that looks like a design that is in need of outriggersThey put them on 5 ton trucks because the mounts are ten feet tall.
Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
- Status
The T-28 TDHow would have Object 279 fared in combat had the Soviets decided to go through with mass production of the four tracked, 60 ton heavy tank?
Obiekt 279 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
View attachment 868516
Did any other country have 4 track tank designs?
On a four track design, how does the crew free up the inner tracks from frozen mud/ice after an overnight temperature drop?
Or, fix a broken inner track, or a broken inner suspension element? Or grease anything on the inner track pair?
Seems obviously unmaintainable, and especially unworkable for winter use.
Assuming that the goal is low ground pressure, wouldn't it make a lot more field-maintainability-sense to just use two wider tracks?
Or, fix a broken inner track, or a broken inner suspension element? Or grease anything on the inner track pair?
Seems obviously unmaintainable, and especially unworkable for winter use.
Assuming that the goal is low ground pressure, wouldn't it make a lot more field-maintainability-sense to just use two wider tracks?
Naval mounts on land platforms are not a new idea.
My understanding is that the noted French military historian Stephane Ferrard thought that, in the flurry of efforts at field adaptation of available platforms and weapon systems after the May 1940 attack, one or more of these combinations probably was built and fielded, using guns from the commandeered Romanian order at the Hotchkiss works.
This is a Hotchkiss CAMle 1940J dual 25mm autocannon, naval mount, on a Laffly S25TL AWD all-terrain truck.
From what I read, the only reason Object 279 wasn't massed produced was because:
A) It had a high price tag.
B) Khrushchev banned all tank projects above 40 tons in 1960.
The hull sits on top of the tracks so there is a 2 ft gap in between the two inner tracks that gives you access to the inner tracks.
But it would make more sense to just have two really wide tracks but idk why they didn't do that.
In a good amount of situations the Track would get shot out from under them…How would have Object 279 fared in combat had the Soviets decided to go through with mass production of the four tracked, 60 ton heavy tank?
Obiekt 279 - Wikipedia
View attachment 868516
Did any other country have 4 track tank designs?
Wide track links are heavy. Replacing super-wide tracks would be nigh-on impossible because they just can't lift the damn things.
Weren't there also some British 4" guns mounted on trucks after Dunkirk as improvised SPAT?Naval mounts on land platforms are not a new idea.
My understanding is that the noted French military historian Stephane Ferrard thought that, in the flurry of efforts at field adaptation of available platforms and weapon systems after the May 1940 attack, one or more of these combinations probably was built and fielded, using guns from the commandeered Romanian order at the Hotchkiss works.
This is a Hotchkiss CAMle 1940J dual 25mm autocannon, naval mount, on a Laffly S25TL AWD all-terrain truck.
How would have Object 279 fared in combat had the Soviets decided to go through with mass production of the four tracked, 60 ton heavy tank?
Obiekt 279 - Wikipedia
View attachment 868516
Did any other country have 4 track tank designs?
Quad tracks were used because improved terrain permissibility was to be obtained not only through low ground pressure (0.6 kg/cm²), but also low peak pressure below the roadwheels (doubled number of roadwheels) and increasing the perimeter of the bearing surface of the tracks.
Twin tracks with this much bearing surface would not have been practical because the volume and weight of the roadwheels increases exponentially at this point and if you didn't upscale them the track extensions would just bend and break. The hilarious platypus end connectors on Sherman prototypes had to be very overbuilt.
Object 279 itself is quite unique because it was meant to have exceptional mobility in snow and swampy terrain, and had its own set of extra protection requirements compared to the contemporary heavy tanks like Object 277 and 770. It would be available in the general reserve. It's basically a more extreme version of what happened with Tiger IIs in WW2 when their very wide tracks (31.5 inches, even wider than the superheavy duty 28" tracks proposed for M1 Abrams) allowed these heavy monstrosities to cross swampy terrains that narrow track Shermans couldn't, surprising the Americans in the process.
I will note that the review of the Obj 279 tank draft from 1956 specifically emphasizes the need for more convenient suspension maintenance and track tensioning, before the tank was built.
As to the viability of Object 279 itself, the tank was actually still young in development and was going to be subject to severe alterations before it could even enter service. The Soviets wanted to integrate composite armor first and they were testing an autoloader for it (Soviet heavy tanks basically tested what actually went in the T-64/72/80 triad).
In any case, the resulting tank would have been quite a superlative vehicle with good protection against contemporary shaped charges (bar big ATGMs like SS-11) and KE projectiles, a progressive powertrain by Soviet standards and a good gun and fire control system, though the 130mm was somewhat conceptually outdated and might have been replaced by a smoothbore gun before the tank entered service.
