I'm also at the A13MkII and am getting frustrated by my many deaths. I chose that line because it led ultimately to the Comet and Centurian, but if WoT is right, the Brits sure seemed to have clung to the fast/light scout tank idea longer than anyone else. I am a slow, deliberate, ambush player by nature, which makes me dead meat in light tanks. Hope a British TD line appears soon.
And what about British tanks?
- Thread starter Riain
- Start date
I'm also at the A13MkII and am getting frustrated by my many deaths. I chose that line because it led ultimately to the Comet and Centurian, but if WoT is right, the Brits sure seemed to have clung to the fast/light scout tank idea longer than anyone else. I am a slow, deliberate, ambush player by nature, which makes me dead meat in light tanks. Hope a British TD line appears soon.
A good idea.NothingNow said:
(I must confess a weakness for a Hall-Scott multibank, tho.)In a hull, what, 1.9m wide? I don't think it's a problem.NothingNow said:
In a 30 ton tank, that's about the same as the weight as your belt buckle.NothingNow said:
Not a problem.I have the same question I do about the Meteor: is the a/c origin, with all parts designed to be as lightweight as possible, & hence potentially fragile, a drawback? (The Hall-Scott was designed for prime movers, so not an issue.
)Agreed, given the above proviso on weakness is moot.MattII said:
Last edited:
NothingNow
Banned
And that includes the inevitability of salt water and salt air getting in the engine, as the fuel-water separator might not be up to snuff if there's a leak somewhere, or any other of a thousand things happens, so it's pretty much as tough as you're going to want for a tank engine.
Yeah, pretty much. They used these things on Air Sea Rescue boats, not little pleasure cruisers.
If it couldn't take serious slamming they wouldn't have used it. That's usually about the point where the broody hen has a helmet on and has retreated to someplace where he won't get knocked about. Which is generally somewhere away from his three charges.
iddt3
Donor
Yeaaah, I used free XP to buy my way through that grind, it was bloody miserable. I'm currently enjoying the Matilda with its 76mm pumpkin chucker. It doesn't have enough ammo, it won't pierce for shit, you have to lead even a slowly moving target a lot, but damned if I don't enjoy the ability to shoot over ridges easily, it has a higher arc than anything I've seen not arty, and it does good damage against rear armor.
NothingNow
Banned
Going by the track record of british design specifications pre-war?
It'll be either absolutely amazing, and thus probably shit-canned, or it'd be something bizzarre, like an under-square 6-cylinder Swashplate engine with three carburetors and hemispherical cylinder heads, or an opposed-piston design intended to lay on it's side.
Sior
Banned
I did some quick checking and I think that the Valantine turret with a 6pdr would fit the Matilda II.
About the Hall-Scott: what about the Defender V12? Development begun 1937, up to 900hp. Said to be 4,995 lbs and 2,182 cubic inches.
Or a variation on the 1091ci, 450hp, Invader inline 6 marine engine? Which saw a turbo variant.
Or a variation on the 1091ci, 450hp, Invader inline 6 marine engine? Which saw a turbo variant.
Last edited:
I know this is a conversion but don't forget the Firefly. The 17pdr was just about the best on the allied side. Pity we didn't use German doctrine and design a tank around the gun rather than designing the tank then seeing what we could fit in it. I'd go down the line of saying we were hampered far more than we should have been by the loading gauge issue. For some movements of modern Warrior vehicles a gauging exercise is doen to see if they can be moved by rail ... I used to work for the company that did these studies for the MoD.
Last edited:
British tanks in WW2 were not bad, but there simply were better tanks of foreign manufacturers, primarily in Germany and USSR. Quite logical for these continental powers to put more resources in developping land combat vehicles, compared to an Imperial Seaborne nation like the UK (and USA as well), who put more resources in Maritime issues.
my views on British tanks in WW2 are always influenced by two sources.
First was Bob Crisp in "Brazen Chariots", where he has absolutely nothing good to say about whatever model it was he was using. The tracks shed constantly, the armor was crap, the gun was too small. When his unit got American Stuart tanks, he was thrilled that the treads would stay on, but unhappy with the small gun.
The other was an expansion to the Panzerblitz board game, which covered early tanks. The British tanks described in the accompanying article noted that the cruiser/infantry tank division led to tanks that were much too slow, and even the cruisers weren't all that speedy. Plus, they started the war with some relics that were armed only with machine guns (that must have been scary when panzers came over the hill)...
First was Bob Crisp in "Brazen Chariots", where he has absolutely nothing good to say about whatever model it was he was using. The tracks shed constantly, the armor was crap, the gun was too small. When his unit got American Stuart tanks, he was thrilled that the treads would stay on, but unhappy with the small gun.
The other was an expansion to the Panzerblitz board game, which covered early tanks. The British tanks described in the accompanying article noted that the cruiser/infantry tank division led to tanks that were much too slow, and even the cruisers weren't all that speedy. Plus, they started the war with some relics that were armed only with machine guns (that must have been scary when panzers came over the hill)...
The same is true of German tanks - Google the Panzer I and II, and have a look at what they were armed with. Their crews probably weren't too thrilled to run into Matilda's, or anything with a 2-pound gun.
The only prewar tanks that would require a 400/600HP engine would be the cruisers. The British never built cruiser tanks in numbers large enough to justify the investiment in a dedicated engine before the war. Once war started, and the limitations of the Liberty engine were exposed, the Meteor was an excelent and quick solution. In fact, the Brits got a reliable modern 600HP engine in service ahead of most countries (the German 650/700HP Maibach was only reliable in later versions) and the Ford V8 of the M4A3 was not in that power bracket. The Russian V12 diesel was superb, but let down by build quality.
Thande
Donor
Apparently the Valentine was a good design, not just good at being a frontline tank as it was intended to be. When both the Valentine and Sherman were lendleased to the Soviets, they thought the Sherman was a piece of crap but found the Valentine very useful--but, they used it as a light recon tank rather than trying to use it as a frontline fighting machine as we had intended. Neither vehicle could stand up to the frontline tanks used on the Eastern Front by either side.
Hoist40
Banned
The problem was that at the beginning of the Battle of France the British out of 308 tanks in France had only 23 Matilda II's with 2 pounder guns, all the rest had only machine guns.
How about the Meadows on the Covenanter - resources were given to that, unfortunately wasted.
THe tnks UK built were quite adequate.
But Lend Lease allowed them to aquire good tanks in large numbers.
Later Models (Cromwell, Comet and Centurion) were advanced and especially the Centurion would have made an huge impact on the war (too late, I know)
But IMHO it speaks for Britains tank developers that they took the Crappy Sherman and put a superb weapon on it - the 17-pounder - making the Sherman to an weapon and not just a Swarm.
This proves that the Bruits COULD have built a good tank alone, if they choose to, but instead they put their resources elswhere and fought mainly with LL tanks...
But Lend Lease allowed them to aquire good tanks in large numbers.
Later Models (Cromwell, Comet and Centurion) were advanced and especially the Centurion would have made an huge impact on the war (too late, I know)
But IMHO it speaks for Britains tank developers that they took the Crappy Sherman and put a superb weapon on it - the 17-pounder - making the Sherman to an weapon and not just a Swarm.
This proves that the Bruits COULD have built a good tank alone, if they choose to, but instead they put their resources elswhere and fought mainly with LL tanks...