"British Cruiser Tank - Mk.II/IIA/IIA CS (A10 Mk.I/1A/1A CS) " Topic
6 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article The Germans arrive for my Hour of Glory.
Featured Profile Article
Featured Movie Review
|
| Tango01 | 26 Jul 2017 11:49 a.m. PST |
From Bronco Models…
1/35
Main page
link
Amicalement
Armand
|
| emckinney | 26 Jul 2017 3:26 p.m. PST |
Some completely wrong information there, as many people here know. The CS tanks were emphatically not for infantry support. They were for laying smoke screens, along with a limited number of HE rounds for anti-infantry use. Fascinatingly awful tanks. I haven't been able to figure out why the design was so inefficient (well, for the Mk.II, anyhow, the dual MG turrets on the Mk.I added enormous weight for little purpose). |
| Leadgend | 26 Jul 2017 11:20 p.m. PST |
Issued at 2 tanks per squadron the CS tanks were to screen enemy AT guns with smoke and had a few HE rounds (IIRC 4 per tank) in case they needed to actually destroy the odd enemy gun. Infantry wasn't really seen as the problem when you're in a tank. :) |
| Murvihill | 27 Jul 2017 10:35 a.m. PST |
I'd call it obsolete rather than inefficient or awful. Look at the Valentine for what potential the hull held. |
| Tango01 | 27 Jul 2017 10:44 a.m. PST |
I like it!.
Amicalement
Armand
|
| emckinney | 27 Jul 2017 8:47 p.m. PST |
Funny thing is that it was designed and produced on almost the same timeline as the Pz III. The Valentine hull was pretty different. The suspension was the same. |
|
opens the box on a Battlefield in a Box house.
