Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3

Could the turret on the Vickers Medium Mark III have been expanded in size to accommodate an FK 96 field gun? Based on the comparison in size to a Chi-Nu, I think the width is there. I am planning to dump the forward sub-turrets and put the driver's position in the front plate (possible up to a glacis of about 40 - 50 mm), so that should give me more space forward of the firewall?
 
Could the turret on the Vickers Medium Mark III have been expanded in size to accommodate an FK 96 field gun? Based on the comparison in size to a Chi-Nu, I think the width is there. I am planning to dump the forward sub-turrets and put the driver's position in the front plate (possible up to a glacis of about 40 - 50 mm), so that should give me more space forward of the firewall?
Sounds doable to me and here's a pic if you need one.
fk96_nA_3_1.jpg

Have @Claymore scale it up if you plan to use it.
 
Could the turret on the Vickers Medium Mark III have been expanded in size to accommodate an FK 96 field gun? Based on the comparison in size to a Chi-Nu, I think the width is there. I am planning to dump the forward sub-turrets and put the driver's position in the front plate (possible up to a glacis of about 40 - 50 mm), so that should give me more space forward of the firewall?

I will have a play! 👍
 
HT_15_3.png

This was the assault tank based on the Vickers Medium Mark III I came up with when I first encountered this problem in April 2020. The turret is from a Neubaufahrzeug, which carried a 7.5 cm L/24 howitzer (same as the Pz IV) and 3.7 cm L/45 anti-tank gun in coaxial mounts.

Speaking specifically to the guns, I don't think that any part of the guns would be of original manufacture except for some pieces built in the 1910s. The guns would probably have had their barrels relined, remanufactured, or replaced two or three times in their decades of activity, the carriages have been thrown out entirely, they need new mounts to go in the vehicles, and the recoil systems would probably be replaced with a more compact concentric system like this, or with springs placed entirely behind the mantlet. All this vehicle needs to look right is an extra nine inches of barrel length.
 
I am planning to introduce five new vehicles in 1932.

1. Vickers Medium Mark III+ tank
This will be the above vehicle. It is a standard Medium Mark III hull with a rearranged superstructure, disposing of the subturrets, adding proper driver's and co-driver's positions in the front glacis, and then expanding the turret to use a larger 76 mm L/27 gun.

2. Medium M1921 tank
I have an existing fleet of M1921 assault guns. My plan with these is to pull the field guns out of the hulls and replace the Renault FT turrets on top with a larger turret carrying a 3-inch light howitzer like the 75 mm M116 pack howitzer or the Obice da 75/18 mlo 34.

3. Vickers Medium Mark III SP artillery
These are a bit of a question mark. The production capacity is there, but a rear-drive artillery vehicle with a gun in a flex mount is usually pretty ungainly. Maybe the superstructure could be reversed so the transmission is at the front, the engine in the middle, and the gun pointing forward over the engine deck. The downward slope of the engine deck would contribute to visibility for a driver's position in the superstructure. This is the same way the US built Patton-derived SP artillery.

4. Armored halftrack
I need a vehicle to carry infantry for the Fusilier Regiments that are part of the mechanized Cavalry Brigades. The German Maultier half-track concept used existing trucks with a suspension derived ultimately from the Vickers light tanks and light dragons and very similar to the T16 carriers. I think it would technically (maybe not fiscally) be possible to put a vehicle like that, with an armored body, into production in the early 1930s.

5. Armored reconnaissance vehicle
I need a light, fast armored vehicle for the light cavalry's reconnaissance role. The Vickers Light Tank looks like the best fit for the role, but I don't know how the mobility compares to other vehicles like the 6-ton Mark E. The speed necessary for the role is also seen in the Christie tank, and the BT-2 entered service in 1932, but the Christie suspension is a distinctly wrong turn for what I have planned in the future and I would rather not have an orphan fleet like that.
 
I am planning to introduce five new vehicles in 1932.

3. Vickers Medium Mark III SP artillery
These are a bit of a question mark. The production capacity is there, but a rear-drive artillery vehicle with a gun in a flex mount is usually pretty ungainly. Maybe the superstructure could be reversed so the transmission is at the front, the engine in the middle, and the gun pointing forward over the engine deck. The downward slope of the engine deck would contribute to visibility for a driver's position in the superstructure. This is the same way the US built Patton-derived SP artillery.

What gun/howitzer are you looking at for your SP artillery?
 
What gun/howitzer are you looking at for your SP artillery?
I'm thinking that it's late enough to start converting the existing 18-pdr field guns into 25-pdr gun/howitzer analogues, so those will be used on the new SPGs and the older Birch guns will have their pieces rebuilt. The main visual distinction from the 18-pdr will be a muzzle brake to allow the use of higher pressure cartridges. The OTL 18-pdrs and 25-pdrs used almost identical cases (varying in dimensions by a few millimeters) and the 25-pdr's better range came from higher MV, higher elevation on the carriage, and higher BC shells that were longer and heavier at almost the same diameter.
 
I'm thinking that it's late enough to start converting the existing 18-pdr field guns into 25-pdr gun/howitzer analogues, so those will be used on the new SPGs and the older Birch guns will have their pieces rebuilt. The main visual distinction from the 18-pdr will be a muzzle brake to allow the use of higher pressure cartridges. The OTL 18-pdrs and 25-pdrs used almost identical cases (varying in dimensions by a few millimeters) and the 25-pdr's better range came from higher MV, higher elevation on the carriage, and higher BC shells that were longer and heavier at almost the same diameter.

Roger that! 👍
 
I am planning to introduce five new vehicles in 1932.

3. Vickers Medium Mark III SP artillery
These are a bit of a question mark. The production capacity is there, but a rear-drive artillery vehicle with a gun in a flex mount is usually pretty ungainly. Maybe the superstructure could be reversed so the transmission is at the front, the engine in the middle, and the gun pointing forward over the engine deck. The downward slope of the engine deck would contribute to visibility for a driver's position in the superstructure. This is the same way the US built Patton-derived SP artillery.

I'm thinking that it's late enough to start converting the existing 18-pdr field guns into 25-pdr gun/howitzer analogues, so those will be used on the new SPGs and the older Birch guns will have their pieces rebuilt. The main visual distinction from the 18-pdr will be a muzzle brake to allow the use of higher pressure cartridges. The OTL 18-pdrs and 25-pdrs used almost identical cases (varying in dimensions by a few millimeters) and the 25-pdr's better range came from higher MV, higher elevation on the carriage, and higher BC shells that were longer and heavier at almost the same diameter.

I had fun with this one! I kept the fighting compartment simple and boxy (as per the later Sexton) in order to maximise the room for the gun and crew. In the end, there is actually plenty of room in this configuration - no need to compress the engine deck or widen the vehicle. 👍

1932 Medium Mk III 25pdr SPG.png
 
Last edited:
I had fun with this one! I kept the fighting compartment simple and boxy (as per the later Sexton) in order to maximise the room for the gun and crew. In the end, there is actually plenty of room in this configuration - no need to compress the engine deck or widen the vehicle. 👍

View attachment 651266
That actually looks really cool and is basically exactly what I had in mind. The visibility for the driver would be interesting to say the least, considering he would have four meters of hood in front of him. The drive sprockets now at the front are relatively low and obstacle clearance would be impaired compared to the tank version, but if JFC Fuller thinks it's okay to need to take larger obstacles going backwards (see Fuller's Medium Mark D, not the Vickers Medium Mark D that the Irish bought) it must be okay. I think it bears a certain resemblance to the Wespe with the rear casemate, gun with muzzle brake and spring underneath, and the slope down to the front.
 
I am planning to introduce five new vehicles in 1932.

2. Medium M1921 tank
I have an existing fleet of M1921 assault guns. My plan with these is to pull the field guns out of the hulls and replace the Renault FT turrets on top with a larger turret carrying a 3-inch light howitzer like the 75 mm M116 pack howitzer or the Obice da 75/18 mlo 34.

...and the re-armed M1921. A bit of a hulking monster for not much bang but a good enough re-use of an obsolete vehicle...

Medium M1932 AG.png
 
Top