Jump to content


Richard "The_Challenger" Cutland: Our Military Specialist


  • Please log in to reply
1855 replies to this topic

Tigger3 #701 Posted 13 August 2012 - 03:01 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13572 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View Postblodrik, on 12 August 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

Hey challenger,i was wondering....
were the guns of the french tanks able to operate only when autoloaded or they could operate with manual loading too?
i would love to able to choose between auto and manual loading in my bat chat :D

The AMX13 could if needed be loaded one round at a time by the commander (but very slowly) and the 6 round magazines could also be loaded from the inside (again very slowly taking nearly twice as long as normal due to the very limited room). Needless to say they were emergency procedures rather than standard. The auto loader was also not quite automatic as the gunner or commander had to hand crank the drums. Some later versions had power driven drums I believe though.

Magazine's and cranking gear.

Posted Image
Rammer
Posted Image

Automatic loading of the AMX-13 Tank Destroyer/Light Tank process

http://www.kotsch88.de/l_amx-13.htm

blodrik #702 Posted 13 August 2012 - 04:44 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 18620 battles
  • 31
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011

View PostThe_Challenger, on 13 August 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Hi, :Smile_Default:

Autoloaders by there sheer design are of course intended to be automatic so the reasons for a manual load would only be in the event of a mechanical (or hydraulic in some systems) breakdown.

If you the consider the standard configiration of an autoloader (just to generalise):

Attachmentautoloader.jpg

It would mean hand cranking the carousel which would dramatically increase the reload time.

So I guess what I am saying is why would you want to manually load :Smile_Default:

Fear Naught

Thats the t-90's autoloader right?
not quite what i was talking about,let me elaborate

amx-13
Posted Image

we know it,many love it and even more hate it :D
i have noticed that the turret design of the french tanks using autoloader is somewhat universal among them

lets take a look at the inside
Posted Image
this is the autoloader of the amx-13,we can clearly see 2 revolvers on each side,each one with a capacity of 6 shells,that makes us a total of 12 shells in the autoloading mechanism(13 ready to fire if the gun is preloaded)
thats another story tho.

Posted Image

in the above picture we see the revolver through the loading hatchet(imagine,the crew had to reload from outside the tank lol)

Posted Image

in the above pic we see the "slider" where the shell was placed when ejected from the revolver in order to be loaded in the gun
looks like theres more than enough space for someone to place a shell there by hand

and the reason i would like to be able to choose between manual and auto is for example when i unload all my shells on a tank leaving him with 82 hp and then i have to run away and wait 37+some seconds to reload,would like to be able to load 1 shell for lets say10-12 seconds and finish him.
I don't have any hopes whatsoever of something like this happening in the game tho,thats why i post here and i would like to hear your opinions.

source:http://www.kotsch88.de/l_amx-13.htm

sorry for my english :D

edit:btw +1 for Tigger3 for beating me to it :D

Edited by blodrik, 14 August 2012 - 11:08 AM.


MyCom_Spitfire_ #703 Posted 13 August 2012 - 05:48 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10561 battles
  • 1,078
  • [DIIN] DIIN
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011
challenger I would like to ask a few questions.

Since you used to serve on the chieften,I guess that you have been a tankie since the cold war.
1.Would you have ever wanted to be sided WITH Russian tank units, I always wanted to be with Nato and not agasint them.
2.Did you ever have "fanboys" as recruits?, I used to have to deal with something like 4/7 recruits thinking they are invicable. Not to mention in the end as a unit we just decided to use the old T-62s to train them instead of the later T-80s and T-90s etc. (Still have a limp from getting my leg jammed into a track where I had to rescue one from his overturned tank).

3.Regarding British tanks, did the slow speed of the later tanks such as the Challenger series ever prove to be a handicap?

Gigaton #704 Posted 15 August 2012 - 06:06 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 4675 battles
  • 860
  • Member since:
    11-11-2010

View Postblodrik, on 13 August 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

and the reason i would like to be able to choose between manual and auto is for example when i unload all my shells on a tank leaving him with 82 hp and then i have to run away and wait 37+some seconds to reload,would like to be able to load 1 shell for lets say10-12 seconds and finish him.
I don't have any hopes whatsoever of something like this happening in the game tho,thats why i post here and i would like to hear your opinions.

