Da Paul Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
That's one I have not seen before. British valentine chassis with a rear facing 25 lbr. Basically an Archer with a 25 lbr rather than the 17lbr.

Next one is a Australian Cruiser (AC) Mk IV Sentinel prototype with 17lbr (technically an AC E1). Given the limitations of Australian industry the AC series were quite competitive for their time, US automotive components allied with Australian designed cast hulls and turrets. That one is a trials for the AC Mk IV, using an existing AC MK I hull but with the newer and larger turret and gun. The glacis hole is for the hull MG which being a water cooled Vickers .303" had a rather large phallic armoured cover, a MG codpiece.
 
Last edited:

dlazov

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
7,991
Reaction score
1,377
Location
Toledo, Ohio
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
depaul-challange-003.pngI know these are kind of grainy, but see if you can id this one, bonus if where it's at, lol
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
The first tank to mount the 17lbr.

JR
There is a possibility that the British TOG 2 might have beaten the AC IE by a few months, not really sure. It definitely was the first practical design with the 17lbr.

The AC line is one of those "Should have been good" series of designs.

AC I: Armed with a 2lbr, cmg, bmg and 65mm frontal armour. Roughly somewhat faster equivalent to a Valentine III/V. 12 HP/ton.
AC II: Basically an AC I in intent but a different design using less critical components and easier construction, paper design only.
AC III: Armed with a 25lbr, cmg but the bmg was dropped. Similar to AC I, but bigger turret, better engine and 13.7 HP/ton.
AC IV: As AC III but with 17lbr, 13.2 HP/ton.

Definitely better than either the New Zealand Schofield (a fairly passable light tank) or the dreadful Bob Semple corrugated garden shed tank.
 
Last edited:

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Hard to tell, but closest to 3 x T-34 m41.

Sorry Don, due to the pixelated game images, my bad eyesight and a sort of psychedelic mind warping effect on me, I'll bow out on those.
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
9,100
Reaction score
2,254
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
There is a possibility that the British TOG 2 might have beaten the AC IE by a few months, not really sure. It definitely was the first practical design with the 17lbr.

The AC line is one of those "Should have been good" series of designs.

AC I: Armed with a 2lbr, cmg, bmg and 65mm frontal armour. Roughly somewhat faster equivalent to a Valentine III/V. 12 HP/ton.
AC II: Basically an AC I in intent but a different design using less critical components and easier construction, paper design only.
AC III: Armed with a 25lbr, cmg but the bmg was dropped. Similar to AC I, but bigger turret, better engine and 13.7 HP/ton.
AC IV: As AC III but with 17lbr, 13.2 HP/ton.

Definitely better than either the New Zealand Schofield (a fairly passable light tank) or the dreadful Bob Semple corrugated shed tank.
It's hard to beat the Bob Semple tank, besides, where else are you going to see THAT MANY MG's on a tank??? :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top