Question: why did the Comet end up being produced in A34 configuration with the less powerful 77mm HV instead of the 17-pounder armed A44?
Were the 17-pounder shells that difficult to handle in a tank?
You are correct that it had a lower muzzle velocity and yes, a smaller shell. To put the size into context, on the Sherman Firefly they had to remove the hull machine gunner to find a place to store ammo, and if they wanted to reload the racks in the turret then the rounds had to taken out of the hull top hatch then passed up to and in through the turret top hatch - not something you wanted to do in combat! The Comet like the Sherman was a small-medium sized tank.
For those who might be interested, this months Military Modelling has a nice article converting the Tamiya Centaur to an A24 Cavalier using the Cromwell Models conversion.
The author finishes it as a plain green fresh-out-of-the-factory, but I can't help but wondering what it would look like in Desert Camo. The initial order was for 500, but the tank was cancelled after only a few had been built, seeing service mainly in training roles, though a few were converted to ARVs and command tanks. Britain was so desperate for any kind of war material in the first half of the war, could they afford to ignore a tank with a half-decent gun and armour, no matter how underpowered? If not the desert, how about the far East? Repository of all weapons not deemed good enough for Europe.
Quote from: dy031101 on December 09, 2008, 07:08:48 PM
Question: why did the Comet end up being produced in A34 configuration with the less powerful 77mm HV instead of the 17-pounder armed A44?
Were the 17-pounder shells that difficult to handle in a tank?
From Tony William's website:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quarry.nildram.co.uk%2Ftankuk2.jpg&hash=63925ed4f699a2c5209490df98f8e4209d9eda61)
The 76x420R is the 77mm, the 76x583R is the 17 pdr (with APDS).
As you can see, the 77mm cartridge case is significantly shorter and broader
Apologies if these already have a thread, but I couldn't find one.
So what can you do with these then, whiff-wise?
One idea I had (originally on the Sherman thread) was to make a proper WWII APC out of a Crusader (or any of these) like this:
1. Move the drive sprocket to the front
2. Jack up the upper hull with spacer pieces to gove more headroom,
3. Move the engine deck to the middle, either occupying the whole width or with a tunnel down one side,
4. Add a new rear plate and roof with doors/ramp/hatches to taste.
The early Crusader is particularly suitable since it has the small MG turret next to the driver, but any of them would do. You could always add the twin gun turret from Vickers Mk.VI light tank or a Humber armoured car for extra firepower. Of course, such a vehicle wouldn't be ideal, particularly if the engine occupied the whole width, cutting the driver and gunner off from the crew compartment, but that would be credible for the time.
Pretty sure there is a thread, but I'm sure Jeffry will be along soon to tidy up (rather like the Noo-noo ;) )
What's the turret ring diametre of the Cromwell and its Charioteer variant?
(...... I wonder what else we can put the Charioteer turret on......)
The enclosed is not a proper mental picture yet, but I have a rough idea of a reverse-engineered Challenger or Avenger (i.e. lengthened Cromwell) cruiser tank hull coupled with a relatively more-modern turret armed with a 90mm and later 105mm gun (or a 90mm gun with backup ATGMs).
The Leopard 1 turret is a random choice (although I was influenced by theme of an embargo-sufferer in my head when I cooked this one up; now I wonder if the French AMX-30 turret might have been easier to work out). If there is another turret more suitable (easier to gain access to or to copy, less weighty, with a more-sensible turret ring size, etc.), please do suggest one.
Other comments and suggestions are also welcomed.
Another quick-and-dirty pieced-together rough idea, this time involving an AMX-30 turret (which I do have in my "digital stash", potentially making my life easier should I incorporate the whole thing into my wish list ;D).
That makes for a very good looking vehicle :wub:
You are aware that the Challenger had problems with manoeuvrability? The length to width ratio (mentioned in the landships thread) was wrong. Indeed it was where it's importance was first discovered. The result was that it was too long and the hull too narrow and had troubles turning. The Avenger OTOH, cured that by widening the hull.
