Phillipines are logistically easier than Formosa though...
Anyway,about tank specs:Is the T-5 Paul Bunyan something like the M6 or KV-1s,and the upgraded one mounted a 90mm like Pershing?
The Great Crusade (Reds! Part 3)
- Thread starter Aelita
- Start date
Phillipines are logistically easier than Formosa though...
Anyway,about tank specs:Is the T-5 Paul Bunyan something like the M6 or KV-1s,and the upgraded one mounted a 90mm like Pershing?
Most likely I think we'll see a limited Phillipines campaign with the Comintern Navy overrunning the outlying islands and using them to cut Japan's supply lines from Indonesia. Obviously those bases won't be viable without the rest of the archipelago so they ceded to the FBU sometime before 1948...
teg
Comintern Tanks Master Post (Eventually)
T-4 "John Henry" tank
Type: Medium tank
Place of Origin: Union of American Socialist Republics
Used by: Comintern
In service: 1939 to 1946 (WFRA)
Designer: Detroit Arsenal
Designed: 1935-38
Produced: 1939-44
Number built: 29,776 (all variants)
Notable Variants: GMC-4 self-propelled artillery, SA-76-4 tank destroyer,
Specifications (T-4B1, 1940)
Mass: 28.2 tonnes
Length: 6.15 meters
Width: 3.00 meters
Height: 2.55 meters
Crew: 5
Armor:
Secondary Armament: 1 x MG-2 12.7 x 99mm machine gun in pintle mount, 1 x MG-5 7 x 51mm machine gun (coaxial), 1 x MG-5 7 x 51mm in frontal hull mount
Engine: Packard TD-141-18 v-12 diesel engine, 370 kW
Power to mass: 13.1 kW/tonne
Suspension: Torsion bar
Operational Range: 400 km
Speed: 55 km/hr (road)
The design heritage of the Christie tanks and the BT series would heavily influence the design and doctrine preferences of the American military, for good and ill. American military leadership rejected the traditional emphasis on the role of tanks for infantry support. Anticipating the high probability of conflict on the steppes of the Soviet Union, armor leaders such as Chaffee and Patton would emphasize mobility and firepower at the expense of armor protection.
The first product of the new armor doctrine would be known as the T-4 "John Henry." The T-4 would be the workhorse of the American tank corps in the first half of the Second World War. The first design requirements, finalized in late 1935, were submitted to the Ford and Chevrolet Design Bureaus. While the initial plans only called for a single, all-purpose mid-weight tank, the design requirements were later amended to include separate designs for light, medium, and heavy tanks.
Chevrolet dropped out of the medium tank competition, to focus its resources on the heavy tank designs. Engineers at the Ford Design Bureau nevertheless cooperated with their counterparts at Chevrolet, sharing resources even though both collectives continued to compete over the light tank design. This cooperation, encouraged by Stavka, resulted in the various final designs sharing a considerable number of components between them in the powerplant, drivetrain and suspension. These standardized components would greatly reduce production costs and ensure field maintenance was easy.
From the very start of the design process, the T-4 was built for reliability even in the most rugged of climates. The John Henry was designed, under Stavka directive, with the primary conflict zones in mind: a drive northward into the Canadian Prairie Provinces and across the St. Lawrence seaway, and a battle on the steppes of Eastern Europe against a Nazi aggressor. Designed to function effectively even in extreme cold and inclement weather, the John Henry's reliability would prove its greatest selling feature even as 8.8cm armed Panzer IV Nashorns outclassed the tank. And, in particular, the wide-tracks and reliable suspension would give the John Henry the ability to function in the muddy mires of the Soviet autumn rains and spring melts.
The first prototypes of the T-4 began trials in August of 1937. The sleek welded lines and sloped armor of the John Henry heralded a revolution in tank design that would be repeated elsewhere to great effect. During testing, the tank trialled several different main armaments before narrowing down to a competition between the Soviet 57mm ZiS-2 and a modernized version of the Great War era 75mm M1915 howitzer (itself developed from the French M1897).
After assurances from Ordnance that a superior lower velocity HE shell could be developed and fielded without operational difficulty, the ZiS-2 would be selected and standardized as the Anti-Tank gun, 57mm, Soviet model 2, abbreviated AT-57-S2. The high velocity gun gave the John Henry excellent anti-tank capabilities.
The resulting T-4A was approved for mass production on 2 June 1938. The first models were delivered to Army-level Independent Tank Brigades before being integrated into Armored and Mechanized Infantry divisions.
Variants:
Type: Heavy tank
Place of Origin: Union of American Socialist Republics
Used by: Comintern
In service: 1939 to 1946 (WFRA)
Designer: Chevrolet Design Bureau
Designed: 1937-39
Produced: 1939-44
Number built: ~13,000 (excluding T-9 series variants)
Notable Variants: SA-100, SA-152
Specifications (T-5C5 production tank, 1940)
Mass: 40.1 tonnes
Length: 6.67 meters
Width: 3.20 meters
Height: 2.84 meters
Crew: 5
Armor:
Secondary Armament: 1 x MG-2 12.7 x 99 mm machine gun (pintle), 2 x MG-5 7 x 51mm machine gun
Engine: Packard TD-141-24 v-12 diesel, 450 kW
Power to mass: 11.0 kW/tonne
Suspension: torsion-bar
Operational Range: 340 km
Speed: 45 km/hr (road)
The T-5 “Paul Bunyan” heavy tank was developed to fulfill a broad array of roles that T-4 medium tanks could not fulfill. While the John Henry was mobile, and in its time very well armed and protected, it was only well suited to killing other tanks. The T-4's 57 mm high velocity gun could not deliver the volume high explosive shells that the infantry corps demanded, and her complement of machine guns was lacking as well. In practice, this would make the John Henry's substandard for both infantry support and attacking enemy fortifications.
Initial specifications for the T-5 simply involved swapping the high velocity gun out for a short, low velocity 75 mm howitzer. This plan was abandoned quickly, since the new model would share the same design limitations of the T-4. Furthermore, such a tank would be helpless against other tanks. Proponents of heavy tanks within Stavka made their push to very quickly to radically alter the design requirements for the T-5. The new requirements were soon approved, and the Chevrolet Design Bureau started from the ground up building an all new tank model that would nonetheless share an important number of components with the T-4.
The Chevrolet Design Bureau team addressed many of the key flaws of the T-4 design while building a new platform capable of serving a heavy tank role. In particular, the designers avoided aping the trends in heavy tank design that were the norm in British and French tank design. The T-5 would essentially be a medium (or in British terminology, cruiser) tank in design philosophy, owing to its lineage from the Christie series of tanks. In spite of the major increases in armor and armament, the Paul Bunyan would still have exceptional mobility, especially for a tank its size. The overriding concern for the design team, led by the legendary J. Walter Christie, was to build a tank honed to kill other tanks.
The new turret gave sufficient room to mount a 76mm high velocity gun, which would meet the infantry support requirements of the initial design requirements. The larger gun had superior multipurpose applications (though Ordnance had initially wished for a lower velocity 90mm gun for superior HE charge), and importantly, was capable of penetrating the frontal armor of any tank in existence in 1939 at ranges greater than 1000 meters.
The turret armor would be thick and well sloped. Further, the turret tapered towards the front, presenting a difficult target. Any shell striking on the turret sides from the front would likely be deflected by the extreme angle. The hull armor was well sloped also. The sharp angles on the quickly gave the tank an unofficial nickname among its crews: the Razor.
The T-5 would at first be deployed to special heavy tank battalions in American armored divisions. However, as the war raged on, and it became clear that the T-5 was becoming increasingly outclassed in the heavy tank role, the Paul Bunyan series were pushed into a medium tank role. New model T-5s would be upgraded with the AT-90-D4 mm L/60, and an extensively redesigned version of the T-5 would serve as the prototype for the T-9 “John Brown” medium tank.
Variants
T-9 "John Brown" tank
Type: Medium tank
Place of Origin: Union of American Socialist Republics
Used by: Numerous
In service: 1943 to 1960
Designer: Detroit Arsenal
Designed: 1940-43
Produced: 1943-46
Number built: 38,000
Specifications (T-9A, 1943)
Mass: 35.1 tonnes
Length: 6.65 meters
Width: 3.20 meters
Height: 2.65 meters
Crew: 4
Armor:
Secondary Armament: 1 x MG-31 14.5 x 110 mm machine gun (pintle), 1 x MG-5 7 x 51mm machine gun (coaxial)
Engine: Packard TD-141-42 v-12 diesel engine, 410 kW
Power to mass: 11.68 kW/tonne
Suspension: Torsion bar
Operational Range: 500 km
Speed: 53 km/hr (road)
Though a relative latecomer to the war, the T-9 “John Brown” is widely recognized as a contender for the best tank of the entire war. Incorporating the lessons learned from previous Comintern tanks, the T-9 is notable providing the best combination of mobility, reliability, protection, and firepower of any tank on the front. While its German opponents often had heavier armor, and harder-hitting guns, they couldn't hope to manage the John Brown's mobility.
The T-9 began life as the T-5F, a major redesign of that venerable heavy tank to better suit it for life in the medium tank role. A new turret with improved ergonomics and significantly enhanced armor was mated with the T-5 chassis. The hull armor profile was modified for compactness, with new crew hatches to ensure ease of escape. A new, more robust transmission, coupled with a more powerful Packard diesel, and augmented suspension ensured that the new tank would remain highly mobile even with the increased armor and gun weight.
The T-9 also incorporated numerous subtle improvements that made the tank a much more effective fighting machine. While gyrostabilized guns and optics were first included on the T-5 heavy tanks, the new gyroscopes on the John Brown were significantly more refined, allowing reasonable chance to fire on the move and achieve hits. Coupled with the tank's excellent suspension, the gyrostabilized gun and optics allowed an unprecedented ability to find, range, and engage targets while on the move. Using the 12.7 mm ranging gun, John Brown gunners could achieve higher first shot hit rates than their adversaries.
The T-9 would see its combat debut in the Second Battle of Stalingrad, deployed with the troops of the venerable 2nd Guards Tank Army. They clashed with the Panzer 50 “Jaguars” of the I SS Panzer Corps near the town of Grachi.
Like it’s Soviet counterpart the T-44, the T-9 would serve as the backbone of tank and mechanized divisions in the second half of the war. First deployed to the elite Guards divisions, the new tanks balanced firepower, protection and mobility with good reliability once the teething problems were worked out. Well protected from the front against the main German towed anti-tank gun, the 7.5cm PaK 40, even when firing the increasing expensive PzGr. 40 APCR rounds, the John Brown forced the Axis to rely on heavier, less mobile anti-tank guns like the massive 8.8cm Pak 43 for tank defense. This was a dubious proposition, as the limited production capabilities of the German armaments industry had earmarked most of its capacity to produce the KwK 43 version to arm the Panzer 50 and the Jagpanzer 25.
In combat, the John Brown would struggle against German heavies even with the use of APCR and APDS ammunition. Tactical encounters with German heavy tank battalions would leverage mobility to outflank the later marks of the Panzer 50 and the Panzer 75 when possible. But a canny defender could force the deployment of specialist heavy tank destroyer units on many occasions.
MBT-18 "Mikhail Frunze" tank
Type: Main battle tank
Place of Origin: Union of American Socialist Republics
Used by: UASR, Republic of China, Palestinian Republic, Mexico, Nippon Socialist Republic, Democratic Republic of Iran
In service: 1945 to 1965
Designer: Detroit Arsenal
Designed: 1943-45
Produced: 1945-51
Number built: 15,000
Notable Variants: SA-125-18 tank destroyer
Specifications (MBT-18A, 1945)
Mass: 38.5 tonnes
Length: 10.1 meters
Width: 3.38 meters
Height: 2.75 meters
Crew: 4
Armor: Fused silica core within steel RHA
Secondary Armament: 1 x MG-31 14.5 x 114 mm machine gun (pintle), 1 x MG-5 7 mm x 51 mm machine gun (coaxial)
Engine: Packard TD-141-41 v-12 diesel engine, 410 kW
Power to mass: 10.64 kW/tonne
Suspension: Torsion bar
Operational Range: 430 km
Speed: 56 km/hr (road)
Along with its Franco-British counterpart the A41 Centurion, the MBT-18 would usher in the “main battle tank” doctrine. Amidst frustrations with the rising weight and cost of the T-12 heavy tank (later redesignated TD-12), and the first intelligence reports on the Panzer 50 Jaguar, the Armor Research Directorate issued a design directive for a tank with the firepower of a heavy tank, with weight and mobility comparable to existing medium tanks.
The XT-18 would be built around the excellent Soviet D-10T 100mm L/55 gun, deployed initially on the SU-100 assault gun, and now being licensed produced for the American SA-100 and the T-12. Controlling size and weight required significant changes in the hull profile, utilizing highly sloped armor and the driver in a reclined position to reduce height and weight. The resulting turret was just large enough to enable ergonomic fighting, while the transverse mounting of the engine reduced the dimensions of the tank’s length.
Compromises to enable such a compact and well armored tank were far from ideal. The grouping of ammunition on the either side of the driver was far from ideal in the event of a penetration of the glacis.
Initial prototypes used Rolled Homogeneous Armor, but the first production variant would use siliceous core composite armor to increase protection against large caliber HEAT shells being deployed by the Axis to compensate for tungsten shortages.
