Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

[RamscoopRaider]

Autocannons are worse than large caliber guns, so a larger cannon should be used instead:

Don't take my words out of context, for pure infantry support a bigger gun is better than a smaller rapid firing one, add in self defense against armored vehicles and you are back to wanting an autocannon

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Some alternative designs based on Mk.5View attachment 739226View attachment 739227

The T26 turret doesn't look good for me and the location jars [1]. A more rounded turret ( like on the A1E1, Char2C and some other immediately post-war tanks) would look better or maybe a Renault FT turret.
But there's always the Indiana Jones turreted rhomboid as a starting point.
[1] I know it's OK for a tank to look awful if it works, but......

Edit. Regarding the utility of a 37mm HE chucker, WW1 experience indicated that MGs were more effective against people but the 37mm was also useful against MG positions and bunkers (effectively a long range and reasonably accurate grenade delivery system) with the tank providing a bulletproof box and better ammo supply than the 37mm infantry gun.
So I'd be looking at an MG turret (based on the Renault) on the male rhomboid and an enlarged 57mm turret for female tanks.

 

[AJE]

Don't take my words out of context, for pure infantry support a bigger gun is better than a smaller rapid firing one, add in self defense against armored vehicles and you are back to wanting an autocannon

It says a smaller cannon is still ineffective against armor after early WW2, so even that use doesn't favor it.

 

[Bougnas]

Don't take my words out of context, for pure infantry support a bigger gun is better than a smaller rapid firing one, add in self defense against armored vehicles and you are back to wanting an autocannon

That and weight, space and ammo capacity constraints when you use a fairly hefty missile load. I guess BMP-3-style gun works but without autoloading it will still be a pretty big turret. @AJE

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Even for HE use it says one big shell is better than a lot of small ones.

Yes for pure infantry support. The problem is when you are engaging other types of targets, you need a higher velocity, which means on chassis that aren't tanks you can't afford a big shell, so smaller caliber, thus autocannon. The exchange you quoted was about the merits of a low velocity high caliber autocannon, for infantry support a low velocity HE chucker is better, for general purpose use I mention a higher velocity lower caliber autocannon is better

 

[AJE]

Yes for pure infantry support. The problem is when you are engaging other types of targets, you need a higher velocity, which means on chassis that aren't tanks you can't afford a big shell, so smaller caliber, thus autocannon. The exchange you quoted was about the merits of a low velocity high caliber autocannon, for infantry support a low velocity HE chucker is better, for general purpose use I mention a higher velocity lower caliber autocannon is better

Yes, I misread your comment at first. It doesn't matter though, the comment I quoted basically says a <37 mm cannon is less effective or outright ineffective for either role, even with high muzzle velocity.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Yes, I misread your comment at first. It doesn't matter though, the comment I quoted basically says a <37 mm cannon is less effective or outright ineffective for either role, even with high muzzle velocity.

No it does not. It says the 37mm Hotchkiss is ineffective for either role. In general it says for HE throwing bigger is better and that higher velocity is better for AT work, with smaller calibers ineffective after 1941 against tanks. As a self defense weapon for a cold war era vehicle that is better than a machine gun, in an environment where less armored vehicles are deployed in mass is a different thing, less armor penetration is needed and you aren't offensively trying to destroy fortifications, so they work when on a mass budget

 

[PMN1]

Nothing is new. The disapearing gun mounts originally got invented for defensive forts. Biggest one I know of was a 16 inch. As to the tanks the true difficulty is in making them capable of fighting on the move. Now an idea might be to have a targeting system on a extendable system and then vertical launch the Anti-Surface and SAM missiles.

The Brimstone II would be an ideal weapon with the ability to launch several missiles at once or rippled then scoot to a new location and reload ready to do it again.

As for Self Defence I am of the opinion that a missile tank with no guns to engage infantry is useless. Accordingly I would put a remote weapon station on the tank with a light MG and a 20mm autocannon. (20mm being smallest) If you look at the number of missiles various vehicles can carry and scale this up to a M2/3 Bradley size, even allowing for the extendable sensor package, I could see 12 to 18 missiles being carried as reloads. With 2 3 round launchers ready to fire the sensor unit can detect tanks/ ifv or fuel tankers etc and simply open fire. The attack trajectory and emissions detected will make an opponent think some Apache's have engaged them. BTW Brimstone should have a decent Anti-Air capability because the missile radar can track airborne targets. With a top speed of Mach 1.3 it will have trouble against fast movers but Helicopters, Drones, Close support aircraft should be fair game.

Another interesting weapon is the ground launched SDB program.

A few designs have been done

 

[AJE]

No it does not. It says the 37mm Hotchkiss is ineffective for either role. In general it says for HE throwing bigger is better and that higher velocity is better for AT work, with smaller calibers ineffective after 1941 against tanks. As a self defense weapon for a cold war era vehicle that is better than a machine gun, in an environment where less armored vehicles are deployed in mass is a different thing, less armor penetration is needed and you aren't offensively trying to destroy fortifications, so they work when on a mass budget

Then I was wrong, I apologize for misreading the comment.

 

[Petike]

I have to wonder... Has anyone ever tried to scratch-build a New Zealand Schofield tank ?

I find it a fascinating vehicle. Neither quite armoured lorry with a turret, nor a tracked light tank, but a bit of both.

I've seen many improvised armoured vehicle designs throughout history, but this is still, hands down, one of the most unusual.

 

[PMN1]

A few designs have been done

View attachment 739285

View attachment 739286


View attachment 739288

View attachment 739289

 

[CaptainCalvert]

I have to wonder... Has anyone ever tried to scratch-build a New Zealand Schofield tank ?

I find it a fascinating vehicle. Neither quite armoured lorry with a turret, nor a tracked light tank, but a bit of both.

I've seen many improvised armoured vehicle designs throughout history, but this is still, hands down, one of the most unusual.

The open turret made me think it would be best considered as a tank destroyer. Assuming a 2 pounder, it would be effective against any Japanese. The open top would be a liability given effective Japanese use of light mortars, but at least it's mobile so it can shoot and scoot, plus a wire cover to deflect grenades would be relatively easy to knock up.
It's got a very interwar look and feel to it - made me think of the kegresse half tracks .

 

[Garrison]

I have to wonder... Has anyone ever tried to scratch-build a New Zealand Schofield tank ?

I find it a fascinating vehicle. Neither quite armoured lorry with a turret, nor a tracked light tank, but a bit of both.

I've seen many improvised armoured vehicle designs throughout history, but this is still, hands down, one of the most unusual.

It honestly seems like a solution in search of a problem. I mean I am struggling to think where it would be better than a straight tracked vehicle, especially given all that weight is going to impede wheeled performance on roads.

 

[historyfool]

I have to wonder... Has anyone ever tried to scratch-build a New Zealand Schofield tank ?

I find it a fascinating vehicle. Neither quite armoured lorry with a turret, nor a tracked light tank, but a bit of both.

I've seen many improvised armoured vehicle designs throughout history, but this is still, hands down, one of the most unusual.

It was not that unusual an idea for the 30s: The Germans trialed the tech, but decided half-tracks were almost as good on roads, but overall a better choice. Austria was very interested and actually started serial production. The Germans took the production run, but did not really like the vehicle, the Sd.Kfz. 254. The Landsverk L-30 also had a similiar weel-track configuration - Sweden ordered a prototype and afterwards decided on the track-only variant. I think there also was a British (Vickers?) project in the 20s, but couldn´t find it right now.
The Soviets tried something similiar with their BT series which could run as a wheeled vehicle for improved road performance. They also dropped the ability afterwards because the added complexity was not worth it.
I´d actually be surprised if other nations did not have similiar experiments.

 

[Driftless]

I suppose part of the appeal was being able to save wear and tear on the tracks over long distance. You shouldn't need the extra expense and logistical train of tank transporters. However.... The tank transporters did the basic hauling job much better and could help with recovery and and other hauling duties too.

