Christie-suspension British Cruiser Tanks

[dy031101]

Question: why did the Comet end up being produced in A34 configuration with the less powerful 77mm HV instead of the 17-pounder armed A44?

Were the 17-pounder shells that difficult to handle in a tank?

[nev]

You are correct that it had a lower muzzle velocity and yes, a smaller shell.  To put the size into context, on the Sherman Firefly they had to remove the hull machine gunner to find a place to store ammo, and if they wanted to reload the racks in the turret then the rounds had to taken out of the hull top hatch then passed up to and in through the turret top hatch - not something you wanted to do in combat!  The Comet like the Sherman was a small-medium sized tank.

[nev]

For those who might be interested, this months Military Modelling has a nice article converting the Tamiya Centaur to an A24 Cavalier using the Cromwell Models conversion. 

The author finishes it as a plain green fresh-out-of-the-factory, but I can't help but wondering what it would look like in Desert Camo.  The initial order was for 500, but the tank was cancelled after only a few had been built, seeing service mainly in training roles, though a few were converted to ARVs and command tanks.  Britain was so desperate for any kind of war material in the first half of the war, could they afford to ignore a tank with a half-decent gun and armour, no matter how underpowered?  If not the desert, how about the far East?  Repository of all weapons not deemed good enough for Europe.

[rickshaw]

Question: why did the Comet end up being produced in A34 configuration with the less powerful 77mm HV instead of the 17-pounder armed A44?

Were the 17-pounder shells that difficult to handle in a tank?

From Tony William's website:



The 76x420R is the 77mm, the 76x583R is the 17 pdr (with APDS).

As you can see, the 77mm cartridge case is significantly shorter and broader

[Weaver]

Apologies if these already have a thread, but I couldn't find one.

So what can you do with these then, whiff-wise?

One idea I had (originally on the Sherman thread) was to make a proper WWII APC out of a Crusader (or any of these) like this:

1. Move the drive sprocket to the front

2. Jack up the upper hull with spacer pieces to gove more headroom,

3. Move the engine deck to the middle, either occupying the whole width or with a tunnel down one side,

4. Add a new rear plate and roof with doors/ramp/hatches to taste.

The early Crusader is particularly suitable since it has the small MG turret next to the driver, but any of them would do. You could always add the twin gun turret from  Vickers Mk.VI light tank or a Humber armoured car for extra firepower. Of course, such a vehicle wouldn't be ideal, particularly if the engine occupied the whole width, cutting the driver and gunner off from the crew compartment, but that would be credible for the time.

[nev]

Pretty sure there is a thread, but I'm sure Jeffry will be along soon to tidy up (rather like the Noo-noo )

[dy031101]

What's the turret ring diametre of the Cromwell and its Charioteer variant?

(...... I wonder what else we can put the Charioteer turret on......)

[dy031101]

The enclosed is not a proper mental picture yet, but I have a rough idea of a reverse-engineered Challenger or Avenger (i.e. lengthened Cromwell) cruiser tank hull coupled with a relatively more-modern turret armed with a 90mm and later 105mm gun (or a 90mm gun with backup ATGMs).

The Leopard 1 turret is a random choice (although I was influenced by theme of an embargo-sufferer in my head when I cooked this one up; now I wonder if the French AMX-30 turret might have been easier to work out).  If there is another turret more suitable (easier to gain access to or to copy, less weighty, with a more-sensible turret ring size, etc.), please do suggest one.

Other comments and suggestions are also welcomed.

[dy031101]

Another quick-and-dirty pieced-together rough idea, this time involving an AMX-30 turret (which I do have in my "digital stash", potentially making my life easier should I incorporate the whole thing into my wish list  ).

[NARSES2]

That makes for a very good looking vehicle 

[rickshaw]

You are aware that the Challenger had problems with manoeuvrability?   The length to width ratio (mentioned in the landships thread) was wrong.  Indeed it was where it's importance was first discovered.  The result was that it was too long and the hull too narrow and had troubles turning.  The Avenger OTOH, cured that by widening the hull.

[dy031101]

I haven't found a line drawing for the Avenger (the prefered choice for a basis) yet  , so I just stretched the Cromwell hull for the rough draft.

Did the Avenger actually go into service?  The Wikipedia claimed that it did post-WWII, but other online references claimed that it never got past prototype stage.

[dy031101]

Another rough draft of the reverse-engineered and then upgunned Avenger/Stretched-Cromwell, this time with a T-55 Enigma turret. 

[NARSES2]

Did the Avenger actually go into service?  The Wikipedia claimed that it did post-WWII, but other online references claimed that it never got past prototype stage.

My ref has 2 RA SP batteries being equiped post war plus it was used in training. Remained in service until the 1950's.

[dy031101]

I found the shape of the Ikv-91 turret to make an asthetically-pleasing combination, too.

The image represents the turret size that I want for now (so the turret therefore it isn't to real-world original proportion).  I want to upgrade the reverse-engineered Avenger to a standard close to the T-54/55, so think of the choice of gun as initially either an US 90mm or a Soviet 100mm......

Should I scale up the turret further?  Comments and suggestions are welcomed.

(Now I feel like making the next victim of my brainstorming the Excelsior tank...... if I can find a good drawing for a rough draft  )