Outside of point blank "they are about to run us over" range, same general area is going to be spread out over multiple square meters. Unless you get absurdly lucky and one of the rounds hits basically on top of another, you just have a bunch of non penetrations
According to Navweap the 40mm/70 calibers Bofors could penetrate 135 mm at a thousand meters.* This more than enough to let you kill anything except front armour of MBTs. An for that you need an 105mm L7 or more...
| 1,100 yards (1,000 m) | 3.93 in (10 cm) |
The germans built the Flakpanzer IV "Ostwind",with the chassis of the Panzer IV, also used for the Stug IV. It had one 37mm, and it looks okish.
I meant keeping with the casement design instead of having a turretThe germans built the Flakpanzer IV "Ostwind",with the chassis of the Panzer IV, also used for the Stug IV. It had one 37mm, and it looks okish.
But the US did create a twin 40mm, the M19, and the hull dimensions aren't very diferent... so I'd say yes?
There'd be little use for it, and it'd be a pretty poor system.
It has no advantages over even the low velocity L24 gun in the OTL STUG in that role and a major disadvantage. You need a whole burst to put as much HE on target as a 75mm shell, which is about the minimum for killing MG nests reliably, so no savings there, and you lose the ability of the HEAT shell to kill most tanks at reasonable ranges. The only role a Bofors would be better in is rapidly killing softskin vehicles with a single shot, but a casemate mount isn't suitable for that and that role isn't really needed
The Marder series of TD's didn't have a lot of protection either but at least the alt-Skorp would have a low silhouette.
My Alt-Skorp would be from an alt-timeline where the Pz.III/IV went into production and I'm sure the Germans would have made TD's out of it maybe not what I did but then again maybe they would, the 8.8 was a powerful anti-tank gun and if the Germans could mount one on the Pz.III/IV I think they would've done it.
I think the Nashorn would be an overall better solution because a lightly armored AT gun would be expected to fight at long ranges, which would make the turret less necessary, while the Nashorn's superstructure would provide better protection from light weapons at close range.
The Germans made both the Nashorn and the Jagdpanzer IV as well as a sleuth of other variants from the Pz.IV the under rated medium tank design of WWII IMO.
The Marders were made with outdated tank chasses, not up-to-date ones.
This is basically a Matter, just more expensive and with a lower silhouette. The lack of protection for the crew from any angle but the front is going to considerably raise crew mortality. I don't see the merits in investing so many resources into a vehicle that has completely inadequate protection for the crew.
And I think the advantage of a lower silhouette and a rotating turret make up for it, IOTL the Germans designed this-
The silhouette height difference is measured in centimeters. It's not worth the costs.And I think the advantage of a lower silhouette and a rotating turret make up for it, IOTL the Germans designed this-
The Gerat 5-1213, it was armed with the 12.8 cm Kanone 43. My design is similar so I think it's a plausible design.
I disagree but I'm not going to spend anymore time trying to convince you otherwise, you're entitled to your opinion.
