The Best That Never Was 2 (Prototypes)

[Vespers War]

At least one of the frankentanks might be a bit problematic:

The Roetz (Panther hull with a T-54 turret) will run into diameter issues, since the Panther has a 165cm ring and the T-54 a 182.5cm ring.

[Brit]

I think model makers tend to gloss over such inconvienint facts or say the turret ring was "modified" so it fit... I do try to keep any of my 'What ifs 'possible' / vaguely 'logical'.

However, when I found that a model () T34/76 turret would fit exactly on a (Revell 1/72) M2 Bradley kit, i.e. the model's turret 'rings' were the same... well, it could have happened...

Just wish someone did a 1/72 Starship turret / kit. There is / was a 1/72 kit of it but it is now seemingly 'collectable' / out of production / v. expensive. Even when there were lots of LMSs (Local Model Shops) I never saw one on the shelf.

I have seen photos of M60 Starships, or one as a test, with the trad. gun swopped for a non-missile firing 105mm () main gun.

I think IIRC Antenna photoshopped the real turret onto an Abrams.

[ChalkLine]

I think model makers tend to gloss over such inconvienint facts or say the turret ring was "modified" so it fit... I do try to keep any of my 'What ifs 'possible' / vaguely 'logical'.

I'm no rivet counter but I have to have logical builds. Like I get an eye-twitch when I see desert vehicles with crap festooned over the air intakes.

The beauty of T2K conversions is that you seriously can drape tonnes of stowage all over a vehicle and it's absolutely right!

[Vespers War]

I think model makers tend to gloss over such inconvienint facts or say the turret ring was "modified" so it fit... I do try to keep any of my 'What ifs 'possible' / vaguely 'logical'.

However, when I found that a model () T34/76 turret would fit exactly on a (Revell 1/72) M2 Bradley kit, i.e. the model's turret 'rings' were the same... well, it could have happened...

Just wish someone did a 1/72 Starship turret / kit. There is / was a 1/72 kit of it but it is now seemingly 'collectable' / out of production / v. expensive. Even when there were lots of LMSs (Local Model Shops) I never saw one on the shelf.

I have seen photos of M60 Starships, or one as a test, with the trad. gun swopped for a non-missile firing 105mm () main gun.

I think IIRC Antenna photoshopped the real turret onto an Abrams.

The M60A1E3 was a prototype that tested the M68 105mm cannon with the Starship turret (on an M60A1 hull, as this was part of the testing to develop the M60A2). It was about 1700 pounds heavier than the M60A2 ended up being. AFAIK, it was an M68 (the M60's cannon), not the M68E1 used on the A1 and A3 tanks.

Edit to add: I'm usually OK with small differences in turret ring size or other equipment carriage mounts - the T-34/76 is pushing it on being too small for a Bradley (the 1942 turret is 1.38 meters, while the Bradley is 1.50). The T-34/85 would almost be a better match at 1.56 meters, or a bit over 2" larger than the Bradley. The Panther/T-54 difference is almost 7", which is enough volume that I can't imagine there wouldn't be something important being impinged on.

[cawest]

The M60A1E3 was a prototype that tested the M68 105mm cannon with the Starship turret (on an M60A1 hull, as this was part of the testing to develop the M60A2). It was about 1700 pounds heavier than the M60A2 ended up being. AFAIK, it was an M68 (the M60's cannon), not the M68E1 used on the A1 and A3 tanks.

Edit to add: I'm usually OK with small differences in turret ring size or other equipment carriage mounts - the T-34/76 is pushing it on being too small for a Bradley (the 1942 turret is 1.38 meters, while the Bradley is 1.50). The T-34/85 would almost be a better match at 1.56 meters, or a bit over 2" larger than the Bradley. The Panther/T-54 difference is almost 7", which is enough volume that I can't imagine there wouldn't be something important being impinged on.

if the new turret is wider then it should not be an issue of making a "step" that acts as an adapter between old hull and new turret. it would have to have armored skin or maybe just ERA covering that area.

[Brit]

To be honest I put the T72/76 turret on as a) it was available / left over and b) looked 'ok'. I am interested that the T34/85 has a similar turret ring size but it seems like too much turret and too much gun. However having seen photos of the what has been put on M113s in the real world... I suppose it depends on how much stress the firing puts on the chassis / whatever

PS. I did stick a Bradley turret on a standard M113... hence why I had a Bradley chassis spare.

[shrike6]

MBB Lampyridae

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Lampyridae

[ChalkLine]

I'm not sure if this has been posted, I couldn't find it.

