John Kettler Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 How about a 3/4 scale Tiger 1? Finished beast, unfortunately sans audio! Full tech details at eBay Motors. This thing's made of steel and is powered by a 350. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Ross Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Oh that's just lazy. If you're going to make an effort to build a Tiger to 3/4 scale, why not do it properly and make it a proper Tiger? Can't be doing with the final 1/4? Wanted to make it up Everest, but thought that 3/4 was close enough? Feeble, truly feeble. C'mon Whermacht Heavy Armour Fanboyz (WHAFs)... Hitler didn't conquer Russia with 3/4 built Tigers you know! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Hitler didn't conquer Russia with 3/4 built Tigers you know! Quite right! On the other hand, he didn't conquer Russia with the full scale beasties either, so where does that leave us? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 I'd suggest making it to 72:1 scale so you can appreciate the finer details... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 I'd suggest making it to 72:1 scale so you can appreciate the finer details... Adolf H. would have hired you instantly! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Oh boy, I'm sure this guy saw a lot of weird looks. He'd be the talk of the town: "Yup you heard right, Bob our crazy next-door-neighbor built a nazi tank or something!" "With all the loud noises coming from his garage at night, we knew he was up to something pretty odd!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 "He always seemed like such a nice boy, quiet and polite. Always seemed to keep to himself though." Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Full scale would of course leave him with some major issues regarding garage clearance! But the 3/4 thing obviously involves some compromises in crew accommodation. Tank driving positions are cramped enough at full scale, so the interior must not be authentic for him to drive buttoned down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Full scale would of course leave him with some major issues regarding garage clearance! But the 3/4 thing obviously involves some compromises in crew accommodation. Tank driving positions are cramped enough at full scale, so the interior must not be authentic for him to drive buttoned down. Isn't it possible that he's 3/4 length, though? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Possibly! I'm above average length and found it impossible to fit in a T-55 driver compartment even without buttoning down. But then I guess the Russians would just ship in few trainloads of malnourished Tadjiks or something to crew. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 But then I guess the Russians would just ship in few trainloads of malnourished Tadjiks or something to crew. You may not be far wrong. I recall reading once that historically the Soviets selected their tank crews from among their more diminutive soldiers. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Also, there were female tank units. Given the smaller average size of women, and how inside tanks most tasks would not be physically too demanding for your usual farm or factory girl, they are ideal for the job. Men are better kept at home, working at factories and looking after children. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 13, 2009 Author Share Posted December 13, 2009 Affentitten, Poorly nourished people tend to produce smaller soldiers. Russian tanks are designed for men 5' 5" or less, in turn resulting in a smaller volume of fighting compartment to be armor protected and a lower profile. The result is a hard hitting tank which is not only well adapted to using every bit of cover on the steppes, but one which requires less material than its western counterpart, is lighter, cheaper and far more strategically mobile. Here's an example of western tank design applied to the also smallish South Korean soldier. Merely by sizing the tank for a smaller crewman, significant things start happening vis-a-vis-the M1 series. Height drops, weight drops, power/weight ratio remains at a staggering 22 hp/ton (T-34 was 18 hp/ton) with a much less powerful engine (1200 on the K1A1 vs. 1500 on the M1). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K1_88-Tank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams This doesn't show the full extent of Russian vs. Western tank design differences, but it does hit some of the key points and show them in a way where it's easy to make certain comparisons. I got to climb into a T-62 at the NTC, and it was extremely cramped and dangerous for me at 5'11"--while static in the turret. Got dinged several times by various hard, sharp metal protrusions. ISTR I couldn't even close the hatch and be comfortable in the TC's seat, being folded up like an accordion! By contrast, the interior of an M48A5 which I got to "command" during seeker tests at Hughes was positively spacious. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 13, 2009 Author Share Posted December 13, 2009 Sergei, If you do some digging, you can read about a famous husband and wife team on a very successful ISU-122. Depending on the couple, such arrangements can be really good, so so, or hellish beyond words. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 I seem to recall though that the lower profile of Russian tanks gave them less barrel depression range. Made it harder to operate hull down. But then, individual crew and vehicle survival was less important to Soviet doctrine anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 I seem to recall though that the lower profile of Russian tanks gave them less barrel depression range. Made it harder to operate hull down. I've read the same thing. Comparing the T-55 and T-62 to the M48 and M60, the differences were dramatic, a fact exploited by the Israelis. But then, individual crew and vehicle survival was less important to Soviet doctrine anyway. Yes that's true, but it can backfire if the crew decides it is not in a great hurry to die for the Motherland. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 In WW2 the Allies - and Russians - beat the Germans with quantity over quality. The Soviets planned to do that for WW3 as well. They are only now disposing of a tank reserve of over 50,000 1970-1980 era tanks that would have done the trick nicely if they'd been turned loose on the West, back when. We might have given them a run for their money, but if they struck quickly and crippled NATO airpower early on, the Sovs might have pulled it off. The wild card, as always, is the nuclear question - who would have used them first, and how? Much depends upon that issue. Or so think I. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 I have this impression—which I have as yet to solidly verify—that one of the main ingredients convincing the Soviets to throw in the towel was the Pershing theater ballistic missile. Plans were to use it against such vital targets as army HQs at the very outset of hostilities and they were never able to come up with an effective answer to it. Anybody know more about this? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 In WW2 the Allies - and Russians - beat the Germans with quantity over quality. That's kind of true, but it needs to be noted that the Allies could not afford to be too far behind qualitatively or you'd soon run out of men to man the weapons. Also, there were a few areas where the Allies were ahead qualitatively as well as quantitatively, such as artillery. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share Posted December 14, 2009 Affentitten, Correct! Please see the No more patches after 1.21 thread? in the CM:SF Forum for my detailed arguments as to why realistic modeling of depression and elevation matters. Russian tanks have about half the depression capability of Western MBTs, for reasons I've already outlined. Michael Emrys, Pershing II was our fast response answer (GLCM being the slow response, because of subsonic flight speeds) to the SS-20 IRBM. The reason the Russians found it so upsetting was that it was able to reach Moscow in mere minutes, posing a severe decapitation threat to Russian leaders there, since the Kremlin could be hit before the leaders could be dispersed to mobile command posts and deep underground shelters. Remember, the highest Russian intelligence priority for years during the Cold War was RYAN, a program to detect and preempt a Western first strike. Please see the Wiki here for a discussion of RYAN in context. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 To the Russians, the Pershing II was destabilizing, a view they lacked when it came to the SS-20, which held all of Europe in reach. To the Russians, though, since the SS-20 couldn't hit the United States, and the Pershing II could strike clear to Moscow, so it had to go, since it upset the strategic balance. Regards, John Kettler 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.