Another case of trying to serve two masters and instead serving none

 

[marathag]

It honestly seems like a solution in search of a problem. I mean I am struggling to think where it would be better than a straight tracked vehicle, especially given all that weight is going to impede wheeled performance on roads.

Pre-1942 British Tracks were generally very low in track-life, due mostly to the steel alloy used.
The problem it solves, is extending track life by using the wheels on hard surfaces. Another way from what Christie was doing, high speed on roads, while saving the track life

With all the Carriers the Germans captured in France, they swapped over to Mk I Tracks for durability. They were close enough to work without issue

 

[CaptainCalvert]

I suppose part of the appeal was being able to save wear and tear on the tracks over long distance. You shouldn't need the extra expense and logistical train of tank transporters. However.... The tank transporters did the basic hauling job much better and could help with recovery and and other hauling duties too.

Another case of trying to serve two masters and instead serving none

There is also the limited rail network and more importantly the condition of NZ roads to consider. They tend towards narrow, steep and windy, with a lot of gravel roads up to quite recently. These don't sound great for tank transporters [1] so a self-transporting tank isn't such a bad idea.
[1] And you have to make the tank transporter, which takes up limited construction space and resources. Shipping tank trasporters to New Zealand isn't likely to be a realistic alternative option until there is an excess of transporters and spare shipping capacity, so it could be a long wait.

 

[wietze]

There is also the limited rail network and more importantly the condition of NZ roads to consider. They tend towards narrow, steep and windy, with a lot of gravel roads up to quite recently. These don't sound great for tank transporters [1] so a self-transporting tank isn't such a bad idea.
[1] And you have to make the tank transporter, which takes up limited construction space and resources. Shipping tank trasporters to New Zealand isn't likely to be a realistic alternative option until there is an excess of transporters and spare shipping capacity, so it could be a long wait.

even with the limited engineering capabilities of NZ, they should be able to manufacture tank trailers
like this M9 rogers

 

[CaptainCalvert]

even with the limited engineering capabilities of NZ, they should be able to manufacture tank trailers
like this M9 rogers

Good point.
New Zealand still had fairly decent rail workshops in the 1940s, and assembled motor vehicles (not sure how much if any were built from scratch). So it's more whether there's enough bodies, material and bench space rather than whether they have the knowhow.

 

[Canuck Wingnut]

It was not that unusual an idea for the 30s: The Germans trialed the tech, but decided half-tracks were almost as good on roads, but overall a better choice. Austria was very interested and actually started serial production. The Germans took the production run, but did not really like the vehicle, the Sd.Kfz. 254. The Landsverk L-30 also had a similiar weel-track configuration - Sweden ordered a prototype and afterwards decided on the track-only variant. I think there also was a British (Vickers?) project in the 20s, but couldn´t find it right now.
The Soviets tried something similiar with their BT series which could run as a wheeled vehicle for improved road performance. They also dropped the ability afterwards because the added complexity was not worth it.
I´d actually be surprised if other nations did not have similiar experiments.

Indeed, I'm a big fan of convertible tanks (meaning tanks with a drive system capable of being converted between tracked and wheeled modes, not a tank with a removable roof)- they were a major fad in the 1930s. In addition to the ones you listed, the Czech KH-50 looks properly ridiculous in side view:

In general, tank transport and logistics hadn't really been worked out before WW2, and tank transporters and the heavy trucks to pull them were generally in short supply when they were available at all. All of this has been an excuse to post my personal favorite design vaguely along these lines, the Polish Ursus Autotransporter:

This may look like a tankette on a trailer that hasn't yet been hitched up to its towing vehicle- but it is not! Instead, the TK3 tankette was designed with a power take-off system designed to let it hook up to the special trailer and power it, with one of the crewmen getting out of the tankette and driving the autotransporter which was designed with everything needed for a vehicle except the engine. In theory the tankettes were supposed to be able to tow the autotransporter behind them over rough ground- in practice, had this contraption been tried in a real war there would have been a bunch of abandoned Ursuses (Ursi?) littering the fields and a bunch of tankettes with worn-out tracks...