The Best That Never Was 2 (Prototypes)

[Vespers War]

For a late Soviet supertank, there's Object 195 (sometimes referred to as T-95, but that was never an actual designation). This was Uralvagonzavod's competitor against the Black Eagle for post-T-90 tank development, and probably a direct ancestor of the T-14. Even though it started development in 1988 and was canceled for the last time in 2010, details are still sketchy, but here's what I've been able to pick up:

Mass: somewhere around 55 tonnes
Crew: 2. Uncrewed turret, hull has just driver and gunner/commander
Armament: 152mm L/55 2A83, coaxial 30mm 2A42, and Kord 12.7mm
Engine: 1500+ horsepower
Estimated top speed: 80 km/h
Defenses: Relikt ERA, Shtora-2 jammer, Standard* active protection system
Sensors: thermal, infrared, laser designator**, radar gunsight for use with HE-Frag rounds


*This might be Arena, or it might have changed to Arena at some point. Pictures imply four or five launchers on each side of the turret, mounted just above the ring. No ability to engage Tank Breaker/Javelin.
**There was consideration that it could fire laser-guided shells developed for the 152mm Msta SPG, and even if it couldn't, it could guide them on target.

[Vespers War]

Once again I'm introducing something that was closer to the worst that ever was, but it's a system whose promise looked good until the contractor couldn't deliver on those promises.

During the Vietnam War, the US Army was impressed by the RPG-7 and Army Missile Command was ordered to reverse-engineer it and see if the LAW could be improved. Fast-forward a number of years, and General Dynamics received a contract to build an improved version, the FGR-17 Viper, at a price of $78 a pop. At that price, the Army expected to buy 1.7 million launchers and issue them widely, with "as common as hand grenades" being mentioned in some proposals.

Then reality set in. Between the technical requirements for it to be light and low-noise (relatively - < 180 dB launch, which is still pretty damn loud), and some utterly baffling decisions to use water-soluble propellant and a magneforming process that had failed previously in the LAW's development, the Viper quickly became a boondoggle. By the time it was canceled in 1983, tens of millions of dollars had been spent on R&D and the per-unit cost had ballooned from $78 to $1,310. When the Office of the Secretary of Defense issued an ultimatum to get the unit price down to $400, GD balked and Congress canceled the program, then ordered the Army to test off-the-shelf systems, leading to the adoption of the AT4.

If it had seen service, the Viper would have been somewhere around these stats:
Wt 4 kg, ROF 1, Rld *, Rng 60, Round HEAT, Damage C:4 B:5, Pen 60C

It's not a terribly good system even with fairly optimistic stats, being twice the weight of a LAW for an extra 10 meters of range and 5 points of Pen. The big advantage would have been the price if it could have been made at the original $78 each, and a universe where that happened likely would see extremely widespread deployment of the weapon, even if it was mostly useful against light armored vehicles and unlikely to do much more than piss off a tank (as the USMC used as justification for backing out of the program).

[Vespers War]

I think I have managed to work out information for most of the Soviet missile tanks that pre-date the dual-use gun-missile launchers of the mid-70s and later. I still need to work out the exact stats, but here's the history I've found for the ones that actually had prototypes built as opposed to just being paper designs.

The development of missile tanks came around for a few reasons. Krushchev was opposed to heavy tanks and there were concerns that the D-10T on the T-54/55 couldn't penetrate the M60 from the front at reasonable combat ranges. So, various attempts were made to create a tank with missiles as the primary weapon.

The first of these was Object 757, a Chelyabinsk project in 1958 or 1959. It used the hull from a T-10M, with the engine upgraded to 850 horsepower and crew reduced from 4 to 3. The removal of the turret and replacement with a missile launcher reduced the mass to 44 tonnes. The original armament was a launcher for the KL-8 Sprut. This was a long (1.7 meter) 130mm missile with a 5 kilometer range. It was radio-guided until its IR seeker picked up the target for terminal maneuvers. 18 missiles were carried along with a coaxial PKVT and a SGMT. Around 1963 this would be refitted with the turret from Object 775, which is how it has been preserved to this day. The failure of the original version is the same problem that bedeviled pretty much all of these - the missile technology was insufficiently mature.

