Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

[RamscoopRaider]

Fun fact: the United States built this thing in the late 80s....



...which looks pretty innocent til you realise that it is a tactical nuclear warhead for a 155mm gun - a hair's breadth larger than the same size of gun that the M60A2 uses.Shave a little off the casing, and you'd have a nuclear shell for the M60A2, which would clearly resolve all problems that the tank has with accuracy and electronics, and it certainly wouldn't have any issues with destroying enemy tanks to say the least!

Survivability, on the other hand, might be somewhat impacted by using a 2kt nuclear device in tank versus tank combat...but I'm sure that's something that the engineers can fix, they just need to try harder

Jokes aside, in a world where tactical nukes were more of a thing and somehow exempt from the atomic terror (which has made sure that, so far, no nuclear device has been used in anger since the end of WW2), I wouldn't be too surprised to find out if the US or the Soviets might've designed a sort of nuclear self-propelled-gun, a vehicle capable of carrying a number of nuclear artillery shells and lobbing them at enemy positions, probably with rocket assisted projectiles to increase range, but that might be too extreme for even the most atom-loving variations of OTL, as one engagement with the things would make the battlefield look like the surface of the Moon. Maybe something for the Fallout timeline, eh?

Soviets did design a self propelled gun for nuclear shells, 2A3 Kondensator 2P, the US was contented with its 280mm towed pieces for specialist nuclear artillery, at least until the nuclear recoilless rifles were ready

 

[Monk78]

Looks like a typical AFV of the Libyan civil war

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Looks like a typical AFV of the Libyan civil war

It hasn't got tracks so it's not a real tank!
Wouldn't it be fun to see Mythbusters or similar firing the main gun (hopefully by remote control) just to see how badly it affected the car.

 

[Lord Wyclif]

In 1958, the Chief of the Australian Army's General Staff, Lieutenant-General Ragnar Garrett, initiated a program to modernise the Army's organisation and equipment. A formal Weapons and Equipment Policy Statement specifying the Army's requirements for tracked APCs was issued on 26 June 1960. It was believed that the wheeled armoured vehicles were no longer suitable, as the Australian Army expected that it would need to fight in tropical conditions in South East Asia. Tracked vehicles were preferred for these conditions as they had superior off-road performance, including in jungle terrain. After negotiations between the Australian and British governments between 1960 and 1962, theMOD the Australians conduct a trial of the FV432 in tropical conditions. The Australians eventually, after much persuasion from the British, purchased the FV437 Pathfinder APC, and the FV433 Abbot SPG. With much experience with the American forces in Vietnam the Australians upgraded their vehicles with American parts, particularly the power plant and weapons systems. Though the engine of the M113 was 9” longer, 1/2” wider and 9” taller, Australian ingenuity made it fit. The Abbott turret was replaced with one from a M551 Sheridan tank.

 

[AJE]

Jokes aside, in a world where tactical nukes were more of a thing and somehow exempt from the atomic terror (which has made sure that, so far, no nuclear device has been used in anger since the end of WW2), I wouldn't be too surprised to find out if the US or the Soviets might've designed a sort of nuclear self-propelled-gun, a vehicle capable of carrying a number of nuclear artillery shells and lobbing them at enemy positions, probably with rocket assisted projectiles to increase range, but that might be too extreme for even the most atom-loving variations of OTL, as one engagement with the things would make the battlefield look like the surface of the Moon. Maybe something for the Fallout timeline, eh?

The Soviets did build at least two such vehicles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2A3_Kondensator_2P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B1_Oka

Source

(Note: the "mortar" designation of the Oka's weapon is misleading as to its trajectory. While it was smoothbore, its muzzle velocity was only 100 m/s less than that of a US 16"/50 battleship gun, and had somewhat less shell weight and muzzle energy- a very high muzzle velocity by mortar standards. It is likely the most powerful self-propelled gun ever made.)

