Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

[Garrison]

I wonder if YouTube revenue is larger for them than admissions revenue and patron donations.

Back in the day, I certainly wouldn't have thought that a museum could derive such a significant part of its funding from videos it makes of its collection.

Forward-going, I'd think this would be a significant factor in the Tank Museum's decisions as to what collection-elements to add. They for instance might commission new construction of a best-historical-accuracy full-scale working model of an AFV that doesn't exist as an historical example, if they concluded that that'd make for especially popular videos. Or, maybe they'd work out deals with other collections, to make videos of their holdings under the Tank Museum brand.

Well the TV report stated their online presence has generated about £2 million and helped the museum survive the Covid lockdown. I've certainly bought a few items off their store after seeing them advertised on the banner under the Youtube videos. Still waiting for them to introduce TOG II slippers though...

 

[wietze]

I wonder if YouTube revenue is larger for them than admissions revenue and patron donations.

Back in the day, I certainly wouldn't have thought that a museum could derive such a significant part of its funding from videos it makes of its collection.

Forward-going, I'd think this would be a significant factor in the Tank Museum's decisions as to what collection-elements to add. They for instance might commission new construction of a best-historical-accuracy full-scale working model of an AFV that doesn't exist as an historical example, if they concluded that that'd make for especially popular videos. Or, maybe they'd work out deals with other collections, to make videos of their holdings under the Tank Museum brand.

they can hire @Claymore to build a maus

 

[BlackDragon98]

Query: Has anyone done a Nashorn based on the Panzer III/IV Einheitsfahrgestell with the Flak 34 (OTL Flak 36) gun?
The general shape is still the same.
I need one for some chapters of the Reich trilogy I'm working on.
The Panzer III/IV chassis is IOTL the Panzer III and the IOTL Nashorn (Panzerjäger III Ausf. A) is armed with the Flak 34 instead of the OTL Pak 43.

 

[cortz#9]

Query: Has anyone done a Nashorn based on the Panzer III/IV Einheitsfahrgestell with the Flak 34 (OTL Flak 36) gun?
The general shape is still the same.
I need one for some chapters of the Reich trilogy I'm working on.
The Panzer III/IV chassis is IOTL the Panzer III and the IOTL Nashorn (Panzerjäger III Ausf. A) is armed with the Flak 34 instead of the OTL Pak 43.

Here ya go.

Thanks to Claymore I had all the parts I needed already in scale.
This version is a little shorter in length than the OTL Nashorn but not by much.

 

[Virginia Liberal]

I would like some thoughts on this tank Its supposed to be a S35 with a three man turret and a 47mm gun But it just feels off to me so I figured I'd reach out of other opinions

 

[Driftless]

^^^ No expert here. but several of the French turrets of the late 30's had a number of facets to their surface. Also, the OTL ones looked positively dinky on bigger tanks like the Char 1Bis, so maybe your rendition isn't far off.

(*edit* - scale up-stretch out the OTL dinky turrets for your Somua?)

 

[JWilly48519]

Definitely an artwork exercise, nothing more. No such tank ever was prototyped...the next generation of the S35 would have been the S40, which would have started out in late 1940 with a "two man" (or arguably 1.75 man) turret. However, that turret's design was not finished as of June 1940, so no tooling to cast it had been built yet, so there was no prototype. All of the S40 prototypes in existence in mid 1940 had other available turrets kludged into place on them.

The OTL three (or possibly two) man turret version as of May 1940 was to be the S40 bis, sometime in mid to later 1941. That turret's design was even farther from completion.

The depicted hull has nine road wheels per side, so definitely is an S35. The S40 was to be stretched slightly with one more road wheel.

 

[cortz#9]

I would like some thoughts on this tank Its supposed to be a S35 with a three man turret and a 47mm gun But it just feels off to me so I figured I'd reach out of other opinionsView attachment 856415

Need a front view to see if the three man turret would fit but I suspect the tank's hull would not be wide enough.

 

[JWilly48519]

The May 1940 OTL of course changed substantially because of June's events. After the Armistice, there were no more S40 plans.

FCM designed an S35 upgrade in 1942, purely theoretical/wishful thinking since France had no available manufacturing capabilities and no permission from Germany to build more S35s or rebuild the few they retained, that involved re-machining the hull to have a new 1435mm turret ring, to fit a three man turret with a more powerful version of the 47mm gun.

 

[JWilly48519]

Another paper project during the German-occupation years to improve the S35 was pursued by ARL...the SARL 42. This re-imagining of the S40 involved a substantial re-design of the hull, including lengthening and widening, plus an entirely new three-man turret, with a 1503mm turret ring. (Other sources say 1730mm.) The turret was to include a 1 meter optical rangefinder...a radical innovation for mid-WWII tanks. The 230-peak-HP engine and suspension were to be as planned for the S40. The gun was to be either a 75mm L/32 as an infantry support tank, or as an MBT, a much longer 75mm L/53 similar to the Schneider Mle1939 AA gun.

 

[cortz#9]

Query: Has anyone done a Nashorn based on the Panzer III/IV Einheitsfahrgestell with the Flak 34 (OTL Flak 36) gun?
The general shape is still the same.
I need one for some chapters of the Reich trilogy I'm working on.
The Panzer III/IV chassis is IOTL the Panzer III and the IOTL Nashorn (Panzerjäger III Ausf. A) is armed with the Flak 34 instead of the OTL Pak 43.

Thought you also might be interested in this old design.

 

[Claymore]

I would like some thoughts on this tank Its supposed to be a S35 with a three man turret and a 47mm gun But it just feels off to me so I figured I'd reach out of other opinionsView attachment 856415

Need a front view to see if the three man turret would fit but I suspect the tank's hull would not be wide enough.

As @cortz#9 says, the turret is a bit on the big side for the standard S-35 hull which is a bit on the narrow side - although not entirely surprising given its small turret. Below is the standard S-35, your image and the two merged to give you an idea of the front view. Although the turret does not spill over the sides of the hull, there is next to no space for a realistic and functional turret ring...

 

[GrahamB]

Scaling down the turret to between 66-75% should work nicely. Probably only a 2-man turret but a nice and roomy one with space for the 47mm.
Not a bad combination all things considered, the SOMUA was surprisingly well armoured and having a turret to match would have made it a pretty solid early-mid war tank in the same vein as the Matilda2.

 

[JWilly48519]

Early war French radios required an operator to keep them tuned and to interpret incoming Morse/key outgoing Morse. In those S35s that were equipped with radios, the operator was the #2 in the hull, and also functioned as a sort of assistant loader, handing shells from the hull storage-bins up to the commander/gunner/loader in the turret. In this alternate design, where will the radio be located, and who will operate it? Will there still be two crewmen in the hull, with the radio mounted there? Will the hull-radioman still hand shells up to either the commander or gunner in the turret, to be loaded?

 

[mudhead]

Early war French radios required an operator to keep them tuned and to interpret incoming Morse/key outgoing Morse. In those S35s that were equipped with radios, the operator was the #2 in the hull, and also functioned as a sort of assistant loader, handing shells from the hull storage-bins up to the commander/gunner/loader in the turret. In this alternate design, where will the radio be located, and who will operate it? Will there still be two crewmen in the hull, with the radio mounted there? Will the hull-radioman still hand shells up to either the commander or gunner in the turret, to be loaded?

Production of the ER28 tank radio was so far behind schedule that very few of the vehicles allocated them were so fitted in 1940. Most photos of S35s show aerials - but these connected to nothing. Platoon & company commanders had ER29s, so they could talk with higher levels, but they had no communications with their own units.

 

[Bougnas]

Definitely an artwork exercise, nothing more. No such tank ever was prototyped...the next generation of the S35 would have been the S40, which would have started out in late 1940 with a "two man" (or arguably 1.75 man) turret. However, that turret's design was not finished as of June 1940, so no tooling to cast it had been built yet, so there was no prototype. All of the S40 prototypes in existence in mid 1940 had other available turrets kludged into place on them.

The OTL three (or possibly two) man turret version as of May 1940 was to be the S40 bis, sometime in mid to later 1941. That turret's design was even farther from completion.

The depicted hull has nine road wheels per side, so definitely is an S35. The S40 was to be stretched slightly with one more road wheel.

If you are talking about the ARL-2C (also called FLG2) 1.5-man turret, it had already been built as a proto in 1939 and was to be installed in parallel to the APX-1CE in July 1940 already. It was also welded. By June it was pretty much being industrialized. Don't know where you got the idea of the S40 bis from either, the FCM 2-man and 3-man turret being pure Vichy concepts from what we know. In any case there are plenty of pics of the ARL-2C having been built.


