"Wow,Combat Wombat!" Topic

I got my first set of models from Scotty today.I am bowled over! They even better in person.Yes,you do have to wait a little bit,but he tells you that up front.Worth it!

Models of what?

combatwombatminiatures.com

I'll jump on the Combat Wombat bus!

Yes. Lovely models & the short wait is worth it.

Skink,
Couldn't agree more. Scott was great. The first thought upon opening my order was "Look at all this cool stuff!" My second, less exuberant thought was, "Look at all this cool stuff that I now have to find time to paint."

BL, Scott, you rock. Keep it up.

Cheers,
Brock

I keep seeing the claim that Scotty's stuff is "small".

That's the 6x6 AGS. In scale it is 9 feet wide…

I keep seeing the claim that Scotty's stuff is "small".

Agreed. The Scarab is the only CW vehicle that seems undersized to me… it would be better with another 1/4" of operator head room. The rest of the Combat Wombat line is scaled really well for 1/100 infantry.

-Chris K.

My mistake. That's the 8x8 AGS. Same upper chassis, different suspension. Commentary remains the same.

The CW Scarab is IMHO just fine as a single-seat scout vehicle. If you think the Scarab is tiny, go check out the WW2-era Daimler Dingo scout car and bear in mind the Dingo is meant to be a two-seater without the technological amenities of such high tech rides as the Scarab…

Leland R. Erickson

I find Combat Wombat's MBTs to be far too small to be useful/believable but I have always stated that it's only my highly personal opinion.

The Grav MBT?

I don't own one, but if that's the same 1/6" grid as on the Medium Grav I have in front of me, the model is some 4 inches long, or around 10 meters in scale. That makes the chassis about the same length as the Leopard 2 counting gun forward.

I moved to 15mm to get away from the tabletop parking lot, so I don't need 15mm tanks that rival a 40k Rhino for table presence.

I moved to 15mm to get away from the tabletop parking lot, so I don't need 15mm tanks that rival a 40k Rhino for table presence.

I think that's an excellent point. You need a big table to do 28mm SF and 40K (what with its cartoon figures and vehicles) makes it even harder to do the scale visual justice. It is far easier in 15mm.

And anyway, we all (or most of us) have a wierd idea of how big things really are based on 'non-common sense' emotions as well: most cars in 28mm games tend to be too big for the scale – but then most of us think of a car or light truck as 'a big thing' (and then there's all that hoo haw about "the figures have to look right standing on the bases" and so forth) and tend to represent them as such: a big thing.

A modern day (ie 40 years old but still in use) FV107 Scimitar is only 4.9m long and 2.2m wide. The joys of 15mm 'scale' (if we accept that it's 1/100) and the decimal system means a model 49mm by 22mm. Just under and inch wide by 2 inches long. I know it's not an MBT – far from it – but surely all sizes of vehicles should be represented appropriately in games, including that kind of recon/cavalry vehicle?

John T

Moqawama Exactly how many of my vehicles do you own or have seen in person? I have spent 24 yrs climbing in and out of military vehicles of all sizes. I find my vehicles scale nicely with about anything out there. The scarab gets the most heat for being small but it is one man vehicle and sells rather well.
So if you dont't mind telling us your background and expertise in armored vehicle design im sure we could come up with the "Moqawama scale" similiar to the GAJO scale of painting. we design, and produce a kit and you give us your profesional rating on it as I ma sure your stamp of approval will greatly impact sales for us. Please feel free to show us some of your designs and while you are at it join TMP as a supporting member.
Over
CW

So if you dont't mind telling us your background and expertise in armored vehicle design im sure we could come up with the "Moqawama scale" similiar to the GAJO scale of painting.

Does he really have to do that in order to give his input on models in a discussion forum? The important part about sci fi models is how they look, not how close to historical vehicles they are. He's also not alone in having opined that your vehicles look too small, not a belief I subscribe to but apparently others do.

Of course, you can ignore him, for all we know it might just be a windup. But you didn't go after jracel for making the same observations. You can ignore him or respond by upping the size of your models, but taking the out of him is probably not a good idea. (And if it's a windup it's exactly what he wanted.)

Okay, I'll bite – where did the little bus come from?

link and look for the Hover Bus about three rows down.

