Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

I have a love for the P. 3, as well. My favourite German tank. It was way ahead of its time with the 3-man turreted, and soon was adopted by the entire world. To this day, the concept has not changed. This is the grand daddy of the MBT concept. It is rightfully associated with the early German victories, a jack of all trades and the master of all. Even as its pre-war weapon became obsolete, its chassis was still the basis for the StuG -- a very successful design in its own right.

I have to admire the P. 3 for its practicality. The P. 4 was a good companion, but a make-shift replacement. I do not understand how the Panther got so many basic tank details wrong, after the P. 3's superb results. For all its glory, it still had thin side armour and shot-traps on the turret. What were they thinking with the interleaved suspension? Did the Germans specifically design vehicles to get stuck in the dirt?

 

The Vickers Medium Mark I predates the Panzer III by over a decade, and had a three-man turret. The Swedes also made a prototype design with a three-man turret in 1934, which eventually ended up as Strv m/42. The Germans were not first with the 3-man turret, and it's hard to claim they were "ahead of their time" with it when the British did it over a decade before them.

Panzer III is hardly the originator of the MBT concept, at least not any more than any other medium tank is. In fact, if any WW2 tank in particular can be said to be "the grand daddy of the MBT" (and I honestly don't think any of them truly can be), the British cruisers would have more of a claim than Panzer III, given cruiser tank development led basically directly to Centurion, the "Universal Tank".

The Panther's side armor wasn't particularly thin by the standards of the time: both the T-34 and Sherman had about 40mm thick sides as well, and Centurion had 50mm. The shot trap was a problem, but all it took to fix that was adding the "chin" to the mantlet and it was a non-issue.

Finally, the interleaved suspension achieved good flotation by reducing peak ground pressure (by spreading the weight out over more contact points), and also saved on rubber, which was a scarce resource in wartime Germany. It was a nightmare to take apart, especially if you needed to get at one of the inner wheels, and it liked to get all stuck together with frozen mud overnight, but for what Germany's requirements were, the interleaved suspension was really not a bad design choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DerKommissarregarding your question about whether the Saladin Armoured Car was a viable concept, the truthful answer has to be that it wasn't tested to its extreme. However nobody can deny that it was a versatile vehicle as demonstrated in the following image:

5abd8c656a98b_SaladinPics.jpg.c99ac9f5f0360cb8b8a03e101723eb0e.jpg

Clockwise from top left, South Arabia (probably the Radfan), Northern Ireland, Indonesian Confrontation, Aden. These are just some examples of where it was used on active service with the British Army. By all accounts it acquitted itself well and was more than capable of dealing with uppity natives in the colonies and any neighbouring countries offering them safe haven and support.

Had it been tested in a high intensity conflict with 3 Shock Army rolling across the Inner German Border, I suspect that if used in its reconnaissance role and handled well, it would have given a very good account of itself. It would certainly ruin any Soviet recce asset's day and was capable of knocking over APCs in service at the time and even the introduction of the BMP-1 doesn't really change that. The Armoured Car Regiment of the time was a pretty swept up organisation with an HQ Squadron, three Sabre Squadrons and an air troop for an all up strength of 30 x Ferrets, 24 x Saladins, 17 x Saracens and 6 x Sioux Helicopters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Didn't the Kuwaitis have them at the time of the first Iraq war? 

We REALLY NEED at least one CM title set between WWII & WWIII.  ;)

Yes - there is footage on the interweb of a couple of Kuwaiti Saladins trying to give the Iraqis the good news. Of course the Ferret was still in service in the British Army at this time and I know it deployed on Op GRANBY with 40 Field Regiment RA because one was parked outside my tent for a while and I had a fun cabby in it going down the Tapline and back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

That's if we forget that he was a Monday Clubber. 

Every day's a school day - I genuinely didn't know that so thanks for the information. It does illustrate that he was a controversial individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2018 at 8:32 PM, Chudacabra said:

Image result for leopard c2

Aesthetically I love the Leopard 1, and the C2 looks particularly badass.

The fact that they're getting rid of these beauties makes my heart bleed.

All this talk of wheeled long-range recon AFVs reminded me of this classic:

800px-Rolls_Royce_Armoured_Car_(36661974

A favourite of T.E. Lawrence, from what I hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Since I had the picture open for another thread elsewhere.....Does anyone recognise this little oddity:

HorridLittleKit

To some extent this is a trick question, the kit is accurate, but it's not what it seems at first glance.....Wish I'd noticed it myself, before buying a box of two of them.  :unsure:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Since I had the picture open for another thread elsewhere.....Does anyone recognise this little oddity:

HorridLittleKit

To some extent this is a trick question, the kit is accurate, but it's not what it seems at first glance.....Wish I'd noticed it myself, before buying a box of two of them.  :unsure:

My first thought was T-60, but the hull front doesn't look right for that.

So, hrm, after some research (clicking about on Wikipedia)... is it a T-40 amphibious tank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Since I had the picture open for another thread elsewhere.....Does anyone recognise this little oddity:

HorridLittleKit

To some extent this is a trick question, the kit is accurate, but it's not what it seems at first glance.....Wish I'd noticed it myself, before buying a box of two of them.  :unsure:

I'll admit. At first, I was certain @Saint_Fuller was right. Until I looked at the Wikipedia picture for the T-40.

