Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

Maybe an armored steam truck or wagon carrying a gatling or gardener gun. With a basic artillery piece mounted on top.
Something I did for fun but also with the thought of the people of the era not wanting to get too carried away with their first attempt.

ISOT to ACW tanks.png

I tried to keep this one simple but looking at it now, I think it's a little too advance for a first time tank so consider this take 1.
Used a Bogward tank the successor to Goliath a remote control tank.
Added a cowcatcher because I was feeling whimsical and an old fashion tow hitch. Top tank has a Gatling gun and bottom tank is armed with a black powder mortar, don't know what the caliber is but the look is deceiving, mortars back then were made with thick metal barrels and the tank is itself is also quite small.


Below are two old designs of mine that I had forgotten about but I think are much closer to what we're after.
Steampunks.png
 
Last edited:
Here's another old pic of mine I had also forgot about.
Steampunk-Whermacht-Vl-.png

I entered this in a "Design your own steampunk tank" for World of Tanks.
I didn't even place. :frown:
 
View attachment 818618
Above are two old designs of mine done for a couple of ISOT TL's with a similar concept.

A thought I'd have on that is that the Soviets are probably one of the benefactors with a really mixed bag, depending on what "cold war" means as to the gear they're getting. If they get something simple like the T-54, then that's not just a great tank for the time period, but it's also one that isn't particularly hard to construct and can be mass produced...but it has a bit of a problem - the T-54 used a basic welded hull that wouldn't be that hard to put together if you've been welding together T-26s and 28s, but the turret is casted steel, and that's a difficult technique to master.
This alternate version of WW2 is going to be pretty interesting. Considering not only would the major players be starting out with superior armor developed from the study and reverse engineering of their future vehicles but also as the war goes on developing vehicles to try and counter each other's. Not only that but its likely that any innovation gleamed from the study of these future vehicles would be applied to other fields.
 
This alternate version of WW2 is going to be pretty interesting. Considering not only would the major players be starting out with superior armor developed from the study and reverse engineering of their future vehicles but also as the war goes on developing vehicles to try and counter each other's. Not only that but its likely that any innovation gleamed from the study of these future vehicles would be applied to other fields.
The US I think would have the biggest advantage again like IOTL, better ability mass produce and access to special metals, the Axis powers will have it a bit tougher (especially Italy and Japan), Germany will have improvise like they did IOTL.
 
What kind of tank would be developed if a nation had a roughly late WW2/50's technology base and solid industrial capacity? For a WW1 Western Front trench war if they had no prior experience with such a conflict and limited experience in armor design.
mid 20th cent. no WW wars tanks w. howitzers 2.png

Top;
A Marder-ish SPG with a rectangular hull shape and a torsion bar suspension, armed with a howitzer, basically an HE hurler.

Middle;
Always thought the M113 was kind of a step backward in an AFV design, a simple boxy shape design, so I gave it a side hatch(no entry in the rear, that's where the engine is) and a small turret (from an M5) and again placed a howitzer gun (probably a 105, not to scale) in front of the hull and a small dozer blade.
It's kind of a modern take on the M3 Lee.

I could see a nation with no AFV building experience making something like this.
Both the top and middle tanks are bunker busters.

Bottom tank;
Took a picture of a modern bulldozer and put the motor in the rear (left the smoke stack on, think it's cute) added an MG in the hull and a small turret with a heavy MG.
Left the bulldozer blade on for filling in trenches (with the enemy still inside them) or for making new trenches.

These were fun and it was cool to have a new AFV concept to play with. :cool:
 
View attachment 818995
Top;
A Marder-ish SPG with a rectangular hull shape and a torsion bar suspension, armed with a howitzer, basically an HE hurler.

Middle;
Always thought the M113 was kind of a step backward in an AFV design, a simple boxy shape design, so I gave it a side hatch(no entry in the rear, that's where the engine is) and a small turret (from an M5) and again placed a howitzer gun (probably a 105, not to scale) in front of the hull and a small dozer blade.
It's kind of a modern take on the M3 Lee.

I could see a nation with no AFV building experience making something like this.
Both the top and middle tanks are bunker busters.

Bottom tank;
Took a picture of a modern bulldozer and put the motor in the rear (left the smoke stack on, think it's cute) added an MG in the hull and a small turret with a heavy MG.
Left the bulldozer blade on for filling in trenches (with the enemy still inside them) or for making new trenches.

These were fun and it was cool to have a new AFV concept to play with. :cool:

The bottom two look very 40K. (Thought in 40K the middle would probably come with the option to add weapon sponsors)
 
The bottom two look very 40K. (Thought in 40K the middle would probably come with the option to add weapon sponsors)
Lol!
I actually thought of adding sponsons but then thought "no not this time" because I have used sponsons before quite a few times.
I didn't get a 40K vibe when I was doing these but now I clearly see what you mean.
 
