#armoured vehicles

[artofpeteashford]

Another vehicle design for my personal '1921' alternative World War I project. A heavy assault tank with a flame thrower equipped turret.

You can follow my work on Art station :

Pete Ashford

free lance illustrator - concept artist

[dieselfutures]

Vickers Mk.E Type A

[lordhumeniak]

Demonstration of wheeled combat vehicles to customers.

1.Panhard M3 VDA (Véhicule de Défense Antiaérienne) — self-propelled anti-aircraft gun with H.20 turret.

2.ERC-90 with LYNX 90 turret with 90 mm anti-tank gun.

3.Panhard AML with Serval 60/20 turret (60 mm mortar + 20 mm gun).

[carbone14]

Une chenillette polonaise TKS armée d'un canon de 20 mm – Invasion de la Pologne – Septembre 1939

La chenillette de base était armée d'une unique mitrailleuse de 7,92 mm. Seule la poignée de chenillettes armées du canon de 20 mm pouvait éventuellement résister aux chars allemands. Elles détruisirent trois chars Panzerkampfwagen 35(t) le 18 septembre 1939. Après la fin de la campagne de Pologne de 1939, ces chenillettes furent utilisées par les allemands dans le cadre d'entraînements et de maintien de l'ordre, ainsi que pour surveiller les aérodromes de la Luftwaffe.

[greatworldwar2]

• Sd.Kfz.2 Kettenkrad

The Sd.Kfz.2, better known as the Kleines Kettenkraftrad HK 101 or Kettenkrad for short. Ketten means "chains" or "tracks" and krad is the military abbreviation of the German word Kraftrad.

The vehicle was designed to be delivered by Junkers Ju 52 aircraft, though not by parachute. The vehicle had the advantage of being the only gun tractor small enough to fit inside the hold of the Ju 52, and was the lightest mass-produced German military vehicle to use the complex Schachtellaufwerk overlapped and interleaved road wheels used on almost all German military half-tracked vehicles of World War II.

Steering the Kettenkrad was accomplished by turning the handlebars: Up to a certain point, only the front wheel would steer the vehicle. A motion of the handlebars beyond that point would engage the track brakes to help make turns sharper. It was also possible to run the vehicle without the front wheel installed and this was recommended in extreme off-road conditions where speed would be kept low. The Sd.Kfz.2 was designed and built by the NSU Werke AG at Neckarsulm, Germany. Patented in June 1939, it was first used in the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Most Kettenkräder saw service on the Eastern Front, where they were used to lay communication cables, pull heavy loads and carry soldiers through the deep Russian mud. Later in the war, Kettenkräder were used as runway tugs for aircraft, especially for the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter, and sometimes the Arado Ar 234 jet reconnaissance-bomber. In order to save aviation fuel, German jet aircraft were towed to the runway, rather than taxiing under their own power.

The vehicle was also used in the North African theater and on the Western Front. The Kettenkrad came with a special trailer Sonderanhänger 1 (Sd.Anh.1) that could be attached to it to improve its cargo capacity. The trailer carried 350 kilograms. Being a tracked vehicle, the Kettenkrad could climb up to 24° in sand and even more on hard ground. Only two significant sub-variations of the Kettenkrad were constructed. Production of the vehicle was stopped in 1944, at which time 8,345 had been built. After the war, production resumed at NSU. Around 550 Kettenkräder were built for agricultural use, with production ending in 1948.

[j-r-macready]

Exercise MAPLE RESOLVE 21 by Combat Camera / Caméra de combat Via Flickr: A Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV 6.0) drives through a charred field, moving between ranges during EX MAPLE RESOLVE in 3rd Canadian Division Support Base Detachment Wainwright, Alberta on May 3, 2021. Please credit: Cpl Rachael Allen, Canadian Forces Combat Camera, Canadian Armed Forces Photo *** From May 1 to 11, 2021, about 2500 Canadian Armed Forces members are participating in Exercise MAPLE RESOLVE 21 in Wainwright, Alberta. As the premier annual Canadian Army field training event, Ex MAPLE RESOLVE tests soldier’s abilities within a realistic, complex, and challenging combat environment. Du 1er au 11 mai 2021, environ 2 500 membres des Forces armées canadiennes participent à l'exercice MAPLE RESOLVE 21 à Wainwright, en Alberta. En tant que principal événement d'entraînement annuel sur le terrain de l'Armée canadienne, l'exercice MAPLE RESOLVE teste les capacités des soldats dans un environnement de combat réaliste, complexe et stimulant.

[historicalfirearms]

Ford M1918 Light Tank - America's First Tank

Hey guys, here's this week's Armourer’s Bench video! 

Last week while doing some research with the US National Archive’s online catalogue I came across some amazing contemporary footage of the Ford M1918 and I decided to put this short documentary together. In the video I talk about the development, history and fate of America's first tank.  

The 3-Ton Ford M1918 Light Tank was the first tank to be entirely designed and built by the United States. A light and nimble armoured vehicle armed with a 30 calibre machine gun and powered by a pair of Ford Model T engines!

Only 15 of an order for 15,000 Ford Light Tanks were built (and half of them are seen in the video above!) before the end of the war. Check out my accompanying blog for more info & photographs here.

I hope you guys like tanks as much as I do, thanks for watching! - Matt 

[zeedesertfox]

The intersection of the Atomic Era and Armoured Design.

The TV-1 tank, pictured above.

For @vartoc , since he requested the TV-8 and Project Marauder. I’m adding in the TV-1, since Project Marauder is still classified (fucking bullshit is what that is), and I’ll get to it once the documents get declassified and/or I get my hands on the documents somehow.

To begin with, this was only to be an examination of the TV-8 prototype for an Atomic Tank, but it has morphed into a post on 4 separate vehicles, these being the R-32 Prototype for an Atomic tank, the TV-1 Prototype, the TV-8 prototype, and a small utility tractor, the C6, which was also an atomic powered towing/utility like vehicle.

Before we get into examining these peculiar vehicle designs, we have to examine the thought process that birthed these beasts. The Question I through IV meetings were held by the Ordnance Tank Automotive Command of the US’s Detroit Arsenal, which had historically designed and built the vast majority of US tanks for use by the United States Army.

For those of us who are on mobile you’re really missing out, but the above basically states that the first conference, Questionmark I, held in 1952, had a wide variety of tanks presented with a wide variety of specifications, ranging from light to heavy (for the time) armoured vehicles. The Questionmark II conference was held later that same year “and featured self-propelled artillery and antiaircraft” designs.

The Questionmark  III conference was held in the 17th and 18th of June, 1954. The conference had given projected dates categories for each design.

Designations of “T” and “W” have been given respectfully to tracked and wheeled vehicles, with special features that can be applied to those being given the designation of “F”. Alongside the above, the additional letters of “S”, “L”, and “V” designate the time frame, with “S” indicating a short time frame from design to production being within two years, “L” representing a longer time frame of a five year program, and “V” representing a very long range thinking program of over 5 years.

Therefore, “TS” would indicate a 2 year or less to production tracked vehicle. “WL” would indicate a wheeled vehicle which could be made available within five years.

In short, all of the following vehicles would be classified as either TL/TV (Not sure about the R-32, it doesn’t follow the naming convention of the TV-1 and TV-8), with the exception of the C-6 being classified as probably WV.

Disclaimer: I’m not entirely sure of the time frame for these vehicles but I believe it would have gone: R-32, TV-1, TV-8, C-6, although I’m not sure.

Opening up Questionmark III, we find...

Now then, it’s time to examine the R-32. 

As far as I’ve been able to gather, this design was in the running to replace the then venerable M-48.

As for the specifications of the vehicle, its standard as far as cold war tanks go as for weight.

I don’t know how to copy it as one image, sorry.

Understandably the designers had high hopes for this design, at least in terms of range, placing it at an estimated 4000 or more miles. I know of no other power-plant for a tank besides nuclear that could provide that level of range.

The above image is a result of the Questionmark IV conference. Later, with the development of the TV-1, a similar list of pros and cons exists, although with some changes as the designers re-assess their designs. 

The R-32 represented, at 50 tons, a lighter vehicle than previous Ordnance Tank Automotive Command nuclear powered studies, and was proposed as a possible replacement for the M-48 series of tanks.

The next design featured was the TV-1, the second in our lineup of atomic tank designs in this post.

Personally, I really do love the described doctrine of this vehicle. 

“Shock Action”

Cause let me tell you, I’m going to be a little nervous when a platoon of gosh darn ATOMIC tanks come a-thundering out of the tree-line at me.

Like an enraged M3-Lee, the TV-1 featured a multitude of turrets. 4 specifically, with 3 of them possessing what appears to be .50 cal machine guns.

20 tons heavier, the designers appear to have factored in perhaps a more realistic weight estimate for this prototype in comparison to the R-32. I also believe that the gas-turbine open air cycle atomic engine is similar in design to the USAF’s efforts in atomic engine design.

The gun was also increased from a 90mm gun to a 105. Progress!

If I’m correct, the armour estimate was a whopping 14 inches, and just judging from the visual curviness, the armour upgrade is really quite wonderful, although I’m not sure if it was worth the 20 ton increase in weight.

I do find it interesting that they put down, besides the obvious issues of cost and having a high silhouette, the issue of transportation. 

Any major body of water would halt this thing in its tracks, forcing it to commit ground troops to a difficult or at least time consuming bridge construction. The weight may also prevent the vehicle from crossing some smaller bridges.

One possible use for either the R-32 or the TV-1 would be to pull non-atomic vehicles along, in a land train, in order to conserve non-atomic fuel and to reduce wear and tear on vehicles.

Now, I’m sure the troubling issue of a lack of water fording capability nagged the designers quite badly. I’m sure it would bug me quite heavily were I them, then.

And so, we move on to TV-8, the most iconic of the nuclear tanks, as far as I can tell, and for good reason.

“Subsequent to the ASTRON meeting on 17-18 May, Chrysler Corporation presented a separate proposal for an unusual tank designated as the TV-8. This design located the entire crew, armament, and power plant in a pod shaped turret mounted above a lightweight chassis. The total weight was estimated to be 25 tons with about 15 tons in the turret and 10 tons in the chassis. The two were separable for shipment by air.“

R. P. Hunnicutt, D. P. Dyer, Dan Graves, Uwe Feist-Abrams_ A History of the American Main Battle Tank-Presidio Press (1990), Pg. 36.

(The full size mockup of the TV-8).

(Since the source I’m copying from words this much better than I can, I’ll just pull direct quotations).

“The TV-8 was armed with the 90mm gun T208 rigidly mounted in the turret and fitted with an hydraulic ramming device. The 90mm ammunition stowage was in the rear of the turret separated from the crew by a steel bulkhead. Secondary armament consisted of two coaxial .30 caliber machine guns and one remote controlled .50 caliber machine gun on the turret top operated by the tank commander. Closed circuit television was provided to protect the crew from the flash of tactical nuclear weapons and to increase the field of vision.” Ibid.

“On the phase I TV-8, a Chrysler V-8 engine developing 300 gross horsepower was coupled to an electric generator in the rear of the turret. This generator supplied power to the two electric motors in the front hull. One motor drove each of the two 28 inch wide tracks. Other power plants were considered for later development including a gas turbine electric drive, a vapor cycle power plant with hydrocarbon fuels, and finally a vapor cycle power plant with nuclear fuel. The fuel tanks for the phase I vehicle were located in the hull separating them from the crew in the turret.“ Ibid.

“Space was provided in the heavily armored inner turret for a crew of four, although only two were required to operate the tank, the gunner and the driver. These two were located in the front at the right and left of the cannon respectively. The driver could operate fully protected inside the turret or with his head and shoulders exposed above the roof. The tank commander was at the right rear with the loader on his left. The heavily armored inner turret was surrounded by a light outer shell that gave the turret its podlike appearance. This shell was watertight creating sufficient displacement to allow the vehicle to float. Propulsion in the water was by means of a water jet pump installed in the bottom rear of the turret. The outer turret shell was of sufficient thickness to detonate shaped charge rounds and it acted as spaced armor to help protect the inner turret. The turret was supported by an assembly which rotated in a ring in the hull roof and it was moved in elevation by two large hydraulic cylinders. The TV-8 was 352 inches long with the gun forward, 134 inches wide, and 115 inches high over the remote controlled machine gun.” Ibid.

“The three ASTRON proposals, as well as the TV-8 design, were reviewed and it was concluded that they did not offer sufficient advantages over the conventional medium gun tank to justify further development.”  Ibid.

As one can easily see with the picture above, I’m sure the designers were tickled pink by fixing the transportability issue. Not only is it air transportable, it also possesses a self fording capability, as well as being atomic powered to boot!

To conclude this atomic tale, we shall examine perhaps the supply vehicle that would have been behind all these atomic behemoths. 

The -

Wanted by the Transportation corps, the C-6 was to feature the ability to move large cargo in bulk, across open country, snow fields and other adverse terrain with an “Essentially unlimited cruising range”.

All in all, it would be armed with presumably a updated kraut-mo- Pardon,-

An updated quad .50 cal system, all the while having a great range, and a very good hauling capability. The only issue spotted was the the design would not be amphibious.

And those are just some of the atomic ideas of the 1950s. To conclude, I’ll leave you with a closing statement made up of snippets from the sources.

Sources

http://atomic-skies.blogspot.ca/2016/08/atomic-powered-tanks-part-1.html

http://atomic-skies.blogspot.ca/2016/08/atomic-powered-tanks-part-2-tank-harder.html

QuestionMark III

.   Ordnance Tank Automotive Command, Detroit Arsenal, 1954.

QuestionMark IV

.   Ordnance Tank Automotive Command, Detroit Arsenal, 1955. 

R. P. Hunnicutt, D. P. Dyer, Dan Graves, Uwe Feist-Abrams  A History of the American Main Battle Tank-Presidio Press (1990)

Hunnicutt, R. P., and D. P. Dyer. Firepower: a history of the American heavy tank. Novato, CA: Presidio, 1988.

If anyone needs/wants the sources, I have them, just send me a message.