Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Claymore

Claymore

deLanglade said:
This is going to be a brilliant little model. When it's finished, wrapping the rear deck and engine compartment with a woolen blanket would be the icing on the cake.

Regarding the .50 fitment, I would've sworn it would work. A .50 has a 65in overall length, and a 45in barrel length - so about 20" hanging out in the back. The M1914 Hotchkiss installed on the FT has a 50in overall length and a 30in barrel - again, about 20" left over. Of course, I pulled the numbers from Wikipedia, so...

Sorry about not using metric, my brains are mushy today and I can't convert.
Click to expand...

Claymore said:
Thanks mate! 👍

To give any space for the commander to operate the M2 it would have to be mounted such that the ammunition feed would be almost in the mantlet. I will have a play with the kit’s M1914 Hotchkiss to see how it sits within the turret but the M2 just looks huge. 🤔
Click to expand...

Norwegian Truge Update:

I have looked a bit further into the feasibility of mounting a M2 0.5" Browning HMG into the Truge's turret and here are my findings/observations:

Not surprisingly, the 0.5" (12.7mm) M2 is much larger overall than the 8mm M1914 Hotchkiss. Although Wiki states that both weapons have a body length of 20", this factoid can be deceiving - as you can see in the image below, this fact is only true if you measure the whole body length of the M1914 (inc rear grip) and you only measure the M2 to the rear of the main body and exclude the trigger mechanism and spade grips. Furthermore, the ammunition feed of the M2 is further forward in the body (and larger) than the M1914. The end result of all these observations, is that the M2 is, effectively, much longer than the M1914.

To make matters worse, the M2 is designed to be operated with the firer directly behind the weapon with, at best, the spade grips close to their chest. Side mounted grip triggers became a thing much more recently but still require the operator to be directly behind the weapon. Although the M2 is quite versatile in that you can swap most of the components to either side, generally, the ammunition feed and cocking handle are on opposite sides. Not a problem when stood behind the weapon as both are easily accessible. However, the cocking handle would not be accessible if stood to the side of the ammunition feed. The cocking handle also needs a considerable heave to operate - not too bad when stood behind the weapon but, I would say, almost impossible if reaching over the weapon from the opposite side.

The M1914, on the other hand has its ammunition feed and cocking handle on the same side. It also has a pistol grip type trigger assembly which allows the operator to be stood to one side when firing (easy access to the telescope sight).

The second and third pics give you an idea of the relative space taken up by each weapon - I have positioned them such that their respective ammunition feeds sit at, more or less, the same position - all a bit shoogly as nothing is glued in!

Unfortunately, not looking at all good for the M2... ☹️

Early 7.jpg
 
Last edited:
marathag

marathag

Banned
Claymore said:
Norwegian Truge Update:

I have looked a bit further into the feasibility of mounting a M2 0.5" Browning HMG into the Truge's turret and here are my findings/observations:

Not surprisingly, the 0.5" (12.7mm) M2 is much larger overall than the 8mm M1914 Hotchkiss. Although Wiki states that both weapons have a body length of 20", this factoid can be deceiving - as you can see in the image below, this fact is only true if you measure the whole body length of the M1914 (inc rear grip) and you only measure the M2 to the rear of the main body and exclude the trigger mechanism and spade grips. Furthermore, the ammunition feed of the M2 is further forward in the body (and larger) than the M1914. The end result of all these observations, is that the M2 is, effectively, much longer than the M1914.

To make matters worse, the M2 is designed to be operated with the firer directly behind the weapon with, at best, the spade grips close to their chest. Side mounted grip triggers became a thing much more recently but still require the operator to be directly behind the weapon. Although the M2 is quite versatile in that you can swap most of the components to either side, generally, the ammunition feed and cocking handle are on opposite sides. Not a problem when stood behind the weapon as both are easily accessible. However, the cocking handle would not be accessible if stood to the side of the ammunition feed. The cocking handle also needs a considerable heave to operate - not too bad when stood behind the weapon but, I would say, almost impossible if reaching over the weapon from the opposite side.

The M1914, on the other hand has its ammunition feed and cocking handle on the same side. It also has a pistol grip type trigger assembly which allows the operator to be stood to one side when firing (easy access to the telescope sight).

The second and third pics give you an idea of the relative space taken up by each weapon - I have positioned than such that their respective ammunition feeds sit at, more or less, the same position - all a bit shoogly as nothing is glued in!

Unfortunately, not looking at all good for the M2... ☹️

View attachment 708877
Click to expand...
Well, there was an M2 in the M2A2
the-twin-turreted-m2a2-also-introduced-in-1935-741x488.png

With a 35.3" ring diameter of the 'big' left turret. The US version of the FT, the M1917, had a 36" ring diameter
 

Bougnas

@cortz#9 Could you modify this blueprint of the Pz 38(t) n.A to mount the 5cm Daimler-Benz turret found on the Puma armored car, as intended if this entered production?
PzKpfw_38(t)_nA_design.png
 
Claymore

Claymore

marathag said:
Well, there was an M2 in the M2A2
the-twin-turreted-m2a2-also-introduced-in-1935-741x488.png

With a 35.3" ring diameter of the 'big' left turret. The US version of the FT, the M1917, had a 36" ring diameter
Click to expand...

Quite so, but as you can see the 0.5” mount sticks out well in front of the circular part of the turret ring. Pushing everything forward in this manor gave the required space for the operator inside the turret. Something similar could be done for the Truge but would require a significant redesign of the turret. Probably more trouble than it was worth for the 3 x 0.5” Brownings @deLanglade said the Norwegians bought…
 

Garrison

Donor
Scioperante.jpg


BACKGROUND:
The Scioperante [Striker] was a desperate late war Italian effort to utilize the existing obsolete L3/38 hulls in a tank hunting role. This involved stripping back the weapon mounting and external equipment to accommodate a rack of three anti-tank missile launchers, derived from the German Panzerschreck. These weapons were armed and fired via an electrical control inside the vehicle, though reloading of the tubes had to be done from the outside. Ironically this vehicle was largely deployed against the Wehrmacht, with limited success.

Another missiles make it better design. :)
 

Cryhavoc101

Garrison said:
View attachment 709106

BACKGROUND:
The Scioperante [Striker] was a desperate late war Italian effort to utilize the existing obsolete L3/38 hulls in a tank hunting role. This involved stripping back the weapon mounting and external equipment to accommodate a rack of three anti-tank missile launchers, derived from the German Panzerschreck. These weapons were armed and fired via an electrical control inside the vehicle, though reloading of the tubes had to be done from the outside. Ironically this vehicle was largely deployed against the Wehrmacht, with limited success.

Another missiles make it better design. :)
Click to expand...
How about a rack of RP3 rockets making it a L3/38 'Tulipano' or even mounting a mattress projector so an L3/38 'Materasso'
 
Leander

Leander

Garrison said:
A Nebelwerfer might fit better, and I am using 'fit' in the loosest possible sense of the word.
Click to expand...
That depends a bit what you want to acchieve with the vehicle though, doesn't it? The Panzerschreck or RP3 mounts would make the thing more of a direct fire antitank weapon, while mattress or Nebelwerfer rockets would make it mobile artillery. Given the limitations and extreme fragility of the chassis the later might be more sensible, but if you direly need the former?
 
Claymore

Claymore

Norwegian Truge Update:

OMG! Cleats, cleats and more cleats… Thank goodness the Truge is only a small vehicle! As it is, there will be 32 cleats on each side (64 in total) To get the right thickness, each cleat is made from two lengths of plastic card - so that’s 128 strips of styrene. Each top strip has 2 x imprints to replicate bolts, created by pressing a pin against it from the back - very painful on the fingers… Each cleat, then needs to be cleaned up and have some wood effects etched on… … … I suppose it could be worse… 🤔🤪🤪😉
 

Garrison

Donor
Claymore said:
Norwegian Truge Update:

OMG! Cleats, cleats and more cleats… Thank goodness the Truge is only a small vehicle! As it is, there will be 32 cleats on each side (64 in total) To get the right thickness, each cleat is made from two lengths of plastic card - so that’s 128 strips of styrene. Each top strip has 2 x imprints to replicate bolts, created by pressing a pin against it from the back - very painful on the fingers… Each cleat, then needs to be cleaned up and have some wood effects etched on… … … I suppose it could be worse… 🤔🤪🤪😉
Click to expand...
Have you done a model with individual track links that have to have the holes drilled out and joined with pins/wire? I watch a couple of youtube modelling videos and who those people don't snap is a miracle. :) To be clear that is way beyond me, I struggle with Lego!
 
Claymore

Claymore

Garrison said:
Have you done a model with individual track links that have to have the holes drilled out and joined with pins/wire? I watch a couple of youtube modelling videos and who those people don't snap is a miracle. :) To be clear that is way beyond me, I struggle with Lego!
Click to expand...

Yup, I hear you! I have used individual track links on several occasions and some have 4-5 pieces to each link - complete and utter madness! The FT-17 I am using for the Truge also has individual track links but, thankfully, each link is a single piece that snaps together with its neighbour.
 

Denv2

Posted this on another thread and was pointed here. First time here. Just got a question.

In my timelines I have a large, early industrializing Empire (China or the Eastern Roman Empire) bordering Central Asia and primarily fighting there with little fighting (although some) in other regions. I'm thinking that these nations would likely design their first armored vehicles primarily around fighting in Central Asia, where the environment is wide open and you can see for a very long range without something like a forest blocking your vision.

I was wondering whether the Central Asians would be able to keep up with this and field armored divisions of their own? China's enemies in Central Asia seemed to grow more powerful as China did. I had this result in a "range arms race" where each side tries to increase the propellant on their shells without increasing the payload, resulting in the caliber of their guns increasing rapidly. Would this be likely? Would guns instead progress as they did OTL? Perhaps if the Central Asians can't keep up with the Empire then do we instead gun heavily armored tanks with ludicrously small guns because they are shooting only at horsemen? Would shooting at fortifications or competing with towed anti tank guns be enough to cause the cannons to get larger? Other surrounding non Central Asian nations also start building their own vehicles but combat is quite rare or small scale with diplomatic solutions able to keep the peace until the world reaches the rough tech equivalent of WW2 (the tech advancement in the timeline is a bit wierd though).

I had doctrine in both empires by the roughly equivalent tech level of WW2 be long ranged tank guns with a smaller payload with Hellcat type vehicles being very common. They've got light armor but their defense is their speed and using their range to fire first with the gun being capable of knocking out whatever they might be fighting. Guns had reached to roughly 100mm (with a payload that might be expected of a 88mm) and the barrel being 10% longer than what might be expected OTL. That too much or would an even larger cannon be necessary to get a significant advantage or give the Alternate Hellcat a reasonable chance at fighting?

It seems that OTL the WW2 russian tanks seemed to prioritize speed over some other nations.
 
Claymore

Claymore

Denv2 said:
Posted this on another thread and was pointed here. First time here. Just got a question.

In my timelines I have a large, early industrializing Empire (China or the Eastern Roman Empire) bordering Central Asia and primarily fighting there with little fighting (although some) in other regions. I'm thinking that these nations would likely design their first armored vehicles primarily around fighting in Central Asia, where the environment is wide open and you can see for a very long range without something like a forest blocking your vision.

I was wondering whether the Central Asians would be able to keep up with this and field armored divisions of their own? China's enemies in Central Asia seemed to grow more powerful as China did. I had this result in a "range arms race" where each side tries to increase the propellant on their shells without increasing the payload, resulting in the caliber of their guns increasing rapidly. Would this be likely? Would guns instead progress as they did OTL? Perhaps if the Central Asians can't keep up with the Empire then do we instead gun heavily armored tanks with ludicrously small guns because they are shooting only at horsemen? Would shooting at fortifications or competing with towed anti tank guns be enough to cause the cannons to get larger? Other surrounding non Central Asian nations also start building their own vehicles but combat is quite rare or small scale with diplomatic solutions able to keep the peace until the world reaches the rough tech equivalent of WW2 (the tech advancement in the timeline is a bit wierd though).

I had doctrine in both empires by the roughly equivalent tech level of WW2 be long ranged tank guns with a smaller payload with Hellcat type vehicles being very common. They've got light armor but their defense is their speed and using their range to fire first with the gun being capable of knocking out whatever they might be fighting. Guns had reached to roughly 100mm (with a payload that might be expected of a 88mm) and the barrel being 10% longer than what might be expected OTL. That too much or would an even larger cannon be necessary to get a significant advantage or give the Alternate Hellcat a reasonable chance at fighting?

It seems that OTL the WW2 russian tanks seemed to prioritize speed over some other nations.
Click to expand...

Welcome and thanks for posting.

Your suggested TL and AFV development raises many questions and possibilities. All AFVs are essentially a varying balance between three interdependant and competing priorities, namely: firepower, protection and mobility. Add onto these characteristics the need for effective targeting, accuracy, range and specific role and the possibilities and consequent variations become almost limitless. Having said that, specific roles will play a major part in selecting which prime design characteristic takes priority - for example, the need for long-range artillery support will produce a significantly different vehicle to that dedicated to the anti-tank role. Furthermore, given the required design features it is extremely unlikely that a single AFV will be the answer to all situations.

Looking at your specific scenario, engagements on wide open grasslands would not necessarily lead to a calibre increase race as larger guns lead to larger AFVs which need bigger engines and/or less protective armour if speed is to be maintained. Higher barrel pressures lead to greater barrel ware and consequent impact on accuracy. Speaking of accuracy, if your sighting/targeting isn’t top notch then longer engagement ranges become somewhat moot. An alternative worth considering might be a greater interest in the development of sabot rounds which would allow greater ranges/hitting power without necessarily increasing gun calibre/size with it’s consequent impact on the vehicles design balance.

I am sure that others here on the thread will have their own views/ideas and will be willing to add their thoughts… 🙂
 
Last edited:

Bougnas

Claymore said:
Welcome and thanks for posting.

Your suggested TL and AFV development raises many questions and possibilities. All AFVs are essentially a varying balance between three interdependant and competing priorities, namely: firepower, protection and mobility. Add onto these characteristics the need for effective targeting, accuracy, range and specific role and the possibilities and consequent variations become almost limitless. Having said that, specific roles will play a major part in selecting which prime design characteristic takes priority - for example, the need for long-range artillery support will produce a significantly different vehicle to dedicated anti-tank vehicle. Furthermore, given the required design features it is extremely unlikely that a single AFV will be the answer to all situations.

Looking at your specific scenario, engagements on wide open grasslands would not necessarily lead to a calibre increase race as larger guns lead to larger AFVs which need bigger engines and/or less protective armour if speed is to be maintained. Higher barrel pressures lead to greater barrel ware and consequent impact on accuracy. Speaking of accuracy, if your sighting/targeting isn’t top notch then longer engagement ranges become somewhat moot. An alternative worth considering might be a greater interest in the development of sabot rounds which would allow greater ranges/hitting power without necessarily increasing gun calibre/size with it’s consequent impact on the vehicles design balance.

I am sure that others here on the thread will have their own views/ideas and will be willing to add their thoughts… 🙂
Click to expand...
Increasing calibre is still valuable as it makes more efficient use of the propellant (greater section for gases to go through). If you want greater hit probability and FCS isn't enough then shooting your ammo as fast as you can helps. The USSR got to over 1800 m/s with BM9 APFSDS shot from the early 125mm gun. Which means over 2000m of point blank range (not affected by rangefinding errors).
 
Reader mode
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top