T40kub1.jpg

I noticed that aside from the lack of headlights and water shield -- its lower hull was slightly different. I thought it was some modification or prototype. T-40 was rather unique in its design and it was difficult to find anything even close to resembling it. Then, I looked over to the right... what's that? Lower hull looks like yours.

Is it a T-30?

T-30_in_the_Kubinka_Tank_Museum.jpg

After a close inspection -- the road-wheels are different! Bamboozled again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's the one at the top, the T-40S (good spot on the headlights, I think they fell off, there seems to be the remnants of a mount in the correct spot).....I've only just discovered that it shouldn't have the bloody trim-vane myself (by looking at that same picture), see my mutterings here:

Quote

PS - it's just occurred to me that one of the etch parts S-Model would have you fit is something that looks suspiciously like a trim-vane.....There doesn't seem to be one on the real example, but then why would there be?  It's not bloody amphibious is it?  So what would it possibly need one for? 

:whistle:

S-Model got me again!  :doh:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235036290-a-mojo-restoring-interlude/&tab=comments#comment-2999831

The central hinge/actuator is still present on the upper-hull plate, but the other four hinges do not appear to have ever been fitted.....I'm going to have to put a tarp on the front deck of my model. 

Moral of this story.....Never trust instructions (or profiles), always, but always, check the real thing!  :rolleyes:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1*Nae_o7-FaoGSTMf3Jqfgrg.jpeg

m50-ontos-tank-destroyer.jpg

Here it is: the M-50 "Ontos", the USMC's tank destroyer. They did not destroy tanks, but preformed very well as close support -- busting fortifactions. This thing was perfect for Vietnam, and could even cross the flimsiest of pontoons. I really dig the two .50s strapped to the recoil-less gun tubes. Much to my disappointment, they are only for ranging. 

M56_at_AAF_Tank_Museum.JPG

Just to stir up controversy and possibly break my own silly rules: here's the M56 "Scorpion". It's an 90mm SPG for the Airborne. Is it an AFV? Is it not an AFV? You tell me.

ASU-76_in_Patriot_Park.jpg

How did this ASU-76 get here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why, maybe since my modeller childhood when i saw a diorama, but i really love this truck.

Chevrolet 30 cwt wide-body (WB) used by the LRDG

Vickers_armed_LRDG_trucks8.jpg.daded7b0c2a2dd067f0ba43445922d8a.jpg5ac8344c5a34a_A_Long_Range_Desert_Group_Chevrolet_30cwt_1533_truck_negotiates_the_slope_of_a_sand_dune_during_a_patrol_in_the_desert_27_March_1941._E2298.thumb.jpg.06a82d9b0c933ec97a209a77d044138e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For any of you really into the Land Wasser Schlepper, you may be interested to know a UK outfit called Anyscale Models does a resin LWS in 1:56/28 mm scale. If you play BA or CoC or simply enjoy unusual vehicles and various goodies, then check out their offerings.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/4/2018 at 10:35 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Moral of this story.....Never trust instructions (or profiles), always, but always, check the real thing!  :rolleyes:

Andy,

Hate to break it to you, but sometimes, the real thing is wrong, too! If you don't believe me, check some of the various measured armor plate thicknesses on the T-34 vs what the design plans specified. And that's a pretty tame example. There are others far worse. Unfortunately, that's the best I can do for now. 

Dfwtd,

I love the LRDG trucks as well, but they aren't AFVs. They are simply standard trucks which have been specifically reconfigured for desert operations. Great pics, though.

DerKommissar,

Renwal made a model of the M56, which I always thought was a butt ugly AFV, especially after I saw the Russian equivalent and simultaneously felt my guts knot and my heart leap. Love the ASU-85. 

At the time I encountered it via the Renwal model, I thought the Ontos was the weirdest AFV ever. Later in life, I came to appreciate the tiny little tank killer for the marvel it was when it came to street fighting. Whip around the corner, blast the snot out of the problem area and reverse out of sight to reload.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps stretching the definition of "AFV" but for me I have a soft spot in my heart for the UC/Bren Carrier. 

fcfa820e8780f8e5e0d00c7209cdbfb4.jpg

The Carrier platoon is actually my favorite formation and one of the few saving graces of the CW Infantry battalions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

Perhaps stretching the definition of "AFV" but for me I have a soft spot in my heart for the UC/Bren Carrier. 

fcfa820e8780f8e5e0d00c7209cdbfb4.jpg

The Carrier platoon is actually my favorite formation and one of the few saving graces of the CW Infantry battalions. 

When playing the Scottish Corridor campaign, I started thinking of the Bren Carrier as the "Queen of the Battlefield" :)

Edited by Bulletpoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

hms20d11.jpg

Armoured (check) Fighting (check) Vehicle (check, sorta) ;):D

6 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

The Carrier platoon is actually my favorite formation and one of the few saving graces of the CW Infantry battalions. 

About the only thing in them that can put down any automatic fire at distance right now.

Edited by Oliver_88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×