Awesomesauce.I honestly got goosebumps just looking at those photos.
Much appreciated mate. 👍
Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
- Status
Much appreciated mate. 👍
Nice images. 👍
Looking at the second one, might I suggest that for a vehicle with a rear-engine and a rear-transmission the turret seems to be mounted very far back leaving little room for said engine and transmission. Conversely, there seems to be an excessive amount of space forward of the turret. Perhaps move the turret forward to the point where the forward hull deck starts sloping... 🤔
Noted.
But I wanted to try the Tiger II turrets on the hull. (Also wanted to use the Porsche one, but it would break the 3 images per day limit)
But how does it look?
I feel like the turret is still to big, even when I shrank it's length to the same one as the Schmalturm. Must be the height of the turret.
Would this hull even be able to support a Tiger II shapped turret (If it had the same armour thickness as the Schmalturm)
Does it though? I’ve never come across any such limit. The only limit I know of is no more than 10 images attached per post.
On several occasions on other threads, such as the Sci-Fi and the Gorgeous Women threads, the mods have warned people for posting more than three pics on one thread in a 24 hour period.
If I go by the rules thread it's this:
"10. Don't post too many images that are not related to alternate history. Specifically, in the off-topic forums such as Chat and Non-Political Chat, post at most three images per thread per day. It doesn't matter whether the images are attachments or just links. (For alternate history images, be reasonable. Don't post more images than text, except in threads dedicated to images such as maps or flags)."
"10. Don't post too many images that are not related to alternate history. Specifically, in the off-topic forums such as Chat and Non-Political Chat, post at most three images per thread per day. It doesn't matter whether the images are attachments or just links. (For alternate history images, be reasonable. Don't post more images than text, except in threads dedicated to images such as maps or flags)."
so by this more than 3 should be allowed in t his thread because:
1) After 1900 (not off topic forums)
2) they are alt- armour, thus very much on topic,
plus the big posts are incidental
Yeah, better be safe than sorry in this case, and if it means people spend more time perfecting their pictures or discussing changes to them here that's not a big loss.
Well I never! Who would have thought!!
Fortunately, I have never had an adverse comment from the Mods (all hail the blessed Mods) re the number of pics I have posted in one day - and in some cases I have posted quite a few. But then again maybe I have been sanctioned as OK by the Devine ones given the nature of the images I post relative to the thread and also that I am the creator of the thread. 🤔
Let’s make sure that we keep within the rules - whatever they mat be! 🙂👍🙂
Fortunately, I have never had an adverse comment from the Mods (all hail the blessed Mods) re the number of pics I have posted in one day - and in some cases I have posted quite a few. But then again maybe I have been sanctioned as OK by the Devine ones given the nature of the images I post relative to the thread and also that I am the creator of the thread. 🤔
Let’s make sure that we keep within the rules - whatever they mat be! 🙂👍🙂
Last edited:
On another note, 25 more pages and we are on the fourth version of Alt AHFVs.
I mean when you do upload pics, it's usually the crème de la crème, so maybe you got a secret pass.
Also, any tips on the Tiger II turret? Looking at it, it still feels very wrong size wise.
Yup. Great that the thread is still going strong - I will set up the new iteration soon and drop everyone a link. Long live the thread! 👍😎
The problem is that when you start altering any turret size to fit your drawing there are always consequences. Shortening the length will over emphasise the height but more importantly reduce the internal volume for the gun recoil - after all there is a good reason why turrets are the size they are. For that very reason, my own rule is always to keep every part of an AH design in scale with every other part. Once you start mixing and matching scales things rapidly become unrealistic - a Panzer II hull with a shrunken Tiger II turret is just never going to work!
In other words, if the turret is too big, it’s too big and you will need to look for something else. Size mismatches and what is or is not possible often become more obvious when you include a front view perspective.
Last edited:
Was wondering what to do with the Gruson Fahrpanzer when reading BlackWave's TL "Swarm on the Somme" I came a passage where he mentions the Austro-Hungarians ordering the Burstyn Motorgeschütz into production, for those of you who don't know about the Burstyn Motorgeschütz, it was a tank design in 1911 by an Austrian named Gunther Burstyn.
Burstyn's design however did not include any armaments because Burstyn didn't know much about weaponry so he decided he would leave the weaponry bit to the experts.
The Burstyn Motorgeschütz however was not adopted by the Austro-Hungarian military thus leaving a big "what if?" for us alt-history buffs.
In BlackWave's TL the Motorgeschütz is rushed into production, no mention of the weaponry was mentioned but it occurred to me that the Gruson Fahrpanzer which was already in production at the time in Germany and was used by the Austro-Hungarian military who used the same 5.7cm gun might have made a good match for the Burstyn.
I couldn't find any dimensions for the Burstyn but their is a photo of a life size (I'm assuming it's life size) mock-up of the the Burstyn and looking at the pic and at photos of the Fahrpanzer, I think it could've been modified to fit.
Below a photo of the Burstyn Motorgeschütz replica and below it a photo of the Gruson Fahrpanzer.
and below my the Burstyn-Gruson Motorgeschütz.
So could this have worked? Maybe not but it was inspired by an ASB TL so I'm going to say why not?
Burstyn's design however did not include any armaments because Burstyn didn't know much about weaponry so he decided he would leave the weaponry bit to the experts.
The Burstyn Motorgeschütz however was not adopted by the Austro-Hungarian military thus leaving a big "what if?" for us alt-history buffs.
In BlackWave's TL the Motorgeschütz is rushed into production, no mention of the weaponry was mentioned but it occurred to me that the Gruson Fahrpanzer which was already in production at the time in Germany and was used by the Austro-Hungarian military who used the same 5.7cm gun might have made a good match for the Burstyn.
I couldn't find any dimensions for the Burstyn but their is a photo of a life size (I'm assuming it's life size) mock-up of the the Burstyn and looking at the pic and at photos of the Fahrpanzer, I think it could've been modified to fit.
Below a photo of the Burstyn Motorgeschütz replica and below it a photo of the Gruson Fahrpanzer.
and below my the Burstyn-Gruson Motorgeschütz.
So could this have worked? Maybe not but it was inspired by an ASB TL so I'm going to say why not?
Last edited:
Continuing my run with P.M. Knight's books on British tanks, I received Crusader yesterday, and so far having read the conclusion and being 60 pages in, it has been very enlightening regarding alternate changes to the tank.
Broadly, the conclusion was:
- the first root cause of the durability issues of Crusader (which limited overhaul life to 1200 miles for a while) was the external location of the air filters which caused excessive dust ingestion, thus requiring too frequent servicing and still putting too much sand in the engine compartment. This was also valid for all of the early Christie Suspension Cruiser types, although Covenanter partially alleviated this problem by putting the air filters more on the middle of the engine deck instead of the rear guards like Crusader. Yet, schemes to put them internally were successfully tested later on, but were never implemented in production because the crews and officers failed to realize and emphasize that this was the main issue, causing engineers to focus on fixing the symptoms for too long.
- the second cause was the more fragile chain drive for the fans due to the choice of the low-profile Liberty engine (the previous Liberty tanks and the Meadows-powered Covenanter didn't have this issue).
- this was compounded by the dysfunctional maintenance in NA, the shipping of an excessive amount of Crusaders which overloaded the system, and the overfocus on production quantity to the detriment of manufacturing quality, spares and quality control before shipping. One can say that this actually inhibited the amount of Crusaders the NA theater could have supported by increasing the amount of maintenance, overhauls and new tanks they had to deal with.
- the 6 pounder turret and heavier armor could have been implemented earlier, the former had had low priority and was delayed for months compared to Churchill and Cruiser Mk VII because it was going to be 2-man and thus harder to fight in, the latter because the British waited too long to do new trials with ballast to confirm the ability to carry some more armor. One can say that concentrating on internal air filters would have freed up enough brain matter to focus on the 6pdr turret and extra armor instead of symptom fixing.
- the last interesting point was related to the original requirement. The tank had been limited to 18 tons to fit the 18-ton bridge, but would exceed that weight later. Yet, at the time the decision was made, there was already the 24-ton bridge for the Matilda II which superseded the 18-ton. In practice, it would have been prefearable to make a 21-22 ton cruiser meeting the 24-ton bridge requirement as it would most likely have supported a 3-man 6pdr turret, possibly heavier armor, and most importantly given enough weight budget to make a slightly bigger engine bay that was more accessible for maintenance and had internal air filters from the start. And at 21-22 tons, it would still not have overloaded the Liberty like the later A27, instead being closer to the 23-ton Crusader Gun Tractor with an overhaul life of 2800 miles.
This basically confirms my opinion that the British could have absolutely designed it within a higher and more forgiving weight limit. It would also have been kinda more logical for this "Heavy Cruiser", and reduced redundancy with the Covenanter though I'd argue the Covenanter was also badly screwed by the weight limit and should have been engineered from the start for 21-22 tons (with the Meadows engine being specced for higher output).
Extra bit found in the book: at one point there was a proposal to replace the MG turret with a straight front with a ball mount for the BESA like Cromwell, but this was only doable for 2 pounder tanks and the decision to abandon the MG turret came too late (later than when it had actually been decided), so it was not done. But there was a small window of opportunity when it could have happened for a few hundred tanks.
Broadly, the conclusion was:
- the first root cause of the durability issues of Crusader (which limited overhaul life to 1200 miles for a while) was the external location of the air filters which caused excessive dust ingestion, thus requiring too frequent servicing and still putting too much sand in the engine compartment. This was also valid for all of the early Christie Suspension Cruiser types, although Covenanter partially alleviated this problem by putting the air filters more on the middle of the engine deck instead of the rear guards like Crusader. Yet, schemes to put them internally were successfully tested later on, but were never implemented in production because the crews and officers failed to realize and emphasize that this was the main issue, causing engineers to focus on fixing the symptoms for too long.
- the second cause was the more fragile chain drive for the fans due to the choice of the low-profile Liberty engine (the previous Liberty tanks and the Meadows-powered Covenanter didn't have this issue).
- this was compounded by the dysfunctional maintenance in NA, the shipping of an excessive amount of Crusaders which overloaded the system, and the overfocus on production quantity to the detriment of manufacturing quality, spares and quality control before shipping. One can say that this actually inhibited the amount of Crusaders the NA theater could have supported by increasing the amount of maintenance, overhauls and new tanks they had to deal with.
- the 6 pounder turret and heavier armor could have been implemented earlier, the former had had low priority and was delayed for months compared to Churchill and Cruiser Mk VII because it was going to be 2-man and thus harder to fight in, the latter because the British waited too long to do new trials with ballast to confirm the ability to carry some more armor. One can say that concentrating on internal air filters would have freed up enough brain matter to focus on the 6pdr turret and extra armor instead of symptom fixing.
- the last interesting point was related to the original requirement. The tank had been limited to 18 tons to fit the 18-ton bridge, but would exceed that weight later. Yet, at the time the decision was made, there was already the 24-ton bridge for the Matilda II which superseded the 18-ton. In practice, it would have been prefearable to make a 21-22 ton cruiser meeting the 24-ton bridge requirement as it would most likely have supported a 3-man 6pdr turret, possibly heavier armor, and most importantly given enough weight budget to make a slightly bigger engine bay that was more accessible for maintenance and had internal air filters from the start. And at 21-22 tons, it would still not have overloaded the Liberty like the later A27, instead being closer to the 23-ton Crusader Gun Tractor with an overhaul life of 2800 miles.
This basically confirms my opinion that the British could have absolutely designed it within a higher and more forgiving weight limit. It would also have been kinda more logical for this "Heavy Cruiser", and reduced redundancy with the Covenanter though I'd argue the Covenanter was also badly screwed by the weight limit and should have been engineered from the start for 21-22 tons (with the Meadows engine being specced for higher output).
Extra bit found in the book: at one point there was a proposal to replace the MG turret with a straight front with a ball mount for the BESA like Cromwell, but this was only doable for 2 pounder tanks and the decision to abandon the MG turret came too late (later than when it had actually been decided), so it was not done. But there was a small window of opportunity when it could have happened for a few hundred tanks.
Was wondering what to do with the Gruson Fahrpanzer when reading BlackWave's TL "Swarm on the Somme" I came a passage where he mentions the Austro-Hungarians ordering the Burstyn Motorgeschütz into production, for those of you who don't know about the Burstyn Motorgeschütz, it was a tank design in 1911 by an Austrian named Gunther Burstyn.
Burstyn's design however did not include any armaments because Burstyn didn't know much about weaponry so he decided he would leave the weaponry bit to the experts.
The Burstyn Motorgeschütz however was not adopted by the Austro-Hungarian military thus leaving a big "what if?" for us alt-history buffs.
In BlackWave's TL the Motorgeschütz is rushed into production, no mention of the weaponry was mentioned but it occurred to me that the Gruson Fahrpanzer which was already in production at the time in Germany and was used by the Austro-Hungarian military who used the same 5.7cm gun might have made a good match for the Burstyn.
I couldn't find any dimensions for the Burstyn but their is a photo of a life size (I'm assuming it's life size) mock-up of the the Burstyn and looking at the pic and at photos of the Fahrpanzer, I think it could've been modified to fit.
Below a photo of the Burstyn Motorgeschütz replica and below it a photo of the Gruson Fahrpanzer.
As long as Combat Duck leads the way nothing can stop the glorious Land Cruiser!
Randy
- Status