Jump to content

More Chieftain's Hatchiness


Coldsteel

Recommended Posts

 

The Australian cruiser stuff is easy, they did it exactly the same way the US got a 69" turret ring into the M4. The M4 would seem to have a hull that has an internal clearance of 60", so a 69" turret ring won't fit, except the M4 has sponsons that completely overhang the tracks and it is not a problem. The Sentinel, I absolutely agree, a 70" turret ring is not going to fit, not because side to side but because with the fighting compartment roof dropped like it is to reduce the height of the tank, fore and aft there's not enough room. If the AC1 is Australia's M3 the AC4 is more akin to something like the T20 or T23 it shares the tracks and suspension of the earlier tank and a few other bits but not much else, and on the AC4, and its predecessors for that matter, the air vent's louvres partially overhang the tracks, this means the top of the hull is much wider than the the 64" internal clearance the hull might otherwise limit you to. The turret basket, if one was to be fitted, just needs to initially taper inwards at a sufficient rate that its diameter is less than 64" before it clears the bottom of the hull side air vents, or a inverted conic section needs to be moulded into the hull sides, or something similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

:)

 

Oh dear, really Lindy? "It is clearly wider than the actual thing so they were lying"?

 

Admittedly, it's only the earlier 64" turret ring version, but it is an AC4 hull and the turret ring does extend over the sides of the hull by means of the air louvres.

 

post-1513-0-62816200-1531324044_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

:)

 

Oh dear, really Lindy? "It is clearly wider than the actual thing so they were lying"?

 

Admittedly, it's only the earlier 64" turret ring version, but it is an AC4 hull and the turret ring does extend over the sides of the hull by means of the air louvres.

 

ac4_64in_hull.jpg

 

Where did that drawing come from? I've never seen any actual plans of the proposed AC4 before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lindy is one of those "mythbusters" that only introduce more myths.

 

I enjoy his channel and all, but he is more of an story teller and entertainer than he is a serious scholar. Still, I wish I had as good a camera presence as he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rant mode engage*

 

hiss boo go away ranter!

 

No I will not go away and instead rant as I must rant so hear me at risk of myself.

 

If one is going to evaluate a tank, it really should be compared to the tanks of its time and of its class. The Matilda (II I assume).. slow infantry tank 1938 or something, the Grant is a medium for 1940/41 and the M4 Sherman.. again medium for 1941/42. The Type 95 Ha-Go is 1935 and since day one of development, it was a light tank. So if one was to compare, one should list it along with M2 light tank, Cruiser I, or Panzer II. Among these tanks, I dare say the Type 95 Ha-Go strikes more ir less parity with these.

 

Japanese primary souces aren't needed for that basic level analysis. So what might it be.. victim to the generalized "Japan was bad at tanks" meta, lazy thinking/lazy research, marketing/entertaining approach to bash something by using common knowledge even if incorrect, or a vendetta against Japanese stuff.. who knows, but whatever it is, its not academic. Now do I really care that much, no not really. And of course, lots of respect to The_Chieftain's work and expertise. He's shown loads of great work. But still going to rant on me precious cute Ha-Go AHhhhhhhhh

 

Hiss boo you witch, sink him with a boulder! Don't let the door hit you.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lindy is one of those "mythbusters" that only introduce more myths.

Yep, still not real fond of Lindy.

 

Um, independent traverse was also on the M3 Stuart, at least the early models.

M2A4 as well, unless you were counting that as an early model M3. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lindy's OK, I take him with a grain of salt and do indeed learn a thing or two. Still, his 'Spandau' for MG34/42 thing was a bit much...

He and Nick seem to play well off each other.

Edited by shep854
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rant mode engage*

 

hiss boo go away ranter!

 

No I will not go away and instead rant as I must rant so hear me at risk of myself.

 

If one is going to evaluate a tank, it really should be compared to the tanks of its time and of its class. The Matilda (II I assume).. slow infantry tank 1938 or something, the Grant is a medium for 1940/41 and the M4 Sherman.. again medium for 1941/42. The Type 95 Ha-Go is 1935 and since day one of development, it was a light tank. So if one was to compare, one should list it along with M2 light tank, Cruiser I, or Panzer II. Among these tanks, I dare say the Type 95 Ha-Go strikes more ir less parity with these.

 

Japanese primary souces aren't needed for that basic level analysis. So what might it be.. victim to the generalized "Japan was bad at tanks" meta, lazy thinking/lazy research, marketing/entertaining approach to bash something by using common knowledge even if incorrect, or a vendetta against Japanese stuff.. who knows, but whatever it is, its not academic. Now do I really care that much, no not really. And of course, lots of respect to The_Chieftain's work and expertise. He's shown loads of great work. But still going to rant on me precious cute Ha-Go AHhhhhhhhh

 

Hiss boo you witch, sink him with a boulder! Don't let the door hit you.

 

:)

 

It's a reasonable complaint, and as I said, if the other guys don't have tanks at all, it's perfectly good enough. However, if you want to compare with a mid-1930s light tank to go up against, it actually did go up against BTs. For all the issues that the BT series had, I wouldn't brook much argument that the BT was a better light tank. The T-26 is up there as well, and even the Pz-II I think has much merit, over the Type 95, even notwithstanding the obviously entirely different operating environment. That's not to say that Ha-Go doesn't have merit in the suspension design or engine, but is it really on a par with the T-26/LT vz 35 or the likes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Rant mode engage*

hiss boo go away ranter!

No I will not go away and instead rant as I must rant so hear me at risk of myself.

If one is going to evaluate a tank, it really should be compared to the tanks of its time and of its class. The Matilda (II I assume).. slow infantry tank 1938 or something, the Grant is a medium for 1940/41 and the M4 Sherman.. again medium for 1941/42. The Type 95 Ha-Go is 1935 and since day one of development, it was a light tank. So if one was to compare, one should list it along with M2 light tank, Cruiser I, or Panzer II. Among these tanks, I dare say the Type 95 Ha-Go strikes more ir less parity with these.

Japanese primary souces aren't needed for that basic level analysis. So what might it be.. victim to the generalized "Japan was bad at tanks" meta, lazy thinking/lazy research, marketing/entertaining approach to bash something by using common knowledge even if incorrect, or a vendetta against Japanese stuff.. who knows, but whatever it is, its not academic. Now do I really care that much, no not really. And of course, lots of respect to The_Chieftain's work and expertise. He's shown loads of great work. But still going to rant on me precious cute Ha-Go AHhhhhhhhh

Hiss boo you witch, sink him with a boulder! Don't let the door hit you. :)

 

It's a reasonable complaint, and as I said, if the other guys don't have tanks at all, it's perfectly good enough. However, if you want to compare with a mid-1930s light tank to go up against, it actually did go up against BTs. For all the issues that the BT series had, I wouldn't brook much argument that the BT was a better light tank. The T-26 is up there as well, and even the Pz-II I think has much merit, over the Type 95, even notwithstanding the obviously entirely different operating environment. That's not to say that Ha-Go doesn't have merit in the suspension design or engine, but is it really on a par with the T-26/LT vz 35 or the likes?

Its generally in the same class in which the victor will be more likely decided by numbers, tactical situation, crew training, luck, doctrine, etc. The BT-7 is definitely a more capable tank. Although it was more like a main stay medium tank for the Soviet Union, not a light tank. So still a bit like apples and oranges. At the time of Ha-Go's development, IJA's MT was the old Type 89 which the successor was to be the Type 97 Chi-Ha in 1937. So the Soviet tank to compare vs the Ha-Go would be the T-26, not BT-7. Of course strict technical comparison of tanks is of limited interest because of how historical battles matched the tanks up against each other.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Um, independent traverse was also on the M3 Stuart, at least the early models.

M2A4 as well, unless you were counting that as an early model M3. ;)

 

Yeah, true that.

 

 

I just remember studying it when I was at VMMV early in the 2000s for the first or second time. Sat in the turret and took it all in studying all the details. I don't think Alan has an M2.

 

Hmm, did any of the M3 Mediums have the same facility? :huh:

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... The BT-7 is definitely a more capable tank. Although it was more like a main stay medium tank for the Soviet Union, not a light tank.... So still a bit like apples and oranges.

WTF? It was designated "fast" tank for a tactical use and "light" tank for a weight categorization. T-28 was designated as a medium and used as such.

 

 

 

So the Soviet tank to compare vs the Ha-Go would be the T-26, not BT-7.

Why? All were light tanks of the comparable age that faced each other...

 

As for capability, Ha-Go did not even have coax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did that drawing come from? I've never seen any actual plans of the proposed AC4 before.

 

 

National Australian Archives. Not the original drawings as far as I know, although they might have them too. It's a little sort of A5 sized booklet mostly AC3 some AC1 and that weird looking hull until you notice the Tank AC Mark IV in the corner, then it makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to get The Chieftain into a Type 95 Ha-Go, preferably one that has both the gun and the turret machinegun intact and in place. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hire Penn and Teller to assist in the magic.

 

 

It is not that cramped inside according to the Russians who were repairing one recently. Better than Pz-38/38 in some aspects.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...