Author Topic: Aussie Post War Armour and what I'm going to do with my Tamiya M-41  (Read 1103 times)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Aussie Post War Armour and what I'm going to do with my Tamiya M-41
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2018, 06:43:52 PM »
 :smiley:

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Aussie Post War Armour and what I'm going to do with my Tamiya M-41
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2018, 09:02:43 PM »
Great minds (or is it raving lunatics) think alike, I have been thinking quite a bit about organic armour in the Infantry and enhanced Matildas serving into the 60s.

The basic structure in the ORBAT of the Royal Australian Regiment (RAR) is the addition of an armoured support Company in each Battalion, consisting of an Infantry Tank / Direct Fire Support Platoon,  an Anti Tank Platoon, an Indirect Fire Support Platoon, a Reconnaissance Platoon, an Air Defence Platoon and a Mobility Support Platoon (incorporating a RAEME aid detachment).  Each Platoon would have three or four Sections (dependent on whether the parent Battalion had three or four Rifle Companies), each of two vehicles. The Mobility Platoon would have two AVRE, two Bridging tanks, two ARVs, two Fitters Vehicles and two ambulances.

The initial tank would be the Matilda Medium Tank as locally produced in Australia from mid 1941, incorporating an GM6048D, improved suspension and a cast turret based on that of the Churchill incorporating a 6pdr then later the rebored 75mm gun.  It would be replaced with either early model Centurions or possibly Meteor powered Black Princes (another Australian production version I am thinking of), then later Centurions (or Conquerors), Chieftains, then Challengers, as they cascaded out of the Tank Brigade.

The TD would be a westernised E10 with a 77mm HV and US MGs. This was specifically a replacement for the towed 6pdr guns with RCL and Bazookas etc. being deployed in new Company FS Platoons and Platoon FS Sections.  This vehicle would be replaced with S Tanks in the mid to late 60s, which would be continually upgraded and remain in service through to today.

I recall reading somewhere that the L9 demolition gun on the AVRE was originally designed as the replacement for the 95mm CS gun, so am considering that there would be a 95mm CS Matilda Medium and it would be replaced by a 165mm Black Prince then Centurion, then eventually maybe a turreted 120mm mortar.  The thing that doesn't make sence to me with this story is if the 165mm was a replacement for the 95mm, why is its range so much shorter, or was there a different charge for longer range.


Rec, easy, Chaffee, replaced by Walker Bulldog.  Then either upgraded M-41s or maybe even Leopards cascaded from Cavalry, eventually a suitable cavalry vehicle with an auto cannon and ATGM.


SPAAG, Duster easy.

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Aussie Post War Armour and what I'm going to do with my Tamiya M-41
« Reply #17 on: August 09, 2018, 01:55:33 AM »
If you don't expect to face an armor threat, but want an HE thrower for the Matilda in the existing turret ring (and potentially the existing turret), then I'd recommend the 75mm gun from the M8 HMC. It's still in use today, so you never have to worry about running out of ammunition!



The Matilda's turret ring was 54", the M8 HMC's was 54.4". That's pretty close, so I wouldn't worry about the fit. If you wanted to use the original turret, but wanted a bit more armor, then there's always the modified one used in the LVT(A)-5. That has overhead protection and greater all around visibility.



Those would be cheap, existing pieces and would be readily available from Korea until today.

For M41 variants, I have a couple of proposals. You want to put TOWs on the M41, why not just go with the M41 Cazador? Proven combination of existing components that would be available from at least 1979.



For direct fire infantry support, put the 165mm L9 demolition gun in a Kanonenjagdpanzer-style casemate on the M41 chassis and upgrade it with Raketenjagdpanzer Jaguar appliqué armor and side skirts later in life.



Hope that helps!

