Jump to content


FV 301 - will it ever come?

FV 301 light tank tree

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

TheFuzzyOne #21 Posted 28 January 2014 - 10:54 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9980 battles
  • 1,869
  • Member since:
    08-31-2012

View PostEruantien_Aduialdraug, on 28 January 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

A46 was the prototype of the FV301, it had a much smaller engine and was ~5 t lighter. And I had a c.r.a.f.t. moment and forgot about the new premium gift.

 

That said, I can find no reference to the Mk V having a 2 pdr, only co-axial mounted MGs (one 50 cal and one 303). Also, if we have the Vickers 6 ton it would have to be the Type B because WoT doesn't have multi turret support; hence 11-13 hp/t, 35 km/h and the 3 pdr from the Medium Mk I.

 

Interesting on the A46. Do you have any documentation surrounding it? I'd love to have something to add to my "Index" thread you may have seen. :)

 

The Mk V didn't so much "have" a 2-dr, but it was tested with one in an alternate turret! In theory this could also act as a Tier 2 turreted TD, but the arguement could be made to still count as a light. This source here describes it as a "tank destroyer" as was tested in 1938, but as I said, the arguement could be made either way given the 2-pdr isn't outwith tier 2 light tanks.

 

 

I fully agree on the Type B for the 6-ton though. Thats what I was meaning.



Eruantien_Aduialdraug #22 Posted 29 January 2014 - 02:54 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12102 battles
  • 370
  • [SNOO] SNOO
  • Member since:
    02-02-2012

View PostTheFuzzyOne, on 28 January 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

 

Interesting on the A46. Do you have any documentation surrounding it? I'd love to have something to add to my "Index" thread you may have seen. :)

 

The Mk V didn't so much "have" a 2-dr, but it was tested with one in an alternate turret! In theory this could also act as a Tier 2 turreted TD, but the arguement could be made to still count as a light. This source here describes it as a "tank destroyer" as was tested in 1938, but as I said, the arguement could be made either way given the 2-pdr isn't outwith tier 2 light tanks.

 

I fully agree on the Type B for the 6-ton though. Thats what I was meaning.

Pretty much all of my info on the A46 (of which I have found evidence elsewhere, this is the only place I've found ant numbers. A friend of mine who studies the history of mechanical warfare is looking into it further) is from here http://forum.worldof...29#entry1204629

 

The 2 pdr armed Mk V looks very interesting. Whether it ends up being a tier 2 light or a tier 2 turreted TD (as the start of the line that includes the Archer?) really is up to the design team, if it is included at all.

 

And yeah, it's really the only version of the 6-ton we can have in game. Shame really, it would be interesting to see how the twin 50 cal turrets would work in WoT.

 

Edit: love the caption for the image (or more accurately, the image next to it) "A fine image of a Light Tank Mk IVB..."


Edited by Eruantien_Aduialdraug, 29 January 2014 - 03:24 AM.


TheFuzzyOne #23 Posted 29 January 2014 - 03:33 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9980 battles
  • 1,869
  • Member since:
    08-31-2012

View PostEruantien_Aduialdraug, on 29 January 2014 - 02:54 AM, said:

 

Edit: love the caption for the image (or more accurately, the image next to it) "A fine image of a Light Tank Mk IVB..."

 

It's ever so British. :p

 

I see that info on the A46 was from HenkofHolland. Unfortunately I can't find any real imagery to consider it able to go on my Index yet. But I'll take a gander!



Tigger3 #24 Posted 30 January 2014 - 03:13 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13608 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostEruantien_Aduialdraug, on 28 January 2014 - 03:32 PM, said:

Edit: Just clocked Silentstalker's comment on how FV101 has been deemed "too modern". Care to elaborate? I mean, lets compare it to the AMX 13 90; The 101 is 8.5 km/h faster on the road, and has less ground resistance (about the same as an infantryman), the 13 90 has a better power to weight ratio by 0.6 (so barely noticable, but will help offset the ground resistance difference). The 13 90 is nearly 5 t heavier, and has more rear hull armour than the 101 has front armour. Granted, the 13 90 shouldn't be trying to ram or tank shells, but the front 40 mm means that only guns of 120 mm or above will fully overmatch, meaning that it can bounce at oblique angles of the front (I've had Leopard PTAs bounce off my AMX 12 t). It also means that artillery will only have to land a shell in the same grid reference to cripple the 101, and any tank can just load HE and go clean through (the only tier 1s with less hull armour are the Medium I and the T1 Cunningham, even then, it's debatable, the tier 1s have steel armour as opposed to the 101's aluminium). Regarding the gun, both are equipped with the same gun (90 mm F3 in French service, Cockerill 90 mm Mk III in British service), {British used a short barrelled low velocity 76mm (ROF L23A1) not 90mm - that was only used by export nations (Scorpion 90) and often fitted as an upgrade, as far as I can remember it only fired HESH as an AT round} hence the AP round should be identical (170 mm pen, 240 damage). Using the L7 as a model, we would expect HESH to be ~120 mm pen, and British HE to be ~70 mm pen with damages equal to the existing HE damage for this gun (320 average damage. Penetrations for the APCR and HE on the 13 90 are 248 mm and 45 mm). I wouldn't ask for special accuracy and aim time bonuses like the Leopard I gets, so the accuracy would be 0.38 and the aim time 3 seconds like the 13 90 with a RoF similar to the 13 90's sustained rate (~6.5 r/min). Now, I haven't got any data for turret or track traverse speeds for the 101, but with regards balance I can't see any need for them to be far adrift from the 13 90's (46 deg/s turret, 40 deg/s track).

 



Eruantien_Aduialdraug #25 Posted 30 January 2014 - 08:33 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12102 battles
  • 370
  • [SNOO] SNOO
  • Member since:
    02-02-2012
I am well aware of this. The Scorpion 2 was a limited export CVR(T). However, given that the Indien Panzer wasn't even an export tank is having a gun that's already in game too much? (The Indien Panzer was designed by German engineers who'd moved to Switzerland after the war. The engine, tracks, gun and turret were to be fabricated by a group of German engineering firms, the rest of the tank was to be built in India. It never was because the contract went to Vickers [with the Vijayanta]).

Tigger3 #26 Posted 31 January 2014 - 08:06 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13608 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostEruantien_Aduialdraug, on 30 January 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

I am well aware of this. The Scorpion 2 was a limited export CVR(T). However, given that the Indien Panzer wasn't even an export tank is having a gun that's already in game too much? (The Indien Panzer was designed by German engineers who'd moved to Switzerland after the war. The engine, tracks, gun and turret were to be fabricated by a group of German engineering firms, the rest of the tank was to be built in India. It never was because the contract went to Vickers [with the Vijayanta]).

 

Then why post this bit

 

Block Quote

 Regarding the gun, both are equipped with the same gun (90 mm F3 in French service, Cockerill 90 mm Mk III in British service)

 

I was replying that in British service it never had the 90mm - not that it was not fitted at all or that it could not be an option. 



Eruantien_Aduialdraug #27 Posted 01 February 2014 - 04:24 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12102 battles
  • 370
  • [SNOO] SNOO
  • Member since:
    02-02-2012

View PostTigger3, on 31 January 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

 

Then why post this bit

 

 

I was replying that in British service it never had the 90mm - not that it was not fitted at all or that it could not be an option. 

Yeaah, I didn't word it very well. The gun itself was in British service, but was mounted on the Scorpion only for export.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users