only a minor improvement but how about upgrading the main gun to the M-1 57mm AT gun it would make it a better infantry support/cavalry scout meaning it could take on lighter armor like japanese tanks and panzer III/IV based vehicles and halftracks. or even go with a twin Oierlikon 20mm with the 20mm's ROF it would be useful for keeping the infantry's heads down in support of an advance
"Panzer"
Brazil upgraded their tanks into X1A-1 (http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-xray/xray/x1_series/x1-series.html) and kept them in service until the 1990s.
It seem that quite a few tank upgrade projects involved widening and lengthening their hulls. How cheap or expensive is doing so? Or does it depend on the tank hull designs?
Quote from: Arc3371 on November 08, 2008, 03:32:41 AM
Cant find photos of the Stuart with Flakvierling also used by the Yugoslavs
Come to think of it, there is a Fine Scale Modeler article about such a conversion. I think it was April something-something (lost the issue unfortunately, but it was mid-late 90s if that helps)
Some SPG concepts built on the M3, part 1.
T56, 3" gun on M3A3.
Jon
Part 2.
T57, 3" gun on M3A3.
M8A1, 75mm gun M3 in M8 howitzer turret.
Evidently there was also an early proposal to mount the turret of the M4 Sherman on the M3 chassis, the turret armour was to be thinned
and the bustle eliminated.
I will be adding some other concepts later.
Jon
Quote from: PanzerWulff on November 08, 2008, 05:04:21 AMonly a minor improvement but how about upgrading the main gun to the M-1 57mm AT gun it would make it a better infantry support/cavalry scout meaning it could take on lighter armor like japanese tanks and panzer III/IV based vehicles and halftracks. or even go with a twin Oierlikon 20mm with the 20mm's ROF it would be useful for keeping the infantry's heads down in support of an advance
stepping down to a 20mm is not such a bad idea for arming a reconnaissance vehicle such as the Stuart. If the US Army had actually managed to procure the T3 20mm Automatic Gun (Solothurn S18-1000 20mm anti-tank rifle) it might have been possible to use that weapon on the Stuart with the added benefit of being able to dismount the weapon from the vehicle. The advantage to the T3/Solothurn S18 was the smaller magazines that were used. 5, 10, and 20 rounds capacity. If the Army had managed to get that weapon it might have been possible to see a transistion to the S18-1100 version which was capable of full automatic fire.
Well, I hope the following helps for Whiff potential.
Just download the image and make whatever changes you wish in MS Paint :)
EDITED for corrections to image
Oh, and here's a conversion kit for quad 50's on an M3:
http://www.missionmodels.com/product.php?productid=164829&cat=259&page=1
Well, here's my interpretation of a 40mm Bofors stuck on top of an M3 as a quick field mod:
Also, I hope I got the gun proportions correct.
It needs shields at the minimum, but I like it.
Ok, I am a Stuart nut. Loved the Haunted Tank when I was a kid (who cares if a 37mm would just give a Tiger crew a mild headache) and Brazen Chariots was a good read.
Kind of like some of the other Brazilian modifications. Stuart turned into a APC with the engine moved to the forward corner ala M-113. Lengthening the hull and putting on the 90mm turret that has been seen on the Commando (Hobby Boss supposed to release that version soon).
Quote from: philp on November 09, 2008, 10:39:59 PMOk, I am a Stuart nut. Loved the Haunted Tank when I was a kid (who cares if a 37mm would just give a Tiger crew a mild headache) and Brazen Chariots was a good read.
Kind of like some of the other Brazilian modifications. Stuart turned into a APC with the engine moved to the forward corner ala M113. Lengthening the hull and putting on the 90mm turret that has been seen on the Commando (Hobby Boss supposed to release that version soon).
The Haunted Tank was one of my favorite comic books erh, graphic novels when I was much younger. What was the tank that they converted to later in the series? I keep thinking it was an M24 but it was pimped out so much and that was so long ago that all I remember is the thing was green with a really long gun barrel.
