by that metric ww2 didn't start until dec 1941
of course a argument can be made not only that ww2 is not just a continuation of ww1 but that the franco-prussian war, ww1 and ww2 are essentially different phases of the same conflict
Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 4
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
of course a argument can be made not only that ww2 is not just a continuation of ww1 but that the franco-prussian war, ww1 and ww2 are essentially different phases of the same conflict
By 1940 the war involved almost all of Western Europe and, thanks to the British Empire and Commonwealth , a good chunk of the world. That's enough for "world".
RamscoopRaider
Donor
I've never seen that and a major issue with that is that Italy-Ethiopia ended major combat operations while China-Japan did not. I've seen 1937 to 1945 as dates for WWII in various places, I've never seen 1935-1945
Neither is Germany-Poland, yet the common start date is September 1st and not September 3rd when you can argue it became one thanks to all the colonial territories, and even then is it really a World War if fighting is confined to Europe until June 1940?
Compared to the Tiger, Panther, T-34 and the Sherman, I would say it is.
Britain and France declared war right afterwards so I would say that counts.
Well the French, British, Danes and Dutch had territories in the Caribbean, South America, Asia, Africa and North America [1] who were all involved in the war, and Canada (North America) Australia, New Zealand (Oceania) and South Africa were fighting with the allies. So that's all six inhabited continents[2] involved in the war. On top of that, the USA was supplying arms and equipment to combatants and fighting German U boats even when neutral, so was involved in some capacity.
If active combat is the requirement, then South America wasn't a part of the conflict, so maybe it wasn't really a world war (it might be possible to argue Uruguay was involved from the Graf Spee incident but that may be pushing it).
[1] I'm assuming that Greenland is in North America rather than Europe,but could be wrong on that.
[2] Zealandia hadn't been identified then, so doesn't count.
Against the Sherman, I would say it depends on version, but the 75/L48 gave it a definet edge untill the 76mm came out. Same form a gun v gun comparison vs the T-34. But I don't think that's the point. Most people seem to completely forget/ignore the IV after the Panther and Tiger come out, forgeting that, for most if the time after those came, it was the IV hull (Panzer and Stugg) that held the line. There where never enough Panthers & Tigers.
The polish magazine WLU has recently got a new issue on polish perspective on the Czech LT vz.35 and 38 tanks and their attempts at acquiring these vehicles, so I imagined local production versions of these vehicles with the Bofors 37mm gun (or even a new turret which is 2-man from the start), the licensed diesel engines and welded armor with 40mm thick front and 25mm thick sides, much like the reinforced 7TP program.
I also got a translation of the armor scheme of the Object 772 missile tank, which would have been a more modern basis for the hull front design of tanks like the T-72 and T-80 (thicker plates and deletion of the driver's hatch weakpoint). It is worth noting that at 950mm, this hull is fairly similar in height to those of Western and Soviet tanks. The armor improvements are particularly notable against shaped charges, the 772 already tanking 620- 650mm instead of the 450mm of the T-64/72/80.
I also got a translation of the armor scheme of the Object 772 missile tank, which would have been a more modern basis for the hull front design of tanks like the T-72 and T-80 (thicker plates and deletion of the driver's hatch weakpoint). It is worth noting that at 950mm, this hull is fairly similar in height to those of Western and Soviet tanks. The armor improvements are particularly notable against shaped charges, the 772 already tanking 620- 650mm instead of the 450mm of the T-64/72/80.
Why did the British in WW2 classify their tanks as cruiser or infantry instead of light, medium, heavy?
Afaik, the british were evebn more mission-focused than anyone else. "Cruisers" was an idea copyed from the navy, ie a ship/tank that ran forward fast, bangbangbang, run bang; alternatively it would charge forward using holes in the defenses punched by the infantry & artillery. "Infantry tanks" did exactly just that, support the infantry, period.
Same as USA and France, the pre- and post-WWI historical split between the British Army's Infantry and Cavalry branch organizations, weapons/equipment and missions carried forward into each of those branch's visions of what mechanized equipment would best achieve their continued-different missions.
