 20thmaine  | 15 Mar 2018 5:44 p.m. PST |
it's a lovely looking beast, but not so popular.
Why not ? Too thinly armored
too slow
too under-gunned
too mechanically unreliable
Zardoz
Not a wargamer
Are you really going to do every light/medium tank ever produced? A joke is a joke but there's such a thing as going too far.
Other |
 miniMo | 15 Mar 2018 7:28 p.m. PST |
No wings nor rotor blades. |
| Mick the Metalsmith | 15 Mar 2018 8:11 p.m. PST |
I want to field a whole battalions worth. |
| Old Contemptibles | 15 Mar 2018 8:28 p.m. PST |
I am guessing the weight and not aerodynamic. Missing propellers and wings. |
| Patrick R | 16 Mar 2018 4:10 a.m. PST |
The Vickers and Carden-Lloyd range of vehicles were incredibly popular and set the tone for vehicles in the inter-war period. They were cheap to make, cheap to sell and everybody used them as inspiration to fill out their needs to varying degrees. |
| Dave Jackson | 16 Mar 2018 4:41 a.m. PST |
Words out of my mouth miniMo…. |
 etotheipi  | 16 Mar 2018 7:29 a.m. PST |
A serious answer for the interwar tanks in general - The tank (self propelled armoured artillery) was basically unheard of prior to WWI, but demonstrated to be useful and lethal in the face of the emergence of modern trench warfare (the precursor to third generation warfare). There was basically no institutional "right way" to do tanks and lots of (valid) ideas. There was also no "wrong way" to do tanks and many emerging technologies and operational concepts. This created an environment where "new" tank designs that had some advantage over existing (even unfielded) designs were easy to produce. Overall, there was a lot of churn. There was nothing inherently "bad" about any of the many interwar tank designs. It was just a period with a lot of discovery learning for the concepts of tanks and tank warfare, so designs came and went. This rapid adoption and discarding of solutions is typical of the case where both an operational concept (warfare or not) and a new technology for that concept emerge at roughly the same time. |
| Oldgrumbler | 16 Mar 2018 1:03 p.m. PST |
A 3 pdr was as good a gun as any tank gun in 1939. The Russian T-26, the best tank of the SCW was based on a Vickers & had a 47 mm (3 pdr) gun. JPK |
| Oldgrumbler | 16 Mar 2018 11:45 p.m. PST |
Also the T-26's were not very roboust. Power train, clutch problems, alignment issues made them require much more maintenance than the German PzKpw 1's used by the Nationalists. So the same was probably true of the Vickers. |
 Legion 4  | 17 Mar 2018 3:02 p.m. PST |
I always wonder what the OR Rate/FMC numbers were in those days. They couldn't generally be that mechanically reliable. In those early days on Tank Warfare in WWI and early WWII. I've read different facts & figures … but seems even before combat, a lot of the Co. or Bn. were in need of repair. |
explores a new house and finds an old friend.
