Nope the Jagdpanzer IV was a turretless version of the Pz.IV , the alt-Jagdpanzer III/IV is based on a paper only design of a sloped armour medium tank using sections from both the Pz.III and IV hence the designation "Pz.III/IV".
Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
- Status
The Jp IV lang (E), contrary to what the name implies does use the III/IV components. It was paper only too. Base Jp IV doesn't have the (E).
instead the russian one could use the 127mm valkiri/bataleur from south-africa
Valkiri - Wikipedia
127 mm Valkiri Mk 1.22 multiple rocket launcher system. | Missilery.info
The Republic of South Africa began developing its own 127 mm multi-barreled Valkiri (Valkiriya) jet plant in 1977. The development of the Valkiri was a reaction of South Africa to the successful use
en.missilery.info
127 mm Valkiri Mk.II (Bataleur) multiple rocket launcher system. | Missilery.info
In 1985, work began in South Africa to create a new generation 127mm RSF - Valkiri Mk.II, designed to replace the Valkiri Mk 1.22 system. The creation of Valkiri Mk.II was based on the latest
en.missilery.info
the size of a F150 and a unimog are comparable, although the unimog is wayyy more terrain capable.
Last edited:
I have found the Review of Army Tank Program 1969, which mostly talks about Sheridan problems but also M60A1E1/E2 (M60A2) and MBT-70:
https://books.google.com/books/abou... MBT-70 meant to replace all US tanks&f=false
It really shows how inept program management caused these disasters to happen. Congressmen seriously imply that officers managing Sheridan ignored test results showing problems with the combustible case and pushed for Standardization and production of the vehicle even as no conventional ammo was available, and even the ammo fielded in Vietnam had a 20-page long list of limitations and warnings when using them. They did it to keep funding.
The US wasted some 1.5 billion dollars (MBT-70 cost 303 million at the same time when coop with Germany ceased) to produce some 1.5k M551s that were stored until 1970-71 and were never brought to the kinda reliable state of the M551A1s.
M60A1E1 and E2 production was also authorized 6 months before even 10% of the testing was done, testing which went slowly because the things were deadlined 76% of the time.
You can imagine that if such inept management existed for those vehicles then it's likely it explains the M114 disaster or the tank cupola fuckups.
Now please save me from this neverending nightmare by butterflying this cursed 60's decade of American AFVs...
https://books.google.com/books/abou... MBT-70 meant to replace all US tanks&f=false
It really shows how inept program management caused these disasters to happen. Congressmen seriously imply that officers managing Sheridan ignored test results showing problems with the combustible case and pushed for Standardization and production of the vehicle even as no conventional ammo was available, and even the ammo fielded in Vietnam had a 20-page long list of limitations and warnings when using them. They did it to keep funding.
The US wasted some 1.5 billion dollars (MBT-70 cost 303 million at the same time when coop with Germany ceased) to produce some 1.5k M551s that were stored until 1970-71 and were never brought to the kinda reliable state of the M551A1s.
M60A1E1 and E2 production was also authorized 6 months before even 10% of the testing was done, testing which went slowly because the things were deadlined 76% of the time.
You can imagine that if such inept management existed for those vehicles then it's likely it explains the M114 disaster or the tank cupola fuckups.
Now please save me from this neverending nightmare by butterflying this cursed 60's decade of American AFVs...
Driftless
Donor
Is there the indirect hand of McNamara's school of management involved, in some of those FUBARs? Not necessarily hands on, but the imprint of the McNamara method?
Partially, but I think this goes deeper than just McNamara, it's something more ancient...
It's eerily similar to some 50's fuckups.
One of the great tragedies of American procurement was the selection of McNamara as the broom to clean up a variety of very real procurement problems that the US Senate and Congress had seen in the military's budget and especially R&D process.
And he really tried! That's one of the major reasons he was such a big disaster as SecDef- he was unwilling to listen to experienced advice, since he viewed (partially correctly) the experienced procurement officers as part of the problem; and he was willing to make radical changes in all sorts of random aspects of the department, since he sincerely believed big changes were necessary. Unfortunately, having seen the poor results but not understanding the underlying problems, his flailing tended to make things worse rather than better, and at the same time convinced a generation of procurement officers (and not only procurement officers) to dig in their heels and keep doing things the 'Army way' (or the Air Force way, or the Navy way) even when those old practices were obsolete/ had always been stupid, for fear that any change would just be an opportunity for McNamara to come in and McNamara things up. Didn't help that his love of bringing in buddies from industry also meant that many of those officers also feared for their jobs as well as results.
This is a WW2 era British Terrapin Amphibious Assault Vehicle
What kind of turret could the British put on this to provide fire support for soldiers disembarking from it?
What kind of turret could the British put on this to provide fire support for soldiers disembarking from it?
The Terrapin ended up serving frequently with the First Canadian Army, since it was the Commonwealth formation tasked with clearing the coastline, and thus most in need of amphibious capability.
Coincidentally, the Manitoba Dragoons were somewhat obsessed with mounting rockets on their armoured cars, in spite of frankly limited results.
Let's suppose someone from the Dragoons, preferably whatever officer was pushing the rocket experiments, gets assigned to operate with the Terrapins. Possibly as a liaison of some sort.
Land Mattress, the British rocket launcher, is already in service with the Canadian artillery by this point.
Amphibious MLRS in 1945, anyone?
Terrapin was designed as an Amphibious Resupply Vehicle, not an Assault vehicle. The driver was centrally mounted and the first and last wheels were elevated to allow better purchase on a beach. It was not uses as an Assault vehicle and never intended as one.
and you think such a tiny detail would stop some people from trying anyways
Anything is possible. You might want to look at the Terrapin Mk.II instead of the Mk.I. The drivers were relocated to the front of the vehicle and all the wheels were level. However, being wheeled means it is vulnerable to incoming fire. Only five of these 5-ton capacity vehicles were built.and you think such a tiny detail would stop some people from trying anyways
I was going to argue that my pic has six roadwheels per side and the Jagdpanzer IV had eight but after doing some searching on Bing images I did come across a pic of the E variant with six wheels, this is the first time that I've come across this variant but it's not the first time I've drawn up something that I thought didn't exist IOTL only to find out later that it does.
As I've said before, this must be the work of time travelers from the past who have come to the present to steal my designs and take them back to their timeline.
hindsight’s M4 Sherman?
-no Radial engine.
-back transmission.
-no hull machine gunner.
-wider turret ring. Enough to comfortably fit the 90mm
-a 76mm Gun at the start with two different elevation on it sight for low powder and high powder round.
-wider track
actually could still carry the 75mm than upgrade to the 90mm.
-no Radial engine.
-back transmission.
-no hull machine gunner.
-wider turret ring. Enough to comfortably fit the 90mm
-a 76mm Gun at the start with two different elevation on it sight for low powder and high powder round.
-wider track
actually could still carry the 75mm than upgrade to the 90mm.
Last edited:
Don't forget that the HQ platoon will need 105mm armed variants for blowing things up properly.
Edit. Would the larger turret ring fit a 155 or is that asking a bit too much?
Last edited:
155mm mortar was fine on the T90 Sherman mortar carrier (turreted btw)
High power took 80" on T30 though.
any idea how much weight it could pack while staying afloat?
Last edited:
- Status