I can't be bothered to check if someone posted this already, but I do find myself fascinated with the M50 Ontos, if not because of its rather good standing with those who used it, than because of its awesome looks.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos[/URL]
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Ontos.jpg[/IMG]
Oh also, though I know it isn't an AFV, the Goliath Tracked Mine is badass (and is my favorite thing in Company of Heroes, too!)
[IMG]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mini-tanks-p012953.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1980-053-53,_Sprengpanzer_%22Goliath%22.jpg[/IMG]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath_tracked_mine[/URL]
[QUOTE=Conscript;21201919]I think cruiser tanks were developed to avoid trench warfare again, so I don't think it's 1800s thought. But yea it didn't fare very well though.[/QUOTE]
Cruiser tanks were developed to basically be the cavalry of the 20th century. When late war medium tanks and later main battle tanks (like the Centurion) were fielded they became obsolete.
For those who don't know, early Brit armoured doctrine went like this:
In your armoured divisions you had two main types of tank; the Infantry tank and the Cruiser tank. As the name suggests, Infantry tanks were designed to support friendly infantry, and generally had very good armour and moved very slowly so the infantry could keep up. The idea was that the infantry tanks wouldn't need a very good anti tank gun, because that would be taken care of by the Cruisers. Cruisers were designed to flank around enemy tanks while the infantry tanks soaked up the fire, and hit the enemy in their weaker side armour.
Sounds nice on paper, right? When the British came up against Rommel in the desert however many problems became apparent. First of all, the 2 pounder gun used in the infantry tanks at the time (the Matilda and valentine series) were next to useless in supporting infantry, as they couldn't fire high explosive shells, which is a bit shit considering that's what you really want when fighting enemy infantry. This wasn't corrected until 1944 when the Matilda was replaced with the Churchill, with a bigger, better, more explosive gun and improved armour. The cruiser tanks had the most flaws however. Because thy were designed for speed the tanks didn't really have that much armour, and although the guns fitted at the time (6 pounder on Crusader tanks) were better than those of the infantry tanks, they still lacked the punch to engage enemy armour at range. This meant that if there was no way of flanking the enemy, you were fucked, basically. The Crusaders were also prone to mechanical failures due to the dust and desert heat, and were generally hated by their crews for being shitty, unreliable deathtraps. But hey, they looked cool. The Crusaders were replaced in 1944 by the Cromwell, which was basically a shorter Sherman with a better engine. Infantry/Cruiser doctrine became less predominent in the later years of the war, when the British bought a fuckton of Shermans from the US and fitted some of them with 17 pounders, but we've been through this.
[editline]04:36AM[/editline]
Tl;dr. Cruiser tanks were like really shit medium tanks, infantry tanks were byproduct of WW1.
silly maul and your love of tanks
The Matilda was one fugly ass tank but one of the funnier things that was said about it was it's ridiculous armor for it's size. It's like an impervious fat kid armed with a pea shooter in a cannon fight. :v:
British tanks in a nutshell.
The Vickers light tank was woefully inadequate, armed with only a machine gun, but unlike similar vehicles (Matilda I) had poor armour. Matilda I only had a machine gun. Matilda II had the 2 pounder, both Matilda were better armoured than their German counterparts at the time. The Valentine's were in service in some form or another right up to the end of the war, its like the British equivalent of the Panzer II, it's chassis was used for everything. The Valentine wasn't a bad tank either, although underarmed. The Crusader was obsolete before it even entered service in 1941, and was useless until the Mk III, which was armed with a 6 pdr gun, however they also saw service right up to the end of the war, usually as tractors for 17 pounder anti tank guns. Canada's Ram tank was similar, obsolete 2 pounder gun, poorly armoured. Many had their turrets removed and used as Sexton SPG's or as Kangaroo heavy APC's. The Churchill was a good tank, used in Dieppe in 1942, where it was flawed, but by 1943 these were amended. It fitted a 6 pounder gun, which was the standard British anti tank gun of the war (Only Royal artillery units had 17 pounders, so 6 pounders were assigned to the infantry) The 6 pounder wasn't so bad, could knock out a Panzer III or IV at most ranges. Churchill remained in service until the 1960's, and also formed an excellent range of support vehicles. Cromwell was faster, better armed with a dual purpose QF 75mm gun, and better armoured than the Sherman. Entering service in 1943 after the war Cromwell's served well with Israeli armies. the Comet was a very good tank, 77mm HV gun, over 100mm or amour. still faster than the Sherman. Probably was the best British tank of the war, unless you count the Centurion (most people don't) which saw service in the last few days of the conflict. Comet was in service until the 1970's. The lastly you have the Vauxhall Challenger. (The original Challenger, made in the 2WW, not the Challenger 1 or 2 designs from the 80's) Which was a Cromwell with a new turret fitted with the 17 pounder gun. they were used alongside Cromwell units only during the war. But were one of the centre pieces of the British Army Of the Rhine post war. Like other late/end war British tanks, it was superior to the Sherman in all aspects. If only we had the production capabilities the US had.
edits :)
Then you had projects like the Australian Sentinel. 65mm of armour, a 2 pdr AT gun, 25pdr howitzer, or 17 pdr AT gun was fitted. Cross between an M3 Lee/M4 Sherman and a Crusader. Never used though. There was also the Mk VII Tetrarch for airborne units, but this was replaced by the US made M22 Locust, although the Tetrarch was better armoured (14mm of armour vs 9mm) the Locust had a more powerful 37mm as opposed to the 2 pounder. And was mechanically sound. Although heavily armed variants of the Bren Gun Carrier (most produced armoured vehicle in history) were favoured by airborne forces really, and performed much better.
Anyone know how many cold war tanks had rubber tracks? I read something about you being FUCKED on ice if you didn't.
I have a whole book about tanks.
I still think the Challenger 2 kicks ass, mainly because so much about it is still classified information... Oh, and because i'm British
Only the armour is classified. If you talk to the actual crews you'll hear that apart from the armour it's just a pretty average NATO tank.
[QUOTE=LordLoss;21227638]Only the armour is classified. If you talk to the actual crews you'll hear that apart from the armour it's just a pretty average NATO tank.[/QUOTE]
That's a rather awkward statement. It's like saying that, apart from it's gun and armour, the German Tiger was average.
It wasn't though, almost everything about the Tiger was miles ahead of the competition. The Challenger however, has a decent engine, very good amour, it's getting good gun and it has fairly bad electronics (compaired to M1A2 and L2A6).
[QUOTE=LordLoss;21228061]It wasn't though, almost everything about the Tiger was miles ahead of the competition. The Challenger however, has a decent engine, very good amour, it's getting good gun and it has fairly bad electronics (compaired to M1A2 and L2A6).[/QUOTE]
My point is that if a tank excels in one or more areas then it is not average.
[img]http://www.fileplanet.com/ferret/MammothTank1.jpg[/img]
Do I win?
EDIT: [img]http://brasil.ea.com/images/screenshots/102384-Devourer-Tank.jpg[/img]
My tanks > everyone esles
[QUOTE=David29;21228666]My point is that if a tank excels in one or more areas then it is not average.[/QUOTE]
In my opinion the electronics bring it down quite a lot. The gunner uses an xbox controller for fucks sake.
I fail to see a problem with that almost everyone and their gran knows how to use a Xbox controller and there's the old saying "Keep It Simple Stupid" or KISS.
[QUOTE=LordLoss;21229608]In my opinion the electronics bring it down quite a lot.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but going back to my Tiger example, the speed and weight of the tank brought it down a lot. Besides, there isn't anything really wrong with the Challenger 2's electronic.
[QUOTE=LordLoss;21229608]The gunner uses an xbox controller for fucks sake.[/QUOTE]
It's design is [u]similar[/u] to that of a Playstation controller. So what? It makes perfect sense to use a design that is well known and easy to use. Just because it seems simple doesn't mean it is.
I'm also rather confused by your attitude towards British armour. It seems as if you have some personal vendetta against it. I'm not some British patriotic fanboy saying "hurr all British tanks r awsum" but in all your posts I have seen you seem intent on making them out to be shit, even though your profile says you are English.
[QUOTE=David29;21230025]Yeah, but going back to my Tiger example, the speed and weight of the tank brought it down a lot. Besides, there isn't anything really wrong with the Challenger 2's electronic.
It's design is [u]similar[/u] to that of a Playstation controller. So what? It makes perfect sense to use a design that is well known and easy to use. Just because it seems simple doesn't mean it is.
I'm also rather confused by your attitude towards British armour. It seems as if you have some personal vendetta against it. I'm not some British patriotic fanboy saying "hurr all British tanks r awsum" but in all your posts I have seen you seem intent on making them out to be shit, even though your profile says you are English.[/QUOTE]
At first he was saying it the best basically, but now he's trying to make it seem shit. I'm confused too.
Anyone have a picture of the gunner's "controller"? All Google turns up is exterior shots of the Challenger or Dodges.
[img]http://www.tankmuseum.ru/images/test/omsk1.jpg[/img]
[i]When gravity becomes a pain[/i]
------------
[i]This young American got a special suprise for his birthday![/i]
[img]http://www.gizmology.net/images/tank11.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Zackin5;21230183]At first he was saying it the best basically, but now he's trying to make it seem shit. I'm confused too.
Anyone have a picture of the gunner's "controller"? All Google turns up is exterior shots of the Challenger or Dodges.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/9392/chally2controls.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=LordLoss;21228061]It wasn't though, almost everything about the Tiger was miles ahead of the competition. The Challenger however, has a decent engine, very good amour, it's getting good gun and it has fairly bad electronics (compaired to M1A2 and L2A6).[/QUOTE]
The Challenger 1's (if that's what you're talking about, since you didn't add a 2) armament was built almost obsolescent. They basically took the old L11 gun from the Chieftain, plus fire controls and all that and stuck it into the Challenger 1 with little to no improvements at all. By Desert Storm some of the Challenger 1s were upgraded with the L30 used today on the Challenger 2.
I was on about the Challenger 2... But seriously though, I think I'd rather take some kickass armour and have an average gun, instead of visa versa. The more you can take, the more you can fire back at em really..
I don't hate British tanks, I think the Matildas were good little tanks, just held back by the lack of HE projection. I love most of the British tanks built in the 2nd world war, accept the Valentine, it had stronger armour on the rear than the front, hurr.
The Chieftain was the best tank in the world at one point, props to that. The Challenger 1 was meh, the Challenger 2, in my opinion when purely looking at statistics in my opinion its "slightly above average" compared to other tanks that modern militaries have to offer, but it probably is the worlds best protected tank, and if I had to crew anything in a conventional war it would probably be a C2.
I'm just pointing out flaws, I dont hate the tanks. I consider myself a very patriotic Brit.
[editline]01:07AM[/editline]
Also when you actually sit in a Challenger 2 and use the control, you'll realise how awkward it is.
[editline]01:09AM[/editline]
And before you ask, no I'm not claiming to be a crewman in the Army, a few years back our school was invited to an event where we got to get inside the tank, speak to actual crews and then use a simulated cockpit, including the gunners station, with the controller.
[QUOTE=LordLoss;21238005]Also when you actually sit in a Challenger 2 and use the control, you'll realise how awkward it is.[/QUOTE]
Of course it's awkward, you've haven't spent hundreds of hours practicing like a tank gunner would. However, I'm sure there are a few guys in the British Army that hate the control scheme.
Every crewman I spoke to admitted it was a good layout, but makes your arms ache after a while. The thing is its stuck out on a sort of metal mounting, and you cant adjust it, so if your body measurements dont fit the exact perfect specs the army had in mind then you're fucked.
Funnily enough compared to most tanks the C2 is quite comfy inside, its a bitch for the loader to get inside though if I remember correctly.
[QUOTE=Wolfie13;21205995]Anyone know how many cold war tanks had rubber tracks? I read something about you being FUCKED on ice if you didn't.[/QUOTE]
pretty much all tanks have had rubber treading on their tracks since WW2, as metal tears up roads and is costly to replace. With the kind of weight of a tank and width of the tracks, traction isn't much of an issue.
[QUOTE=badsurprize;21219035]I have a whole book about tanks.[/QUOTE]Same here, but I lost it though. A shame really.
You gotta admit the first version of this tank just looked bad ass all-around
[IMG]http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b363/jazzking2001/mammoth-tank-papercraft.jpg[/IMG]
Then again their enemies had these
[IMG]http://www.renegadewiki.com/images/e/ea/TD_Stealth_Tank.JPG[/IMG]
Also italian crapcans
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/M13_40_CFB_Borden_1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/M15-42-Saumur.0004yfcp.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.onwar.com/tanks/italy/plans/sem4190.gif[/IMG]
Wonderful thing about them that even the weakest guns could crack these things open (literally, the armor "cracked") and they liked to violently explode after a single hit.
"The two principal areas in which Italian armored vehicles fell short of their German and Allied counterparts were in the quality of their armor plate (steel) and in their horsepower-to-weight ratio. The armor plate was prone to crack or split when hit, and generally speaking, the deficiency in the quality of the steel was not compensated for by added thickness. This was probably due to a high sulfur content in the steel. Brittle steel was the same problem that plagued the ocean liner Titanic. Italian tank crews tried sandbagging and affixing track links to vital areas in order to improve their chances of survival, but to infer that this practice was an Italian monopoly would be totally misleading. Both Allied and German tankers resorted to the same type of field expedients. The principal difference was that Italian tanks, without improvised protection, would not stand up against those weapons which most Allied and German armor could withstand.
Production models of Italian tracked vehicles suffered from an unfavorable horsepower-to-weight ratio throughout the war. Efforts to increase horsepower, as in the case of the M.15, did not significantly enhance the speed or mobility of the vehicles, and parity with Allied or German vehicles was never achieved in this respect. Another factor was increasing power and speed caused failures in the suspension and tracks thereby negating any gains. What good was it to have a powerful motor when the track links broke. Italy desperately needed new designs, improved steel, experience, and time – and she had none of them."
Italian Engineering at it's best.
Your tanks are inferior to my death tank
[img]http://i25.tinypic.com/sxhok2.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=piranhamatt2;21307473]Your tanks are inferior to my death tank
[IMG]http://i25.tinypic.com/sxhok2.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
a tiger would make that thing cry
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