I haven't found a line drawing for the Avenger (the prefered choice for a basis) yet :banghead:, so I just stretched the Cromwell hull for the rough draft.
Did the Avenger actually go into service? The Wikipedia claimed that it did post-WWII, but other online references claimed that it never got past prototype stage.
Another rough draft of the reverse-engineered and then upgunned Avenger/Stretched-Cromwell, this time with a T-55 Enigma turret. :wacko:
Quote from: dy031101 on April 14, 2010, 07:38:20 AM
Did the Avenger actually go into service? The Wikipedia claimed that it did post-WWII, but other online references claimed that it never got past prototype stage.
My ref has 2 RA SP batteries being equiped post war plus it was used in training. Remained in service until the 1950's.
I found the shape of the Ikv-91 turret to make an asthetically-pleasing combination, too.
The image represents the turret size that I want for now (so the turret therefore it isn't to real-world original proportion). I want to upgrade the reverse-engineered Avenger to a standard close to the T-54/55, so think of the choice of gun as initially either an US 90mm or a Soviet 100mm......
Should I scale up the turret further? Comments and suggestions are welcomed.
(Now I feel like making the next victim of my brainstorming the Excelsior tank...... if I can find a good drawing for a rough draft :banghead:)
Quote from: NARSES2 on April 15, 2010, 02:18:06 AM
Quote from: dy031101 on April 14, 2010, 07:38:20 AM
Did the Avenger actually go into service? The Wikipedia claimed that it did post-WWII, but other online references claimed that it never got past prototype stage.
My ref has 2 RA SP batteries being equiped post war plus it was used in training. Remained in service until the 1950's.
Interestingly, several end up with Eire's army. One apparently resides in their museum.
Quote from: rickshaw on April 16, 2010, 08:46:41 PM
Interestingly, several end up with Eire's army. One apparently resides in their museum.
I knew they had Comet's didn't realise Avengers as well ?
How about the Crusader mounting the 5.5" Gun?
Like the Syrian T-34/122, an open mounting on a bare chassis.
Suitably bizarre/Whiffy.
Hubert Cance has a plan of this available in his range.
Cheers
Rick
...part of the extensive lunar exploration proposal put forward by Hawker Siddely in the late 50's/early 60's, the vehicles are based upon what looks like Comet chassis ? (waw thats some launch capability!) :blink:
cheers, joe
Quote from: Rick Lowe on August 03, 2010, 09:59:50 AM
How about the Crusader mounting the 5.5" Gun?
Rick
I built one of those way back when as part of my master plan to model every peace of kit in the "Surrasian" army. Got lost when I got married many, many moons ago ;D
Memory says it was the Airfix kits, with a very simple superstructure made from plastic card fitted out with some bits and bobs from someones Priest. Painted in the standard Surrasian scheme of green with black patches :thumbsup:
So this is the Avenger in photo......
Being said to have derived from the Cromwell, the track return rollers seem to suggest that it might have benefitted from the Comet, too.
Thinking of the mental note I made on stretched Cromwell chassis, I now wonder if something similar to the Olifant Mk.1 turret gun and armour could be done on it......
Saturday night I managed to dig up one of my Imperial Armour game books and was reminded of how I was rather fascinated by the Imperial Guard Leman Russ tank with side weapon sponsons (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1070200). Then I started brainstorming on how to put such a design together based on real-world items.
Late-WWII infantry tanks seem to be a fitting starting point, having the hull side hatches like the Leman Russ (for accessing side sponsons). Churchill's suspension didn't seem to lend itself well to half-decent mobility...... but perhaps the Excelsior tank, based on the Cromwell chassis and suspension, might.
Would I be able to, say, enlarge the hull side access tunnels to actually accommodate a close-in gunner's seat in each side?
