Now how much ammo is needed to be "Useful"? If you pull the M240 and the 10,000rds of 7.62 how much 25mm could you fit with the gun? I do not know, but even say it is only 1000rds 25mm I would find that very useful as it would have your 120mm last longer. Of the 40 main gun rounds that the tank carries only 17 of them are in your ready rack and can be used easily. Yes you can use the other 23rds, but they are much more difficult to use. Normaly they are used to reload the ready rack.

OK, this actually exists, but it an interesting gun. The TP-82 survival rifle for cosmonauts. Two shotgun barrels mounted over a 5.45x39mm rifled barrel, with a detachable stock that doubles as a machete.

Hmm, all steel and three barrels, so, weight wasn't a factor. I wonder what its effective range was and accuracy.

I alerted everyone to this one some time ago, though I haven't done anything with it.

I did the AGDS on my Best SPAA that never Were Page.

Real world example>>> AMX-30

Also, very early Centurions mounted a 20mm coaxisl gun. IIRC, it was capable of elevating higher than the main gun, specifically for AA use.

And that's why you are awesome sir. The amount and quality of work you and several others here do should earn you money, and lots of it. Hats off.

These are all I believe 'what if?' vehicles but the sort of thing that I think could have been produced:

"Hypothetical T-55 based tank destroyer":
http://ambushalleygames.com/forum/vi...hp?f=7&t=12105

"KaJaPa Zehn-Fünf":
"Well, it IS a Jagdpanzer Kanone, with a proposed/theoretical upgrade from 90mm to 105mm".
http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=21355.0

The Goliath tank "as pictured in Kenneth Macksey's Tank Versus Tank book":
http://www.network54.com/Forum/16923...die....Chimera
http://www.network54.com/Forum/16923.../Goliath+Image

I've also seen a 'what if' casement tank built on I think a M48 chassis. The 'back story' quoted Twilight 2000 and said it was a war damaged tank rebuilt.

The prototype that I saw at the Patton Museum implied that it had been done before and I had heard that the french did it but did not know for sure who had.

It appears the Mk I and II Centurions mounted the 20mm but the Mk III, which went from a 17-pdr to a 20-pdr, had to drop to a BESA MG.

Worth noting that it was common for most WWII tanks to have the coaxial MG be removable by the crew in the field and a tripod provided so it could be operated from the tank. I think this was most common in American and German tanks.

We had a field kit to add a stock to our, not the best GPMG as no sights. But if the tank was knocked out better than nothing four man crew would have two M240, one M16, and four Pistols.

A "could have been (?)" the 'Jagdchieftain':

http://arcaneafvs.com/chieftain_concept.html

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...peihu69i68hm62

I'm sure I read that it was / maybe still is a runner although it seems that the gun may have been a dummy.

A similar vehicle with two guns was built around the same time on the Leopold 1 chassis.

Second photo down here:
http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index...c=37398&page=3

Most photos here. It seems that the Leopold version was tested / planned in both 105mm and 120mm versions.

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/ind...73281#msg73281

There was the British Tortoise:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torto...y_assault_tank

and American T28:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank

both designed in WWII.

VW Vanagon
 

For ArmySgt, since you asked:

VW Type 2 (T3) of the 1980s - a.k.a. the Microbus

(T2 similar)


"So we took the half-a-ton of garbage, put it in the back of a red VW
Microbus, took shovels and rakes and implements of destruction, and headed
On toward the city dump."
- Alice's Restaurant, A Guthrie

Thanks....... If I ever get the time off to go to GhengisCon or TactiCon I will have to spring this on a GM....... I really want to play a NCO that has given up on high moral reasons for war, and just wants to get by on comforts and guile.

Ah. Take a T3 that has been converted to a camper (very popular in Europe), paint it Army Green or camo and list it as non-tactical/Admin borrowed from the Air Force, preferably from a destroyed airbase. :)

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/G17ALmV1Omo/hqdefault.jpg https://vivawestfalia.files.wordpres...sec1.gif?w=450

Uncle Ted

I didn't design this, but I found it on a Dark Conspiracy site:


Uncle Ted

I post these under the best that never was: the initial tanks available (for the original nations) in the on line game World of Tanks. I know there are some players out there.

They fall under this topic because (except for the French FT-17), known of these faced actual combat.

The file includes...

• T7 Combat Car (US)
• T1 Light Tank (US)
• LT-31 (Germany)
• FT-17 (France)
• NC-27 (Japan)
• NC-31 (China)
• MS-1/T-18 (USSR)
• Vickers Medium Mk I (GB)

For each one, there is a T2K style vehicle sheet and a description of the vehicle, its development, and how reality differed from it depiction in WoT.

I did these as an exercise for the fun of it (compare these vs T2K light AFVs). Admittedly, they have little direct use in T2K...

Uncle Ted

Very cool, thank you. One minor nitpick the stats for the T7 Combat Car I think list the ammo amount for the A2E1 Vickers Medium Mk IA, as it is the same.

They were TERRIBLE even compared to what came a decade or so later! :o
Still, I suppose they had to be made didn't they? Got to develop somehow.

And look what we have today, more or less 100 years later. How long did it take to lose the Sail?

And we can only imagine what we'll have in another hundred+ years!
Give it another thousand and warfare may not even look like anyone's even fighting to our "primitive" minds.

Part of the fun of the exercise is that they were terrible. Another part is that I like teh research.

The other part is that most of these were not built to fight other tanks - but that's how they are used in WoT. Shown here, they are even more worthless vehicle vs vehicle...

They are useful vs infantry armed only with small arms...

Uncle Ted

The armour values seem a bit high on some of them though if they were only ever supposed to protect against small arms and shrapnel. There's modern IFVs with less (mainly Soviet).
How'd you arrive at those values?

XM800T with Chrysler ITV turret.
http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/fil...0turret_01.jpg

http://preservedtanks.com/Handler.as...ID=2371&Size=E

XM800T with conventional Hispano Suiza 20mm and M60D
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7055/6...1b348475_b.jpg

I get the idea that in 100 years that armored vehicles will be UGVs, aircraft will be UCAVs with a single controlling station or stations aboard JSTARS-type aircraft, and that infantry will be cyborgs.

Demands to be statted! Already doing the research.

Not much to be found unfortunatly.

Crew: 3 (Commander, Driver, Gunner)

Armor: unknown, Possibly similar to an Early M2 Bradley,

Weapons Systems:
Main Turret
Hispano Suiza 20mm with Unknown amount of ammo
M60D with Unknown amount of ammo

Alternate Turret
twin TOW launchers.

Mobility level was similar to the M113.


Video of third surviving prototype

Then there is the Hammer Slammer version where nothing that flies survives.

Rapid Infantry Transport

https://8583b52b4a309671f69d-b436b89....jpg?bg=6E6F6F

Swedish Udes XX-20
 

I have that on my site, courtesy of Antenna.

Fair question. I will explain below.

1. Thank you for making me take another look. You made me spot an error. I have a table of co-efficients used for adding an effect for different armor types (explained below). I had added a entry to the table, but had not udpated the table's definition to include an additional row; "Steel Riveted" stopped being within the defined table; Steel riveted (less effective plates of steel riveted together) was being picked up as the stronger "Steel" (basic steel armor, 1940 to 1955)

After correcting the table, a soem of the armor values changed; 5s becoming 4s, some 4s becoming 3s.

2. How does Uncle Ted make armor sausage?

I built a spreadsheet (of course). The armor section works like this. I had collected a raft of data for WW2 and post-WW2 military vehicles for Advanced Tobruk, including armor (detailed to facings and slope of armor). Using that analysis, i compared those sheets to some of the existing older vehicles in the T2K cannon (which is, not surprisingly, inconsistent, even with specific time periods)

What I came up with was that for steel armor:
for WW2 steel armor (1940 - 1955ish) = an armor point for every 7mm;
for more modern steel armors, one for every 5mm

Modern armor/5
Older armor/7

This is complicated by average slope of the given armor face, which may drive increase the value of by up to a factor of 2.

This is complicated by the armor type. For vehicles in the period of steel armor (basically, every tank before 1975, and several since), this breaks down into solid or welded armor and bolted (bolted includes most armored vehicles built before 1940).

Remember that coefficient I mentioned above? This is where armor type gets factored in. These vehicles are mostly all endowed with bolted armor plates.
(exceptions: VK-31 & A2E1 Medium Mk I have steel)

Now, T2K uses one armor scale for vehicle vs Vehicle and personnel combat, which leads to a few peculiarities at the bottom o f the scale. Using the scale outlined above, many of these early tanks would have an armor factor of 2, which would not keep out contemporary small arms (Lee-Enfield rifle, 8mm Mauser, Lebel etc).

So I include a check to provide "design for effect" - if I have armor values and the process above gives an armor value of less than 3.6, it adds 1. This ensures that these early vehicles can shake off small arms.

Modern MBTs (and some recent IFVs), where they seldom mention armor thickness directly, and their armor type is not steel are handled differently.

Corrected version attached

And now I have some other files I need to correct.....

Uncle Ted

With the early tanks, the crew would often be injured from spalling when rifle and machinegun bullets hit the armour near them - the reason spall liners are basically standard equipment in AFVs today.
Have you modelled that somehow?

Standard Manufacturing Excalibur 20mm Vulcan SHORAD

Attachment 3699

Attachment 3700

Attachment 3701

Attachment 3702

Standard Manufacturing Rough Terrain variable height transporter.

Attachment 3707

Attachment 3708

Attachment 3709

Attachment 3710

Nope. None of the versions of T2K have it modeled in vehicle combat, and T2K includes HEAT which creates spalling.

I wanted to have vehicles to compare to existing ones in T2K, not re-invent the combat system, particularly where at the moment I don't contemplate actually using these designs in a game. But i'll bear that in mind for if an when I consider using these vehicles.

Uncle Ted

Pretty much any projectile which hits has the potential to cause spalling - the thicker the armour, the larger the impact or explosion needs to be though. For more modern vehicles spalling is not much of an issue as they're almost invariably fitted with spall liners.
For early AFVs (up to the late 1930's and into the 40's I believe) spall liners where not standard and from what I can find were really only developed in response to the introduction of HESH rounds by the British in the 1940's.
In WWI, AFV crews had to wear armoured masks similar to the one pictured to protect the face and especially eyes from flying shrapnel spalled off the inside of their vehicles armour. Even just the impact of ordinary rifle bullets could be enough to blind a crewman close to the point of impact (a gunner for example looking for targets).

While this is not an issue for T2K era vehicles, probably not even the left over WWII ones (which were likely retrofitted with liners) it is probably something which should be kept in mind if an earlier vehicle was used.

Attachment 3711