I have added this to my list, though it will be some time as I am rather unfamiliar with the history of most sighting equipment development at this moment apart from small titbits of information
I am aware of the comets gun being better in some regards but for the time period of the 1950s, the British and everyone else were pretty much of the opinion that sub 80mm calibre guns mounted on tanks wasn't going to cut it for the future especially when the allies themselves were designing more heavily armed tanks like the conqueror that mounted the a 120mm gun or Patton tanks with 90mm gun, plus the British themselves were replacing many of the 17 pounder gun equipped on centurions with a 20 pounder gun.
@@jaylarkin2000 The 17 pounder was better than the much vaunted 88mm on the Tiger 1 and better than the 90mm on the Patton. You cited the 1944 design T34/85 as a reason for needing a bigger gun. The 17 pounder was easily capable of dispatching a T34/85 at battle range. Putting a big gun in a lightly atmoured vehicle is making the same mistake that Jackie Fisher did with Couragious and Furious. The 17 pounder on early Centurions [used as a stopgap] was replaced in 1949 long before the design that you favour came on the scene. The Centurion was an altogether heavier tank than the 17 pounder equiped Comet and that caused mobility issues where bridges were not strong enough to bear its weight.
@@gnosticbrian3980 I cited the IS-3 and T-34-85 for the reason that they were the main tanks that were fielded by the soviets, this is what the British had if the 1950s gone hot would have to faced, I never disputed that the 17 pounder gun wasn't able to take out a T-34, but if it was facing a IS-3, even with APDS it would be somewhat of a struggle engaging the tank from range. The Courageous, Glorious and Furious are funny when your own guns do more damaged to your ships than the enemy, but it is slightly missing point, Charioteer was meant as a stop gap design to supplement British forces with more tanks with 20 pounder guns, Was it lightly armoured? For the time and even more so in the future, Yes but as i said in the video they were far more concerned about getting 20 pounder guns to their units which were operating the older tanks
@@jaylarkin2000 The T34/85 and the IS3 both date from 1944; the Soviets were adopting the T54/T55 as their MBT in the fifties. My father graduated from Donkey Walloper to tanker in WW2. He thought that the Comet had a pretty good balance of the three requirements of a tank - mobility, firepower and armour. Could the Charioteer's "armour" stop a 50 cal BMG AP round?
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.15 (3/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IVwR87OH0_A/mqdefault.jpg)
Very good sir very extensive,could their be any chance you will cover sighting systems, cheers 😊
I have added this to my list, though it will be some time as I am rather unfamiliar with the history of most sighting equipment development at this moment apart from small titbits of information
If you have any questions, vehicles or recommendations for future videos that you want to see, post in this pinned comment down below
I'm surprised to learn it had as long a service life as it did; David Fletcher of The Tank Museum ranked it the 5th-worst British Tank.
Good vid bud
The Comert hardly had a weak gun - it was a version of the 17 pounder and was a better gun than the famous 88mm fitted to the Tiger I.
I am aware of the comets gun being better in some regards but for the time period of the 1950s, the British and everyone else were pretty much of the opinion that sub 80mm calibre guns mounted on tanks wasn't going to cut it for the future especially when the allies themselves were designing more heavily armed tanks like the conqueror that mounted the a 120mm gun or Patton tanks with 90mm gun, plus the British themselves were replacing many of the 17 pounder gun equipped on centurions with a 20 pounder gun.
@@jaylarkin2000 The 17 pounder was better than the much vaunted 88mm on the Tiger 1 and better than the 90mm on the Patton.
You cited the 1944 design T34/85 as a reason for needing a bigger gun. The 17 pounder was easily capable of dispatching a T34/85 at battle range.
Putting a big gun in a lightly atmoured vehicle is making the same mistake that Jackie Fisher did with Couragious and Furious.
The 17 pounder on early Centurions [used as a stopgap] was replaced in 1949 long before the design that you favour came on the scene. The Centurion was an altogether heavier tank than the 17 pounder equiped Comet and that caused mobility issues where bridges were not strong enough to bear its weight.
@@gnosticbrian3980 I cited the IS-3 and T-34-85 for the reason that they were the main tanks that were fielded by the soviets, this is what the British had if the 1950s gone hot would have to faced, I never disputed that the 17 pounder gun wasn't able to take out a T-34, but if it was facing a IS-3, even with APDS it would be somewhat of a struggle engaging the tank from range.
The Courageous, Glorious and Furious are funny when your own guns do more damaged to your ships than the enemy, but it is slightly missing point, Charioteer was meant as a stop gap design to supplement British forces with more tanks with 20 pounder guns, Was it lightly armoured? For the time and even more so in the future, Yes but as i said in the video they were far more concerned about getting 20 pounder guns to their units which were operating the older tanks
@@jaylarkin2000 The T34/85 and the IS3 both date from 1944; the Soviets were adopting the T54/T55 as their MBT in the fifties.
My father graduated from Donkey Walloper to tanker in WW2. He thought that the Comet had a pretty good balance of the three requirements of a tank - mobility, firepower and armour. Could the Charioteer's "armour" stop a 50 cal BMG AP round?
Cope