Yeah, google sketchup and kerkythea.
A bit, I sort of jsut grabbed some battleship guns and put them on concrete mounts. I wanted them to be able to pivot 360 degrees. I should probably design concrete bunkers.
Alternate Weapons of War thread...
- Thread starter Franz Josef II
- Start date
Yeah, google sketchup and kerkythea.
A bit, I sort of jsut grabbed some battleship guns and put them on concrete mounts. I wanted them to be able to pivot 360 degrees. I should probably design concrete bunkers.
You should slope the walls/embankments. Right now, it looks as if they're all standing perpendicular to the horizontal. Sloping them would aid in reducing damage caused by direct artillery fire.
edit: yeah, and concrete bunkers would be a good defense against plunging fire
edit: yeah, and concrete bunkers would be a good defense against plunging fire
Hapsburg
Banned
DCC-221A6 "Blaster" Plasma Rifle. This large, shoulder-fired weapon weighs in at around ten kilograms, and uses a backpack-mounted fuel cell or battery to power a set of capacitors for a laser and a magnetic coil. The Blaster first ionises a path to the target, which is then magnetised by the weapon's coil. A cadmium pellet is accelerated using a magnetic rail towards the target and is superheated by the laser in the ionisation path. The result is a formerly-metal bullet striking the target in a plasma state at around five kilometers per second. The plasma's kinetic and thermal energy blasts or burns through most armoured targets and obliterates personnel.
Due to its size and complexity, it is usually a two-man, crew-served, infantry-portable weapon comparable to a laser rifle or microwave gun.
Due to its size and complexity, it is usually a two-man, crew-served, infantry-portable weapon comparable to a laser rifle or microwave gun.
The fort looks awesome! does this go along with a Vinland TL, or is it just out of your head?
It should have some sort of centralized fire directors, also the guns probably won't be used as direct fire weapons and would be prime targets for any attacker, so they should be inside the inner ring of defenses.
A Novan Imperial Army sniper turret. Equipped with an modified SR53 5.5mm sniper rifle. Low cost and low maintenance, these systems can be set up in a wide variety of locations to pick off enemy soldiers at ranges up to 2km. It has a 500 round drum and a rate of fire of 30 rounds per minute. In addition, it can also spot and range targets that pass by via radio
Last edited:
Depends on the material. If everything except the foot is made of some lightweight material and the foot is made of heavy metal it could work.
I am thinking about doing some sloping walls, but I feel that if anything gets close enough to do direct fire, then troops will probably try climbing the slopes soon after and I would want enemy infantry to have to eitehr blast their way through or use ropes and ladders.
I don't have a TL for it yet, but I am thinking about doing one sometime with a focus on Vinland in the late 1800's and early 1900's.
Originally I used Fort Drum as a biases for the design, but now that I have seen more of the Maginot line defenses and the defenses the Germans built in Normandy, I think I will redesign the fortress more like that. I am thinking about adding that fire control area, but don't know what to make it look like. Maybe a german style flak tower.
This for is set in the 1930's, so no missiles. Maybe calliope style rockets, but even then I doubt I will add that.
Sorry for the double post, but I managed to create a new gun for the Vinlandic coastal defenses around what would have been New York.
16 in direct fire guns meant to deter landing ships and open fire directly on enemy vessels that get within a couple of miles of the fort.
I plan on making 9" and 3" versions of the same turret that will be far more numerous. Maybe a heavy machine gun variant, but I wasn't going to get too detailed with this project.
I also need to make large guns capable of indirect fire.
When reloading or hiding from enemy fire, the gun can lower itself very rapidly. Im not sure if the gun could actually lower itself fast enough between reloads.
16 in direct fire guns meant to deter landing ships and open fire directly on enemy vessels that get within a couple of miles of the fort.
I plan on making 9" and 3" versions of the same turret that will be far more numerous. Maybe a heavy machine gun variant, but I wasn't going to get too detailed with this project.
I also need to make large guns capable of indirect fire.
When reloading or hiding from enemy fire, the gun can lower itself very rapidly. Im not sure if the gun could actually lower itself fast enough between reloads.
Krases, I like your work. Have you read anything about the fortifications of the Maginot Line? The way that they set up some of their gun bunkers might be of some potential inspirational value, and I think you'd get something out of studying their smaller machinegun/forward-observation pillboxes if you're considering including anti-personnel positions into the defenses.
Is the segmentation on your turrets intentional? If not, there is a way to increase the number of segments in a circle.
also, have an animation.
(WMA Direct download)
-SNIP-
That is a cool aircraft, my friend. Hey do you think you could do a side profile so we can get a better sense of what it looks like?
That is a cool aircraft, my friend. Hey do you think you could do a side profile so we can get a better sense of what it looks like?
Revolutionary Todyo
Banned
Has this been posted here before? Not mine but still friggin' cool.
Done by this guy
http://whanzel.deviantart.com/
He's Whanztastic on here btw
Done by this guy
http://whanzel.deviantart.com/
He's Whanztastic on here btw
Hapsburg
Banned
Using parts mainly from JG's top-downs of the F-22, the F-15, the F-111, and the F-4.
Four military aircraft of the CGU air forces, including the Army Air Forces, Marine Aviation, Naval Aviation, and the Stormguard Flying Corps.
At the left is the F/A-178 Tigershark multirole fighter-bomber. A large, twin-engined, nuclear-powered fighter aircraft capable to speeds of up to Mach 2.5 and unlimited range within an operation period of up to 48 hours with its nuclear fuel. A highly versatile manned aircraft, it usually operates at the head of UCAV squadrons.
At the middle is a large unmanned air combat vehicle, the MQ-100 Dogfish. A multirole, twin-engined fighter-bomber piloted either by remote or by an integrated AI, the Dogfish can maintain long loiter times with efficient use of fuel and can deploy heavy ground strikes or air interception weapons. They are the workhorse of the Army Air Forces.
Below the Dogfish is the small AQ-3 Codfish, a light tactical air-to-ground UCAV utilising a small turbojet for power.
And to the right is the FB-159 Bullshark tactical bomber. Theoretically designed as a high-performance fighter-bomber capable of both the bomb truck role and for extreme-range air defence, the Bullshark is used most often for CAS and forward air control as well as a general-purpose light bomber.
Four military aircraft of the CGU air forces, including the Army Air Forces, Marine Aviation, Naval Aviation, and the Stormguard Flying Corps.
At the left is the F/A-178 Tigershark multirole fighter-bomber. A large, twin-engined, nuclear-powered fighter aircraft capable to speeds of up to Mach 2.5 and unlimited range within an operation period of up to 48 hours with its nuclear fuel. A highly versatile manned aircraft, it usually operates at the head of UCAV squadrons.
At the middle is a large unmanned air combat vehicle, the MQ-100 Dogfish. A multirole, twin-engined fighter-bomber piloted either by remote or by an integrated AI, the Dogfish can maintain long loiter times with efficient use of fuel and can deploy heavy ground strikes or air interception weapons. They are the workhorse of the Army Air Forces.
Below the Dogfish is the small AQ-3 Codfish, a light tactical air-to-ground UCAV utilising a small turbojet for power.
And to the right is the FB-159 Bullshark tactical bomber. Theoretically designed as a high-performance fighter-bomber capable of both the bomb truck role and for extreme-range air defence, the Bullshark is used most often for CAS and forward air control as well as a general-purpose light bomber.
NothingNow
Banned
Alright, some new stuff I'll break in to two posts, for my sake later on.
First off from the Sticking with a Sure Thing TL:
The M1A3/M1A4 Abrams
Year Introduced: 2015
Users: United States Army, USMC, Kuwait, and Australia.
Specifications:
Crew: 4
Dimensions:
Weight:
Transmission: Ford Defense Model 76 Electric Regenerative Continuously Variable Transmission, includes 300hp/224kW Electric Motor.
Suspension: Torsion Bar
Power/weight ratio: 21.13 hp/ton
Fuel Tankage: 1900L
Fuel Consumption:
Top Speed (Offroad): 48.28 km/h (30.00 mph)
Operational Range:
The M1A3/A4 was something of a massive leap in technology for the DOD, developed following a 2001 Executive order to drastically improve the fuel efficiency and maintenance costs of the Armed Forces, the M1A3 was developed over the course of more than a decade, with both operational know-how and massive amounts of testing contributing to the final design.
The primary features introduced on the M1A3/A4 were the new 55-caliber cannon, a more efficient Diesel Engine and the innovative Model 76 Hybrid Transmission. The Transmission is a rather unique continuously variable unit, including a pair of 150hp/112kW electric motors designed primarily to allow regenerative braking and minor changes in position without having to start up the main engine, but can be used to supplement the output of the main engine in an emergency. The 500kg Lithium Polymer Battery pack integrated in the design also allows for longer durations without activating the APU or main engine and helps reduce the fuel consumption on operation. Further supplementing this is the ability through the already integrated inverters is the ability for the M1A3 to operate continuously and indefinitely off an external power source like a diesel generator or to provide power to an installation, making the M1A3 not only the worlds heaviest Plug in Hybrid Vehicle, but also the most expensive diesel generator on the planet per Kilowatt.
Thus far service has been good and officially few problems have surfaced with the vehicle, although some analysts have complained that the M1A4’s shorter gun and reliance on GL-ATGMs like the LAHAT in an anti-tank role is an unacceptable trade-off for increased suitability for Urban and other such constrained Operations. Additional complaints have surfaced about the placement of the Lithium Polymer battery packs, being positioned in the sides of the hull near the turret assembly, and the potential for accidents there in, but engineers and USDOD spokesmen have stated that the placement of the battery packs was essential to improve the life of the battery and that having been placed under the armor, and that they are confident that such an incident is extremely unlikely, and would require a highly unusual set of circumstances to occur.
EDIT:
Differences Between the M1A3 and M1A4:
The M1A3 and M1A4 are for the most part identical systems on paper, although both on paper and in Practice several distinct differences are notable. The formost besides the obvious change in the main cannon's caliber is the combat load out of the two, as in the field, the M1A3 is rarely issued a full on TUSK kit, with the standard usually only being the ERA, Engine Compartment Slat Armor, and a remote weapons system for the commander, while the M1A4, fitting it's Infantry Support role, is typically fitted with the full setup, and often includes an extra pair of phones mounted on the sides of the hull and a Boomerang anti-sniper system.
As for munitions loadout, the M1A3, befitting it's 120mm L/55 main cannon, is typically equipped with a primarily Anti-tank load out, including M829A3 APFSDS, and M830A1 HEAT, while the M1A4 by necessity carries a much more varied load, including the M1028 Canister Round, M908 High Explosive Obstacle Reduction Tank, the IMI designed M329 APAM-MP-T, M337 STUN and for the Anti-tank role, the IAI LAHAT GL-ATGM.
Further separating the two designs is the slight modifications to the M1A4's transmission allowing it to better keep pace with the infantry patrol it is escorting.
First off from the Sticking with a Sure Thing TL:
The M1A3/M1A4 Abrams
Year Introduced: 2015
Users: United States Army, USMC, Kuwait, and Australia.
Specifications:
Crew: 4
Dimensions:
Hull Length: 7.93m
Length (Gun Forward): 11.09m (M1A3), 9.09m (M1A4)
Width: 3.66m
Height: 2.44m
Main Weapon: Length (Gun Forward): 11.09m (M1A3), 9.09m (M1A4)
Width: 3.66m
Height: 2.44m
M1A3: 1 x 120mm L/55 M256B Smoothbore Cannon. 40 rounds
M1A4: 1 x 120mm L/30 M256C Smoothbore Cannon. 40 rounds
Secondary Weapons: M1A4: 1 x 120mm L/30 M256C Smoothbore Cannon. 40 rounds
1 x .50-caliber (12.7x99 mm) M2HB Heavy Machine Gun with 900 rounds
2 x 7.62x51mm M240 Machine Guns with 8,800 rounds (1 pintle-mounted, 1 coaxial)
Armor: Chobham over RHA, Depleted Uranium Strike Plates, Kevlar mesh. TROPHY Hard Kill Active Protection system standard. ERA tiles can be fitted if needed.2 x 7.62x51mm M240 Machine Guns with 8,800 rounds (1 pintle-mounted, 1 coaxial)
Weight:
M1A3: 63482 kg (63.4 tonnes, 69.97 tons)
M1A4: 63025 kg (63.0 tonnes, 69.47 tons)
Powerplant: MTU MB 873-Ka 501, Twin Turbocharged Diesel V12 47.6L, Plus 2x 150hp/112kW supplementary Electric Motors integrated to Model 76 Transmission. M1A4: 63025 kg (63.0 tonnes, 69.47 tons)
Power Output (MB 873-Ka 501 only): 1,479 hp, 1,103 kW @ 2600RPM
Power Output (Combined): 1,779 hp, 1327kW @ 2600 Engine RPM.
APU: 330cc TARDEC Wankel APU, plus 2500kW Lithium Polymer Battery array. Can be hooked up to a supplementary power source to augment APU and LiPo Battery. Power Output (Combined): 1,779 hp, 1327kW @ 2600 Engine RPM.
Transmission: Ford Defense Model 76 Electric Regenerative Continuously Variable Transmission, includes 300hp/224kW Electric Motor.
Suspension: Torsion Bar
Power/weight ratio: 21.13 hp/ton
Fuel Tankage: 1900L
Fuel Consumption:
Road: 360L/100km
Terrain: 560L/100km
Combat Idle: 10L/hr (avg)
Top Speed (On road): 67.6 km/h (42.0 mph)Terrain: 560L/100km
Combat Idle: 10L/hr (avg)
Top Speed (Offroad): 48.28 km/h (30.00 mph)
Operational Range:
Road: 527.7km
Terrain: 339.3km
Combat Idle: 190hrs
Terrain: 339.3km
Combat Idle: 190hrs
The M1A3/A4 was something of a massive leap in technology for the DOD, developed following a 2001 Executive order to drastically improve the fuel efficiency and maintenance costs of the Armed Forces, the M1A3 was developed over the course of more than a decade, with both operational know-how and massive amounts of testing contributing to the final design.
The primary features introduced on the M1A3/A4 were the new 55-caliber cannon, a more efficient Diesel Engine and the innovative Model 76 Hybrid Transmission. The Transmission is a rather unique continuously variable unit, including a pair of 150hp/112kW electric motors designed primarily to allow regenerative braking and minor changes in position without having to start up the main engine, but can be used to supplement the output of the main engine in an emergency. The 500kg Lithium Polymer Battery pack integrated in the design also allows for longer durations without activating the APU or main engine and helps reduce the fuel consumption on operation. Further supplementing this is the ability through the already integrated inverters is the ability for the M1A3 to operate continuously and indefinitely off an external power source like a diesel generator or to provide power to an installation, making the M1A3 not only the worlds heaviest Plug in Hybrid Vehicle, but also the most expensive diesel generator on the planet per Kilowatt.
Thus far service has been good and officially few problems have surfaced with the vehicle, although some analysts have complained that the M1A4’s shorter gun and reliance on GL-ATGMs like the LAHAT in an anti-tank role is an unacceptable trade-off for increased suitability for Urban and other such constrained Operations. Additional complaints have surfaced about the placement of the Lithium Polymer battery packs, being positioned in the sides of the hull near the turret assembly, and the potential for accidents there in, but engineers and USDOD spokesmen have stated that the placement of the battery packs was essential to improve the life of the battery and that having been placed under the armor, and that they are confident that such an incident is extremely unlikely, and would require a highly unusual set of circumstances to occur.
