Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the source of the 146 machines under construction? And are there any details on the planned monthly production? I'm getting the impression from this and that 25 were being finished in July 1943 of something in the order of 25 per month?
I can try to find the source later on but it was either in Green's report on Aussie tank production, or the Aussie answer to said report. Monthly production was a minimum of 5-6 a week but in reality it was possible to spike up to 10-20 a week.
 
What is the source of the 146 machines under construction? And are there any details on the planned monthly production? I'm getting the impression from this and that 25 were being finished in July 1943 of something in the order of 25 per month?
The 146/106 will be in a number of places, War Cabinet Agendum 299/43 is one. It's not really machines under construction, the armour castings are what would now be termed "long lead time items" so the production of these components were far in advance of pretty much everything else. The assembly of the first 25 AC3 tanks had started and these were on the production line when everything was cancelled.
 
Here's a question that I think would be interesting:

The US Army's Future Combat System and the Stryker Interim Armored Vehicles they were supposed to replace we're plagued by the requirement to fit on the Air Force's tactical transport, the C-130. That led to a basic weight limit of 18 to 19 tons. It was not, of course, feasible to fit required levels of protection and firepower in that light of a vehicle, so weight began to spiral upwards. The combination of increased weight reducing component reliability and light weight leading to poor IED protection eventually led to the program's cancellation. By the end of the program, vehicles in combat ready configuration weighed up to 28 tons, although they were still designed with modular components to reduce weight to 18 tons and allow transport on a C-130. Even at the end of the program, vehicle hulls and powertrains were still constrained by the 18 ton limit.

Ultimately, it could be said that the programs failure was a result of the weight limit imposed by the C-130, but the Air Force has been trying to replace the C-130 for decades. The McDonald Douglas YC-15, which competed in the Advanced Medium STOL Transport competition in the late 1970s and was later the basis for the C-17, could lift up to 35 tons. This is easily large enough to carry vehicles like the Bradley, the M109, and the M270. The only Army ground vehicles it could not carry where the M1 Abrams and its derivatives and the M88 recovery vehicle.

What would Eric Shinseki's medium weight capability have looked like if it was built around a weight limit of 35 tons rather than 18 tons? I suspect that the interim vehicles fielded for the initial stand up of brigades around 2002 and 2003 would be Bradleys and some new derivatives, like a Bradley chassis with a 105 mm turret and possibly a Bradley-derived turretless APC. However, would the Army have stuck with Bradleys in this role or switched to a different tracked or wheeled chassis beyond 2010 or so?
 
Here's a question that I think would be interesting:

The US Army's Future Combat System and the Stryker Interim Armored Vehicles they were supposed to replace we're plagued by the requirement to fit on the Air Force's tactical transport, the C-130. That led to a basic weight limit of 18 to 19 tons. It was not, of course, feasible to fit required levels of protection and firepower in that light of a vehicle, so weight began to spiral upwards. The combination of increased weight reducing component reliability and light weight leading to poor IED protection eventually led to the program's cancellation. By the end of the program, vehicles in combat ready configuration weighed up to 28 tons, although they were still designed with modular components to reduce weight to 18 tons and allow transport on a C-130. Even at the end of the program, vehicle hulls and powertrains were still constrained by the 18 ton limit.

Ultimately, it could be said that the programs failure was a result of the weight limit imposed by the C-130, but the Air Force has been trying to replace the C-130 for decades. The McDonald Douglas YC-15, which competed in the Advanced Medium STOL Transport competition in the late 1970s and was later the basis for the C-17, could lift up to 35 tons. This is easily large enough to carry vehicles like the Bradley, the M109, and the M270. The only Army ground vehicles it could not carry where the M1 Abrams and its derivatives and the M88 recovery vehicle.
some of these considerations are i think the reason why the Netherlands chose to replace its ageing c-130 with the embraer KC-390 instead of new C-130s
more range, more cargo. and seems the constraints of the c130 are felt in many militaries
 
Here's a question that I think would be interesting:

The US Army's Future Combat System and the Stryker Interim Armored Vehicles they were supposed to replace we're plagued by the requirement to fit on the Air Force's tactical transport, the C-130. That led to a basic weight limit of 18 to 19 tons. It was not, of course, feasible to fit required levels of protection and firepower in that light of a vehicle, so weight began to spiral upwards. The combination of increased weight reducing component reliability and light weight leading to poor IED protection eventually led to the program's cancellation. By the end of the program, vehicles in combat ready configuration weighed up to 28 tons, although they were still designed with modular components to reduce weight to 18 tons and allow transport on a C-130. Even at the end of the program, vehicle hulls and powertrains were still constrained by the 18 ton limit.

Ultimately, it could be said that the programs failure was a result of the weight limit imposed by the C-130, but the Air Force has been trying to replace the C-130 for decades. The McDonald Douglas YC-15, which competed in the Advanced Medium STOL Transport competition in the late 1970s and was later the basis for the C-17, could lift up to 35 tons. This is easily large enough to carry vehicles like the Bradley, the M109, and the M270. The only Army ground vehicles it could not carry where the M1 Abrams and its derivatives and the M88 recovery vehicle.

What would Eric Shinseki's medium weight capability have looked like if it was built around a weight limit of 35 tons rather than 18 tons? I suspect that the interim vehicles fielded for the initial stand up of brigades around 2002 and 2003 would be Bradleys and some new derivatives, like a Bradley chassis with a 105 mm turret and possibly a Bradley-derived turretless APC. However, would the Army have stuck with Bradleys in this role or switched to a different tracked or wheeled chassis beyond 2010 or so?
Interim could probably be a Bradley yes unless Shinseki really wanted wheels for another reason than the Stryker being light enough for the C-130. It's likely that the Bradley replacement would be tied to this "chonky-FCS" program instead of being separate. The T-64 could carry a powerful gun and large amounts of steel at 36 tonnes with 50's technology and no modular addons like today, the Type 10 which is more recent but still doesn't quite push the technology to the max is like 41 tonnes naked, maybe less.

So for a FCS where the weight limit on the base platform is 35 tons (a bit under 32 metric), with the type of technology intended for FCS and maybe up to 7-10 tons of armor addons (Type 10 can go up to 48t already), you could really get close to current MBT levels of protection, especially against shaped charges. Armor distribution and KE protection may not be very good against an opponent who has no such weight restrictions on MBTs though. Granted, modern T-series already do both very well at 48-50 tonnes and still have substantial room for weight reductions, so maybe the US could achieve good KE even at chonky-FCS weight levels even when accounting for the extra room required for a 95-percentile American.
 
Here's a question that I think would be interesting:

The US Army's Future Combat System and the Stryker Interim Armored Vehicles they were supposed to replace we're plagued by the requirement to fit on the Air Force's tactical transport, the C-130. That led to a basic weight limit of 18 to 19 tons. It was not, of course, feasible to fit required levels of protection and firepower in that light of a vehicle, so weight began to spiral upwards. The combination of increased weight reducing component reliability and light weight leading to poor IED protection eventually led to the program's cancellation. By the end of the program, vehicles in combat ready configuration weighed up to 28 tons, although they were still designed with modular components to reduce weight to 18 tons and allow transport on a C-130. Even at the end of the program, vehicle hulls and powertrains were still constraine awwd by the 18 ton limit.

Ultimately, it could be said that the programs failure was a result of the weight limit imposed by the C-130, but the Air Force has been trying to replace the C-130 for decades. The McDonald Douglas YC-15, which competed in the Advanced Medium STOL Transport competition in the late 1970s and was later the basis for the C-17, could lift up to 35 tons. This is easily large enough to carry vehicles like the Bradley, the M109, and the M270. The only Army ground vehicles it could not carry where the M1 Abrams and its derivatives and the M88 recovery vehicle.

What would Eric Shinseki's medium weight capability have looked like if it was built around a weight limit of 35 tons rather than 18 tons? I suspect that the interim vehicles fielded for the initial stand up of brigades around 2002 and 2003 would be Bradleys and some new derivatives, like a Bradley chassis with a 105 mm turret and possibly a Bradley-derived turretless APC. However, would the Army have stuck with Bradleys in this role or switched to a different tracked or wheeled chassis beyond 2010 or so?

I wonder how much Lockheed - Martin paid in campaign donations to guarantee the requirement be built around their aircraft? 🥴
 
I wonder how much Lockheed - Martin paid in campaign donations to guarantee the requirement be built around their aircraft? 🥴
In the mid-90s, the Air Force had C-5s, which were already too busy, and C-141s, which could carry up to 28 tons, for strategic airlift. Their only tactical airlifters capable of STOL and rough field operations were C-130s that could carry 18 tons. The C-17s were only being introduced at the time Eric Shinseki made his decision to pursue medium weight capability, and had been having serious difficulties getting into service. Lockheed's submission to the AMST program was basically a fat Starlifter, but I suspect that the Air Force's trouble with both the Starlifter and the Galaxy falling apart on them sealed that thing's fate. Ultimately, the C-130 is just that good of an airplane, and once they had decided that the medium brigades needed to be airlifted, it made a lot of sense to base the vehicle dimensions and weight around the best airlifter for the job.
Interim could probably be a Bradley yes unless Shinseki really wanted wheels for another reason than the Stryker being light enough for the C-130.
The IAV competitors were the LAV III, the ST Kinetics Bionix, and the M113/M8 AGS combination. Apparently, the Army didn't think there was much of a difference between wheels and tracks, so that wouldn't disqualify the Bradley chassis. Back in the 1990s, there probably weren't any wheeled vehicles approaching 30+ tons that could take advantage of the size allowance. The Vextra was certainly big, but it wasn't in service and would have probably taken a lot of work and time to develop all the variants they would need.
 
Here's an idea I had for a large-scale upgrade to the Leopard chassis in the late 90s or early 2000s. The original MB873 is very large (47 L displacement) and takes up a lot of volume in the rear of the hull. The Leopard 2 also has a relatively small turret, which is constrained by the position of the firewall to the rear and forces the driver to be pushed to the side of the hull. The size of the turret means that about 2/3 of the ammunition is stored in the hull front; I don't know whether it is blowout-protected.

The EuroPowerPack uses a much smaller (27 L displacement) MB883 V12 to generate the same power as the MB873. The engine itself is 300 mm shorter, but the smaller size means it can be mounted transversely in the hull, which saves up to a meter of space. This could be used to shorten and lighten the hull, or it could be used to fit a wider turret ring. The EuroPowerPack was used in UAE Leclercs as a replacement for hyperbar V8s, indicative of the smaller size, and in the Merkava 4 around 2000. It was also used in the Challenger 2E, which I suspect was designed in response to the horrendous failure of the Challenger 2 compared to the M1 in the Kuwaiti trials after the Gulf War.

The extra space permitted by a smaller powerpack would allow the width of the vehicle, rather than the length available, to be the limiting factor for turret ring diameter. An increase from the Leopard 1/Leopard 2/K1/Osorio 1980 mm to the M48/M60/Chieftain/Challenger/M1 2159 mm would not be out of the question, nor would an even larger turret ring. Even an increase of 300 mm would put the front of the turret ring two feet farther back, which would allow the driver to move to the center of the hull. The actual Leopard 2-140 was a kludge like the Object 292, but something with a giant turret like the CATTB would be more feasible. I know it's the 90s here, but maybe the concept of a transverse-mount 1,500 hp motor could be brought earlier with better support and could slide in with an order in 1990 or 1991.

EDIT: I almost forgot to mention my inspiration.
 
Last edited:
Here's an idea I had for a large-scale upgrade to the Leopard chassis in the late 90s or early 2000s. The original MB873 is very large (47 L displacement) and takes up a lot of volume in the rear of the hull. The Leopard 2 also has a relatively small turret, which is constrained by the position of the firewall to the rear and forces the driver to be pushed to the side of the hull. The size of the turret means that about 2/3 of the ammunition is stored in the hull front; I don't know whether it is blowout-protected.

The EuroPowerPack uses a much smaller (27 L displacement) MB883 V12 to generate the same power as the MB873. The engine itself is 300 mm shorter, but the smaller size means it can be mounted transversely in the hull, which saves up to a meter of space. This could be used to shorten and lighten the hull, or it could be used to fit a wider turret ring. The EuroPowerPack was used in UAE Leclercs as a replacement for hyperbar V8s, indicative of the smaller size, and in the Merkava 4 around 2000. It was also used in the Challenger 2E, which I suspect was designed in response to the horrendous failure of the Challenger 2 compared to the M1 in the Kuwaiti trials after the Gulf War.

The extra space permitted by a smaller powerpack would allow the width of the vehicle, rather than the length available, to be the limiting factor for turret ring diameter. An increase from the Leopard 1/Leopard 2/K1/Osorio 1980 mm to the M48/M60/Chieftain/Challenger/M1 2159 mm would not be out of the question, nor would an even larger turret ring. Even an increase of 300 mm would put the front of the turret ring two feet farther back, which would allow the driver to move to the center of the hull. The actual Leopard 2-140 was a kludge like the Object 292, but something with a giant turret like the CATTB would be more feasible. I know it's the 90s here, but maybe the concept of a transverse-mount 1,500 hp motor could be brought earlier with better support and could slide in with an order in 1990 or 1991.

EDIT: I almost forgot to mention my inspiration.
The turret ring diameter is not a constraint on Leopard 2, but the turret basket diameter which is similar to that on M1 (Challenger had to reduce width due to the sloped sides) since it's fixed by maximum width and track width, (identical for both). The turret walls overhang the turret ring itself, so turret size was pretty much just decided by the armor configuration and how much weight people were willing to put on the turret.
Stowing all 36/40 rounds in the turret bustle is possible and was offered on Leo 2, but only on autoloaded turrets as the hull rack on Leo 2 was chosen as it was faster to use than the 2nd bustle rack on M1. It was a trade-off between the amount of ammo under blowout pannels, bustle size and the quantity of ammo exposed to more fire in the bustle than in the lower hull.

Finally, the driver's position on Leo 2 was chosen both to facilitate access to the ammo rack and to make driving easier there, not because the turret was too far forward. So overall there aren't strong arguments in favor of using the space freed by the MTU 883 to move the turret/expand the turret wing.

If this engine is used, either you made other weight reductions like the low autoloaded turret (Flachturm) to reduce hull length while keeping ground pressure acceptable (in which case you have heavy armor at 48/50t); or you use the freed space to relocate the remaining hydraulics from the turret to the hull for safety, along with other equipment, like on the export Leopard 2A6EX.
 
If this engine is used, either you made other weight reductions like the low autoloaded turret (Flachturm) to reduce hull length while keeping ground pressure acceptable (in which case you have heavy armor at 48/50t); or you use the freed space to relocate the remaining hydraulics from the turret to the hull for safety, along with other equipment, like on the export Leopard 2A6EX.
on weight saving, i wonder how much weight could be saved by switching to a Diesel-electric drive train
 

marathag

Banned
on weight saving, i wonder how much weight could be saved by switching to a Diesel-electric drive train
There are many advantages to diesel electric, but lighter weight isn't one of them till post ColdWar era and AC Traction motors and controllers.
Before that, split Diesel and Turbines gives many advantages, with lighter weight one of them.
 
There are many advantages to diesel electric, but lighter weight isn't one of them till post ColdWar era and AC Traction motors and controllers.
Before that, split Diesel and Turbines gives many advantages, with lighter weight one of them.
i was thinking for such a upgrade for the Leo2
 
Just going from memory but I don't think there'd be appreciable weight savings from a diesel-electric drive: torque, absolutely; range, very likely given the engine load (and thus fuel consumption) is decoupled from the tank's acceleration; but weight, I'd say no since any gains from needing a smaller engine is taken up by electric motors and battery banks.

As Marathag mentioned, turbines were the lightweight option before modern electric motors. Electric final drive is totally a legitimate option for a modern tank, the limitation of it being an upgrade option is that the new drive package needs to fit in the same space as the old one, with the same fittings.
 
Just going from memory but I don't think there'd be appreciable weight savings from a diesel-electric drive: torque, absolutely; range, very likely given the engine load (and thus fuel consumption) is decoupled from the tank's acceleration; but weight, I'd say no since any gains from needing a smaller engine is taken up by electric motors and battery banks.

As Marathag mentioned, turbines were the lightweight option before modern electric motors. Electric final drive is totally a legitimate option for a modern tank, the limitation of it being an upgrade option is that the new drive package needs to fit in the same space as the old one, with the same fittings.
i think battery banks in a fighting vehicle are a bad idea, an amount of batteries as used now, yes, but battery banks no.
wasn't thinking hybrid propulsion, but more the same idea as in ships. a motor connected to a dynamo, which drives the electric motors.
not necessarily a smaller engine, but i would think the driveshaft & transmission together might weigh more than the electric motors/dynamo. cabling combo
 
i think battery banks in a fighting vehicle are a bad idea, an amount of batteries as used now, yes, but battery banks no.
wasn't thinking hybrid propulsion, but more the same idea as in ships. a motor connected to a dynamo, which drives the electric motors.
not necessarily a smaller engine, but i would think the driveshaft & transmission together might weigh more than the electric motors/dynamo. cabling combo
Oh, I wasn't thinking of anything big, but having some battery storage as a buffer between your electric motors and the diesel generator means you both even out the loads on the engine (thus further improving efficiency) and enable short-duration 'silent running' where you can creep at low speeds on just electric power. Probably only useful for indoor parking, but hey, it's an option.
 
Unfortunately, no new archives from the French military stored at Châtellerault will be obtained this year, but we have got one last dump from 2022:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/6KvGTT6BNf9mbsd88

Among others, the subjects include:
- AMX-30 and Leopard 1 early development, with one very interesting part being the guns and automotive parts considered for the latter.
- Wheeled AMX-10P (10R) from 1967 and the Even entry to the VCAI program (name of the program that 10P won)
- 1937-39 reviews of AMX light and heavy tanks, including how the 40-45t tank project used a transversely mounted two-stroke diesel engine AND transversely mounted flat electric transmission, which is pretty unique for the period.
 
French Panther, inspired by this thread - https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...french-panther-and-tiger-ii-tanks.538436/#top

French Panther +.png

Panther-II turret on modified AMX-50 hull.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top