Jump to content


Alternate History Tank Project: Cheonho


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

cashdash #41 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 06:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 5143 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Sep 05 2014 - 01:07, said:

 

My comment was meant as sarcasm, not encouragement. 

 

Walter, it's Dai, we can't afford to take any chances.



acosnil #42 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 06:22

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3332 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

You must love getting abused Dai.

 

 

Jesting aside, I'm not entirely sure what kind of alternate history you'd need to spin where an Asian country was building tanks with what looks like a cast steel turret. The whole thing looks way too advanced for a region which was using an odd mixture of hand-me-down inter-war period tanks, or Japanese tanks which were largely welded together. In either case I just don't see where the sort of heavy industry manufacturing would be found to build such a thing- Tiger tanks were built in factories which historically built trains, after all. I'm not entirely convinced the means would have existed for Asia to be indulging in such a project without some sort of cooperative with the Soviet Union, or if you did something huge like remove European colonialism from China.

 

 

A 100 mm gun would probably demand a muzzle brake. I guess that'd come down more to what the tank is intended to do though- the thick frontal and turret armor tells me you envision this functioning as a sort of slugger / breakthrough style tank? It'd probably want the muzzle brake to help make the firing system last longer, fire more rounds and kick up less particulate during firing.

 

 

300 kms operational range seems a bit generous as well. Aside from me being a bit suspicious of a heavy tank getting an engine cranking 28 horse per ton of weight, the tank's heavier than a Pershing but boasts almost 3 times the range. The M26 had an ~180 gallon (~700 liters) fuel tank. The T-34 had an operational range of 400 kms, but only as a consequence of three huge external fuel tanks added to it, and the reasonably more efficient diesel engine. This kinda leads me to believe your weight calculations are a bit off. Your tank has a fuel tank that carries about 2.25 times more gasoline than a Pershing's fuel tank, gasoline weighs about .75 kilos per liter. That fuel tank filled to the brim will add 1260 kilos to the weight alone, or about 1.38 tons. Furthermore- and someone will have to fill in the particulars here- the Pershing at it's thickest had about 110mm's of armor. Your tank's turret has 300mm on the mantlet, 180 on the frontal turret, and 125mm on the upper front. The Pershing weighed in at 41.7 tons. Your tank somehow weighs 44.5. I'm going to guess that a gas turbine engine weighs significantly more than the humble V8 engine under the Pershing's hood.

 

 

And I don't exactly think, "fuel efficient" when I think "gas turbine powering a heavy tank."

 

 

2 coax machine guns are mentioned. I see no such machine guns.

 

 

All great tanks have log armor. Get on that.

 

 

EDIT: are you sure that frontal armor is angled at 65 degrees?


Edited by acosnil, Sep 05 2014 - 06:29.


Daigensui #43 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 07:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View Postacosnil, on Sep 04 2014 - 22:22, said:

Jesting aside, I'm not entirely sure what kind of alternate history you'd need to spin where an Asian country was building tanks with what looks like a cast steel turret. The whole thing looks way too advanced for a region which was using an odd mixture of hand-me-down inter-war period tanks, or Japanese tanks which were largely welded together. In either case I just don't see where the sort of heavy industry manufacturing would be found to build such a thing- Tiger tanks were built in factories which historically built trains, after all. I'm not entirely convinced the means would have existed for Asia to be indulging in such a project without some sort of cooperative with the Soviet Union, or if you did something huge like remove European colonialism from China.

 

General notes

 

Block Quote

Ito and Korea supported Sun's revolution in exchange for establishing a protectorate over Southern Manchuria, while Mongolia and Northern Manchuria became Russian. This expansion in Asia has Russia turning to the East.
 
Meanwhile, the Italian-Ottoman War ends with Italy still having Libya, but it breaks with Germany over how German supported the Ottoman side (if we say the basics, it's more complex than this). An Italy that becomes pro-French leads to the automatic termination of the Franco-Russian Alliance, and when combined with the Russian focus on the Far East, leads to Russia giving Austria a relatively free hand in the Balkans (Pan-Slavism isn't as strongly appealed to).
 
WW1 starts when in 1915 an Armenian assassinates the Ottoman Home Minister and the French Foreign Minister, and a link to Russia is "found." At first the war is Germany/Russia/Romania Versus France/Ottoman/UK/China/Japan/Greece. The war expands in 1917 as Austra-Hungary collapses into civil war while Italy joins the war on side of the Entente, Korea hits the Russians occupying Northern China from the side after two years of "neutrality" (which was used to build up the country for war), and the US also joins (similar reasons to OTL). The war ends in 1918 as Russia collapses and a new government declares war on Germany, leading to much chaos. Ultimately Germany surrenders and something similar to what happened in OTL is done. Meanwhile, in Russia the Soviets do gain power, but at the expense of losing eastern Siberia to Korean-supported White forces and most of western Belarus and Ukraine to Poland.
 
