"A list of suggestions for modifying weapons sent by the frontline troops..." An officer from the Sussus Empire collapsed on his chair tiredly and threw a pile of documents on his desk.
The coalition forces are also constantly improving their weapons and equipment. They also hope to develop more advanced weapons and equipment that can be more effective through tinkering on the battlefield.
However, there are so many problematic aspects that many of the improvements are unrealistic promises, leaving the engineers behind the scenes dumbfounded.
"I hope I can find something useful this time." Another officer sitting in the office grabbed a report, put on his glasses, took a look, and then threw it aside: "This is nonsense again."
"What's the content?" His colleague asked curiously.
"Requesting to increase the thickness of the front armor of the tank." The officer sneered and clicked his tongue disdainfully: "If it could be done, wouldn't we have done that a long time ago?"
The coalition forces knew for sure that their tanks could not defend against the main guns of the Tang Army's tanks. The thickness of the front armor of their tanks was generally only 80 to 100 mm equivalent to the homogeneous steel protection level. At this level, the Tang Army's Type 96 can penetrate the tank with one shot.
But the coalition forces really had no solution: they tried to temporarily install 10 to 20 mm thick armor on the tanks, but this was of almost no use.
Whether it is the Tang Army's anti-tank missiles, tank main guns, or individual rocket launchers, the increased thickness cannot solve the problem.
But if the thickness is increased, the tanks on the coalition side will only be able to move forward at a crawling speed. Unless they are equipped with a more powerful engine, their tanks will not be able to move forward as fast as others can reverse, and this battle will still be difficult.
How to fight?
However, replacing the engine will increase the cost of the tank, including the time cost in the production process. This puts the coalition, which already has insufficient production capacity, into a vicious cycle. If they improve the quality of a single tank, they will not be able to maintain frontline tanks.
quantity.
But who can guarantee that increasing the thickness of the armor and replacing it with a more advanced engine will definitely allow our tanks to regain the advantage in the confrontation? In fact, no one can guarantee it! This puts the improvement of tanks into a deadlock.
In loop.
This is also the reason why the coalition has not produced new more powerful tanks until now: their technical level allows them to only take the path of no return of "super-heavy tanks", and this path of no return is in the battle between armor and bombs.
It has no effect.
"I said, this is quite interesting." When he saw the third report, the Susas officer's eyes lit up and he praised excitedly.
"Huh?" Several colleagues gathered around curiously and gathered to look at the report. Then they saw an interesting proposal, or a proposal with a very clear idea.
I saw the report read: "Since there are so many useless gadgets on the existing tanks, it is better to dismantle them all. In this way, can we provide more simplified tanks to the front line so that we can have enough tanks?"
Tanks are available..."
There are many people who do addition, but few of the officers and soldiers on the front line can think of doing subtraction. This man's ideas are very interesting, and what he says seems to make sense.
For example, the example he mentioned in his report: Since the tank confrontation has always been at a disadvantage, and our tanks have almost no chance to fire back, then the heading machine gun on the tank can be canceled. It has no effect at all, right?
.
Removing the directional machine gun is equivalent to opening one less hole in the front armor, which increases the strength and greatly simplifies the process. It is indeed a good suggestion.
Similarly, since the directional machine gun has been cancelled, can the number of hundreds of rounds of artillery shells in the tank also be reduced? Anyway, many times it is not full now, so it is a waste to keep the empty racks with shells inside.
Therefore, some racks for storing artillery shells can be eliminated, the internal space of the tank can be expanded, and some other equipment can be installed in these spaces.
For example, simple devices to prevent explosions: fire extinguishers or other gadgets. This can increase the chance of crew members surviving and avoid losing too many personnel and affecting the overall combat effectiveness of the unit.
If addition cannot be done, then subtraction is done. This report even mentioned expanding the tank hatch so that personnel can enter and exit faster, making it easier for crew members to escape.
This person even said a more radical plan in the report: only retaining armor protection on the top and front, and designing the rear to be open. Anyway, the Tang Army will not attack from the rear, and the lack of protection at the rear will not affect the front.
…
"What a talent... bring him to our department!" an officer exclaimed, "We need such talent!"
The coalition forces did produce some roofless "tank destroyers", but this kind of thing now encountered a serious problem, that is, the "arrow cluster" attacks exploded in the air by the Tang Army were too deadly.
And the person who wrote the report obviously summed up the experience and lessons in this area. He retained the roofs of tanks and armored vehicles and canceled the rear defense... No matter how you look at it, these people are the type of people who have practical combat experience and are willing to use their brains.
, are talents worth cultivating.
"We should also pay more attention to this. This is the fifth time that the frontline troops have mentioned similar problems." Another officer put the report in his hand on the table: "Anti-aircraft gun automation problem. All members of an anti-aircraft gun position were killed because of the steering
It's too slow and can't stop enemy planes..."
"But haven't we discussed this matter before? Equipped with generators for anti-aircraft guns... Then it would be better for the rear to directly produce self-propelled anti-aircraft guns." His colleague standing aside shook his head and said.
"So this time they put it another way: If we don't provide them with self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, it would be better not to provide them with anti-aircraft guns." The reviewing officer pointed helplessly at the report and said, "We would rather not have useless weapons."
"Is this the view of the grassroots officers and soldiers in the frontline troops?" the colleague asked with some disdain.
The officer nodded: "Yes, it is indeed the opinion of the soldiers in the anti-aircraft artillery unit on the front line, because if you are a senior officer, you will definitely get what you can get and will not be picky."
The ideas of front-line officers and soldiers and senior officers are completely different. Front-line officers and soldiers hope to get the best weapons to face the enemy, while their superiors prefer to use whatever they have, and would not rather have empty staff than weapons...
