Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
- Status
The Pansa looks good, although I don't think the tracks are wide enough to justify the interleaved wheels. It might look at bit odd, but I think using three bogeys like the Pz.38t would work very well, assuming you could scale the wheels right.
OK, so we've got tracks. What's next?
Part 2: Engine
So far in this thread, there has been a lot of discussion about engines available in 1903. Renault, Daimler, Mercedes, etc. Gasoline versus steam, how many horsepower you need to move a machine. Problem is, they've all missed an important candidate for 1903 "Land Monitor" power. I present to you the most powerful self-propelled internal combustion vehicle in production in the USA in 1903:
This is the Hart Parr No.3, later known as the 17-30. As early as 1901, Mr. Hart and Mr. Parr had built their prototype No.1 tractor, based on their successful line of gasoline stationary engines. By 1903, they were producing the No.3 machine, which was the first serial-produced tractor in the USA. The big cylinder sticking up in front? That's the radiator - the smokestack looking part is actually where the engine exhaust was piped, exiting up to create a draught to pull air through the cooling system. The three-spoked wheel in the upper middle? Clutch assembly. The machine featured a fully enclosed crankcase and fully pressurized lubrication. If you look closely, you can see the gears of the transmission and final drives, as well as the worm gear for the steering system. It weighed 14,000 pounds, and was equipped with a two-cylinder, 1654 cubic inch (21.7 Liter, for the metric set) gasoline engine that ran at 300rpm. The engine produced 30 shaft horsepower, and the entire machine had 17 drawbar horsepower.
Doesn't sound too impressive, does it? Well, the numbers don't lie, but they also don't tell the whole story. First, this is an agricultural application, and that 30 shaft horsepower refers to continuous power. Hook this machine to something that needs to spin - a threshing machine, pump, sawmill, rock crusher - and it will make those 30 horsepower all day, every day, for as long as you feed it fuel, oil, and water for the radiator. Even as early as the 1900's, manufacturers understood the advertising appeal of horsepower, so a 35hp Renault probably could make that number for a brief amount of time, and could only sustain a portion of that in continuous operation.
The 17 drawbar horsepower number? That one is even more deceptive. Drawbar horsepower is just that - how much pulling power does the machine have, expressed in horse-equivalent units. Nowadays, that number is one calculated based on engine power, gearing, traction efficiency, etc. But in 1903, it was a direct equivalent. So, this machine had enough ooomph to pull the same load as 17 horses hitched together - in addition to it's own 7 ton carcass. Again, not in spurts or with a running start. From a dead stop, and then for as long as the fuel, oil, and water holds out. Or until the machine breaks down.
Consider this. There is a 1903-built No.3 machine in the Smithsonian that was bought back by the Hart-Parr/Oliver company for their own collection. In 1926. It was still in daily use when it was bought back, 23 years later. Most of these early pre-WW1 tractors were in use well until the 1920's and 1930's, and it wasn't until the massive scrap drives during WW2 that they became rare. These machines were sophisticated in their simplicity, and designed to work and keep on working.
The No.3 was designed for drawbar work, meaning it was geared to pull things. It had a multi-speed transmission (3 speeds, I think?) and had a road speed of maybe 4 miles per hour. So, not fast - but running on steel wheels with no suspension of any sort at all, 4 mph is about as fast as you want any machine to go. You wouldn't think it, but trust me - things can happen awful fast at a brisk walking pace.
Now, look at the picture again. Squint a bit, and with your imagination remove the wheels and substitute in a set lengthened Lombard-style track units. Maybe swap the radiator position with the drivers position, so he can see where he's going. Doing this will cut out a lot of the plumbing going back and forth, and if you lose the canopy above you have a lower silhouette overall. Can you see it? We've created the fully tracked crawler tractor, 10 years earlier at least. It's going to be heavy, probably around 16,000 pounds or so when the tracks and steering clutches are installed. It will be slow, since we'll really not want to gear it faster than 5mph or so given the lack of an sort of suspension. But it will be relatively reliable, moreso than most passenger cars of the period. It will be powerful enough to haul itself around, plus whatever extra you hang on it - after all, it has enough tractive power to move 17 horses worth of load. All of this with extant 1903 technology. Not stuff that can be built with 1903 technology, but with actual machines being built in 1903.
Actually, I lied. Hart Parr also had a 22-45hp machine in 1903, but it was primarily a portable engine that happened to have gearing to move from place to place. It wasn't intended to do mobile work like the No.3 machine was, and lacked as robust transmission and final drive setup. But the 22-45 is a much bigger machine, and doesn't fit the size of available Lombard tracks quite as well.
As Hercule Poirot might say, “Ze little grey cells, they are working Hastings!” My previous Valentine STuG, the General Wolfe, was heavily influenced by the Germans for a TL where Germany and the U.K. were allies. This has got me thinking of what a true British/Commonwealth STuG (assault gun) might look like.
OTL-wise we already have the late-war Valentine-based Archer armed with the 17pdr in the SPAT/jagdpanzer role and the mid-war Valentine-based Bishop (25pdr) in the SPG role. I would see a dedicated Valentine-based assault gun appearing at much the same time as the Bishop SPG and I think it highly probable (guaranteed) that the weapon of choice would be the 87.6mm QF 25pdr. The Bishop mounted it’s weapon in a box-like structure on top of an unmodified hull and, consequently, had a very high silhouette - not that much of an issue for a SPG firing at range. However, I think it likely that a lower profile would be preferred for a dedicated assault gun operating at much closer proximity to the enemy; also, as an assault weapon, it’s potential targets will be selected by the infantry it is supporting and engaged head on. In other words a casemate design would be preferred/acceptable.
Hmmm, I sense another Valentine purchase coming on… 🤔👍😉
Edit: Mrs Claymore has reminded me that given that we now know we will be returning home to Scotland on 1 Jul 22, I think I will probably have to curtail my kit purchases for a while. With this in mind, I might put @cortz#9’s Canadian Valentine FSV on hold (as it was really only a turret conversion) and re-purpose the hull… 🤔
Last edited:
I'm a bit too late in this one, but isn't the valentine too narrow to "a proper fit", by no means I'm complaining, just my point of view, the model is great and if I'm wrong you can correct me. But I think if the Germans had the valentine chassis won't it be more "practical" to make it Hetzer like in the front? Like offset the gun.
No problem. If you read the backstory in my completed project thread, you will see that the General Wolfe was not a Valentine in German service but rather a development of the Picton (itself a take on the OTL Valentine) and very much in British service. Whilst, the casemate does extend over the track fenders the critical elements of the fighting compartment occupies almost the same width as the StuG III. I am happy with the end product and also entirely happy that it remains slightly controversial. 👍
Got it. Now I got an idea, what would the Germans send to the minor axis powers and Italy if it really wanted to cooperate with them, like French tanks for Romanians since more infantry minded and to the small short tanks for Finland in the forests as mobile pillboxes, the Italians would appreciate anything mobile like the 38t or even the 7tp for a cheap m13...
Nice dude, I'll have a look, seems like a good and very plausible idea so far, it's just that my first thought was "Smoll" floor and narrow sides
I thought the Romanians did use French tanks, at least in part!
(quick look online)
Ah, Romania did use French tanks and had an order for 200 Renault R35s but only got 41 or so before France fell.
The Germans then gave them leftover Renaults from Poland and France until replacing them with Skodas and Panzers.
(quick look online)
Ah, Romania did use French tanks and had an order for 200 Renault R35s but only got 41 or so before France fell.
The Germans then gave them leftover Renaults from Poland and France until replacing them with Skodas and Panzers.
Does a casemated structure allow greater gun elevation than a turret? If so, this could increase the effective range of the CS howitzers. I have no idea if this would be useful or not, but it only has to look like it might work to be worth a try.
Smashing and I'll use the General Wolf to add fuel to my writing muse.
The Valentine StuG is for a fanfiction set in the TL 191 verse, so I'm working on the background right now.
Yep, the polish Renaults they are not "received" by any means, they where simply "integrated" to the army when the unity fled from poland to romania, the polish run for britain by the midleeast or by the mediterrain, but the tanks got "liberated". My idea is the Germans got tons of stuff that simply don't fit the pz divisions, working T26s, R35s and H35s, and some drips and drabs of random misfits that by the Germans were useless stuff but in Romanian, Hungarian and other people hands would be a bit more helpful than just divisions with pre-ww1 field guns with low traverse and little AT guns. LOGICALY they don't stand a chance against an proper Soviet tank brigade/corp, but atleast they can make a better stand, ofc I'm talking with hindsight and about a germany that simply don't help it's allies enough (the italians kicked and screamed for SOMUAS, that the Germans simply thought "doctrinal limbo" put then in France as reserve and get then obliterated in 44). My theory is, what would be good for who with a friendly Germany, like just give the right of production of the panzer III for people, you don't have to see then as "up starters" wanting free stuff, they are fighting to the death with you! (They literaly denied the sell of the license to build 50mm tank gun for the italians, in 42/43!)
Greatly depending the chassis, the turret ring simply don't allow the breech to low too much, have a look in most 76mm soviet stuff in the ww2, the have very poor depression (turret floor), and some other countries have low elevation because of the breech and the floor of the turret.
A good thing that I remembered now is, most guns good for HE are howitzers or slow muzzle velocity fire guns, so the have an small cartridge case and big projectiles(with a lot of good things for squishy people and equipment of course), so you don't need, theoretically, a big breach, so tanks like the Chi-Ha can do indirect fire, overwatch to friendly units and stuff pretty well.
Actually, it's the Italians who refused license production of Pz IIIs and their guns, due to Ansaldo convincing Mussolini that "P26/40 is better and will be in mass production soon!".
marathag
Banned
The elevation limit is normally where the recoil of the gun tube doesn't hit anything
The M7 Priest with the 105mm had a +35° to -5°, while the M4A3(105) was +35° to -10°, so Open mounts aren't everything.
That said, the M8 GMC with the short 75 had +40° to -20°, the widest elevation range of any US AFV
The M7 Priest with the 105mm had a +35° to -5°, while the M4A3(105) was +35° to -10°, so Open mounts aren't everything.
That said, the M8 GMC with the short 75 had +40° to -20°, the widest elevation range of any US AFV
It's a longer and complex situation, but to put it simple and bad explained by my part it is: Italy ask for big tank with 2/3 men in the turret with better 47 or a 75mm gun, Germany ask for tons of money and put rules like: radios and guns you will have to buy the unit for standard price or you but the tank without it, Italy search even for Turan, to make it fair it's better and with a little more potential than the M13/40, M14/41. Ansaldo put an sloped plate in M13 and say we will make the Sahariano in time and they will basically be an upgrade of said M13 with sloped plate with an pseudo Christie suspension, spoiler: They didn't, the Italians start the loop again, Germans still ask for more than the panzer III is worth, true, better than Turan, M13, M14 and sahariano. Italians keep going for P26, spoiler: Ansaldo can't keep up, Germans build an "pseudo" well equipped division for the Italians with M15 (logically italian), Pz3, Pz4 and even promised some tigers. Germany ask if italy now wants pz3, pz4 and panther license by almost nothing, Ugo Cavalero says: "We have the P26 with is equivalent of the panther", 1943 happens, germans took the division back, some M15 got destroyed, about 100 P26 got captured and used as pillboxes, anti partisan german and italian units and so on...
Thanks everyone for the comments on casemated guns. I'm picturing something that looks like an SU 122 but on a Valentine chassis and using the CS gun.
Holy s!@# dude! I read and loved, not well versed in the German-British team TL but I totally got the idea now about your model. Btw do you know 3d modeling? If you know ignore this part, I guess, but if you want we can do some stuff together and If you wish I can help you with 3d or do some small/large res stuff with or for you, I'm totally on for cooperation work, if requested. Ofc I'm new here so I'll try not to push myself and my work here, btw. Am I being talking too much in the forum?(If so, sorry)
- Status