Tanks That Never Rolled.

[Nick Sumner]

Well, I haven;t stopped by this forum in almost a decade. Nice to be back on this grate site.

 

With the indulgence of the moderators I hope to post a few pictures of tanks that never got built in our timeline. The first is the well known Italian P.43 project. No prototypes were completed before Italy changed sides in 1943.

 

THE FIRST TWO IMAGES ARE PHOTOSHOPPED

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Argus]

Watcher Nick

[Stuart Galbraith]

Hi Nick.

 

I noticed one the other day that was actually prototyped, and did actually ship to france, but almost certainly never saw action. The Steam powered tank! Yes, someone actually thought that was a good idea!

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

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[JasonJ]

P43 maybe would have been better Panzer IVG?

[Inhapi]

Hi Nick.

 

I noticed one the other day that was actually prototyped, and did actually ship to france, but almost certainly never saw action. The Steam powered tank! Yes, someone actually thought that was a good idea!

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

 

 

 

I've read that the whole purpose of making this a steam powered tank was not so much a percieved superiority of steam engines in tanks, but the need for the boiler to pressurise a (for the time) powerful flame thrower.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, so it says on the Wiki page. Although with the vulnerability it would clearly have had to enemy shot penetrating the boiler, and not forgetting how much coal and water it must surely have got through in operation, you have to wonder why they bothered. I love steam engines, but fuel efficient they are not. It also makes me wonder how on earth they would have been able to stop the boiler tubes being uncovered every time the thing pitched into a shell hole. Thats very much a no no in steam engine operations, you keep the tubes covered in water at all times.

 

I dont know why they didnt just operate it with compressed air. You would have still been vulnerable to shot, but at least it would have got rid of the other inconveniences.

[DougRichards]

Yes, so it says on the Wiki page. Although with the vulnerability it would clearly have had to enemy shot penetrating the boiler, and not forgetting how much coal and water it must surely have got through in operation, you have to wonder why they bothered. I love steam engines, but fuel efficient they are not. It also makes me wonder how on earth they would have been able to stop the boiler tubes being uncovered every time the thing pitched into a shell hole. Thats very much a no no in steam engine operations, you keep the tubes covered in water at all times.

 

I dont know why they didnt just operate it with compressed air. You would have still been vulnerable to shot, but at least it would have got rid of the other inconveniences.

Jumping 100 years or so to the future...................... What about Telsa Tanks?

[Nick Sumner]

Watcher Nick

 

G'day Shane

[Adam Peter]

The Hungarian Panther clones, 44M Tas, it's Jagdpanther cousin, and 43M Turán.

 

The Hungarian long 75 Stug clone, the 44M Zrínyi I

[Argus]

Yes, so it says on the Wiki page. Although with the vulnerability it would clearly have had to enemy shot penetrating the boiler, and not forgetting how much coal and water it must surely have got through in operation, you have to wonder why they bothered. I love steam engines, but fuel efficient they are not. It also makes me wonder how on earth they would have been able to stop the boiler tubes being uncovered every time the thing pitched into a shell hole. Thats very much a no no in steam engine operations, you keep the tubes covered in water at all times.

 

I dont know why they didnt just operate it with compressed air. You would have still been vulnerable to shot, but at least it would have got rid of the other inconveniences.

 

It's based on Stanley mechanicals so it should be a down draft monotube boiler (or two), no worries with uncovering tubes, and liquid fueled, probably Kero/Paraffin.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Yes, so it says on the Wiki page. Although with the vulnerability it would clearly have had to enemy shot penetrating the boiler, and not forgetting how much coal and water it must surely have got through in operation, you have to wonder why they bothered. I love steam engines, but fuel efficient they are not. It also makes me wonder how on earth they would have been able to stop the boiler tubes being uncovered every time the thing pitched into a shell hole. Thats very much a no no in steam engine operations, you keep the tubes covered in water at all times.

 

I dont know why they didnt just operate it with compressed air. You would have still been vulnerable to shot, but at least it would have got rid of the other inconveniences.

 

It's based on Stanley mechanicals so it should be a down draft monotube boiler (or two), no worries with uncovering tubes, and liquid fueled, probably Kero/Paraffin.

 

Fair one. But even then you still have to carry around a reservoir of water with you. You would probably need a tender, with all the awkwardness thats going to bring operating over shell craters.

 

Unless they were planning on draining shell craters, and that is going to cause its own problems.

 

 

All that said.... its a steam powered tank. Lets build a replica.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[Coldsteel]

All that said.... its a steam powered tank. Lets build a replica.

 

At last a tank that needs no additional BV.

 

 

Returning to "Never Built":

 

 

Australian Cruiser Mark IV Engine and 17pdr gun tested in earlier vehicles, it didn't get built as the project got shut down in the middle of 1943.

[Stuart Galbraith]

At the risk of being indelicate, I guess there was no further use for it with the withdrawal of Australia from the land war in Europe? Its hard to see what the Japanese could field that would require it. The version with twin 25pounders might have been worth pursuing though.

[Coldsteel]

With the benefit of hindsight, no not against the Japanese, they probably wouldn't have know that at the time though. The photos of the double barrelled 25 pounder (50 pounder?) wasn't a practical weapon, it was to stress test the hell out of the mounting and the turret, proofing it for the 17pdr. The Mark IV was to mount either a 17 pounder or as the Mark IVA a 25 pounder. Where I can see the 17pdr armed tank being useful would be in Korea, covering the shortfall of Centurions as the Australian ones had to be diverted to British forces.

[R011]

In Europe, there would probably be encouragement to use the same tanks as everyone else, much as the Canadian Ram tanks were replaced by Shermans - at least before trying to attack German heavy tanks head on in Normandy.

[Stuart Galbraith]

With the benefit of hindsight, no not against the Japanese, they probably wouldn't have know that at the time though. The photos of the double barrelled 25 pounder (50 pounder?) wasn't a practical weapon, it was to stress test the hell out of the mounting and the turret, proofing it for the 17pdr. The Mark IV was to mount either a 17 pounder or as the Mark IVA a 25 pounder. Where I can see the 17pdr armed tank being useful would be in Korea, covering the shortfall of Centurions as the Australian ones had to be diverted to British forces.

Yeah, it would have been useful in Korea.

 

I wonder if it was possible to put a 20 pounder in that turret? If so, it might have been a better turret option for us than the one we had with Charioteer.

[Coldsteel]

In Europe, there would probably be encouragement to use the same tanks as everyone else, much as the Canadian Ram tanks were replaced by Shermans - at least before trying to attack German heavy tanks head on in Normandy.

 

Yeah, that's a common argument given for dropping the AC project, "the US is using M4s so should you". I don't think it is a particularly strong one as it ends with Australia using a mix of M3 mediums, M3 lights, but mostly Matildas. Even in Europe the British used a mix of Cromwell/Churchill/Comet/M4. Best guess, if Australian forces had not been withdrawn, or had returned, they'd maybe end up where New Zealand did, the soft underbelly.

 

 

With the benefit of hindsight, no not against the Japanese, they probably wouldn't have know that at the time though. The photos of the double barrelled 25 pounder (50 pounder?) wasn't a practical weapon, it was to stress test the hell out of the mounting and the turret, proofing it for the 17pdr. The Mark IV was to mount either a 17 pounder or as the Mark IVA a 25 pounder. Where I can see the 17pdr armed tank being useful would be in Korea, covering the shortfall of Centurions as the Australian ones had to be diverted to British forces.

Yeah, it would have been useful in Korea.

 

I wonder if it was possible to put a 20 pounder in that turret? If so, it might have been a better turret option for us than the one we had with Charioteer.

 

I don't know. I don't know enough about the 20 pounder or its mounting. The AC4 turret has the advantage that it could be designed around the mounting, even if in the case of the 17pdr there is every reason to believe it is essentially sort of a tank version of the Pheasant, that is a 17pdr in a 25pdr mount. If the 20pdr could be mated to the Australian tank gun mounting, Maybe? The double 25pdr tests worked and that's supposed to be 120% the recoil of a 17pdr, I don't know how the 20pdr compares to that though.

[R011]

When Canadians deployed to Italy in 1943 and early 1944 they traded Rams for used Shermans.

They seemed happy enough with them and didn't get 17 pounder armed ones until they went to North West Europe and reequipped with new Shermans.

[MiloMorai]

The RAM was used in other configurations such as the Sexton SPG and Kangaroo APC.

[R011]

Sextons weren't rebuilt Rams. They were a follow on based on the related Grizzly variant of the Sherman.

 

They did use a few Ram OP tanks in NW Europe. Automotively, they and the Ram Kangaroos were pretty close to the Sherman I and II.

Edited February 28, 2020 by R011

[MiloMorai]

Sexton I: The first 125 vehicles manufactured. Based on the Ram tank hull.

[R011]

I.e. a Medium M3 chassis.

[JasonJ]

At the risk of being indelicate, I guess there was no further use for it with the withdrawal of Australia from the land war in Europe? Its hard to see what the Japanese could field that would require it. The version with twin 25pounders might have been worth pursuing though.

 

Although what came close to rolling that was comparable to the AC4 was the Type 4 Chi-To. The capability to develop a better tank than Chi-Ha and Chi-Nu was there. But just getting it into production was too much for the beaten war industry. The Chi-To was actually originally developed as 75mm front armor on the front hull and turret and a 57mmL48.5 main gun, with 400+ HP diesel engine, proven suspension. While development was delayed it was completed by May 1944. But they decided to not put it into production because they felt they had to go bigger with the main gun. The requirement for a long 75mm was put in just as the Chi-To was finished being developed. So after another 10 months, it was completed with the 75mmL56 and tested out in March 1945. It got the green light for production. But like most other new items, production goals were not going to be met. So it depends on how wide a scope one wants to expand the scope of what-if but since the tank did actually get developed all the way, the what-if margins wouldn't need too much expanding.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Whats the armour like on that though? Im thinking to carry a gun that big, and with a turret that big, just as we did with Challenger and Charioteer, they would probably have to compromise on the thickness of the armour.

[JasonJ]

Whats the armour like on that though? Im thinking to carry a gun that big, and with a turret that big, just as we did with Challenger and Charioteer, they would probably have to compromise on the thickness of the armour.

It weighted 30 tons.

 

The main front areas of the front hull were 75mm. Side hull was 25-35mm. Rear hull was either 35mm or 50mm, depending on the source. Top was again, depending on the source, 20mm or 16mm as with the bottom, 12mm or 10mm.

 

The front turret was 75mm. Side turret was 35-50mm. Rear turret was 50mm. No top turret data.