Nikolas93TS Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 We have something rare here also, longer video than usual, which is extra nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Nick videos are improving in quality lately. Regarding this one, someone could thing the Aussies were intent on building a "Male" tank, but they missed the point, somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Nick videos are improving in quality lately. Regarding this one, someone could thing the Aussies were intent on building a "Male" tank, but they missed the point, somewhat.When the only machine gun available is a Vickers, what are you gonna do? Without this "dong" the water jacket is unprotected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldsteel Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Nick videos are improving in quality lately. Regarding this one, someone could thing the Aussies were intent on building a "Male" tank, but they missed the point, somewhat.When the only machine gun available is a Vickers, what are you gonna do? Without this "dong" the water jacket is unprotected. Create a Vickers MkXXII? I think the Sentinel's hull gun it is kind of explicable, if it was drawn up by someone who wouldn't or couldn't take a step back and see it wasn't working and start again. You start with a Vickers, the water jacket is a certain size so you need at least that size hole in the armour, actually bigger since the gun has to be aimable. This hole now needs to be protected so you put armour over the water jacket and the hole. This armour is heavy and it's all out the front of the gun so you whack a huge counter weight on the back of the mounting to balance it. This counter weight is rather unfortunately right where the gunner's chest would be so you move the gun close to the centre line of the vehicle and put a pistol grip on the counter weight so the gunner can still use it. And end up with, well, that. What's the alternative? The Vickers has a large water jacket because that has to hold all the water required for sustained fire in the infantry role. The tank mounting however is fed by a 12v water pump from an external water tank, so you could get away with a much smaller jacket. Reducing the size of the jacket makes all the rest smaller or unnecessary and you'd end up being able to put the gun right in front of the gunner where it really should be. You'd just need a purpose built hull MG, but the MkXXI is a purpose built AFV gun anyway so there's no real problem there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 They could have uses thicker barrel and ditched water jacket. Or used Bren as a hull MG, since those were anyway of dubious utility in practice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldsteel Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 They could have uses thicker barrel and ditched water jacket. Or used Bren as a hull MG, since those were anyway of dubious utility in practice... I suspect since the Vickers is short recoil operated increasing the barrel weight would probably cause it to cease to function. Bren, dunno, probably more use to the infantry than as a tank weapon. The hull MG was an "if you could" part of the specification, and the gunner doesn’t have any other function, best option would be to ditch it to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Vickers Water cooled was used in the Cruisers and lights, so not exactly unique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Hatch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOW-2 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 You know it's funny I never saw the iron dick on the front of the tank but now I can't unsee it. THANKS, NICK. Anyway by '42 why didn't they just stick a .30 cal there? Aircooled...doesn't need an armored penis to hold it...ubiquitous as all hell (wasn't the US basically giving them away??? Could we not spare any?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOW-2 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Also it's a pity no Semple tanks (or NI or Schofield) remain; I'd love to see a video of those! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) Also it's a pity no Semple tanks (or NI or Schofield) remain; I'd love to see a video of those! I think there was only one Bob Simple Semple tank ever made. edited for bloody autocorrect Edited March 31, 2016 by Panzermann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOW-2 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Also it's a pity no Semple tanks (or NI or Schofield) remain; I'd love to see a video of those! I think there was only one Bob Simple tank ever made. Was it just the one? I heard there were a couple. But I'll bow to the experts on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) When the only machine gun available is a Vickers, what are you gonna do? Without this "dong" the water jacket is unprotected.With a bore axis eccentric to the axis of the mantlet, there is no other solution possible. Funny thing, when I saw that Sentinel at Bovington, I was a bit surprised to see an Allies' tank with a kind of Saukopf mantlet. And not, this is not an attempt to start a mantlet-comparison/measuring thread! Edited March 31, 2016 by sunday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GPMG Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Also it's a pity no Semple tanks (or NI or Schofield) remain; I'd love to see a video of those! I think there was only one Bob Simple Semple tank ever made. edited for bloody autocorrect The photo on Wikipedia shows two, one in the foreground and one behind it. I had an idea I had seen a photo of four of them in a parade but I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldsteel Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Anyway by '42 why didn't they just stick a .30 cal there? Aircooled...doesn't need an armored penis to hold it...ubiquitous as all hell (wasn't the US basically giving them away??? Could we not spare any?) The design for it is from 1940/1941, the US was prepared to sit the war out at that point. And if you did change the hull MG then you'd probably have to change the coax, there would be a delay in production and now you're using both 303 (Bren) and .30 cal ammunition in the one tank. Every tank Australia had at the time, admittedly that's only 4 Vickers Medium MkII and 10 Vickers Light MkVI, used Vickers guns. If they hadn't had any problems it is reasonable to keep using them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard g Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Amazing how people get all excited about a trivial point, perhaps they can see that already with the Mk1 we have a superior AFV but don't want to think about that. Or perhaps they don't have a clue about what's important with tank design. Anyway, the US certainly did nothing to help with supplying an ally with suitable components over the life of the Sentinel, all this at a time when they were in turn being very well supported in return in the Pacific with everything from uniforms to maintenance and repair facilities and everything in between. In fact at the end they forced the abandonment of the AC project by threatening to cut off all component supply, perhaps because by then it was mounting the 17pdr gun which sort of showed up certain people across the Pacific in a negative light. Part 2 of the review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunday Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 (edited) Edited to add: The video establishes that the design was quite remarkable, adequate to the industrial base available, and pretty interesting in some aspects. Edited April 1, 2016 by sunday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingCanOpener Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 It's kinda his thing. He shows up, snivels complains about the Americans, trumps the 17-pounder and blames it on The Man keeping it down, then Rich shows up, punches him in the face with primary source evidence that proves him wrong (again), and he slinks back into the shadows to try the routine again later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 What is interesting is that the 17 pounder Sentinel was thought up in Australia, and Japan never had a tank that would have necessitated this cannon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 (edited) What is interesting is that the 17 pounder Sentinel was thought up in Australia, and Japan never had a tank that would have necessitated this cannon.From what I gather, all 65 sentinels were finished by June 1943 armed with 2 pounder cannons. By that time, any interest groups for seeing the tank upgrade and evolve would probably conclude that the 17 pounder cannon is the logical step to go. Short 75 or 6 pounder would have been obsolete by this time as a design requiremnt. And Japanese tank plans had the Chi-Ri with a long 75mm cannon in development at this time. Although the Chi-To was still in development under the requirement for a 57mm tank gun similar to the 6 pounder. Chi-To would get the same long 75mm requirement upgrade in 1944. Both those tanks were designed with 75mm of front armor, it would put the Sentinel at a disadvantage unless it could improve is ability to penetrate at greater range. Well of course Australians didn't know specifically what was going on with Japanese tank development, but I think it could be that they were following with trend of ever increasing armor and firepower through the war years, even if they already felt by the mid to late 1943 that Japan was very unlikely to return to an offensive posture and invade Australia. Edited April 1, 2016 by JasonJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Moran Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 What is interesting is that the 17 pounder Sentinel was thought up in Australia, and Japan never had a tank that would have necessitated this cannon. A comment I observe in Part 2. Suffice to say, this is another case of "never meet your heroes". I was decidedly unimpressed by the tank's interior. All in all, I think cancelling the tank was the correct thing to do. It just wasn't worth it, better things were being provided which required less resources and complication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikel2 Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 What is interesting is that the 17 pounder Sentinel was thought up in Australia, and Japan never had a tank that would have necessitated this cannon. A comment I observe in Part 2. Suffice to say, this is another case of "never meet your heroes". I was decidedly unimpressed by the tank's interior. All in all, I think cancelling the tank was the correct thing to do. It just wasn't worth it, better things were being provided which required less resources and complication. For being the first tank the aussies built, they could have done much worse. Nations that had been building tanks for 25 years didn't distinguish themselves at that time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard g Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 (edited) It's kinda his thing. He shows up, snivels complains about the Americans, trumps the 17-pounder and blames it on The Man keeping it down, then Rich shows up, punches him in the face with primary source evidence that proves him wrong (again), and he slinks back into the shadows to try the routine again later. Really? Instead of trolling the internet for 'facts' how about reading a couple of books on the subject that quote primary sources forever, like the disappointing but somewhat useful Fallen Sentinel and the very good Armed and Ready. Perhaps you can recommend poor ignorant me some others as well lol. Long ago I learnt that it was pointless to argue on the internet when the bandwagon is against you which is why I don't post often on contentious subjects. However occasionally I can't resist pointing out facts that may be uncomfortable for some to read and who typically react in a personal way against the messenger. I'm just not going to engage in what should be respectful discussions but which invariably turn personal when the going gets tough. In case anyone is really interested in the topic the final version of the Sentinel was designed to carry either the 17pdr or the 25pdr, a field workshop conversion. Actual battlefield experience against the Germans clearly showed early on that you mounted the biggest gun available, you could never have too much firepower against the Germans, particularly direct firepower. When you did they quickly folded, saved a lot of casualties, particularly infantry, that way. Edited April 1, 2016 by richard g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Moran Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 What is interesting is that the 17 pounder Sentinel was thought up in Australia, and Japan never had a tank that would have necessitated this cannon. A comment I observe in Part 2. Suffice to say, this is another case of "never meet your heroes". I was decidedly unimpressed by the tank's interior. All in all, I think cancelling the tank was the correct thing to do. It just wasn't worth it, better things were being provided which required less resources and complication. For being the first tank the aussies built, they could have done much worse. Nations that had been building tanks for 25 years didn't distinguish themselves at that time... Oh, I agree, it was a very impressive effort. That doesn't deny the fact, though, that however impressive an effort it may have been, continuing the program simply didn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldsteel Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 What is interesting is that the 17 pounder Sentinel was thought up in Australia, and Japan never had a tank that would have necessitated this cannon. A lot of the design of the Australian cruisers dates from 1941, when Australia was fighting Italians and Germans in North Africa. The Japanese were more of an impediment to the production of Australian tanks rather than the cause of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now