Alternative Armour Thoughts

[tomo pauk]

M3 & M5 light tanks turned into APCs/'US Marders'/'US Wespe'. A hull section added (optionally), engine moved to the front as much as possible. M3 here; feel free to add MG/3in/105mm :

[Maverick]

Well, they did turn standard Stuarts into recce vehicles in the British Army by removing the turret and adding MGs.  The type is a bloody small vehicle however, so one wonders what sort of capacity it would have as an APC.  I've sat in the turret and driver's seat of an M3 here in Aus when I was in high-school and believe me, it was a seriously tight fit.

As for heavy guns, the M5 was developed into the M8 GMC with a 75mm weapon on board and there were plans to field a 105mm armed vehicle but this was cancelled.  I wonder, however, if the hull would be able to handle the recoil of the weapon effectively.

Regards,

Mav

[raafif]

the bottom Stuart with engine moved forward is ideal for conversion to an armoured FeldKüche -- mount an oven to keep the stew hot ... and safe !  Fold-out armoured doors to protect the cooks & soldiers while collecting their bowlfulls.

Nothing is to good for our troops.          SERIOUSLY !!

[jcf]

T82 HMC 105mm


T56 3" GMC








T57 3" GMC

[Maverick]

Thanks for those pics Jon.  One often wonders about prototype weapons and if they were 'paper' projects or actually got built.  Was there any suggestions about the various arty pieces affect on the hulls?

Regards,

Mav

[jcf]

Thanks for those pics Jon.  One often wonders about prototype weapons and if they were 'paper' projects or actually got built.  Was there any suggestions about the various arty pieces affect on the hulls?

Regards,

Mav

No details aside from that the Special Armored Vehicle Board and the Aberdeen Proving Ground felt
the 3" gun was too much for the M3A3 chassis. Big surprise. 

The T82 passed all tests and met all requirements, however it was early 1945 before
that process was completed and as no military requirement was identified, the project was
terminated in June 1945. So it seems that a production T82 would be a good real-world based Whif.

[rickshaw]

Interesting, the T82 appears from the photo to actually have seen some use.

Going from the pictures of the T56, as I thought the bottom drawing with the engine moved to the mid-position had forgotten about the need for some room for the driver/co-driver in the front.   I suspect like the Stuart Recce you could have fit about 2-4 men in the back with a squeeze and that was about it.   Perhaps a slightly lengthened M5 might have been a better bet as an APC but that assumes of course it was decided that the M3 Half-Track was not considered adequate.   The Ram Kangaroo had a larger capacity and better armour.

[Maverick]

Thanks for the info Jon. 

The T56 certainly seems the most plausible of the three, although I'm not sure it's an 'in service' shot, given the man seems to be posing and not in any sort of uniform that I can see.

Regards,

Mav

[tomo pauk]

(while not claiming 'my' M3 would've been the holy grail of AFVs)

The 3in was not equipped with muzzle brake, so no wonder recoil was an issue for 13-15 ton vehicle.
The T82 featured M3 howitzer, not the more capable M2; vehicle featuring a rear-located 'big' weapon is a better choice than a central-weapon one.
As for APC, the rear ramp is much better choice than making infantry to mount/dimount by climbing & jumping around the 'APC'.

None of this conversions featured fuselage extension, like I've proposed.

[rickshaw]

As for APC, the rear ramp is much better choice than making infantry to mount/dimount by climbing & jumping around the 'APC'.

It is.  The problem is that in the real world, it took quite some time after the original invention of the APC for fully-tracked APCs to appear again and then, 'cause they were converted tanks, dismounting was over the side.  Interesting point was that when they used them, it didn't appear to mean their passengers suffered disproportionately higher casualties.  It wasn't until well after WWII that you see rear doors/ramps appear for exits.

[Maverick]

Funnily enough, I read a thread in another about ramps and the like in another forum whilst research some weapon 'modules' the Ukranians and Russians have developed. 

There was quite an in depth discussion re: the validity of rear ramp vs side door.  US (I assume by their comments) members waxed lyrical about the large rear ramp (in many cases from personal experience - I mean who either former/serving soldiers haven't debussed from a 113 or the like at some point?) whilst others (whom I suspect were Ukranians or Russians) were equally strident about the side doors of the BTR-80 and the like.  In fact, one bemoaned the removal of said doors with the BTR-4 and the installation of a rear ramp as a devolution of the type. 

And don't even ask about another thread with arguments over IFV vs ICV and the differences therein.... Sheesh, talk about heated.

But Tomo, extending the hull (afvs have hulls, aircraft have fuselages, go figure, but I suspect that's because the first tanks were described as 'landships') in essence makes for a new vehicle of sorts. 

Either way, the Stuart family are quite small vehicles and making one into a 'battle taxi' would be more than just adding space at the rear.  Even the M113 which is in effect a box on tracks is quite claustrophobic in a way.  Not as much as the BMP family I believe, or even the Bradleys but still quite confining.  Spend any amount of time cross country in one and you soon learn to have that big rear roof hatch open and find yourself standing for the ride.  That's from personal experience.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Like all design matters, each represents a compromise.   Rear doors are heavy and require power assist to open on slopes and need to be held open in case the vehicle moves 'cause if they swing shut there is a crush danger associated with them.  Ramps need power assist to close and that can be quite a drain because of their size invariably.   Side doors can be smaller and can allow egress from directions better protected by the bulk of the vehicle without necessarily needing to manoeuvre the vehicle.  However, the represent weak points in the side armour of the vehicle and necessitate re-arrangement of the running gear/wheels to usually facilitate them.

As for vehicle designations, they tend to reflect changing fashion more than anything else.  MICV, IFV, ICV are all basically the same - originally designed to allow the passengers to fight from the vehicle while it was closed down (now gone by the wayside largely as a consequence of the need for heavier armour - firing ports again represent a weak point in it).  APCs were simple "battlefield taxis" - intended to carry their passengers to the objective where they would then dismount and carry out their assault on it, whereas the MICV/etc. would keep them mounted and they would assault through the objective onboard.

The M3/M5 are small vehicles.  They make good full-tracked replacements for scout cars than anything else.  The British found them particularly useful in their Recce Regiments after their value as tanks had passed.

[jcf]

Interesting, the T82 appears from the photo to actually have seen some use.

Test use only, however the Vehicle Board and Aberdeen full test sequences were designed to simulate actual use as
much as possible, and the drive/suspension tests were actually tougher than the conditions that most vehicles met
in service. So I guess passing the tests could be considered use.     The T82 was built on a modified M5A1 hull.

Going from the pictures of the T56, as I thought the bottom drawing with the engine moved to the mid-position had forgotten about the need for some room for the driver/co-driver in the front.   I suspect like the Stuart Recce you could have fit about 2-4 men in the back with a squeeze and that was about it.   Perhaps a slightly lengthened M5 might have been a better bet as an APC but that assumes of course it was decided that the M3 Half-Track was not considered adequate.   The Ram Kangaroo had a larger capacity and better armour.

The T56 and T57 were both based on modified M3A3 chassis with the engine moved amidships (R670 on T56, R975 on T57).
The basic chassis of the M3A3 and M5 is the same, the only big difference is the twin Cadillac engines (the reason for the
raised rear deck) rather than a radial in the M5, so either one could be the basis of an APC.

[jcf]

  It wasn't until well after WWII that you see rear doors/ramps appear for exits.

Tell it to the Marines.

The LVT(3) and LVT(4) had a rear ramp. 

BTW John, the Germans use 'rumpf' for aircraft, ships/boats and tanks. 

[Maverick]

Trust the Germans to keep it logical...

Regards,

Mav