Jump to content


Archer (SPG)


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
11 replies to this topic

harrydressel #1 Posted 07 July 2012 - 09:33 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2971 battles
  • 40
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012
I wanted to put this SPG in the mix of the british arty that on the forums. :D
Posted Image



Posted Image



It looks nice and here are the spec for the SPG:

Service history In service September 1944 - ? (UK) Used by United Kingdom, Egypt Wars World War II, Suez Crisis
Production history Manufacturer Vickers Produced March 1943 - May 1945[1] Number built 655

Specifications Weight 15 tons (15 tonnes) Length 21 ft 11 in (6.7 m) Width 9 ft (2.76 m) Height 7 ft 4 in (2.25 m) Crew 4 (Commander, gunner, loader, driver) Armour 14 - 60 mm (.55 - 2.36 in) Main
armament QF 17 pounder (76.2 mm) gun
39 rounds Secondary
armament .303 Bren light machine gun Engine GMC 6-71 6-cyl diesel
192 hp Power/weight 10.1 hp/t Suspension coil spring bogie Fuel capacity 227 litres (60 gallons) Operational
range 140 km on roads (87 mi) Speed 20 mph (32 km/h)
off road: 8 mph



The archer can be used as a SPG and it can also be used as a TD.
Also the chassis is the same as the valentine :D

I hope you consider it.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia....tank_destroyer)

http://www.militaryf...sp?armor_id=381

Thanks

raziekaine #2 Posted 07 July 2012 - 09:45 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 557
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010
umm its just the same archer already considered for a td.  it wasnt intended for indirect fire so it isnt arty.

harrydressel #3 Posted 07 July 2012 - 10:01 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2971 battles
  • 40
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012
But is was used as arty...

raziekaine #4 Posted 07 July 2012 - 11:07 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 557
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010
when? the 17lb gun was too high velocity for the use as artillery. are you refering to them being part of the artillery corp? they were issued to the artillery because thats how the brits designated them, mobile guns.  the archer was only a td.

Catarraz #5 Posted 07 July 2012 - 12:08 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7797 battles
  • 1,026
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011
People often confuse the term "self-propelled gun" with "artillery". These don't have to be necessarily the same...

mr3awsome #6 Posted 07 July 2012 - 02:52 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15684 battles
  • 3,170
  • [TMT] TMT
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011
technically the term SPG covers AA, AT, arty and assult guns

Tigger3 #7 Posted 07 July 2012 - 06:34 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11166 battles
  • 1,731
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View Postharrydressel, on 07 July 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

But is was used as arty...

The Archer was issued to Royal Artillery, Anti Tank Units. It was not used as a field gun, although several other high velocity weapons used by the RA were.

LGrum #8 Posted 07 July 2012 - 09:43 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 491
  • Member since:
    08-10-2010

View Postmr3awsome, on 07 July 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

technically the term SPG covers AA, AT, arty and assult guns

I'll go with that, and illustrate it thus.

Archer is an artillery weapon.

Archer is a self-propelled artillery weapon

Archer is a self-propelled gun

Archer is a self-propelled anti-tank gun

Archer is a self-propelled 17 pdr anti-tank gun



Brachiaraidos #9 Posted 17 July 2012 - 08:40 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 11134 battles
  • 543
  • Member since:
    01-04-2011
Point being, it's no good for indirect fire. A lot of the SPG's in game were nowhere near as indirect as they're used in WoT- looking at you, priest- but they did work that way. The Archer was a level firing tank, and thus falls under WoT's 'TD' tree.

RadekFelcman #10 Posted 19 July 2012 - 08:58 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 23025 battles
  • 15
  • [WCZTB] WCZTB
  • Member since:
    09-01-2011
haha archer is TD. XD

zeppo #11 Posted 03 August 2012 - 06:39 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 20627 battles
  • 241
  • Member since:
    11-14-2010
The "SPG issue" exists just because the Brits didn't know how to classify them  properly, despite of "use" them accordingly .
They hardly managed to think of to give the "fast" tanks to the "Cav" units and the "slow" ones to the infantry but that's it O_o ,add  more "unhistorical new stuff" isn't the british army way :Smile_blinky:
They never invented a "use"or "decend" tactic  for tank destroyers and tank artillery because they're just mobile antitank guns and artillery without horses,
those just had to fit into old standard tactics and wheren't concidered as something new at the battlefield. :Smile-hiding:

Tigger3 #12 Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:07 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11166 battles
  • 1,731
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View Postzeppo, on 03 August 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

The "SPG issue" exists just because the Brits didn't know how to classify them  properly, despite of "use" them accordingly .
They hardly managed to think of to give the "fast" tanks to the "Cav" units and the "slow" ones to the infantry but that's it O_o ,add  more "unhistorical new stuff" isn't the british army way :Smile_blinky:
They never invented a "use"or "decend" tactic  for tank destroyers and tank artillery because they're just mobile antitank guns and artillery without horses,
those just had to fit into old standard tactics and wheren't concidered as something new at the battlefield. :Smile-hiding:

eh? A few things seem to have been lost in translation.

It appears to be a dig at stereo typical views of the British Army though.