• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About Sabrean

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Mainly WW2 British stuff.
  1. tanks/vehicles

    You seem to have missed a key part of the meaning of what I said. Let me explain: To quote the Oxford Dictionary, emphasis mine, this is the definition for supposedly: So you see that I did not come here "pretending it was true", I even expressed my own doubt with regards to the credibility of the post because of its lack of citations. However, I should still say that so far your posts are no more reliable than that one I linked, since your only citations thus far have been general Wikipedia articles that do not go into sufficient detail on the subject and "the archive", whatever you mean to refer to by that - could you describe what you mean by that in more detail? Meanwhile, the chap who posted in that link says he had researched and written an article on the subject for a modelling magazine. Not the best possible résumé, and we are taking him at his word - hence my doubt and use of "supposedly" - but given this and the level of detail compared to all other suggestions thus far, it is perhaps the best information we have for the time being. That is, unless some more concrete and detailed sources can be found. (Oh, in case there was any confusion, I wasn't talking about that forum thread in general - it was the final post here. Sadly I did not realise that one could link to specific posts at the time.)
  2. tanks/vehicles

    That's right, yes - not a Crusader AA Mark I. As you'll have seen in that thread there's a few more photos of that kind of vehicle knocking about too, like the fairly well known one with the LCT 220 markings on the hull. That one could definitely be in game, we know the gun mount can depress to at least 0 degrees and it would make a nice lower BR version of the Crusader AA Mark I.
  3. tanks/vehicles

    The proper name for this vehicle is supposedly 20mm SP AA Gun (Tracked), according to a forum post by a chap who once researched and wrote an article for a magazine on the subject of Crusader-based AA guns here. Given the vehicle's roots in the Royal Artillery, this designation does certainly seem about right, when compared to other vehicles they named. According to that same post, this vehicle doesn't actually seem to have been as rare as you'd first think, at least when compared to other late war British SPAA vehicles anyway. It's definitely more common than the Crusader AA Mark I that we have in the regular tree in any case, since that specific version of Crusader-based AA has never been seen outside of trials in the UK. So if this vehicle did get added, it should be in the regular tree for this reason. Well, that and because the British AA line needs all the help it can get.
  4. You've posted a picture of the L/50 6-Pounder Mark IV towed anti-tank gun variant, which is the very version with the muzzle brake that I spoke about earlier. I even posted a picture of that very type of gun in a link in my post! So clearly I already know about it: To reiterate what I already said, that version was not designed for tank use. The wikipedia article you've posted to try and back up your claim even agrees, by saying that the Mark III and Mark V 6-Pounders were the designated tank versions of the gun. It also mentions how the Mark IV was the one to get the muzzle brake, just look at the "Variants" section. Even if your suggestion that the muzzle brake could be added to the tank mounted 6-Pounders was true, it then begs the question as to why one would ever do this in the first place, and whether it would be allowed. Photographic evidence of 6-Pounders mounted in vehicles such as Crusader IIIs with counterweights shows that the mountings could take the recoil force of the gun without the need for a muzzle brake (as that's what a muzzle brake does of course, it lessens the recoil. In comparison, a counterweight helps balance the gun, which is very important, especially for tanks with free elevation like the Crusader III, which apparently used the No.2 free elevation system). Therefore the muzzle brake is unnecessary in this case. You could perhaps suggest that using the muzzle brake could help increase the lifetime of the vehicle, by putting less stress on the mountings. You could also suggest that the muzzle brake helped to take the recoil when firing the APDS rounds that appeared later on - after all, this is supposedly why the muzzle brake was added back on to the 17-Pounder Mark II in 1944. However, if either of these were true it clearly was not a concern as 6-Pounder armed tanks have been photographed with counterweights throughout the war, and they were still using the counterweight even in the post-war period, as shown by this handy post-war photograph of a Churchill III with 6-Pounder Mark V and counterweight on occupation duties in Germany 1945/6: So I maintain that the turret mounted 6-Pounders did not need, and therefore did not use, muzzle brakes. The muzzle brake was only for the Mark IV L/50 towed anti-tank gun, with its different mount.
  5. That's not Cromwell suspension either, just look at the paired road wheel spacing compared to Cromwell's more even spacing. What it does have though is widened Cromwell tracks, which I think is where the myth that it had Cromwell suspension comes from. Apparently the exact suspension type is scissors-action suspension, which certainly explains the paired spacing.