Something I did for fun but also with the thought of the people of the era not wanting to get too carried away with their first attempt.

View attachment 818923
I tried to keep this one simple but looking at it now, I think it's a little too advance for a first time tank so consider this take 1.
Used a Bogward tank the successor to Goliath a remote control tank.
Added a cowcatcher because I was feeling whimsical and an old fashion tow hitch. Top tank has a Gatling gun and bottom tank is armed with a black powder mortar, don't know what the caliber is but the look is deceiving, mortars back then were made with thick metal barrels and the tank is itself is also quite small.


Below are two old designs of mine that I had forgotten about but I think are much closer to what we're after.
View attachment 818941
The first one looks like they were trying to copy WW2 German Half Tracks with their current tech. Possibly as a utility or construction vehicle before they decided to convert it into a tank.


second one seems like a light tank-tankette that they were trying to find a way to manufacture cheaply and with minimum crew.

As for the third it seems to be more of testbed to see if they could build something like the truck or jeep they found in the garage. With the technology they have available.
The bottom two look very 40K. (Thought in 40K the middle would probably come with the option to add weapon sponsors)
Second one looks more WH40K to me IMHO.
The US I think would have the biggest advantage again like IOTL, better ability mass produce and access to special metals, the Axis powers will have it a bit tougher (especially Italy and Japan), Germany will have improvise like they did IOTL.
Very true. While whatever tank and armored craft Italy & Japan could develop from the future vehicles would be superior to what they had IOTL. They'd still be inferior to whatever the USA is now producing from their own packages.
Here's another old pic of mine I had also forgot about.
View attachment 818943
I entered this in a "Design your own steampunk tank" for! World of Tanks.
I didn't even place. :frown:
Personally I think it looks awesome!
 
We recently got some information on the military procurement Yugoslavia would do during the 90s. The gist of it is that a metric shitton of old equipment from the 40s and 50s would have been retired and removed even from the reserve stocks, indicating a consolidation on more modern equipment.

Tanks
T-34, all modifications - december 1995
M-47 - december 1993
T-55 variants aside from Igman - december 1999
PT-76 - december 1995

APCs
M-60P - after december 1999, only use in Pioniri companies
M-60PB - december 1999
M-80 with Hispano-Suiza engines - conversion to auxiliary vehicles
TAB-71 - december 1993 (written by hand - give to Milicija)

Wheeled recon
BRDM-2 - december 1999

Howitzers
H-105 M18/61(n) (LeFH 105 modernized) - december 1993
H-105 M2 - december 1999
H-105 M56 - december 1999
H-155 M1 or M65 - december 1999
T-155 M2 (Long Tom) - december 1993
H-203 M2 - december 1993
SO-105 M-7 december 1993

SPAAG
POT-76 M42 - december 1995

Tank destroyers
POLO 9P122 - december 1995
POLO 9P133 - december 1999
SPOT-76 M-18 - december 1993
SPOT-90 M-36B1 (on M4 chassis) - december 1993
SPOT-90 M-36 (non-modernized): december 1999

Mortars
MB 60mm M2(a) - december 1995
MB 82 mm, trophy models - december 1995
MB 82 mm M31 - december 1997
MB 120 M38(s), M42(n), M43 (s) - december 1995
MB 120 M52 - december 1999

Anti-armor weapons
RB M49 - december 1993
RBR M20 - december 1993
BsT M18(a) - december 1993
BsT M20(a) - december 1993
BsT M27(a) - december 1993

After December 1999, artillery will only have:
BT M48B1 - only to remain in TO, Partisan brigades and reserve
H-105 M56/D33 (with L33 barrel)
TH-152 D-20
TH-152 M84 (all variants)
T-130 M-46
T-152 M-46/86 (with L45 152 mm barrel, like Nora B1)

More importantly for this thread, Yugoslavia wanted to redefine its motorized infantry, and thus acquired a license for the Austrian Pandur 1 APC. 2/3rds of the APC variant would have had a 12.7mm MG, while 1/3rd would have a 30mm automatic grenade launcher, with auxiliary vehicles having a 7.62.

Specialized variants would have been command and recon ones, a replacement for the BRDM-2 Strela-1M by moving the launchers to the Pandur and using a domestic missile (like the Strela-10M2J), and finally a fire support or IFV variant with the same Vidra turret mounted on modernized M-80As, with a 30mm gun and Malyutka-2 missiles like on this M-80A1:

DIWTmtl.jpg
 
The first one looks like they were trying to copy WW2 German Half Tracks with their current tech. Possibly as a utility or construction vehicle before they decided to convert it into a tank.


second one seems like a light tank-tankette that they were trying to find a way to manufacture cheaply and with minimum crew.

