Soviet fast light tanls - BT-5 etc...

[Weaver]

I think a 75mm might have been pushing it, but a 57mm might have been possible. Mind you, that 45mm was a pretty good piece for it's era.

[dy031101]

Hum...... didn't realize there to be a test with long 76.2mm guns......

====================================================

Since my intention is a Marder-type conversion (the "captured by the Germans" scenario since they were the ones who need as many SPATGs as possible to deal with the KV-1) here, I don't expect the turret to be kept, and the superstructure would likely have been replaced with an open-topped one that would have had room for a bigger gun.

To further the irony, perhaps the 7.62cm Pak 36(r) for main gun?

[Weaver]

Sorry dy, read you wrong there...

Yes, a Marder conversion of the BT should be possible. Given that the Hetzer was based on the Czech 38(t) chassis, a quite sophisticated one should be possible, never mind a quick 'n' dirty.

[dy031101]

Given that the Hetzer was based on the Czech 38(t) chassis, a quite sophisticated one should be possible, never mind a quick 'n' dirty.

Sophisticated?  You mean as in enclosed fighting compartment?  Hum......  

Anyone...... wanting to take a crack at making a blank?

[thedarkmaster]

Yes, a Marder conversion of the BT should be possible. Given that the Hetzer was based on the Czech 38(t) chassis, a quite sophisticated one should be possible, never mind a quick 'n' dirty.

if you are going that way don't forget it has a cristie suspension and a large part of that hulls internal space is taken up with springs and the wheel come track steering equipment !! There's not as much free space as you think, i reckon if it's a German conversion then the Marder way is the one to go for otherwise it may require quite a radical rebuild.

[B777LR]

The BT-5/7 is slightly larger than the 38(t). They could just go the way of the Panzerjäger I, and just prop the whole gun and armour on top of the tank

[Weaver]

Yes, a Marder conversion of the BT should be possible. Given that the Hetzer was based on the Czech 38(t) chassis, a quite sophisticated one should be possible, never mind a quick 'n' dirty.

if you are going that way don't forget it has a cristie suspension and a large part of that hulls internal space is taken up with springs and the wheel come track steering equipment !! There's not as much free space as you think, i reckon if it's a German conversion then the Marder way is the one to go for otherwise it may require quite a radical rebuild.

Since a Hetzer conversion would be a radical conversion on any hull, they could lock the BT's wheel steering and then re-build the front end as a wedge rather than a point. You might have a point about the springs though: mind you, the Pakwagon (75mm Pak-40 on Sdkfz-234 chassis) had a pretty low profile even though it was an open-topped Marder-style conversion.

[Weaver]

On the "land torpedoes" issue, presumably if Victorian steampunk land-battleships were the mainstream weapons of choice, there'd be a jeune ecole of radical young officers advocating the use of small, fast, petrol-engined motor-torpedo cars to attack them by surprise as they pass through restrictive geography. You might also get sabotage teams driving things that look like motorcycle land-speed record contenders under the land-battleships and planting limpet mines on them........

[Arc3371]

Finnish and Romanian tankdestroyers based on the BT-5/7? TACAM BT-5 w 76,2mm gun and later perhaps 75mm Resita saving the T-60 for the Maresal?

[dy031101]

Finnish and Romanian tankdestroyers based on the BT-5/7?

Finnish "Marder" instead of the BT-42?

[Arc3371]

Yep

[Doc Yo]

 I'll be darned. I sort of assumed that the RBT was a paper project. I have the UM kit, and keep meaning
to get a couple more for some sort of dio...

Another possibility for Whiffing on the BT would be Soviet Recoiless guns. Though they mainly seem to have
figured  in aircraft projects, I have seen one picture of a fixed mounting, described as a fortress gun. Does
anybody know if Soviets RCLs stuck with the Davis gun countershot method, or if they made the leap of
venting the gas through the breech as the slightly later German, British and American guns?

( And not directing related, but damn I wish someone did a kit of the TG-1...)

[jcf]

An Archer style conversion would probably be the most logical, from an engineering perspective,
based on the realities of the BT series chassis design. The hull is not only full of suspension
springs, it is also very narrow. Especially as any conversion of the BT series would be pretty
much useless in an offensive role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_%28tank_destroyer%29


Jon

[Arc3371]

I'll be darned. I sort of assumed that the RBT was a paper project. I have the UM kit, and keep meaning
to get a couple more for some sort of dio...

Another possibility for Whiffing on the BT would be Soviet Recoiless guns. Though they mainly seem to have
figured  in aircraft projects, I have seen one picture of a fixed mounting, described as a fortress gun. Does
anybody know if Soviets RCLs stuck with the Davis gun countershot method, or if they made the leap of
venting the gas through the breech as the slightly later German, British and American guns?

( And not directing related, but damn I wish someone did a kit of the TG-1...)

Dont know what method the Soviet RCL used I know that they were used during the Winter war mounted on GAZ-TK trucks

[dy031101]

Um...... another reason to download the BT-7 model and later mess around with it...... I thought something to the effect of Marder II or TACAM R-2 would be fun......

Unless the gun is seriously off-centre, they'd be no way of getting a low profile other than the Archer approach.

Come to think of it, what exactly contributes to a "low-profile" of an armoured vehicle?

Marder II is said to have too high a silhouette while Archer is considered low-profile...... yet Wikipedia claims that Archer is actually a few centimetres taller than Marder II......