Germany and Italy were the first of the major 1940 Western combatants to recognize that the two historically separate branches should be merged into divisional structures with a little (mechanized) cavalry and mostly (to the extent affordable, mechanized) infantry. France and Poland were defeated before getting there. USA was slow to get it figured out. Britain took the longest to become convinced that the old way wasn't still best.
Look back a few pages. Bougnas posted information about the history of the US Army's Infantry evolution into armor.
Last edited:
I drew something and took a picture of it and am trying to upload but it says the file is too large. Tried cropping it and that doesn't work either. Any suggestions?
resize and safe file as jpg instead. i always use irfanview for that. (also capable of batch converting)
IrfanView - Official Homepage - One of the Most Popular Viewers Worldwide
IrfanView ... one of the most popular viewers worldwide.
www.irfanview.com
Here we go. All I had was a pen, ruler, quarter, and marker cap to make the shapes right so its pretty rough (drew it up in 30 minutes on a notecard)
It's a WW2 Terrapin, but in atl I put the drivers compartment in the front instead of the center, add a roof for the cargo compartment, and put a M8 Greyhound turret on top. So now it's a Terrapin Amphibious IFV (or that's what I am calling it).
Would such a concept be practical and/or feasible for making during World War Two?
It's a WW2 Terrapin, but in atl I put the drivers compartment in the front instead of the center, add a roof for the cargo compartment, and put a M8 Greyhound turret on top. So now it's a Terrapin Amphibious IFV (or that's what I am calling it).
Would such a concept be practical and/or feasible for making during World War Two?
The engines/transmissions and driver station were centrally located so that, running empty in the water, the vehicle would be front-back balanced and wouldn't tend to be nose- or tail-down, which would adversely affect its already minimal freeboard. That's also why the Mark I version of Terrapin had strict rules that cargo had to be balanced among the front and back holds. If the driver station were moved forward, presumably the engines would have to move forward as well, to keep enough volume for cargo within the specified length. But the empty front-back balance would be shot.
Adding a turret would require provision of an overhead structure to support it. The turret/gun and support-structure weight, plus ammo for the gun, would come out of the load capacity, which was only four tons to start with. And, loading/unloading of items too heavy to be manhandled would become much more difficult, since the now-preferred central location for heavy carried objects would be blocked from lift-in/lift-out access by the overhead structure.
It's not a direct parallel of course, but the first LVT-family vehicle to have a light gun turret added had its payload capacity cut from 4500 pounds to 1000.
Edit:
Perhaps the idea is to have the vehicle be an amphib personnel carrier only, letting go of the original primary focus on cargo movement. In that case, the fixed roof (which obviously eliminates lift-in/lift-out heavy-cargo handling) isn't a problem. But, if we assume that Terrapin use would be akin to that of the LVT family, addition to a personnel carrier version of armament beyond pintle mount MGs implies intended use for assault against active defenses...which also requires at least bullet-and-fragment armor, i.e. 12mm to 15mm, on the bow and sides above the waterline. That's more weight. And, you need to allow at least 250 pounds of payload (for WWII-stature infantrymen) per assault soldier carried.
LVT experience was that the Amtank versions, especially the later ones that did that job more effectively and surviveably, didn't have much personnel- or cargo-capacity once they were equipped for the amphibious-light-tank role, and mostly functioned as escorts for the lesser-armed, lesser-armored Amtrack versions that hauled personnel and/or cargo.
Last edited:
Since I recently went back over the topic of the Somua S35 tank, I felt like I would leave some comment on one part of it that heavily limited its potential: the engine.
The S35 used a 12.7L 60° V8, delivering 190hp at 2000rpm (normal regime) and 200hp at 2200-300rpm (maximum regime):
The origin of this engine was the Janvier Sabin & Cie automobile company which designed and built some cars but mostly engines for other companies. It closed down in 1928. It is now believed that the Somua did not contract this engine, but actually just bought the drawings of an unbuilt design for use in the S35 as no other Somua engine was suitable. The 20's origin of this design, and its likely intended use in big cars or trucks as a big block V8 probably explain some of its features. The engine apparently uses reverse flow heads which provide good performance at low rpm, but is heavily limited at higher rpms. The updraft carburettors it uses are common on truck engines of the era, but not on performance engines. Finally it appears to use a bathtub-type combustion chamber which is also not ideal at higher rpms.