Does he really have to do that in order to give his input on models in a discussion forum? The important part about sci fi models is how they look, not how close to historical vehicles they are. He's also not alone in having opined that your vehicles look too small, not a belief I subscribe to but apparently others do.

There are opinions, and there are facts. If we're going to argue about the size of a model being too small or large enough, then we can all do what the IPMS and plastic scale models builders such as yours truly have done for decades, namely fall back to that little thing called *scale.* Scale deals in facts, at least enough so that it involves actual math.

Of course, you can ignore him, for all we know it might just be a windup.

Isn't that also known as "playing the internet troll?" Isn't that a TMP Dawghouse offense?

But you didn't go after jracel for making the same observations.

IIRC that was another thread some days or weeks ago, wasn't it? I seem to recall the result was much the same; scale was brought up, along with photo or two of actual small AFVs. If my memory is faulty on this, then we can blame the Vicodine…

You can ignore him or respond by upping the size of your models, but taking the Bleeped text out of him is probably not a good idea. (And if it's a windup it's exactly what he wanted.)

If it's a deliberate "windup" as you say, then it's juvenile, petty behavior best taken somewhere else. CW didn't "take the " out of him, he asked Moquawama how much actual exposure to real AFVs he'd had, and asked him to as we Yanks say, "put up or shut up."

CW beat me to it asking Moquawama how many real AFVs he's actually gotten up close and personal with, as frankly, having been around quite a few real AFVs and other combat vehicles in some intimate fashion as well, I know from personal experience that not all AFVs are massive engineering throwbacks to Great War Mk I "Male" tanks with double thick Rolex watchbands for tracks.

Leland R. Erickson

I find CW scale just fine, I know these things are personnel tastes and such. The future will have many unmanned vehicles our technology is giving us this now. small kill vehicles will be the norm. I applaud anyone supporting the hobby with good products, there is enough negativity in the world remember Ghost Busters we don't what the green slim over taking us.
JH

While we're on a request note – I'd really like something like the Bullpup Lander that could handle HO 20 and 40' standard shipping containers. I've got a bunch of these and would like and inexpensive and futuristic way to move them.

I like the Chinese lander too – what is the shipping to the UK like?

Little armies: I ship to the uk at cost or eat it. I think I just sent three to the uk for about $5 USD usd.
As for jracel: he owns more combat wombat kit than I do so he can say what he wants. He is constructive and informattive in his opinions not a drive by sniper. He is personally responsible for the Nardin. I don't mind critism but constructive ideas.

This guy has been a snipe for some time and I'm calling him out.

I love my customers and this genre for the high level of civility between the 15mm companies. There are enough guys out there to find something you like and you will not find me bashing any of them.

There are opinions, and there are facts. If we're going to argue about the size of a model being too small or large enough, then we can all do what the IPMS and plastic scale models builders such as yours truly have done for decades, namely fall back to that little thing called *scale.*

Don't know how to break this to you, but these vehicles don't really exist. So their size is entirely a matter of the discretion of the manufacturer. If that's the case, then the size preference of customers (something that exists) matters a lot more than the size of existing vehicles (which these vehicles are not).

If it's a deliberate "windup" as you say,

Didn't say "it was" -- I suggested that CW may have felt so, based on the tone of his response, and his response above bears that out.

CW didn't "take the " out of him,

Of course he did.

he asked Moquawama how much actual exposure to real AFVs he'd had, and asked him to as we Yanks say, "put up or shut up."

And telling another user to shut up is a DH offence, speaking of those.

@ Scotty – As far as the peanut gallery – let the comments go… You already have enough drama in your life… 8^)

I too would like a dropship that can carry 15mm shipping containers. Maybe a small one that carries one container – centrally mounted? Maybe a larger one that carries a container under each wing?

I just picked up some 15 shipping containers and I'm am going to make some sort of rig for them on the bullfrog.
Cw

@ Scotty – You are a rockstar! Cannot wait to see what you come up with!

Don't know how to break this to you, but these vehicles don't really exist. So their size is entirely a matter of the discretion of the manufacturer. If that's the case, then the size preference of customers (something that exists) matters a lot more than the size of existing vehicles (which these vehicles are not).

A 6' tall human being will remain a 6' tall human being for quite a very long time to come. Ergonomics are not going to change all that much either AFAIK, as the amount of space a tank crew member will occupy will remain pretty much the same, even if one presumes some pretty sophisticated interfaces. Size will indeed thus matter, and even with speculative concept art designers can and do take this into consideration. CW has incorporated his working knowledge as a military professional into what he does creating these speculative AFVs and such, and IMHO it shows even in the much maligned Scarab.

Didn't say "it was" -- I suggested that CW may have felt so, based on the tone of his response, and his response above bears that out.

See CWs response above your comment concerning prior history.

he asked Moquawama how much actual exposure to real AFVs he'd had, and asked him to as we Yanks say, "put up or shut up."

And telling another user to shut up is a DH offence, speaking of those.

That's American English poker talk, which can also be expressed as "Ante up or fold yer junk hand," or "Place a bet or get out of the hand." To take it literally as simply "shut up" in the British English Deliberate Mortal Insult Direct at a Worthless Git Dialect is to prove Churchill right once again about "…two people separated by a common language."

I thought you've hung around these parts long enough to have picked up that bit of Old Amerislangese, so I guess you've proven me wrong on that count. C'est le jeu de guerre.

Leland R. Erickson

I just picked up some 15 shipping containers and I'm am going to make some sort of rig for them on the bullfrog.
Cw

Hmmmm… a lander than can lift 15 shipping containers… I wonder if that same lifter could haul a really BIG grav AFV…. something with multiple gun turrets…

Leland R. Erickson

P.S. Yes, yes, I know the original request was for a 15mm *scale* shipping container, but Scott said "15 shipping containers," and I say why limit yourself to one container when you can move 15 of 'em, or one really BIG AFV? Mwahahaahaaa!!!

ok ok I was answering this on my iphone!!! it will carry one or 2 15MM containers!!!

ok ok I was answering this on my iphone!!! it will carry one or 2 15MM containers!!!

LOL!!! Aw, come on NOW! Live a little, dude!

Leland R. Erickson

P.S. I couldn't help it…

I also don't get why it is that anyone picks out CW's range as having small vehicles.

Check out some of the GZG vehicles in my collection:

With the best will in the world they are really quite small but in scale. ie they are what they are meant to be size wise (see my comments on Scorpions, above).

But Jon's GZG stuff doesn't seem to be criticised for 'smallness' (though I might have missed some threads, I guess). So why Combat Wombat's?

I've never bought a Combat Wombat vehicle (yet) so I'm not fanboying it up here. But I think his work is excellent and – in some areas (like metal gun barrels) – the CW stuff is top of the league.

This "is it too big, is it too small*" stuff is just misinformed, I think (again, see my comments above) and – with his realworld experience – I can understand Scotty being (let's say) to the point in his comebacks: it must be frustrating.

Three years in the army cadets certainly doesn't qualify me as a hand's on expert on AFV sizing but I've been around over and in quite a few in my time and CW's stuff looks just great, in terms of both size and design (as does GZG's range).

Leland – love the comment about the rolex watches (spot on) but your quoting technique is, ahem, making a mockery of my stiffling list (well it's negating its efficaciousness anyway… )

John T

*will the girls like it… oh sorry – that's Life of Brian

@John T-

Agreed, except I actually have vehicles from both Combat Wombat and GZG. Scotty's Grav MBT pictured above is actually slightly bigger than GZG's Advanced Heavy Grav Tank.

Jeff

A 6' tall human being will remain a 6' tall human being for quite a very long time to come. Ergonomics are not going to change all that much either AFAIK, as the amount of space a tank crew member will occupy will remain pretty much the same, even if one presumes some pretty sophisticated interfaces.

Your argument is morphing, you were claiming that you need to look to scale as a veteran modelmaker. There is no scale for these vehicles as they do not exist, so there's no way to look to it.

So you're now making a different argument, not one of scale, but one of analogy to current vehicles.

Which, for science fiction vehicles, is a bit like a German panzer crewman in 1938 saying that armoured vehicles in 2012 will be six meters long, and anyone who argues that's too small doesn't know what he's talking about -- after all, he's been crewing panzers for years now and the panzer III is about six meters long, and the ergonomics are fine.

Which brings us back to the fact that no one knows if tanks will be a part of the far future battlefield, and if they are, how large they will be. So it's all a matter of what looks right to the customer. There is no "right answer" based on one's "vast experience" -- not when it comes to space tanks. Sizes of vehicles for any specific historical period are completely irrelevant -- except of course for the fact that turreted tanks have consistently got larger over the decades.

By the way, no need to instruct me about life in the States as I have lived here for many years.

Scotty's Grav MBT pictured above is actually slightly bigger than GZG's Advanced Heavy Grav Tank.

GZQ's vehicles are pretty tiny though, presumably because they are cast in white metal.

GZG's Chariot is about 8 feet wide in scale (1/100). For context that's still barely street legal here in the US. It is only about 14 feet long, though.

Since its job is to carry a Fire Team, that's plenty big.

Scotty has already stated that one of his criteria is transportability. That was also a big part of what kept US tanks smallish in WWII, and why even the Shermans had vertical sides. We get away with larger tanks now because we transport fewer, and haven't participated in a symmetrical (ie. mutual attrition) war in decades. Under those circumstances, the side with the logistics chain will be shrinking tanks as fast as he can design them.

Your argument is morphing, you were claiming that you need to look to scale as a veteran modelmaker. There is no scale for these vehicles as they do not exist, so there's no way to look to it.

You have GOT to be kiddin' me…

So you're now making a different argument, not one of scale, but one of analogy to current vehicles.

Oy vay…

Which, for science fiction vehicles, is a bit like a German panzer crewman in 1938 saying that armoured vehicles in 2012 will be six meters long, and anyone who argues that's too small doesn't know what he's talking about -- after all, he's been crewing panzers for years now and the panzer III is about six meters long, and the ergonomics are fine.

Let's dissect your analogy a bit, shall we? Your typical panzer crewman may have started out in 1936 with the Panzer I:

He might next graduate to the Panzer IV if he's lucky:

Then he sees a Tiger II a couple years later:

…and runs into an IS-2 (wishes he hadn't), and yet survives the war to see IS-3s parade through the streets of Berlin:

Now your hypothetical Panzer man would have witnessed this evolution of tanks over a decade. CW has been crawling around such machines as a professional for over two decades in an era of rapidly evolving technology and a changing battlefield mandate (ie., asymmetric warfare). I think even a veteran of the panzers would have admitted that the evolution of tanks during the period 1939-45 was indeed a rapid one, with the size of tanks and their sophistication and firepower rising for the most part in much the same fashion. He could hardly have imagined what is going on now.

Which brings us back to the fact that no one knows if tanks will be a part of the far future battlefield, and if they are, how large they will be. So it's all a matter of what looks right to the customer.

Agreed, yet that notion takes *nothing* away from CWs point that as one who makes models and who does so based upon among other things his own personal experiences as a military professional he does have a valid point of view and he does have the professional bona fides to back it up and anyone who just repeatedly quips "CWs models are too small" is frankly being silly.

There is no "right answer" based on one's "vast experience" -- not when it comes to space tanks.

Ah, but there is; if there's going to be a crewman or multiple crewmembers, then you're going to have to allow enough room to accommodate them under battlefield conditions accordingly. Whatever technological premise one proceeds from (ie., does the tank rely upon AI, or a sophisticated man-machine interface, is it controled by thoughts alone, or does the driver actually push buttons and move levers?) will dictate the rough size one has to take into account, but one still has to allow for the crew to be accommodated.

Unless you go entirely with AIs or drones, one cannot escape the human dimension in design.

Sizes of vehicles for any specific historical period are completely irrelevant -- except of course for the fact that turreted tanks have consistently got larger over the decades.

Um, actually, no, they have not always done so. Have a look at this Panzer I next to a M1917 6 ton tank (the US license-built copy of the granddaddy of all modern battle tanks, the French FT-17):

link

Furthermore, there is some considerable variance in tank sizes due to mission role, technology, main armament, and whether or not transportability is a major requirement:

By the way, no need to instruct me about life in the States as I have lived here for many years.

You poor sod…

Scotty's Grav MBT pictured above is actually slightly bigger than GZG's Advanced Heavy Grav Tank.

GZQ's vehicles are pretty tiny though, presumably because they are cast in white metal.

Perhaps; metal I suspect you're aware is subject to shrinkage as the casting cool. See also GypsyComet's comments as well on transportability, logistics, and attritional warfare. For me transportability is the one issue that so many sci-fi writers and gamers always seem to ignore; in sci-fi, we're not talking about moving say 500 MBTs across the North Atlantic in time for Operation Overlord, we're talking about moving their bigger, badder progeny from ground to orbit, from orbit to God-only-knows how many *lightyears* across the galaxy, then bring them down from orbit to ground under combat conditions, *then* keep them supplied with spare parts, ammunition, fuel, replacement crew, replacement vehicles…

Transportability matters. Size matters. And gauging size based upon actual direct professional experience with current technology as well as how big the human soldier really is and will probably remain for the next 1,000 years and how much room they'll therefore need to work in is what conceptual designers do as a matter of course:

CW applying his experiences over nearly a quarter century in the Armed Forces to his speculative designs which IMHO is a far cry from a repetitive posting of "It's too smaaaalll!" I'll take CWs bona fides and the end result that are his products over an anonymous blogger's one-sentence repeated jibes any day of the week, thank y'all very much.

Leland R. Erickson

Erm… this is still all about a game right? You know, those things that involve suspended belief etc for a bit of escapism and fun.

May I humbly suggest, if you like a product buy it, if you don't then buy something else.

holy crap! my lawyer has spoken and the defense now rests! you are too much my brother!!
CW

So it's all a matter of what looks right to the customer.

Then how about "I like my MBTs a bit bigger", or maybe adding "…for my tastes" to the statement that has been used.

Honestly porfirio and Moqawama are right and the rest of you need to stop acting like childish brats about it.

Combat Wombat – Yeah we get it you are in the military and you make 15mm miniatures. They are good miniatures, no one is denying that. Also, no one is denying that you have military service. However none of that gives you the right to on someones opinion, which they even stated is their "highly personal opinion". No one is forcing you to change anything about your models, we can give opinions but at the end of the day YOU are the one who has to redo the vehicles. Maybe you didn't mean it as a verbal attack on Moqawama, but that is exactly what it sounded like.

As for the rest of you, it is quite frankly just a sad showing. Nearly half of you lapsed into some rediculous cult mindset where anyone who criticizes the opinion of the favored members is immediately an enemy.

No matter how much experience with modern or antique military any of you has gives you the right to pass off ANYTHING as an empirical fact about a fictional, future vehicle unless of course one of you is a military contracted engineer from 'insert year here' in 'insert setting here'. The fact of the matter is for any of you to argue with porfirio is just rude since all he's done is try to defend Moqawama's right to have an opinion as well as how not a single one of you should be criticizing him for that opinion.

Also it is incredibly rude to state that because someone lacks career expertise, they can't share their opinion on something. I'm not a moderator but please stop bumping this thread with the intent of arguing, it is equally rude to the other threads on the board.

porfirio and Moqawama are right

No. They have opinions. Rightness has nothing to do with it.

I'm not a moderator but please stop bumping this thread with the intent of arguing, it is equally rude to the other threads on the board.

You must be new here.

The "15mm Sci-Fi" page shows the one hundred most recent topics. Not ten or twenty-five. That is the only page that will sort topics by last posting. This is already off the front page.

Topics never vanish due to age here.

While I don't own any Combat Wombat vehicles I have seen some and they perfectly reasonable as any one else's in the market.

As a model builder I work in 15mm for my figures and 100th for my vehicles. In that I have gotten a lot of comments that my Automotive scale vehicles seem small but are generally larger than the vehicles they are based on scale-wise.

A scale Jeep is approx 1/2 inch wide by a inch long.

A large Pickup is 2/4s inch wide by 1.5 inch long.

Modeling in that size can be a pain. But it is even harder if you don't study how your examples are built.

And in general if you don't like what is for sale make your own. That's what I do…

The fact of the matter is for any of you to argue with porfirio is just rude since all he's done is try to defend Moqawama's right to have an opinion as well as how not a single one of you should be criticizing him for that opinion.

Reasoned debate is not merely argument for argument's sake.

Not all opinions are equal, nor are they immune from reasoned, reasonably polite challenge under TMP's rules of the house, yours or mine included. CW challenged moquawama who has made it their apparent business to repeat the same comment every time CWs' work crops up on these fora. CW challenged moquawama accordingly. moquawama IMHO brought that down upon himself; if you don't like a product why even waste one's time commenting on it every time it comes up?

porfiro rubirosa and I are on the evidence two adults who have (A) locked horns in debate before and (B) are grown ups who can take care of ourselves. Our exchange is a reasoned and reasonable debate IMHO (whatever profirio rubirosa may think of my personal capacity for reason).

Also it is incredibly rude to state that because someone lacks career expertise, they can't share their opinion on something.

Yet AFAIK no one made any such statement. And indeed, career expertise does have its merits, don't you agree? Or do you seek all of your dental services from your neighborhood florist, and consult with your auto mechanic about your upcoming neck surgery? Of course you don't.

I'm not a moderator but please stop bumping this thread with the intent of arguing, it is equally rude to the other threads on the board.

If you sincerely feel that I have violated TMPs rules of conduct and since courtesy is so important to you, by all means feel free to report me to Bill Armintrout, The Editor and site owner accordingly.

Leland R. Erickson

Meh, you all suck IMHO…except for CW…
;)

(Yes, just kidding/trolling)

think even a veteran of the panzers would have admitted that the evolution of tanks during the period 1939-45 was indeed a rapid one, with the size of tanks and their sophistication and firepower rising for the most part in much the same fashion.

I think you missed the point of my analogy. The meaning, once again, was that knowledge of current weapons systems in no way makes you an "expert" on future weapons systems, just as a gunner in the Ottoman army in the sixteenth century was in no special position to predict what 21st century artillery would be like, even if he were a 40-year veteran.

Sizes of vehicles for any specific historical period are completely irrelevant -- except of course for the fact that turreted tanks have consistently got larger over the decades.

Um, actually, no, they have not always done so. Have a look at this Panzer I next to a M1917 6 ton tank (the US license-built copy of the granddaddy of all modern battle tanks, the French FT-17):

Yes, actually they have got consistently larger, and it's frankly a bit desperate to argue that they haven't because individual tank A is bigger than later indivudual tank B, don't you think? Especially offering up a training/scout tank against a tank developed specifically to fight at the front as your big "gotcha."

In World War I the average weight of a turreted tank was about seven tons. In World War II the average weight for a turreted tank was about 28 tons. In the 1950 and 60s the average weight of a turreted tank was in the neighborhood of 40-50 tons. In the current generation of tanks the average weight is in the high 50 ton to mid 60 ton mark.

See a trend? Or are you going to argue that future vehicles will completely break from the current development? Because if so, well, that completely cuts the legs out from the argument that someone who's been steeped in current vehicle mechanics will be an expert as to the future.

Sorry, but you can post as many pictures as you want and oy vey it up all you want, but there's so far been no demonstration that a customer has no right to think that a model sci fi tank is too small because he's not a veteran of years of military service. I know you like to argue for the sake of arguing Leland, but even you must see how silly that notion is … particularly as someone who is quite keen to give his advice to anyone who will listen, and many who won't, about what models should be made and what they should look like. If someone thinks that models are too small, it's his right to think so, and it's his right to discuss it in a discussion forum. So let the guy have his opinion without the clique-ish shoutdown.

Yes, actually they have got consistently larger, and it's frankly a bit desperate to argue that they haven't because individual tank A is bigger than later indivudual tank B, don't you think? Especially offering up a training/scout tank against a tank developed specifically to fight at the front as your big "gotcha."

And trends can change, and portability can and will play a role in force projection as it has all along. That Panzer I may have been intended as a training machine, but events forced its use as a frontline combat unit accordingly, and that tank wasn't all that more or less sophisticated or smaller than a number of its contemporaries. Portability for example had a lot to do with the US sticking to the M4 Sherman as long as it did, right along with industrial limitations. MBTs have trended larger, *and* they've also trended towards lower target profiles, *and* for every M1A1 or Challenger there's been smaller tracked tanks designed for greater portability to fulfill changing mission profiles. Or do you deny that asymmetric warfare is now the growing trend of warfare for the foreseeable future?

In World War I the average weight of a turreted tank was about seven tons. In World War II the average weight for a turreted tank was about 28 tons. In the 1950 and 60s the average weight of a turreted tank was in the neighborhood of 40-50 tons. In the current generation of tanks the average weight is in the high 50 ton to mid 60 ton mark.

Yes, and again, portability, technology, and force projection requirements can alter that trend, especially if we're talking about speculative fiction where we're no longer moving a tank regiment across the Atlantic on convoy of cargo ships, but across many light years of space and down from orbit to dirtside potentially even into a hot LZ.

See a trend? Or are you going to argue that future vehicles will completely break from the current development? Because if so, well, that completely cuts the legs out from the argument that someone who's been steeped in current vehicle mechanics will be an expert as to the future.

Someone steeped in current vehicle design and usage will have a much better grasp of the ergonomics, especially if they've had to occupy and operate such vehicles in a combat situation. That is my argument here. Practical experience can be a valid source of expertise, don't you agree?

Sorry, but you can post as many pictures as you want and oy vey it up all you want, but there's so far been no demonstration that a customer has no right to think that a model sci fi tank is too small because he's not a veteran of years of military service.

That's not been my argument, so please don't try and put words in my mouth. My argument is (A) opinions are all well and good, and they can be subject to reasonable challenge, and (B) if a designer is applying some valid real world experience to their designs, then IMHO they deserve their due accordingly.

I know you like to argue for the sake of arguing Leland,

If by that you mean I will happily challenge something I see as illogical or just plain wrong, you'd be right. Arguing simply for its own sake is not what I do, however, and I think my words on these fora since its inception speak for themselves. Opinionated? Absolutely. However I do make an reasonable effort to back up my opinions with some sort of facts, even if you, profiro rubirosa, continue to disagree with my conclusions.

but even you must see how silly that notion is … particularly as someone who is quite keen to give his advice to anyone who will listen, and many who won't, about what models should be made and what they should look like. If someone thinks that models are too small, it's his right to think so, and it's his right to discuss it in a discussion forum. So let the guy have his opinion without the clique-ish shoutdown.

Did I say someone couldn't have their say? No, I didn't.

Combat Wombat – if you come up with a Bullpup variant that can handle model railway containers that would be marvellous!

This is the kind of thing I have oodles of:

link

I also have some 40' containers and some 20' tank containers. If you could figure out something (magnets?) that would allow loads to be substituted that would great.

i finally picked up a pack of 20' containers but i dont know who makes them. I building a module for the bullfrog to lift it.
cw

Well, I guess an HO 20' container is an HO 20' container. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of your labours.

If CW is small then BF is tiny and micropanzer stuff is huge.

"I find Combat Wombat's MBTs to be far too small to be useful/believable but I have always stated that it's only my highly personal opinion."

Wow look at the size of those " unbelievable" Tigers. I can't understand how the Germans even got by with such a "useless" tank. I guess it's why they lost …
Now quit sniPing me or my kit everytime someone's posts about them. If you have something against me then be man about it and contact me directly at
Swadyko2000ATyahooDOTcom

Did I say someone couldn't have their say? No, I didn't.

Yeah, you did. His opinion wasn't valid because he's not an expert on modern vehicles, which apparently makes you some sort of expert on sci fi tanks as well.

Apparently, according to you and the manufacturer, these products are immune from criticism unless the critic has a letter from his senator verifying that he's flown in actual grav tanks.

If you pursue someone up and down the thread and tell him his opinion is invalid because he doesn't have "expertise," but then claim that you're letting him have his say, if nothing else I salute your audacity.

Now as I've said, I don't personally think these tanks are too small, but I'm certainly not going to argue with someone who thinks they are. Because it's just a matter of opinion, arguing against it would be rather silly, and using the sort of hostile slap down that's been employed repeatedly in this thread is frankly a bit rude.

weird argument on scale. I'm a gunner on a stryker and I just pulled my 35 ton, 25ft x 8ft x 8ft ICV up next to a remote vehicle the engineers use for clearing IED's and mines. That thing was about 9ft x 4ft x 4ft and oddly underlined some points in this conversation as far as the reality goes. Modernization of vehicles can make the sizes swing wildly. That little mine roller is remote operated but could reasonably fit an operator if it were made for it. The stryker is by necessity larger, since it carries crew + 10 for a total of 12. If it were just a weapons delivery system, the RWS – remote weapons system – I operate occupies about 4 square ft of space roughly. It's all about the use of the weapon and the technology involved. I get the argument about aesthetics from a customer perspective but I thik CW's goal is tp produce vehicles that compare to real world equivalents.