--- On Sat, 9/10/11, Onno Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > Brandon wrote: > > This vehicle came about when I wonder what a WWII > version of the BMP-3 > > would look like and what it would be used for. > > But did you write a BMP-clone or a LVT(A)(4)-upgrade?
A bit of both (although in 1942 the LVT(A)-4 didn't exist yet. > > a 105mm howitzer to deal with dug-in troops and > fortifications, a > > 20mm cannon to handle vehicles (later replaced with a > flamethrower) and > > three machineguns. > > The howitzer looks a bit oversized for direct fire. How > about a > mortar in a turret mount? The only mortar the US had at the time that was trigger-fired was the 60mm M-19 and it was muzzle loaded. Granted, if one is building a new vehicle one could build a new gun for it, perhaps a 81mm breech-loading, trigger-fired mortar. I picked the 105mm howitzer because it was close to the 100mm gun the BMP-3 uses in bore. It's also good for firing at dug-in infantry. > And how much good were flamethrowers, historically? Note > that they > are just about gone from AFVs. Squeamishmess or the > realization > that their role can be filled by other systems? The Marines made a fair amount of use of them in the Pacific, both man-carried and installed in M-3 light tanks and M-3 medium tanks. IIRC they were quite useful against Japanese in bunkers and tunnels who refused to surrender. > * Flamethrowers have a short range. Can you afford to take > AFVs > so close to the enemy in your alternate history? How > about RPGs? While the Japanese do have anti-tank weapons that can knock out an ALVT, their supply of such weapons was not good during the war. Japan had learned the wrong lessons about armored warfare in the 193's in China and their tank and anti-tank weapons reflected this. > * They are supposed to penetrate field fortifications by > seeping > through the cracks. But if you have an AFV, why not > take more > direct means of penetrating log bunkers? Note that the flamethrower replaces the 20mm cannon; in the Pacific, the flamethrower is more useful as things play outt. > > Weaponry > > 105mm Short Howitzer/M-2A1 [Turret:F] (48). > > 20mm Long Ground AC/M-2 [Turret:F] (450). > > Ground LMG/M-1919A4 [Tur:F] (3,000). > > Ground LMG/M-1919A4 [Body:F] (2,500). > > Very Long Ground HMG/M-2HB [Mini:F] (400). > > How practical was the bow MG? Did it need that much ammo? Artifact of existing tank design. Ammo will probably often be transferred from it to the coaxial gun in practice. > > Equipment > > Body: Fire extinguisher, medium radio receiver and > transmitter. Turret: 6 > > smoke dischargers. > > How about nav instruments, for night water crossings? I'm not sure if the Marines would conduct night operations with the vehicle -- it's meant for large assaults, not sneak raids. For a night attack, they'd probably send men in rubber rafts launched from submarines. > And a plow could be a pretty common variant, for a > first-wave > AFV. Possibly. My only concern would be the blade digging into the sand before it got out of the water. > > The 105mm was normally provided with 40 HE and 8 WP > shhells. The 20mm > > autocannon normally used API ammo. > > No anti-armor shells? No. Japanese tank armor was very weak and could be dealt with by the 20mm cannon. Brandon _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