From Wiki:
"When their latest M3 is destroyed, the crew scavenge spare parts and wreckage from a "tank graveyard" to build themselves a new tank, known as the "Jigsaw Tank" (G.I. Combat #150), which serves them from that point."
Forgotten all about that version Jeff. Also saw that the HT was resurrected in 2008 for a 5 part series, this time as an Abrams in Iraq.
Quote from: philp on November 10, 2008, 12:27:13 PM
From Wiki:
"When their latest M3 is destroyed, the crew scavenge spare parts and wreckage from a "tank graveyard" to build themselves a new tank, known as the "Jigsaw Tank" (G.I. Combat #150), which serves them from that point."
Forgotten all about that version Jeff. Also saw that the HT was resurrected in 2008 for a 5 part series, this time as an Abrams in Iraq.
An Abrams?? Haunted by General Abrams??
A LAV would have been more in the original spirit of things. ;)
Jon
G.I. Combat..... What a great comic. I remember that issue. The Haunted Tank was knocked out in river (if I remember right) Then the crew rebuilt a tank using an M-24 chassy.
On the late model M5A1 turret there was a metal fixture attached to the right hand side of the turret that had a sloping front and an open back to it. The pintle mount for the .30" machine gun was directly behind this feature. The JED Site (http://www.jedsite.info/content/jed1.html) describes this as a cover or fairing for the machine gun mount and not ammunition storage. What was the purpose of this thing? Was it intended to provide cover for the gunner while manning the weapon outside of the turret? See attached image for the feature I am referring to (the area within the orange lines which has the white star painted on it).
Image source: JED Site section on the M5 Stuart (http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-mike/mike-number-us/m005_light_series/m5light-series.html)
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on November 10, 2008, 02:16:33 PM
On the late model M3 and M5 turret there was a piece of metal affixed to the side of the turret on the right hand side that had a sloping front and an open back to it. The pintle mount for the .30" machine gun was directly behind this feature. What was the purpose of this thing?
Ammo storage for said .30 MG, I would guess.
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on November 10, 2008, 02:16:33 PM
The JED Site (http://www.jedsite.info/content/jed1.html) describes this as a cover or fairing for the machine gun mount and not ammunition storage.
Judging from this sentence, if you want me to venture a guess, maybe a storage bin of sorts containing a tripod for dismounted use of the MG?
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on November 10, 2008, 02:16:33 PM
On the late model M5A1 turret there was a metal fixture attached to the right hand side of the turret that had a sloping front and an open back to it. The pintle mount for the .30" machine gun was directly behind this feature. The JED Site (http://www.jedsite.info/content/jed1.html) describes this as a cover or fairing for the machine gun mount and not ammunition storage. What was the purpose of this thing? Was it intended to provide cover for the gunner while manning the weapon outside of the turret? See attached image for the feature I am referring to (the area within the orange lines which has the white star painted on it).
Image source: JED Site section on the M5 Stuart (http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-mike/mike-number-us/m005_light_series/m5light-series.html)
Hunnicutt refers to it as both 'shielded mount' and 'shielded stowage' for the .30 gun.
Another source refers to it as shielding 'the folding pintle mount'.
???
Looking at the attached photo, whatever it was supposed to do aside, it was evidently useful stowage space. ;D
Jon
I'll have my friend Arron to ask his grandfather who was a M3/M5 crewman in europe during WWII he would know
"Panzer"
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on November 10, 2008, 04:52:06 PMHunnicutt refers to it as both 'shielded mount' and 'shielded stowage' for the .30 gun.
Another source refers to it as shielding 'the folding pintle mount'.
???
Looking at the attached photo, whatever it was supposed to do aside, it was evidently useful stowage space. ;D
If the ground mount was not the type that collapsed then perhaps that was the original function of the feature but as you said, it was more often found stuffed with other things.
Off topic for a moment, the image you attached with the Frankfurt, Limburg, Hochtst traffic circle sign is located just a few kilometers north of Darmstadt where I was stationed for a couple of years on my first assignment to Germany. I drove around that circle on multiple occasions in a 2.5t truck. Surprised to see that the only thing that changed is there were more trees when I was there.
Could the 76mm gun M1 have been fitted in place of the 75mm M3 onboard the M8A1, creating (somewhat) a subsititute for the M18 Hellcat?
Or is the 75mm gun M3 more compact than it has been given credit for?
Quote from: dy031101 on August 18, 2010, 03:30:50 PM
Could the 76mm gun M1 have been fitted in place of the 75mm M3 onboard the M8A1, creating (somewhat) a subsititute for the M18 Hellcat?
Or is the 75mm gun M3 more compact than it has been given credit for?
The M8 used the 75mm
Howitzer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M116_howitzer
... not the 75mm
Gun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_M2/M3/M6
Completely different animals.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on August 18, 2010, 03:55:06 PM
The M8 used the 75mm Howitzer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M116_howitzer
... not the 75mm Gun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_M2/M3/M6
Completely different animals.
This (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,21996.msg315059.html#msg315059) is a howitzer, too?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff224%2Farc3371%2FOther%2Fyu_stuart_pak-001-1.jpg&hash=794c7132522d0ef138b12fe9dfb713a114ba346b)
Yes I'm awared of the existence of this machine...... it's just that the long-barrel gun (which I assumed to be the same gun on the Sherman...... but indeed there is a variant of the 75mm pack howitzer called the M3, and now I don't know which one that M8A1's gun is :banghead:) modification of the M8A1 made me wonder if a turreted TD would still have been possible.
Quote from: dy031101 on August 18, 2010, 05:49:35 PM
Yes I'm awared of the existence of this machine...... it's just that the long-barrel gun (which I assumed to be the same gun on the Sherman...... but indeed there is a variant of the 75mm pack howitzer called the M3, and now I don't know which one that M8A1's gun is :banghead:) modification of the M8A1 made me wonder if a turreted TD would still have been possible.
All production M8s used versions of the 75mm pack howitzer.
The one vehicle tested with the 75mm gun was a modified M8.
M8A1 was never an official designation.
The re-gunned M8 was not proceeded with as it was felt that sufficient numbers would not be available prior to
the appearance of the T70 (M18).
An earlier proposal was the T50 with 3-inch gun, one of the versions is attached.
Info from Hunnicutt.
Jon
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on August 18, 2010, 06:24:47 PM
The one vehicle tested with the 75mm gun was a modified M8.
M8A1 was never an official designation.
The re-gunned M8 was not proceeded with as it was felt that sufficient numbers would not be available prior to
the appearance of the T70 (M18).
An earlier proposal was the T50 with 3-inch gun, one of the versions is attached.
So it was indeed the same M3 gun used by the Sherman that was tested but whose configuration with the modified M8 was not proceeded with?
I am again thinking of probable foreign M3/M5/M8 users for the potential of this one...... ;D
Quote from: dy031101 on August 18, 2010, 08:37:01 PM
So it was indeed the same M3 gun used by the Sherman that was tested but whose configuration with the modified M8 was not proceeded with?
I am again thinking of probable foreign M3/M5/M8 users for the potential of this one...... ;D
Yes, and for 'foreign' i.e. Third World/Southern Hemisphere I think a 57mm/6-pounder version would be
more than adequate to fight each others WWII surplus. Less wear and tear on the machine as well.
The Allies needed something bigger because they were facing later generation German armour, something
that realistically would not be likely in most post-WWII piss-pot wars.
Jon
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on August 18, 2010, 09:43:06 PM
Yes, and for 'foreign' i.e. Third World/Southern Hemisphere I think a 57mm/6-pounder version would be
more than adequate to fight each others WWII surplus. Less wear and tear on the machine as well.
The Allies needed something bigger because they were facing later generation German armour, something
that realistically would not be likely in most post-WWII piss-pot wars.
I was thinking the stillborn Operation Carbonado although one can still argue that Shinhoto Chi-Ha wouldn't fare that well against 57mm guns, either......
The plus side is that the 75mm fires a better HE shell and would likely remain somewhat adequate against the best armours Japan didn't bring to bear in real-life.