Technology PC: WWII Wheeled IFV

I mentioned this a while back in the aesthetically pleasing AFV thread, but I've had this idea for a WWII period APC/IFV. Basically, you're looking at a 15 ton chassis (think BTR-80), 8x8, ~15-20 hp/ton, with a 37mm gun in a turret like the M8 Greyhound, armor proof against ~13mm ammunition, capable of transporting two fireteams (the four man crew being the MG team plus squad leader). Would there be any technological issues getting this kind of performance out of a wheeled vehicle in the WWII period?
 
You pretty much just imagine the LVT(A)4 with wheels, and you are there.
aesthetically pleasing, not so much.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
A half track would probably probably be more effective, given the relatively poor off road performance of wheeled vehicles.

But yes, Germany had a series of 8 wheeled armored cars that could be enlarged relatively easily, and mounting a 50mm L/60, or potentially a 75mm on the enlarged turret ring.
 
A half track would probably probably be more effective, given the relatively poor off road performance of wheeled vehicles.

But yes, Germany had a series of 8 wheeled armored cars that could be enlarged relatively easily, and mounting a 50mm L/60, or potentially a 75mm on the enlarged turret ring.
50mm is a lot more gun than I'm used to imagining on an IFV; when I typed this up, I had actually forgotten they had 20mm autocannons in WWII, and figured a 37mm was the lightest they had outside of HMGs. Infantry squads having serious organic tank-busting guns would be a sight to behold in WWII for sure.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
The antitank capabilities of the KwK 39 were marginal after about 1941. However with the designs of the day, 50mm is about the smallest shell size that can carry a useful high explosive charge.

And it would be more effective against light armor, and other IFV's that would be encountered along with enemy mechanized infantry.

Frankly, the design and gun used needs to address whether the vehicle is intended to support the infantry or just transport them.
 
The antitank capabilities of the KwK 39 were marginal after about 1941. However with the designs of the day, 50mm is about the smallest shell size that can carry a useful high explosive charge.

And it would be more effective against light armor, and other IFV's that would be encountered along with enemy mechanized infantry.

Frankly, the design and gun used needs to address whether the vehicle is intended to support the infantry or just transport them.

I've been sort of jumping off from Soviet doctrine, where ideally the infantry shouldn't have to dismount for the unit to fight effectively, except against heavy firepower in prepared defenses. I'm picturing the IFV in a rapid exploitation mechanized infantry role, fighting meeting engagements with enemy reserves coming up to the breech, seizing airfields, overrunning supply depots, destroying HQs, that kind of thing.
 
A half track would probably probably be more effective, given the relatively poor off road performance of wheeled vehicles.

But yes, Germany had a series of 8 wheeled armored cars that could be enlarged relatively easily, and mounting a 50mm L/60, or potentially a 75mm on the enlarged turret ring.

The German SdKfz 234/2 Puma, was a 10.5 ton AC with a 50L60 gun. Range 625 miles.
 
Can we talk about doors.
BTR looks good except that roof hatches force infanteers to clamber up the sides, exposing them to enemy fire longer.

Small rear doors (ala. Saracen) are too tight for modern infantry festooned with ammo pouches, body armour, parkas and the other 100 pounds of "light-weight, go fast gear." British infantry responded to cramped quarters by introducing commie-style chest webbing.

The most recent versions of Mowag LAV 3 have rear ramps similar to most tracked APCs. Hydraulic ramps allow rapid re-loading with minimum exposure to enemy fire.

Mind you, rear ramps require mounting the engine in the bow.
 
There've been past threads about this. IOTL, the IFV began to be introduced after basic box-APCs had already become ubiquitous (oversimplification, but you get the idea). That wasn't the case in WWII, and it was generally concluded that trying to "jump ahead" from truck all the way to BMP-equivalent wasn't as cost effective as just getting a lot of basic APCs into service for the existing mechanized infantry.
 
Can we talk about doors.
BTR looks good except that roof hatches force infanteers to clamber up the sides, exposing them to enemy fire longer.

Small rear doors (ala. Saracen) are too tight for modern infantry festooned with ammo pouches, body armour, parkas and the other 100 pounds of "light-weight, go fast gear." British infantry responded to cramped quarters by introducing commie-style chest webbing.

The most recent versions of Mowag LAV 3 have rear ramps similar to most tracked APCs. Hydraulic ramps allow rapid re-loading with minimum exposure to enemy fire.

Mind you, rear ramps require mounting the engine in the bow.
The BTR 80 had its doors between the second and third wheels; they opened in two parts, with the top half swinging forward and the bottom half swinging down to form a step.
 
@riggerrob
Throwing in a picture too.
0_1026c1_b12c2def_orig.jpg
 
The T18 Boarhound armoured car would be a good start its an absolute monster 21 ft x 10 ft x 8ft 6in. Extend it by 4 feet and your as long as a BTR80.

t18_boarhound_by_derrflinger.jpg
 
Top