Imagine a twincharged CR2 with its armor arrays stripped.
TBF my car runs on 93 Octane, and ONLY 93 Octane or else it absolutely grenades the Piston rings and Cylinder walls.
when an engine is made with only one fuel spec that kind of thing happens, bad design choice unless you can guarantee fuel quality (which is next to impossible for a tank in combat scenarios).
2 Likes
And would you Believe that is for a LINCOLN?
This is my baby, her name is Mipha, and she makes nearly 300hp. and goes like a bat out of hell.
nice car, i adore my little MG (don’t have a photo on my PC so random photo on internet will do
back to the discussion I hope Ed was able to clarify confusions on the engine
Is that one of the rear/mid engine ones?
IK a couple of those little things were over there.
Shame we never got cool stuff like that over here.
Though i do love my Lincoln badged Jaguar with a Passion.
yea mid engined, werent sold in the US because BMW owned MG at the time and would rather MG dead than possibly take sales from their own roadster
thats why abrams has a gas turbine, you can run those things on tequila or even perfume
there was a turbine powered car that was literally run on channel no5 and tequila, I think it was made by crysler in the 50s
1 Like
yeah, thats what i was talking about lol
imo, abrams is a logistical tradeoff since it does eat up more fuel, but you dont really have to worry about what kind of fuel. itll run on marine fuel, jet fuel, or just gas (unlike the 93 octane car)
We know the Perkins CV-12 can push upwards of 1500hp, as was tested during the MBT-80 Program.
But it severally reduced its Reliability… SO possibly?
But a Big V12 Diesel and a Turbine engine are on basically opposite ends of the spectrum.
2 Likes
No it wasnt. MBT-80 never got past ATR-2 which was fitted with CV12 rated at 1200. It was planned to have 1500 originally in CV16 but then they realised CV12 could be uprated to give 1500 and CV16 was cancelled. Neither the 1500hp or the GT versions were ever built before MBT-80 was cancelled.
2 Likes
with the latest update updating the top speeds of the cromwell’s they should do this to the crusaders aswell. like even as a transmission modification
1 Like
+1
They have been since, though.
Apparently, Perkins (as of 2018) was advertising CV12 in 1,000hp, 1,200hp, and 1,500hp versions, which they published along with some test data showing a quite wide power band of 1,500hp.
Yeah, it’s been available up to 1500hp for a while now
Minor spelling mistake. I win.
1 Like
So, the armor of the Crusader tanks is currently wrong, in war thunder right now the armor is underperforming, it should be a lot stronger than it currently is. I made a few posts showing what’s wrong, if you’re interested:
I think this Crusader would be pretty good, after the armor corrections it could comfortably be a 3.3 light tank, our basic Crusader has a top speed of ~40kph and this one having a top speed of 80kph?? surely it only has a 2 pounder gun, but that mobility would be insane. when gaijin fixes the armor of our Crusaders, this would be a +1
2 Likes
I don’t see a point to this vehicle existing if it doesn’t get the 6 pounder. 3.3 is the beginning of the hellscape for small guns like the 2 pounder, which get eaten alive by volumetric. This is also a problem with the 6 pounder but the 6 pounder has way more pen and as such does not need to rely on weakspots nearly as much. At that point just play the SARC with the 2 pounder or one of many, faster and smaller, light tanks earlier in the tech tree that also have the 2 pounder.
With a top speed of 50mph (80.47kmh) and a power-to-weight of ~36.8hp/t (current Crusader II is 20.9) I see no issues with it being 3.0 or 3.3. Unlike the Churchill Mk I you have the mobility to flank, you’re effectively one of the fastest ground vehicles in the game.
@Sebbo_the_Plebbo this is actually a Mk I.
Easiest way to tell is the Mk II doesn’t have that little shield around the visor port because the armour is thicker.