WesWorld

So, first off I know we have had some *ahem* spirited discussions about this design in the past. I want to make sure that the design meshes with what would have been feasible for the time it was introduced as well as maintaining WW Italian design practices. As detailed from here in the thread, my attempts to design a successor to the AB.42 in part to achieve more mechanical commonality with a proposed light tank resulted in something that came far to close to matching the BTR-60 for a late 1940's design. I think most of this stems from the AB.42 having quite an exceptional stat line and I have as of yet been unable to locate anything that comes close to matching all of the prefomance figures on a platform from the time period. Given that there are talks to possibly export the design, I wanted to give everyone another chance to go over the design and hopefully come to an amenable solution, as once it is officially adopted outside of Italy I feel it is unfair to alter it. So, with that in mind, I would like to propose the following options:

1. Leave the design as is with the current introduction date and allow it to serve as precedent for future wheeled APCs.
2. Revise the design to something representative of the period (both armored car and APC).
3. Remove the design from the game and replace it with a more period appropriate halftrack APC design and period appropriate armored car.
4. Remove the design from the game and replace it with a more period appropriate tracked APC design and period appropriate armored car.

I am willing to undertake ether one of the listed options. The current stats for the AB.42 as they appear in the encyclopedia are below.


AB.42 Velites- Standard Armored Car
Crew: 4 (Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader)
Weight: 14tons Length: 6.74m Width: 2.62m Height: 2.28m
Engine: Isotta-Fraschini L1506 liquid-cooled petrol, 300hp
Speed: 80km/h Power/weight: 21hp/ton Range: 500km
Armament: 1x75/46, 1x8mm MG
Armour: 30 - 5mm

AB.42T Armicustos- Wheeled APC
Crew: 2 (Commander & Driver) + 10 infantry
Weight: 10tons Length: 6.18m Width: 2.62m Height: 1.92m
Engine: Isotta-Fraschini L1507 liquid-cooled petrol, 250hp
Speed: 80km/h Power/weight: 25hp/ton Range: 700km
Armament: 1x20mm Anti-Tank Rifle, 1x8mm MG
Armour: 10 - 5mm

I do recall the discussion in question. Without going back to its details, I think you have summed it well in your admission that you have not yet been able to find a period exemplar with performance characteristics equal to your proposal.

Of the four proposals you have set forth, I could not support the first - I believe that allowing the present AB.42 to become a representative standard would advance design practice beyond what the automotive and military technology of the period would support.

Proposal number two would, of course, be the most rational approach - though that would mean degrading the proposed design to a significant degree.

Proposal number three would be the most approach most appropriate for the period, though proposal four is also within the range of available technology, or at least not so far advanced as that posited under proposal number one.

As a player I could accept proposal two, three or four; I would not support proposal one.

I think Option 2 should be explored first and if that proves unworkable then Option 3 & 4 should be looked at - though 2 should have much the same outcome as 3 & 4.

Agreed with Bruce and Hood. Option Two seems best.

First kick at option 2. I'm using the SdKfz 234, ADGZ, T17, and M3 as references due to there similar size and/or role.

First up, the armored car.
Dimensions
Length: 6m
Width: 2.25m
Height: 2.25m

Handling
Weight 13 tons
Road Speed: 75kph
Off-road speed: 35kph
Fuel Capacity: Fuel Capacity: 250L internal, 100L External
Range: 500km land [Internal], 700 km land [Internal and External]
Engine: 180hp Isotta-Fraschini diesel
Power/Weight ratio: 13.84hp/ton
Drive 6x6
Suspension: Torsion Beam, six road wheels
Turning Radius: 7 meters
Crew: 4 (Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader/Radio Operator)

Armament
Main Gun: 47/32
Elevation: -4 to +30
Secondary Guns: Three 8mm MG, one coaxial mounted, one mounted on turret roof, one mounted in stinger on rear of turret.
Other: Smoke grenade launchers.

Armor (degree inclinations are from vertical)
Front Upper Plate: 20mm @ 60
Front Lower Plate: 20mm @ 45
Side Upper Plate: 15mm @ 10
Side Lower Plate: 15mm @ 15
Rear Plates: 10mm @ 20
Top: 15mm @ 90
Bottom: 10mm @ 90
Turret Front: 20mm @ 25
Mantlet: 20mm @ Rounded
Turret Sides: 15mm @ 15
Turret Rear: 10mm @ 15
Turret Top: 10mm @ 90

And the open-topped APC
Dimensions
Length: 6m
Width: 2.25m
Height: 2.25m

Handling
Weight 11 tons
Road Speed: 80kph
Off-road speed: 35kph
Fuel Capacity: Fuel Capacity: 250L internal, 100L External
Range: 500km land [Internal], 700 km land [Internal and External]
Engine: 180hp Isotta-Fraschini diesel
Power/Weight ratio: 16.36hp/ton
Drive 6x6
Suspension: Torsion Beam, six road wheels
Turning Radius: 7 meters
Crew: 3 (Commander, Gunner, Driver) & 10 men OR one fixed 81mm Mortar and crew OR 2x25mm Anti-Aircraft gun and crew OR three man command radio team and equipment

Armament
Main Gun: Three 8mm MG, two mounted in elevated basket, one mounted in driver's position.
Elevation: -10 to +75 (Basket), -4 to +4 (Diver)
Field of Fire: 360 degrees (Basket), 20 degrees (Driver)
Secondary Guns: None
Other: Smoke grenade launchers.

Armor (degree inclinations are from vertical)
Front Upper Plate: 20mm @ 60
Front Lower Plate: 20mm @ 45
Side Upper Plate: 15mm @ 10
Side Lower Plate: 15mm @ 15
Rear Plates: 10mm @ 20
Top: 0mm @ 90
Bottom: 10mm @ 90
Basket gun shield: 5mm @Perpendicular to barrels

Thoughts and comments?

I don't see anything wrong with your proposed armored car; I don't see anything necessarily wrong with your proposed infantry carrier. What sticks is the implied commonality of their chassis. Your proposal is not entirely clear on that point, and if the chassis is not common, then my concern is moot.

The 6x6 layout for the armored car makes perfect sense - and a 6x6 layout for the infantry carrier does too - but I believe it would be difficult for them to share the same chassis. While there is sufficient space within the 6x6 "evenly distributed" layout for the crew of the armored car with a fighting compartment, engine compartment, ammunition storage, etc. - the same footprint would not, in my opinion, have sufficient space for a troop compartment and means of egress. A 6x6 "truck-like" distribution, with the engine moved forward and the troop compartment moved to the back, is much more reasonable for this time period.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

I don't see anything wrong with your proposed armored car; I don't see anything necessarily wrong with your proposed infantry carrier. What sticks is the implied commonality of their chassis. Your proposal is not entirely clear on that point, and if the chassis is not common, then my concern is moot.

The 6x6 layout for the armored car makes perfect sense - and a 6x6 layout for the infantry carrier does too - but I believe it would be difficult for them to share the same chassis. While there is sufficient space within the 6x6 "evenly distributed" layout for the crew of the armored car with a fighting compartment, engine compartment, ammunition storage, etc. - the same footprint would not, in my opinion, have sufficient space for a troop compartment and means of egress. A 6x6 "truck-like" distribution, with the engine moved forward and the troop compartment moved to the back, is much more reasonable for this time period.

I do intend for these to share as much of the chassis as practical. I do feel it is sort of a chicken and egg scenario with which came "first", the Armored car or APC. Depending on the answer to that question, it would shed quite a bit of light on just how common these two designs are. Given that I do not know RA's original intent, I feel poorly equipped to answer that question in a manor consistent with the original idea. For now, I am going to presume that the AB.42 series was intentionally developed to share as much as practical between the chassis, with regard to which design came "first", first here being the design with the more expansive internal volume requierments. I must wonder the true difference between the volume occupied by the fighting compartment+ammo storage of a Armored Car and that occupied by the troop compartment of a APC. [Note: I am making the possibly dangerous assumption that the engine+drivetrain and other assemblies not directly related to the combat roll such as suppention are not going to change drasticly between the two designs in terms of volume.] If the Armored Car's are larger, then I agree that most of the commonality will come from individual compensates (engine, tires, etc) rather then assemblies or the chassis as a whole. If the APC's are larger (This would be my assumption given the volume that ten equipped men would take up) then I think commonality will be less in the realm of individual parts and more in the direction of major assemblies or possibly the whole chassis is within the realm of possibility.

I cannot follow your argument in respect to either the armored car or infantry carrier being "larger". The dimensions cited for both are the same - unless one set is an error.

I found this image of the SdKfz 234 with the vehicle stripped of its tires and illustrates how little internal volume there is for the engine, fuel, fighting compartment, armament, ammunition etc. There would be no way for such a vehicle to contain a troop compartment seating ten, in addition to crew, and maintain the same dimensions of height, width and length.
-
In contrast, an infantry carrier based on a truck layout, such as the BTR 152 (for example) has more than sufficient space to accommodate all the necessary equipment (engine, crew, transported troops) and has an reasonable means of egress.

I can accept a reasonable level of commonality in terms of engines, drivetrain and other automotive systems between the two; that is a reasonable expectation. What you are proposing at this point is typified by the Alvis Saladin/Saracen combination - where both vehicles share most automotive characteristics - but even there the footprint of the Saracen APC was larger (fractionally taller) and the armament carried by the vehicle far less extensive than your present proposal.

The larger I referenced was internal volume required, not necessarily the LxWxH tho the later is of course influenced by the former. My paragraph was poorly worded. The point I was intending to make is that I would take whichever one has the larger internal volume requirements as the baseline model and build the other on that chassis (with some modification as necessary). Whatever modifications to the chassis as proposed to meet the larger internal volume requirements would be made.

What about adding a half meter of length, should that give enough space for the noted troops along with a small height increase on the APC (which would, IMO be possible without major chassis alterations in relation to the armored car)? I would imagine that this would be in the space between the forward axle and the two rear ones.

The Saladin/Saracen combo is a good example of what I am conceptually aiming at. I will note the baseline OTL designs I used are dimensional larger, so I do not feel that the armament proposed is to excessive.

Half a meter of added length? That is a mere 18 inches. I think that is much too small additional space for your proposed passengers.

You will note that in the Saladin/Saracen comparison that the entire engine has been moved from the rear of the Saladin to the front of the Saracen, and that is what gains the requisite space, together with the re-routing of the drivetrain. The two vehicles share many common automotive components but they in no way share a common chassis.

If the split is going to be the easiest way of doing this, I'm ok with it with the understanding that the designs share as many common automotive components as reasonably possible. Dimensional, what may need to be changed with regards to having the allowed crew+passengers? I will note that the M3 manages to have the same crew wile only being slightly longer and the Saracen, tho it is a newer design, manages to fit 11 men in under 5m so I think the 6m figure I originally sited is reasonable.

Quoted from "snip"

If the split is going to be the easiest way of doing this, I'm ok with it with the understanding that the designs share as many common automotive components as reasonably possible. Dimensional, what may need to be changed with regards to having the allowed crew+passengers? I will note that the M3 manages to have the same crew wile only being slightly longer and the Saracen, tho it is a newer design, manages to fit 11 men in under 5m so I think the 6m figure I originally sited is reasonable.

Commonality of components is quite reasonable, as I have maintained. Six meters of length is more than sufficient for an infantry carrier, provided her internal volume is sufficient for the job.

I've a couple of questions regarding the armament;
Armoured Car "Three 8mm MG, one coaxial mounted, one mounted on turret roof, one mounted in stinger on rear of turret." What exactly is a Stinger? Do you mean its mounted inside the turret, like some older interwar Soviet and Japanese tanks?
APC "Three 8mm MG, two mounted in elevated basket, one mounted in driver's position." Could you explain the basket a bit more, I'm thinking this is something that's like a ring mounting, would I be correct? Also, a third MG mounted in the bow would be best served by the commander than the driver. I think however the twin mount would suffice for defence.

The early IS series has this feature. Stinger being the MG sticking out of the rear of the turret. The render below shows it off quite nicely in comparison to a drawing.


Yes, a ring mounting is what I am getting at. Simple to change who serves the bow mount, but I think it something worthy of keeping because it keeps a MG constantly pointed ahead in addition to the twin mount.

Seeing as there has been no comment on this in some time, I am going to edit the encyclopedia to reflect the stats in post 5.