Jump to content

The 'Stuff You Wouldn't Want To Go To War In' GB


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Peter Lloyd said:

This is to say nothing of Hawker Henleys, Blackburn Bothas, Bristol Buckinghams, A-W Albermarles... all were wastefully produced in serious numbers. 

The Henley was a lost chance,  from what I know would have made a decent dive bomber, but was relegated to a target tug.   Would have been better than the Battle,  but only if used properly.   I can't  remember the full reason for British opposition to dive bombers,   but  for a 'what if' imagine what some Henley dive bombers could have done the German panzer thrust in France in May 1940.   Also IIRC they only built about 200

 

24 minutes ago, Peter Lloyd said:

One thing that really should have been reverse engineered was the Japanese Zero!

Hmm, not really,  the zero became seriously outclassed later on, while manoeuvrable,  it was too lightly built and didn't have development stretch. 

 

The comment on the germs copying the Lancaster,  IIRC they had a heavy bomber program in the 30's ,(Do-19)  which got cancelled when the chap behind it got killed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_19

Quote

The Dornier Do 19 was a German four-engine heavy bomber that first flew on 28 October 1936. Only one prototype flew, and it was converted to a transport in 1938. The other two were scrapped.

The Luftwaffe had a shortcoming in the lack of an efficient heavy bomber fleet. Generalleutnant Walther Wever, the Luftwaffe's first Chief of Staff, was the most persistent advocate of a German long-range strategic bomber fleet. It was built for the Luftwaffe's Ural bomber program under General Wever, competing against the Junkers Ju 89. The RLM Technisches Amt issued a specification for a four-engine heavy bomber. But after Wever's death in an airplane crash in June 1936, Wever's successor, Albert Kesselring, canceled Germany's long-range bomber projects to concentrate on tactical bombers.

Both Dornier and Junkers were competitors for the contract, and each received an order for three prototypes in late 1935. The Dornier design was given the project number Do 19, while the Junkers prototype became the Ju 89.

300px-Dornier_Do_19_in_flight_c1938.JPG

 

There are arguments about the efficacy of the British and American heavy bombers,  again,  the unexpected,  that a Mosquito could carry a 4000lb cookie to Berlin at the speed of a fighter, with two crew and two Merlin engines. 

 

@Das Abteilung  thanks for the post on armour.

@Churchill, I hope this is not drifting too far off topic,  as it is an interesting topic.   I'll ponder on the Defiant. 

cheers

T

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting post Peter ! There is however one point where I disagree:

 

1 hour ago, Peter Lloyd said:

3: Bad tank and planes are better than no tanks or planes. The oft-heard argument that rubbish had to be built because there was no time to interrupt production (you can often almost hear 'case dismissed!' after this argument is used) has some truth, but very often manufacturers lacked foresight and made much more money by churning out junk in massive amounts.  In the West, industry leaders were far closer to the politicians than were the poor bloody infantry.  In the USSR and Germany, they were imprisoned and threatened with the firing squad.  Take a look at the production periods of things from Wellingtons to Valentines... they were being pumped out long after they were utterly obsolete. We very often find not a grim acceptance that this bad material was a necessary compromise, but rather those on high immersed in the delusion that this stuff was as good as anything on the battlefield.  This is to say nothing of Hawker Henleys, Blackburn Bothas, Bristol Buckinghams, A-W Albermarles... all were wastefully produced in serious numbers.

 

Facing an execution squad for a designer was a possibility in Soviet Russia but no industrialist would have ever faced any danger in Nazi Germany. The big families of German industry were untouchable even by Hitler himself, who afterall was Fuhrer thanks to their money and support. The connections of the war industry with the armed forces were such that in some cases Hitler had to accept things that he would have not wanted. Germany in particular wasted a lot of resources because of the favour that branches of the armed forces gave to one or the other manufacturer. We should also keep in mind how the overabundance of projects started in Germany during the war was a serious challenge to a proper rationalisation of the production. Many of those projects would have better not been started at all as the search for miracle weapons meant less resources for those weapons that had been proven to work well

I feel that this comment is also a bit too unkind to aircraft manufacturers in Britain. All the types you mentioned had sense when they were proposed and built, the problem is that these were all overcome by the events. The Henley was a mid '30s design, it was obsolete by the start of the war and didn't really fit within  the RAF doctrine. The Botha was a losing competitor to the Beaufort, but could at least be used as a trainer, so releasing other types for front line use. The Buckingham was a late war design that was overcome by the fast progress of those years. The Albemarle was designed to use non strategic materials at a time when there were serious fears about the unavailability of aluminum alloys... something that fortunately never happened. All these types were built in small numbers and found some use in a role or the other. Did they contribute to the final victory ? Maybe not directly but sure didn't do any harm

There's one other aspect to keep in mind when discussing these minor types: often these were produced to keep factories busy ! In the US in particular they preferred to have a certain factory build a number of useless aircraft rather than risking to disperse the production capability of the same factory as plans were already in place to use the workforce for other types. If you know that a certain plant will start building Mustangs in 6 months it's better keep the workers busy with some other type rather than closing the plant as you want to retain the capability of building these Mustangs when the time comes.

British and US aircraft production sure was at times "wasted" on small quantities of minor types but this never affected the production of the important ones. The RAF started the war with Spitfires and Hurricanes (and the Defiant in Britain and the Gladiator mainly overseas) as fighters and ended the war with Spitfires and Typhoon/Tempests (and the recently introduced Meteor). Supermarine and Hawker may have diverted some of their production capability to other types but for most part they were focused on the main fighter types of the RAF and made thosands of them.

The main reason for the production of several minor types is that both Britain and the US could afford to keep aircraft in production even if these were not strictly necessary whenever there was any small reason to do so. This is in stark contrast with the situation of other countries that could not really afford this. Even Germany could not really waste resources on certain minor types, yet they did and this affected the production of the more important ones. Italy was an even worse culprit as production was scattered over a large number of roughly equivalent types even for the same missions. Considering the total production capability of the Country it made no sense to have small numbers of 4 different types of fighter at the same time, more so when a country like Britain, with a production capability order of magnitude larger, focused on mainly 2 types at a time.

Part of the blame that is directed to the manufacturers should also be placed onto the armed forces. It was the RAF who requested certain specifications that led to certain types, it was the RAF that elaborated operational doctrines that were found to be wrong. Too often we damn an aircraft as useless forgetting that while the aircraft was perfect for a given set of specifications, these same specifications were wrong from the start. At the same time though I don't want to consider the RAF as too "guilty", as in those years progress was so fast that it was not easy to clearly decide what would have been the best way to conduct air warfare with the new generation of fighters and bombers. Some ideas were proven correct, some were proven wrong. In any case the RAF quickly adapted to the reality of war and the industry followed by creating better and better aircraft. With of course a few exceptions...

Edited by Giorgio N
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points gentlemen, worthy counters and elucidations for my post.  I don't to come across as too anti-British specifically, all sides had their problems, but it's hard not to notice that the British were almost unique in the world in their skill at using support aircraft in 1918, but so independent (and survival!) minded was the interwar RAF that they forgot how to support the army on the ground. And post 1945 their procurement was certainly a shambles of shifting requirements, ideas, inconsistencies. The manufacturers were often complacent but this was nothing compared to the inability of the Ministry of Supply and the government itself to issue a clear requirement and see it through.

One point I must really reflect on from Giorgio is that the US and British could afford some 'wastage' in a way the Soviets, and post 1943 Germany, could not.

And Troy is right about the Zero: no Allied pilot could or should have gone to war without armour or self-sealing fuel tanks.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, vppelt68 said:

Wasn´t British tank design back then cemented on load gauge and weight restrictions of the rail system?

Wasn't everyone's? Being able to move tanks by rail was pretty important. I just finished reading Richard Freiherr von Rosen's memoirs as a panzer officer from Barbarossa to Normandy (not a great read, but interesting in places). Several times he mentions that in order to be transported by rail the Tigers had to have their operational tracks removed and narrower transport tracks put on, in order for them to fit in the loading gauge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Churchill said:

Wasn't everyone's? Being able to move tanks by rail was pretty important. I just finished reading Richard Freiherr von Rosen's memoirs as a panzer officer from Barbarossa to Normandy (not a great read, but interesting in places). Several times he mentions that in order to be transported by rail the Tigers had to have their operational tracks removed and narrower transport tracks put on, in order for them to fit in the loading gauge. 

Yes, what I actually meant was the British gauge and bridge limits more restrictive than, say, German. The Germans did transport Tigers by rail, but needed the separate transport tracks; on the other hand Panthers fit in the gauge without any modifications. One effect of that width limit was the Challenger; it was 6 foot longer than Churchill, but with the same overall width. That put enormous stress on the long but narrow tracks. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vppelt68 said:

Well, speaking of "assault guns" and TSYWWTGTWW, you nearly can´t beat this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT-42! "The BT-42s were used again during the major Soviet offensive in 1944. They were deployed in the defence of Vyborg. In one encounter, a Finnish BT-42 hit a Soviet T-34 18 times, failing even to immobilize the enemy vehicle, as this vehicle's fuses failed to work correctly." A steel coffin, that´s what it was. V-P

P.S. has anyone mentioned the Fairey Battle yet?

Ok, but as I understand it the difference between an assault gun and a tank destroyer is that the former has a gun optimised for firing high explosive, and its combat role is to take out fortified positions, whereas the latter has a gun optimised for firing high velocity armour piercing rounds, and its role is to take out tanks. So if you put assault guns into an anti-tank role you're going to struggle, and if you then give them high explosive rounds that don't explode... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Churchill said:

Ok, but as I understand it the difference between an assault gun and a tank destroyer is that the former has a gun optimised for firing high explosive, and its combat role is to take out fortified positions, whereas the latter has a gun optimised for firing high velocity armour piercing rounds, and its role is to take out tanks. So if you put assault guns into an anti-tank role you're going to struggle, and if you then give them high explosive rounds that don't explode... 

Exactly. The Germans just had in them the right gun and the right ammo to excel in both.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Churchill said:

Ok, but as I understand it the difference between an assault gun and a tank destroyer is that the former has a gun optimised for firing high explosive, and its combat role is to take out fortified positions, whereas the latter has a gun optimised for firing high velocity armour piercing rounds, and its role is to take out tanks. So if you put assault guns into an anti-tank role you're going to struggle, and if you then give them high explosive rounds that don't explode... 

 

And both the StuG and PzIV started out as assault support vehicles with the PzIII as the main battle tank.  Both had a low-velocity L/24 75mm gun firing the same ammunition, primarily HE, while the PzIII at the time sported the 37mm as an anti-armour weapon (not as good as the 2pdr).  As better-protected allied vehicles were encountered and engagement ranges increased, both gained the L/43 and then L/48 75mm guns, the latter equivalent to the extremely effective PaK 40 anti-tank gun.  The Pz III gained the 50mm gun in short and then longer barrel lengths and eventually the short 75mm as a support vehicle for Tiger companies.

 

With the Stug becoming more of a tank destroyer than an assault gun, the StuH appeared with the 10.5cm howitzer in the support role with a very small number of 15cm derivatives.  On the PzIV chassis this morphed into the Brummbar to partner the StuG IV, plus the 2 Panzerjagers mounting the Panther's extremely effective L/70 75mm gun.

 

So unlike almost any Allied tank with the possible exception of the Sherman, both Pz III and IV proved to have significant development growth potential in lethality and survivability to keep pace with Allied developments while retaining adequate mobility without the need for new engines and suspensions, although the PzIII did get a new gearbox.  Many individual vehicles were re-worked several times with upgraded weapons and armour.  This was probably accidental rather than a specific design criterion, and was perhaps a function of over-designing and over-engineering.  On the other hand, Tigers I and II had no growth potential.  And look how well the TNH/Pz 38 turned out.  Not a gun tank you wanted to go to war in after 1940 but so adaptable to support roles and in service in derivatives until the 60's.

