Schwerer Aspisviper Ausf. A by knollkantar

knollkantar

3 / 0

20th Feb 2018

8th Mar 2018

Heavy Tank "Heavy European Viper Configuration A". An update to the Aspisviper Ausf. V, last of the original Aspisvipers. Comes equipped with a turret with improved angling, overall height decreased, and driver mg is now a 4-foot long 20mm secondary gun.

tank panzer destructable deco bomb test vamperial armor germany

Comments

• 

  Aeiouman 24th May
  Turret looks too far forward and the horizontal drive looks a bit tall. I know this is the final configuration, but could you make a B or C variant with a few changes? Sorry.
• 

  CTpyromaniac1337 9th Mar 2018
  You could also angle the armor, but if you use this mantlet design, it gives them a flat area to hit.
• 

  CTpyromaniac1337 9th Mar 2018
  Now going back to my point, hull MGs are pointless. Coaxial MGs are much more effecrive, along with pintle mounted MGs. They have a wider area of engagement, which is more useful than what a hull MG is limited to. Back to my point before, you can remove the MG for more room for other ammunition. If you decide to keep it, and the tank is how I think it is designed, you have flat armor that is not supported by the mantlet armor.
• 

  CTpyromaniac1337 9th Mar 2018
  You missed my point entirely. But seeing as you are willing to bring up the barrel length again, let's do it. A "short-barreled" 20mm makes no sense, as it would lack the length for sufficient powder burn. And brining up the 75mm does not help you. The reason why early Shermans were made with 75mms was due to the fact they were designed with infantry support in mind, not anti-tank. If you noticed, longer barrels significantly increase muzzle velocity, therefore increase the firepower.
• 

  knollkantar 7th Mar 2018
  have you ever considered that it is a short-barrel? they make short-barrel configurations all the time, like the 75mm cannon's short barrel
• 

  CTpyromaniac1337 21st Feb 2018
  Even if you did find a way around this, 20mm shells take up a lot of space, which could be used for ammo for the main gun, or just be removed for better ergonomics. These are reasons why tanks since the Cold War dropped hull MGs entirely for flat armor plates, because they're faster to produce and do not open a weakpoint in the hull.
• 

  CTpyromaniac1337 21st Feb 2018
  If the MG is on a ball joint or any movable position, it is separate from the hull armor, and makes itself a weak point i.e. it cannot be the same thickness as the hull, so it's already weaker, and a powerful enough shell can knock it out of its socket, or at the least render it unusable. To combat this weak point, you may have the gun welded in the hull, but this means the only way to aim the gun is by moving the whole tank, and only makes it useful for "scaring infantry"
• 

  knollkantar 20th Feb 2018
  as for the compromise to the front hull armour, it does not really hurt it, because the gun is next to the driver's viewport, and so has no actual impact to front hull. In fact, it benefits the hull armour because you have the gun mantlet's armour ON TOP of the original armour.
• 

  knollkantar 20th Feb 2018
  the suspension is built into the bottom plate, which is then connected to the tracks, which have their own support
• 

  CTpyromaniac1337 20th Feb 2018
  I understand there is no true scale, but conflicting scales don't help at all. But you also missed my point about the 20mm. The barrel is too short for the cartridge to effectively burn its powder. And you still haven't given a counterargument for the fact it compromises the hull armor. As for the tracks, that design seems extremely fragile i.e. the lower wheels can be easily knocked out of place. And if the tracks are built into the plate, this means that the design offers 0 suspension.