Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
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 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.
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.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH