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
Who? When? (too lazy to look it up myself, I'm just here to supervise-common guy, ya gat a job, man up!):cool::p:D
It came up before, so all I had to do was recheck some early "Da Paul Challenge" pages to find it. It's hard to forget such a strange vehicle. Unfortunately I can't remember how I figured it out back then. As all attachments disappeared with one of the upgrades, it is difficult for those who find unusual stuff to check for duplicates in this thread.

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/da-paul-challenge.114213/post-1634472

A brief post on it at http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/sizaire-berwick-wind-wagon-prototype-armored-car.26481/
 

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
This seems so completely ridiculous, that it can't be but a British contraption.
Ahem ... <cough> ... which nation built the 80cm Schwerer Gustav? Sorry ... built 2 of them (Gustav and Dora), with only 47 or 48 shells fired in anger.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
It came up before, so all I had to do was recheck some early "Da Paul Challenge" pages to find it. It's hard to forget such a strange vehicle. Unfortunately I can't remember how I figured it out back then. As all attachments disappeared with one of the upgrades, it is difficult for those who find unusual stuff to check for duplicates in this thread.

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/da-paul-challenge.114213/post-1634472

A brief post on it at http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/sizaire-berwick-wind-wagon-prototype-armored-car.26481/
Ah, yup. I got a good memory, it's just Darn short.:cool:
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Ahem ... <cough> ... which nation built the 80cm Schwerer Gustav? Sorry ... built 2 of them (Gustav and Dora), with only 47 or 48 shells fired in anger.
Granted. The Nazis had a weakness for building something BIG. But I believe with regard to underperforming vehicles, especially tanks, it is the British that may claim victory.

von Marwitz
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Granted. The Nazis had a weakness for building something BIG. But I believe with regard to underperforming vehicles, especially tanks, it is the British that may claim victory.

von Marwitz
Ah, let's not be too hasty! The Italians and the Japanese took a pretty good swing at it too.
 

dlazov

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
7,991
Reaction score
1,377
Location
Toledo, Ohio
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
Here is one for you (bonus if you can name the month, year and tie breaker if you can name the scenario this is modeled after.

depaul-challange-007.png

The units historical picture:

depaul-challange-007-b.png
 

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
2 OA vz 30, 7.5cm leIG 18

1-Sep-39, S52 Extraordinary Bravery, Gdansk?
 

Robert Fabbro

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
135
Reaction score
74
Location
Coquitlam BC
Country
llCanada
Hello Paul,

Not the usual type of "Da Paul Challenge" but here goes:

In ASL, both the Rolls Royce w/Boys ATR, and the FT-17 75BS are shown as turreted vehicles. I have seen some sources say that both of these vehicles had fixed superstructures (and so in ASL terms should be non-turreted).

Do you have any info on this?

Cheers!
Rob
 

footsteps

Just visiting
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
7,379
Reaction score
3,532
Location
Ontario
Country
llCanada
Hello Paul,

Not the usual type of "Da Paul Challenge" but here goes:

In ASL, both the Rolls Royce w/Boys ATR, and the FT-17 75BS are shown as turreted vehicles. I have seen some sources say that both of these vehicles had fixed superstructures (and so in ASL terms should be non-turreted).

Do you have any info on this?

Cheers!
Rob
Hmmm...
http://www.landships.info/landships/tank_articles/Renault_FT_75_BS.html
The second prototype was constructed by the Champlieu organisation and was a straightforward conversion of a standard FT tank replacing the turret with a fixed superstructure. It was found that the weight increase was limited to 200kg (compared to the FT tank) with a ammunition load of 35 rounds. This vehicle was accepted as the Renault FT 75 BS and some 600 were ordered in mid-May 1918.
 

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
Hello Paul,

Not the usual type of "Da Paul Challenge" but here goes:

In ASL, both the Rolls Royce w/Boys ATR, and the FT-17 75BS are shown as turreted vehicles. I have seen some sources say that both of these vehicles had fixed superstructures (and so in ASL terms should be non-turreted).

Do you have any info on this?

Cheers!
Rob
The FT-17 BS: I have yet to see a photo of a BS with a turned turret. Not that could be taken as definite, there were only 39/40 built and from memory 70%+ of the FT-17 photos of the 37* and MG armed vehicles have the turret at the 12 o'clock position, so we could be unlucky. However I'm inclined to think it should be NT, just too restricted in usable space. Apparently there were 33 still in service in NA, Syria and Indochina, out of a total of 163 FTs overseas, so should not appear in any 1940 scenario. The Allies were reported as coming across 2 of them in NA.

RR AC: According to http://www.warwheels.net/RollsRoyce1924index.html the open topped turret was fixed. However what make me question that is that the AC had a hoop directly over the openable driver's visor plate. That looks like a device to prevent the armament depressing and hitting the top front of the vehicle. It appears to be attached to the hull. So why not restrict depression by a suitably restricted MG/ATR mount in the turret unless you wished to fire down when firing to the sides/rear. The only top down photos of those versions that I have seen are those of models and they show a circular opening in the hull roof.

Like the FT BS, photos of the RRs are rare, only a couple of dozen or so were converted to the open turret. All that I can remember have the turret at 12 o'clock. A low sample size does not help.

The RRs got hacked about a bit, especially overseas. I have even seen the original CT turrets with an added Boys ATR to the right of the Vickers MG.

This is my line of thinking: To make an open topped turret version you can use the existing turret base and rotation race and add new flat sides for a rotating turret. The alternative is to cut out a bigger hole matching the bottom of the fixed turret which gives more elbow room. Keeping the original circular opening with a fixed turret seems the worst of both worlds. If the base of original turret was rotating, why not use that feature? So I am inclined to think it was rotatable, but in the end I really don't know.

So
FT-17 BS: Reasonably confident it was non rotatable.
RR: Slightly inclined to think it was rotatable.

Sorry, but that's the best I can do.
 
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
Ah, let's not be too hasty! The Italians and the Japanese took a pretty good swing at it too.
Nowhere near as bad as some Brit stuff
Japanese: They could be forgiven as their intended victims were the Chinese and various European colonies. The did produce very good light infantry support tanks that were long ranged (first diesel powered tanks in the world) and reliable. They however were under armoured and under gunned compared to everyone else. Basically the wrong land war.

Italian: Only in late '42 or '43 did the Italians produce reliable tanks. For most of the war the produced slow, unreliable tanks with easily shattered armour. They simply were death traps. The only saving grace was the use of the 47/32 gun which was about equal to the British 2 lbr but could also fire HE. It was only by '43 that they surpassed the French in AFV capability and the French had been hors de combat for 3 years.

British: While they did produce an amazing menagerie of lash-ups and trials vehicles, especially during the '40 Invasion Scare, they did roughly keep pace with the US, though not with the USSR and Germany (in turn German development driven a good part by Soviet designs). While many of their prototypes were not up to scratch and abandoned, their only real sin was the A13 Mk III Covenantor, a dreadfully unreliable tank with 1771 built. While many of us have heard of reliability issues with the A15 Crusader in the desert, the Germans had similar hair tearing issues. The Germans though had an advantage in that their tank recovery system was far more efficient and speedy. Both sides tanks in the DTO broke down at a similarly depressing rate but the Germans fixed theirs far, far quicker for most of the Desert Campaign. Finally don't forget that they produced the Centurion, a tank that was among the best for some 30 years.

What really condemns the Japanese and Italians in my eyes were their MGs. While I regard most nations' B11 MGs as being a bit overly harshly treated (though some allowance for possible limited ammo supply), the I/J MGs really deserve B11. Many of them required oiled cartridges to work well and what happens when you mix oil and grit? You get grinding paste! Go figure!

In addition, while their medium/heavy MTRs were in general very good, most I/J artillery were WW1 designs or even manufacture.

While we know that Japanese combatants had suicidal bravery, let us not forget Italian tank and artillery crews who often died beside their guns, little evidence of cowardice with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top