Jump to content


Photo

More Chieftain's Hatchiness


  • Please log in to reply
219 replies to this topic

#1 Coldsteel

Coldsteel

    Romanes eunt domus

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tasmania, Australia
  • Interests:Tanks. What were you expecting, Underwater Basket Weaving?

Posted 11 July 2018 - 0454 AM

 

The Australian cruiser stuff is easy, they did it exactly the same way the US got a 69" turret ring into the M4. The M4 would seem to have a hull that has an internal clearance of 60", so a 69" turret ring won't fit, except the M4 has sponsons that completely overhang the tracks and it is not a problem. The Sentinel, I absolutely agree, a 70" turret ring is not going to fit, not because side to side but because with the fighting compartment roof dropped like it is to reduce the height of the tank, fore and aft there's not enough room. If the AC1 is Australia's M3 the AC4 is more akin to something like the T20 or T23 it shares the tracks and suspension of the earlier tank and a few other bits but not much else, and on the AC4, and its predecessors for that matter, the air vent's louvres partially overhang the tracks, this means the top of the hull is much wider than the the 64" internal clearance the hull might otherwise limit you to. The turret basket, if one was to be fitted, just needs to initially taper inwards at a sufficient rate that its diameter is less than 64" before it clears the bottom of the hull side air vents, or a inverted conic section needs to be moulded into the hull sides, or something similar.


  • 0

#2 JasonJ

JasonJ

    majideyabai

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,067 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dokodoko?
  • Interests:Being odd and unusual.

Posted 11 July 2018 - 1024 AM

 

:)


  • 0

#3 Coldsteel

Coldsteel

    Romanes eunt domus

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tasmania, Australia
  • Interests:Tanks. What were you expecting, Underwater Basket Weaving?

Posted 11 July 2018 - 1057 AM

 

:)

 

Oh dear, really Lindy? "It is clearly wider than the actual thing so they were lying"? 

 

Admittedly, it's only the earlier 64" turret ring version, but it is an AC4 hull and the turret ring does extend over the sides of the hull by means of the air louvres.

 

Attached File  ac4_64in_hull.jpg   109.81KB   6 downloads


  • 0

#4 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,797 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 11 July 2018 - 1121 AM

Lindy is one of those "mythbusters" that only introduce more myths.


  • 0

#5 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 11 July 2018 - 1145 AM

Um, independent traverse was also on the M3 Stuart, at least the early models.


  • 0

#6 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 11 July 2018 - 1551 PM

And Nick at Tankfest.

https://youtu.be/5M8qd-qDo9E
  • 0

#7 nitflegal

nitflegal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, martial arts

Posted 11 July 2018 - 1819 PM

 

 

:)

 

Oh dear, really Lindy? "It is clearly wider than the actual thing so they were lying"? 

 

Admittedly, it's only the earlier 64" turret ring version, but it is an AC4 hull and the turret ring does extend over the sides of the hull by means of the air louvres.

 

attachicon.gifac4_64in_hull.jpg

 

Where did that drawing come from? I've never seen any actual plans of the proposed AC4 before.


  • 0

#8 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 11 July 2018 - 1839 PM

Looks like an overhang to me.



P03498.009-640x521.jpg1


Edited by rmgill, 11 July 2018 - 1840 PM.

  • 0

#9 Walter_Sobchak

Walter_Sobchak

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grand Rapids MI
  • Interests:Civilian tank and afv enthusiast. Collects 1/72 scale replicas although terrible at building them. Particular interest in post war US tank engines.

Posted 11 July 2018 - 1840 PM

Lindy is one of those "mythbusters" that only introduce more myths.

 

I enjoy his channel and all, but he is more of an story teller and entertainer than he is a serious scholar.  Still, I wish I had as good a camera presence as he does.  


  • 0

#10 JasonJ

JasonJ

    majideyabai

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,067 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dokodoko?
  • Interests:Being odd and unusual.

Posted 11 July 2018 - 1932 PM

Rant mode engage*

hiss boo go away ranter!

No I will not go away and instead rant as I must rant so hear me at risk of myself.

If one is going to evaluate a tank, it really should be compared to the tanks of its time and of its class. The Matilda (II I assume).. slow infantry tank 1938 or something, the Grant is a medium for 1940/41 and the M4 Sherman.. again medium for 1941/42. The Type 95 Ha-Go is 1935 and since day one of development, it was a light tank. So if one was to compare, one should list it along with M2 light tank, Cruiser I, or Panzer II. Among these tanks, I dare say the Type 95 Ha-Go strikes more ir less parity with these.

Japanese primary souces aren't needed for that basic level analysis. So what might it be.. victim to the generalized "Japan was bad at tanks" meta, lazy thinking/lazy research, marketing/entertaining approach to bash something by using common knowledge even if incorrect, or a vendetta against Japanese stuff.. who knows, but whatever it is, its not academic. Now do I really care that much, no not really. And of course, lots of respect to The_Chieftain's work and expertise. He's shown loads of great work. But still going to rant on me precious cute Ha-Go AHhhhhhhhh

Hiss boo you witch, sink him with a boulder! Don't let the door hit you.

:)
  • 0

#11 DogDodger

DogDodger

    Cornre durg dealing ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,475 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WV, USA
  • Interests:tanks, driving, hockey

Posted 11 July 2018 - 2000 PM

Lindy is one of those "mythbusters" that only introduce more myths.

Yep, still not real fond of Lindy.

 

Um, independent traverse was also on the M3 Stuart, at least the early models.

M2A4 as well, unless you were counting that as an early model M3. ;)


  • 0

#12 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 11 July 2018 - 2106 PM

Lindy's OK, I take him with a grain of salt and do indeed learn a thing or two. Still, his 'Spandau' for MG34/42 thing was a bit much...

He and Nick seem to play well off each other.


Edited by shep854, 11 July 2018 - 2107 PM.

  • 0

#13 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,501 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 11 July 2018 - 2115 PM

I can't imagine a conversation with Lindy, I'd be afraid of losing IQ points every five or ten minutes.


Edited by DKTanker, 11 July 2018 - 2115 PM.

  • 0

#14 Manic Moran

Manic Moran

    Mad Irish Tanking Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,506 posts
  • Interests:Blowing things up, scale modelling, wargaming.

Posted 11 July 2018 - 2121 PM

Rant mode engage*

hiss boo go away ranter!

No I will not go away and instead rant as I must rant so hear me at risk of myself.

If one is going to evaluate a tank, it really should be compared to the tanks of its time and of its class. The Matilda (II I assume).. slow infantry tank 1938 or something, the Grant is a medium for 1940/41 and the M4 Sherman.. again medium for 1941/42. The Type 95 Ha-Go is 1935 and since day one of development, it was a light tank. So if one was to compare, one should list it along with M2 light tank, Cruiser I, or Panzer II. Among these tanks, I dare say the Type 95 Ha-Go strikes more ir less parity with these.

Japanese primary souces aren't needed for that basic level analysis. So what might it be.. victim to the generalized "Japan was bad at tanks" meta, lazy thinking/lazy research, marketing/entertaining approach to bash something by using common knowledge even if incorrect, or a vendetta against Japanese stuff.. who knows, but whatever it is, its not academic. Now do I really care that much, no not really. And of course, lots of respect to The_Chieftain's work and expertise. He's shown loads of great work. But still going to rant on me precious cute Ha-Go AHhhhhhhhh

Hiss boo you witch, sink him with a boulder! Don't let the door hit you.

:)

 

It's a reasonable complaint, and as I said, if the other guys don't have tanks at all, it's perfectly good enough. However, if you want to compare with a mid-1930s light tank to go up against, it actually did go up against BTs. For all the issues that the BT series had, I wouldn't brook much argument that the BT was a better light tank. The T-26 is up there as well, and even the Pz-II I think has much merit, over the Type 95, even notwithstanding the obviously entirely different operating environment. That's not to say that Ha-Go doesn't have merit in the suspension design or engine, but is it really on a par with the T-26/LT vz 35 or the likes?


  • 0

#15 JasonJ

JasonJ

    majideyabai

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,067 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dokodoko?
  • Interests:Being odd and unusual.

Posted 11 July 2018 - 2231 PM

Rant mode engage*
hiss boo go away ranter!
No I will not go away and instead rant as I must rant so hear me at risk of myself.
If one is going to evaluate a tank, it really should be compared to the tanks of its time and of its class. The Matilda (II I assume).. slow infantry tank 1938 or something, the Grant is a medium for 1940/41 and the M4 Sherman.. again medium for 1941/42. The Type 95 Ha-Go is 1935 and since day one of development, it was a light tank. So if one was to compare, one should list it along with M2 light tank, Cruiser I, or Panzer II. Among these tanks, I dare say the Type 95 Ha-Go strikes more ir less parity with these.
Japanese primary souces aren't needed for that basic level analysis. So what might it be.. victim to the generalized "Japan was bad at tanks" meta, lazy thinking/lazy research, marketing/entertaining approach to bash something by using common knowledge even if incorrect, or a vendetta against Japanese stuff.. who knows, but whatever it is, its not academic. Now do I really care that much, no not really. And of course, lots of respect to The_Chieftain's work and expertise. He's shown loads of great work. But still going to rant on me precious cute Ha-Go AHhhhhhhhh
Hiss boo you witch, sink him with a boulder! Don't let the door hit you. :)

 
It's a reasonable complaint, and as I said, if the other guys don't have tanks at all, it's perfectly good enough. However, if you want to compare with a mid-1930s light tank to go up against, it actually did go up against BTs. For all the issues that the BT series had, I wouldn't brook much argument that the BT was a better light tank. The T-26 is up there as well, and even the Pz-II I think has much merit, over the Type 95, even notwithstanding the obviously entirely different operating environment. That's not to say that Ha-Go doesn't have merit in the suspension design or engine, but is it really on a par with the T-26/LT vz 35 or the likes?

Its generally in the same class in which the victor will be more likely decided by numbers, tactical situation, crew training, luck, doctrine, etc. The BT-7 is definitely a more capable tank. Although it was more like a main stay medium tank for the Soviet Union, not a light tank. So still a bit like apples and oranges. At the time of Ha-Go's development, IJA's MT was the old Type 89 which the successor was to be the Type 97 Chi-Ha in 1937. So the Soviet tank to compare vs the Ha-Go would be the T-26, not BT-7. Of course strict technical comparison of tanks is of limited interest because of how historical battles matched the tanks up against each other.

Edited by JasonJ, 11 July 2018 - 2237 PM.

  • 0

#16 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 11 July 2018 - 2330 PM

 

Um, independent traverse was also on the M3 Stuart, at least the early models.

M2A4 as well, unless you were counting that as an early model M3. ;)

 

Yeah, true that. 


I just remember studying it when I was at VMMV early in the 2000s for the first or second time. Sat in the turret and took it all in studying all the details. I don't think Alan has an M2. 

 

Hmm, did any of the M3 Mediums have the same facility?  :huh:


Edited by rmgill, 11 July 2018 - 2332 PM.

  • 0

#17 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,797 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 12 July 2018 - 0233 AM

.... The BT-7 is definitely a more capable tank. Although it was more like a main stay medium tank for the Soviet Union, not a light tank.... So still a bit like apples and oranges.

WTF? It was designated "fast" tank for a tactical use and "light" tank for a weight categorization. T-28 was designated as a medium and used as such.

 

 

 

So the Soviet tank to compare vs the Ha-Go would be the T-26, not BT-7.

Why? All were light tanks of the comparable age that faced each other...

 

As for capability, Ha-Go did not even have coax.


  • 0

#18 JasonJ

JasonJ

    majideyabai

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,067 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dokodoko?
  • Interests:Being odd and unusual.

Posted 12 July 2018 - 0421 AM

nm, don't care.

Edited by JasonJ, 12 July 2018 - 0453 AM.

  • 0

#19 Coldsteel

Coldsteel

    Romanes eunt domus

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tasmania, Australia
  • Interests:Tanks. What were you expecting, Underwater Basket Weaving?

Posted 12 July 2018 - 0500 AM

Where did that drawing come from? I've never seen any actual plans of the proposed AC4 before.

 

 

National Australian Archives. Not the original drawings as far as I know, although they might have them too. It's a little sort of A5 sized booklet mostly AC3 some AC1 and that weird looking hull until you notice the Tank AC Mark IV in the corner, then it makes sense.


  • 0

#20 TonyE

TonyE

    I/Kitsap Militia

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,289 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:Them grate steal beest! and, there history.

Posted 12 July 2018 - 0624 AM

We need to get The Chieftain into a Type 95 Ha-Go, preferably one that has both the gun and the turret machinegun intact and in place. :D


  • 0




2 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


    DKTanker