Ah, I got mixed up with the turret front, rather than the hull, my mistake. (That and I perhaps got mixed up with the Panther II)
Last edited:
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
It's a neat way of solving the ground-pressure problem without resorting to a multitude of small road wheels (like the Churchill). Like many such ideas, it looks great on paper and on the test stand and is less appreciated by the poor sucker who has to maintain it in the field.
And it probably also seems to be the wheel behind two others which is always the one to be replaced ☹️
If you never have to maintain them it's probably the best suspension system out there in terms of weight versus performance, if you do have to maintain them....
From memory, another reason that the interleaved wheels were the option used was that it a) reduced wear on the synthetic rubber used for the road wheel tyres as it wasn't as durable as natural rubber and b) reduced the amount of natural rubber if that was used. Rationing these vital war materiels is something that is necessary as Germany no longer has access to reliable supplies of natural rubber. Even less so than IOTL as ITTL Japan will not be in a position to supply rubber to anyone, including itself.
If they are it had better be good. I don't know which will be worse for the Japanese. All the Churchills that get built being sent to the far east with the thick armour or facing the Jumbuck with the 25pdr derived gun.
Either way both will need a good counter.
Probably won’t help any development process given the IJA and IJN are both competing viciously for the limited resources they have which will be even worse OTL since the Malay, Burma and Dutch East Indies time tables and plans have been thrown out of kilter compared to OTL.
If they do manage anything I suspect it will be based around the Type 88, that being the only weapon available in any real numbers that's large enough to actually hurt a British Infantry tank. Of course, 'available in any real numbers' means it's one of the very few where production reach 4-figures.
Yeah thigs are only going to spiral more and more out of control for the Japanese. The one saving grace for them, if it can be called that, is the fact that once Britain has stabilised the situation in Malaya they likely won't doo too much in the short term besides shoring up other places where fighting is ongoing and looking to take back some other smaller territories to help protect Australia. Once that is done I can see Britain focussing on Europe almost exclusively (outside of Naval involvement) until the invasion of the continent proper has begun.
The only question is when will that invasion proper take place?
Dw, I will eventually make a "hindsight" Churchill layout on Sprocket.I still want a Widen Churchill…
The French themselves had a rather interesting take on a wide Churchill-like vehicle:
Tracks are 5.6cm narrower and the tank is 13cm wider than a Churchill when carried on rail. But the hull between the tracks is 35cm wider, even if in this case the hull gun precludes the installation of a wide turret ring. Aka 10.8 cm wider than a Churchill crew compartment even if you stayed within British rail gauge AND used same track width. But remove the hull gun and you have options, like this AMX medium tank concept:
1800mm wide hull between the tracks without the armor (Churchill would be 1498mm).
Garrison
Donor
The Japanese have the same issue as the Italians. Can and did come up with some good designs, finding materials of the required quality to make them and the production capacity needed were the stumbling blocks.
Wider hull and narrower tracks seems... Like a choice.
I must admit, I'm not well versed in the nuances of Tank Track widths, but in my head, wider tracks = better. What are the advantages of narrower tracks? Just that you get more hull space?
Just
only 80mm shorter than the centurion, so it can take 17pdr or likewise gun easily. And also thick armor.
Track width is pretty much down to what ground pressure you want and track length. You preferably want to only have the width that is needed to minimize weight, rolling resistance (the resistance to motion) and suspension weight, all of which affect mobility (and obviously the widest hull if you are capped by railway gauge).
The medium tank had 60mm on the sides and suspension housings, and 30mm on the floor (very thick). Front and rear seemed equally thick at least with the front being angled at 45° at least.Just
only 80mm shorter than the centurion, so it can take 17pdr or likewise gun easily. And also thick armor.
The bigger one (AMX Tracteur B) had 30mm thick roof and floor (or 35 for latter), 80mm thick plates for the entire front area of the turret and 70mm for side plates and rear (all with 20-30° angles at least), 70 or 80mm upper front plate at 32° from vertical, thinning down to 80mm LOS and then transitioning to 60mm at 43° for the lower plate.
Then 55mm at 15° for upper rear, 65mm LOS middle and 40mm at 60° lower rear, 60mm sides or even 70mm, and even the suspension units are protected with 60mm front, 60-70mm side and 50mm rear (or 40mm front and 30mm rear). Even the roadwheels have 15mm thick skirting.
These guys are thick for the time.
Huh not sure if they can do it in good time they could probably slap some mount together for it an press it in as an AT gun or try what the Finns did otl I guess.
The Type 1 might be able to penetrate.
It could handle the M4. Only with the solid AP round, and only below 800 yards.