Modelling > Scenarios
Japan invades Australia
Old Wombat:
raafif, the twin 25-pounder set-up was a test-bed for the 17-pounder (to see if the tank could take the recoil). Production AC3's had a single 25-pounder. (Whatever happened to the AC2, or was that the 6-pounder version of the AC1?)
I'm just chucking ideas out here but...
How about the US supplying P-40's without engines & having Merlins (which I believe, though I could be wrong, we were producing by 1942) grafted onto the front here?
The space/weight of the missing engines could be made-up for with P&W Wasps to power the Sentinels (which would make them faster & lighter than they were with the multi-engine arrangement, &, maybe, not as thirsty).
Holden's were manufacturing (Chevy?) V8 & Gypsy Minor engines which, with their chassis building, would make them good suppliers of armoured cars. Only having mild steel to work with was an issue, though, but angled properly it has its place. Hmm, unlicenced copies of the SdKfz 222, anyone?
???
Guy
PS: raafif, I'll look but my Google-fu is weak! ;)
Old Wombat:
I found this;
At this (Spanish) site;
http://www.taringa.net/posts/apuntes-y-monografias/13975481/Proezas-de-ingenieria-militar-el-sentinel-AC4.html
And this (French) one (it doesn't have line drawings, sorry, but it does have AC1, 3 & 4 coloured drawings);
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/1-Vehicles/Allies/3-UK/03-CruiserTanks/Sentinel/AC1-Sentinel.htm
:)
Guy
elmayerle:
Odd thought, since Holden and Allison were both connected to GM at that time, could there be an engine technology transfer, including manufacturing technology?
raafif:
--- Quote from: Old Wombat on May 13, 2013, 12:54:37 PM ---raafif, the twin 25-pounder set-up was a test-bed for the 17-pounder (to see if the tank could take the recoil)
--- End quote ---
yes, I know but still think the twin set-up would be good for killing bunkers
Thanks for the Sentinel drawing, Guy - tried to look at that Ruski site but the battle-tank page won't open for me :( & my Google-fu, Bing-fu & Yahoo-fu is even poorer than yours :D
I'm against having Merlins too early as I like the idea of radial P-40s :D & with the US out the P-40 doesn't exist until 1946 - we're stuck with the Hawk-75 at best.
I don't think we'd have the production capacity for another major engine type, better to stick with P&W R-1830s & a limited-production local V-10 (as on my Boomerang II).
In the real world, by 1940 we had already decided to look to the US for military support (realised UK would be too busy to help?) ie the US gave us permission to use their process for making aircraft-grade aluminium sheet for the duration only - this material was not produced in Oz before or after WW2. Did Britain use that same process or their own method ?
SdKfz-222 ??
I think that anything German would be too complicated for us to make - it would require much re-design - even the Beaufort was simplified for easier Oz production. Must read the book on Oz A/cars again.
Old Wombat:
Hmm, my info has the P-40 flying in 1938 & in service by 1941.
Also, while actively avoiding becoming involved in the war directly, the US could not ignore the advances in aviation technology occurring overseas - hence the P-40 in the first place - &, as a supplier to nations engaged in a major conflict, US manufacturers would know that their product had to meet the demands of the buyer - hence the Mustang (a.k.a. the P-51) & the Packard-Merlin. Nor could it ignore the possibility that it might be drawn into the war & would prepare for such an event (as it did prior to 7 December, 1941, in the RW).
Oh, & I'm rather partial to the Allison/Packard-Merlin engined variant myself. :P
Re: the SdKfz 222 copy - I have no trouble with manufacturing a simplified version using what was to hand, it just gives us something ground-based & moderately successful to hang the Oerlikon 20mm on.
:icon_music:
Guy
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version