As the silly Warhammer vehicles show, you end up with a ridiculously tall and wide vehicle. From what I can gather about the Warhammer tanks, they really wouldn't stand much of a chance against a real, 21st century MBT or even an army equipped with ATGWs.
Quote from: rickshaw on October 04, 2010, 03:47:12 AM
As the silly Warhammer vehicles show, you end up with a ridiculously tall and wide vehicle. From what I can gather about the Warhammer tanks, they really wouldn't stand much of a chance against a real, 21st century MBT or even an army equipped with ATGWs.
Yeah I can see that, too, which is why I want to base the imagination on some real-life tanks instead of just replacing fictitious ordnances with real-life ones, which I don't imagine to be possible...
... unless we, for example, use low-pressure 90mm in place of the Battle Cannon, but that'd be pretty wimpy for a tank that's supposed to be the MBT of the 41st millennium Mankind. Or maybe that's what the story is meant to be...... that Mankind has to be reduced to such a state of wimpiness to warrant constant battles for their survival.
Nevertheless, there're some aspects of visual awesomeness to the Warhammer tanks.
Quote from: rickshaw on October 04, 2010, 03:47:12 AM
As the silly Warhammer vehicles show, you end up with a ridiculously tall and wide vehicle. From what I can gather about the Warhammer tanks, they really wouldn't stand much of a chance against a real, 21st century MBT or even an army equipped with ATGWs.
:rolleyes: It is a "
fantasy" universe.
Warhammer 40k tanks don't have to fight 21st century MBTs. They fight aliens the size of houses, Orks with claws that are giant hydraulic-driven shears, worshippers of the Chaos gods with energy axes, other aliens in battle suits or ancient, millennia-old robotic skeletons. Some of their allied fighters are 8 feet tall and have 19 additional organs. Therefore, the rules of 20th or 21st century human warfare don't necessarily apply.
Quote from: ChernayaAkula on October 04, 2010, 05:14:32 PM
Warhammer 40k tanks don't have to fight 21st century MBTs. They fight aliens the size of houses, Orks with claws that are giant hydraulic-driven shears, worshippers of the Chaos gods with energy axes, other aliens in battle suits or ancient, millennia-old robotic skeletons. Some of their allied fighters are 8 feet tall and have 19 additional organs. Therefore, the rules of 20th or 21st century human warfare don't necessarily apply.
In universe, anything impractical from our point of view can be excused away by the way of mysterious technologies (since technologies to the 40K Imperium of Man are a matter of archaeology, there is no need to explain their practicality). Sure, every faction suffers from bad ergonomics (something we'd frown upon even for a weapon of war), and sure, perhaps we in the 21st century have more ways than one to kick the butts of all the above-mentioned aliens, abominations, and enhanced soldiers...... but then again, in the 40k universe, evolutions and technological achievements as we know them would all have died off, so there is no comparison. :thumbsup:
=================================================================
To be fair though, I did start off trying to bring some of that visual awesomeness associated with the fantasy tanks to a real world basis (hence the mentioning of the Excelsior tank)...... maybe not the hull-mounted secondary AT gun, but perhaps the machinegun sponsons......
At any event, should I try to keep as much of the sponson gunner seats within the Excelsior's side hatch tunnels (enlarged as appropriate) to suppress the width growth, or am I doomed to have the entire gun sponsons installed outside of the sideskirts (like the ingame Leman Russ)?
Quote from: ChernayaAkula on October 04, 2010, 05:14:32 PM
Quote from: rickshaw on October 04, 2010, 03:47:12 AM
As the silly Warhammer vehicles show, you end up with a ridiculously tall and wide vehicle. From what I can gather about the Warhammer tanks, they really wouldn't stand much of a chance against a real, 21st century MBT or even an army equipped with ATGWs.
:rolleyes: It is a "fantasy" universe.
Mmmm, I think had noticed that. I just don't like it. I expect my advanced alien races to be well, advanced not baroque wet dreams thought up by teenagers.
Quote
Warhammer 40k tanks don't have to fight 21st century MBTs. They fight aliens the size of houses, Orks with claws that are giant hydraulic-driven shears, worshippers of the Chaos gods with energy axes, other aliens in battle suits or ancient, millennia-old robotic skeletons. Some of their allied fighters are 8 feet tall and have 19 additional organs. Therefore, the rules of 20th or 21st century human warfare don't necessarily apply.
And what happens when they bump up against 21st century humans?
You know, I really, really pity the little green men if we ever seriously meet them, "out there". They will be in for one hell of a shock. ;)
Except this thread is about Britsih cruiser tanks and not Warhammer 40K, so if you want a seperate thread on 40K please say so and will split the topic for you.
G
Quote from: TsrJoe on August 03, 2010, 04:42:24 PM
...part of the extensive lunar exploration proposal put forward by Hawker Siddely in the late 50's/early 60's, the vehicles are based upon what looks like Comet chassis ? (waw thats some launch capability!) :blink:
cheers, joe
I hadn't seen that HS explorer vehicle before, I love this kind of futuristics stuff. Have you got any more info on that lunar exploration proposal? Probably worth a new thread.
From a thread originally opened for British Armoured Cars, but since the question is about a turret said to be from the Crusader Cruiser Tank:
Quote from: rickshaw on May 29, 2011, 04:54:35 PM
The gunner and commander were provided with permament seats while the loader had a flip down one but normally stood during engagements.
Questions:
1. I've been under the impression that all tanks would have their loaders standing during combat; but would that be a safe assumption?
2. It is said that when Crusader tank design was upgunned with the 6-pounder, the turret crew was reduced to two due to the size of the new gun; yet when the turret with almost the same gun (re-bored for US 75mm ammo) was used for AEC Mk.III armoured cars, the loader was reinstated. What was so special about the Crusader or did the British simply not care that much for a dedicated main gun loader at the time of 6-pounder Crusader's introduction?
Quote from: dy031101 on May 29, 2011, 05:48:08 PM
From a thread originally opened for British Armoured Cars, but since the question is about a turret said to be from the Crusader Cruiser Tank:
Quote from: rickshaw on May 29, 2011, 04:54:35 PM
The gunner and commander were provided with permament seats while the loader had a flip down one but normally stood during engagements.
Questions:
1. I've been under the impression that all tanks would have their loaders standing during combat; but would that be a safe assumption?
For most Western AFVs, yes. The T-54/55/59/62 used to have their loaders kneeling. Must have been hell on their backs during an extended engagement with the turret rotating and them having to shuffle 'round with it. Made them lower than Western tanks though.
Quote
2. It is said that when Crusader tank design was upgunned with the 6-pounder, the turret crew was reduced to two due to the size of the new gun; yet when the turret with almost the same gun (re-bored for US 75mm ammo) was used for AEC Mk.III armoured cars, the loader was reinstated. What was so special about the Crusader or did the British simply not care that much for a dedicated main gun loader at the time of 6-pounder Crusader's introduction?
The British tended to be, shall we say, more flexible about who had what responsibilities in the turrets of their vehicles, even into the 1950s. It usually depended on the available space and what their current round of thinking was. In most 2 Pdr armed tanks there weren't dedicated loaders, that was the commander's responsibility. Once they realised the folly of that they made a bigger turret (Covenantor/Crusader/Valentine with a 6 Pdr) and made space for a dedicated loader. Then they introduced the first the 6 Pdr and then the 75mm and decided there wasn't room and took him out. They put him back for the Centaur/Cromwell/Comet/Centurion. They then developed the Saladin and reverted to the 2 man turret crew with the commander doing the loading again and the same for the Scorpion. I suspect the AEC Mk.III carried less ammunition and decided a third crewman who manned the radio/loaded was more important. I'm at work, I'll check when I get home.