Deployed to the 2nd Guards Tank Army for field testing, the MBT-18 would first see combat during the invasion of Germany. Along with the heavy TD-21 tank destroyer, the “Mikhail Frunze” would be utilized as a specialist tank destroyer in the Berlin campaign, deployed against concentrations of German armor. The D10’s superb penetration allowed it to threaten even the heaviest of Axis armor when utilizing the M83 APDS shot.
Noted tank ace Lieutenant Don Collier* achieved three confirmed kills in the Siege of Berlin, killing two Panzer 50 Ausf. Ls and a Panzer 75 Ausf. D, while the rest of his platoon secured four more kills. This engagement would be captured on film, and be played across the world in V-E Day news reels.
After seeing service in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive and in Operation Damocles, the MBT-18 would become the backbone of the post-war Comintern tank forces in the early Cold War, with later marks introducing full gyrostabilization for the main gun, spall liners, improved rangefinders, and eventually ERA.
Type: Medium tank
Place of Origin: Union of American Socialist Republics
Used by: Comintern
In service: 1939 to 1946 (WFRA)
Designer: Detroit Arsenal
Designed: 1935-38
Produced: 1939-44
Number built: 29,776 (all variants)
Notable Variants: GMC-4 self-propelled artillery, SA-76-4 tank destroyer,
Specifications (T-4B1, 1940)
Mass: 28.2 tonnes
Length: 6.15 meters
Width: 3.00 meters
Height: 2.55 meters
Crew: 5
Armor:
front glacis 60 mm/47°, lower glacis 55mm/52°, hull side 50 mm, rear 35 mm, top 20 mm, bottom 10 mm;
turret front 76 mm + 76mm gun mantlet, sides up to 55 mm, rear 40 mm, top 25 mm
Primary Armament: 57 mm L/52 AT-57-S2 high velocity gunturret front 76 mm + 76mm gun mantlet, sides up to 55 mm, rear 40 mm, top 25 mm
Secondary Armament: 1 x MG-2 12.7 x 99mm machine gun in pintle mount, 1 x MG-5 7 x 51mm machine gun (coaxial), 1 x MG-5 7 x 51mm in frontal hull mount
Engine: Packard TD-141-18 v-12 diesel engine, 370 kW
Power to mass: 13.1 kW/tonne
Suspension: Torsion bar
Operational Range: 400 km
Speed: 55 km/hr (road)
The design heritage of the Christie tanks and the BT series would heavily influence the design and doctrine preferences of the American military, for good and ill. American military leadership rejected the traditional emphasis on the role of tanks for infantry support. Anticipating the high probability of conflict on the steppes of the Soviet Union, armor leaders such as Chaffee and Patton would emphasize mobility and firepower at the expense of armor protection.
The first product of the new armor doctrine would be known as the T-4 "John Henry." The T-4 would be the workhorse of the American tank corps in the first half of the Second World War. The first design requirements, finalized in late 1935, were submitted to the Ford and Chevrolet Design Bureaus. While the initial plans only called for a single, all-purpose mid-weight tank, the design requirements were later amended to include separate designs for light, medium, and heavy tanks.
Chevrolet dropped out of the medium tank competition, to focus its resources on the heavy tank designs. Engineers at the Ford Design Bureau nevertheless cooperated with their counterparts at Chevrolet, sharing resources even though both collectives continued to compete over the light tank design. This cooperation, encouraged by Stavka, resulted in the various final designs sharing a considerable number of components between them in the powerplant, drivetrain and suspension. These standardized components would greatly reduce production costs and ensure field maintenance was easy.
From the very start of the design process, the T-4 was built for reliability even in the most rugged of climates. The John Henry was designed, under Stavka directive, with the primary conflict zones in mind: a drive northward into the Canadian Prairie Provinces and across the St. Lawrence seaway, and a battle on the steppes of Eastern Europe against a Nazi aggressor. Designed to function effectively even in extreme cold and inclement weather, the John Henry's reliability would prove its greatest selling feature even as 8.8cm armed Panzer IV Nashorns outclassed the tank. And, in particular, the wide-tracks and reliable suspension would give the John Henry the ability to function in the muddy mires of the Soviet autumn rains and spring melts.
The first prototypes of the T-4 began trials in August of 1937. The sleek welded lines and sloped armor of the John Henry heralded a revolution in tank design that would be repeated elsewhere to great effect. During testing, the tank trialled several different main armaments before narrowing down to a competition between the Soviet 57mm ZiS-2 and a modernized version of the Great War era 75mm M1915 howitzer (itself developed from the French M1897).
After assurances from Ordnance that a superior lower velocity HE shell could be developed and fielded without operational difficulty, the ZiS-2 would be selected and standardized as the Anti-Tank gun, 57mm, Soviet model 2, abbreviated AT-57-S2. The high velocity gun gave the John Henry excellent anti-tank capabilities.
The resulting T-4A was approved for mass production on 2 June 1938. The first models were delivered to Army-level Independent Tank Brigades before being integrated into Armored and Mechanized Infantry divisions.
Variants:
- XT-4: 1937 Prototype, 8 built. 300 kW Chrysler V-8 gasoline engine. Armed with 37mm M3 AT gun, welded hull and turret. Trialed 57mm and 75mm guns.
- T-4A: 1938, first production variant. Larger turret with AT-57-S2 gun, thicker frontal armor.
- T-4A1: Welded hull and turret. Limited production, ~200
- T-4A2: Switch to Packard TD-141 diesel in common with planned T-5 and Soviet T-34. Cast turret and vertical gyrostabilization added, ~1,800 produced.
- T-4A3: 105mm howitzer, 462 built
- T-4A4: Improved escape hatches, ruggedized torque-converter, 1450 built.
- T-4B: 1939, mass production. First issued to front-line units deploying to the Soviet theater.
- T-4B1: Heavier frontal armor, improved commander's cupola. “Wet” ammunition storage to improve survivability. 5,000 produced.
- T-4B2: Switch to L/60 AT-57-S3. 5 prototypes produced, cancelled.
- T-4B3: Improved gyrostabilization system added. 4,310 produced.
- T-4C: 1941. Wider tracks, frontal armor increased to 55mm, new turret with improved mantlet and top armor.
- T-4C1: Jettisonable auxiliary fuel tank. 3,000 built.
- T-4C2: Slightly increased length for improved ergonomics and ammunition storage. 2,000 built.
- T-4D: 1941. Electric transmission, 55mm frontal armor, common turret with T-4C. 4500 built.
- T-4E: 1942. T-4C2 with enlarged turret, improved frontal armor.
- T-4E1: Pilot model, AT-57-S3 gun. Deployed with larger radios as command models. 300 built
- T-4E2: AT-76-M1 L/57 gun. 1,200 built.
- T-4E3: AT-76-M1 L/57, improved transmission, 5,850 built
- T-4F: 1943. Remanufacturing of older units, T-4E turret and gun, new optics.
- SA-76-4: Casemate assault gun, AT-76-M1 gun
- GMC-4: 105mm howitzer Gun Motor Carriage
- GMC-7: 152mm howitzer Gun Motor Carriage
- M-21: Tank recovery vehicle/artillery tractor
- RA-18: Rocket artillery launcher
Type: Heavy tank
Place of Origin: Union of American Socialist Republics
Used by: Comintern
In service: 1939 to 1946 (WFRA)
Designer: Chevrolet Design Bureau
Designed: 1937-39
Produced: 1939-44
Number built: ~13,000 (excluding T-9 series variants)
Notable Variants: SA-100, SA-152
Specifications (T-5C5 production tank, 1940)
Mass: 40.1 tonnes
Length: 6.67 meters
Width: 3.20 meters
Height: 2.84 meters
Crew: 5
Armor:
Front glacis 75 mm/55°, lower glacis 65mm/56°, upper side 55 mm/38°, lower sides 60mm, rear 60 mm, top 40 mm, bottom 40 mm;
Turret front 75 mm/45° + gun mantlet 90mm, sides 70 mm/15°, rear 50 mm, top 40 mm
Primary Armament: 76 mm L/57 AT-76-M1 high velocity gunTurret front 75 mm/45° + gun mantlet 90mm, sides 70 mm/15°, rear 50 mm, top 40 mm
Secondary Armament: 1 x MG-2 12.7 x 99 mm machine gun (pintle), 2 x MG-5 7 x 51mm machine gun
Engine: Packard TD-141-24 v-12 diesel, 450 kW
Power to mass: 11.0 kW/tonne
Suspension: torsion-bar
Operational Range: 340 km
Speed: 45 km/hr (road)
The T-5 “Paul Bunyan” heavy tank was developed to fulfill a broad array of roles that T-4 medium tanks could not fulfill. While the John Henry was mobile, and in its time very well armed and protected, it was only well suited to killing other tanks. The T-4's 57 mm high velocity gun could not deliver the volume high explosive shells that the infantry corps demanded, and her complement of machine guns was lacking as well. In practice, this would make the John Henry's substandard for both infantry support and attacking enemy fortifications.
