Help support TMP


"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.

In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

Rapid Fire


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Master Fighter: 1/48th Scale U.S. Infantry Mechanized

From the Master Fighter line, a set of 1/48th infantry and accessories for Solido's U.S. halftrack.


Featured Profile Article

Return to El Alamein [Flames of War]

Paul Glasser replays the Battle of El Alamein - this time, as a British infantry officer.


1,759 hits since 26 Jul 2017
©1994-2026 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0126 Jul 2017 11:49 a.m. PST

From Bronco Models…
1/35

picture

picture

picture

picture

Main page
link


Amicalement
Armand

emckinney26 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).

Leadgend26 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. :)

Murvihill27 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.

Tango0127 Jul 2017 10:44 a.m. PST

I like it!.


Amicalement
Armand

emckinney27 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.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.