Armoured Fighting Vehicles PoDs

[Skinny87]

Martell seems like he was at least somewhat vindicated by APCs and IFVs, even if it wasn't in that exact form.

Yeah he got the scales of transport wrong and underestimated the capabilities of man portable weaponry to through steel but he was right in other aspects. Nothing majorly crazy about his ideas otherwise,

I hadn't considered that point, but yes that seems entirely accurate

I think it says something about the man that I can find no biography of Martel, just a scattering of articles and primary sources, whereas Fuller has shelves of books about him. Martel was always concerned with putting the man before the tank, and Fuller the opposite, and unfortunately he's now the famous one

 

[Artaxerxes]

I hadn't considered that point, but yes that seems entirely accurate

I think it says something about the man that I can find no biography of Martel, just a scattering of articles and primary sources, whereas Fuller has shelves of books about him. Martel was always concerned with putting the man before the tank, and Fuller the opposite, and unfortunately he's now the famous one

Martell gets the honour of all those meme pictures of tankettes.

 

[Coiler]

I hadn't considered that point, but yes that seems entirely accurate

I think it says something about the man that I can find no biography of Martel, just a scattering of articles and primary sources, whereas Fuller has shelves of books about him. Martel was always concerned with putting the man before the tank, and Fuller the opposite, and unfortunately he's now the famous one

I really want to blame Liddell-Hart, who I happen to dislike immensely. (I could see how shallow and often inaccurate his Strategy was even when I was much younger and less-well read, and he played a not inconsiderable role in popularizing the Wehrmacht Myth). But it would be unfair to blame one person for all of Fuller's later promotion.

 

[Death's Companion]

In a different world this is not the the perception of Tankettes but a "Mothertank" and "Scout/Fighting tank" ready to advance and operate in tandem supplied by special flying "supplyplanetanks".

Its kind of amazing just how divorced from reality the theory was from the beginning. I mean a lot of these theorists seemed to look at WWI and then look at the technology of their day and then decide that it was too lame so they'll plan for something completely unprecedented with technology that did not exist and a doctrine that nobody ever would actually try to put into practice.


I think only part of it can be the infancy of the field but also the Conservatism of many armies limited tank theory to enthusiasts willing to bet everything on their wonder weapons who were not necessarily the best men for making it a reality.

 

[Simon]

Interesrtingly the same could be said for the Italians. I have a Tankie Times to write on Italian Tank Development, why it led to Italian jokes (15 gears backwards, 1 forwards etc) and was generally inferior, but their Semovente SPGs were apparently quite good quality by the time of the Italian Surrender, and could have become something quite impressive if not for that.

What were their P 26/40 and M16/43 tanks like? I've heard good things about them, albeit they were riveted construction, but that they ran into industrial/political issues and out of time. Somewhat similar to the Macchi C.205 the Italians seem to have only started getting a handle on things right at the end of the war.

 

[Death's Companion]

What were their P 26/40 and M16/43 tanks like? I've heard good things about them, albeit they were riveted construction, but that they ran into industrial/political issues and out of time. Somewhat similar to the Macchi C.205 the Italians seem to have only started getting a handle on things right at the end of the war.

I think I remember someone on AH.COM said that the P-40 was basically a great tank for 1940 but by 1943 it was outclassed by every frontline tank it was likely to face. I think that's probably about right. It was an ok design but could never be built in real numbers, it was very light for a "heavy" tank, had a two man crew, very little ammunition and could actually fail to penetrate a Sherman from the front at more than 500 Meters.

It would have been a real game changer in the desert if it had actually been built in 1940 but by the time it was built it would merely not let the side down.

Purely based on wiki the M16/43 seems a bit pointless, its a knock off version of British cruiser tanks built at time when the British were moving away from those types.

 

[Balaur]

In WW1, many tanks came in two or three versions-a cannon armed "male" version, a machine gun armed "female", and, for the British, hermaphrodite tanks with a cannon sponson and an MG sponson. Males focused on blowing up machine gun nests, females stopped them getting swarmed by infantry. I'm interested in keeping this split alive past WW1.

Now, obviously, unless you want to end up like the poor Matilda, something with a bit more bang than a single .30 is going to be needed. Autocannons(or at least a whole bunch of .50s) would be the order of the day.

Examples like the various flakpanzers, M42 dusters and the BMPT terminator show that AFVs armed with autocannons weapons can be very useful against infantry and light vehicles. However, with the exception of the terminator, these are repurposed AA vehicles, often deployed in AA battalions. Female tanks in WW1, however, were used in integral units with "male"(eg cannon armed) tanks.

