Jump to content


The Chieftain's Random SouthEast Asia/PacRim Musings Thread


  • Please log in to reply
229 replies to this topic

neokai #221 Posted 10 November 2017 - 02:43 PM

    SealClub Number 9

  • Senior Moderator
  • 38122 battles
  • 8,067
  • Member since:
    06-07-2013

Random note - Chieftain forum bot confirmed.

 

P.S. Your latest article failed QA, sir. Please double check all parentheses and ensure semicolons are in their rightful positions.


Spoiler

KitagouFumika #222 Posted 19 November 2017 - 01:30 AM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 19013 battles
  • 47
  • [PTA-S] PTA-S
  • Member since:
    12-21-2013

Sir, any boot recommendations?

I particularly like the one in the M47 Patton video.



The_Chieftain #223 Posted 18 June 2018 - 05:09 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Military Specialist
  • 0 battles
  • 353
  • Member since:
    07-15-2012

For those of you who do not follow my personal Youtube channel, part of a joint effort with Military History Visualised about getting attacked by aircraft.

 



The_Chieftain #224 Posted 24 June 2018 - 07:56 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Military Specialist
  • 0 battles
  • 353
  • Member since:
    07-15-2012
Anyone got the name of the current US Army liaison officer in Puckapunyal?

Jarms #225 Posted 17 July 2018 - 09:12 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 13028 battles
  • 662
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

 

There’s a couple of misconceptions about the AC series there. By the 66th tank we had a better engine(s), which was more powerful (at 397hp) and far more reliable. The new perrier-cadillac was somewhat comparable to the US A-57 multibank (once it's kinks were worked out). We also improved the firepower and armour layout. It’s just a shame production stopped here.

 

To flat out claim a 70 inch turret ring is impossible is a little insulting. The AC E1 17-Pdr test-bed had a 64 inch turret ring on an AC I hull. It’s not impossible to assume they could squeeze in a few more inches by redesigning the top hull, which we also planned to do. To give a comparison the M4A1 Sherman had a width of 103 inches (2.62 metres) with a 69 inch turret ring. Whilst the AC I had a width of 108.875 inches (2.77 metres), and this is still the AC I we're talking about not a vehicle specifically designed to accommodate one. Definitely not impossible.



pokeranger24 #226 Posted 24 July 2018 - 11:54 PM

    Dark Meister of Tanks

  • Member
  • 9616 battles
  • 864
  • [SPIDA] SPIDA
  • Member since:
    11-04-2016

A while back Chieftain and Military Aviation History did a video together but for some reason I cant find it on my Watch Later list and same goes to their respective channels

 

Does anyone has a link to the video or was it taken down ?

 

No need found it..........


Edited by pokeranger24, 25 July 2018 - 01:04 AM.

The Great Overlords of Wargaming have bestowed me with the Title of Dark Meister of Tanks, The controller of RNG and MM

 

Thou must shout my name if you want favorable RNG and MM


The_Chieftain #227 Posted 02 August 2018 - 10:07 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Military Specialist
  • 0 battles
  • 353
  • Member since:
    07-15-2012
I take your point, Jarms, but then Centurion, the first tank designed from the ground up to properly handle the 17pr, is 'only a couple of' (OK, five) inches bigger in the ring than Sherman, and Sherman's installation of the 17pr was of questionable satisfaction. I would argue that it's not merely the turret ring, but also the turret basket which is of some import, which is why although the turret ring itself is only 5 inches difference, the Centurion's width is far more substantial at 30 inches wider, and why Centurion feels a whole lot more than only 5" more roomy in the turret. Sure, it's possible to simply design a much wider AC, but at that point you're almost talking an entirely new vehicle. An overhanging turret ring is not going to be a particularly good solution. Will it work mechanically? Probably. Will it be effective? Probably not.

MaximumSomething #228 Posted 02 August 2018 - 07:55 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 9571 battles
  • 77
  • Member since:
    09-06-2014

View PostThe_Chieftain, on 02 August 2018 - 10:07 AM, said:

I take your point, Jarms, but then Centurion, the first tank designed from the ground up to properly handle the 17pr, is 'only a couple of' (OK, five) inches bigger in the ring than Sherman, and Sherman's installation of the 17pr was of questionable satisfaction. I would argue that it's not merely the turret ring, but also the turret basket which is of some import, which is why although the turret ring itself is only 5 inches difference, the Centurion's width is far more substantial at 30 inches wider, and why Centurion feels a whole lot more than only 5" more roomy in the turret. Sure, it's possible to simply design a much wider AC, but at that point you're almost talking an entirely new vehicle. An overhanging turret ring is not going to be a particularly good solution. Will it work mechanically? Probably. Will it be effective? Probably not.

 

But the Centurion turret ring does overhang the hull, mostly it seems because it is bolted on top of the hull rather than in the hull, and then concealed under the turret, and the sloped hull sides help to a degree. A quick google turns up photos of various tanks where the shape of the top of the hull is modified in some way to permit a larger turret ring than would ordinarily fit the upper hull width, the M48 and the M60 do this, T-55 and T-62, photos of the M1 hull shows some interesting shaping to deal with the width of the turret ring structure vs the narrowness of the hull between the tracks. The Chieftain you could make an argument either way, does it have sponsons by design, or is it a coincidence that they widen the hull right where it needs it to to fit the turret ring? Tinkering with the hull top to allow overhanging the turret ring structure to one degree or another seems to be a perfectly reasonable engineering solution, if it wasn't it wouldn't be common enough to easily find photos and drawings of it being done. And the AC4 is a whole new tank compared to the Sentinel.

Jarms #229 Posted 29 August 2018 - 10:28 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 13028 battles
  • 662
  • [-KO-] -KO-
  • Member since:
    03-02-2014

 

Hey Chief, 

 

Always forgot to ask you this. Seeing as you didn’t have enough time to cover the American assault/heavy tanks why do you think something as (relatively) simple as the Jumbo didn’t come about sooner?

 

The Jumbo would have shared more mechanical components with the Sherman than the T14 and M6. I’m aware the US did experiment with a few different types of armour packages on the M4, and that the US assault tanks were largely built to British specifications. But wouldn’t the Jumbo meet the same specifications as the T14?



The_Chieftain #230 Posted 29 August 2018 - 11:56 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Military Specialist
  • 0 battles
  • 353
  • Member since:
    07-15-2012
Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen a particular answer to that, beyond nobody though about it. The earlier purpose-designed assault tank, T14, failed miserably. but they only realised that in late 1943 (Aberdeen finished its testing and shipped it to Ft Knox in Nov 43). The idea of the heavy M4 was being tested in Jan 44, so I guess the one came about after the failure of the other.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users