New Government in Holland.

[damocles]

The Italians built one in 1917 called the Fiat 2000.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/ItalianTanks.html

Lighten by ten tons, and cut down the top deck by one full meter with the same engine. Use a Holt tractor as the underdesign.

Fiat 2000 - Model 17

The first Italian tank. It was conceived by Fiat as a private venture in October 1916. The first prototype was ready in June 1917. Fiat donated 2 tanks to Italian Army in February 1918. Total production until the end of 1919. encompassed 6 vehicles. Arguably the finest heavy tank built in WW1 and a great "what if...". The Fiat 2000 never saw combat. For more detail, go to: TANKS! e-Magazine Winter 2001 Issue #2
Specifications Crew     10
Engine     240hp - gasoline
Weight     40 tons
Speed     4.5 - 6mph (depending on the source)
Armament     6 x MG, 1 x 65mm Main Gun
Length     24' 3"
Width     10' 2"
Height     12' 5"
Armor     15 - 20mm.

[Carthaginian]

Not too far off for something with only a half-inch of armor... speed or otherwise.
Easily knocked out by anything over a .50 caliber round, but a real pain in the ass for infantry to handle alone (as heavy machine guns were still kind of 'special' about now).

[damocles]

Not too far off for something with only a half-inch of armor... speed or otherwise.
Easily knocked out by anything over a .50 caliber round, but a real pain in the ass for infantry to handle alone (as heavy machine guns were still kind of 'special' about now).

I need an opinion. The minengewerfer is a low velocity grenade thrower, hardly better than a low powered breech loaded trench mortar. When can I realistically install a 50 mm howitizer or some type of shell gun?   

[P3D]

On hindsight:
Just don't pick out the most promising historical designs from all over Europe, then rationalize/correct the design. So keep all the machine guns all around. The coax MG next to the grenade launcher is definitely futuristic. Also, cutting the top 1m from the tank won't leave room for the operator of the main gun.

While the FT-2000 looks good on paper, it would shed its long tracks easily. The British encountered the same problem when they tried to lengthen the tracks of the Holt tractor. This was the reason why the rhomboids had a rigid suspension. There was a guide rail just above the track that the track segments engaged so they won't fall out. Or the short tracks on every other WWI designs based on the Holt tractor. It took a few years of operational experience and experiments to get long tracks with suspension to work.

On grenade launchers:

The FT-17 also had a 75mm grenade launcher version (Renault BS).
First tanks with gun (45mm+) turrets should be like the Vickers Mediums, or heavy landships with marginal armor (Vickers A1E1, Char B1 and 2C) and multiple turrets.

[Carthaginian]

I need an opinion. The minengewerfer is a low velocity grenade thrower, hardly better than a low powered breech loaded trench mortar. When can I realistically install a 50 mm howitizer or some type of shell gun?   

When you build a tank that has ship-like ability to sustain the necessary shock!
None of the early tanks were really that practical, and those that had naval guns mounted were even moreso.

I could easily knock any of them out with a Confederate 1" machine gun.

If you want to  build a 'tank' your are out of luck till the mid 20's.
If you want a marginally armored (<0.5"), mobile bunker (<5 MPH) that is immune to only light rifle fire... then you can.

[Logi]

If you want a marginally armored (<0.5"), mobile bunker (<5 MPH) that is immune to only light rifle fire... then you can.

The 1918 Whippet (~14t, 45hp per engine, 2 engine) from the UK went 8 mph with ~14mm armor around. The 1918 Hornet (~23t, 150hp, 1 engine) from the UK went 8.3 mph. I recall a few tanks during the period that went even faster with slightly more armor, the result of purpose-designed tank engines that started coming out ~1918, but I can't recall their names offhand.

The other tanks were never designed with great speed in mind. They weren't exactly used for quick movements, but breaking static lines. The Hornet and Whippet were designed for speed but came too early for the purpose-designed tank engines.

When the purpose engine did come out it seemed that most tanks reverted to adding more armor instead of allowing more speed. Hence the idea that they were slow. They had potential to not be, granted no where near WW2 standards of speed. 14mph could certainly be achieved if less armor was attempted.

