Hee, hee - yes I did but thought, what the hell I might as well give it a go while I await replacement supplies. Seems, this time, that out of date means out of luck! 🙄
Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
- Status
The Ansaldo fundation has recently created an archive database referring to their work in the 20th century, including some military work:
https://archivio.fondazioneansaldo.it/s/1/item-set/8621
You can see some of their work in gun and AFV design. The two pictures I have posted above are for the turrets of a twin-turreted heavy tank designed in 1932 for the USSR, equipped with a 107mm howitzer for one turret, and a dual mount of a 76mm low-ish velocity gun and a 37mm high velocity gun.
What I gathered from this database is that interwar/WW2 Italy really had all the imagination and tools it needed to do better than it did historically, and that the failures were with a reluctance to actually order equipment to these more ambitious specifications. It says a lot that Ansaldo's 1927 armored car projects had a better armament configuration than the first medium tank from 1939 (37mm gun in a two-man turret), and that a lot of 1920's/30's AFV or even just towed guns were more powerful than some guns fielded in WW2.
Two documents on history of tank, and the medium tank in the US Army respectively, for those who want to have ideas for a more radical progression of US armored forces in the interwar period.
I have seen similar problems in the French, British and Italian armies. It is interesting to see how reluctant some countries were in investing in a proper armored force, sometimes to maintain a bigger army, when many officers pointed to the force multiplying capabilities of the tank which could save on manpower and offset manpower inbalances in a conflict. Especially in the US where the development of a proper armored force was regularly sabotaged to protect the infantry branch. Some progressive proposals of US armor advocates (like Ordnance and cavalry requesting a 75mm gun tank in 1935 already) are noteworthy.
Similar to a post I made on the other AFV thread, not so much about an alternate tank as it is about alternate tank acquisitions:
The Merkava historically has had a hard time finding foreign buyers, with the first exports being an ARV variant to the Philippines for whatever reason and within the last year Cyprus and Morocco ordered some but with the new Gaza War who knows if that will go through. But apparently when the Merkava was still fresh or even in the development Israel offered, perhaps unsurprisingly given their relationship, to sell some Mark 1s to South Africa. I can't find exactly when this offer was made but I'm guessing at some point in the 70's. IOTL South Africa declined and instead decided to renovate some Centurions with Israeli assistance, but what if instead they accepted the Merkava and became a partner in its development?
For extra context, let's assume there's some earlier and more aggressive communist intervention in Africa that's really concerning the RSA. Their tanks in the mid-70's consisted of a small number of Centurions which they'd some some work on (mostly just incorporating new engines) in the consecutive Skokiaan and Semel programs. IOTL, the Olifant Mk1 would be introduced in 1978 with a 750hp engine and the old 20-pdr gun. It wasn't until 1983 that the Mk1A entered service with a 105mm, passive nightvision, and other improvements that Merkava Mk1 would've given earlier in addition to other improvements. So this ATL SADF accepts.
My question then is, what do these SADF Merkavas end up looking like and how does South Africa's involvement in the Merkava program affect its future development? IOTL, the Mk1 was basically what you'd call a pre-series vehicle in other countries given that it was pretty rough and needed trials, the Mk2 was really the fully developed version but it took lessons from the 1982 war in Lebanon to come together. Would South Africa's experience in the Bush War hasten development?
The Merkava historically has had a hard time finding foreign buyers, with the first exports being an ARV variant to the Philippines for whatever reason and within the last year Cyprus and Morocco ordered some but with the new Gaza War who knows if that will go through. But apparently when the Merkava was still fresh or even in the development Israel offered, perhaps unsurprisingly given their relationship, to sell some Mark 1s to South Africa. I can't find exactly when this offer was made but I'm guessing at some point in the 70's. IOTL South Africa declined and instead decided to renovate some Centurions with Israeli assistance, but what if instead they accepted the Merkava and became a partner in its development?
