I think that is mostly a question of the effectivness of such unguided rockets vs the guided anti-tank missiles of the respective timeframe. Im not sure how those systems compare in terms of their payload and range, but the rockets are definitily less accurate and I dont know if saturation fire against targets as hardened as tanks is more effective than precision attacks.
Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
- Status
Well the British had this,
Five Swingfires ready to launch and five reloads.
FV102 Striker
Five Swingfires ready to launch and five reloads.
you probably mean one of the pods for the 70mm unguided rocket such as the M261 (19 round)
and your idea has been tried
John Cockerill Defense And Thales Fires 70mm FZ275 Guided Rocket From Cockerill 3030 Turret - MilitaryLeak.COM
John Cockerill Defense and Thales are combining their skills and product portfolio for the first firing tests of a LAU32 rocket launcher with 70mm FZ275 LGR Semi-Active Laser (SAL) Guided Rocket integrated on a Cockerill® 3030 turret. This innovation combines the performance of the 30x173mm...
militaryleak.com
truckmounted versions do also exist
70mm Multiple Rocket System MRS Hanwha Corporation Indo Defence 2010 South Korea Korean Defence UK | Indo Defence 2010 news pictures video actualites | International defense Exhibition news pictures UK
70mm Multiple Rocket System MRS Hanwha Corporation Indo Defence 2010 South Korea Korean Defence industry
Hidden rocket-launcher from Brazil - EDR Magazine
From Brazil comes an innovative rocket launching system : it was proposed for the second time in Latin America at Expodefensa.
www.edrmagazine.eu
and towed versions
Last edited:
Weird question about hypothetical future AFVs:
For a project I was working on, there's entirely autonomous AFV (Called the Blemmye), armed with a 75mm cannon and a launcher for some multipurpose missiles. First, I was thinking it would had a launcher similar to the ones on the Bradley, but those need to be re-loaded. So which would be better, a swingfire system like the FV102 Striker, or some sort of vertical launching system behind the turret?
For a project I was working on, there's entirely autonomous AFV (Called the Blemmye), armed with a 75mm cannon and a launcher for some multipurpose missiles. First, I was thinking it would had a launcher similar to the ones on the Bradley, but those need to be re-loaded. So which would be better, a swingfire system like the FV102 Striker, or some sort of vertical launching system behind the turret?
If there's no crew then you can have space for a vertical launcher, although making the whole thing more compact also has value.
By 'entirely autonomous' do you mean teleoperated or a straight-up robot tank? I question the tactical doctrine of the later, just because I don't have context how it fits with the rest of the army.
A request for a Cold war era alternate US MBT by ThirdyLovesAH
Modded MBT-70 turret on a modded M60 hull on a modded M1 Abrams suspension with M1's gun and commander cupola.
I think this first doodle isn't really what ThirdyLovesAH was asking for so I'll probably be doing a second or maybe even a third take on a cold war alt MBT.
Modded MBT-70 turret on a modded M60 hull on a modded M1 Abrams suspension with M1's gun and commander cupola.
I think this first doodle isn't really what ThirdyLovesAH was asking for so I'll probably be doing a second or maybe even a third take on a cold war alt MBT.
Take 2.
Used a stretched M60 hull this time and the original MBT-70 gun the 152 mm XM150E5 which was an improved version of the gun used in the M155 Sheridan tank, mine has an even longer barrel though.
Should also mention that both versions of the alt Cold war era MBT have done away with the driver in the turret set up, I don't think they ever would have got that to work so the driver is in the hull here like on all tanks.
Used a stretched M60 hull this time and the original MBT-70 gun the 152 mm XM150E5 which was an improved version of the gun used in the M155 Sheridan tank, mine has an even longer barrel though.
Should also mention that both versions of the alt Cold war era MBT have done away with the driver in the turret set up, I don't think they ever would have got that to work so the driver is in the hull here like on all tanks.
One thing I always found weird is how the Americans had considered two turret types for MBT-70 (the one it got and the M60A2-type one), yet both designs were used on MBT-70 and M60A2 respectively. I always felt that this reduced R&D synergies between the two turret programs, and that the M60A2-type design was the worst of the two for M60. I think the M60A2 would have experienced less ergonomics problems if it had got a conventionnal turret with spaced armor (and possibly an autoloader and the MBT-70's panoramic sight and gun-follows-sight stabilisation) like the MBT-70 but with the driver in the hull.
Here are two Sheridan-based SPGs I learned about via second-hand references to Hunnicutt's Sheridan book.
First is the Sheridan 105 with a 105 mm howitzer in a fully traversable turret.
Second is the Sheridan 155 with a 155 mm howitzer in an open-topped hull.
First is the Sheridan 105 with a 105 mm howitzer in a fully traversable turret.
Second is the Sheridan 155 with a 155 mm howitzer in an open-topped hull.
ARVN M41 Tiger’s Claw (Vuốt Hổ) Tank Destroyer:
The existence of the ARVN’s M41 Tank Destroyer (TD) programme is inextricably linked to the US Army’s less than successful deployment of the M551 Sheridan to Vietnam and the introduction of the Gavin Armoured Reconnaissance/Airborne Fire Support Vehicle (AR/AFSV). A somewhat rash and misguided decision in the late 60s saw the US Army deploy several hundred M551 Sheridan reconnaissance vehicles into South Vietnam where they generally replaced M48s in the infantry support role. With its complex gun/missile armament and lightweight aluminium hull, it was a role for which the M551 was manifestly unsuitable. Nevertheless, the operational deployment continued while the replaced M48s were passed on to the ARVN to bolster their armoured corps which up until that point was still entirely reliant on the 76mm armed M41. The M48s were a welcomed addition to the ARVN inventory as encounters with NVA T-55s were become more frequent and, against such an opponent, the M41 was severely outmatched.
Realising the Sheridan’s short comings, the US Army eventually introduced a limited number of 105mm armed Gavin AR/AFSV which, in turn, freed up an equal number of M551 turrets. It was then that an aspiring member of the ARVN General Staff put forward a proposal to utilise the spare M551 turrets. Although the US Army was transferring M48s, the ARVN was still heavily dependent on its numerous but inferior M41 formations. What was needed was a long-range punch that could reach out and interdict the NVA’s heavy armour before they could engage the M41s. The proposal would see the M551 turrets mounted on spare M41 hulls (it is ironic that this very configuration had been used as a test bed for the early M551 turret development) and the reactivation of the MGM-51 Shillelagh missile as its primary long-range armament. It is a further irony that it would be the ARVN and not the US Army that ended up utilising the M81E1 152mm gun/launcher in its intended AT role. As a TD, the M41 Tiger’s Claw proved itself most capable although it was never available in the numbers needed to make any significant difference to the eventual outcome of the war.
It should be noted that the gun/missile launcher’s slow breach cyclic rate (2 rpm) was less of an issue in the TD role as missile time of flight and a general shoot and scoot employment tactic made a rapid rate of fire less critical. Furthermore, the heavier steel hull of the M41 gave a steadier platform when firing the M657 HE or M625 canister round and thus there was less of an issue in throwing off the missile guidance optronics. Given its heavier reliance on missiles, the M41 TD’s standard load was 15 x Shillelagh missiles and a mix of 6 x M657/M625 rounds.
The model is made up from the hull of a Tamiya M41, the turret of a Tamiya M551 and, as always, some bits of plastic/styrene card.
The existence of the ARVN’s M41 Tank Destroyer (TD) programme is inextricably linked to the US Army’s less than successful deployment of the M551 Sheridan to Vietnam and the introduction of the Gavin Armoured Reconnaissance/Airborne Fire Support Vehicle (AR/AFSV). A somewhat rash and misguided decision in the late 60s saw the US Army deploy several hundred M551 Sheridan reconnaissance vehicles into South Vietnam where they generally replaced M48s in the infantry support role. With its complex gun/missile armament and lightweight aluminium hull, it was a role for which the M551 was manifestly unsuitable. Nevertheless, the operational deployment continued while the replaced M48s were passed on to the ARVN to bolster their armoured corps which up until that point was still entirely reliant on the 76mm armed M41. The M48s were a welcomed addition to the ARVN inventory as encounters with NVA T-55s were become more frequent and, against such an opponent, the M41 was severely outmatched.
Realising the Sheridan’s short comings, the US Army eventually introduced a limited number of 105mm armed Gavin AR/AFSV which, in turn, freed up an equal number of M551 turrets. It was then that an aspiring member of the ARVN General Staff put forward a proposal to utilise the spare M551 turrets. Although the US Army was transferring M48s, the ARVN was still heavily dependent on its numerous but inferior M41 formations. What was needed was a long-range punch that could reach out and interdict the NVA’s heavy armour before they could engage the M41s. The proposal would see the M551 turrets mounted on spare M41 hulls (it is ironic that this very configuration had been used as a test bed for the early M551 turret development) and the reactivation of the MGM-51 Shillelagh missile as its primary long-range armament. It is a further irony that it would be the ARVN and not the US Army that ended up utilising the M81E1 152mm gun/launcher in its intended AT role. As a TD, the M41 Tiger’s Claw proved itself most capable although it was never available in the numbers needed to make any significant difference to the eventual outcome of the war.
It should be noted that the gun/missile launcher’s slow breach cyclic rate (2 rpm) was less of an issue in the TD role as missile time of flight and a general shoot and scoot employment tactic made a rapid rate of fire less critical. Furthermore, the heavier steel hull of the M41 gave a steadier platform when firing the M657 HE or M625 canister round and thus there was less of an issue in throwing off the missile guidance optronics. Given its heavier reliance on missiles, the M41 TD’s standard load was 15 x Shillelagh missiles and a mix of 6 x M657/M625 rounds.
The model is made up from the hull of a Tamiya M41, the turret of a Tamiya M551 and, as always, some bits of plastic/styrene card.
Last edited:
An excellent conversion and wonderful backstory.
It's so good that I will find a way to retcon it into 12MtM.
It's so good that I will find a way to retcon it into 12MtM.
Thank you good Sir. The rule of cool is not always the best metric of an AFV’s success, but, as they say with aircraft, if it looks right it probably is… and the M41 Tiger’s Claw TD certainly looks mighty fine. But then again, I’m a little biased… 😉
I think it is time for @deLanglade ‘s M1917 6-ton Truge to come to life. I only hope that I can do it justice… 🤔👍
Ah yes, LiB has posted this pic before. This was an attempt (trial) to give the Sheridan a more versatile/useful direct-fire gun - though not as high pressure as the L7 and definitely not a howitzer. I guess the trial was not deemed a success as it didn’t enter series production. 👍
Last edited:
- Status