Vickers Medium Tank Ideas and Inspirations

[Volkodav]

Now there is a mainstream injected plastic kit of the subject I thought maybe it was time to start a topic on it.

For starters I noticed it is a similar size to the US M-2 Medium though lighter, different drive train configuration and less powerful, this leads to my speculation of a rearranged version with a casemate 3" gun.

Maybe something simple, a more powerful engine and better armour.

[Frank3k]

The Vickers Medium Tank Mk. II reminds me a bit of the M113. The Vickers is slightly larger in all dimensions. Take the turret off, modify the rear doors slightly and it's a fairly well protected WWII APC. The Vickers was used as a command tank (I wonder if that will be a future boxing) so it's not too far-fetched:


(from http://www.alternativefinland.com/british-tanks-inter-war-decades/ )

[Volkodav]

Now that is a good idea, an uprated engine and improved suspension to produce an APC.

[Old Wombat]

Going for improved period suspension, would we be looking at Christie?

[Frank3k]

Going for improved period suspension, would we be looking at Christie?

That was my first thought, too - but the spring boxes for the suspension would have to be on the outside. It would probably widen the take a bit.

 Kit wise, it would take the Hobby Boss kit and a Zvezda BT-5/BT-7/T-26 kit, with the added advantage that the kits are cheap and the hull sidewalls are separate.

If you want to go all British, a Bronco Cruiser or Tetrarch  or an Italeri Crusader Mk I

[jcf]

Dragon, Heavy Mark I. 

[Old Wombat]

Going for improved period suspension, would we be looking at Christie?

That was my first thought, too - but the spring boxes for the suspension would have to be on the outside. It would probably widen the take (tank) a bit.

I don't think the boxes would have to be outside the hull but the hull would need to be widened to incorporate them; however, would that be a bad thing?

It'd give a bit more stability &, putting the troop seats over the suspension boxes, you'd have more available floor space at least.

[Rickshaw]

Going for improved period suspension, would we be looking at Christie?

That was my first thought, too - but the spring boxes for the suspension would have to be on the outside. It would probably widen the take (tank) a bit.

I don't think the boxes would have to be outside the hull but the hull would need to be widened to incorporate them; however, would that be a bad thing?

Perhaps from a strategic mobility aspect.  Remember, whatever you design must fit within the British rail gauge, which is narrower than the American or Australian one.  Otherwise, it's going to have a long, long, slow journey on it's own tracks to fight the enemy...

It'd give a bit more stability &, putting the troop seats over the suspension boxes, you'd have more available floor space at least.

How about doing that anyway, with a narrower hull?   Mmmm, an A9 APC?

[Frank3k]

I don't think the boxes would have to be outside the hull but the hull would need to be widened to incorporate them; however, would that be a bad thing?

It'd give a bit more stability &, putting the troop seats over the suspension boxes, you'd have more available floor space at least.

The typical Christie suspension springs are pretty big boxes, so I thought it would make the inside of the APC less crowded if they were on the outside. I don't think it would be a bad thing, just possibly more work for the engineers. (see this air-conditioned T-34):

[Old Wombat]

I seem to recall that the T-34 was atypical in having vertical spring boxes, whereas most were horizontal or near horizontal.

Also, the Vickers tank, being much smaller & lighter, wouldn't need units quite that massive, I wouldn't think.

[jcf]

A couple of interior layout references: