Just to note that Wargaming employee Nicholas Moran just did a video tour of both the outside and inside of the A10 / Cruiser Mk II at Bovington. Don't know how often anyone gets to look at the inside so maybe of interest? I liked that whatever its other faults, the crew positions were pretty well thought out. Except, was he right about where the commander had to put his legs? Outside: Inside:
Not watched it all but have learned that the 3.7-in mortar elevation was geared, not 'free'. Was hoping to see a range drum associated with the sight, but haven't spotted it yet...
I'm not clear what the range drum was, but I think he demonstrated the gear wheel of the mortar. Ugh that's how you learned it... sorry, I'm a bit slow today.
We all have our moments... There's a thread here about the sighting of the CS mortars/howitzers and whether or not the sights were graduated. The information I've seen for the Vickers Mediums refers to a range drum that offsets the sight - I'm wondering if it's the same or a different system in the A10. It's not helped by the 3.7-in being designed as a direct replacement for the 3-pr whereas the 2-pr had the 3-in as its twin; the A10's a bit of a mix.
What makes that 3.7 a mortar and not a howitzer? It looks like it doesn't have the elevation of a typical muzzle loading mortar. Does it have very low chamber pressure and is that what makes it a mortar?
It was simply to differentiate it from the 3.7-in [mountain] howitzer. It certainly had low chamber pressure as it was a very light weapon for its calibre, the limitation being the size/weight of the 3-pr gun which it replaced.
I am still confused as to whether the mountain howitzer was installed in the A10 (the wikipedia article says that they were the same weapon) or if they were separately developed weapons.
They were separate weapons. Though the tank mortar may have been designed around existing 3.7-in How ammunition - there is a request on file that fixed rounds would be better than semi-fixed - new smoke rounds were trialled.
