bar suspension was designed by Professor Ernst Lehr tho the only references I have on a date
of its conception so far are usally tied to the Pather A or to vague. Info tends to get lost in the time
around wars

MrVic: I still have some research todo on that one Some of what I know now is...
Dr Ferdinand Porsche Actually built a car the "Type 32" that had torsion bar suspension in 1932 or 1934.
So the question really is "is dual torsion bar a big leap of tech?"  Mostly it was avoided due to its
complexity.

The Dual Torsion bar suspension was designed by Professor Ernst Lehr tho the only references I have on a date
of its conception so far are usally tied to the Pather A or to vague.  Info tends to get lost in the time
around wars

MrVic: I still have some research todo on that one Some of what I know now is...
Dr Ferdinand Porsche Actually built a car the "Type 32" that had torsion bar suspension in 1932 or 1934.
So the question really is "is dual torsion bar a big leap of tech?"  Mostly it was avoided due to its
complexity.

The Dual Torsion bar suspension was designed by Professor Ernst Lehr tho the only references I have on a date
of its conception so far are usally tied to the Pather A or to vague.  Info tends to get lost in the time
around wars

MrVic: I still have some research todo on that one Some of what I know now is...
Dr Ferdinand Porsche Actually built a car the "Type 32" that had torsion bar suspension in 1932 or 1934.
So the question really is "is dual torsion bar a big leap of tech?"  Mostly it was avoided due to its
complexity.

The Dual Torsion bar suspension was designed by Professor Ernst Lehr tho the only references I have on a date
of its conception so far are usally tied to the Pather A or to vague.  Info tends to get lost in the time
around wars

MrVic: My mind keeps wandering to doing a tank based off the Panthers suspension. Being one of the most stable weapons
platforms in WW2 I just can't bring myself to do it.
First off the suspension even once implemented was superior
but had one major drawback It was near imposible to get to and repair and it was highly complicated system crammed into
reliatively small space. Combine that with the German interwoven road wheel design, where if a tank using that setup was
hit and a road wheel was damaged in the back row you not only had to take off the damaged wheel but also the 2 in front
of it. These 2 factors alone make repair and maintence insanely long processes.
Right now I prefer to deal with a higher weight distribution and think more in the lines of "all round ideal" instead of "Ideal when its all working okay..."

MrVic:
My mind keeps wandering to doing a tank based off the Panthers suspension. Being one of the most stable weapons
platforms in WW2 I just can't bring myself to do it.  

First off the suspension even once implemented was superior
but had one major drawback  It was near imposible to get to and repair and it was highly complicated system crammed into
reliatively small space.  Combine that with the German interwoven road wheel design, where if a tank using that setup was
hit and a road wheel was damaged in the back row you not only had to take off the damaged wheel but also the 2 in front
of it. These 2 factors alone make repair and maintence insanely long processes.

Right now I prefer to deal with a higher weight distribution and think more in the lines of "all round ideal"  instead of "Ideal when its all working okay..."

MrVic:
My mind keeps wandering to doing a tank based off the Panthers suspension. Being one of the most stable weapons
platforms in WW2 I just can't bring myself to do it.  

First off the suspension even once implemented was superior
but had one major drawback  It was near imposible to get to and repair and it was highly complicated system crammed into
reliatively small space.  Combine that with the German interwoven road wheel design, where if a tank using that setup was
hit and a road wheel was damaged in the back row you not only had to take off the damaged wheel but also the 2 in front
of it. These 2 factors alone make repair and maintence insanely long processes.

Right now I prefer to deal with a higher weight distribution and think more in the lines of "all round ideal"  instead of "Ideal when its all working okay..."

MrVic:
My mind keeps wandering to doing a tank based off the Panthers suspension. Being one of the most stable weapons
platforms in WW2 I just can't bring myself to do it.  

First off the suspension even once implemented was superior
but had one major drawback  It was near imposible to get to and repair and it was highly complicated system crammed into
reliatively small space.  Combine that with the German interwoven road wheel design, where if a tank using that setup was
hit and a road wheel was damaged in the back row you not only had to take off the damaged wheel but also the 2 in front
of it. These 2 factors alone make repair and maintence insanely long processes.

Right now I prefer to deal with a higher weight distribution and think more in the lines of "all round ideal"  instead of "Ideal when its all working okay..."

MrVic: lol are you hacking my laptop? I am actually working on a German 17ton light/medium tank atm and researching a German 9ton Light tank currently
My t-57A is only a Medium tank atleast. Big guns drug me into a rather heavy tank with the HMS Dudley lmao
Thank goodness for a day away from work

MrVic:
lol are you hacking my laptop?  I am actually working on a German 17ton light/medium  tank atm and researching a German 9ton Light tank currently
My t-57A is only a Medium tank atleast.  Big guns drug me into a rather heavy tank with the HMS Dudley lmao

Thank goodness for a day away from work

MrVic:
lol are you hacking my laptop?  I am actually working on a German 17ton light/medium  tank atm and researching a German 9ton Light tank currently
My t-57A is only a Medium tank atleast.  Big guns drug me into a rather heavy tank with the HMS Dudley lmao

Thank goodness for a day away from work

MrVic:
lol are you hacking my laptop?  I am actually working on a German 17ton light/medium  tank atm and researching a German 9ton Light tank currently
My t-57A is only a Medium tank atleast.  Big guns drug me into a rather heavy tank with the HMS Dudley lmao

Thank goodness for a day away from work

Jeremy Taylor: This feature has not been executed yet. For that moment bounced shells do not cause damage to the vehicles and objects on the map.

MrVic: Thanks! ya now I have to focus on 2 german tanks I have been thinking about. Tho not sure
what/how I want to go about either currently.

MrVic:
Thanks!  ya now I have to focus on 2 german tanks I have been thinking about. Tho not sure
what/how I want to go about either currently.

MrVic:
Thanks!  ya now I have to focus on 2 german tanks I have been thinking about. Tho not sure
what/how I want to go about either currently.

MrVic:
Thanks!  ya now I have to focus on 2 german tanks I have been thinking about. Tho not sure
what/how I want to go about either currently.

Jeremy Taylor: MrVic's work looks simply epic. We really need some serious challengers who can beat this

MrVic: HMS Dudley (Formerly RN1-Tank)
(Nicknamed "Admiral Pound's Kraut Pounder")

HMS Dudley History
HMS Dudley's origin starts in 1938. A conversation between Robert Warwick and
Admiral Sir Dudley Pound in a local London pub. Robert Warwick being a Engineer
working for Vickers-Armstrongs, the same company responsible for the creation of
the Valentine II British Tank. Admiral Sir Dudley Pound was previously the CinC
of the Mediterranean and was promoted to Admiral of the Fleet and First Sea Lord 1939-1943.
During this chance meeting in a London pub where Admiral Pound supposedly said to
Warwick in Late 1938... " If these recent events boil over into a war with Germany,
those krauts will be lucky that my ships cannot walk on land. For no enemy can stand
against the guns of The Royal Navy" That conversation stuck with Warwick for some weeks.
Consumed with the ideas from his conversation that fateful night floating around his head,
Warwick approached the British War Office with his ideas. After a short deliberation
and some pressure from the Royal Navy and a determined Admiral they cleared project
designated "RN1-Tank"
Now Warwick started to wonder if he really could effectively mount a large naval
gun onto a land based mobile platform. As the weeks passed he began to put the pieces together.
First he needed a naval gun to base his design on. The choice was simple
the Navy's 4.7"/45 (12 cm) QF Mark XII. The 4.7"/45 had seen some improvements from
powder bag charges to utilizing a cartridge some years before. This combined with a
50 Lbs (22.68 kg) round (HE and AT) a muzzle velocity of 2,650 fps (808 mps) with a
range of 15,800 yards (14,450 m) and still maintaining the ability to penetrate 2.5" (76 mm)
of armor at 6,500 yards (5,950 m) Meant there was no armored target the RN1-Tank could not defeat.
The original idea was to use the RN1-Tank in a indirect fire mode, but with the speed of
German tanks and tactics used, Warwick decided to plan for a direct fire role as well. This meant
increasing its frontal armor and improving the traverse range of his hull mounted main gun.
The major drawback quickly became keeping the size of the RN1-Tank’s foot print as small as
possible and still provide adequate firing platform and room to operate the large main gun.
This resulted in increase in weight and width being the two biggest issues Warwick had to address.
Seeing as the war in Europe means traveling on narrow roads and even narrower streets in the
cities usually the increased width of 3.65 m (12' 2") meant travel challenges for the RN1-Tank
were unavoidable. The second challenge the weight, Warwick had to find a engine capable of moving
his Tank at speeds that would enable it to keep up with a advancing force or to retreat in the
threat of a sudden break through. The solution was found with the recent purchasing of a newly
modified Russian aircraft engine the GAM-34BT by the War office to be reverse engineered for
possible use in their newer tank designs. The engine had the sufficient power and was quickly
adapted to the two RN1-Tank prototypes. Due to the engine being gas powered Warwick decided to
isolate the engine in a rear armored compartment so that even if the RN1-Tank took a hit to its
engine compartment the damage could be contained. Since his main gun was not driven by electric
the loss of a engine did not mean the tanks total combat effectiveness would be lost.
With no engine power the RN1-Tank with its increased armor could act as a fixed Artillery position
or a defensive AT bunker. With a 20 degree R/L traverse due to the extra wide hull and crew
compartment layout his tank would maintain a rather respectable field of fire even immobile.
Warwick's last few improvements were focused on crew operations and a newly acquired
TZF5a German sight that was easily duplicated. The improvements to the crew operations mainly
focused on the operation of the 4.7"/45 (12 cm) QF Mark XII main gun. Due to the size of the
rounds fired it was decided that two loaders assisted with mechanical load assist equipment would
be a much needed addition. This combined with a rear hatch to eject spent casings greatly
increased the rate of fire of the RN1-Tank. In honor of The Royal Navy's help and contributions
and Admiral Sir Dudley Pound's words of enlightenment the RN1-Tank became the HMS Dudley. After
its first combat action the Germans quickly learned to fear the distant bang of the HMS Dudley
for truly the Royal Navy could now reach them anywhere!
General Specifications
Formal Designation......HMS Dudley
Manufacturer(s).........Factory No.9 Ural Heavy Machinery Factory (UTZM or Uralmash)
Production Quantity.....2 (110 Ordered)
Production Period.......March 1940 - ?
Type....................Heavy Tank
Crew....................6
Length overall..........9.45 m (31' 0")
Width...................3.65 m (12' 2")
Height..................2.13 m ( 7' )
Barrel Overhang.........0.762 m (2.5')
Combat Weight...........55000 kg (121000 lbs)
Radio Equipment.........No.19
ARMAMENTS
Primary Armament........4.7"/45 (12 cm) QF Mark XII (Naval)
Ammunition Carried......76
Traverse (degrees)......Manual (20°L - 20°R)
Elevation (degrees).....-3° to +30°
Traverse speed (360°)...NA
Sight...................TZF5a
Secondary Armament......1 x 7.92mm Besa MG (Hull)
Ammunition Carried......4350
ARMOR
-------------------------Front------------------Side-------------------Rear-----------------Top/Bottom
Upper Hull...........60mm@35°..........60mm@70°.........45mm@80°.......20mm@0°
Lower Hull...........70mm@55°.........60mm@90°.........50mm@60°.......20mm@0°
Mantlet..............75mm@round.......NA......................NA....................NA
MOBILITY
Engine Make & Model.....GAM-34BT
Type & Displacement.....V12, 45.8 liters
Horsepower (max.).......850hp@1850rpm
Power/Weight Ratio......15.5 hp/tonne
Gearbox.................5 forward, 1 reverse
Fuel....................Gasoline (Petrol)
Range on/off road.......220/160 km
Mileage on road.........600 l/100km
Fuel Capacity...........about 1320 l
Speed on/off road.......35 km/h
Track Links.............120/track
Track Width.............70.0 cm (28")
Track Ground Contact....585 cm (230")
Ground Pressure.........0.67 kg/cm2 (9.6 psi)
Ground Clearance........0.50 m (1' 8")
Gradient................30°+
Vertical Obstacle.......1.2 m (3' 11")
Fording.................1.7 m (5' 7")
Trench Crossing.........3.0 m (9' 10")
Designer Notes
Well this orginally started as a Multi main gun tank or Possibly 2 turrets. Then the "ideal" part came to mind and I went off course!
I think it went off course in a good direction tho. Due to having to balance my weight as I add and remove things from the tank I have
found I now have to keep a large data base of materals and data for reference LOL. I started out with a hull mounted main gun with a
smaller turret topside. Sadly to scale the hull weapon up to the size I wanted it would of had issues in its traverse. As the breach
ect extends a rather large distance into the tank. Bigger the gun the longer its "rear". So mounting anything to the size I wanted
in the hull and having a turret I ran into problems. Turrets tend to operate with a basket underneath that traverses as the turret does
So the larger gun in the hull would come into conflict as I try to traverse the hull mounted weapon. another option was to do away with
turret basket and have the commander/gunner shift or move or even help with the main gun operations when it was in use. But in the end
I was wasting Tonnage on only being able to utilize one weapon system at a time in that layout. Sigh I think I am thinking to hard about
engineering side of this lmao

MrVic: HMS Dudley (Formerly RN1-Tank)

(Nicknamed "Admiral Pound's Kraut Pounder")



HMS Dudley History

HMS Dudley's origin starts in 1938.  A conversation between Robert Warwick and
Admiral Sir Dudley Pound in a local London pub. Robert Warwick being a Engineer
working for Vickers-Armstrongs, the same company responsible for the creation of
the Valentine II British Tank. Admiral Sir Dudley Pound was previously the CinC
of the Mediterranean and was promoted to Admiral of the Fleet and First Sea Lord 1939-1943.
During this chance meeting in a London pub where Admiral Pound supposedly said to
Warwick in Late 1938... " If these recent events boil over into a war with Germany,
those krauts will be lucky that my ships cannot walk on land. For no enemy can stand
against the guns of The Royal Navy" That conversation stuck with Warwick for some weeks.
Consumed with the ideas from his conversation that fateful night floating around his head,
Warwick approached the British War Office with his ideas. After a short deliberation
and some pressure from the Royal Navy and a determined Admiral they cleared project
designated "RN1-Tank"

     Now Warwick started to wonder if he really could effectively mount a large naval
gun onto a land based  mobile platform.  As the weeks passed he began to put the pieces together.
First he needed a naval gun to base his design on.  The choice was simple
the Navy's 4.7"/45 (12 cm) QF Mark XII.  The 4.7"/45   had seen some improvements from
powder bag charges to utilizing a cartridge some years before. This combined with a
50 Lbs (22.68 kg) round (HE and AT) a muzzle velocity of 2,650 fps (808 mps) with a
range of 15,800 yards (14,450 m) and still maintaining the ability to penetrate 2.5" (76 mm)
of armor  at 6,500 yards (5,950 m) Meant there was no armored target the RN1-Tank could not defeat.

     The original idea was to use the RN1-Tank in a indirect fire mode, but with the speed of
German tanks and tactics used, Warwick decided to plan for a direct fire role as well.  This meant
increasing its frontal armor and improving the traverse range of his hull mounted main gun.
The major drawback quickly became keeping the size of the RN1-Tank’s foot print as small as
possible and still provide adequate firing platform and room to operate the large main gun.
This resulted in increase in weight and width being the two biggest issues Warwick had to address.
Seeing as the war in Europe means traveling on narrow roads and even narrower streets in the
cities usually the increased width of 3.65 m (12' 2") meant travel challenges for the RN1-Tank
were unavoidable.  The second challenge the weight, Warwick had to find a engine capable of moving
his Tank at speeds that would enable it to keep up with a advancing force or to retreat in the
threat of a sudden break through. The solution was found with the recent purchasing of a newly
modified Russian aircraft engine the GAM-34BT by the War office to be reverse engineered for
possible use in their newer tank designs.  The engine had the sufficient power and was quickly
adapted to the two RN1-Tank prototypes.  Due to the engine being gas powered Warwick decided to
isolate the engine in a rear armored compartment so that even if the RN1-Tank took a hit to its
engine compartment the damage could be contained.  Since his main gun was not driven by electric
the loss of a engine did not mean the tanks total combat effectiveness would be lost.  
With no engine power the RN1-Tank with its increased armor could act as a fixed Artillery position
or a defensive AT bunker.  With a 20 degree R/L traverse due to the extra wide hull and crew
compartment layout his tank would maintain a rather respectable field of fire even immobile.
Warwick's last few improvements were focused on crew operations and a newly acquired
TZF5a German sight that was easily duplicated. The improvements to the crew operations mainly
focused on the operation of the 4.7"/45 (12 cm) QF Mark XII main gun.  Due to the size of the
rounds fired it was decided that two loaders assisted with mechanical load assist equipment would
be a much needed addition.  This combined with a rear hatch to eject spent casings greatly
increased the rate of fire of the RN1-Tank. In honor of The Royal Navy's help and contributions
and Admiral Sir Dudley Pound's words of enlightenment the RN1-Tank became the HMS Dudley. After
its first combat action the Germans quickly learned to fear the distant bang of the HMS Dudley
for truly the Royal Navy could now reach them anywhere!





General Specifications
Formal Designation......HMS Dudley
Manufacturer(s).........Factory No.9 Ural Heavy Machinery Factory (UTZM or Uralmash)
Production Quantity.....2 (110 Ordered)
Production Period.......March 1940 - ?
Type....................Heavy Tank
Crew....................6
Length overall..........9.45 m (31' 0")
Width...................3.65 m (12' 2")
Height..................2.13 m ( 7' )
Barrel Overhang.........0.762 m (2.5')
Combat Weight...........55000 kg (121000 lbs)
Radio Equipment.........No.19

ARMAMENTS
Primary Armament........4.7"/45 (12 cm) QF Mark XII (Naval)
Ammunition Carried......76
Traverse (degrees)......Manual (20°L - 20°R)
Elevation (degrees).....-3° to +30°
Traverse speed (360°)...NA
Sight...................TZF5a
Secondary Armament......1 x 7.92mm Besa MG (Hull)
Ammunition Carried......4350

ARMOR
-------------------------Front------------------Side-------------------Rear-----------------Top/Bottom
Upper Hull...........60mm@35°..........60mm@70°.........45mm@80°.......20mm@0°
Lower Hull...........70mm@55°.........60mm@90°.........50mm@60°.......20mm@0°
Mantlet..............75mm@round.......NA......................NA....................NA


MOBILITY
Engine Make & Model.....GAM-34BT
Type & Displacement.....V12, 45.8 liters
Horsepower (max.).......850hp@1850rpm
Power/Weight Ratio......15.5 hp/tonne
Gearbox.................5 forward, 1 reverse
Fuel....................Gasoline (Petrol)
Range on/off road.......220/160 km
Mileage on road.........600 l/100km
Fuel Capacity...........about 1320 l
Speed on/off road.......35 km/h
Track Links.............120/track
Track Width.............70.0 cm (28")
Track Ground Contact....585 cm (230")
Ground Pressure.........0.67 kg/cm2 (9.6 psi)
Ground Clearance........0.50 m (1' 8")
Gradient................30°+
Vertical Obstacle.......1.2 m (3' 11")
Fording.................1.7 m (5' 7")
Trench Crossing.........3.0 m (9' 10")


