Jump to content


British Assault Tanks


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #21 Posted Feb 10 2013 - 02:32

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13178 battles
  • 9,886
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Yes, they were flamethrower tanks of about Tortoise weight.

Priory_of_Sion #22 Posted Feb 10 2013 - 02:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,761
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011
Was reading on LemaireSoft about a 55 pounder gun with a barrel of L/50. Any information on this weapon?

Madox76 #23 Posted Feb 10 2013 - 05:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27604 battles
  • 1,458
  • [BEERS] BEERS
  • Member since:
    10-01-2011

Quote

Principal armament was to consist of a 75-mm Gun M3 (or a 57-mm Gun M1) and a Cal .30 .Machine Gun M1919A4 (flexible) in a cornbination mount in a power-operated turret, with gyrostabilizer.

Ummm CORNbination LOL. was that a typo or was someone being silly.

Great stuff as usual.

JuanKilo #24 Posted Feb 11 2013 - 02:11

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 19563 battles
  • 16
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012
I always enjoy reading your articles Chieftan!

Thanks!

Zarkus #25 Posted Feb 15 2013 - 19:45

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 28085 battles
  • 445
  • Member since:
    08-16-2011
I found the "FIRST REPORT ON ASSUALT TANK T14", (212 pages!) here:

http://www.dtic.mil/.../u2/b965290.pdf

The_Chieftain #26 Posted Feb 15 2013 - 19:58

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13178 battles
  • 9,886
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Very nice find.

Photographs are a little poor, but fortunately, I happen to have better quality ones of them on my hard drive. That's for a future article, though...

Zarkus #27 Posted Feb 18 2013 - 14:52

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 28085 battles
  • 445
  • Member since:
    08-16-2011
What's funny about the T14 report, is that it sounds a lot like the first model year of any car..."why did they put the oil dipstick there?" There are suggestions for moving the air filters inside the fighting compartment for better access, possibly removing the turret basket, improving the shot-trap of the bow gun, relocating various cables, etc. The issues that seem most urgent, are the tough steering(accurately portrayed in WOT!) and fixing the throwing of the track (new guide horn?). Aside from niggly little things, it seemed satisfactory for the most part. It also verifies the plan for the 76mm and 90mm gun.

I can only assume that it would have eventually recieved the Sherman E8's HVSS, which I'm incorporating in a "what if" kit I'm making.

The_Chieftain #28 Posted Feb 18 2013 - 15:14

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13178 battles
  • 9,886
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
I've seen a few of those first reports, and every one has evidence of "reality disconnect". I saw one for a liaison vehicle where they point out that they generally can't openthe dash compartment without turning off the engine, and the horn was not somewhere that one could hit in a hurry. (down by gearshift)

thandiflight #29 Posted Feb 19 2013 - 01:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 86334 battles
  • 4,412
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    07-10-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Feb 18 2013 - 15:14, said:

I've seen a few of those first reports, and every one has evidence of "reality disconnect". I saw one for a liaison vehicle where they point out that they generally can't openthe dash compartment without turning off the engine, and the horn was not somewhere that one could hit in a hurry. (down by gearshift)

SNAFU. I participated in an "operational evaluation" of a "new" (pre-production) combat vehicle - an "experienced users evaluation of the vehicle". Supposedly the vehicle was developed from a combat requirement based on (our) actual combat experience - which was in itself pretty impressive (to me at least) that a vehicle was being developed on the basis of a requirement that the proposed user wrote rather than something that somebody else had thought of and the proposed users were being given and told "this is what we think you will need now find a use for this". We were asked to assess the vehicle, its capabilities (in terms of our combat requirement), write a "user manual" and "develop a doctrine" (which wasn't that difficult seen that the vehice was supposedly developed to fit in an established doctrine). Vehicles duly arrived without any information on them at all! No mechanical information, nothing.

The battalion set to work with gusto figuring that the sooner we sorted this, the sooner we could "move on". (The colonel promised extended leave if we could complete the assessment early). To cut a long story short(er) - long days, late nights, debriefs re assessments going on until 2am, up again early to make use of all daylight and we thought we had done a pretty stand-up job. Defects, remedies, load-out, noise and heat-signatures, etc all done. Pleased as punch with ourselves and well ahead of the expected schedule we prepared for the arrival of the brass. "Oh, you've been sent the wrong vehicles, these are the initial prototypes." SOP.

