Jump to content


Sketchup Redevelopment Tanks


  • Please log in to reply
4031 replies to this topic

Giganaut #1 Posted May 31 2011 - 15:49

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10556 battles
  • 2,963
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
yeap. Redesigning WW2 tanks with google sketchup.


hey. i need more help from you guys to help develop the tanks im redesigning.
so this will kinda be a joint development of the tank.

all you need to do is to tell me your idea what to add, and a rough sketch (ON PAPER) of the object or part.

ok, here's the first 2 tanks imma gonna need help developing:

the Tiger "IV"
Posted Image
here's the one with "iron skirting"
Posted Image

any ideas making this tank good will be really appreciated.

-Giganaut

Mow_Mow #2 Posted May 31 2011 - 18:46

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11576 battles
  • 14,822
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
If you look at the E-50/E-75 etc. you can see that their late war paper tanks have separate welded plates on the front corners to cover the tracks. Yours is missing those :S

Additionally, it seems that the Germans really liked 50-55 degree slope on the front armor, you might want to take that into account. The turret sides could also slope more like the KT's second turret because it's much easier to machine flat slopes than it is to forge a turret like the one in your drawing. The hatch would probably be alot taller. IIRC the Germans also ditched the front machine port on by the E-series, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

EDIT: Don't forget the periscopes for the driver! (and whoever sits to the side of him)

RedShocktrooper #3 Posted May 31 2011 - 19:03

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 8319 battles
  • 2,661
  • Member since:
    08-02-2010
I look at the Iron Skirting one and instantly think of the Type 36 Heavy Tank of Valkyria Chronicles 2.

Something I'd add is some sort of anti-mine plow on the front of the tank to deal with... well, mines. It'd also serve to cover up the "bottom" of the hull. Also move the skirts down lower (like on the Panzer IV) to cover the treads.

FaustianQ #4 Posted Jun 01 2011 - 03:58

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18664 battles
  • 7,726
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010
One thing to suggest - lower the profile. The Germans were moving to place engines entirely in the rear compartment to save weight, reduce engine fatigue, and lower the height of the vehicle - literally every other nation had done so by 1944. This is why certain tanks were able to achieve better weight to armor ratios and were a bit easier to maintain.

You may also want to look at the Sturmtiger for ideas on hull upgrades to a standard Tiger.

Mow_Mow #5 Posted Jun 01 2011 - 06:55

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11576 battles
  • 14,822
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostFaustianQ, on Jun 01 2011 - 03:58, said:

One thing to suggest - lower the profile. The Germans were moving to place engines entirely in the rear compartment to save weight, reduce engine fatigue, and lower the height of the vehicle - literally every other nation had done so by 1944. This is why certain tanks were able to achieve better weight to armor ratios and were a bit easier to maintain.

You may also want to look at the Sturmtiger for ideas on hull upgrades to a standard Tiger.

Unfortunately, judging from the E-series this wasn't likely to happen in the timeframe of late WWII, I think. Though generally I take the E-series tanks as basis for my guesstimations, so I can't exactly say no to that idea either. The E-series were not any lower in profile than the KT. Also, a fact that lends support to your idea is that Germany was likely running low on war materials (steel, etc.) by making their tanks lower in profile and therefore lower in mass and surface area it might have saved the Germans a bit of metal.

Giganaut #6 Posted Jun 01 2011 - 07:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10556 battles
  • 2,963
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
here's the further development of the tanks. took reference form the E90 Tiger III L, also revised and resized the tanks from the previous version.


here's the Ausf A
Posted Image

Ausf B is an IS-3 copy (as if the war went on and they decided to copy the Russian heavy tank after they captured a few.)
Posted Image

rear side of the tank
Posted Image

your choice, which is better looking? and anymore ideas?

Giganaut #7 Posted Jun 01 2011 - 13:55

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10556 battles
  • 2,963
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
Finished the whole tank... might add more thing to it (like IR sights, extra tracks for armor)

FRONTAL
Posted Image

REAR
Posted Image

Mow_Mow #8 Posted Jun 01 2011 - 16:31

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11576 battles
  • 14,822
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
The exhaust pipes look awfully thin... is there a particular reason why there are four? Might want to stick with two large ones instead. Also, you might want to try to slope the bottom plate a bit more, it looks a bit flat.

The boxyness of the turret front looks a bit odd to me but I think it's okay. Otherwise, you should go ahead and finish up the missing side skirt plate for completeness and have the corner skirts match them in length. ^^; You might want to try your hand at those  night vision scopes which appear on some late war vehicles, as well.

