Australian & New Zealand Ground Forces Sub-Tree

[MaximumSomething]

Once again, I’m familiar with all of this, and it is not new. In a world of “What If” then yes anything goes, they could even have strapped a bunch of jet engines to the AC4 and made it fly, but I’m only interested in what was actually achieved not a flight of fancy.

But let’s just stick with the mystery hull for the moment, shall we?

One version of the Scorpion engine, you can see the suspension attachment points ghosted in on the far side:

The VVS suspension in question:

And the insides, no torsion bars, either from this side nor coming back from the other, and nothing to fix them into:

It’s kind of late so this will be brief. You do not build an entirely different suspension system to torsion bar to test a torsion bar suspension. The VVS hull was built at Newport railway workshop that’s in Victoria, where the Scorpion production line was going to be, probably around March-April 1943. There was a plan to built a pilot AC4 at the same time but in Sydney, that’s like a 1000km away from this thing, and as your document says in accordance with the present design, i.e. HVSS. You cannot build an AC4 out of a Thunderbolt hull, like Warthunder has, as the 'bolt still has a 54" turret ring, in order to fit a 64" or 70" ring you need a new casting, especially as the AC4 is an overall larger tank to fit everything in comfortably.

[Speedycake582]

not sure if its been mentioned or suggested but why not add the M113 with a 20mm and 50cal coax as a rank 3-5 AA if you need to see what it looks like there is one parked inside the outdoor area of an RSL in South Guildford in Perth WA

[GTP_Paulie-psn]

Are you sure it’s a 20mm? Looks like a standard M113 with a 50cal and co-ax 30cal.

Like this model of one with T50 turret.

[GTP_Paulie-psn]

Little update, I reversed the position of the LVT and Schofield so the Schofield is finally shown as TT and not premium. And I added a Nelson Clift Portee to rank 1.

[BSpiel8-live]

I found a decent handful of additional photos relating to the prototype Vietnam-era M113 minigun modification.

Spoiler

The Facebook thread I found these on also gives a bunch of other useful information.

“The subject was covered in some detail in my 1994 publication on the M113A1 APC in Aust service. “Aust Military Equipment Profiles Volume 4”.”

"Australian experiment with mounting a Minigun to an M113 ~1966-68. The gun was fixed to the commander’s cupola with the belt feed and electrical supply feeding directly through the opening for one of the vision blocks (which was removed for that purpose), the weapon was traversed by rotating the cupola and a sight was fabricated to fit in front of the forward vision block for aiming. The ammunition was stored in a trough like liner that ran around the sides of the rear compartment.

The Cavalry rejected it after trials on account of the fact that its cone of fire was too wide to be safely used as an infantry support weapon and the sheer volume of fire was considered excessive"

“there were double row of boxes each side. i think someone commented on a post ages ago it took around 35 to 45min to load and only a few minutes to empty at full fire rate.”

Bryan Entwistle - A quick question for the group. I found… | Facebook

[BSpiel8-live]

Whole bunch more photos I found for the 5/7 RAR M113A1 106mm modifications:

"61A"

The M113 family Interest Group | These are two M113 variants that were in use in Australian Army’s 5/7 RAR (Mech) in the 80-90s | Facebook


Army Aug 2002.pdf

"61B"

The M113 family Interest Group | The Tank museum at puckapunyal now has the 106 RCL configured M113A1 | Facebook

220411_fact_sheet_no5_puckapunyal_combined_arms_heritage_learning_centre_final.pdf

Some things to note:

• “61B” (61-Bravo) has been restored and is now in storage at the Puckapunyal Tank Museum, as per above photos and link. This PDF from an unknown date likely between March of 2022 and June of 2023 may imply that this M113 was restored specifically for exhibition at the now canceled Puckapunyal Combined Arms Heritage and Learning Centre (CAHLC). As such we don’t know what its current plans are.

• I have seen no further mention or imagery of “61C” (61-Charlie), which seems to only have appeared in 1997 or possibly 1994 and is posted in one of my prior comments. Oddly enough, many sources only claim that two vehicles were built, even though we have of course have three callsigns to count.

