Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
- Status
The suspension and hull were based on the Char B1, so it's basically beyond saving. The gun is good, but pretty similar to the US 90 mm L/73. I would suggest the French use their tank and automotive resources elsewhere. I don't know about the ergonomics of the turret, but the turret is the new part of the tank so it might have value on another hull. The limitations of the ARL 44's hull and suspension were already well known and work was focusing on better vehicles by March 1945, when the AMX M4 program started. If the Soviets are a big deal, that's the tank you want, not the ARL 44.I recently learned about the ARL 44 and it was classified as either a heavy tank or a tank destroyer depending upon the source.
I've included the blueprints below and wanted to know what tweaks or changes could be made to the vehicle to make it theoretically more effective on the battlefield. Particularly, in the scenario where the Soviets roll westwards post WW2.
See this is why I love this website, I learn one snippet of information and than that leads to another idea.
That's really helped.
BlackDragon98
Banned
The turret is the only salvageable part from the ARL-44.I recently learned about the ARL 44 and it was classified as either a heavy tank or a tank destroyer depending upon the source.
I've included the blueprints below and wanted to know what tweaks or changes could be made to the vehicle to make it theoretically more effective on the battlefield. Particularly, in the scenario where the Soviets roll westwards post WW2.
Chassis is doomed because it's based on the Char B1.
Those tracks are going to get instantly destroy and then boom goes the rest of the tank.
the heavy tank is ultimately a technological dead end.
the development of guns and shells will always outspeed the development of armor and chassis.
And there comes a certain point where the weight of the tank renders it useless; too slow, can't cross bridges, can't negotiate hilly terrain, etc.
The problem of the ARL 44 is that the French overestimated their industrial capabilities in the second half of the 40s and were too obsessed with putting their men in the weapon factories to work.
The ARL 44 used many components that the French already developped or produced once, but it was just different enough that the new components would cause problems. The turret/gun controls were FUBAR to the point where the tank was delayed for three years before entering service, and even then they still didn't work. The rear of the turret had to be welded because it was too big to cast at the time (1947-48 prod). The gun tolerances were obsolescent but the design was workable.
The initial 30-35t version with less frontal armor (60mm instead of 120mm on the hull upper plate) and the 75mm SA 44 or the 90mm CA.39S and the French V12 engine would have had more existing components and been lighter and used a smaller turret so it would have had less issues and may possibly have been early enough as a stopgap, especially the 90mm version since France didn't have many M36 GMCs.
But this wouldn't fly with Army higher ups who grew too ambitious.
IMO, if foreign help is to be avoided as OTL, the most efficient program may simply be a regunning one for the Shermans. Replacing the 75 M3 with the ready 75mm SA44 would give them some extra punch with the same ammo that they already produce and the SA44 should be even easier to fit than the 76mm M1. MAYBE they could even slap the Talbot V12 intended for the ARL 44 in the M4A4s they had instead of using the less powerful R975 they put in OTL, but I'm not sure it fits.
More or less the same idea as the AMD 178B, improve existing workable stuff as much as possible.
Because the thing is, by the time ARL 44 entered service the AMX M4 was already more mature and indeed its prototype was made very soon after if not in 1951 when the 44 entered service. So the 48t long 90mm 44 we got was essentially a costly redundant program that couldn't even be a suitable stopgap.
The ARL 44 used many components that the French already developped or produced once, but it was just different enough that the new components would cause problems. The turret/gun controls were FUBAR to the point where the tank was delayed for three years before entering service, and even then they still didn't work. The rear of the turret had to be welded because it was too big to cast at the time (1947-48 prod). The gun tolerances were obsolescent but the design was workable.
The initial 30-35t version with less frontal armor (60mm instead of 120mm on the hull upper plate) and the 75mm SA 44 or the 90mm CA.39S and the French V12 engine would have had more existing components and been lighter and used a smaller turret so it would have had less issues and may possibly have been early enough as a stopgap, especially the 90mm version since France didn't have many M36 GMCs.
But this wouldn't fly with Army higher ups who grew too ambitious.
IMO, if foreign help is to be avoided as OTL, the most efficient program may simply be a regunning one for the Shermans. Replacing the 75 M3 with the ready 75mm SA44 would give them some extra punch with the same ammo that they already produce and the SA44 should be even easier to fit than the 76mm M1. MAYBE they could even slap the Talbot V12 intended for the ARL 44 in the M4A4s they had instead of using the less powerful R975 they put in OTL, but I'm not sure it fits.
More or less the same idea as the AMD 178B, improve existing workable stuff as much as possible.
Because the thing is, by the time ARL 44 entered service the AMX M4 was already more mature and indeed its prototype was made very soon after if not in 1951 when the 44 entered service. So the 48t long 90mm 44 we got was essentially a costly redundant program that couldn't even be a suitable stopgap.