Initial specifications for the T-5 simply involved swapping the high velocity gun out for a short, low velocity 75 mm howitzer. This plan was abandoned quickly, since the new model would share the same design limitations of the T-4. Furthermore, such a tank would be helpless against other tanks. Proponents of heavy tanks within Stavka made their push to very quickly to radically alter the design requirements for the T-5. The new requirements were soon approved, and the Chevrolet Design Bureau started from the ground up building an all new tank model that would nonetheless share an important number of components with the T-4.
The Chevrolet Design Bureau team addressed many of the key flaws of the T-4 design while building a new platform capable of serving a heavy tank role. In particular, the designers avoided aping the trends in heavy tank design that were the norm in British and French tank design. The T-5 would essentially be a medium (or in British terminology, cruiser) tank in design philosophy, owing to its lineage from the Christie series of tanks. In spite of the major increases in armor and armament, the Paul Bunyan would still have exceptional mobility, especially for a tank its size. The overriding concern for the design team, led by the legendary J. Walter Christie, was to build a tank honed to kill other tanks.
The new turret gave sufficient room to mount a 76mm high velocity gun, which would meet the infantry support requirements of the initial design requirements. The larger gun had superior multipurpose applications (though Ordnance had initially wished for a lower velocity 90mm gun for superior HE charge), and importantly, was capable of penetrating the frontal armor of any tank in existence in 1939 at ranges greater than 1000 meters.
The turret armor would be thick and well sloped. Further, the turret tapered towards the front, presenting a difficult target. Any shell striking on the turret sides from the front would likely be deflected by the extreme angle. The hull armor was well sloped also. The sharp angles on the quickly gave the tank an unofficial nickname among its crews: the Razor.
The T-5 would at first be deployed to special heavy tank battalions in American armored divisions. However, as the war raged on, and it became clear that the T-5 was becoming increasingly outclassed in the heavy tank role, the Paul Bunyan series were pushed into a medium tank role. New model T-5s would be upgraded with the AT-90-D4 mm L/60, and an extensively redesigned version of the T-5 would serve as the prototype for the T-9 “John Brown” medium tank.
Variants
- XT-5A: 1939 prototype. 4 built. Infantry support focus, Horizontal volute spring suspension, 76mm ZiS-3 gun, 350 kW engine.
- XT-5B: 1939 prototype. 3 built. Breakthrough focus. Torsion bar suspension, 85mm D-5T gun, 450 kW engine.
- XT-5C: 1939 prototype: 5 built. Anti-tank focus. Torsion bar suspension, AT-76-M1 gun, 450 kW engine, reduced side and rear armor, increased frontal armor. Approved for mass production.
- T-5C1: Mass production model. Improved crew ergonomics, wet ammo storage, common optics and stabilizers with T-4B3. 140 built.
- T-5C2: Minor improvements to improve ease of mass production, approved January 1940. 89 built.
- T-5C3: Weight reductions to rear and side armor. 700 built.
- T-5C4: Side deflection muzzle brake. 420 built.
- T-5C5: Cumulative design updates from previous versions, 2180 built, plus later conversions.
- T-5D: 1942 improvement. Further weight reductions through improved manufacturing techniques to serve as ersatz medium tank. Redesignated MBT-5D in 1945.
- T-5D1: Reduced side and rear armor. Weight reduced to 38.5 tonnes. Improved crew ergonomics. 1900 built.
- T-5D2: Spaced frontal armor: cancelled
- T-5D3: Incorporated spaced armor, weight reductions and new transmission for increased reliability. Previous marks later retrofitted with these improvements. 2100 built.
- T-5E: 1943 upgrade. New turret and AT-90-D4 gun w/ ranging rifle. Redesignated MBT-5E in 1945
- T-5E1: Used to denote C models remanufactured for 90mm gun.
- T-5E2: D models remanufactured for 90mm gun.
- T-5E3: New manufactured stopgap while T-4 plants shifted to T-9 production, 4600 built.
- XT-5F: Comprehensive redesign, re-designated T-9 for mass production.
