![]() This is certainly superior to to the T54 - which we seem to be holding up as a paragon of virtue here - which possessed almost entirely vertical side armour. Look here:Ī tank expert such as yourself may have noticed that the side armour of the Tiger II was sloped at about 30 degrees to the vertical and also slightly inwards. ![]() KT side armor was thicker then most tanks front armor but tank expert like you might know that there is a little thing called slope - and there was very little of it on the sides of a KT. I agree that you're really stretching if you're trying to claim that the Tiger II had any meaningful relation to the Chieftain in design terms, but the line of descent from the Conqueror to the latest MBT's is clear and uncomplicated. The Chieftain was based upon the Centurion running gear, but was explicitly described by the British army when the vehicle was concieved as an attempt to get Conqueror levels of firepower and protection into a Centurion sized package, so in that respect it was a merging of British post war "medium" and "heavy" tank doctrine into a single chassis.Įrgo, it embodied a continuation in a limited respect the doctrine behind the Conqueror. The post war British tank development story goes as follows.įirst there was the Centurion, then there was the FV200 series "universal tank" chassis which spawned the FV214 Conqueror (which saw service) and the Caernaven prototype (which did not). And it's armor scheme does not use any kind of technology that was not posible in a WW2. It is still lighter then a KT with way superior just about anything (exept reliability at early models). ![]() Chieftain started as a Centurion developemen (ever heard about so called 50t Centurion?). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |