Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 4

Lets say I was thinking of something that would work in mud and snow.
then probably not pure tracked, more a halftrack
there were loads of experiments with halftracks some even pre-ww like the Kégresse



although lightweight fully tracked over snow vehicles would still come around, since they have their own niche
i mean there was something like this ford snowbird:
fd4efda63d0fbf01af1a185c3542ddeb.jpg
 
Last edited:
Even if cross country artillery haulage was a bit beyond early half tracks, they'd be potentially useful for carrying supplies (and returning with casualties).
Once somebody fits a machine gun to keep the bad guys away, it morphs into a fire support vehicle.
 
Last edited:
then probably not pure tracked, more a halftrack
there were loads of experiments with halftracks some even pre-ww like the Kégresse



although lightweight fully tracked over snow vehicles would still come around, since they have their own niche
i mean there was something like this ford snowbird:
fd4efda63d0fbf01af1a185c3542ddeb.jpg

I have visions of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore driving one of these to Monte Carlo........
 
A question for the new thread. Lets say that in 1914-15 trench warfare isn't a thing but the British decide an armoured tracked vehicle that can go off road to provide fire support for infantry while resisting enemy fire is something they want, or they just want something that will intimidate natives in far flung corners of the empire how different might it be from what we saw in WWI?
Like others here I think the halftrack might make an appearance, maybe the Brits convert their RR armourd cars into a halftrack?
Rolls-Royce_Patern_halftrack.png

Just a quick pick, will try harder later.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
Make the Bren an Lewis and the front mounted (Boys?) an water cooled Vickers and I would love this for a WW1 criature
 
Mobility in mud and snow requires low ground pressure...ideally in the 5-to-10 psi range, but the lower the better. If the total vehicle weight with crew and combat load includes thick armor, the mobility means will require a lot of contact area to get to those kinds of pressure. With less vehicle weight, tires or narrower tracks become more feasible.
(...) the British decide an armoured tracked vehicle that can go off road to provide fire support for infantry while resisting enemy fire is something they want, or they just want something that will intimidate natives in far flung corners of the empire (...)
Lets say I was thinking of something that would work in mud and snow.
If the incoming enemy fire is rifle caliber bullets and shell splinters, armor in the 12-to-20mm range is sufficient. If it may include direct cannon fire with AP or HESH/HEAT ammo, much more complicated solutions are needed. If the latter, the solution isn't going to diverge much from what we saw in OTL WWI, because that was the state of the (primitive) art at the time. Hypothesizing something much evolved from OTL would require a backstory to explain how the designers knew to go in a different direction.

If there's no need to cross a heavily cratered battlefield and cross trenches/ditches, the tank could be shorter. Other than that, what is the reason that the design would be different?
 
A question for the new thread. Lets say that in 1914-15 trench warfare isn't a thing but the British decide an armoured tracked vehicle that can go off road to provide fire support for infantry while resisting enemy fire is something they want, or they just want something that will intimidate natives in far flung corners of the empire how different might it be from what we saw in WWI?
Put a RR Armoured Car body on this running gear.

 
Put a RR Armoured Car body on this running gear.


I'm guessing it would have the same problems with tracks not coming back it place after going over holes as the initial tank tracks did OTL, even if there are no trenches, there is still likely to be holes and rough terrain that leaves the lower track sagging.....solvable of course as it was OTL.
 
So I would like to make a request for a M1 Abrams equipped to fire the MGM-51 Shillelagh either having the short barrel of the M551 Sheridan or the long barrels of the MBT-70 or the M60A2 "Starship" please.

Will see what I can rustle up. What‘s the background?

Sorry for the slight delay but have been up to my armpits trying to sort the paint job on my recent FV431 project. Anyhoo, hope these are OK. The M151A1 is armed with the Sheridan's 152mm gun/missile launcher whilst the M151A2 has the gun/launcher from the MBT-70...

M151A1 Abrams.png


M151A2 Abrams.png
 
The initial Australian M113A1 FSVs were fitted with a turret taken from the Army's Alvis Saladin armoured cars. This was intended to be an interim design, used until an air-portable AFV was purchased. The turret was armed with a 76 mm L5A1 gun. One .30 calibre machine gun was mounted coaxially and another on the turret roof. Trials were conducted from 1967 to 1970. Trials were also conducted through 1968 with the American M551 Sheridan light tank. Concerns were raised regarding the safety of the combustible cases of the main gun. These were found out to be unsuitable so 15 M113A1 FSVs were purchased. A second batch of 45 vehicles were purchased in 1978 mounting a Alvis Scorpion turret armed with the 76mm L23A1 gun. The most important note for these vehicles was their successful deployment during the Vietnam war. The vehicles were used in the defence of fire bases, general convoy escort, night patrols and ambushes.


Over in America in June 1967 the Sheridan entered service with the 1st Battalion, 63rd Armoured Regiment. Over 200 Sheridans were shipped to Vietnam, but losses were heavy during normal operations, largely due to land mines and anti-armour weapons. In one incident alone, in March 1971, five Sheridans from the 11th ACR were lost in one day to RPG fire; all five vehicles burst into flames and were totally destroyed. There were also grave concerns regarding the engine system and the US Army took the decision to withdraw them from service in 1978.


In 1980 The Marine Corps initiated the Mobile Protected Weapon System (MPWS) program. In 1983, the Naval Surface Weapons Research Centre Laboratory mounted a 105mm gun onto a Sheridan. At the same time as part of its Rapid Deployment Force concept the US Marine Corps was testing the Canadian version of the 8x8 Piranha. One vehicle similar to the Australians was the AVGP program. Whilst the American military favoured the 105mm gun over the British 76mm gun, but as usual, the bean counters won the day and a full transfer of the 155mm gunned Sheridan turret was authorised to be inserted unto the Piranha hull. These vehicles equipped the US Marines, 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne and 101st Airborne.

As part of the deal for the Canadian and Australian LAV program adapting the Scorpion turret for their FSV and a Fox turret for the IFV the British 16th Airmobile Brigade and 3rd Commando Brigade were allocated theCVR(W) to their respective regiments of the Household .Cavalry.

IMG_0191.jpeg
IMG_0190.jpeg
 
They're Beautiful, I'll need to see about creating a background that matches these beauties.
I think there's a reasonable avenue in something simple like... 'the gun launcher concept proved unfeasible on a light tank as originally envisaged, but on a full-sized tank the issues with recoil and electronic reliability could be mitigated if not solved, as demonstrated on the M60A2 Patton "Starship". The system would ultimately be perfected on the new M151 Abrams, whose capacious turret allowed for the robust recoil dampening and ruggedized electronic systems needed for the system to function reliably.'
Size does matter, I suppose.
 
Random question - does anyone know what size AFVs could have theoretically fit within the cargo hold of a Fairey Rotodyne?
max 7t of weight, but cargohold doesn't seem high enough for an AFV with turret

Cabin Internal Height: 1.83m
Cabin Internal Length: 14.02m
Cabin Internal Width: 2.44m

 
Top