  6. I'm afraid that's not true, not when it comes to turret mounted 6-Pounders. With regards to those, it's honestly quite easy to tell the difference so long as there isn't a cover over the end of the gun. You seem to be getting a bit mixed up with the 6-Pounder Mark IV, which out of the 5 different versions of 6-Pounder is the only one to have a muzzle brake, and so it does look similar to that of the QF 75mm. However, this 6-Pounder version was designed as a towed anti-tank gun and so would not be found mounted in a turret such as on the Staghound III, as it didn't have the right mountings. Therefore it is rather irrelevant. When it comes to 6-Pounders mounted in tank turrets, there are only 2 versions designed for this: The 6-Pounder Mark III and the 6-Pounder Mark V. Neither of these have a muzzle brake at all, they instead have a large counterweight. Styles vary, but none of them look anything like the muzzle brake in question. Here's a rough guide I quickly whipped up for the main versions you'll find on British vehicles: Based off these recognition features, all Staghound III photos I've seen have 75mms. Heck, just compare them to images of Crusader IIIs, you can clearly see the differences. The single baffle in the 75mm's muzzle brake is always a good giveaway, as you can often see through it to the background from the end of the barrel like so: In comparison, here's the solid counterweight of a 6-Pounder Mark V:
  7. I'm not so sure that Staghound Mark IIIs with 6-Pounders were ever actually completed as such - I suspect that replacing the 6-Pounder from the Crusader turret with the 75mm was a standard part of the conversion process to make the Mark IIIs. Now admittedly I've not ever really spent a great deal of time looking up Staghounds, and so I'm willing to be corrected by something more concrete like a photograph I've missed, but every photographed Staghound Mark III I've ever seen has the 75mm as indicated by the muzzle brake, with the exception of a survivor in Canada that has a fake gun barrel. The only 6-Pounder Staghounds I've seen at all are always model kits rather than photographs of real vehicles, such as the one in one of your sources, and modellers aren't exactly a good source. I've found the War Wheels Website is normally a good resource on Armoured Cars, and its articles generally appear to be very well sourced, using official period reports - you can't really get any better than that, not when it comes to text based sources anyway. This article on 1945 Armoured Car production, which it says is based on information from the Royal Armoured Corps half-yearly report for mid-1945, has a detailed description of the Staghound III, and seems to suggest that the Staghound III always had the 75mm, saying: Based on this, and the lack of photographs of 6-Pounder Staghounds, I think it's fair to say that most if not all Staghound IIIs had 75mms, instead of 75mms simply being "some" of them. So I'm not really in favour of a 6-Pounder Staghound III being added. The others you listed are mostly fine though, they all certainly existed at least. I should note though that whilst most photos of Staghound IIIs do show that the bow machine gun was removed, there's a couple that still have it - these appear to be photos of the prototype, and of Lebanon's Staghounds which apparently were unique conversions. So it's fair to say the version with the bow MG deleted is the official British in-service version, and the one that should be added.
  8. I'm not so sure, I mean first off I'm not sure the HE/GP hollow charge RP-3s were used or even in produced in WW2 - I thought the rockets the Tulips used were the HE/SAP ones, which to my understanding are not a hollow charge HEAT warhead like the HE/GP but instead something more akin to simply HE, allowing them to fulfill their intended role on the tulips of stunning and demoralising enemy troops. Therefore I reckon that the RP-3 being the 3-inch entry in WWII Ballistics is more unlikely than it simply being some form of conventionally fired HEAT shell. Whether that entry is actually for the QF 3-inch howitzer or some other 3-inch gun though, or even for another calibre gun entirely like say the 3.7 inch howitzer, could be up for debate - I'm not saying WWII Ballistics is infallible, there's certainly a few mistakes in its section on British vehicles' armour for example. It just seems to me that it being for an RP-3 seems a tad far-fetched, although I'm happy to be proven wrong by something more concrete. Whilst admittedly I don't have any proper written sources on RP-3s, seems the best source I can find on the internet on the subject, that website's normally fairly decent - it certainly does a lot better on British tank armour than most. That site gives 198mm for the hollow charge RP-3, which is significantly different from the mystery 3-inch HEAT's 75mm. Sadly no figures for HE/SAP penetration is given, perhaps that can be found elsewhere. Well when it comes to the Littlejohn adapter, Time4Tea already posted the penetration values for it from World War II Ballistics: Armour and Gunnery by Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert D. Livingstone. Otherwise, there's a fair amount of info on it knocking around. The Wikipedia article on it actually seems pretty decent. looks to have good info on it too. It's also mentioned in the penetration test documents Mercedes4321 recently posted in your A24 thread. I'm sure there's plenty more out there too. As for the CS Daimler, it is indeed trickier, I haven't be able to find any photos of it in the IWM collections anyway. A quick google search brings up this, and if the label is trustworthy and it is indeed a verified photo from Bovington archives it's still not too useful for anything but verifying the CS Daimler existed, as it's rather blurry. That the image is from an alternate history forum does set off some alarm bells, but a quick read of the context suggests it was posted as part of a proper discussion, rather than as an attempt to make something up. Still, for what it's worth there's a Tetrarch CS at Bovington which in theory has the same gun and a very similar if not identical turret according to the Bovington article on it. So take the turret off that and plonk it on the Daimler and that should be a decent representation at the least. The Bovington article on their Daimler II suggests British Tanks and Fighting Vehicles 1914-1945; B.T. White; SBN 7110 0123 5; Ian Allan, London, 1970 as further reading on the subject of Daimler armoured cars. I don't have a copy of this book, but it might be something to try and look up.
  9. An iconic vehicle that saw lots of service, when we get armoured cars the Mark I should definitely be included. There's arguably another sub-variant by the way - the Daimler is known to have used the Littlejohn adapter for the 2-Pounder in combat, unlike most other 2-Pounder armed vehicles. This photo, apparently taken during Operation Market Garden, is of a Daimler from Guards Armoured Division fitted with the LittleJohn adapter: Here's another photo of one during WW2 from the Imperial War Museum Collection. Since when fitted with the Littlejohn the 2-Pounder could only fire its special APCNR ammo, and since it visually changes the barrel quite significantly, I reckon we should get a Daimler with the Littlejohn adapter as a separate vehicle to the standard one. Should be rather potent too - If I remember right it gives it similar penetration values to the 6-Pounder firing conventional ammo types. No idea what kind of post-penetration effects it would have in game though. On the subject of that CS Daimler with a 76mm, if that's the gun I think it is (The QF 3-inch howitzer, as used on early British tanks like the Matilda II CS and the Churchill I) then whether it should be added depends on its ammunition load. To my knowledge the 3-inch equipped CS tanks that saw action only ever used smoke and HE rounds, and so if it was equipped accurately as such in War Thunder it would be rather useless. However, supposedly an experimental HEAT round may have been developed. WWII Ballistics: Armour and Gunnery does list a 3-inch HEAT round and gives it 75mm of penetration against a vertical plate at all ranges. If this round did indeed exist, and it was given to the 3-inch howitzer in game, then the CS Daimler could be added. I suppose the question then becomes whether it should be allowed to have such a round. Given that many US 75mm armed tanks in game have access to their experimental APCR rounds, I don't think this would be much of a problem.
  10. Apparently according to the Imperial War Museum that photograph you have is actually an A27L Centaur. To be fair though, it's normally hard to tell as the main visual difference between A27s and A24s is at the rear, as A24s have a Crusader style rear end with the exhaust vents pointing downwards: Similarly your cross-section diagrams are also not of an A24 Cavailer, they're an A27 as they show the early A27 style rear exhaust vent and top engine deck air intake.
  11. I reckon all three should definitely be added when armoured cars are added to WT properly, and I'd love to see these in game.
  12. I've read that article on a few times before, it's indeed an excellent site. Bringing up the 95mm HEAT penetration - David Fletcher's book "Mr Churchill's Tank" also gives 110mm of penetration for it, for what it's worth: Looking at penetration figures for 6-Pounder APDS, supposedly it should penetrate 95mm at 2000 yards, but it will still do 119mm against a vertical plate if is trustworthy. So it would seem that perhaps the 110mm HEAT penetration figure is indeed for a 30 degree plate? It would certainly make sense, since this seems to be how penetration for British rounds was recorded in general. It also has illustrations of the 95mm's rounds along with proper names, which I feel is relevant - the HEAT round is the one on the left, named "Shell H.E.S Mk I", as this is the hollow charge round.
  13. True, but we're missing arguably more important tank variants that would be around the Pz.III/Pz.IV/T-34/Sherman BR ranges anyway, and personally I think these should come first. There's the various unique Churchill variants and sub-variants that all saw combat, there's the Cromwell Vw with its extra armour that fought alongside its thinner skinned brethren, and there could perhaps even be something like one of the mid-production Valentine variants with the 3 man turret and 2-Pounder that saw extensive use. Valid points, I agree it's true that we do have WW2 types that contributed similarly little to the war in game already, and the Centaur I and III were produced in significant numbers - I was more angling towards combat insignificance however, which is fairly important I feel, given that this game is about combat and all. I did say though that I'm not actually against the Centaur I and III being added to the game, and I haven't voted against them because of this. I'm certain they'd be perfectly fine in game, they are pretty much just slower Cromwells after all. It's just that their lack of combat means I think other British tank variants should take priority, before the Centaur I and III. Take the Cromwell Vw for example - produced in far lesser numbers (123 or so), but personally I'd rather see it in game first because of how they saw combat through NW Europe. Some were even present in Villers Bocage, with photos to prove it (note the visible edge of the extra armour next to the hull MG, and the "W" suffix on the registration indicating a welded hull Cromwell), however sadly their extra armour did not save them. Like I say, that's only for the Mark I and III though. When it comes to the Centaur Mark IV and the Centaur AA, I'm all for those getting modelled right away for the reasons already stated. I'll admit though, since the visual and technical differences between Centaurs and Cromwells are rather less than say between a Churchill III and a Churchill I, or even between a Cromwell V and a Cromwell Vw, perhaps my worries about prioritising vehicles is unnecessary, as the Centaurs would probably be incredibly easy to add, provided that Gaijin didn't start from scratch or something.
  14. I definitely think we should get the Centaur IV considering they were the only gun tank Centaurs known to have gone into combat. The important support they provided in Normandy as part of the Royal Marines Support Group is fairly well known, and whilst they probably weren't issued with 95mm HEAT considering their original intended role in the D-Day invasion as artillery rather than as proper tanks, the HEAT round's existence is probably enough to get it in game. Otherwise it'd just have HE rounds and so would be rather useless. We've already got plenty of other howitzer armed tanks slinging HEAT like crazy anyway, so I reckon it'd be fine. I do also think we should get the Centaur AA. Not an important tank historically, but the AA line of the tree needs all the help it can get right now. I reckon it could be a nice alternative to the Crusader AA Mark II, essentially swapping its speed for a bit more armour, a slightly larger hull, and presumably a bit more ammo. When it comes to the Mark I and III though, I'm not sure. Considering how they didn't see combat, and how they spent their lives generally being unreliable and stuck in training, they're not particularly noteworthy historically like the Mark IV and they're not filling out a visibly sparse part of the tree like the Centaur AA. Don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't object to them if they did turn up in game, but considering this and the development team's finite resources I would say that there are other more important British tanks variants we're missing that should be added first. It might be worth noting though that the number of crew and MGs in Centaurs actually varies between 4 and 5 depending on particular tanks. This is because early A27 hulls (the "A Type") had identical driver and hull gunner roof mounted escape hatches, and it was noticed fairly quickly that if the turret was turned in either direction sufficiently then one of these crew members' hatches would always be blocked. As a result it seems that most if not all A27s with the A type hull had a blanking plate put over the hull MG port, and the hull MG gunner was removed, bringing the crew down to 4. The blanking plate would later reappear on Centaur AAs and the Royal Marines' Centaur IVs as these tanks were never really supposed to be close enough to the action to ever need the hull MG, but in the case of the Centaur IV at least it appears that whilst the MG was deleted the extra crewman was retained to help out, as shown in your photo of one such tank. Presumably this was in part because these tanks used the later style hulls with the safer sideways opening hatch. So TL:DR, if a Normandy Centaur IV is modelled then it shouldn't have the hull MG (therefore armament is just the 95mm and one BESA MG), and if a Centaur with both the A type hull and blanking plate is modelled then it should only have 4 crew. Also, as an aside, I wouldn't use those drawings from, at least not as an accurate portrayal anyway. This is because when it comes to the British tanks I know about I've found that their illustrations can get a bit fanciful and inaccurate. Similarly I'd take their worded info with a grain of salt. When it comes to these Centaur images in particular, the Mark I strikes me as odd as it has the range extending fuel tank (suggesting it is early) yet it has the fully horizontal top to the rear exhaust vent (suggesting it was rather late, as from what I understand this was done to allow A27 hulls to fit the deep wading gear.) Not to mention that both features are additions the artist has made compared to the photo of the real tank the drawing is presumably based on: Note how it lacks the range extender fuel tank, and has the early partially sloped rear exhaust vent. The Centaur IV diagram is similarly slightly wrong as the the tank it's based on has the blanking plate installed rather than the hull MG. I realise that this stuff is minutia and may not be particularly interesting unless you're really interested in accuracy, but I feel it is worth mentioning just in case Gaijin used those illustrations for their modelling. The best source that I know of for info on A24/A27 tanks is the Osprey New Vanguard "Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942–50" book (ISBN-10: 1841768146). Whilst personally I'm a bit skeptical of that series of books in general due to inaccuracies in their Churchill book, the Cromwell one differs by having David Fletcher as an author who always knows his stuff.