Next was Object 282, which also used a T-10M hull, but managed to fit a 1000 horsepower engine while also lightening the frontal armor since it was intended to fight at range. The intended armament was a 170mm Salamandra launcher with 16 missiles and a range of 3 kilometers. Salamandra failed quickly and the vehicle was modified to Object 282T.

Object 282T replaced the Salamandra with a pair of pop-up unguided anti-tank rocket launchers, one at each rear corner of the hull. There were two choices of rocket, the 132mm TRS-132 or the 152mm TRS-152. Each launcher could have either 15 of the former or 11 of the latter, for a total of 30 or 22 (or one launcher with each).

In 1964, Object 287 was introduced on a T-64 hull. This has one of the more interesting weapons layouts. In the center of the very flat turret is a pop-up launcher for the 9M15 Taifun radio-guided ATGM, with 15 of the missiles in the hull. On either side of the launcher is a weapons station, each of which has a 73mm 2A25 Molniya with 16 rounds and a PKT with 1500 rounds. The Molniya is similar to the 2A28 Grom on the BMP-1, possibly with a slightly shorter barrel. The Taifun was intended to have a 4 kilometer range but, once again, lack of maturity in missile technology left this as just a prototype.

Also in 1964, Chelyabinsk got back into the missile tank business with Object 775, also on a T-64 hull. Much like the MBT-70, this put the crew in the turret, with a driver/commander in a counter-rotating cupola to always face forward, with just a gunner for company. It had a fairly stubby 125mm rifled tube rocket launcher and the ability to carry 24 Rubin ATGMs, 48 Bur rockets, or 15 Rubin and 22 Bur. Rubin was another radio-guided missile with a 5 kilometer range, while Bur was a high explosive (not HEAT) rocket with a 9 kilometer range and higher speed (650 to 750 m/s compared to Rubin's 550 m/s). The turret also had a PKT coaxially mounted. This turret would be trialed on Object 757 as well. This apparently did not enter service because Rubin underperformed on armor penetration.

1968 would see the only missile tank to enter production, the Object 150/IT-1, which was built on a T-62 hull and used the 3M7 Drakon missile and a coaxial PKT.

[ToughOmbres]

I know this is a somewhat older thread; however my vote today is my favorite from when the game was originally published: The LAV-75.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbres

I know this is a somewhat older thread; however my vote today is my favorite from when the game was originally published: The LAV-75.

Right there with you, TO. This thread might be of interest,

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....light=Ridgeway

-

[ToughOmbres]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Right there with you, TO. This thread might be of interest,

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....light=Ridgeway

-

Thank you. Absolutely-most of the observations were spot on. Great concept and just plain neat.

[shrike6]

Cheetah/Hum-Vee prototype
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldw...mwv-prototype/

[Vespers War]

As far as I know, this gun never received an actual name, but in the 1950s Winchester was working on a cheap and simple submachine gun in 9mm Parabellum. It fired from an open bolt, and had a folding stock that could be used as a forward handgrip in its stowed position, clipping to a bolt under the muzzle. It used leftover MP 40 magazines, although I imagine if it had been adopted an early update would have seen it adapted for use with Uzi magazines. The Armourer's Bench noted it has a 7.5" barrel, which is the only measurement I could find for the gun, so everything else is calculated by FF&S based on being a light automatic firearm using 9mm Para from a 7.5" barrel.

Winchester "Burp Gun"
Wt 1.85 kg, ROF 5, Mag 32, Dam 2, Pen 1-Nil, Bulk 4, SS 2, Burst 5, Range 70

I'd probably adjust the range down to around 50 or so, since FF&S is very enthusiastic about the range of pistol-caliber firearms with shoulder stocks. As a one-handed weapon range would drop to 21, which I'd increase to 25 considering the availability of the front grip.

[shrike6]

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/the-mil...ought-iceberg/

[Brit]

I was Googling "Abrams 140mm"... I know... and found this:

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/abramsx-ge...spective-tank/

Is it the 140mm version? Unusual 'camo'/

Still, could be found in warehouse somewhere and put into use...



Edit: It seems to be the "General Dynamics AbramsX".
No. 3 of this site:
https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/ta...ogs-new-tricks
120mm main gun...

