Source origin: comrad_34 (RU server) - Спасибо, товарищ!
This particular vehicle might serve as a lowtier premium UK (Canadian) tank destroyer. Behold, the T15, also known as the Kupchak landship!
This was a late WW1 design for an armored tracked vehicle, proposed by Ing.Stephen Kupchak. It was to be based on the Holt tracked tractor chassis, but with some significant improvements. The construction was simple - really - a box-like hull (the sides had no slope whatsoever). The crew combat compartment was situated in the front and in the middle, there was the engine and transmission compartment. The fuel tanks were situated on the sides - one big on the left and two smaller on the right.
Kupchak introduced his project by the end of 1918 to the British War Office. It was too late - the war was already almost over and the Allied soldiers had better vehicles back then. Mr.Kupchak even requested to build a prototype, but was denied. Some time after the war, the War Office contacted Mr.Kupchak and asked him to build a prototype vehicle, but offered no financial aid to accomplish that whatsoever.
As for the design itself, Mr.Kupchak didn't submit his design with any particular engine selected, so the powerplant remains a mystery. The same goes for its gun - the design doesn't mention any particular type and caliber that might have been used - this was because Mr.Kupchak thought that he'd get that provided by the War Office (along with funds) if they approved his design. There is also the concern that the vehicle would be too heavy (30-40 tons projected) for its suspension.
Weight: cca 30 tons
Crew: 6-8
Length: cca 7 meters
Width: cca 3 meters
Height: cca 3,5 meters
Weapons: one 75-100mm gun and two 7,62-8mm machineguns
Transmission: mechanical
Pics do not load.
ReplyDeleteShould be fixed now.
Deleteyep it works :)
DeleteHorrible.
ReplyDeleteAfter playing the Churchill Gun Carrier for two weeks, I never want another box on tracks. It put me off my Tog as well.
All the same, thanks for the interesting piece.
This is the biggest shit ive seen....
ReplyDeletethis!
Deletecanadians and brits should be banned from ever constructing tanks...
ReplyDeleteThis was made at a time when only 4 nations on this planet were constructing tanks. Us "Brits" since then have produced some of the best tanks and most innovative designs compared to other nations, so go fuck yourself.
DeleteIf by "innovative" you mean "ugly", then by all means you are right. ;)
DeleteI'm not debating that British tanks are technologically advanced, but the looks make my eyes bleed.
Again, it was WW1. Tanks back then were slow, heavy, thinly armoured slugs. They weren't pretty, they were meant to cross trenches, house weapons and breach through the lines. How the tank looks is pointless if the tank isn't going to work. I'd rather take a tank that works, than one that looks good.
DeleteTOG is the most goddam beautiful beast in the game. Brit tanks are designed to be functional, this isn't a pinanfarina design house but a method of killing your enemies. This landship is far less odd than many European designs or the monstrosities being designed in the USA.
DeleteI'm not talking about this landship here, I know perfectly well what WWI designs looked like.
DeleteBut as time moved on, other countries realized that they can make tanks AND make them look fearsome or kickass and contribute to psychological warfare.
The British decided that they will make good tanks dressed up as clowns. The purpose of this is unknown ;)
Sadly, the early ones didn't really work either, but that's beside the point. No early tanks looked good from any nation.
DeleteAnd Mr Meizner, if you think the Conqueror is ugly, I pity you. It's the most pleasing on the eye in game imo.
Of course, there are always exceptions... but you know the thing with exceptions :)
DeleteI even admit that I like their TD designs, but this is as far as I can get.
So wait, you like the TD designs? Huh, so what else do you describe as good looking tanks?
DeletePershing, Super Pershing, Patton I-III, Chaffee with first (historical) turret, KV-1, KV-1S, IS-series, Tiger series, Panthers, E-50M, all the Types, M7 MT, T29, T32... just to name a few.
DeleteThe T29 and KV 1? Really?
DeleteYeah because all those tanks look scary. Whenever I see a stock Chaffee I run in fear.
DeleteAnd the KV's, yay for bulging bland armour and a turret with a face thats horribly hideous. Where as the Black Prince smiles at you as its killing you, whilst rolling along looking sexy with its curved track covers. And don't forget about the Matilda's curves and sloped arse.
And as for practicality, the SuperPershing has its recoil dampeners on the top of its turret, and you still find a tank that isn't even still more attractive than the British tanks.
No offence mate, but you have a bad sence of style when it comes to picking out tanks.
Ah, I missed a bit out there. Hate Laptops.
DeleteAnd as for practicality, the SuperPershing has its recoil dampeners on the top of its turret, and you still find a tank that isn't even holding its inner workings together exposing weakspots still more attractive than the British tanks.
Anonymus#93245678, I never said a Chaffee is fearsome. It looks kickass though (and i have mentioned both words in my earlier post).
DeleteThe Black Prince in my opinion is anything but sexy, you would think that British designers should know the term "curved", but judging by the bulky, squared turrets they design, that seems not to be the case. But you are probably right, as there are people who like to bang big chicks with bulgy fat bellies, there are those who prefer skinny sticks with visible ribs, and there are those who say that there's nothing prettier than a horse's behind.
That doesn't change the fact that they are the minoriy.
As for the Matilda, I don't really get excited about its "arse" as for me a tank is not a sex object. Its turret looks like a face full of zits, though.
Implying that people who think British tanks look good is the same as people who find fat chicks attractive? That's racist. You sir can go fuck yourself, because if you think that a sleek Black Prince is fat, but a T29 isn't, you clrealy don't understand beauty and are better off alone.
DeleteEven better an example is the SuperPershing. If the turret of the tank is a face, then the SuperPershings face is falling off. Not to mention the huge 'belly' sticking out in front.
Hold on, hold on. Where the hell did I say that the BP is fat?
DeleteThe T29 is a big tank, but at least it has some character...although with the second turret it looks like Mickey Mouse.
Behold, the mighty Bathtub.
ReplyDeleteThe mendeleed tank has a brother finally!
ReplyDelete[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/b/bf/Mendeleev_tank.jpg[/IMG]
Not to mention the Rybinsk:
ReplyDeletehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/7/7c/Rybinsky_tank_possible_view.jpg
dafuq is this shit?
ReplyDeleteLooks like the new German Aufklärungs Panther (Tier7) to me :-)
ReplyDeleteat the slightest slope this thing will tip on its side HARD.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with just using the Flying Elephant at tier 3? At least that had some curves to hopefully bounce a shot despite having rather thin armor.
ReplyDeleteDEAR GOD it's ugly!!
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10TP
ReplyDeleteThis tank could be a nice Polish premium tank with the top speed of 75 km/h or, just a tank that could be in the future EU tank tree.
Am i the only one who read Cupcake Tank?
ReplyDelete...is it just me or does this have "cheap Saint-Chamond copy" written all over it? What it wins in reduced hull overhang it loses in being pointlessly tall and probably worrisomely prone to tipping over...
ReplyDeletethe designers of this tank were probably smoking something, but it could be used as a tier 2 TD.
ReplyDelete