Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

marathag

Banned
Does anyone know from the top of their head the Sherman tank variant that would be best placed to stop T - 34 / 85s?

Would a Sherman Easy Eight with their 76 mm gun be able to do so or would they need different ammunition? Just reading a book on the Korean war atm.
Firefly or Israeli M-50 modified Sherman turret ontop the 3rd Army field modified E8 lower hull,
images

plus the Ford V-12 used in the heavy Pershing tanks
 
hello everyone, i have a question, have you ever wondered what a merkava mbt would look like if it had a traditional layout (engine in rear position, no infantry compartments)?
 
It would be a Chieftain-shaped M60.
Chieftain-shaped M60 with a tiny bit of Leopard 2K memes (Spitzmaus-style turret and use of spacing). Too bad Germany did not actively coop with Israel much like with South Africa, Merkava with NERA from the start and MTU87X series engine would have been interesting to say the least.
 
Is there anything preventing NERA from being made in WWII? At its most basic it is a steel-rubber sandwich, which doesn't seem beyond the manufacturing capabilities of any WWII states.
 
Is there anything preventing NERA from being made in WWII? At its most basic it is a steel-rubber sandwich, which doesn't seem beyond the manufacturing capabilities of any WWII states.
Probably limited rubber supply, followed by not having thought of it
Also, the 50 or 60 degree slope means it's best suited to frontal protection, where protection against kinetic rounds is already reasonably likely to protect against most WW2 HEAT rounds.
If not for the slope, it would be a very good option for side protection against HEAT.
Personally, I'd want slatted side skirts for side protection, with NERA panels on the glacis and turret front. A Centurion with this could look pretty mean.
 
Firefly or Israeli M-50 modified Sherman turret ontop the 3rd Army field modified E8 lower hull,
images

plus the Ford V-12 used in the heavy Pershing tanks
In that case if I wanted an in service date with the Republic of Korea - Army by 1948 / 1949, would I better placed to use the Sherman Firefly?
 
In that case if I wanted an in service date with the Republic of Korea - Army by 1948 / 1949, would I better placed to use the Sherman Firefly?
I think the standard 76mm Easy Eight would do, the T-34's sloped armour was pretty good against the German 37-50mm AT guns they encountered at the start of the war, but I've not heard any mention of them offering significant resistance to guns in the 75mm+ range. Panzer 4s and Stugg 3s seemed to handle them just fine.

If you're that hard up for anti-tank firepower, I'm sure you could get your theoretical hands on some M36 TDs from the same post-war American stockyard as the M4s. Same drivetrain, which is handy, and the M36 has that lovely 90mm cannon that proved able to one-shot T-34s in OTL's Korean War.
 
I think the standard 76mm Easy Eight would do, the T-34's sloped armour was pretty good against the German 37-50mm AT guns they encountered at the start of the war, but I've not heard any mention of them offering significant resistance to guns in the 75mm+ range. Panzer 4s and Stugg 3s seemed to handle them just fine.

If you're that hard up for anti-tank firepower, I'm sure you could get your theoretical hands on some M36 TDs from the same post-war American stockyard as the M4s. Same drivetrain, which is handy, and the M36 has that lovely 90mm cannon that proved able to one-shot T-34s in OTL's Korean War.
That's a really good option and one that I hadn't considered.

Plus it was used by the Korean Army in OTL during the Korean war, so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch for them to get them a few years earlier. Which allows them to integrate them into their training exercises & doctrine.
 
Is there anything preventing NERA from being made in WWII? At its most basic it is a steel-rubber sandwich, which doesn't seem beyond the manufacturing capabilities of any WWII states.
What Calvert said and good pen shaped charges and NERA used mechanisms that were not that understood yet so people didn't really get the idea of NERA. They did stumble upon proto-ERA though. Aluminium was also still a bit too precious to be used as armor, so steel+Al composite wasn't quite feasible either, so that leaves glass tiles or things like slats. Or HCR2-type but HCR2 wouldn't really cut it by the late 40s against optimized shaped charges.
 
The one reason we can't let soldiers decide what gets bought or not:

unknown.png


unknown.png


Imagine cancelling even the reliability and ergonomic improvements.
 
https://docs.yandex.ru/docs/view?ur...mRyOJonT3VoXnDag==&name=20184655MN0005341.pdf

A series of documents on US documents on why the British were increasingly leaning towards Challenger II instead of Leopard 2 and M1A2 that were rated higher.
Although Vickers' propaganda saved Challenger II, it died soon enough anyway. Ironically both M1A2 and Leopard 2 were offered for license production (Krauss -Maffei even offered to invest in Vickers), so the British solution was actually detrimental to the company in the long run.
 
Seeking to reduce the development costs of the Type 89 IFV, Japan decides to largely license produce and adapt the Swiss KDE 35mm turret of the Improved MOWAG Tornado:
unknown.png



Facing a Giant: the German armored forces July 1940-1941

The gamble did not pay off. Even though Fall Gelb offered the best odds of victory, it was doomed to fail against the multiple French lines of resistance in the Ardennes and in the Meuse sector where it bogged down.
For the time being, the situation remained stable. Neither France nor Germany had the supplies necessary for combat of high intensity, so operations largely stopped by July. The French forces were also still difficult to use and maneuver, while neither the AdA nor the RAF could seriously threaten ground forces or the Reich itself.

