At least one of the frankentanks might be a bit problematic:

The Roetz (Panther hull with a T-54 turret) will run into diameter issues, since the Panther has a 165cm ring and the T-54 a 182.5cm ring.

I think model makers tend to gloss over such inconvienint facts or say the turret ring was "modified" so it fit... I do try to keep any of my 'What ifs? 'possible' / vaguely 'logical'.

However, when I found that a model (?) T34/76 turret would fit exactly on a (Revell 1/72) M2 Bradley kit, i.e. the model's turret 'rings' were the same... well, it could have happened...

Just wish someone did a 1/72 Starship turret / kit. There is / was a 1/72 kit of it but it is now seemingly 'collectable' / out of production / v. expensive. Even when there were lots of LMSs (Local Model Shops) I never saw one on the shelf.

I have seen photos of M60 Starships, or one as a test, with the trad. gun swopped for a non-missile firing 105mm (?) main gun.

I think IIRC Antenna photoshopped the real turret onto an Abrams.

I'm no rivet counter but I have to have logical builds. Like I get an eye-twitch when I see desert vehicles with crap festooned over the air intakes.

The beauty of T2K conversions is that you seriously can drape tonnes of stowage all over a vehicle and it's absolutely right!

The M60A1E3 was a prototype that tested the M68 105mm cannon with the Starship turret (on an M60A1 hull, as this was part of the testing to develop the M60A2). It was about 1700 pounds heavier than the M60A2 ended up being. AFAIK, it was an M68 (the M60's cannon), not the M68E1 used on the A1 and A3 tanks.

Edit to add: I'm usually OK with small differences in turret ring size or other equipment carriage mounts - the T-34/76 is pushing it on being too small for a Bradley (the 1942 turret is 1.38 meters, while the Bradley is 1.50). The T-34/85 would almost be a better match at 1.56 meters, or a bit over 2" larger than the Bradley. The Panther/T-54 difference is almost 7", which is enough volume that I can't imagine there wouldn't be something important being impinged on.

if the new turret is wider then it should not be an issue of making a "step" that acts as an adapter between old hull and new turret. it would have to have armored skin or maybe just ERA covering that area.

To be honest I put the T72/76 turret on as a) it was available / left over and b) looked 'ok'. I am interested that the T34/85 has a similar turret ring size but it seems like too much turret and too much gun. However having seen photos of the what has been put on M113s in the real world... I suppose it depends on how much stress the firing puts on the chassis / whatever?

PS. I did stick a Bradley turret on a standard M113... hence why I had a Bradley chassis spare.

MBB Lampyridae
 

I'm not sure if this has been posted, I couldn't find it.

Vickers Mark 11 6x6 Armoured Car

A failed bid for the Australian Bushranger contact, the Mk11 is a lightly armoured wheeled personnel carrier with surprisingly heavy armament. Development began in 1993 and the result is as follows:

Crew: 4+8
Mass: 20,000kg
Max speed (road): 105km/h
Max speed (water): 8km/h
Range: 1,000km
Armour: Proof vs mall arms (7.62AP) and shell fragments
Fuel cap: 500L
Armament:
L7 105mm cannon, 7.62mm MAG MG co-ax, 12.7mm M2 (loader)
or
120mm mortar or 81mm mortar, 12.7mm M2
or
20mm AA gun (unspecified), 7.62mm MAG MG co-ax
or
12.7mm M2, 7.62mm MAG MG co-ax (APC variant)

as well as the usual command, ambulance, fitter and so on variants.

Extra equipment: 350L water tank, centralized tyre pressure regulation system.

http://zonwar.ru/images/tank/sovr_bt...rs_Mk_11_2.jpg

http://zonwar.ru/images/tank/sovr_bt...rs_Mk_11_3.jpg

Oh, wow, can't remember I ever read about this one before. With a complement of 4+8 people and a 105 mm gun, this sure sounds cramped for a 6x6. Though this link speaks only of 7 dismounts, which would still be a regular number for armored infantry: http://www.military-today.com/artill...ckers_mk11.htm

Any knowledge as to why it failed the bid?

I'm not sure of the specifics, but it was out of contention early in the process. The prototypes the Australian Army ended up evaluating were the ADI Bushmaster (based on the Irish MP44) and the ASVS Taipan (based on the South African Mamba). It seems like the Vickers was out of contention by 1995 in the Bushranger Project tender process. If I had to guess, it probably didn't meet the 70% threshold for the requirement to be manufactured and built in Australia.

Ah, yes, that all sounds very likely, thanks.

The Royal Armouries released a video a few days ago on the BSA 28P. Rather unsurprisingly, Paul already has it in his Best Assault Rifles That Never Were, but the video mentions that the earliest prototypes did not include the cyclical rate inhibitor of the rifle that was written up. For serial number 1 (and an unknown number after, but probably no more than 6 because SN 7 has the inhibitor):

Change ROF from 5 to 10
Change burst recoil from 9 to 19

Yes, it's going to spit bullets everywhere but where it is aimed. Based on trials results, that seems to be historically accurate.

The write-up also mentions that it used rifle grenades. Per the video, the one it was designed around was the British anti-tank grenade No. 85, which was equivalent to the American M9/M9A1. It used a scaled-down bazooka-like shaped-charge warhead capable of penetrating 2" (~51mm) of armor.

Object 279
 

Pretty sure we've discussed this one already, but it's an interesting piece. It includes a bit about the "never-really-was" IT-1 Missile Tank as well.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...d-back-to-life

-

I just checked my site; I can't believe I didn't do that one!

I also checked your site earlier today to see if you'd done it. There's some very basic information here on various missile tanks, and I might pull together more information, since some of these are beautifully weird vehicles.

Object 757 was an IS-3 with a 125mm launcher for 9K112/AT-8 "Songster" missiles.

Object 775 was a new hull with the same launcher.

Object 282 was built on a T-10 chassis with a pop-up launcher firing either 152mm anti-tank rockets (22 carried) or 132mm anti-tank rockets (30 carried).

Object 287 is a weird little thing with a pair of the 73mm gun-launchers from the BMP-1 (and a pair of coaxial PKT machine guns) and a pop-up launcher with 15 of the 9M15 Taifun radio-guided anti-tank missile.

And, of course, the IT-1 that saw service with two tank destroyer battalions.

By the way, on the "Best Tanks That Never Were," I think the ammo loadouts for the M1A4 and M60 Modernization Package have been reversed - the M1A4 is carrying 105mm rounds despite being armed with a 140mm gun, and the M60 has 140mm and 30mm rounds. Also, the M60-2000 has 120mm ammo despite having a 105mm M68.

All I can say is Oops! Thanks for the catch!

IS-3? T-10? What did the Soviets do, raid a boneyard?

Object 757 dates to 1959 and Object 282 to 1961, so when they were built their hull types had been introduced 15 and 9 years earlier respectively. They were probably trying to find a use for the old heavy tank hulls after the introduction of the T-54/55.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a31zPv5bljg

It's about the MiG-31 - but not the one you think.

While you're watching it, remember the date today...

Didn't Mitchell Gant steal one for us. :)

Ground Launched Hellfire Heavy vehicle
 

https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimed...60MN000117.pdf
https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimed...60MN000116.pdf
https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimed...15MN009930.pdf

Here's the prototype

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/...-m113-hellfire

Going for something a bit older, Jonathan at the Royal Armouries did a video last week about efforts to attach an external magazine to the Martini-Henry rifle to make it a manual repeater and thus not completely obsolete in the late 1880s. It's actually a pretty ingenious little device with a feed arm that pushes a round out of the box magazine and into the chamber of the rifle when it functions properly. There were versions for both the .577/450 round and the .402 that was never officially adopted because .303 was picked instead. The follower has a little catch at the bottom of the magazine so it can be locked down while rounds are being loaded, then released once the magazine is closed. In theory it could be dump loaded in probably two actions (one to lock the follower and open the mag, one to dump rounds and close the magazine and release the follower), but with the rimmed ammunition in use that might increase the risk of rim lock, so careful loading (one action per loaded round) is more likely except in case of emergency.

Martini-Henry with Harston device, .577/450
Wt 3.96 kg, Ammo 5+1, ROF LA, Dam 3, Pen Nil, Bulk 8, SS 3, Rng 101

Martini-Henry with Harston device, .402
Wt 4.02 kg, Ammo 7+1, ROF LA, Dam 2, Pen Nil, Bulk 8, SS 2, Rng 78

Fire, Fusion & Steel wants a longer barrel for the .402 round, which only drops from 85 grains of black powder to 80 - at 105 cm (instead of the actual 84.4 cm), the range would be back up to 101 with Dam 3 and SS 3.

Probably not many of these were made as they were never adopted, but like an Alofs device they could make an interesting little bit of kit for a PC with eclectic tastes.

I ran across a reference to a tank that apparently never got built, but was proposed in the 1990s. The recently reunified Germany had a lot of incompatible tanks, and when Malaysia was looking for something better than what they had, Germany proposed taking the hull of a Leopard 1 and putting the turret from a T-72 on it. While the hull would be rather underarmored, it wasn't much worse than a T-72 and was considered mechanically better (particularly for cross-country mobility), while the 125mm gun provided a firepower upgrade over the 105mm mounted in the Leopard's turret. Most Twilight timelines would never see this exist, but in Merc it might end up being produced for export - with over 2,000 Leopard 1 hulls available and 549 T-72 turrets, a decent number could be manufactured even if they didn't acquire more turrets.

Arrrrggghhh...where are you guys finding all this stuff?

When Rheinmetall mentioned wanting to send Leopard 1 tanks to Ukraine, I went over to Google to look up information on them because I couldn't remember how modernized they were. Looking through links about Leopard 1 modifications, I ran across mention of the whatever-the-hell-this-is-called on Reddit's TankPorn channel and then a few mentions here and there across the rest of the internet. I think it was involved in the competition where Malaysia selected the PT-91 Twardy over the K1, T-90, and T-84, but finding solid references to that competition is beyond my skills.

One proposed modification which was never implemented was mounting an M102 Howitzer on the back of a dual cab (seats 4 or 5) M548 cargo track. The gun could be fired through about 270 degrees and the carrier would mount a plow at the rear to dig in the track (just like an M110 does). An ideal tool for a shoot-n-scoot mechanized artillery unit.

Today, for Ukraine's urgent need, I'd postulate mounting our now surplus M198 Towed howitzers on a lowboy connected to a HEMTT heavy haul. Mount the gun on a 360-degree plate and equip the lowboy with hydraulic outriggers. The gun could be manned from ground level and would provide a heavy shoo-n-scoot capability with lower maintenance costs and high movement speeds.

Have I got a doozy for you guys this time! Jonathan Ferguson at the Royal Armouries did a video on the Kretz Rifle, a Pattern 13 modified to use a Mannlicher straight-pull bolt, then further modified to be an automatic rifle (note in that era a machine rifle did automatic fire and an automatic rifle did semi-automatic fire).

The mechanism is a wonderfully bizarre blow-forward chain-driven repeater. When the barrel shroud is pulled forward by gas pressure, it pulls a chain on the left side of the rifle that's connected to a pulley on the left side of the butt. That winds up a spring and also rotates a pulley on the right side of the butt. When the gas pressure declines, the spring returns to its normal state, pulling the left chain back and also rotating the right pulley, which now pulls back on the right chain that's attached to the bolt, opening the bolt and ejecting the spent cartridge, and disengaging from the left pulley. That also winds up a second spring attached to the right pulley, which releases when the trigger is released, driving the right chain in the opposite direction and closing the bolt on a fresh round.

It's specifically called out for being excessively heavy, and I'm trying to find out just how much weight that chain drive added to the rifle. It's a terrible design that couldn't work as built and wouldn't work well even if the fundamental flaws were corrected, but I can't help but love the Rube Goldberg-esque effort that went into making this armorer's nightmare.

Well, that's properly...weird. Wouldn't want to go into combat with one.

Is a "Bicycle chain rifle" what we call "Frankenweapons" in the US?

lav 75 that the Chieftain found

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XWK...LCL4fOEymXECda