T-9 "John Brown" tank
Type: Medium tank
Place of Origin: Union of American Socialist Republics
Used by: Numerous
In service: 1943 to 1960
Designer: Detroit Arsenal
Designed: 1940-43
Produced: 1943-46
Number built: 38,000
Specifications (T-9A, 1943)
Mass: 35.1 tonnes
Length: 6.65 meters
Width: 3.20 meters
Height: 2.65 meters
Crew: 4
Armor:
Front glacis 76 mm/64°, lower glacis 76mm/44°, hull side 75mm, rear 45 mm, top 20 mm, bottom 20 mm;
turret front 150 mm, sides up to 95 mm, rear 80 mm, top 40 mm
Primary Armament: 90 mm L/60 AT-90-D4 high velocity gunturret front 150 mm, sides up to 95 mm, rear 80 mm, top 40 mm
Secondary Armament: 1 x MG-31 14.5 x 110 mm machine gun (pintle), 1 x MG-5 7 x 51mm machine gun (coaxial)
Engine: Packard TD-141-42 v-12 diesel engine, 410 kW
Power to mass: 11.68 kW/tonne
Suspension: Torsion bar
Operational Range: 500 km
Speed: 53 km/hr (road)
Though a relative latecomer to the war, the T-9 “John Brown” is widely recognized as a contender for the best tank of the entire war. Incorporating the lessons learned from previous Comintern tanks, the T-9 is notable providing the best combination of mobility, reliability, protection, and firepower of any tank on the front. While its German opponents often had heavier armor, and harder-hitting guns, they couldn't hope to manage the John Brown's mobility.
The T-9 began life as the T-5F, a major redesign of that venerable heavy tank to better suit it for life in the medium tank role. A new turret with improved ergonomics and significantly enhanced armor was mated with the T-5 chassis. The hull armor profile was modified for compactness, with new crew hatches to ensure ease of escape. A new, more robust transmission, coupled with a more powerful Packard diesel, and augmented suspension ensured that the new tank would remain highly mobile even with the increased armor and gun weight.
The T-9 also incorporated numerous subtle improvements that made the tank a much more effective fighting machine. While gyrostabilized guns and optics were first included on the T-5 heavy tanks, the new gyroscopes on the John Brown were significantly more refined, allowing reasonable chance to fire on the move and achieve hits. Coupled with the tank's excellent suspension, the gyrostabilized gun and optics allowed an unprecedented ability to find, range, and engage targets while on the move. Using the 12.7 mm ranging gun, John Brown gunners could achieve higher first shot hit rates than their adversaries.
The T-9 would see its combat debut in the Second Battle of Stalingrad, deployed with the troops of the venerable 2nd Guards Tank Army. They clashed with the Panzer 50 “Jaguars” of the I SS Panzer Corps near the town of Grachi.
Like it’s Soviet counterpart the T-44, the T-9 would serve as the backbone of tank and mechanized divisions in the second half of the war. First deployed to the elite Guards divisions, the new tanks balanced firepower, protection and mobility with good reliability once the teething problems were worked out. Well protected from the front against the main German towed anti-tank gun, the 7.5cm PaK 40, even when firing the increasing expensive PzGr. 40 APCR rounds, the John Brown forced the Axis to rely on heavier, less mobile anti-tank guns like the massive 8.8cm Pak 43 for tank defense. This was a dubious proposition, as the limited production capabilities of the German armaments industry had earmarked most of its capacity to produce the KwK 43 version to arm the Panzer 50 and the Jagpanzer 25.
In combat, the John Brown would struggle against German heavies even with the use of APCR and APDS ammunition. Tactical encounters with German heavy tank battalions would leverage mobility to outflank the later marks of the Panzer 50 and the Panzer 75 when possible. But a canny defender could force the deployment of specialist heavy tank destroyer units on many occasions.
MBT-18 "Mikhail Frunze" tank
Type: Main battle tank
Place of Origin: Union of American Socialist Republics
Used by: UASR, Republic of China, Palestinian Republic, Mexico, Nippon Socialist Republic, Democratic Republic of Iran
In service: 1945 to 1965
Designer: Detroit Arsenal
Designed: 1943-45
Produced: 1945-51
Number built: 15,000
Notable Variants: SA-125-18 tank destroyer
Specifications (MBT-18A, 1945)
Mass: 38.5 tonnes
Length: 10.1 meters
Width: 3.38 meters
Height: 2.75 meters
Crew: 4
Armor: Fused silica core within steel RHA
Front glacis 100 mm/61°, lower glacis 120mm/52°, hull side 80 mm, rear 40 mm, top 40 mm, bottom 20 mm;
turret front 178 mm, gun mantlet 200mm, sides 76-160 mm, rear 55 mm, top 40 mm
Primary Armament: 100 mm L/55 AT-100-D10 high velocity gunturret front 178 mm, gun mantlet 200mm, sides 76-160 mm, rear 55 mm, top 40 mm
Secondary Armament: 1 x MG-31 14.5 x 114 mm machine gun (pintle), 1 x MG-5 7 mm x 51 mm machine gun (coaxial)
Engine: Packard TD-141-41 v-12 diesel engine, 410 kW
Power to mass: 10.64 kW/tonne
Suspension: Torsion bar
Operational Range: 430 km
Speed: 56 km/hr (road)
Along with its Franco-British counterpart the A41 Centurion, the MBT-18 would usher in the “main battle tank” doctrine. Amidst frustrations with the rising weight and cost of the T-12 heavy tank (later redesignated TD-12), and the first intelligence reports on the Panzer 50 Jaguar, the Armor Research Directorate issued a design directive for a tank with the firepower of a heavy tank, with weight and mobility comparable to existing medium tanks.
The XT-18 would be built around the excellent Soviet D-10T 100mm L/55 gun, deployed initially on the SU-100 assault gun, and now being licensed produced for the American SA-100 and the T-12. Controlling size and weight required significant changes in the hull profile, utilizing highly sloped armor and the driver in a reclined position to reduce height and weight. The resulting turret was just large enough to enable ergonomic fighting, while the transverse mounting of the engine reduced the dimensions of the tank’s length.
Compromises to enable such a compact and well armored tank were far from ideal. The grouping of ammunition on the either side of the driver was far from ideal in the event of a penetration of the glacis.
Initial prototypes used Rolled Homogeneous Armor, but the first production variant would use siliceous core composite armor to increase protection against large caliber HEAT shells being deployed by the Axis to compensate for tungsten shortages.
Deployed to the 2nd Guards Tank Army for field testing, the MBT-18 would first see combat during the invasion of Germany. Along with the heavy TD-21 tank destroyer, the “Mikhail Frunze” would be utilized as a specialist tank destroyer in the Berlin campaign, deployed against concentrations of German armor. The D10’s superb penetration allowed it to threaten even the heaviest of Axis armor when utilizing the M83 APDS shot.
Noted tank ace Lieutenant Don Collier* achieved three confirmed kills in the Siege of Berlin, killing two Panzer 50 Ausf. Ls and a Panzer 75 Ausf. D, while the rest of his platoon secured four more kills. This engagement would be captured on film, and be played across the world in V-E Day news reels.
After seeing service in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive and in Operation Damocles, the MBT-18 would become the backbone of the post-war Comintern tank forces in the early Cold War, with later marks introducing full gyrostabilization for the main gun, spall liners, improved rangefinders, and eventually ERA.
Last edited:
Well yes it is a compliment. I am always down to clown with the dank may mays.
Tanks a lot,Jello.
Anyway,what about Alaska and North Ireland's status now?Sorry if i asked a lot,this world is one of the most immersive and realistic ever made.
And now shitposts.
Anyway,what about Alaska and North Ireland's status now?Sorry if i asked a lot,this world is one of the most immersive and realistic ever made.
And now shitposts.
Alaska remains in the union. Ireland has not been elaborated on.
In honor of May Day, what's the status of the IWW in the UASR and the British Commonwealth?
It's established that the IWW is truly an international Union in this timeline. With different national sections that affiliate to it as federations. For example. The proper name of the solidarity federation is stated as the "IWW American Section: Industrial Workers Solidarity Union". Presumably meaning that there are national sections atleast in every Commintern country, probably also in much of the FBU sphere, although probably in competition with TUC-FO (I'm assuming that the TUC in Britain goes against revolution, and that the Force Ouvrier also split as the anti-communist social democratic union federation in France).
Bhangbhangduc
Banned
Happy May 3rd, comrades. It would the 83rd anniversary of the establishment of the provisional government in Chicago ITTL.
So are most workplaces in the UASR "IWW shops," with it functioning as a labor union? Or is it more of a political organization that advocates for Syndicalist organization of the economy?
More Union, although they are still a major political force through their control of much of their economy.
I once learned that the alcohol used to be considered a fuel for cars during the early 20th Century and it fell out of use due to the Prohibition. Will alcohol be a prominent fuel source?
Until oil becomes expensive enough to offset the added cost of ethanol production and/or the climate crisis gets severe enough, I think it is unlikely.
teg
Even then, it's quite likely people will just use battery powered or hybrid cars.
What's been said about the status of research into fission in the Comintern or FBU? Did Britain get any German scientists who would have gone to America OTL, did it get any American scientists fleeing the revolution?