Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, there is no time period specified for this thread. All AH AFV designs and concepts are welcome. 👍
Advanced future combat reconnaissance vehicle.
Power plant 2x Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322 turboshafts each rated at 2,160hp. Each engine occupies an area 46” x 28” and weights 232kgs.
Armour: exterior 13 mm Bristol Ceramic 25kg/m2 over a 60mm E glass armour ( as per the Advanced Composite Armoured Vehicle Platform) .
Crew compartment as per Alvin Saracen hull dimensions.
crew: pilot, weapons system operator and 4 scout troopers.
weight: empty 17.5 tonnes.
Armament 2x Rheinmetall Rh-130 L/51 guns weighing 3,000 kg including the recoil system. Each gun is fitted with an auto loader fed by a rotating 21-round magazine. 2x 7.62 LMG’s. A/T 2x4 hellfire missiles with longbow radar systems or automatic.5 HMG or 40mm grenade launcher.
27059BCA-9FA9-4652-8477-0D98FA000A53.jpeg

Scenario
following on from the American & British efforts into plastic tanks the Canadians began to consider a replacement for their Coyote reconnaissance vehicle. With vast areas of tundra, ice flow and water along the northern frontier the Canadians developed the Ermine hoverwing. With its ability to travers the afore mentioned landscapes and operating at almost three times the speed of the Coyote it eventu proved a stable platform for protecting the Canadian northern oilfields. As with the introduction of new technologies their was almos a 20 year gestation period. The vehicle only became operational in 2024 starting with the light armoured squadron of the Lord Strathcona Horse and over the following five years also equipping the light squadrons of the Royal Canadian Dragoon’s and the 12e Régiment blindé du Canada.
 
Last edited:
  1. Cold War
  2. Infantry support
  3. It's post-1964 coup Brazil.
  4. MBT
  5. A blend of the M551 Sheridan – Armored Reconnaissance Airborne Assault Vehicle/Light Tank, used by the US Army from 1969 and Centurion Mk 5 Main Battle Tank – used by the Australian Army, with AVLB and ARV variants.
  6. Brazilians partecipate in a way similar to South Koreans and realize they need to upgrade their arsenal in case a potential war breaks out in South America if one of their neighbors becomes communist
Addendum, it should be quick and very resistant to attacks. Is it possible at the same time ?

Here are some offerings to match your description. ..

Centurion Mk 5/X2: Given that the turret ring of the Centurion and M551 Sheridan are almost exactly the same, take one is just a simple remounting of the Sheridan's steel turret onto a Centurion Mk5 hull. It looks quite fetching from the front but a little ridiculous from the side...

Centurion Mk 5-X2.png


Centurion Mk 5/X3: Next I decided to keep the Centurion's larger and better protected turret and mount the Sheridan's M81E1 152 mm Gun/Launcher directly to it along with the associated missile tracking optics. The end result is certainly a more robust vehicle which could probably cope well with the 152mm gun's considerable recoil...

Centurion Mk 5-X3.png


Centurion Mk 5/X4: This got me thinking that if we are keeping the larger Centurion turret than perhaps the larger 152 mm XM150E gun/launcher from the proposed MBT-70 would be a better option and give a much greater rate of fire.

Centurion Mk 5-X4.png


M48X4 Patton: And finally, for those that might prefer a US solution, I give you the same 152mm XM-150E gun/launcher but mounted in the M48 Patton...

M48X4.png
 
Last edited:
Here are some offerings to match your description. ..

Centurion Mk 5/X2: Given that the turret ring of the Centurion and M551 Sheridan are almost exactly the same, take one is just a simple remounting of the Sheridan's steel turret onto a Centurion Mk5 hull. It looks quite fetching from the front but a little ridiculous from the side...

View attachment 730738

Centurion Mk 5/X3: Next I decided to keep the Centurion's larger and better protected turret and mount the Sheridan's M81E1 152 mm Gun/Launcher directly to it along with the associated missile tracking optics. The end result is certainly a more robust vehicle which could probably cope well with the 152mm gun's considerable recoil...

View attachment 730739

Centurion Mk 5/X4: This got me thinking that if we are keeping the larger Centurion turret than perhaps the larger 152 mm XM150E gun/launcher from the proposed MBT-70 would be a better option and give a much greater rate of fire.

View attachment 730741

M48X4 Patton: And finally, for those that might prefer a US solution, I give you the same 152mm XM-150E gun/launcher but mounted in the M48 Patton...

View attachment 730742
Didn't the US mount a 152mm gun in a version of the M60?
 
Didn't the US mount a 152mm gun in a version of the M60?
M60a2 "Starship". The 152mm was a bit of an abortion apparently. Whenever it was fired its optics were knocked out of alignment, rendering it completely inaccurate. Both the Sheridan and the M60 (and I assume the MBT70) were basically useless with the Shillelagh missile.
 
M60a2 "Starship". The 152mm was a bit of an abortion apparently. Whenever it was fired its optics were knocked out of alignment, rendering it completely inaccurate. Both the Sheridan and the M60 (and I assume the MBT70) were basically useless with the Shillelagh missile.
Only the Sheridan was affected by the gun recoil. The real problem is that the missile doesn't work below 20°C because of humidity blinding its IR guidance system.
 
My Centurion Mk 5/X3 above looks very similar to the OTL Centurion Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers (AVRE) which carried the Ordnance BL 165mm (6.5 in) L9A1 Demolition Gun. The gun fired a 64 lb (29 kg) High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) shell up to 2,400 m (2,600 yds) and was reportedly accurate enough to blast a bridge girder at 600 yards (549 meters) or hit a pillbox or bunker at 1400 yards (1280 meters). At greater ranges, it was an effective Area-Of-Effect (AOE) weapon. The gun could elevate 20 degrees, and depress 10 degrees, though depression was limited over the engine deck - so certainly good enough for @eretzyegern ’s infantry support task.

The shell contained around 32 lbs (14.5 kgs) of PE4 explosives, equivalent to six 120mm HESH rounds. The round had no shell case in the traditional sense. Instead, the charge was placed inside a perforated base connected directly to the warhead and remained attached to the projectile as it flew. The gun and shell were never intended for use as an Anti-Armor weapon. This is not to say that a 165 mm HESH round from the L9 wouldn’t have been able to do so in an emergency, but it was never meant for that purpose.

1036A8C5-D2EA-4D33-BA53-85E9C733AB5A.png
666B9146-663B-4562-9EE7-8BC55270D9A0.png


The down side of the big HE ammunition load was that if something went wrong, it usually went wrong in the most spectacular fashion. This is the result of a Centurion AVRE which caught fire during the first Gulf War. Fortunately, the crew had abandoned the vehicle in time. (Note, the explosion also includes the content of the Giant Viper mine clearance rocket system that the AVRE was towing and which initiated the catastrophic explosion - impressive nonetheless. Reportedly, a road wheel landed 2 miles away!).

F33C22FB-465F-4136-9F9B-B5AE7FBC2480.jpeg
 
Last edited:
uncgncknown.png

How M60A2 should have been if it had to use a gun launcher anyway.

1649015829008.png

The XM150 was also quite remarkable when it comes to installation, as it had a shorter recoil length and lower imbalance than the alternatives, which means the gun control system could be made weaker and lighter, or that the trunions could have been moved further forward and still have a balanced gun.
 
M60a2 "Starship". The 152mm was a bit of an abortion apparently. Whenever it was fired its optics were knocked out of alignment, rendering it completely inaccurate. Both the Sheridan and the M60 (and I assume the MBT70) were basically useless with the Shillelagh missile.
The M60A2 had more problems with the gun than just that. The Tank Encyclopedia lists a few of them, like this...

The missile was guided to the target via IF (Infrared) beam. As long as the gunner kept the target in his scope, the missile would strike accurately. This system, however, contributed to one of the tank’s major issues. The M162 Gun/Launcher experienced frequent faulty breeches. Often, not closing correctly, allowing the exhaust of the launching Shillelagh to vent hot noxious gasses into the crew compartment.
In early testing, the system was plagued with misfires and premature detonations of the conventional case ammunition, caused by unburnt propellant in the bore and breech. This was often catastrophic as it set off the projectile in the barrel as it was fired. To combat this, early versions of the gun were equipped with a traditional fume extractor on the barrel. Later versions would use the Closed Bore Scavenger system, a compressed air system that pushed the fumes and gasses out of the muzzle when the breech is opened.
The A2 had a short service life succumbing to the same failings of Sheridan, concerning the missile system. The designers of the missile, Ford Aeronutronic, a division of the Ford Motor Company, greatly underestimated the task of producing a fully operational Anti-Tank Guided Missile as advanced as the MGM-51. Development of the Shillelagh was awash with technical and mechanical issues, including problems with the propellant, ignition of the propellant, tracking system and the infrared command link responsible for missile guidance.

...and you can find more of them all over the place; issues with sensitive electronics in the missiles, issues with guidance, issues with fire control, lack of ammunition options (the M81E1 was meant to get an APFSDS round, the XM578, but it never actually saw completion - the gun only had a HEAT for anti-tank work as a result) and various other issues. In what might actually be surprising to some in the thread, the idea of tank fired ATGMs is actually one that's still around today, and far more successfully so than in the M60A2 and the MBT-70. They were on the right track, but the technology they had available at the time just wasn't good enough for the task, and the gains they'd get from it weren't good enough either when compared to the regular cannons of the day. For an example of a modern version of the concept, just take a look at the various T-series tanks like the T-80, T-90 and the Armata, all of which have the ability to fire ATGMs out of their gun tubes.

Oh wow. I don't think I've ever actually seen an image of the M60A2 with a regular cannon before. IT looks rather charming, though I imagine the interior of the turret would be...interesting.

And since we're talking about M60s, Tank Encyclopedia also gives us something fun there:

After the T95 program had been abandoned, the turret interchangeability concept didn’t go completely away. An initial assessment was even carried out on the XM60 as to whether it could take the British turret, the conclusion was that it was possible although it would certainly have been an odd-looking tank. The end outcome of all of the interchangeability studies is hard to gauge.

The turret that it is referring to there is the one from the Chieftain. Therewas an idea at the time (when the T95 was still being seriously considered) to try and bring about much more parts compatibility between the various makes of NATO tanks in order to simplify logistics in the event of war, which is pretty good logic, but that led to this idea of making the Chieftain and Patton tanks to have completely interchangeable turrets. The idea is that if you had a Chieftain with a smashed hull but a perfectly fine turret, you could put that straight onto a M60 with a busted turret and have a perfectly working tank, with the reverse also being true, with minimal technical work beyond that which comes with replacing said turret. There'd obviously be some technical challenges to be overcome, but the resulting frankentanks could probably look rather fancy :p
 
Here are some offerings to match your description. ..

Centurion Mk 5/X2: Given that the turret ring of the Centurion and M551 Sheridan are almost exactly the same, take one is just a simple remounting of the Sheridan's steel turret onto a Centurion Mk5 hull. It looks quite fetching from the front but a little ridiculous from the side...

View attachment 730738

Centurion Mk 5/X3: Next I decided to keep the Centurion's larger and better protected turret and mount the Sheridan's M81E1 152 mm Gun/Launcher directly to it along with the associated missile tracking optics. The end result is certainly a more robust vehicle which could probably cope well with the 152mm gun's considerable recoil...

View attachment 730739

Centurion Mk 5/X4: This got me thinking that if we are keeping the larger Centurion turret than perhaps the larger 152 mm XM150E gun/launcher from the proposed MBT-70 would be a better option and give a much greater rate of fire.

View attachment 730741

M48X4 Patton: And finally, for those that might prefer a US solution, I give you the same 152mm XM-150E gun/launcher but mounted in the M48 Patton...

View attachment 730742
Cool design, was wondering if this would make a good upgrade for countries with M41s?
M41X2.png
 
uncgncknown.png

How M60A2 should have been if it had to use a gun launcher anyway.

View attachment 731051
The XM150 was also quite remarkable when it comes to installation, as it had a shorter recoil length and lower imbalance than the alternatives, which means the gun control system could be made weaker and lighter, or that the trunions could have been moved further forward and still have a balanced gun.
M60A2 with regular cannon is much more appealing to me.
 
Could a Saladin armored car turret with a 76mm gun fit on a M5 Stuart light tank?
The Saladin turret will not fit on the M5 because of the M5's raised engine deck but it is tight fit on the M3.
M3xSALADIN.png

However I suspect the M3's turret ring is actually too small for the Saladin's turret, the front view makes me think it wouldn't work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top