Jump to content


Introduction


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
119 replies to this topic

The_Challenger #1 Posted 05 June 2012 - 10:39 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4045 battles
  • 1,979
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012
“From Mud, Through Blood to the Green Fields Beyond."

        

        

Greetings fellow“Tankies”

By popular demand “Firebase Challenger” is now officially open for business.
Please feel free to post any, and all, military related questions.


        

        


        

Attached Images



p0Pe #2 Posted 05 June 2012 - 10:46 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9119 battles
  • 273
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011
Uhhh a thread that might be free of whine and off topic:D

Let me start by a question asked in another thread:

http://forum.worldof...ith-back-armor/

View PostSystemSound, on 05 June 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

I was browsing some JT pics and I found this strange JT's modification.
http://ww2drawings.j...128mmL66/p1.jpg
Does anyone know what are those plates on the back? Are those just side armor or full covering of the back?

Edit:

And congrats on your own sub-forum:D I am sure we are going to have fun here, and don't mind the flood of questions you will get about the gearbox placement in the E-series :)

Edited by p0Pe, 05 June 2012 - 10:48 AM.


strata89 #3 Posted 05 June 2012 - 10:51 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 7931 battles
  • 507
  • Member since:
    08-02-2010
Its Jgtiger modifed for use of longer 128mm. It was necesary modification because of larger recoil of this gun.

S0ny_B1ack #4 Posted 05 June 2012 - 10:51 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6060 battles
  • 216
  • [FPDOX] FPDOX
  • Member since:
    12-04-2010
I guess you was already asked that some times, but i must have missed it ;) So I would like to ask you which tanks you have driven? :) Also gratz for your own forum section
:Smile_honoring:

Edited by S0ny_B1ack, 05 June 2012 - 10:51 AM.


The_Challenger #5 Posted 05 June 2012 - 12:01 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4045 battles
  • 1,979
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View Postp0Pe, on 05 June 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Uhhh a thread that might be free of whine and off topic:D

Let me start by a question asked in another thread:

http://forum.worldof...ith-back-armor/

View PostSystemSound, on 05 June 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

I was browsing some JT pics and I found this strange JT's modification.
http://ww2drawings.j...128mmL66/p1.jpg
Does anyone know what are those plates on the back? Are those just side armor or full covering of the back?

Edit:

And congrats on your own sub-forum:D I am sure we are going to have fun here, and don't mind the flood of questions you will get about the gearbox placement in the E-series :)

Hi
Thumbs up to no Whining !! :Smile_Default:

In 1942 the General Staff decided there was a need for the 128mm Gun, hence the birth of the "Jagdtiger". The modified turret and rear is simply a result of the increase in breech size and subsequent recoil, plus extra crew protection from small arms fire.

The resulting increase and the heavy armour made an incredibly effective gun that no vehicle could withstand. That said of course like most Tank designs there were drawbacks elsewhere. Slow,woefully underpowered, and cumbersome.

Rather than becoming a tank destroyer it was more of a static bunker. It could only carry 40 rounds of ammunition, but had a range of over 3500 m.  

So mechanically poor that more were lost to breakdowns than enemy fire !

        

One of the few remaining, in Bovington Tank Museum

Attached Images


Edited by The_Challenger, 06 June 2012 - 12:04 PM.


Ziddix #6 Posted 05 June 2012 - 12:12 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17497 battles
  • 1,801
  • [LEOFL] LEOFL
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

Quote

One of the few remaining, in Bovington Tank Museum

I cannot wait to go there <3

The_Challenger #7 Posted 05 June 2012 - 12:15 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4045 battles
  • 1,979
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View PostS0ny_B1ack, on 05 June 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

I guess you was already asked that some times, but i must have missed it ;) So I would like to ask you which tanks you have driven? :) Also gratz for your own forum section
:Smile_honoring:

Has been asked before but no problem :Smile_Default:

Been really lucky : Was trained on Chieftain.Challenger 1 & 2, But have also driven Scorpion,FV 432, Saladin, Warrior and a Centurion. Non British- Leopard 2, M1A2, and a T72.

Take Care.

The_Challenger #8 Posted 05 June 2012 - 12:17 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4045 battles
  • 1,979
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View PostFoeHamster419, on 05 June 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

I cannot wait to go there <3

You "Tankfesting" ? :Smile_veryhappy:

The_Challenger #9 Posted 05 June 2012 - 01:42 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4045 battles
  • 1,979
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View PostWalker28361, on 05 June 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Any information on what the top gun for the Cromwell is likely to be?

