Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

[Bougnas]

Some ideas coming from interesting parallels:

- CV12 and the Poyaud V8X/V12X follow the same concept of militarizing and modernizing an engine block from a late 50's boat engine into a 1000hp plus turbocharged 25+L class engine.

- AMX-40 is very much a French Shir 1/2 conceptually, as it is an attempt to adapt new construction techniques, armor and said 1000hp+ engine with a better suspension in a 1960's tank design. However, AMX-40 and the V12X came much later.

This brings up a parallel alternate history idea: how about the V12X and AMX-40 start development at the same time as the Shir Iran program in 1974 (earlier for the engine) to be offered as an export tank for the early 80s and not the late 80s? This largely solves the timing problems for AMX-40 that made it so difficult to sell.

Second, unrelated idea: since both the RR C Range and Poyaud UD 520 boat engines were from the late 50's, start CV12/V12X back then for Chieftain and AMX-30 instead of the L60 and HS-110 (and the RR V8 diesel). They will not be as powerful but still likely in the 700hp range. Both are more conventionnal and likely more reliable. Note that this was also done with the Detroit Diesel 12V-71T which was regularly tested and used on MBTs and also started out from a civilian engine.

 

[Hammerbolt]

Tired brain+watching crazy tanks on World of Tanks=this...

Panzer Ratte Kugelblitz-escort AAA super heavy tank
Same chassis of the normal Ratte, but entire armament replaced by:
6x 128mm AA guns,
12xtwin 30mm turrets
6xFöhn-Gerät rocket projector for 7.3 cm Raketen Sprenggranate
Central fixed turret with 2 AA range finder

 

[paulo]

Tired brain+watching crazy tanks on World of Tanks=this...

Panzer Ratte Kugelblitz-escort AAA super heavy tank
Same chassis of the normal Ratte, but entire armament replaced by:
6x 128mm AA guns,
12xtwin 30mm turrets
6xFöhn-Gerät rocket projector for 7.3 cm Raketen Sprenggranate
Central fixed turret with 2 AA range finder

So, a (barely) mobile Flak fortress?

 

[Hammerbolt]

So, a (barely) mobile Flak fortress?

Pretty much.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Pretty much.

I think the official term is 'relocatable' rather than 'mobile'.
But it does sound at least as useful as the original Ratte, and possibly more so, though maybe DP guns might be more versatile (I'm thinking AA cruiser analogue). There is, after all, sense in ensuring the flak support is as mobile as the units it is defending.

And yes, I did have visions of 3 to 5 Ratten crawling along with the RatteFlak keeping them covered.

 

[Hammerbolt]

And yes, I did have visions of 3 to 5 Ratten crawling along with the RatteFlak keeping them covered.

Yep, that was my "vision"... one would say "too much vodka"....

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Hmmm here's a headscratcher for the thread, that @Claymore & myself have been talking about.

What type of modifications could be undertaken for a Churchill tank in the mid to late 1950s used by the Australian CMF?

It's part of a Cold War gone hot scenario that I've been toying with for some time, the Churchill would be utilised in an island-hopping campaign.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

View attachment 793591

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

Still not getting 10 space marines in it

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Hmmm here's a headscratcher for the thread, that @Claymore & myself have been talking about.

What type of modifications could be undertaken for a Churchill tank in the mid to late 1950s used by the Australian CMF?

It's part of a Cold War gone hot scenario that I've been toying with for some time, the Churchill would be utilised in an island-hopping campaign.

I honestly don't think that there is anything that could really be done. You would be unlikely to find a diesel engine that replicates the capabilities of the Bedford flat-12 and the Merritt-Brown transmission in the same size constraint, and the RAAC has already been using these 51 tanks for years so their maintenance requirements should be relatively well understood. The turret is too small to use any gun larger than the 6 pdr or 75 mm.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Hmmm what about improving crew habitability or the optics / aiming package?

 

[weNEEDlove]

Hmmm here's a headscratcher for the thread, that @Claymore & myself have been talking about.

What type of modifications could be undertaken for a Churchill tank in the mid to late 1950s used by the Australian CMF?

It's part of a Cold War gone hot scenario that I've been toying with for some time, the Churchill would be utilised in an island-hopping campaign.

I Think just lot of Recoiless carrier with new turret armor to only stop auto cannon. Like anything AT will pen the Churchill so less armor is good. Or no armor Tank destroyer 105mm Gun carrier.

 

[vetinari]

I honestly don't think that there is anything that could really be done. You would be unlikely to find a diesel engine that replicates the capabilities of the Bedford flat-12 and the Merritt-Brown transmission in the same size constraint, and the RAAC has already been using these 51 tanks for years so their maintenance requirements should be relatively well understood. The turret is too small to use any gun larger than the 6 pdr or 75 mm.