Vickers Mark 11 6x6 Armoured Car

A failed bid for the Australian Bushranger contact, the Mk11 is a lightly armoured wheeled personnel carrier with surprisingly heavy armament. Development began in 1993 and the result is as follows:

Crew: 4+8
Mass: 20,000kg
Max speed (road): 105km/h
Max speed (water): 8km/h
Range: 1,000km
Armour: Proof vs mall arms (7.62AP) and shell fragments
Fuel cap: 500L
Armament:
L7 105mm cannon, 7.62mm MAG MG co-ax, 12.7mm M2 (loader)
or
120mm mortar or 81mm mortar, 12.7mm M2
or
20mm AA gun (unspecified), 7.62mm MAG MG co-ax
or
12.7mm M2, 7.62mm MAG MG co-ax (APC variant)

as well as the usual command, ambulance, fitter and so on variants.

Extra equipment: 350L water tank, centralized tyre pressure regulation system.

[Ursus Maior]

Oh, wow, can't remember I ever read about this one before. With a complement of 4+8 people and a 105 mm gun, this sure sounds cramped for a 6x6. Though this link speaks only of 7 dismounts, which would still be a regular number for armored infantry: http://www.military-today.com/artill...ckers_mk11.htm

Any knowledge as to why it failed the bid

[Targan]

Any knowledge as to why it failed the bid

I'm not sure of the specifics, but it was out of contention early in the process. The prototypes the Australian Army ended up evaluating were the ADI Bushmaster (based on the Irish MP44) and the ASVS Taipan (based on the South African Mamba). It seems like the Vickers was out of contention by 1995 in the Bushranger Project tender process. If I had to guess, it probably didn't meet the 70% threshold for the requirement to be manufactured and built in Australia.

[Ursus Maior]

I'm not sure of the specifics, but it was out of contention early in the process. The prototypes the Australian Army ended up evaluating were the ADI Bushmaster (based on the Irish MP44) and the ASVS Taipan (based on the South African Mamba). It seems like the Vickers was out of contention by 1995 in the Bushranger Project tender process. If I had to guess, it probably didn't meet the 70% threshold for the requirement to be manufactured and built in Australia.

Ah, yes, that all sounds very likely, thanks.

[Vespers War]

The Royal Armouries released a video a few days ago on the BSA 28P. Rather unsurprisingly, Paul already has it in his Best Assault Rifles That Never Were, but the video mentions that the earliest prototypes did not include the cyclical rate inhibitor of the rifle that was written up. For serial number 1 (and an unknown number after, but probably no more than 6 because SN 7 has the inhibitor):

Change ROF from 5 to 10
Change burst recoil from 9 to 19

Yes, it's going to spit bullets everywhere but where it is aimed. Based on trials results, that seems to be historically accurate.

The write-up also mentions that it used rifle grenades. Per the video, the one it was designed around was the British anti-tank grenade No. 85, which was equivalent to the American M9/M9A1. It used a scaled-down bazooka-like shaped-charge warhead capable of penetrating 2" (~51mm) of armor.

[Raellus]

Object 279

Pretty sure we've discussed this one already, but it's an interesting piece. It includes a bit about the "never-really-was" IT-1 Missile Tank as well.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44989/unique-soviet-monster-tank-designed-to-survive-a-nuclear-blast-has-roared-back-to-life

-

[pmulcahy11b]

Pretty sure we've discussed this one already, but it's an interesting piece. It includes a bit about the "never-really-was" IT-1 Missile Tank as well.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44989/unique-soviet-monster-tank-designed-to-survive-a-nuclear-blast-has-roared-back-to-life

-

I just checked my site; I can't believe I didn't do that one!

[Vespers War]

I just checked my site; I can't believe I didn't do that one!

I also checked your site earlier today to see if you'd done it. There's some very basic information here on various missile tanks, and I might pull together more information, since some of these are beautifully weird vehicles.

Object 757 was an IS-3 with a 125mm launcher for 9K112/AT-8 "Songster" missiles.

Object 775 was a new hull with the same launcher.

Object 282 was built on a T-10 chassis with a pop-up launcher firing either 152mm anti-tank rockets (22 carried) or 132mm anti-tank rockets (30 carried).

Object 287 is a weird little thing with a pair of the 73mm gun-launchers from the BMP-1 (and a pair of coaxial PKT machine guns) and a pop-up launcher with 15 of the 9M15 Taifun radio-guided anti-tank missile.

And, of course, the IT-1 that saw service with two tank destroyer battalions.

By the way, on the "Best Tanks That Never Were," I think the ammo loadouts for the M1A4 and M60 Modernization Package have been reversed - the M1A4 is carrying 105mm rounds despite being armed with a 140mm gun, and the M60 has 140mm and 30mm rounds. Also, the M60-2000 has 120mm ammo despite having a 105mm M68.