The biggest winner of WW1 is arguably Korea. By being the balance breaker in both the Eastern (Chinese) and Western (European) Fronts and also providing loans (in form of gold) and war material from Japanese-invested factories, it obtains a place in the sun. All other Entente powers except the US have debts to it, which it collects on with technology and investments. Korea banks on these to develop, and starts the first Five Year Plan in 1926. Even in the midst of the Great Depression, it focuses on internal development, and by 1936 is a world power. It has the second largest steel production capacity, outproduces the United States in rare metal, produces enough oil to fuel all of its immediate allies and also export to Europe. With a vibrant industrial base, a strong labor movement that works with the monarchy, and ultimate expansion into the Greater Korean Empire, it is considered the greatest winner of the interwar era.
 
The worst losing “winner” is China. Not only does it have hundreds of thousands of casualties, but it is "persuaded" to give up all claims on land outside of China Proper (although Uyghurs and Tibetans are still part of China), and Qingtao is under Japanese administration. This causes a nationalist backlash with Song Jiaoren forsaking his democratic beliefs for state socialist "Han Restoration", supported by his friend Kita Ikki. This ultimately leads to the Night of the Long Daggers in 1926, where Song comes to power and establishes one of the most brutal regimes in history. His assassination in 1931 in the hands of a Korean Lee Bong-chang (OTL tried to assassinate Hirohito) for the death of his Japanese foster father (killed in the Qingtao Massacre, where ROC invaded the Japanese concession of Qingtao after incidents and exterminated the Japanese population there following a siege) only made the situation worse. With the support of France and Italy, China goes under brutal industrialization as it prepares for revenge against Korea.

 

You also have to remember that the Soviet Union was in a worse position than Japan, but was able to build up on foreign (almost completely American and German) investment and turn-key facilities (paid for by the sacrifice of the farmers). Since Korea is in a creditor position and is more efficiently exploiting the resources of Manchuria, it can sufficiently build up past what the Soviet Union was able to achieve in OTL.

 

 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 04 2014 - 22:22, said:

A 100 mm gun would probably demand a muzzle brake. I guess that'd come down more to what the tank is intended to do though- the thick frontal and turret armor tells me you envision this functioning as a sort of slugger / breakthrough style tank? It'd probably want the muzzle brake to help make the firing system last longer, fire more rounds and kick up less particulate during firing.

 

It was unnecessary for the actual gun built. I don't see why I would need it here.

 

 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 04 2014 - 22:22, said:

300 kms operational range seems a bit generous as well. Aside from me being a bit suspicious of a heavy tank getting an engine cranking 28 horse per ton of weight, the tank's heavier than a Pershing but boasts almost 3 times the range. The M26 had an ~180 gallon (~700 liters) fuel tank. The T-34 had an operational range of 400 kms, but only as a consequence of three huge external fuel tanks added to it, and the reasonably more efficient diesel engine. This kinda leads me to believe your weight calculations are a bit off. Your tank has a fuel tank that carries about 2.25 times more gasoline than a Pershing's fuel tank, gasoline weighs about .75 kilos per liter. That fuel tank filled to the brim will add 1260 kilos to the weight alone, or about 1.38 tons. Furthermore- and someone will have to fill in the particulars here- the Pershing at it's thickest had about 110mm's of armor. Your tank's turret has 300mm on the mantlet, 180 on the frontal turret, and 125mm on the upper front. The Pershing weighed in at 41.7 tons. Your tank somehow weighs 44.5. I'm going to guess that a gas turbine engine weighs significantly more than the humble V8 engine under the Pershing's hood.

 

 

And I don't exactly think, "fuel efficient" when I think "gas turbine powering a heavy tank."

 

GT 102 (turbine proposed for Panther) allows all of that to be achieved, at the cost of high maintenance. 

 

 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 04 2014 - 22:22, said:

2 coax machine guns are mentioned. I see no such machine guns.

 

In Current Change Proposals:

 

5. Widen the mantlet/gun mount and install gun sight and coaxial MG into the mantlet

 
Also, commander MG is something similar to what the Conqueror had. Was not modeled to save workload on the modeler. 
 
 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 04 2014 - 22:22, said:

All great tanks have log armor. Get on that.

 

No.

 
 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 04 2014 - 22:22, said:

EDIT: are you sure that frontal armor is angled at 65 degrees?

 

Should be.



Daigensui #44 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 07:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View Postcashdash, on Sep 04 2014 - 22:04, said:

Don't encourage her.

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Sep 04 2014 - 22:07, said:

My comment was meant as sarcasm, not encouragement. 

View Postcashdash, on Sep 04 2014 - 22:11, said:

Walter, it's Dai, we can't afford to take any chances.

 

cashdash has the right sentiments.



acosnil #45 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 08:47

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3332 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View PostDaigensui, on Sep 05 2014 - 07:48, said:

 

General notes

 

 

You also have to remember that the Soviet Union was in a worse position than Japan, but was able to build up on foreign (almost completely American and German) investment and turn-key facilities (paid for by the sacrifice of the farmers). Since Korea is in a creditor position and is more efficiently exploiting the resources of Manchuria, it can sufficiently build up past what the Soviet Union was able to achieve in OTL.

 

 

 

 

It was unnecessary for the actual gun built. I don't see why I would need it here.

 

 

 

GT 102 (turbine proposed for Panther) allows all of that to be achieved, at the cost of high maintenance. 

 

 

 

In Current Change Proposals:

 

5. Widen the mantlet/gun mount and install gun sight and coaxial MG into the mantlet

 
Also, commander MG is something similar to what the Conqueror had. Was not modeled to save workload on the modeler. 
 
 

 

No.

 
 

 

Should be.

 

Heavy tanks still tend to be a sort of upper crust production, and in mainland Asia I'd genuinely ponder the value of a heavy tank when the terrain doesn't necessarily lend itself to tank warfare. Seems like Asia- particularly mountainous Korea- would be the sort of place that favors something more akin to a StuG.

 

 

And so long as I'm thinking of it, wouldn't the direction of tank development after WW1 take wildly different directions? How do you end up at the same root tank design philosophy you see present here in your AU tank compared to the reality, which involved a lot of ideas from the French, Germans and Soviets?

 

 

And muzzle brakes aren't always a question of necessity so much as value. Muzzle brakes could reduce the kick from rounds which would reduce the stress each individual round carries onto the firing system of the tank, and would divert the physical force of the round firing away from the ground immediately in front of the tank, which would kick up dirt, obscuring the tank's view. I guess the value of the brake would come down to what this is intended to be used in conjunction with. Then again if they were only building a single example, they probably wouldn't bother with a muzzle brake just yet- that just adds complexity and doesn't actually yield much if it is just a gun for testing / prototyping purposes.

 

 

And my point with the talk about the gas tank, engine and armor was that between your tank's range, gun, and armor it seems like 44.5 tons is a bit optimistic. How exactly did you reach this figure? The gas turbine you mentioned for the Panther produced prodigious amounts of physical power, but did so at a high fuel expense. It doesn't seem like this is reflected either unless you want to argue that Korea would find a way to deal with the heat generation which was cited as the reason why the GT101 (102?) was consuming so much fuel.

 

 

 



Daigensui #46 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 09:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 00:47, said:

Heavy tanks still tend to be a sort of upper crust production, and in mainland Asia I'd genuinely ponder the value of a heavy tank when the terrain doesn't necessarily lend itself to tank warfare. Seems like Asia- particularly mountainous Korea- would be the sort of place that favors something more akin to a StuG.

 

Manchuria is quite a nice place for armor battles.

 

 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 00:47, said:

And so long as I'm thinking of it, wouldn't the direction of tank development after WW1 take wildly different directions? How do you end up at the same root tank design philosophy you see present here in your AU tank compared to the reality, which involved a lot of ideas from the French, Germans and Soviets?

 

General stuff

 

1. Korea*: First adapter of torsion bar and HESH
2. Japan: Christie-based hull, Japanese turret with lots of upgunning 
3. China: Going where no French heavy have gone before (ARL 44 and beyond)
4. Germany: More rationalized designing (Adolf unintentionally killed OTL Tiger), liberal use of APCR and autoloaders
5. UK: Infantry tank is reduced in importance, Hara-influenced medium development, leader in Littlejohn adaptor
6. France: More focus on medium tanks (Char G1 program) since China was the one that took on heavy tank development (division of tank design), rushed development of APDS (which wasn't shared with the British, due to politics)
7. Soviet Russia: KV and T-50 developments are the norm until 1943 when a T-44 analogue comes into mass production, bring about the IS series (IS-2 is skipped, goes directly to IS-3, IS-4, and one IS-7 prototype). Focus on large-caliber guns to counter the advancement of its enemies.
8. Australasia/US: Accelerated tank development from 1936, goes almost directly to HVSS, large influence from Patton (including uniform)

 

I've been slowly making various AH vehicles. I'll post them in a consolidated location in the near future when I make a substantial number.

 

 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 00:47, said:

And muzzle brakes aren't always a question of necessity so much as value. Muzzle brakes could reduce the kick from rounds which would reduce the stress each individual round carries onto the firing system of the tank, and would divert the physical force of the round firing away from the ground immediately in front of the tank, which would kick up dirt, obscuring the tank's view. I guess the value of the brake would come down to what this is intended to be used in conjunction with. Then again if they were only building a single example, they probably wouldn't bother with a muzzle brake just yet- that just adds complexity and doesn't actually yield much if it is just a gun for testing / prototyping purposes.

