A-13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser_Mk_III and A15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusader_tank But i guess you were looking for these 2?... The A14 and A16 Heavy Cruiser tanks: http://www.czolgiem.com/wbrytania/a1416.htm
Having used the A-13 extensively in combat against Pz III's and Pz IV's (of the 1940-41 era) and having fought against it in those same Panzers I can tell you a few things about it. (In WW II Online game of course..I'm old but not that old) It is somewhat fast and more importantly quick (acceleration) one of the best things was it's excellent situational awareness. Visual angles and a fast turret. It's 2 lber is capable of taking out a Pz II, a Pz IIIe or f, a Pz IV(cannot remember the initial..but the one with the 75mm L 24). The green color was pretty good camouflage especially when compared to the early war Panzers grey color when operating in foliage and cover. On the negative side, it's armor is thin enough that you can't take hits even from the relatively poor 37mm of the early Pz III not even frontally unless the range is considerable. The 50mm of the Pz IIIH will make short work of you. The optics are poor compared to German optics , fairly clear but low magnification and poor range finding. It's 2 lber is adequate for the Panzers mentioned however frontally against a Stug or Pz IIIH you would have to be at point blank range to have a chance. If there is an 88mm anywhere withinn a few thousand meters you better be hidden well. One of the biggest disadvantages when used in coordination with infantry is the lack of HE rounds. That's all I remember at the moment. Even though this is all from a game it has been researched so thoroughly that it is all pretty much historically accurate.
There's six versions with that gun... Ausf. A through F1. As to the A13, A14, A15 and A16 "heavy cruisers", they were designed as a reaction to the Russian T-28 multi-turreted tank, but were considered noisy and unreliable. The production-model A13 with upgraded armour actually performed better than the abovementioned designs, and was therefore chosen for production.
Yes, now I recall, it was the earliest ,the Ausf. A (without the upgraded armor). Unfortunately due to gameplay considerations reliability is one of the few actual things not programmed into the simulation game. If it were few people would use the Char B1 bis despite its heavy armor (for the time) and good main gun because it's poor reliabilty would leave you stranded, the Matilda II also had some real issues with transmissions. The A-13 cruiser ingame had spaced armor on the sides as I recall so it may have been the mark that you are talking about.
The 500hp Thornycroft Marine in the A14 is intresting, petrol or diesel? Was the transmission etc up to the strain of this power, why wasn't this engine used in other tanks?
500hp Thornycroft Marine was a diesel engine (the company only makes diesels...), that is about all i know about it.
Chamberlain and Ellis say the engine was "noisy and mechanically complicated", which might explain why it wasn't used on other tanks. There's no mention of failing gearboxes though, the production model A13 used the same gearbox as the A14.
Grieg You can't use information from a computer game in discussions about historical events. Computer games are notoriously inaccurate.
Of course you can. Especially when you tell the readers that the information is from a game,( a simulation game BTW not a twitch, shooter type game.) And especially when you know how meticulously the tanks were researched by the developers of the game. Any reader can feel free to disregard the opinions expressed. Ain't freedom wonderful?
A computer simulation is probably the next best thing to actually firing weapons at tanks, in combat or in tests...
That depends on the accuracy of the simulation. No game ever seems to get it right, and if they do in data then there may still be errors in their programming or in their engine's physics.
True enough. There is no perfection in this world, as in the real world. One of the things that always impressed me most about WWII Online was the physics engine. No hitpoint systems ala Battlefield 1942. The physics are calculated using velocity, angle of impact, armor thickness and even the relative quality of the armor plate such as the difference between RHA and cast steel. When infantrymen are struck it takes into account how many joules of energy are imparted to the body and what location is struck. I find it amazing that the same exact problems and situations that were reported in historical accounts are reflected in the game. For example the French tanks (and the MatildaII as well) thick armor was nearly impossible to penetrate with the 37mm of the early Panzer IIIs and the Pak 36 AT guns. Also the better mobility of the German tanks is constantly exploited by the players to flank the slower French tanks which also possess poorer situational awareness. And as in real life the 88mm AT gun when it appears on the field is much feared. I didn't fly much as I prefer the ground game but the fighter simulation part of the game is like another game within a game and there is constant controversy (as there has been in history) as to which fighters were superior. For example in game the BF109 is superior in the vertical plane and the Spitfire is superior in the horizontal turning plane with roughly equal speed. This reflect reality as I understand it and it results in some interesting battles and requires a high degree of skill to excell in this arena. Soon I hope to have more time available to get back intyo the fight and try out some of the new vehicles introduced as the game has gone beyong the Battle of France and the Lowlands and Tigers,Shermans, P-38's, FW-190s etc are now in game if a campaigh progresses to the point that these higher level weapons are researched by the player controlled high commands. Try the game before you judge it. There is a 14 day all access free trial available right now. I warn you though that the learning curve is steep, at least to get good at it
