Alternate Weapons of War thread...

[gtrof]

Well I spent the past few days reading through this entire thread, and wow. there is a lot of talent out there. I haven't done too much in the alternate history realm (at least not regarding designs) but I do have this one that I did a while back.

Nice tank!

 

[Hapsburg]

Well I spent the past few days reading through this entire thread, and wow. there is a lot of talent out there. I haven't done too much in the alternate history realm (at least not regarding designs) but I do have this one that I did a while back.

Cool tank. I like the camo pattern.

 

[SquireJames]

Thanks. Basically I copied the camouflage scheme from a British Sherman VC Firefly, which this M6 variant is kind of mimicking. I took a regular M6 Tank, cut and pasted the barrel from a Firefly and added a turret counterweight bustle (the box at the back), essentially turning it into a Firefly variant with the powerful ROQF 17 Pdr Mk.II Gun. I chose the name Griffin since most US tanks in service with the Commonwealth were named after Generals of the US Civil War (Stuart, Grant, Lee, Sherman etc) and I found a reference to a General Griffin, so it sort of stuck. Note that the nomenclature (Griffin IIC) refers to the second model (hence the M6A1 designation in brackets, which would be the original US designation) and the C denotes a 17pdr armed model. (For those unaware, the British Army along with other Commonwealth nations used Roman Numerals to denote different versions and letters to denote armament or other differences. No letter, for example 'Sherman II' meant a 75mm armed model. A letter A denoted a 76mm armed version, for example 'Sherman IIA'. A letter B denoted a 105mm Howitzer armed version, for example 'Sherman IIIB', and the letter C as noted denoted a 17pdr armed version, also known as Fireflys. The two types of Firefly used were the Sherman IIC and Sherman VC (M4A1 and M4A4 respectively). The letter Y was also used with these letters to denote a tank with HVSS ( Horizontal Volute Suspension Systems) Suspension. So a Sherman IVBY was a M4A3 with a 105mm Gun and HVSS.

Anyways theres the history lesson The M6 probably would have failed miserably if it was ever deployed, 17pdr or not. The US did test a 105mm High Velocity Gun in a new turret on an M6 but by that time the M26 Pershing was nearing completion and either way the M6 was pretty obsolete as a chassis by that point in the war (late 1944)

If this fictional 17pdr version was ever deployed, I imagine it would have been used in Independent Tank Brigades with Churchills, replacing the Achilles and Wolverines used to give such formations anti-tank support (A common British tactic, hence the Firefly in Sherman formations and the Challenger in Cromwell formations)

 

[Nietzsche]

Well I spent the past few days reading through this entire thread, and wow. there is a lot of talent out there. I haven't done too much in the alternate history realm (at least not regarding designs) but I do have this one that I did a while back.

Wow. That's...that's really good. No offense to some of the people here, but they generally don't come near to the quality of this piece. I'm not sure what adjustments you did or if you did it freehand or such, but it looks great. Very realistic. I could see that being used sometime during the 50s or early 60s.

 

[SquireJames]

I cannot take all the credit, as much as I would love to. Basically it started off as a line drawing, something like this:-

However, as you can see, I coloured it and made the necessary adjustments to make my Griffin IIC variant. I have drawn a few historical tanks from scratch however. I just couldn't get the M6 quite looking right.

The M6 was actually designed as a heavy counterpart to the Medium M4 Sherman and the Light M3 Stuart, hence the family resemblance. It was never actually deployed though.

 

[SquireJames]

Now, I am not trying to 'steal' anyone's idea, but I thought the idea of the Pedersen Rifle being adopted and John Garand heading to Britain to market his rifle was brilliant. The only thing I didn't like was the name. So, I decided to make my own 'version' based on a ATL where Britain was a bit (okay a lot) more militant after the Munich Crisis.

Design wise, it would actually be a fairly horrible rifle to fire. Shortened down to that length and fully automatic it would seriously bruise the ol' shoulder, and the recoil and muzzle flash would be nasty also. But hey the FG42 'worked' in real life. Perhaps a Mk.II would have a rubber buttplate a la the No.5 Carbine. However the idea of a British Avtomat Fedorov was too tasty to pass up. Also kind of looks like a very British interpretation of the AK-47. Maybe with the cancelled post-war .280 round or even the experimental .276 (both of which were rimless) it would work better. The mag could be smaller with rimless rounds also.

All my own work, btw

 

[Some Bloke]

I think that design is a bit far fetched but I think the premise has promise.

OK how about this. The US adopts Pedersen's design at a very early stage in development. Garand, who if memory serves was Canadian, looks for alternate buyers for his design, first in his native Canada, who express an interest, and then the British who are intrigued by what the Canadians have discovered. Britain adapts the Garand for their uses. i can't see the brits using an en bloc clip so what we have here is a rifle that's old fashioned in some ways (using a high powered rimmed cartridge) but cutting edge in others (the first detachable box magazine rifle in service to be used as such). The SLG (Self Loading Garand, pronounced "Slag") gets adopted in 1938 (same year as the Lee Enfield No.4)

Anyway, the US use the .267 round for their rifle and develop a carbine version for tankies etc (thing analogue to the M1 Carbine), which is later adapted for a larger magazine and full automatic fire, giving the US a proto assault rifle at about the same time as the StG 44.

Post war, the .276 (or a modernisation thereof) becomes the standard NATO round. Plus points for britain is that it's easier and cheaper to rechamber to a smaller round, and so the EM-2 and Taden projects go ahead, meanining that the British armament indusy is in a stonger position than OTL post war from selling indegenous designs to commonwealth nations. Given the fact that the British are switching to a Canadian designed weapon pre WWII, this could lead to closer Commonwealth cooperation during the war.

Instead of the Bren getting adopted the British army decides to do a Charltonesque conversion of the old No.3 bolt action rifles. The GaSter (GArand STERling) automatic rifle similar to that pictured above, gets tabled as an LMG/Automatic Rifle for tank and commando units around about 1941 but later becomes popular enough to replaces the pseudo charltons by around 1943.

Come Nato standardisation the Automatic rifle could be rechambered and a new mark with a drum feed ordered as an section level LSW.

 

[Hapsburg]

I deleted my pic from the previous page, as I didn't want to have to keep uploading a new picture every time I made minor adjustments, which I've continued to do since I first posted it. I just got done adding a buttload of new aircraft to the top-view image, and fixed up quite a few of them, in addition to the ones I had already modified.
Notably, the GWS bomber is more stealth-like.

 

[SquireJames]

My only criticism from a developmental point of view is that you have a lot of niche designs that other aircraft could easily fulfill. For example, is there a reason why the Great White Shark, Blacktip or Bullhead couldn't carry an Atomic weapon? Why the need for a dedicated design?

Otherwise, they all look very plausible. And don't get me wrong, I love the design of the Hammerhead, like an Avro Vulcan and a F-117A had a lovechild.. (which makes me think of ATL, Avro-Lockheed Aviation anyone?)

 

[Hapsburg]

For example, is there a reason why the Great White Shark, Blacktip or Bullhead couldn't carry an Atomic weapon? Why the need for a dedicated design?

Mind, not all of them came into service in the same time. The Hammerhead is an older bomber from the 4250's, specifically designed for nuclear strikes; it's still in service simply because it still does its job well enough. The Great White Shark was a recent addition to the bomber force, as are most of the other bombers; hence, they are less niche. It's due to the fact that the Terran Empire and CGU use different combat doctrines, and since this is the early CGU, there's a bit of a transition period when it comes to equipment.

And just to note: yes, nearly every bomber and attack aircraft can carry nuclear weapons. Not to mention nuclear air-to-air missiles used by fighter-bombers and interceptors.

