Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode

Hammerbolt

Driftless said:
Oh, I know... But I also remember that York debacle frequently appearing on the various news outlets as the sterling example of Pentagon procurement incompetence. Cost overruns, faked firing displays that were flops inspite of being completely sham set-ups. Eeeesh. In hindsight, the Brass might have been willing to buy from anyone. Maybe the poilitical pill could have been some concurrent horse-trade with the Germans for a US made goody.

That might work, or even one of the older hulls?
Click to expand...
On the York: it was a foul up only if people publicly admited it and tried to properly fix things... so. nope! x'D besides, this was also around the time when the US started to base it's battlefield air defence on the premise that "the air force wins", so Stinger is enough...

As for using older hulls, no. The point of a system like the Gepard is that it keeps pace and supports the main line, so keeping one hull (M60) throughout would be better, logistically. The M48 was being phased out of front line units.
 

Bougnas

Hammerbolt said:
On the York: it was a foul up only if people publicly admited it and tried to properly fix things... so. nope! x'D besides, this was also around the time when the US started to base it's battlefield air defence on the premise that "the air force wins", so Stinger is enough...

As for using older hulls, no. The point of a system like the Gepard is that it keeps pace and supports the main line, so keeping one hull (M60) throughout would be better, logistically. The M48 was being phased out of front line units.
Click to expand...
Honestly, short of the US fully renouncing on the "keep pace with M1" requirement or using expensive M1 hulls from the limited production capacity they had, they would have to further upgrade M60 or M48 hulls to a new standard with an uprated engine and improved suspension and transmission.

It doesn't matter whether M60 or M48A5 is used because both are virtually identical in mobility and have high commonality.

Judging by the OTL M247 tho, it seems they didn't even consider the mobility aspect.
 
Not James Stockdale

Not James Stockdale

steamboy said:
Its got its ammo carried aboard, but I'm going to guess that its crew of two would be accompanied by a light tractor/ammunition vehicle with the rest of the crew, but the question is how does the ammo go from the stowage, to the gun.
Click to expand...
The gun crew would carry it by hand.
steamboy said:
The art below indicates that it loads from below, I would guess kind of like a kind of martin henry rifle, it drops into position, charge is fed up then the shell and the breech closes before it elevates again. Would that work or is it too complicated?
Click to expand...
Since I don't think this guy really knew what he was trying to draw, I can only talk about what the drawing looks like. The gun appears to have a breechblock that slides up, which means that the shells are loaded from below. This is unusual because it puts more stress on the semi-automatic action to open the breechblock and make it more difficult for the crew to load the gun because the loader can't rest the nose of the shell on the breechblock or breech before throwing it in. Breechblocks usually drop open or open to the side.
steamboy said:
The chap who designed the vehicle said the gun has to drop to a pre-position before being loaded from underneath or would there be a simpler system where its just feeding propellant and shells out the back (front mounted fuel cell engine) somewhere and the crew load them up that way?
Click to expand...
The gun itself doesn't seem to have any way to move up or down, so he might be talking about a specific loading angle, but with this being hand-loaded, that would be up to the gun crew. If they can throw shells in at high angles, they wouldn't have to drop the gun and reduce their rate of fire. The hull appears to have crew positions in the front, which would require the engine/powerpack to be in the rear, under the gun. I don't think there is room for ammunition stowage in a hull this small.
 
GrahamB

GrahamB

steamboy said:
Photo_1662129426270.jpg
Click to expand...
Off-topic to the discussion about the loading system, but I'd say the body/hull is far too short to be useful. That sort of short-and-wide hull is going to be neigh impossible to travel in a straight line as it'll just start fishtailing everywhere, to say nothing of how much room is - or rather isn't - left inside for crew, drivetrain, fuel, and ammunition. I think, ironically enough, if the hull was stretched out to be the same length as the whole thing presently is with the bracing arms down, it'd be just about right for both stability and internal volume needed.
You also wouldn't need the bracing arms then, assuming the cannon mount stayed where it was relative to the front of the thing, which is going to save a boatload of weight as the current ones are absurdly overbuilt and heavy.
 
Claymore

Claymore

steamboy said:
Photo_1662129426401.jpg


Got a question for you. This is a small, lightweight artillerypeice, its pretty bare bones, has a fairly small caliber cannon (probably a 105/122 analogue).

Its got its ammo carried aboard, but I'm going to guess that its crew of two would be accompanied by a light tractor/ammunition vehicle with the rest of the crew, but the question is how does the ammo go from the stowage, to the gun.

The chap who designed the vehicle said the gun has to drop to a pre-position before being loaded from underneath or would there be a simpler system where its just feeding propellant and shells out the back (front mounted fuel cell engine) somewhere and the crew load them up that way?

Photo_1662129425882.jpg


The art below indicates that it loads from below, I would guess kind of like a kind of martin henry rifle, it drops into position, charge is fed up then the shell and the breech closes before it elevates again. Would that work or is it too complicated?

Photo_1662129426270.jpg
Click to expand...
These are very nice drawings and show considerable drawing (illustrative) skills. Unfortunately, however, the vehicle being depicted is entirely unrealistic as an example of a workable self-propelled gun (SPG). As others have pointed out, it is too short, too wide and massively over armoured for a SPG. In other words, unstable, not enough internal volume for motive power, crew and ammunition storage and overweight for a weapon system designed to engage at ranges beyond the need for heavy armour or a secondary turret mounted mg.

The operation of the vehicle’s primary gun system is also highly dubious. What I take to be the ammunition loading hatch is too far forward for the breach mechanism and requires the gun to be centralised in azimuth and elevation before reloading can be initiated.

The massive ‘legs‘ that lower behind the vehicle are just odd, bordering on the comical, and don‘t seem to serve any functional purpose - much better to use a blade system as on the M110 or M109.

Any suggestion that the crew need to exit the vehicle in order to load the gun of what seems to be an advanced/futuristic vehicle is just madness. Overall, as others have said once again, I too suspect the designer has little experience of AFV and/or artillery systems - a case in point where the rule of cool just doesn’t hold up. Sorry…

I still like and appreciate the artist‘s phenomenal drawing skills and would really like to see more - if they could be pointed in the right direction. 👍
 
Last edited:

GuildedAgeNostalgia

Ramontxo said:
According to Navweap the 40mm/70 calibers Bofors could penetrate 135 mm at a thousand meters.* This more than enough to let you kill anything except front armour of MBTs. An for that you need an 105mm L7 or more...


*
1,100 yards (1,000 m)3.93 in (10 cm)
The figure above is the "official" rating, but test firings have shown that this round can penetrate armor up to 5.3 inches (13.5 cm) at 1,100 yards (1,000
Click to expand...

According to the Wikipedia article for the Rooikat, the Italian 76mm naval gun (also a autocannon, although it's manually loaded for the Rooikat) has the ability to take out the frontal armor of M48s, T54s, and T62s.
 

brookso

steamboy said:
Photo_1662129426401.jpg


Got a question for you. This is a small, lightweight artillerypeice, its pretty bare bones, has a fairly small caliber cannon (probably a 105/122 analogue).

Its got its ammo carried aboard, but I'm going to guess that its crew of two would be accompanied by a light tractor/ammunition vehicle with the rest of the crew, but the question is how does the ammo go from the stowage, to the gun.

The chap who designed the vehicle said the gun has to drop to a pre-position before being loaded from underneath or would there be a simpler system where its just feeding propellant and shells out the back (front mounted fuel cell engine) somewhere and the crew load them up that way?

Photo_1662129425882.jpg


The art below indicates that it loads from below, I would guess kind of like a kind of martin henry rifle, it drops into position, charge is fed up then the shell and the breech closes before it elevates again. Would that work or is it too complicated?

Photo_1662129426270.jpg

Modeler usually does stuff with firearms and custom holsters( personally, not a huge fan of 3D printed kydex stuff, more of a Galco holster ( https://gritroutdoors.com/galco/ ) guy myself.
Click to expand...
Great modeling by the lad, but a lot of problems with this design. 1) Loading from outside - gotta make crew actually leave vehicle to realod - not the best idea unless it's some sort of super long range artillery(which it's probably not considering caliber). 2) Needing to drop into position to reload everytime is a whole lot of extra movement.

Would it work? Probably. Should design be a tad bit improved? Probably too.

Kudos to modeling skills though, pictures look crisp as hell :D
 
Last edited:

Ramontxo

Donor
GuildedAgeNostalgia said:
According to the Wikipedia article for the Rooikat, the Italian 76mm naval gun (also a autocannon, although it's manually loaded for the Rooikat) has the ability to take out the frontal armor of M48s, T54s, and T62s.
Click to expand...
And the Italian/Israeli 60mm could penetrate the frontal armour of the T 62 at 2000 meters. And in the Italian version fires 30 rounds per minute (cyclic). But all of this examples are late Seventys and early Eighties. The 40/70 Bofors was ready twenty years before this
 
Last edited:
Gokbay

Gokbay

Jim Smitty said:
Got a laugh out of this so figure I would share

FlpZT6WaMAIhyHM
Click to expand...

Wouldn't USS Iowa and A-10 fit under design moderate under this definition? Unless the meaning of "a powerful main armament" literally is "one powerful main armament". Also, with radar fire control, even ignoring the later refitted missiles, an Iowa can engage beyond the horizon. And I feel like am A-10 is far more direct fire (even if it is from above). Also, unless the crane counts as a weapon the Bergetiger (also, pretty sure there is only one, so specificying "a Bergetiger" is unnecessary) only has the hull mounted machine gun. Moreover the design purist definition means a lot of the early tanks don't count as tanks.

Sorry, I know you didn't make this but it intensified my nitpickiness.
 

Hammerbolt

GuildedAgeNostalgia said:
Considering that Israel made armored personnel carriers out of the hulls of main battle tanks such as the Namer (Merkava) and Achzarit (T55), what if the United States tried to do so with a M1 Abrams, or surplus M60 Patton's?

en.wikipedia.org

Namer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org

IDF Achzarit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Technically, shouldn't be hard: remove turrets, alter a few things, cover up. But Israel made them because they are constantly involved in city fights, or in closed up areas, against opponents that carry ATGMs, IED, etc... hence such a need. The russians also built the BMPT, BMPV and BTR-T models for the same reasons.
 

CB13

If we're talking about an "Alternative Ukrainian Solution", I'd be focusing on how to service and modernize the thousands of BMP-1 amd BMP-2 they currently have in inventory.

1. Use 3D printers to create casts for key replacement parts that are known to wear out with use (engine, transmission, suspension, tracks, etc.)
2. Use similar tech to scan then produce a set of adhesive-applied.MEXAS panels (focus being on artillery shrapnel and small arms as opposed to ATGM's) with internal spall liner.
3. New build 2-man turret with NATO-standard 30mm cannon (to ease future ammunition supply issues) and improved day/night optics.
 
Not James Stockdale

Not James Stockdale

During the early Cold War, Manticoran ground forces use a lot of derivatives of the US Army 155 mm/203 mm heavy artillery duplex. I am investigating options for upgunning these vehicles around the 1960 - 1970 timeframe, when the hulls (Patton and Medium 50-ton) are still adequate.

The US Army converted all of their M53 SPGs with 155 mm L/45 tubes to M55 SPGs with 203 mm L/25 tubes during the late 1950s, but the USMC did not. I don't know how much that had to do with the ability of 8-inch tubes to fire the W33 nuclear warhead, but I have my suspicions. Nuclear artillery shells will not be a concern for Manticore because later development of deployable tactical nuclear weapons will lead to a focus on tactical ballistic missiles instead. After retiring the M53/M55 duplex, the route the US Army took in the 1960s was to switch to the M107/M110 chassis with a 175 mm L/60 replacing the 155 mm L/45, though the early M110s had the same 203 mm L/25 tube. Ultimately, it took until 1977 to introduce the longer M201 ordnance (203 mm L/37) and convert all of the M107s and M110s to the M110A1 and then M110A2 standard.

The first option is to do nothing until the mid to late 1970s, when it would be more reasonable to start replacing the hulls wholesale and upgrading artillery units to long (~39 cal) guns. This kind of timeframe (circa 1975 to 1977) is when a lot of Western countries began switching from M114-style howitzers to FH70/FH77/M198/M109A2 style gun-howitzers.

The second option is to try to unify the platforms on a single caliber somewhere around 180 mm. The US 175 mm gun fired a shell around 150 lbs to a range of 40 km, compared to the WWII era 203 mm tube firing a 200 lbs shell to less than 25 km. A medium might be a 175 mm L/50 gun firing a 160 lbs shell with enough MV for 30+ km range, which would be less of a barrel-burner than the M107 was.

The third option is to leave the 203 mm ordnance alone, like the US Army did, and focus more on the 155 mm platform. The Swedish Bandkanon was coming into service around this time (mid 1960s) and I have tended to move the introduction of Swedish weapons up by a few years in the Manticore AU. The Bandkanon is basically a 14-shot MLRS compared to normal tube artillery systems, which would make it very effective for the Manticoran style of artillery employment. However, it is said to have been very complex and expensive, so it might not be the best option for a force that could require more than a thousand units, and it also doesn't do anything to improve the range of the corps-level artillery. Putting an autoloader on 155 mm SPGs also does nothing for the towed M59 and M115 duplex that are also used in large numbers.
 
Reader mode
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top