Those of  you who have "played" with British cruisers in WW2 games have no doubt shared my wish that the British had taken their Christie and gone down the same path as the Russian ending up with the sloped armour of the T34.

In a fanciful moment I married a Centurion 1/200 scale turret (30 year old Skytrex )with  Crusader and potentially Cromwell  bodies  and shaped the front armour.  I gave the Crusader a 75mm - but the Cromwell could be an American 76mm

Its only fun, but then  so is VBCW .....  The result is both visually pleasing...and an effect tank for 1942-44.

Has anyone else ever created a fantasy tank or indeed aircraft for a period game?

Hmmm British fantasy tank for WW2.....

One that didn't break down or blow up, had a three man turret with a ring wide enough to allow progressive up gunning over it's life, could mount a decent HV gun, carried armour capable of stopping projectiles bigger than a bullet and had a reasonable turn of speed....


Wasn't that the Centurion? 

Runner up would be the Comet....  any chance of a model, they did see service after all?

The Centurion is my fantasy tank!

Quote from: Sunray on 28 January 2014, 03:48:50 PM
Those of  you who have "played" with British cruisers in WW2 games have no doubt shared my wish that the British had taken their Christie and gone down the same path as the Russian ending up with the sloped armour of the T34.

In a fanciful moment I married a Centurion 1/200 scale turret (30 year old Skytrex )with  Crusader and potentially Cromwell  bodies  and shaped the front armour.  I gave the Crusader a 75mm - but the Cromwell could be an American 76mm

Its only fun, but then  so is VBCW .....  The result is both visually pleasing...and an effect tank for 1942-44.

Has anyone else ever created a fantasy tank or indeed aircraft for a period game?

Picture...or it didn't happen

Quote from: fsn on 01 February 2014, 04:41:34 PM
The Centurion is my fantasy tank!

I think we know that.......

IanS

 

Quote from: ianrs54 on 02 February 2014, 09:25:00 AM
I think we know that.......

IanS

Quote from: DanJ on 01 February 2014, 03:21:58 PM
Hmmm British fantasy tank for WW2.....

One that didn't break down or blow up, had a three man turret with a ring wide enough to allow progressive up gunning over it's life, could mount a decent HV gun, carried armour capable of stopping projectiles bigger than a bullet and had a reasonable turn of speed....


Wasn't that the Centurion?  

Runner up would be the Comet....  any chance of a model, they did see service after all?

No argument with the above.  I would add that the additional heresy in the British design school was the retention of the WW1 style hull machine gun, which negated the potential for using sloped armour.   Add the fatal dichotomy that demanded both infantry tank and a fast cruiser.   Just imagine a Churchill will  a bigger turret ring and sloped armour. (Someone did -it was called the Black Prince.)

The corollaries of these flaws was as Dan has stated. By 1941 the British were unable to match the 50mm gun of the Panzer III or indeed the 75mm of the Pz Iv.
The Comet - when it did arrived in early 1945 was essentially an up gunned Cromwell.  If the Cromwell had been available for the Italian campaign - despite its box shape - it would have been a winner from the start.

So my tank is a wishful  tankers dream that fills that 1941/43 gap.  Images will follow  when grandkids arrive with digital camera.

I do believe that a Comet is in the Pendraken pipeline.

Quote from: Sunray on 02 February 2014, 11:19:28 AM



I do believe that a Comet is in the Pendraken pipeline.

Were still talking about tanks here right?

Quote from: Sunray on 28 January 2014, 03:48:50 PM
Those of  you who have "played" with British cruisers in WW2 games have no doubt shared my wish that the British had taken their Christie and gone down the same path as the Russian ending up with the sloped armour of the T34.

We were just always a year behind everyone else.

I think when we had the Meteor engine we could then produce fast tanks with armour, the 17pdr was as good, and APDS ammunition was a world beater.

Crusader was too small to do much with. If you put a Meteor in it you could slap more armour on but thats about it. When they put a 6pdr in it they had to reduce the turret crew to 2 men.

If we had been a year ahead we would have had 6pdr Cromwells for Alamein, Comets for Normandy, and Cents, Black Princes and (potentially) Tortoise for late '44 and '45. That lot would have been better. OR would it mean the Germans would have tried harder and got rid of PzIV and replaced it and Panther with Panther II? 

I've had similar thoughts regarding kit design but for aircraft. Namely the Westland Whirlwind. A 1940 single seat twin engined cannon armed beast,  that was sentenced to death because Merlin engines were reserved for Spitfires and Hurricanes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Whirlwind_(fighter)

But interesting to muse 

Quote from: Sunray on 02 February 2014, 11:19:28 AMthe additional heresy in the British design school was the retention of the WW1 style hull machine gun, which negated the potential for using sloped armour.

Didn't the T34/76 have a hull machine gun and sloped armour?

I seem to recall that most WWII tanks had hull machine guns, I don't think that design decision was unique to the British.

Sent from my phone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Russell Phillips on 02 February 2014, 11:41:11 AM
Didn't the T34/76 have a hull machine gun and sloped armour?

I seem to recall that most WWII tanks had hull machine guns,

Sent from my phone using Tapatalk

Indeed they did, even the superb fontal  armour of the Panther had a blister for the MG.   However the Brits seemed to "box" the MG  - an antiquated    design with vertical  front plate.   This created a shot trap.  By 1944 the feeling was that the hull MG was redundant, the Centurion benefited from this design flaw being jettisoned.
The Americans retained it in the M47 as late as the 1950s.

Quote from: Sunray on 02 February 2014, 03:09:04 PM
Indeed they did, even the superb fontal  armour of the Panther had a blister for the MG.   However the Brits seemed to "box" the MG  - an antiquated    design with vertical  front plate.   This created a shot trap.  By 1944 the feeling was that the hull MG was redundant, the Centurion benefited from this design flaw being jettisoned.
The Americans retained it in the M47 as late as the 1950s.

Deleting the hull MG also had the benefit of reducing the tank crew to four men which, in theory, meant crew available for more tanks.

Quote from: Hertsblue on 02 February 2014, 05:44:53 PMDeleting the hull MG also had the benefit of reducing the tank crew to four men which, in theory, meant crew available for more tanks.

I thought the hull machine gunner was also the radio operator? Or have I got that wrong? I used to know WWII tanks really well, but I've forgotten a lot of it :-(

Sent from my phone using Tapatalk

On German tanks  the hull machine gunner was the radio op. Same on US tanks up to Lee an Russian tanks. On British ones he was the loader, or gunner if a two man turret. many Crusaders ditched the hull gunner, removing the sub turret. All German tanks up to Tiger I have a flat front plate with the Mg in it.

IanS

Quote from: ianrs54 on 03 February 2014, 07:55:33 AM
On German tanks  the hull machine gunner was the radio op. Same on US tanks up to Lee an Russian tanks. On British ones he was the loader, or gunner if a two man turret. many Crusaders ditched the hull gunner, removing the sub turret. All German tanks up to Tiger I have a flat front plate with the Mg in it.

IanS

Ian's right. That's why the innovation of   T34 was such a shock to the Germans.  Indeed the only saving grace of early  German tank design was the relatively wide turret ring of the Pz III and IV which allowed up gunning.

Counterfactually if Black Prince had been pushed into production the Brits would have had their own version of a Tiger 1.