The Stuart/ Honey isn't an under-gunned, under-armoured tank it's a well armed, adequately armoured, tracked scout car.

Given its introduction dates it's a bloody good MBT if only because it's quite likely to be a runner with a working gun as opposed to broken down!

But compared to the A9 and A13 they were used to in the desert, they were a much better tank! The armour was nearly twice as thick, and the top speed was much better, plus an extra mg...

Their tracks are too narrow, these M3's get stuck in the mud when the rasputitsa comes! Their engines guzzle high octane fuel needed by our airforce! They catch fire too easily when hit! No wonder the Americans off-loaded them on to us. Upgraded M5's? Pah!  You can keep them.

Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 19 March 2016, 10:02:58 PM
My therapist made no comment about my irrational hatred of Tony Blair, Tom Cruise, Leonardo de Craprio...

None of those are irrational.

Quote from: toxicpixie on 21 March 2016, 08:06:28 PM
Given its introduction dates it's a bloody good MBT if only because it's quite likely to be a runner with a working gun as opposed to broken down!

The gun is on par with other british tanks in the desert and I think the reliability is the main reason they were liked - they did not break down leaving you in the middle of nowhere in 110F +  heat

Having read the serviceability stats of British armour a couple years ago, exactly that - having 50% runners of a poor tank is better than 0% runners of an equally poor tank

Quote from: Just a few Orcs on 22 March 2016, 11:13:31 AM
The gun is on par with other british tanks in the desert and I think the reliability is the main reason they were liked - they did not break down leaving you in the middle of nowhere in 110F +  heat

True .... they ran out of fuel instead! High speed and short range means you outrun supplies rather easily.

Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics

Tread heads who hijack any thread they encounter and turn it to their own nerdy uses.

People who assume the first few thousand years of warfare somehow eclipse the last few decades. If you're not careful I'll mention Centurions

People who ignore the first 50% of military history 

82.475% of People who moan about % of military history!

That's an oddly specific statistic. I think it's likely dubious, and I dislike dubious cherry picking of stats. See, brought it back to dislikes!

I'm not debating the merits of the Honey. It doesn't matter if it was good , bad or indifferent. I just don't like it. That's why it won't appear in my armies.

I'm the same about the Chieftain, T34, French Old Guard, Hussars in general (give me a light dragoon any day), P47 Thunderbolt, Spads, quadremes, unarmoured elephants, most things starting "irregular" and officers who came up from the ranks.  

These are, as far as I can see it, irrational dislikes. For all that, I still field a Soviet 1941 army with T28's, T35's, KV1's and KV2s. Now yer BT series, I loves me a BT.