Quote from: dy031101 on May 29, 2011, 05:48:08 PM
1. I've been under the impression that all tanks would have their loaders standing during combat; but would that be a safe assumption?
Well, as far as modern MBTs go, most loaders are now sitting, as crew placement in Western designs has pretty much gelled with the loader to the left of the breech and the gunner and commander to the right. Using the M-1 as an example, the loader sits sideways on a swiveling stool, facing the center of the turret. He operates the armoured doors that enclose the ammunition storage compartment with the side of his right knee, and moves the round in a single, efficient motion to the breech. With the 120mm cannon having a semi-combustible casing, after the round is fired there is only a brass baseplate that is dropped into a basket under the breech after firing. That goes for the Leopard as well, IIRC. The Chieftain's cannon uses a two-part system (projectile and separate charge as in field artillery), so the procedure is a little different; the French Leclerc has an autoloader.
The AEC Mk.III carried substantially fewer rounds than an equivalent tank but that is in keeping with its role as a reconnaissance vehicle rather than one which is designed to duke it out with an opposing armoured force. It carried 45 rounds. The Cromwell in comparison carried 65 rounds.
Quote from: rickshaw on May 30, 2011, 05:16:23 AM
It carried 45 rounds. The Cromwell in comparison carried 65 rounds.
Did it say how many of those are in the turrets?
Quote from: dy031101 on May 30, 2011, 08:49:53 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on May 30, 2011, 05:16:23 AM
It carried 45 rounds. The Cromwell in comparison carried 65 rounds.
Did it say how many of those are in the turrets?
Unfortunately no.
Another curiosity question: would the UK have allowed parts or the entirety of a particular British tank design to be produced outside of British Isles?
Wikipedia entry on the M3 Medium claims that the British did explore unsuccessfully about the possibility of having their design built in American factories. What I'm wondering is if the US would have been the norm or the exception.
Quote from: dy031101 on December 10, 2011, 10:13:12 AM
Another curiosity question: would the UK have allowed parts or the entirety of a particular British tank design to be produced outside of British Isles?
Wikipedia entry on the M3 Medium claims that the British did explore unsuccessfully about the possibility of having their design built in American factories. What I'm wondering is if the US would have been the norm or the exception.
I read that article just now. They must have been willing to export the design, if they asked the US to build them. I'm guessing the proposal was voted down on the 1940s version of "Not Invented Here".
Versions of the Valentine were built in Canada.
Quote from: dy031101 on December 10, 2011, 10:13:12 AM
Another curiosity question: would the UK have allowed parts or the entirety of a particular British tank design to be produced outside of British Isles?
Wikipedia entry on the M3 Medium claims that the British did explore unsuccessfully about the possibility of having their design built in American factories. What I'm wondering is if the US would have been the norm or the exception.
If they had, they would have been unique vehicles with no parts interchangeable with British produced vehicles to the same design. American manufacturing methods and standards were different to British ones. US manufacturers felt that they could produce a better design of their own rather than wasting time trying to adapt British designs to American manufacture.
Mossie, you're right they did produce Valentines in Canada but Canada was used to British design and manufacture methodologies so it was easier for them. Even so, the Canadian Valentines AIUI were nearly all sent to the Soviet Union where they were out of the way and no mix ups could occur.
Quote from: rickshaw on December 10, 2011, 05:56:04 PM
Mossie, you're right they did produce Valentines in Canada but Canada was used to British design and manufacture methodologies so it was easier for them.
Not really, as Canadian rail equipment and motor vehicle manufacture was basically the same as US, particularly motor vehicles
as they were all subsidiaries of US companies. Also Montreal Locomotive Works, the producer of the Canadian Valentines, was a
subsidiary of the American Locomotive Company of Schenectady, NY.
Since the mid-19th century Canada, when it comes to industry, machinery and the manufacture of same, has been far more
influenced by trade with its neighbor to the South (and vice versa), than it has been by the UK or the rest of the Commonwealth.