I’ll just repost the image I’ve already sent. Except with very obvious red underlines, arrows and circles.
Hope this helps. 👍
Oh yeah, the source for this is “Armored Car: A History of American Wheeled Combat Vehicles”, by R.P. Hunnicutt.
3 Likes
yeah, I could read it the first time
I was pointing out the irony which never stopped Gaijin before. Not only could the Radkampfwagen 90 not turn the turret, but it could also not fire. As far as I know, the turret wasn’t even attached to the chassis.
but if your goal is to not have a nice vehicle for USA that could fill the gap between the M24 and M18, you are doing a pretty good job.
7 Likes
French engineers looking at this vehicle:
What they made:
3 Likes
look like not only the French was interested
3 Likes
The goat!11
a British Alvis Saladin.
a 76mm who was mainly using HESH
Not to say that the Radkampfwagen is valid or that Gaijin would never add the M38/M24 hybrid, but there is another WW2 U.S. armored car with a 75mm gun that would also fit the gap you are talking about while also being (to my knowledge) completely functional.
7 Likes
yeah, this tank would be interesting, but would not fill the gap.
the turret is up top which makes it a lot more vulnerable for the aircraft and artillery and the gun is unstabilized. which makes it a lot less effective in the offensive, has a lot less armor to a point LMG might penetrate and the mobility would barely be better than the M24 due to the engine and transmission not being so powerful and because it’s wheeled.
all together makes me doubt it would get at a BR above the M24
the only tank that might close the gap is the T49 tank destroyer which is doubted it ever had a real turret (the turret seems to be made of wood) or the T88 tank destroyer which is an M18 with a Derpy 105 mm M4 gun
Here is the T88 which could be fun to have
and here is the T49 which the turret has no sight or optic making me think it’s a mockup
4 Likes
I do agree that the T66 would likely be worse than a wheeled Chaffee, but I think there are enough other prototypes and such that could go before and after said M38/M24 in the gap we currently have, the T88 and/or T49 included, even if not at the exact same BR.
I just don’t have all too much interest in seeing unfunctional testbeds in-game that were never intended to be functional, unlike incomplete prototypes that would work in their desired end state. Similarly to the Ho-Ri Production and other paper vehicles, I don’t think their current existance in War Thunder is a reason to justify more.
1 Like
This has my +1, honestly, I don’t think it’s a big deal if the turret never worked irl, I mean the concept existed, and at the end of the day we do have similar vehicles in the game. That said with that in mind, I could see this as a future event premium
2 Likes
on this, I agree. it’s not because some vehicles were added with “flexible” rules that justify more vehicles to be added.
I let people know what is possible to add and I also have some other suggestions coming up.
i just really liked this one as I think it would have been a near equivalent to the EBR 1951
1 Like
Dam its ugly.
+1 regardless of its turret functionality. To be completely honest, I’d almost prefer it to come without the ability to traverse the turret since that would make its gameplay more unique. Would make for a funny meme vehicle for a throwaway event. Of course, I wouldn’t mind if they added it with functional traverse.
As for a something to go between the M24 and M18, I think that can be pretty easily achieved by one or two of the many US recoilless rifle armed vehicles. Hell, the M551 with the 105mm howitzer would probably work just fine at 4.7 if you remove HEATFS from its ammunition pool. I honestly find limiting the ammo pool of the M551(105) to be much more likely than giving a vehicle functionality it never had when it comes to Gaijin’s additions. Especially since the M551(76) already has a limited ammunition pool, removing its access to HEATFS. Then again, we do have the Rad 90 when the TH400 was a perfectly valid alternative.
There are also more reasonable alternatives like the T24E1, T86, and original T67. The T24E1 is just a faster Chaffee, the T86 is a bigger and slower M18, and the original T67 was armed with a 75mm M3. Unfortunately, no pictures of this configuration are known to exist, however, R.P. Hunnicutt confirms its existence and testing.
If we want to get really wacky, we could also go with the M4A2E1, which is a M4A3 (weird, I know) fitted with a 600hp engine. There’s also the M4E3 with a 580hp engine. You could also get even wackier by adding the M41 Sheridan Turret Testbed, which only fired HE and HEAT since the systems for firing and guiding ATGMs were not installed in it.
This is all to say that the US isn’t hurting enough for gap-fillers that an unhistorical addition is necessary.
Purely for a gap-filler between the M24 and M18, the obvious choice seems like the T24E1. Since that’s simply a Chaffee except faster (using the same engine as the M18).
Personally I don’t really care too much if it was functional or not.
But fact is it is stated nowhere in your suggestion. You’re not laying out all the relevant facts about this tank (in fact you just stated something that isn’t true, saying that the prototype standardized the turret) and for a lot of people what I’ve shown is a deal breaker.
Besides, as people have already pointed out there are plenty other sollutions to fix that gap, including just an upgraded M24.
5 Likes
This would be a great TT as like a lower BR rank III light for US or event/BP vehicle at worst. also + for chaffee turret
1 Like
+1 maybe as a folder with the chaffe
Oh boy, they should definitely add this to the game. It reminds me of the French eight-wheeled tank (ebr)
I can see this getting maybe passed to devs if you corrected the weird missinfo about standardizing the chaffee turret and alao explained that the turret was bolted in place.
For now though, it sits and rots.
Just to say, not having the direct gunner sight is actually not weird.
The T49 prototype is from April 1942. The M4 Sherman was first used in 1942. Do you know what the first versions of the Sherman didn’t have?
Early Shermans with the basic M34 gun mount, such as the in game M4A1 and Sherman II, don’t have a direct gunner sight for the gun. The gunner uses his dedicated periscope on top of the turret to aim.
Only in October of 1942 did they create the M34A1 gun mount which provided this sight for the gunner.
In other words, given the time frame of creation of the T49 GMC, it is actually completely plausible that it uses the same system as the early M34 gun mount Shermans do, with the gunner using a periscope on the turret roof to aim the gun.
1 Like