For example the Renault FT-17 reported had 22-30mm armor when designed and produced initially. IT went 5mph initially (running on a 4-cyl 39hp all straight inline mind you!). SUch as it is, although the suspension and transmission cost quite some weight are were prone to breaking down very often, using a more powerful engine for a slight widening of the tank was very possible and with that, a great boost to speed attainable. Both high-powered Vee inline engines and radial engines were becoming available, and both gave a great deal of power more than a low cc straight 4-cyl.

But that would entire require an advanced tank doctrine to put the pieces together for the need for a high-powered purpose-built tank engine or terrible hindsightis.

[Carthaginian]

But that would entire require an advanced tank doctrine to put the pieces together for the need for a high-powered purpose-built tank engine or terrible hindsightis.

Basically the point that I'm trying to get across.

The tank was originally designed to cover infantry advances into the teeth of light machine gun fire from protected positions. This did not require either heavy armor or high speed- indeed, these would have been a detriment. Heavy armor would have increased wear, tear and strain on the engine and so would high speed. Very light naval guns were handy for knocking out pillboxes, and machine guns of their own were great for protecting infantry (more easily able to follow a slow tank than a fast one) from close-in counterattack.

Tanks didn't become very heavily armored until someone got the bright idea 'it takes one to kill one.'

Also, Logi, tanks like the FT-17 had 'heavy' armor and 'high' speed... but extremely light guns compared to the larger 'infantry support tanks.' I also only see it getting credit for 4.5 MPH, not a lot faster than the Mk I of the British. Additionally, the Renault had only 2 crewmen and the British tank had 8.

[P3D]

The ultimate FT-17 version would be the FIAT 3000. Built a bit lighter, with a stronger engine, could do 20km/h (15mph). Having some suspension helps a lot. I'd expect N3verse light tanks should look like it after the second iteration. And the 37mm gun should be adequate as an AT gun against contemporaries.

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/fiat3000_info.htm

[Carthaginian]

And the 37mm gun should be adequate as an AT gun against contemporaries.

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/fiat3000_info.htm

LOL... like I said- in this time period, a .50 caliber with API rounds is an effective anti-tank weapon.

[Logi]

The tank was originally designed to cover infantry advances into the teeth of light machine gun fire from protected positions.

The Republican army apparently has a different idea of tanks, but it's doctrine for tanks in it self is flawed heavily. It conceived tanks as an extension of motorized logistic formations, or rather, Armored Cavalry. Like the Republican's independent operating arm of cavalry, the tank is expected to operate independently of the infantry and work with the cavalry or replace it.

Of course that means light main gun if not only a mg and very thin armor. Which, if hindsightis is allowed, proves to be a problem all in it's own.

Also, Logi, tanks like the FT-17 had 'heavy' armor and 'high' speed... but extremely light guns compared to the larger 'infantry support tanks.'

Indeed, a 37mm autogun, not very accurate or powerful, but fast loading. Such, an anti-personnal weapon rather than a true heavy gun.

I also only see it getting credit for 4.5 MPH

Records are not very clear, I find everything from 4.3mph to 5mph as the reported speed for the Renault FT-17. But that is to be expected from a tank with a relatively low bHp engine and thick armor (thicker than any other tank, anyways).

Additionally, the Renault had only 2 crewmen and the British tank had 8.

That had a lot to do with design as well as the number of weapons carried. The Mark I possessed an even more ill-suited engine than the Renault thus required quite more maintenance and people operating on it.Not to mention the plethora of guns in the tank meant it required 4 gunners for the weapons alone. Add in the separate commander and the driver and the need for direct fixing on the engine (it was not rear-mounted engine yet) meant a much higher complement.

If, like the Renault, the Mark I possessed only one main gun/ mg, the commander could operate as the commander as well. And with a rear mounted engine, the driver becoming the engineer in the rest time. Thus a drop from 8 crew members to 2. And this in itself saves a great deal of space and thus weight allowing a better engine performance due to lower weight.


As P3D's example of the FIAT 3000, a bit less weight does wonders. We compare the Mark I (28 tons, 105bHp converted engine) to FT-17 (7.2 ton, 39bHp more suited engine). A ratio of 3.75 hp/ton to 5.41 hp/ton, not to mention a much less burden transmission due to lower weight.

[Carthaginian]

As P3D's example of the FIAT 3000, a bit less weight does wonders. We compare the Mark I (28 tons, 105bHp converted engine) to FT-17 (7.2 ton, 39bHp more suited engine). A ratio of 3.75 hp/ton to 5.41 hp/ton, not to mention a much less burden transmission due to lower weight.

The Fiat was only a FASTER tank... not a BETTER one.
The Fiat could only fire one weapon at a time, and only possessed two.
The Mk I could fire two TYPES of weapon at once- and could fire a pair of 57mm and at least 2 .303 MG's as well; granted, the MG's had to stop firing for the tank to turn, but that changed with the Mk V.

Also, the comparison of late-model Fiats should be made to the later marks of British tank- which took only one man to drive (and thus freed up ALL other crewmen to operate weapons), had a more reliable 200+ HP engine and made better than 5 MPH (though not by much).

Again, neither tank was necessarily a 'better' tank- both were well designed for their intended job.
Were I a late-war infantryman, I'd FAR rather have a Mk.V to march beside than a Renault.
If I were a cavalry officer, needing a scout that could get out and back and survive... then the Renault would work.

[Logi]

Indeed a problem of role. For infantry supporting tanks, there was no need for high speed, more weapons would have been a whole lot better. I would, too, prefer a Mark V for that role.

However, I was addressing on the premise of the desired tank was a faster one, not one with more weapons. Although I say the Renaults were not scouts, no, leave that to the real fast ones, the armored cars. It was a light tank, capable enough to go advance or with the cavalry and cause good disruption. The 37mm was, as I mentioned, an autogun, high RoF, intended as anti-infantry weapon.

You are correct on the more reliable engines on the Mark V and on though, that is because if I recall correctly, the Mark V and on used purpose designed engines rather than the converted commercial or industrial engines as was norm before.

Side-Note: We should have a mod move this to another topic.

[ctwaterman]

I think we are looking at different roles for our different armored vehicles.

As an Example the Empire of Italia is developing the light tank and armored car with an emphasis on the armored car with a couple of machine guns or a light breach loading cannon or trench mortar style weapon.  The Light tanks are for dealing with fortified hard points or small bunkers the Armored Cars for Recon or Cavalry roles such as scouting or persuit of a retreating enemy.

Heavy Tanks something Italia has not worked on are now seen as something they need to aquire to assisst in breaking through enemies who have dug in in difficult terrain.   

And a need for a larger support element for a motorized army is found to be needed.  :o
More Mechanics, more armorers and well just more logistic tail to such a formation.

Charles

[damocles]

On hindsight:
Just don't pick out the most promising historical designs from all over Europe, then rationalize/correct the design. So keep all the machine guns all around. The coax MG next to the grenade launcher is definitely futuristic. Also, cutting the top 1m from the tank won't leave room for the operator of the main gun.

The reason for looking at the F-2000 was that it was actually successful as designed.

The joint Dutch exercises with the Bavarians at Namur with the GBW II, by now definitely show that a MG all around is necessary. The simplest Dutch solution is a protected cuppola a la FT-17.    

The only reason for the F-2000 fighting deck and 10 man crew was that citadel arrangement of machine guns (in naval terms think of the Merrimac versus the Monitor)  

While the FT-2000 looks good on paper, it would shed its long tracks easily. The British encountered the same problem when they tried to lengthen the tracks of the Holt tractor. This was the reason why the rhomboids had a rigid suspension. There was a guide rail just above the track that the track segments engaged so they won't fall out. Or the short tracks on every other WWI designs based on the Holt tractor. It took a few years of operational experience and experiments to get long tracks with suspension to work.

The problem with track popping has never gone away AFAIK. The criticism is very legitimate. Nothing I read suggests that the F-2000 was any different in this from the British tanks, or that the British rail guide solution ever changed this for the Marks I-IV.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Stories/emagazine-1/fiat2000/

The fighting deck can be lowered. It will require some design changes from what is seen here. The engine will be as is, the cuppola moved forward and a step built in, and the aft MGs and side MGs deleted. The bow MGs are tray mounted left and right feed as per 1917 aircraft armament.    

