|
fog99uk
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: July 26, 2010, 09:01:09 PM » |
|
I quite like that Swedish AFV. I like the adjustable rear suspension that makes it look like it's sitting down when firing at long range.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Minimaker
|
|
« Reply #76 on: July 26, 2010, 09:16:07 PM » |
|
Both front and rear are adjustable if I remember right. The gun is fixed so all aiming is done by adjusting the chassis. It's a nice design for ambush and wide terrain though it has less flexibility in more cramped quarters and shooting during an assault (in any direction apart from the front).
As to fixed gun vehicles from WW 2. This was often done as they are cheaper to make (no complex turret), have a low silhouette (no turret sticking up) and can carry a heavier gun (no turret ring). So it's a good way of adding sufficient firepower on older chassis to keep them in use (like the Marder range on the Lorraine, Pzkpfw 38 (t) and Pzkpfw 2 chassis) and for specialised roles like tankhunting (Jagdpanzers, Archer, Su85) and infantry fire support (Sturmgeschutz). And mobile artillery (Sturmtiger, Bison, Priest, ISU 152). Disadvantage is of course the limited field of fire. The low silhouette also makes them nice looking if you do sci-fi tank design.
Bye,
Ming-Hua
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 26, 2010, 09:16:59 PM by Minimaker »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Penfold
|
|
« Reply #77 on: July 27, 2010, 02:36:28 AM » |
|
yer you right suspension on front and rear were raised or lowered to alter the range but you had to move the whole tank for side movement but you would only need a couple in each pass in Sweden to stop an army  look at wiki for more info, what got me though was that both commander and gunner/driver had the same set up inside so both could drive/fire but no firing on the move. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
is a boomerang that didn't come back really a stick
painted Grymn this year 1
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, and i'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
Chris_M
|
|
« Reply #78 on: July 27, 2010, 08:36:51 AM » |
|
There's one down at Bovington.
IIRC, they designed it on the basis that any damage would knock it out (so why bother going for anything too complicated and costly) but if they minimised the profile it was a harder target to hit in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Big Boris
|
|
« Reply #79 on: July 27, 2010, 09:10:48 AM » |
|
That Swedish one is almost exactly the sort of tank I wanted to build myself!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
http://www.heresyminiatures.com/Currently Sculpting:A dragon. And then some sci-fi troops.
Facebook - join my list of friends! Don't expect me to talk to you though. Be real.
Twitter - I'm totally into Twitter. Plenty of Heresy micro-news as well as top dinner reports.
|
|
|
|
Penfold
|
|
« Reply #80 on: July 27, 2010, 02:04:28 PM » |
|
finish the Dragon  then you can start  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
is a boomerang that didn't come back really a stick
painted Grymn this year 1
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, and i'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
Rick
|
|
« Reply #81 on: July 27, 2010, 10:31:37 PM » |
|
The german ww2 vehicles were assault guns, and were a way of fitting much bigger guns to a vehicle, without adding far too much weight in the form of a bigger moveable turret. The S-tank isn't an assault gun, it's a true turretless tank and an amazing concept for its time.
I always liked the 80's concept of a low-silhouette remote turret, with the crew in the body of the tank, under armour.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Rule #37: There is no "overkill". There is only "open fire" and "I need to reload".
|
|
|
|
Penfold
|
|
« Reply #82 on: July 28, 2010, 12:27:38 AM » |
|
There's one down at Bovington. yer i know the second picture is the Bovington one when the took it for a spin  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
is a boomerang that didn't come back really a stick
painted Grymn this year 1
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, and i'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
fog99uk
|
|
« Reply #83 on: July 29, 2010, 12:16:10 AM » |
|
I'm personally obsessed with this beauty.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bergil
|
|
« Reply #84 on: July 29, 2010, 04:39:22 PM » |
|
 As am I in fact! Almost looks archaic.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Steel Penguin
|
|
« Reply #85 on: July 29, 2010, 05:59:26 PM » |
|
the tortoise super heavy, mad and british!
so heavy most bridges of the time couldant cope.
dont you just love it
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
a happy dauber
|
|
|
|
Penfold
|
|
« Reply #86 on: July 29, 2010, 06:13:49 PM » |
|
looks like it was to heavy for most roads at the time  , or how to turn a B road to an A road in 1 easy go |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
is a boomerang that didn't come back really a stick
painted Grymn this year 1
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, and i'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
fog99uk
|
|
« Reply #87 on: July 29, 2010, 08:59:20 PM » |
|
They could shut off the air intakes and run the engine for a few minutes so they could wade through even deep rivers.
It mounted a 32 pounder cannon that would have fired discarding APCBC rounds.
During testing it hit the exact same point on the front of a panther from 2 kilometres away, with solid, full calibre test rounds... and tore the panther's turret off. It's AP capabilities were calculated to be able to punch through the front of a king tiger with ease.
It's armour was 8 inches thick and sloped, effectively doubling it to 16". The entire hull was a single cast piece, meaning no weak points, and then the track housing and storage lockers were added. All equipment was stored in secure lockers on the rear with enough steel to deflect bullets.
The Tortoise was also perfectly reliable under the Western European conditions it was tested in.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Steel Penguin
|
|
« Reply #88 on: July 30, 2010, 05:51:39 PM » |
|
it weighed 78 tons and had a top speed of 12MPH was wider than the available baily bridges and landing craft ramps, wile it was a stable and accurate gun platform it was a nightmare to try to support ( info from The universal tank, david fletcher HMSO publications) making it almost the opposite of prior british tanks that were to light, undergunned and mechanicaly unreliable.
it is as i said mad and british!, i didnt say silly ( though it was a a bit )
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
a happy dauber
|
|
|
|
Penfold
|
|
« Reply #89 on: July 30, 2010, 06:58:47 PM » |
|
how on earth were they going to get it over to Europe to fight then  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
is a boomerang that didn't come back really a stick
painted Grymn this year 1
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, and i'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
|
|
|
Hubert
Insane machine-smith
Minion
 Offline
Posts: 62
|
|
« Reply #90 on: July 30, 2010, 08:13:15 PM » |
|
how on earth were they going to get it over to Europe to fight then And thus IKEA was born! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
No, you didn't summon me. I was already here. Just a quick note for future summonings - your pentagram is actually a Star of David....
|
|
|
|
Martini Henrie
|
|
« Reply #91 on: July 31, 2010, 05:33:50 AM » |
|
Meh, British and Comonwealth tanks were utter garbage (though easy enough to produce in relative numbers) until the advent of the Comet and an unremarkable beast called Centurion at the tail end of the war. On topic, I can't wait to see how the build is evolving and see some size comparisons so that I can work out how I'm going to use a few in games  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Innocence proves Nothing
|
|
|
|
Minimaker
|
|
« Reply #92 on: July 31, 2010, 10:15:53 PM » |
|
Well, at the end of the war there were a number of these superheavy tank test designs. The Americans had the T28: http://www.moddb.com/groups/tanks/images/t-28-super-heavy-tankThe outline of that one would make a nice SciFi tank too. With a different gun shield that is. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 31, 2010, 10:17:41 PM by Minimaker »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
LazarusKing
|
|
« Reply #93 on: August 01, 2010, 07:43:50 PM » |
|
Bwaaah! That thing is ridiculous! Double treads!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Lazbot KILL!!!!
|
|
|
|
Chris_M
|
|
« Reply #94 on: August 02, 2010, 10:12:10 AM » |
|
it weighed 78 tons and had a top speed of 12MPH was wider than the available baily bridges and landing craft ramps, wile it was a stable and accurate gun platform it was a nightmare to try to support ( info from The universal tank, david fletcher HMSO publications) making it almost the opposite of prior british tanks that were to light, undergunned and mechanicaly unreliable.
it is as i said mad and british!, i didnt say silly ( though it was a a bit )
I see your Tortoise, and raise you the Maus (188 tonnes) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus. And then there's the plans for the Ratte and the Monster.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
fog99uk
|
|
« Reply #95 on: August 03, 2010, 06:57:35 PM » |
|
Bwaaah! That thing is ridiculous! Double treads!
The outer set of treads were actually separate and were towed behind it as a trailer. They would have to be put back on by crane before combat. it weighed 78 tons and had a top speed of 12MPH was wider than the available baily bridges and landing craft ramps, wile it was a stable and accurate gun platform it was a nightmare to try to support ( info from The universal tank, david fletcher HMSO publications) making it almost the opposite of prior british tanks that were to light, undergunned and mechanicaly unreliable.
it is as i said mad and british!, i didnt say silly ( though it was a a bit )
I see your Tortoise, and raise you the Maus (188 tonnes) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus. And then there's the plans for the Ratte and the Monster. The maus was the prototype for the E-100 in the standardpanzer series. The tortoise was more reliable, better armoured, had a greater weapon range and was much more accurate. The British examined a maus chassis, decided it was rubbish and left it there for the Russians (who also decided it was rubbish). The Brits took a chassis of the E-100 away, but decided it was rubbish as well and dumped it in a ditch. The ratte and Monster were just silly. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Steel Penguin
|
|
« Reply #96 on: August 03, 2010, 07:22:06 PM » |
|
the heavy bomber squadrons would have loved the super super heavy tanks, so big they cant hide and lovely slow moving, theyed have pobably hunted them with tallboys. and any where near the coast or major waterways theyed have used Naval gun support
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
a happy dauber
|
|
|
|
Chris_M
|
|
« Reply #97 on: August 05, 2010, 01:47:37 PM » |
|
The British examined a maus chassis, decided it was rubbish and left it there for the Russians (who also decided it was rubbish).
The Russians have one of the Maus hulls and the turret from the other Maus in a museum somewhere as a complete vehicle. But yes, they were completely Upminster (all the way past Barking  ) - although I'd love a kit of the Monster. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Inso
|
|
« Reply #98 on: August 05, 2010, 04:08:45 PM » |
|
Hey, Kev! Is there any more progress on the tank yet? Any sneaky pix of detailing you could share? Just curious  . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
fog99uk
|
|
« Reply #99 on: August 05, 2010, 09:50:24 PM » |
|
The British examined a maus chassis, decided it was rubbish and left it there for the Russians (who also decided it was rubbish).
The Russians have one of the Maus hulls and the turret from the other Maus in a museum somewhere as a complete vehicle. But yes, they were completely Upminster (all the way past Barking ) - although I'd love a kit of the Monster. I've got a 1/72 scale kit of the Maus and a lovely 1/35 scale kit of the E-100. They are quite nice. I've also got a 1/35 scale resin model of the Tortoise. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
