Jump to content


Vickers Medium Mk I and II


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

Byz #21 Posted 13 January 2012 - 03:49 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 40476 battles
  • 179
  • Member since:
    05-02-2011
Me too,

The Vickers 6 Ton Tank would fit great into Tier 1 battles.
And it´s a famous and important Tank of the late 1920´s. It should have a place in the british Tech Tree.
On the other Hand it was never used by the british Army but it was sold to many counties or copied by them.
(Poland, Rusia ect.)

Yamaxanadu #22 Posted 13 January 2012 - 04:01 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1215 battles
  • 5,026
  • Member since:
    10-07-2011
About OP suggestion. Why not if Vick was first mass produced tank of the UK. Like MS-1 was first mass produced tank made in USSR.

View Posttheta0123, on 12 January 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

British tanks>American tanks in WW2
Something like this is more truthful.
German Tanks > USSR Tanks > British Mods of USA Tanks > USA Tanks > British Tanks

Kyphe #23 Posted 13 January 2012 - 04:28 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16253 battles
  • 2,115
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011
Posted Image

i do like the bustle radio box on this turret

btw the medium mk1 was originally called the Vickers Light Tank Mark I

Bob_Marley42 #24 Posted 13 January 2012 - 05:26 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 11429 battles
  • 39
  • Member since:
    06-02-2011

View Posttheta0123, on 12 January 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

At the start of normandy, the british had 1500 Fireflies and 1000 Achilles at there disposal. Capable of penetrating any german tank frontally exept the kingtiger
The americans had none
The british understood threats like the panther tank.

Thats largely due to a difference in doctrine and intelligence analisis - the Americans believed that the Panther would only be in low rate production akin to the tiger and so would be encountered only rarely, so were somewhat surprised when half the German tanks in Normandy turned out to be Panthers. Additionally in American doctrine tanks did not fight tanks, tanks fought infantry & strongpoints while tank destroyers engauged enemy tanks. Obviously this isn't what happened in the field, but the doctrine was still stuck to.

One also has to consider logistics - American tanks had to cross the Atlantic before they could be used in Europe and the simple fact is you can fit lots of Shermans and Sherman derivatives on a ship instead of larger, heavier vehicles (don't know about the Pershing and whatnot but they could carry 8 M4 Shermans to England for the same tonnage as 3 M6 heavies). So the soultion to the inferiority of American tanks was simply to use more - its all very well that a Tiger can happily knock out 10 Shermans, just bring 11. Add in the need for ammunition and spare parts and you can easily understand why the Americans opted for a few universal designs.

The Brits, on the other hand, had a more limited industrial base, more limited population and shorter supply chain. That placed more focus on protection (in addition to the significant casualties suffered by the tank corps in North Africa with thier lightly armoured cruiser tanks early in the war) and allowed them to field a wider variety of vehicles (as well as the Americans being able to supply sigificant amounts of ammunition for thier 75mm Shermans & Cromwells and for the 6pdr, freeing up production space for shells like the 17pdr). Additionally the British believed that heavily armoured German tanks would be encountered in significantly larger numbers than the Americans expected, so they brought in heavier guns to allow them to be delt with frontally at longer ranges.

ST809 #25 Posted 13 January 2012 - 08:18 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 20779 battles
  • 19
  • Member since:
    09-14-2011

View Posttheta0123, on 12 January 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

euhm


what


British tanks>American tanks in WW2

At the start of normandy, the british had 1500 Fireflies and 1000 Achilles at there disposal. Capable of penetrating any german tank frontally exept the kingtiger
The americans had none
The british understood threats like the panther tank.


The british deployed 5000+ churchill tanks in WW2. These can be considerd Heavy tanks
The US.. 254 sherman jumbo's and a dozen of pershings at the end of the war


the cherchill was the only heavy tank the brits made in britan but thay did have better in the near the end of the war
orso can any1 tell me if the Comet I and Centurion is a heavy or a med tank?

Kellomies #26 Posted 13 January 2012 - 12:01 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 15159 battles
  • 4,289
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
Teknik'ly speaking the Churchill wasn't a "heavy" tank; it was a thoroughbred infantry tank, and arguably just about the apex of the whole concept. (Snarkers could also argue that it was the only genuinely *good* design the UK engineers put together before the effectively postwar Centurion...) That it was - at least in the massively armoured versions from Mark VII onwards - the heaviest tank the Allies had in active combat service is beside the point, as it was neither designed, designated nor considered a "heavy".

Matter of fact, unless you count the in-name-only Pershing (which more or less missed the war anyway) the Allies simply never had any actual heavy tanks (as defined at the time) in active service.

As far as the Brit and Yank armaments by Normady go, there's also the detail that the 17pdr quite lacked a HE shell. Which sort of put a damper on the portion of vehicles that could even in principle be armed with it, technical and industrial issues (like the somewhat limited availability of the gun itself) nonwithstanding.
Still, AFAIK the Britishers had a rather more realistic conception of the role the tank destroyers filled...

Oh, and the Centurion was no longer a "medium" or "heavy" design - it was about the first example of the next-generation paradigm, the "universal tank" (in modern parlance, Main Battle Tank).

Listy #27 Posted 13 January 2012 - 12:08 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12101 battles
  • 5,727
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostKellomies, on 13 January 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

[...] it was about the first example of the next-generation paradigm, the "universal tank" (in modern parlance, Main Battle Tank).

I think that Accolade goes to the Type 97 Chi-Ha.

Kellomies #28 Posted 13 January 2012 - 02:51 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 15159 battles
  • 4,289
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
I somewhat fail to perceive how that somewhat below bog-standard Thirties piece of rivets is supposed to have been an early example of the next generation of tank design paradigm.
Please elaborate.

Listy #29 Posted 13 January 2012 - 03:21 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12101 battles
  • 5,727
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostKellomies, on 13 January 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

I somewhat fail to perceive how that somewhat below bog-standard Thirties piece of rivets is supposed to have been an early example of the next generation of tank design paradigm.
Please elaborate.

:) The Type 97 was designed to be Japan's only tank, to fill all roles. That to me is a "universal" Tank.

Kellomies #30 Posted 13 January 2012 - 11:05 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 15159 battles
  • 4,289
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
Like Hell it was - they had something like half a dozen designs in service at any given time. Nevermind now that you don't use mediums (to which category the 97 falls) or infantry tanks for light-tank recce and security duties. Moreover that is not what universal tank, AKA main battle tank, as a design concept means - eg. the M4 Sherman (nevermind now the profilic permutations of that reliable and versatile platform) was very much the do-everything fighting machine of the western Allied armies, doubly so as the Americans preferred to avoid the distraction of specialised infantry-support designs, and it was most assuredly a "medium tank" (or "cruiser", or "cavalry"...) design.

Listy #31 Posted 14 January 2012 - 12:19 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12101 battles
  • 5,727
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostKellomies, on 13 January 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

Like Hell it was - they had something like half a dozen designs in service at any given time.

All of those designs were older. Japan's aim of replacing them all with Type 97's was never achieved because of the war situation were tank production was dead last on Japan's list of priorities for her inadequate resources. As the war, and technology improved they designed new tanks, but it wasn't until the utter idiocy of the type 5 Chi-Ri that they abandoned the concept of one mark of tank to do everything.

Kellomies #32 Posted 14 January 2012 - 12:51 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 15159 battles
  • 4,289
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
As they AFAIK didn't ascribe to the concept of a separate true infantry tank, trying to focus on a single "backbone" design to cover most necessities was only sensible (though such lucidity was hardly a given considering how the state was run, mind you - don't get me started on the mess they made on the service cartridges...) - the Americans did much the same, heavy-tank projects or no. Succeeding in the effort is a different thing of course, but regardless that 1) hardly invalidated the need for light tanks for assorted tasks the mediums were inappropriate (or overkill) for - the Japs kept coming up with new designs for the class right to the end 2) doesn't make a blatantly typical medium-tank design an "universal tank" in the design-paradigm sense.

Listy #33 Posted 14 January 2012 - 01:07 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12101 battles
  • 5,727
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011
:) No need to start on the Cartridges, I've been researching the Japanese for the last three years, I know (As well as you do) how much the Japanese really hated QM's!.

However. Designing something as a single tank type means its an MBT. No matter how they came to that conclusion. Its still designed to be the one tank type in the army.
Ok How would you describe an MBT? Other than a Tank to do anything. Remember even modern armies with MBT's use light tanks as well. So The Presence of Light tanks for scouting can't really be used as a disqualifier against the Japanese.

Kyphe #34 Posted 14 January 2012 - 02:05 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16253 battles
  • 2,115
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011
That view is highly contentions and subjective to what a person believes the idea of a universal or MBT is

If you subscribe to the idea that an MBT is a tank designed to be the only tank in an armed force then possibly the Japanese tank counts.

however if you believe the universal/MBT tank is a tank designed to perform most battlefield roles "well" such as infantry support, main assault, tank hunting and destruction, ground supremacy, flank assault, interdiction, escort, breakthrough and exploitation, rapid response, force recon. then the Japanese tank does not count, as rather than build a tank that could perform multiple roles they simply designated other roles to non tank units, as in to say we simply wont use a tank for that job.

it is perfectly possible to have a universal/mbt tank in an army which still uses light and heavy tanks.

same as having a multirole fighter plane in a force which has interceptors and strike fighters

ofc the cent was not designed as a Universal/MBT it was simply found that it fitted the concept perfectly and developed as such from that point on

Catarraz #35 Posted 14 January 2012 - 07:05 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13332 battles
  • 928
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011
I don't really think the japanese Type 97 can be considered an early MBT, because of the simple fact that they didn't think at first "lets build a tank that can do everything"; the Type 97 was their multi-role tank because it was the best they had. That does not mean it performed as well as other specialized vehicles in their role.

This is why the german Panther is considered the first true MBT, the germans did think "We need a tank that can do everything"; as you see, the Panther is bigger than the PzIV, better armoured, and carries a powerful gun, but it is lighter than the Tiger and much more mobile!

But in the end, I understand what you mean, because I too had thought about what could have been an early concept of a MBT, but instead of the Type 97, I thought about a more obvious candidate, which represented more than one third of it's nation's tank force: T-34  ;)


View PostListy, on 14 January 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

it wasn't until the utter idiocy of the type 5 Chi-Ri that they abandoned the concept of one mark of tank to do everything.

You better deal with it, as that utter idiocy will probably be our tier VI if a japanese tech tree is ever realeased... :P


That aside...



View PostByz, on 13 January 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

The Vickers 6 Ton Tank would fit great into Tier 1 battles.
And it´s a famous and important Tank of the late 1920´s. It should have a place in the british Tech Tree.
On the other Hand it was never used by the british Army but it was sold to many counties or copied by them.
(Poland, Rusia ect.)

As I generally say, once again, the Vickers 6-tons was the basis for the T-26, which is tier II, so it should be tier II as well.

Kyphe #36 Posted 14 January 2012 - 07:49 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16253 battles
  • 2,115
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011
If you classify the t34 as a MBT then so was the sherman

Panther was a good intermediary between medium and MBT concepts, as it fulfilled some of today's requirements of an MBT as in to have a gun capable of penetrating heavy's and it should have frontal armor potentially capable of surviving a hit from a big gun so it can act in the direct fire capacity in view of the enemy.

surprisingly leopard 1 had very weak armor so always appeared to me to more of an MBTD

Catarraz #37 Posted 14 January 2012 - 11:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13332 battles
  • 928
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011
The Sherman was not even meant to engage enemy tanks in the first place so, given this screamingly obvious fact, you simply cannot on any level compare a Sherman to a MBT. It's almost an insult.
The T-34 however, was not only meant to fight enemy armour, as it was employed in virtually all roles.

I tried to be clear that it it's not justifiable to compare a T-34 to a MBT because despite seeming much like an early concept of one, the Panther fills this place much better than the T-34.

And again, the Russians did not think "we need a tank good in every role"; they thought something more like "so it's a good tank? OK, let's employ it everywhere."
It was just a too early of a design to be viably compared to a MBT... It just seems like one...


Oh and BTW,

View PostKyphe, on 13 January 2012 - 04:28 AM, said:

btw the medium mk1 was originally called the Vickers Light Tank Mark I

The most important reply so far posted in this thread IMO. If I was not out of positive reps for today, I'd give one or some if I could.  :Smile_great:

Tuccy #38 Posted 15 January 2012 - 11:01 AM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14463 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010

View PostUMM, on 14 January 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

The Sherman was not even meant to engage enemy tanks in the first place so, given this screamingly obvious fact, you simply cannot on any level compare a Sherman to a MBT. It's almost an insult.
The T-34 however, was not only meant to fight enemy armour, as it was employed in virtually all roles.

Erm... 75mm M3 had better anti-armor performance tha 76mm F-34. Of course Sherman was, same as T-34, meant to have anti-tank combat in its portfolio, just not as its sole )or even primary) task - it was to be an all-purpose Medium tank (and since most of the time tanks - or even tank destroyers - spent fighting non-armroed targets, potent HE was preferred).

US tank commanders (prior to june 1944) shunned the need of 76mm on Sherman because 75mm was good enough for most armored threats encountered on the battlefield (IE Pz III, IV and their derivatives) and the few Tigers/Panthers (pretty rare in Italy) were easily dealt with using specialised assets (antitank guns). So it was not case of "Sherman not meant to fight tanks" but "Sherman 75mm good enough to fight tanks it usually encountered".
Normandy and Battle of France changed this, of course, but the screamingly obvious fact is that Shermans even before that were meant to fight enemy tanks and did so, and had better facilities to do it thatn their contemporary (apeaking of 1942) Pz III long, Pz IV short, or T-34/76 designs.

Catarraz #39 Posted 15 January 2012 - 11:38 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13332 battles
  • 928
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011
Unlike popular knowlege, the Sherman was infact an infantry tank; it was meant to support infantry rather than to engage enemy armour. Now, obviously it was not an infantry tank like those of the british and french, a big, well armored and armed, slow tank, it had a different concept, a cheap, light and practical tank good for mass(ive) production, good for expeditionary forces.
In the end, it's purpose is what doesn't make him a MBT, tank destroyers engage armour, sherman stays with infantry. Now, obviously the Sherman would occasionally engage armour if it had to, but incorporating shermans to anti-tank forces would be a big mistake. Shermans also quite failed against the true new generation of tanks, the Panther.

I can also put things in an other way:try comparing a Panther to a Sherman. Not exactly the same thing...

But anywho, why not create a topic for this discussion if you feel like continuing it? Just to keep this thread on-topic.

Kyphe #40 Posted 15 January 2012 - 02:40 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16253 battles
  • 2,115
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011
well you are mistaken about the infantry tank, the US had already concluded that the German blitzkrieg stile of warfare rendered their current Infantry/Calvary tank ideas obsolete, The M3 was specifically designed with anti-tank capability's in mind and the M4 is a further improvement of that, with the commercial demands from the British being forefront in consideration.

by that I mean whatever the tank doctrine of US forces (tanks and TDs), it ended up in secondary in consideration as the tank was being built to be sold to the brits who did not subscribe to the US TD doctrine.

the prototype even used a 6pdr as one of its armament combination's.

I think there are loads of thread about this subject lol no need to start a new one, I'm sure tuccy can link you as he is probably in all of them




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users