The end result is that, compared to high performance engines seen in contemporary tanks, it somewhat suffers. The Hispano Suiza J12, used since 1931 and seen in the ARL V 39 assault gun and the SEAM G1P battle tank, could deliver 220hp in its early 9.4L version (a 10% output increase on nearly 75% of the displacement), or 250hp in its 11.3L version (10% extra power compared to the bored-out 13.7L engine in the S40, with 80% of the displacement). Hispano-Suiza even was working on a 280-300hp version of that engine for production ARL V 39s as of 1940.
Meanwhile, the contemporary Maybach HL 108 could still achieve 250hp on 11L, and the HL 120 could achieve 265-300hp at 12L. Czech tanks like the Skoda T-21 and ST vz.39 had similar 12L-class engines with more power than the Somua.
The SOMUA was thus missing anywhere from a 10% up to a 50% increase in power output within the same volume in 1940. This would have heavily limited the growth potential in terms of weight and mobility, as bigger turrets could already increase weight by 2 to 3 tonnes alone.
There is a silver lining to this however: if the drawings for the engine indeed dated from the late 1920s, it could have been a perfectly suitable powerplant for Renault's D1, D2 or even possibly AMC 35 tanks from the early 30s, which used weaker and sometimes even bulkier inline 4s or inline 6 engines. This was demonstrated in the S35 which could still boast more power than the D2 at the same weight, same dimensions, same armament and same armor.
The S35 used a 12.7L 60° V8, delivering 190hp at 2000rpm (normal regime) and 200hp at 2200-300rpm (maximum regime):
The origin of this engine was the Janvier Sabin & Cie automobile company which designed and built some cars but mostly engines for other companies. It closed down in 1928. It is now believed that the Somua did not contract this engine, but actually just bought the drawings of an unbuilt design for use in the S35 as no other Somua engine was suitable. The 20's origin of this design, and its likely intended use in big cars or trucks as a big block V8 probably explain some of its features. The engine apparently uses reverse flow heads which provide good performance at low rpm, but is heavily limited at higher rpms. The updraft carburettors it uses are common on truck engines of the era, but not on performance engines. Finally it appears to use a bathtub-type combustion chamber which is also not ideal at higher rpms.
The end result is that, compared to high performance engines seen in contemporary tanks, it somewhat suffers. The Hispano Suiza J12, used since 1931 and seen in the ARL V 39 assault gun and the SEAM G1P battle tank, could deliver 220hp in its early 9.4L version (a 10% output increase on nearly 75% of the displacement), or 250hp in its 11.3L version (10% extra power compared to the bored-out 13.7L engine in the S40, with 80% of the displacement). Hispano-Suiza even was working on a 280-300hp version of that engine for production ARL V 39s as of 1940.
Meanwhile, the contemporary Maybach HL 108 could still achieve 250hp on 11L, and the HL 120 could achieve 265-300hp at 12L. Czech tanks like the Skoda T-21 and ST vz.39 had similar 12L-class engines with more power than the Somua.
The SOMUA was thus missing anywhere from a 10% up to a 50% increase in power output within the same volume in 1940. This would have heavily limited the growth potential in terms of weight and mobility, as bigger turrets could already increase weight by 2 to 3 tonnes alone.
There is a silver lining to this however: if the drawings for the engine indeed dated from the late 1920s, it could have been a perfectly suitable powerplant for Renault's D1, D2 or even possibly AMC 35 tanks from the early 30s, which used weaker and sometimes even bulkier inline 4s or inline 6 engines. This was demonstrated in the S35 which could still boast more power than the D2 at the same weight, same dimensions, same armament and same armor.
Last edited: