Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

Yet more info found on the Anglo-Iranian tank program:

- The 500 or so earliest Scorpions ever produced by Alvis suffered stress corrosion cracking due to faulty MOD specifications for the aluminium used there. This affected a number of Iranian vehicles but could be repaired. In any case the more interesting point is that the Iranians were very interested in having CVR(T)s with both a gun and missiles, much like the later Alvis Sagiter with a Scorpion turret with side-mounted Swingfire/TOW launchers. No doubt Iranian interest in light tanks would have led to a new vehicle with such an armament in the 1980s.

- Chieftain Mk 5/3Ps (aka FV 4030 Phase 1s) are Mk 5/3s but with an automatic gear change system for the transmission, 50 gallon extra fuel, increased mine protection and additional shock absorbers. 193 to be delivered.

- Shir 1's improved bogie suspension doubled wheel travel compared to the normal Horstmann. 125 ordered, will feature the computer sighting system (CSS, aka IFCS) in 1980-91. The CV12 was quite reliable, with a 4000km overhaul life or 50 million revolutions.

- Shir 2 was also gonna feature CSS from 1980-81 on, and hydrogas suspension from the 250th or 300th vehicle. So basically the final Shir 2 would have been a Challenger 1 with a better day/night sight on the cupola, but no provision for TOGS (possibly different turret armor but it's not proven).

- Shir 2 can resist 84mm Carl Gustav shaped charges on the sides at normal. Frontally it can stop 105mm HESH, 105mm L52 APDS at point blank, 120mm APDS at 1000m (so around 325mm against APDS), and 5 and 6" shaped charges (penetration 685mm).

- Now, I have confirmation that Iranian Chieftains were going to get the 800hp version of CV12.

Note that Iran was going to set up a factory at Dorum to produce and maintain tanks down the line, and Leyland Motors Iran was going to produce CV12s. Iran was also going to use tank transporters with the 625hp version of CV12, thus creating a system with common engines.
 
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.
No higher than, say, a BTR or BMP-1. Against a RPG neither will perform terribly well. And yet the Ukrainians use the latter vehicles extensively. What the advantage of a Sherman is a higher-calibre explosive round, which is useful against infantry. Again, as an assault gun it would not be the spearhead of any attack, but rather providing distant fire support.
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.
We're talking about Ukraine's war against Russia, where they've gotten away with rapid, frontal, lightly-armored attacks with little terrain cover on entrenched positions, because the Russian military is that bad. Using a Sherman or a T-55 as an assault gun is notably less ambitious and less dangerous.
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.
The speed of Ukrainian advances never exceeded that of a T-55 or a Sherman. It's rather hilarious in the light of historical rapid movements made with these vehicles, that you claim they are "slow ass." They would have no trouble keeping up as long as they're maintained, which again, is covered for by the hypothetical.
As for "hand-holding tanks," this is exactly what all well-trained combined arms formations do with their armored vehicles. They keep an eye out and keep each other informed. If the Ukrainian infantry or drone operators do not tell a Ukrainian T-72 when they spot an enemy threat, they are doing something wrong. A Sherman or T-55 positioned hundreds and hundreds of meters behind the main line of contact providing direct fire support is not under any more threat than a BMP doing the exact same thing right at the front. As for lack of nightfighting capability, there's this thing called retrofitting, and second, the Russians have been demonstrably lacking in night fighting equipment, so it does not really matter very much.

The problem with your argument is that you're basically applying James Burton's fallacy against the Bradley, and applying it here. The Bradley was not meant to take hits from a particularly powerful gun; therefore its vulnerability to them was acceptable and more or less irrelevant since doctrine accounted for it. The same applies here to T-55 or Sherman, doctrinally. You would most certainly not use these on the front lines. Using them at the very front would be a profound misuse of what can only reasonably function as an assault gun, therefore its vulnerability to the best Russian anti-tank rounds is a moot point, since it would be used beyond the effective range of infantry antitank rounds like RPG. A Sherman or T-55 in Ukrainian hands would be very outdated and obviously only used because of the general shortage of more modern equipment, but that does not mean it could not perform in any effective role against the utterly incompetent Russian military, within a well-coordinated combined-arms formation.
 
Last edited:
Why wasn't the M3 Half-track ever built with a armored roof in the troop compartment and a enclosed turret (with either dual 50 cal or a single 40mm bofors)?
they did the armoured roof
 
they did the armoured roof
1670195803986.png


I was thinking more along the lines of the above instead of the T16:

1670195876667.png
 
Probably a question of weight and need.

The red model looks to scale, and that overhead cover is too short. Every pic I've seen with troops sitting in the seats, their helmeted heads stick up over the sides - the red model looks a little low and cramped. I'd also have the hatch hinges in the center - this would allow troops to fire their weapons from the vehicle.

A turret could be done I suppose.
 

Driftless

Donor
Who in the US drove those design decisions? US half-tracks, tank destroyers, and earlier self-propelled artillery were all open topped. I could see some utility for ammunition handling and fume diffusion, but also significant risk for air-burst shrapnel, hand grenades, urban fighting (upper-floor snipers). Lack of bad weather protection too. Later US APC's and Self-propelled artillery were enclosed. How much of that was for dealing with the anticipated nuclear/chemical environment?

Gen McNair had the key/only vote on the TD's, but what about the others?
 
Last edited:
Who in the US drove those design decisions? US half-tracks, tank destroyers, and earlier self-propelled artillery were all open topped. I could see some utility for ammunition handling and fume diffusion, but also significant risk for air-burst shrapnel, hand grenades, urban fighting (upper-floor snipers). Lack of bad weather protection too. Later US APC's and Self-propelled artillery were enclosed. How much of that was for dealing with the anticipated nuclear/chemical environment?

Gen McNair had the key/only vote on the TD's, but what about the others?
Maybe the Americans had faith in their counterbattery fire ability to keep the risks of airburst shells down. Perhaps ease of production also had something to do with it, or ability to jump out quickly if something caught on fire.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the Americans had faith in their counterbattery fire ability to keep the risks of airburst shells down. Perhaps ease of production also had something to do with it, or ability to jump out quickly if something caught on fire.
or to save weight
i did a calculation on the weight of a armoured roof for the M3 (size 5m x 2,2m x 5mm) result - 430kg
 
Who in the US drove those design decisions? US half-tracks, tank destroyers, and earlier self-propelled artillery were all open topped. I could see some utility for ammunition handling and fume diffusion, but also significant risk for air-burst shrapnel, hand grenades, urban fighting (upper-floor snipers). Lack of bad weather protection too. Later US APC's and Self-propelled artillery were enclosed. How much of that was for dealing with the anticipated nuclear/chemical environment?

Gen McNair had the key/only vote on the TD's, but what about the others?
It wasn't just in the US. France, UK, Germany, all had multiple vehicles open-topped. In Germany all halftracks were open, as well as the entire Marder TD series and the SPGs. It was easier to build, solved ventilation problems, was cheaper, made for a lighter vehicle... nothing like actuall experience to make people realise that "maybe this thing-we-did is not such a good idea..."
 

Ramontxo

Donor
It wasn't just in the US. France, UK, Germany, all had multiple vehicles open-topped. In Germany all halftracks were open, as well as the entire Marder TD series and the SPGs. It was easier to build, solved ventilation problems, was cheaper, made for a lighter vehicle... nothing like actuall experience to make people realise that "maybe this thing-we-did is not such a good idea..."
And of course the magic frase " Situational Awareness". Which being true was overrated
 
or to save weight
i did a calculation on the weight of a armoured roof for the M3 (size 5m x 2,2m x 5mm) result - 430kg
You might also have to beefup the suspension. And that (almost) half ton of top weight wouldn't be good for it's stability.
 
Last edited:
You might also have to beefup the suspension. And that (almost) half ton of top weitght wouldn't be good for it's stability.
exactly, and i did only the bare minimum of armour. the M3 had .25-.50 armour (6.35mm-12.6mm) so imagine that on top would weigh even more (546-1084kg)
it would be very topheavy
 
I remember reading somewhere that in a similar vehicle someone improvised a mesh cover, to at least bounce off stuff like hand grenades, but I cannot remember any details...
 
I remember reading somewhere that in a similar vehicle someone improvised a mesh cover, to at least bounce off stuff like hand grenades, but I cannot remember any details...
it had a canvas cover to shelter from the elements, that would work too in bouncing off a grenade
 
it had a canvas cover to shelter from the elements, that would work too in bouncing off a grenade
Yeah but that often wasn't in place, hence the fixed mesh. Further shaking of memory brings up forest/jungle recolections, so it might have been to shake of grenades poped up japanese, while keeping some ventilation...
 
Yeah but that often wasn't in place, hence the fixed mesh. Further shaking of memory brings up forest/jungle recolections, so it might have been to shake of grenades poped up japanese, while keeping some ventilation...
The Mk IV WW1 tanks had wire grenade dedlectors on the roof, so the idea was around from 1917.
 
During the soviet intervention in Afghanistan the need for a rapid fire weapon leads to the adoption of AK 630. What kind of vehicle would be best suited for this role given the terrain and to mount the automatic AK630 ?
 
Top