Main page

Waroch, on 01 May 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

The Centurion was designed to be what the British at the time termed 'Universal Tank', it was envisaged that it would do all roles on the battlefield. In modern parlance that would be described as MBT.

I really want to grind up for it now but I feel it will take a while. Better get saving now i guess.

Tigger3, on 02 May 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

That's just a name.
The Russians called their T62s medium tanks, yet we know them as MBTs.

Tigger3, on 02 May 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

Another possible convert.
You'll agree with me that the Type 97 Chi-Ha was the first MBT then. Because when it was designed it was envisioned to be a the only tank in Japan's arsenal.

Yeah I know, I'm mad, occasionally I get traction with some people when I say that.

Listy, on 02 May 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

  to be fair the Japanese never really accepted the concept of tanks fighting other tanks until very late on, the Chi Ha (always makes me think of old cowboy films Yeeha) was to support the infantry so had the 57mm gun which was later changed to the 47mm to have a measure of dealing with armour.

I will give it to the Japanese their tanks were suited to how they wished to use them and where they wished to use them, just not suited to what everyone else's ideas were (with the possible exception of the Italians and Romanians, although I suspect that was more probably down to industrial capability).

Exocet6951, on 02 May 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

The Soviets were still calling their T64 and T72 medium tanks, but then the Soviets did still have heavy tanks in the shape of the T10.

Tigger3, on 02 May 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

To be fair the local opponents whom had tanks amounted to a few tin cans in China when the tank was designed. The Japanese did use their tanks in a blitzkreig style.

Listy, on 02 May 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Yes facing a right old mix up of Soviet T26, German Panzer I, French FT17, they could be excused very easily for discounting tank on tank action (until Khalin Gol anyway).

Tigger3, on 02 May 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

Nomonhan Incident

After that they started developing new AT guns, then once those were finalised they started mounting them in tanks.

3 years from realising the need to getting a new gun into production and then strapping it onto a tank, all considering Japan's pitiful manufacturing position and the tank's position in that, is pretty good going.

Listy, on 02 May 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

   Six of one half dozen of the other, depends where you live and heard of it.

I'll just settle for a cup of tea and a Black Prince

Tigger3, on 02 May 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

Most of my reserch has been focused on the other side of the wire to the USSR

Ebeneezergoode, on 22 December 2011 - 11:29 PM, said:

Rather hard to argue with that  

Renko1917, on 04 May 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

On the contrary it's remarkably easy if you've actually read a detailed account of the fighting. Somme with tanks and minefields, more or less, except the Syrians couldn't even rely on artillery to suppress the defenses. Not that they had much by the way of better options either.

Given the circumstances, the Israelis might well have gotten equal mileage out of those upgunned "Super Shermans".

Kellomies, on 04 May 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Ok lets rephrase:
The Sinai is in Israeli hands due to the Centurion!

Kellomies, on 04 May 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

The same or similar sorts of minefields the Israelis had to fight through to gain the Golan heights off of the Syrians in the first place then.

Tuccy, on 18 January 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

HESH, The weapon of choice to disable equipment and kill the crew, but barely damaging the tank itself.
Or that is what I would expect at least...

Celestia, on 09 May 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

That has been suggested, dunno if the game mechanics will support it or if WG.Net will take it on board.

Orkel2, on 22 December 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

[Irony on]

If it was a russian tank, we would certainly hear: "Ammo storage is hit! We're lucky it didn't blow!"

If it was a german tank, we would certainly hear: "The Radioman is down! We can only signal nearby vehicles!"

If it was a french tank, we would certainly hear: "They blew off our track! We're stuck!" (At least no matter where I hit those french they are always detracked)

No experience what it could be on USA tanks

[Irony off]

Cool video, thanks for posting!

Celestia, on 09 May 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

It can leave little to show on the outside armour but the inside of the tank could be totaled (even without a fire, due to the metal from the spalling flying around), anything on the exterior of the tank near the impact would be destroyed as well from the blast (optics being a prime example).