Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode

Bougnas

Not James Stockdale said:
Do you have any information about how the hull geometry varied from the T-64/72/80 series compared to something like the Object 187?
Click to expand...
187 had slight mods to house longer projectiles and a more powerful engine, but the biggest change is that the front hull adopts a similar layout to the Leopard 2: a very sloped roof plate that houses the driver's hatch so this weakened zone is no longer exposed, and a less sloped (50-70°) plate. This solution also increased the available thickness to install more steel and NERA.
That's the geometry the Object 772, 775 and 480 also used to partially or fully eliminate the driver's hatch weakpoint.

The other solution used in the Yugoslavian Vihor, the Soviet Object 172-2M and the Object 775 (alternative) was to increase the slope of the single T-64-like plate even further so the hatch basically fits seamlessly or at least the weakened zone is much smaller. But this solution requires either reducing the roof area in front of the turret, lengthening the hull front or increasing the size of the lower frontal plate as a tradeoff.
 

CaptainCalvert

marathag said:
Mk IV was between 103462 to 115962 RM for late war with the long 75mm , early Mk III was 96,163 while the last Mk III ausfM was 103,163 RM
A Mk II ausf F was 52,640RM
Click to expand...
That's the kind of price difference that could potentially be covered several times over by the efficiencies of a single production model.
In practice, assuming the factories all manufacture to a similar standard so that parts are interchangeable then the real benefits should be in maintenance, trouble shooting, logistics (spares and replacements), training (crew and armourers) and repair.
 

Uruk

May it be better than the last
 

Attachments

  • 1641052523.sleepyray_tank.png
    1641052523.sleepyray_tank.png
    467.3 KB · Views: 102

steamboy

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
 
Last edited:

Hammerbolt

Sounds a lot more complicated and prone to failure than a modern breach, tbh. And the need to ""drop to a pre-position" to reload would cut down on the rate of fire.
 

steamboy

Hammerbolt said:
Sounds a lot more complicated and prone to failure than a modern breach, tbh. And the need to ""drop to a pre-position" to reload would cut down on the rate of fire.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking so maybe its got a system either like the Swedish Bandekannon, or something like the mollins gun


where the crew load the ammo onto a rack and goes in that way? Or failing that, a simple door at the back where the ammo's fed out and then manually loaded.
 

Hammerbolt

steamboy said:
That's what I was thinking so maybe its got a system either like the Swedish Bandekannon, or something like the mollins gun


where the crew load the ammo onto a rack and goes in that way? Or failing that, a simple door at the back where the ammo's fed out and then manually loaded.
Click to expand...
The Bandekannon was a 155mm with a autoloader that allowed it to spit 14 rounds in 45 seconds, and then run away, load a new magazine (2mn!), do it again. That 6pdr was a rapid fire gun for naval combat.

So both are almost completely diferent from that 105, in terms of loading and usage; if it's hand loaded, then it's designed for sustained fire support from a semi-fixed position, like the modern L/M119. The tracks will simply mean it doesn't need a towing vehicle.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Instead of the egregiously mis-named M247 Sgt York AA system, how about the US procurement brass gets smarter and buys the Flakpanzer Gepard? (This notion borrowed from the Anti-Drone thread - and its discussion of the continued usefulness of the Gepard).

What would it be called in US service? Probably not Sergeant York.....
 

wietze

Driftless said:
Instead of the egregiously mis-named M247 Sgt York AA system, how about the US procurement brass gets smarter and buys the Flakpanzer Gepard? (This notion borrowed from the Anti-Drone thread - and its discussion of the continued usefulness of the Gepard).

What would it be called in US service? Probably not Sergeant York.....
Click to expand...
i suggest M xxx 'Oakley' (after Annie Oakley)
 

Hammerbolt

Driftless said:
Instead of the egregiously mis-named M247 Sgt York AA system, how about the US procurement brass gets smarter and buys the Flakpanzer Gepard? (This notion borrowed from the Anti-Drone thread - and its discussion of the continued usefulness of the Gepard).

What would it be called in US service? Probably not Sergeant York.....
Click to expand...
You mean the US acepting a foreign design into service after being proven uncapable of producing one?... :winkytongue: political suicide...

Technically, I can't think of anything wrong with the idea, but I doubt the US would want the logistics problem of adding another front line chassis to the army. What they could do was buy the turret and fit it into the M60A3 hull. Afaik, the M60 has a wider turret ring than the Leopard 1 (original chassis of the Flakpanzer) so it should fit?...
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Hammerbolt said:
You mean the US acepting a foreign design into service after being proven uncapable of producing one?... :winkytongue: political suicide...
Click to expand...
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.
Hammerbolt said:
Technically, I can't think of anything wrong with the idea, but I doubt the US would want the logistics problem of adding another front line chassis to the army. What they could do was buy the turret and fit it into the M60A3 hull. Afaik, the M60 has a wider turret ring than the Leopard 1 (original chassis of the Flakpanzer) so it should fit?...
Click to expand...
That might work, or even one of the older hulls?
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top