Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - elias.tibbs

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 29
16
Work In Progress / Re: British Centurion Mk 5 & Mk 5-1 200106
« on: January 18, 2020, 02:28:45 am »
It’s like the 1:48 or 1:56 argument that bolt action used to have. Not sure why the 1:50 scale really became a thing.

17
Work In Progress / Re: RESIN Project - M16 MGMC 3D Drawings 200117
« on: January 18, 2020, 02:26:28 am »
I’m really liking this. A fully plastic version would have been nicer, but I’d rather a better quality hybrid kit than the current WLG ones.

Question if have is what are you going to do for the barrels? They’re a nightmare to keep straight on the WLG one.

18
General Discussions / Re: Looking Ahead to 2020... 200101
« on: January 18, 2020, 02:23:49 am »
I’m a UK retailer *cough* ;)

19
General Discussions / Re: Looking Ahead to 2020... 200101
« on: January 17, 2020, 03:57:13 pm »
I just hope I can get anything in 2020.
It's getting harder and harder to get rubicon stuff as more stores stop stocking them or seem to really struggle getting stock in for them.
I've been trying to get a protze with no success.

And yes I can order direct.
But obviously it's the supposed convenience of being able to buy none rubicon stuff too without using 10 different stores.
Where are you based?

20
Work In Progress / Re: British Centurion Mk 5 & Mk 5-1 200106
« on: January 17, 2020, 03:56:04 pm »
Why?

21
Work In Progress / Re: RESIN Project - M32B1 ARV - Painted Sample 200116
« on: January 17, 2020, 03:19:48 am »
That is just gorgeous.

22
General Discussions / Re: Looking Ahead to 2020... 200101
« on: January 08, 2020, 04:09:30 pm »
"Main battle tank" is more of a post-war term.  I suspect these un-named subjects might be post-war vehicles.  "US armoured carrier" could be an M113.
My thoughts too, probably being a Patton and the light tank being an M3 light, M24 Chaffee (my preference) or M41 Walker Bulldog. 

23
General Discussions / Re: Looking Ahead to 2020... 200101
« on: January 06, 2020, 08:55:29 pm »
US AA gun.. looking hopefully for the 90mm?

24
General Discussions / Re: Looking Ahead to 2020... 200101
« on: January 03, 2020, 08:21:22 pm »
Well a centurion just got announced, so I’d expect to see a T54/55, M47/M48 maybe.

25
Wish Lists / Re: BT-7
« on: December 13, 2019, 04:39:01 am »
On paper, the 17pdr is better than the 76mm.. but..

The gun was huge and than made the turret more cramped. The traverse and elevation handles were very awkwardly placed, so quick aiming wasn’t as easy.  The round was longer and the breach was rotated 90degrees so it was harder/slower to load. It kicked up so much dust/smoke that it was usually hard to see where the round landed, so trickier to adjust for the second round. And it wasn’t as accurate as people claim, especially the sabot round.

And the reason why I say on paper it’s better, is because at 1000yrds and less, both the 17pdr and 76mm HVAP would go through a tiger. And the average engagement range in Western Europe for tanks was 600-800yrds. So I’d rather take the tank that was quicker to fire and more accurate every time.

And yes, I think the 76mm on the Sherman and hellcat or at least the same lineage/derivative.

Edit;

I should probably add, the 17pdr isn’t a bad gun. It’s just not as good as the fanboys or armchair generals claim ;)

26
Wish Lists / Re: BT-7
« on: December 10, 2019, 03:53:59 pm »
I’ve not heard about s shortage or time to develop an AP round being an issue. More that they believed it just wasn’t needed.

The M26 almost didn’t happen, because why bother? The war is almost over. The US encountered almost no tigers and the 76mm could deal with panthers. Oh wait, look at the soviets, what if they don’t stop, yeah let’s start that M26 programme up again...

Same way the 76mm was good and they thought that it was all that was needed. Then they realised it wasn’t and brought in the HVAP round for it. They had the plans for it, they knew how to make it, they just couldn’t make enough of them.

27
Wish Lists / Re: BT-7
« on: December 10, 2019, 05:07:59 am »
The old 3inch AT gun (also 76mm) was king early war...

But then they had a choice between the M3 76mm that was half the weight or the 90mm that was the same weight..

Tankers wanted the 90mm but couldn’t get it on a Sherman (although there was one test M4A3 with a Pershing turret..)and tank destroyers wanted the 76mm but ended up with the design compromise of the Jackson.

But in the end, the 90mm ended up on the Pershing and the 76mm ended up on the hellcat and everyone lived happily ever after.

We could talk about the 17pdr (also a 76mm gun), but it was awful and I always end up upsetting a 17pdr fanboy who like some to post armour penetration tables ;)

But as far as M10s being tank hunters? Bit of a myth. As with all US tank destroyers. They spent most of their time providing indirect artillery support and their role as tank destroyers was defensive and not offensive.

28
Wish Lists / Re: BT-7
« on: December 09, 2019, 06:39:19 am »
The 90mm wasn’t really wanted, hence why the M18 Hellcat was only equipped with a 76mm which was good enough to deal with most issues. 

29
Wish Lists / Re: BT-7
« on: December 08, 2019, 05:55:42 am »
IRC the B1 was the 90mm gun turret on a M4A3 hull

Indeed it was. Too many turrets and not enough hulls. Still not the tank that tank destroyer branch wanted though.

30
Aww. I own one anyway, but would have been nice in plastic too.

Looking forward to this though.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 29