Prinz Eugen Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Originally posted by Madmatt: p.s. Thats all the bones for this thread but I am working a more substantial one for you soon. Just don't bug me about it. Thank you Sir Madmatt Sir ! I won't Sir Madmatt Sir ! Anything you say Sir ! I am so happy now Sir ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Tracks look nice and crisp and well-modeled. But really, I was hoping for the early version of the Stuart with the two fixed MGs in the hull. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Tracks look nice and crisp and well-modeled. But really, I was hoping for the early version of the Stuart with the two fixed MGs in the hull. Michael Isn't the middle vehicle that version? It has the round opennings in the front of the sponsons which were IIRC, for the MGs. I hope that alternative turret versions will be available for the M3 Lee/Grant? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavka_lite Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 MadMatt should ban himself from the forum for being such a cruel, evil, sadistic, mean, delivering when its ready, who obviously enjoys teasing the poor impatient innocents of the wargaming community type person. Next thing you know he will be throwing us a 15 second trailer of a 88 blasting some thin skinned British tank. just to rub salt in the wound 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Good job whoever textured those M3's, they look nice. As for that Italian truck/gun, that's the very definition of Hammers & Egg Shells. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Cheers Matt, You made my day with your boneshots. Roll on Xmas! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Ha ha. From the look of that Grant screenshot CMAK players are going to quickly form a renewed appreciation of Sherman! Imagine fighting Tigers in those rattle-traps? ...another few months and people won't have to imagine! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: Ha ha. From the look of that Grant screenshot CMAK players are going to quickly form a renewed appreciation of Sherman! Did Matt post a picture that you can see, but we can't? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 He always hides his small bones in the most obscure places! We need an official 'bone dog' to sniff them out for the rest of the civilized CM world! Chad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD: Ha ha. From the look of that Grant screenshot CMAK players are going to quickly form a renewed appreciation of Sherman! Did Matt post a picture that you can see, but we can't? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Originally posted by Private Bluebottle: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Tracks look nice and crisp and well-modeled. But really, I was hoping for the early version of the Stuart with the two fixed MGs in the hull. Michael Isn't the middle vehicle that version? It has the round opennings in the front of the sponsons which were IIRC, for the MGs.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Hi, The graphics look great as always. Stunning stuff. All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Originally posted by Chad Harrison: He always hides his small bones in the most obscure places! We need an official 'bone dog' to sniff them out for the rest of the civilized CM world! Chad The original poster would be doing us all a favour if he edited the subject heading so more people would realize what this thread contains... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prinz Eugen Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Heh, heh, I caught that too. Mikey, that's not a Grant, that's a Lee, y'all!What's the difference ? They were similar tanks as far as I know ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 It was Brits who first named it after General Grant, then the Americans thought "hey that's a good idea, let's call it after a civil war general!" and so they ended up... naming it General Lee. And those are Yank tanks in the shot... I really don't understand why it couldn't have been Grant for both, though. Maybe it was some Southerner in the US Army Dept. responsible of that? [ August 20, 2003, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Sergei ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zitadelle Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Originally posted by Prinz Eugen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Heh, heh, I caught that too. Mikey, that's not a Grant, that's a Lee, y'all!What's the difference ? They were similar tanks as far as I know ? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doodlebug Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Originally posted by Sergei: It was Brits who first named it after General Grant, then the Americans thought "hey that's a good idea, let's call it after a civil war general!" and so they ended up... naming it General Lee. And those are Yank tanks in the shot... I really don't understand why it couldn't have been Grant for both, though. Maybe it was some Southerner in the US Army Dept. responsible of that? Nope. Credit the Brits with both names. After Dunkirk and before Lend Lease came into being the British wished to purchase tanks from America. Initially they wished to have existing British designs built and supplied but fortunately the Americans said no. Take the designs we're tooling up for or forget it. The British therefore purchased the M3 with a re-designed turret containing a radio (in line with British practices at the time)which they called Grant. When Lend Lease kicked off the Americans supplied tanks above and beyond the original orders and built to the American standard (with the radio in the hull) which they called Lee. Hence the names and the two different turrets. As far as I know the Brits also named the Sherman and the Stuart althought I stand ready to be corrected on that assertion. All the American tank names that followed in a similar vein are carrying on the British names like the Pershing and so on. Good job we didn't call them something really silly 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 [explanation]Well yes I knew that, I was just trying to confuse everyone so that Madmatt would come along and show the other models to explain what the real difference was... [j'accuse]Now because of you guys we won't be having more bones until it's ready, thanks for that![/j'accuse][/explanation] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 The duties of the crew were different also IIRC; in the Grant, I believe the radio operator had to use a 19 set mounted in the turret (hence the size of the turret) whereas in the Lee, the radio was in the hull? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Nice screenies. Now, how about a Milmart truck with the 102/35 naval gun, as at Bir El Gobi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chad Harrison: He always hides his small bones in the most obscure places! We need an official 'bone dog' to sniff them out for the rest of the civilized CM world! Chad The original poster would be doing us all a favour if he edited the subject heading so more people would realize what this thread contains... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Originally posted by Doodlebug: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei: It was Brits who first named it after General Grant, then the Americans thought "hey that's a good idea, let's call it after a civil war general!" and so they ended up... naming it General Lee. And those are Yank tanks in the shot... I really don't understand why it couldn't have been Grant for both, though. Maybe it was some Southerner in the US Army Dept. responsible of that? Nope. Credit the Brits with both names. After Dunkirk and before Lend Lease came into being the British wished to purchase tanks from America. Initially they wished to have existing British designs built and supplied but fortunately the Americans said no. Take the designs we're tooling up for or forget it. The British therefore purchased the M3 with a re-designed turret containing a radio (in line with British practices at the time)which they called Grant. When Lend Lease kicked off the Americans supplied tanks above and beyond the original orders and built to the American standard (with the radio in the hull) which they called Lee. Hence the names and the two different turrets. As far as I know the Brits also named the Sherman and the Stuart althought I stand ready to be corrected on that assertion. All the American tank names that followed in a similar vein are carrying on the British names like the Pershing and so on. Good job we didn't call them something really silly </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Does anyone else find it curious that so many of them have names that begin with the letter 'C'? Crusader, Churchill, Covenenter, Conquerer, Challenger, Comet, Cromwell, Chieftain, plus two or three others (at least) that I can't think of just now. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Originally posted by Doodlebug: As far as I know the Brits also named the Sherman and the Stuart althought I stand ready to be corrected on that assertion. All the American tank names that followed in a similar vein are carrying on the British names like the Pershing and so on. Good job we didn't call them something really silly Dunno about that. The Brits renamed the Stuart to the "Honey" (because it was such a sweet tank --- really!), and the only name I know of that they gave the Sherman was "Ronson" (and that ain't a complement). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: Ha ha. From the look of that Grant screenshot CMAK players are going to quickly form a renewed appreciation of Sherman! Imagine fighting Tigers in those rattle-traps? ...another few months and people won't have to imagine! Actually, I was thinking about how the Sherman was the Tiger of the Western Desert, back when the Brits first fielded them in '42. Gonna be funny seeing a Sherman on the field, and have the German player go "oh, sh*t!", instead of the Allied player being the one cursing it out... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.