"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 remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.

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

Day of Battle Games Army Builder

Armoured Cars with Marmon-Herrington All-Wheel Drive Conversion Kits

Featured Ruleset

Paper Tigers

Rating:

Featured Showcase Article

28mm WWII Germans in Greatcoats From Artizan Designs

Combatpainter Painting Studios continues the winter theme.

Featured Workbench Article

The Tao of Painting Smaller Scales

While painting Minifigs' N-scale WWII Russians, Rodrick Campbell of Highlander Studios introduces us to his method for smaller scale figures.

Featured Profile Article

First Look: Battlefront's Rural Fields and Fences

Editor in Chief Bill gets his hands on some fields and fences.

Featured Movie Review

Nazi Overlord

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.