Is the Challenger visually mismodelled?

[David Aitken]

I've been thinking that the Challenger looks a bit wimpy for one of the meanest tanks on the battlefield, and now my suspicions are confirmed. The Challenger was based on the Cromwell chassis, but longer and with an extra roadwheel, and of course the turret was bigger to accommodate the 17 pounder gun. Comparing the two in CM, the Cromwell is actually slightly bigger. Fair enough, modelling things in proportion in 3D isn't easy. But there seems to be a big problem with the turret – the Challenger's is taller, but otherwise it's a smaller turret than the Cromwell's, for a bigger gun. The Cromwell in CM looks much meaner than the Challenger.

Here is the Challenger in CM:

And here is a drawing by Jean Restayn:

A plan of the Challenger I found online:

And a photo for comparison:

All the resources I have seen credit the Challenger with a much bigger, squarer turret than that in CM, which looks awfully cramped.

I tried overlaying the plan with some screenshots.

All in all, the turret seems to be much too small and a bit too far forward. Otherwise, the hull and the gun itself seem fine. Does anyone know if there were different variants of the Challenger? I wonder what Steve was looking at when he did the model. I can't imagine the CM version existed, because there's just no space to operate that gun.

[Andreas]

Nice one David. There were three different versions produced in two batches of 100 each. All you ever wanted to know about the Challenger and then some is here:

Challenger

[ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

[David Aitken]

Thanks for the link Andreas. I think it can be easy to misjudge the size and shape of the turret depending on the angle you see it from, so maybe Steve only had photos to work with.

[Goanna]

I note that from the CM engine the Cromwell has a silhouette of 94, the Challenger 115 the Churchill 98 and the Wolverine 93. Also note that the Challenger uses the largest base (if you turn bases on).

If you look at these at ground level, they look to be this order in size (largest to smallest): Wolverine, Churchill, Cromwell, Challenger. So, I would say that the Wolverine visual model is represented too large. As for the Challenger model, if the turret were modelled exactly along the lines of your plan overlay, David, that would give the 20% larger silhouette over the Cromwell.

[ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Goanna ]

[Jarmo]

And it took a year for hundred grogs to spot the mistake?!?

Very disappointing...

[Michael Dorosh]

Ron Volstad (the dude who paints the boxtops for Dragon's 1/35 figures and 1/6 figures, and whose work you've seen in Squadron-Signal and Men at Arms books) gave me a good line when we met for the first time and discussed each other's work. Whenever someone criticizes him for some detail he's gotten wrong, he simply asks

"Where were you when I needed you?"

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Where were you when I needed you?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were no British forces in the beta demo or the gold demo, so no-one had the opportunity to critique the models until after release.

[PeterNZer]

BTS, please fix or do somefink!

[Guest Babra]

You will notice that the M4A4/Sherman V is not as long as it should be either. The Sherman V had to be lengthened to house the 30-cylinder engine. BTS just used stock chassis and obviously didn't worry over-much about length or details other than the type of gun.

[Maximus]

Also I don't see much difference in the size of a 75mm barrel on a Sherman from a 105mm barrel.

Remember, CMBO is abstracted a bit due to polygon counts I suppose. But since Dan is raising the poly counts for CMB2B, I would think that the models will be a little more accurate this time around. At least for those he admits he didn't screw up.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra:

You will notice that the M4A4/Sherman V is not as long as it should be either. The Sherman V had to be lengthened to house the 30-cylinder engine. BTS just used stock chassis and obviously didn't worry over-much about length or details other than the type of gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may have been a conscious decision in order to decrease the number of bmp files necessary, or else simply a case of running out of time. You'll notice there are no T16s or Windsor carriers in the game either, and of course the German deuce and a half is by now legendary. Overall, one has to remain impressed with the attention to detail. Even if the button front of the Canadian uniforms were wrong....

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...and of course the German deuce and a half is by now legendary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Infamous" is the word you were searching for I downloaded a foliaged version, then replicated the foliage until it was nearly buried. It's not quite so offensive now.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra:

"Infamous" is the word you were searching for I downloaded a foliaged version, then replicated the foliage until it was nearly buried. It's not quite so offensive now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you get the leaves to cover up the duallies on the back?

[Guest Babra]

Can't. :mad:

[David Aitken]

Just got The British Army Handbook 1939-1945 (Lt Col George Forty) which has a couple of nice pictures of the Challenger. The first confirms the tank's high profile. I have highlighted the second – notice the lip to protect the turret ring. BTS's model appears to be missing some of the hull superstructure, which raises the large turret even higher.

[TeAcH]

Nice presentation David

[Wolfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Just got The British Army Handbook 1939-1945 (Lt Col George Forty) which has a couple of nice pictures of the Challenger. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are some nice shots in Chamberlain's Brit and American Tanks of WWII. Sorry, no scanner.

But there are a few mis-modelled (atleast visually) units in CM. Some of which were likely done intentionally to save time. The US 105 How, 105 Pack, and Brit 25pdr all use the same model:

What Happened to the Infantry Guns?

And the M36B1 Jackson has the wrong hull:

M36B1 Graphics Question

I'm sure all will be fixed for CM3.

BTW, I almost picked up that book, David. T'was a bit on the expensive side, tho. Does it go in-depth on weapons development? Is there much on lend-lease (that stuff is tough to find)? I recently got Hogg's Allied Arty of WWII and it doesn't go into as much depth as I thought it would. The Brit 6pdr section doesn't even mention the different marks nor the changeover to the longer barrel.

Oh, and that reminds me. The lack of a muzzle brake leads me to believe that BTS modeled the US version of the 6pdr for both US and Brit 57mm guns. According to Hogg, the American version always had the longer (L/50) barrel (the Brits apparently didn't have the right equipment to make the longer version initially). The Brits switched over from the shorter MkII (L/43) to the longer MkIV sometime during the war. But in CM both have the same penetration values even though the US even used a different shell.

Does the Brit Handbook discuss any of this?

Also, CM doesn't differentiate between the different German 20mm guns:

German 20mm Guns

Maybe I'm being too anal^k^k^k^k picky? Naaah.

- Chris

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

A fine visual exhibition, David - I've certainly learned a bit about the Challenger from this thread.

Not to derail the intended purpose of said thread, but I've often wished for the twin, pintle-mounted Vickers 'K' MG Jeeps, to use in CMBO with my SAS boys.

Jeep-Mounted Twin Vickers Pix

Of course, i can only hope for their inclusion in CM3's North African theatre, but I believe one can make a case for insertion in NW Europe beyond '44 as well. Certainly, during Market Garden, the 1st Airborne intended to use them (of course they were lost in glider crashes) and I've got pictures of these twin Vickers Jeeps with Commandos in Wesel, Germany as well. Of course, not a big deal, but - it would be nice to see them - and they'd make the now sloth-like Vickers a bit more mobile...

[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife ]

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wolfe wrote:

The US 105 How, 105 Pack, and Brit 25pdr all use the same model:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I have missed the 25 pdr, especially as one of the first model kits I ever built was a 25 pdr with Morris Quad tractor. I want my Morris Quad!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, I almost picked up that book, David. T'was a bit on the expensive side, tho. Does it go in-depth on weapons development? Is there much on lend-lease (that stuff is tough to find)? I recently got Hogg's Allied Arty of WWII and it doesn't go into as much depth as I thought it would. The Brit 6pdr section doesn't even mention the different marks nor the changeover to the longer barrel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't give you a review as I haven't read it yet, but I can tell you what it says on these subjects:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In line with most of the Allied armies, the British used a large range of Lend-Lease items from the USA. These have been mentioned but not described as full details can be found in the companion volume the US Army Handbook 1939-1945 (Sutton Publishing, 1997).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ordnance QF 6 pdr A tk Gun Entering service in September 1941, the Mk 1 was quickly replaced by the Mk 2 (shorter barrel), later replaced itself by the longer barrelled Mk 4 (the Mk 3 was lighter and intended for airborne use). However, by 1943 its anti-armour capability – 2.7 in at 1,000 yd – was not good enough to penetrate the frontal armour of German heavy tanks (Tigers for example), so it was gradually replaced in RA service by the 17 pdr and given to the infantry who used it for the rest of the war.

Weight complete 2,471 lb

Calibe 2.245 in

Muzzle velocity 2,700 ft/sec

Max effective range 5,500 yd

Rate of fire 10 rpm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From first impressions I would recommend the book. Even from leafing through it I have learned a lot. It has a lot of hard data, and seems to be very thorough. I paid the same for Joanna Bourke's An Intimate History Of Killing, which could easily have been a paperback at a quarter of the price.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife wrote:

Certainly, during Market Garden, the 1st Airborne intended to use them (of course they were lost in glider crashes)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a myth. Gough's armoured jeep squadron went into action but met heavy resistance along with much of the British force. They were believed lost due to the communication problems. Only a few jeeps eventually made it to the bridge. They were used in an attempt to open the route for the Poles, but unfortunately Frost wasn't aware that the Poles had been delayed. I also believe that Universal Carriers were present, but in CM these aren't available to airborne forces.

[CMplayer]

Admit it, David, the BTS version looks a lot cuter. British tanks are so homely, pretty much any change is an improvement.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CMplayer wrote:

British tanks are so homely, pretty much any change is an improvement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why does everyone think British tanks are ugly? I love them all to bits. The cruisers are a lot sportier than their American or German equivalents. The infantry tanks look like big chunks of metal, which is what they were, which is very reassuring. I'll tell you my least favourite tank – the Royal Tiger. Call me British, I just can't identify with that at all.

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Why does everyone think British tanks are ugly? I love them all to bits. The cruisers are a lot sportier than their American or German equivalents. The infantry tanks look like big chunks of metal, which is what they were, which is very reassuring. I'll tell you my least favourite tank – the Royal Tiger. Call me British, I just can't identify with that at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fully agree with you about the Royal Tiger. It's not even ugly, it's just boring-looking. Panthers are stay-at-homes as well. Only the Pz4 has any style at all of the main German battle tanks, tho that's a real looker (especially with the skirts)

The thing about British tanks, especially the Churchill is that they reveal the essential nature of a tank: a big iron box on tracks made to kill people. They're sort of too square, raw and riveted, and lack mystique. But maybe they are kind of pugnacious and bulldoggish in a way. Okay, I take it back...

[Priest]

If the Panzer4 looks good then so does the Tiger I.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CMplayer wrote:

They're sort of too square, raw and riveted, and lack mystique. But maybe they are kind of pugnacious and bulldoggish in a way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that runs through all British vehicle design until the 1980s or thereabouts. You can say it about trucks during the war, or cars in the post-war period. Where the US had big and flashy, Britain had small and frugal. I miss the British trucks in CM, because they are very distinctive, and a reassuring sight on a foreign battlefield.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Priest wrote:

If the Panzer4 looks good then so does the Tiger I.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mark IV as seen in CM is a bit ugly, because it has skirts around the turret. This destroys the characteristic look of the tank, which is otherwise quite visually interesting. The Tiger I is just boxy and boring, but without the cuteness of the boxy British tanks.