Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

[wietze]

The main takeaway here is that this is basically a lesson to watch your sources. Things like wiki and various internet pages can be useful sources, but if something looks wrong and feels wrong, there's a serious chance that it can be wrong, and in this case, that's exactly what happened.

what i sometimes find handy is checking the other language wikipage linked to that specific page.
often the quality of the entry differs greatly between them

 

[roderickgibsono]

So this time, after watching this

I tried to think of a scenario where you need to quickly hit both ground and air forces. I went to shipbucket and made this.

​

 

[roderickgibsono]

It's still cold war.

 

[Driftless]

View attachment 728849

​

What are the component pieces from, please?

 

[roderickgibsono]

What are the component pieces from, please?

All stuff from south America. Can't remember which country.

 

[roderickgibsono]

East Germany is fascinating.

 

[CB13]

I think the best POD for a pre WW2 Better British tanks is to have AFV production as part of the shadow scheme that they started in 1935

That is aircraft factory's built 'in the shadow of' car and other factory's

So for AFVs I am guessing that a shadow scheme would include railway and boiler makers

Not sure what could be leveraged for the other aspects of AFVs such as armour plate, guns and vision devices etc but I am sure if they put their minds to it......

Mine is that in 1936 following a high level meeting between British and French High Commanders, two Army Leaders completely intoxicated after an evening of fine wine and after dinner brandies, get into a heated argument over whose tank force is superior. After a prolonged argument they agree that the only way to determine who is right is to hold a competition. After further input from their various subordinates, they agree that both countries will provide 3 teams of 4-tank troops for a tank biathlon which will include navigating a 100-mile course over which they must identify and engage targets. Since the French Commander came up with the idea, the first competition will be held in France (1937) and the second year it will be held in the UK (1938). This POD creates a series of butterflies which allows both nations to identify the critical nature of good tracks, an ability to repair on the road, the importance of radios, etc. As war approaches, what started as an annual "Anglo-French Tank Biathlon Challenge" turns into more regional competitions in various theatres and climates to include the UK, France, Northern Africa and the Far East which will eventually draw in not only military leaders but also designers, engineers and maintenance-logisistics specialists.

 

[Driftless]

Mine is that in 1936 following a high level meeting between British and French High Commanders, two Army Leaders completely intoxicated after an evening of fine wine and after dinner brandies, get into a heated argument over whose tank force is superior. After a prolonged argument they agree that the only way to determine who is right is to hold a competition. After further input from their various subordinates, they agree that both countries will provide 3 teams of 4-tank troops for a tank biathlon which will include navigating a 100-mile course over which they must identify and engage targets. Since the French Commander came up with the idea, the first competition will be held in France (1937) and the second year it will be held in the UK (1938). This POD creates a series of butterflies which allows both nations to identify the critical nature of good tracks, an ability to repair on the road, the importance of radios, etc. As war approaches, what started as an annual "Anglo-French Tank Biathlon Challenge" turns into more regional competitions in various theatres and climates to include the UK, France, Northern Africa and the Far East which includes not only military leaders but also designers, engineers and maintenance-logisistics specialists.

I really like the idea. A possible, maybe not plausible PoD for an Anglo-Franco armor wank. Had something on that order been done, it could have been invaluable, provided the top brass take the lessons learned to heart, and the Treasury boys get on board too.

On the flippant, absurdist side, I could also see a 1950's movie farce starring Terry Thomas and Jacques Tati as rival officers trying to nobble the other side during the pre-war excercises (ala Percy Ware-Armitage). Gert Frobe as the German Abwehr agent of dubious ability, trying to cipher what the French and British are up to.

 

[Gryle]

I do wish people would stop calling the Sentinel by all these silly nicknames. They are modern inventions of the interwebs rather than real life. In real life it was only ever known as the Cruiser tank or the Sentinel. "Scorpion" "Thunderbolt" were all invented after vehicle had long ceased the exist as a real tank.

That is almost exactly 180 degrees out. The names Scorpion and Thunderbolt predate the tanks the names apply to, they were assigned names before the design went to the production line. The anachronism would be to use the name Sentinel to refer to anything other than the Mark I.

An extract from the Australian War Memorial’s website mentions the AC III tanks and of note is this particular passage…

The Memorial's ACIII variant is an upgunned variation of the ACI, and utilises a modified 25pdr field gun for increased firepower. This necessitated considerable design modification, mainly in the provision of a larger turret and turret ring and deletion of the hull machine gunner's position. This Mark also included the redesigned and compact engine installation featuring a common crankcase; allowing room for extra fuel tanks.​

The ACIII was delivered to the Army on 12 June 1943. The ACIII with Perrier Cadillac engine was given the name Thunderbolt. The ARN is 8066. This was the only AC III to be built although another may have been started, however with the cancellation of the AC programme in August 1943 no more were completed.​

​

This seems clear enough that the name ‘Thunderbolt‘ was the name given to the individual vehicle (a standard trait in all Commonwealth militaries) and not a generic name for the proposed production tank - in a similar manner British Sherman (series name) tanks were all given individual names by their units/crews. As @Bougnas points out the AC III proposed to carry the PW R1830 engine was to be called ‘Scorpion’. Regardless of their individual names, both vehicles remained AC III Cruiser Tanks.

The AWM could have worded that a bit better. By "The ACIII with Perrier Cadillac engine was given the name Thunderbolt." they mean as a difference to "The ACIII with the Pratt & Whitney engine was given the name Scorpion." Also the P&W engine to be used was the single row R1340-AN1, not the two row.

 

[Bougnas]

Also the P&W engine to be used was the single row R1340-AN1, not the two row.

Right, I forgot it was the single Wasp too. Do you happen to have particular sources on this engine in the Scorpion to have such a precise engine name?

 

[Gryle]

The engines were of US origin, so I would have read it either in something like a Lend Lease requisition, or some of the more technical history of the tanks. I can probably dig it out again if you would like, might take a short while though.

 

[Bougnas]

The engines were of US origin, so I would have read it either in something like a Lend Lease requisition, or some of the more technical history of the tanks. I can probably dig it out again if you would like, might take a short while though.

Sure, if you have time.

 

[Claymore]

But that's something for the tanks of the future, not the past like this thread is for

Actually, there is no time period specified for this thread. All AH AFV designs and concepts are welcome. 👍

 

[wietze]

Actually, there is no time period specified for this thread. All AH AFV designs and concepts are welcome. 👍

Hover tanks! (command & conquer: generals lol)

 

[Claymore]

Hover tanks!

If you must! But remember the nemesis of all hover tank…. It’s called a ‘hill’….

Seriously though, all designs welcome just so long as they are technically sound, plausible and have some justification/backstory. See post #1 on page #1 if in doubt. 👍😎

 

[wietze]

If you must! But remember the nemesis of all hover tank…. It’s called a ‘hill’….

Seriously though, all designs welcome just so long as they are technically sound, plausible and have some justification/backstory. See post #1 on page #1 if in doubt. 👍😎

ah yes hills, same as daleks & stairs

are you certain about that LOL, because those requirements will disqualify quite a lot of otl tanks (infamous examples - the bob semple or the tsar tank)

 

[roderickgibsono]

@wietze @CaekDaemon

@Claymore is helping me with a 20 minutes into the future APCs and tanks.

The reason we haven't published it yet is because I still have to finish the scripts for the timeline.

Not to mention an army is not only tanks, and @cortz#9 helped with one plane so far.

On hovertanks, as Claymore said, you need no hills (Sweden,Poland,MENA region). Or the geography is primarily riverine (see Bangladesh) and see them a bit like Resistance 1,2,3 Chimera tanks and Fallout 3 Operation Anchorage DLC chinese tanks.

Cool but impractical and easy to make inoperable by enemy tangos.

 

[roderickgibsono]

Unless they were cheaper to manufacture,easy to operate and good compromise of defense,offense and armor.

 

[CB13]

I really like the idea. A possible, maybe not plausible PoD for an Anglo-Franco armor wank. Had something on that order been done, it could have been invaluable, provided the top brass take the lessons learned to heart, and the Treasury boys get on board too.

On the flippant, absurdist side, I could also see a 1950's movie farce starring Terry Thomas and Jacques Tati as rival officers trying to nobble the other side during the pre-war excercises (ala Percy Ware-Armitage). Gert Frobe as the German Abwehr agent of dubious ability, trying to cipher what the French and British are up to.

Two followup thoughts:
1. Agree on implausible, which is why I added the copious amounts of alcohol to men with access to funding, who then in essence challenged each other's manhood, as we all know when such challenges are made, common sense and rationale quickly go out the window. 😁
2. As I have no ability to write stories as well as many of the contributors here that I respect so much, if any of you would like to use this idea as a POD for your own story, please know that instead of feeling insulted in any way, I would feel very flattered. So if any of you would like to use in whole or in part, please don't hesitate to do so. 🍻

 

[Driftless]

Two followup thoughts:
1. Agree on implausible, which is why I added the copious amounts of alcohol to men with access to funding, who then in essence challenged each other's manhood, as we all know when such challenges are made, common sense and rationale quickly go out the window. 😁
2. As I have no ability to write stories as well as many of the contributors here that I respect so much, if any of you would like to use this idea as a POD for your own story, please know that instead of feeling insulted in any way, I would feel very flattered. So if any of you would like to use in whole or in part, please don't hesitate to do so. 🍻

I especially like your thought on the annual maneuvers/excercises, where you are going up against another force actually trying to beat you. That method offers the incentive to not "rollover and play dead" for some superior officers promotion ticket. More importantly, it should provide challenges to accepted doctrine, as much as equipment evaluation.

Of course, you'd need to have truly impartial umpires for the excercises, which would have been a challenge.

*edit* I'm not volunteering to write. My depth of knowledge of doctrine and technology for that era is too slim. I'd be happy to read and to kibbitiz, as many of us do.