The Churchill had been virtually abandoned the moment they arrived in Melbourne and transported to Puckapunyl. They were placed in storage and largely forgotten about. The Matilda Mk.II was used by the CMF until 1954 instead, being preferred because of it's size and weight, which allowed it more easily transported to and from exercises. Even those were largely used as recovery aides instead of gun tanks in the last few years of their service.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

The Churchill had been virtually abandoned the moment they arrived in Melbourne and transported to Puckapunyl. They were placed in storage and largely forgotten about. The Matilda Mk.II was used by the CMF until 1954 instead, being preferred because of it's size and weight, which allowed it more easily transported to and from exercises. Even those were largely used as recovery aides instead of gun tanks in the last few years of their service.

If that's the case, don't go into combat without Centurions.

Hmmm what about improving crew habitability or the optics / aiming package?

Any more advanced fire control would have required a coincidence rangefinder, and there's no need for something like that for an island hopping campaign. Any habitability issues would be constrained by the chassis and turret volume, which doesn't actually look that large once you take away the huge tracks. Where are they even going to be fighting, and what is so important that using these death traps is necessary?

 

[vetinari]

If that's the case, don't go into combat without Centurions.

Any more advanced fire control would have required a coincidence rangefinder, and there's no need for something like that for an island hopping campaign. Any habitability issues would be constrained by the chassis and turret volume, which doesn't actually look that large once you take away the huge tracks. Where are they even going to be fighting, and what is so important that using these death traps is necessary?

"deathtraps"? Really? The Churchill was one of the most survivably crewed tanks in the European fighting. The Mk.VII was heavily armoured, with over six inches on the Turret front and the Glacis.

 

[FickleCrossroad]

"deathtraps"? Really? The Churchill was one of the most survivably crewed tanks in the European fighting. The Mk.VII was heavily armoured, with over six inches on the Turret front and the Glacis.

Yeah, everything I heard about the Churchill was it was a solid all-rounder, no particular vices outside of being slow.

 

[weNEEDlove]

"deathtraps"? Really? The Churchill was one of the most survivably crewed tanks in the European fighting. The Mk.VII was heavily armoured, with over six inches on the Turret front and the Glacis.

What type of modifications could be undertaken for a Churchill tank in the mid to late 1950s used by the Australian CMF?-Discussion topic

For the late 50s it’s more death trap than not.

 

[Bougnas]

Hmmm here's a headscratcher for the thread, that @Claymore & myself have been talking about.

What type of modifications could be undertaken for a Churchill tank in the mid to late 1950s used by the Australian CMF?

It's part of a Cold War gone hot scenario that I've been toying with for some time, the Churchill would be utilised in an island-hopping campaign.

Core problem is that since Churchill and its components were no longer in use elsewhere, no country invested in upgrades specifically for it and since its layout is small and awkward, integrating existing modern components would also be hard. Moreover it would have both poor armor and mobility and mobility can't be improved enough to compensate. So Australia would have to spend money on specific parts and extensive rebuilding, arguably just as much as a new tank while never being able to reach the level of even a M46 Patton or baseline Centurion. Overall they would be better off removing the turret and using the Churchill only for battlefield engineering and support roles.

But overall, the most they could do while keeping the hull at least would be to completely rework the engine bay to fit a 500-650hp-class engine (since allegedly the Meteor could fit) with a compact transmission (cross-drive probably), rework the suspension completely (if they can cut new mountings they could just go straight to a coil-spring supspension with large wheels, better travel and improved speed as a result), develop a brand new turret that fits in the same turret ring but is as large as possible while clearing the hatches and everything else (virtually no gain there probably since), improved sights and radios, new KE gun with L28A1-style APDS and compact recoil mount or howitzer/low pressure gun with modern HEAT, BESA swapped for a more compact and suitable MG, maybe no hull gunner but relocated stowage/ammo racks instead...

That's basically the upper bound of what would be doable in that timeframe but you can see that this upper bound will still be very limited in performance, while being hilariously expensive for what it is worth.​

 

[Ramontxo]

Hmmm here's a headscratcher for the thread, that @Claymore & myself have been talking about.

What type of modifications could be undertaken for a Churchill tank in the mid to late 1950s used by the Australian CMF?

It's part of a Cold War gone hot scenario that I've been toying with for some time, the Churchill would be utilised in an island-hopping campaign.

The Irish fitted an Merlin engine (not a Meteor, they took it out of a plane) in one of its Churchills. So you could try to substitute the Meadows engine for an Meteor one. Or better still use the 520 hp Meteorite diesel developed for the proposed 40 tonnes Centurion. If you want to go further buy or licence uparmoured oscillating turrets from the French (and fit them with an L7) . But for most uses the 75mm gun of the Cromwell would be enough.

 

[Claymore]

Hmmm here's a headscratcher for the thread, that @Claymore & myself have been talking about.

What type of modifications could be undertaken for a Churchill tank in the mid to late 1950s used by the Australian CMF?

It's part of a Cold War gone hot scenario that I've been toying with for some time, the Churchill would be utilised in an island-hopping campaign.

Some really interesting ideas and comments above. 👍

For what it's worth here are my thoughts on the matter...

I went with the base assumption/POD that Australia accepted the Churchill into service during WW2 in place of (or to replace) their Matildas - make up your own backstory if you want but something along the lines of a 75mm gun and 95mm Close Support Howitzer combo trumping the Matilda's 2 pdr and 3" CS Howitzer would do. So, in this ATL Australia ends the war with a number of Churchills and experience of using them during their Pacific campaign alongside the US. With little funding and/or interest in replacing these vehicles, the Churchills soldier on with the Citizen Military Forces (CMF) into the mid-1950s - just as happened with the OTL Matildas. And, just as happened with the OTL Matildas, little in the way of funds are allocated to anything other than keeping them in running order - so no major structural changes, no new running gear, no new turrets, new gun systems, and certainly no need/effort to convert the Churchill into some sort of pseudo MBT. Actually, there is one change I have incorporated which I am adding in the latter stages of WW2 and that is to replace the 95mm CS Howitzer with the US 105mm CS Howitzer - this seems logical as it would have allowed full commonality of ammunition with their US Allies and thus eased logistics. I have also assumed that the CDF would update the Churchill's comms equipment as radios changed as a matter of course.

Thus, when the situation occurs that requires the CDF to deploy in the late 1950s/early 1960, their Churchill are all they have - exactly as would have been the case with the OTL Matildas had the situation come about in that time frame.

Given that they are about to deploy on ops, (LRB mentioned possibly Papua New Guinea), what might the CDF be able to do in a relatively short space of time? Prep the vehicles for jungle/tropical use? Strip off the track fenders to reduce fouling in close undergrowth? Add some sort of rudimentary AC for crew comfort/efficiency? Concentrate on the 105mm CS versions as this would probably be best for jungle/close ops - this was the Australians experience from WW2 where OTL the 3" CS Matildas were preferred over the standard 2pdr variant. As already mentioned by others, I would assume that the hull gunner's position would be removed in these vehicles in order to facilitate additional ammunition stowage…

I have tried to keep my scenario as realistic (from my POV) and as close to OTL conditions as possible - not quite as exciting as some of the other suggestions perhaps but, as I said, probably more realistic given the financial constraints of the time. Open for comments and suggestions...

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Some really interesting ideas and comments above. 👍

For what it's worth here are my thoughts on the matter...

I went with the base assumption/POD that Australia accepted the Churchill into service during WW2 in place of (or to replace) their Matildas - make up your own backstory if you want but something along the lines of a 75mm gun and 95mm Close Support Howitzer combo trumping the Matilda's 2 pdr and 3" CS Howitzer would do. So, in this ATL Australia ends the war with a number of Churchills and experience of using them during their Pacific campaign alongside the US. With little funding and/or interest in replacing these vehicles, the Churchills soldier on with the Citizen Military Forces (CMF) into the mid-1950s - just as happened with the OTL Matildas. And, just as happened with the OTL Matildas, little in the way of funds are allocated to anything other than keeping them in running order - so no major structural changes, no new running gear, no new turrets, new gun systems, and certainly no need/effort to convert the Churchill into some sort of pseudo MBT. Actually, there is one change I have incorporated which I am adding in the latter stages of WW2 and that is to replace the 95mm CS Howitzer with the US 105mm CS Howitzer - this seems logical as it would have allowed full commonality of ammunition with their US Allies and thus eased logistics. I have also assumed that the CDF would update the Churchill's comms equipment as radios changed as a matter of course.

Thus, when the situation occurs that requires the CDF to deploy in the late 1950s/early 1960, their Churchill are all they have - exactly as would have been the case with the OTL Matildas had the situation come about in that time frame.

Given that they are about to deploy on ops, (LRB mentioned possibly Papua New Guinea), what might the CDF be able to do in a relatively short space of time? Prep the vehicles for jungle/tropical use? Strip off the track fenders to reduce fouling in close undergrowth? Add some sort of rudimentary AC for crew comfort/efficiency? Concentrate on the 105mm CS versions as this would probably be best for jungle/close ops - this was the Australians experience from WW2 where OTL the 3" CS Matildas were preferred over the standard 2pdr variant. As already mentioned by others, I would assume that the hull gunner's position would be removed in these vehicles in order to facilitate additional ammunition stowage…

I have tried to keep my scenario as realistic (from my POV) and as close to OTL conditions as possible - not quite as exciting as some of the other suggestions perhaps but, as I said, probably more realistic given the financial constraints of the time. Open for comments and suggestions...

I've just finished wading through the axishistoryforum.com discussion on CS tanks. In case you're tempted, be aware it was a curious mix of interesting info and point-scoring pettiness!

I'm very much in favour of infantry tanks with a decent HE round that can drive up close to things and blow them up. The size and weight of the Churchill might be a bit of a problem in the Pacific but the all-terrain ability would be useful.