Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Yarbles on April 27, 2010, 07:57:24 AM
-
I saw Kenne's objections to another M4 varient and have some sympathy with what he was saying though I realise the M4 version we have is rare and the tank in general had a massive role from a historical perspective.
As a brit I would like to see the Cromwell though it may be a long wait ;)
4000 cromwells built but on 2000 Fireflys though.
I wonder how it would do?
I would think the gun is the same as the basic sherman and would struggle against the others especially the Tiger but probably also the Panzer and T34 maybe even the Firefly except at close range. I believe it might be the fastest tank though.
-
The Cromwell tank was a very nice tank. Had a British OQF 75mm cannon. Max speed was 40 miles per hour and had 76mm of armor. Not a bad tank. Even the Crusader would be nice... Gotta love those British Cruiser tanks eh? :aok specifically designed to fight on their own away from the infantry and ISTs... Compare it to the M4A3 75mm and 76mm and you have a close match in firepower somewhere in between the 75 and 76 american guns. Speed is faster than the stupid T34s too... Great tank overall... But i'd rather the M-18 :D
-
... But i'd rather the M-18 :D
Anything that can fly and mont a machine gun would kill it ;)
-
Anything that can fly and mont a machine gun would kill it ;)
bah...nobody would catch me :aok i score kills in the M8 all the time and yes...i do get killed by more planes than GVs in the darn thing but the M-18 has heavier armor so .30 .303. and .50 wont kill it cept the turret. 20mil may not even be able to kill the M-18. and the thing is exactly my style of GV fighting. shoot and scoot. With the M8 i flank panzers daily and score streaks of 6-8 in them. i cant even get a kill streak of 5 in a pnzr nowadays...used to but the M8 is my thing so the M18 would be too
Edit: back to subject. if you put this into the wishlist ill +1 it
-
Well, the Comet would then also be preferred. Fast and leathal, and much better armoured than an m-8
-
Well, the Comet would then also be preferred. Fast and leathal, and much better armoured than an m-8
comet wasn't THAT fast only maxed out at 32mph actually when the M-18 maxed out at SIXTY :aok it also used a torsion bar suspension on a light chassis allowing speed turning on dimes... the thing only weighed out at 17.7 tons. It was the fastest tracked vehicle of WWII bar none
-
I do not have my sources in near me, but iirc the bulk of the Cromwells had the 6lb'er (British 57mm, which was superior to the US 57mm) main gun. It was fast firing, and had decent enough AP ability to deal with the Pzr III/IV, StG's, and other German medium armor. It needed to be dangerously close to the Pzr V and Tiger tanks to be effective. I do not remember any details on the 6lb'ers HE ability.
Speed of travel and a quick reload for the main gun would be it's two biggest assets in AH. In AH, think of it having the same performance to the Pzr IV in terms of armor, AP ability, reload speed, but with 15mph more travel speed. Oh, and lets not forget the default skin color would be olive drab GREEN instead of neon tan. :)
-
I do not have my sources in near me, but iirc the bulk of the Cromwells had the 6lb'er (British 57mm, which was superior to the US 57mm) main gun. It was fast firing, and had decent enough AP ability to deal with the Pzr III/IV, StG's, and other German medium armor. It needed to be dangerously close to the Pzr V and Tiger tanks to be effective. I do not remember any details on the 6lb'ers HE ability.
Speed of travel and a quick reload for the main gun would be it's two biggest assets in AH. In AH, think of it having the same performance to the Pzr IV in terms of armor, AP ability, reload speed, but with 15mph more travel speed. Oh, and lets not forget the default skin color would be olive drab GREEN instead of neon tan. :)
Cromwells actually had the 75mm. Crusaders had the 57mm. Yes the Cromwell would be a great addition but i still think there are others such as the M-18 that can fill gaps and be used alot in the MA
-
Open top turrett on the M18 but allot of people would up it for the crack of 60 mph.
Historically I don't think it had a major role though.
The 6lber had no HE round and the cromwell would really have the same gun as the sherman only it would be faster with slightly inferior armour I reckon. Probably more like 32 mph its governed spped.
-
Wasn't the Comet capable of 40, but just used to throw the tracks a lot, so restricted to 32. Consider it as a wep?
Just pondering...
And the gun, same as Firefly with a little less punch due to cartridge storage issues? Am I right?
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Oliver_Cromwell_by_Samuel_Cooper.jpg/493px-Oliver_Cromwell_by_Samuel_Cooper.jpg)
?
-
(British 57mm, which was superior to the US 57mm)
??
The US 57 mm Gun M1 was essentially a MK II British QF 6 pounder, with a slightly higher muzzle velocity due to a longer barrel (the Mk II had the barrel cut down from 50 to 43 calibers).
Ammunition was slightly better for the British (APC and APBC vs straight AP), but there was really little difference in performance on that front.
-
Open top turrett on the M18 but allot of people would up it for the crack of 60 mph.
Historically I don't think it had a major role though.
The 6lber had no HE round and the cromwell would really have the same gun as the sherman only it would be faster with slightly inferior armour I reckon. Probably more like 32 mph its governed spped.
Three M-18 Hellcats held off the German advance at Bastogne by moving at full speed in order to confuse the Germans into thinking they were up against many more vehicles than there actually were...This gave the Americans the time to get settled in and defend until relieved. The Cromwell had less armor compared to the M4A3 but not by much. In fact in my opinion the Cromwell was a better tank than the M4A3
-
In Japan, there's a term "yararemecha."
Lookit up, folks. :D
-
. In fact in my opinion the Cromwell was a better tank than the M4A3
If it has the same gun then I would probably agree. I hope we get it next and ungoverned with a 40mph top speed if that is at all accurate.As it is our tanks perform the same on the road as on the dirt which maybe would be owrth looking at one day.
-
comet wasn't THAT fast only maxed out at 32mph actually when the M-18 maxed out at SIXTY :aok it also used a torsion bar suspension on a light chassis allowing speed turning on dimes... the thing only weighed out at 17.7 tons. It was the fastest tracked vehicle of WWII bar none
Tanks travelling at 60mph are a complete fantasy, they can, same as they can jump over berms and kinfe edges at high speed, normally seen on the manufacturers sales video's. In RL tanks that are jumping ramps at speed would be rendered ineffective in short order, with optics and radio's etc being damaged, gunlaying calibration knocked to hell, not to mention the cut up and bruised crew.
At high speed the greatest threat to crew is the tracks snapping and coming off the rear pulley, and over the top, potentially decapitating the commander/operator. Coupled with the roll potential of a now one tracked high speed 56 tons of steel. Tracks strech considerably in normal use and the potential for pins snapping at speed precludes high speed use.
-
Tanks travelling at 60mph are a complete fantasy, they can, same as they can jump over berms and kinfe edges at high speed, normally seen on the manufacturers sales video's. In RL tanks that are jumping ramps at speed would be rendered ineffective in short order, with optics and radio's etc being damaged, gunlaying calibration knocked to hell, not to mention the cut up and bruised crew.
At high speed the greatest threat to crew is the tracks snapping and coming off the rear pulley, and over the top, potentially decapitating the commander/operator. Coupled with the roll potential of a now one tracked high speed 56 tons of steel. Tracks strech considerably in normal use and the potential for pins snapping at speed precludes high speed use.
I'm guessing you have never driven a combat tank. I have only test experience in the Abrams but I got a lot of time driving the M60-A1 and the M-88 tank retriever, in the desert at higher than combat speeds...40-50 mph across the desert...never threw a track, never broke one, broke a torsion bar once when we rolled over a large boulder...a lot of tankers did break things, especially the dipstick reservists because they didn't know how to operate the things at high speeds.
None of my crew suffered an injury during our runs...and if you had a good driver, you could sit on top of the commander's cupola fairly easily.
The M1 Abrams is a much better tank and 45-55 mph off road...it has a very good suspension system...you have to really jerk it around off road to break or throw a track.
312BAR is just looking at the maximum road speed...cross country speed was dependent on the terrain, and rarely exceeded 45 mph even in vehicles that could go that fast, nobody wanted to break down and take a chance on getting caught by the enemy...unless they were being fired on, then the basic rule was, get it in gear and move.
-
Crusader and Cromwell, hell yes :aok
Gun wise there was some overlap between the two vehicles.. 6pdr insalled in the last versions of Crusader(90% had 2pdr), and first versions of Cromwell. But Crommy was upgunned to 75mm ASAP.. Had the GV version of the Merlin engine too, :cheers:
Love all the cruiser tanks :aok
RC
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Oliver_Cromwell_by_Samuel_Cooper.jpg/493px-Oliver_Cromwell_by_Samuel_Cooper.jpg)
?
Exactly - both underarmed AND underarmored...
Give me the Nashorn, Wespe, and Hummel. I only expect to have to look at the enemy with the first one.
-
I'm guessing you have never driven a combat tank. I have only test experience in the Abrams but I got a lot of time driving the M60-A1 and the M-88 tank retriever, in the desert at higher than combat speeds...40-50 mph across the desert...never threw a track, never broke one, broke a torsion bar once when we rolled over a large boulder...a lot of tankers did break things, especially the dipstick reservists because they didn't know how to operate the things at high speeds.
None of my crew suffered an injury during our runs...and if you had a good driver, you could sit on top of the commander's cupola fairly easily.
The M1 Abrams is a much better tank and 45-55 mph off road...it has a very good suspension system...you have to really jerk it around off road to break or throw a track.
312BAR is just looking at the maximum road speed...cross country speed was dependent on the terrain, and rarely exceeded 45 mph even in vehicles that could go that fast, nobody wanted to break down and take a chance on getting caught by the enemy...unless they were being fired on, then the basic rule was, get it in gear and move.
Not much experience. Six years on cheiftan, challenger 1 and 2, some scimitar and scorpion experience. So no not really.
-
Not much experience. Six years on cheiftan, challenger 1 and 2, some scimitar and scorpion experience. So no not really.
So, did you ever have a track decapitation occur in one of your units?
Second question: I recall, on a trip to DRS industries down in Huntsville, looking over their optics/electronics/sensors cases - ALL of which were seriously hardened (thick, multipoint attachment cases with isolation for the contents) to protect their contents from the high-freq Buzz that spikes through a tanks shell when it gets HAMMERED by an incoming shell.
Do you honestly expect me to believe that you can't drive a Challenger at 60 for fear of damaging the delicate guts of such a sensitive beast?
I.e., I'm calling bull-flicking-cheetos on that assertion.
This here is the Challenger MBT. It's one of the best MBTs in the world and feature reactive armor that can defeat most shaped charges as well as a rifled 120mm gun that can reach out and penetrate hardened steel at fearsome distances.. We'd let you crawl around in it but we're worried you might bweak it.
-
??
The US 57 mm Gun M1 was essentially a MK II British QF 6 pounder, with a slightly higher muzzle velocity due to a longer barrel (the Mk II had the barrel cut down from 50 to 43 calibers).
Ammunition was slightly better for the British (APC and APBC vs straight AP), but there was really little difference in performance on that front.
I'd like my 6LBer to travel about 350 mph and to be sticking out the front of that beautiful new Mossie! :aok
:salute
-
Do you honestly expect me to believe that you can't drive a Challenger at 60 for fear of damaging the delicate guts of such a sensitive beast?
Seeing as we're discussing WWII equipment and not Modern Warfare systems, I would say yes. I can't remember which tank it was (as I was on a reading spree), but it was one of the German light tanks; one of its downsides was that after cresting more than a small bump, the gun needed recalibration. Having looked at the images of the Tigers in restoration, I don't see much "hardened" equipment in there; regular radios and somewhat specialized optics. Comparing a digital-age beast of a tank with composite armor to a 40's rolled steel can seems a bit silly to me.
-
Seeing as we're discussing WWII equipment and not Modern Warfare systems, I would say yes. I can't remember which tank it was (as I was on a reading spree), but it was one of the German light tanks; one of its downsides was that after cresting more than a small bump, the gun needed recalibration. Having looked at the images of the Tigers in restoration, I don't see much "hardened" equipment in there; regular radios and somewhat specialized optics. Comparing a digital-age beast of a tank with composite armor to a 40's rolled steel can seems a bit silly to me.
It WOULD if anyone were doing it - but no one is. My questions are in response to Danny 76 - who claims time in the Challenger and Chieftain and also claims they can't be driven at those speeds without screwing things up. You lost the plot, OOZ - as do any of us when we don't read the full post (yes, I've done it too before).
As I say, those modules I was looking at in Huntsville were for the M1A1 - a contemporary of the Challenger, and they were hardened and isolated.
Worst case, we're guilty of a highjack.
-
I was addressing both of you.
You lost the plot, OOZ - as do any of us when we don't read the full post (yes, I've done it too before).
I make it clear in my post when I only read partial posts or threads.
-
It WOULD if anyone were doing it - but no one is. My questions are in response to Danny 76 - who claims time in the Challenger and Chieftain and also claims they can't be driven at those speeds without screwing things up. You lost the plot, OOZ - as do any of us when we don't read the full post (yes, I've done it too before).
As I say, those modules I was looking at in Huntsville were for the M1A1 - a contemporary of the Challenger, and they were hardened and isolated.
Worst case, we're guilty of a highjack.
The Challenger 2 has a 12-cylinder, 1,200hp Perkins Caterpillar CV12 diesel engine and a David Brown TN54 gearbox, with six forward and two reverse gears. Second-generation Hydrogas suspension and hydraulic track tensioner are fitted. The maximum speed by road is 36mph and 25mph cross country. The range is given as 450km by road and 250km cross country
Case rested
-
I'm guessing you have never driven a combat tank. I have only test experience in the Abrams but I got a lot of time driving the M60-A1 and the M-88 tank retriever, in the desert at higher than combat speeds...40-50 mph across the desert...never threw a track, never broke one, broke a torsion bar once when we rolled over a large boulder...a lot of tankers did break things, especially the dipstick reservists because they didn't know how to operate the things at high speeds.
None of my crew suffered an injury during our runs...and if you had a good driver, you could sit on top of the commander's cupola fairly easily.
The M1 Abrams is a much better tank and 45-55 mph off road...it has a very good suspension system...you have to really jerk it around off road to break or throw a track.
312BAR is just looking at the maximum road speed...cross country speed was dependent on the terrain, and rarely exceeded 45 mph even in vehicles that could go that fast, nobody wanted to break down and take a chance on getting caught by the enemy...unless they were being fired on, then the basic rule was, get it in gear and move.
You really mean to tell me you have been in a cross country 50mph drive in an m88 which has a maximum speed of 26 mph or in an m60 a1 with a maximum speed of 30 mph? Or better still in a n M1 Abrams ( top speed 42mph on road, 30mph ccross country?
I do believe that you and other posters here are having issues with kph and mph :frown:
The World's Fastest Tank. (Digest). (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+World%27s+Fastest+Tank.+%28Digest%29-a090257001)
-
I'd like my 6LBer to travel about 350 mph and to be sticking out the front of that beautiful new Mossie! :aok
:salute
This. :P
-
I was addressing both of you.
I make it clear in my post when I only read partial posts or threads.
Yet you made no such statement here.
Danny and I were both writing about modern tanks. I fail to see where you got the impression either of us were comparing modern tanks to WWII-vintage tanks.
-
The Challenger 2 has a 12-cylinder, 1,200hp Perkins Caterpillar CV12 diesel engine and a David Brown TN54 gearbox, with six forward and two reverse gears. Second-generation Hydrogas suspension and hydraulic track tensioner are fitted. The maximum speed by road is 36mph and 25mph cross country. The range is given as 450km by road and 250km cross country
Case rested
I'll accept your case regarding the top speed of the Challenger. It's a bit ponderous, isn't it?
As for your original case: "Tanks travelling at 60mph are a complete fantasy, they can, same as they can jump over berms and kinfe edges at high speed, normally seen on the manufacturers sales video's. In RL tanks that are jumping ramps at speed would be rendered ineffective in short order, with optics and radio's etc being damaged, gunlaying calibration knocked to hell, not to mention the cut up and bruised crew."
I still call "dookies" since your stated reason had nothing to do with the tank's top speed. Further, I think it's well established the the M1A does something like exactly that - travelling at 50-55MPH with impunity.
-
Really? Established where?
Wikipedia thinks:
The M1 Abrams is powered by a 1,500 shaft horsepower (1,100 kW) Honeywell AGT 1500 (originally made by Lycoming) gas turbine, and a six speed (four forward, two reverse) Allison X-1100-3B Hydro-Kinetic automatic transmission, giving it a governed top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h) on paved roads, and 30 mph (48 km/h) cross-country. With the engine governor removed, speeds of around 60 mph (97 km/h) are possible on an improved surface; however, damage to the drive train (especially to the tracks) and an increased risk of injuries to the crew can occur at speeds above 45 mph (72 km/h). The tank for all intents and purposes was built around this engine.[26] The tank can be fueled with diesel fuel, kerosene, any grade of motor gasoline, JP-4 jet fuel, or JP-8 jet fuel; the US Army uses JP-8 jet fuel in order to simplify logistics. The Royal Australian Armoured Corps' M1A1 AIM SA uses diesel fuel; it is cheaper and makes practical sense for Australian military logistics.
The world speed record for a tank is actually not held by a tank but by a relatively lightweight CVRT, under controlled conditions on superior surfaces, and just scrapes over 60mph
I wasn't making this stuff up :aok
-
Okay, Danny, you've done it. I've checked you at the army site and they do, in fact, echo the Wiki citation. It is established that the Abrams can do 60 - but not with impunity. That qualification is critical to the argument.