 

I really don't see the need for a muzzle brake. Those are used because a vehicle couldn't handle the recoil, which is not the case here.

 

 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 00:47, said:

And my point with the talk about the gas tank, engine and armor was that between your tank's range, gun, and armor it seems like 44.5 tons is a bit optimistic. How exactly did you reach this figure?

 

Using Tanksharp. I deliberately made things quite heavy, and yet that the top weight was only 42.5 t or so. You're looking at a vehicle that sacrificed the comfort that the Pattons gave for low hull and armor. You can also see the comparisons I did in this post.

 

All in all, 44.5 t is a conservative estimate, I can go lower if I wanted to.

 

 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 00:47, said:

The gas turbine you mentioned for the Panther produced prodigious amounts of physical power, but did so at a high fuel expense. It doesn't seem like this is reflected either unless you want to argue that Korea would find a way to deal with the heat generation which was cited as the reason why the GT101 (102?) was consuming so much fuel.

 

Fuel capacity is 1420 liters, with a consumption rate of 4.72 liters per km. This is a bit better than the 5.76 liters per km of GT 101, which is possible with an addition of a recuperator to GT 102 (GT 103).



acosnil #47 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 16:49

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3332 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View PostDaigensui, on Sep 05 2014 - 09:44, said:

 

Manchuria is quite a nice place for armor battles.

 

 

 

General stuff

 

1. Korea*: First adapter of torsion bar and HESH
2. Japan: Christie-based hull, Japanese turret with lots of upgunning 
3. China: Going where no French heavy have gone before (ARL 44 and beyond)
4. Germany: More rationalized designing (Adolf unintentionally killed OTL Tiger), liberal use of APCR and autoloaders
5. UK: Infantry tank is reduced in importance, Hara-influenced medium development, leader in Littlejohn adaptor
6. France: More focus on medium tanks (Char G1 program) since China was the one that took on heavy tank development (division of tank design), rushed development of APDS (which wasn't shared with the British, due to politics)
7. Soviet Russia: KV and T-50 developments are the norm until 1943 when a T-44 analogue comes into mass production, bring about the IS series (IS-2 is skipped, goes directly to IS-3, IS-4, and one IS-7 prototype). Focus on large-caliber guns to counter the advancement of its enemies.
8. Australasia/US: Accelerated tank development from 1936, goes almost directly to HVSS, large influence from Patton (including uniform)

 

I've been slowly making various AH vehicles. I'll post them in a consolidated location in the near future when I make a substantial number.

 

 

 

I really don't see the need for a muzzle brake. Those are used because a vehicle couldn't handle the recoil, which is not the case here.

 

 

 

Using Tanksharp. I deliberately made things quite heavy, and yet that the top weight was only 42.5 t or so. You're looking at a vehicle that sacrificed the comfort that the Pattons gave for low hull and armor. You can also see the comparisons I did in this post.

 

All in all, 44.5 t is a conservative estimate, I can go lower if I wanted to.

 

 

 

Fuel capacity is 1420 liters, with a consumption rate of 4.72 liters per km. This is a bit better than the 5.76 liters per km of GT 101, which is possible with an addition of a recuperator to GT 102 (GT 103).

 

Manchuria still only represents a single location. Germany and the Soviets were building their heavy tanks with the assumption that they would probably go just about anywhere the army would, except for maybe high mountain passes.

 

 

I assume you're figuring Korea would get it's fuel from the ex-Russian holdings in northeastern Asia?

 

 

....if we're comparing this to a Patton is it really a heavy tank?



Daigensui #48 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 17:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 08:49, said:

Manchuria still only represents a single location. Germany and the Soviets were building their heavy tanks with the assumption that they would probably go just about anywhere the army would, except for maybe high mountain passes.

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 08:49, said:

....if we're comparing this to a Patton is it really a heavy tank?

 

Who ever said this was a heavy tank? It's 1946.

 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 08:49, said:

I assume you're figuring Korea would get it's fuel from the ex-Russian holdings in northeastern Asia?

 

Where do you think PRC got its oil to export before it started importing?



acosnil #49 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 17:30

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3332 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View PostDaigensui, on Sep 05 2014 - 17:09, said:

 

Who ever said this was a heavy tank? It's 1946.

 

 

Where do you think PRC got its oil to export before it started importing?

 

Well, I kept calling it that and you never bothered to correct me. Anyways.

 

 

And I don't know where the PRC got it's oil, it is why I'm asking.



Daigensui #50 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 17:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 09:30, said:

Well, I kept calling it that and you never bothered to correct me. Anyways.

 

I thought you meant just the weight, not a classification.

 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 09:30, said:

And I don't know where the PRC got it's oil, it is why I'm asking.

 

Manchuria. In OTL Japan missed the Liaohe oil field by about 100 meters or so, and no one dug at Daqing because no one believed there would be oil there except a few mavericks. Two easy butterflies to use.

 



acosnil #51 Posted Sep 06 2014 - 03:46

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3332 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View PostDaigensui, on Sep 05 2014 - 09:44, said:

1. Korea*: First adapter of torsion bar and HESH

2. Japan: Christie-based hull, Japanese turret with lots of upgunning 
3. China: Going where no French heavy have gone before (ARL 44 and beyond)
4. Germany: More rationalized designing (Adolf unintentionally killed OTL Tiger), liberal use of APCR and autoloaders
5. UK: Infantry tank is reduced in importance, Hara-influenced medium development, leader in Littlejohn adaptor
6. France: More focus on medium tanks (Char G1 program) since China was the one that took on heavy tank development (division of tank design), rushed development of APDS (which wasn't shared with the British, due to politics)
7. Soviet Russia: KV and T-50 developments are the norm until 1943 when a T-44 analogue comes into mass production, bring about the IS series (IS-2 is skipped, goes directly to IS-3, IS-4, and one IS-7 prototype). Focus on large-caliber guns to counter the advancement of its enemies.
8. Australasia/US: Accelerated tank development from 1936, goes almost directly to HVSS, large influence from Patton (including uniform)

 

Actually, so long as I'm thinking of it, how do you figure this all happens?

 

What makes the Japanese go for a Christie hull over the domestic productions you see in reality? HESH and torsion bar suspensions for Korea? If the Germans never fight the T-34, wouldn't there basically be no demand for the Panther or the Tiger? Wouldn't they have simply not existed? Are we assuming that the US maintains it's level of interventionism south of the border? What happens with the banana republics? Does France break with the bloated military / industrial complex that gave birth to such wonders as the B1 heavy?

 

 

What about Spain? With the Soviets hemmed in what happens to the Scandinavian countries? What about Soviet / US relations? Wasn't it Ford's chief manufacturing engineer who'd go on to design the Union's war factories?



cashdash #52 Posted Sep 06 2014 - 04:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 5143 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013
Don't ask question Acosnil, you'll mess with her wish fulfillment.

acosnil #53 Posted Sep 06 2014 - 04:41

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3332 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View Postcashdash, on Sep 06 2014 - 04:12, said:

Don't ask question Acosnil, you'll mess with her wish fulfillment.

 

Well no, I think that by asking questions you produce a better product. Her overt purpose for this thread is

 

Quote

HAV has one of the highest concentration of knowledge on historical tank technology, and I wish to receive help in making this project "historically plausible" as much as possible. I hope that you might give your assistance in this designing.

 

So I don't see what the problem is.



Legiondude #54 Posted Sep 06 2014 - 04:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,025
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 22:41, said:

So I don't see what the problem is.

This is because you're not initiated with the running tolerate/purge attitude Daigensui and the guys over in the Compendium thread have going on



Tied #55 Posted Sep 06 2014 - 04:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 5027 battles
  • 4,190
  • Member since:
    07-03-2013

View PostDaigensui, on Sep 05 2014 - 09:56, said:

 

cashdash has the right sentiments.

 

Why does EE's alt account interested in Jap(oh noes a Russian who has no idea what sentiment it means in English said jap, BAN BAN BAN)enese tanks and not Italian ones, I would love to see another Pastaboo

 

All kidding aside, this type of tank dosent seem like it would be comming out of Japan until maybe the 50s or 60s


What i would like to know(many from my T-72s getting bloody knoses from these on wargame) is what the general wrap-up of Japanese Cold War era was, i kinda always assumed they were simluar to the french/germans, accurate, relatively powerful gun, fast and no armor to speak of until down the road.

 

 



acosnil #56 Posted Sep 06 2014 - 05:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3332 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View PostTied, on Sep 06 2014 - 04:50, said:

 

Why does EE's alt account interested in Jap(oh noes a Russian who has no idea what sentiment it means in English said jap, BAN BAN BAN)enese tanks and not Italian ones, I would love to see another Pastaboo

 

All kidding aside, this type of tank dosent seem like it would be comming out of Japan until maybe the 50s or 60s


What i would like to know(many from my T-72s getting bloody knoses from these on wargame) is what the general wrap-up of Japanese Cold War era was, i kinda always assumed they were simluar to the french/germans, accurate, relatively powerful gun, fast and no armor to speak of until down the road.

 

 

 

It's an Alternate Universe, and it isn't necessarily Japan building it.