With all that said, the 279 is not that much more extreme than the T-64. It's just a competent design with a niche role.
I have the translated version of a TiV/Pavlov article on the tank if you want. It's a very fascinating vehicle from a technological standpoint.
As to my planned raid to the French archives at Vincennes, it has now been confirmed, but since the documents I wanted were not available due to a technical error, I will be reviewing the following subjects which should interest some of you:
Minutes of the meeting of the tank study committee: battle tanks, fortress tank, medium tank, fortification assault tank; discussion on the improvement of technical characteristics (9 May 1938, 15 June 1939, 4 March, 18 March and 1 April 1940); committe for the study of the fortification assault tank: correspondence and minutes of the meetings (9 May, 22 July 1938); minutes of the meeting of the chiefs of weapon technical sections: fine-tuning of studies regarding automobile combat vehicles (3 December 1934); note on the G1 tank (20 ton tank), the improved Hotchkiss light tank, the Gendron-Somua recon armored car, the fortification assault tank (June 1938); note on the improvement of service tanks: need to improve their tactical mobility (January 1939); program for the tank studies suggested by the general tank inspector: infantry support tanks, battle tanks, fortress tanks; early-project of M1 crossing tractor (20 July 1939); magazine extracts on the Archer gun invented in 1915; pictures of an infantry supply vehicle, tankettes and Renault light tanks, combat tank FCM 36 (December 1938), command cars (1936-37); opinion of the 1st Direction on Army HQ's note on army motorization, infantry vehicles and combat tanks, movement of heavy military vehicles on bridges
Fortress tanks: tanks tasked with the attack of fortified regions (1937-39); characteristics of the ARL fortress tank, study of its armament and sights (january 1940); combat armored cars: project for a specification program (1933-34); powerful cavalry armored car: descriptive note (1939); report on the production of combat tanks showing the insufficient availability of tanks (1939); note on the renewing of tank fleets, synthesis of 10 years of experience and combat mechanism of modern tanks in combination with infantry, needs of the french army in modern tanks and models which have been adopted or are being studied (november 36) "Does production match the previsions in terms of tanks and AT weapons?" (5 december 37); history of the conception of combat tank prototypes (1939); technical characteristics of tanks and armored cars (1937-39); characteristics of 47mm guns and turrets for tanks (August 1937)
Fortress tanks: tanks tasked with the attack of fortified regions (1937-39); characteristics of the ARL fortress tank, study of its armament and sights (january 1940); combat armored cars: project for a specification program (1933-34); powerful cavalry armored car: descriptive note (1939); report on the production of combat tanks showing the insufficient availability of tanks (1939); note on the renewing of tank fleets, synthesis of 10 years of experience and combat mechanism of modern tanks in combination with infantry, needs of the french army in modern tanks and models which have been adopted or are being studied (november 36) "Does production match the previsions in terms of tanks and AT weapons?" (5 december 37); history of the conception of combat tank prototypes (1939); technical characteristics of tanks and armored cars (1937-39); characteristics of 47mm guns and turrets for tanks (August 1937)
Last edited:
Sometimes things just happen... promises are made but then things happen... projects get started; work gets done but then things happen... And eventually so much time has passed that it becomes really awkward, and I end up feeling like a complete arse! So, it has come to pass and having eventually pulled my finger out and completed the model, I can only apologise profusely to @Musketeer513 whom I failed.
Anyhoo, I present the completed model - started back in 2018...
Egyptian Thutmose III: (from an idea by @Musketeer513)
To cut a very long story short @Musketeer513's TL postulated that the Soviet IS-2 tank stayed in production much longer than it did and in favour of the IS-3. Some of these IS-2s find their way into service with the Egyptian Army (renamed Thutmose) and over time go through a series of upgrades eventually leading to AFV in question. In his mind's eye, he saw this final conversion being something similar to the real-life Ramses upgrade of the T-55 but with extras.
Basically, what he was after was an IS-2 with M48/60 Patton running gear, a Continental diesel engine, British L11 120mm gun and various other bells and whistles.
I had this old IS-2 in my stash but soon realised that it was too far gone (running gear solidly glues in place) to make a suitable donor - so on went the computer and after a quick email to Mr Hannants a cheap Svezda IS-2 was winging its way to Chateau Claymore. I settled on the Svesda model for no other reason than its relatively low price and the knowledge that a good deal of it was going to get chopped up and thrown away.
So, first things first... new running gear and tracks donated from an old Italeri M60 and removal of the old engine deck. Note some addition plastic card required to fill in the enormous gaps where the upper and lower hulls meet...
New engine deck in place and boxed in and fenders widened to cover new tracks.
