Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode

Cryhavoc101

Bougnas said:
Australian Centurion rearmament program to L7 for Vietnam @Rickshaw
Click to expand...
I recall that the original pressure to up gun Centurion to L7 was after a T54 was driven onto the British Embassy grounds by some very enthusiastic Hungarians who had 'borrowed it' and apparently the quick inspection by the Embassy spooks and their report decided that the 20 pounder could not reliably defeat it and this later turned out to be incorrect - the 20 pounder was quite capable of nobbling the T54.

Not complaining about the result.
 

Coiler

The EE-T1 Osorio could count as an alternate history fighting vehicle if it actually entered mass production. It's worth noting that, being the Brazilian version of the Avro Arrow, its capabilities have been legitimately exaggerated.

-It did indeed outperform the (early) Abrams in the Saudi trials. However, this was in mobility (due to being lighter) and fire control (due to having goldplated export electronics compared to the "good enough now" ones in the earlier M1s).
-The modified Vickers turret it used was benchmarked for a much lower armor level than the heavier big tanks. So even without the Gulf War experience, there were completely legitimate and apolitical reasons to pick the M1 over it.
-The biggest potential customers, well, when Algeria is your most reputable and capable of them (the others were Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Libya). Let's just say that any service they saw with those customers would be unlikely to cover that tank in glory.
-The post-1991 tank glut would have hit it as hard as it hit everything else.
-None of this is to deny that it was an impressive acheivement and had legitimate capabilities. It's just those need to be put into perspective.
 

Bougnas

Claymore said:
Interesting but please ensure that all documents posted on this thread bearing a ‘SECRET’ caveat, clearly state that said document has been officially released as declassified. Otherwise, some country’s Official Secrets Act may be being infringed and, consequently, the Forum held culpable - and no one wants that! A simple declaration, and ideally removing the caveat should keep us all above board.
Click to expand...
Sorry, added a statement. I get those pictures from someone else who bothers to visit/get the declassified archives. But tbh I doubt there would be any issue with docs on the Centurion of all things...

@Cryhavoc101 Actually it appears that the program started in 1951-52, 54 at the latest. I'm not even sure the embassy would have had the time to measure the armor thickness with the means of the time, let alone those on site, but if it did, it certainly confirmed British fears. 20pdr APDS could defeat the turret frontally on the less sloped areas, but the UFP was invulnerable beyond something like 400m when hit dead on, and closer if there is a side angle. That's against Mk 3 APDS but Mk 4 entered service in 1956 so it was probably better. There's an obscure APDS Type H tested in 1954 that looked like L28A1 but downscaled that could pen ca. 230BHN plates between 1200-1600 yards, but this wasn't Mk 4 and I'm not sure it entered service at all. 105 was necessary to guarantee penetration of the frontal area of a T-54 beyond 1000 yards from various angles of attack, and more importantly to stay future proof. That said the fact 20pdr remained viable at all is a testament to British prowess in APDS technology, and the T-54's upper frontal plate was a notoriously difficult target even for the 100mm.
 
Last edited:
Claymore

Claymore

Bougnas said:
Sorry, added a statement. I get those pictures from someone else who bothers to visit/get the declassified archives. But tbh I doubt there would be any issue with docs on the Centurion of all things...
Click to expand...

Thanks mate, you are probably right, but better safe than sorry. 👍
 
Claymore

Claymore

Gavin Airborne Fire Support Vehicle Update:

Work on the Abbot turret is progressing well although it is quite a complex shape. Slow and steady is always the best way to go as you really need every stage to be set firmly before constructing the next part. Go too quickly and the whole thing become trickier than trying to juggle with jelly... jello... wibbly, wobbly stuff! 🙄

Anyhoo, some more WIP pics...

Early 2.jpg


Early 3.jpg


Early 4.jpg


Early 5.jpg
 

Bougnas

Reason finally prevails: the story of the Swiss Leopard 1 (Panzer/Char 77)

The haste with which the Swiss had ordered the Pz 68 led to the vehicle performing particularly poorly in testing. The 1st series of 170 vehicles was no better. When consideration was made for another small series of 50 (to reallocate money not spent on the Dassault Milan or A-7 Corsair II), intense objections arose. Comparative testing with a German Leopard 1 was the nail in the coffin for the national tank. It was decided to produce the new Leopard 1A3 under license.

It was decided to adopt a simpler and cheaper Swiss turret traverse mechanism, already developped for the Italo-German Leone export tank. The decision to restrict Pz 68 production to a single series proved fortunate, as the Leopard 1A3 and its components were already proven and reliable and the amount of fixes required for the Pz 68 was more limited without problems for later series. This allowed the Swiss to focus more on improving the combat capability of its tanks. As such they also selected the Belgian SABCA AVLS fire control system for the Panzer 77.

220 Pz 77s were produced between 1976 and 1982 at Thun. By 1982 the Swiss were on the verge of selecting the Leopard 2 for license production to replace the old Centurions. At the same time, the Germans were themselves developping an upgrade for their own Leopard 1s. The Germano-Swiss agreement of 1984 confirmed the upgrade of the Panzer 77 to the Leopard 1A5 (Pz 77V Verbessert) standard (but with a welded turret). This would involve the replacement of the SABCA AVLS with the better EMES-18 which offered greater commonality with the Leopard 2's EMES-15, as well as the installation of thermal sights.