So, let's say some exercise in the interwar period reveals that tanks are vulnerable to close range attack by infantry, or to air attack or the like. Some planner/tank designer decides to slap some machine guns or an autocannon on a turret of a standard tank. These "females" would be one or two of the tanks in each platoon, tasked with mowing down infantry, light anti-aircraft duties and maybe dealing with AT guns by slaughtering the crews. Probably a bit daft, but that's interwar tank designs for you. Then Mr. Hitler invades Poland.

How effective would this doctrine be? What country would be most likely to develop it? What chassis and guns would work well for such a design? How might it develop post-war(Helicopter Gunship Destroyers?)

 

[Coiler]

What chassis and guns would work well for such a design?

They'll almost certainly be low-effort expedients, so either existing tanks of the country in question or previous-generation ones that are obsolete against contemporary MBTs anyway. Same thing for autocannons-they'll be off the shelf AA guns.

 

[Skinny87]

I wrote a vignette based around the dissolution of the Royal Tank Corps in 1919 for budgetary reasons, including an Author's Notes section here where I lay out my reasonings of what I envisioned might be the consequences of such a PoD (@The Red)

 

[Skinny87]

In WW1, many tanks came in two or three versions-a cannon armed "male" version, a machine gun armed "female", and, for the British, hermaphrodite tanks with a cannon sponson and an MG sponson. Males focused on blowing up machine gun nests, females stopped them getting swarmed by infantry. I'm interested in keeping this split alive past WW1.

Now, obviously, unless you want to end up like the poor Matilda, something with a bit more bang than a single .30 is going to be needed. Autocannons(or at least a whole bunch of .50s) would be the order of the day.

Examples like the various flakpanzers, M42 dusters and the BMPT terminator show that AFVs armed with autocannons weapons can be very useful against infantry and light vehicles. However, with the exception of the terminator, these are repurposed AA vehicles, often deployed in AA battalions. Female tanks in WW1, however, were used in integral units with "male"(eg cannon armed) tanks.

So, let's say some exercise in the interwar period reveals that tanks are vulnerable to close range attack by infantry, or to air attack or the like. Some planner/tank designer decides to slap some machine guns or an autocannon on a turret of a standard tank. These "females" would be one or two of the tanks in each platoon, tasked with mowing down infantry, light anti-aircraft duties and maybe dealing with AT guns by slaughtering the crews. Probably a bit daft, but that's interwar tank designs for you. Then Mr. Hitler invades Poland.

How effective would this doctrine be? What country would be most likely to develop it? What chassis and guns would work well for such a design? How might it develop post-war(Helicopter Gunship Destroyers?)

I mean, this did effectively occur historically anyway, with the formal division between the Infantry and Cruiser designations, with the former purposed towards a slow speed, thick armour and multiple machine-guns and a low-velocity cannon for targeting field guns and bunkers. The Cruiser designs were much faster and designed for breakthroughs and occasional anti-tank duty.

Historically this division was shown to be erroneous, with the Medium tank designs of Germany and Russia showing the way to post-war balanced AFV designs. In the scenario you posit, I suspect the only way would be for, somehow, Fuller's vision of an 'Land Navy' to come into effect, as IIRC he saw a need for a MG-heavy vehicle to engage infantry positions while the majority of the tank 'fleet' engaged their opposites

 

[Don Quijote]

I mean, this did effectively occur historically anyway, with the formal division between the Infantry and Cruiser designations, with the former purposed towards a slow speed, thick armour and multiple machine-guns and a low-velocity cannon for targeting field guns and bunkers. The Cruiser designs were much faster and designed for breakthroughs and occasional anti-tank duty.

Historically this division was shown to be erroneous, with the Medium tank designs of Germany and Russia showing the way to post-war balanced AFV designs. In the scenario you posit, I suspect the only way would be for, somehow, Fuller's vision of an 'Land Navy' to come into effect, as IIRC he saw a need for a MG-heavy vehicle to engage infantry positions while the majority of the tank 'fleet' engaged their opposites

I'd say it depends on the situation - there's no denying the need for medium tanks like the Sherman, but in certain circumstances and terrain the Churchill was more useful. It was better in the steep hills of central Italy, where medium (or indeed cruiser) tanks couldn't be used effectively.for lack of open ground.