EDIT:
Differences Between the M1A3 and M1A4:
The M1A3 and M1A4 are for the most part identical systems on paper, although both on paper and in Practice several distinct differences are notable. The formost besides the obvious change in the main cannon's caliber is the combat load out of the two, as in the field, the M1A3 is rarely issued a full on TUSK kit, with the standard usually only being the ERA, Engine Compartment Slat Armor, and a remote weapons system for the commander, while the M1A4, fitting it's Infantry Support role, is typically fitted with the full setup, and often includes an extra pair of phones mounted on the sides of the hull and a Boomerang anti-sniper system.
As for munitions loadout, the M1A3, befitting it's 120mm L/55 main cannon, is typically equipped with a primarily Anti-tank load out, including M829A3 APFSDS, and M830A1 HEAT, while the M1A4 by necessity carries a much more varied load, including the M1028 Canister Round, M908 High Explosive Obstacle Reduction Tank, the IMI designed M329 APAM-MP-T, M337 STUN and for the Anti-tank role, the IAI LAHAT GL-ATGM.
Further separating the two designs is the slight modifications to the M1A4's transmission allowing it to better keep pace with the infantry patrol it is escorting.
Last edited:
NothingNow
Banned
And from the Latin Pact's 1950's, where a frankly disturbing amount of Bravado, Machismo, and a desire for tanks with Gravitas, produced some of the heaviest mass production AFVs of all time. No pictures because I'm lazy, and don't want to have to do a vertically stretched E-100. And because I'm not going to just swap stuff on the FD scale Jagdtiger either. Even I've got standards.
The Tanque Caza Pesado (TCP)
(OTL's Jagdtiger, improved.)
Former Users: Cuba, Mexico, Schleswig-Holstein, Spain,
Specifications:
Crew: 6
Dimensions:
Armor: 40 to 250mm RHA.
Weight: ~74.7 Tonnes (164,700lbs)
Powerplant: 1x Maybach HL234 P30 V12 Petrol Engine, 800PS/810hp @ 3000 RPM
Transmission: Maybach OLVAR EG 40 12 16 Ausf.C
Suspension: Torsion Bar
Power/weight ratio: 11.70PS/tonne
Top Speed (On road): 37km/h (~23 mph)
Top Speed (Offroad): 19km/h (~12 mph)
Range (On road): 100km
Range (Offroad): 70km
Developed from a captured German Design for a Heavy Tank Destroyer, the Jagdtiger, the Tanque Caza Pesado was introduced to counter Soviet and Western Heavy Tanks while retaining a level of independence from both sides. Final production occurred in Cuba, Mexico and Spain, with parts being sourced from all three nations and Germany, with the Engine and Transmission being produced in Spain by Hispano-Suiza, the Gun in Cuba by Habana Fundición, and much of the Hull in Mexico by Valores Industriales S.A, and various other components by Blohm + Voss, Norddeutsche Dornier-Werke, Henschel, and San Luis Rassini.
Performance was objectively terrible, but acceptable for a Heavy Tank, and indeed, the TCP was probably the Best armed and protected of the various Post-war Heavy Tanks, as was shown in Korea and the Rumanian War, where the TCP proved to be a useful, although limited combatant, capable of destroying anything that got within 2km of the vehicle from any direction, save the IS-2, IS-3, and then brand new T-54, which could be knocked out from certain angles at that distance.
However, overall experience from the period indicated that the era of the Heavy Tank was ending and that the casemate design, although cheaper and lighter severely limited the potential of the design, so, production was ended in 1952 after only 600 were produced. They served until the Mid seventies alongside the TGC (Tanque Gigante Cubano) prototypes.
The Tanque Gigante Cubano (TGC) (Cuba-Maus)
(Think an E-100 with an extra half meter of height in the hull and a massive engine.)
Former Users: Cuba. Never reached production. Four prototypes produced.
Specifications:
Crew: 6
Dimensions:
Secondary Weapons: 2x 20x110mm HS.404 (1xCo-axial with main gun, 1x pintle mount AA)
Armor: 40 to 250mm RHA
Weight: 150 tonnes
Powerplant: 1x Napier Deltic 88L, 1650bhp @ 1500 RPM, 2500bhp @ 2000 RPM
Suspension: Belleville washer coil spring
Power/weight ratio: 16.7 bhp/tonne
Fuel Tankage: 3,050L
Top Speed (On road): 50km/h
Top Speed (Offroad): 20km/h
Range (On road): 238 km
Range (Offroad): 148 km
The Tanque Gigante Cubano was a project started by the Cuban military to find a replacement for the rather troublesome and limited TCP started in 1950. Once again diving into the captured documentation from German engineering projects in WWII to speed up development, the lead engineers uncovered files on the E-100 project, an attempt to produce a competitor to the failed Panzer VII Maus project. Development proceeded decently using the E-100 design as a base and reference, and with the introduction of the newly developed Napier Deltic Diesel engine in 1950, the weight of the Vehicle was no problem, indeed in trials during 1953 and 1954 it was proven that the TGM prototypes could outpace an M26C1 and TCP, and even keep up with any current Medium or Light Tanks then in service, however it tended to have issues stopping or turning at speed, let alone doing both. However, the TGC was, as it’s name implies a hulking beast, and highly impractical just on it’s weight and size alone. That said, it was a politically and militarily difficult decision to cut the design, and a few variants had already been proposed, including an SPAA gun, Artillery Tractor, Howitzer and the necessary Armored Recovery Vehicle.
Fortunately, the Accountants (and Sanity) reigned supreme and the project was canceled after only Four prototypes were produced. However, the four prototypes completed were all fitted to a uniform standard and introduced into regular service, comprising a single tank platoon (2nd Platoon, Company A, 4th Armored Battalion,) serving outside the city of Wismar in Schleswig-Holstein from 1955 until the 1970s. Reportedly at least one crew preferred to sleep in their TGC, declaring it to be more comfortable and roomier than their assigned quarters. However, rumors of a Commander's stateroom are highly exaggerated. It wasn't that big.
The Tanque Caza Pesado (TCP)
(OTL's Jagdtiger, improved.)
Former Users: Cuba, Mexico, Schleswig-Holstein, Spain,
Specifications:
Crew: 6
Dimensions:
Length: 8m
Length Including Gun: 10.65m
Width: 3.6m
Height: 2.9m
Main Weapon: 1x 128mm Gun L/55 38 roundsLength Including Gun: 10.65m
Width: 3.6m
Height: 2.9m
Maximum Range: 24,410 m (26,700 yd)
Muzzle Velocity: 935 m/s (3,070 ft/s) (HE&APBC)
Secondary Weapons: 3x 12.7x99mm Browning M2 HMG (1x Co-axial with Main Gun, 1x hull mount, 1x Pintle Mount) 2,900 roundsMuzzle Velocity: 935 m/s (3,070 ft/s) (HE&APBC)
Armor: 40 to 250mm RHA.
Weight: ~74.7 Tonnes (164,700lbs)
Powerplant: 1x Maybach HL234 P30 V12 Petrol Engine, 800PS/810hp @ 3000 RPM
Transmission: Maybach OLVAR EG 40 12 16 Ausf.C
Suspension: Torsion Bar
Power/weight ratio: 11.70PS/tonne
Top Speed (On road): 37km/h (~23 mph)
Top Speed (Offroad): 19km/h (~12 mph)
Range (On road): 100km
Range (Offroad): 70km
Developed from a captured German Design for a Heavy Tank Destroyer, the Jagdtiger, the Tanque Caza Pesado was introduced to counter Soviet and Western Heavy Tanks while retaining a level of independence from both sides. Final production occurred in Cuba, Mexico and Spain, with parts being sourced from all three nations and Germany, with the Engine and Transmission being produced in Spain by Hispano-Suiza, the Gun in Cuba by Habana Fundición, and much of the Hull in Mexico by Valores Industriales S.A, and various other components by Blohm + Voss, Norddeutsche Dornier-Werke, Henschel, and San Luis Rassini.
