for WW2 the open turreted ones make more sense, also because it allows traverse up to 89 degrees
indeed the halftrack with the 4x 0.50 did a pretty good job
Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
- Status
What about using the Churchill as basis for an AAA? It does have a much wider hull than a Sherman or the Chaffee.
Sure, in an ATL. In the OTL, there was no need, because the Germans had so little western-front air ground-attack capability due to their desperate need to focus on bomber interception.
I think the big concern then would be about speed (or lack thereof). Mobile AA is less useful if it's the slowest part of a convoy or unit, ironically making the unit (probably) more vulnerable to air attack, and inversely there is significant value in having AA as the fastest unit so it can reposition quickly.
I'd say this nicely explains why you don't see those big Soviet SPAAGs until they could mount on the same T-54 chassis as the bulk of the armoured regiment it was intended to protect.
Sad to say the ol' Church isn't speedy enough to make it worth it, and the *big* AA guns it might mount are probably also best left as static emplacements rather than mounted on a track.
Interesting idea, though Wikipedia says that the M18 had rather limited internal volume--which suggests it would have the same ammo storage issues as the 40mm-armed Sherman prototype. To put it into context, the M42 Duster, with 2x40mm guns, carried enough shells for 85 s of firing--340 shells. The T52 (Sherman w/ 40mm) carried only 64 shells, though perhaps that was because the enclosed ball-turret took up more space than an open turret on the Hellcat chassis.
You know, I get rather fed up with disparaging comments about the speed of the Churchill. It was perfectly adequate for a vehicle which was intended to be associated with infantry units. Indeed it was perfect when it was called upon to act as an MBT in the final advances in north Germany at war's end, which it did quite well. Tanks do not need generally to speed everywhere. Yes, the Churchill could have been faster but it wasn't. In real life commanders work with what they get, not what they haven't. The Churchill had a perfectly adequate turn of speed at 15mph.
Wouldn't the SPAA be static and looking out for threats from a well chosen site that covers the moving or static column rather than driving around within the convoy? That would make speed less of a factor except when the column is doing a fast march (or whatever the motorised version of a march is).
Yes, the SPAA would tend to be static. It might need a turn of speed to overtake the convoy to take up it's next static position over-watching but the convoy can slow it's rate of advance for a few minutes to enable that. The key would be that the convoy is moving, even it slowly. The Churchill would be adequate for that with sufficient speed to enable it to function at 15mph.
I don't think it unreasonable to consider 15mph inadequate if the rest of the armored column is capable of more. Because a column can only move as fast as its slowest member, a Churchill AA would only be reasonably capable of escorting other Churchills without slowing down the whole formation, thus presenting a better target to the very air attack it's supposed to be defending against.
I'd want the AA to be faster than the average actually, so that it can reposition within/along the column organically in response to situations as they arise. I believe this is why halftracks were so useful in the role.
If you're working from prepared positions along a route, then towed AA is probably your best bet.
Best use of SPGAA is its ability to provide air cover while the whole formation is equally mobile, at least as I understand it.
I was thinking of using a twin 40mm on the Churchill. It might be big enough for that.
I couldn't leave it alone... so here it is. I imagine the UK looking at longer ranged & harder hiting alternatives to the 20mm-equiped Skink, because of the possibility of jet fighters and bombers, and in 1944 asking for some turrets of the new M19. A dozen get ploped on the Churchill, with some reaching Germany in time to provide late war support, but are stored untill 1950, at which time some (6? 8?) are sent to Korea, where they shootdown some Sturmoviks and provide anti-infantry support.
The Churchill is over 2m longer and around 0.5m wider than the M19, so eyeballing dimensions gave me this.
I have no regrets, made the Churchill ride again!
The Churchill is over 2m longer and around 0.5m wider than the M19, so eyeballing dimensions gave me this.
I have no regrets, made the Churchill ride again!
Last edited:
ctayfor
Monthly Donor
I hope you meant 1944 rather than 1994...I couldn't leave it alone... so here it is. I imagine the UK looking at longer ranged & harder hiting alternatives to the 20mm-equiped Skink, because of the possibility of jet fighters and bombers, and in 1994 asking for some turrets of the new M19. A dozen get ploped on the Churchill, with some reaching Germany in time to provide late war support, but are stored untill 1950, at which time some (6? 8?) are sent to Korea, where they shootdown some Sturmoviks and provide anti-infantry support.
The Churchill is over 2m longer and around 0.5m wider than the M19, so eyeballing dimensions gave me this.
I have no regrets, made the Churchill ride again!
Britain already had designed and built a prototype batch of Crusader AA Mk III, with single Bofors L/60. By all accounts, Crusader was fast and reliable in its second life, variously as an AA platform, engineering tank, bridging tank, artillery tractor or ammo hauler. What would be the particular advantage, almost immediately after the OTL British had decided to cancel the Crusader with single Bofors because it had no justifiable role, to spend considerable time and money building Churchills...much better armored, but slower...with dual Bofors?
2 x 40mm better than one. Note the trend in both the US (who crammed the turret into the smaller hull) and Germany (who was trying to fit 2 x 37mm)
She's not winning any beauty prizes either!
What changes would need to occur, so that the armament could achieve a higher elevation & faster traverse speed?
Faster aim rate of change is simple in concept, requiring only more horsepower, plus servo controls so that the guns are accelerating for part of their movement, and decelerating as they approach the intended aim point, plus gun mounting mechanisms that are well balanced and free moving.
But an additional difficulty is that during WWII it was recognized that determining correct aim against ever-faster aircraft at low to moderate altitude, involving just the right amount of "lead" of the target, now required rates of aim-change beyond average gunners' mental-physical abilities...even if the target flew a straight path, which was increasingly uncommon.
The first solution to that was analog-computer aiming, with the computer determining how much lead should be provided in the aim, and the gun system only having to be "aimed" at the target's current position, with the guns' aim being offset as required. But, that only worked with straight attacking-aircraft trajectories.
That problem wasn't solved any better during WWII.
But an additional difficulty is that during WWII it was recognized that determining correct aim against ever-faster aircraft at low to moderate altitude, involving just the right amount of "lead" of the target, now required rates of aim-change beyond average gunners' mental-physical abilities...even if the target flew a straight path, which was increasingly uncommon.
The first solution to that was analog-computer aiming, with the computer determining how much lead should be provided in the aim, and the gun system only having to be "aimed" at the target's current position, with the guns' aim being offset as required. But, that only worked with straight attacking-aircraft trajectories.
That problem wasn't solved any better during WWII.
- Status