Daigensui #57 Posted Sep 07 2014 - 01:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View Postcashdash, on Sep 05 2014 - 20:12, said:

Don't ask question Acosnil, you'll mess with her wish fulfillment.

 

If I can't pass muster here, I wouldn't pass muster if I ever get a chance to publish this.

 

 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 19:46, said:

What makes the Japanese go for a Christie hull over the domestic productions you see in reality? 

 

In OTL Christie once proposed selling his prototypes and blueprints to Japan, but since Japan had Hara to develop a new suspension and do general tank designs, they declined. In this world, Hara was wounded in the Chinese front of the Great War, and thus never rose as high as he did in OTL to be able to influence tank development. Combined with a major conflict with China that basically kicked Japan out of the continent (except for its alliance with Korea*), the need for a "proven" tank design was great, and so Japan accepted Christie's offer in this reality.

 

 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 19:46, said:

HESH and torsion bar suspensions for Korea? If the Germans never fight the T-34, wouldn't there basically be no demand for the Panther or the Tiger? Wouldn't they have simply not existed? 

 

In this world, Otto Merker goes to Korea* as part of technological exchanges instead of being sent to AB Landsverk to develop armored vehicles and work as troubleshooter for the development of the automotive industry. Historically, Merker was the one who first introduced torsion bar suspension to takes with L-100, so I can see him affecting Korean* tank development.
 
 
Short bio of Otto Merker: He made a tractor for German Agricultural Society Exhibition of 1927, where he was found by Ludwig Ritter von Radlmaier (one of the future main instructors and directors of the Kama Tank School). This lead him to chief engineer in Maschinenfabrik Esslingen (a German engineering firm that manufactured locomotives, tramways, railway wagons, roll-blocks, technical equipment for the railways, (turntables and traversers), bridges, steel structures, pumps and boilers). Turns out ME was a de facto subsidiary of Gutehoffnungshütte Aktienverein für Bergbau und Hüttenbereich Oberhausen (GHH), which had control over AB Landsverk. And so Merker ended up in Sweden, developing L-100 to Strv m/42. He would later work under Speer as part of Shipbuilding, managing to reduce the construction time of Type XXI from 11.5 months to 2 months. 
 
 
For HESH, it's because of the B1 tres analogue tanks that China fields. Even with tungsten armed 57 mm guns such a vehicle would be a tough nut to crack, so HESH was developed as a countermeasure.
 
 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 19:46, said:

If the Germans never fight the T-34, wouldn't there basically be no demand for the Panther or the Tiger? Wouldn't they have simply not existed? 

 
KVs and A-43 class vehicles (as a bigger T-50) would mean Germany needs stronger tanks anyway.
 
 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 19:46, said:

Are we assuming that the US maintains it's level of interventionism south of the border? What happens with the banana republics? 

 

Yes, because TDR returns as president in 1920 :trollface:

 

 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 19:46, said:

Does France break with the bloated military / industrial complex that gave birth to such wonders as the B1 heavy?

 

Lots of streamlining after a right-wing government comes to power and a lot of off-loading of the heavier things to China.

 

 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 19:46, said:

What about Spain? 

 

Things are far messier. That's all I will say.

 

 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 19:46, said:

With the Soviets hemmed in what happens to the Scandinavian countries? 

 

Soviet Russia is far more belligerent in general than OTL (butterflies, will perhaps explain in the future), and so relationships are far colder, to the point that Sweden would intervene if Finland is attacked.
 
 

View Postacosnil, on Sep 05 2014 - 19:46, said:

What about Soviet / US relations? Wasn't it Ford's chief manufacturing engineer who'd go on to design the Union's war factories?

 

Similar to OTL, although the various engineers and designers mostly go to Korea* rather than the Soviets.



acosnil #58 Posted Sep 07 2014 - 01:54

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3332 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View PostDaigensui, on Sep 07 2014 - 01:05, said:

 

If I can't pass muster here, I wouldn't pass muster if I ever get a chance to publish this.

 

 

 

In OTL Christie once proposed selling his prototypes and blueprints to Japan, but since Japan had Hara to develop a new suspension and do general tank designs, they declined. In this world, Hara was wounded in the Chinese front of the Great War, and thus never rose as high as he did in OTL to be able to influence tank development. Combined with a major conflict with China that basically kicked Japan out of the continent (except for its alliance with Korea*), the need for a "proven" tank design was great, and so Japan accepted Christie's offer in this reality.

 

 

 

In this world, Otto Merker goes to Korea* as part of technological exchanges instead of being sent to AB Landsverk to develop armored vehicles and work as troubleshooter for the development of the automotive industry. Historically, Merker was the one who first introduced torsion bar suspension to takes with L-100, so I can see him affecting Korean* tank development.
 
 
Short bio of Otto Merker: He made a tractor for German Agricultural Society Exhibition of 1927, where he was found by Ludwig Ritter von Radlmaier (one of the future main instructors and directors of the Kama Tank School). This lead him to chief engineer in Maschinenfabrik Esslingen (a German engineering firm that manufactured locomotives, tramways, railway wagons, roll-blocks, technical equipment for the railways, (turntables and traversers), bridges, steel structures, pumps and boilers). Turns out ME was a de facto subsidiary of Gutehoffnungshütte Aktienverein für Bergbau und Hüttenbereich Oberhausen (GHH), which had control over AB Landsverk. And so Merker ended up in Sweden, developing L-100 to Strv m/42. He would later work under Speer as part of Shipbuilding, managing to reduce the construction time of Type XXI from 11.5 months to 2 months. 
 
 
KVs and A-43 class vehicles (as a bigger T-50) would mean Germany needs stronger tanks anyway.
 
 

 

Yes, because TDR returns as president in 1920 :trollface:

 

 

 

Soviet Russia is far more belligerent in general than OTL (butterflies, will perhaps explain in the future), and so relationships are far colder, to the point that Sweden would intervene if Finland is attacked.
 
 

 

Similar to OTL, although the various engineers and designers mostly go to Korea* rather than the Soviets.

 

I guess for me the biggest issues would be explaining how Hitler still comes into power. Even with Germans writing personal checks and expressing the value conveyed in logarithmic functions, the German economy in shambles, and an effective tax valued at about 1/4th of the German economy being paid to other states in the form of reparations, Germany as a whole still didn't like the Nazi party enough to vote him in.

 

 

I'm not convinced the Tiger would have ever been made seeing as though it was Hitler who basically demanded it be made. The panther would probably have more in common with it's Benz prototype than the MAN production.

 

 

I also am not convinced the Soviets would have been able to defeat the Germans. What's your time table like? Because Stalin had to kill a lot of people to clear opposition to him, which included a lot of Ukrainians starved to death and so on. In OTL the Soviets weren't going to be war-ready till '43, being generous, and a lot of Germany's initial success in WW2 was testament to this fact because it sure as crapwasn't superior German engineering that was doing it. Communism just wasn't terribly popular with Warsaw bloc countries.

 

 

Furthermore, when Korea swallows up the Russian Frontier, it's also grabbing a lot of land which today is a sort of secondary bread basket for the Federation. I don't know what level of development the region had a century ago, but the Primorsky Krai would have likely been a major food source for the region. The scenario you describe would make it more probable that the Soviets get swallowed up by their neighbors, and what's left collapses into relative anarchy. The disaster of WW1 was in itself what led the Soviets to gaining power in the Russian empire, I don't think they'd be able to sell a NEW war to the public, and they wouldn't have yet had the time to murder all their political opposition.

 

 

I also think this kind of belies the difficulty a country endures when it has to engage in industrialization that contemporary powers had the luxury of doing over a matter of centuries in a scant few decades. When Russia was doing it, the finance minister (Sergei Witte: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Sergei_Witte) said in no uncertain terms that the country had to modernize, and that it was going to happen on the backs of the Russian people, and at the cost of their stomachs. If the Empire had to choose between spending gold to import machinery and import food, it was going to import machinery, as it were. How do you frame Korea in this?

 

 

How do you explain the Koreans hitting Eastern Russia? Where are they getting the industry for this? Because, lightly inhabited or not, that region wasn't exactly conducive to war, especially if it was an army lacking the benefits of industry, or at least industry by WW1 standards. Remember, it took over 2 centuries for the Russian empire to properly stake it's claim on the region.



Daigensui #59 Posted Sep 07 2014 - 02:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 27319 battles
  • 29,508
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View Postacosnil, on Sep 06 2014 - 17:54, said:

I guess for me the biggest issues would be explaining how Hitler still comes into power. Even with Germans writing personal checks and expressing the value conveyed in logarithmic functions, the German economy in shambles, and an effective tax valued at about 1/4th of the German economy being paid to other states in the form of reparations, Germany as a whole still didn't like the Nazi party enough to vote him in.

 

Hitler did have a fair chance of winning the 1932 presidential election if Hindenburg wasn't around. I've simply went with Reichspräsident Hitler rather than Reichskanzler Hitler.

 

 

snil, on Sep 06 2014 - 17:54, said:

I'm not convinced the Tiger would have ever been made seeing as though it was Hitler who basically demanded it be made. The panther would probably have more in common with it's Benz prototype than the MAN production.

 

​Different corporate competition. Basically Porsche wins the Tiger competition which is run into the ground, while Henschel wins the Panther competition with a sloped VK 36.01 (H) armed with L/56. Later in the war Pz.Kpfw. IV is developed into something resembling VK 30.01 (D).

