Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 4
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
Should work just fine. But the mounting on Valentine was a little weird so it would not be like normal VVSS/HVSS (the mountings plates are low on the hull and the suspension units really stick out away from the hull).
Yeah. Even with basic HVSS, which obviously did not represent the full potential of that suspension type, the upper weight limit on Sherman was 102,000 lbs (51 short tons, 45.54 long tons, 46027 metric tonnes) where the average speed really was low and the springs broke often.
At lower weights:
"Further trials showed that the Ordnance Board was completely correct. The designers should not have disregarded the HVSS suspension. Trials of M4A3E8 tanks loaded to 41.7 and 46.3 tons were completed by November of 1945. The lighter tank drove for 4000 miles (6437 km) on frozen dirt over the course of 273 hours, giving an average speed of 14.6 mph (23.5 kph). To compare, an ordinary M4A3E8 driving through the same course reached an average speed of 15.8 mph (25.4 kph). The 46.3 ton tank drove for 1366 miles (2198 km) with the stock transmission, after which it was replaced with one that had a higher gear ratio. The average speed grew from 12.8 mph (20.6 kph) to 13.8 mph (22.2 kph). The heavier tank travelled for 3950 miles (5777 km) in total. The lighter vehicle lost 8 road wheels during these trials and the heavier lost 17. Even though the heavy tank had heavier duty volute springs, both tanks lost 6 springs during the tests. 12 shock absorbers broke on the first tank and 16 on the second. This reliability is not impressive, but keep in mind that both tanks were heavier than the M4A3E2 and their average speed was comparable with that of an unmodified Sherman."So no issue for the WW2 British, they could even use them on Churchill VII!
Not sure if you follow “Mark Felton Productions” on YouTube, but he recently posted a video regarding British (and American) evaluations of the T-34 and KV-1. While the US wasnt very impressed with the T-34, apparently the British were seriously considering building the T-34 under license, but mounting the 17 pounder gun! That would have been an interesting “Firefly”!
ric350
ric350
As @Bougnas points out, the issue with the Valentine and retrofitting VVSS was its lower hull shape which was severely angled in order to mount its triple bogie Horstmann suspension - similar to the earlier A9 and A10 cruisers which effectively had the same lower hull As the Valentine. Its shape was not conducive to mounting the VVSS bogies.
Well, looking more at it, maybe not:
Here are two pics of the VVSS unit and two pics of a Valentine suspension unit from World of Tanks' model, which should be accurate. VVSS mostly mounts on the hull sides with only a very shallow extension on the hull belly. Valentine suspension has a more substantial mounting on the sloped part of the belly.
IMO VVSS would fit fine on the vertical sides of Valentine, if with a reduction of the sloping of the belly. However the reverse (Valentine on US tanks) would obviously not be possible without a reshaped belly (which would decrease space in the tank or lift the hull and increase height if the ground clearance is maintained) or a reduction in practical ground clearance.
Here are two pics of the VVSS unit and two pics of a Valentine suspension unit from World of Tanks' model, which should be accurate. VVSS mostly mounts on the hull sides with only a very shallow extension on the hull belly. Valentine suspension has a more substantial mounting on the sloped part of the belly.
IMO VVSS would fit fine on the vertical sides of Valentine, if with a reduction of the sloping of the belly. However the reverse (Valentine on US tanks) would obviously not be possible without a reshaped belly (which would decrease space in the tank or lift the hull and increase height if the ground clearance is maintained) or a reduction in practical ground clearance.
What’s not immediately obvious from your pics is the true shape of the A9/A10/Valentine hull and how much of the Horstmann suspension sits ‘under’ the hull. I agree that the Valentine’s suspension could not be fitted to a M3/M4 hull without major structural changes, however, I suspect the redesign of the Valentine hull necessary to accept VVSS suspension would be just as significant.
Even clearer on the A10 with the same shaped hull…
Last edited:
Volute springs (vertical and horizontal) were indeed fairly versatile on lighter vehicles but did have their limitations as the size of MBTs increased. That’s why the US gave them up in favour of torsion bar suspension and the U.K. went back to coil-spring Horstmann suspension for the Centurion and Chieftain.
Centurion suspension showing coil-spring:
I'm skeptical. At any rate if the British had ended up adapting the T-34 for production, I daresay the product would be very different, even discounting the gun. Probably a bogie suspension to improve internal volume, for example.
I would note that Mark Felton is known to make pretty outlandish claims at times and to misuse sources. I note, by the way, that he took a Tank Archives article as basis for this video but not only misinterpreted it, but also didn't reference the blog.
In any case, the actual archive document says that the Soviets aren't even sure that the British would build these tanks, only what to do if they were about to do it. It is also possible that the Soviets sent an investigator who questionned factory personnel until they said anything to get rid of him, which would be the origin of the claim.
Soviet foreign intelligence and trade representatives' reports are always full of "I heard this from a guy who knew a guy who knew..." and Soviet analytic capability was poor, so they tended to hoover up all of that as fact. At one point in 1946 the GBTU thought that King Tigers were to be produced in Argentina!
Unfortunately many Soviet-era archives were dug up in the 90's and state-supported russian academia history is still stuck in those years, with a tendency to selectively dig up the worst-sounding and most ridiculous documents. Luckily in more recent years there have been some people digging up pretty neat stuff from the Russian (especially RGAE) archives.
But for the fun of it, if the Wallies had hypothetically made T-34s and KVs there (regardless of actual practicality of doing so), it would more likely have been for direct Lend-Lease to the USSR with minimal changes bar the improvements in materials and manufacturing quality permitted by the better situation of their industries compared to that of WW2 Soviets. This would at least have the merit of providing the Russians with fully standard equipment (parts, fuel, ammo, training).
An Alternative Take on British Cruiser Tanks:
I must admit that I had forgotten just how bloody fiddly Bronco kits are! Photo Etched parts are not an optional extra but rather primary components and, with all the fun of superglue, are a joy to work with... not! Needless to say, the singularity carpet under my desk has been on full universal destruction mode - I watched a part fall between my feet, saw it hit the carpet, bounce and wink out of existence! Fortunately, the gods were smiling, and it re-appeared an hour later on the opposite side of the room...
Anyhoo, here is the turret under construction - an entire kit in itself and spaced armour - who would have thought!
I must admit that I had forgotten just how bloody fiddly Bronco kits are! Photo Etched parts are not an optional extra but rather primary components and, with all the fun of superglue, are a joy to work with... not! Needless to say, the singularity carpet under my desk has been on full universal destruction mode - I watched a part fall between my feet, saw it hit the carpet, bounce and wink out of existence! Fortunately, the gods were smiling, and it re-appeared an hour later on the opposite side of the room...
Anyhoo, here is the turret under construction - an entire kit in itself and spaced armour - who would have thought!
Last edited:
The laws of physics take on strange anomalies when to applied small plastic model pieces.
I also believe that tiny wormholes are sometimes created when one accidently drops a small plastic piece off a table.
Yeah I typically take the Marl Felton videos with a grain of salt (like his video on the “black” Lancasters). But a T-34 packing a 17 pounder would be an interesting beast. At a minimum the turret would have to be enlarged a lot for the 17 pounder to fit, right?
ric350
Maybe if the rear end of the gun was modified to be as well-mounted as the 85mm Zis-S-53, it would be marginal in the hexagonal turret. T-34-85 should be fine. We are talking about major gun mods.
T-34/85 armed with 17pounder, pic is to scale.
Looks like it would fit but I can't say if there's enough room inside to would handle the recoil.
Smaller things are more likely [1] to be influenced by quantum effects.
[1] While technically correct, I think we'd need to be nm scale to have any chance of noticing
RamscoopRaider
Donor
You'd be surprised. Certain high end automotive components actually have to take quantum effects into account due to their tolerances*, which aren't nanometer scale
*Generally the Casimir Effect causing resistance/pressure to be different than it should be without accounting for quantum effects