Hi,

Lots and lots :Smile_Default:  of discussion in other forums regarding this :Smile_Default:

fdsdh1 #10 Posted 05 June 2012 - 04:20 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5978 battles
  • 449
  • [PLATY] PLATY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostThe_Challenger, on 05 June 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

Hi
Thumbs up to no Whining !! :Smile_Default:

In 1942 the General Staff decided there was a need for the 128mm Gun, hence the birth of the "Jagdtiger". The modified turret and rear is simply a result of the increase in breech size and subsequent recoil.
The resulting increase and the heavy armour made an incredibly effective gun that no vehicle could withstand. That said of course like most Tank designs there were drawbacks elsewhere. Slow,woefully underpowered, and cumbersome.

Rather than becoming a tank destroyer it was more of a static bunker. It could only carry 40 rounds of ammunition, but had a range of over 3500 m.  

So mechanically poor that more were lost to breakdowns than enemy fire !
someone did a mod
Posted Imageisn't it so they can man the MG without getting shot at or, so they can keep the rear hatches open free from small arms fire entering the cabin?

Edited by fdsdh1, 05 June 2012 - 04:28 PM.


fdsdh1 #11 Posted 05 June 2012 - 04:32 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5978 battles
  • 449
  • [PLATY] PLATY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
I have a question, why in a time when Allied air power reign supreme 1943-45 did the Germans build ever larger and slower tanks, surely they would be bigger targets and a waste of valuable resources which could otherwise have been used to produce Pz IV's and light tank destroyers?

This is slightly related to my A level history course!

Listy #12 Posted 05 June 2012 - 04:51 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12095 battles
  • 5,702
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View Postfdsdh1, on 05 June 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

I have a question, why in a time when Allied air power reign supreme 1943-45 did the Germans build ever larger and slower tanks, surely they would be bigger targets and a waste of valuable resources which could otherwise have been used to produce Pz IV's and light tank destroyers?

This is slightly related to my A level history course!

One other thing to consider. The Germans were running out of manpower. So Lots of smaller tanks isn't always a good thing if you can only crew a small portion of them.

Also Allied air power didn't kill as much in the way of German armour as is commonly thought. What it did do was beat the snot out of the German logistics system behind the front lines.

Adwaenyth #13 Posted 05 June 2012 - 04:57 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18195 battles
  • 2,756
  • [F_D] F_D
  • Member since:
    05-19-2011

View PostListy, on 05 June 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

One other thing to consider. The Germans were running out of manpower. So Lots of smaller tanks isn't always a good thing if you can only crew a small portion of them.

Also Allied air power didn't kill as much in the way of German armour as is commonly thought. What it did do was beat the snot out of the German logistics system behind the front lines.

That and a lot of gigantism that fascinated the political elite of Germany, Hitler in particular, at that time. The german doctrine was as the political agenda was at that time. It favoured the German "superiority" which refleced in their tank designs and an approach of qualitiy above quantity.

Anyways,
although I'm late, welcome to world of tanks The_Challenger and best wishes form the (now dissolved :Smile_confused: ) 304th Tank Battalion (Leopard 2A4) of the German Army.

Edited by Adwaenyth, 05 June 2012 - 04:58 PM.


theta0123 #14 Posted 05 June 2012 - 06:36 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 5610 battles
  • 4,477
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
Dear Challenger

Do you perhaps know what the frontal turret armour was of the centurion tank series? And did the caernarvon tank used the exact same centurion turret then the tank it origenated from?

many thanks!

The_Challenger #15 Posted 06 June 2012 - 11:55 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4045 battles
  • 1,979
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012
A tought question. In late 80's I served on M48, got trained on Leopard I. Both had the same British produced 105mm. Do you know what gun that was? I got one lead only, i think the M48 was specified as A5 or atleast something with 5.

Hi,

I think what you are referring to is the fact that the later variants of the M48 had the British produced 105mm. It was from the M48A5 onwards so that is where your A5 designation originates from.

Also as you said the Leopard 1 was also fitted with the German built version of the L7, the L7A3 variant.

It has a great history and of course the Centurion was the first tank to be fitted with the L7.

        

Hope this helps :Smile_Default:

Take Care

Attached Images



The_Challenger #16 Posted 06 June 2012 - 01:06 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4045 battles
  • 1,979
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View PostIBLiTZKRiEGI, on 05 June 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

Hello.

The 17 Pounder has appeared on one of the French TDs on the test server - but its penetration is terribly low, only 144mm. I really do hope it isn't this low in the final release, especially for the British tanks as so many rely on it (including Tier VI and above). It was one of the most powerful AT guns of the war and WG will do it no justice if they give it this terribly low penetration figure.

Hi,

Always a topic of discussion !!

Game play and historical accuracy, penetration figures can never be an exact science, even today. So much concerning ballistics has to be taken into account, drift,fling, range, ambient temperature, angle of impact and so on.

The figures for the 17 pounder with APCBC were approx 140mm at 457m and 131mm at 914 mm, APDS was about 208 mm at 457mm, like you say though good figures and was capable of penertrating the King Tiger.

Totally understand where you are coming from :Smile_Default:

Take Care

Edited by The_Challenger, 07 June 2012 - 08:38 PM.


The_Challenger #17 Posted 06 June 2012 - 01:18 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4045 battles
  • 1,979
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View PostRuuhkis, on 05 June 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

Hey there! I got trained in T-54/55 series tanks in the 90's. I'm really curious about Chieftains and Challenger 1's abilities to work in low temperatures compared to Soviet build tanks. There are many discussions around that "what was the best tank" but I like to know how did those machines work when there was no heated hangars or trained mechanics around and only the tools carried onboard can be used. For example we did left T-55 outside for 3 days when temperature was between -15-30 degrees celsius in the winter. After 4 hours of work the tank was up and running without any external powersupply. Could Chieftain do that? For some odd reason I still belive that Soviet era tanks were way better/easier to operate and reguired less maintennace than their western counterparts did in extreme winter enviroment. Am I wrong? I do know that training means a lot but I just like to know things on mechanical side, were UK tanks ever meant to be used  in very cold enviroments above arctic circle or were they designed only to work in middle european, not so cold, winters? Cheers!


Hi,

I would be lying if I didn't say there were not problems with extreme temperatures on both Chieftain and Challenger 1.

Indeed during training on both there were times when exercises were cut short purely because of this, fuel and coolant problems and critically the crews recieved no specific training for extreme cold climates. Track maintenance was a nightmare and when static to long would sometimes freeze.I once had to get Engineer assistance in BATUS, Canada, to free a frozen track.

British design always had this European theatre of War mentality and not with just extreme cold, the other extreme in Iraq during the first Gulf war saw many problems on Challenger 1 with the air intakes due to the hot and extremely dusty conditions.

:Smile_Default:

Edited by The_Challenger, 06 June 2012 - 03:29 PM.


Bobbydancer #18 Posted 06 June 2012 - 10:06 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 41216 battles
  • 852
  • [GGG] GGG
  • Member since:
    04-05-2011

View PostThe_Challenger, on 06 June 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

A tought question. In late 80's I served on M48, got trained on Leopard I. Both had the same British produced 105mm. Do you know what gun that was? I got one lead only, i think the M48 was specified as A5 or atleast something with 5.

Hi,

I think what you are referring to is the fact that the later variants of the M48 had the British produced 105mm. It was from the M48A5 onwards so that is where your A5 designation originates from.

Also as you said the Leopard 1 was also fitted with the German built version of the L7, the L7A3 variant.

It has a great history and of course the Centurion was the first tank to be fitted with the L7.

Attachment105mm.jpg

Hope this helps :Smile_Default:

Take Care

Thanks, this helps alot. The gun in the picture looks just like it. Going to google it a bit and see if i get the story about it. I have 70- 80 shots with it and liked it alot.

Pman #19 Posted 07 June 2012 - 11:00 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 15022 battles
  • 133
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010
Just wanted to add my +1 to this board in general.

Challenger is a top guy and great to sit down and have a chat with!

Nice work and congrats :)

Pete

The_Challenger #20 Posted 07 June 2012 - 11:02 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4045 battles
  • 1,979
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View PostPman, on 07 June 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

Just wanted to add my +1 to this board in general.

Challenger is a top guy and great to sit down and have a chat with!

Nice work and congrats :)

Pete

Aghh thanks Pete very kind :Smile_Default:

I owe you another beer ! lol

Take Care Mate :Smile_Default:




4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users