Talk:TOG2

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military land vehicles task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force British military history task force European military history task force

Misleading image! with a very small person placed near by it gives wrong impression of tank real size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.221.100 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Hills' Tog 2 book suggests that Tog 2 had a theoretical top speed of 15 Miles Per hour, this is not beyond the scope of being believable, since the Maus, with a Power/Weight ratio of 6.4, reached speeds of 12 MP/H, and the Churchill Mk 7, which had a Power to Weight ratio of 8.6, also had a top speed of around 10-15 MPH.

TOG had no suspension (TOG 2 had almost no suspension) and they had less than half the engine power. 15 mph is supposition, not least because we can start saying "the TOG with multiple Meteors and Christie suspension went even faster" on much the same basis. When it was tried, it did 8. No more. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The frontal plate is supposed to be 76 mm thick, 114 mm was just for the turret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flammedice (talk • contribs) 13:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wasnt the initial gun fitted the QF 3.7-inch (94mm) rather than the QF 3 Inch (76.2mm), QF 3 Inch was obsolete and had been out of production for 20 years and the QF 17pdr (76.2mm) wouldnt be invented for another two years. WatcherZero (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the 3-inch guns were available and were fitted to the Churchill Gun Carrier design in early 1942. Design work on the 17-pdr was more or less complete by 1941 and production started in 1942. The Challenger turret was developed by late 1942. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone took a measuring tape to TOG II at Bovington. It's 94mm not a 17pdr. Article is wrong. 2A00:23C6:6591:ED01:8CA6:6F1D:2659:4AF7 (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is oversimplifying. TOG II was either fitter or planned to be fitted with various weapons systems. Photos show it being fitted with something far smaller than its current gun (could be a wooden mockup though). Coombs, Benjamin (2011) British tank production, 1934-1945 mentions the QF 3 Inch as being specified when enquiries about 50 being produced were made in June 1941 (page 68). The 28 pounder it appears to be currently equipped with probably came a bit later when there Special Vehicle Development Committee seem to have been left to do there own thing. This is really where we need Andrew Hills's book. Unfortunately last I checked he had failed to deposit a copy with the British library so getting access to it is tricky.©Geni (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the article it states that the Tog is equipped with a turret for a 17 pounder gun, however the TOG 2 in Bovington is carrying a 28 pounder gun. Angelthewolf uwu (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need a reliable source - more reliable than chat on Reddit or Warthunder etc forums. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is your source: Tank Museum video from two hours ago. --91.5.99.247 (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need more sources to what the TOG II had during its hectic life. Reply if you find a valid source/ reliable facts. Please not that the info box has the right gun listed because it is specifically mentioning that it's the TOG II*. Any previous guns should be listed in a new subsection of main armament variants. 17 pounder, Self-Propelled, Achilles (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sign at the tank museum now describes it as a 17-pounder breach and muzzle brake with a QF 3.7-inch barrel between the two.©Geni (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article text indicates the TOG 2(R) had torsion bar suspension, but was never implemented. TOG II* is mentioned in the article, but not explained, the source this uses seems to indicate that the 17pdr gun makes it a TOG II*. The infobox confuses matters further, at it shows the torsion bar as being a TOG II* feature. (Hohum ^@) 14:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...not the tank, this article. They just published a video directly contradicting the lede's "muddy craters" and explained that it was meant to get across prepared obstacles, aka the Westwall. --91.5.99.247 (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It gets even better: It carries a hybrid 28-pounder gun (one of two prototypes), with bits of a 17-pounder attached. --91.5.99.247 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent videos from the Tank Museum haven't lived up to those from the Moustache Era for accuracy.

A real video

TOG 2 had three turrets over its career. The one there now is a stock A30 Challenger turret with the 17 pdr. There was no '28 pdr' as such. It was talked about briefly, but the gun on the second turret was really just the original QF 3.7-inch AA gun, mounted in a turret. When the 3.7 was finally set up as a tank gun, this was the 32 pdr: same calibre, but a projectile more suited to tank warfare.

The real killer for the 'TOG 2 as assault tank' idea is that it just wasn't armoured for it. It had less frontal armour than the contemporary Matilda II. It wasn't heavy because it was heavy, it was heavy because it was so damned big, and full of a super-heavy diesel engine that didn't belong in a land vehicle, then even more weight given over to the electric transmission. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think they can't tell apart a 76mm gun from a 94mm gun? --91.5.99.247 (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to this video and we can all see what they're claiming. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just watching it right now. Lots of interesting content.

The idea that it was designed to cross a German defensive line of anti-tank ditches and dragons teeth is just the start.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VfhzhPJAw6g&t=809s&pp=ygUGdG9nIGlp GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If by 'interesting content' you mean clips from World of Tanks, demonstrating its great manoeuverability! A video also largely reliant on the work of Andrew Hills, who as a self-publisher of his books has regularly been removed from WP articles as non-RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's adorable watching wikipedolts claim that thousand-page long books which directly reproduce the original documents they're based on are "unreliable", while 40 year old books with at most one page on the subject, written back then by the people who now admit they were wrong, are gospel. Remember when your beloved moustache man tried claiming that the KV-1 only had 4 crewmembers? Or how about the 'Valiant amputates people's feet' story that was completely made up? Facts and documentation are for heretics, the pope has spoken. Hunter12396 (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His books are reliable and the TOG book has over a decade of research unless you have evidence to the other wise this should be disregarded Asherman-tank (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will take the following as informative, since it is why I'm replying.

• 80 tons: all documents I have been shown state a weight of about 70t at maximum, sometimes lower. There is one book of which I don't remember the title but have a snippet from, that mentions 80t, it is possible that would have been with the planned 6 inches of armor. https://i.imgur.com/Qei1zFF.png
• The inherent space required by the diesel-electric system: TOGs were long because they were supposed to be long, per the Army request. Stern and his group were working on a reasonable design, much shorter, once the Army relinquisced the 16 foot trench crossing requirement. https://i.imgur.com/ujatuM1.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/QKZxHOT.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/INh5vkL.png
• 65mm of armor: people have measured the plates, I have done so myself but the following is not my photo, and it's spot on 100mm, to which is added the structural shell underneath, which equates to half an inch, or 3/8th, more. https://i.imgur.com/lCDEQ3A.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/z7dAAdb.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/Dz35zpJ.png (the frame without armor)
• 17pdr gun: it has a 94mm 28pdr gun, it is states so on several documents and I have, admittedly poorly but I argue undoubtably as there is no way that is 76mm, measured it myself. https://i.imgur.com/twiXN24.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/Qei1zFF.png https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_g6ll_jrPY (Pardon the editing, I intended it to be a bit more than just boring footage). Additionally, I hope the following will be clear, here is a 17pdr near where I live (https://i.imgur.com/z3hCY6K.jpeg), where I took a photo of the barrel end in the muzzle brake. The measurement from outer barrel wall to outer barrel wall is approximately 113mm, with about 18mm of barrel wall thickness (https://i.imgur.com/MSkTcay.jpeg). This is a frame from my recording of the same are for TOG-2*'s gun, with two overimposed rulers to test two hypotesis, the top matches the outer wall to outer wall measurement to 113mm, as on a 17pdr, the second matches the inner caliber to 94mm, as on the 28pdr (https://i.imgur.com/bNK3D8x.jpeg). You can see in the first hypotesis, the barrel walls are much thinner, about 13mm, which result in a caliber measurement of about 87mm, clearly wrong. The second hypotesis is the only plausible option.
• its purpose: the (literal) scale is unusual but it does follow what all other nations were doing at he time, preparing heavy breaktrough tanks, The Germans with the Tiger, the Russians with the KVs and ISs, the Italians with the P75/P40. Stern and the gang felt the UK would get to a new war without a heavy tank to fight fortfied positions.
• the side doors: you can see in the photo shown at 40 seconds that there was an arnor piece made to fit the hole left by the removal of the sponsons. If you look carefully, there are several armor plates missing from the side of the hull, especially at the rear, and that includes the one that was supposed to go where now the doors are. It is possible the doors were installed to make testing more convenient, or to keep the tank sealed once it got to the museum, but those were not meant to go on the roduction model. https://i.imgur.com/LcJd61P.jpeg

By his own admission in his retirement video, Fletcher never prepared for a Tank Chat video, instead going by memory. This alone can result in errors, for example his statement on the crew count and composition of the KV tank, but can also incur in outdated information even when remembering correctly. Roshindow (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are for concrete discussions on how to improve the article. This one started by crowing about how a Youtube video has "owned" the article, and has just devolved from there. Do better. (Hohum ^@) 19:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is defending a one of the best sources which could be used in the article not contributing to making the article better. Asherman-tank (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If the barrel calibre is 84mm, then fair enough, that's still the 28 pdr (it was always known to have been the only tank to have a 28 pdr fitted) and not a 17 pdr.

But the rest of that video is subjective interpretation, not objective fact, and it's citing World of Tanks as evidence to support it!

It's broadly the same powertrain as TOG 1, with better driving controls. AFAIK it's two sets of Ward Leonard control (controlling the much smaller generator field current allows proportional control of the larger motor current), and that's why it was fitted with the two generators. This gives smooth steering in forward motion. There is no film footage of it doing neutral turns other than on mud. So the length ratio issue, and thus poor steering, is still in question. The video also presents the idea that electric transmission means no problems from making any mechanical parts; this is untrue, an electric transmission tank still needs a geared final drive and (as Panther showed) that's still a problem to manufacture reliably (although much less so for the UK).

It's a 1940 design, from a project that had been established in 1939 to fight a war that was no longer credible after Dunkirk. Nothing of Andrew Hills' books, based on the engineering, changes that. There is still no politicial or strategic description of the TOGs as anything beyond that. The 'Siegfried assault' tank you're talking about is Tortoise. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's some nice WP:OR you got there. Shame it isn't at all supported by the primary and secondary sources on the matter. It's blindingly obvious you've never read The Tanks of TOG, by Andrew Hills, but keep on digging. Hunter12396 (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So rather than just handwaving, what does Hills say (and cite!) as to a strategic description of the TOG project, and any shift it made towards being a heavy assault tank? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have his book but I can link two of his youtube videos where he presents the situation at the time of the start of the project, and given I've spoken to Hills about the subject from time to time, I can possibly further explain his understanding of it all.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3CZJzxWmS4

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSQd5vQZGgE

  The first video has one important point to the discussion, that is, that the official name given to the group working on TOG was "Special Vehicle Development Committee", indicating the tank to come out of this project was a specialized purpose vehicle.

  The second video has more direct material of what concerns this discussion, as it presents why Stern was convinced Britain lacked a suitable tank he deemed important for the upcoming war. The part between 4:25 and 7:30 generally summarizes that, presenting the lack of a heavy tank capable of fighting enemy fortifications. As I mentioned I don't have the book itself, only some photos of pages I've seen from tiem to time, I know Hills cites letters often in it so I assume there might be some relevant to that.

  What I have though is the Army "super heavy tank" requirements list from September 1939 (https://i.imgur.com/QKZxHOT.jpeg, also in the video at 31:15) given to the SVDC after the latter had already even sketched a rough idea for a tank (https://i.imgur.com/XSSdgVh.png). The requirements ask for:

  • 7 feet of vertical obstacle and 16 foot of trench and crossing capabilities. These values represent an anti tank ditch (https://i.imgur.com/4Gectof.jpeg) rather than a regular infantry trench.
  • a gun capable of piercing 7 feet of reinforced concrete, which seems pretty self explanatory, means fortified positions.
  • to be protected against 37 and 47mm anti tank ammunition, as well as 105mm howitzer ammunition, which can be assumed were estimates of fortification armaments.

  Roshindow (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 28pdr caliber is 94mm. The footage of TOG-2 turning does not give a clear surrounding view when neutral turning, although I still wouldn't call that particularly muddy, the TOG-1 footage for the same is a bit clearer, showing the tank near or directly on a dirt path, outside the proper trial track.

Also a comment on electric transmissions, it is true eventually those go to mechanical gears, but the choice for those in particularly heavy vehicles was not uncommon, before the capabilities to build adequate mechanical transmissions was available. I have a more n depth knowledge, at least relative to the average I suppose, in Italian tanks, and in both the (ludicrous) 1917 proposed Mangiapan heavy tankand an unnamed 1932 heavy tank project designed for Russia, electric transmission is chones stating explicitly it, alongside hydraulic, were the only feasible options, with hydraulic always losing due to leakage concerns. Roshindow (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]