The Pz 61 and 68, meanwhile were retrograded as lower-level tanks and the main improvements over their lifetime would focus on their standardization (namely removal of the Pz 61's 20mm coax with a MG), fixes of technical issues, adaptation to APFSDS ammunition and the addition of a laser rangefinder.

Some consideration was given for upgrading the Leopards further. A new composite armor package was tested on one vehicle in 1984-85. However concerns about the extra weight (especially weight distribution) and financial issues meant that no further actions were taken.

The Panzer 77 were finally retired in 1998 following budget cuts. Luckily, they were sold to another customer...
1631778128165.png
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Claymore said:
Gavin Airborne Fire Support Vehicle Update:

Work on the Abbot turret is progressing well although it is quite a complex shape. Slow and steady is always the best way to go as you really need every stage to be set firmly before constructing the next part. Go too quickly and the whole thing become trickier than trying to juggle with jelly... jello... wibbly, wobbly stuff! 🙄

Anyhoo, some more WIP pics...

View attachment 679683

View attachment 679684

View attachment 679685

View attachment 679686
Click to expand...

The base for the turret looks to have beveled edges. Is that the case? Are the other "joins" beveled as well, or gusseted butt joints?
 
Claymore

Claymore

Driftless said:
The base for the turret looks to have beveled edges. Is that the case? Are the other "joins" beveled as well, or gusseted butt joints?
Click to expand...

I have tried to make most of the joints bevelled for strength of construction and to give me an accurate joint. However, it is not that easy given that all I have here are some micro files and a cutting board. I have also used gussets were practicable for additional strength. The end result, hopefully, more accurately represents the actual welded construction.
 
Last edited:
T
  • Index
    • Claymore

    Claymore

    Gavin Airborne Fire Support Vehicle Update:

    Having great ‘fun’ detailing the Abbot turret - lots of stuff that all needs to be scratch built. I have also given quite a bit of thought as to how that US Army would adapt the British design to their own needs/equipment/con ops. The first thing I have replaced is the commander’s cupola swapping it out for the more US friendly M113 pattern. Gone too will be the very British big bags on the turret sides (wasn‘t looking forward to scratch building them anyway!) The smoke launchers will also be swapped for a more appropriate US model. I‘m going to keep the complex NBC pack as it is just too quintessentially Abbot to get rid of. Perhaps the US Vietnam era troops could use it as an AC unit or a drinks dispenser or both - anyhoo, it has been a complete model build in itself!

    Will post some more pics soon which should also include some of the Sheridan hull too. 😊
     
  • Index
    • Claymore

    Claymore

    Gavin Airborne Fire Support Vehicle Update:

    Hoorah!!! The turret build is complete - or as complete as it is likely to get save for the painting. I am pretty happy with the result which I think looks recognisable as an Abbot turret but suitably Vietnam-era 'Americanized'. Also all the commercially available add-ons neatly blend in the scratch build work. Now I need to concentrate on the Sheridan hull. In the meantime, here, as promised, are the turret WIP pics...

    Med 1.jpg


    Med 2.jpg


    Med 3.jpg
     
    Last edited:
    Claymore

    Claymore

    La Rouge Beret said:
    That looks like there has been a fair bit of conversion work done into the turret!
    Click to expand...

    🤪 The base turret is entirely that of the British Abbot, however, as you correctly surmise, I’ve made a few changes. Probably the most noticeably change is that the British FV432 commander’s cupola has been changed for that from the M113 and, with it, the secondary armament has changed from a 7.62mm LMG to a 0.5” HMG. The removable canvass side bins have been ‘removed‘ to improve side stowage of personal kit. The smoke discharges have been changed to US M113 standard. The D10 comms wire drum has been removed as this was not standard on US vehicles and allows for additional personal stowage. A couple of water jerrycans have been added - a must in SE Asia. A crew tent has been added as stowage on the turret roof - this is a practicality that may well have been adopted by British Abbot crews too. Lastly, I have replaced the British antenna mount with a standard US version. 🤪👍
     
    Claymore

    Claymore

    I just want to take this opportunity to say thanks again to @wietze's for his initial concept of the Sheridan/Gavin Fire Support Vehicle. Without the great ideas from those of you who frequent this thread, I would have run out of ideas years ago. Your continued support and participation is hugely appreciated. 👏👏👏👍
     
    Claymore

    Claymore

    Gavin Airborne Fire Support Vehicle Update:

    So here we have the beastie pretty much complete save the undercoat and final painting. As I type, the first spay of undercoat is drying while I listen to the thunder rumbling round the heavens. In the meantime, here are some more pics...

    Med 4.jpg


    Med 5.jpg


    Med 6.jpg


    Med 7.jpg


    I think I will display the model in an over the beam aspect as I think that would be the preferred configuration for sustained fire - the gun really does not have much in the way of recoil (that the inbuilt recuperators cant cope with easily). Indeed, there are lots of pics of the original Abbot SPG firing from this position (see pic).

    On the Ranges.jpg


    An added bonus is that by turning the turret to the 3/9 o'clock position it make ammunition resupply that much easier through the ammunition hatch on the rear of the turret (see pic).

    Ammunition Feed.jpg


    Med 8.jpg


    Med 9.jpg


    Med 10.jpg
     
    Reader mode
    Top
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top