Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is my take on a jungly M24 based on the Norwegian NM-116 variant Of the M24. This has taken the best part of the day to pull together as I first had to modernise a WW2 M24 to the NM-116 standard before adding the 'jangle variant' bits and pieces. I have taken a leaf out of the Australian Army's book and their use of the Matilda in jungle warfare. They had a distinct preference for their Matildas to be armed with the 3" support weapon rather than the 40mm 2pdr AT weapon as its HE capability was more useful in the close confines of the jungle environment. My offering carried a short-barrelled 105mm gun of Sherman and M37 fame for direct infantry support. My logic is that an ability to throw HE and cannister would be more use in jungle confines than high-velocity AT rounds. Having said that a typical troop would still have a number of standard 90mm NM-116 models. Apart from the 105mm gun my version has an air conditioning unit bolted onto the rear of the turret bustle and the hull MG (and 5th crew member) is deleted to make space for additional ammunition stowage. Enjoy...

View attachment 692041

Just for giggles I give you the same M24 NM-116 upgrade armed with the Ordnance BL 165mm (6.5 in) L9A1 Demolition Gun. Very WH-esque but doable given the low-velocity nature of the round. Make of it what you will...
I
The limiting factor for both would be the number of rounds that could be carried.

View attachment 692042
The 2nd pic looks like a baby Sheridan
 
Here is my take on a jungly M24 based on the Norwegian NM-116 variant Of the M24. This has taken the best part of the day to pull together as I first had to modernise a WW2 M24 to the NM-116 standard before adding the 'jangle variant' bits and pieces. I have taken a leaf out of the Australian Army's book and their use of the Matilda in jungle warfare. They had a distinct preference for their Matildas to be armed with the 3" support weapon rather than the 40mm 2pdr AT weapon as its HE capability was more useful in the close confines of the jungle environment. My offering carried a short-barrelled 105mm gun of Sherman and M37 fame for direct infantry support. My logic is that an ability to throw HE and cannister would be more use in jungle confines than high-velocity AT rounds. Having said that a typical troop would still have a number of standard 90mm NM-116 models. Apart from the 105mm gun my version has an air conditioning unit bolted onto the rear of the turret bustle and the hull MG (and 5th crew member) is deleted to make space for additional ammunition stowage. Enjoy...
I really like it & it looks very punchy. Plus as you suggest the tank will mainly be used in a troop support role, so throwing a heavier shell or cannister round is likely to be more appealing to the squaddies they are supporting.
Just for giggles I give you the same M24 NM-116 upgrade armed with the Ordnance BL 165mm (6.5 in) L9A1 Demolition Gun. Very WH-esque but doable given the low-velocity nature of the round. Make of it what you will...
That looks like a 100 % hearing impairment for the turretheads that crew that beastie!

Still looks sweet though.
 
For the sake of comparison, the SdKfz 234 is roughly the same size as an LAV-25. Weight for both as roughly 12 to 13 tons, depending on variant. Ultimately, the drawbacks of the Puma compared to more modern vehicles are the engine and the suspension. The Tatra 103 is a four-stroke diesel with greater displacement than the GM 6046 in the M4A2, but providing only about 200 horsepower. In terms of power per displacement, it is similar to the Kharkov V2. Before turbodiesels became common, four-stroke diesels are not a particularly good idea for armored vehicles purely because of their size. The issue with the suspension is the amount of volume that it takes up inboard of the wheels. The system uses four sets of leaf springs, each of which connects two wheels and is able to use upward force on one wheel to push down the other wheel, similar to a spring bogie system. The result is that the Puma has relatively little protected volume for its size.

As we know, armament options are a 20 mm auto cannon in an open turret, a 75 mm short gun in an open casemate, 75 mm anti-tank gun in an open casemate, or a 50 mm anti-tank gun in an enclosed turret. I'm like modern vehicles like the LAV-25, no Puma variants are capable of carrying dismounts. If you're looking for a better armament option in the post-war., My suggestion would be a 3-inch smoothbore low pressure cannon like the PAW 600 in a fully enclosed turret. HEAT warheads by the 1950s should be enough to defeat armor on almost any medium tank you encounter. I would not recommend keeping vehicles like these around beyond the 1960s.


At work.

Thanks for the input.

So.... for clarification.

These images/ideas/designs aren't for past time equipment being kept in service for decades past their inception. Though the amount of history presented in this of such things is fascinating/amazing.

It's more a case of "Covergent engineering".

The Traveller settng takes place in thd far distant future centered around the "Third Emperium". A huge, muti-star spanning setting in which a huge array of different tech is presented. On one lost regressed planet neolithic tools are par fod the course. In another, fusion engines power everything from homes to vehicles to weapons.

Since I'd like to keep the ideas here in the "What if/Alternate" section rather than get kicked over into the "Space-bats and other strangeness" I'm trying to keep things, on the steel surface at least, looking ''Alternate". (^_^)

The rules I have put most 1940-50's stuff at Tech Lvl 5 (With some spikes into TL 6).

The items I'm thinking of are made with TL 10 to 12 engineering but able to be feild repaird with stuff down to TL 5 or 6 (Enough to get it working. Not something to keep it fighting with)

So while the hull looks like an Sd.Fkz, the internals have.... developed on a pace.

Though am still happy to use good 'Old fashioned' slug throwers instead of bright,loud, flashy energy weapons. (^_^)

Much cheers.
 
@Claymore can I push the friendship and see what the M24-JX looks like with a Scout / Reconnaisance version?

Except the turret is taken from the M 114 A2, utilising a hydraulically powered cupola mounting a Hispano 20 mm gun. Open to other options, but that seemed like a good fit.
since we talked about the AMX13 , would the 20mm turret from the AMX-VCI be an option?
AMX-VCI-M56.png

maxresdefault.jpg
 
@Claymore can I push the friendship and see what the M24-JX looks like with a Scout / Reconnaisance version?

Except the turret is taken from the M 114 A2, utilising a hydraulically powered cupola mounting a Hispano 20 mm gun. Open to other options, but that seemed like a good fit.

No problemo… Just to be clear, are you intending the scout version to be turretless other than the 20mm armed cupola?
 
Cool beans, I will look at a few options around the 20mm spec… … … perhaps even a Marder turret? 🤔👍

Edit: Then again no, I’m forgetting how small the M24 is, the Marder turret looks huge!
Yeah the Marder turret would have a good suggestion, damn you tiny M 24!
 
Yeah the Marder turret would have a good suggestion, damn you tiny M 24!

Ah ha, the Marder is back in contention (and I’ve removed my previous comment) as I realised I had used the wrong image and the scale was out. I now have a selection of 20mm mounts ranging from very light weight to full turret. I’ll work on them over the next couple of evenings. 👍
 
Ah ha, the Marder is back in contention (and I’ve removed my previous comment) as I realised I had used the wrong image and the scale was out. I now have a selection of 20mm mounts ranging from very light weight to full turret. I’ll work on them over the next couple of evenings. 👍
and also different eras, the amx one can be used for a 60s upgrade, and the marder one for 70s and later
 
and also different eras, the amx one can be used for a 60s upgrade, and the marder one for 70s and later

Of course, the base vehicle we are using for these variants is the M24 NM-116 which itself first appeared in 1973 and did not enter Norwegian service until 1975. So we’re good with a wide range of possible adaptations. 👍
 
Aw, I love the Swedish Party Busses! There's just something about them that make them look, I don't know, happier than other boxy APCs?
Maybe it's the rounded corners?
 
I've recently learnt that the Soviet Union apparently refurbished its P-39 Airacobras to return them to the US after the war...only for the US to scrap them in port before loading the scrap metal cubes on the ships. Apparently Soviet officials were not happy at all to see their efforts come to naught and cancelled any future plans to return LL equipment, and in particular the M4A2 "Emchas" they had.

Considering how many of those remained and how a lot were of the (76)W or E8-type, I'm curious about the potential such tanks could have had if they suddenly became available for international sale. That would do wonders for any Sherman user desiring more 76 turrets and HVSS suspension units...

Best ending would have been if French Engineer Molinié finally got his wish satisfied postwar with the French being able to field an all-diesel Sherman tank force!
 
@Claymore can I push the friendship and see what the M24-JX looks like with a Scout / Reconnaisance version?

Except the turret is taken from the M 114 A2, utilising a hydraulically powered cupola mounting a Hispano 20 mm gun. Open to other options, but that seemed like a good fit.

Et voila! I have been giving your M24-JX Scout/Recon vehicle challenge some thought and I have come up with 4 variants ranging in size and complexity (and therefore cost). I will admit up front that my list/suggestions are by no means exhaustive but rather are limited by the source material (images) I had to work with. I will be more than happy to adapt any other 20mm turret anybody has but it will need to be a good (clear and level) 3-view drawing. I wanted to include @wietze 's suggestion of the late variant AMX-VCI 20mm turret but, sadly, no workable images....

Anyhoo, on to my offerings!

Version 1 is pretty much your initial ask for the M24-JX with a (one-man) M114A2 20mm cupola/turret. Unfortunately I could not find an exact image so made one up from a M114 cupola and a Rheinmetall Mk20 Rh-202 20mm cannon (adapted from a Wiesel image). I have kept the dual feed as it would give the user more flexibility for ammunition selection. The front stowage has been removed and the smoke dischargers relocated as there isn't room on the cupola/turret.

M24-JX Scout V1A.png


Version 2 mounts the two-man, 20mm turret from the Cadillac Gage V-150 Commando. The turret isn't that much smaller than the original NM-116 and seems like a lot of bother for the diminutive 20mm Oerlikon 204GK cannon that it mounts...

M24-JX Scout V2.png


Version 3 mounts the two-man Marder IFV turret mounting the same Rheinmetall Mk20 Rh-202 20mm cannon as Version 1. Still quite a large turret but does have scope for the future addition of AT missiles.

M24-JX Scout V3.png


Version 4 mounts the two-man turret from the YPR-765 AIFV which actually has a 25mm Oerlikon Contraves KBA-BO2 cannon but looks the part.

M24-JX Scout V4.png


My personal preference is first Version 1 and then Version 4. What do y'all think?
 
Version 1 is pretty much your initial ask for the M24-JX with a (one-man) M114A2 20mm cupola/turret. Unfortunately I could not find an exact image so made one up from a M114 cupola and a Rheinmetall Mk20 Rh-202 20mm cannon (adapted from a Wiesel image). I have kept the dual feed as it would give the user more flexibility for ammunition selection. The front stowage has been removed and the smoke dischargers relocated as there isn't room on the cupola/turret.



Version 2 mounts the two-man, 20mm turret from the Cadillac Gage V-150 Commando. The turret isn't that much smaller than the original NM-116 and seems like a lot of bother for the diminutive 20mm Oerlikon 204GK cannon that it mounts...



Version 3 mounts the two-man Marder IFV turret mounting the same Rheinmetall Mk20 Rh-202 20mm cannon as Version 1. Still quite a large turret but does have scope for the future addition of AT missiles.



Version 4 mounts the two-man turret from the YPR-765 AIFV which actually has a 25mm Oerlikon Contraves KBA-BO2 cannon but looks the part.



My personal preference is first Version 1 and then Version 4. What do y'all think?
Thank you for the line drawings and, for the other suggestions.

Version 1 looks very compact and, during reconnaissance operations would the Driver & Commander have their heads poking up? Also would SRVs have more aerials - remember I'm ex Navy & land operations aren't my forte.

I didn't even know about the M 113 adaptation with the YPR 765 AIFV, but that works as well. I do like Version 3 since the ability to mount AT missiles appeals to me and, I was originally going to ask to include it in a line drawing, but might put that to the side for the time being.

Also which option is the cheapest to most expensive & which would be easier to domestically convert the vehicles for a country with limited manufacturing experience?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top