• Speaking of separate vehicles, it is also said that the (two?) converted vehicles were not equals. 61B and presumably 61C were mockups built by the RAEME workshops that lacked internal ammo stowage. They were functional vehicles, but not intended for testing purposes. It was 61A that was developed by either the DSTO or ATEA (conflicting sources but more likely the former) that was modified from standard APC configuration into a dedicated AT vehicle.

• As per this source from 2002, M40A1 recoilless rifles in Australian service were upgraded to M40A2 standard in 1971, which is a very minor change that includes some component swaps. This is the designation of the weapon fitted on the 2 or 3 modified M113s.

As a bonus, here are some additional photos I found regarding the M125A1 “82” with the MILAN missile (some are higher quality versions of ones I have sent here previously!):

Spoiler

The M113 family Interest Group | Early ‘90’s Australian trial Milan converted mortar track with 5/7 RAR | Facebook

The M113 family Interest Group | These are two M113 variants that were in use in Australian Army’s 5/7 RAR (Mech) in the 80-90s | Facebook

[Jarms]

MaximumSomething knows his stuff. Should definitely listen to him.

[GTP_Paulie-psn]

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/267577950/29995763
It’s often debated whether Australian Army ever upgraded to APFSDS in the Leopard AS1. This article from 2000 makes an indication it was approved and type selection was underway.
As a side note I’m pretty sure the A/C unit it mentions did in fact get installed later.

[GTP_Paulie-psn]

Also a reminder the M1A1 AIM should have KEW-A2.

A THE ABRAMS FILES - Army (National : 1980 - 2025 - 15 Jun 2006

[MaximumSomething]

Rather than relying on third party speculative sources, because that says APDS only until 2000 which directly contradicts the forecastinternational dot com implied claim of Australian L64 production in the mid 80’s at the latest, if you really want to be sure, you should probably just ask the ADF, the Leopards have been out of service for twenty years they’d probably just tell you, the AS1 are all museum pieces now.

I had some questions on a few things at one point and the WO at the RAAC Museum was very helpful.

[GTP_Paulie-psn]

The last time I asked an Army museum a question about a 40 year old vehicle I was ignored. I can try, but as a member of the public all I can usually get access to are these third party sources. Maybe I should just stop being a nuisance to everyone.

[MaximumSomething]

I didn’t mean you should stop, by all means keep investigating the thing you find interesting just don’t be deceived by red herrings thrown out by people who were inexplicably paid to publish their imagined reality, or future.

If I wanted for some reason to know if the AS1 had APFSDS service ammo and couldn’t get anything from the RAAC directly, possible alternative avenues are sales records, anything after '93 has to be imports (and probably a lot before then) and companies like to brag about who they flog stuff to, and I think US foreign military sales are even public info to an extent. The RAAC has an association I believe of ex-service personnel, they often seem to like talking but are also prone to telling a few tall tales. Defence Images has a pretty big stock of photos, I’d be looking for anything showing blue practice FSDS being used in exercises since that would imply the existence of war shots of the same type.

I happen to think for the moment that they were too cheap and just continued with APDS as “good enough”. If you find out otherwise, great, I learn something new, but I’d like to be official even if it is just a puff piece in an Army journal about “The Leopard’s New Claws - tanks demonstrate greater lethality than ever before with new ammunition blah blah quantum leap in capability blah overmatch blah giant metal arrow blah herald new era blah …”.

[StyerF88]

@GTP_Paulie-psn Not sure where I ran into this and I might be telling a lie, however I possible found a photo of captured (or impounded) armoured cars from East Timor rebels, while most where armed with LMGs and such I believe there was an armoured Land Rover (or Toyota ute not sure) armed with a recoilless rifle. I wouldn’t know what specs it would have or if it even existed, so I will try to find a photo of it.

[BSpiel8-live]

Wait, like FALINTIL operated ones? I’ve been looking for armed vehicles used by them or the F-FDTL recently, to fit into an ASEAN tree, so do post if you happen upon photos.

[StyerF88]

If I find mate lol, I don’t even know how I found them but I do remember aussie DPCU.

[Waxycap7186]

Sorry mate, but this is a -1 from me.
Simply because of how many of these vehicles are copy paste.
Genuinely unique vehicles are welcome, but please, we don’t need to flood every tech tree with the same German and American vehicles. It makes the grind so much more of a slog for those of us who actually want to play multiple nations.