Thanks for your responses. What I'm picking up is that the AMX M4 is the better project to focus those scarce resources upon, and in the interim upgraded Sherman's should fill the gap. Perhaps a French equivalent to the Husky or the Firefly.
My personal take on the ARL 44 is it should be viewed as a translational tank. If I was the French I would had order no more than 50 of those just to get the factories working again along with to get something into the hands of my tankers so they could start training. However I would order them to redesign the hull to something akin to the AMX-50.
If given the choice I would just skip the ARL 44 and put the AMX Chasseur de Char into production. Yes you have a glass cannon, but a fast one. I would teach shoot and scoot tactics.
If given the choice I would just skip the ARL 44 and put the AMX Chasseur de Char into production. Yes you have a glass cannon, but a fast one. I would teach shoot and scoot tactics.
Well, the thing is they built the 50 ARL 44s. Redesigning the hull is an interesring question because while AMX M4 blueprints appeared very quickly and were arguably better shaped than the 44 hull, and the proposed suspensions might be suitable early on for the French industry, I don't know if they can get them ready before ARL 44 needs to enter production.My personal take on the ARL 44 is it should be viewed as a translational tank. If I was the French I would had order no more than 50 of those just to get the factories working again along with to get something into the hands of my tankers so they could start training. However I would order them to redesign the hull to something akin to the AMX-50.
If given the choice I would just skip the ARL 44 and put the AMX Chasseur de Char into production. Yes you have a glass cannon, but a fast one. I would teach shoot and scoot tactics.
The Chasseur de Chars was actually quite complex and hinged on the then new HL 295 engine. That said I think it might be possible to just design ARL 44 as a TD with thin armor, a 90mm, the Talbot or recovered HL 230 engines. Fast tanks remain viable longer than armored ones.
Not alternate AFVs, but someone just released a huge photo dump from the declassified Châtellerault archives:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/mukHSEibbR8AAQdJ9
Mostly about 1945-1960 French AFVs, and there is enough info to make alternate scenarios here.
My favourite: It was suggested during planned refurbishment of the M47s to rebarrel them with a 105mm tube capable of shooting the Obus G at about 900 m/s muzzle velocity, while keeping the breech of the 90mm gun.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/mukHSEibbR8AAQdJ9
Mostly about 1945-1960 French AFVs, and there is enough info to make alternate scenarios here.
My favourite: It was suggested during planned refurbishment of the M47s to rebarrel them with a 105mm tube capable of shooting the Obus G at about 900 m/s muzzle velocity, while keeping the breech of the 90mm gun.
I'm more impressed someone got those records out of the French archive system.
From "The Canadian Military Procurement System; A Study in Failure":
Unarmoured early testbeds from the Canadian Army's "Hailstorm" Armoured Vehicle Program
...Hastily designed (or should we say "designed") in 1974 and intended as a solution to all of the Trudeau government's armoured vehicle woes, the Hailstorm was intended to be an effective anti-infantry, anti-aircraft and anti-tank vehicle; with high mobility both on roads and cross country, a modular rear weapons station, and low operational costs, the Hailstorm Program was billed as the "weapons system of the future" in promotional literature produced by the Canadian Armaments Corporation (a special venture created specifically to coordinate the vehicle's development)...
...Causes for the vehicle's developmental failure were numerous, but largely stemmed from the rushed effort to set up the Corporation and get a paper design out the door in order to meet the opportunity that the company's founders had identified: with the Canadian Army's Centurion tanks in desperate need of replacement, PM Trudeau opposed to spending large amounts of money on military programs given his other priorities, and a small but influential group of military officers supporting the idea of a light, missile-carrying, wheeled vehicle rather than investing in tanks; which they viewed as obsolete- a view temporarily reinforced by the apparent victory of Soviet designed anti-tank missiles over Israeli tanks in the early stages of the Yom Kippur War...
...The company's founders, mysteriously well-connected in Canadian government circles, promised the government everything they wanted: an air-transportable, armoured, stealthy, and flexible missile carrier that would also be Canadian-built, cheap to purchase, and cheap to operate. CAC salesmen even proposed that the vehicle would serve as a good basis for a lengthened chassis capable of serving as an APC, and potentially in other roles. Prototypes were enthusiastically requested by the government, and development funding made available.
The chassis itself was a 6x6 trucks; the technology was scarcely cutting-edge and the appearance of rapid progress was easily achieved, with an unarmoured air defence version equipped with Quad-20mm cannon (though, in a sign of things to come, not the short-range anti-aircraft missile system) being swiftly constructed and demonstrated to a variety of enthusiastic officials. Army observers would start to note the problems even this early, however, with the integrated radar showing a variety of problems that were insistently blamed on user error by the CAC itself...
...Oerlikon Contraves was happy that their own effort to build a combined Anti-Armour/Anti-Aircraft missile system was now part of the government funded Hailstorm program. Although the possibilities of the ambitious missile system exited military planners, in practice reaching all of the goals set proved impossible before the difficulties of creating a new, Canadian, production line were added...
...The damage done to the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps by the Hailstorm, or more specifically to the delays to the replacement of its vehicle fleet due to the long drawn out period when the government, and sometimes the Army, believed that the Hailstorm would become a viable armoured vehicle, is extremely difficult to overstate...
(Images are from here, a much earlier and less disastrous project than the Hailstorm. For the skeptical, here's a reference that the Canadian government was looking into a notional, Canadian-built wheeled tank-replacement vehicle in the 1970s. I basically just added on the ADATS program and imagined the horrifying results.)
Unarmoured early testbeds from the Canadian Army's "Hailstorm" Armoured Vehicle Program
...Hastily designed (or should we say "designed") in 1974 and intended as a solution to all of the Trudeau government's armoured vehicle woes, the Hailstorm was intended to be an effective anti-infantry, anti-aircraft and anti-tank vehicle; with high mobility both on roads and cross country, a modular rear weapons station, and low operational costs, the Hailstorm Program was billed as the "weapons system of the future" in promotional literature produced by the Canadian Armaments Corporation (a special venture created specifically to coordinate the vehicle's development)...
...Causes for the vehicle's developmental failure were numerous, but largely stemmed from the rushed effort to set up the Corporation and get a paper design out the door in order to meet the opportunity that the company's founders had identified: with the Canadian Army's Centurion tanks in desperate need of replacement, PM Trudeau opposed to spending large amounts of money on military programs given his other priorities, and a small but influential group of military officers supporting the idea of a light, missile-carrying, wheeled vehicle rather than investing in tanks; which they viewed as obsolete- a view temporarily reinforced by the apparent victory of Soviet designed anti-tank missiles over Israeli tanks in the early stages of the Yom Kippur War...
...The company's founders, mysteriously well-connected in Canadian government circles, promised the government everything they wanted: an air-transportable, armoured, stealthy, and flexible missile carrier that would also be Canadian-built, cheap to purchase, and cheap to operate. CAC salesmen even proposed that the vehicle would serve as a good basis for a lengthened chassis capable of serving as an APC, and potentially in other roles. Prototypes were enthusiastically requested by the government, and development funding made available.
The chassis itself was a 6x6 trucks; the technology was scarcely cutting-edge and the appearance of rapid progress was easily achieved, with an unarmoured air defence version equipped with Quad-20mm cannon (though, in a sign of things to come, not the short-range anti-aircraft missile system) being swiftly constructed and demonstrated to a variety of enthusiastic officials. Army observers would start to note the problems even this early, however, with the integrated radar showing a variety of problems that were insistently blamed on user error by the CAC itself...
...Oerlikon Contraves was happy that their own effort to build a combined Anti-Armour/Anti-Aircraft missile system was now part of the government funded Hailstorm program. Although the possibilities of the ambitious missile system exited military planners, in practice reaching all of the goals set proved impossible before the difficulties of creating a new, Canadian, production line were added...
...The damage done to the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps by the Hailstorm, or more specifically to the delays to the replacement of its vehicle fleet due to the long drawn out period when the government, and sometimes the Army, believed that the Hailstorm would become a viable armoured vehicle, is extremely difficult to overstate...
(Images are from here, a much earlier and less disastrous project than the Hailstorm. For the skeptical, here's a reference that the Canadian government was looking into a notional, Canadian-built wheeled tank-replacement vehicle in the 1970s. I basically just added on the ADATS program and imagined the horrifying results.)
East-German-Soviet trust with extra sauce:
"Following trials, we have decided to accept our Russian comrades' proposal to procure the T-80BD (codename Object 644). This is identical in every way to the T-80B in Soviet service with the exception of the engine and engine bay which are common with the T-72.
Although the V-84 diesel is less powerful at 840hp than the GT-1100 turbine, its lower cost and its simplicity as well as high torque are particularly desirable features.
Its armor and fire control system will be considerably superior to those of the Polish-and-Czech-made T-72 currently in service in our forces, and it will have access to the "Kobra" missile complex.
Deliveries shall begin starting in January 1985 at a rate of 15 per month."
"Following trials, we have decided to accept our Russian comrades' proposal to procure the T-80BD (codename Object 644). This is identical in every way to the T-80B in Soviet service with the exception of the engine and engine bay which are common with the T-72.
Although the V-84 diesel is less powerful at 840hp than the GT-1100 turbine, its lower cost and its simplicity as well as high torque are particularly desirable features.
Its armor and fire control system will be considerably superior to those of the Polish-and-Czech-made T-72 currently in service in our forces, and it will have access to the "Kobra" missile complex.
Deliveries shall begin starting in January 1985 at a rate of 15 per month."
- Status