[pmulcahy11b]

I have a 140mm-armed Abrams on my Best Tanks that Never Were page, as the GDLS M1A4 Abrams V:

https://www.pmulcahy.com/best_stuff_...never_were.htm

The gun is here under 140mm NATO:

https://www.pmulcahy.com/misc_pages/lgcal_guns.htm

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Brit

I was Googling "Abrams 140mm"... I know... and found this:

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/abramsx-ge...spective-tank/

Is it the 140mm version? Unusual 'camo'/

Still, could be found in warehouse somewhere and put into use...



Edit: It seems to be the "General Dynamics AbramsX".
No. 3 of this site:
https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/ta...ogs-new-tricks
120mm main gun...

The real-world 140mm Abrams was the CATTB (Component Advanced Technology Test Bed), which was fitted with the XM291 Advanced Tank Cannon. Its special deal was that the caliber could be changed in the field in an hour by swapping barrels, being either a 120mm L/55 or a 140mm L/47. There were 17 rounds in the turret either way, with the hull carrying either 22 of the 140mm rounds or 33 of the 120mm rounds. A bustle-mounted autoloader gave the tank an 8-10 round per minute fire rate. Armor was upgraded as well so that the turret front was 1250-1300mm RHAe and the turret sides were around 520mm RHAe.

The gun was tested in 1987-88, the overall tank (fitted with a Cummins diesel) was tested in 1990, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 killed the project.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Brit

Edit: It seems to be the "General Dynamics AbramsX".
No. 3 of this site:
https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/ta...ogs-new-tricks
120mm main gun...

Thanks for turning me on to that site!

[Brit]

Paul, that's OK. Certainly seeing how your site has helped me over the years.

[Vespers War]

One interesting concept that was trialed but never entered service was the US Army's siliceous cored armor. It was a sandwich with two layers of steel around a layer of fused silica. Now-declassified reports state that it replaced an inch of steel in the original armor layout with four inches of silica. A four inch thick plate of silica was the same weight as a one inch plate of steel, so the only weight growth was because thicker armor meant slightly larger plates were needed. Against kinetic rounds, the silica was roughly equal to steel on a mass basis, so the four inches of silica were equal to the one inch of steel they replaced. Conversely, silica was about 50% more effective against chemical warheads (HE/HEAT) on a thickness basis, so the four inches of silica were equivalent to replacing one inch of steel with six inches.

The siliceous cored armor was trialed on the T95 medium tank of 1955 and the XM60 prototypes. The XM60's glacis and turret front were found to be completely immune to 120mm HEAT rounds.

However, there were downsides. The armor was expensive and difficult to produce, although that likely could have been improved over time - experimental armors are nearly always expensive and difficult to produce at first. More concerningly, an AP round that struck the armor but didn't penetrate could still pulverize the silica core, leaving the tank vulnerable to follow-up shots from either AP or HE/HEAT rounds. This did not hold for HE or HEAT rounds, where the silica's "elastic rebound" meant that armor would expand back into the hole made by the explosive (this would also happen as the HEAT jet was penetrating, which was the source of its ability to smother HEAT attacks). Unless perfectly aligned to fire down the same path as the first shell, a second chemical warhead hitting the armor would have no penetration advantage.

The easiest way to simulate an M60 with this armor is probably just to add Cp to the armor figures for HF and TF, and add some weight to account for the increased volume of armor. I haven't seen any estimates of how much weight the armor added, but 0.5 tonnes seems reasonable. This ignores the pulverization issue and simplifies the effect against HE/HEAT, but has the upside of being easy to implement.

[Raellus]

https://www.hotcars.com/weirdest-top...t-55-progrev-t

-

[Raellus]

Just when I think that I've discovered every exotic Cold War-era Polish weapon system, I stumble upon something new.

Apparently, the Poles were working on a modular rifle system. It would have been able to fire multiple calibers (but mainly a proprietary 7x41mm round) with a few parts swaps, and could be configured as an assault rifle, mag-fed SAW, carbine, and battle rifle. The Soviets put the kabash on it, as they wanted the Poles to pay for the AK-74 license. Those clever Poles still figured out a way to do their own thing, developing, adopting, and producing the just-different-enough wz. 88 Tantal instead.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/pro...-ak-in-7x41mm/

-

[Ursus Maior]

Many envision the Warsaw Pact to be to monolithic entity the Soviets always wanted and claimed it to be. In fact, the Poles and Czechoslovakians used their increasing strength in domestic industry to develop as much as they could for themselves, the Romanians did so too and had essentially left the Pact during the 1970s. Meanwhile, the Hungarians and Bulgarians barely fielded effective armies, the former were even more an occupied country then the rest and didn't move without order and consent of their Kremlin masters. Bulgaria had active T-34 regiments (as did Romania) in its hardly mechanized army.

The Polish had really amazing projects during the late days of the Cold War. No wonder the Soviets were relatively sure that, come push to shove, the Polish were likely not to follow orders to attack the West.

[Vespers War]

In 1961, Japan began replacing their Chaffee light tanks with Walker Bulldogs, and were curious if they could find a continued use for the old Chaffees. With a 75mm main gun and less than 40mm of armor at its thickest, they weren't exactly a threat to newer tanks rolling off the assembly lines. Their solution was to fit a quartet of Type 64 MAT (Paul lists it as Type 65) in individual box launchers on the turret. Each rear corner of the turret had a box, while the other two were attached to the sides of the turret.

The thinking was that even as the M24 was being replaced as a combat tank, its gun was still useful against soft or light-armored vehicles (APCs), and the ATGMs would give it a punch if it ran across something the gun couldn't handle.

At least one prototype was built and tested, but it was felt that given the relatively slow and underpowered nature of the missile, mounting it on something that couldn't hide wasn't a good use of resources. It would also be expensive to maintain compared to a jeep or APC-mounted launcher, since there wasn't parts commonality with any other vehicles.

[Raellus]

Most of these never made it past the trial stage. One never made it past the non-firing prototype state. According to the article, a small number of Sergey Simonov’s AG-043 saw service with the KGB.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-trial-rifles/

-

[Vespers War]

Based on last week's announcement regarding Abrams tank development, we can add the M1A2 SEPv4 to the Best That Never Was...

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

Based on last week's announcement regarding Abrams tank development, we can add the M1A2 SEPv4 to the Best That Never Was...

As long as they drop the EV tank garbage.

[Raellus]

The BTR-90 was first displayed publicly in 1994, and several early production models found their way into the hands of internal security units in the early 2000s. Based on that IRL info, it's quite possible that additional units would have been produced and deployed in the T2k timelines.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=6df0134a1560

https://tank-afv.com/modern/Russia/BTR-90.php

-

[Vespers War]

It feels like the ideal would have been for mechanized infantry to be mounted in the BMP-3 and motorized infantry in the BTR-90 in the ready divisions, with cadre divisions having units with older equipment until the ready divisions are fully equipped with the new vehicles and additional production can flow down to the cadre. Mobilisation units would get the cadre's cast-offs (old BMP-1 and BMP-2 for mechanized, BTR-70 and BTR-80 for motorized) as cadre got new vehicles (and production might not ever be high enough to reach mobilisation units until their replacements start entering service).

There likely wouldn't be enough time for production to even reach all the ready divisions in any of the existing Twilight timelines, but maybe Naval Infantry or other elite units might be equipped with them.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

It feels like the ideal would have been for mechanized infantry to be mounted in the BMP-3 and motorized infantry in the BTR-90 in the ready divisions, with cadre divisions having units with older equipment until the ready divisions are fully equipped with the new vehicles and additional production can flow down to the cadre. Mobilisation units would get the cadre's cast-offs (old BMP-1 and BMP-2 for mechanized, BTR-70 and BTR-80 for motorized) as cadre got new vehicles (and production might not ever be high enough to reach mobilisation units until their replacements start entering service).

There likely wouldn't be enough time for production to even reach all the ready divisions in any of the existing Twilight timelines, but maybe Naval Infantry or other elite units might be equipped with them.

That would be a theoretic model at best, but the most propable. Production of BMP-3 was low with BMP-2 production being only phased out during the 1990s. Simultaneously there would be pressure to upgrade the thousands of BTR-60s and BMP-1Ps in service. Soviet equipment would be at least as diverse, colorful and improvised in the Twilight War as Russian equipment is now.

Which is fine, it adds flavor.

[Vespers War]

After looking at some of the Aggressor documents, I got curious what was being worked on around the end of World War 2, and one of the more interesting vehicles is the T30 heavy tank. According to R. P. Hunnicutt's Firepower it was actually slightly heavier than the T28 superheavy tank, despite only having around half the armor. It was that heavy because instead of the T28's 105mm gun, the T30 mounted a 155mm L/41 monster. It was intended to take on a King Tiger or Jagdtiger (or IS-2) with odds in its favor. Muzzle velocity was somewhat lethargic at only 700 meters/second, but 155mm of HEAT was found to have an impressive effect on pretty much anything it hit.

Fire Control: 0
Armament: 155mm L/41 T7 (34 rds), 2x 12.7mm M2HB (coax & pintle, 1500 rds), 2x 7.62mm M1919 (coax & bow, 2500 rds)
Fuel Type: G, A
Veh Wt: 86.5 tonnes
Crew: 6 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/assistant driver/bow gunner, 2 loaders)
Mnt: 29
Night Vision: None
Tr Mov: 112/56
Com Mov: 19/9
Fuel Cap: 1300
Fuel Cons: 650
Config: Veh
Susp: T: 4
HF: 53
HS: 23
HR: 15
TF: 61
TS: 48
TR: 31


T7 155mm L/41
Rng: 380 Rld: 4
HE: C: 30 B: 38 Pen: 16
KE: Dam: 34 Pen: 69/60/51/33
HEAT: C: 20 B: 31 Pen: 86

The gun has an extremely low rate of fire because its two-part ammunition is still heavy and difficult to handle, with the shell being almost 100 pounds without the powder charge. The T30E1 added loader assist systems (a power rammer and systems to align the gun with the rammer and return it to battery), but not a full autoloader, which would improve Rld to 2.

[Raellus]

Like many Gen-X'ers, when I saw that footage of F-14 Tomcats taking off and landing at dawn in the opening credits of Top Gun, it was love at first sight. I was sad to see the Tomcat replaced by the multirole Super Hornet in the early 1990s, and quite surprised that a few D versions held on long enough to drop bombs (!?!) during the early days of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Apparently, a multirole Super Tomcat was proposed to continue the F-14's USN legacy, in lieu of the Super Hornet that eventually won the job IRL. Anyway, the Super Tomcat sounds pretty flippin' awesome.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ly-looked-like

-

[Homer]

It might have made Goose turn in his grave, but the F-14 was a much better CAS/Strike platform than the legacy F-18. It had the same podded sensor capabilities as the hornet, can carry more practical weight further/stay on station longer, and most importantly came with two sets of eyes/ears/brains. That let the F-14 function as an airborne FAC for other strikes in addition to being a strike aircraft- having a FAC overhead takes some work off the guys in the ground in terms of airspace management and deconfliction.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Homer

It might have made Goose turn in his grave, but the F-14 was a much better CAS/Strike platform than the legacy F-18. It had the same podded sensor capabilities as the hornet, can carry more practical weight further/stay on station longer, and most importantly came with two sets of eyes/ears/brains. That let the F-14 function as an airborne FAC for other strikes in addition to being a strike aircraft- having a FAC overhead takes some work off the guys in the ground in terms of airspace management and deconfliction.

Yeah, but its logistical tail was much, much worse. The F-14 required 40 to 60 hours of maintenance for each flight hour, where the F-18 only needed 20 (and the F-18E only 10 to 15). Between that and operational costs (where the Super Hornet was 45-50% as expensive as the Tomcat), you could pretty much literally operate 2 F-18Es for the cost of 1 F-14. It can't do the FAC role as effectively, but now you've got more weight, two sets of sensors looking at things, two sets of eyes/ears/brains, and the ability to split that payload if it needs to go in multiple directions, for a lower per-hour cost and half the work for your ground crews.

[Vespers War]

Tying in to the prototypes theme that this thread originally had, has anyone done any work creating stats for the modern batch of light tanks that in some cases are starting to enter service? I'm thinking of things like the Sabrah, Kaplan/Harimau, Type 15/VT-5, arguably the Sprut-SD, the K21-105, the CV90105 and CV90120-T, and M10 Booker. Regardless of whether they end up being genius or boondoggle in real life, I think they could be interesting in the game as vehicles with firepower roughly on par with an MBT, but with a lighter logistical footprint (less fuel and maintenance) and less protection.