Tango01  | 02 May 2013 3:03 p.m. PST |
New releases in 15mm.
From main page
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Mr Pumblechook | 02 May 2013 3:26 p.m. PST |
From the sublime to the ridiculous… but which is which? ;) |
| skinkmasterreturns | 02 May 2013 3:40 p.m. PST |
Matilda I,is it good for anywhere but France? At least the mk II made it to N Africa.Still, I want one,but in 1/72. |
 20thmaine | 02 May 2013 4:31 p.m. PST |
Yup – wrong scale, but matilda I looks very nice. The KV-2 : that's the definition of brutal functionality. |
| 14Bore | 02 May 2013 5:03 p.m. PST |
The book I have on Soviet WWII armor says if I remember correctly the turret won't turn if the tank is on a decent grade. Still love to get them when I play The Russian Front on the computer. |
| Mark 1 | 02 May 2013 5:44 p.m. PST |
…the turret won't turn if the tank is on a decent grade. As I understand it, that statement is not correct. The turret will indeed turn when on a slope. In fact, you can not prevent it from turning! Nor can you decide, on your own, when and in which direction it will turn. The gun was very heavy, and the turret was not counter-weighted. So the turret was quite front-heavy. US testers at Aberdeen made specific mention of how smoothly and EASILY the turret traversed on the KV-1 they evaluated. I have personally hand-cranked the turret of a (60+ year-old) IS-3, and can tell you that it takes very little muscle force to set the many tons of steel and gun in motion. That's good when you want the turret to turn. But it is probably a real nuisance when the turret wants to turn on its own. Put those factors together and you get a gun that wants to point downhill, whether you want it to or not. This was not actually an uncommon issue in WW2. The US M10 tank destroyer had the same problems when first deployed in Tunisia. It went through three revisions to the counter-weights on the back of the turret before it was actually stable on a slope. The M36 tank destroyer had the thickest armor of ANY allied AFV to see combat … on the BACK of the turret, as a counter-weight to the 90mm gun. The Panther also had trouble with a front-heavy turret. But the KV-2 was perhaps the most extreme example. I've seen an account describing the turret turning on its own as the tank moved across a side-slope. Given how little working room there must have been for the large turret crew (2 loaders), and the size of ammo they needed to handle, it must have been pretty alarming when the turret decided to start to swing on its own. -Mark
(aka: Mk 1) |
 Legion 4 | 02 May 2013 9:50 p.m. PST |
The Matilda Mk.1 … looked like it was one war behind … link Not surprising it only saw action in the France '40 battles … |
| David Manley | 02 May 2013 10:08 p.m. PST |
Looking forward to getting a few of those Matilda Is for my alt-hist 1930s games :) |
| Martin Rapier | 02 May 2013 11:08 p.m. PST |
The Matilda 1 was briefly retained for the home defence of the UK, but only fought overseas in France. So they could appear in a Sea lion type game. |
| SquireBev | 03 May 2013 2:42 a.m. PST |
I've been wanting to make a BEF Matilda force for some time, and now's my chance.
Excellent. |
| Patrick R | 03 May 2013 3:02 a.m. PST |
The Matilda I was from that brief period where tank designers envisaged small machinegun carriers, mowing down hordes of unsuspecting infantry in drive-by shooting sprees, politicians were happy to get dirt cheap tanks and the military was still bickering if they should be classified as hussars, dragoons or cuirassiers. |
| SFC Retired | 03 May 2013 12:37 p.m. PST |
Matilda I is one of my favorite WWII tanks! SFC Retired |
| 20thmaine | 03 May 2013 1:17 p.m. PST |
Fortunately other matilda's are available – and in god's chosen wargaming scale too : link |
| Sparker | 03 May 2013 2:37 p.m. PST |
and the military was still bickering if they should be classified as hussars, dragoons or cuirassiers Little bit of over simplification there I fear, the British military was actually quite advanced in its thinking on armour employment, to the extent of having a fully independent armoured division in existence pre war, incorporating mobile all arms support. It was actually British industry that let the side down, and political interference, such as the egregious '10 year rule' Oh and the British Army has never had regiments of Cuirassiers (in name at least)… |
| Patrick R | 04 May 2013 3:20 a.m. PST |
Sparker, I wasn't singling out the UK in this, but rather the broader movement across Europe in the twenties and thirties where any tracked vehicle that looked the faintest bit aggressive was considered a tank and everybody had their own pet theory on how and what kind of tanks should be used. As a result there were plenty of useless designs that went to war in 1939, but actual combat experience quickly showed the parties involved what worked and what didn't. As for the Cuirassier reference, I was thinking about French DCR. |
BlackWidowPilot  | 05 May 2013 5:21 p.m. PST |
I see the Matilda I as the basis for a whole bunch of Sci-fi drones from 15mm to 28mm scale, just for starters… the KV-2 would make a fantastic basis for a 15mm WH40K space ork tank conversion, besides its historical applications… waste not, want not… What I'd really like to see this bunch do are the French tanks and softskins suitable for Prioux's Cavalry Corps… lots of fire and maneuver action up in the Gembloux Gap battles, plus colorful French Tank camo patters and markings, I mean, what's not to love?
Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net
|
