Ta_Kanata18

Vicker Mk1

25 posts in this topic

The Vicker Mk1 has the same engine and gear box as Chieftain Mk2 -  Leyland L60 multi-fuel engine that develope 650 hp.

It seem that we are getting Vicker Mk1 with restricted engine output at 535 hp. The question is can we get the non-restricted version?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ta_Kanata18 said:

The Vicker Mk1 has the same engine and gear box as Chieftain Mk2 -  Leyland L60 multi-fuel engine that develope 650 hp.

It seem that we are getting Vicker Mk1 with restricted engine output at 535 hp. The question is can we get the non-restricted version?

Is that 535 HP stock or fully upgraded?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Time4Tea said:

Is that 535 HP stock or fully upgraded?

Fully upgrade.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ta_Kanata18 said:

Fully upgrade.

It could be a mistake on Gaijin's part, perhaps a bug report is in order? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated in this suggestion it can do 650 HP but was limited to 535 HP

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ta_Kanata18 said:

As stated in this suggestion it can do 650 HP but was limited to 535 HP

 

It would be better to have the unrestricted engine. The Vickers MBT will need all the speed and acceleration it can get with the level of armour it has.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ganJ said:

can anybody tell me why this tank have different rate of fire ?

probably will be like M48. Its definetly going to be changed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Time4Tea said:

It would be better to have the unrestricted engine. The Vickers MBT will need all the speed and acceleration it can get with the level of armour it has.

I don't know why they added it with the restricted engine. I don't see any point in that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the 5s rof accurate? 

 

I mean I appreciate that alot but will it stay?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, F7UCutlass said:

Is the 5s rof accurate? 

 

I mean I appreciate that alot but will it stay?

I hardly believe that. Imho the many different ROFs of the L7 are highly dubious and need to be looked at. I mean why should the m 60 or type 74 have a longer reload than a cent mk 10 or a leo? Now 5 secs for the Vickers is way too fast. This thing would become my favorite "heshing the soviets to death" machinegun at T5... and i cant have anything nice... at least not for long.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mercedes4321 said:

I don't know why they added it with the restricted engine. I don't see any point in that.

Because it indeed had a restricted engine output for reliability reasons. Panther G also had an engine that could develop 700 hp at 3000 rpm but was limited to 600 hp at 2500 rpm to reduce the stress put on the final drive.

 

If Vickers MBT gets added with non downgraded engine, then Panther G should also have it's rev limiter removed.

 

 

8 hours ago, F7UCutlass said:

Is the 5s rof accurate? 

 

I mean I appreciate that alot but will it stay?

Non of the british tank RoF is accurate to begin with and correspond to the maximum acheivable rate of fire using lap loading. It's a balancing feat that makes up for the weaker damages APDS does compared to APHE.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tantor57 said:

Because it indeed had a restricted engine output for reliability reasons. Panther G also had an engine that could develop 700 hp at 3000 rpm but was limited to 600 hp at 2500 rpm to reduce the stress put on the final drive.

 

If Vickers MBT gets added with non downgraded engine, then Panther G should also have it's rev limiter removed.

and then the Churchill Mk VII could have it's governor removed and be able to do 25mph downhill :D

 

I agree though, it is probably best to leave engine governors alone (except for the ones that were put into service without one e.g Cromwell I), I used to think it might be good for the Churchill but It would open up a lot of doors and would probably make the game more unrealistic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Time4Tea said:

and then the Churchill Mk VII could have it's governor removed and be able to do 25mph downhill :D

 

I agree though, it is probably best to leave engine governors alone (except for the ones that were put into service without one e.g Cromwell I), I used to think it might be good for the Churchill but It would open up a lot of doors and would probably make the game more unrealistic.

In the Case of the Panther G, the engine governor could be removed/put back on the field. However the gearbox was also reworked in order to not affect the mobility too much. In the end except on paved roads or downhill, Panther G and Panther A mostly have the same mobility. Panther A will go slightly faster uphillo, neutral steer sligtly faster and has a better turret rotation but 20 deg/s is plenty enough. I'll take the Panther G over the Panther A anyday since you can tank hits in the turret that would simply kill you in the Panther A, Panther G also has thicker hull roof that makes it immune to 50's cal where the Panther A can be blowed up by a strafing P51 and it's sides are less prone to be overmatched.

 

Vickers MBT should still retain good mobility with a stabilized gun. In competent hands, it'll be deadly

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Tantor57 said:

In the Case of the Panther G, the engine governor could be removed/put back on the field. However the gearbox was also reworked in order to not affect the mobility too much. In the end except on paved roads or downhill, Panther G and Panther A mostly have the same mobility. Panther A will go slightly faster uphillo, neutral steer sligtly faster and has a better turret rotation but 20 deg/s is plenty enough. I'll take the Panther G over the Panther A anyday since you can tank hits in the turret that would simply kill you in the Panther A, Panther G also has thicker hull roof that makes it immune to 50's cal where the Panther A can be blowed up by a strafing P51 and it's sides are less prone to be overmatched.

 

Vickers MBT should still retain good mobility with a stabilized gun. In competent hands, it'll be deadly

If the amount of times I have been flanked by a Panther is anything to go by the Vickers MBT will be quite fun.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Tantor57 said:

Because it indeed had a restricted engine output for reliability reasons. Panther G also had an engine that could develop 700 hp at 3000 rpm but was limited to 600 hp at 2500 rpm to reduce the stress put on the final drive.

 

If Vickers MBT gets added with non downgraded engine, then Panther G should also have it's rev limiter removed.

 

 

Non of the british tank RoF is accurate to begin with and correspond to the maximum acheivable rate of fire using lap loading. It's a balancing feat that makes up for the weaker damages APDS does compared to APHE.

Alot of t4 above tanks are underperforming on reload rate. chieftaincrews were trained to reload at a rate of 10rpm. 20pdr on the cents had a reload of about 4 seconds. 105mm guns aswell were between 5 and 6 seconds. M60s reload should be quicker as it had a ready rack. 

 

Edited by *oppsijustkilledu
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, *oppsijustkilledu said:

Alot of t4 above tanks are underperforming on reload rate. chieftaincrews were trained to reload at a rate of 10rpm. 20pdr on the cents had a reload of about 4 seconds. 105mm guns aswell were between 5 and 6 seconds. M60s reload should be quicker as it had a ready rack. 

 

17 Pounder RoF looks pretty quick in this video too:

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was stated in this report that the crew of a Centurion managed to get five 20pdr shells in the air at one time:

http://antipodeanarmour.blogspot.co.uk/p/centurion-tanks-in-korea-report-by-lt-j.html

 

. . . The rate of fire of the 20 pr is also good if, firstly, it is possible to "load off the deck“ and secondly the gunner and operator "fire on the trip". Loading off the deck is self explanatory, the rounds being passed off the back deck to the loader by the driver. Firing on the trip means that the gnr keeps the gun on the target and his finger on the button. The loader then fires the gun when he trips the (safety) trip switch. By this means my crew once had 5 shells in the air at once and fired 50 rounds in 8 mins. (Then the loader fainted from the fumes).

 

Impressive, but I've seen no evidence that this would've been common practice (what with the unconsciousness of the loader). Possible with an aced crew, maybe? As for speed governors on the engine, that'd be an interesting addition if it came with the risk of overheating and having to repair them (or setting them on fire).

 

He also states that...um...I may have to tweak this...

 

. .  . the 20 pr is the best tk gun we have had so far once my tp spent a week sniping individual [EDIT: PLA soldiers] at a range of 3,600 yds with a most satisfactory degree of success . . .

 

...And finally...

 

. . . a few words for your private ear on the T 34. I assume that the tks given by Joe to Mr. Wu are old models. Even so they were grossly over-rated in press reports in the early days of the KOREAN Camaign. (A well placed HE shell from a 20 pr will lift the turret off). Only about 4 per Sqn have wrls and their armour is of poor quality. The whole tk is of the crudest workmanship, and breaks down with the greatest ease. (In fairness I must add that this may be due to inexperienced CHINESE crew). They would have to be used in mass, RUSSIAN fashion, to be any treat to a well trained, well equipped Army, as they have been proved somewhat inferior to the SHERMAN. A CENTURION will do to them what a TIGER did to the SHERMAN. They got their initial build up as a scapegoat to cover the natural and understandable, fact that the first American tps over here were raw, frightened boys who were also soft from occupational duties in JAPAN . . . 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, *oppsijustkilledu said:

Alot of t4 above tanks are underperforming on reload rate. chieftaincrews were trained to reload at a rate of 10rpm. 20pdr on the cents had a reload of about 4 seconds. 105mm guns aswell were between 5 and 6 seconds. M60s reload should be quicker as it had a ready rack. 

 

Ready racks and lap loading are a thing and represent the maximum acheivable (not sustainable) rate of fire without taking into account the gunner actual stamina and aiming time. german maximum acheivable RoF in Tigers and Panthers was also close to 10 rpm using lap loading. However such numbers are not representative of the average RoF of these tanks which was closer to 8 rpm.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that Leyland L60 multi-fuel engine has to power a 54 ton tank but when using it in a much lighter Vicker endurance will become a non-issue.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 20, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Wrags said:

I hardly believe that. Imho the many different ROFs of the L7 are highly dubious and need to be looked at. I mean why should the m 60 or type 74 have a longer reload than a cent mk 10 or a leo? Now 5 secs for the Vickers is way too fast. This thing would become my favorite "heshing the soviets to death" machinegun at T5... and i cant have anything nice... at least not for long.

The British licensed the L7 out to be produced domestically by most other countries who used it, and coming with this were small changes that the country may have thought would be better. I know for instance that the M60's breech is slightly different than the Centurion Mk10's even though it's a licensed built L7 technically on the m60

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ARedneckSquirel said:

The British licensed the L7 out to be produced domestically by most other countries who used it, and coming with this were small changes that the country may have thought would be better. I know for instance that the M60's breech is slightly different than the Centurion Mk10's even though it's a licensed built L7 technically on the m60

 

The changes they made didn't affect the reload rate much. There's a good video of a combat exercise that shows the loader. For him 5 seconds is a fairly normal reload time for an M60A1, with ~3.5 seconds being probably the best he can do, which includes grabbing the next round before the first is fired.

 

Video

Edited by muzzleflash98
Added link.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, muzzleflash98 said:

 

The changes they made didn't affect the reload rate much. There's a good video of a combat exercise that shows the loader. For him 5 seconds is a fairly normal reload time for an M60A1, with ~3.5 seconds being probably the best he can do, which includes grabbing the next round before the first is fired.

****, I also forgot to mention reloads in war thunder are a completely arbitrary value for the sake of balance

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ARedneckSquirel said:

****, I also forgot to mention reloads in war thunder are a completely arbitrary value for the sake of balance

 

Yeah, there's that too. But the point stands that they shouldn't really have very different rates of fire.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, muzzleflash98 said:

 

Yeah, there's that too. But the point stands that they shouldn't really have very different rates of fire.

for the sake of balance a type 74 should not reload as fast as a leopard due to its increased protection on the type 74 with releastic reload rates faster then what they are now it would just ruin the fun

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.