BobDinosaur #30 Posted Nov 23 2014 - 18:06

    Private

  • Players
  • 8036 battles
  • 4
  • [SUPTG] SUPTG
  • Member since:
    02-10-2011
To engage in a bit of thread necromancy, are there pictures or plans available for the entire Nuffield AT line?

tiger61378 #31 Posted Nov 23 2014 - 20:00

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9369 battles
  • 1,464
  • [CAR] CAR
  • Member since:
    07-30-2013

Wow...never saw this article before, but great stuff.  Esp. since I really like the Excelsior (one of my favorite T5 premiums, and I'm only missing the SU-85i and maybe some ultrarare non-purchaseable ones), and its nice to see where the design came from.  The fact that its basically a super armored Cromwell makes sense to me now too, with the speed of the Excelsior.

 

The T14 info was really interesting as well.  Nice to see where that tank comes from....and it is fun to play on occasion.



jetblackISSP #32 Posted Nov 23 2014 - 20:22

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15652 battles
  • 138
  • [JAWA] JAWA
  • Member since:
    06-24-2012

View PostSlakrrrrrr, on Feb 09 2013 - 11:47, said:

Interesting...think the Heavy Valiant could be a tier 7 heavy?

 

yeah but your driver would start the battle dead

Meplat #33 Posted Nov 23 2014 - 23:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Feb 18 2013 - 07:14, said:

I've seen a few of those first reports, and every one has evidence of "reality disconnect". I saw one for a liaison vehicle where they point out that they generally can't openthe dash compartment without turning off the engine, and the horn was not somewhere that one could hit in a hurry. (down by gearshift)

 

The old M151 1/4 ton went through it's entire life with a fastener on the transmission case that was constantly mistaken for a fill port.

Removing it basically rendered the transmission useless til you pulled the top and fished the 1/R pivot up and remounted it.

 

Even with the locktabs as shown, I've had at least four come in with this plug pulled to "check" or "top off" the trans fluid.

 



Beausabre #34 Posted Jun 09 2019 - 18:06

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 10 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    06-18-2018

Oh, boy, what a mishmash

1) 3.7-inch Mountain Howitzer - An Indian Army weapon - successor to Kipling's "Screw Gun" - and showed up in some odd places.

"The 3.7-inch howitzer was first introduced in 1917, and was used in action in that year in the Mesopotamian Campaign (modern Iraq area).

The 22nd (Derajat) Indian Frontier Force mountain battery arrived in the East Africa campaign on 18 December 1916, when they relieved the 28th Battery which returned to India"

in WW Twice "During World War II, the weapon equipped artillery units engaged in the North African Campaign (Tunisia), the Italian Campaign, the Kokoda Campaign, and Burma Campaign, and it was also used in the Netherlands and Ruhr fighting in 1944-45 by units originally destined for mountain warfare in Greece. In the latter theatre, on occasion the gun was dismantled and manually hauled up to the upper floors of buildings to provide close support in urban fighting. A lightened version was used briefly by airborne formations"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3.7-inch_mountain_howitzer

2) There were two flavors of 3.7-inch AA gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3.7-inch_AA_gun and it led to

 

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_32-pounder the prospect of which made the gunners panic at idea of emplacing and concealing the monster.  "I know not what effect they will have on the enemy, but, by God, they terrify me!" Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

4. 95-mm Tank Howitzer / 95-mm Infantry Howitzer - There were continued problems with the Infantry weapon and it never "got out of the woods" before VE Day. But what really knocked it on the head was the reaction of a conference of Infantry leaders when it was unveiled - "very nice, you are going to give us the additional manpower to man it, are you not ?"- at a time the British were demobilizing divisions to provide replacements to units at the pointy end - " Organizationally, there was also the question of who would man the gun; the infantry already had to support and transport anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft guns, mortars and heavy machine guns. Gun crews would need to be trained and provided with services, such as transportation, supply and communications." Ian Hogg once stated that the carriage looked like it been run up by the blacksmith's apprentice while the blacksmith was out. Turns out that the Ordnance people had bought 800 of the things. At least rows of them looked good in propaganda pictures

The tank weapon was rather like the US 3-inch AT gun M5 - a kludge of what was found in the warehouse - "The Ordnance QF 95 mm howitzer was built up from a section of a 3.7-inch anti-aircraft gun barrel, the breech mechanism of the Ordnance QF 25 pounder field gun/howitzer and the recoil mechanism of the Ordnance QF 6 pounder anti-tank gun" It went into Churchill V & VIII, Centaur V (80 belonging to the Royal Marine Armored Support Group at Normandy, then to the French) and Cromwell VI & VIII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_95_mm_howitzer


 


 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users