 

[Hapsburg]

Using images of the F-23 mainly, but also F-22, F-35, X-32, and VF-1, I redesigned the F/A-178 Tigershark.
Bigger picture, underside as well as top view. Missiles depicted and a tentative list of specifications.
I'm kinda making some of them up off the top of my head, though. Or based on current high-performance aircraft. So if anyone has more accurate or better suggestions for the specs, please tell me. I don't like making arbitrary numbers.

 

[Mr. BoJangles]

you have no rail on the wingtip hardpoints. even if properly reinforced to support the missile, there would be so much metal that it would distort the shape of the tips. furthermore, the g-forces applied to the vehicle would be enough to virtually tear the missile clean off. there simply isnt enough contact between the missile and the wingtip to compensate for that.

 

[Sachyriel]

you have no rail on the wingtip hardpoints. even if properly reinforced to support the missile, there would be so much metal that it would distort the shape of the tips. furthermore, the g-forces applied to the vehicle would be enough to virtually tear the missile clean off. there simply isnt enough contact between the missile and the wingtip to compensate for that.

Unless his nuclear reactor pumps power to electromagnets that hold them there?

Seriously why a nuclear reactor, you don't live in the plane for months at a time.

Do you?

 

[Hapsburg]

Seriously why a nuclear reactor

Nuclear powered aircraft means no fuel. The benefits of that are staggering.

you don't live in the plane for months at a time.

It's a small reactor specifically designed to operate for short flight periods.

you have no rail on the wingtip hardpoints. even if properly reinforced to support the missile, there would be so much metal that it would distort the shape of the tips. furthermore, the g-forces applied to the vehicle would be enough to virtually tear the missile clean off. there simply isnt enough contact between the missile and the wingtip to compensate for that.

Artistic mistake.

 

[Whanztastic]

snip

Man, I really like the "Basking Shark"

Seeing that thing land would be incredible.

 

[Zor]

CD-28 Kodiak Heavy Infantry Robot, the Commonwealth of Democratic World's answer to the Novan Attrition Series. The Kodiak is a much heavier unit, weighing in at over 800 kilograms and while it is standard to have a Novan soldier commanding a fireteam of Attrition Robots, each Commonwealth Joint Army fireteam has a Kodiak assigned to it. Kodiaks have what is called the Gunface (among other less flattering names which shall not be listed here) frontal mounted long arm turret mounting a 4.4mm PDW. This weapon is used for urban combat, peering around corners and laying down fire while exposing as little of itself as possible. They also carry a top mounted gun turret, usually carrying a 7.5mm machine gun, but can be outfitted with a variety of turrets. It also is much more heavily armored than Attrition series robots and can carry up to four times as much ammunition. Kodiaks cost more than twelve times as much to produce than attrition series Robots.

 

[Mr. BoJangles]

another update... only need to make it larger/detailed

 

[Hapsburg]

Man, I really like the "Basking Shark"

Seeing that thing land would be incredible.

Quite. It was based partly off the C-88 Medea from Mobile Suit Gundam. Though not the retarded looking yellow version in the original series; I used the one from War in the Pocket as a partial model, at least for the bulkiness look.

 

[NothingNow]

Quite. It was based partly off the C-88 Medea from Mobile Suit Gundam. Though not the retarded looking yellow version in the original series; I used the one from War in the Pocket as a partial model, at least for the bulkiness look.

Yeah, the C-88 version looks good, especially with the Over wing Engines and all that.

The Japanese Mechanical designers generally know their stuff, so they make some truly awesome designs.

 

[Orioes]

Nuclear powered aircraft means no fuel. The benefits of that are staggering.


It's a small reactor specifically designed to operate for short flight periods.

It may be better to cast them as nuclear isomer batteries than proper nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors have unhelpful things like heat exchangers and large amounts of working fluid or gas (as well as just being high mass-high volume objects) that don't really jive with small maneuverable aircraft.