10-12 second would probably be too little time for 100mm-105mm guns, considering the rate of fire such guns have on normal tanks. Stefan Kotsch's site does note that the manual loading would likely have been a rather lengthy process due to lack of space ("Allerdings ist der verfügbare Raum so erheblich eingeschränkt, das der Zeitbedarf bis zum Abschluß des manuellen Ladens sehr hoch sein dürfte."). Useful if the automatic loader fails to operate, but less useful for topping off single rounds.

Tigger3 #705 Posted 15 August 2012 - 09:49 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13572 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

Quote

blodrik, on 13 August 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:
and the reason i would like to be able to choose between manual and auto is for example when i unload all my shells on a tank leaving him with 82 hp and then i have to run away and wait 37+some seconds to reload,would like to be able to load 1 shell for lets say10-12 seconds and finish him.
I don't have any hopes whatsoever of something like this happening in the game tho,thats why i post here and i would like to hear your opinions.



View PostGigaton, on 15 August 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

10-12 second would probably be too little time for 100mm-105mm guns, considering the rate of fire such guns have on normal tanks. Stefan Kotsch's site does note that the manual loading would likely have been a rather lengthy process due to lack of space ("Allerdings ist der verfügbare Raum so erheblich eingeschränkt, das der Zeitbedarf bis zum Abschluß des manuellen Ladens sehr hoch sein dürfte."). Useful if the automatic loader fails to operate, but less useful for topping off single rounds.

They have an original manual for the AMX 13 at Samur and I was shown a photocopy of the page describing the loading proceedure. My memory is not what it was but if I recall correctly it was around 12-15 minutes to reload completely from outside but nearly 25- 30 minutes to reload from the inside.

Looking at that it would appear to take around 1-2 minutes to load a single round from inside.

So unless you are pinned down by small arms fire and can't move (tank in a fixed position like Dien Bien Phu) it would make sense to reload from the outside. NBC considerations are probably limited as the crew would have to wear their NBC protection while inside anyway, although it would help prevent more contamination (mainly liquid) of the inside of the vehicle.

Edited by Tigger3, 15 August 2012 - 09:51 AM.


Cossack_PL #706 Posted 15 August 2012 - 11:20 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20584 battles
  • 238
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011
Hi, Challenger!

I wonder if the shell normalisation mechanics featured in WoT are just some gameplay feature, or are they similar to real life ballistics? I mean that AP and APCR ammo get compensation against sloped armor, on the contrary HEAT doesn't get it and is less effective against sloped armor (in WoT of course).

Cippalippus #707 Posted 16 August 2012 - 02:11 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 34448 battles
  • 2,407
  • [TKBS] TKBS
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010
Hey Challenger, silly question but... a debate came up in the Italian forum about the ship Bismarck, with a guy claiming that it was a Pocket Battleship. According to my sources, nobody even thought about considering it such, but what do I know!?

So, to cut thing shorts: was the Bismarck a pocket battleship, or has it ever been considered one? Thank you!

Gigaton #708 Posted 16 August 2012 - 08:27 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 4675 battles
  • 860
  • Member since:
    11-11-2010

View PostCippalippus, on 16 August 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

Hey Challenger, silly question but... a debate came up in the Italian forum about the ship Bismarck, with a guy claiming that it was a Pocket Battleship. According to my sources, nobody even thought about considering it such, but what do I know!?

Bismarcks were full blown battleships, and rather large ones at that. The english language term "pocket battleship" is the Anglophone nickname for the three panzerschiffes (the actual German designation for them) of the Deutschland class.

Cippalippus #709 Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:35 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 34448 battles
  • 2,407
  • [TKBS] TKBS
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010
Yeah, I know. In fact, we all know. But since the other guy says we should all go learn history because we only read it from Wikipedia, I'd just love to have a definitive answer from the Challenger, since he's the only one here whose real life qualifications are known :Smile_blinky:

Tigger3 #710 Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:10 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13572 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostCippalippus, on 16 August 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

Yeah, I know. In fact, we all know. But since the other guy says we should all go learn history because we only read it from Wikipedia, I'd just love to have a definitive answer from the Challenger, since he's the only one here whose real life qualifications are known :Smile_blinky:

Yes but as a tankie not a sailor, bit of a difference between the two (not withstanding that tanks were originally envisaged as land battleships and that early British tank development was carried out under the auspices of the Admiralty).

The Germans classed the Bismark as a Schlachtschiffe (Battleship) not a Panzerschiffe (Armouredship equivalent to the British Battlecruisers and also termed Pocket Battleships) like the Graf Spee. Lots of misinterpretation and generalisation.

http://www.wehrmacht...battleships.htm

http://www.feldgrau.com/kriegs.html

http://www.naval-his...manWarships.htm

Edited by Tigger3, 16 August 2012 - 12:11 PM.


CauldronBorn #711 Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:17 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10216 battles
  • 216
  • [M-WAR] M-WAR
  • Member since:
    03-26-2012

View PostCippalippus, on 16 August 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

Hey Challenger, silly question but... a debate came up in the Italian forum about the ship Bismarck, with a guy claiming that it was a Pocket Battleship. According to my sources, nobody even thought about considering it such, but what do I know!?

So, to cut thing shorts: was the Bismarck a pocket battleship, or has it ever been considered one? Thank you!

Just ignore that dude. Bismarck = Pocket Battleship with 50'000 tons and more -> /facepalm

Sean473 #712 Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 15264 battles
  • 799
  • [DIE] DIE
  • Member since:
    10-12-2010
Agreed.. Can that dude... Bismarck were full sized Battleships.. If they were pocket battleships, literally all battleships built from the 1920s to the 1940s would be pocket ones... That guy is a total idot..

Adwaenyth #713 Posted 16 August 2012 - 02:49 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 19545 battles
  • 2,781
  • [F_D] F_D
  • Member since:
    05-19-2011

View PostThe_Challenger, on 06 August 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Wow :Smile_Default:  Well purely to drive- of course "King Tiger" who wouldn't :Smile_Default:

Considering that with my 1.91 meters height (6ft 3in) I am rather tall. While that wasn't a problem in the Leo2, it was in almost any WW2 tank I climbed so far. So the pleasure is usually always mixed with some "Ouch what part of the tank did I hit now!?" Though I'd like to see how I'd fit into a KT. :Smile_blinky:

View PostCippalippus, on 16 August 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

Hey Challenger, silly question but... a debate came up in the Italian forum about the ship Bismarck, with a guy claiming that it was a Pocket Battleship. According to my sources, nobody even thought about considering it such, but what do I know!?
So, to cut thing shorts: was the Bismarck a pocket battleship, or has it ever been considered one? Thank you!

Well the Bismarck had almost four times the displacement of the Deutschland, was armed with 8x 38cm guns instead of 6x 28cm and almost70 meters longer... The Deutschland class was built to comply with the restrictions on the size of German warships (which led to the denomination as "Pocket Battleship") after WWI - the Bismarck class ignored those restrictions completely.

Edited by Adwaenyth, 16 August 2012 - 03:02 PM.


Philipeu #714 Posted 17 August 2012 - 07:46 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 7976 battles
  • 1
  • [PATO4] PATO4
  • Member since:
    07-29-2012
i have a question abot the view range of my M36 , it has 370 meters view range , with recon and situation awewrness how far will i see and allso with is beter , the coated optics (+10% view range up to 500 meters) or binocular telescop (+25% view range on stationary vehicle) and allso the "up to 500 meters" meens that 500 is the maximum distance i can see.
I have recon (61%)

Sorry for my bad english

Edited by Philipeu, 17 August 2012 - 07:47 PM.


Gear_the_Reaper #715 Posted 18 August 2012 - 07:42 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 14095 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    04-13-2012
Alright, I'm an M1A2 SEP V.2 Tank Commander and I've just been stationed in Germany. I'm curious to know what you think is the better of the following tanks, Chieftan, Challenger, leo, or Abrams...

I already know the answer, I'm just testing you... haha


But also, what about talking those guys at Wargaming into a more modern WoT at some point?

Pleijpje #716 Posted 19 August 2012 - 10:25 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 16620 battles
  • 192
  • [HAMM] HAMM
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
Hi Richard,

It was an honour to have met you and was a pleasure to have a chat with you at Gamescom last week.

The Dutch Ex 11 Royal horse artillery (Gele Rijders) army bloke...

Stroopwafle annyone? :Smile_popcorn1:

tigerstreak #717 Posted 20 August 2012 - 05:33 AM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 23878 battles
  • 3,546
  • [BL33T] BL33T
  • Member since:
    12-23-2010
am i thinking the french tanks might have to leave battle if their auto loader jams ;)

The_Challenger #718 Posted 21 August 2012 - 09:23 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 5493 battles
  • 1,987
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View Postdrewstobbe, on 18 August 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

Alright, I'm an M1A2 SEP V.2 Tank Commander and I've just been stationed in Germany. I'm curious to know what you think is the better of the following tanks, Chieftan, Challenger, leo, or Abrams...

I already know the answer, I'm just testing you... haha


But also, what about talking those guys at Wargaming into a more modern WoT at some point?

Hi,

Apologies for lateness of reply, Gamescom was rather time consuming ! :Smile_Default:

You already know my favourite ! :Smile_veryhappy: , well I guess like any Tankie you get used to a particular vehicle and have faith in it (well sometimes) so Challenger 2 performed extremely well on Ops :Smile_Default:

But I have a great liking of Leopard 2 and also the M1A2 both which I have fired from and are awesome :Smile_Default:

As for a more modern WoT, it has been discussed of course in many forums and who knows what the future may hold :Smile_Default: . From a personal perspective I would love it, of course there are immediately some issues that arise one of the most obvious perhaps the size of the maps as the ability/need for greater engagement ranges has increased dramatically, pace of battle and so on.

Take Care my friend

Edited by The_Challenger, 22 August 2012 - 11:53 AM.


The_Challenger #719 Posted 21 August 2012 - 09:24 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 5493 battles
  • 1,987
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View PostPleijpje, on 19 August 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Hi Richard,

It was an honour to have met you and was a pleasure to have a chat with you at Gamescom last week.

The Dutch Ex 11 Royal horse artillery (Gele Rijders) army bloke...

Stroopwafle annyone? :Smile_popcorn1:

Hey my friend, likewise, was so good to chat with you and thanks for the waffles :Smile_Default:  Much appreciated.

Take Care :Smile_Default:

Toomski2000 #720 Posted 21 August 2012 - 06:52 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 3604 battles
  • 25
  • Member since:
    11-27-2011
Hello there,

As an ex 3Para bloke for over 18 years and a Recognition Instructor for many of them it is interesting to read the replies you give out and to see the perspective from the tankers view as i can remember more then a few times seeing the different nations MBT's sitting by the roadside less than idle for more than one reason and even having to scramble away fast one time in the Fulda when a Chieftan driver nearly squished my and my opo's trench with us in it which wasn't so funny at the time but is now looking back on it lol

Now though i split my time between Military Operator and Military Vehicle refurbishment ( thats another story how i got into that lol ) and like yourself i have had the chance to be around many different vehicles from through the ages and have my own and others shared experiences to work with as to which is best or worse for that matter !

Happily i have to say W.O.T is not a bad all round game and in most cases is not too far from a semi realistic outcome of tank on tank warfare ( though the toughness of the T-54 is a little worrying after seeing the effects of 30mm Rarden on them in one desert environment ) and I'm glad to see a RTR bloke guiding them as best you can in a money making gaming environment.

But my real question and concern which i would like your opinion on being both an ex tanker and now working in the gaming cummunity is perhaps a simple one - if W.O.T or it's succesor goes modern with it's MBT's will you be honest in your advice about modern Soviet - sorry Russain - MBT's and just how incredibly tough they have become in thier latest guises, as I'm hoping like myself you are aware of the recent purchase by the USA of 4 T-80 UMD-Bars  from Georgia  ( for a repeat of the late 1990's test ) outfitted with Kontact5, Shtora, Arena, modern up to date stabilisation, high quality French thermals and optics etc etc and the very hard time they had to 'Knock them out' as a quote from that report shows :-

'In general we found these vehicles to be extremely difficult to penetrate and thier latest twin APFSDS round has made for some grave concerns about our current armoured vehicles'

As for me it would be nice to have a Military advisor to a game try not to let the game become typical of almost every other military game on the market which makes Soviet/Russian equipment look like something as useless as a useless thing from a bag of useless things, as after all the reds did have the first laminate modern armour ( the T-64 which was never exported ) as well as the first efficient ERA which was being developed as far back as 1946 ( though technology couldn't keep up with the boffins ) and of course the Arena system ( which was in production as early as 1997 ).

I hope this post has given you pause for thought  - and as an ex Para to a tanker if you need any advice on military vehicles feel free to pm me lol   ( couldn't resist that one ! :Smile_veryhappy:  )




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users