Improvised AFVs

[NARSES2]

The Home Guard were a good source for improvised vehicles.  Some where standard conversions of civilian vehicles, but where these weren't forthcoming, hurried local conversions were often made.  Cars, vans, lorries, tractors, stick a bit of steel plate on & an MG & you're good to go!  Of course, some where better than others.  In Dad's Army, were they simply cut holes out of the side of Jones' Butcher van wasn't too far from the truth!

I liked the "firing drill" they devised especially for it 

[Mossie]

 

[Chris707]

I always thought a baby MLRS package would look right on this....seen on a local golf course

Chris

[Weaver]

The Home Guard were a good source for improvised vehicles.  Some where standard conversions of civilian vehicles, but where these weren't forthcoming, hurried local conversions were often made.  Cars, vans, lorries, tractors, stick a bit of steel plate on & an MG & you're good to go!  Of course, some where better than others.  In Dad's Army, were they simply cut holes out of the side of Jones' Butcher van wasn't too far from the truth!

Or if you havn't got any steel plate, two layers of wooden shuttering with concrete poured between them - yes, really! 

[Weaver]

Didn't Pakistan have a production AFV design that is indeed derived from a tractor?

(On a second thought though, it might be a derivative instead of an improvisation.)

Yes - can't recall what's it's called though (it's in Jane's). It looks like a quite respectable VBL-style vehicle, until you look closer and spot that it's got big wheels at the back and little ones at the front....

The main idea is to use it for reduced-cost training, but it could obviously do a job in a COIN/Civil Order type situation.

[ChernayaAkula]

The Indian anti-terrorist ops armoured golf cart! 



Probably started out as improvised armour, but was apparently a decent enough idea to warrant a production run.

http://www.dataviewbooks.com/mst2300.jpg

I always thought a baby MLRS package would look right on this....seen on a local golf course

Actually, this looks the other way round. Like someold bought a surplus MLRS chassis (minus the missile launchers) and thought he'd put a dumper trough on it.

[The Wooksta!]

I always thought a baby MLRS package would look right on this....seen on a local golf course

Chris

Where's BA and the shedful of welding gear when you need it?

[raafif]

there was / is the Volvo articulated dump-truck converted to an APC with armour-plate -- believe such civil vehicles were considered part of Sweden's reserve armour for volunteers upon invasion.

[Sauragnmon]

I couldn't ever help but imagine putting a howitzer on construction excavators... the hydraulic arm mechanisms and that would be great for elevation/depression of the gun.  But that might just be me.

[Jschmus]

Found these in an online article related to the fighting in the former Yugoslavia during the 90s.  The first is an armored Tatra truck.  The second is an armored vehicle built on the chassis of a front-loader.

[dy031101]

Continuing from this discussion, I'm thinking of cobbling together in a tandem manner lower components (automotives, suspensions, and the likes) of two tracked tractors/bulldozers/excavators/obsolete-tanks to support a new hull that can house a reasonable gun or even a turret.

The ideas as a result of the ensuing exchange now range from a 6 pounder in a relatively low and enclosed forward fighting compartment to a SU-76-wannabe, but ever since I read the Wikipedia entry for the 8cm PAW-600, I'm once again thinking about a more tank-like post-WWII turreted contraption using that gun or even the bigger 10cm PAW-1000 since they appear to be lightweight weapons derived from mortar technology......  

(And I'm under the impression that smoothbore mortars are less demanding to build than rifled traditional artilleries......)

And here:

The Russians put into production the T-70 light tank with two separate engines, one running each track.  Yes, they had problems, just as they did with the BTR-60 and BTR-70 with two separate engines.   The Australians used three truck engines running through a transfer case to power the Sentinel.  The UK used two separate bus engines for the early Mathilda. The US used two separate engines to run the LVT-4.  They also built the Chrysler Multi-Bank engine for the Sherman which used five engines.  These examples worked.  Some better than others.  It is not the optimum method but there are examples of where it was used and it worked.

The Chrysler A57 engine sounds interesting.  

Would it be simpler than, say, the Australian method with the Sentinel tank, or do gearing engines together and designing a transfer case present their own different sets of issues?

[jcf]

Something to bear in mind about the Chrysler multi-bank is that it was built in Detroit, at the time the world center of automobile production.
Also it was not as simple as five engines combined, it was the components of five engines joined together on a new common crankcase, which was a large iron casting.

Any country that needs to cobble together old tractors or tanks due to technological and manufacturing limitations isn't going to be able to build the equivalent.

http://autospeed.com/cms/title_The-Chrysler-A57-MultiBank-Engine/A_110704/article.html

[jcf]

Some pics that illustrate the mechanical realities of the FT-17 and US Six-Ton.

Note that the Six Ton, Model 1917, A1 was an attempt to improve the performance of the basic Renault vehicle by installing
a larger, more powerful engine, results were mixed:

Six Ton, M 1917, Al.
Modified in 1930-1931 by Ordnance Department. Total production, 7.
Maximum speed: 9 mph (governed).
Dimensions: Length 17 ft. 3.5 in.; width 7 ft. 10.5 in.; height 7 ft. 7 in.
Weight: 7.1 tons.
Engine: Franklin, 6 cylinder. 100 HP, air cooled, side draft.
Horsepower per ton: 14.2.
Transmission: Substantially the same as in Six Ton Tank.
Fuel distance: 50 miles. Fuel capacity: 29 gallons.
Special features: Substantially the same as pilot model except that engine and
transmission were mounted upon a unit-supporting frame, and a more powerful
engine was used. Due to the weakness of the old units still used, the engine
speed was governed down from 3100 rpm to 2500 rpm. The pilot model, later
modified, constituted one of these seven tanks. Twelve volt ignition and batteries
were installed, the latter to be used with radio apparatus.

Info and images from:
The Fighting Tanks Since 1916
Major Ralph E.  Jones, Captain George H. Rarey and First Lieutenant Robert J. Icks
1933 National Service Publishing Company

Also any combined vehicle based on the Renault, a tractor or bulldozer is going to be very slow,
its just the nature of the critters and how they are geared.


Jon

[dy031101]

Any country that needs to cobble together old tractors or tanks due to technological and manufacturing limitations isn't going to be able to build the equivalent.

Nah, just trying to see how far the idea "improvised" can be pushed......  

[jcf]

Nah, just trying to see how far the idea "improvised" can be pushed......  

In that case look at multi-engined dragsters, LSR vehicles or tractor-pull behemoths for good examples of
shade-tree and improvised engineering. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractor_pulling

http://www.automotto.org/entry/flathead-jacks-170-mph-twin-engine-dragster-is-a-beautiful-beast/


http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/features/hppp_0905_1959_mickey_thompson_pontiac_challenger_i/photo_06.html

http://www.thompson-motorsports.com/chall1.html

http://www.thompson-motorsports.com/bonn61.html


http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/hrdp_0505_summers_brothers_goldenrod/photo_04.html