Jump to content


Lorraine 40t.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
307 replies to this topic

Evasion01 #1 Posted 05 November 2011 - 03:07 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 35350 battles
  • 178
  • Member since:
    01-12-2011
Lorraine 40T :: France (FRA)  (Tier 8 medium Tank)
(MBT 40 tons)
Char de Bataille de 1940 tonnes

Poll Results Before 0.7.1 Patch
Do you think that Lorraine 40t. will be the best Tank in His tier?
Yes,I am sure in that (39 votes [17.81%])
It will be good but not better than other's meds. (127 votes [57.99%])
No way,This tank is silly (53 votes [24.20%])

Posted Image


Brief History
Company Lorraine suggested to compete for their new tank padesátitunový-speed version, which was equipped with several interesting design elements. For example, the chassis was fitted with castor wheels with atypical ventricular type tires 34x7 Veil-Picard. Swing was the same tower with the tower tank AMX 50, said her turning wheel drive ensures power directly from the engine or auxiliary power piston. The same chassis was used in the manufacture of prototype tank destroyers.

Char de Bataille de 1940 tonnes
- Manufacturer: Lorraine (postwar exact company name unknown)
- Prototype produced: 1952
- Made pieces: 1 prototype

Technical data
- Weight: 39.7 Mg (t)
- Crew: 4 persons

Dimensions
- Total Length: 10800 mm
- Hull length: 7050 mm
- Width: 3300 mm
- Height: 2850 mm
- Ground clearance: 400 mm

Chassis
- Castors: 10 double with tires 34x7 Veil-Picard
- Suspension: torsion bars
- Length of track on ground
- Belt width: 600mm
- Number of sections of the belt: 2 98 pitch axis: 140 mm
- Wing loading: 0.077 MPa (0.78 kg/cm2)

Powerplant
- Model: Maybach (version unspecified)
- Design: turbocharged, gasoline direct injection, 12 cylinders in V, water-cooled
- Content: 23.5 dm3
- Power: 625 kW (850 hp) at 3,000 ipm.

Auxiliary power unit
- Model: Maybach HL 11 (sometimes labeled as HL.II)
- Purpose: to start the main propulsion unit, the operation of other units, to move to shorter distances
- Design: the gasoline carburetor, 4 cylinders in line, water cooled
- Content: ~ 4 dm3
- Power: 40.5 kW (55 hp) at 5,500 ipm.
- Power: 33 kW (45 hp) at 5,000 ipm.

Fuel
- Petrol, a total of 900 dm3

Transmission
- Manufacturer: Zahnradfabrik
- Mechanical: 5 forward and 2 reverse

Electrical Installation
- Voltage: 24V
- Source: generator 24, 3 kW

Means of communication
- Radioaparatura type: SCR-508
- Intercom
- The possibility of communication with the coronary-based intercom

Optical devices
- Tower: The 9x Episkopi and the master gunner
- Tower: 1 Sight
- Body: 3 for the driver Episkopi

Equipment
- Gun, type: SA47
- Gun, caliber: 100 mm
- Tower, delivery: 360
- Kanon, elevation: -8 to +15 degrees
- Bullet weight: 15 kg
- Muzzle velocity: 1000 m / s
- Supply of ammunition carried by 50 pieces
- MG, number: 2 x 7.5 mm (1 coaxial, 1 in tower)
- Dýmotvorných grenade launcher: 4

Armor body
- All 40 mm 58 ° - 110 mm equivalent to 90 °
- Blocks 30 mm 30 degrees - equal to 36 mm at 90 °
- Stern 25 mm 30 degrees - equivalent to 30 mm at 90 °
- 20 mm bottom
- The ceiling of 20 mm

Armour Towers
- All 45 mm 55 ° - the equivalent of 100 mm at 90 °
- 30 mm sides
- The ceiling of 20 mm

Performance
- Maximum speed: 60 km / h
- Maximum off-road: 45 km / h
- Cruising speed: 36 km / h
- Range: 300 km, or 8 hour drive, the roads. speed
- Range: 240 km, or 6 hour drive at higher speeds
- Gradient: 24 ° (53%)
- Level: 0.8 m
- Trench: 3.3 m
- Ford: 1.25 m