 
 

snil, on Sep 06 2014 - 17:54, said:

I also am not convinced the Soviets would have been able to defeat the Germans. What's your time table like? Because Stalin had to kill a lot of people to clear opposition to him, which included a lot of Ukrainians starved to death and so on. In OTL the Soviets weren't going to be war-ready till '43, being generous, and a lot of Germany's initial success in WW2 was testament to this fact because it sure as crapwasn't superior German engineering that was doing it. Communism just wasn't terribly popular with Warsaw bloc countries.

 

​Who said anything about Soviet Russia defeating Germany? Obviously Soviet Russia losing is pretty much impossible short of a lot of hand-waving, but in this world I don't see Russia having the same kind of offensive power as the Soviet Union.

 
 

snil, on Sep 06 2014 - 17:54, said:

Furthermore, when Korea swallows up the Russian Frontier, it's also grabbing a lot of land which today is a sort of secondary bread basket for the Federation. I don't know what level of development the region had a century ago, but the Primorsky Krai would have likely been a major food source for the region. The scenario you describe would make it more probable that the Soviets get swallowed up by their neighbors, and what's left collapses into relative anarchy. The disaster of WW1 was in itself what led the Soviets to gaining power in the Russian empire, I don't think they'd be able to sell a NEW war to the public, and they wouldn't have yet had the time to murder all their political opposition.

 

​That happened after WW2. Before the 1950s the Soviet/Russian Far East was really just empty land with difficult to exploit resources.

 
 

snil, on Sep 06 2014 - 17:54, said:

I also think this kind of belies the difficulty a country endures when it has to engage in industrialization that contemporary powers had the luxury of doing over a matter of centuries in a scant few decades. When Russia was doing it, the finance minister (Sergei Witte: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Sergei_Witte) said in no uncertain terms that the country had to modernize, and that it was going to happen on the backs of the Russian people, and at the cost of their stomachs. If the Empire had to choose between spending gold to import machinery and import food, it was going to import machinery, as it were. How do you frame Korea in this?

 

The Russian Empire had to go into massive debt to fund its industrialization. For Korea (both the original and the later empire covering Manchuria)​, that was solved by the creditor status it obtained in the aftermath of the Great War. Add to this gold (Korea was always an exporter, even now that's partly how DPRK is able to trade), tungsten (major producer until the opening of China drove the price down), and oil (from Manchuria), and you have a country that is able to avoid the mass starvation that the Soviet Union had to go through by exporting agricultural products for capital. Of course, this is a simple answer, and I haven't gone into the government-business-labor relationship which is far different from what OTL Japan/Korea went through.

 

 

snil, on Sep 06 2014 - 17:54, said:

How do you explain the Koreans hitting Eastern Russia? Where are they getting the industry for this? Because, lightly inhabited or not, that region wasn't exactly conducive to war, especially if it was an army lacking the benefits of industry, or at least industry by WW1 standards. Remember, it took over 2 centuries for the Russian empire to properly stake it's claim on the region.

 

​If you mean the Great War, it was basically Korea hitting the Russian troops who were occupying Northern China. Later on Korea intervenes in the Russian civil war with Japan, and keeps Kolchak from collapsing. The benefits that were forced from Kolchak's regime is obviously pretty high.



acosnil #60 Posted Sep 07 2014 - 02:30

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3332 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View PostDaigensui, on Sep 07 2014 - 02:17, said:

​Who said anything about Soviet Russia defeating Germany? Obviously Soviet Russia losing is pretty much impossible short of a lot of hand-waving, but in this world I don't see Russia having the same kind of offensive power as the Soviet Union.

 

Quote

WW1 starts when in 1915 an Armenian assassinates the Ottoman Home Minister and the French Foreign Minister, and a link to Russia is "found." At first the war is Germany/Russia/Romania Versus France/Ottoman/UK/China/Japan/Greece. The war expands in 1917 as Austra-Hungary collapses into civil war while Italy joins the war on side of the Entente, Korea hits the Russians occupying Northern China from the side after two years of "neutrality" (which was used to build up the country for war), and the US also joins (similar reasons to OTL). The war ends in 1918 as Russia collapses and a new government declares war on Germany, leading to much chaos. Ultimately Germany surrenders and something similar to what happened in OTL is done. Meanwhile, in Russia the Soviets do gain power, but at the expense of losing eastern Siberia to Korean-supported White forces and most of western Belarus and Ukraine to Poland.
 

 

Maybe it is just me reading this wrong but you make it sound like WW1 happens, Russia loses, undergoes revolution, and then somehow manages to defeat the Germans. I'm just not convinced the Russians would have had the means, let alone the interest to go beat up Germany after it lost WW1.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users