Designer Notes

Well this orginally started as a Multi main gun tank or Possibly 2 turrets. Then the "ideal" part came to mind and I went off course!
I think it went off course in a good direction tho. Due to having to balance my weight as I add and remove things from the tank I have
found I now have to keep a large data base of materals and data for reference LOL.  I started out with a hull mounted main gun with a
smaller turret topside. Sadly to scale the hull weapon up to the size I wanted it would of had issues in its traverse.  As the breach
ect extends a rather large distance into the tank.  Bigger the gun the longer its "rear".  So mounting anything to the size I wanted
in the hull and having a turret I ran into problems. Turrets tend to operate with a basket underneath that traverses as the turret does
So the larger gun in the hull would come into conflict as I try to traverse the hull mounted weapon. another option was to do away with
turret basket and have the commander/gunner shift or move or even help with the main gun operations when it was in use. But in the end
I was wasting Tonnage on only being able to utilize one weapon system at a time in that layout.  Sigh I think I am thinking to hard about
engineering side of this lmao

MrVic: HMS Dudley (Formerly RN1-Tank)

(Nicknamed "Admiral Pound's Kraut Pounder")



HMS Dudley History

HMS Dudley's origin starts in 1938.  A conversation between Robert Warwick and
Admiral Sir Dudley Pound in a local London pub. Robert Warwick being a Engineer
working for Vickers-Armstrongs, the same company responsible for the creation of
the Valentine II British Tank. Admiral Sir Dudley Pound was previously the CinC
of the Mediterranean and was promoted to Admiral of the Fleet and First Sea Lord 1939-1943.
During this chance meeting in a London pub where Admiral Pound supposedly said to
Warwick in Late 1938... " If these recent events boil over into a war with Germany,
those krauts will be lucky that my ships cannot walk on land. For no enemy can stand
against the guns of The Royal Navy" That conversation stuck with Warwick for some weeks.
Consumed with the ideas from his conversation that fateful night floating around his head,
Warwick approached the British War Office with his ideas. After a short deliberation
and some pressure from the Royal Navy and a determined Admiral they cleared project
designated "RN1-Tank"

     Now Warwick started to wonder if he really could effectively mount a large naval
gun onto a land based  mobile platform.  As the weeks passed he began to put the pieces together.
First he needed a naval gun to base his design on.  The choice was simple
the Navy's 4.7"/45 (12 cm) QF Mark XII.  The 4.7"/45   had seen some improvements from
powder bag charges to utilizing a cartridge some years before. This combined with a
50 Lbs (22.68 kg) round (HE and AT) a muzzle velocity of 2,650 fps (808 mps) with a
range of 15,800 yards (14,450 m) and still maintaining the ability to penetrate 2.5" (76 mm)
of armor  at 6,500 yards (5,950 m) Meant there was no armored target the RN1-Tank could not defeat.

     The original idea was to use the RN1-Tank in a indirect fire mode, but with the speed of
German tanks and tactics used, Warwick decided to plan for a direct fire role as well.  This meant
increasing its frontal armor and improving the traverse range of his hull mounted main gun.
The major drawback quickly became keeping the size of the RN1-Tank’s foot print as small as
possible and still provide adequate firing platform and room to operate the large main gun.
This resulted in increase in weight and width being the two biggest issues Warwick had to address.
Seeing as the war in Europe means traveling on narrow roads and even narrower streets in the
cities usually the increased width of 3.65 m (12' 2") meant travel challenges for the RN1-Tank
were unavoidable.  The second challenge the weight, Warwick had to find a engine capable of moving
his Tank at speeds that would enable it to keep up with a advancing force or to retreat in the
threat of a sudden break through. The solution was found with the recent purchasing of a newly
modified Russian aircraft engine the GAM-34BT by the War office to be reverse engineered for
possible use in their newer tank designs.  The engine had the sufficient power and was quickly
adapted to the two RN1-Tank prototypes.  Due to the engine being gas powered Warwick decided to
isolate the engine in a rear armored compartment so that even if the RN1-Tank took a hit to its
engine compartment the damage could be contained.  Since his main gun was not driven by electric
the loss of a engine did not mean the tanks total combat effectiveness would be lost.  
With no engine power the RN1-Tank with its increased armor could act as a fixed Artillery position
or a defensive AT bunker.  With a 20 degree R/L traverse due to the extra wide hull and crew
compartment layout his tank would maintain a rather respectable field of fire even immobile.
Warwick's last few improvements were focused on crew operations and a newly acquired
TZF5a German sight that was easily duplicated. The improvements to the crew operations mainly
focused on the operation of the 4.7"/45 (12 cm) QF Mark XII main gun.  Due to the size of the
rounds fired it was decided that two loaders assisted with mechanical load assist equipment would
be a much needed addition.  This combined with a rear hatch to eject spent casings greatly
increased the rate of fire of the RN1-Tank. In honor of The Royal Navy's help and contributions
and Admiral Sir Dudley Pound's words of enlightenment the RN1-Tank became the HMS Dudley. After
its first combat action the Germans quickly learned to fear the distant bang of the HMS Dudley
for truly the Royal Navy could now reach them anywhere!





General Specifications
Formal Designation......HMS Dudley
Manufacturer(s).........Factory No.9 Ural Heavy Machinery Factory (UTZM or Uralmash)
Production Quantity.....2 (110 Ordered)
Production Period.......March 1940 - ?
Type....................Heavy Tank
Crew....................6
Length overall..........9.45 m (31' 0")
Width...................3.65 m (12' 2")
Height..................2.13 m ( 7' )
Barrel Overhang.........0.762 m (2.5')
Combat Weight...........55000 kg (121000 lbs)
Radio Equipment.........No.19

ARMAMENTS
Primary Armament........4.7"/45 (12 cm) QF Mark XII (Naval)
Ammunition Carried......76
Traverse (degrees)......Manual (20°L - 20°R)
Elevation (degrees).....-3° to +30°
Traverse speed (360°)...NA
Sight...................TZF5a
Secondary Armament......1 x 7.92mm Besa MG (Hull)
Ammunition Carried......4350

ARMOR
-------------------------Front------------------Side-------------------Rear-----------------Top/Bottom
Upper Hull...........60mm@35°..........60mm@70°.........45mm@80°.......20mm@0°
Lower Hull...........70mm@55°.........60mm@90°.........50mm@60°.......20mm@0°
Mantlet..............75mm@round.......NA......................NA....................NA


MOBILITY
Engine Make & Model.....GAM-34BT
Type & Displacement.....V12, 45.8 liters
Horsepower (max.).......850hp@1850rpm
Power/Weight Ratio......15.5 hp/tonne
Gearbox.................5 forward, 1 reverse
Fuel....................Gasoline (Petrol)
Range on/off road.......220/160 km
Mileage on road.........600 l/100km
Fuel Capacity...........about 1320 l
Speed on/off road.......35 km/h
Track Links.............120/track
Track Width.............70.0 cm (28")
Track Ground Contact....585 cm (230")
Ground Pressure.........0.67 kg/cm2 (9.6 psi)
Ground Clearance........0.50 m (1' 8")
Gradient................30°+
Vertical Obstacle.......1.2 m (3' 11")
Fording.................1.7 m (5' 7")
Trench Crossing.........3.0 m (9' 10")


Designer Notes

Well this orginally started as a Multi main gun tank or Possibly 2 turrets. Then the "ideal" part came to mind and I went off course!
I think it went off course in a good direction tho. Due to having to balance my weight as I add and remove things from the tank I have
found I now have to keep a large data base of materals and data for reference LOL.  I started out with a hull mounted main gun with a
smaller turret topside. Sadly to scale the hull weapon up to the size I wanted it would of had issues in its traverse.  As the breach
ect extends a rather large distance into the tank.  Bigger the gun the longer its "rear".  So mounting anything to the size I wanted
in the hull and having a turret I ran into problems. Turrets tend to operate with a basket underneath that traverses as the turret does
So the larger gun in the hull would come into conflict as I try to traverse the hull mounted weapon. another option was to do away with
turret basket and have the commander/gunner shift or move or even help with the main gun operations when it was in use. But in the end
I was wasting Tonnage on only being able to utilize one weapon system at a time in that layout.  Sigh I think I am thinking to hard about
engineering side of this lmao