Was there any possible way or reason the British would have rejected the turret on top design and instead kept their rhombus with sponsons layout into...

Was there any possible way or reason the British would have rejected the turret on top design and instead kept their rhombus with sponsons layout into the interwar years and even WWII?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Was there any possible way or reaso
    Mental moronation. That's it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/tf33BAu.jpg

      Anglos are moronic, simple as

      I love the lack of reading comprehension and instant anglo phobia on display here. OP asked a theoretical question about whether there was any reason for the british to do a not very clever thing that the british did not in fact do, these two smooth brains immediately assume the british did the thing and call the british morons.

      the british did not in fact produce any non turreted tanks or tanks with sponsoon armament after ww1

      dont ever tell me there isnt an element of unthinking anglophobia on /k/

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        t. bong subhuman
        Cope and seethe

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You need to read better. I said the only way that it would happen would be mental moronation. They didnt do it so guess what homosexual?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >anglophobia
        A phobia is a fear of something.
        I don't fear the British.
        If anything, I would pity them. But time and time again they show themselves unworthy of pity.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        something must be in the water today

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >ostracizes anon for lacking reading comprehension
        >has none of his own

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anglos are moronic, simple as

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not really, no. Having turrets was a big deal, and Poland actually attempted a bunch of non-turreted designs only to get boned, which further sealed the deal.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    cool factor. ww1 tanks are pure sex

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      the wheelies were hot too

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        i like the cobbled together shit german militias made for their street fights and rebellions just after the war

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >>yep, that's a flammenverfer.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It werfs flammen?

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, and it looked like that because nobody knew what an armored vehicle was supposed to be yet. That thing is essentially a mass produced prototype. Kinda like how the wright brothers plane was a goofy mess of struts with two wings; nobody knew what an airplane should look like when they were making the first one.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, if they were stupid. Turret on top is just the most efficient design with a single gun given the widest possible field of fire.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >rejected the turret on top design
    They didn't reject it, they simply didn't think about it, these tanks were built in a hurry.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      they did reject it, little willie (the OG tank prototype) was supopposed to have rotating turret on top., and whippet prototype (tritton chaser) was also turreted. The rolls royce armored car was also turreted before tanks were a thing, so its not like it was unknown concept in bongistan.
      They went with sponson rather than turrets for two reasons:
      -to lower center of gravity and make tank more stable and les prone to rolling over in rough terrain
      -to allow much greater negative angles of fire (pretty important thing, considering most enemies were in trenches, and one of the ideas of tank use was to park them over the trench and rain fire on poor frickers on both sides below.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >-to allow much greater negative angles of fire (pretty important thing, considering most enemies were in trenches, and one of the ideas of tank use was to park them over the trench and rain fire on poor frickers on both sides below.
        sounds like something we could send over to Ukraine

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm actually somewhat surprised that there haven't been any old engineering vehicles with the low velocity guns sent over. They would be perfect against trenches and tree lines.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The idea behind these were bridging and sweeping trenches with machine guns and clearing machine gun nests with small artillery. Turrets would be good for the latter but shit for the former, and the Mk 1 was cluttered enough as it is.

    Turrets became a think when they realized that tanks would eventually have to fight other tanks and infantry

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Show me how you could stick a turret on a rhombus tank and still have good fields of fire and enough gun depression.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The barrel would interfere with trench crossing.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Move it back& shorten it

          I meant without doubling the height of the tank.

          >i meant
          No you didn't because you didn't specify that

          So where are you putting the driver now that his seat is replaced with the legs of the turret operator

          Not an issue if the turret is moved back

          I meant without doubling the height of the tank.

          So where are you putting the driver now that his seat is replaced with the legs of the turret operator

          Samegay kys

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not an issue if the turret is moved back
            But that's where the engine is on the mark tanks

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I meant without doubling the height of the tank.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        So where are you putting the driver now that his seat is replaced with the legs of the turret operator

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Already thought of and put into a video game back in 2000.
        https://codenameeagle.net/vehicles/
        https://codename.fandom.com/wiki/Allied_Tank

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Thank god, someone else that remembers Codename Eagle, i was starting to think i made it up in a dream

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Hey, that's the Indiana Jones tank!

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No probably not. But I wish unconventional tank designs were more common. Every tank looks the same nowadays, it's gay as frick.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Part of me wishes the war had dragged on a little bit longer so that the Mark IX tanks could be deployed and used in an offensive alongside the Mark V tanks. One of these big bastards could carry 30 men inside.
    >WW1 with fully-mechanized offensives featuring tanks and APCs

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Was it any different than the other makes internally or was the engine still in the crew compartment?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *