Australian Sentinel Tank(s)

>>34196045
Why does it have a dick?

>>34196045
It could kill jap tanks.

>>34196065
More like jap eyes

>>34196055
I suspect because there was a machine gun in there at one stage. Or because it's Australian and I honestly believe that they just would mount a dick on a tank for funzies.

>>34196055
Because the only machine gun the Aussies had was a water-cooled one, so the armor cover for the barrel had to be hueg like yo momma's dick.

If they had ended up using the more powerful engine that was being discussed, it would basically have a been a slightly better armoured, faster Sherman Firefly. Not revolutionary but definitely a good tank overall

>>34196045
It looks like it was inspired by a valentine tank

>>34196045
It was good enough for the Pacific theater.

Japanese tanks and anti-tank weapons were not very good.

File: Bob Semple.jpg (78KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x550px

>>34200645
Rough equivalents. Interesting how the Sentinel used the Cruiser designation when it was pretty comparable to the Brit Infantry tanks like the Matilda and Valentine.

The Sentinel would have been a fine tank if Australia could manufacture them in quantity. The issue there being that to do so, they would need to import loads of machinery, when in that case they could just get Matildas or Shermans instead and save the resources.

It was a crude tank. It was an uncomfortable tank. It was a broadly ineffective tank. But to the good fortune of the Australians, their primary opponent was fielding cruder, more uncomfortable, and more ineffective tanks. That being said, their closest ally, geographically, was building the most crude, ineffective, and uncomfortable "tanks", so...

tl;dr- The entire Pacific theater prior to US island-hopping was a complete clusterfuck of armor design because it wasn't as important as pretty much anywhere else.

>>34200872
Interesting, much like the Canadian Ram tank, very Sherman like, used for training. The only combat it was used for was as an APC when they removed the turret.

File: RAM_II_Cruiser_Tank_CWM_HAS_Photo_2.jpg (33KB, 448x310px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 448x310px

Speaking of Commonwealth tank designs, any thoughts on the Ram?

>>34201058

>In 1945 the Royal Netherlands Army got permission from the Canadian government to take free possession of all Ram tanks in army dumps on Dutch territory.

:33

>>34201058
Certain things about it are pretty nice. The machine gun in the back of the turret is an entirely underrated tool in my opinion.

The engine and the top speed weren't the greatest. At 40kmph it was SLOOOOOOW.

Armor penetration of the QF-6 pounder was agreeable. The panther and the tigers being the only things that could shrug it off. But lets face it, if your dueling a Tiger tank your best bet is to back up and wait for it to break down.

Unfamiliar with the suspension though.

>>34201908
>Certain things about it are pretty nice. The machine gun in the back of the turret is an entirely underrated tool in my opinion.

Have you got a picture of the set up? I cannot find a picture or even a written description.

>>34201908
>Unfamiliar with the suspension though.
Looks like the same bogie suspension found on American tanks from the M2 Medium to the M4 Sherman. Not complicated and very easy to replace, but doesn't have the greatest movement.