Jump to content
tanknet.org

Tankovian Tank 1919-


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

7s83HtV.jpg

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Some patriotic video

https://youtu.be/s4q08D2CNlA?t=104

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Early one

 

Later model with a turret bustle

1526406144_img_9607.jpg

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tankovia has gone gaga over the tank. The first public showing of the FT in Tankovina resulted in a near riot as citizens clamoured to see the object of curiosity. People were getting crushed by the crowd trying to see and touch this magical thing. Indeed our initial batch of tanks are pretty worn out from driving around and shooting blanks for the public. Between this and training, we have been hardly able to use them in tactical exercises.

 

To remedy this, a number of steps have been taken. The first is to buy more, a whole lot more FTs and they have all been paid for by public subscription. Receipts for Tank Bonds are proudly displayed in homes over fire places and in offices. Some tanks are being bought by civic organizations and even municipalities. We have had to stop the latter since it is a misuse of public monies but we have allowed local government to organize bond selling efforts and recognize it by putting donor plaques on the tanks they buy.

 

We have also bought a sizeable number of non-functional FTs as spare hulks and for our chaps to tinker with. One of the first efforts has been to build up a number of mild steel tanks for training and exposition. Being lighter, the wear on tracks and running gear is reduced and the absence of live weapons is a benefit with people crawling all over them.

 

Finally we have built some plywood mock ups to mount onto passenger cars to drive around selling Tank Bonds. Children absolutely love being taken in tank rides and being photographed in 'tanker' garb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bojan: IIRC they had to dismount the mg from the FT turret in order to use the 37 mm gun. Was this later changed ?

At MS-1? no, that is not true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It requires the tankist to open his hatch and lean out. Not exactly a good idea under fire. I was thinking about a signalling lamp in an armored cowling pitted to the side of the turret with a closable armored cover. a small port can be installed in the roof to allow for either a flare pistol to fire or a flag to be passed through to indicate that the tank is communicating.

 

As far as the infantry accompanying, why don't we just install a field telephone with a signal bulb to let the crew know someone is on the line.

 

This is actually not a bad way for units outside of earshot to communicate on the battlefield with less risk than signal flags.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It requires the tankist to open his hatch and lean out. Not exactly a good idea under fire. I was thinking about a signalling lamp in an armored cowling pitted to the side of the turret with a closable armored cover. a small port can be installed in the roof to allow for either a flare pistol to fire or a flag to be passed through to indicate that the tank is communicating.

 

As far as the infantry accompanying, why don't we just install a field telephone with a signal bulb to let the crew know someone is on the line.

 

 

The FT is so small that knocking on the hatch, the commander opens one of the hatches in the rear of turret and the infantry can shout or point while crouching beside the tank is more than enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...