Cheers,

Logan

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Aussie Post War Armour and what I'm going to do with my Tamiya M-41
« Reply #18 on: August 09, 2018, 07:02:55 PM »
It does  :smiley:

Actually thought about the Kanonenjagdpanzer in L7 and L9 versions but when I opted for the S Tank I dropped it.  The Churchill turret ring diameter is also similar to the M-8s and Matildas meaning the 95mm and L9 are both options for 1950s upgrades.


On the M-8 turret, I had thought of an M-3 variant with the M-8 turret replacing the 37mm and a 6pdr replacing the 75mm.

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
    • SketchUp 3D Warehouse - My Digital Models
Re: Aussie Post War Armour and what I'm going to do with my Tamiya M-41
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2018, 01:07:17 AM »
Maybe the M24 Chaffee turret?  A bit more room to work with inside.  Plus it is a full turret with a roof.
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Aussie Post War Armour and what I'm going to do with my Tamiya M-41
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2018, 02:13:17 PM »
I recall reading somewhere that the L9 demolition gun on the AVRE was originally designed as the replacement for the 95mm CS gun, so am considering that there would be a 95mm CS Matilda Medium and it would be replaced by a 165mm Black Prince then Centurion, then eventually maybe a turreted 120mm mortar.  The thing that doesn't make sence to me with this story is if the 165mm was a replacement for the 95mm, why is its range so much shorter, or was there a different charge for longer range.


According to Hogg, the 95mm was based originally on a much shortened 25 Pdr barrel and mounting.  As a consequence, it had a separate loading round, which allowed the charge to be easily changed before the case was loaded, just as the 25 Pdr's could be.   The result was that like it's artillery ancestor, the range could easily be altered, before firing, without necessarily changing the elevation of the weapon.   He always described the 95mm gun, particularly in it's ill-fated infantry version as a bit of an abortion.  Despite several thousand being produced it never saw any operational use, arriving too late after mortars had taken over it's role as an infantry support weapon.

The 165mm gun, however was a new design and the British tankers wanted to get rid of separate loading for the gun, so opted for a fixed case round, with only one charge in it, which meant it's range was pretty well only alterable by elevation.   As the gun was intended to be fired in direct mode only, it meant it could be loaded faster and you didn't have the problem of loose charge bags floating around inside the fighting compartment.

As the L7 165mm gun fires only a HESH round, muzzle velocity isn't a big factor in it's ability to penetrate armour or concrete.  Therefore, having a fixed round makes considerable sense.   As it's range is only intended to be under 2,500 metres and in direct sight, speed of loading is more important than having variable ranges.


A picture of the US Army version of the 165mm demolition gun round, which illustrates the one piece nature of it, with it's "case" being permanently attached to the round.

The funny thing is, only 15 years or less later, the British Armoured Corps was quite happy to accept separate loading for the 120mm gun on the Chieftain and came to praise it for it's ease of loading... 
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 02:23:18 PM by Rickshaw »

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: Aussie Post War Armour and what I'm going to do with my Tamiya M-41
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2018, 12:03:00 AM »
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Aussie Post War Armour and what I'm going to do with my Tamiya M-41
« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2018, 12:22:35 PM »
Interesting.  Very interesting, Guy.  I see what you've done there, you've mated a Stug III hull top to an M41 lower hull.   Apart from the flat face, it is reasonably well sloped.   I note you've also extended the Stug III structure.   The Stug III was always a little bit cramped.   So, what are you planning to arm it with?

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Aussie Post War Armour and what I'm going to do with my Tamiya M-41
« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2018, 03:10:25 PM »
 :smiley:

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: Aussie Post War Armour and what I'm going to do with my Tamiya M-41
« Reply #24 on: August 11, 2018, 03:16:37 PM »
Interesting.  Very interesting, Guy.  I see what you've done there, you've mated a Stug III hull top to an M41 lower hull.   Apart from the flat face, it is reasonably well sloped.   I note you've also extended the Stug III structure.   The Stug III was always a little bit cramped.   So, what are you planning to arm it with?

Not mine, mate. It's Glenn's over on WIM. ;)
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."