Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 2
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
- Status
Claymore
Kicked
What if I gave the tank more slope or went with a T-55 or T-62 suspension?
Is rear drive superior to front drive or could I make the M47 suspension a front drive one?
Trying to cover all the bases here.
No great difference either way but rear transmission tanks tend to be flatter and thus have a lower profile - stand fast the towering bulk of the M60.
If you are looking for a Panther-esk, forward transmission, US style torsion bar suspension have a look at my Panther III model - the first model on my completed project thread. Its a Panther with a reversed M60 suspension.
Change the turret and away you go!
Funnily enough, postwar the US trialled the suspension from a German Sd.Kfz. 8 on an M24 Chaffee:
Article on it here.
That site is run by the infamous lunatic Mike Sparks, who's been trying to get the M113 called the "Gavin" for years now.
I think you're trying to upgrade the vehicle way too quickly in terms of technology, especially as this is all proactive and there isn't really a need yet. Your best bet is probably something along the lines of a Pz.Kpfw. III or IV with sloped armor, wider tracks, and a long 75mm cannon, preferably one based on an existing AA cannon, which means you're not wasting lots of time trying to make a new gun from scratch yet. For instance, the Italian Cannone da 75/46 C.A. modello 34 is from 1934, and the Germans OTL found its performance as an anti-tank weapon on par with their newer 7.5cm PaK 40. So something like that gives a good basis to start with.
Later on, you could develop a new turret for the vehicle, beefier engine, better armor, possibly a revamped suspension, and of course a larger gun, maybe an 88mm or 90mm (such as the 8.8cm KwK 36 L/56 or Cannone da 90/53), as with proper ammo, they should be more they should be more than sufficient for anti-tank purposes, and it still maintains a decent HE shell, which is extremely important as most of the time the tank isn't fighting other tanks.
Interesting, I've put interleaved wheels on a Sherman once but never thought of the M24. Guess what I'll be doing next?Funnily enough, postwar the US trialled the suspension from a German Sd.Kfz. 8 on an M24 Chaffee:
Article on it here.
That site is run by the infamous lunatic Mike Sparks, who's been trying to get the M113 called the "Gavin" for years now.
I think you're trying to upgrade the vehicle way too quickly in terms of technology, especially as this is all proactive and there isn't really a need yet. Your best bet is probably something along the lines of a Pz.Kpfw. III or IV with sloped armor, wider tracks, and a long 75mm cannon, preferably one based on an existing AA cannon, which means you're not wasting lots of time trying to make a new gun from scratch yet. For instance, the Italian Cannone da 75/46 C.A. modello 34 is from 1934, and the Germans OTL found its performance as an anti-tank weapon on par with their newer 7.5cm PaK 40. So something like that gives a good basis to start with.
Later on, you could develop a new turret for the vehicle, beefier engine, better armor, possibly a revamped suspension, and of course a larger gun, maybe an 88mm or 90mm (such as the 8.8cm KwK 36 L/56 or Cannone da 90/53), as with proper ammo, they should be more they should be more than sufficient for anti-tank purposes, and it still maintains a decent HE shell, which is extremely important as most of the time the tank isn't fighting other tanks.
I like your idea for a Pz.III with the Cannone da 90/53, however in this timeline Germany and Italy won't be allies. I can't of use the TAZ mle..39 either because the French in this TL are even more anti-German than in OTL.
So how about the Czech vz.37 7,5 AA gun? Germany and Czechoslovakia are on good terms and will probably remain so.
So a Pz.III/IV with wider tracks and armed with the vz.37 gun sound good?
Gavin?
Another design for the "But I don't speak German" TL.
Took some of LiB's suggestions, took a pic of the Pz.III/IV and added another turret with better sloping (I think its just a paper design or somebody's else artwork) and added a panther gun mantlet to it. The cannon is the 75mm Selbstfahrlafette L/ 40.8 for now but I might change it to the Cannone da 90/53 or the Czech 7.5 cm kanon PL vz. 37.
I think the hull's length needs to be extended, I don't see enough room for a driver's hatch and I'm still thinking of giving this a rear drive train.
Suggestions strongly welcomed.
Took some of LiB's suggestions, took a pic of the Pz.III/IV and added another turret with better sloping (I think its just a paper design or somebody's else artwork) and added a panther gun mantlet to it. The cannon is the 75mm Selbstfahrlafette L/ 40.8 for now but I might change it to the Cannone da 90/53 or the Czech 7.5 cm kanon PL vz. 37.
I think the hull's length needs to be extended, I don't see enough room for a driver's hatch and I'm still thinking of giving this a rear drive train.
Suggestions strongly welcomed.
Interesting, I've put interleaved wheels on a Sherman once but never thought of the M24. Guess what I'll be doing next?
I like your idea for a Pz.III with the Cannone da 90/53, however in this timeline Germany and Italy won't be allies. I can't of use the TAZ mle..39 either because the French in this TL are even more anti-German than in OTL.
So how about the Czech vz.37 7,5 AA gun? Germany and Czechoslovakia are on good terms and will probably remain so.
So a Pz.III/IV with wider tracks and armed with the vz.37 gun sound good?
Gavin?
Yeah, the Czech 7.5cm PL vz. 37 would work fine. And when it gets upgraded later, the 8.8cm KwK 36 L/56 should work fine as well, but that would require a new turret and the hull might need some work to handle the weight of the new gun.
And yeah, Mike Sparks is a nutcase. He's been trying to tell people the M113 should be called the Gavin for years now.
EDIT: I would say save the Pz.Kpfw. III/IV design for the upgraded version, and use a sloped Pz.Kpfw. III or a sloped Pz.Kpfw. IV for the early model. This lets you use the III/IV's suspension for the upgraded version, which I've heard would have been a more stable design than the outdated suspensions of the III and IV.
Last edited:
Hi guys. Congrats on the second incarnation of the thread Claymore!
As some of you may already know, thanks to the efforts of fresh.co.il (link in Hebrew), the "Pereh" (פרא = Wild) tank was finally declassified by the IDF yesterday (cencorship had to give up eventually with pictures of the tank poping in the news in increasing numbers over tha past few years). Not so much a tank in that it's "gun" is a fake, and the real deal happens at the "rear" of the turret - 12 Spike NLOS "Tamuz" ATGMs used for precision targeting of enemy targets, be they a fixed rocket launcher at the Gaza Strip, or the Pereh's original goal of rapidly destroying advancing Syrian armour columns.
The tank uses an M48 Patton tank's hull, upgraded with 4th gen armour to help the launcher survive the dangers of a modern battlefield, which risks the earlier version, being based on the M113 APC in Israel and other lightly armoured vehicles around the world.
Now on fresh.co.il out of the conversation sprung up the question of making the next logical step and basing the system on a Merkava hull for easing up the logistics over all. Naturally it's cheaper to use old M48 hulls (left untouched after thier original turrets were given to the newer Magach versions), than to take away from the IDF's Merkava production line preciouse room for a relatively small number of Pereh tanks, at least with the curreent budget and rate of manufactoring.
Which brings me to ask a non-relevant question to that site, here: During the 1960's the IDF was contemplating basing it's future tank on a tank's gun concept, or an ATGM concept. In out timeline, the IDF had chosen the former. But what if it didn't? What would an earlier Pereh tank look like had it been the norm starting in the mid-1970's-early 1980's with the introduction of a Spike ATGM based Merkava tank? How, if at all, would this affect the development of tanks in other countries? What would an early Merkava model look with a turret designed for launcing of ATGM's, rather than for firing a tank's gun? I am not talking about a light tank like the Sheridan, but more along the lines of an IT-1 or Jaguar 2. Main difference being that the vehicle is meant to be the main battle platform, rather than a supporting Tank Destroyer.
Thoughts?
As some of you may already know, thanks to the efforts of fresh.co.il (link in Hebrew), the "Pereh" (פרא = Wild) tank was finally declassified by the IDF yesterday (cencorship had to give up eventually with pictures of the tank poping in the news in increasing numbers over tha past few years). Not so much a tank in that it's "gun" is a fake, and the real deal happens at the "rear" of the turret - 12 Spike NLOS "Tamuz" ATGMs used for precision targeting of enemy targets, be they a fixed rocket launcher at the Gaza Strip, or the Pereh's original goal of rapidly destroying advancing Syrian armour columns.
The tank uses an M48 Patton tank's hull, upgraded with 4th gen armour to help the launcher survive the dangers of a modern battlefield, which risks the earlier version, being based on the M113 APC in Israel and other lightly armoured vehicles around the world.
Now on fresh.co.il out of the conversation sprung up the question of making the next logical step and basing the system on a Merkava hull for easing up the logistics over all. Naturally it's cheaper to use old M48 hulls (left untouched after thier original turrets were given to the newer Magach versions), than to take away from the IDF's Merkava production line preciouse room for a relatively small number of Pereh tanks, at least with the curreent budget and rate of manufactoring.
Which brings me to ask a non-relevant question to that site, here: During the 1960's the IDF was contemplating basing it's future tank on a tank's gun concept, or an ATGM concept. In out timeline, the IDF had chosen the former. But what if it didn't? What would an earlier Pereh tank look like had it been the norm starting in the mid-1970's-early 1980's with the introduction of a Spike ATGM based Merkava tank? How, if at all, would this affect the development of tanks in other countries? What would an early Merkava model look with a turret designed for launcing of ATGM's, rather than for firing a tank's gun? I am not talking about a light tank like the Sheridan, but more along the lines of an IT-1 or Jaguar 2. Main difference being that the vehicle is meant to be the main battle platform, rather than a supporting Tank Destroyer.
Thoughts?
Given the pictures I've seen of the Pereh, I knew it was an M48 chassis. Speaking of using the Merkava, would a Magach turret fit on the Merkava chassis? I know at least one of the prototypes of the Merkava had a Magach (M48, early M60) turret mounted on it, but I don't know if the turret rings were kept the same size on the actual Merkavas. Hell, the turret ring size is probably still classified.
EDIT: The reason I ask is that I wonder if it would be feasible to just mount the current Pereh turrets on the old Merkava 1s laying around.
Given the pictures I've seen of the Pereh, I knew it was an M48 chassis. Speaking of using the Merkava, would a Magach turret fit on the Merkava chassis? I know at least one of the prototypes of the Merkava had a Magach (M48, early M60) turret mounted on it, but I don't know if the turret rings were kept the same size on the actual Merkavas. Hell, the turret ring size is probably still classified.
EDIT: The reason I ask is that I wonder if it would be feasible to just mount the current Pereh turrets on the old Merkava 1s laying around.
Still classified. I assume modifications can be made either way now that the last Merkava 1's were taken out of service, but the difference in protection is relatively minor without 4th gen add on armour, and I meant putting a Pereh turret, be it M48 or a new one, on a mk.3/4 hull for a significant jump in protection and mobility. In an alternative history scenario of an ATGM based Merkava, a new turret would be needed. Partially because the older M48's and M60's would still be in active service, and mainly because it's a new tank and might as well make a new turret based on lessons from 1967 and 1973.
I have a couple of questions for my fellow tread heads:
The M - 4 Sherman was fairly extensively upgraded during the course of the Cold War and I wanted to know what its counterparts say a Panzer IV and T - 34 / 85 would look like in the mid to late 1960s?
Anyone care to have a go?
The M - 4 Sherman was fairly extensively upgraded during the course of the Cold War and I wanted to know what its counterparts say a Panzer IV and T - 34 / 85 would look like in the mid to late 1960s?
Anyone care to have a go?
Claymore or LIB you guys know of any good books that deal with armored cars? I'm looking for anything from WWI to the Cold War.
For a PzIV Cold War upgrade you'd have to think out of the box. Assume the French could still build them with leftover factories from the war.
New engine, better transmission-doable without being too costly.
Lose the bow mg. Applique armor, the new power system should be able to still have decent speed.
Leftover 75mm cannon from M24 Chafees-or-SS11 ATGM side turret mounts where the doors use to be.
Instead of 75mm, use 60mm gun-mortar with the missile mounts, add the 20mm gun from the AMX-30 commander cupola.
Make a French STUG with 75mm light airborne howitzer-could have helped the FFL in Viet Nam/Algeria/Congo.
Mount Quad 'fifties with RedEye missile mounts. A WirbelRaketePanzer for West Germany.
For T-34/76/85 et al, Same as above just use Russian/East Europe wpns & gear-Quad 14.5's, Sa-7's, Saggers etc.
Love to see a Cold War T-35/55 APC with off set RPD turrets, 23mm turrets and a center turret with a 73mm/Sagger/SA-7 combo. Might actually fit a full squad in that, not those BMP half squads.
Or just cheap battle taxis for the infantry.
New engine, better transmission-doable without being too costly.
Lose the bow mg. Applique armor, the new power system should be able to still have decent speed.
Leftover 75mm cannon from M24 Chafees-or-SS11 ATGM side turret mounts where the doors use to be.
Instead of 75mm, use 60mm gun-mortar with the missile mounts, add the 20mm gun from the AMX-30 commander cupola.
Make a French STUG with 75mm light airborne howitzer-could have helped the FFL in Viet Nam/Algeria/Congo.
Mount Quad 'fifties with RedEye missile mounts. A WirbelRaketePanzer for West Germany.
For T-34/76/85 et al, Same as above just use Russian/East Europe wpns & gear-Quad 14.5's, Sa-7's, Saggers etc.
Love to see a Cold War T-35/55 APC with off set RPD turrets, 23mm turrets and a center turret with a 73mm/Sagger/SA-7 combo. Might actually fit a full squad in that, not those BMP half squads.
Or just cheap battle taxis for the infantry.
I just had a crazy thought. Strip the turret off the Pz IV and Make a custom turret for ATGMs.
The T-34/85 was upgraded quite a bit, although usually into some sort of artillery piece, of which Cuba still uses some variants including one with a 130mm M-46. The Pz.Kpfw. IV reached the end of its upgradeability with the later models which strained the suspension almost to its breaking point. The JagdPz. IV needed reinforced front roadwheels just to handle the strain of the upgrade.
Sorry, not off-hand. I've never been a big armored car fan, my interest is in tracked things mostly.
Problem is, to do all of those things in order to make a Pz.Kpfw. IV viable, you're much better off just putting the time and money into a whole new tank or vehicle built for that role from the ground up. As I mentioned, the Pz.Kpfw. IV's suspension was already at the breaking point with the later models, there isn't much you can do to fix that without a whole new suspension, engine, transmission, etc, at which point you've put so much money and man hours into reworking it, that a new vehicle could have been purpose built.
That might work, as it's fairly simple, and makes use of the chassis without needing to put much work turning it into something else. Otherwise, it's just not worth the effort putting that much work into it. Honestly, if the suspension had been upgraded at some point in the war, it might not have been that bad, but that goes back into the issues of time, money, and effort, and the Germans had already put so much into making the Panther and Tiger that upgrading the Pz.Kpfw. IV other than giving it more armor and a better gun just wasn't a priority.
How about the Panther or Tiger in lieu of the Pz Iv?
Also how would availability of access to western equipment change a potential upgrade of a T - 34 / 85? I'm thinking the former Yugoslavia may have gone this route...
Last edited:
- Status