95 replies to this topic

[maxman1]

razielkaine, on Jan 08 2012 - 20:54, said:

Dingo  
The Dingo Scout Car was a light armoured car built in Australia during Second World War. They were produced by the Ford motor company during 1942.  (for a laugh)

Rhino Heavy Armoured Car  
At the outbreak of World War II the United Kingdom was unable to meet the needs of the Commonwealth for armoured fighting vehicles. It led many Commonwealth countries to develop their own AFVs.The vehicle utilised a CMP chassis and engine produced by General Motors Canada, the rear-engined model 8446, the same chassis as used for the Canadian "Fox" armoured car. To this a welded armoured body fabricated from Australian Bullet-proof Plate (ABP-3) of 30 mm thickness to the front and 11 mm to the sides and rear was fitted. The vehicle was completed by a welded turret with 30 mm all-round protection similar in design to that of the Crusader tank. The armament consisted of a QF 2 pounder Mk IX gun and a coaxial .303 inch Vickers machine gun.


I for one was surprised to hear about these what else have i not found yet.

Why not include the Humber Armoured Car? It had an M5 or M7 37mm gun.

Or the Morris A8 Quad? So what if it had no armour (don't let the sloping sides fool you) and no armament. It towed the 17 pounder.

But seriously, the designers have stated they won't incorperate any wheeled vehicles.

[razielkaine]

i wasnt actually suggesting they did just found these interesting and cool

[maxman1]

I have an idea. An option to have British markings and crews on tanks like the Sherman and the Lee and other Lend-Lease tanks instead of American ones, in lieu of including those tanks on the British tree. Just British, not just any tanks.

That, and include the Chrysler A57 on the Sherman, to represent the M4A4 (since we're obviously not going to see that specific tank, outside of theFirefly).

[OhSlowpoke]

To say the RAMII is an inadequate tank shows your lack of knowledge of the tank itself. I would suggest you get your information other than a wikipedia page. The RAMII wasn't deployed in combat for a single reason- there was an ample number of Shermans which could be provided to the Canadian forces, and that would simplify logistics with both American and British units.

It was hardly an "inferior" tank. It had thick armor, comparable agility, and a potent gun, with the potential for upgrades equal to a the sherman. Take a while and inspect the two, and compare. The RAM was a adequate tank when it was developed (in 1941) and was still fairly effective in mid-1944, three years later.

[maxman1]

Then explain why MLW switched production over to the Grizzly before US production was realised to be sufficient, and Canadian units recieved Shermans.

It was an adequate design in 1941, and against tanks such as the Panver III and IV.

Although, it would have left a nasty mark on the Germans in North Africa. A shame it never saw combat.

[OhSlowpoke]

Just under 2000 RAM tanks (mainly RAMIIs) were built. Only 188 Sherman Grizzly tanks were built.

The Sherman was developed rather than the RAM because it was a simplified, standardized weapon (even though the Grizzly had some minor differences.)

[BCR_Lt2]

gabriel, on Jan 01 2012 - 15:44, said:

I didn't say rare AND undermed AND not part of a larger tree - the vehicles all fit at least one of these.
More to the point, the DEVs have shown no interest in developing "community" trees that have vehicles from more than one nation. Not sure why they would start with the British.

You are actually wrong on this although maybe not intentionally because of the difference in government policies at the time.  The Germans made use of tanks built by other countries and the 3 most common are all in game as part of the German tree. The Pz 35 (t), Pz 38 (t) and Pz 38 Na were designed, build and fielded by the Czechs.  Realistically that is no different than the Aussie or Canadian tanks.  You have to remember that historically there were only really 4 or 5 "Empires" in the world and the Commonwealth was the last to exist.

Someone else made a comment about the Sexton that I need to address as well.  The extent of the British involvement in the D&D of this SPG is very minimal.  The Commonwealth needed a 25lb SPG and the Brits and Canadians both started working on them.  I'm not entirely sure which model was used, but the Brits used 1 of the Churchill chassis for their design and the Canadians used the RAM Chassis.  The Sexton was the better all around machine and was produced.

[Dominatus]

Churchill 25pdr...I can't find anything about that, apart from one reference to one book that gives a single mention to a project for mounting a 25pdr in a Churchill.

[BCR_Lt2]

razielkaine, on Jan 04 2012 - 20:38, said:

i like where you are going with that tree but i cant acknowledge the firefly in the tree, however being it in fact an american designed and built tanks, only thing about it thats british is the gun.  With  that in mind it's an american sherman and they already have their place in the american tree where they rightfully belong.

Also the Achilles would not fit in for the same rules.  Are their any other brit made or prototype td's to fill the slots?

II would like to point out that the US used absolutely zero of the following tanks: Lee, Grant, Stuart or Sherman.  The US used M3 Medium (2 variations) M3/M5 light and the M4 Medium.  Any tank named after a US civil war General was produced in the UK (or a Commonwealth country) under agreement with the US.  Some of the Improvements on the US versions actually come from the British built tanks.  When you look at the Firefly from this perspective it is a British tank.

[Dominatus]

No, the tanks were all produced by the US, but shipped to its allies under Lend-Lease. The reason for this is that US production was more than enough to suit every country's needs (hence why the Grizzly was canceled). With the firefly, the British took a US made Sherman (I think generally A1s and A4s), added a new turret and fitted the 17pdr gun into it.

Although some versions, like the M4A2 and M4A4 were prodiced solely with the intention of foreign use.

[maxman1]

Quote

The Pz 35 (t), Pz 38 (t) and Pz 38 Na were designed, build and fielded by the Czechs

Not the Pz. 38 Na. It was designed by the Germans in 1939, and despite successful trials, was never mass produced or used in combat

[maxman1]

OhSlowpoke, on Jan 26 2012 - 00:23, said:

Just under 2000 RAM tanks (mainly RAMIIs) were built. Only 188 Sherman Grizzly tanks were built.

The Sherman was developed rather than the RAM because it was a simplified, standardized weapon (even though the Grizzly had some minor differences.)

The Grizzly was cancelled becuase US production was decided to be sufficient for Allied needs, and production switched to the Sexton Mk. II.

[SgtPearce]

As a Canadian WoT should Most definetly have Canadian Tanks! and allow us to name them! Catherine anyone lord strathconas look it up i have a picture of it from when i did course on that base lol

[maxman1]

OhSlowpoke, on Jan 25 2012 - 06:26, said:

To say the RAMII is an inadequate tank shows your lack of knowledge of the tank itself. I would suggest you get your information other than a wikipedia page. The RAMII wasn't deployed in combat for a single reason- there was an ample number of Shermans which could be provided to the Canadian forces, and that would simplify logistics with both American and British units.

It was hardly an "inferior" tank. It had thick armor, comparable agility, and a potent gun, with the potential for upgrades equal to a the sherman. Take a while and inspect the two, and compare. The RAM was a adequate tank when it was developed (in 1941) and was still fairly effective in mid-1944, three years later.

I got my information from Canadian war diaries. I suggest you do the same

Almost universally, the Ram is viewed poorly, with disdain, or not at all.

The term "the garbage we trained on" comes up quite a bit.

[OhSlowpoke]

I'm not sure we're reading the same information then.

Many of the complaints were minor- spare part shortages, cramped internal turret layout (common in many tanks of that era) and narrow tracks (poor maneuverability in poor terrain)

A lot of the same problems with the RAM were also problems noted in the early Sherman variants (M4 and M4A1). People called the Sherman "junk" as well- history tends to forget the successes and focus on the failures.

In my research, the biggest reason why the RAM wasn't deployed was logistics. American production of the Sherman was big enough to provide all the allies with tanks- and the tanks would have the same equipment, maintaining them would be easy and spare parts would be common. It had nothing to do with the RAM's performance. Canada just didn't have heavy industry that was well suited to building tanks. The RAM was a mistake to built- Canada's production would have been better to provide more trucks(the majority of our manufacturing contribution to the war).

In fact, it's fairly sad that Canada built just about 3400~ tanks (1400 Valentines, 2000~ RAMII) and we gave our entire stock of Valentines to the Soviet Union, who gave them to barely trained crews and basically tossed them suicidally at the Germans, and our RAM tanks were never deployed during the time where their guns/armor was still effective, 41-43. In fact, 87mm of armor and a 6 pounder was quite effective in that timeframe.)

[Crossfire_187th]

OhSlowpoke, on Jan 30 2012 - 21:55, said:

our RAM tanks were never deployed during the time where their guns/armor was still effective, 41-43. In fact, 87mm of armor and a 6 pounder was quite effective in that timeframe.)

It was true that Ram tanks would be more logistic and successful rather than being deployed in training field, but it came down to politics pressures from both US and British governments to accept the Sherman tanks... Without Ram tank, Sherman would be similar to Lee as poor performances, under-power, and poor quality armoured...

[maxman1]

Quote

our RAM tanks were never deployed during the time where their guns/armor was still effective, 41-43. In fact, 87mm of armor and a 6 pounder was quite effective in that timeframe.

A shame Mackenzie-King put the "Limited Liability" policies in place, preventing Canadian troops from deploying to North Africa, where our Rams would have given Rommel a black eye.

[Redwing6]

Yes, it should be called the "Commonwealth" Tree.  Both Canada (Ram line, Grizzly) and the Australians (Sentinel line) should have a branch.

[1Shot1KillTiger205]

This sounds cool, im an australian so this will make me happy, maybe there will be an aussie tank, like the senital as mentioned.

[maxman1]

http://www.minerwars...1_necropost.png