 

We forget that all German AP ammunition above 50mm was APHE with an explosive charge inside, making them significantly more effective. There wasn't an equivalent Allied round until the Italian campaign as we couldn't make the fuses work.  In fact some 15,000 captured German AP rounds for the short 75 were re-worked by turning down the driving bands and fitted to US 75mm cartridge cases and were used by Grants.  Nasty surprise for DAK.  The German HE round was also used as it had a grazing fuse and could be skipped off the ground in front of infantry or AT gun positions to give an airburst effect.  French fuses were also shipped in from Syria as they gave the same effect.  Early US 75mm ammunition supplied had poor fuses and inconsistent propellant charges.

 

How many pre-war Allied designs were still in front-line service in any form in 1945, other than the T-34?  Because most were too narrowly designed - not unlike some aircraft types, perhaps - most had no growth potential.  We overlook the significance to Allied tank development of the pre-war M2 Medium.  Not a tank you wanted to go to war in: big, boxy, thin armour, 37mm gun.  But the chassis spawned the M3 and with modified suspension bogies the M4 for a total of about 56,000 genuine front line tanks, about half for the Commonwealth.

 

When the US established/expanded tank production they were not stymied by old manufacturing technology and could move straight to modern manufacturing methods and a very high degree of supply chain interchangeability, with the M3 being the transition design between riveting and welding.  Same for Germany, also starting from scratch.  Apart from being made by old methods, many British tanks were hand-fettled to fit.  But Germany still insisted on building peacetime quality tanks when they were retreating on all fronts and fighting for their very survival with dwindling resources.  Copying the T-34, which the technical establishment at Kummersdorf recommended, became the Panther.

 

As for not being able to make the diesel engine for a T-34 copy, I suspect the answer is not to do with manufacture capability.  A 650BHP Maybach V12 petrol or a 500-ish BHP V10 derivative would have done just as well.  It is notable that no German tank and relatively few trucks used a diesel engine.  Why?  Fuel.  From 1941 Germany was very reliant on synthetic petrol distilled from coal, and from 1944 totally reliant on it.  7 tonnes of coal to make 1 tonne of petrol (about 1,300 litres) IIRC.  But they could not make synthetic diesel fuel.  So any diesel they could get was reserved for the Kriegsmarine, mostly for the U-boats.  Pretty much the same for the UK and US, who both had large diesel-hungry navies but used more diesel tanks.  Russia had its own oil and a relatively small navy, so could afford to use diesel for tanks with all the advantages that brought.  Hence every Russian tank from the BT-7M on was diesel.

Edited by Das Abteilung
addition
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything flown by the Fleet Air Arm in WWII must qualify up to the introduction of the American aircraft Martlet/Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair & Avenger.  Swordfish, Skua (even though it was quite innovative), Albacore, Barracuda, Sea Gladiator, Fulmar (even though it gave good account), Sea Hurricane and Seafire (basically a MkV Spitfire with loads of weight added) all had their issues, it was only on introduction of the American trio that they really started to have an advantage...

 

 

 

Edited by Grey Beema
I forgot the Martlet - How could I forget the Martlet...
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Grey Beema said:

Anything flown by the Fleet Air Arm in WWII must qualify up to the introduction of the American aircraft Martlet/Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair & Avenger.  Swordfish, Skua (even though it was quite innovative), Albacore, Barracuda, Sea Gladiator, Fulmar (even though it gave good account), Sea Hurricane and Seafire (basically a MkV Spitfire with loads of weight added) all had their issues, it was only on introduction of the American trio that they really started to have an advantage...

 

 

 

I'd take the same approach with that as with early allied armour: which do you think was the worst, and why? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/14/2019 at 12:12 AM, Das Abteilung said:

 

Great post from Das Abteilung (sorry I'm having a format struggle, not sure how to tag), I had no idea about the fuse/ammunition issue. Ironic considering the problems the British had in 1915/16 with terrible, hastily-produced fuses, and the big advantage they had with the graze fuse of 1917 (was it a Mk106?).  Having as they did a very 'peace-oriented' economy in the 1930s, all these little things fell behind.

 

The worst early-war tanks? I tend to look to the extremes: the little Polish tankettes and MkIV Light tanks, the Pzkw I, the Soviet T-60, Japanese Type 95, and their like in other armies.  These have been covered in this discussion, but as cost compromise vehicles would have been terrifying to fight from, though the Type 95 did well because it was often unopposed by enemy armour.  The other place to look is the big stuff: the T-28 and T-35, the Char 2C.  A Stalin allegedly said, why turn a tank into a department store?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2019 at 10:20 PM, Pete in Lincs said:

 I believe the Bristol Brigand wasn't that popular either.

From what I can gather, awful cockpit layout, had a tendency to shoot itself down due to gases collecting in the cannon shrouds, the ‘glue’ used in various places didn’t like heat or moisture and degraded, which is a pain when operating in Malaya which is famously warm and moist, and the leather bellow operated dive breaks also liked to rot in the same conditions.

 

As lovely (imo) a looking aircraft as it was, i believe they replaced some with Beaufighters, the aircraft it was designed to replace, until canberras took over the role.

 

Count me in building one of these!

Edited by Muddyf
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Muddyf said:

From what I can gather, awful cockpit layout, had a tendency to shoot itself down due to gases collecting in the cannon shrouds, the ‘glue’ used in various places didn’t like heat or moisture and degraded, which is a pain when operating in Malaya which is famously warm and moist, and the leather bellow operated dive breaks also liked to rot in the same conditions.

 

As lovely (imo) a looking aircraft as it was, i believe they replaced some with Beaufighters, the aircraft it was designed to replace, until canberras took over the role.

 

Count me in building one of these!

Delighted to. Welcome Mr Muddyf. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of WWII protagonists copying each other's successful designs, I just came across this in Anthony Tucker-Jones' Tiger I and Tiger II:

 

"The T-34’s superiority was such that German officers on the Eastern Front were of the view that it should be copied, but the Germans were in no position to do so. Guderian pointed out that Hitler’s panzer designers could never agree to such a move, not because of national pride, though that was clearly a factor, but because it was simply not possible to mass-produce the T-34. Germany was suffering a shortage of raw materials, and even at this stage of the war lacked alloys and could not turn out the T-34’s aluminium diesel engines at the rate required. Essentially it was all or nothing on the Tiger and the Panther."

 

I'm sure Guderian understood the issues rather better than I, but I'm surprised another engine couldn't have been found. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Churchill said:

I'm sure Guderian understood the issues rather better than I, but I'm surprised another engine couldn't have been found. 

Indeed so.  While I firmly believe that diesel fuel availability - or lack thereof - was a significant factor as Germany had almost no diesel-powered AFVs, a V12 or cut-down V10 Maybach would have done just as well I suspect with the appropriate engine bay redesign.  But then those were not exactly mass-produceable either: 10.000 or so Panthers and Jagdpanthers and a couple of thousand Tigers compared to an estimated 60,000 T-34.  Don't forget that the Panther appeared some years after the T-34, which did indeed outclass the Pz IV in lethality up to the Ausf G, and was in effect the German attempt to copy the T-34 but according to their own design philosophy. 

 

Don't forget also that the USA only managed to produce about 49,000 Shermans and about 7,000 M3 Mediums (Lee and Grant) in 4 years by using 4 different engines (only 1 being diesel) and had ordered a 5th engine type (the 2nd diesel) when Sheman production was curtailed.  That last type was a 14-cylinder twin-row radial diesel derived from an aircraft engine!  Reputedly the best of all the engines used, but only 75 built.  A very few (28?) M3A1 had earler been fitted with a diesel derivative of the original 9-cylinder petrol radial.  Had they stuck with just the original petrol radial engine then the numbers of M3 and M4 would have been much less.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2019 at 12:12 AM, Das Abteilung said:

Indeed so.  While I firmly believe that diesel fuel availability - or lack thereof - was a significant factor as Germany had almost no diesel-powered AFVs, a V12 or cut-down V10 Maybach would have done just as well I suspect with the appropriate engine bay redesign.

It could be the manufacturers told Guderian it was 'not possible', the reasons being ones of fuel, or industrial philosophy rather than technical or material shortages.  Germany's supply situation changed a few times during the war, it could be bauxite was in short supply when the issue was being considered (ie, before the Wehrmacht was 'comfortably' in the eastern USSR).  Junkers certainly managed to work on diesels but the very limited production, for specialist purposes, fits the fuel shortage story.

 

Mr Churchill and I have been discussing deep wading Universal Carriers elsewhere, I think I somewhere have an old issue of Army and Navy Modelworld with an article on this conversion if anyone is in the mood.  From memory it's very simple and requires just the plates, rods, and simple brackets bolted to the Carrier sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the pleasure of a trip to the tank museum at Bovington this week, if you've never been it is absolutely worth a visit, there are hundreds of AFV's from the very first tank prototype (Little Willie, surprisingly more like a modern tank than the Mark I was) through to Abrams and Challenger 2.

 

Of course, it's also a rich seam of material to be mined for this thread. Apart from the obvious candidates, Covenanters and the like, three items in particular caught my eye. 

 

First, I give you the Carro Veloce L3/33. Based on the Carden Lloyd carrier (a predecessor of the Bren gun carrier) and built in vast quantities by the Italians. The museum's example is a flame tank conversion, and it's this specific version that you Wouldn't Want To Go To War In. The display sign explains why:

 

2019-03-29_02-39-13

 

Here it is, with its fuel trailer like a little Churchill Crocodile (yes, they've got one of those too) 

 

2019-03-29_02-40-28

 

Will be back later with exhibit 2,

KBO,

 

Churchill.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, Exhibit 2 - I give you the NSU Springer Sd. Kfz 304:

 

2019-04-02_05-58-58

 

This is a shot from the rear of the vehicle, showing the area where the solitary occupant sits. The wire grille is I believe a museum addition, to prevent visitors poking around inside. 

 

The Springer is a tracked vehicle based on the Kettenrad half-track motorcycle affair. The motorcycle front fork and wheel have been removed, and a third of a ton of high explosive put in its place. 

 

The idea is that you drive the Springer up to an enemy's fortified position, then jump out and go and hide behind a bush. From there you use a wired remote control box to manoeuvre the Springer into its final position, and then blow it up. 

 

That is, of course, unless the enemy has something capable of penetrating a few mm of armour plate. Strongly fortified positions often do. In which case, the enemy will have blown you to atoms before you got within a hundred yards of him. 

 

Not something I'd Want To Go To War In. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I about ships?

 

I would like to join with Chinese Type 091, NATO reporting name: Han class, the first Chinese nuclear attack submarine.

 

5597506a3f008.jpg

 

As a first attempt to built nuclear submarine by China, it is apparently quite noisy and have poor radiation shielding.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Botan said:

What I about ships?

 

I would like to join with Chinese Type 091, NATO reporting name: Han class, the first Chinese nuclear attack submarine.

 

5597506a3f008.jpg

 

As a first attempt to built nuclear submarine by China, it is apparently quite noisy and have poor radiation shielding.

 

 

Oh wow, we've not had much maritime interest so far. I'm not familiar with this sub, but a quick search confirms that it's still in service and that the radiation shielding is poor, being based on 1950's technology. Scary stuff. 

 

I'll add you to the list, and welcome. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested in this one. 

From the stash I have identified Hobby Boss 1/35 Schnieder CA. A french tank from WW1.

 

Kit review here. I have the earlier version that doesn't have the additional armour.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stevejj said:

Not modeling at the moment but just a thought:- anything developed for home defence/ home gaurd.

Yes:

vansd2.6939.jpg

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jb65rams said:

I would be interested in this one. 

From the stash I have identified Hobby Boss 1/35 Schnieder CA. A french tank from WW1.

 

Kit review here. I have the earlier version that doesn't have the additional armour.

 

 

Wikipedia sets out several flaws:

 

"The vehicle was considered a very imperfect design, because of a poor layout, insufficient fire-power, a cramped interior and inferior mobility due to an overhanging nose section, which had been designed to crush through the belts of barbed wire but in practice caused the tank to get stuck."

 

However, I think the best one was making the fuel tanks unarmoured and outside the hull. Genius. 

 

Pleased to add you to the list, and I look forward to seeing the model. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...