 

[racevedo88]

The Soviets did build at least two such vehicles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2A3_Kondensator_2P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B1_Oka

Source

(Note: the "mortar" designation of the Oka's weapon is misleading as to its trajectory. While it was smoothbore, its muzzle velocity was only 100 m/s less than that of a US 16"/50 battleship gun, and had somewhat less shell weight and muzzle energy- a very high muzzle velocity by mortar standards. It is likely the most powerful self-propelled gun ever made.)

The us develop atomic annie. As the size of tac nukes became smaller they could be fired by regular 203mm How and 155mm How both self propelled or Towed. US Arty Nuclear mission ended around 1991/2

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

First time trying my hand at this so probably not that good, but here's an attempt at a Vickers MBT Mk.3 armed with the L11 instead of the L7.

sources: Mk.3 and Chieftain

Apparently the 120mm was considered for the Vickers MBT Mk.3, but it was realized early on that the 105mm gun was more desirable on the export market. I wanted try my hand at fully realizing the "Cheaper Chieftain" concept.

 

[Bougnas]

First time trying my hand at this so probably not that good, but here's an attempt at a Vickers MBT Mk.3 armed with the L11 instead of the L7.

sources: Mk.3 and Chieftain

Apparently the 120mm was considered for the Vickers MBT Mk.3, but it was realized early on that the 105mm gun was more desirable on the export market. I wanted try my hand at fully realizing the "Cheaper Chieftain" concept.

The 110 would be even more convenient by then, though a new caliber:

Same pen but smaller, lighter and with smaller and lighter ammo, what's not to like?

 

[La Rouge Beret]

The Soviets did build at least two such vehicles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2A3_Kondensator_2P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B1_Oka

Member's hearing loss is unrelated to military service.

 

[CaekDaemon]

The Soviets did build at least two such vehicles:

Yeah, but I was thinking smaller nukes, like the 155mm one I mentioned before...which incidentally would be the size that the PzH 2000 has, and it has a three shot burst autoloader. An autoloading tactical nuclear artillery piece with rapid fire is probably the most insane weapon I can imagine, and probably something you wouldn't really find out of a weird action movie and/or a Metal Gear Solid game.

But moving to the world of real tanks, someone posted a neat vehicle on /r/tankporn:

That's a Chinese built Type 58 (basically a homegrown variant of the T-34-85) with a rather unique modification to the turret - a flamethrowers, and a lot of them. There's a neat little write up they did that I've copy and pasted here for convenience...

Someone in China must have gone to the "Warhammer 40k School of Tank design," because I definitely can see this as something Gameworkshop can create and give to the Salamanders so those pyromaniacs can burn planets to cinder in the name of the God Emperor.

From what I can gather, the Chinese military had a real hard on with flamethrower, presumably due to these weapon's ability to break morale and clear out entrenched position, something they had experience fighting in Korea. According to Tank Encyclopedia, in 1955 there was an exercise on the Liaodong peninsular, and the Chinese decided they needed a dedicated flamethrower tank. For some reason the OT-34-85 did not impress them, so they went with this.

We do not know who designed this thing, when, or why, But we do know it carries twelve flamethrower. Not just any flamethrower, but the TPO-50 flamethrower, a heavy flamethrower developed from the lighter LPO-50. These were deployed as light artillery, operated by a two-man team and weighed 170kg fully loaded. They were often mounted in a three gun, each gun capable of shooting once, and the range was 140 to 180 meter.

So the Chinese gave their Type 58 twelve TPO-50s to carry, separated into two six-flamethrower boxes. Perhaps they wanted their tank to be able to either fire tube by tube or, if necessary, dump the whole load on the enemy in a shock-and-awe manner

...and you can check out the original post here. There's probably room for improvement on the design, like having more than one shot per barrel, but interestingly enough, the design concept strikes me as being similar to that of the BMPT Terminator, or at the very least, something that could have led to the same kind of development, as both vehicles are designed for dealing with entrenched defenders, only the Chinese tank is intended more for men in the open, whilst the BMPT is for urban warfare....yet the gap in role between the two doesn't seem that far removed from one another, as both are intended for anti-infantry work. I wonder if that's what actually happened to the flamethrower tank as a concept - did it just evolve into things like the Terminator, trading the terrifying plumes of flame for more precise but no less deadly barrages of autocannon and automatic grenade launcher fire? Could that explain why we don't see them much past the 60s and 70s, when IFVs became far more common? Food for thought at the very least

 

[CaptainCalvert]

One problem with nuclear autocannon is that second- and third-shot accuracy may be impaired by the blast from the first shot.

 

[Rickshaw]

One problem with nuclear autocannon is that second- and third-shot accuracy may be impaired by the blast from the first shot.

Once during a drinking session with some Cloud-Punchers one of them dropped a joke about needing to cover an eye when spotting for a nuclear round strike...

 

[Some Bloke]

The Soviets did build at least two such vehicles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2A3_Kondensator_2P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B1_Oka

Source

(Note: the "mortar" designation of the Oka's weapon is misleading as to its trajectory. While it was smoothbore, its muzzle velocity was only 100 m/s less than that of a US 16"/50 battleship gun, and had somewhat less shell weight and muzzle energy- a very high muzzle velocity by mortar standards. It is likely the most powerful self-propelled gun ever made.)

Kondensator? More like Kompensator.

 

[dxe131]

Once during a drinking session with some Cloud-Punchers one of them dropped a joke about needing to cover an eye when spotting for a nuclear round strike...

I thought that was SOP.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The 110 would be even more convenient by then, though a new caliber:
View attachment 732414
View attachment 732416
Same pen but smaller, lighter and with smaller and lighter ammo, what's not to like?

Well, the L7 is NATO standard, lots of shells being developed for it. The L11 is British standard, plenty of shells being developed for it. The 110mm is entirely non-standard, if no one else buys into it you'll be left paying for any and all ammo improvements (and given that the Mk.3 was aimed at African countries, that basically means no improved shells ever get developed).

 

[Bougnas]

Well, the L7 is NATO standard, lots of shells being developed for it. The L11 is British standard, plenty of shells being developed for it. The 110mm is entirely non-standard, if no one else buys into it you'll be left paying for any and all ammo improvements (and given that the Mk.3 was aimed at African countries, that basically means no improved shells ever get developed).

If only Britain accepted to sell it to Israel as intended, now you have a major starting user...

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

If only Britain accepted to sell it to Israel as intended, now you have a major starting user...

Yeah, that'd help.

 

[GrahamB]

One problem with nuclear autocannon is that second- and third-shot accuracy may be impaired by the blast from the first shot.

I have questions about what the definition of 'accuracy' is when firing in nuclear burst mode.
Like, are you intending to have all three warheads land within the same city block or the same postal address?

I suspect an autoloader was to enable transport of the rounds in sealed magazines so you'd need even less exposure of crew to the shells and maybe to simplify transport.

 

[Ramontxo]

I have questions about what the definition of 'accuracy' is when firing in nuclear burst mode.
Like, are you intending to have all three warheads land within the same city block or the same postal address?

I suspect an autoloader was to enable transport of the rounds in sealed magazines so you'd need even less exposure of crew to the shells and maybe to simplify transport.

Time on target. Have the three shells, going through different paths, launch speed and barrel elevation, land at the same time. Any objetive that survives three nuclear shells needs you to call Professor Quartermass ASAP

 

[CaptainCalvert]

I have questions about what the definition of 'accuracy' is when firing in nuclear burst mode.
Like, are you intending to have all three warheads land within the same city block or the same postal address?

I suspect an autoloader was to enable transport of the rounds in sealed magazines so you'd need even less exposure of crew to the shells and maybe to simplify transport.

You are probably right, but the Time on Target argument has a certain appeal.