How about a tank destroyer type with fixed main gun...i.e. STUG type
My gosh, that Saladin turret on a Stuart hull is brilliant! Well done, I can't believe it wasn't done before.
How about a tank destroyer type with fixed main gun...i.e. STUG type
My own long stalled M3A3 with Vulcan:
([url]http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/M3A3_M61_01.jpg[/url])
It has been painted, but I just realized I have no newer pics of it, I'll get a couple and post later.
In closing, the M3A3 is by far the best looking of the family, the raised rear deck of the M5 just looks kluged. ;)
There were some exceptions to the rule regarding the placement of main guns within the Jagdpanzer families, of course. Not all were forward mounted.
Regards,
John
Here ya go Jeff, still a long ways to go.
([url]http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/M3A3_M61_02.png[/url])
Here ya go Jeff, still a long ways to go.
John, I didn't create the naming difference that was the original owners. ;)
A question to anyone that happens to have the M3 Grant/Lee tank and the M3/M5 Stuart or M8 Scott HMC in their stash.I have both,but not access to them right now.I will let you know asap.
Will the Grant or Lee turret fit on the Stuart hull?
I do not have any Grant or Lee tank kits in my stash, thus the reason for asking the question.
Thanks in advance.
A question to anyone that happens to have the M3 Grant/Lee tank and the M3/M5 Stuart or M8 Scott HMC in their stash.I have both,but not access to them right now.I will let you know asap.
Will the Grant or Lee turret fit on the Stuart hull?
I do not have any Grant or Lee tank kits in my stash, thus the reason for asking the question.
Thanks in advance.
Turret ring diameters:
M3/M5 Light: 46.75"
M3 Medium: 54.5"
According to the weight figures the Grant was about a 1,000 pounds heavier than the M3 'Lee',
which is not surprising as the Grant turret was larger.
Either turret would be too heavy for the Stuart chassis.
It honestly depends on the 47mm gun. If it's something like the 47 mm SA 35, then probably not. At the very least, it would be a tight fit. If it was something more akin to the 47 mm Cannone da 47/32 M35, then there probably wouldn't be much problem with it.
Cheers,
Logan
It honestly depends on the 47mm gun. If it's something like the 47 mm SA 35, then probably not. At the very least, it would be a tight fit. If it was something more akin to the 47 mm Cannone da 47/32 M35, then there probably wouldn't be much problem with it.
Cheers,
Logan
Thanks Logan.
An E Book I had read had the M3 light tank armed with a 47 mm.
That is a good point. But when I read it,I was picturing in my mind of a normal Stuart with a 47 mm. I guess it would have to be a bit wider and longer to handle a 47,It honestly depends on the 47mm gun. If it's something like the 47 mm SA 35, then probably not. At the very least, it would be a tight fit. If it was something more akin to the 47 mm Cannone da 47/32 M35, then there probably wouldn't be much problem with it.
Cheers,
Logan
Thanks Logan.
An E Book I had read had the M3 light tank armed with a 47 mm.
Could be typo of 37mm ???
Or a single barrel KCA (30x173mm), same ammo, smaller, lighter and a coax MG.
Or a single barrel KCA (30x173mm), same ammo, smaller, lighter and a coax MG.
You got me stumped. Whatz "KCA" ?
Or a single barrel KCA (30x173mm), same ammo, smaller, lighter and a coax MG.
You got me stumped. Whatz "KCA" ?
It's a type of cannon By Oerlikon of Switzerland. It has the longest barrel of the present crop of 30mm cannon (which means essentially one of the highest muzzle velocity [1030m/sec] ). It fires the same round as the GAU-8 (30×173mm).
Is there any company that manufactures 1/35 conversion kit that turns a Stuart light tank into a M8 HMC (i.e. a turret-only kit)?
It would be of great use to what is quite possibly gonna be the only plastic/resin model project I will ever do in my life other than Warhammer 40k......
(A turret-only kit because I don't want to have a Stuart hull that I don't know what to do with...... unless it's cheaper to go for a full-vehicle kit......)
(A turret-only kit because I don't want to have a Stuart hull that I don't know what to do with...... unless it's cheaper to go for a full-vehicle kit......)A stock Tamiya M8 kit is probably no more than $20-25 new, but they are currently not in production so you'll probably have to get one second hand in which case you can probably get it for $10-15. Heck, for $20 plus postage, you can have one of mine, I have two.
Now I can comtemplate on doing that Tamiya M3 Medium tank kit, whose manual I have lost, with it and a 76mm gun barrel......If you want the instructions for the M3 Lee or Grant, let me know and I'll PDF them to you. PM me with your email address & I'll get it off to you before Christmas.
75mm sponson gun would be a good infantry support weapon while the 76 in the M8 turret would be very effective against the light armour present in most Central and South American armies through the 60s.
I'm actually planning to put that 76mm gun in the sponson mount and keep the turreted 75mm howitzer.
Maybe some weld-on overhead armour plates for the M8 turret.
I'm pretty sure the recoil length for the 76mm wouldn't actually permit it to fit in the sponson. If that mattters to you...
I'm actually planning to put that 76mm gun in the sponson mount and keep the turreted 75mm howitzer.I'm pretty sure the recoil length for the 76mm wouldn't actually permit it to fit in the sponson. If that mattters to you...
I've always like this as a Stuart upgrade, thinking about using this idea for my 20mm '46 Americans. Sorry can't credit the modeller, it's just outa my web pic stash .....
Pretty straightforward, actually. Brazilian X1A with 60mm HVMS instead of the 90mm Cockerill.
That's the Verlindin HVMS turret though right? It looks better than the X1A turret at any rate.
Does anyone know the length of a complete 60mm APFSDS round? Just to help me generating a mental picture on the possible resulting ammo capacity......
So complete cartridge is 620mm.
Here is another interesting one-off prototype that I recently found. The story is that it was looked at for a faster tank destroyer until the M18 came about at which point it was dropped. Interesting use for the M8 HMC though.Apparently they found it almost impossible to work the piece in the confines of the small M8 turret. Although the caliber is the same, the 75mm M3 had a much greater recoil length (and therefore the breech and recoil guard were much larger) and longer ammo than the 75mm Pack How in the M8 and it greatly reduced the ability of the crew to do anything in the turret. Even if the M18 had not come along, the existence of the M10 platform and lack of AT performance of the 75mm M3 would have almost certainly doomed this idea to non-production.
Here is another interesting one-off prototype that I recently found. The story is that it was looked at for a faster tank destroyer until the M18 came about at which point it was dropped. Interesting use for the M8 HMC though.Apparently they found it almost impossible to work the piece in the confines of the small M8 turret. Although the caliber is the same, the 75mm M3 had a much greater recoil length (and therefore the breech and recoil guard were much larger) and longer ammo than the 75mm Pack How in the M8 and it greatly reduced the ability of the crew to do anything in the turret. Even if the M18 had not come along, the existence of the M10 platform and lack of AT performance of the 75mm M3 would have almost certainly doomed this idea to non-production.
Much the same problem existed when they tried to shoehorn the shortened 105mm M3 howitzer into an open casemate mounting on the M5 chassis, much like a baby M7 Priest. No room at all inside for any ammo, it was all in lockers located on the engine deck to the rear. They built a couple and dropped them as unworkable.
Paul
Also a shame because resources could have gone into creating better allied tanks earlier.Well, the thing is, at this point nobody knew what a "better tank" looked like. All of this shotgunning of ideas and prototypes, etc. on both sides, was in an attempt to home in on what, actually, was a better tank. Prototyping was the tool used to establish if a concept had merit. Really most of these prototypes were being used to inform what the requirements _should_ be for new vehicles as the groups involved, especially on the US side who were both new to the war and very new to having access to the amount of money needed to manage a lot of new armoured vehicle design.
A nice feature to have for those days filled with precipitation. :smiley:
And also this:
(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/03708-jpg.438145/)
I wonder what it will take to add HVSS to the Stuart hull to give it a different look. The wider tracks would be a good thing for reducing ground pressure even further.
... Why oh, why do I keep pursuing crazy ideas?
(https://i.imgur.com/0kv6hXx.jpg)
Never saw this before - M3A3 w/ porcupine (anti-Japanese) spikes.
Commonwealth version called 'Hedgehog'?I crack myself up.
Matilda Hedgehoghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II)
Officially known as the "Matilda Projector, Hedgehog, No. 1 Mark I", this fitted a Hedgehog 7-chambered spigot mortar in an armoured box on the rear hull of several Australian Matilda tanks. The projector was elevated by hydraulics adapted from the Logan traversing mechanism used in M3 Medium tank turrets. The mortars were fired electrically either individually or as a salvo of six (from the 12 o'clock position;[55] the fifth tube could not be fired unless the turret was traversed to move the radio antenna out of the bomb's flightpath. Each bomb weighed 65 lb (29 kg) and contained 30 to 35 lb (14 to 16 kg) of high explosive. The range was up to 400 m (440 yd). Aiming was accomplished by pointing the entire tank; the mounting had no independent traverse, so accuracy was not spectacular, but adequate for the task. Trials at Southport, Queensland, in May 1945 were pronounced a complete success, and the Projector would have been impressive against enemy bunkers, but the war ended before it was used operationally.
(https://i.imgur.com/0kv6hXx.jpg)
Never saw this before - M3A3 w/ porcupine (anti-Japanese) spikes.
Commonwealth version called 'Hedgehog'?I crack myself up.
(https://i.imgur.com/0kv6hXx.jpg)
Never saw this before - M3A3 w/ porcupine (anti-Japanese) spikes.
Commonwealth version called 'Hedgehog'?I crack myself up.
I wouldn't have thought pigeons were that big an issue for tanks on active service. ???
Drop Bear protection?
Drop Bear protection?
Wouldn't work...it would just infuriate them more.
For all the hot-rodders out there
M3A1 Stuart Light Tank Continental W-670-9A Engine Cranking and Starting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEr8lpaBojM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEr8lpaBojM)