As for turret rings:

I wouldn't be surprised if the FCM turreted Somuas would also have been widened or at least would have had vertical sides to take the new turret ring, you could have bulges extending outwards to fit the wider turret ring but I doubt the French would do that, they generally kept the ring inside the confines of the hull sides. They would also necessarily have to be lengthened. If anything that makes me even more curious because given the changes required to fit these turrets, Vichy most likely had plans of new hulls.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

they can hire @Claymore to build a maus

Full scale Ratte containing its own exhibition space?

 

[JWilly48519]

If you are talking about the ARL-2C (also called FLG2) 1.5-man turret, it had already been built as a proto in 1939 and was to be installed in parallel to the APX-1CE in July 1940 already.

About 440 S35s were built. From tank production #451, the design was to change to the S40 with the APX-1CE turret. Eighty of that tank design were to be built, while the ARL-2C turret manufacturability was developed. From tank #531, the design was to change again, to incorporate the ARL-2C turret instead.

Much as with the B tank family, the second version of the design family is bis. The third version would be ter, and so on.

It was also welded.

The ARL-2C turret was a composite of welded plates, external grinding, machined castings in the gun mount area, and a cast cupola. As noted, the cupola design and manufacturing plan...and therefore the ability to manufacture turrets at production rate...had not been finalized as of June 1940. My understanding is that there still were ongoing discussions of rotatability vs. all-around vision features.

By June it was pretty much being industrialized. Don't know where you got the idea of the S40 bis from either, the FCM 2-man and 3-man turret being pure Vichy concepts from what we know. In any case there are plenty of pics of the ARL-2C having been built.


As for turret rings:
View attachment 856645

I wouldn't be surprised if the FCM turreted Somuas would also have been widened or at least would have had vertical sides to take the new turret ring, you could have bulges extending outwards to fit the wider turret ring but I doubt the French would do that, they generally kept the ring inside the confines of the hull sides. They would also necessarily have to be lengthened. If anything that makes me even more curious because given the changes required to fit these turrets, Vichy most likely had plans of new hulls.

 

[Bougnas]

About 440 S35s were built. From tank production #451, the design was to change to the S40 with the APX-1CE turret. Eighty of that tank design were to be built, while the ARL-2C turret manufacturability was developed. From tank #531, the design was to change again, to incorporate the ARL-2C turret instead.

Much as with the B tank family, the second version of the design family is bis. The third version would be ter, and so on.

The ARL-2C turret was a composite of welded plates, external grinding, machined castings in the gun mount area, and a cast cupola. As noted, the cupola design and manufacturing plan...and therefore the ability to manufacture turrets at production rate...had not been finalized as of June 1940. My understanding is that there still were ongoing discussions of rotatability vs. all-around vision features.

Idk, the historians from the GBM magazine article on it was rather confident that the turret was finished and would be introduced in July:

https://imgur.com/a/Btx4n0f

But maybe you have seen more recent findings? Also, I don't think any bis/ter designation was planned for the S40s with the new turret.

---

I have now finished P.M. Knight's Crusader book, which only reinforces the points I mentioned in my previous post on the subject.

Regarding some alternates on the tank, here is a table I made based on the info from the book about the evolution of Crusader armor since Mk II, with two proposals in orange:

The common feature of the two is the move in production to single plates instead of double or triple skin plates, which further improves actual protection at a low weight gain (odds are that the extra 300 pounds for the ultimate proposal compared to Mk III is because they thickened the armor even more, because moving to single plate usually changed immunity distance by 200 yards, not 500). This is what the Cromwell family eventually got, with only the turret still having double skin construction.

The book also notes that the 95mm howitzer was supposed to be used on Crusader III but in the end couldn't fit the two-man turret, and it confirms the Covenanter's suspension couldn't really handle extra weight while Crusader's could. These two points only strengthen the argument that the War Office should have accepted a greater weight limit within the 24 ton bridge to have slightly bigger Cruisers with less problems linked to excessive compactness.

I now have Solidworks so I will see if I can model both the Crusader II with straight front and BESA MG mentionned in the book, and a 21-22 ton Cruiser.

 

[Monk78]

Is there a role for the humble tank destroyer in the later stages of the Cold War 1970-1990 ?
Can it be a solution to contain the spiraling costs of MBT ?
Either for NATO orWP