Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Scenarios / Re: Australian WWII Armour options
« Last post by GTX_Admin on October 18, 2018, 03:07:00 AM »

The M3 medium and the M4 medium were more than adequate to deal with Japanese armour and fortified positions.  Their major problem was weight and size. 

Maybe a combination of M4s and some M24 Chaffees then or even just M24s?  The M24s could be primarily used for Pacific operations with still being plenty to deal with what was ranged against them.  Given the Australian War Cabinet agreed to the cessation of the Sentinel tank production program in mid July 1943, it would quite conceivable to have them look around for alternatives around that time.  This would lend itself to an initial acquisition (either by direct buy or lend-lease) of M4s in late '43 followed by M24s in '44 (noting that the M24 entered US service in '44).  This would also make sense in that there would be commonality with their U.S. pacific allies.

Maybe post war have them either replaced with M41s or even given updates akin to the later NM-116 program?

On a different matter, given this thread has strayed a bit, I wonder if a split of topic is in order with a new "Alternative Australian Armour options" thread being needed?  Thoughts?
92
Other / Re: Just some cool photos...nothing more, nothing less...
« Last post by elmayerle on October 17, 2018, 11:45:20 PM »
Thank you, that looks very familiar.  I suspect I could probably still assign part numbers to a lot of the bits of structure there as well as the assemblies.  Note that, while they don't show that well, there are folding struts holding the lower doors open just as you can see ones holding the upper doors open.  Similarly, you can note just how crammed full the upper nacelle is.
93
MiG GB / Re: MIG-41
« Last post by LemonJello on October 17, 2018, 10:07:09 PM »
What an interesting teaser.  Good luck and I look forward to progress reports and updates.
94
MiG GB / MIG-41
« Last post by polygon on October 17, 2018, 02:24:58 PM »
Throwing my ushanka into the ring.

MIG-41 Interceptor, successor to the MIG-31.

Will be using the cockpit and engines from a MIG-31 kit.

Initial sketch:
Untitled by BTSpolygon, on Flickr

Don't have any concrete construction plans but hopefully it'll turn out like the image I have in my head.
95
Scenarios / Re: What if the fall of Singapore didn't happen?
« Last post by Rickshaw on October 17, 2018, 11:25:58 AM »
Some interesting and relivent stuff there thank you Rickshaw

Especially in the case of my want and need your comment:
 
Quote
The British didn't really field it until late 1943 - despite having developed the round in the late 1930s


So technically speaking, Australia would/could be in good stead to request license production of this 2-pounder HE round or even upsize it to 6-pounder/57mm at the beginning of the Second World War or there abouts 😯

There was a 6 Pdr HE round - developed at the same time as the gun and issued fairly liberally as well.  The British had caught onto the value of a HE round and with their experiences against the Germans in the Western Desert felt it was desirable.   There was also a 6 Pdr HE round which dated from the original 6 Pdr naval gun (which was what was used in WWI tanks).   So, there really wasn't a need to "upsize" anything.

In Australia's case, the reason why they developed  a base fused round was because of their experiences in New Guinea facing Japanese bunkers.  The 37mm rounds, used in the M3 Stuart (used at Buna) were found to detonate too early, on the front face often of the bunkers, so it was felt a base fused round would be superior with it's armour penetration.   The British simply stuck with their nose fused round because they used the 2 Pdr primarily in open warfare (and, "Really?  Wasn't that the way we always designed our HE rounds?  Why should we change? Mmmm?"  No doubt played a part in their thinking...)  The 6 Pdr HE round used a nose fuse as well BTW.

96
Scenarios / Re: What if the fall of Singapore didn't happen?
« Last post by Rickshaw on October 17, 2018, 11:18:05 AM »
Why not simply have Australia get some Shermans?

An excellent point and one I have made in the past.  The M3 medium and the M4 medium were more than adequate to deal with Japanese armour and fortified positions.  Their major problem was weight and size.  The Matilda had superior armour but an inferior gun and it was all in a small, neat package which made moving it around the coast of initially New Guinea and then to the Islands and Borneo an easier solution.   

The RAAC decided that the Matilda was a better option than the M3 or M4.   Their tests of the M4 late in the war, also demonstrated that it was relatively easy to belly a Sherman and immobilise it in attempting to negotiate terrain.  Something the USMC had discovered with the M3 light tank earlier in the war.   It's main problem was that it was simply too broad and flat on it's bottom and it lacked the "oompth" to get itself off the mud and timber the artillery barrages had often created.

The real key to defeating the Japanese was well trained, well motivated infantry, occasionally, when necessary, supporter by well armoured and gunned tanks.
97
Scenarios / Re: Australian WWII Armour options
« Last post by GTX_Admin on October 17, 2018, 09:23:52 AM »
Why not simply have Australia get some Shermans?
98
Profiles and Pixels / Re: ysi_maniac's drawings
« Last post by finsrin on October 17, 2018, 08:30:42 AM »
Each reengine looks the part.  Great concepts and great job.  :smiley:
99
Aero-space / Re: One for Evan --- Dash 8-22
« Last post by Camthalion on October 17, 2018, 05:47:05 AM »
Nice one
100
Aero-space / Re: Brian da Basher's Anachronistic Habsburgerreich Luftfahrtruppen
« Last post by Camthalion on October 17, 2018, 05:46:38 AM »
very cool.  Nicely done
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]