Tips

Please take your time and read the blog rules

Mar 28, 2013

Secret English tank project?

Source: http://world-of-kwg.livejournal.com/177843.html
Author: Yuri Pasholok

There was a document found in the Russian archive. It is a report, dated January 1943, presumably gained from spies, about a British tank project currently developed.




The tank seemed really interesting. Its characteristics from the report:

Weight - 60 tons
Armor thickness - sides 65 and 75mm, frontal armor 110mm
Weapons - 65mm gun in central turret, 18pounder gun, two 20mm AA machineguns, placed in two rear turrets
Speed - 20mph (32kph)
Range - 200 miles (320km)

The tank was supposed to have 4 diesel engines from the Valentine tanks with 131hp each, together producing 624hp. Each engine was placed in one corner of the hull. The center of the hull was empty and formed a passage from the driver's compartment to the combat compartment and read compartment. Each engine had a clutch, a transmission, the gear was coupled thru a conical pairing with a transverse shaft. There were two such shafts - one for each side of the tank. These shafts were connected to the side friction clutches. There were 4 such clutches and 4 drive wheels.
The engines, clutches and drivewheels were synchronised and controlled by the driver. Damaged engines can be switched off by the driver. The vehicle was designed so that it could move with only one engine working.

So, Listy, what was that, some Churchill? Pasholok mentions "it's too early for AT-1"

39 comments:

  1. 4 times 131 makes 524 ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Soviet Russia, 4 times 131 makes as much as the party wants!

      http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/36762406.jpg

      Delete
    2. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/06/article-2257940-16C7382E000005DC-434_634x687.jpg

      Delete
    3. It also says "viles" instead of miles. This report was typed in a hurry.

      Delete
  2. A tank of durability. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Replies
    1. That would be a bit old. You can check the original Pasholok post if you don't trust my translation.

      Delete
    2. Spot on...
      Do we believe a word he writes any more..?

      Delete
    3. Feel free not to :) Why on earth do you still read this then, I have no idea

      Delete
  4. smells like another troll from WG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, this has nothing to do with Wargaming actually, this is a real historical document, Pasholok has been posting such stuff for a long time.

      Delete
    2. riiiight, "real historical document" suddenly discovered by some soviet game developer who supposedly has access to USSR's confidential military archives - that and previous "real historical documents" iare as real as Boris Berezovsky's suicide

      Delete
    3. why fake it? so the KGB spies would get their hands on it and scratch their heads debating what would it be
      basically UK counter-intelligence trolling KGB

      Delete
    4. Why fake it? So they can make it crappy, just like the German fakes.

      Delete
    5. to make it believable enough

      Delete
    6. The USSR's old archives are publically accesible now. In many respects, it's very similar to the US National Archives. Everything's hard to find, some sections are still classified, but the archives themselves are accesible to anybody.

      Delete
  5. Each engine with a firewall adding to the weight and taking up much more space inside the tank than a single engine of similar total power. Each engine requiring separate maintenance and multiple drive shafts going everywhere again taking up space, adding complexity and causing vibration. When it works it would have two pairs of coupled engines and if one of a pair was not running well there would be added stress on the already complex drive train and if one engine gets hit or locks up the shock will travel down the drive chain and if lucky will only destroy a clutch but could also damage the transmission and the other engine. This approach leads to a bigger heavier or less well armoured tank that on that ground alone defeats the object

    In WWII there were a lot of crackpot schemes to provide more power using readily available coupled engines every one of them ended up with equipment that was a waste of resources and more dangerous to the crews than to the enemy.

    Even using hydraulic transmission to mechanically isolate the engines and remove the drive train issues would make this a dead end project.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Didn't the Churchill have Twin Bedfords ? I may be talking out of my (ignorant but interested) hat, but I was of the belief that twin configurations generated more torque than equivalent powered single engines and that was one of the reasons that the Churchill was so effective at climbing hills on even poor ground (such as sand). Ground pressure and track designs also being important.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not quite, it was two straight six cylinder heads driving the same crankshaft and operated as one 12-cylinder engine. To confuse matters it was call "twin six" or a "Bedford horizontally opposed twin-six petrol engine" it was in face a flat 12. The straight six is a configuration that leads to a very vibration free and smooth running engine with less losses to unbalanced forces so a flat 12 would have much the same benefits. With six cylinders fireing for each rev of the engine there would be little drop of in torque at low speeds. But I think the climbing performance of the Churchill was down to the fact that it was underpowered and so the low gears needed to have a high gearing at the low end just to get it going with the benefit that the engine could be reving at its best power output speed and the tank in low gear would be moving at 3 MPH thus providing a lot of traction.

      Delete
  7. Early Leman Russ? Switch 20mms for Heavy Bolters and 65mm for Lascannon and voila.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Soviet Russia, Intellectual Property copies you!

      Delete
  8. The main problem I have with this document is there is no date time stamp on it and where does it comes from? Could this be some document schemed up to satisfy Stalin? Yet on the other hand the Brits had some weird ideas during the war...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the Russian central archive, fond 38, file 11355, item 1722, page 7

      Delete
  9. Just a small issue, transverse means that the drive shafts run across the tank, so each would power the front two or rear two drive sprockets

    Btw, just written a small engineering analysis of this arangement
    http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/81183-pull-up-a-chair-updated-5412/page__st__4240__p__4366103#entry4366817

    Conte_Vincero

    ReplyDelete
  10. AT-1 was May 13th 1943.

    the 18Pdr left service in the first years of the war, and I can't off the top of my head think of a 65mm weapon used by the British. That'd be about a 4-5 pound shot.

    If its in the archives (you have taken you own advice on the subject right?) I suspect its something to impress Stalin.

    With out a project name or AGS number its impossible to track from the British end, and sounds very very suspect.

    There again I mocked the FV-100, and look where that got me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It occurs that British intelligence were sneaky evil minded buggers during the war, so could it have been a plant?

      Delete
    2. 65mm would be about 8-10lb surely, 6pdr was a 57mm weapon

      Delete
    3. "65mm would be about 8-10lb surely, 6pdr was a 57mm weapon"

      Whoops, yeah, got me bang to rights there. I was in a hurry, so had a Brain fart moment.

      Delete
  11. Any idea of the manufacturer? It is very unusual for the design ethos of the time so would not have originated from the Armour Committee so I am thinking it may well be an Old Gang idea as they came up with the TOGs. William Fosters of Lincoln have an untraced reference to a tank designed for Italy from before the war so although it's not likely to be this one its certainly not impossible.
    -Vollketten

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are we sure this is not just a garbled interpretation of the TOG II programme?

      Delete
  12. better re-post the documents that Yuri posted about the trials of T-34 and KV-1 in the U.S., along with the answers from GABTU :D
    people would go nuts over these

    ReplyDelete
  13. This seems awfully sketchy if you ask me.


    Gordon_Weedman

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually the 65mm is the 8 pounder programme.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sounds like those spies found English Electric or Rolls Royce's Excelsior.

    Slakrrrrrr

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never mind what I said, i'm being an idiot this morning.

      Slakrrrrrr

      Delete
  16. So... historical basis Mammoth Tank? Say what?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.