Plausibility check:WW2 6x6 wheeled and enclosed troop compartment APC

Yeah it seems too heavily armed,i did specify a turret for a LMG/HMG
Re-use the old Pz.I turrets, its smaller and has two mg's

OK I replaced the Rad Sk.Kfz-234's OTL gun mount with one from a Pz.I and also stretched the rear compartment out a bit. I would say this vehicle could now carry six troopers comfortably and eight not so comfortably.

NnMjjkb.png
 
OK I replaced the Rad Sk.Kfz-234's OTL gun mount with one from a Pz.I and also stretched the rear compartment out a bit. I would say this vehicle could now carry six troopers comfortably and eight not so comfortably.

NnMjjkb.png

That would be able to carry maybe four dismounts at the absolute max. A turret doesn't stop at the roof line, underneath it there is a turret basket with a clearance area around it, if you look at any APC the actual troop compartment generally starts a bit back from turret ring and physics hasn't changed that much since WW2. If you want an APC as opposed to an IFV then persuade any of the powers that air bursting artillery is a big enough danger to warrant the extra cost, weight and loss of visibility. If you want an IFV then you need something like a much longer and more mechanised Spanish Civil War to convince armies of the desirability of such a vehicle.

14242666366_c850ff0fe6_b.jpg

Inside of a Warrior IFV as an example.
 
That would be able to carry maybe four dismounts at the absolute max. A turret doesn't stop at the roof line, underneath it there is a turret basket with a clearance area around it, if you look at any APC the actual troop compartment generally starts a bit back from turret ring and physics hasn't changed that much since WW2. If you want an APC as opposed to an IFV then persuade any of the powers that air bursting artillery is a big enough danger to warrant the extra cost, weight and loss of visibility. If you want an IFV then you need something like a much longer and more mechanised Spanish Civil War to convince armies of the desirability of such a vehicle.

14242666366_c850ff0fe6_b.jpg

Inside of a Warrior IFV as an example.
These things always take three tries.

tIue2kA.png
 
You are getting there. It could be build using 30's technology, but we are talking about german engineers. Your concept lacks about 90% of it's parts they would think are neccessary.
 
You are getting there. It could be build using 30's technology, but we are talking about german engineers. Your concept lacks about 90% of it's parts they would think are neccessary.
Ah I thought you wanted a Soviet vehicle. My mistake.
 
Turret has too many cons. I'd go with multiple hatches and up to four MG mounts. A anti aircraft mount was important in that era. It helped keep the tactical air craft at arms length & they were equally useful vs ground targets. A turret mounted MG is less useful vs aircraft & there is that basket problem. If you are just using pintle mounts then two MG are easy & more may be practical. With the LVT-7 we did not have gun ports, but the upper hatches were usual open & the riflemen, grenadiers, ect could fire when necessary. Lots of top hatches make dismounts more flexible. If things get hot you don't want everyone trying to crowd out one exit.
 
I agree with Carl Schwamberger IFV's are a fundamentally bad idea. The volume problem means they are inevitably lightly armoured and giving it a turret encourages them to remain in the FEBA when a contact develops and get killed rather than unloading their dismounts and pulling back. Never mind that a turret sacrifices valuable load capacity. You're better off with an enclosed APC and use the money saved to buy a few extra tanks.
 
Top