   

On grenade launchers:

The FT-17 also had a 75mm grenade launcher version (Renault BS).
First tanks with gun (45mm+) turrets should be like the Vickers Mediums, or heavy landships with marginal armor (Vickers A1E1, Char B1 and 2C) and multiple turrets.

The line of Dutch Nverse evolution, like the historical Italian development off the first British Mark II tanks they saw, is based off the mythical Dutch GBW II. That Italian cupola as designed held an infantry cannon which was a first for everyone. I discounted the howitzer as unworkable as the arguments about it are valid. The minengewerfer is much less powerful and smaller. That leaves room for the MG, I think-especially since the MG and minengewerfer share the same traverse elevation mount.  

I need an opinion. The minengewerfer is a low velocity grenade thrower, hardly better than a low powered breech loaded trench mortar. When can I realistically install a 50 mm howitizer or some type of shell gun?    

When you build a tank that has ship-like ability to sustain the necessary shock!
None of the early tanks were really that practical, and those that had naval guns mounted were even moreso.

Agreed.

I could easily knock any of them out with a Confederate 1" machine gun.

Agreed.

If you want to  build a 'tank' your are out of luck till the mid 20's.
If you want a marginally armored (<0.5"), mobile bunker (<5 MPH) that is immune to only light rifle fire... then you can.

This is what the British actually did. Its still useful as the British and French demonstrated in 1918. A 25 mm auto-cannon in Nverse 1918 is not light or common, or as mobile.

If you want a marginally armored (<0.5"), mobile bunker (<5 MPH) that is immune to only light rifle fire... then you can.

The 1918 Whippet (~14t, 45hp per engine, 2 engine) from the UK went 8 mph with ~14mm armor around. The 1918 Hornet (~23t, 150hp, 1 engine) from the UK went 8.3 mph. I recall a few tanks during the period that went even faster with slightly more armor, the result of purpose-designed tank engines that started coming out ~1918, but I can't recall their names offhand.

Vickers Mark IIs around 1920. I prefer k/h, here, because those are performance units with that I am comfortable, and a lot of our Nverse members are more used to the metric system as well. The base line walk pace for Humans over broken ground is 3-4 miles an hour, or about 5-6.5 k/h.  The Whippet is thus about 13 k/h.

The other tanks were never designed with great speed in mind. They weren't exactly used for quick movements, but breaking static lines. The Hornet and Whippet were designed for speed but came too early for the purpose-designed tank engines.

The British were thinking of cavalry tanks in 1917 when the Whippet came out. That was the reason for the speed.  

When the purpose engine did come out it seemed that most tanks reverted to adding more armor instead of allowing more speed. Hence the idea that they were slow. They had potential to not be, granted no where near WW2 standards of speed. 14mph could certainly be achieved if less armor was attempted.

This is an error. The engines were already there. What changed was the research into transmissions and power takeoffs and engine cooling systems. That was the holdup. In fact it always was so, as by 1918, aircraft engines were getting rather good.  These engines lacked the transmissions and cooling systems to make them land vehicle engines, but eventually once those two problems were solved, they did become tank engines (Liberties and Curtiss radials were famous examples)      

For example the Renault FT-17 reported had 22-30mm armor when designed and produced initially. IT went 5mph initially (running on a 4-cyl 39hp all straight inline mind you!). Such as it is, although the suspension and transmission cost quite some weight are were prone to breaking down very often, using a more powerful engine for a slight widening of the tank was very possible and with that, a great boost to speed attainable. Both high-powered Vee inline engines and radial engines were becoming available, and both gave a great deal of power more than a low cc straight 4-cyl.

Agreed. See own comments.

But that would entire require an advanced tank doctrine to put the pieces together for the need for a high-powered purpose-built tank engine or terrible hindsightis.

Or an Nverse war and an urgent Dutch testing program, based on that war.

But that would entire require an advanced tank doctrine to put the pieces together for the need for a high-powered purpose-built tank engine or terrible hindsightis.

Basically the point that I'm trying to get across.

The tank was originally designed to cover infantry advances into the teeth of light machine gun fire from protected positions. This did not require either heavy armor or high speed- indeed, these would have been a detriment. Heavy armor would have increased wear, tear and strain on the engine and so would high speed. Very light naval guns were handy for knocking out pillboxes, and machine guns of their own were great for protecting infantry (more easily able to follow a slow tank than a fast one) from close-in counterattack.

A speed of 15k/h is 9 mph. 15-20 mm is designed to stop 7.92 mm MG fire and shell splinters.

Tanks didn't become very heavily armored until someone got the bright idea 'it takes one to kill one.'

Not shown in this model at all as the Dutch are still not thinking along those lines. Otherwise I would have two different types of tank like the British and French started. The Dutch are stuck on trench breaker/exploitation of breakthrough problem right now.  

Also, Logi, tanks like the FT-17 had 'heavy' armor and 'high' speed... but extremely light guns compared to the larger 'infantry support tanks.' I also only see it getting credit for 4.5 MPH, not a lot faster than the Mk I of the British. Additionally, the Renault had only 2 crewmen and the British tank had 8.

The Renault, as I understand, because of that clumsy asymmetric track-laying system could not exceed 9 k/h without shedding tracks. The Italian F-3000 fixed this and achieved speeds of 25 k/h road speed and half that cross country:

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/italy/tanks-light/fiat-3000.asp

The ultimate FT-17 version would be the FIAT 3000. Built a bit lighter, with a stronger engine, could do 20km/h (15mph). Having some suspension helps a lot. I'd expect N3verse light tanks should look like it after the second iteration. And the 37mm gun should be adequate as an AT gun against contemporaries.

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/fiat3000_info.htm

but not until 1930.  

The tank was originally designed to cover infantry advances into the teeth of light machine gun fire from protected positions.

The Republican army apparently has a different idea of tanks, but it's doctrine for tanks in it self is flawed heavily. It conceived tanks as an extension of motorized logistic formations, or rather, Armored Cavalry. Like the Republican's independent operating arm of cavalry, the tank is expected to operate independently of the infantry and work with the cavalry or replace it.

And that is not the Dutch 1917-1918 Namur test range conclusions at all.

Of course that means light main gun if not only a mg and very thin armor. Which, if hindsight is is allowed, proves to be a problem all in it's own.

Dutch trench assault exercises show that some kind of grenade thrower and machine guns are vital in the same machine.

Also, Logi, tanks like the FT-17 had 'heavy' armor and 'high' speed... but extremely light guns compared to the larger 'infantry support tanks.'

Indeed, a 37mm autogun, not very accurate or powerful, but fast loading. Such, an anti-personnal weapon rather than a true heavy gun.

Not likely at this point for the Nverse Dutch; they find that explosive shell is MOST important to clear trenches, not shot.  Like the CSA, they look at tanks as vulnerable to heavy MGs, but unlike the CSA, the Dutch see friendly artillery suppression as the tanks close the trench line, as the anti-dote. That is the reason for all those 210mm and 255 mm minengewerfer bought.      

I also only see it getting credit for 4.5 MPH

Records are not very clear, I find everything from 4.3mph to 5mph as the reported speed for the Renault FT-17. But that is to be expected from a tank with a relatively low bHp engine and thick armor (thicker than any other tank, anyways).

Small tank was hard to hit with cannon fire, as opposed to being heavy MG raked. The Germans were slow to pick up on this French deliberate design choice after the French saw the vulnerable British Mark Is and IIBs artillery trashed, or 1918 would have been real world very different.

Additionally, the Renault had only 2 crewmen and the British tank had 8.

That had a lot to do with design as well as the number of weapons carried. The Mark I possessed an even more ill-suited engine than the Renault thus required quite more maintenance and people operating on it. Not to mention the plethora of guns in the tank meant it required 4 gunners for the weapons alone. Add in the separate commander and the driver and the need for direct fixing on the engine (it was not rear-mounted engine yet) meant a much higher complement.

Some of those men were oilers and mechanics who worked on the transmission and track-layers as the tank moved. They had to tighten and oil things that shook loose as those vibrating horrors rattled apart. Remember that a Holt tractor was originally designed to move at less than 3 k/h. The tanks,k we call slow were two to four times faster, than the original tractors they were designed to imitate.

If, like the Renault, the Mark I possessed only one main gun/ mg, the commander could operate as the commander as well. And with a rear mounted engine, the driver becoming the engineer in the rest time. Thus a drop from 8 crew members to 2. And this in itself saves a great deal of space and thus weight allowing a better engine performance due to lower weight.

The French were wrong about that. You cannot aim and issue orders at the same time. You need a tactician and a specialist gunner. A driver stops being your mechanic when your tank becomes a 14 tonne+ monster and you need to design for driver, gunner, commander, navigator and spare gunner/driver.

As P3D's example of the FIAT 3000, a bit less weight does wonders. We compare the Mark I (28 tons, 105bHp converted engine) to FT-17 (7.2 ton, 39bHp more suited engine). A ratio of 3.75 hp/ton to 5.41 hp/ton, not to mention a much less burden transmission due to lower weight.

Again I raise the issue of transmissions and engine cooling. The BRNO Mark V PW has a 176 kW engine that works out to 8 HP/t. or 6 kW/tonne. It does not translate into a 30 k/h speed. The 1918 transmission won't take it.  

The ultimate FT-17 version would be the FIAT 3000. Built a bit lighter, with a stronger engine, could do 20km/h (15mph). Having some suspension helps a lot. I'd expect N3verse light tanks should look like it after the second iteration. And the 37mm gun should be adequate as an AT gun against contemporaries.

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/fiat3000_info.htm

And again, that is 1930 tech or about three tank generations from now.

[damocles]

Indeed a problem of role. For infantry supporting tanks, there was no need for high speed, more weapons would have been a whole lot better. I would, too, prefer a Mark V for that role.

Odd. The Nverse Dutch reach exactly the opposite conclusion as they see multiple guns and mutual interference fire as a huge problem.   

However, I was addressing on the premise of the desired tank was a faster one, not one with more weapons. Although I say the Renaults were not scouts, no, leave that to the real fast ones, the armored cars. It was a light tank, capable enough to go advance or with the cavalry and cause good disruption. The 37mm was, as I mentioned, an auto-gun, high RoF, intended as anti-infantry weapon.

The 37 mm shell was too small for anti-infantry work, with not enough explosive fill and fragmentation. The speed issue for a tank is to close the trench line 'quickly' behind friendly artillery fire (the infantry can run in spurts) as the volume and supply of friendly artillery fire that can disrupt that enemy trench line is limited in time.   

You are correct on the more reliable engines on the Mark V and on though, that is because if I recall correctly, the Mark V and on used purpose designed engines rather than the converted commercial or industrial engines as was norm before.

Aviation engines at that. 

Side-Note: We should have a mod move this to another topic.

Maybe. I didn't expect this deep a discussion on what was supposed to be a news blurb.
==============================================================

I think we are looking at different roles for our different armored vehicles.

All of us are. The Nverse Dutch don't have Italian combat experience. Our cues come from Colonel Geiner and a certain Bavarian captain ally.

As an Example; the Empire of Italia is developing the light tank and armored car with an emphasis on the armored car with a couple of machine guns or a light breach loading cannon or trench mortar style weapon.  The Light tanks are for dealing with fortified hard points or small bunkers the Armored Cars for Recon or Cavalry roles such as scouting or persuit of a retreating enemy.

The Dutch see the armored car as nice to have when you have roads and trails, but are concerned with cross country mobility. Namur tests show that Dutch armored car prototypes off road are horrible.

Heavy Tanks something Italia has not worked on are now seen as something they need to aquire to assisst in breaking through enemies who have dug in in difficult terrain. 

And that is something that I want to discuss with Italy.

And a need for a larger support element for a motorized army is found to be needed.  :o

More Mechanics, more armorers and well just more logistic tail to such a formation.

Charles

Oh heck, yes. A pantserbrigade will have a maintenance battalion-not a company as originally planned.