DerKommissar

LOL, Quebec...

I apologize for derailing this thread:

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.

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

Vickers Mk 11. A wheeled IFV with 14 dismounts and the entire turret from a Vickers VFM5 with a 105mm L7 mounted on top.

It's somewhat unfortunately also the size of a house.

@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:

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.

You just described my dream multiplayer wargame experience.

This is the kind of thing I like.....A StuG with an identity crisis:

You ain't gonna build that one 'out of the box'! 

Cent, Saladin and Ferret

Images taken in Aden in the 1960s when there was a bit of bother there ... oh hang on, that's still going on. Unfortunately this chap is no longer with us - he would have fixed it:

I don't know why but I've always had a soft spot for the Panzer III. And a Panther but only when I'm not facing them.

In my experience, airsoft hurts less. Yet, I suspect it depends on the velocity of the projectile. Still, a small, air-filled, plastic ball has less mass than a gelatin paint capsule.
I think, why they use paintball is because it leaves paint. You know exactly who hit what, because it's painted. In Airsoft, you have to raise your hand and call out if you were hit. Letting a lot of dastardly gentlemen pretending not to feel it. Large hectic battles would lead to confusion with people calling hit, or maybe just moving. Airsoft works with small close-knit teams, while paintball is more suitable for such a mass melee.
Really cool reenactment. I apologize, in advance, if I derail this thread further:
 

PS Actually though paintball is hardly any match to engagement ranges of modern infantry combat but mortars and rocket launchers were the pain in the ass. When carefully fire adjusted they wipe away detachments of many dozens. Hand-grenades, under-barrel GLs and RPGs are also used prolifically - just can't quickly find pics from the games.

Certainly an AFV. I have a soft spot for the Stummel, as well. 


Sd. Kfz. 234/3 and Sd. Kfz 250/8, respectively.
In my experience, if you have these babies over-watch infantry advances -- it'll blast any bugger that gets wise. I also like the HEAT round on these. It can defend itself against armour, if need be. I've had success using these guys to ambush tanks (T-70s) in close range. However, such tactics were used in utter desperation and lack of AT weapons.
Even the Panzer 3/StuG Stummel HEAT can be preferable to early German AT weapons -- if they can hit, of course.

I have taken the plunge into trying CMBS mods. I decided that I want to try something that nobody is really doing. Using the tools provided with the game, and the plugin for Blender created by sbobovyc my intent is to try and upgrade some of the models that you see in the game. To start this off, I decided to upgrade the pouches and gear that are found on US troops. I'm still learning, so forgive the rather amateur models. I didn't want to put a ton of detail into them, but maintain the same level that Battlefront as set forth to us.

I will attempt to make a slightly more modernized chestrig, featuring a couple more pouches than what is found on current infantry. It will be based off the default chestrig simply to get the correct curvature of the soldier.

Here I have decided to try and create a PRC-117G to replace the default RTO bag. The smaller size of that version is a little lighter than the one that is featured. In addition you won't normally find the sat antenna, but typically a whip.

Any suggestions or input are welcome. I'm absolutely terrible at texturing, so if anyone wants to help in that regards it would be greatly appreciated.

It has armor and a gun, so it is an Armored Fighting Vehicle. At least that's the way I learned it.
I think the idea was that it was intended as an infantry support weapon to be used against enemy infantry, not intended to go up against tanks and suchlike. But we all know about "best laid plans" don't we?
It often happened in the war that for one reason or another not enough of the desired weapon—in this case tanks—could be produced to meet all desired requirements. So whatever guns available were mated with whatever vehicles were available to try to give at least some capability. These improvisations were often somewhat less than the doctor ordered. Some were downright disastrous, The M6 GMC "tank destroyer" for instance, which had no business appearing on any battlefield. Ah well, live and learn. Or as in this case, die and hope somebody else will learn.
Michael

I'm not sure it's an AFV as such, at least it's not a tank. But I've come to like the Stummel a lot:

Unfortunately, they rarely get to shine in CM, because as soon as even just light tanks appear on the battlefield, it's curtains for these little devils.

Presumably they were designed for a war which featured static front lines and required overcoming trench defenses.  One can see that if you could park one above a trench line it would be devastating.  Of course they were preparing for the previous war - kinda like what we are doing these days heh.

I used to play Real Time only. I actually didn't like We-Go, during my first two CM games.
Now, I have some advice, based on what I used to do. Is it the best way to do it? Probably not.
a. Try to spread out your infantry as far as possible. Blobs are vulnerable to mortars and MGs.
b. Try to keep squads close to their platoons and platoons close to their companies. This is invaluable for radio-lacking armies.
c. Try to keep your platoons and companies in distinct pattern formations. For example, for a platoon, 3 squads at the front row, HQ and mortar in the back row. For a company, have three rifle platoons in the front row, weapon platoon in the middle row and HQ at the back.
d. Double click on HQ (platoon or company), which selects all units and you can order them all at once. Move is good for getting a formation through relatively safe ground and Hunt is good for dangerous areas.
This will help you visually separate company from company, and platoon from platoon. Hopefully, it will let you give orders to your units with as little clicks as possible. Keep in mind, while such rigid abstraction can save you time, it may be a bit inflexible (almost Napoleonic).
Now, I play We-Go exclusively and generally micro manage each unit. That's the way to get the most out of your units, especially in campaigns where units carry over. However, play the game the way you enjoy!

I am sure the programming challenge is not inconsiderable -- finite brainjar hours -- but I feel the addition of even basic pbem coop play mechanics would breathe a lot of new life into the system, and the community.
Even having some friendly forces AI programmed/controlled could add new dimensions -- allowing a designer to assign a player a specific role within a larger operation rather than needing to micro the whole force. Faster play, more fun for those who choose it. Endless possibilities here, and seemingly well within existing design parameters of the engine with some help from newer generation computing power. Fwiw

Purely on the basis of looks, I like the IS-2. To me, it looks very serious and businesslike. It is there to kill people and that's what it looks like.
That's a trait shared with the somewhat later M46 Patton tank.
Michael

Ooops french army have to explain this !🤔

I have to agree.  It's so... cute?
I'm also partial to the Leopard 1.  Comes from an age of transition so they made a fast tank with a great gun and sensors (for the time).  All in a beautiful profile.

Canadian Kangaroo APC. Dont hear nor see of it much, but did pretty good for the time it was in the war as a means to push infantry right into the enemy as opposed to a battle taxi. 
https://imgur.com/a/TXQRs

I think you may be confusing the LWS, which was basically a sort of tugboat on tracks (Built on a custom chassis using some Pz.II bits, total production was not less than seven examples and may have been as high as twenty-one, in several versions) with the Panzer IV based Gepanzerter Landwasserschlepper II and Panzerfahre combination which better matches your description (it was essentially an armoured ferry, only two were built):
LWS Early:

Note early Pz.II Idler.
 
LWS Late:

Note later Pz.IV style sprocket.
Other variants had different arrangements of the windows etc.
 
Gepanzerter Landwasserschlepper II and Panzerfahre combination:


Note full Pz.IV running gear.....I believe they used the whole chassis.
 
The Matilda Mk.III CS could fire HE & Smoke from its 76mm gun:


Leave it to mature for a while, in the presence of Australians, and it can even do this:

Matilda Frog (I believe most were actually converted from 2pdr armed tanks TBH).