:: Community Forums ›

#1: char bis Author: jtrowbridge5,

Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:56 pm
----
this may be helpful for anyone thinking of the new tamiya kit coming later this year
dennis

community.webshots.com...ity=dZGEbE

#2: Re: char bis Author: Roy_A_Lingle, Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:17 am
----
Hi Folks!

The PMMS site, under New Kits, Tamiya section has a photo of some of the trees and photos of some assembled kits.

Looks a bit like something I would like to pick up.
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

#3: Re: char bis Author: Jinx, Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:27 pm
----
Something i have been wondering about for some time about this vehicle. Why is the barrel of the 75mm gun so heavy? It's not like it's a high velocity weapon, or anything. Is it because the barrel is so short? Any ideas?

#4: Re: char bis Author: Tom_Willoughby,

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:59 pm
----
I wasn't too interested at first but after seeing the kit pictures I may get one. Its one of those unusual tanks. I heard that the Lee concept came from this tank.

Tom W.

#5: Re: char bis Author: bsmart, Location: Central Maryland

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:53 pm
----
I don't think the M-3 Grant Lee came from this design. The M-3 was done because the U.S. did not have enough machine tool capability to build 69" Turret rings which were needed to accept a 75mm gun. As an interim measure the 75mm was hull mounted to get some capable tanks produced while machine tool capability was increased

#6: Re: char bis Author: Tom_Willoughby,

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:36 am
----
I was referring to the idea of the main gun in the hull with a rotating turret with the secondary gun. It might have give the Lee designers a pattern or general layout since they could not put the 75 in the turret due to the limits at the time. You have to admit there is a similarity in concept though the execution is different.

Tom W.

#7: Re: char bis Author: bsmart, Location: Central Maryland

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:23 pm
----
In the Char there was a 'spilt responsibility' with the Hull mounted gun being primarily an anti-infantry weapon and the turret mounted gun as the primary anti-tank weapon. I think in the M-3 the hull mounted gun was the primary weapon for all uses and only put in the hull because it wouldn't fit in the turret, with every intent of moving it to the turret as soon as possible.

I think the Char had more in common with the old 'Land Battleship' concept of the Vickers Independent and the Soviet T28 with different weapons (each in their own turret) provided for different roles and all working seperately.

#8: Re: char bis Author: mike_Duplessis,

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:20 pm
----
I think the Lee/Char Bis connection has come down as 'recieved wisdom' from the old Crow & Icks era. Not to say that the statement's not correct but I doubt that its been documented in the modern war by an unclassified War Office memo or the like.

We got lots of 'recieved wisdom' from back then that turned out to be iffy, from the cast hull Firefly to the wartime use of "Achilles", "Wolverine", "Jackson", etc. etc.

-> AFV News Discussion Board

All times are GMT - 6 Hours

Page 1 of 1