Caracal III cruiser tank of the 2nd Troop, B Squadron, Royal Loucester Yeomanry Guarding an intersection at the abandoned town of East Hoveringham, Ca. 773
Caracal III: The True Tank Killer
While the G3 L/40 main gun of the Caracal I and II was sufficient to counter most threats posed by the UTR forces, the Imperial Armoured Corps was already looking for its replacement to stay ahead in the arms race. They had several options in hand, most notably the G1A2 towed AT gun and G23 dual-purpose AT/AA gun, but they were too bulky to fit inside armoured vehicle turrets. The G5 76mm tank gun was already on the drawing board, but would not be ready until mid 772.
IAC planners shifted their attention to their Caitian ally, who had developed several potent, yet very compact AT guns. After several considerations, the 75mm Rz. 70 L/60 gun was chosen owing to its impressive service record with the Caitian Volunteer Brigade in the savanna campaign. The gun would be adapted for vehicle mount and produced under license by Imperial Arms of Norchester as the G70 tank gun.
Though G70 shared the same caliber as the imperial G3 gun, there's hardly any similarity between the two guns. The G70 shoots a longer APCBC shot with a larger, necked cartridge case containing 2.1 kg more propellant. The barrel was 60 calibers long (4,500 mm, 177.1 in) with progressively faster rifling to harness the full power of the cartridge. The increased power gave the shell muzzle velocity of up to 1,200 m/s (3,937 ft/s), almost double the muzzle velocity of G3 APCBC and uncapped AP shots.
The only downside of the G70 gun was that it was designed solely for anti-tank purposes. While it possessed a very potent APCBC shot, It lacks any fragmentation shell that makes the G3 so effective against armour and soft targets alike. This prevented the Caracal III from completely replacing short-barreled Caracal I and II.
Despite its long recoil, the G70 could fit snugly inside the Caracal II turret thanks to its large turret ring. The only concern raised during the preliminary testing was due to the additional weight of the gun, the turret often rotated on its own on a steep slope, causing damage to its traverse mechanism.
To remedy the situation, a new turret was designed with an integral armoured bustle to balance the weight of the gun, the extra room also provided more space for the cannoneer to work with G70's longer shells. The gun mount was completely redesigned from semi-internal mantlet of the Caracal II to fully internal, with trunnion and mantlet assembly completely encased inside the turret armor. The large rectangular hole for the semi-internal mantlet assembly was replaced by three slots for the elevation of the main gun, coaxial machine gun, and periscope gun sight that became the distinctive feature of the Caracal III.
Early production turret has split commander hatch similar to Caracal II turret, but from 772 onwards was replaced by rotating all-around vision cupola with single-piece hatch, both variants were equipped with rectangular loader hatch to the right of the commander hatch. The new turret was also designed to mount the G5 76 mm gun and was standardized for use in Caracal III to VI
In addition to the new gun and turret, the Caracal III hull was extended by 30cm to accommodate the new 447 kW (600 HP) Imperial Motors ACV1370.71 V10 CI engine. The road wheels on each suspension bogie were spaced out accordingly, with 10cm added between the two wheels. This modification gave Caracal III 180cm² extra ground contact area and the characteristic unevenly spaced road wheels.
To improve crew safety against ammunition fire, the shells were now stowed inside wet ammo racks inside the sponsons and hull floor. the Caracal III could store up to 90 rounds 75mm shells, including 8 rounds inside wet ready rack on the turret basket. To further reduce the risk of fire, no ready rounds were stored inside the turret anymore.
Only 2,253 Caracal III tanks were built during the Border Crisis, a very small number compared to the production run of Caracal IV, with over 15,000 units produced. The Caracal III was not supposed to replace the Caracal II completely due to its inability to shoot HE rounds - for every four Caracal in an ILA tank troop, only one or two were Caracal III.
Nevertheless, the Caracal III was still retained for its anti-armour capability even after the introduction of Caracal IV and only began to be phased out when G512 APDS-T round became readily available for Caracal IV's G5 gun.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
As good as CATIA is for CAD/CAM stuff, their native render is, shall I say, mediocre at best. I remembered one of my friends did some great render on Keyshot back in college so I decided to give it a try. It was very simple to set up and I was pleasantly surprised to see that they even support .CATpart and .CATproduct files flawlessly
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 696px
File Size 1.54 MB
Thank you! the unit markings were much the same as the British markings of WW2. Markings on the hull, from left to right are regimental flash (Royal Loucester Yeomanry), vehicle serial number, brigade/division flash (5th Armoured Cavalry Brigade), and bridge load rating (32 ton combat weight, rounded up). The turret number signified its position in the 2nd Troop of B Squadron, with the center number being individual tank number in no particular order (troop leader tank might be numbered 5, or troop sergeant numbered 0)
Excellent, thank you very much! I think unit markings and such are an oft-neglected element when it comes to lending a fictional military vehicle a degree of verisimilitude. I also think that people often miss a trick when it comes to adding paraphernalia like spare track links (as seen in this image!), items stowed outside the vehicle, camouflage netting/vegetation cuttings etc. or other such things. They frequently end up looking as if they've just rolled out of the factory even if they've ostensibly been in the field for a long time. I understand why things often pan out that way, of course, but your efforts to avoid such things and attention to detail is part of what makes your work pleasing to behold.
Every army had its own approach regarding unit/vehicle markings, early-mid soviet tanks for example were pretty scarce on the marking, while their British counterparts were pretty colorful, especially those serving in the desert campaign. If you're really into it, I recommend a book by B.T. White called the 'British Tank Markings and Names', published by Squadron/signal publication, which discusses British vehicle marking from WW1 and WW2 in great details.
Admittedly I'm more interested in the machinery itself than the markings per se, but I appreciate the recommendation! Incidentally I remember reading one of Osprey's titles on Cold War-era Soviet armour and finding some of the markings depicted in the colour plates rather striking. One example was from a Warsaw Pact war game: a white cross painted top of the turret, extending to the hull. If memory serves the author theorised it may have been similar to planned tactical markings to prevent fraticide by friendly strike aircraft if the Cold War had gone hot. Little things like that, I think, would help liven up a lot of "homemade" vehicle concepts. Anyhow, I'll stop rambling and belatedly wish you a happy new year!
FA+

Comments