Author Topic: Australian WWII Armour options  (Read 631 times)

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Australian WWII Armour options
« Reply #30 on: October 23, 2018, 01:30:45 AM »
I do still love that build.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline kim margosein

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Australian WWII Armour options
« Reply #31 on: October 24, 2018, 11:16:42 AM »
I don't know much about armor, especially the Pacific Theatre.  However, it seems to me that Japanese tanks were inferior to Allied tanks both in quantity and quality.   Their default medium tank was not much better than the US M-2 medium tank, and was produced at the rate of 300 to 500 tanks per year.   A tank like the M-3 would seem to be more than adequate in the Pacific, with a 75mm used like artillery with mostly HE ammunition, and at the ranges in the Pacific the 37mm used as anti-tank would be adequate.  How about something along of an updated M-3, or an updated Churchill like you envision but keeping the howitzer like the earlier versions.
 

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Australian WWII Armour options
« Reply #32 on: October 24, 2018, 10:37:37 PM »
I don't know much about armor, especially the Pacific Theatre.  However, it seems to me that Japanese tanks were inferior to Allied tanks both in quantity and quality.   Their default medium tank was not much better than the US M-2 medium tank, and was produced at the rate of 300 to 500 tanks per year.   A tank like the M-3 would seem to be more than adequate in the Pacific, with a 75mm used like artillery with mostly HE ammunition, and at the ranges in the Pacific the 37mm used as anti-tank would be adequate.  How about something along of an updated M-3, or an updated Churchill like you envision but keeping the howitzer like the earlier versions.
Japanese armour quality was, as you say, inferior throughout the war and something like the American or British 75mm guns was more than sufficient. However the 3" howitzer fitted to British CS (Close Support) versions was, essentially, a breech loaded 3" mortar with a muzzle velocity of only 600 ft/s, too low to even pop most Japanese armour, and there was no AT ammo for it, ever, for that very reason.

I chose the 25 pdr for my "what if" mostly because it had an outstanding HE round, much better than the 75, and quite adequate AP performance with solid shot and the supercharge powder increment. It was also being manufactured in Australia during the war, unlike either of the 75mm guns. I then added 10% to the length of the tube to increase the muzzle velocity a wee bit without overstressing the breech to bump up the AP performance a bit more. I also posit that, for tank service these rounds would have to be fixed as opposed to the semi-fixed nature of the normal 25 pdr rounds, but that's not a huge deal at all. The AP rounds would be the same a s the super-charge rounds and the HE rounds would have something like a charge 3 amount of propellant for adequate, but not long range HE firing, they're not artillery, after all. A smart design team would ensure that the actual cartridge and shell of the semi-fixed rounds could be used in the new tank gun chamber in a pinch to retain the ability to use artillery ammo if available or when indirect firing was desired as was sometimes done with tanks during the war.

As you can see, I've given this far too much thought...  ;D

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Australian WWII Armour options
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2018, 02:36:40 PM »
The "normal" length 25 Pdr was more than sufficient to penetrate most Japanese medium tanks and would go in one side and out the other of most light tanks.   Lengthening the barrel might be required when faced by a mythical heavy tank - which were developed but never placed into production.

The Churchill was an excellent vehicle despite it's early troubles mechanically.  Once the British decided in 1943 to remanufacture all the Churchills they had, to rebuild their suspension, their engines and their gearboxes, they created quite a useful vehicle - just in time for D-Day.  Even before that, the Churchill could climb hills which other tanks would not even attempt.  Their use in Tunisia and Italy was extraordinary by all accounts.   What it lacked was a powerful enough engine to push the vehicle at a high enough speed to make it really useful.  Although as someone I know liked to point out, when the British used the Churchill in NW Europe as a standard tank, it's road speeds were not much lower than what their cruisers could achieve in the same advance across northern Germany.

In the jungle, it's lack of engine power would have likely told against it on extended operations.  In the Japanese home islands, it would have been an excellent Infantry Tank with a more than adequate 75mm gun.

Were you aware that the British took Churchill AVREs to Korea with their Centurions and the two outperformed the American Shermans and Pershings.   The AVREs were all equipped to become Crocodiles however they were never issued with their fuel trailers or flame guns.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Australian WWII Armour options
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2018, 11:17:41 PM »
Lengthening the barrel might be required when faced by a mythical heavy tank - which were developed but never placed into production.

In the land of WHIF, a sufficient reason for lengthening the barrel, no?  :D

And it's performance at Longstop Hill was one of the reasons I posit that the Aussies would like it for the occasionally mountainous terrain in the SWPA, including New Guinea and the volcanic islands.


Quote
Were you aware that the British took Churchill AVREs to Korea with their Centurions and the two outperformed the American Shermans and Pershings.   The AVREs were all equipped to become Crocodiles however they were never issued with their fuel trailers or flame guns.
I was.  ;)

Paul