I think that, at this point, we could give Gyrene the benfit of the doubt since he states that the M1 can do "40-50 across the desert". His assertion about "45-55mph off road", however, looks to be either pure fantasy or some Marines committing a bit of a no-no.
BTW, I'm surprised they didn't give the Challenger better speed.
I expect lousy speeds from the M60 since everyone knows that that thing is a piece of crap - and has been since the day it was first designed. Nowadays, I think they've got a reactive overlay. It makes it look like the kluge job it is.
-
I've never had any close hand experience with the Abrams, only UK av's, I was merely going off British Army warnings and doctrine about recommended vehicle speeds. I did one see a pic at Bovington of a Chieftan Commanders hatch that had actually received significant damage from a flailing high speed track, then again despite trying i cannot find it, and having crewed Chieftans in training I think the possibility of one getting to high speed without breaking down within 4 yards of the tank park, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary I would have to concede this may be spurious.
:salute PJ Godzilla.
-
As for the Cromwell, I'll also cite Wiki:
The Cromwell was the fastest British tank to serve in the Second World War[citation needed], with a top (ungoverned) speed of 40 mph (64 km/h). However this speed proved too much for even the Christie suspension and the engine was governed to give a top speed of 32 mph (51 km/h), which was still fast for its time. Thanks to its Christie parentage the Cromwell was very agile on the battlefield. The dual purpose 75 mm main gun fired the same ammunition as the US 75 mm gun and therefore it had around the same HE and armour-piercing capabilities as the 75 mm equipped Sherman tank. The armour on the Cromwell ranged from 8 mm up to 76 mm thick overall. However, on all-welded vehicles built by BRCW Co. Ltd, the weight saved by the welding allowed for the fitting of appliqué armour plates on the nose, vertical drivers' plate and turret front, increasing the maximum thickness to 102 mm. In period photos, these vehicles are identified by their War Department numbers carrying the suffix W, i.e. T121710W. This armour compared well with that of the Sherman although the Cromwell did not share the Sherman’s sloped glacis plate. The Cromwell crews in North-West Europe succeeded in outflanking the heavier and more sluggish German tanks with superior speed, manoeuvrability and reliability. However, the Cromwell was still not a match for the best German armour and British tank design would go through another stage, the Comet tank, before going ahead in the tank development race with the Centurion tank.
I still think of it as a bit of a Sherman-level pos on an individual basis. Comet and Pershing are genuine late-war monsters, competitive 1:1 with the Panther. This, though, is a pos, plain and simple. I also read that most of the cruiser-type tanks suffered reliability issues.
Anyway, I'd say add it. It's a POS and would make a nice target. We probably need the Panter as well. And what about the total dearth of indirect-fire weapons (imagine shelling a base from the comfort of an SP155mm gun)? That should rile up the hornet's nest and motivate larger numbers of attack craft in the air at any given time. What about the absence of assault guns like the StuGs and SUs? I magine using an SU152 on ANYTHING. "Clearly, even low velocity weapons of large caliber can still do considerable damage to tanks".
I remember that as the caption beneath the photo of a PzIV that had been literally spread across the snow by a direct hit from an SU-152. The turret was upside down and displaced from the hull by more that the length of the hull - itself looking oddly disassembled.
More is better. HTC can do little wrong by adding just about anything.
-
+1 on the arty.
Would add a significant scope to AH both in the assault and defensive role :pray
-
BACK ON SUBJECT...ish...
312BAR is just looking at the maximum road speed...cross country speed was dependent on the terrain, and rarely exceeded 45 mph even in vehicles that could go that fast, nobody wanted to break down and take a chance on getting caught by the enemy...unless they were being fired on, then the basic rule was, get it in gear and move.
here it comes gyrene...wait for it.......waaaiiitttt..... "its a game" and btw 45mph is still faster than any tracked vehicle in here...although the M3 goes max at what in game? 60mph? :headscratch: and by the way, any tank in WWII needed to recalibrate if hitting bumps at speed, they had no electronic gunsights to auto level like the M1 and such MBTs of the modern era do... guess what? they dont in the game so why would the M-18 need it anyways? 3rd... Cromwell +11111 and an eleven too
-
There was some Shermans with gyro stabilized guns.
-
Yeah, yeah, nobody cares about that crap.
We've moved on. I'm starting a new thread about artillery and how it's so essential.