Here Is Some pictures:

Posted Image


Posted Image


Hmmm looks Sweet to me can't wait for this one!!!What do you guys think?

nxze #2 Posted 05 November 2011 - 03:34 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 33351 battles
  • 705
  • [HD16] HD16
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
it will be raped by a damn scouts

typhaon #3 Posted 05 November 2011 - 06:59 AM

    Major General

  • Beta Tester
  • 14201 battles
  • 5,441
  • Member since:
    08-22-2010

View Postnxze, on 05 November 2011 - 03:34 AM, said:

it will be raped by a damn scouts
I fear it might be able to outrun scouts...

Seriously... paper armor, most likely high mobility and a rapid firing high caliber gun... it might be like a T-50-2 on sterioids...

Hornet331 #4 Posted 06 November 2011 - 04:20 PM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 16285 battles
  • 3,922
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010
to slow for that... its only 5km/h faster then a t54 and has ultra crap armor... additionaly its very tall... worse T9 so far if they stick to this specs.

Nahtow #5 Posted 06 November 2011 - 05:48 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 8151 battles
  • 83
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

Quote

Char de Bataille de 1940 tonnes

hum.... you confuse weight and years or other.

Waroch #6 Posted 06 November 2011 - 08:58 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 9689 battles
  • 3,332
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010
what i think of it?

Quote

Char de Bataille de 1940 tonnes

1940 tons? A freaking ram, that's what i think of it!!! :D

Exocet6951 #7 Posted 06 November 2011 - 09:27 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 40798 battles
  • 2,097
  • [BALTO] BALTO
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View Postgoliat33, on 05 November 2011 - 03:07 AM, said:

Char de Bataille de 1940 tonnes
So,the tank weighs 40 tons,and the gun is counted in that total,so a remaining 1900tons can mean one thing: antimatter ammo!
They did say tank design up to the 50's would be included,so I guess ammo from 2850 AD counts.

Brazilski #8 Posted 07 November 2011 - 04:11 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 7189 battles
  • 1,118
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View PostHornet331, on 06 November 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

to slow for that... its only 5km/h faster then a t54 and has ultra crap armor... additionaly its very tall... worse T9 so far if they stick to this specs.

Except that it does have a 100mm machine gun and probably amazing traverse rates.

Arkhell #9 Posted 07 November 2011 - 04:20 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 16942 battles
  • 6,748
  • Member since:
    09-20-2010

View PostBrazilski, on 07 November 2011 - 04:11 PM, said:

Except that it does have a 100mm machine gun and probably amazing traverse rates.

it's pretty light though, best tactic vs t54 is ramming it cause it will take more damage then your avarge tank (very light) this thing weighs even less so its gona get epic ramming damage :P

Loofah #10 Posted 07 November 2011 - 05:30 PM

    General

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 22733 battles
  • 8,726
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011

View PostBrazilski, on 07 November 2011 - 04:11 PM, said:

Except that it does have a 100mm machine gun and probably amazing traverse rates.

Automatic loader isn't noticeably faster than skilled human loader, so what kind of 100mm machinegun are you talking about? Auto-loader simply takes less turret space. That's all.

Driver134 #11 Posted 07 November 2011 - 06:35 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 13873 battles
  • 94
  • Member since:
    08-17-2010
In one way or another it will be balanced like rest T9 meds. While having it's own advantages and disadvantages

Vahal #12 Posted 08 November 2011 - 02:45 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16075 battles
  • 16,934
  • [BIMA] BIMA
  • Member since:
    08-18-2010

View PostLoofah, on 07 November 2011 - 05:30 PM, said:

Automatic loader isn't noticeably faster than skilled human loader, so what kind of 100mm machinegun are you talking about? Auto-loader simply takes less turret space. That's all.
you just forget the ability to fire on the move what other tanks can't do ONLY on plane ground and at low speed cause imagien what could happen if your tank moved like it does on WoT and loader had to load a shell while turret is traversing and tank just circling another tank at 50kph jumping on cross country? BOOOM!
That's one of the masterkey of autoloader.
the tank can fire everytime it can load a shell. Oh and autoloader doesn't need to rest its arms too and the difference in speed grows after each shells while the autoloader standard speed load a shel in something like 6s a human can go to 4s for short times and see his arms fall on the floor after. autoloader just need to be positionned on emergency speed and shell is loaded in 3s.

So it's NOT only a matter of size.

Kriesha #13 Posted 08 November 2011 - 03:41 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 7271 battles
  • 45
  • Member since:
    09-19-2010
On the bright side, its armor might stop small arms fire...

Brazilski #14 Posted 08 November 2011 - 03:48 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 7189 battles
  • 1,118
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View PostArkhell, on 07 November 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

it's pretty light though, best tactic vs t54 is ramming it cause it will take more damage then your avarge tank (very light) this thing weighs even less so its gona get epic ramming damage :P

That's interesting actually. As it is now lighter tank do take more damage when rammed, but perhaps with 7.0 physics the really light tanks will just be easily shoved while not taking that much damage from the actual ram at all.

View PostLoofah, on 07 November 2011 - 05:30 PM, said:

Automatic loader isn't noticeably faster than skilled human loader, so what kind of 100mm machinegun are you talking about? Auto-loader simply takes less turret space. That's all.

Isn't that a US cavalry fairytale to maintain that their M1 Abrams is better than modern Russian tanks? Also, you have to take into consideration gun breech design, gunner movement space, autoloader mechanism etc. A poor autoloader sure is slower than a trained gunner, but a good autoloader,.. The French autoloader isn't even really an autoloader, it is more of a magazine fed semi automatic gun. Cyllinders still have to be loaded manually, but I imagine loading each succesive shell from a revolver cyllinder into the gun is much faster than modern Russian autoloaders that load one round at the time from a general ammo rack.

Loofah #15 Posted 08 November 2011 - 05:22 PM

    General

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 22733 battles
  • 8,726
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011

View PostVahal, on 08 November 2011 - 02:45 AM, said:

you just forget the ability to fire on the move what other tanks can't do ONLY on plane ground and at low speed cause imagien what could happen if your tank moved like it does on WoT and loader had to load a shell while turret is traversing and tank just circling another tank at 50kph jumping on cross country? BOOOM!
That's one of the masterkey of autoloader.
the tank can fire everytime it can load a shell. Oh and autoloader doesn't need to rest its arms too and the difference in speed grows after each shells while the autoloader standard speed load a shel in something like 6s a human can go to 4s for short times and see his arms fall on the floor after. autoloader just need to be positionned on emergency speed and shell is loaded in 3s.

So it's NOT only a matter of size.

IRL WW2 era tanks were not running around 50km/h over rough terrain. And shooting on the fast move wasn't really popular until the intoduction of more advanced stabilisers. WoT is not a sim, WoT has nothing to do with real tank use. And IRL autoloader is prone to jamming, not really reliable and its main strength is that it takes up less space and you need less crewman to train. + if you have ever visited a gym, you would know that 15kg shells aren't really a problem for a trained man. Unless you would fire for 3 minutes at maximum possible ROF, but this happens so rarely that we can totally ignore such situation. Go to a gym, train a bit and spot posting jokes about trained loader getting super-tired during RL tank encounters.

Think, you are telling me, how much difficulty it is for a loader to load a gun IRL, yet you use fantasy  scenarios that nobody has seen (50km/h on the rough terrain and firing? LOL). In game loader can go 30 76,2mm shells per minute till you run out of ammo, so in-game "reality" is not really an argument. IRL auto-loader isn't much faster, so we can stop daydreaming about french tanks firing at some crazy ROF thanks to this.+ autoloader is very prone to jamming.
EDIT: the only reason for french tanks having insane ROF is that the devs have said so :)

Waroch #16 Posted 08 November 2011 - 06:37 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 9689 battles
  • 3,332
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010

View PostLoofah, on 08 November 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

IRL WW2 era tanks were not running around 50km/h over rough terrain. And shooting on the fast move wasn't really popular until the intoduction of more advanced stabilisers. WoT is not a sim, WoT has nothing to do with real tank use. And IRL autoloader is prone to jamming, not really reliable and its main strength is that it takes up less space and you need less crewman to train. + if you have ever visited a gym, you would know that 15kg shells aren't really a problem for a trained man. Unless you would fire for 3 minutes at maximum possible ROF, but this happens so rarely that we can totally ignore such situation. Go to a gym, train a bit and spot posting jokes about trained loader getting super-tired during RL tank encounters.