Giganaut #9 Posted Jun 02 2011 - 00:27

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10556 battles
  • 2,963
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View PostMow_Mow, on Jun 01 2011 - 16:31, said:

The exhaust pipes look awfully thin... is there a particular reason why there are four? Might want to stick with two large ones instead. Also, you might want to try to slope the bottom plate a bit more, it looks a bit flat.

The boxyness of the turret front looks a bit odd to me but I think it's okay. Otherwise, you should go ahead and finish up the missing side skirt plate for completeness and have the corner skirts match them in length. ^^; You might want to try your hand at those  night vision scopes which appear on some late war vehicles, as well.


on it and 4 exhaust ports? = 2 engines XD

Giganaut #10 Posted Jun 02 2011 - 12:06

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10556 battles
  • 2,963
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
well this will prolly not be the last of em. here's the weapons selection for the tank. just like the World of tanks preview tank in render only mode

Posted Image
the weapons list:

130mm high velocity gun (Stock gun)
7 barrel 50mm Rotary cannon (cant have no spam gun have we?)
105mm super high velocity gun (snipey snipey!)
and a 210 mortar (derp gun)


all made in sketchup

now i think to myself... WHY DIDNT I THOUGHT OF MAKING THIS EARLIER WHEN THEY HAD THAT DESIGN YOUR TANK CONTEST:Smile-izmena:

Dinbatu #11 Posted Jun 02 2011 - 12:19

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 4730 battles
  • 572
  • Member since:
    09-10-2010
Why you need 50mm gatling gun in a tank XD ? to tear up low tier tanks to bits ?  :Smile_harp:

Giganaut #12 Posted Jun 02 2011 - 12:28

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10556 battles
  • 2,963
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View PostDinbatu, on Jun 02 2011 - 12:19, said:

Why you need 50mm gatling gun in a tank XD ? to tear up low tier tanks to bits ?  :Smile_harp:


to be blunt. yes, to make them into swiss cheese and to annoy tier 8 above to hell with it's 7 round burst shots of HE or AP XD

i call that 210mm derp as the Poot gun

Giganaut #13 Posted Jun 02 2011 - 12:36

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10556 battles
  • 2,963
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View PostDinbatu, on Jun 02 2011 - 12:19, said:

Why you need 50mm gatling gun in a tank XD ? to tear up low tier tanks to bits ?  :Smile_harp:


and also. imagine... a 210mm derped you right IN THE FACE with HE. AP would just leave your tank with a huge dent or just plain huge crater on the tank with the shell on it leaving it inoperable

SgtShidner59 #14 Posted Jun 03 2011 - 17:03

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 26914 battles
  • 401
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011
Dude! Mad mad skills! :o what program did you use??

Giganaut #15 Posted Jun 04 2011 - 02:53

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10556 battles
  • 2,963
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View PostSgtShidner59, on Jun 03 2011 - 17:03, said:

Dude! Mad mad skills! :o what program did you use??

google sketchup free version

Giganaut #16 Posted Jun 05 2011 - 23:37

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10556 battles
  • 2,963
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
warehouse scene and new modeled tracks!

http://d.facdn.net/a...t_warehouse.jpg

Progenitor_of_Dragons #17 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 12:47

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 19
  • Member since:
    06-02-2011
Realistically, a 50mm Gatling gun would be absolutely useless against another heavy tank. Heck, all i see is a rapid-fire bounce machine lol. Or a rapid fire "Critical hit! But no damage done" machine in the case of HE.

I'd use it though. Post more on that Gatling gun. I MUST KNOW MOAR!

Giganaut #18 Posted Jun 06 2011 - 14:34

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10556 battles
  • 2,963
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View PostDatpony, on Jun 06 2011 - 12:47, said:

Realistically, a 50mm Gatling gun would be absolutely useless against another heavy tank. Heck, all i see is a rapid-fire bounce machine lol. Or a rapid fire "Critical hit! But no damage done" machine in the case of HE.

I'd use it though. Post more on that Gatling gun. I MUST KNOW MOAR!


well... if i did prgressed the development of a gatling version, i'd be developing a towed ammo truck, plus if did follow with size requirements within only the tank. it'll be the same concept of a double action 7 shot Automatic revolver

Giganaut #19 Posted Jun 08 2011 - 03:35

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10556 battles
  • 2,963
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
BEHOLD! the E-89B armed with the 210MM POOT GUN
Posted Image

in the far corner of the room are the shells for the gun

Giganaut #20 Posted Jun 21 2011 - 04:42

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10556 battles
  • 2,963
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
1st WIP of the US heavy prototype, decided to name it the T38... or any other designation name that would sound appropriate.

Posted Image

Posted Image

ANY IDEAS ON WHAT TO ADD?




7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users