In tackling the turret, I soon realised that there was just no way the big 120mm L11 gun would fit into the basic turret, but I really wanted to keep the feel of the original IS-2. This required some major surgery to lengthen the turret whilst also swapping the crew positions around to match the Western gun. After several failed attempts to do something with the M60 turret I had, I gave it ups as a lost cause and delved deeper into the pit-of-despair that is/are my spares box/es. What I ended up with was an old Centurion turret (so old I have no idea who made it). I used the rear end, heavily hacked and modified but, in the end, a perfect fit and giving me the exact look I was after. All hail Milliput putty for blending the whole thing together.
Gun in place, fenders extended and all the usual extra goodies added, the Thutmose is looking like a believable MBT.
This is perhaps the most heavily modified whiff I have undertaken without going into the realms of scratch building - great fun. The next stage was the undercoat which helped pull everything together.
And that's where everything ground to a halt... Five years later (three of which were spent working in the US - not that I'm claiming any credible excuses) and the final paint job... The model depicts a vehicle of 2nd Armoured Brigade, 4th Armoured Division.
Anyhoo, I present the completed model - started back in 2018...
Egyptian Thutmose III: (from an idea by @Musketeer513)
To cut a very long story short @Musketeer513's TL postulated that the Soviet IS-2 tank stayed in production much longer than it did and in favour of the IS-3. Some of these IS-2s find their way into service with the Egyptian Army (renamed Thutmose) and over time go through a series of upgrades eventually leading to AFV in question. In his mind's eye, he saw this final conversion being something similar to the real-life Ramses upgrade of the T-55 but with extras.
Basically, what he was after was an IS-2 with M48/60 Patton running gear, a Continental diesel engine, British L11 120mm gun and various other bells and whistles.
I had this old IS-2 in my stash but soon realised that it was too far gone (running gear solidly glues in place) to make a suitable donor - so on went the computer and after a quick email to Mr Hannants a cheap Svezda IS-2 was winging its way to Chateau Claymore. I settled on the Svesda model for no other reason than its relatively low price and the knowledge that a good deal of it was going to get chopped up and thrown away.
So, first things first... new running gear and tracks donated from an old Italeri M60 and removal of the old engine deck. Note some addition plastic card required to fill in the enormous gaps where the upper and lower hulls meet...
New engine deck in place and boxed in and fenders widened to cover new tracks.
In tackling the turret, I soon realised that there was just no way the big 120mm L11 gun would fit into the basic turret, but I really wanted to keep the feel of the original IS-2. This required some major surgery to lengthen the turret whilst also swapping the crew positions around to match the Western gun. After several failed attempts to do something with the M60 turret I had, I gave it ups as a lost cause and delved deeper into the pit-of-despair that is/are my spares box/es. What I ended up with was an old Centurion turret (so old I have no idea who made it). I used the rear end, heavily hacked and modified but, in the end, a perfect fit and giving me the exact look I was after. All hail Milliput putty for blending the whole thing together.
Gun in place, fenders extended and all the usual extra goodies added, the Thutmose is looking like a believable MBT.
This is perhaps the most heavily modified whiff I have undertaken without going into the realms of scratch building - great fun. The next stage was the undercoat which helped pull everything together.
And that's where everything ground to a halt... Five years later (three of which were spent working in the US - not that I'm claiming any credible excuses) and the final paint job... The model depicts a vehicle of 2nd Armoured Brigade, 4th Armoured Division.
Last edited:
ctayfor
Monthly Donor
Lovely job, despite the period of hiatus. It looks really good and convincing.
That is an utterly gorgeous build @Claymore .
What does the Eagle represent - is that a Divisional insignia?
What does the Eagle represent - is that a Divisional insignia?
I suddenly want to see the Russians to have a funny reaction upon seeing their IS-2s being turned against them
I don't know specifically of such SP gun systems. 4" naval guns are pretty hefty for truck mounting, though.
My understanding is that generally in WWII, the recoil force-integral of a moderate-to-high-muzzle-energy cannon of greater caliber than 75mm when fired approximately horizontally from the height of a truck or tracked-vehicle load-platform in a direction approximately at right angles to the long axis of the platform was great enough that the platform either had to be very heavy with a stiff suspension i.e. a medium or heavy tank chassis, or be equipped with deployment jacks. Otherwise the recoil force would rock the platform on its suspension, or potentially damage that suspension or the platform's frame, or even tip the platform onto its side.
The Germans found this to be the case with the "Bufla" SP 8.8cm guns mounted on heavy halftracks, with no steadying jacks. One of the first batch built rolled sideways down a hillside in France and was wrecked after being fired to the side, and several others sustained major vehicle-frame cracking or broken suspension and drivetrain elements during the 1940 fighting.
- Status