Think, you are telling me, how much difficulty it is for a loader to load a gun IRL, yet you use fantasy  scenarios that nobody has seen (50km/h on the rough terrain and firing? LOL). In game loader can go 30 76,2mm shells per minute till you run out of ammo, so in-game "reality" is not really an argument. IRL auto-loader isn't much faster, so we can stop daydreaming about french tanks firing at some crazy ROF thanks to this.+ autoloader is very prone to jamming.
EDIT: the only reason for french tanks having insane ROF is that the devs have said so :)

what are you talking about? real-life auto-loading devices (which btw have no problem of reliability anymore) or in-game? You're being a bit confused...

In game : sure the specs are fantasy, those tanks will have a fast firing sequence followed by a long reload
IRL : being in combat and going at the gym isn't really the same.... There hasn't been large scale tank warfare for a while, so the concept of battle tanks didn't really evolve. But it doesn't mean there won't ever be such "fantasy scenario" where firing on the move will be a necessity

Maximillian #17 Posted 08 November 2011 - 10:48 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 28670 battles
  • 534
  • [MUTTS] MUTTS
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
Strange then Loofah, how my grandfather told me about taking over as loader in his TD, as his loader was exhausted, and how they occationally passed out in other vehicles. 3min?ww2 tankbattles lasted alot longer than that.
You seem to miss one major fact about ww2 tanks: The interior and atmosphere was lackluster. One thing is to deadlift 200kg(And I do powerlifting, quite different from lifting minor weight on and on and on), another completely to lift the same when you do not have a proper air supply, and what you have is of low quality.
Heck, WOT have tried simulating that by adding ventilation as equipment. Add on the possibility of lack of rest, stress and in general a combat situation..Not your optimal scenario wich you seem to be thinking of.

The fact of the matter is, that IN THIS GAME, french vehicles will have a high rate of fire as one of their advantages, and as we know real life specs and world of tanks...don´t always mix :rolleyes:

Loofah #18 Posted 08 November 2011 - 10:49 PM

    General

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 22733 battles
  • 8,726
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011

View PostWaroch, on 08 November 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

what are you talking about? real-life auto-loading devices (which btw have no problem of reliability anymore) or in-game? You're being a bit confused...

In game : sure the specs are fantasy, those tanks will have a fast firing sequence followed by a long reload
IRL : being in combat and going at the gym isn't really the same.... There hasn't been large scale tank warfare for a while, so the concept of battle tanks didn't really evolve. But it doesn't mean there won't ever be such "fantasy scenario" where firing on the move will be a necessity

Well I wasn't the one who was using some fantasy examples of why the auto-loader is better than human loader. That fantasy example in discussion about real autoloader vs human was the reason for my response.

Maximillian #19 Posted 08 November 2011 - 11:18 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 28670 battles
  • 534
  • [MUTTS] MUTTS
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
True enough. Tbh, there are pros/cons to both forms of loading IRL. And the technique evolves every generation, so they keep getting better.

Tbh, tend to forget this is a game, hence its a tank developers wet dream so to speak, "hey it didnt work in reality, but worked in wot w00t!!1!" :lol:

TimDogg #20 Posted 11 November 2011 - 12:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 22226 battles
  • 503
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011

View PostLoofah, on 08 November 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

+ if you have ever visited a gym, you would know that 15kg shells aren't really a problem for a trained man.

Just as a matter of observation from someone who has done several jobs involving repeated carrying of 15-20 KG bales/cases, try doing it, I worked as a farm-hand unloading 20Kg crates of seeding potatoes onto a conveyor on the back of a tractor, four weeks, day in day out, it is knackering. It is possible, but very very hard, and the rate of work would always drop down towards the back of the day. And if you doubt my strength, 1.86m weighing 100 Kg all toned in the gym back then. (a bit heavier and far less toned now one might add!)

After this job I had lost about 10kg and gained muscle-mass. my gym-instructor was baffled.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users