For extra context, let's assume there's some earlier and more aggressive communist intervention in Africa that's really concerning the RSA. Their tanks in the mid-70's consisted of a small number of Centurions which they'd some some work on (mostly just incorporating new engines) in the consecutive Skokiaan and Semel programs. IOTL, the Olifant Mk1 would be introduced in 1978 with a 750hp engine and the old 20-pdr gun. It wasn't until 1983 that the Mk1A entered service with a 105mm, passive nightvision, and other improvements that Merkava Mk1 would've given earlier in addition to other improvements. So this ATL SADF accepts.
My question then is, what do these SADF Merkavas end up looking like and how does South Africa's involvement in the Merkava program affect its future development? IOTL, the Mk1 was basically what you'd call a pre-series vehicle in other countries given that it was pretty rough and needed trials, the Mk2 was really the fully developed version but it took lessons from the 1982 war in Lebanon to come together. Would South Africa's experience in the Bush War hasten development?
I'm sure SA would love Merkavas. The terrain isn't very diferent (even if Israel has more hill) and the environment is very similar: high heat and dust. So, afaik, the Merkava could be suppplied and ran "as is". And, considering the opposition has nothing more than T-55 and some T-62, even the baseline Mk I would do very well. And it's built to fight off infantry in cover (even the Mk1 has 3-4 MGs and a mortar), so also good for bush fighting. However, SA's experience in the bush (plus poor budgets and international bocoits) made them focus on light, well armed vehicles, like the Eland and the Rookait, and just upgrade some Centurions. So I doubt SA would more than just 2-3 batalions worth of Mk1, to form a heavy armour force as backup for the wheeled tank batalions. Over the years these would be upgraded locally, maybe even fiting a 120mm.
I'm assuming they'd have about as many Merkavas as they had Olifants IOTL, the difference is that instead of buying 200 aging Centurion Mk3s from Jordan and upgrading them to Sho't Kal standard, they cut out the middle man and buy something more capable straight from Israel as well as setting up a line of domestic production. The Merkava was after all intended to be something able to be built by a country with no prior experience manufacturing tanks and therefore be less vulnerable to sanctions.
Speaking of bush fighting though, I imagine the SADF wouldn't be terribly impressed with the externally mounted and operated mortar. Either they'd rig up a bushguard over it (which might make it more awkward to operate) or maybe they'd prompt something like the Mk2 modifications early by mounting it internally, as well as adding smoke launchers. They might also possibly take off the side-skirts like they did with Olifant, and use locally-produced Browning M1919 machine guns instead of FN MAGs.
All good points, specially the mortar and MGs; Israel did rush to put it inside. As for numbers, I guess it would depend on budget...
FV431 Excalibur Update:
Well not an entire loss with the 8 years out of date rubber. Although looking (and feeling) more like bubblegum, the mould has produced some useable additional parts - amazing what body filler can be used for! Will produce another set of wheels from this mould and use the new rubber to cast the extra lengths of track... 👍
Last edited:
I've always liked that suspension for smaller tanks. Very simple conceptually and technically, like an inverted train bogey, but highly effective with good performance for the weight.
I agree.
If it had a Czech 47mm gun with a reasonable HE round it would have been a good tank up to 1942 and still OK for a few years after - near enough a Panzer 3 50mm L42 equivalent, although it appears the relatively heavy AP rounds of the German 50mm may have given it an edge over the Czech 47mm
Yeah, and something that is fascinating is that it replaces a suspension that is related to the Vickers 6-ton type E. By analogy one could imagine that big-wheel suspension on every other user of the Type E suspension, eg:
Somua S35, all Italian medium tanks, Skoda T-21, Turan series, LT vz.35, T-26, and 7TP. It's funny to think about all the directions Vickers Type E descendants followed, and the sheer potential for countries which had some of the worst descendants.
It had the 47mm A11 gun which shared identical ballistics to the towed 47mm and was a close analogue to the 5cm L42 in performance. So yeah it would have been fine and quite progressive in 1939-40. As with most guns of the time it has the curse of using APHEC with a big cavity which nukes performance beyond 30° hit angle.
Primarily for structural integrity. When adding in a hull extension, it is critical to keep everything as square and straight as possible, so bracing is essential. The two rearmost strips are there to keep the height of the rear deck balanced. Of course, all of these added extras will be hidden inside the completed model. 👍
- Status