As for the third it seems to be more of testbed to see if they could build something like the truck or jeep they found in the garage. With the technology they have available.

Second one looks more WH40K to me IMHO.

Very true. While whatever tank and armored craft Italy & Japan could develop from the future vehicles would be superior to what they had IOTL. They'd still be inferior to whatever the USA is now producing from their own packages.

Personally I think it looks awesome!
Pretty much agree and I plan to make what I'm calling "Advanced WWII Tanks", for the US, UK and USSR (funny how all three start with a "U") and for Germany, Japan and Italy.
 

Garrison

Donor
Here's another old pic of mine I had also forgot about.

I entered this in a "Design your own steampunk tank" for World of Tanks.
I didn't even place. :frown:
Well when you've seen some of the ludicrous skins they've created for tanks in the game I wouldn't feel badly about it.
 
Archives_Trip_16_1549.JPG


During WW2 or just after, the US made a series of studies following the lessons of the war regarding tank protection and crew survivability, namely ammunition fires which were the main source of fires in a tank. These studies eventually focused on both armored containers and the same thing, but designed to vent the flame and gases to the outside of the vehicle. Basically a conceptual prototype for ammo stowage with blowout pannels.

I really need to make a pre-1950 design someday that truly incorporates all of the lessons from WW2 with the features that were only finalized decades later even when they could have existed in less advanced forms from the start.


What would be even more amazing is if some country made such armor/survivability tests prewar, like in the 20s or 30s. The tech was already there to do it to some degree.
 
Archives_Trip_16_1549.JPG


During WW2 or just after, the US made a series of studies following the lessons of the war regarding tank protection and crew survivability, namely ammunition fires which were the main source of fires in a tank. These studies eventually focused on both armored containers and the same thing, but designed to vent the flame and gases to the outside of the vehicle. Basically a conceptual prototype for ammo stowage with blowout pannels.

I really need to make a pre-1950 design someday that truly incorporates all of the lessons from WW2 with the features that were only finalized decades later even when they could have existed in less advanced forms from the start.


What would be even more amazing is if some country made such armor/survivability tests prewar, like in the 20s or 30s. The tech was already there to do it to some degree.
Gunpowder stores (at least later ones) were built with the intention that the blast would vent upwards, so the general concept predates tanks by decades.
The hard bits are first identifying there is a problem, then working out how to vent the blast without weakening the tank or making access to the ammo even less convenient.
 
Gunpowder stores (at least later ones) were built with the intention that the blast would vent upwards, so the general concept predates tanks by decades.
The hard bits are first identifying there is a problem, then working out how to vent the blast without weakening the tank or making access to the ammo even less convenient.
The British carried out studies during the war about the cause of fires in AFVs. Their conclusions were that the first cause of fires were personal gear stored inside vehicles, hence their proliferation of external stowage bins outside the vehicle. The next cause was ammunition, which is why they insisted on "wet stowage" - the guns ammunition stowed in water insulated containers and why they welded extra armour on the outside of the vehicle, over the stowage areas. Those two, simple, remedies reduced fires considerably. This practiced carried on after the war.
 
Last edited:
Any reason why the Churchill Gun, Carrier 3in Mk.I was as the design it was rather than something more like.

Churchill A22D 3 Gun Carrier.jpg



Would this have been any advantage given the actual use of the OTL design had?
 
Last edited:
Any reason why the Churchill Gun, Carrier 3in Mk.I was as the design it was rather than something more like.
I assume it was because it was a bodge job, a 'does it even work?' proof of concept done on the cheap, not intended for widespread production unless the early types actually worked as advertised and found a useful job. Even in 1943, the UK was still kind of throwing whatever at the wall and seeing what stuck, to say nothing of the question of how much could they do on their own with whatever was lying around until the tsunami of American supply arrived. Unfortunately new guns like the 17 pdr were small enough to fit in a turret, making the Assault Gun Churchill rather unneeded.
Would this have been any advantage given the actual use of the OTL design had?
I'd say your concept is probably not unreasonable for an idea of what a Mk.2 or 3 might look like, assuming the Mk.1 passed the critical design stage of 'does this actually suit our needs without costing an unreasonable amount?' and then if there was some sort of early work on the 20pdr or 6-inch howitzer too big for a turret they needed a carrier for. The old WW1 era 3-inch gun just doesn't cut the mustard, which is probably why they never built more than 50 of the Mk.1s.

An early D-Day might be the impetus to require a bunker-cracking assault gun before the Tortoise concept really got building up. A 'we need "good enough" now, not "better" later' situation that means there's no dithering over 'optimal'.
 
Top