Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

well now you know what to ask for christmas a spraybooth

Mate, perfect, thanks for the link! 👍 I think you have just found exactly what I am after!!! 😎😎😎
 
India_Shir_2.png


Re the topic of Shir 2s to India. Still no exact info on the Egyptian and Syrian requests though.

As for the Chieftain 1000 for Kuwait, we now know it used the 1098hp V8 MTU 837 Ka-501, the same engine fitted to the German Super M48 proposal. Coupled to a Renk 304 hydromech gearbox, so also more agile than a typical Chieftain.
 
India_Shir_2.png


Re the topic of Shir 2s to India. Still no exact info on the Egyptian and Syrian requests though.

As for the Chieftain 1000 for Kuwait, we now know it used the 1098hp V8 MTU 837 Ka-501, the same engine fitted to the German Super M48 proposal. Coupled to a Renk 304 hydromech gearbox, so also more agile than a typical Chieftain.
Not to mention far more reliable, considering the original engine...
 
Two factors in my opinion would be:

- When it becomes cheaper to buy new than maintain old.
and to be more precise, when the cost of the new thing is lower than the running costs of the old thing operating for another 10-15 years plus the costs required to allow the old thing to offer the capability of the new thing (if new thing is a quantum upgrade, but this is tied to whether you changed requirements or not).
 

Driftless

Donor
A couple of notes on the equipment retirement idea: can the thing be practically repurposed and repurposed for how long before it returns to stardust? Second, are there diplomatic constraints to replacement? (thinking specifically of Israel and probably South Africa)
 
A couple of notes on the equipment retirement idea: can the thing be practically repurposed and repurposed for how long before it returns to stardust? Second, are there diplomatic constraints to replacement? (thinking specifically of Israel and probably South Africa)
The US has hundreds (thousands?) of aircraft stored in the desert. How hard it is to get them back to work depends much on how they were stored and maintened. Some are wraped in veritable cocoons. If I remember correctly at least one B-52 has recently been restored to service.
 
At what stage do you decide that an AFV should be preserved in a museum versus receiving an update?
It depends where that AFV is serving and what it is facing. In some sub-Saharan African country where the biggest anti-tank weapons available are likely to be 40 year old RPGs and the main job of the AFV is probably going to be intimidating locals or facing the occasional small time war lord, late WW2 vehicles like the Sherman, T-34 or Comet would do perfectly well so long as you have someone with a vague idea of pretty basic mechanics to look after them. If your country spent some money in the past upgrading them with more modern engines, guns (something like the low pressure 90mm Cockerill for example) just in case the neighbours send their old AFVs to visit one day then so much the better.

In Europe where the opposition could possibly be Russians in T-90s (until recent events reduced that possibility) then anything older than the latest variants of Challenger 2, Abrams, Leopard 2 etc are death traps.
 
It depends where that AFV is serving and what it is facing. In some sub-Saharan African country where the biggest anti-tank weapons available are likely to be 40 year old RPGs and the main job of the AFV is probably going to be intimidating locals or facing the occasional small time war lord, late WW2 vehicles like the Sherman, T-34 or Comet would do perfectly well so long as you have someone with a vague idea of pretty basic mechanics to look after them. If your country spent some money in the past upgrading them with more modern engines, guns (something like the low pressure 90mm Cockerill for example) just in case the neighbours send their old AFVs to visit one day then so much the better.
Yeah I was thinking along the same lines as perhaps a T - 34 / Sherman could have some utility, but when you weigh up the options. You may be better off selling them to an arms collector & then using the funds to purchase more UAVs, or other modern AFVs.
In Europe where the opposition could possibly be Russians in T-90s (until recent events reduced that possibility) then anything older than the latest variants of Challenger 2, Abrams, Leopard 2 etc are death traps.
Would the Leopard 1 still pass muster or is too far gone at this point relative to the threat environment in Ukraine.
 
Would the Leopard 1 still pass muster or is too far gone at this point relative to the threat environment in Ukraine.
It would probably do fine, but you definitely wouldn't be using it to spearhead any assaults. Better for ambushes and distant fire support. I'd think of it as functionally an assault gun like a Stug or something, rather than a full-blown tank. The T-55 or Sherman still would have a place on the battlefield in Ukraine too, if they were readily available in numbers substantial enough to justify training crews to use them. Distant fire support from a Sherman is better than no fire support at all, which, given the shortages of equipment, is a very real alternative for a lot of Ukrainian soldiers.
 
Last edited:
It would probably do fine, but you definitely wouldn't be using it to spearhead any assaults. Better for ambushes and distant fire support. I'd think of it as functionally an assault gun like a Stug or something, rather than a full-blown tank. The T-55 or Sherman still would have a place on the battlefield in Ukraine too, if they were readily available in numbers substantial enough to justify training crews to use them.
?. No. Logistic would suck even if we have the spare part and oil. Literally 10 Sherman to T72, that would be at most 10x worse logistic. Infantry will chew them for lunch via RPG. And because the tank will be blinder than modern tank against modern ATGM and 300mm+ Range RPG. you will get less casualty and everything cost if you just put a SPG9 on a tech.
 
Last edited:
?. No. Logistic would suck even if we have the spare part and oil. Literally 10 Sherman to T72, that would be at most 10x worse logistic.
That's why I specified, "if they were readily available in numbers substantial enough to justify training crews to use them."
Infantry will chew them for lunch via RPG.
As they would eat... pretty much every light vehicle on the battlefield. It's considered an acceptable risk. Ukraine routinely got away with charging at villages with lightly-armored vehicles. By your logic they should've been massacred by RPGs.
And because the tank will be blinder than modern tank against modern ATGM and 300mm+ Range RPG you will get less casualty if you just put a SPG9 on a tech.
Integrated in a combined-arms formation with spotters, drones, infantry screens, and the like, with proper communications. Vehicles don't operate on the battlefield in a vacuum. If they do, it does not go well, whether the tank is up to date or not (check February footage of Russian tanks for that).
 
Last edited:
That's why I specified, "if they were readily available in numbers substantial enough to justify training crews to use them."
even if numbers substantial, you need crew to man the tank. The Crew’s skill degradation casualties rate from actually fielding Sherman or T55 would’ve make Late ww2 German tank crew look like knightcross holder.
As they would eat... pretty much every light vehicle on the battlefield. It's considered an acceptable risk. Ukraine routinely got away with charging at villages with lightly-armored vehicles. By your logic they should've been massacred by RPGs.
Against Shocked enemies with faster speed and better situational awareness Vic than a T55, remember that That Blitz victory happened because the west Izum defenses was broken. Do the same shit and a Tank would’ve too Slow to zig zag away.
Integrated in a combined-arms formation with spotters, drones, infantry screens, and the like, with proper communications. Vehicles don't operate on the battlefield in a vacuum. If they do, it does not go well, whether the tank is up to date or not (check February footage of Russian tanks for that).
It’s would’ve been the weakest link in the combined arms formation, by the virtual of be unable to keep up with other more modern Equiped arm. Infantries will be stuck Hand holding the slow ass tank More to keep its situational awareness not degrade enough that it would eat shit and died near a tree line. Decreasing the Footman Combat ability. Remembering that Even the shittest T62 have None Floodlight night vision, T55 with it floodlight IR would’ve shit out of luck during the night time.


Also what Job would a Sherman even be ok at in the modern battlefield?
 
Last edited:
The US has hundreds (thousands?) of aircraft stored in the desert. How hard it is to get them back to work depends much on how they were stored and maintened. Some are wraped in veritable cocoons. If I remember correctly at least one B-52 has recently been restored to service.

A very good point. As we have recently seen, our Russian neighbours may have many thousands of AFVs in storage but most have not been properly maintained and consequently are now little more than rusting hulks slowly becoming as one with mother nature!
 
Would the Leopard 1 still pass muster or is too far gone at this point relative to the threat environment in Ukraine.
It would probably be ok in the current conflict because of the way the Russian forces have degraded. You wouldn't want to take on a modern tank in one but as mobile fire support again poorly trained infantry it would be fine.
 
Top