Marek Tucan Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 Actually did Soviets try to turn M3's into anything like Kangaroo?
Markus Becker Posted April 24, 2016 Posted April 24, 2016 (edited) Great video. Love the dry ironic comments. Plus a tank with ergonomics worse than the vehicle whose name is not Hetzer? Impressive achievement! Jokes aside, why didn't they just build Valentines? Design was ready and all you needed to get it moving was 130hp not 300+. Worked for the Canadians. So when do we see a video on the Ram and M3 Lee?Seconded! I'm really curious about the M3 just because of how...awkward looking it is.Thirded!!! Edited April 24, 2016 by Markus Becker
Coldsteel Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 Jokes aside, why didn't they just build Valentines? Design was ready and all you needed to get it moving was 130hp not 300+. Worked for the Canadians. Because what was specified was a cruiser tank not an infantry tank. Because the advice from the British was something along the lines that most tanks hit were doing less than 15 mph so it needed to be faster. Because ultimately the Australian cruisers are a design tailor made for the available industry in Australia at the time, this meant the the ACs are somewhat crude and simplified partly as limited by tools and resources and partly as an acceptance that tanks are short lived items and building it to last ten years is pointless if it is likely going to be shot pieces in six months. The AC2 in some of its forms is a more Valentine like tank, it was rejected as being inadequate to Army needs.
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