GreenAsJade Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Can anyone explain the basics of how those multi-turret tanks were actually used? They must have added those extra turrets for a reason, but I'm thinking that some things would "work" and some wouldn't. How did it work out in practice? [ edit: subject line typo fixed! ] [ August 27, 2003, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Depends on what tanks you are talking about. If Soviet ones like T-28 or T-35, you could go to the Russian Battlefield website where they have development info. But basically I think it has to do with their pre-war thinking of tanks performing deep penetrations through enemy lines. As there wouldn't have been a "front" but rather these tanks would have been in the middle of the enemy formations, it would have helped to be able to stop attacks from any direction. I think the turret rear MG's reflected a similar thinking. But I could be wrong. T-26m31 probably had two turrets just to let them fire at different targets independently. Then such as Grant/Lee or Char B1 which have a gun in a hull mount in addition to a normal turret. In the case of M3 Grant, they couldn't mount a turret big enough for the 75mm gun onto the chassis, or something like that. I believe similar necessity was behind Char B1, which went into production as early as 1935. Grogs will surely correct. [ August 27, 2003, 05:54 AM: Message edited by: Sergei ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 I believe multi-turretism was based on the WWI experience of the willies tank - as it crossed trenches it was found to be useful to engage on both sides of tank simultanously. A lot of it came from technical restrictions of early designs. But like with dreadnoughts it was found that one good gun in a turret was better than many smaller ones with limited arc - and used up less men and space. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted August 27, 2003 Author Share Posted August 27, 2003 Fascinating already! I had no idea there were so many variants of "multi turret"! Those ones with two turrets sitting next to each other look like a joke photo that someone stitched up! The Grant is easier to understand: one big gun for the main offensive, and one more manoeverable one for fending off defenders. If "one good gun" was found to be better than multi-turrets, do you think CMAK players will conclude the same? Will this lead to the multi-turretted tanks being the realm of historically-oriented players only? If you can choose a one gun goody, that's what you'll choose? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 The Grant/Lee was considered by both the British and Germans to be an improvement over the Crusader, I'd expect this to be reflected in CMAK and players would no doubt choose it over the Crusader once it becomes available. From El Alamein onwards I'd expect allied players to prefer the Sherman I, as did the original participants. Personally I looking forward to the Honeys, the story of my life . [ August 27, 2003, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Firefly ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beta1 Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Depends on the time period and the price as always... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 You know, T-26m31 is in CMBB already? Have a look. Grant was decent for a while. It was a stop-gap measure until Sherman came, and Tommies were just glad to have something of that class (Russians weren't, but they had KV's and stuff). It had a 37 mm ATG at the top, and a 75 mm howitzer in the hull. Compared to Stuart, which only had that 37 mm, it surely is an improvement especially when facing infantry. You could consider it as a StuG, but with an extra turret. The Tanks! web site on M3 Grant/Lee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 In the case of the smaller tanks, such as the T26 and the US Combat Cars, the turrets were independently targetted, there being no person responsible for directing fire onto targets, which is usually the role of the commander in a single turret. In the case of the Lee/Grant, there was a single individual responsible for directing fire who had an added responsibility to fire his own weapon as well (ditto for the Char B1bis as well). I'd suspect in CMAK, this would be taken into account by allowing a vehicle with multiple turrets/sponsons to independently engage different targets. However, I'd be interested to see how they handle a commander with multiple responsibilities - commanding, spotting, loading, firing, etc. I suspect it would mean he'd have less chance of spotting something. Its a shame they didn't include this in CMBB where it would be more useful. The T28 is a real loss to the game IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Early Churchills also had a larger calibre gun in a "bow" mount, with a 2 pdr (I believe) in the turret. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou2000 Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Something like this.............. Churchill IICS - 3" Howitzer in turret and 2Pdr in the Hull Churchill 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Or how about this . . . ? Moving your Grant/Lee tank up with MOVE to CONTACT or HUNT. At the same time you have a COVERED ARC for you 75mm towards the palm trees at your right (infantry sounds) and an ARMORED COVERED ARC for you 37mm to your front left, where you spotted that italian tank a few minutes ago. Two covered arcs for each multi-turreted vehicle? FREAKY, man! Gpig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 I just wonder how in CMAK we will target the two guns in the Lee/Grant tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Hmmm I wonder how the AI will handle a moving target, if the hull mounted gun wants to move the tank while the turret is trying to acquire another target. Sounds like crew squabbles to me. Hey how come the tank crews never have squabbles - like you never see a guy get out of his tank, throw down his helmet and stalk off...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Malan Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Originally posted by Firefly: The Grant/Lee was considered by both the British and Germans to be an improvement over the Crusader, I'd expect this to be reflected in CMAK and players would no doubt choose it over the Crusader once it becomes available. From El Alamein onwards I'd expect allied players to prefer the Sherman I, as did the original participants. Personally I looking forward to the Honeys, the story of my life . The Grant was superior to anything British that preceded it, because of the lack of a decent HE shell for the 2pdr. All UK tanks before Crusader 111 IIRC (excepting Churchill 1) came as 'standard' version with a 2 pdr (AP only), and CS (close support) version with a 3" howitzer. Nice idea, but trumped by a 75mm dual purpose gun a la Grant. The 2pdr (and 6pdr) tanks would struggle when they met a dug in ATG, but the Grants not got by the guns could at least make life difficult in return.The Sherman was better again because of armour, mobility, arc of fire, height, etc IIRC. The Crusader 111 (and others) had the 6pdr, instead of the 2pdr, but still no decent HE [ August 27, 2003, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Sailor Malan ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 You do mean no HE at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Hey how come the tank crews never have squabbles - like you never see a guy get out of his tank, throw down his helmet and stalk off...... Because there is only one person in charge. A strict rank hierarchy will solve this problem for you. The commander doesn't need to stalk off, since he is in charge, and the other soldiers in the crew will be in trouble (or deep trouble or dead, depending on the army) if they try it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Originally posted by tar: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Hey how come the tank crews never have squabbles - like you never see a guy get out of his tank, throw down his helmet and stalk off...... Because there is only one person in charge. A strict rank hierarchy will solve this problem for you. The commander doesn't need to stalk off, since he is in charge, and the other soldiers in the crew will be in trouble (or deep trouble or dead, depending on the army) if they try it. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted August 28, 2003 Share Posted August 28, 2003 Originally posted by Hans: I believe multi-turretism was based on the WWI experience of the willies tank - as it crossed trenches it was found to be useful to engage on both sides of tank simultanously.I have read in many sources that British tankers (in both "male" and "female" tanks) during WWI would often drive up and straddle a trench so they could rake it both ways with fire. Since their weapons were mounted in side sponsons (due to the "lozenge" design of the tracks around the hull) this was a most effective way of using them to swepp out trenches. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 28, 2003 Share Posted August 28, 2003 Originally posted by Denwad: You do mean no HE at all. Why would he mean that? To do so would be wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Malan Posted August 28, 2003 Share Posted August 28, 2003 Originally posted by Denwad: You do mean no HE at all. There was a 2pdr HE shell, but it was very small, and not issued to tanks. In 1944, I have read accounts of AC crews who had HE for the 2pdr. They also had the Littlejohn squeeze bore adapter for improved AP penetration, and were meant to remove and replace it for HE and AP firing (as in, get out, walk round the front, unscrew or whatever, get back in, fire HE). Needless to say, they didn't remove it, and occasionally fired HE through it. Can't vouch as to whether this is a) a good idea, or true! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 28, 2003 Share Posted August 28, 2003 Firing HE shells though a littlejohn adaptor is an extremely bad idea as it is basically makes the 2pr into a squeeze-bore. What the AC crews are more likely to have done is fired the AP rounds designed for use with the littlejohn (essentially tungsten cored rounds)without fitting the adaptor. In this manner, they would be free to use HE without blowing the end of the gun off and the AP rounds would function more like arrowhead tungsten core rounds rather than APDS effect gained by the LittleJohn adaptor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 28, 2003 Share Posted August 28, 2003 In any event, the 6pdr normally had an HE shell, and from the beginning of its career in the field if I have it correctly. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Malan Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: Firing HE shells though a littlejohn adaptor is an extremely bad idea as it is basically makes the 2pr into a squeeze-bore. What the AC crews are more likely to have done is fired the AP rounds designed for use with the littlejohn (essentially tungsten cored rounds)without fitting the adaptor. In this manner, they would be free to use HE without blowing the end of the gun off and the AP rounds would function more like arrowhead tungsten core rounds rather than APDS effect gained by the LittleJohn adaptor. Indeed, that was my point. The source I remember definitely mentioned it my way round - hence the health warning (don't know that I beleive it!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.