Performance was objectively terrible, but acceptable for a Heavy Tank, and indeed, the TCP was probably the Best armed and protected of the various Post-war Heavy Tanks, as was shown in Korea and the Rumanian War, where the TCP proved to be a useful, although limited combatant, capable of destroying anything that got within 2km of the vehicle from any direction, save the IS-2, IS-3, and then brand new T-54, which could be knocked out from certain angles at that distance.
However, overall experience from the period indicated that the era of the Heavy Tank was ending and that the casemate design, although cheaper and lighter severely limited the potential of the design, so, production was ended in 1952 after only 600 were produced. They served until the Mid seventies alongside the TGC (Tanque Gigante Cubano) prototypes.
The Tanque Gigante Cubano (TGC) (Cuba-Maus)
(Think an E-100 with an extra half meter of height in the hull and a massive engine.)
Former Users: Cuba. Never reached production. Four prototypes produced.
Specifications:
Crew: 6
Dimensions:
Length: 8.6m
Length (Gun Forward): 10.3m
Width: 4.5m
Height: 3.8m
Main Weapon: 1x 128mm Gun L/55, 80 roundsLength (Gun Forward): 10.3m
Width: 4.5m
Height: 3.8m
Secondary Weapons: 2x 20x110mm HS.404 (1xCo-axial with main gun, 1x pintle mount AA)
Armor: 40 to 250mm RHA
Weight: 150 tonnes
Powerplant: 1x Napier Deltic 88L, 1650bhp @ 1500 RPM, 2500bhp @ 2000 RPM
Suspension: Belleville washer coil spring
Power/weight ratio: 16.7 bhp/tonne
Fuel Tankage: 3,050L
Top Speed (On road): 50km/h
Top Speed (Offroad): 20km/h
Range (On road): 238 km
Range (Offroad): 148 km
The Tanque Gigante Cubano was a project started by the Cuban military to find a replacement for the rather troublesome and limited TCP started in 1950. Once again diving into the captured documentation from German engineering projects in WWII to speed up development, the lead engineers uncovered files on the E-100 project, an attempt to produce a competitor to the failed Panzer VII Maus project. Development proceeded decently using the E-100 design as a base and reference, and with the introduction of the newly developed Napier Deltic Diesel engine in 1950, the weight of the Vehicle was no problem, indeed in trials during 1953 and 1954 it was proven that the TGM prototypes could outpace an M26C1 and TCP, and even keep up with any current Medium or Light Tanks then in service, however it tended to have issues stopping or turning at speed, let alone doing both. However, the TGC was, as it’s name implies a hulking beast, and highly impractical just on it’s weight and size alone. That said, it was a politically and militarily difficult decision to cut the design, and a few variants had already been proposed, including an SPAA gun, Artillery Tractor, Howitzer and the necessary Armored Recovery Vehicle.
Fortunately, the Accountants (and Sanity) reigned supreme and the project was canceled after only Four prototypes were produced. However, the four prototypes completed were all fitted to a uniform standard and introduced into regular service, comprising a single tank platoon (2nd Platoon, Company A, 4th Armored Battalion,) serving outside the city of Wismar in Schleswig-Holstein from 1955 until the 1970s. Reportedly at least one crew preferred to sleep in their TGC, declaring it to be more comfortable and roomier than their assigned quarters. However, rumors of a Commander's stateroom are highly exaggerated. It wasn't that big.
Last edited: