khurasanminiatures | 03 Apr 2014 8:52 a.m. PST |
T-72M1. The T-72B (Super Dolly Parton) and T-72AV ("the tank is great, but we have some remarks") are underway as well.
Quite a ways off, but thought some might be interested! Also perfect for aliens versus soviets or "Stalker" type games
. |
Admiral Yi Sun Sin is my Homie | 03 Apr 2014 9:17 a.m. PST |
Those look great! Will the barrels be removable for combat duty? |
deleted222222222 | 03 Apr 2014 9:21 a.m. PST |
quite the lookers
.would be nice for a Team Yankee Game |
Eli Arndt | 03 Apr 2014 9:34 a.m. PST |
Excellent! Need them for my imagi-nation! -Eli |
khurasanminiatures | 03 Apr 2014 10:00 a.m. PST |
Will the barrels be removable for combat duty? It's not at all uncommon for T-72s to wear their rear drums into combat:
The Group of Soviet Forces Germany vehicles would have probably worn them as well had there been an invasion of West Germany. |
Admiral Yi Sun Sin is my Homie | 03 Apr 2014 10:11 a.m. PST |
Not to nit pick but I can't help it; if "into combat" you mean "side of the road trying to get the hell away" I'll agree with you. Otherwise, no it's not common for those barrels to be attached when they knew a fight was near at hand. Not in 1967*, Vietnam*, 1973*, Lebanon, Iraq or Syria anyway. Youtube videos of actual T-72s in combat show more often than not; no barrels for tanks having been or being recorded in combat. Note that I'm not using absolutes so one video (and there is at least one) of a T-72 in combat with barrels attached is OK. I don't know why I'm posting I prefer them with the barrels
Anyway, I think the models look great as is so never mind me. *T series tanks from the T-55 series on have an internal release for the barrels to drop of the back. That was by design to be used before going into combat. I started looking into this because of Battlefront having a mix of T-55s with and without barrels, btw. Their Vietnam model doesn't, their Arab model does have barrels. I found a Soviet technical manual and then started looking closely at videos of combat and more often the aftermath of combat. The tanks on the road seem to have had barrels attached before they were blown up. The ones off fighting/being blown up somewhere else usually did not. Tanks on parade seem to have them attached as well but that makes sense since the tanks look better with them on. |
khurasanminiatures | 03 Apr 2014 10:25 a.m. PST |
The Arab tanks did not have their fuel tanks in 1967 because they were subjected to a surprise attack. The Arabs were on the attack in 1973 but with limited objectives (to regain the territory lost in 1967) so did not need the spare drums. In fact that's one factor in the (accurate) Israeli assessment that 1973 was not an all-out invasion. Soviet tanks in WWII certainly wore their spare drums into battle and Soviet tanks would have as well in an invasion of West Germany. It's not a matter of taking the drums off before going into combat, it's a matter of what kind of combat they are going into. As FM100-2-1 states, long-ranged operations are very important to Soviet mechanized warfare and this is the reason for the wide use of external fuel drums. As far as I know the tank in the image above was lost in combat with US forces, not destroyed fleeing on a road. Am I mistaken? |
doug redshirt | 03 Apr 2014 10:46 a.m. PST |
I imagine it is like anything else you leave behind going into combat. You may never get a chance to go back and get them. I can see some LT trying to explain to the commissar why his tanks keep having to stop and refuel because he followed the correct doctrine and removed the fuel barrels 300 km back and never got a chance to go back and get them. Or even worse,"Lt why are you retreating from the front." |
Wellspring | 03 Apr 2014 11:29 a.m. PST |
Just to clarify, Jon, are you saying that the drums on the miniature are not removable? |
khurasanminiatures | 03 Apr 2014 12:14 p.m. PST |
They're optional pieces -- my point was just that you don't need to leave the external drums off to depict combat ready tanks. If that were the case, it would be pointless to provide them in the first place. |
NavyVet | 03 Apr 2014 4:56 p.m. PST |
When is your 3mm line going to hit production? |
Midian | 03 Apr 2014 5:41 p.m. PST |
|
PSADennis | 03 Apr 2014 9:03 p.m. PST |
Jon, These look fantastic. I will be painting mine with the barrels on. Just because they look cooler. Great work. Dennis |
Soldado | 03 Apr 2014 10:59 p.m. PST |
About the barrels thing, if you look at pictures of the British Challenger 2 you'll see it has fuel barrels stowed on it's rear as well, but not being dumb enough to ride into battle with unarmored fuel cans next to the engine, we tended to use empty barrels and filled them with cam nets and the thermal sheets etc. My point you ask? The barrels may not always be be full of fuel. |
BattlerBritain | 04 Apr 2014 4:00 a.m. PST |
On the point of barrels on the back: I believe that diesel fuel is actually a flame inhibitor (it has a very high flash-point). Trials have been done using diesel fuel as a layer of armour, so having drums on the back full of fuel isn't quite the problem you may think it is. |
Quaker | 04 Apr 2014 4:51 a.m. PST |
On a T-72 the fuel is irrelevant, it is the ammo fire that will cook the crew. T-72s go up like roman candles to most penetrating hits. The Soviets must have really hoped WWIII would be a quick war because they were going to run out of trained tank crew quickly. |
khurasanminiatures | 04 Apr 2014 5:33 a.m. PST |
Plenty more where those came from! It's interesting to note that in the image of the destroyed T-72 posted above, the rear fuel drums are intact. |
Lion in the Stars | 04 Apr 2014 8:31 a.m. PST |
I believe that diesel fuel is actually a flame inhibitor (it has a very high flash-point).Trials have been done using diesel fuel as a layer of armour, so having drums on the back full of fuel isn't quite the problem you may think it is. Any hydrocarbon is also an excellent radiation sponge. However, I'd be really concerned about a diesel fuel spray into an enclosed space with pyrophoric particles (APFSDS penetration) or a HEAT/EFP penetration. |
Quaker | 04 Apr 2014 11:10 a.m. PST |
@Lion I believe the Swedes discovered that issue when testing their S-tanks after the fall of the USSR when they got their hands on modern Soviet rounds. Things were fine as long as the fuel tanks were fairly full, but if low it lead to severe fire. |
AWuuuu | 04 Apr 2014 3:34 p.m. PST |
Uber sexy tank in the line of uber sexy tanks :> |
bishnak | 04 Apr 2014 3:49 p.m. PST |
"When is your 3mm line going to hit production?" Seems this question keeps getting ignored?
|
NavyVet | 04 Apr 2014 3:59 p.m. PST |
I love Pico Armor for 3mm. But I would love another option. And yes it does seem like the 3mm question is being ignored. |
badger22 | 05 Apr 2014 4:10 a.m. PST |
I would think the lack of an answer is really all the answer you need. As for fuel tanks on combat vehicles, I know I saw some of them in Desert Storm. Not sure I have any pictures of them. At the time it didnt seem to be a question, a lot of them had them on so it was apperently a non issue. If I can find any I will try to figure out how to post them. That is if my decrepid old brain can remember where I stashed them. Is it really 20 years ago? Owen, feeling older than when I start this reply |
Rebel Minis | 05 Apr 2014 5:32 a.m. PST |
Those are nice! I'd like 3mm as well. Pico is good but a lot of it is hard to get. RebelMike Rebelminis.com |