It was time to assess the situation. The French industry was finally getting into high gear and the Allies would soon be flooded with war material. It was clear that they would go on the offensive in the spring or summer 1941. The Germans needed to act quickly to disrupt such plans and regain the initiative. The armored forces were still going to be essential in the defense of the occupied Benelux or a second Battle of France.
Many deficiencies were observed. Production of the latest tank types was very slow, and antitank capabilities were insufficient. The Pz III also still suffered from various reliability problems. The question of firepower and protection would largely solve itself with the introduction of 50mm armor plate, addons, and the 5cm KwK L42 and PaK L60. Nonetheless, the Germans desperately needed more mobile AT, which renewed interest in tank destroyers.


Alarming reports mentionned French and British heavy and superheavy tanks with thick armor (B1 Ter, B40, TOG, Char de Forteresse), real or not. The Pz Sfl IVa bunker buster was an obvious solution with its 105 mm L52 gun, so development was accelerated and 200 were ordered. This could also be useful against the Maginot Line. Same went for the Pz Sfl V and its 128mm gun, which benefitted from the cancellation of the VK 3001(H) vehicle it was based on (judged too weak in firepower), freeing resources for the SPG.
Production of the Panzerjäger I was also intensified to use the entire stock of 47mm Skoda guns. The Pz II chassis also quickly became available for other uses as the 2cm gun was decidedly becoming obsolete. It was proposed to mount the 5cm gun on this chassis instead of the VK 901 of the Pz Sfl I, using a small open-top superstructure.

Finally, efforts were made to deploy even more powerful weapons on the tanks themselves. It was briefly offered to lengthen the 75mm KwK L24 to a L33-36, but even greater performance was requested. The 75mm L40,8 Rheinmetall-Borsig gun was modified for use on both the Pz IV and Stug III chassis, but this program didn't yield results until mid-1941.

Finally, the question of tank production came up. The military and industry were getting increasingly frustrated of constant meddling by the Reich authorities, and namely Kniepkamp and the Heereswaffenamt 6. Daimler-Benz and Krupp particularly criticized his obsession of high speed leading to unproven transmissions and his favoritism of Maybach, churning out engine after engine with no attention to simplicity or improving existing designs. Torsion bars were also still difficult to produce and keep reliable at this time.
Their lobbying eventually paid off. It helped that a Tank Commission was created with Ferdinand Porsche at the helm. Massive increases in tank production were required. Ease of production finally took priority over performance. Both DB and Krupp took advantage of this decision, reorienting the VK 20. program towards evolutionary designs and introducing simpler components.
The BW 40 program, cancelled in May 1940, was restarted. This would involve replacing the 8-wheel suspension of the Pz IV with 6 wheels of larger diameter, already tested on the Pz Sfl IVb. Sturdier and quicker to produce, it could cope with the weight of the uparmored and upgunned Panzer IVs without trouble. This was also used on the Pz Sfl IVa.

Daimler-Benz completely rethought the Pz III. Without the need for torsion bars, they restarted development of a brand new leaf-spring suspension, without the drawbacks of those used in early Pz III models. The gearbox was also replaced with a simpler Wilson-type planetary transmission derived from the Pz 38(t). Finally the engine was to be replaced by the 360hp MB 809 diesel, as it was sturdier than the Maybach HL120, more powerful and economical and would offer a new source of engines. This led to the Pz III n.A by late 1941, towards the tail end of the III. Reich.​


Fierce fighting indeed restarted in March 1941 with an Allied offensive through the Benelux. Surpassed in numbers and severely lacking in ressources, Germany was forced to give terrain, but managed to obtain some respite by momentarily stopping the offensive on the Rhine. The Pz Sfl IVa Brummbär (but unofficially called Dicker Max) proved the greatest asset, destroying the heaviest Allied tanks at long ranges.
1653223947753.png


Author's note: I always thought that Germany missed opportunities with early war programs, so this scenario is very practical to let them shine.

 
Could you fit a M81 152mm gun (from the Sheridan) in a G13 hull (Updated Swiss version of a Hetzer)? Could you then give the G-13 a suspension similar to the Stridsvagen 103 so it can change the gun elevation without a turret?
 
So we just got excellent archives on the ARL 3 turret(s !) for the French G1 tanks. Turns out that contrary to popular thought they were still only 2-man, one commander-gunner and one loader. However some features were very commendable for the time.

At 5000kg this turret is 800kg heavier than a Sherman turret. Armor is 60mm RHA on all sides (30mm top, 30mm additionnal mantlet) no matter the angle, so it's better protected than a Sherman turret from the sides and rear and not so much weaker frontally since Sherman was cast but somewhat better angled.
It had an optical rangefinder which could automatically superelevate the gun and primary sight, which would have been exceptionnal for a tank that would be ready by 1942 at the latest, assuming it worked (and if it didn't it's still the earliest trial of such a system in a tank).
The ARL 3A had a rotating MG cupola much like the American M48A1 and later, and -10° of gun depression.
The ARL3B had a fixed kiosk instead(see earl Tiger, ARL 2 turret for SOMUA S40), but it also had a panoramic sight which could slew the gun to the target without losing sight, which is very novel at the time.

Overall, this turret is excellent from a gunnery standpoint in WW2, save for the 2-man crew.

Other information says that the AMX-30 was originally supposed to have a 2-round rack next to the gun with a powered rammer to shoot 3 rounds in quick succession (4s between shots), and a novel type of coincidence rangefinder that was even easier to use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top