[dzej900]

Yes but it’s as subtt and most these vehicles are from Britain, some from USA, but rather as unique modifications of cars, m113, some pattons but they are probably just the same.

[GTP_Paulie-psn]

Your definition of copy paste must be different to mine.

[Waxycap7186]

I know it’s as a sub TT. Where did I indicate that I thought otherwise?

The truth of the matter is that these strictly are not British vehicles. The M113 is not a British vehicle, it is American. The same goes for the Pattons, the Abrams, the bulldogs, etc. Just because we bought and used some doesn’t make them uniquely British.

The other, more important side of that argument is that whilst taking a foreign vehicle, adding an extra 7.62 to the roof, or changing the transmission to something slightly better, or using different gunner/ commander optics may be enough to argue that said vehicle is “uniquely british”, but it still adds absolutely nothing of value to the game that was not already there!

We can scrutinise and scrutinise and scrutinise, and we will always be able to find operational gaps in every TT because there will always be a vehicle that allows you to tackle a specific engagement slightly differently, and slightly is the key word.

It is my strong opinion, nothing more, that it is precisely these asymmetries between nations which makes each one feel unique. Like a tribe which all players can claim their allegiance to with a humorous degree of pride. It’s a piece of the game’s culture. One I’ve come to really appreciate.

That’s why I feel this is so important. Having to pick which nation to start your journey with, to make that massive commitment… It’s nothing short of integral. Right off the bat, it gives you a semblance of an identity to cling to. The more we homogenise our tech trees, the more of this magic we’ll lose.

This community has its downsides, but anyone who’s never laughed at the keyboard warriors insulting eachother’s nations in the all chat, or the players losing their minds over how much they hate fighting a vehicle from another TT that really isn’t all that great, those people have never truly enjoyed this game.

[PlayedStatue626-live]

@Waxycap7186

The M113 is not a British vehicle, it is American.

Neither would these ones, they would be Australian. Also the UK can get a M113 under the UK flag just fine.

M113/30 Rarden SPAA - the Supposedly Swimming Rarden Ripper

poll [M113 RARDEN SPAA] Cheers to Ed Francis for the images and sources for this one Introduction The M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) was developed by the United States in the late 1950s as a lightweight, airliftable vehicle designed to transport infantry in relative safety on the battlefield. Produced by FMC, the M113 was the first mass-produced armoured vehicle to use aluminium armor, significantly reducing its weight while maintaining protection against small arms fire and artillery …

@Waxycap7186

It is my strong opinion, nothing more, that it is precisely these asymmetries between nations which makes each one feel unique.

Problem is that having only vehicles built from the ground up is gonna make gaps (hello Germany air past rank 5). Sure not every nation has to be equally matched in every last regard but subtrees still give options that would otherwise be lacking if it was only vehicles built from the ground up.

@Waxycap7186

The more we homogenise our tech trees, the more of this magic we’ll lose.

Trees were pretty much going to be homogenised ever since the decision was made to go past ww2 aircraft. Doubly so thanks to collaborative projects and ground RB allowing helis and aircraft, making it so most brs need a good roster available. I mean you can also find a vehicle of UK origin in every tree, Germany is about to be the same (already is if you count the Sakeen as German instead of Czechoslovakian) with the USSR almost there as well since there’s none of the French and USA research segment.

@Waxycap7186

The other, more important side of that argument is that whilst taking a foreign vehicle, adding an extra 7.62 to the roof, or changing the transmission to something slightly better, or using different gunner/ commander optics may be enough to argue that said vehicle is “uniquely british”, but it still adds absolutely nothing of value to the game that was not already there!

Well the Grant IIs with a notable 38mm of extra armour and the M113A1 getting a Saladin turret or M40A2 are a lot more than that. Let’s not forget the domestic vehicles also available.

@Waxycap7186

gives you a semblance of an identity to cling to

Same as the many countries that have a role in game or not. If we decided to axe all the subtrees then there goes all sorts of unique vehicles in game or not. There’s also countries with a historically large role in armoured vehicle production like Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia that hasn’t gotten an official role in game.

I can agree that the UK doesn’t need 3 subtrees. I also think Australia and New Zealand deserve a concrete home. Would’ve preferred Canada, New Zealand and Australia to form into a new tree but here we are.