Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
- Status
OK I was asleep at the wheel with Befehlswagen and I took the BMP turret from another alt design of a BRDM with a BMP turret.
Many years ago I seem to recall reading an article that suggested NATO, as a combined effort, should form a number of assault brigades (in my mind I think it was 3; 2 forward deployed in Germany and 1 as a training unit in the rear). The argument went that whilst NATO was geared to defending the West there might be a need for limited forward offensive thrusts and although the newer armour, the M1’s and M2’s etc, were extremely capable they were far from ideal for assaulting prepared positions. If I am remembering rightly the suggestion was for a small family of vehicles, very heavily armoured across the frontal arcs (engines at the front as in the Merkava?) and intended to push through defensive fire to reach their objective. There was I think the suggestion of a direct fire assault gun to counter strongpoints, effectively a modern day STuG or KanJPz, and an APC, lacking the complex turret gun/missile systems but with suppressive firepower to keep ATGM gunners heads down and get an infantry squad onto the target. I can’t recall if there was a dedicated tank design as well or if it was assumed that normal armoured forces would be in close support. For some reason I think there were 3 different vehicles proposed. I think the article was an editorial in something like the Armed Forces magazine that Ian Allen published in the 1980’s. Looking through the few pages I saved from these magazines I can no longer find it, but I’m sure it was real!
Can anyone else recall this piece or am I imagining it? Also, has anyone here tried to develop a similar idea? I'm guessing these would be slow and heavy, designed to shrug off almost anything other than a direct hit by the most modern projectiles.
Can anyone else recall this piece or am I imagining it? Also, has anyone here tried to develop a similar idea? I'm guessing these would be slow and heavy, designed to shrug off almost anything other than a direct hit by the most modern projectiles.
I think that was adapted from the Panzer I's 2-wheel bogie suspension, with the leaf spring pressing against a fixed bar instead of a second road wheel. Probably done to ease development time. Apparently the Ausf. a/b prototypes still had the original Panzer 1 suspension bogies. Also, the Panzer III Ausf. C and D may have used a similar system to the final Panzer II on its front and rear bogies. Otherwise independent springs are rare- in firearms springs have long been an expensive component and good designers will use both ends of the spring for efficiency, so maybe a similar system applied to tank suspensions.
Volute and cone springs will definitely have less length than an equivalent coil spring (that's the main reason they were used in spite of their other disadvantages) as they can slide over each other.
Ultimately many types of suspensions are related by spring type and layout, as I found out after a TL mentioned that HVSS and Horstmann were basically the same except one used volute rather than coil springs. Upon learning further I noticed that some French 1930's suspensions used the same basic design with solid rubber instead of a spring, and that in theory any type of spring that pushed outwards in a straight line could be used with that mechanism (for this purpose, basically any spring other than leaf spring or torsion bar- even hydropneumatic or hydrogas cylinders push in a straight line like a spring). Actually a lot of suspension designs and patents cover a specific combination of an existing layout with an existing type of spring.
Since almost every type of suspension other than torsion bar and leaf spring seems to fall into this category, I realized that these suspensions could be classified by their layout and spring type, and looked for all the relevant suspension layouts and spring types to organize them. Then I could identify and cover every possible suspension/patent combining an existing layout with an existing straight-line spring- even those that were never invented OTL.
This resulted in a diagram of the different layouts I found:
Red represents the spring, blue the arm/structure, orange the pivot point, green the roadwheels, purple the gear/arm structure (where applicable), and brown the bogie structure (where applicable) which pivots on the blue point. Although only shown for the direct unit, any of these layouts can have 2-wheel bogies in place of roadwheels. This, plus whether the unit is mounted inside or outside the armored structure, leads to some extra designations to distinguish the variants of these layouts:
For mounting location:
For the types of possible springs I found at least:
If comparing just layout and spring type combinations, then a table can be made of all possible suspensions, including existing ones:
Existing suspensions in this system are external and using normal roadwheel unless otherwise mentioned.
Also, the Citroën 2CV seems to have a suspension almost identical to the Japanese "scissors" suspension- that being dual inverted horizontal bell crank using coil springs.
Since all of those layouts (except the direct unit) represent levers in some fashion, the lengths of the arms can be adjusted to provide any given travel for any given spring compression, and the springs themselves can be adjusted in length, to provide whatever suspension performance is required. But for some combinations this may require impractically large suspension arms and/or springs, or the given springs can't be made large enough (volute). This is likely why many of these hypothetical suspensions don't exist OTL.
Red represents the spring, blue the arm/structure, orange the pivot point, green the roadwheels, purple the gear/arm structure (where applicable), and brown the bogie structure (where applicable) which pivots on the blue point. Although only shown for the direct unit, any of these layouts can have 2-wheel bogies in place of roadwheels. This, plus whether the unit is mounted inside or outside the armored structure, leads to some extra designations to distinguish the variants of these layouts:
- Bogie: All roadwheels in a layout are replaced by 2-wheel bogies (i.e. the Medium Mark I's suspension)
- Semi-Bogie: Only applies to dual layouts with 2 roadwheels per unit, 1 roadwheel is replaced by a 2-wheel bogie while the other road wheel is left as it is (mainly used on the Cruiser Mark I/II/Valentine)
For mounting location:
- Internal: The entire suspension including roadwheels is covered by armor (i.e. Churchill, Matilda II)
- Semi-internal: The suspension springs are inside the armored hull, but the roadwheels and roadwheel arms are outside (i.e. Christie)
- External: The entire suspension is attached to the outside of the armored hull (i.e. Horstmann)
For the types of possible springs I found at least:
- Elliptical spring (Never used, but it does qualify as pushing in a straight line, so why not)
- Coil spring
- Solid rubber
- Volute spring
- Belleville washers
- Hydrogas piston
- Hydropneumatic piston
If comparing just layout and spring type combinations, then a table can be made of all possible suspensions, including existing ones:
| Layout | Elliptical spring | Coil spring | Solid rubber | Volute spring | Belleville washers | Hydrogas piston | Hydropneumatic piston |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct unit | Medium Mark I (Bogie), Medium Mark II (Internal bogie) | ||||||
| Vertical bell crank | Churchill (Internal), Christie M1931/BT/10TP rear wheels (Semi-internal) | ||||||
| Dual vertical bell crank | VVSS | ||||||
| Angled bell crank | Christie T-34/British (Semi-internal), Merkava (External) | Challenger 1/2 | |||||
| Dual angled bell crank | Cruiser Mark I/II/Valentine (Semi-bogie) | ||||||
| Horizontal bell crank | Pz 58/61/68/Dubonnet system | MBT-70/Hydrop-Feder/In-arm suspension unit | |||||
| Dual horizontal bell crank | Horstmann (External), Matilda II (Internal bogie) | Some French 1930's tanks | HVSS | ||||
| Inverted horizontal bell crank | Christie M1931/BT/10TP front wheel (Semi-internal) | ||||||
| Dual inverted horizontal bell crank | Japanese "scissors" tank suspension | ||||||
| Dual inverted horizontal gear | E-Series |
Also, the Citroën 2CV seems to have a suspension almost identical to the Japanese "scissors" suspension- that being dual inverted horizontal bell crank using coil springs.
Since all of those layouts (except the direct unit) represent levers in some fashion, the lengths of the arms can be adjusted to provide any given travel for any given spring compression, and the springs themselves can be adjusted in length, to provide whatever suspension performance is required. But for some combinations this may require impractically large suspension arms and/or springs, or the given springs can't be made large enough (volute). This is likely why many of these hypothetical suspensions don't exist OTL.
In hindsight I made some errors, the VVSS is slightly different to how it's depicted (it has some extra sliding layer), and I missed the Maus' suspension which is a unique layout (like an alternate dual vertical bell crank), but otherwise it should be able to explain all possible tank suspensions outside of torsion bar and leaf spring. All the blank spots in the table represent theoretically possible suspensions. They might be completely impractical (especially anything using elliptical springs), due to being incredibly large, but they could at least be made for fun on alternate tanks. It's still way more than whatever a player can do with suspensions in Sprocket.
marathag
Banned
Also, you had the Porsche geared units, description here
Porsche Suspension
A blog about World War II era archive documents, primarily dealing with armoured warfare.
Rather than radar, IR.
The Sd Kfw 251/20 Uhu used a 60cm IR searchlight, with a range of about 1.5km. Operational doctrine: the Hanomag used it's FuG5 to call out targets to the attached Panthers, whose smaller sensors were capable of accuracy at c 400m.
Last edited:
It was definitely real! I remember reading it at the time, but unfortunately I've moved house a few too many times to still have my copy.
I think the author suggested arming his design with a 155mm howitzer and a 25mm Bushmaster in an external mounting. I've no idea how practical this would be.
I suspect manhandling 155mm shells in a vehicle designed to have a low profile would be a challenge, although I've got a vague memory he may have suggested using an autoloader (how reliable were they in the 1980s?)
Ramontxo
Donor
Imagine this firing point blank at you...
Now I am having ideas, say an Chieftain with the S tank hidro suspension and an MTU engine and transmission and of course one of the family with the Bandkannon gun system...
Very interesting! I assume those are dual .50MGs?
Given the role I think a version with a short-barrel, low-velocity howitzer or mortar cannon would also be appropriate.
I think they're 50 Cal's but I'm not 100% positive about it, could be 20mm's but they seem a bit small for that.
They are indeed 20mm Oerlikon guns - an integral part of the British Mk II anit-aircraft turret as used on the Crusader III hull.
Apologies if this was discussed before
What about Soviets using the t54 /55 chassis to mount a anti tank gun that can take out M60 M1 leopard and challenger at long ranges but in the older “tank destroyer “ style I.e not a fully developed turret , just frontal armor and lower speed
These vehicles would be useful only for defensive purposes but can be better suited in fronts where ussr was on the defensive in case of a ww3 like situation
Any ideas what kind of a gun would be needed for this ?
What about Soviets using the t54 /55 chassis to mount a anti tank gun that can take out M60 M1 leopard and challenger at long ranges but in the older “tank destroyer “ style I.e not a fully developed turret , just frontal armor and lower speed
These vehicles would be useful only for defensive purposes but can be better suited in fronts where ussr was on the defensive in case of a ww3 like situation
Any ideas what kind of a gun would be needed for this ?
Indeed it has been covered before but always worth running out the pic again. The ISU-122-54 was an actual vehicle mounting a 122mm AT gun and therefore not an AH prospect. Probably effective against a M60 or Leopard 1 but unlikely to bother a Challenger or M1. Never took off as a series production vehicle…
They served in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968... They obviously produce sufficient to equip up three IIRC units...
OK Is an obscure vehicle which was largely unknown until a few years ago. I didn't believe it existed, despite the claims of Viktor Suvorov in his book, "Inside the Soviet Army". There was a long discussion on tanknet about it.
- Status