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

[Doc Yo]

 That is a little surprising-the Archer is a bit more sophisticated conversion than the Marder II.

One other notion occurs to me-the rockets in the opening post are called "Tank Torpedoes"-what about
turning the BT into a Torpedo Tank? Sort of a high-speed, radio controlled Goliath? Granted, given the
difficulty the Russians had equiping their regular tanks with radios, not too likely, but if the "land battleship"
had really caught on...

[dy031101]

With the central driver's position on the BT, a superstructure would have to be built up to allow both a forward facing gun and the driver's upper hatch to still function. By reversing the gun position and placing it over the engine compartment, you gain a lower profile (albeit at some cost to engine access) and functioning driver's hatches.

A quick browsing over the internet doesn't seem to show any upward-opening driver's hatch......

[Weaver]

All you'd really need to do is modify the top half of the driver's hatch to open sideways instead of upwards:

[dy031101]

Man, I wouldn't fancy needing to bail out of the BT-7's driver's position in a hurry!

For those tank destroyers that don't seem to feature hatches specifically for the driver, where do they get in or out of the vehicle?  Through fighting compartment?

(It seems to me that the majority of tank destroyers with dedicated entrance/exit for the driver are of turreted types......)

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

Seeing that the A-20 tank was considered as both a development and a replacement of the BT series, and that it was superseded by the immediate forerunner of the T-34...... I am wondering how much one could have enlarged the A-20 for the sake of heavier firepowers...... (while keeping the convertible drive, which is why I started this discussion here, so assume the convertible drive is desired for the purpose of this discussion.)

If I'm aiming for the size of the T-34 (which the SU-100 is derived from) or even the Yugoslavian M636 (this one carries a turreted 90mm gun), would it still be as easy as adding one more set of road wheels?

[GTX]

I think you'd be able to sell it to Wile E. Coyote....

Oh please make it and paint "ACME" on the side 

Off topic mode:  that gives another idea - the ACME GB?

Regards,

Greg

[rickshaw]

Man, I wouldn't fancy needing to bail out of the BT-7's driver's position in a hurry!

For those tank destroyers that don't seem to feature hatches specifically for the driver, where do they get in or out of the vehicle?  Through fighting compartment?

(It seems to me that the majority of tank destroyers with dedicated entrance/exit for the driver are of turreted types......)

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

Seeing that the A-20 tank was considered as both a development and a replacement of the BT series, and that it was superseded by the immediate forerunner of the T-34...... I am wondering how much one could have enlarged the A-20 for the sake of heavier firepowers...... (while keeping the convertible drive, which is why I started this discussion here, so assume the convertible drive is desired for the purpose of this discussion.)

If I'm aiming for the size of the T-34 (which the SU-100 is derived from) or even the Yugoslavian M636 (this one carries a turreted 90mm gun), would it still be as easy as adding one more set of road wheels?

OK, assuming that convertible drive is desired, the first thing I'd do is make it skid steer.  This would remove the need for steering mechanism and its associated loss of interior room within the hull.   I'd also increase the size of the hull, basically to the largest possible, according to the rail load gauge (which in the fUSSR is very large indeed!).  This would allow the vehicle to be uparmed and uparmoured more easily.   I'd put room for an increasingly large turret ring on the hull top, so that as the armament increased in calibre, the turret could be increased in size to accommodate it.   The end result would be something larger than a T-34 but smaller than perhaps a KV-I.  I'd also develop a flat horizontally opposed cylinder engine.  One which could be expanded in the number of cylinders simply by adding a new bank, as required and thereby increasing power as the weight of the vehicle grew.  Using a flat engine means the hull can be lowered.  Recline the driver's position, which again is a determinant of hull height.  Get rid of the Christie suspension if possible and replace it with leaf-spring and/or torsion-bar suspension.   It saves space inside the hull and leaf-spring in particular is cheaper and easier to manufacture. 

[GTX]

A drawing of the beast the kicked off this thread:



Regards,

Greg

[dy031101]

I'd also increase the size of the hull, basically to the largest possible, according to the rail load gauge (which in the fUSSR is very large indeed!).  This would allow the vehicle to be uparmed and uparmoured more easily.   I'd put room for an increasingly large turret ring on the hull top, so that as the armament increased in calibre, the turret could be increased in size to accommodate it.   The end result would be something larger than a T-34 but smaller than perhaps a KV-I.

What I have in mind right now for size is comparable to that of a T-44 (might even pattern the hull after it), but looking at the road wheel arrangement of the A-20 prototype (four pairs), can I perfectly get away with just increasing the interval of the wheels, or should I really add an extra pair?

[rickshaw]

I'd also increase the size of the hull, basically to the largest possible, according to the rail load gauge (which in the fUSSR is very large indeed!).  This would allow the vehicle to be uparmed and uparmoured more easily.   I'd put room for an increasingly large turret ring on the hull top, so that as the armament increased in calibre, the turret could be increased in size to accommodate it.   The end result would be something larger than a T-34 but smaller than perhaps a KV-I.

What I have in mind right now for size is comparable to that of a T-44 (might even pattern the hull after it), but looking at the road wheel arrangement of the A-20 prototype (four pairs), can I perfectly get away with just increasing the interval of the wheels, or should I really add an extra pair?

Depends upon what sort of ride you want the crew to have.  The greater distance between roadwheels, the worse the ride over rough ground at speed, with the end result that your highest speed would decrease.

[dy031101]

The greater distance between roadwheels, the worse the ride over rough ground at speed, with the end result that your highest speed would decrease.

Got it- using the BT-7's arrangement (which is pretty similar to that of the A-20 tank) illustrated above as a start, should I add the extra pair of road wheels to the front (greater interval between each wheel) or to the rear (the opposite)?

Or can I, since I'm going with skid steering, just arrange the wheels like T-34 or T-44?

[rickshaw]

The greater distance between roadwheels, the worse the ride over rough ground at speed, with the end result that your highest speed would decrease.

Got it- using the BT-7's arrangement (which is pretty similar to that of the A-20 tank) illustrated above as a start, should I add the extra pair of road wheels to the front (greater interval between each wheel) or to the rear (the opposite)?

Or can I, since I'm going with skid steering, just arrange the wheels like T-34 or T-44?

If you're using skid steering you can use either arrangement.   There were examples of tanks which used both and skid steering (most tanks utilised skid steering, it was only the Vicker's light tanks which used track warping - eccentric Poms strike again! ).

[redstar72]

Here is a "Whif" advanced BT project from Russian "Alternative History" site (http://alternathistory.org.ua/). What if T-34 didn't exist?..

BT-10, 1943 version. Lacks wheel convertible drive, but has improved armour instead (frontal and side armour is 37 mm). The tank also has more advanced body design, with sloped armour. Its main weapon is modified 45-mm Nudelman/Suranov NS-45 aircraft cannon; with 780 m/s muzzle velocity, it is good enough against light-armoured targets. Its belt feed system allows to stay with 3-men crew.
The tank's powerplant also has aircraft origins - it is 760-hp Mikulin AM-34 engine. It allows to reach maximum speed about 70 km/h, or even more. It could be used in reconnaissance role, of for raids to enemy's rear areas.


Taken from http://alternathistory.org.ua/alternativnyi-tank-bt-razvitie-i-sovremennost.

[redstar72]

Another "Whif" BT from the same source: the modern one!



The tank is airborne, swimming (propelled in the water by tracks); its powerplant is 800-900-hp multipropellant diesel engine. The main armament, 57-mm autocannon, is the same as that on the Real World PT-76B amphibious tank. The modern BT has 3-men crew, 30 mm armour, and maximum speed about 70-75 km/h.

[GTX]

Interesting - it has a strangely western look to it.

Regards,

Greg

[dy031101]

Is the turret modded from that of a M24?